Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

Federal RegisterDec 23, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]

RIN 1904-AD79

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

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 walk-in coolers and freezers (“walk-ins” or “WICFs”). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically review its existing standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for walk-ins. It 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 February 21, 2025. Compliance with the amended standards established for walk-in non-display doors in this final rule is required on and after December 23, 2027. Compliance with the amended standards established for walk-in refrigeration systems in this final rule is required on and after December 31, 2028.

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-0009.

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

For further information on how to review 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. Troy Watson, 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: (240) 449-9387. 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: (202) 586-4798. Email:

matthew.schneider@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

1. Annualized Benefits and Costs

a. Non-Display Doors

b. Refrigeration Systems

c. Amended Standards

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

1. Comments Regarding the Proposed Standard Levels

2. Comments Regarding the Proposed Compliance Date

3. Comments Regarding Rulemaking Process

4. Comments Regarding Prescriptive Standards

5. Comments Regarding the Standards Equations

B. Scope of Coverage

C. Test Procedure

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes

a. Doors

b. Panels

c. Refrigeration Systems

2. Technology Options

a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins

b. Doors and Panels

c. Refrigeration Systems

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins

b. Doors and Panels

c. Refrigeration Systems

2. Remaining Technologies

a. Doors and Panels

b. Refrigeration Systems

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. General Feedback

b. Display Doors

c. Non-Display Doors

d. Panels

e. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems

f. Unit Coolers

2. Cost Analysis

a. Teardown Analysis

b. Cost Estimation Method

c. Low-GWP Refrigerants

d. More Efficient Single-Speed Compressors

e. Variable-Speed Compressors

f. Unit Coolers

g. Capital Expenditures Represented in MPCs

h. Manufacturer Markups and Shipping Costs

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Trial Standard Levels

2. Energy Use of Envelope Components

3. Energy Use of Refrigeration Systems

a. Nominal Daily Run Hours

4. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Consumer Sample

2. Equipment Cost

a. Application of the Low-GWP Refrigerant Transition to Specific Regions

3. Installation Cost

a. Refrigeration Systems

b. Cooler and Freezer Panels

4. Annual Energy Consumption

5. Energy Prices

a. Future Electricity Prices

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Equipment Lifetimes

8. Discount Rates

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

10. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

1. Price Elasticity

2. Shipments Results

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

1. High Warm Air-Infiltration Applications

2. Small Businesses

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Discussion of MIA Comments

a. Conversion Costs

b. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

c. Manufacturing Capacity Constraints

d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

e. Refrigerant Transition Costs

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. National 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 Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Standards

a. Refrigeration Systems

b. Doors

c. Panels

d. Combined Benefits of Amended Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

a. Non-Display Doors

b. Refrigeration Systems

c. Amended Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule

2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected

4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

a. Doors

b. Panels

c. Refrigeration Systems

d. Doors and Refrigeration Systems

5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 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, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA,

added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (“walk-ins” or “WICFs”), the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) DOE defines “walk-ins” as an enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors, and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet; however, the terms do not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in systems, DOE has established standards for the principal components that make up a walk-in (

i.e.,

doors, panels, and refrigeration systems).

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 C was re-designated Part A-1.

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to review its existing energy conservation standards for covered equipment no later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Pursuant to that statutory provision, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (

Id.

) Any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) DOE has conducted this review of the energy conservation standards for walk-ins under EPCA's 6-year lookback authority described herein.

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for each component of walk-ins (

i.e.,

doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 1 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified for non-display doors and that TSL 2 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified for refrigeration systems. DOE is not amending energy conservation standards for display doors or panels at this time and the existing standards will remain in effect. The adopted standards for walk-in non-display doors, which are expressed in maximum daily energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day (“kWh/day”), are shown in table I.1. These standards apply to all walk-in non-display doors listed in table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the

United States starting on December 23, 2027.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER23DE24.000

The adopted standards for walk-in refrigeration standards, which are expressed as annual walk-in energy factor 2 (“AWEF2”) in British thermal units per Watt-hour (“Btu/W-h”), are shown in Table I.2. These standards apply to all walk-in refrigeration systems listed in Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on December 31, 2028.

ER23DE24.001

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023 dollars unless indicated otherwise. For purposes of discounting future monetary values, the present year in the analysis was 2024.

Table I.3 through table I.4 summarize DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of walk-ins, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of walk-ins, which is estimated to be 8.5 years for both refrigeration systems and non-display doors (

see

section IV.F 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).

ER23DE24.002

ER23DE24.003

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

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

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed compliance date. For walk-in display doors, non-display doors, and panels, the analysis period is 2024-2057. For refrigeration systems, the analysis period is 2024-2058. Using a real discount rate of 9.4 percent for doors, 10.5 percent for panels, and 10.2 percent for refrigeration systems, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of walk-in display doors, non-display doors, panels, and refrigeration systems in the case without amended standards is $218.7 million,

$508.4 million, $926.0 million, and $542.0 million in 2023$, respectively. Under the adopted standards, all walk-in display door equipment classes remain at the baseline efficiency level. As a result, there are no changes to INPV and no conversion costs for display door manufacturers. Under the adopted standards, the change in INPV for non-display door manufacturers is estimated to range from −0.4 percent to 0.7 percent, which is approximately −$2.0 million to $3.5 million. Under the adopted standards, all walk-in panel equipment classes remain at the baseline efficiency level. As a result, there are no changes to INPV and no conversion costs for panel manufacturers. Under the adopted standards, the change in INPV for refrigeration system manufacturers is estimated to range from −11.3 percent to −8.4 percent, which is approximately −$61.2 million to −$45.7 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the walk-in non-display door and refrigeration system industries would incur total conversion costs of $1.4 million and $90.1 million, respectively.

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

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for walk-ins would save a significant amount of energy. The adopted TSLs are TSL 1 for walk-in non-display doors and TSL 2 for walk-in refrigeration systems. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for walk-ins purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2028-2057 for non-display doors and 2029-2058 for refrigeration systems) amount to 1.60 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads of-full-fuel cycle energy savings.

This represents a savings of 6.3 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 IV.H of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for walk-ins ranges from $2.00 billion USD (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $4.74 billion USD (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for walk-in non-display doors purchased during the period 2028-2057 and walk-in refrigeration systems purchased in 2029-2058.

In addition, the adopted standards for walk-ins 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 28.82 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 243.2 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.06 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 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 an updated set of SC-GHG estimates published in 2023 (“2023 SC-GHG”), as well as the interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”) in 2021 (“2021 Interim SC-GHG”), which DOE used in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule before the updated values were available.

These values are discussed in section IV.L of this document. The climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates are estimated to be $6.80 billion, and the climate benefits associated with the average 2021 Interim SC-GHG estimates at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $1.70 billion. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of the estimated monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.

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. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf; https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf

(last accessed July 3, 2024).

DOE estimates the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE did not monetize the reduction in mercury emissions because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $1.37 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and, $3.33 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.

Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM

2.5

Precursors from 21 Sectors.

https://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors.

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.5 Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Table I.5 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the amended standards for walk-ins. 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.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER23DE24.004

ER23DE24.005

1. Annualized Benefits and Costs

The benefits and costs of the adopted 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 2020, 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 2024. 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 walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration systems shipped during the periods 2028-2057 and 2029-2058, respectively. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the amended standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration systems shipped during the period 2028-2057 and 2029-2058, respectively. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate for the 2023 SC-GHG estimates and the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate for the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates in section IV.L of this document.

a. Non-Display Doors

Table I.6 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standard for walk-in non-display doors, 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 either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $31.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $123.4 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $117.3 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $34.8 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $52.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $261.5 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $179.0 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

Using a 3-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO

and SO

emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards is $32.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $147.9 million in reduced operating costs, $117.3 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $34.8 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $68.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $302.0 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $219.5 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

ER23DE24.006

ER23DE24.007

b. Refrigeration Systems

Table I.7 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standard for walk-in refrigeration systems, 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 either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $67.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $180.9 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $209.2 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $61.7 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $89.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $411.2 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $263.7 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

Using a 3-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO

and SO

emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards is $61.7 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $222.0 million in reduced operating costs, $209.2 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $61.7 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $165 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $482.5 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $335.1 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

ER23DE24.008

ER23DE24.009

c. Amended Standards

Table I.8 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standard for walk-in non-display doors (TSL 1) and refrigeration systems (TSL 2), expressed 2023$ 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 $99.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $304.4 million in reduced operating costs, $96.5 million in climate benefits, and $140.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $442.7 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $101.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $369.8 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $96.5 million in climate benefits, and $189.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $554.5 million per year.

ER23DE24.010

ER23DE24.011

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.J.3, and IV.L of this document.

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the methodology used to present the change in producer cashflow (

i.e.,

INPV) in the monetized benefits and costs tables. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) stated agreement with DOE's methodology to present the change in INPV in the monetized benefits and costs tables in table 1.6, table 1.7, and table V.100 of the September 2023 NOPR (which correspond to table I.5, table I.8, and table V.125 in this final rule), but stated the resultant dollar amounts do not support the kinds of efficiency gains claimed, perhaps due to the errors called out in determining the baseline. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 8-9) Hussmann commented that it agrees with the views presented by AHRI on this topic. (Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 10)

DOE maintained its methodology from the September 2023 NOPR and presents change in INPV in the monetized benefits and costs tables in this final rule. DOE discusses baseline design assumptions throughout the engineering analysis, see section IV.C of this document. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 1 for non-display doors and TSL 2 for refrigeration systems represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regard to technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels are already commercially

available for all equipment classes covered by this final rule. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the standards.

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

and SO

emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $99.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $304.4 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $326.5 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $96.5 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $136 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $672.7 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $442.7 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

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 full fuel cycle (“FFC”) energy savings of 1.60 quad, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 10.7 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce cumulative CO

emissions by 28.82 Mt. over the time period of non-display doors shipped from 2028-2057 and refrigeration systems shipped from 2029-2058. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this 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.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

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

As noted previously, for editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

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

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6295I) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for walk-ins appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart R, appendices A, B, C, and C1.

EPCA set initial prescriptive energy conservation standards for walk-ins and further required DOE to set performance standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)) EPCA also required that no later than January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall publish a final rule to determine if the standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)) EPCA further provides that, not later than six years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination (“NOPD”) that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must make the analysis on which a NOPD or NOPR is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) Not later than two years after a NOPR is issued, DOE must publish a final rule amending the energy conservation standard for the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including walk-ins. Any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if: (1) for certain equipment, including walk-ins, no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) DOE determines by rule that the establishment of such standard will not result in significant conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In

deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

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

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

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

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

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

The need for national energy and water conservation; and

Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE considers 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

DOE is publishing this final rule pursuant to its statutory obligations pursuant to EPCA described herein. (42 U.S.C. 6311(f)(5); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

B. Background

1. Current Standards

The current energy conservation standards for walk-ins are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.306. The current energy conservation standards for walk-in doors are in terms of maximum daily energy consumption (“MDEC”), which is measured in kWh/day (see table II.1). The current energy conservation standards for walk-in panels are in terms of R-value, which is measured in h-ft

-°F/Btu (see Table II.2). The current energy conservation standards for refrigeration systems are in terms of annual walk-in energy factor (“AWEF”), which is measured in Btu/W-h (see table II.3).

BILLING CODE 6410-01-P

ER23DE24.012

ER23DE24.013

ER23DE24.014

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C

As previously mentioned, EPCA also specifies prescriptive energy conservation standards for walk-ins. These prescriptive standards are codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a) and (b). First, all walk-in doors narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet must have automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, and must also have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. Additionally, walk-ins must contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers, excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower (“hp”) and less than 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1 horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).

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

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins

In a final rule published on June 3, 2014 (“June 2014 Final Rule”), DOE promulgated the energy conservation standards for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration systems manufactured on and after June 5, 2017. 79 FR 32050. After publication of the June 2014 Final Rule, AHRI and Lennox International, Inc. (“Lennox”), a manufacturer of walk-in refrigeration systems, filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule

and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule (79 FR 59090 (October 1, 2014)) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Lennox Int'l

Dep't of Energy,

Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). A settlement agreement was reached among the parties under which the Fifth Circuit vacated energy conservation standards for six of the refrigeration system equipment classes—the two standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (subsequently re-named as “unit coolers”) operating at medium and low-temperatures and the four standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low-temperatures.

After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, DOE established a Working Group to negotiate energy conservation standards to replace the six vacated standards (“ASRAC Working Group”). 80 FR 46521 (August 5, 2015). The ASRAC Working Group assembled its recommendations into a Term Sheet (

see

Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0056) that was presented to, and approved by, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) on December 18, 2015. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0055 at p. 11)

The 13 other standards established in the June 2014 Final Rule (

i.e.,

the four standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium-temperature; the three standards applicable to panels; and the six standards applicable to doors) were not vacated. The compliance date for the remaining standards was on or after June 5, 2017.

In a final rule published on July 10, 2017 (“July 2017 Final Rule”), DOE adopted energy conservation standards for the six classes of walk-in refrigeration systems with vacated standards—specifically, unit coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems manufactured. 82 FR 31808. The rule required compliance with the six new standards on and after July 10, 2020.

To evaluate whether to propose amendments to the energy conservation standards for walk-ins, DOE issued a request for information (“RFI”) in the

Federal Register

on July 16, 2021 (“July 2021 RFI”). 86 FR 37687. In the July 2021 RFI, DOE sought data, information, and comment pertaining to walk-ins. 86 FR 37687, 37689.

DOE subsequently announced the availability of the preliminary analysis it had conducted for the purpose of evaluating the need for amending the current energy conservation standards for walk-ins in the

Federal Register

on June 30, 2022, (“June 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). The analysis was set forth in the Department's accompanying preliminary TSD. DOE held a public meeting via webinar to discuss and receive comment on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on July 22, 2022.

On September 5, 2023, DOE published a NOPR in the

Federal Register

regarding energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers (“September 2023 NOPR”). 88 FR 60746. Specifically, DOE proposed amended standards for walk-in non-display doors and walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE did not propose to amend the standard for walk-in panels or display doors. The amended standards proposed for non-display doors in the September 2023 NOPR were defined in terms of maximum daily energy consumption. The amended standards proposed for refrigeration systems in the September 2023 NOPR were defined in terms of AWEF2, adopted in a test procedure final rule that published on May 4, 2023 (“May 2023 TP Final Rule”). The technical support document (“TSD”) that presented the methodology and results of the September 2023 NOPR analysis (“September 2023 NOPR TSD”) is available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0046.

Additionally, on September 28, 2023, DOE published a notice of data availability (“NODA” (“September 2023 NODA”) summarizing additional comments received on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 39008) that were considered but not discussed in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 66710.

On September 27, 2023, DOE held a public webinar (“September 2023 Public Webinar”) in which it presented an overview of the topics addressed in the September 2023 NOPR, allowed time for prepared general statements by participants, and encouraged all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking.

On March 14, 2024, DOE published a second NODA (“March 2024 NODA”) presenting an updated analysis for walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration systems in light of additional data and comments received in response to the September 2023 NOPR, and as a result, presented life-cycle cost and payback period results and national impacts for TSLs that were different from those analyzed for the NOPR.

89 FR 18555. DOE's final rule analysis considers these data and comments, and DOE's responses to those comments and analysis adjustments are presented in the March 2024 NODA, with no further adjustment in the final rule analysis except as discussed in this final rule. The remaining comments received in response to the September 2023 NOPR are summarized and responded to in this final rule. Additionally, DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 NODA, which it also addresses in this final rule.

As discussed in section IV.E.1, the TSLs analyzed in this final rule for non-display doors and refrigeration systems are largely consistent with the TSLs analyzed in the March 2024 NODA.

DOE received comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA from the interested parties listed in table II.4 and table II.5, respectively. DOE also received three anonymous comment submissions in response to the September 2023 NOPR.

BILLING CODE 6410-01-P

ER23DE24.015

ER23DE24.016

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C

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

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the September 2023 Public Webinar, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. DOE did not identify any oral comments provided during the September 2023 Public Webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009, 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 developed this final rule after a review of the market for the subject walk-ins. DOE also considered comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This final rule addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding the proposed standards, rulemaking timing, and process.

1. Comments Regarding the Proposed Standard Levels

Ballesteros expressed general support for the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR, stating that the benefits would outweigh the burdens. (Ballesteros, No. 56 at p. 1)

DuPont supported panel efficiency standards remaining the same and the non-display door efficiencies remaining at 4-inch insulation thickness. DuPont stated that added efficiency could create a WICF supply shortage above current constraints. (DuPont, No. 74 at p. 2)

The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to adopt TSL 2 for WICFs. The CA IOUs also supported DOE's proposal to establish energy conservation standards for high-temperature systems. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at p. 1)

In response to the March 2024 NODA, ASAP

et. al.

and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE adopt TSL 2 analyzed in the March 2024 NODA. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 90 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 91 at p. 1) However, ASAP

et al.

additionally urged DOE to consider higher standards for non-display doors associated with the use of thicker insulation. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 90 at pp. 1-2)

DOE evaluated more-stringent standards for non-display doors associated with the use of thicker insulation; these are considered in TSL 3 of this final rule. The rationale for not adopting higher standards for non-display doors that would likely necessitate thicker insulation is discussed further in section V.C of this document.

AHRI recommended that DOE issue a no-new-standard approach for the equipment covered in the September 2023 NOPR, which would provide an additional 3 years of lead time to manufacturers and allow them to complete the transition to low global warming potential (“GWP”) refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 3 and No. 86 at p. 3)

NRAC also recommended that DOE issue a “no-new-standard” standard for the equipment covered in the September 2023 NOPR to allow the necessary time needed to complete the transition to A2Ls

and low-GWP refrigerants required by the EPA's American Innovation and Manufacturing (“AIM”) Act of 2020 and also the new UL 60335-2-89 standard.

NRAC commented that these regulations are placing significant burdens on manufacturers and end

users, posing a high risk that none of the requirements will be met in the proposed timeframes. (NRAC, No. 73 at pp. 1-2)

Refrigerants in the A2L subgroup, as categorized by ASHRAE Standard 34, have lower toxicity and lower flammability than other subgroups.

UL 60335-2-89,

Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor.

DOE acknowledges that EPA's final rule published in the

Federal Register

on October 24, 2023, to address hydrofluorocarbons through the AIM Act (“October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule”) will require the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (“HVACR”) industry to undertake a broad transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. 88 FR 73098. DOE has considered this refrigerant transition and the burdens that come with it in the analyses that support this final rule. In summary, DOE analyzed all medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing system (

i.e.,

dedicated condensing unit and single-packaged dedicated system) representative units with R-448A as the baseline refrigerant, which DOE has concluded is representative of sub-300 GWP refrigerants that would likely be used in medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems. DOE also analyzed R-290 as a design option for medium- and low-temperature single-packaged dedicated systems. DOE used R-404A to analyze medium- and low-temperature unit coolers, which provides a conservative analysis because sub-300 GWP refrigerants would likely increase unit cooler performance. DOE analyzed high-temperature single-packaged dedicated systems and high-temperature unit coolers using R-134a because DOE has not been able to identify a sub-300 GWP refrigerant that could serve as a replacement for R-134a in high-temperature applications that has enough performance data (

e.g.,

compressor coefficients) available to conduct a full engineering analysis for high-temperature units. These analyses are further discussed in sections IV.C.1.e, IV.C.1.f, and IV.F.2.a of this document. DOE also considers the potential manufacturer investments associated with the transition to low-GWP refrigerants in response to refrigerant regulations in section V.B.2.e of this document. Through these analyses, DOE has determined that the standards promulgated in this final rule are technologically feasible and economically justified given the refrigerant transition required of the HVACR industry.

NAFEM requested that DOE find that no-new-standards are justified at this time. NAFEM stated that DOE previously promulgated standards for WICFs in 2014, but six of the classes were remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; NAFEM further stated that DOE promulgated revised standards for these six classes in 2017, with compliance deadlines of 2020. NAFEM stated that based on this timeline, the latest technologies are still being implemented into the latest equipment. NAFEM commented that there has not been sufficient time to develop, test, and make available the types of new technologies that would impact the most recent energy efficiency standards and otherwise justify revising those standards in the next several years. (NAFEM, No. 67 at p. 2)

As indicated by NAFEM, compliance with the existing standards has been required for multiple years. Compliance with the current energy conservation standards for walk-in doors and medium-temperature dedicated condensing systems was required on June 5, 2017, over 7 years ago. Compliance with the current energy conservation standards for unit coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems was required on July 10, 2020, over 4 years ago. EPCA requires that any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) As part of DOE's assessment of whether adopting amended standards is economically justified, DOE considers the potential impact on manufacturers, including the potential investments required to develop, test, produce, and market compliant equipment.

See

sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document for details on the manufacturer impact analysis. As discussed further in section V.C of this document, DOE is adopting amended standards for walk-ins that are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DOE also received comments that the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR and/or that updated analysis presented in the March 2024 NODA are too stringent.

AHRI and Hussmann commented that in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE determined that TSL 3 is not economically justified; however, DOE determined that TSL 2 is economically justified. AHRI and Hussmann further stated that for unit coolers, both TSL 3 and TSL 2 incorporate the max-tech design options for all unit cooler equipment classes. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2-3) Therefore, Hussmann recommended that efficiency levels for TSL 2 for unit coolers be set at the intermediate (EL 1) levels. (Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2-3) Hussmann also recommended that DOE propose an AWEF2 of 9.15 for medium-temperature unit coolers and an AWEF2 of 4.30 for low-temperature unit coolers. (Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 5-7)

DOE notes that it determined in the September 2023 NOPR that, for refrigeration systems, TSL 3 was not economically justified. 88 FR 60746, 60852. This determination was made despite certain efficiency levels for certain equipment classes that made up TSL 3 being economically justified. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that TSL 2 was economically justified. 88 FR 60746, 60853. Given that some efficiency levels for some representative units that made up TSL 3 in the September 2023 NOPR were cost effective, there was overlap in the efficiency levels that made up TSL 3 and the efficiency levels that made up TSL 2 for certain representative units. 88 FR 60746, 60786-60787. Medium-temperature unit coolers and low-temperature unit coolers were two of the equipment classes where the efficiency levels between TSL 3 and TSL 2 were the same. DOE is required to set standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)); therefore, in the September 2023 NOPR DOE proposed the economically justified maximum technology levels for medium- and low-temperature unit cooler equipment classes. DOE is adopting amended standards based on the updated analyses from the March 2024 NODA in this final rule that achieve the maximum improvement in energy that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE notes that in this final rule it is adopting the max-tech efficiency level for low-temperature and high-temperature ducted unit coolers but is not adopting the max-tech efficiency level for all analyzed capacities of medium-temperature unit coolers in this final rule.

See

section V.C of this document for further discussion.

Lennox commented that the baseline design assumptions and AWEF2 levels may result in proposed AWEF2 standard levels that would drive financials considerably more unfavorably to manufacturers and consumers. Lennox requested that DOE correct discrepancies in baseline assumptions and costs associated with higher efficiency levels in the September 2023 NOPR and September 2023 NOPR TSD. (Lennox, No. 70 at p. 8) Lennox stated that once DOE has addressed the technical issues Lennox identified in the September 2023 NOPR,

DOE must re-run the NOPR analysis to determine if the proposed standards are technologically feasible and economically justified. Lennox recommended that the final standards be no more stringent than those proposed in the September 2023 NOPR. (Lennox, No. 70 at p. 6) In response to the March 2024 NODA analysis, Lennox stated that DOE must address various technical issues—baseline design assumptions and costs of attaining higher efficiency levels, reduced incremental margins assumptions to attain higher efficiency levels, and product lifetime assumptions—to ensure that any new WICF energy conservation standard is “technologically feasible and economically justified”, as required by statute. (Lennox, No. 87 at p. 3) Lennox further stated that section 7 of the NODA support document presents updated AWEF2 calculations for refrigeration system equipment classes at TSLs presented in the NODA that lack justification. (

Id.

at pp. 7-8) Lennox commented it has significant concerns regarding this rulemaking's technical and cost analysis, and DOE has not demonstrated that amended energy conservation standards are appropriate. (

Id.

at p. 8)

In the March 2024 NODA, DOE reviewed and updated parts of its analyses based on stakeholder feedback from the September 2023 NOPR and DOE's own findings. As such, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented updated LCC and PBP results, as well as national impacts. 89 FR 18555. Additionally, in this final rule, DOE further reviewed and updated its analyses based on stakeholder feedback from both the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA, in particular for refrigeration systems and through comments raised by Lennox. DOE addresses and discusses Lennox's indicated technical issues in section IV of this document. The updated analytical results that reflect the comments that have been addressed can be found in section V of this document. DOE has concluded that the analyses in this final rule are representative of the performance capabilities and costs of WICF components to justify the adopted standards. When proposing a standard level, DOE considers the benefits and burdens of each TSL as discussed in section V.C.1 of this document. As a result, DOE is adopting a standard level that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified for both consumers and manufacturers.

Senneca and Frank Door commented that the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR for WICFs contain procedural and substantive flaws, which affect the technical feasibility and economic justification of the proposed standards and have the potential to violate EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at p. 1) Senneca and Frank Door asserted that DOE used inaccurate inputs to calculate several values that are integral to DOE's evaluation of whether the proposed standards are economically justified, and that, therefore, DOE should withdraw the September 2023 NOPR and redo the evaluation with accurate inputs in every calculated value. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at p. 6) Senneca and Frank Door commented that the proposed standards would result in the elimination of certain types and/or sizes of doors and the elimination of anti-sweat heat, which the commenters stated would violate 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at pp. 5-6) Following publication of the March 2024 NODA, Senneca commented that the NODA does not address flaws in the September 2023 NOPR. Senneca stated that DOE cannot identify technology options that, when applied in a real-world context as opposed to modeling, are capable of achieving the level of reductions that would be required under either set of standards; in effect, DOE has failed to meet its burden for both the standards in the September 2023 NOPR and the March 2024 NODA.

Imperial Brown stated that the 0.06 coefficient to calculate the March 2024 NODA MDEC for low-temperature doors is too stringent. Imperial Brown stated that this reduction leads to MDEC requirements that Imperial Brown believes the industry cannot achieve. Imperial Brown stated that it supports energy conservation but is concerned that the MDEC proposed is unattainable. (Imperial Brown, No. 84 at pp. 1-3)

RSG commented that the proposed changes in maximum daily energy consumption for non-display doors would pose a significant challenge because RSG and other manufacturers have already implemented reduced anti-sweat heat as a design option to the meet the current standards. RSG stated that the reduction in maximum daily energy consumption outpaces the technology changes for reduced, real-world power consumption; therefore, RSG suggested that DOE refrain from adopting such significant reduction in the maximum daily energy consumption at this time. (RSG, No. 69 at p. 1)

DOE notes that in the March 2024 NODA, DOE reviewed and updated parts of its analyses based on stakeholder feedback from the September 2023 NOPR and DOE's own findings. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented an updated engineering analysis for non-display doors based on stakeholder feedback in response to the September 2023 NOPR and presented updated LCC and PBP results, as well as national impacts. 89 FR 18555. Specifically, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented energy consumption allowances for electricity-consuming devices that may be present on non-display doors and updated the energy consumption due to thermal load for low-temperature non-display doors. DOE addresses and discusses the feedback received from Senneca and Frank Door, Imperial Brown, and RSG in section IV and V of this document. In this final rule, DOE is adopting standards for non-display doors that are less stringent (

i.e.,

allow a higher MDEC) than those proposed in the September 2023 NOPR. In consideration of stakeholder feedback and uncertainty as to whether all non-display doors could implement certain design options (

i.e.,

improved frame systems and reduced anti-sweat heat) DOE is adopting a standard level that does not necessitate the use of those design options, which is discussed in section V.C.1.a of this document. Based on the considerations discussed in section V.C.1.a of this document, DOE has concluded that the adopted standards for non-display doors would not result in the elimination of certain types and/or sizes of doors; nor would the adopted standards result in the elimination of anti-sweat heat. Further, DOE has concluded that the reduction in MDEC is achievable by the walk-in door industry. DOE has concluded that the analyses in this final rule are sufficiently representative of the performance capabilities and costs of WICF components to justify the adopted standards.

Rep. Bice expressed strong opposition to multiple rules recently proposed by DOE that would add new regulations. Rep. Bice expressed concern that the consistent proposals coming out of DOE are adding burdensome energy conservation standards to products Americans use on a regular basis. Rep. Bice stated that increased standards will increase production costs for manufacturers and retail prices for consumers and asserted that this would cost millions of dollars with little long-term benefit. (Rep. Bice, No. 82 at p. 1)

As previously discussed, EPCA requires that DOE must periodically evaluate the appropriateness of

amended energy conservation standards and publish either a NOPD stating that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this final rule are economically justified and will save consumers $442.7 million annually (2023$) over the lifetime of equipment shipped (see section I.C.1.c of this document for details).

2. Comments Regarding the Proposed Compliance Date

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE estimated publication of a final rule regarding amended energy conservation standards for walk-ins in 2024; therefore, for purposes of the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for walk-ins, consistent with the requirements of EPCA (

see

42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)(B)(i)). 88 FR 60746, 60791.

In response, AHRI commented that the proposal requires as much as a 15-percent increase in efficiency. AHRI stated that a maximum 5-percent increase in efficiency would be acceptable, depending on other related requirements, however, AHRI also stated the 2027 timing for compliance is not desirable even if DOE were to amend unit cooler energy efficiency minimums by 5 percent given the EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy Program (“SNAP”) 23 activities and test method changes that would require efficiency improvements. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 5) AHRI commented that should DOE adopt the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR without any changes, AHRI suggests that DOE target to publish this final rule by June 2025 with a 3-year compliance period (

i.e.,

compliance required by June 2028). AHRI recommended that if there are changes to the September 2023 NOPR based on stakeholder comments, the compliance date should be pushed back further. (

Id.

at p. 14)

Lennox commented that a 3-year lead time to comply with potential amended WICF energy conservation standards is inadequate. Lennox commented that manufacturer engineering, lab, and product development resources are already overburdened through 2026 due to required compliance with EPA's “technology transition” final rule. Lennox added that manufacturer resources are additionally strained by competing out-of-sequence rulemakings, which impose a cumulative regulatory burden on WICF manufacturers. Lennox requested that DOE allow an additional 2 years' lead time (for a total of 5 years) to comply with any amended WICF energy conservation standards; Lennox added that the 5-year lead time would allow for WICF manufacturers to implement required changes after the required EPA refrigerant transition. Lennox commented that due to these factors, manufacturing capacity and/or engineering resource constraints are significant and may indeed limit consumer access to, as well as increase costs for, WICF under a 3-year, versus a 5-year, compliance period. Lennox further commented that even a 5-year compliance period is feasible only if DOE issues final standards that are no more stringent than those proposed in the NOPR. (Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 1-3, 9)

Additionally, in response to the March 2024 NODA, Lennox stated that as an alternative to allowing a longer compliance period, DOE should postpone the rulemaking process until the low-GWP products are available to ensure DOE meets the statutory criteria in promulgating energy conservation standards that are “economically justified.” Lennox stated that increasing the energy efficiency of WICF products using low-GWP refrigerants presents significant uncertainty regarding costs and stated that DOE has not adequately addressed this issue, as the design and manufacture of WICF equipment that uses low-GWP refrigerants is complex and involves A2L refrigerants that present significant engineering challenges different from existing refrigerants used. Lennox stated it is premature for DOE to consider tightening standards for WICF equipment that is not yet on the market. (Lennox, No. 87 at p. 2) Lennox stated that DOE should not move to a final rule regarding WICF equipment, but rather DOE should continue to improve its analysis to ensure that the proposed standards are economically justified. Lennox also stated that given the substantial redesign of WICF equipment that is already underway regarding EPA requirements to transition to equipment that uses low-GWP refrigerant, Lennox believes DOE's best course would defer further rulemaking until that redesigned equipment is better understood and engineering and lab capacity becomes available to better assess amended WICF energy conservation standards. (Lennox, No. 87 at pp. 4-5) NRAC commented that engineering resources will be fully consumed by the transition to low-GWP refrigerants and transitioning all product lines to the new safety standards. NRAC commented that it will have insufficient time to meet the 2027 amended standard compliance date and requested a pause on the amended standards until after the transition to low-GWP refrigerants is complete. NRAC commented that the proposed rulemaking would require a transition to new low-GWP A2L refrigerants as well as a change in all the safety standards, which would in turn require changes to testing and design of current equipment. NRAC recommended a pause, delay, or no-new-standards rulemaking to benefit the environment and all parties. (NRAC, No. 73 at pp. 2-3)

DOE understands that Federal and State refrigerant regulations, such as EPA's October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule, require manufacturers of WICF refrigeration systems to cease manufacturing equipment that uses high-GWP HFC refrigerants and to begin manufacturing redesigned equipment that uses low-GWP refrigerants before that rule's compliance date, which would occur prior to the expected compliance date of new and amended DOE standards. As discussed in section V.B.2.e of this document, DOE expects that the research and development and capital investment required to comply with the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule may exceed the typical industry R&D and capital expenses. DOE has quantitatively estimated those expenditures in its Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”)

in the no-new-standards case and standards case to reflect the increased operating expenses and reduced cash flow experienced by industry due to Federal refrigerant regulations. DOE qualitatively discusses potential engineering and laboratory resource constraints in section V.B.2.cof this document.

The GRIMs developed for this final rule are available for download at:

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

Regarding the timeline to comply with EPA refrigerant regulations, in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the

Federal Register

on December 15, 2022 (“December 2022 EPA Technology Transitions NOPR”), EPA proposed a January 1, 2025 compliance date for the refrigeration categories that apply to walk-in refrigeration systems (

i.e.,

remote condensing units and cold storage warehouse systems). 87 FR 76738, 76810. In the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule, EPA determined that due to the need for

certain SNAP approvals,

updates to building codes, equipment design, testing, and certifications, technician trainings, and manufacturing facility upgrades, providing additional time to comply was reasonable for certain subsectors in retail food refrigeration, including the categories applicable to walk-in refrigeration systems. 88 FR 73098, 73149-73152. As such, EPA finalized a compliance date of January 1, 2026, for both remote condensing units and cold storage warehouses, delaying compliance one year from what was proposed in the December 2022 EPA Technology Transitions NOPR.

The EPA SNAP program evaluates and approves alternative refrigerants to those that are no longer compliant.

In the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA, DOE analyzed a 3-year compliance lead-in period for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration systems, which DOE modeled as requiring compliance in 2027. DOE notes that it has some flexibility under EPCA to delay the effective date of amended standards: if the Secretary determines that a 3-year period is inadequate, the Secretary may establish an effective date for WICFs manufactured beginning on the date that is not more than 5 years after the date of publication of a final rule for WICFs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)(B)(ii)) DOE received comments regarding industry's ability to meet the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR specific to walk-in refrigeration systems. Although most manufacturers emphasized that a 3-year lead-in and 2027 compliance date would not be feasible due to engineering and laboratory resource constraints related to the refrigerant transition, RSG commented that a 2027 compliance date would be viable to meet the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR for walk-in refrigeration systems. (RSG, No. 69 at p. 3) AHRI commented that if DOE adopted the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR, a June 2028 compliance date would be feasible for industry.

Generally, DOE understands that aligning compliance dates to avoid multiple successive redesigns can help to reduce cumulative regulatory burden. However, most stakeholder comments indicate that the rulemaking timelines and compliance periods for DOE and EPA regulations make it challenging to redesign and retest walk-in refrigeration systems simultaneously to meet both the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule and new and amended DOE standards. Specifically, manufacturers are in the midst of redesigning walk-in refrigeration systems to comply with the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule by January 1, 2026, and may not be able to incorporate the necessary updates to comply with new and amended DOE standards within the same design cycle. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of significant walk-in refrigeration system shipments currently rated above the baseline efficiency level (

i.e.,

EL 0). Thus, DOE expects that most manufacturers will need to update their equipment portfolios to meet the standards adopted in this final rule. Therefore, based on stakeholder comments and DOE's assessment of the investments and redesign required to meet the adopted levels, combined with the overlapping Federal refrigerant regulations, DOE is extending the compliance period so that compliance is required by December 31, 2028 (modeled as 2029), approximately 1 year later than the expected compliance year (2027) analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR (which was based on a 3-year compliance period).

DOE has determined that spreading out the DOE compliance date for amended energy conservation standards from the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule compliance date will help alleviate manufacturers' concerns about engineering and laboratory resource constraints. Furthermore, the longer compliance period will help mitigate cumulative regulatory burden by allowing manufacturers more flexibility to spread investments across approximately 4 years instead of 3 years. Manufacturers will also have more time to recoup any investments made to redesign walk-in equipment for the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule as compared to a 3-year compliance period.

DOE did not receive comments regarding the 3-year compliance period analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR for walk-in doors or panels. Therefore, DOE maintains the 3-year compliance period for the amended walk-in non-display doors standard in this final rule, which DOE models as 2028. As previously discussed, DOE is not amending the standard for walk-in panels and display doors.

3. Comments Regarding Rulemaking Process

In response to the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA, DOE received several comments regarding the process of the rulemaking.

In response to both the September 2023 NOPR and the March 2024 NODA, AHRI requested that DOE consider a pause in its current rulemakings relating to energy conservation standards for walk-ins, given the efforts now underway across the HVACR industry to transition to new classes of refrigerants with low GWP for the AIM Act. AHRI commented that since most substitute refrigerants capable of complying with the AIM Act are A2Ls, SNAP approvals contain highly prescriptive use conditions and limitations, including conformance to safety standards that are now in the process of being updated and revised, such as ASHRAE 15

and UL 60335-2-89. AHRI commented that State and local building codes further complicate the picture, with many prohibiting A2Ls and requiring updating, which can take 2 to 5 years to complete—eight States have updated their codes and more than 20 have yet to authorize A2L refrigerants for commercial refrigeration. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 1-2 and No. 86 at pp. 1-3)

ASHRAE Standard 15,

Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants.

DOE is statutorily required to publish either a NOPD if it finds that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The final rules that established the current standards for walk-in doors and refrigeration systems were issued in 2014 and 2017, respectively. Further, EPCA specifically prescribed that no later than January 1, 2020, DOE shall publish a final rule to determine if standards for walk-ins should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)) DOE is conducting this rulemaking pursuant to these statutory requirements.

Regarding AHRI's comments surrounding the transition to low-GWP refrigerants in response to Federal refrigerant regulations, DOE considered the refrigerant transition and the burdens that come with it in the analyses that support this final rule. With respect to AHRI's concern that some State and local building codes currently prohibit A2Ls, DOE notes that although it considers the potential impacts of refrigerant regulations on walk-in refrigeration systems in its analysis, the energy conservation standards adopted in this final rule generally do not require the use of specific refrigerants (

e.g.,

A2Ls).

Furthermore, DOE is aware of ongoing efforts by industry groups and other stakeholders to work with State and local officials to update building codes to allow for alternative refrigerants, such as A2Ls. Additionally, DOE notes that EPA, to the extent practicable, took building codes into account in its consideration of availability of substitutes in the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule. 88 FR 73098, 73136. As such, DOE understands that EPA established compliance dates for the transition to low-GWP refrigerants with the expectation that jurisdictions will prioritize completing building code updates with the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule deadlines in mind.

Id.

DOE notes that the change in the EPA compliance date for walk-in refrigeration systems (

i.e.,

from January 1, 2025 proposed in the December 2022 EPA Technology Transitions NOPR to January 1, 2026 finalized in the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule) provides additional time for jurisdictions to update their building codes or legislation accordingly. As previously discussed, DOE is finalizing a compliance date of December 31, 2028, for walk-in refrigeration systems (approximately 3 years after the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule compliance date for walk-in refrigeration systems), which DOE believes is sufficient time for manufacturers to comply with the adopted standards, accounting for other regulatory obligations. DOE expects that all states will have updated their building codes to reference the updated mechanical codes and safety standards by the December 31, 2028, compliance date.

DOE notes that it expects that manufacturers of lower-capacity medium temperature single-packaged dedicated condensing systems would

generally incorporate propane compressors at the standard level adopted in this final rule. However, the charge of propane required for these systems is within the acceptable charge limits specified in an EPA SNAP rule for propane in a refrigeration circuit (300 grams) for refrigeration systems with end-uses in the retail food industry. 89 FR 50410, 50467.

Ravnitsky supported DOE's efforts to improve the energy efficiency of walk-ins, stating that the benefits estimated by DOE are substantial for the consumers, economy, and environment. Ravnitsky recommended that DOE adopt a negotiated rulemaking process to revise the standards for walk-ins. (Michael Ravnitzky, No. 55 at pp. 1-3)

The Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) allows DOE to use negotiated rulemaking as a method to engage all interested parties, gather data, and attempt to reach consensus on establishing energy conservation standards. ASRAC has not voted to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking regarding energy conservation standards for WICFs. Further, there was no additional information provided to suggest that a negotiated rulemaking would result in standards significantly different than those proposed in the September 2023 NOPR or adopted in this final rule. Therefore, DOE is adopting this final rule after using the typical rulemaking process.

Senneca commented that the information contained in the March 2024 NODA undermines DOE's standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR. Senneca stated that the failure to consider the energy consumption of the additionally analyzed electricity-consuming devices (

i.e.,

heating vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/temperature alarms) despite having documented that they are all included on models of doors covered by the proposed standards invalidates DOE's conclusions that the proposed standards are technologically feasible and economically justified as they were based on a model door that is not representative of doors in the market. Senneca commented that DOE should withdraw the proposed standards and restart the process so that additional electrical components can be included in the required analysis. (Senneca, No. 92 at pp. 1-2) Senneca stated that DOE cannot propose new standards in a NODA. Senneca stated that the new standards cannot be considered a logical outgrowth of the September 2023 NOPR. Senneca also stated that the standards are not amendments to existing standards and that they are entirely new standards for entirely new classes of equipment. (Senneca, No. 92 at pp. 2-3) Senneca further stated that if DOE considered product literature and non-public information, DOE must first make data and information available to the public as part of the rulemaking docket before using that data and information. (Senneca, No. 92 at p. 3) Hormann and Jamison supported the comments made by Senneca and Frank Door in response to the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA. (Hormann, No. 85 at p. 1; Jamison, No. 83 at p. 1)

As noted previously, under EPCA DOE has authority to amend the energy conservation standards applicable to certain industrial equipment, including equipment meeting the definition of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m); 6316(a); 6311(20)). In doing so, DOE may make certain standards more stringent and can impose additional standards on equipment that fall within the definition of a covered equipment category that previously were not subject to existing regulation. Consistent with EPCA's purposes, this authority allows DOE to amend standards to adjust to technological innovations and changes in the marketplace. DOE further has authority to establish separate equipment classes if DOE determines that equipment capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). In short, DOE has authority to amend the energy conservation standards applicable to walk-ins and to add certain equipment classes, as adopted in this final rule.

DOE further responds that it did not propose new standards in the March 2024 NODA. As discussed in the March 2024 NODA, upon consideration of the views shared in the September 2023 Public Webinar and public comments DOE received in response to the September 2023 NOPR, the March 2024 NODA presented an analysis with updated portions of DOE's NOPR analysis for walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration systems on which DOE had sought comments, data, and information. 89 FR 18555, 18556. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE demonstrated how the updated analysis applied to the existing equipment classes through the inclusion of the MDEC allowances (see section IV.A.1.a of this document) for non-display doors and the impact on the standards equations proposed in the September 2023 NOPR, which functionally would make them sub-classes within the existing class structure. (

Id.

at 89 FR 18576). DOE did not propose any new TSLs and sought further public input.

Id.

In this final rule, DOE has incorporated additional feedback regarding the March 2024 NODA analysis (

see

section IV of this final rule) and adopted standards that reflect the totality of feedback received during this rulemaking process, including the comments regarding energy use of electricity-consuming components, in response to both the September 2023 NOPR and the March 2024 NODA. The standards adopted in this final rule are within the range of alternatives proposed in the September 2023 NOPR.

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE summarized the NOPR stage deviations from 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (which DOE referred to as the “Process Rule” in that document). 88 FR 60746, 60756. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door disagreed with DOE's decision to deviate from the process outlined for the development of new

efficiency standards, specifically regarding DOE's decision not to publish a Framework Document due to alleged redundancy and to reduce the comment period for interested parties to respond to the proposed rule by 20 percent. Senneca and Frank Door commented that if redundancy and multiplicity of comment opportunities were valid reasons to deviate from the Process Rule, no standards development rulemaking would need to follow the process adopted by DOE in that rule. Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE's rulemaking process intentionally includes requirements to explain aspects of the rulemaking in multiple documents and provide interested parties with multiple opportunities to comment. Senneca and Frank Door additionally commented that the previous opportunities for interested parties to provide comments were not, in fact, opportunities to comment on the proposed standards themselves, but instead were opportunities for interested parties to inform DOE's decisions on whether to propose amended standards and what the proposed standards should be. Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE's rationale for limiting the opportunity for the public to participate in the development of the proposed standards was further weakened when two leading trade associations jointly requested additional time to comment due to the complexity of the issues presented in the proposal, a request that DOE refused to accommodate. Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE's decision to deviate from the Process Rule sets a precedent to continue deviating from the Process Rule. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at pp. 2-3)

Senneca and Frank Door commented that prior opportunities to comment on the technological feasibility and economic costs of the potential new standards did not sufficiently capture important information from WICF door manufacturers. Senneca and Frank Door commented that the single manufacturer of WICF doors to comment on DOE's Preliminary Analysis does not manufacture any doors that would be covered by the proposed standards, and that DOE's reliance on information from this manufacturer to justify reducing the amount of information made available to the public, shorten the length of the comment period, and support the conclusion that the proposed standards are technically feasible and economically justified is inconsistent with DOE's commitment to robust participation. (

Id.

)

In a final rule published on December 13, 2021, DOE adopted a provision allowing it to depart from the general guidance in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A so long as DOE provides notice and an explanation (86 FR 70892, 70896). This rule restored DOE's authority to deviate on a case-by-case basis, which was included in previous versions of appendix A. (61 FR 36974) The provisions at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A contain procedures, interpretations and policies that are generally applicable to the development of energy conservation standards, but DOE may, as provided in the rule itself, deviate from this appendix to account for the specific circumstances of a particular rulemaking.

See

section (3)(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431. If DOE concludes that changes to the procedures, interpretations, or policies in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A are necessary or appropriate, DOE will provide notice in the

Federal Register

of modifications to this appendix with an accompanying explanation.

See

section (3)(b) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431.

As provided in the September 2023 NOPR, chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD that accompanied the preliminary analysis—entitled

Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses

—describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation standards. As such, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE determined that publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant given previously published documents. DOE maintains its determination that publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant for this rulemaking. Further, 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A as amended does not require that a framework document and preliminary analysis be published in the pre-NOPR stage and states that such pre-NOPR documents could take several forms depending upon the specific proceeding.

See

section 6(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430.

As also noted previously, DOE requested comment in the July 2021 RFI on the analysis conducted in support of the last energy conservation standard rulemaking for walk-ins and provided a 30-day comment period. In its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and TSD, DOE's analysis remained largely the same as the analysis conducted in support of the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for walk-ins. DOE requested comment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD on the analysis conducted in support of this current rulemaking. Given that the September 2023 NOPR analysis remained largely the same as the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and in light of the 60-day comment period DOE provided with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined that a 60-day comment period was appropriate for the September 2023 NOPR and provided interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. 88 FR 60746, 60756. Additionally, DOE made subsequent updates to the September 2023 NOPR analysis in the March 2024 NODA and provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on those updates. 89 FR 18555.

Regarding Senneca and Frank Door's assertion that previous opportunities for interested parties to provide comments were not opportunities to comment on the proposed standards themselves, DOE notes that stakeholders were given the opportunity to comment on the assumptions used in analyses that fed into the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR. As discussed previously in this section, the analysis presented in the September 2023 NOPR remained largely the same as the analysis presented in the June 2022 preliminary analysis. Additionally, the March 2024 NODA afforded stakeholders an additional opportunity to comment on the updated analysis. As such, stakeholders were given multiple opportunities to provide input on the analyses and assumptions that support this final rule.

Regarding Senneca and Frank Door's assertion that prior opportunities to comment on the technological feasibility and economic costs of the potential new standards did not sufficiently capture important information from WICF door manufacturers, DOE notes that in addition to public comments, DOE sought feedback from WICF door manufacturers during confidential manufacturer interviews. Feedback from these interviews has been incorporated throughout the September 2023 NOPR analysis and this final rule analysis.

4. Comments Regarding Prescriptive Standards

Kolpak requested that DOE clarify its requirements for minimizing infiltration when doors are open and suggested that DOE require spring-loaded hinges causing the door to self-close and either fan-driven air curtains, strip curtains, or strip doors. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 2-3)

The prescriptive standards for walk-ins were set in EPCA by Congress and were subsequently codified by DOE at 10 CFR 431.306(a)(2). It is required that each walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer manufacturer on or after January 1, 2009, have strip doors, spring-hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. DOE is not updating the prescriptive standards for walk-ins in this rulemaking.

5. Comments Regarding the Standards Equations

DOE presented several potential energy conservation standards curves for refrigeration systems as supporting data for the March 2024 NODA.

See

section 7 of the NODA support document.

“Detailed Data for Engineering Analysis and National Impact Analysis for the Notice of Data Availability Pertaining to Walk-in Coolers and Walk-In Freezers.” Available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0079.

AHRI, Hussmann, and Lennox stated that for the medium-temperature and low-temperature unit cooler (UC.M and UC.L) equipment classes, the efficiency level selected is the same for TSL 1, 2 and 3 but that there are different standards equations for TSL 3 than TSL 1 and 2 in the NODA support document. (AHRI, No. 86 at pp. 5-6; Hussmann, No. 88 at pp. 3-4; Lennox, No. 87 at p. 6) AHRI requested that DOE clarify the difference between the equations for TSL 1 and 2 and those for TSL 3. (AHRI, No. 86 at pp. 5-6)

DOE notes that the standards equations shown for medium-temperature and low-temperature unit coolers in the March 2024 NODA support document at TSL 3 should have matched those for TSL 1 and TSL 2, as the same efficiency level was selected for each TSL. The equations for TSL 3 were erroneously different from those at TSL 1 and 2 for medium-temperature and low-temperature unit coolers. DOE also notes that in the NODA support document, the equation for the high-temperature, ducted unit coolers at TSL 2 was erroneously written and did not account for the updated NODA analysis. In this final rule, the equation at TSL 2, which is the adopted standard level, has been corrected to reflect the changes made in the March 2024 NODA analysis. DOE does not believe these typographical errors impacted commenters' ability to evaluate and provide input on DOE's updated analysis.

AHRI and Lennox asked how the equation (− 6.43 × 10

−6

× q

net

+ 9.97) that increases the minimum AWEF2 from 9.65 in the September 2023 NOPR to a higher minimum AWEF2 up to 9.9 in the March 2024 NODA for net capacities greater than or equal to 9 kBtu/h and less than 54 kBtu/h was determined. (AHRI, No. 86 at p. 5; Lennox No. 87 at pp. 7-8) AHRI asserted that the AWEF2 standard should reflect a decrease and not an increase and recommended that DOE review the rationale and reconcile it with the change in the AWEF2 standard. (AHRI, No. 86 at p. 5)

In the September 2023 NOPR, for medium-temperature and low-temperature unit coolers, DOE proposed standards at constant AWEF2 values (

i.e.,

the proposed AWEF2 standard did not vary with capacity). Specifically, DOE proposed a standard equal to the average AWEF2 corresponding to the selected efficiency levels of each representative capacity in the selected TSL. Stakeholders pointed out that the proposed AWEF2 levels were above the “max-tech” levels for some of the representative capacities. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 2) Additionally, the proposed AWEF2 levels were below the “max-tech” levels for other representative capacities. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented standards equations for medium-temperature unit coolers that vary with capacity, following the representative-capacity efficiency levels more closely, but not exceeding any of the “max-tech” levels for specific representative capacities. As such, the presented standards equation resulted in AWEF2 values that were greater than what was proposed in the September 2023 NOPR for capacities between 9 kBtu/h and 54 kBtu/h for medium-temperature unit coolers.

See section IV.E.1 for discussion regarding how DOE set the standards equations for the standards adopted in this final rule.

B. Scope of Coverage

This final rule covers “walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers” defined as an enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors, and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”) that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet; however, the terms do not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in systems, DOE has previously established separate standards for the principal components that make up a walk-in (

i.e.,

doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). In this final rule, DOE has continued with this approach.

A “door” means an assembly installed in an opening on an interior or exterior wall that is used to allow access or to close off the opening and that is movable in a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving manner of movement. For walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, a door includes the frame (including mullions), the door leaf or multiple leaves (including glass) within the frame, and any other elements that form the assembly or part of its connection to the wall.

Id.

A “panel” means a construction component that is not a door and is used to construct the envelope of the walk-in (

i.e.,

elements that separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior).

Id.

A “refrigeration system” means the mechanism (including all controls and other components integral to the system's operation) used to create the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer, consisting of:

(1) A dedicated condensing refrigeration system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302); or

(2) A unit cooler.

In response to the September 2023 NOPR, AHRI commented that DOE is expanding the scope of the rulemaking to include CO

unit coolers, multi-circuit single-packaged dedicated systems, and ducted fan coil units, but DOE has not been able to procure a CO

-dedicated condensing unit and did not test or allow for CO

-dedicated condensing units. AHRI commented that the walk-in market will probably adopt CO

-dedicated condensing units. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 7)

In response to AHRI's assertion that DOE did not allow for CO

-dedicated condensing units, DOE notes that the test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems does not explicitly define scope based on refrigerant, as discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 28780, 28786. Notwithstanding the fact that DOE did not adopt test procedures specifically for CO

-dedicated condensing units addressing the unique characteristics of CO

, DOE has concluded that all such condensing units currently available, whether in the United States or elsewhere, can be tested using the existing test procedures set forth at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendices C and C1. Specifically, DOE's understanding is that no modifications are needed to test CO

-dedicated condensing units under the walk-in dedicated condensing unit test procedure, provided the CO

exiting the condensing unit is liquid. DOE also

notes that there are CO

-dedicated condensing units certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) currently. On this basis, and the fact that no petitions for waiver of the DOE test procedure for condensing units have been submitted, DOE concludes that the current test procedures and energy conservation standards are applicable to such equipment. If a manufacturer believes that a CO

-dedicated condensing unit contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing of the basic model(s) according to the prescribed DOE test procedures or cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the CO

-dedicated condensing unit in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data, then manufacturers can petition for a waiver in accordance with 10 CFR 431.401. DOE notes that in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted test provisions specific for CO

unit coolers and added new provisions to appendix C1 because the industry test procedure referenced in the DOE test procedure at the time (AHRI 1250-2009, referenced in appendix C) did not accommodate CO

unit coolers. The procedure and provisions that DOE adopted were consistent with waivers and interim waivers granted to manufacturers of CO

unit coolers. 88 FR 28780, 28786.

See

section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment classes analyzed in this final rule.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); and 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s). 10 CFR 429.110(e). The current test procedure for walk-in display and non-display doors is codified at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A (“appendix A”), which includes provisions for determining maximum daily energy consumption, the metric on which current standards for walk-in display and non-display doors are based. 10 CFR 431.306 The current test procedure for walk-in panels is codified at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix B (“appendix B”), which includes provisions for determining R-value, the metric on which current standards for walk-in panels are based. The current test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems is codified at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C (“appendix C”). Appendix C includes provisions for determining AWEF, the metric on which current standards for walk-in refrigeration systems are based.

In the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE used the test procedures adopted in the May 2023 TP Final Rule to evaluate the efficiency of walk-in components. From this point forward the May 2023 TP Final Rule will be referred to as the “current test procedure.”

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established a new appendix, appendix C1 to subpart R (“appendix C1”), and a new efficiency metric, AWEF2, for refrigeration systems. (

See

10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C1.) The engineering analysis results and the adopted energy conservation standards for refrigeration systems are presented as AWEF2 values. Manufacturers would be required to begin using appendix C1 as of the compliance date of energy conservation standards promulgated as a result of this rulemaking.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

As discussed, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))

To determine whether potential amended standards would be technologically feasible, DOE first develops a list of all known technologies and design options that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be “technologically feasible.” 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1). Section IV.A.2 of this document discusses the technology options identified by DOE for this analysis. For further details on the technology assessment conducted for this final rule,

see

chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.

After DOE has determined which, if any, technologies and design options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology and design option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5). Those technology options that are “screened out” based on these criteria are not considered further. Those technology and design options that are not screened out are considered as the basis for higher efficiency levels that DOE could consider for potential amended standards. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis conducted for this final rule. For further details on the screening analysis conducted for this final rule,

see

chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

EPCA requires that for any proposed rule that prescribes an amended or new energy conservation standard or prescribes no amendment or no new standard for a type (or class) of covered product, DOE must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for each type (or class) of covered products. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1). Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE identifies the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level representing the maximum theoretical efficiency that can be achieved through the application of all available technology options retained from the screening analysis.

In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not currently economically feasible.

In applying these design options, DOE would only include those that are compatible with each other that when combined, would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.

The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described in section IV.C.1 of this document and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to walk-in doors,

panels, and refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2028-2057 for doors and panels, 2029-2058 for refrigeration systems).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of walk-ins 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 the equipment 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 walk-ins. 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 are 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 covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

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

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than the impacts of products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

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

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 1.60 quad, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 10.6 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential new or 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 equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

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

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

year that standards are assumed to take effect.

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

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section 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 establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards for walk-ins are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the 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 GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

g. Other Factors

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

2. Rebuttable Presumption

EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the 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. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable-presumption payback calculation is discussed in section 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 walk-ins. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

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 GRIM, to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/walk-coolers-and-walk-freezers.

Additionally, DOE used outputs 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 equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) market and industry trends, and (5) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of walk-ins. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.

See

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

1. Equipment Classes

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

i.e.,

establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that equipment capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (

Id.

)

As noted previously, rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in systems, DOE has established separate standards for each of the principal components that make up a walk-in (

i.e.,

doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). DOE's analysis for each component is discussed in the following sections.

a. Doors

DOE's existing standards for walk-in doors are based on six equipment classes differentiated by temperature and whether they are display doors or non-display doors.

Display Doors

DOE defines a display door as a door that is designed for product display or has 75 percent or more of its surface area composed of glass or another transparent material. 10 CFR 431.302. Display doors are further divided based on walk-in temperature (

i.e.,

cooler/medium-temperature or freezer/low-temperature). DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for these two classes of display doors: medium-temperature and low-temperature. 10 CFR 431.306(c).

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE considered distinguishing display door classes by the presence or absence of a motorized door opener for the purposes of its analysis. DOE analyzed medium- and low-temperature display doors without motorized door openers and medium-temperature display doors with motorized door openers.

Id.

DOE did not identify any motorized display doors for low-temperature applications and therefore did not analyze such equipment in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 60746, 60761. Ultimately, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE did not find that amended standards for display doors were economically justified and therefore, DOE did not propose any amendments to the class structure for display doors. 88 FR 60746, 60841-60843.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the equipment classes analyzed for display doors in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE maintains its conclusion from the September 2023 NOPR for this final rule, and for the purposes of this analysis, evaluated amended standards for display doors by presence or absence of a motorized door opener. Therefore, DOE evaluated the display door equipment classes in Table IV.1 for this final rule. However, as discussed further in section V.C.1.a of this document, DOE has determined that amended standards for display doors are not economically justified; therefore, DOE is not adopting equipment classes that differ from the existing classes for display doors.

ER23DE24.017

DOE discusses representative units, baseline assumptions for representative unit efficiency, and design options analyzed at higher efficiency levels for walk-in display doors in section IV.C.1 of this document. Consistent with the September 2023 NOPR, DOE did not consider more-efficient levels for the motorized display door class beyond the current maximum energy consumption (

i.e.,

baseline efficiency level) in this final rule. In its review of the motorized display door market, DOE found that manufacturers are already implementing maximum technology design options, such as vacuum-insulated glass, to achieve the current maximum energy consumption standard since the motor consumes additional energy. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this in response to the September 2023 NOPR and DOE has not identified any energy-saving technology options for motorized display doors that were retained during the screening analysis, as discussed in sections IV.A.2.a and IV.A.2.b of this document.

Non-Display Doors

Non-display doors are all doors not considered display doors. (10 CFR 431.302) Non-display doors are mainly used to allow people and products to be moved into and out of the walk-in. Non-display doors are further divided into equipment classes by whether they are passage or freight doors. DOE defines a freight door as a door that is not a display door and is equal to or larger than 4 feet wide and 8 feet tall.

Id.

DOE defines passage doors as any doors that are not display doors or freights doors.

Id.

Passage and freight doors are further divided based on walk-in temperature (

i.e.,

cooler/medium-temperature or freezer/low-temperature). DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for the following walk-in non-display door classes (10 CFR 431.306(d)):

• Passage Door, Medium-temperature

• Passage Door, Low-temperature

• Freight Door, Medium-temperature

• Freight Door, Low-temperature

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to combine passage and freight non-display door classes and instead differentiate non-display doors by whether or not they have motorized door openers. 88 FR 60746, 60761. Unlike door size, DOE tentatively determined that the presence or absence of a motorized door opener was a performance-related feature that justified adopting a different standard. As with its prior analysis, DOE also evaluated the motorized and non-motorized non-display door classes by temperature conditions: medium-temperature (

i.e.,

cooler) and low-temperature (

i.e.,

freezer).

Id.

As discussed in the March 2024 NODA, DOE received comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR indicating that other electricity-consuming devices such as heated vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/temperature alarms provide functionality. These physical and functional attributes, which can be installed on non-display doors, were not considered in the representative units analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR but would be included in the calculation of daily energy consumption (“DEC”) per the test procedure. The current MDEC standards allow for additional electrical components such as heated vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/temperature alarms to be included and considered in the DEC calculation. However, the basis of the energy conservation standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR only accounted for the electrical energy consumption from anti-sweat heat around the perimeter of the door (and motors for doors classified as “motorized non-display doors”). As a result, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE tentatively concluded that the proposed standards as outlined in the September 2023 NOPR may be difficult to meet for basic models of doors that have additional electrical components beyond what DOE considered in its representative units. 89 FR 18555, 18556-18559.

Therefore, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented an updated analysis that included MDEC allowances for non-display doors with certain electricity-consuming devices based on the feedback received in response to the September 2023 NOPR. These MDEC allowances represent additional energy consumption added to the adopted standard calculation based on the presence of these certain electricity-consuming devices. The MDEC allowances implement the four features as adders which effectively result in a less-stringent standard when applied to the base equipment class. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE considered MDEC allowances, which represent additional equipment classes of non-display doors, if manufacturers offer basic models with any combination of the following four electricity-consuming devices:

□ Lighting

□ Anti-sweat heat for viewing window

□ Digital temperature display with or without alarms

□ Heated pressure relief vent

The four features are implemented as adders, which effectively result in a less-stringent standard when applied to the base equipment class. For example, if a basic model is sold with lighting, then the basic model would be subject to the adopted standard for that equipment class (

i.e.,

manual or motorized, low-temperature or medium-temperature non-display door) plus the lighting MDEC allowance. The allowances are additive,

i.e.,

maximum allowed MDEC is increased for each of the devices that is present on the door.

Each of these electrical components is a performance-related feature that provides functionality to the consumer when installed on a non-display door. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment (

i.e.,

establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used or if DOE determines that the equipment's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) In the March 2024 NODA, DOE noted that these devices constitute a performance-related feature that justifies a higher standard. DOE sought comment in the March 2024 NODA on the MDEC allowances for the specified electricity-consuming devices. 89 FR 18555, 18559. DOE discusses comments received regarding the MDEC allowances in section IV.C.1.c of this document.

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the approach outlined in the updated analysis from the March 2024 NODA, that lighting, anti-sweat heat for viewing windows, digital temperature displays with or without alarms, and heated pressure-relief vents constitute performance-related features that justify a higher MDEC standard. Each equipment class of non-display doors is being further subdivided based on whether each electricity-consuming device is present or not present. DOE analyzed the equipment classes listed in Table IV.2 for walk-in non-display doors. DOE further evaluated the MDEC allowances for classes of non-display doors with lighting, anti-sweat heat for viewing windows, digital temperature displays with or without alarms, and/or heated pressure relief vents.

ER23DE24.018

DOE discusses representative units, baseline assumptions for representative unit efficiency, and design options analyzed at higher efficiency levels for walk-in non-display doors in section IV.C.1.c of this document. DOE discusses MDEC allowances and the comments received in response to the March 2024 NODA regarding the MDEC allowances in section IV.C.1.c of this document.

b. Panels

DOE's existing standards for walk-in panels apply to three equipment classes that are differentiated by whether they are structural (also referred to as “wall or ceiling panels”) or floor panels. Structural panels are further separated

by temperature condition (

i.e.,

cooler or freezer). DOE's analysis for the June 2014 Final Rule determined that, unlike walk-in freezers, the majority of walk-in coolers have concrete floors and no insulated floor panels. DOE expected that setting an R-value requirement for walk-in cooler floor panels would cause manufacturers to stop selling cooler floor panels to avoid the certification burden. Thus, DOE did not adopt insulation R-value standards for walk-in cooler floors. 79 FR 32050, 32067. DOE's re-evaluation of the market for this rulemaking suggests that the walk-in cooler floor panel market has not changed substantially since the June 2014 Final Rule. Therefore, DOE has excluded walk-in cooler floor panels from this rulemaking.

DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for the following walk-in panel classes (10 CFR 431.306(a)):

• Structural Panel, Medium-Temperature

• Structural Panel, Low-Temperature

• Floor Panel, Low-Temperature

DOE has not established energy conservation standards for display panels because they make up a small percentage of the panel market; therefore, standards would not result in significant energy savings without incurring disproportionate costs. 79 FR 32050, 32067. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed maintaining the current panel equipment classes. 88 FR 60746, 60761-60762. DOE received no comment regarding panel equipment classes in response to the September 2023 NOPR. As such, DOE is maintaining its current equipment classes for walk-in panels. Table IV.3 summarizes the equipment classes for walk-in panels.

ER23DE24.019

c. Refrigeration Systems

DOE's existing standards for walk-in refrigeration systems apply to nine equipment classes, differentiated by whether they are unit coolers or dedicated condensing systems and by temperature (

i.e.,

whether they are a cooler or freezer). A “dedicated condensing system” means a dedicated condensing unit, a single-packaged dedicated system, or a matched refrigeration system. (

See

10 CFR 431.302.) Dedicated condensing systems are further differentiated by their installation location (

i.e.,

indoor or outdoor). Low-temperature dedicated condensing systems and unit cooler equipment classes are further differentiated by net capacity. DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for the following walk-in refrigeration system classes (10 CFR 431.306(e)):

• Dedicated Condensing System, Medium-Temperature, Indoor

• Dedicated Condensing System, Medium-Temperature, Outdoor

• Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Indoor, Net Capacity of less than 6,500 Btu/h

• Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Indoor, Net Capacity of greater than or equal to 6,500 Btu/h

• Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Outdoor, Net Capacity of less than 6,500 Btu/h

• Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Outdoor, Net Capacity of greater than or equal to 6,500 Btu/h

• Unit Cooler, Medium-Temperature

• Unit Cooler, Low-Temperature, Net Capacity of less than 15,500 Btu/h, and

• Unit Cooler, Low-Temperature, Net Capacity of greater than or equal to 15,500 Btu/h.

Single-packaged dedicated systems, which are dedicated condensing systems with a combined condensing unit and unit cooler, were not evaluated separately from dedicated condensing units and matched refrigeration systems in the previous rulemaking. New test procedure provisions in appendix C1 require specific test methods for single-packaged dedicated systems that measure the inherent thermal losses of such systems. These thermal losses reduce the capacity and therefore the efficiency of single-packaged dedicated systems.

As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, in general, DOE has separated packaged equipment from split dedicated condensing systems,

as packaged equipment provides consumers with more options for space-constrained applications. Single-packaged dedicated systems have both the cold and hot sides connected within the packaged framework and the cold side is exposed to the outside, which increases the losses associated with the thermal loads. Single-packaged dedicated systems are constrained by the overall dimensions and weight limitations of the equipment; therefore, manufacturers cannot employ the same technologies, such as increased heat exchanger sizes. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that single-packaged system and split system walk-in refrigeration systems cannot be combined into the same equipment class because single-packaged systems provide consumers with more options for space-constrained applications and inherent differences in system design between packaged systems and split systems limit the efficiency of the former. For these reasons, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE evaluated single-packaged dedicated systems separately from split systems. 88 FR 60746, 60762-60763.

Split dedicated condensing systems or split systems refer to any dedicated condensing system that is made up of a unit cooler and a remote dedicated condensing unit. The systems are split because the unit cooler and dedicated condensing unit are not in the same package.

DOE did not receive any comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR or March 2024 NODA regarding its separation of equipment classes for single-packaged dedicated systems and split systems. Further, DOE maintains its conclusion that separate equipment classes are warranted for single-packaged dedicated systems and split systems. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE maintained a separate analysis for single-packaged dedicated systems and split systems equipment classes.

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE defined a high-temperature refrigeration system as a walk-in refrigeration system that is not designed to operate below 45 °F. 88 FR 28780, 28789. DOE established a test procedure for high-temperature unit coolers, matched refrigeration systems, and single-

packaged dedicated condensing systems, but did not establish a test procedure in the May 2023 TP Final Rule for high-temperature dedicated condensing units tested alone. 88 FR 28780, 28816-28817. As such, DOE did not analyze high-temperature dedicated condensing units as an equipment class, but did analyze high-temperature unit coolers, matched refrigeration systems, and single-packaged dedicated condensing systems in the September 2023 NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60762-60763.

High-temperature units are generally smaller capacity than medium-temperature units and therefore contain small-capacity compressors, which DOE has found to be less efficient. Additionally, some high-temperature units are either sold in ducted or non-ducted configurations, dependent on the configuration of the walk-in box and surrounding space. Ducting adds flexibility to the installation location and removes refrigeration equipment from the refrigerated storage space. However, ducting imposes a higher external static pressure on the system's fans and therefore, a ducted system has greater energy consumption to maintain the same or sufficient airflow (and sufficient cooling capacity) as a system without ducting. DOE tentatively concluded ducting of high-temperature units constitutes a performance-related feature. Therefore, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE evaluated high-temperature ducted and non-ducted units as separate equipment classes.

Id.

For the September 2023 NOPR, different from the treatment of medium-temperature and low-temperature matched refrigeration systems and single-packaged dedicated systems, DOE evaluated high-temperature matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-packaged dedicated systems as a single equipment class because the temperature difference between the refrigerated and ambient spaces for high-temperature refrigeration systems is less than the temperature difference for medium- and low-temperature systems. Therefore, thermal losses have less impact for high-temperature systems. This means that the difference in performance between high-temperature matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-packaged dedicated systems is much less than the performance difference expected between medium- or low-temperature matched refrigeration systems and medium- or low-temperature single-packaged dedicated systems. Because of the expected similarity in performance, DOE tentatively determined that a single class of equipment encompassing high-temperature matched refrigeration systems and single-packaged dedicated systems is appropriate. In its September 2023 NOPR analysis of high-temperature refrigeration units, DOE focused on single-packaged dedicated systems since this is where most of the shipments are concentrated for the high-temperature market.

Id.

DOE did not receive any comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR or March 2024 NODA regarding its selection of high-temperature refrigeration system equipment classes. Further, DOE maintains its conclusions that the high-temperature refrigeration system classes proposed in the September 2023 NOPR are appropriate. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE maintained the high-temperature equipment classes analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR.

DOE analyzed and is establishing the equipment classes for refrigeration systems for this final rule presented in Table IV.4.

BILLING CODE 6410-01-P

ER23DE24.020

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE evaluated multiple capacities in each equipment class to better ascertain the relationship between efficiency and net capacity. In this final rule, DOE maintained the same approach and evaluated multiple capacities in each equipment class. This is discussed in more detail in the Representative Units subsection of section IV.C.1.e of this document.

2. Technology Options

DOE considered separate technology options for whole walk-ins, doors and panels, and refrigeration systems.

a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins

Although DOE has set standards for walk-in components (

i.e.,

panels, doors, and refrigeration systems) rather than fully assembled walk-ins, EPCA gives DOE authority to establish standards that address fully assembled walk-ins. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)). Hence, DOE has considered technologies that could be relevant for fully assembled walk-ins in its technology assessment. In the market analysis and technology assessment presented in chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD and in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE identified seven technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of a fully assembled walk-in (

i.e.,

wall, ceiling and floor panels, door(s), and refrigeration system(s)) but would not apply specifically to any of the components analyzed in this rulemaking:

(1) Energy storage systems,

(2) Refrigeration system override,

(3) Automatic evaporator fan shut-off,

(4) Non-penetrative internal racks and shelving,

(5) Humidity sensors,

(6) Fiber optic natural lighting, and

(7) Heat reclaim valve.

DOE received no comments on the technology options that might improve the efficiency of whole walk-ins in response to the September 2023 NOPR. DOE maintained the same technology options for whole walk-ins for this final rule analysis. DOE further discusses these technology options in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.

b. Doors and Panels

In the NOPR market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 15 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of doors and/or panels, as measured by the DOE test procedure. The technology options analyzed for doors in the September 2023 NOPR are listed in Table IV.5.

ER23DE24.021

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C

DOE received comments regarding several of the technology options pertaining to the screening or use of these technology options in the engineering analysis in response to the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA. DOE summarizes those comments and addresses them further in sections IV.B and IV.C of this document.

DOE did not receive any comments suggesting that specific new technology options for doors and panels be considered; therefore, DOE is considering the same technology options for doors and panels in this final rule that it considered in the September 2023 NOPR.

c. Refrigeration Systems

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE identified 17 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of refrigeration systems,

1. Improved evaporator and condenser fan blades,

2. Improved evaporator and condenser coils,

3. Evaporator fan control,

4. Oil management systems,

5. Hydrocarbon refrigerants,

Hydrocarbon refrigerants were not listed as a technology option in the September 2023 NOPR notice. 88 FR 60746, 60764-60765. However, they were listed as a technology option on p. 3-41 of chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD and considered in the September 2023 NOPR analysis as a design option to improve AWEF2 of certain refrigeration system representative units.

6. Ambient subcooling,

7. Higher efficiency fan motors,

8. Higher efficiency compressors,

9. Variable-speed compressors,

10. Liquid suction heat exchanger,

11. Adaptive defrost,

12. Hot gas defrost,

13. Floating head pressure,

14. Variable-speed condenser fan control,

15. Economizer cooling,

16. Crankcase heater controls, and

17. Improved thermal insulation for single-packaged dedicated systems.

88 FR 60746, 60764-60765.

Regarding the technology options analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider additional design options in its analysis that could justify even more cost-effective savings for TSL 2, specifically evaporator fin density, two-speed condenser fan modulation, more-efficient single-speed compressors, electronic expansion valves, and efficiency improvements to condensate pan heating. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at p. 1) Similarly, ASAP

et al.

recommended that DOE consider electronic expansion valves (“EEVs”) as a design option for outdoor refrigeration systems. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 77 at pp. 2-3)

DOE notes that evaporator fin density and more-efficient single-speed compressors were considered as technology options in the September 2023 NOPR as a part of improved evaporator coils and higher efficiency compressors, respectively.

See

sections 3.3.7.2 and 3.3.8.3 of chapter 3 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. In response to these recommendations, DOE considered two-speed condenser fan controls, EEVs, and condensate pan heating controls as technology options for this final rule analysis. In response to comments submitted on the September 2023 NOPR, DOE also evaluated more efficient single-speed compressors in the March 2024 NODA. 89 FR 18555, 18560-18561. A more detailed discussion of additional comments submitted in response to the technology and design options analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA is included in section IV.B.1.c and the Design Options subsection of sections IV.C.1.e and IV.C.1.f of this document.

B. Screening Analysis

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

(1) Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial equipment 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 equipment 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 equipment to subgroups of consumers, or results in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4) Safety of technologies.

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

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

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

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).

In sum, 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 criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins

In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and September 2023 NOPR, DOE screened out the following technology options u

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.