# Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-17625

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** July 20, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 37388

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM-93-801]

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Proposed
Rulemaking Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) is to
provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on this proposal
amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and to invite interested persons
to participate in the appliance energy conservation standards
rulemaking process.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by the
Department by October 3, 1995. The Department requests 10 copies of the
written comments and, if possible, a computer disk.
Oral views, data, and arguments may be presented at the public
hearing to be held in Washington, DC, on September 12 and 13, 1995.
Requests to speak at

[[Page 37389]]
the hearing must be received by the Department by 4 p.m., August 25,
1995. Ten copies of statements to be given at the public hearing must
be received by the Department by 4 p.m., September 1, 1995.
The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m., on September 12 and 13, 1995,
and will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building,
Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. The
length of each presentation is limited to 20 minutes.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, oral statements, requests to speak at the
hearing and requests for speaker lists are to be submitted to:
Refrigerator Rulemaking (Docket No. EE-RM-93-801), U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Codes and Standards, Appliance Division, EE-431, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Rm 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
7574.
Copies of the Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency
Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers,
and Freezers (TSD) may be obtained from: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Codes and Standards, Appliance Division, EE-431, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Rm 1J-018, Washington, D.C. 20585. (202)
586-9127.
Copies of the TSD, transcript of the public hearing and public
comments received may be read at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading
Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6020 between
the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. For more information concerning public participation in this
rulemaking proceeding see Section VI, ``Public Comment Procedures,'' of
this NOPR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward O. Pollock Jr., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-
431, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
5778.
Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. General Discussion
A. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
B. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
2. Life-cycle Costs
3. Energy Savings
a. Determination of Savings
b. Significance of Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
6. Need of The Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
C. Rebuttable Presumption
III. Discussion of Comments
A. General Analytical Comments
1. Discount Rates
a. Consumer Discount Rates
b. Manufacturer Discount Rate
c. Social Discount Rate
2. Appliance Lifetimes
3. Methodology
a. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model
b. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Manufacturer Impact Model/
Government Impact Model
c. Demand Functions
d. Data Sources
4. Cost Pass-Through
5. Small Firms
6. Multiple Standards
7. External Costs and Benefits
8. Manufacturability
B. Product Specific Comments
1. Classes
a. Compacts
b. HCFC-Free
2. Design Options
3. Other Comments
a. Uncertainty Inherent in Data
b. Simulation Model
c. CFC Phaseout
4. Standards Proposed in the Joint Comments
(Table 1: Standards Proposed in the Joint Comments)
a. Full Sized Refrigerator-Freezers
b. Compact Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
c. Household Freezers
d. Manual/Partial Defrost Refrigerators and Refrigerator-
Freezers
e. Non-HCFC Products
IV. Analysis
A. Engineering-Technical Issues
1. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
(Table 2: Annual Energy Usage for Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers at Maximum Technologically
Feasible Levels and Table 3: Standard Levels Analyzed for
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers--Annual Energy
Use (kwh/yr))
2. Payback Period
(Table 4: Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for
Representative Class of Refrigerator-Freezer)
3. Significance of Energy Savings
B. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
2. Life-cycle Cost and Net Present Value (NPV)
3. Energy Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Save Energy
C. Conclusion
1. Product Classes
a. Compact Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers
b. HCFC-Free Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and
Freezers
2. Standards
a. Standards Level 4
b. Standards Level 3
c. Standards Level 2
d. Standards Level 1
3. Effective Dates
V. Environmental, Regulatory Impact, Takings Assessment, Federalism
and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews
A. Environmental Review
B. Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Regulatory Flexibility Review Act
D. Federalism Review
E. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
F. Paperwork Reduction Act Review
VI. Public Comment Procedures
A. Participation in Rulemaking
B. Written Comment Procedures
C. Public Hearing
1. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
2. Conduct of Hearing
D. Issues for Comment
Appendices
I. Acronyms and Abbreviations

I. Introduction

A. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, by the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. 100-357, and by the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486,1 created the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. The
consumer products subject to this program are called ``covered
products.'' The residential covered products are: Refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers and freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; water
heaters; central air conditioners

[[Page 37390]]
and central air-conditioning heat pumps; furnaces; direct heating
equipment; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers;
room air conditioners; and pool heaters. The Act specifies that other
consumer products may be classified as covered products by the
Secretary of Energy. To date, the Secretary has not so classified any
additional products.

\1\ Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 and the Energy Policy Act of
1992, is referred to in this notice as the ``Act.'' Part B of Title
III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. Part B of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act only, is referred to in this notice
as the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.
DOE published a final rule amending standards established by NAECA
for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (refrigerator
products) on November 17, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as the 1989
Final Rule). 54 FR 47916. The Act directs DOE to review the 1989 Final
Rule for possible amendment and to issue final rules based on that
review no later than November 17, 1994.
B. Background
As directed by the Act, DOE published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Advance Notice)
proposing standards for refrigerator products, as well as other
products, on September 8, 1993. 58 FR 47326. The 1993 Advance Notice
presented the product classes that DOE planned to analyze, and provided
a detailed discussion of the analytical methodology and models that the
Department expected to use in doing the analysis to support this
rulemaking. The Department invited comments and data on the accuracy
and feasibility of the planned methodology and encouraged interested
persons to recommend improvements or alternatives to the approach taken
by DOE. The original comment period on the 1993 Advance Notice was
extended to February 7, 1994, in response to a request from the Gas
Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (ARI), and the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM). 58 FR 59418 (November 9, 1993).
This NOPR addresses only the refrigerator products covered by the
1993 Advance Notice. The 1989 Final Rule divided the refrigerator
products into 10 classes based on various characteristics (e.g.,
freezer location). This NOPR proposes new classes for eight different
compact refrigerator configurations and 18 new classes for those
refrigerator products which are free of HCFCs. A complete list of the
proposed classes and the proposed standards for each class is found in
the table at the end of this NOPR.
The comments to the 1993 Advance Notice are addressed in Section
III below. The last comment to be received was the ``Joint Comments of
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
the New York State Energy Office, the California Energy Commission,
Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison Relating to
Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerator/Freezers.'' (Hereinafter
referred to as the ``Joint Comments.'') 2 This group of
refrigerator manufacturers, electric utilities, and energy conservation
advocates, acting on its own initiative, negotiated intensively for 2
years to develop a common recommendation for an energy conservation
standard that meets the NAECA requirements for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers and freezers. Although DOE neither organized nor
was a member of the group, DOE responded to group requests to send DOE
staff observers to some meetings and to make available its contractors
to perform data processing. Without prior commitment to accept the
negotiated conclusions, the Department has been receptive to this group
effort to reach agreement among representatives of industry, consumers
and environmentalists. The resulting joint comments have been very
valuable to the Department's review of this issue. The Joint Comments
contains important data and analyses for the Department to consider,
and realistic recommendations.

\2\ The Department considered the Joint Comments to supersede
earlier comments by the listed parties regarding issues subsequently
discussed in the Joint Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. General Discussion

A. Technological Feasibility

1. General. For those products and classes of products discussed in
today's NOPR, DOE believes that the efficiency levels analyzed, while
not necessarily being realized in current production, are
technologically possible. The technological feasibility of the design
options is addressed in the product-specific discussion. The criteria
used by the Department for evaluating design options for technological
feasibility are that the design options are already in use by the
industry, or that research has progressed to the likely development of
a prototype.
a. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels. The Act requires the
Department, in considering any new or amended standard, to consider the
standard that is ``designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified.'' EPCA, section 325(o)(2)(A), 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). Accordingly, for each class of product under
consideration in this rulemaking, a maximum technologically feasible
design option (``max tech'') was identified. The max tech level is one
that can be achieved by the addition of energy conserving design
options to the baseline units.3 DOE believes that in identifying
the max tech level a unit can be assembled, but not necessarily
manufactured, by the effective date of the amended standards. The
ability to manufacture is considered under the economic justification
analysis. For example, in the 1989 Final Rule, DOE concluded that
evacuated panels for refrigerators were a technically feasible design
option because refrigerators had been produced on a limited scale with
this technology. However, DOE concluded that this technology was not
economically justified because the chemical industry probably could not
provide sufficient quantities of the necessary raw materials by the
effective date of the standard.

\3\ The baseline unit is the most commonly used combination of
engineering design options which are found in appliances that meet
the existing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The max tech levels were derived by adding energy-conserving
engineering design options for each of the respective classes in order
of decreasing consumer payback. A brief discussion of the max tech
level for each class analyzed is found in the ``Analysis'' section of
this NOPR. A complete discussion of each max tech level, and the design
options included in each, is found in the Engineering Analysis. (See
TSD, Chapter 3.)

B. Economic Justification

The Act provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining
whether a conservation standard is economically justified. EPCA,
section 325(o)(2)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i).
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers. The engineering
analysis identified options for improvement in efficiency along with
the associated costs to manufacturers for each class of product. For
each design option, these costs constitute the increased per-unit cost
to manufacturers to achieve the indicated energy efficiency levels.
Manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer markups will result in a
consumer purchase price higher than the manufacturer cost.
To assess the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers, and to
determine the effects of standards on different-sized firms, the
Department used a computer model that simulates

[[Page 37391]]
hypothetical firms in the industry under consideration. This model, the
Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM), is explained in the TSD. (See TSD,
Appendix C.) The Manufacturer Analysis Model consists of version 1.2,
dated March 1, 1993, of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)
which has been integrated into the earlier Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
(LBL) Manufacturer Impact Model (LBL-MIM). The GRIM model was developed
by Arthur D. Little Consulting Company (ADL) under contract to AHAM,
GAMA, and ARI. It provides a broad array of outputs, including
shipments, price, revenue, net income, and short- and long-run returns
on equity. An ``Output Table'' lists values for all these outputs in
the base case and in each of the standards cases under consideration.
It also gives a range for each of these estimates. The base case
represents the forecasts of outputs without new or amended standards. A
``Sensitivity Chart'' (TSD, Appendix C) shows how returns on equity
would be affected by a change in any one of the nine control variables
of the model.
For consumers, measures of economic impact are the changes in
purchase price and annual energy expense. The purchase price and energy
expense, i.e., life-cycle cost, of each standard level are presented in
Chapter 4 of the TSD. Under section 325 of EPCA, the life-cycle cost
analysis is a separate factor to be considered in determining economic
justification.
2. Life-cycle Costs. One measure of the effect of proposed
standards on consumers is the change in operating expense and purchase
price resulting from the new standards. For the average consumer, this
is quantified by the difference in the life-cycle costs between the
base and standards cases for the refrigerator classes analyzed. The
life-cycle cost is the sum of the purchase price and the operating
expense, including installation and maintenance expenditures,
discounted over the lifetime of the appliance.
The life-cycle cost was calculated for the range of efficiencies in
the Engineering Analysis for each class in the year standards are
imposed, using a real consumer discount rate of 6 percent. The purchase
price is based on the factory costs in the Engineering Analysis and
includes a factory markup plus a distributor and retailer markup.
Energy price forecasts are taken from the 1994 Annual Energy Outlook of
the Energy Information Administration. (DOE/EIA-0383(94)). In the
analysis for the final rule, energy price forecasts included in the
most recent Annual Energy Outlook will be used. Appliance usage inputs
are taken from the relevant test procedures.
3. Energy Savings. The Act requires DOE to consider the total
projected energy savings that result from revised standards. The
Department used the LBL Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM) results in
its consideration of total projected savings. The savings for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers are provided in the
``Analysis'' section of this NOPR, supra.
a. Determination of Savings. The Department forecasts energy
consumption by using the LBL-REM, which forecasts energy consumption
over the period of analysis for candidate standards and the base case.
The Department quantified the energy savings that would be attributable
to a standard as the difference in energy consumption between the
candidate standard and the base case.
The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model was used
by DOE in previous standards rulemakings. (See TSD, Appendix B for a
detailed discussion of the LBL-REM.) The LBL-REM contains algorithms to
project average efficiencies, usage behavior, and market shares for
each product. Long-term market share elasticities have been assumed
with respect to equipment price, operating expense, and income. The
effects of standards are expected to be lower operating expense and
increased equipment price. The percentage changes in these quantities
and the elasticities are used to determine changes in sales volumes
resulting from standards. Higher equipment prices will decrease, and
lower operating expenses will increase sales volumes. The net result
depends on the standard level selected and its associated equipment
prices and operating expenses.
The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model is used
to project energy use over the relevant periods for refrigerator
products with and without amended standards. The Department estimated
the projected energy savings during the period 1998-2030 4, by
comparing the energy consumption projections at alternative standard
levels against the projections at current standards which is the base
case. The energy saved is expressed in quads, i.e., quadrillions of
British thermal units (Btu), and exajoules (EJ). With respect to
electricity, the savings are quads of source or primary energy, which
is the energy necessary to generate and transmit electricity. From data
that remain rather constant over the years, the amount of electrical
energy consumed at the site is less than one-third of the amount of
source energy required to generate and transmit the electrical energy
to the site.5

\4\ The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model
was programmed to analyze a single standard level or alternate
standard levels over the entire period. That is, the fact that a
standard might be revised during subsequent rulemakings was not
considered by the model. The Department believes that it is not
possible to predict what result such reviews may have, and therefore
it would be speculative to model any particular result. Therefore,
for purposes of this rulemaking, each standard level that was
analyzed was projected to have been in place from the time of
implementation to the year 2030.
\5\ Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual
1987, Tables 25 and 82, DOE/EIA-0348(87), 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model
projections are dependent on many assumptions. Among the most important
are the responsiveness of household appliance purchasers to changes in
residential energy prices and consumer income, future energy prices,
future levels of housing construction, and options that exist for
improving the energy efficiency of appliances.
b. Significance of Savings. Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act,
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B), the Department is prohibited from adopting a
standard for a product if that standard would not result in
``significant conservation of energy.'' While the term ``significant''
is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that
Congress intended the word ``significant'' to mean ``non-trivial.''
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373
(D.C. Cir. 1985).
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products. In establishing
classes of products and design options, the Department tried to
eliminate any degradation of utility or performance in the products
under consideration in this rulemaking. That is, to the extent that
comments or research showed that a product included a utility or
performance-related feature that affected energy efficiency, a separate
class with a different efficiency standard was created for that
product. In this way, the Department attempted to minimize any
lessening of utility or performance resulting from amended standards.
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition. The Act directs the
Department to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to
result from the standards. It further directs the Attorney General to
gauge the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition.
To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, the
Department studied the affected appliance industries to determine their

[[Page 37392]]
existing concentrations, levels of competitiveness, and financial
performances. This information will be sent to the Attorney General.
(See TSD, Chapter 6.) The Department also will give the Attorney
General copies of this NOPR and the TSD for review.
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy. The estimated energy
security and environmental effects from each standard level for each
class is reported under this factor in the Product Specific Discussion
(Section IV. B. 6) of this NOPR.
7. Other Factors. This provision allows the Secretary of Energy, in
determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider
any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant.
Each efficiency level was evaluated according to the economic
justification factors specified in the Act to determine economic
justification. The Department rejected energy conservation standards
for which the burdens outweighed the benefits (e.g., savings in
operating costs were outweighed by significant increases in first costs
and substantially adverse effects on manufacturers' returns on equity).

C. Rebuttable Presumption

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6925 (o)(2)(B)(iii),
states:

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, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such
standard level is economically justified. A determination by the
Secretary that such criterion is not met shall not be taken into
consideration in the Secretary's determination of whether a standard
is economically justified.

If the increase in initial price of an appliance due to a
conservation standard would repay itself to the consumer in energy
savings in less than 3 years, then it is presumed that such standard is
economically justified.6 This presumption of economic
justification can be rebutted upon a proper showing.

\6\ For this calculation, the Department calculated cost-of-
operation based on the DOE test procedures. Therefore, the consumer
is assumed to be an ``average'' consumer as defined by the DOE test
procedures. Consumers that use the products less than the test
procedure assumes will experience a longer payback while those that
use them more than the test procedure assumes will have a shorter
payback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

The Department received 49 written comments in response to the 1993
Advance Notice.7 This section addresses the general analytical
issues raised by the comments, and then addresses the product-specific
issues.

\7\ Comments on the ANOPR have been assigned docket numbers and
have been numbered consecutively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Analytical Comments
1. Discount Rates. The proposals of the Department concerning the
appropriate discount rates to use in the analysis of the standards drew
more comments than any other issue.
In view of the apparent differences in the cost of financing,
average rate of return on investments and the time value of money among
various categories of consumers, and between consumers, manufacturers
and society as a whole, the Department proposed to use different
discount rates for the consumer life-cycle cost analysis, the
manufacturer impact analysis, and net national benefits calculation,
with sensitivity analyses designed to describe the range of impact.
Based on the comments received, the Department has made some
modifications in this proposal, but has retained the specification of
different discount rates for different types of impact analyses and the
use of sensitivity analyses.
a. Consumer Discount Rate. In the 1989 Final Rule, DOE used a 7
percent discount rate, based on the range of real financing rates
experienced by consumers. At the time, rates ranged from less than 1
percent to slightly more than 15 percent. DOE selected 7 percent
because it was near the midpoint of the potential consumer discount
rates.
In its comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Energy Conservation Standards for Nine Products (55 FR 39624, 39631,
September 28, 1990), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) offered
estimates of the percentages of appliance purchasers that used
different types of financing: 40 percent of retail purchasers pay in
cash; 35 percent use credit cards; 25 percent use retailer loans. These
figures excluded new home construction, which accounts for
approximately 25 percent of Whirlpool's total sales. (Whirlpool, No. 31
at 1-2).
These percentage shares were used to weight the different real
finance rates experienced by consumers: Just over 3 percent for
appliances purchased as part of a new home (whose finance rate is a
tax-deductible mortgage interest rate), to slightly less than 1 percent
for cash purchases, to more than 15 percent for credit card purchases.
As a result, the weighted-average, real finance rate experienced by
consumers was estimated to be 6 percent. In the 1993 Advance Notice to
this proposed rulemaking, the Department stated that it believed that
the average consumer rate was between 4 and 10 percent and that it
intended to perform sensitivity analyses using this range. DOE
specifically solicited comments on a range of issues concerning
consumer discount rates: Including the usefulness of the Whirlpool
data, the methods used to finance retail purchases, the possible use of
data on rates of return required by consumers, the possible use of data
on the implicit discount rates revealed by consumer purchasing
decisions, and the extent to which the special requirements of low-
income consumers should be taken into account.
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
supported this weighted-average approach using the Whirlpool data.
However, ACEEE and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) both
stated that consumer discount rates based upon how appliances are
actually purchased may represent constrained choices or choices of
convenience; for example, consumers who pay off credit card balances
early, or default on their payments, are not counted correctly. (ACEEE,
No. 50 at 1, 2 and NRDC, No. 18 at 24).
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy also stated
that higher discount rates should not be used for low-income
households. Low-income households are particularly prone to market
failures (e.g., many low-income households live in rental housing where
landlords purchase the refrigerator-freezers, and tenants pay the
operating costs) but receive benefits equal to those for all other
households from higher standards. (ACEEE, No. 50 at 1, 2).
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) argued that implicit discount
rates estimated through an examination of actual consumer purchases of
appliances and related consumer equipment is the most appropriate basis
for the consumer discount rate used under this program. (EEI, No. 35 at
4). On the other hand, NRDC and ACEEE supported the Department proposal
not to use implicit discount rates in the analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of potential minimum efficiency standards. (ACEEE, No. 50
at 1,2, and NRDC, No. 8 at 24).
DOE has further investigated various indicators of the opportunity
costs that consumers purchasing appliances might experience. For
example, the average real rate of return on residential property during
the 1980s varied

[[Page 37393]]
between 3.6 and 4.5 percent annually. The annual real rate of return
(nonfinancial) on corporate stocks during this period varied from 5.9
to 8.8 percent, but was generally less than this for nearly all other
forms of investment readily available to consumers. DOE believes such
opportunity costs are relevant indicators of the appropriate discount
rates for consumers with significant personal savings or investments.
For consumers with little or no personal savings, DOE believes that
the costs of credit-card financing and the willingness of consumers to
forego current consumption in favor of future savings should be taken
into account. According to the data derived from a 1992 Survey of
Consumer Finances performed by the National Opinion Research Center for
the Federal Reserve Bank, 30 percent of all U.S. households have less
than $500 in savings, checking and money market accounts, or have no
such account. Also, according to the survey, 13 percent of all U.S.
households have a net worth of less than $1000. These two survey
results suggest that many households may be forced, because of their
financial circumstances, to finance any increased appliance costs
resulting from efficiency standards through credit cards or other high
interest sources of financing, or by reducing (or postponing) their
current consumption of goods and services. Limited empirical research
8 suggests that low-income households exhibit higher-than-average
discount rates (i.e., required rates of return or time values of money)
across all of their time-sensitive decisions, including (but not
limited to) their appliance purchases. Real credit-card financing rates
remain above 10 percent for most consumers.

\8\ Train, Kenneth, Discount Rates in Consumers' Energy-Related
Decisions: A Review of the Literature; Energy, December 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department continues to believe that appropriately weighted,
real financing rates are a useful indicator of consumer discount rates,
although it recognizes that there are considerable limitations to the
data concerning consumer financing provided by Whirlpool.
Regarding implicit discount rates, various studies have shown that
they range from as low as 3 percent to as high as 100 percent (or more)
for certain appliances. However, because implicit discount rates are
based on actual consumer purchase behavior, they also reflect the
extent to which there are market failures, such as inadequate
information, conflicting owner/renter incentives, and second party
(builder/contractor) purchases that inhibit consumers from making
energy efficiency investments they would otherwise consider to be
worthwhile. One major reason Federal appliance efficiency standards
were originally established was to overcome these market failures
regarding investment in energy efficiency.
For these reasons, DOE does not believe unadjusted (i.e., not
corrected for potential biases) discount rates derived from actual
consumer behavior should be used in evaluating the economic impact of
proposed standards on consumers. DOE believes the intent of the
legislation that established the appliance standards program is to
achieve energy savings which are being foregone because of market
failures that hinder or discourage consumer investments in energy
efficiency. This conclusion is supported by the findings of the
District Court in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768
F. 2d 1355, 1406-07 (D.C. Cir. 1985), where the court stated that ``the
entire point of a mandatory program was to change consumer behavior''
and ``the fact that consumers demand short payback periods was itself a
major cause of the market failure that Congress hoped to correct.''
Based on the comments received and the further investigation of
issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Energy
Conservation Standards for Eight Products (59 FR 10464, 10532, March 4,
1994), the Department has concluded that a 6 percent discount rate is
an appropriate mid-range estimate of the ranges of real financing
rates, opportunity costs and time values of money experienced or
exhibited by residential consumers. However, because of the
considerable variability among different categories of consumers, the
Department intends to place increased emphasis on assessing the
sensitivity of the life-cycle cost analyses to the use of low (2
percent) and high (15 percent) discount rates.
b. Manufacturer Discount Rate. The real discount rate used to
assess the impacts of the proposed refrigerator standards on
manufacturers is 12 percent. It is the discount rate used to calculate
the net present value of the series of estimated net cash flows
expected to be experienced by industry, as calculated by the GRIM
module of the MAM.
The Manufacturer Analysis Model also uses a ``market discount
rate'' for forecasting the impact of standards on future appliance
sales, as distinct from the 12 percent rate used to calculate industry
net present values. This implicit market rate is a higher rate derived
from empirical analysis of historical efficiency choice decisions, and
is used as an indicator of the extent to which consumers implicitly
value operating costs compared with first costs.
c. Social Discount Rate. In identifying a discount rate that is
appropriate for use in calculating benefits to the Nation as a whole,
the Department considered the opportunity costs of devoting more
economic resources to the production and purchase of more energy-
efficient appliances and fewer national resources to other types of
investment. Since differentiating among specific classes of consumers
or businesses is not necessary, the Department considered a broad
measure of the average rates of return earned by economic investment
throughout the U.S. to be an appropriate basis for the social discount
rate.
Using this approach, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
prepared a Background on OMB's Discount Rate Guidance in November of
1992, containing an analysis of the average annual real rate of return
earned on investments made since 1960 in nonfinancial corporations,
noncorporate farm and nonfarm proprietorships, and owner-occupied
housing in the U.S. The results of this analysis showed that since
1980, the annual real rate of return for these categories of
investments averaged slightly more than 7 percent, ranging from a low
of about 4 percent for owner-occupied housing (which represented about
43 percent of total capital assets in 1991 of about $15 trillion) to a
high of about 9 percent on noncorporate farm and nonfarm capital (which
represented about 23 percent of the total). Between 1960 and 1980, the
average real rate of return on capital was higher, averaging about 8.5
percent in the 1970s and about 11.2 percent in the 1960s. Because of
this analysis, OMB chose to designate 7 percent as the social discount
rate specified in revisions to OMB Circular A-94 issued on November 10,
1992, 57 FR 53519.
Because the Department believes the methods and data used by OMB to
develop this guidance are appropriate bases for a social discount rate,
the 1993 Advance Notice to this proposed rule said that it was the
intent of the Department to use 7 percent as the discount rate in the
calculation of the net national benefits and costs of the proposed
standards.
The New York State Energy Office (NYSEO) stated that the average
rate of 7 percent for the societal perspective is too high and
suggested an average rate of 3 to 4 percent real, based upon current
30-year U.S. Treasury bond interest rates. (NYSEO, No. 26 at 17-19).

[[Page 37394]]
The Natural Resources Defense Council stated that, in principle,
societal discount rates should be lower than consumer discount rates,
but that it cannot quantify the difference. It also stated real
discount rates should be based upon long-term (hundred-year) averages,
which are in the range of 0 to 5 percent. (NRDC, No. 18 at 11).
Because the proposed appliance efficiency standards will primarily
affect private, rather than public, investment, the Department
continues to believe that using the average real rate of return on
private investment as the basis for the social discount rate is most
appropriate. If the primary impact of the standards were on Federal or
other public expenditures, DOE agrees that real interest rates on long
term government securities would likely be a better basis.
The Department disagrees with the contention that the average
social discount rate should necessarily be lower than the average
consumer discount rates, although it agrees that social rates are often
lower than those experienced by many consumers and businesses. The
increased risk faced by individual consumers or businesses is one
reason many believe social discount rates should be lower. The
Department believes that taking into account such variation in risk in
determining the appropriate social, consumer, or other discount rate is
inappropriate.
For these reasons, DOE proposes to continue to use a 7 percent
social discount rate in national net present value calculations. The
Department has performed sensitivity analyses at 4 and 10 percent and
finds that while the social discount rate used has a significant impact
on the estimated national net present value, there are only small
differences in the national net present value for each of the trial
standard levels being considered at any one of the three social
discount rates evaluated.
2. Appliance Lifetimes. Three comments discussed product lifetimes.
Maytag stated that the lifetime for refrigerator products should be 15
years, based on a National Family Opinion survey of first owners
carried out by AHAM. (Maytag, Transcript at 328). AHAM provided a
survey showing that lifetimes of refrigerator products at replacement
are shorter than previously assumed by the Department. (AHAM, No. 17 at
32). NRDC believes that savings should be estimated throughout the
lifetime of the appliance, not over the period that the first owner
keeps the appliance. (NRDC, No. 18 at 40).
The Act provides that the savings should be estimated throughout
the average lifetime of the appliance, not the time the first owner
keeps the appliance. EPCA, section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). The Department decided to retain the 19-year
baseline for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, based on its
study of saturations and purchases of new household refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers. The 19-year lifetime of refrigerator-freezers is
consistent with observed purchases in the marketplace since 1980. For
compacts, the Department is using the industry-supplied value of 11
years since no other data are available.
3. Methodology.
a. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model. The
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers criticized the LBL-REM as
theoretical and based upon obsolete (1970s) data. It further stated no
model does an adequate job of forecasting the price-volume effects
leading to a payback analysis. In particular, AHAM commented that
demand in the current LBL-REM refrigerator products equations does not
appear to drop fast enough with increasing prices to meet the test of
real world experience and therefore LBL-REM should not be used to
compute demand functions. It commented that more accurate results are
generated by recent empirical data rather than by theories about the
effects of regulations on demand. (AHAM, No. 17 at 22).
The Department believes that individual manufacturers observe
greater price sensitivity because they are analyzing shifts among
manufacturers, rather than a response of the entire market (total
national sales) to a market-wide price change due to standards. The
forecasting methodology used in LBL-REM has been validated by
comparison with historical shipments over the 1981-1993 time period.
b. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Manufacturer Impact Model/
Government Regulatory Impact Model. Most of the comments recommended
that the Department adopt the GRIM cash-flow model. A comparison of
GRIM and LBL-MIM, using LBL-MIM price and quantity data, has been
conducted by DOE, and the results show that differences between these
two models are small enough to be inconsequential in almost all cases.
GRIM has been incorporated into LBL-MIM to calculate the impact of
standards on industry net present values.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. submitted comments for three major industry
trade associations: AHAM, ARI, and GAMA. Arthur D. Little, Inc. stated
``there is no generally acceptable approach for forecasting annual
shipments and prices of products using quantitative models.'' Further,
ADL said that forecasting the annual shipments and prices of products
is a difficult task, but there are basic principles for addressing the
issue. (ADL, No. 19 at 3).
In order to be useful, models analyzing industry impacts must
forecast shipments and prices. While ADL may not consider any of these
approaches generally acceptable, DOE is in favor of using a
quantitative method rather than a subjective approach.
c. Demand Functions. Arthur D. Little, Inc. commented that the
Department analyses use demand functions limited to consumer demand as
a function of price, payback period, and consumer income, while
omitting nonfinancial considerations (such as utility to consumers).
(ADL, No. 19 at 3).
The Department assumes there is no difference in consumer utility
between the various design options used to meet different trial
standards levels. This is intentional because the Act does not allow
the setting of a standard that diminishes consumer utility. EPCA,
section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). It is an
issue analyzed and initially determined by the engineering analysis
before its consideration as part of a standard level. This issue is
further addressed in the discussion of the various design options
considered found later in this NOPR.
d. Data Sources. Arthur D. Little, Inc. commented that the
empirical data relating to price and consumer demand (i.e., price
elasticities of demand) were estimated in the 1970s, before ``major
changes in the actual marketplace'' and, therefore, are not reliable.
(ADL, No. 19 at 4). The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
stated that DOE should develop an acceptable approach to demand
elasticity because ``neither LBL-REM nor LBL-MIM are acceptable as
predictors of volume and price elasticities.'' (AHAM, No. 17 at 35).
The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Residential Energy Model is not a
source of volume or price elasticity. The elasticities used in the LBL-
MIM were originally estimated by the LBL-REM based on data and results
estimated in the 1970s by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).\9\ They
have been subsequently revised based on historical shipments or other
relevant information where available. DOE agrees that it

[[Page 37395]]
would be useful to have updated data for estimating elasticities and
any other information which explains major changes in the marketplace.
DOE notes that GRIM does not use such elasticities. The Department
encourages AHAM, ADL, or other parties to provide evidence about
whether the elasticities used in the analysis are reasonable, and how
they may obtain more accurate elasticities.

\9\ The original Oak Ridge National Laboratory data is
documented in Consumer Products Efficiency Standards Economic
Analysis Document, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/CE-0029, March
1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cost Pass-Through. Several comments, including ADL, AHAM, Amana
Corporation (Amana), and General Electric Appliances (GEA), raise
issues regarding cost pass-through and the relationship between cost
and price. According to ADL, manufacturers have not passed through a
significant portion of their costs as evidenced by the Consumer and
Producer Price Indices, which show that prices have risen by less than
the increase in costs. This means that firms have reduced operating
costs rather than increase costs to consumers. Therefore any model that
assumes or concludes that firms can pass on costs with any reasonable
probability is ``not acceptable and inconsistent with observed
behavior.'' (ADL, No. 19 at 4-5).
The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association stated that DOE should
not assume that all equipment cost increases can be passed through to
the consumer, partly as a result of the option of deferring purchases
and repairing existing equipment. (GAMA. No. 28 at 3).
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers noted that
historically the price of appliances has risen much more slowly than
the price of some production inputs. They concluded that this
observation shows an inability of firms to pass on cost increases.
(AHAM, No. 17 at 6).
The relevant issue regarding cost pass-through is how appliance
prices have risen relative to the increased costs of all manufacturer
inputs. A more plausible explanation of why passing on their costs has
been increasingly difficult for firms is because of the rise of
monopsony power on the purchasing side of the market as AHAM has noted
in earlier comments.\10\ The growth of large and sophisticated
``power'' retailers that have significant and increasing power in the
marketplace has resulted in increased downward price pressure on
manufacturers.

\10\ See Written Comments of the AHAM to the DOE on Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products: ANOPR on Energy
Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners and Kitchen Ranges
and Ovens, Docket No. CE-RM-90-201, dated December 12, 1990, by the
AHAM, pp. 67-68; and Statement of the AHAM to the DOE on the NOPR on
Energy Efficiency Standards for Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and
Clothes Dryers, CE-RM-88-101, also by AHAM, dated October 10, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Small Firms. Several commenters stated that DOE needs to be
concerned about the impacts of standards on small manufacturers.
General Electric Appliances wrote that an analysis using an ``average''
firm may not show the impacts of standards on small firms or on
industry concentration. (GEA, No. 39 at 21).
PVI Industries commented that ``a smaller company, with lower
volume, may be affected very differently from a larger, higher volume
producer. In particular, the smaller company can probably implement
significant design changes more quickly and at much lower cost because
of lower volume production and less automation. Therefore, the GRIM
model may not suitably reflect the financial impact of a change across
the broad spectrum of appliance manufacturers.'' (PVI Industries, No.
43 at 1).
The Department is interested in the impact of standards on the
different types of firms in the industry. The Department is aware that
the compact refrigerator industry has cost functions that are much
different than the full-size product manufacturers, and partly for this
reason, DOE is proposing less stringent standards for compact
refrigerator products than for full-sized refrigerator products.
6. Multiple Standards. Three comments, from AHAM, Amana, and GEA,
raised the issue of the cumulative costs of multiple regulations.
(AHAM, No. 17 at 7, Amana, No. 21 at 2, and GEA, No. 39 at 3). They
stated that the Department needs to consider and analyze the cumulative
costs of multiple regulations on industry. Some of these costs include
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) phaseout, successive efficiency standards, and
demands on human and financial resources. General Electric Appliances
suggested the use of the GRIM because it includes a module that
analyzes the cumulative effects of multiple regulations. (GEA, No. 39
at 21-2).
The Department has considered the impact of costs due to
regulations concerning the phaseout of CFC and HCFC materials. The
Manufacturer Analysis Model is designed to analyze the impact of
standards on industry profitability for an individual appliance. To
date, this has involved treating each manufacturer of a subject product
as a separate company. Recognizing, however, that many manufacturers
produce more than one appliance type subject to appliance standards and
the companies have limited resources, the Department is presently
seeking approaches to account for the cumulative effects on a multi-
product company of the appliance conservation standards that it
promulgates, and requests comments in this regard. Such an analysis
will require both a manageable analytical method and relevant cost
data.
7. External Costs and Benefits. A number of comments on the ANOPR
urged the Department to consider external costs and benefits in its
economic analyses of the efficiency standards proposed in this NOPR.
(ACEEE, No. 50 at 2; Gas Research Institute (GRI), No.10 in Appendix H
at 6; NRDC, No. 18 at 28; Pacific Gas and Electric, No. 22 at 2; NYSEO,
No. 26 at 7; NWPPC, No. 30 at 4; AGA, No. 32 at 3). However, several
other commenters argued against the inclusion of externalities in the
economic analysis. (Tampa Electric Co. (TECo.), No. 3 at 3; Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co., No. 7 at 1; ARI, No. 31 at 6; Electricity
Consumers Resource Council (ELCON), No. 33 at Attachment 1; EEI, No. 35
at 2; GAMA, No. 27 at 24; National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA), No. 42 at 2, 3).
The Department recognizes that the inclusion of monetized
externality cost estimates in the evaluation of standards is a complex
and controversial question. In a Supplemental Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for Three
Types of Consumer Products, (59 FR 51140, October 7, 1994), the
Department solicited public comment on whether a sound analytical basis
exists for estimating the monetary value of environmental and energy
security externalities. Because the Department has yet to identify a
sound analytical basis for estimating the monetary value of
environmental or energy security externalities, it is not proposing to
use such estimated monetary values in this rulemaking. However, as in
previous efficiency standards rulemakings, the Department has estimated
the likely effects of the proposed standards on certain categories of
emissions and on oil use, and has considered these effects in reaching
a decision about whether the benefits of the proposed standards exceed
their burdens.
8. Manufacturability. General Electric Appliances believes that the
Department needs to incorporate an evaluation of manufacturability as
an essential aspect of the technical feasibility determination. (GEA,
No. 39 at 13). Maytag proposed that the Department recognize that
manufacturability and technological feasibility are inextricably

[[Page 37396]]
linked, that a new operating definition of max tech should be
developed, and that the process should consider patent restrictions,
toxicity, functional viability, verifiability, and reliability.
(Maytag, Transcript at 317-19).
The Department believes that the max tech level should reflect a
product that is capable of being assembled, but not necessarily mass
produced, by the effective date of the amended standards. (This issue
is discussed in more detail in the section on Maximum Technologically
Feasible Levels, II.A.2.)
B. Product-Specific Comments
1. Classes.
a. Compacts. The current energy efficiency standards specify
standards for seven classes of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers
and three classes of freezers. The classes are based on various
characteristics of the products such as type of defrost, location of
the freezer and whether the unit has through-the-door features. No
consideration was given to dividing the refrigerator products in
different classes based on size. The Joint Comments proposed
establishing separate classes for compact refrigerator products which
would include all products less than 7.75 cubic feet (Federal Trade
Commission (FTC)/AHAM rated volume) and 36 inches or less in height.
The marketplace and industry recognize products meeting these criteria
as a separate niche with special engineering and investment
constraints. Much smaller, privately-held, family-owned, single-product
companies are typical in this market. Economies of scale for these
companies are much different from those of the full-size product
manufacturers. Also, there are far fewer design options available to
improve the performance of the compact refrigerator products. (Joint
Comments, No. 49 at 15).
The Department has decided to adopt additional classes for compact
refrigerator products because they have added consumer utility (ability
to fit in small spaces), and because there are fewer energy
conservation design options available for compacts. The additional
compact classes are Nos. 11-18 in the ``Product Classes and Effective
Dates'' Table found at the end of this NOPR.
b. HCFC-Free. The Joint Comments also proposed additional classes
for HCFC-free refrigerator products, both full-size and compact. The
Joint Comments stated that treatment of HCFCs becomes a significant
issue in the design of these standards because implementation of the
new energy standards will occur less than five years before regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), making HCFC-
141b unavailable, become effective January 1, 2003. There is also
concern that the date for phaseout of HCFC-141b may be moved up.
Current data from Europe, Japan, and the U.S., provided by the Joint
Comments, support approximately a 10 percent energy penalty in the
shift from HCFC-141b to proposed hydrofluorocarbon and hydrocarbon
substitutes. New technologies may be developed to reduce or eliminate
the energy penalty, but it is impossible to forecast with certainty
whether they will be commercially available by 2003. The Joint Comments
proposed that new classes be established for any product employing non-
ozone-depleting foam blowing agent which EPA approves under the Safe
Alternatives Program of the Clean Air Act, or which uses blends or
mixtures of less than 10 percent HCFC. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 21).
The Environmental Protection Agency stated that, given the lack of
a technology equal or better than HCFC-141b in terms of energy and
ozone-depletion, EPA does not plan to phase out HCFC-141b any earlier
than 2003. (EPA, No. 34 at 9). The Environmental Protection Agency also
submitted a report entitled, ``Zero Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents for
Use in Polyurethane-based Foam Insulations,'' which found that the high
density, molded foam produced with the fluorinated ether, E245, has a
thermal conductivity similar to that of CFC-11. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix
8 at 4). The report also states that the major problem with E245 is
that it is not commercially available, and toxicity tests must still be
conducted. (EPA, No. 34 at Appendix 8, p. 7).
The Department has considered all the viewpoints expressed
concerning the impact of HCFC-141b phaseout on this rulemaking. The
thermal conductivity of HCFC-141b product substitutes that may become
available in the future is difficult to project. The following
summarizes what is presently known about four potential substitutes:
HFC-356 foam has a thermal conductivity of 0.126 Btu-in/
hr-ft2- deg.F (18.2mW/m-K), which is about 4 percent higher than
the 0.121 Btu-in/hr-ft2- deg.F (17.4 mW/m-K) conductivity of foams
using CFC-11 11. HFC-356 has the advantage of being less
aggressive toward liner materials than CFC-11. Toxicity testing is
incomplete.

\11\ E. Ball and W. Lamberts. ``HFC-356, a Zero Ozone Depletion
Potential (ODP) Blowing Agent Candidate for North American Appliance
Foam Formulations,'' Proceedings of Polyurethanes World Congress
1993, Vancouver, Canada, October 1993, pp. 10-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fluorinated ether E245 is nonflammable and may serve
as a near drop-in replacement for CFC-11 and HCFC-141b. Foams using
E245 as a blowing agent have been reported to have a thermal
conductivity at 32 deg.F (0 deg.C) of 0.126 Btu-in/hr-ft\2\- deg.F
(25mW/m-K) 12. It is not commercially available and will need to
undergo toxicity testing.

\12\ E. Blevins et al., ``Zero Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents
for Use in Polyurethane Based Foam Insulations.'' EPA, No. 34,
Appendix 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyclopentane has about a 10 percent higher thermal
conductivity than CFC-11 blown foam. The conductivity could be lowered
by about 5 percent with the addition of small amounts of
perfluoralcanes (PFAs) 13. Although pentanes are being used in
Europe, the flammability of cyclopentane concerns U.S. manufacturers.

\13\ U. Wenning. ``Hydrocarbons as PU Blowing Agents in Domestic
Appliances'', Proceedings of 1993 International CFC and Halon
Alternatives Conference,'' Washington, DC, 1993, pp 317-325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HFC-365 and a blend of H-365 and HFC-134a have been tested
as blowing agents and found to produce foams with similar thermal
conductivities to CFC-11 14. As has occurred for HCFC-141b, DOE
expects that the thermal conductivities of these new foams will improve
as more experience is gained with their use in different formulations.
In the analyses for these proposed standards, it was assumed that the
thermal conductivity remained constant at 1993 values.

\14\ J. Murphy et al., ``HFC-365 as a Zero ODP Blowing Agent for
Foams,'' Proceedings of 1993 International CFC and Halon Conference,
Washington, DC, October, 1993, pp 346-355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the uncertainty of the availability of HCFC-141b
replacements with equivalent thermal properties, the Department has
decided to develop new product classes for products that do not use
HCFC-141b or other HCFCs in the foam insulation.
2. Design Options. In the 1993 Advance Notice the Department
requested comments on 30 design options it proposed evaluating for
potential improvement of the refrigerator products. The comments
received on each design option are discussed below. (Through the
process of providing technical support for the informal negotiations of
the Joint Comments parties, the Department was able to gain a better
understanding of the issues relating to use of each of the design
options considered. This has greatly improved the Department's ability
to estimate the efficiency

[[Page 37397]]
improvements that will result from incorporation of the design
options.)
Increased Cabinet Insulation Thickness. Increasing the wall
thickness has been identified as the option providing the greatest
energy savings. According to the industry participants as stated in the
Joint Comments, an increase in external dimensions on refrigerator-
freezers of as little as a \1/2\ inch can eliminate as much as 20 to 30
percent of a marketplace available for that particular product. If the
external dimensions are maintained and the wall thickness increase is
made to the inside of a cabinet, the interior volume of the cabinet is
reduced. Smaller capacity products carry a lower price with less
margin. The smaller volume cabinet will also have to meet a more
restrictive energy standard. Finally, this design may sacrifice
important utility of the product in violation of the mandates of NAECA.
(Joint Comments, No. 49 at 7).
The non-industry participants in the Joint Comments agreed with
industry position that the max tech level based on increasing both wall
and door thickness by 1 inch--a 2-044h increase in side-to-side
dimensions of the refrigerator--would have a significant impact on some
products, because there are not sufficient alternative design options
available to manufacturers should they find it necessary not to produce
products with larger exterior dimensions (products that could not fit
through doors in existing buildings if enlarged). (Joint Comments, No.
49 at 10).
The Joint Comments state that increased wall and door thickness has
a more severe impact on compact refrigerators than it does on full-size
products. Marketing of compacts does not allow for an increase in wall
thickness since most products are designed for niche applications with
no room for expansion of the cabinet size. Any increase in wall
thickness would compromise the utility of the product by decreasing the
usable interior volume for a product that already has limited
applications in the marketplace. A similar problem applies to
insulation increases in top and bottom panels; this space constraint is
recognized in the new definition of the compact class as limited to
models below 36 inches in height. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 16).
Sub-Zero stated pursuant to its definition of built-in compact
refrigerators, the available depth is restricted to 24 inches and the
width to 24, 30, 36 or 48 inches. (Sub-Zero, No. 37 at 2). U-Line
stated that the consumer uses of undercounter refrigerators and
freezers will not permit increased exterior cabinet dimensions;
exterior cabinet dimensions cannot exceed 24 inches in depth and width
and 34 inches in height. Shipping costs would increase $3 per unit for
a 1 inch increase in cabinet width. Decreasing internal volume would
reduce consumer utility and require retooling. (U-Line, No. 11 at 1,
2).
The Joint Comments also state that the impact of increased wall
thickness is as much a concern for household freezers as it is for
household refrigerator-freezers. One basic problem is getting the
larger, thicker-walled unit through doorways and stairwells. Another
problem is that because the freezer market is declining, introduction
of designs which are unacceptable to some consumers is even more
troublesome. The Joint Comments state that increased wall and door
thicknesses are not options that can be used to increase energy
performance for household freezers. One freezer manufacturer presented
information regarding how it had been forced to reduce its wall
thickness by one-half inch to improve the marketability of the product.
(Joint Comments, No. 49 at 18).
The Environmental Protection Agency has conducted a market survey
that indicated consumers strongly preferred the double-insulated, or
thick-walled, refrigerator when they are presented with economic
information and labeling which highlights the environmental benefits.
(EPA, No.34 at 9-10).
The Department agrees that there are problems associated with
increasing the wall thickness for some classes of refrigerator
products. If the increase is external, some of the larger models will
not be able to pass through doorways or fit into the space found in
many kitchens. The Department also recognizes that if the external
dimensions are not changed, an increase of only one-half inch in wall
thickness will decrease the internal volume of a typical refrigerator
by about 10 percent. The Department has considered these factors in
determining the proposed standards. However, the Department has
determined that in some cases increases of less than one inch in the
insulation thickness is acceptable.
Improved Foam Insulation for Cabinet or Door. Whirlpool stated that
the CFC-11 blown foam that it has used typically has had a k-factor of
approximately 0.125 Btu-in/hr-ft\2\ deg.F, and it generally has been
made with about 12 percent CFC-11 in the foam. The company said it was
possible to improve the k-factor by increasing the amount of CFC-11,
reducing cell size and increasing density, which required an increase
in cost and in investment in some new equipment. However, none of the
available replacements for CFC-11 has characteristics that match those
of CFC-11. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 4).
Sub-Zero stated it uses a froth-foam system that typically has
higher k-values than high-pressure systems, but it would require a very
large capital expenditure for the company to switch to a high-pressure
system. Sub-Zero also commented that there is a lesser chance of
incorporating micro-cell insulation with a froth system. (Sub-Zero, No.
37 at 4). U-Line stated that most exotic foam technologies (such as
micro-cell) require high-pressure impingement foaming equipment; it
uses froth-foaming equipment which would be expensive to replace with
high-pressure systems. (U-Line, No. 11 at 2). General Electric
Appliances stated that insulation efficiency suffers from replacement
of CFC-11 foam by HCFC-141b foam, and that for it to switch from HCFC-
blown foams is feasible, but such a transition would result in foams
with poorer insulation value. (GEA, No. 39 at 4).
The Department did not find any experimental data to support this
option. The Department does not believe that any technology that would
improve the insulation properties of HCFC-141b blown foams beyond that
of the present CFC-11 blown foam would be available in time to be
considered in this rulemaking. Therefore, improvements in foam
insulation were not considered in this analysis.
Evacuated Insulation Panels. The Joint Comments, commenting on
vacuum panels, stated: ``Vacuum panel technologies have progressed
since the last refrigerator rulemaking. The appliance industry probably
will introduce limited vacuum panel designs over the next five to ten
years. Issues of concern are manufacturability, availability,
reliability and in-product performance. It is still too early in the
development of this technology to apply it as a reliable design option
in the production of a 1998 compliant product. Several major issues
remain unresolved.
`` Vacuum panels must be used in concert with foam
insulation (polyurethane foam is the mechanical support for the
cabinet).
`` Wire harnesses, drain tubes, shelf anchors, etc., are
[placed] between the cabinet shell and inner liner making 100 percent
coverage of vacuum panels impossible. Fifty to sixty percent is about
maximum and for freezers would be even less.
`` Vacuum panels are 6 to 10 times heavier than foam.
Panels in doors may compromise Underwriters Laboratories (UL) tip-over
requirements. The shipping weight of a typical cabinet

[[Page 37398]]
with vacuum panels would increase by about 50 pounds.
`` Polyurethane foam averages about 15 cents per board
foot. Powder-filled panels are $2.50 to $3.50 per board foot and fiber-
filled panels range from $5.00 to $7.50 per board foot. An average
refrigerator-freezer has about 114 board feet of surface area, of which
approximately 35 board feet would be vacuum panels.
`` Worldwide production capability for all types of vacuum
panels is between 3 to 5 million board feet per year. Full
implementation of vacuum panels in the U.S. alone would require more
than 400 million board feet of panels.
`` Product-life performance characteristics (15 to 20
years) are being observed, but industry continues to work toward a
vacuum panel product that maintains reliability over the life of the
refrigerator.'' (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 7-8).
The Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a study to estimate
the cost of producing vacuum panels at a new plant designed to produce
enough vacuum insulation panels for 300,000 refrigerator-freezers per
year. It determined that the variable cost for a 21 cubic foot
refrigerator-freezer is about $1.40 per board foot, and the investment
cost is about $0.55 per board foot. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 5 at 54-58).
After feasibility is established and funding is obtained, it would take
about 2 \1/2\ years to begin production. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 5 at
56-59). The energy savings estimated by simulation analyses averaged
about 16 percent for top-mounted refrigerator-freezers. (EPA, No. 34,
Appendix 5 at 73).
Based on the information cited above, the Department has concluded
that production capability will be insufficient in 1998 for vacuum
panel insulation to be considered as a design option for all classes of
refrigerator products. However, the Department believes that for some
classes of refrigerator products, vacuum panels may be the most
attractive option available to meet the proposed standards.
Gas-Filled Panels. Whirlpool stated there is a low probability
that this technology will be viable for use on products built in 1998.
It is not aware of any situation in which gas-filled panels have been
successfully demonstrated in a refrigerator. A major problem with
application in a refrigerator is the lack of sufficient structural
integrity of the resulting product. Whirlpool recommended that this
option not be considered. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 5). U-Line commented
that gas-filled panels are not a feasible technology. (U-Line, No. 11
at 3).
General Electric Appliances stated that the gas-filled panels
developed at the LBL are even less promising than vacuum insulation
panels. Insulation values are only about R13/inch even with the most
insulating gas, krypton. This is only about 60 percent of the value of
powder vacuum panels. At the same time, gas panels are projected to
exceed vacuum panels in cost. Even if gas panels had comparable
performance and cost characteristics, they would require enormous
investment expenditures to be incorporated into current refrigerator
designs. At present, virtually all mass-produced refrigerators are
designed using the liner, foam insulation, and exterior metal case as
integrated elements of the cabinet structure. General Electric
Appliances also stated that gas panels have absolutely no structural
capability and would require the development of a fundamentally
different cabinet design concept to achieve adequate structural
integrity. Unlike other design options, where the option is designed to
fit the refrigerator, gas panels would require the refrigerator to be
completely redesigned to accommodate this option. Finally, the cost to
the industry would be enormous and, given the comparatively
unattractive efficiencies offered, unjustified. (GEA, No. 39 at 6).
The Department concurs that gas-filled panels lack structural
integrity and have low resistivity compared to evacuated panels and
therefore has not considered them in this NOPR.
Improved Gaskets. Whirlpool stated that much work has been done in
attempting to improve the performance characteristics of refrigerator
door gaskets. However, there is a tradeoff between the thermal
performance of a gasket and the forces required to open or close the
door. This makes it extremely difficult to improve on current designs.
While savings on the order of 1 percent may be achieved on some models,
Whirlpool stated this design option may not be available for all
products, and, therefore, should not be recommended as a viable design
option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 5). U-Line stated that because many
manufacturers redesigned gaskets prior to 1993, any additional
enhancements would provide diminished returns. (U-Line, No. 11 at 3).
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted a report, ``Finite
Element Analysis of Heat Transfer Through the Gasket Region of
Refrigerators-Freezers,'' evaluating means of improving a 1991 model
refrigerator, that described theoretical modeling and experimental
research on gasket heat loads. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 6). The report
concluded that replacing about half of either the metal door flange or
cabinet flange with plastic can reduce the heat flow through the gasket
region by 25 percent. (EPA, No.34, Appendix 6 at 28). The report
concluded that for one refrigerator-freezer, a 30 percent heat flux
reduction for the gasket region led to a measured 7 to 8 percent energy
use reduction, whereas for a second refrigerator-freezer, a 22 percent
heat flux reduction led to a measured 4 to 5 percent energy use
reduction. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 6 at 26-28).
AHAM provided the Department with estimates of energy savings and
the costs of improved gaskets from a number of its member
manufacturers. These values ranged from less than 1 percent to nearly 3
percent energy savings depending on the size and configuration of the
refrigerator product.
The Department has decided to use the industry supplied data in the
engineering analysis for each class of refrigerator. (See TSD, Chapter
3.) The higher EPA energy savings estimates were based on a
refrigerator that met the 1990 standards whereas the Department's
analysis is based on models which meet the 1991 standards.
Double Door Gaskets. Whirlpool stated that this option involves the
same tradeoff between thermal performance and door opening and closing
forces discussed under ``improved gaskets,'' see above. The company
does not recommend this as a viable design option. (Whirlpool, No. 36
at 5). General Electric Appliances agreed with Whirlpool's comments.
(GEA, No. 39 at 6-7). U-Line stated that cabinet icing and other
potential field service-related issues have precluded their application
to compact refrigerators and freezers. (U-Line, No 11 at 3).
The Department's analysis indicates that a significant amount of
heat leakage (from the outside) into a refrigerator occurs across the
door gasket. Decreasing this leakage could result in significant energy
savings. This could be achieved by either improving the gaskets or
using double-door gaskets. The cost of a double-door gasket is more
than the cost to improve the single gasket to achieve the same amount
of savings. The Department has, therefore, decided not to consider this
option but instead to consider improved gaskets, as discussed, supra.
Reduced Heat Load for Through-the-Door Features. Whirlpool stated
that there is some potential for energy savings in this area through
improvements in insulation around the

[[Page 37399]]
dispenser. However, the amount of savings is limited. It believes that
an appropriate allowance for ``through-the-door features'' with
improved insulation is approximately 70 kWh/year. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at
5). U-Line stated that compact refrigerator products do not employ
through-the-door features. (U-Line, No. 11 at 3). General Electric
Appliances stated that it had already made incremental design changes
on some 1993 models to reduce the heat leakage of through-the-door
features. (GEA, No. 39 at 7). These consisted of using polyurethane
(vs. expanded bead polystyrene) insulation and totally redesigning the
dispenser assembly. While some additional, marginal energy reductions
are possible, GEA stated that if it extended these design changes to
the full dispenser model line, further significant energy savings
beyond this do not seem likely with current technology. No toxicity/
safety or reliability problems exist with these changes. General
Electric Appliances stated that these design changes could be
introduced to the full line relatively quickly (i.e., from between 6
months and 2 years). (GEA, No. 39 at 7).
AHAM provided estimates of the energy savings from reducing the
heat load for through-the-door features and the associated costs based
on a survey of its members. These are the values that have been used in
the analysis.
Reduction in Energy Used for Anti-Sweat Heaters. Whirlpool stated
that most manufacturers utilize the minimum-needed energy within the
cabinet for the anti-sweat heaters. Therefore, there is little
opportunity to improve this option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 5). General
Electric Appliances stated that required wattage for most anti-sweat
heaters already has been reduced to save energy on 1993 models,
variable-watt density heaters are already being used, and reducing the
wattage further is expected to result in poor anti-sweat performance
and reduced consumer satisfaction. (GEA, No. 39 at 7).
Based on the data supplied by manufacturers through AHAM, DOE
decided not to use this option in its analyses because most models of
refrigerator-freezers already employ condenser hot gas or liquid line
to minimize the use of electric anti-sweat heat. Compacts and freezers,
in general, do not use anti-sweat heat.
Substitution of Condenser Hot Gas for Electric Anti-Sweat Heat.
Whirlpool stated this option already has been exercised by most
manufacturers. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 5). Sub-Zero stated the company
already employs this option. (Sub-Zero, No. 37 at 5). U-Line stated
that with the exception of some compact freezers, anti-sweat heaters
are not employed in the designs of compact/undercounter refrigerator-
freezers. (U-Line, No. 11 at 3). General Electric Appliances stated
that it already uses condenser gas loops everywhere practicable. (GEA,
No. 39 at 7).
After reviewing the data received from the manufacturers, the
Department has concluded that this option already has been exercised by
most of the manufacturers of refrigerator products and, therefore, this
design option was not included in the engineering analysis for this
rulemaking.
Reduction in Energy Used for Auto-Defrost Heater. Whirlpool stated
that there are no significant savings available in this area because
this energy is required to remove frost and prevent buildup of ice.
Also, any savings would be redundant with savings from the use of
adaptive defrost. The company, therefore, does not recommend this
option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 5). U-Line stated that with the exception
of some compact freezers, this design does not apply to the compact/
undercounter refrigerator products. (U-Line, No. 11 at 4). General
Electric Appliances stated that little significant energy savings are
possible using this option; solenoid actuated dampers that attempt to
retain heat in the evaporator compartment do not significantly reduce
heater ``on'' times. (GEA, No. 39 at 7). Designs which attempt to
transfer heat more directly to the evaporator, and thus less to the air
are theoretically attractive but have achieved only minimal savings in
practice while increasing the likelihood of evaporator ice-balling.
Further reducing the temperature at which the thermostat turns the
heater off would result in poor defrost performance and increased
service calls. General Electric Appliances stated the basic defrost
heater system must be very robust or severe reliability problems can
occur. (GEA, No. 39 at 7).
The Department, after reviewing available data, concluded that most
manufacturers already have reduced significantly the electric heat for
automatic defrost in order to comply with the 1993 Standards, and there
is little opportunity to save additional energy by exercising this
option. The only exception is the side-by-side refrigerator-freezer
without through-the-door features, where the baseline model has a
higher defrost energy use than other models, and the Department
included this option in the engineering analyses for that class.
Substitution of Condenser Hot Gas for Electric Auto Defrost Heat.
Whirlpool stated it had explored this option in some depth in the
1970s. It was not successful in developing a system that would perform
well and be reliable. Also, any savings that might be achieved would be
redundant with savings from the use of adaptive defrost. The company
believes adaptive defrost is the preferred alternative for saving
defrost energy. Thus, it does not recommend substitution of condenser
hot gas for electric auto defrost heat. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 6). U-
Line stated it is not aware of any compact/undercounter refrigerator-
freezers that employ electric auto-defrost heaters. (U-Line, No. 11 at
4). General Electric Appliances believes this method of defrost is more
complicated, more expensive and less reliable than its current designs.
(GEA, No. 39 at 8).
The defrost system increases the energy usage of a system in two
ways: the electric heater directly affects the electricity use and the
heat of defrost increases the heat load inside the refrigerator, which
to be rejected requires compressor work. One method of saving energy
would be to do away with the electric heaters by substituting condenser
hot gas in its place. The other method would be to better control the
time and amount of defrost heat by using adaptive defrost. The
Department did not find any data to demonstrate the condenser hot gas
method to be more cost-effective than adaptive defrost, which is a
well-developed and accepted technology. Thus, the condenser hot gas
method of defrost was not considered in the engineering analysis for
this rulemaking.
Adaptive Defrost Systems. Whirlpool stated this is a viable option
for most of its products and produces energy savings on the order of 3
percent. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 6). U-Line stated that it employs timers
to initiate defrost, and it is unlikely that adaptive and demand
defrost systems would significantly reduce energy consumption. (U-Line,
No. 11 at 4).
The energy savings and associated costs of replacing the present
defrost system with the adaptive defrost system have been provided to
the Department by AHAM and its members. (See design option comments,
supra). These are the values that have been used in the analysis.
Compacts, in general, do not use electric heaters for initiation of
auto defrost.
Improved Compressor Efficiency. Whirlpool expects to see further
improvements in compressor efficiency prior to 1998. (Whirlpool, No. 36
at 6). However, the degree of improvement is uncertain at this time.
Although compressor efficiencies as high as 5.8 EER have been
projected, Whirlpool stated that any design changes made to

[[Page 37400]]
improve efficiency often have negative impacts on reliability. It
believes the risk of failure has increased with the introduction of a
new refrigerant and a new lubricant. Therefore, it believes a
conservative estimate should be used for future compressor
efficiencies. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 6). Sub-Zero is concerned that
efficiencies of small-capacity compressors may not improve in time for
future standards. (Sub-Zero, Transcript at 427). It is concerned
particularly with the changeover to HFC-134a and the timing of
compressor efficiency improvements for small-capacity compressors.
(Sub-Zero, Transcript at 426). U-Line stated that compressor EERs of
5.5 are not realistic at low capacities. It expects 3.6 EER for HFC-
134a at 200 Btu/hr. Furthermore, due to their low production volumes,
manufacturing units with low capacities is a low priority for
compressor manufacturers. (U-Line, No. 11 at 4). Maytag stated there
are patent restrictions on linear motors that protect their use.
(Maytag, No. 20 at 6). Additionally, Maytag said there is not enough
time for proper reliability testing and implementation of linear motor
compressors for the January 1998 standards date. (Maytag, No. 20 at 5).
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted a report that found
efficiency levels of 5.0 EER can be obtained at the low end of the
capacity range of 200-600 Btu/hr with an increased cost to refrigerator
manufacturers of $10-20. (EPA, No. 34 at Appendix 4, ``State of the Art
Survey of Hermetic Compressor Technology Applicable to Domestic
Refrigerator-Freezers,'' at 7-1). The Environmental Protection Agency
also stated that for compressor capacity of 750 Btu/hr and above, an
EER level of 6.5 is technically feasible with an incremental increase
in manufacturer costs of about $15. (EPA, No. 34, at Appendix 3,
``State of the Art Survey of Motor Technology Applicable to Hermetic
Compressors for Domestic Refrigerator-Freezers,'' at i).
The Joint Comments stated that with improvements in foam insulation
and gaskets in freezers, the compressor size needed to maintain freezer
food quality is smaller than used in previous years. These smaller
compressors have lower EERs than used in DOE's max tech analysis.
Freezer manufacturers and compressor suppliers indicated that an
improvement of approximately 7 percent in EER can be expected between
1994 and 1998. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 19).
The Department has obtained data on efficiency and costs of HFC-
134a compressors from three compressor manufacturers, from AHAM and its
members, and from other sources (e.g., company literature from
Sunpower, Inc. and EPA reports, referenced above). The Department
expects future efficiencies of small-capacity compressors will continue
to be lower than those of larger-capacity compressors and has reflected
that in its analyses of refrigerator products. (See TSD, Chapter 3).
Two-compressor system. Whirlpool stated a two-compressor system
requires the use of two smaller capacity compressors, thus inherently
it will be less efficient than the one larger capacity compressor used
in current refrigerators. One of these smaller compressors would be
operating under more efficient conditions due to the raised evaporator
temperature for the circuit cooling the refrigerator compartment.
Whirlpool stated all indications are that the decrease in compressor
EER from two smaller compressors offsets the increased efficiency in
one portion of the sealed system due to increased evaporator
temperature. In addition, any increase in refrigerator efficiency
inherently involves several other negative factors. They are
significant increases in product cost, increases in service incidence
rates due to the use of more components, reduction of useful volume of
the refrigerator due to a larger machine compartment for two
compressors, and potential for increased sound level when both
compressors are running. Whirlpool does not recommend this option.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at 6).
Sub-Zero stated that although it presently uses a two-compressor
system, the efficiency gain from the higher evaporator temperature in
the fresh-food section is offset by the lower compressor efficiency for
the smaller capacity compressor. (Sub-Zero, No. 37 at 6). U-Line stated
that two-compressor systems are not practicable for compact/
undercounter refrigerator-freezers. (U-Line, No. 11 at 4).
The Department agrees that a two-compressor system requires a
larger, more efficient compressor to be replaced by two smaller, less
efficient compressors. Some of the gain from improving the
thermodynamics of the system will be offset by the decrease in the
compressor efficiencies. While it has been shown that the two-
compressor system could save some energy in the older less efficient
refrigerators, the Department is not aware of any experimental data
that demonstrate energy savings from this option for refrigerators in
the efficiency ranges being considered in this rulemaking. For this
reason, this option has not been included in the engineering analysis.
Variable-Speed Compressor. Whirlpool stated that the key to the
effectiveness of this type of compressor is the development of highly
efficient, cost-effective, and reliable drive systems (motor plus power
electronics) for the compressor. It said development to date for drive
systems sized for refrigerators has not been able to achieve the
efficiency levels required to make this concept viable. Once these
drive systems are available, there are then several other issues to be
addressed. For example, design changes will have to be made to the
compressor valves and bearings for good performance at a range of
speeds; compressor reliability will have to be ensured through
extensive life testing at a variety of speeds; sound tests will have to
be performed on the finished refrigerator under all speeds foreseen to
make sure that no resonances (which cause sound problems) are present;
and, there will have to be an understanding of the relationship between
any projected energy savings from this feature and the amount of
savings found in actual field usage conditions. Whirlpool stated that
the availability of this option in 1998 should not be assumed.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at 7). U-Line stated that this option is not
feasible for compacts. (U-Line, No. 11 at 5). General Electric
Appliances stated its experiments indicate the energy savings are small
and the costs are large; it halted development when they found there
would be an unfavorable cost-performance ratio coupled with significant
noise problems. (GEA, No. 39 at 8).
The Department concurs that this technology has not been developed
to the point where it will be ready for incorporation into
refrigerators by the effective date of this rulemaking. This option is
not included in the analysis.
Improved Fan Motor Efficiency. Whirlpool commented that there is
significant uncertainty concerning the newer ``permanent magnet''
motors. They have not yet been produced in adequate volume in the
design required for refrigerators. The bearing systems must be made
quieter and must be tested for reliability. Whirlpool stated there is a
significant risk that these very high efficiency motors will not be
available by 1998. If they are not, then savings would be less, because
permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors would be the best available.
Whirlpool argued that the DOE should ``count on'' the PSC fan motors
and not count on permanent magnet motors as a viable design option.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at 7). The Association of Home Appliances

[[Page 37401]]
Manufacturers stated the cost estimated by LBL for electronically
commutated motors is about 40 to 60 percent less than estimates
provided to it by suppliers. (AHAM, No. 17, Attachment 17 at 2).
Sub-Zero stated that it expects efficiencies of evaporator and
condenser fan motors to improve. (Sub-Zero, Transcript at 427). U-Line
stated that some improvement in the fan motor still may exist. (U-Line,
No. 11 at 5). General Electric Appliances said it is pursuing various
options with both evaporator and condenser fan motors and that
reliability and testing of these components are fairly well understood.
(GEA, No. 39 at 8).
The Department obtained cost and efficiency data from three
manufacturers of evaporator and condenser fan motors. Averages of these
data were used in the analyses performed by the Department. The cost
estimates obtained by the Department are for quantities equal to the
present volumes of fan motors being purchased by refrigerator-freezer
manufacturers. The Technical Support Document (Chapter 3) provides
details on these data for the various product classes.
Improved Fan Efficiency. Whirlpool stated that potential savings
through this option are very limited. Fan motor size is governed not
only by the operating load on the fan, but also by the need to ensure
starting under all anticipated voltage and temperature conditions.
Whirlpool said that most of the potential for fan energy savings lies
in the fan motors themselves. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 7). U-Line stated
that where fan motors and blades are employed, optimization does
provide opportunity for energy improvement. (U-Line, No. 11 at 5).
General Electric Appliances stated it found energy savings benefits for
condenser fans are marginal and that an energy savings of approximately
4 kWh/yr are available from evaporator fan redesign. (GEA, No. 39 at
8).
The energy savings from improved condenser and evaporator fans and
the associated costs have been provided to the Department by AHAM and
its members. These figures have been used in the analysis for the full-
sized refrigerator products. Because most of the compacts employ
natural convection and do not use fans, this option is not included in
the analysis for compacts.
Variable-Speed Fans. Whirlpool stated that with a single-speed
compressor, the rate of heat transfer for either the evaporator or
condenser does not vary appreciably with changes in either ambient
temperature or control setting because the compressor operates at only
one speed. The compressor has a longer duty-cycle as either the ambient
temperature goes up or the control setting is lowered. In order for the
variable-speed fan feature to reduce energy consumption, it must allow
the refrigerator to attain a more optimal air flow condition for a
particular set of circumstances. The optimal air-flow condition is a
trade off--reduced heat transfer versus reduced fan use. Because the
heat transfer rate with single-speed compressors does not vary
appreciably, Whirlpool stated there is little potential for energy
reduction due to variable fan speed with a single-speed compressor. In
addition, it stated there are concerns about excessive costs for the
motors and required electronic controls, and the reliability of both
the mechanical (bearing) and electrical (windings and controls)
systems. Whirlpool argued that variable-speed fans should not be
counted on to save energy. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 7). U-Line stated this
option is considered infeasible by the compact/undercounter AHAM
subcommittee. (U-Line, No. 11 at 5).
General Electric Appliances said fan energy consumption reductions
achieve false savings to the extent that a change in fan speed and
airflow adversely affects energy performance elsewhere within the
refrigerator system. General Electric Appliances found from a recent
internal study that a 25 percent reduction in evaporator fan power
input for its 24 cubic foot side-by-side product (with an ECM fan
motor) lowered the evaporator saturation temperature, lowered system
capacity, increased compressor run-time, and increased overall energy
consumption. General Electric Appliances also said that while
increasing fan speed enhances heat exchanger performance, it also
increases gasket heat leakage which, in turn, requires more fan motor
input power. Additionally, GEA said noise from higher fan speeds is
becoming such a significant issue with consumers that noise attenuation
costs must be factored into this cost-performance assessment. (GEA, No.
39 at 8-9).
Based on the comments provided, the Department has decided this
option should not be included in the analysis.
Hybrid Evaporator. Whirlpool commented that it has no experience
with ``hybrid evaporators.'' (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 8). U-Line stated
the evaporator may offer potential for energy improvement by enhancing
air to refrigerant heat exchange. (U-Line, No. 11 at 5). General
Electric Appliances understands this option to be a two-stage dual
evaporator system. (GEA, No. 39 at 9).
A hybrid evaporator employs two evaporators, one for the freezer
and the other for the fresh-food section.The Department did not include
this option in the analysis because the data available showed little
energy savings using this technology.
Other Refrigeration Cycles. Whirlpool commented that it worked
cooperatively with a major university in a development program for the
Lorenz cycle for more than 2 years. During that period, a number of
prototype systems were built and tested in its labs. While some energy
savings were measured, it was unable to consistently demonstrate
substantial savings using this technology. For products tested, the
maximum savings achieved was about 8 percent. Because the second
evaporator required for such systems reduces the storage volume by
approximately \1/2\ cubic foot, the net savings were something less
than 8 percent. Because of the difficulty in obtaining reproducible
results and the relatively small savings achieved, Whirlpool found this
not to be a viable technology. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 8). U-Line stated
that other refrigeration cycles do not offer a feasible alternate
technology. (U-Line, No. 11 at 6). Maytag stated thermo-acoustic
refrigeration system prototypes are not available. (Maytag, No. 20 at
6). General Electric Appliances stated it has undertaken studies of
various refrigeration cycles (Brayton, gas absorption, thermoelectric,
magneto-caloric, and thermoacoustic) to compare their energy savings
potentials against enhanced Rankine cycle designs. Of the alternative
cycles studied, only the Stirling presented a credible opportunity for
competitive efficiencies. (GEA, No. 39 at 9-11). The company undertook
development of Stirling cycles in concert with Sunpower, Inc. General
Electric Appliances confirmed that the Stirling cycle could perform on
a par with the Rankine cycle currently being used, but it did not
present any material improvement. In addition, GEA said the problems
and costs associated with developing a completely new cycle design,
versus upgrading existing cycle technology, argued against pursuing the
Stirling cycle. (GEA, No. 39 at 9).
Except for the Lorenz cycle, the Department is not aware of any
prototypes using alternative refrigeration cycles. In the case of the
Lorenz cycle, the reports of energy savings vary considerably. Although
this option has a significant potential for future energy savings, this
technology is not developed well enough at this time to be considered
an option for 1998 refrigerator-freezers.

[[Page 37402]]

Two-Stage Two-Evaporator System. Whirlpool commented it understands
this concept to be one whereby there is an evaporator in each
compartment with refrigerant passing through both evaporators
simultaneously. The two different temperature (and thus pressure)
levels for the two evaporators require two compressors in order to
attain any efficiency improvements. Therefore, the negative effects
highlighted under two-compressor systems apply: Lower EER, service
incidence rate increases, very significant increases in product cost,
space concerns, and increased sound level. In addition, Whirlpool is
concerned about the ability of the two-compartment control scheme in
this concept to handle changes in relative heat loads between the two
compartments. These changes can occur when the door is opened in one
compartment only, or when warm food is added to one compartment only.
Whirlpool also is concerned about the loss of the ability to provide
independent temperature adjustment in each compartment. Whirlpool
recommends against the use of this option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 8). U-
Line stated that two-evaporator systems are not practicable for
compact/undercounter refrigerator-freezers. (U-Line, No. 11 at 5).
Due to the inability of the Department to find usable performance
data for this type of system, this option has not been included in the
engineering analysis.
Improved Heat Exchangers. Whirlpool believes there may be some
savings yet available with improved heat exchangers. Adding surface
area is generally difficult. For the condenser, space is limited and
densely finned surfaces do not have good lint-handling characteristics.
For the evaporator, simply making it larger detracts from product
volume, and increasing fin density can negatively impact frost handling
characteristics, causing poor performance in humid climates.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at 8). U-Line stated that effectiveness improvements
are expected to be in the range of only 1 to 2 percent. (U-Line, No. 11
at 6). General Electric Appliances stated evaporator improvements have
reached the point of diminishing returns, and condenser improvement
benefits can be achieved but cost/performance tradeoffs will limit
opportunities to less than that which theory predicts. (GEA, No. 39 at
11). AHAM stated LBL should account for the fact that increasing the
evaporator size results in a loss of internal volume; this results in a
decrease in both the energy standard and the marketing utility of the
refrigerator. (AHAM, No. 17, Attachment 17 at 2).
The energy savings from improving the heat exchange in the
evaporator and condenser and the associated costs have been agreed upon
by AHAM and its members and provided to the Department. These are the
values that have been used in the engineering analysis. (See TSD,
Chapter 3). Increasing the evaporator heat exchange effectiveness might
increase evaporator area (although not necessarily) and therefore,
decrease internal volume very slightly. This slight decrease, a maximum
of 0.15 cubic feet (4.25L), would not be large
enough to noticeably impact consumer utility.
Alternative Refrigerants. Whirlpool stated there are no pure
refrigerants that demonstrate an efficiency improvement over HFC-134a
and are ready for application development work on refrigerators. If
such a candidate does appear, there is a long testing process before
production. This testing includes toxicity testing, chemical
compatibility testing, reliability testing and safety. Whirlpool
believes this option should not be considered. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at
8). U-Line stated it is unlikely that refrigerants not yet identified
could be commercially available in time to become a realistic part of
the solution. (U-Line, No. 11 at 6). General Electric Appliances said
HFC-134a is the refrigerant of choice and the flammability of HFC-152a
makes it undesirable. (GEA, No. 39 at 11). It also said that
hydrocarbon refrigerants are being used in Europe in cold wall
evaporators only and use of those designs in the U.S. would require a
total redesign of the refrigerator and would reduce consumer utility.
(GEA, No. 39 at 12).
With the phaseout of CFC-12, HFC-134a appears to be the accepted
refrigerant replacement in the U.S. There are other promising
refrigerants under development but none of the replacements that are
without problems such as toxicity or flammability have been proven to
perform better than HFC-134a . Therefore, the Department has assumed
that HFC-134a will be used as the refrigerant for 1998 refrigerators.
Improved Expansion Valve. Whirlpool stated expansion valves are not
generally used in refrigerators because capillary tubes yield better
performance. The company's studies show no savings from expansion
valves. It does not recommend this option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 9). U-
Line stated improved expansion valves offer no improvement over
properly balanced refrigeration systems using conventional capillary
tubes. (U-Line, No. 11 at 6). General Electric Appliances stated this
is a viable option but will require considerable time (3-5 years) to
optimize. It said reliability will be lower than that of the current
capillary design, and the cost will be higher. It believes improvement
may be limited to electronic units. (GEA, No. 39 at 12). AHAM stated
the improved expansion valve should be eliminated if its savings are
reflected in the fluid control valve option. (AHAM, No. 17, Attachment
17 at 3).
Because the Department was not able to find any data demonstrating
that thermostatic or electronic expansion valves will save energy in
refrigerators, this option has not been included in the analysis.
Fluid Control Valves. Whirlpool stated these devices provide
significant savings when used with rotary compressors, which are
designed with the compressor shell maintained at the condensing
pressure. Whirlpool said they do not yield significant savings when
used with reciprocating compressors, which operate with the compressor
shell at the evaporator pressure. To Whirlpool's knowledge, no rotary
compressors have passed reliability tests using HFC-134a and new
lubricants. The company believes this design option should be dropped.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at 9). U-Line stated the application of fluid
control valves in reciprocating compressors requires use of a high
starting torque compressor (capacitor start motor) and that the energy
savings, although potentially significant, may not be economically
justified. (U-Line, No. 11 at 6). General Electric Appliances said this
option carries the greatest benefit for high-side compressors, but they
are no longer used in the U.S. This option has extremely limited value
(2 to 3 percent energy reduction) when applied to the high-efficiency
low-side compressors currently in use. The value of this option will
continue to decrease as cycling losses are further reduced through
other means. This type of design change could be put into production
relatively quickly (1 to 2 years) once the reliability of the valve is
confirmed. However, confidence in the valve must be high as its failure
can result in a total loss of refrigeration. (GEA, No. 39 at 12).
Based upon the comments above and research data received from Oak
Ridge National Laboratory 15 that fluid control valves do not save
energy when used with reciprocating compressors, and since most of the
manufacturers use reciprocating compressors, the

[[Page 37403]]
Department has decided not to include this option in the analysis.

\15\ Letter from J.R. Sand of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
dated March 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location of Compressors. Whirlpool stated that for refrigerators
with ``forced air hi-side'' design (which is the most common design
used in the industry), there is no thermodynamic reason to expect
energy savings from a change in location of the compressor and
condenser. Such a change is also likely to decrease utility of the
product by reducing the storage volume available at a convenient height
off the floor. Whirlpool does not recommend this option. (Whirlpool,
No. 36 at 9). Sub-Zero stated that it already mounts the compressors at
the top of the unit; this allows easier servicing and theoretically
should reduce the temperature differential. (Sub-Zero, No. 37 at 6). U-
Line stated there are not many opportunities to relocate compressors
and condensers for compact/under counter products. (U-Line, No. 11 at
7).
General Electric Appliances stated that the benefit of removing the
evaporator fan from the refrigerated space diminishes as fan
efficiencies improve. The feasibility of this option in large-scale
production is questionable due to the need to seal the shaft without
significantly increasing the frictional losses. Moisture migration, ice
formation, and noise transfer to the cabinet are additional concerns.
Moving the high-side components to the top of the refrigerator has
marginal cabinet heat leakage benefits, but would require a fundamental
redesign of the cabinet structure. Moving the high-side components
would require the refrigerator to be completely redesigned to
accommodate the option. It likely would require enhanced structural
rigidity and deliberate means, such as low-placed weights, to prevent
tip-overs. General Electric Appliances concluded that, absent a total
restructuring of the production line, or creation of new production
capacity, the cost of introducing this design option is prohibitive.
(GEA, No. 39 at 12-13).
The Department could find no data that showed that relocation of
the compressor would save energy. After consideration of the comments
discussed above, the Department has decided that even if there are
small energy savings from this option, these savings would be
insignificant compared to the costs of redesigning and manufacturing a
refrigerator with the compressor on top. Therefore, this option has not
been included in the engineering analysis.
Use of Natural Convection. Whirlpool stated this option is
counterproductive for larger products (above about 14 cubic feet) since
the wattage of condenser fan motors has been reduced substantially in
recent years. It does not recommend this option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at
9). U-Line stated that except for frost-free models, all compact/
undercounter refrigerator-freezers use natural convection evaporators.
Those units using forced air condenser systems are designed for built-
in or recessed installations. (U-Line, No. 11 at 7).
Based on the comments discussed above, the Department has concluded
that the industry is already using this option where it is practical
and so has not included it in the engineering analysis.
Electrohydrodynamic Enhancement of Heat Exchangers. Whirlpool
considers this to be a technology that is impractical, unsafe, and
expensive to implement in products. It does not recommend this option.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at 9). U-Line stated that the compact/undercounter
AHAM subcommittee does not consider this option feasible. (U-Line, No.
11 at 7). Maytag stated that prototypes are not available for
electrohydrodynamically enhanced evaporators or condensers. (Maytag,
No. 20 at 6). General Electric Appliances stated this may be an
inexpensive approach to obtaining marginal energy savings; however, the
continuous use of an extremely high voltage field presents safety risks
that simply are not acceptable, even if they could be addressed to some
degree at a reasonable cost. (GEA, No. 39 at 13).
This concept has only been demonstrated in a laboratory, and no
prototypes using this technology have been built. Since there is no
cost or performance data for this design option in refrigerators, the
Department has decided that this option is not well enough developed
for consideration in this rulemaking.
Voltage Control Device. Whirlpool stated it has conducted tests on
these devices and found that they save no energy on products which are
designed to meet existing energy standards. It does not recommend this
option. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at 9). U-Line stated these devices have not
demonstrated measurable reductions in energy use when applied to
refrigerators and freezers. (U-Line, No. 11 at 7). General Electric
Appliances stated its testing indicates current high-efficiency
compressors do not exhibit energy savings when used with devices that
reduce line voltage and/or change phase angles. (GEA, No. 39 at 13).
Based upon data supplied to the Department,16 the Department
believes this option does not offer any potential for energy savings
for new refrigerators and freezers.

\16\ Admiral Refrigerator Test Report for the Admiral Company;
Izagulrre, F. L., Senior Engineer, International Technical Services,
Inc., August 25, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Other Comments.
a. Uncertainty Inherent in Data. The Joint Comments formulated a
number of different approaches for quantifying the uncertainty and
variance inherent in estimated energy savings and costs for individual
design options. It said the basis for quantifying uncertainty lies not
only in the estimates of energy savings and costs reasonable in the
1998 time frame, but also in the different economies of scales
available to companies in the refrigerator-freezer industry. The impact
of design options and associated costs affect these companies' products
differently. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 8).
An example from one of the uncertainty analyses demonstrates the
variance in unit cost impacts on top-mounted nondispenser automatic-
defrost refrigerators. In this example, for a trial standard energy
consumption 30 percent below the 1993 level, the increase in
manufacturing unit costs runs from approximately $65 up to $145,
depending on the specific energy saving options used. (Joint Comments,
No. 49 at 8).
The Department is aware there are uncertainties in the estimated
costs and energy savings of the various design options. Additionally,
the Department recognizes other uncertainties that affect the
feasibility of design options, including reliability, performance, and
safety. The Department has asked manufacturers to supply the data
needed to address the issue of the impact of uncertainties on life-
cycle cost and payback periods. The Department has considered the
uncertainties in costs and energy savings in developing the proposed
standards for this rulemaking. The Department has also considered
design feasibility and marketing utility uncertainties.
b. Simulation Model. The Joint Comments were critical of the
accuracy of the ERA model, which calculates refrigerator energy use.
The industry members of the Joint Comments assessed the accuracy of the
ERA model in two phases. The first phase was to use current technology
and currently available products to determine the accuracy of the ERA
estimates versus actual energy data from refrigerator-freezers. The
second phase of this assessment was to determine how the ERA model
handles nonconventional technologies, e.g., those technologies

[[Page 37404]]
not currently in production. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 5)
The industry members of the Joint Comments constructed 100 ERA
input files on products ranging from compact refrigerator-freezers and
freezers to full-size automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers. The
standard uncertainty of the ERA model using this input data was
approximately 19 percent. The Joint Comments argued this accuracy level
makes the ERA useful to examine engineering assessments of energy
savings options, but not a sufficient tool to determine multi-million
dollar rulemaking impacts. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 5)
AHAM also had Dr. Clark Bullard at the Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration Center of the University of Illinois conduct an
evaluation of the ERA model. (AHAM, Transcript at 296). This analysis
of the ERA model focused on the ability of the model to properly
evaluate nonconventional technologies which have yet to be built into
full-size refrigerator-freezers and tested or are not yet currently in
production. Dr. Bullard's final report noted that many of these design
options as modeled by the ERA had errors between 50-75 percent compared
to laboratory measurements of these technologies. (Joint Comments, 49
at 6).
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted the User's Manual for
the EPA Refrigerator Analysis Program. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 2). The
EPA also submitted a rebuttal statement, ``Response to Report by Clark
Bullard Associates Accuracy Analysis of the ADL/EPA Refrigerator
Analysis (ERA) Model.'' (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 7). One of the EPA
comments is that Dr. Bullard's analysis was based on an older version
of ERA, which preceded the ``official'' release of Version 1.0. Version
1.0, which DOE used for its analysis, addressed the concerns about the
model raised by Dr. Bullard. (EPA, No. 34, Appendix 7, cover letter).
The Department has reviewed the reports by Dr. Bullard and by the
EPA concerning the ERA model. In performing the engineering analyses,
the Department selected actual refrigerator models to use for each
baseline case. The measured energy use for each of these baseline
models (supplied by AHAM and its members) was used to calibrate the
model for each class of refrigerator product evaluated. To account for
changes in performance due to the use of HFC-134a, the Department used
HFC-134a compressor maps in modeling each refrigerator class. For those
design options included in the cost-efficiency analyses but not
directly modeled with ERA, such as gasket improvements and vacuum panel
insulation, DOE energy-efficiency improvement estimates were based on
measured data or other methods of calculating the energy savings. (See
discussions of individual design options.) In summary, the Department
has utilized measured data rather than theoretical predictions whenever
data has been available.
c. CFC Phaseout. AHAM stated the costs of CFC elimination are not
included in the analysis. The effect of CFC elimination must first be
taken into account before proceeding with implementing options to meet
various standard levels above the 1993 energy standard. (AHAM, No. 17,
Attachment 17 at 3).
The Department has accounted for the costs of CFC phaseout by
increasing the cost of the baseline units. The manufacturer's costs
associated with the phaseout of CFC are accounted for in the
manufacturer impact analysis. (See discussion under ``baselines,''
below.)
4. Standards Proposed in the Joint Comments. The standards shown in
Table 1, with accompanying discussions, were proposed in the Joint
Comments. (Joint Comments, No. 49 at 14-27).

Table 1.--Standards Proposed in the Joint Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCFC-containing
Product class product HCFC-free product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Automatic Defrost
Refrigerator-Freezers (excludes
compact refrigerator-freezers):
1. Top-mounted freezer without
through-the-door ice service. 9.80AV+276.0 10.78AV+303.6
2. Top-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service. 10.20AV+356.0 11.22AV+391.6
3. Side-mounted freezer
without through-the-door ice
service...................... 4.91AV+507.5 5.40AV+558.3
4. Side-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service. 10.10AV+406.0 11.11AV+446.6
5. Bottom-mounted freezer
without through-the-door ice
service...................... 4.60AV+459.0 5.06AV+504.9
ii. Compact Refrigerator-
Freezers (AHAM/FTC volume less
than 7.75 cubic feet and less
than 36 inches in height):
1. Manual defrost refrigerator-
freezer...................... 10.70AV+299.0 11.77AV+328.9
2. Partial automatic defrost
refrigerator-freezer......... 7.00AV+398.0 7.70AV+437.8
3. Top-mounted freezer
automatic defrost
refrigerator-freezer......... 12.70AV+355.0 13.97AV+390.5
4. Side-mounted freezer
automatic defrost
refrigerator-freezer......... 7.60AV+501.0 8.36AV+551.1
5. Bottom-mounted freezer
automatic defrost
refrigerator-freezer......... 13.10AV+367.0 14.41AV+403.7
6. Upright freezer automatic
defrost...................... 11.40AV+391.0 12.54AV+430.1
7. Upright freezer manual
defrost...................... 9.78AV+250.8 10.76AV+275.9
8. Chest freezer manual
defrost...................... 10.45AV+152.0 11.50AV+167.2
iii. Freezers (excludes compact
freezers):
1. Upright automatic defrost.. 12.43AV+326.1 13.67AV+358.7
2. Upright manual defrost..... 7.55AV+258.3 8.31AV+284.1
3. Chest freezer manual
defrost...................... 9.88AV+143.7 10.87AV+158.1
iv. Manual and partial defrost
refrigerator-freezers (excludes
compact refrigerator-freezers):
1. Manual defrost............. 8.82AV+248.4 9.70AV+273.2
2. Partial automatic defrost.. 8.82AV+248.4 9.70AV+273.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV=Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft 3.

a. Full Sized Refrigerator-Freezers. The proposed standards ``are
based on a negotiated approach to identifying the maximum level of
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
A negotiated approach may provide slightly different results from those
achieved by conventional rulema

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-17625. Public record. Not legal advice.