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

Federal RegisterJan 17, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003]

RIN 1904-AF56

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

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In this direct final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adopting amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is May 16, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of May 21, 2014, and November 12, 2021. If adverse comments are received by May 6, 2024, and DOE determines that such comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the

Federal Register

. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the amended standards established for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in this direct final rule is required on and after January 31, 2029, for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and January 31, 2030, for the product classes listed in Table I.2.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes

Federal Register

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

www.regulations.gov.

All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, 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-0003.

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5904. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

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

matthew.schneider@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final 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 Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

3. Joint Agreement Recommended Standard Levels

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

C. Test Procedure

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

a. Product Classes With Automatic Icemakers

b. Special Door and Multi-Door Designs

c. Product Certification

d. Addition of Product Class 9A-BI

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Built-in Products

b. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

d. VIP Analysis and Max-Tech Levels

e. Variable-Speed Compressor Supply Chain

f. Product Classes 11 and 12 Alignment

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

4. Manufacturer Selling Price

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Adjusted Volume Distribution

2. Product Cost

3. Installation Cost

4. Annual Energy Consumption

5. Energy Prices

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Product Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

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

10. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Discussion of MIA Comments

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 Executive Order 12630

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

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211

K. Information Quality

L. Congressional Notification

M. Materials Incorporated by Reference

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

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

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

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))

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

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

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled “Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023” (hereafter, the “Joint Agreement”),

recommends specific energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from states including California, Massachusetts, and New York

and utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric (“SDG&E”) and Southern California Edison (“SCE”)

advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards and a follow-up letter from the parties to the Joint Agreement that more specifically described the recommended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and their rationale for entering into a negotiation to develop them.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0103.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0104.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0107.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0105.

In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that contains identical standards to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))

See

section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory authority.

The amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement (shown in Tables I.1 and I.2) expressed in terms of kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/yr”) as measured according to DOE's current refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedures codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”).

The amended standards recommended in the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (“TSL”) 4 in this document (hereinafter the “Recommended TSL”) and are described in section V.A of this document. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into the United States starting on January 31, 2029, and all products listed in Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2030.

Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers With Corresponding Door Coefficient Table

[Compliance starting January 31, 2029]

Product class

(“PC”)

Equations for maximum energy use

(kWh/yr)

Based on AV

(ft

)

Based on av

(L)

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer

8.24AV + 238.4 + 28I

0.291av + 238.4 + 28I.

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

(7.22AV + 205.7)*K3ABI

(0.255av + 205.7)*K3ABI.

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

(8.79AV + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I

(0.310av + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I.

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

(8.65AV + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I

(0.305av + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I.

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

(7.76AV + 351.9)*K5A

(0.274av + 351.9)*K5A.

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

(8.21AV + 370.7)*K5ABI

(0.290av + 370.7)*K5ABI.

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

(8.82AV + 384.1)*K7BI

(0.311av + 384.1)*K7BI.

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost

5.57AV + 193.7

0.197av + 193.7.

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost

(9.37AV + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I

(0.331av + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I.

9A-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost with through-the-door ice service

9.86AV + 288.9

0.348av + 288.9.

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers

7.29AV + 107.8

0.257av + 107.8.

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost

10.24AV + 148.1

0.362av + 148.1.

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost

7.68AV + 214.5

0.271av + 214.5.

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost

6.66AV + 186.2

0.235av + 186.2.

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost

(5.32AV + 302.2)*K12

(0.188av + 302.2)*K12.

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer

10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I

0.375av + 305.3 + 28I.

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost

(8.25AV + 233.4)*K13A

(0.291av + 233.4)*K13A.

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

6.14AV + 411.2 + 28I

0.217av + 411.2 + 28I.

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I

0.375av + 305.3 + 28I.

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost

7.35AV + 191.8

0.260av + 191.8.

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost

9.15AV + 316.7

0.323av + 316.7.

18. Compact chest freezers

7.86AV + 107.8

0.278av + 107.8.

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft

, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters.

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

Door Coefficients (

e.g.,

K3ABI) are as defined in the following table.

Door coefficient

Products with a

transparent

door

Products without

a transparent

door with a

door-in-door

Products without a

transparent door or

door-in-door with

added external doors

K3ABI

1.10

1.0

1.0.

K4BI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K5BI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K5A

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−3).

K5ABI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−3).

K7BI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K9BI

1.0

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

K12

1.0

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

K13A

1.10

1.0

1.0.

Notes:

is the number of external doors.

The maximum N

values are 2 for K12, 3 for K9BI, and 5 for all other K values.

Table I.2—Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers With Corresponding Door Coefficient Table

[Compliance starting January 31, 2030]

Product class

Equations for maximum energy use

(kWh/yr)

Based on AV

(ft

)

Based on av

(L)

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost

6.79AV + 191.3

0.240av + 191.3.

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost

5.77AV + 164.6

0.204av + 164.6.

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost

(6.79AV + 191.3)*K2

(0.240av + 191.3)*K2.

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer

6.86AV + 198.6 + 28I

0.242av + 198.6 + 28I.

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

(6.01AV + 171.4)*K3A

(0.212av + 171.4)*K3A.

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

(7.28AV + 254.9)*K4 + 28I

(0.257av + 254.9)*K4 + 28I.

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

(7.61AV + 272.6)*K5 + 28I

(0.269av + 272.6)*K5 + 28I.

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

7.14AV + 280.0

0.252av + 280.0.

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

(7.31AV + 322.5)*K7

(0.258av + 322.5)*K7.

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost

(7.33AV + 194.1)*K9 + 28I

(0.259av + 194.1)*K9 + 28I.

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft

, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

Av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters.

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

Door Coefficients (

e.g.,

K3A) are as defined in the following table.

Door coefficient

Products with a

transparent

door

Products without

a transparent

door with a

door-in-door

Products without a

transparent door or

door-in-door with

added external doors

1.0

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K3A

1.10

1.0

1.0.

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

1.0

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

Notes:

is the number of external doors.

The maximum N

values are 2 for K2, and 5 for all other K values.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.3 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes for which a standard is proposed, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, which varies by product class (

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.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (

see

section IV.C of this document).

Table I.3—Impacts of Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

[The recommended TSL]

Product class

Average LCC

savings

(2022$)

Simple payback

period

(years)

PC 3

50.91

4.8

PC 5

55.23

5.6

PC 5BI

91.13

2.1

PC 5A

133.27

4.1

PC 7

142.56

1.6

PC 9

56.17

6.6

PC 10

N/A

PC 11A (residential)

8.35

2.1

PC 11A (commercial)

3.16

3.2

PC 17

36.86

4.1

PC 18

23.55

4.1

Note:

The compliance year for the Recommended TSL (

i.e.,

TSL 4) varies by product class:

2029: PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, and 18.

2030: PCs 3, 5, 7, and 9.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted 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 (2023) through the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed compliance date.

Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the case without amended standards is $4.91 billion.

Under the adopted standards, which align with the Recommended TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −10.3 percent to −7.8 percent, which is approximately −$504.4 million to −$383.5 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $830.3 million.

DOE's analysis period extends 30-years from the compliance year. The analysis period ranges from 2023-2056 for the no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 4 (the Recommended TSL). The analysis period for TSL 4 ranges from 2023-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2023-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2.

The no-new-standards case INPV of $4.91 billion reflects the sum of discounted free cash flows from 2023-2056 (from direct final rule publication to 30 years from the 2027 compliance date) plus a discounted terminal value.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2), amount to 5.6 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 11 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

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

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric,

see

section of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers ranges from $9.0 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $27.0 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2.

In addition, the adopted standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 100.8 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 846.5 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.2 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

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

AEO2023

assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions.

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

(“SC-CO

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

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

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

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $5.0 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 scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $3.4 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $9.8 billion using a 3-percent

discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

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

2.5

emissions.

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

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 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 Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

[The recommended TSL]

Billion

(2022$)

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

36.4

Climate Benefits *

5.0

Health Benefits **

9.8

Total Benefits †

51.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

9.4

Net Benefits

41.8

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡

(0.50)-(0.38)

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

14.0

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

5.0

Health Benefits **

3.4

Total Benefits †

22.5

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

5.0

Net Benefits

17.5

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡

(0.50)-(0.38)

Note:

* 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, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

‡‡ 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 national impact analysis (“NIA”) includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product 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 of this document. 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 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (

see

chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (“TSD”) for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, those values are −$504 million to −$383 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 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 direct final rule 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 direct final rule, the net benefits would range from $41.3 billion to $41.4 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $17.0 billion to $17.1 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values.

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

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.

Table I.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 adopted in this rule is $590.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $1.7 billion in reduced equipment operating costs, $303.8 million in climate benefits, and $410.6 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1.8 billion per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $567.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $2.2 billion in reduced operating costs, $303.8 million in climate benefits, and $592.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $2.5 billion per year.

Table I.5—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

[TSL 4, the recommended TSL]

Million

(2022$/year)

Primary

estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

2,200.5

2,023.9

2,326.6

Climate Benefits *

303.8

291.8

307.9

Health Benefits **

592.9

569.7

600.7

Total Benefits †

3,097.2

2,885.4

3,235.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

567.5

666.6

547.8

Net Benefits

2,529.6

2,218.8

2,687.4

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡

(49)-(37)

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1,667.0

1,541.9

1,758.5

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

303.8

291.8

307.9

Health Benefits **

410.6

395.8

415.7

Total Benefits †

2,381.4

2,229.5

2,482.0

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

590.5

677.9

569.6

Net Benefits

1,790.9

1,551.6

1,912.5

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡

(49)-(37)

Note:

This table presents present value (in 2022$) of the costs and benefits associated with refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. These results include benefits which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 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 section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (

see

section IV.L of this document). 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.

** 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, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

‡‡ 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 product 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 of this document. 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 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (

see

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, those values are −$48.7 million to −$37.0 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 Markup 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 of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule 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 direct final rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $2,480.9 million to $2,492.6 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,742.2 million to $1,753.9 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

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 standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is $590.5 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $1.7 billion in reduced product operating costs, $303.8 million in climate benefits, and $410.6 million in health benefits. The net monetized benefit amounts to $1.8 billion 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.

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 5.6 quads (full-fuel cycle (“FFC”)), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 37 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO

emissions by 100.8 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003/document.

Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this

Federal Register

a NOPR proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or

amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

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

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

See

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

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(Ir)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A,

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

(“appendix A”), and appendix B,

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Freezers

(“appendix B”).

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

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.

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

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

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

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

Id.

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

Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible,

adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures and standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the amended standards adopted in this direct final rule.

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (

i.e.,

a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the same length as the comment period on the direct final rule—

i.e.,

110 days. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (

Id.

)

DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued as consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.

Id.

DOE's discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified—a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Id.

As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on September 15, 2011 (“September 2011 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufactured on and after September 15, 2014. 76 FR 57516. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(a).

2. Current Test Procedure

On December 23, 2019, DOE published a test procedure NOPR (“December 2019 TP NOPR”) proposing to amend residential refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedure. 84 FR 70842. On October 12, 2021, DOE published a test procedure final rule (“October 2021 TP Final Rule”) establishing test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”). 86 FR 56790. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant industry standard published by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), updated in 2019, AHAM Standard HRF-1, “Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances” (“HRF-1-2019”). 10 CFR 430.3(i)(4). The standard levels proposed in the NOPR are based on the annual energy use (“AEU”) metrics as measured according to appendices A and B.

History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (“NAECA”), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for refrigeration products, with requirements that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 6295 (b)(1), (2), (3)(A)(i), and (3)(B)-(C)). DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 1989 and 1990 by adopting amended performance standards for all refrigeration products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989); 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for refrigeration products by issuing a final rule in 1997, which adopted the current standards for these products. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997).

In 2005, DOE granted a petition, submitted by a coalition of state governments, utility companies, consumer and low-income advocacy groups, and environmental and energy efficiency organizations, requesting a rulemaking to amend the standards for residential refrigerator-freezers. DOE then conducted limited analyses to examine the technological and economic feasibility of amended standards at the ENERGY STAR levels that were in effect for 2005 for the two most popular product classes of refrigerator-freezers. These analyses not only identified potential energy savings, benefits, and burdens from such standards, but also assessed other issues related to them.

DOE initiated a rulemaking and also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document and a public meeting to discuss the document in September 2008. It also requested public comment on the published document. 73 FR 54089 (September 18, 2008). The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for refrigeration products and identified various issues to resolve during the rulemaking. DOE published a final rule on September 15, 2011, to satisfy the statutory requirement that DOE publish a final rule to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigeration products manufactured in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) The limited 2005 analyses served as background for the more extensive analysis conducted for final

rule published on September 15, 2011. 76 FR 57516.

4. The Joint Agreement

On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (

i.e.,

the Joint Agreement) recommending standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.

In addition to the recommended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products.

And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory criteria. The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers as presented in Table II.3. (Joint Agreement, No. 103 at p. 4) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.

The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that manufacture the affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GEA, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics USA; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool.

The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

The term sheet is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0103.

Table II.3—Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

Product class

Level

(Based on AV (ft

))

Compliance date

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost

6.79AV + 191.3

January 31, 2030.

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost

5.77AV + 164.6

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost

(6.79AV + 191.3)*K2

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer

6.86AV + 198.6 +28I

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

(6.01AV + 171.4)*K3A

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

7.28AV + 254.9

January 31, 2030.

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

(7.61AV +272.6)*K5 + 28I

January 31, 2030.

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

(7.76AV + 351.9)*K5A

January 31, 2029.

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

7.14AV + 280.0

January 31, 2030.

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

(7.31AV + 322.5)*K7

January 31, 2030.

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost

5.57AV + 193.7

January 31, 2029.

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost

7.33AV + 194.1 + 28I

January 31, 2030.

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers

7.29AV + 107.8

January 31, 2029.

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost

10.24AV + 148.1

January 31, 2029.

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost

7.68AV + 214.5

January 31, 2029.

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost

6.66AV + 186.2

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost

(5.32AV + 302.2)*K12

January 31, 2029.

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer

10.62AV + 305.3 +28I

January 31, 2029.

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost

(8.25AV + 233.4)*K13A

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

6.14AV + 411.2 + 28I

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost

7.35AV + 191.8

January 31, 2029.

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost

9.15AV + 316.7

January 31, 2029.

18. Compact chest freezers

7.86AV + 107.8

January 31, 2029.

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer

8.24AV + 238.4 + 28I

January 31, 2029.

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

(7.22AV + 205.7)*K3ABI

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

8.79AV + 307.4 + 28I

January 31, 2029.

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

(8.65AV + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I

January 31, 2029.

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

(8.21AV + 370.7)*K5ABI

January 31, 2029.

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

(8.82AV + 384.1)*K7BI

January 31, 2029.

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost

9.37AV + 247.9 + 28I

January 31, 2029.

9A-BI. NEW PRODUCT CLASS: Upright built-in freezer w/auto defrost and through-door-ice

9.86AV + 288.9

January 31, 2029.

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft

, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

Av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters.

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

e.g.,

K3A) are as defined in Table I.2.

Door coefficient

Products with a

transparent

door

Products without

a transparent

door with a

door-in-door

Products without a

transparent door or

door-in-door with

added external doors

N/A

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

K3A

1.10

N/A

N/A.

K3ABI

1.10

N/A

N/A.

K13A

1.10

N/A

N/A.

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K4BI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K5BI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K5A

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−3).

K5ABI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−3).

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

K7BI

1.10

1.06

1 + 0.02 * (N

−2).

N/A

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

K9BI

N/A

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

K12

N/A

1 + 0.02 * (N

−1).

Note:

is the number of external doors.

DOE notes that it was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers when the Joint Agreement was submitted. As part of that process, on February 27, 2023, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public webinar (“February 2023 NOPR”) seeking comment on its proposed amended standard to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 88 FR 12452. DOE held a public webinar on April 11, 2023, to discuss and receive comments on the NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0045.

Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule and no longer proceeding with its own rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that rulemaking process in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were obtained during DOE's own prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical reference that provides the location of the item in the public record.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

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

III. General Discussion

DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

A. Scope of Coverage

This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity, or based upon performance-related features that justify a higher or lower standard. (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.

The Joint Agreement proposed special door and multi-door energy allowances for product classes if manufacturers offer models with those features. Energy allowances applied to energy use equations correspond to performance-related features that would then justify new product classes for those configurations with special door and multi-door designs. The proposed approach also embeds within the energy use equations the difference between classes that are otherwise identical except for presence of an icemaker, using a logical variable I (equal to 1 for a product with an icemaker and equal to 0 for a product without an icemaker) multiplied by the constant icemaker energy use adder.

The structure simplification and amendments in the Joint Agreement are consistent with those proposed by DOE in the February 2023 NOPR. Based on the comments received in response to the February 2023 NOPR and DOE's evaluation of the Joint Agreement, the direct final rule adopts these changes.

See

section IV.A.1 of this document for further detail and discussion regarding the product classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 20 manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The Joint Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts (

see

comment No. 104). DOE also received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and the electric utility, SCE (

see

comment No. 107). As a result, DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“Process Rule”).

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 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 direct final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs other than TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.

DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports 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. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or

equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings,

see

section IV.H.2 of this document.

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

2. Significance of Savings

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

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

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. However, residential refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers have loads that are more consistent throughout the year. 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.

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 5.6 quads (FFC), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 37 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential amended standards 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 payback period (“PBP”) associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

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

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

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

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

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

c. Energy Savings

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

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of

competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the

Federal Register

in a separate document.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.

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 adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable-presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses, including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking to amend the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers prior to receiving the Joint Agreement.

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

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003.

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

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO”

) 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 products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.

See

chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Product Classes

The Joint Agreement specifies 32 product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (Joint Agreement, No. 103 at p. 15-16) In particular, the Joint Agreement recommends a consolidated product class representation which incorporates icemaker energy adders and door allowances into the energy use equations for product classes in which they are applicable. In addition, the Join Agreement proposes a new product class—upright built-in freezers with automatic defrost and through-the-door ice service (“9A-BI”). (

Id.

) In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the Joint Agreement, as listed in Table IV.1.

Table IV.1—Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers

Product class

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost.

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost.

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost.

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost.

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer.

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost.

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost.

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers.

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost.

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators

with manual defrost.

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost.

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost.

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer.

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost.

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost.

18. Compact chest freezers.

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost.

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer.

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost.

9A-BI. NEW PRODUCT CLASS:

Upright built-in freezer w/auto defrost and through-door-ice.

DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. Nevertheless, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable to direct final rules—DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States currently.

DOE's findings in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this document.

EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

a. Product Classes With Automatic Icemakers

The Joint Agreement includes a proposed simplification of maximum allowable energy and would express the maximum allowable energy use for both icemaking and non-icemaking classes in the same equation, thus consolidating the presentation of classes and their energy conservation standards. The energy use equations will, for those classes that may or may not have an icemaker, include a term equal to the icemaking energy use adder multiplied by a factor that is defined to equal 1 for products with icemakers and to equal zero for products without icemakers. This approach does not combine classes that are the same other than the presence of an icemaker, but does simplify the list of classes and representation of their maximum allowable energy use, providing for each set of classes with and without ice makers a single equation for maximum energy use. (88 FR 12452)

DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement proposal to express the maximum allowable energy use for any set of classes differing only in whether the class includes an icemaker or not within a single equation. The single equation does this by including the icemaker energy use adder multiplied by logical variable I that is set equal to 1 for a product with an icemaker present and 0 for a product without an icemaker.

b. Special Door and Multi-Door Designs

The Joint Agreement made recommendations to establish new product classes for models that implement special and multi-door designs. The standards for these product classes include energy allowances (

i.e.,

specific increases in maximum allowable energy use) corresponding to the specific performance-related features (

i.e.,

door-in-door designs, transparent doors, and multi-door designs). The allowances include a 2-percent energy use allowance for each externally opening door in excess of the typical minimum for the class, a 6-percent total energy use allowance for a product with a door-in-door feature implemented in one or more of its doors, and a 10

percent total energy use allowance for a product with a transparent door or doors.

In this direct final rule, DOE is implementing the recommended special door and multi-door energy allowances. DOE's direct rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) is constrained only by the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which does not include the product class requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE is relying on the product classes provided in the Joint Agreement for consideration in this rule, but DOE notes that special doors (

i.e.,

transparent doors and door-in-door features) and multi-door setups constitute performance-related features that provide consumer utility when implemented. Transparent doors allow for partial view into the interior of fresh food compartments without the need for a door opening. Door-in-door features generally allow for access to a partially separated fresh food compartment without the need to fully expose the main interior fresh food compartment. Multi-door setups provide at least one additional externally opening door accessing either an existing compartment or a separate compartment, thus providing additional options for storage and access to food for the consumer.

Furthermore, DOE's analysis of these features suggests that special door and multi-door designs impact energy usage with some combinations accounting for additional energy consumption of up to 25 percent (based on CERA simulations).

DOE notes that the additional energy usage results from additional thermal load associated with additional gasket length necessary for multi-door and door-in-door features, and associated with the higher thermal conductivity of transparent doors compared to solid doors of the same size. DOE also proposed similar special door and multi-door energy allowances in the February 2023 NOPR and finds that the recommended allowances in the Joint Agreement are justifiable on a similar basis in light of the analysis DOE performed to develop the allowances proposed in the NOPR.

See

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for more information on DOE's analysis of special door and multi-door features.

CERA is an updated version of the Environmental Protection Agency's Refrigerator Analysis (“ERA”) program. Earlier versions have been used in previous refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer energy conservation standards rulemaking. CERA allows for the simulation of thermal load on refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers based of the inputs given for various parameters including cabinet design, compartment dimensions, door design, operating temperatures, controls, anti-sweat heat, and more. More information regarding the software is found in the direct final rule TSD.

For the reasons previously discussed, DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement recommendations to establish new product classes for models that implement special and multi-door designs.

Energy Use Allowance—Application

AHAM, Sub Zero Group, Inc. (“Sub Zero”), and Samsung also recommended that DOE apply the door coefficient to PC 4, PC 4-BI, PC 9, and PC 9-BI, as these classes have products offering multi-door setups or special doors that provide similar customer utility. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 8; Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 4; Samsung, No. 78 at p. 3) True Manufacturing (“TRUE”) similarly stated that PC 4I and PC 4, and any other product classes with transparent doors, should have the same transparent door allowance as PC 5A and PC 5. (TRUE, No. 57 at pp. 1-2)

DOE's assessment regarding the energy impact of designs featuring multi-door and special door setups warranted the proposal of energy allowances for classes where such features are offered. DOE reviewed the market and requested input from commenters related to existing models on the market in an effort to assess the prevalence of multi-door designs or special doors in products on the market today and concluded that there likely exist such models in PC 4I, PC 4I-BI, PC 9, and PC 9-BI that implement multi-door setups, special doors, or both. Therefore, DOE is adopting the multi-door and transparent door energy allowances for PC 4, PC 4I, PC 4-BI, PC 4I-BI, PC 9, and PC 9-BI consistent with feature availability. PC 4, PC 4I, PC 4-BI, and PC 4I-BI will be eligible for transparent door and multi-door allowances, while PC 9, and PC 9-BI will be eligible for the multi-door allowance. The magnitude and application of the allowances adopted for the aforementioned product classes are consistent with those recommended in the Joint Agreement. DOE notes that PC 4 and PC 4-BI will be eligible for a 2 percent allowance for each additional door for products without a transparent door or door-in-door with added external doors, a 6 percent allowance for products without a transparent door with a door-in-door, or a 10 percent transparent door allowance for the use of a qualifying transparent door. PC 9 and PC 9-BI will be eligible for a 2 percent allowance for each additional door up to two additional doors.

Energy Use Allowance—Definitions

The Joint Agreement includes the following recommended definition for a transparent door:

•

Transparent door

means a door for which 40 percent or more of the surface area—as determined based on the area of the transparent portion of the door divided by the product of the maximum width and height dimension of the door—is transparent to allow viewing into the refrigerated compartment.

•

Conceptually,

the parties recommend that DOE clarify that products with only very small door or drawers that are transparent should not be included in this definition—

i.e.,

the door must be large enough to justify the allowance.

Upon further consideration of the February 2023 NOPR proposed transparent door definition, the feedback received from stakeholders, and the Joint Agreement submitted by interested parties, including AHAM, DOE conducted further market research into available models with transparent panels, generating a list of models from various manufacturers and product classes representative of the units currently on the market that implement transparent doors. From this list, DOE determined transparent panel and door area based on product literature, in-person measurements, or use of scaled photographs. DOE then determined the percentage of the door covered by the transparent area for each model considered. DOE found that the transparent door on a French door configuration typically had roughly 40 percent or more of the total outer door area transparent, consistent with the percentage recommended in the Joint Agreement. Other configurations, such as two door bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers and compact refrigerators had 54 percent or more of their outer door area transparent. Based on this assessment and consideration of the Joint Agreement recommendations, DOE is adopting a modified definition from the February 2023 NOPR for transparent doors to better align with the products on the market, as follows:

Transparent door means an external fresh food compartment door which meets the following criteria:

• The area of the transparent portion of the door is at least 40 percent of the area of the door.

• The area of the door is at least 50 percent of the sum of the areas of all the external doors providing access to the fresh food compartments and cooler compartments.

• For the purposes of this evaluation, the area of a door is determined as the product of the maximum height and maximum width dimensions of the door, not considering potential extension of flaps used to provide a seal to adjacent doors.

DOE notes that this amended transparent door definition not only aligns with the typical implementation on the market, as previously described, but also is a more straightforward approach compared to those recommended and referenced by commenters. Specifically, DOE expects that the suggested approach based on the internal cabinet dimensions has some potential for questions about interpretation, given the fact that the interior dimensions could vary from the front of the cabinet to the rear. This could lead to varying internal cabinet area determinations. Therefore, in order to eliminate this potential variation, DOE is adopting the above definition and approach that simplifies the determination of the transparent door area by measuring and determining the area of the transparent portion divided by the product of the maximum height and width dimensions of the door.

Energy Use Allowance—Summary

In summary, in this direct final rule DOE is adopting the multi-door and special door energy use allowances as proposed in the Joint Agreement, with the specified amendments as previously discussed.

c. Addition of Product Class 9A-BI

The Joint Agreement recommends the addition of a new product class 9A-BI (

i.e.,

built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost and with through-the-door ice service) and specific energy efficiency standards for the new product class. The current energy conservation standards for freezers do not include a separate product class for products of this configuration, and DOE has not previously considered establishing a separate product class for them because it has not been aware of the existence of such products on the market, nor has it previously been notified by any manufacturer of the potential introduction of such a product. Under the current product class structure, any such product would most appropriately fit into current class 9I-BI (

i.e.,

built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker), since there is no class that fits this description and also has through-the-door ice service. Hence, in the absence of a product class for this configuration, such products would be subject to the current PC 9I-BI standards, which would, under the approach for designating classes and standards provided in this direct final rule, correspond to class grouping 9-BI with the icemaker variable I in the standards equation equal to 1, indicating addition of the 28 kWh/year icemaker energy use.

Considering that the recommendation carries support from a broad cross-section of interests, including trade associations representing these manufacturers, environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocates, and electric utility providers as well as the support of several States, DOE believes it appropriate to adopt this new product class, 9A-BI. DOE notes that the addition of a PC 9A-BI, as suggested by the Joint Agreement, is warranted as the application of a through-the-door icemaker constitutes a performance related feature with consumer utility and is likely to be introduced on the market in the near future.

DOE notes the standard as recommended by the Joint Agreement for PC 9A-BI is 5 percent higher than that of PC 9I-BI (built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker). When considering class 9A-BI and 9I-BI, the key difference is the addition of through-the-door ice service, and the potential additional thermal load associated with its addition. Therefore, the 5 percent adjustment between 9I-BI and 9A-BI can be attributed mainly to the addition of through-the-door ice service. When comparing recommended standards to other product classes in which the key difference is the addition of through-the-door ice (

i.e.,

5I vs. 5A and 4I vs. 7), the 5 percent adjustment remains consistent with DOE's adopted standards. As a result of this consistency, DOE believes the recommended standard is appropriate in its application.

Given the indication from the aforementioned stakeholders that such a product class standard would be beneficial in its implementation, the classification of through-the-door ice as a performance related feature, and the recommendation's consistency with the other adopted standards, DOE is adopting a PC 9A-BI standard in this direct final rule.

See

section V of this document for more information regarding the TSL configuration and discussion of the adopted level for this product class.

See

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for more discussion regarding the addition of this product class.

2. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 37 technology options initially determined to improve the efficiency of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

Table IV.1—Technology Options Identified in the NOPR

Insulation:

1. Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type).

2. Inert blowing fluid CO2.

3. Increased insulation thickness.

4. Gas-filled insulation panels.

5. Vacuum-insulated panels (“VIP”).

Gasket and Door Design:

6. Improved gaskets.

7. Double door gaskets.

8. Improved door face frame.

9. Reduced heat load for through-the-door (“TTD”) feature.

Anti-Sweat Heater:

10. Condenser hot gas (Refrigerant anti-sweat heating).

11. Electric anti-sweat heater sizing.

12. Electric heater controls.

Compressor:

13. Improved compressor efficiency.

14. Variable-speed compressors.

15. Linear compressors.

Evaporator:

16. Increased surface area.

17. Improved heat exchange.

Condenser:

18. Increased surface area.

19. Microchannel condenser.

20. Improved heat exchange.

21. Force convection condenser.

Defrost System:

22. Reduced energy for automatic defrost.

23. Adaptive defrost.

24. Condenser hot gas defrost.

Control System:

25. Electronic Temperature control.

26. Anti-Distribution control.

Other Technologies:

27. Fan and fan motor improvements.

28. Improved expansion valve.

29. Fluid control or solenoid off-cycle valve.

30. Alternative refrigerants.

31. Component location.

32. Phase change materials.

Alternative Refrigeration Cycles:

33. Ejector refrigerator.

34. Dual-evaporator systems.

35. Two-stage system.

36. Dual-loop system.

37. Lorenz-Meutzner cycle.

B. Screening Analysis

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

(1)

Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

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

(3)

Impacts on product utility.

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

(4)

Safety of technologies.

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

(5)

Unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

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

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

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

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

1. Screened-Out Technologies

In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening analysis conducted for the February 2023 NOPR.

In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE screened out the technologies presented in Table II.2 on the basis of technological feasibility, practicability to manufacture, install, and service, adverse impacts on utility or availability, adverse impacts on health and safety, and/or unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

Table IV.2—Technologies Screened-Out in the NOPR

Improved Gaskets, Double Gaskets, and Improved Door Face Frame.

Linear Compressors.

Fluid Control or Solenoid Off-Cycle Valves.

Improved Evaporator Heat Exchange.

Improved Condenser Heat Exchange.

Forced-Convection Condenser.

Condenser Hot Gas Defrost.

Compressor Location at Top.

Evaporator Fan Motor Location Outside Cabinet.

Air Distribution Control.

Phase Change Materials.

Lorenz-Meutzner Cycle.

Dual-Loop Systems.

Two-Stage System.

Ejector Refrigerator.

Improved VIPs.

Inert Blowing Fluid CO

GEA recommended that DOE screen out “improved resistivity of foam,” which is primarily hydrofluoro-olefin (“HFO”) foams, as a technology option. GEA stated that HFO foams represent a unique and proprietary technology pathway and that the two listed by DOE in the February 2023 NOPR TSD—Solstice LBA and Ecomate—should be excluded through the technology screening analysis. GEA stated that Solstice LBA, an HFO foam blowing agent is only produced by a single manufacturer, Honeywell, and should therefore be screened out from consideration in DOE's technology assessment in this rulemaking. GEA noted that Ecomate has no proven commercialization in modern consumer refrigerators or freezers. (GEA, No. 75 at pp. 4-5)

As discussed in the February 2023 NOPR, HFO foams are retained as a design option and passed the screening analysis because the technology option meets the five criteria previously mentioned. While GEA notes Ecomate has no proven commercialization in modern consumer refrigerators or freezer, as discussed in more detail in section 3.4.2.1 of the February 2023 NOPR TSD, improved resistivity foams such as Solstice have been implemented in refrigerator-freezer models in the United States, as of at least 2014

and DOE has not received information regarding negative impacts to product utility or impracticability to manufacture or service products using improved resistivity foam. Some of the improved blowing agents reviewed by DOE (

e.g.,

) have been found to be non-flammable and lower in GWP than traditional insulation. DOE acknowledges that Solstice LBA is patented by Honeywell but included other potential technologies such as added carbon black and CO

blowing agents in its assessment. Therefore, as a technology option, DOE maintains that HFO foams meet the prerequisites to be included past the screening analysis. However, because DOE could not determine the type of foam used in the directly analyzed models from teardowns or based on the feedback from manufacturers, DOE found that there was an insufficient basis to implement this design option as a means to increase energy efficiency in either the February 2023 NOPR or this direct final rule analysis.

Whirlpool. “Whirlpool Corporation Partners with Honeywell, Announces Use of Next Generation Solstice® Liquid Blowing Agent in U.S. Refrigerators,” January 2014.

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/whirlpool-corporation-partners-with-honeywell-announces-use-of-next-generation-solstice-liquid-blowing-agent-in-us-refrigerators-241489581.html

(accessed July 13, 2023).

An individual commented that microchannel condensers should not be retained as a design option, citing issues with implementation in the HVAC industry. The individual also stated that increased insulation thickness should not be retained as a design option, citing lessening of consumer utility. (Individual Commenter, No. 59 at p. 1)

DOE has observed implementation of microchannel heat exchangers in PC 5I, PC 5A, and several built-in product classes. DOE has also received no information regarding negative impacts in consumer utility or safety, and therefore, DOE retained microchannel condensers as a design option in this analysis As with the HFO foam design option, while microchannel condensers passed the screening analysis, this design option was not included as a design pathway to achieve higher efficiency levels in the direct final rule analysis due to potential system operation drawbacks including irregular refrigerant distribution, greater refrigerant-side pressure drop, and greater air-side pressure drop.

Rametta, R.S., Boeng, J., and Melo, C. “Theoretical and Experimental Evaluation of Microchannel Condensers Applied to Household Refrigerators,”

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference,

2018, Paper 1843.

DOE expects that increased insulation thickness would impact either the interior or exterior dimensions of a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, and as a result did not consider increased insulation thickness as a design option to achieve the higher efficiency levels for standard-size refrigerator-freezers. However, DOE expects that there is potential to increase insulation thickness for some types of freezers and compact refrigerators, given their typical use in in spaces that allow increased exterior dimensions, and therefore continues to consider increased thickness as a design option to achieve higher efficiency levels for PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.B.1 met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

Table IV.3—Technologies Remaining in the Direct Final Rule

Insulation:

1. Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type.

2. Increased insulation thickness.

3. Gas-filled insulation panels.

4. Vacuum-insulated panel.

Gasket and Door Design:

5. Reduced heat load for TTD feature.

Anti-Sweat Heater:

6. Refrigerant anti-sweat heating.

7. Electric anti-sweat heater sizing.

8. Electric heater controls.

Compressor:

9. Improved compressor efficiency.

10. Variable-speed compressors.

Evaporator:

11. Improved expansion valve.

12. Increased surface area.

13. Dual-evaporator systems.

Condenser:

14. Increased surface area.

15. Microchannel condenser.

Defrost System:

16. Reduced energy for automatic defrost.

17. Adaptive defrost.

Control System:

18. Electronic Temperature control.

Other Technologies:

19. Fan and fan motor improvements.

20. Alternative refrigerants.

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

i.e.,

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

see

chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

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

In defining the efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the efficiency levels proposed in the February 2023 NOPR.

For its analysis in this rulemaking, DOE used a combined efficiency level and design option approach. First, an efficiency-level approach was used to establish an analysis tied to existing products on the market. A design option approach was used to extend the analysis through “built-down” efficiency levels and “built-up” efficiency levels where there were gaps in the range of efficiencies of products that were reverse engineered. Products from PC 3, PC 5, PC 5A, PC 5-BI, PC 7, PC 9, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18 were tested and torn down to provide information to lay the groundwork for the analysis. Other product classes such as 9-BI (and the new PC 9A-BI recommended by the Joint Agreement) were not directly analyzed as a part of DOE's analysis, as they were not deemed sufficiently representative of the market. A number of other product classes were indirectly analyzed, based on relevant directly analyzed product classes. DOE's analysis for PC-9BI, for example, is based on the directly analyzed PC 9.

DOE used design option analysis techniques to extend the analysis to higher efficiency levels and to fill any efficiency level gaps. DOE generally focuses its analysis on product classes with higher market share as their energy impact and associated energy savings are the most significant. Therefore, for this direct final rule analysis DOE chose to test and teardown units from the product classes listed above that represent a significant market share, and extrapolated the analysis to all other product classes that were not directly analyzed, as appropriate.

a. Built-In Products

For the analysis supporting this direct final rule, DOE used an assessment of PC 5-BI (built-in refrigerator-freezer with bottom-mounted freezer) to address built-in products. DOE conducted analysis for a representative 5-BI product and compared it to analysis conducted for freestanding models of class 5. DOE concluded that a built-in model that is comparable to a freestanding model except the built-in configuration would have 5 percent higher energy use. Therefore, for example, the potential reduction in energy use for built-in PC 5 units would be 5 percent lower than their freestanding counterparts, based on the implementation of the same design options to satisfy a higher efficiency level. DOE has applied this 5-percent differential in selecting standard levels for other built-in classes for which DOE did not conduct direct analysis (

e.g.,

PC 3A, PC 7, and PC 9). More information on the analysis of built-in product classes is available in the direct final rule TSD.

b. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use

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

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. When selecting units for the analysis DOE selects units at baseline from various manufacturers for each directly analyzed product class.

In determining the baseline efficiency level for this direct final rule analysis, DOE maintained the same approach as the February 2023 NOPR, and considered the current Federal energy conservation standards as the baseline level, expressed as maximum annual energy consumption as a function of the product's adjusted volume, adjusting for the change in the automatic icemaker energy contribution for product classes that include this feature. The current standards incorporate an allowance of a constant 84 kWh/yr icemaker adder for product classes with automatic icemakers, consistent with the current test procedure, which requires adding this amount of annual energy use to the product's tested performance if the product has an automatic icemaker. DOE adjusted the baseline energy usage levels for each class to account for the planned revision in the test procedure to reduce the icemaker energy use adder to 28 kWh/yr.

See

the October 12, 2021, final rule for test procedures for refrigeration products for more information regarding the adoption of the 28 kWh/yr icemaker adder. 86 FR 56790.

DOE directly analyzed a sample of market representative models from within nine product classes from multiple manufactures. For most product classes a single representative adjusted volume was analyzed, though for PC 3, PC 5, and PC 11, DOE directly analyzed two representative adjusted volumes within the product class. DOE tested and tore down 13 baseline units to provide a basis for development of the cost-efficiency curves. DOE's analysis assumed that all baseline models implement R-600a refrigerant, based on feedback during manufacturer interviews suggesting the industry has or is in the process of shifting to low-GWP refrigerants, in particular away from R-134a, in accordance with regulatory efforts to phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons.

Further information on the design characteristics of specific analyzed baseline models is summarized in the direct final rule TSD.

See www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0044-0223

for more information regarding the environmental protection agency's final rule regarding the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons.

BSH disagreed with DOE's use of HFO foam as representative of a baseline refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and/or freezer's insulation in the February 2023 NOPR, citing high environmental impact of the insulation, and encouraged DOE to remove HFO foam from baseline analysis. (BSH, No. 64 at pp. 1-2) AHAM also suggested that considering HFO foam at baseline efficiency levels is inappropriate and result in an artificially high baseline efficiency, excessively stringent standards for high-volume product classes, and negative environmental impacts. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 4-5)

DOE was unable to determine the type of insulation used in teardown models and subsequently considered PU insulation at the baseline level for all product classes in the February 2023 NOPR and in this direct final rule. Furthermore, as described in section IV.B.2 of this document, DOE retained the improved insulation resistivity design option (

i.e.,

HFOs) through the screening analysis, though DOE did not utilize it as a design to achieve higher efficiency levels in the engineering analysis. DOE further notes, that BSH and AHAM are parties to the Joint Agreement and are supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

For this direct final rule, DOE maintained the same approach as the February 2023 NOPR, and analyzed up to five incremental efficiency levels beyond the baseline for each of the analyzed product classes. For PC 3 and PC 7, DOE considered an efficiency level at roughly 5 percent more efficient than the current energy conservation standard. For all product classes, DOE considered a level near 10 percent more efficient than the current energy conservation standard, equivalent to the current ENERGY STAR® level for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

DOE then extended the efficiency levels (“ELs”) in steps of close to 5 percent of the current energy conservation standard up to EL 4, using applicable technologies as discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.B of this document. Finally, for all product classes, EL 5 represents “max-tech,” using design option analysis to extend the analysis beyond EL 4 using all applicable design options, including the most efficient variable-speed compressors available on the market, and considerable use of vacuum-insulated panels (“VIPs”) in key areas of the cabinet walls and doors. The efficiency levels analyzed beyond the baseline are shown in Table IV.4.

EnergyStar, “Refrigerators & Freezers Key Product Criteria,”

www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/refrigerators/key_product_criteria

(accessed July 14, 2023).

Table IV.4—Incremental Efficiency Levels for Analyzed Products

[% Energy use less than baseline]

Product

Class

(AV, ft)

Standard-size refrigerator

(11.9)

(%)

(20.6)

(%)

5**

(23.0)

(%)

5**

(30.0)

(%)

5A**

(35.0)

(%)

5-BI

(26.0)

(%)

(31.5)

(%)

Standard-size

freezers

(29.3)

(%)

(26.0)

(%)

Compact refrigerators

and freezers

11A

(1.7)

(%)

11A

(4.4)

(%)

(9.0)

(%)

(8.9)

(%)

EL 1

* 11%

* 10%

10%

EL 2

* 10%

* 13%

* 11%

16%

15%

* 10%

15%

EL 3

15%

18%

15%

22%

16%

15%

20%

EL 4

20%

17%

19%

25%

23%

32%

30%

EL 5

27%

28%

22%

* Efficiencies at or slightly better than the ENERGY STAR® efficiency of 10%

** Percentages are based on a 3-door configuration.

d. VIP Analysis and Max-Tech Levels

DOE notes the recommended TSL for this direct final rule is TSL 4, discussed further in section V.A of this document.

As discussed in the previous section, DOE's NOPR analysis considered the use of VIPs placed throughout the side walls and doors at max-tech levels for many product classes.

AHAM disagreed with the extent of VIP use at higher efficiency levels in the engineering analysis, asserting that DOE overestimates the use and impact of VIPs in its analysis, despite acknowledging the technology's limitations. AHAM cited panel cost, in the form of labor and production costs, which are significant due to complex installation requirements, processing controls, and quality checks. AHAM also cited lower effectiveness in smaller units due to “edge effects” (

i.e.,

heat around the edges caused by the membrane film that forms the walls of the VIP). AHAM suggested that DOE not overestimate the impact of VIPs in its analysis, considering that VIPs are not used in a majority of products and manufacturers have reported varied levels of success using the technology. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 5-6)

DOE's implementation of VIPs in the analyses at each stage of this rulemaking is based on a combination of the best information gathered from multiple sources related to cost, use, and energy efficiency impacts. DOE did not specifically account for edge effect impacts on thermal load for compact refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer models in its analysis. Regarding VIP pricing, DOE estimated VIP panel, installation, processing, and quality check costs based on a number of discussions with refrigerator manufacturers, VIP producers, and market research. DOE conducted additional interviews and research in support of this direct final rule, which further supported and solidified the VIP cost estimates.

In manufacturer interviews, DOE also gathered information regarding the implementation of VIPs (

e.g.,

locations, number of panels, panel area), and based on that information, DOE performed simulations to estimate the energy impacts using CERA. CERA allowed DOE to analyze the thermal load impact on a fresh food and/or freezer cabinet due to different placements of VIP paneling throughout a cabinet (

e.g.,

side panels, doors, or both). DOE then compared the results from these simulations to existing research into load reductions (which estimates energy savings at around 30 percent)

and based on both sources, estimated that the full implementation of VIPs in existing cabinets can reduce heat load by up to 23 percent. DOE did not specifically account for edge effect impacts on thermal load for compact refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer models in its analysis. However, DOE notes that the engineering analysis halves the thermal load impact as observed in simulations in order to be conservative with energy savings and to account for factors that are not captured in testing and/or simulation (

e.g.,

differences in VIP core material, VIP installation method and location). DOE also notes VIPs are not implemented in most classes until efficiency levels above that proposed in the February 2023 NOPR and adopted in this direct final rule.

“Development of Nanoporous Materials for the Production of Vacuum-Insulated Panels (VIPs),” European Commission, January 2017. Available at

cordis.europa.eu/article/id/190833-insulation-nanomaterials-for-energyefficient-refrigerators

(last accessed October 15, 2020).

Sub Zero commented that as a small, low-volume manufacturer of niche built-in style refrigeration products, it is concerned that the standards proposed in the February 2023 NOPR will create a significant supply chain burden for them, as components like vacuum insulation panels are supplied by a limited number of manufacturers, which will impede their ability to deliver products to their consumers in a timely manner. Sub Zero requested that DOE reduce the stringency level of adopted standards for built-in products, to reduce these concerns. (Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 2)

To better characterize and understand the VIP market, DOE conducted research and interviewed relevant VIP manufacturers to gather more data regarding the current global VIP market, and to identify any potential supply chain constraints related to the adoption of more stringent energy conservation standards. DOE estimates that the current demand for VIPs in the U.S. refrigerator market is roughly 1 to 3 million VIP panels, whereas the global supply for VIPs is estimated to exceed 10 million panels. Despite relatively low demand for VIPs in the U.S. market, there is notable VIP use in the European and Asian markets, with supply available from at least three major VIP manufacturers. Based on the information gathered, DOE expects that VIP production lines can be quickly scaled up to meet demand of future amended standards (within 1 to 2 years depending on the specific VIP design), well within 3-year lead time between publication of amended standards and the compliance date for those standards.

In response to stakeholder feedback on the February 2023 NOPR, DOE carefully considered the use of VIPs in its analysis, generally implementing VIPs at the highest efficiency levels as one of the last design options considered. Therefore, based on the engineering analysis and its consideration of VIPs, DOE expects that to meet the adopted standards, manufacturers are likely to implement VIPs only in PC 5 (for three-door, 30 AV configuration) and PC 5A, with partial VIP usage for both classes.

e. Variable-Speed Compressor Supply Chain

Numerous commenters on the February 2023 NOPR suggested that supply chains for VIPs and variable-speed compressor (“VSC”) may not support the quantities of those components that may be required at the efficiency levels proposed in the NOPR. AHAM recommended that DOE conduct a review of component availability and supply chain capacity for VSCs given the general global market trends for increasingly stringent standards for cooling appliances, including both air conditioning and refrigeration. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 5) Whirlpool further noted that the proposed standards may result in increased component costs to manufacturers due to those same supply chain constraints, especially given that VSCs would be necessary for nearly all evaluated product classes. (Whirlpool, No. 70 at p. 5) Sub Zero also expressed concern that the proposed standards will create a significant supply chain burden for small, low-volume manufacturer of niche market built-in style refrigeration products because VSCs are provided by a limited number of suppliers. Sub Zero commented that the proposed standards will impede the ability of these small manufacturers to deliver to their niche consumers in a timely manner. (Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 2)

Samsung supported DOE's proposed energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and the use of VSC technology as a significant energy-saving option. Samsung stated that there is already significant market availability of VSCs, and a regulatory certainty and 3-year compliance period would provide ample time for manufacturers and suppliers to establish sufficient supply availability of VSCs. (Samsung, No. 78 at p. 2)

In response to these comments, DOE interviewed relevant compressor manufacturers to gather information

regarding the level of VSC implementation that would be required at the efficiency levels in this rule, the current and predicted supply of VSCs into the U.S. market, the predicted time to ramp up production of VSCs, and pricing of VSC compressors and components. DOE notes that the VSC compressors focused on in this supply chain analysis differ from those utilized in air conditioners and other non-related cooling appliances. VSC compressors utilized in refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are generally different designs, are manufactured in different factories, and are generally produced by different manufacturers. Thus, based on the information provided by these manufacturers, DOE has determined that the industry is able to meet the increased demand of VSCs amid likely growing demand in the U.S. market.

Based on manufacturer interviews, DOE estimates the current total global demand for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer compressors (all compressors, not just VSCs) is 230 million. Total compressor production capacity is much higher than demand, with global capacity for compressors estimated at over 400 million. Globally, there has been a shift towards VSC utilization in response to increasing energy efficiency regulations in the European Union (“EU”) and Japan. Estimates project upwards of a quarter of the global market and a third of the U.S. market currently utilize VSCs in refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Considering the U.S. market accounts for an estimated 12 million consumer refrigeration products, a conservative estimate puts U.S. current demand for VSC compressors at roughly 4 million.

Given DOE's understanding of the compressor marketplace, the expected time to build capacity to meet the new demand is expected to be significantly shorter than the 5 and 6-year lead time between direct final rule publication and the compliance date, with estimates ranging from 8 months to 1 year. Compressor manufacturers indicated that VSC production capacity has been increasing by 7 million per year between 2018 and 2022. Additionally, high-efficiency VSC compressor designs are already developed and do not require additional qualification testing before production. Research and development (“R&D”) time to develop compressor designs is not required and thus would not be a factor affecting availability.

DOE is aware that there have been supply constraints for VSCs recently due to issues with electronic component supply caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Chinese manufacturing and shipping of compressors decreased significantly during COVID-related lockdowns throughout the country between 2020 and 2022. Due to China's outsized impact on global supply, the effects of lockdowns were felt globally. Now that lockdowns have ended, however, the affected factories are open again and in production. Compressor manufacturers also indicated that they have been modifying sourcing strategies, in many cases establishing their own electronic component assembly lines in order to protect against potential future issues that could affect supply and production of VSCs.

In considering all of the information provided by relevant manufacturers of VSCs, DOE believes that significant increases in VSCs in the U.S. market aligned with the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are well within the production capacity of the compressor industry. DOE further notes, that AHAM, Whirlpool, Sub Zero, and Samsung are parties to the Joint Agreement and are supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.

f. Product Classes 11 and 12 Alignment

The Joint Agreement recommended that DOE adopt a level of 10 percent energy savings relative to the current PC 12 standard. In light of the recommendation outlined in the Joint Agreement, and in consideration of comments received in response to the February 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting a percentage increase in efficiency for PC 12 at 10 percent lower relative to the current standard. Additionally, as recommended in the Joint Agreement and proposed in the February 2023 NOPR, DOE is including a multi-door energy use allowance for PC 12 for products with two doors.

2. Cost Analysis

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

•

Physical teardowns:

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

•

Catalog teardowns:

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

•

Price surveys:

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

e.g.,

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

In the direct final rule analysis, DOE conducted the analysis using a combination of physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, and price surveys. Where possible, physical teardowns were used to provide a baseline of technology options and pricing for a specific product class at a specific EL. Then with technology option information, DOE estimated the cost of various design options including compressors, VIPs, and insulation, by extrapolating the costs from price surveys. With specific costs for technology options, DOE was then able to “build-up” or “build-down” from the various teardown models to finish the cost-efficiency curves. DOE used this approach to calibrate the analysis to certified or measured energy use of specific available models where possible, while allowing a broader range of potential efficiency levels to be considered.

The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) estimates.

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-efficiency data for each of the efficiency levels for each of the analyzed product classes that were

analyzed. DOE developed estimates of MPCs for each unit in the teardown sample, and also performed additional modeling based on representative teardown samples, to extend the analysis to cover the range of efficiency levels appropriate for a representative product. To estimate the MPCs necessary to achieve higher efficiency levels, in particular those beyond the highest-efficiency products in the test sample, DOE considered design options that were most likely to be considered and implemented by manufacturers to achieve the higher efficiency levels. Based on input from manufacturers and an understanding of the markets, DOE then estimated the costs associated with those design option to determine the MPCs at each of the analyzed efficiency levels.

The efficiency levels and design option progression for the analyzed standard-size refrigerator-freezers are presented in Table IV.5. The cells in the table list the design options that DOE considered at each higher efficiency level as compared with the next-lower efficiency level. Similarly, the efficiency levels and design options for standard-size freezers and Compact refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers are presented in Table IV.6. The MPCs for the analyzed product classes across the considered efficiency levels are presented in Tables IV.7 and IV.8.

See

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis.

Table IV.5—Efficiency Levels and Design Options for Analyzed Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Product class

(AV

)

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

3 (11.9):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

27%.

Design Options Added

Variable Defrost; Higher-Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) Single Speed Compressor

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Highest-EER Single Speed Compressor

VIP side walls and doors

Variable-speed compressor system.

3 (21.0):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

28%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Variable Defrost; Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Higher-EER Compressor; Variable-speed compressor system

66% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and doors.

5 (23.0):

EL Percent

13%

18%

20%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan Motor; Higher-EER compressor Variable-speed compressor system

Highest-EER Compressor; 50% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and doors.

5 (30.0):

EL Percent

11%

15%

17%.

Design Options Added

Variable Speed Compressor System

Higher-EER Compressor;

Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan Motor; 50% of Max-tech VIP

Higher-EER Compressor; 50% of Max-tech VIP

Highest-EER Compressor; VIP side walls and doors.

5-BI (26.0):

EL Percent

10%

15%

16%.

Design Options Added

Variable-speed compressor system

50% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and doors.

5A (35.0):

EL Percent

11%

16%

22%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Compressor; Variable-speed compressor system

Highest-EER Compressor; Variable Speed Compressor System; 42% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and doors.

7 (31.5):

EL Percent

10%

15%

19%

22%.

Design Options Added

Highest-EER Single Speed Compressor

Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan Motor; Variable-speed compressor system

Highest-EER Variable Speed compressor system

75% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and doors.

Notes:

Percent energy use less than baseline.

For three-door configuration.

Includes two-speed fan control.

The percentage of surface area of VIP as compared with the VIP surface area used in the maximum-technology design, for which VIP would be installed for full coverage of the side walls and doors.

Adjusted Volume in cubic feet.

Table IV.6—Efficiency Levels and Design Options for Analyzed Standard-Size Freezers and Compact Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

Product class

(AV

)

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

9 (29.3):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

25%.

Design Options Added

Switch to forced-convection condenser; Brushless-DC Condenser and Evaporator fans

Highest-EER Compressor; Variable-speed compressor system

37% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and door.

10 (26.0):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

23%.

Design Options Added

Variable-speed compressor system

Wall thickness increase; Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan

Highest-EER Compressor; Variable-speed compressor system

VIP door.

11A (1.7):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

32%.

Design Options Added

Wall thickness increase

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor; VIP sides and door

Highest-EER Single Speed Compressor.

11A (4.4):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

30%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Wall thickness increase

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Variable-speed Compressor System;

VIP sides walls and door.

17 (9.0):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%.

Design Options Added

Highest-EER Compressor; Variable-speed Compressor System;

Variable Defrost

50% of Max-tech VIP

VIP side walls and door panels.

18 (8.9):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

30%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor

Wall thickness increase

Highest-EER Single Speed Compressor; VIP door

Variable-speed Compressor System.

Notes:

Percent energy use less than baseline.

Includes two-speed fan control.

The percentage of surface area of VIP as compared with the VIP surface area used in the maximum-technology design, for which VIP would be installed for full coverage of the side walls and doors.

Adjusted Volume in cubic feet.

Table IV.7—Cost-Efficiency Curves for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Product Class

(AV

)

EL0

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

3 (11.9):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

27%

MPC

$368.51

$375.65

$377.11

$378.79

$434.79

$464.09

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$7.14

$8.60

$10.28

$66.28

$95.58

3 (21.0):

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

28%

MPC

$454.50

$456.08

$473.88

$498.64

$544.91

$570.09

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$1.59

$19.38

$44.14

$90.42

$115.59

5 (23.0):

EL Percent

13%

18%

20%

MPC

$662.58

$678.47

$696.39

$736.57

$755.49

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$15.89

$33.81

$73.99

$92.91

5 (30.0):

EL Percent

11%

15%

17%

MPC

$705.12

$740.80

$763.71

$774.63

$807.62

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$35.68

$58.58

$69.51

$102.50

5-BI (26.0):

EL Percent

10%

15%

16%

MPC

$829.20

$848.87

$883.70

$918.52

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$19.67

$54.50

$89.32

5A (35.0):

EL Percent

11%

16%

22%

MPC

$765.69

$786.68

$824.44

$871.93

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$21.00

$58.75

$106.24

7 (31.5):

EL Percent

10%

15%

19%

22%

MPC

$669.60

$671.85

$691.36

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.