# 88 FR 30508: Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-09676

## Section

- **Citation:** 88 FR 30508
- **Heading:** Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 88 / 88 FR 30508

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022] RIN 1904-AE47 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers AGENCY:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to amend and establish energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than July 10, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a meeting via a webinar on Wednesday, June, 14, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, by any of the following methods:
ES section on or before June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: ACIM2017STD0022@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket
ments in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0729. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3595. Email: Kristin.Koernig@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs D. Conclusion II
r public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers C. Deviation From Process Rule 1. Framework Document 2. Public Comment Period III. General Discussion A. General Comments B. Scope of Coverage C. Test Procedure D. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need for National Energy Conservation g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Equipment Classes a. Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 2. Manufacturer Trade Groups 3. Market Share 4. Inventory 5. Technology Options a. Compressors b. Microchannel Condensers B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies a. Increased Condenser Air Flow b. Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling c. Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line d. Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 Gal/100 lb Ice) 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Energy Use b. Higher Efficiency Levels 2. Cost Analysis 3. Cost-Efficiency Results 4. Manufacturer Selling Price D. Markups Analysis E. Energy and Water Use Analysis 1. Ice Storage 2. Scaling 3. Harvest Rate 4. Duty Cycle 5
ng c. Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line d. Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 Gal/100 lb Ice) 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Energy Use b. Higher Efficiency Levels 2. Cost Analysis 3. Cost-Efficiency Results 4. Manufacturer Selling Price D. Markups Analysis E. Energy and Water Use Analysis 1. Ice Storage 2. Scaling 3. Harvest Rate 4. Duty Cycle 5. Low-Capacity ACIM Equipment 6. Water Use F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Cost 2. Installation Cost 3. Annual Energy Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Water Prices 6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 7. Equipment Lifetime 8. Discount Rates 9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 10. Payback Period Analysis G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value Analysis I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs a. Manufacturer Production Costs b. Shipments Projections c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 3. Manufacturer Interviews a. Refrigerant Regulation b. Scope Expansion c. Supply Chain Concerns 4. Discussion of MIA Comments K. Emissions Analysis 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. Social Cost of Carbon b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide 2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results b. Direct Impacts on Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e
Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results b. Direct Impacts on Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Significance of Energy Savings b. Significance of Water Savings c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits d. Indirect Impacts on Employment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors 8. Summary of Economic Impacts C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Standards 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L
al Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Information Quality VII. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution 1. Conduct of the Webinar C. Submission of Comments D. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (EPCA), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA, 2 established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This includes automatic commercial ice maker (ACIM) equipment, the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflects the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C
nated Part A-1.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that, not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes to amend energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers and to establish new energy conservation standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. The proposed standards, which are expressed in the maximum allowable energy use as a function of the harvest rate of the given equipment, are shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is (1) 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published or (2) if the Secretary determines, by rule, that 3 years is inadequate, not later than 5 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(B) and (3)(B))
DOE notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the American Innovation 3 affecting automatic commercial ice makers in a NOPR published on December 15, 2022 (December 2022 EPA NOPR). 87 FR 76738
ars is inadequate, not later than 5 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(B) and (3)(B))
DOE notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the American Innovation 3 affecting automatic commercial ice makers in a NOPR published on December 15, 2022 (December 2022 EPA NOPR). 87 FR 76738. The proposal would prohibit manufacture or import of such ice makers starting January 1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase, receipt, or export of such ice makers starting January 1, 2026. Id. at 87 FR 76809. See section IV.A.5.a of this document for more details. DOE understands that it would be beneficial to ACIM equipment manufacturers to align the compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards as closely as possible with the refrigerant prohibition dates proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. Therefore, DOE is proposing that the proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published.
3 Under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, entitled “Technology Transitions,” the EPA may by rule restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in sectors or subsectors where they are used. A person or entity may also petition EPA to promulgate such a rule. “H.R.133—116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.” Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 27 December 2020, www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133
Act, entitled “Technology Transitions,” the EPA may by rule restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in sectors or subsectors where they are used. A person or entity may also petition EPA to promulgate such a rule. “H.R.133—116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.” Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 27 December 2020, www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133.
Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 hours) Maximum energy use * (kWh/100 lb ice) Maximum condenser water use ** (gal/100 lb ice) Ice-Making Head Water >50 and <300 6.49-0.0055H 200-0.022H Ice-Making Head Water ≥300 and <785 5.41-0.00191H 200-0.022H Ice-Making Head Water ≥785 and <1,500 4.13-0.00028H 200-0.022H Ice-Making Head Water ≥1,500 and <2,500 4 200-0.022H Ice-Making Head Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4 145 Ice-Making Head Air >50 and <300 9.4-0.01233H NA Ice-Making Head Air ≥300 and <727 6.45-0.0025H NA Ice-Making Head Air ≥727 and <1,500 5.09-0.00063H NA Ice-Making Head Air ≥1,500 and <4,000 4.23 NA Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air >50 and <988 7.83-0.00342H NA Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air ≥988 and <4,000 4.45 NA Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air >50 and <930 7.82-0.00342H NA Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air ≥930 and <4,000 4.64 NA Self-Contained Water >50 and <200 8.18-0.019H 191-0.0315H Self-Contained Water ≥200 and <2,500 4.38 191-0.0315H Self-Contained Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.38 112 Self-Contained Air ≤50 Portable: ≤38 19.43-0.27613H NA >38 and ≤50 8.94 NA Refrigerated Storage 29.8-0.37063H NA Not Portable or Refrigerated Storage 21.08-0.19634H NA Self-Contained Air >50 and <134 13.61-0.0469H NA Self-Contained Air ≥134 and <200 10.72-0.02533H NA Self-Contained Air ≥200 and <4,000 5.65 NA * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate
d Air ≤50 Portable: ≤38 19.43-0.27613H NA >38 and ≤50 8.94 NA Refrigerated Storage 29.8-0.37063H NA Not Portable or Refrigerated Storage 21.08-0.19634H NA Self-Contained Air >50 and <134 13.61-0.0469H NA Self-Contained Air ≥134 and <200 10.72-0.02533H NA Self-Contained Air ≥200 and <4,000 5.65 NA * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. Table I.2—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 hours) Maximum energy use * (kWh/100 lb ice) Maximum condenser water use ** (gal/100 lb ice) Ice-Making Head Water >50 and <801 6.24-0.00267H 180-0.0198H Ice-Making Head Water ≥801 and <1,500 4.1 180-0.0198H Ice-Making Head Water ≥1,500 and <2,500 4.34 180-0.0198H Ice-Making Head Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.34 130.5 Ice-Making Head Air >50 and <310 7.49-0.00629H NA Ice-Making Head Air ≥310 and <820 6.53-0.0032H NA Ice-Making Head Air ≥820 and <1,500 3.91 NA Ice-Making Head Air ≥1,500 and <4,000 4.67 NA Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air >50 and <800 9.24-0.0058H NA Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air ≥800 and <4,000 4.6 NA Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air >50 and <800 9.42-0.0058H NA Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air ≥800 and <4,000 4.78 NA Self-Contained Water >50 and <900 6.5-0.00302H 153-0.0252H Self-Contained Water ≥900 and <2,500 3.78 153-0.0252H Self-Contained Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 3.78 90 Self-Contained Air ≤50 Portable 22.99-0.27789H NA Not Portable 24.51-0.29623H Self-Contained Air >50 and <149 11.2-0.03H NA Self-Contained Air ≥149 and <700 7.66-0.00624H NA Self-Contained Air ≥700 and <4,000 3.29 NA * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice
ned Air ≤50 Portable 22.99-0.27789H NA Not Portable 24.51-0.29623H Self-Contained Air >50 and <149 11.2-0.03H NA Self-Contained Air ≥149 and <700 7.66-0.00624H NA Self-Contained Air ≥700 and <4,000 3.29 NA * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that the proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. More generally, DOE requests comment on whether it would be beneficial to ACIM equipment manufacturers to align the compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards as closely as possible with the refrigerant prohibition dates proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR.
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of automatic commercial ice makers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP). 4 The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers, which is estimated to be 8.5 years for high-capacity automatic commercial ice makers and 7.5 years for low-capacity ACIM equipment (B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38), B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM), and B-SC-A (≤50). See section IV.F.7 of this document.
4 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards ( see section IV.F.10 of this document)
ACIM) (≤38), B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM), and B-SC-A (≤50). See section IV.F.7 of this document.
4 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards ( see section IV.F.10 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product ( see section IV.C of this document).
Table I.3—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment class Average LCC savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years) B-IMH-W (≥300 and <785) 0 0.0 B-IMH-W (≥785 and <1,500) 0 0.0 B-IMH-A (≥300 and <727) 22 4.4 B-IMH-A (≥727 and <1,500) 232 3.4 B-RC(NRC)-A (≥988 and <4,000) 37 5.2 B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38) 1 3.8 B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM) 3 2.1 B-SC-A (≤50) 8 5.7 B-SC-A (>50 and <134) 0 0.0 B-SC-A (≥200 and <4,000) 21 6.0 C-IMH-W (>50 and <801) 0 0.0 C-IMH-A (≥310 and <820) 3 4.8 C-RC&RC-A (≥800 and <4,000) 162 4.2 C-SC-A (>50 and <149) 7 5.3 C-SC-A (≥149 and <700) 2 5.7 B = batch; C = continuous. IMH = ice making head; SC = self-contained; RC = remote condensing. W = water type of cooling; A = air type of cooling. Number in parentheses indicates harvest rate. * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers 5
5 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars.
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the NOPR publication year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2056)
rs. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers 5
5 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars.
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the NOPR publication year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers in the case without new or amended standards is $96.4 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −14.4 percent to −12.0 percent, which is approximately −$13.9 million to −$11.5 million. To bring equipment into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $15.9 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The results of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.
C. National Benefits and Costs
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers would save a significant amount of 6 This represents a savings of 4 percent relative to the energy use of this equipment in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).
6 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document
standards case”).
6 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers ranges from $0.14 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.38 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for automatic commercial ice makers purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 5 million metric tons (Mt) 7 of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), 2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), 8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), 36 thousand tons of methane (CH 4 ), 0.06 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and 0.015 tons of mercury (Hg). 8
7 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO 2 are presented in short tons.
8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022 ( AEO2022 ). AEO2022 represents current Federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022 ( AEO2022 ). AEO2022 represents current Federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions.
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ), the social cost of methane (SC-CH 4 ), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N 2 O). Together these represent the social cost of GHGs (SC-GHGs). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 9 The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentation purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.24 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
9 To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD” ). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO 2 and NO X emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.24 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.56 billion using a 3-percent discount rate
nt_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO 2 and NO X emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.24 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.56 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 10 DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO 2 and NO X ) PM 2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NO X ) ozone precursor health benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects, such as health benefits, from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions.
10 DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
Table I.4—Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers (TSL 3) Billion $2022 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.88 Climate Benefits * 0.24 Health Benefits ** 0.56 Total Benefits † 1.68 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.51 Net Benefits 1.17 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.42 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 0.24 Health Benefits ** 0.24 Total Benefits † 0.89 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.28 Net Benefits 0.61 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with equipment shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056
count rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.42 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 0.24 Health Benefits ** 0.24 Total Benefits † 0.89 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.28 Net Benefits 0.61 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with equipment shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO 2 , SC-CH 4 , and SC-N 2 O (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) ( see section IV.L of this proposed rulemaking). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO X and SO 2 . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO 2 and NO X ) PM 2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NO X ) ozone precursor health benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs
section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized. 11
11 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur ( e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of ACIM equipment shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of ACIM equipment shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document
ociated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of ACIM equipment shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO X and SO 2 emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $44 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $25 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $53 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $51 million in reduced operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $32 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $67 million per year
o $53 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $51 million in reduced operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $32 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $67 million per year.
Table I.5—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers [TSL 3] Million 2022$/year Primary estimate Low-net- benefits estimate High-net- benefits estimate 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 51 50 52 Climate Benefits * 14 14 14 Health Benefits ** 32 32 33 Total Benefits † 96 96 98 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 29 31 29 Net Benefits 67 64 70 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 44 43 45 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 14 14 14 Health Benefits ** 25 25 26 Total Benefits † 83 82 84 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 29 31 29 Net Benefits 53 51 55 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with automatic commercial ice makers shipped in 2027—2056. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2056 from the equipment shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this proposed rulemaking)
fits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this proposed rulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO X and SO 2 . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO 2 and NO X ) PM 2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NO X ) ozone precursor health benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy
s. DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO X and SO 2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers is $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $44 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $25 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $53 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 12 For example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
12 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021)
y infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
12 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.16 quads full-fuel-cycle (FFC), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 4.2 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO 2 emissions by 5 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has tentatively determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (NOPR TSD).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards and is still considering them in this proposed rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for automatic commercial ice makers.
A
ument that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for automatic commercial ice makers.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes automatic commercial ice makers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(F)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA also authorizes DOE to establish new standards for automatic commercial ice makers not covered by the statutory standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)) Not later than January 1,
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296)
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C
S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296)
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 61316(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for automatic commercial ice makers appear at 10 CFR 431.134.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. Any new or amended standard for a covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C
mended standard for a covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6416(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product or equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered equipment that has two or more subcategories
equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that equipment within such group (1) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class), or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In Id. ) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2015, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers manufactured on and after January 28, 2018 (January 2015 Final Rule). 80 FR 4645. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.136(c) and (d) and are repeated in Table II.1 and Table II.2.
Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type Condenser cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 h) Maximum energy use (kWh/100 lb ice) Maximum condenser water use ** (gal/100 lb ice) Ice-Making Head Water <300 6.88-0.0055H * 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥300 and <850 5.80-0.00191H 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥850 and <1,500 4.42-0.00028H 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥1,500 and <2,500 4 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4 145
r cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 h) Maximum energy use (kWh/100 lb ice) Maximum condenser water use ** (gal/100 lb ice) Ice-Making Head Water <300 6.88-0.0055H * 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥300 and <850 5.80-0.00191H 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥850 and <1,500 4.42-0.00028H 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥1,500 and <2,500 4 200-0.022H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4 145. Ice-Making Head Air <300 10-0.01233H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥300 and <800 7.05-0.0025H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥800 and <1,500 5.55-0.00063H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥1,500 and <4,000 4.61 NA. Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air <988 7.97-0.00342H NA. Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air ≥988 and <4,000 4.59 NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <930 7.97-0.00342H NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air ≥930 and <4,000 4.79 NA. Self-Contained Water <200 9.5-0.019H 191-0.0315H. Self-Contained Water ≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191-0.0315H. Self-Contained Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 5.7 112. Self-Contained Air <110 14.79-0.0469H NA. Self-Contained Air ≥110 and <200 12.42-0.02533H NA. Self-Contained Air ≥200 and <4,000 7.35 NA. * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. Table II.2—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type Condenser cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 h) Maximum energy use (kWh/100 lb ice) Maximum condenser water use (gal/100 lb ice) Ice-Making Head Water <801 6.48-0.00267H 180-0.0198H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥801 and <2,500 4.34 180-0.0198H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.34 130.5. Ice-Making Head Air <310 9.19-0.00629H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥310 and <820 8.23-0.0032H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥820 and <4,000 5.61 NA. Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air <800 9.7-0.0058H NA
er water use (gal/100 lb ice) Ice-Making Head Water <801 6.48-0.00267H 180-0.0198H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥801 and <2,500 4.34 180-0.0198H. Ice-Making Head Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.34 130.5. Ice-Making Head Air <310 9.19-0.00629H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥310 and <820 8.23-0.0032H NA. Ice-Making Head Air ≥820 and <4,000 5.61 NA. Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air <800 9.7-0.0058H NA. Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) Air ≥800 and <4,000 5.06 NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <800 9.9-0.0058H NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air ≥800 and <4,000 5.26 NA. Self-Contained Water <900 7.6-0.00302H 153-0.0252H. Self-Contained Water ≥900 and <2,500 4.88 153-0.0252H. Self-Contained Water ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.88 90. Self-Contained Air <200 14.22-0.03H NA. Self-Contained Air ≥200 and <700 9.47-0.00624H NA. Self-Contained Air ≥700 and <4,000 5.1 NA. * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
On September 29, 2020, DOE published a request for information (RFI) that identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination of whether the energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers need to be amended (September 2020 RFI). 85 FR 60923.
On March 25, 2022, DOE published a notice that announced the availability of the preliminary analysis (March 2022 Preliminary Analysis) it conducted for purposes of evaluating the need for amended energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 87 FR 17025
he energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers need to be amended (September 2020 RFI). 85 FR 60923.
On March 25, 2022, DOE published a notice that announced the availability of the preliminary analysis (March 2022 Preliminary Analysis) it conducted for purposes of evaluating the need for amended energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 87 FR 17025. In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate efficiency levels for automatic commercial ice makers, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying preliminary TSD (March 2022 Preliminary TSD). 13
13 2022-03 Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009.
On May 5, 2022, DOE held a public webinar in which it presented the methods and analysis in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and solicited public comment. 14
14 Webinar transcript available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0025.
DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.3.
Table II.3—List of Commenters With Written Submissions or Oral Comments in Response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Reference number. in the docket Commenter type Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute AHRI 21 Trade Association. Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, New York State Energy Research Development Authority, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Joint Commenters 22 Efficiency Organization. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers * AHAM 27 Trade Association
docket Commenter type Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute AHRI 21 Trade Association. Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, New York State Energy Research Development Authority, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Joint Commenters 22 Efficiency Organization. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers * AHAM 27 Trade Association. Follett Products LLC ** Follett 23 Manufacturer. GE Appliances, a Haier company GEA 31 Manufacturer. Hoshizaki America, Inc Hoshizaki 20 Manufacturer. North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers NAFEM 19 Trade Association. Pacific Gas and Electric; Southern California Edison; San Diego Gas & Electric CA IOUs 18 Utilities. PEG, LLC PEG 28 Consultant. Scotsman Ice Systems Scotsman 30 Manufacturer. Welbilt, Inc Welbilt *** 25 Manufacturer. Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpool 26 Manufacturer. * AHAM submitted a public comment and a separate comment, which AHAM requested be treated as Confidential Business Information. ** Follett requested that its response be treated as Confidential Business Information. *** Document number 25 is the transcript of the webinar. Commenter did not submit written comments. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 15 To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the May 5, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
15 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov )
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
15 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
C. Deviation From Process Rule
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. 10 CFR 431.4.
1. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking ( see 87 FR 17025), DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the preliminary technical support document that accompanied the preliminary analysis—entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses —describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation standards. 16 As such, publication of a separate Framework Document would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
16 The preliminary technical support document is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009.
2
s, and DOE Responses —describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation standards. 16 As such, publication of a separate Framework Document would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
16 The preliminary technical support document is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009.
2. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment period. DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period because stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities to provide comments on
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.
A. General Comments
This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
AHRI commented in concern over the flux in regulations and standards that apply to this industry that make technical analysis difficult and encouraged DOE to balance the holistic scope of change in the ACIM industry in the context of energy conservation, environmental conservation, environmental protection, and end-user safety. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 6)
AHRI commented that it believes that current energy conservation standards are appropriate and more stringent standards are not necessary. ( Id. at p. 3) AHRI does not believe it is appropriate to establish more stringent energy conservation standards based on the current efficiency level of ACIM equipment and the forecasted technology changes due to changing refrigerants, and AHRI believes the potential energy savings from a new standard would be negligible. ( Id
ndards are appropriate and more stringent standards are not necessary. ( Id. at p. 3) AHRI does not believe it is appropriate to establish more stringent energy conservation standards based on the current efficiency level of ACIM equipment and the forecasted technology changes due to changing refrigerants, and AHRI believes the potential energy savings from a new standard would be negligible. ( Id. )
Similarly, Hoshizaki commented that, based on the current efficiency level of ACIM equipment and forecasted technology changes due to changing refrigerants, it does not believe it is appropriate for DOE to establish energy conservation standards beyond the baseline, as the potential energy savings from a new standard are unlikely to exceed the 10 percent/0.3 quadrillion Btu threshold over baseline energy consumption needed to promulgate a rulemaking. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)
PEG commented that less is more when it comes to regulations and to let the competitive marketplace drive energy efficiency so that manufacturers can add value to their products by making them more efficient than competitor models. (PEG, No. 28 at p. 1)
B. Scope of Coverage
This NOPR covers the commercial equipment that meets the definition of automatic commercial ice makers. See 10 CFR 431.132.
“Automatic commercial ice maker” is defined as a factory-made assembly (not necessarily shipped in one package) that (1) consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means for making and harvesting ice, and (2) may include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice. ( Id. )
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE considered potential new equipment classes for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates less than or equal to 50 lb ice/24 hr (low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers). See chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD
or making and harvesting ice, and (2) may include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice. ( Id. )
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE considered potential new equipment classes for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates less than or equal to 50 lb ice/24 hr (low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers). See chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. On November 1, 2022, DOE published a final rule that amended the ACIM definitions and test procedure at 10 CFR part 431.132 and 431.134, respectively (November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule), which included definitions ( i.e., portable automatic commercial ice maker and refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker) and test requirements for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. 87 FR 65856. As a result, DOE is proposing in this document to establish energy conservation standards for ice makers with capacity of 50 lb ice/24 hr or less, including portable and refrigerated storage ice makers.
“Portable automatic commercial ice maker” is defined as an automatic commercial ice maker that does not have a means to connect to a water supply line and has one or more reservoirs that are manually supplied with water. 10 CFR 431.132.
“Refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker” is defined as an automatic commercial ice maker that has a refrigeration system that actively refrigerates the self-contained ice storage bin. ( Id. )
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment classes analyzed in this NOPR.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment
the equipment classes analyzed in this NOPR.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's current energy and condenser water conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers are expressed in terms of the maximum allowable energy use and maximum allowable condenser water use (if applicable) as a function of the harvest rate of the given equipment. ( See 10 CFR 431.134.)
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 7(b)(1) (Process Rule).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule
nologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for automatic commercial ice makers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) improvements in energy efficiency for automatic commercial ice makers, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b of this document and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056). 17 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the previous 30-year period
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056). 17 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.
17 Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each equipment class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (NES) from potential amended or new standards for automatic commercial ice makers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 18 DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment
terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 18 DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
18 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 19 For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
19 The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
F. Economic Justification
1
ined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
19 The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers
pes of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section in this document. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of the equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect
duct. The LCC
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the ACIM equipment under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e
s and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the ACIM equipment under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system
ents to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K. The estimated emissions impacts are reported in section IV.K of this document. DOE also estimated the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
2
energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.10 of this document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to automatic commercial ice makers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the energy conservation standards proposed in this document
d in section IV.F.10 of this document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to automatic commercial ice makers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the energy conservation standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturer trade groups, (3) market share, (4) inventory, and (5) technology options that could improve the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1
e scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturer trade groups, (3) market share, (4) inventory, and (5) technology options that could improve the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment ( i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that an equipment's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. ( Id. )
Automatic commercial ice makers are divided into equipment classes categorized by physical characteristics that affect commercial application, equipment utility, and equipment efficiency: (1) the ice-making process; (2) the configuration of the ice-making and refrigeration systems; (3) the type of condenser cooling fluid used; and (4) the harvest rate of the unit. The following list shows the key physical characteristics of ACIM equipment that DOE uses to distinguish equipment classes:
(1) Ice-making process: batch, continuous;
(2) Equipment configuration: ice-making head, remote condensing (but not remote compressor), remote condensing and remote compressor, self-contained;
(3) Condenser cooling fluid: air-cooled, water-cooled; and
rate of the unit. The following list shows the key physical characteristics of ACIM equipment that DOE uses to distinguish equipment classes:
(1) Ice-making process: batch, continuous;
(2) Equipment configuration: ice-making head, remote condensing (but not remote compressor), remote condensing and remote compressor, self-contained;
(3) Condenser cooling fluid: air-cooled, water-cooled; and
(4) Capacity range.
DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for those equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.136, which are repeated in Table II.1 and Table II.2.
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hoshizaki commented that it does not see any need to change any of the harvest rate ranges or combine any classes, considering that each class has its own distinctive performance and energy ranges. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)
DOE has tentatively determined to adjust certain capacity ranges, as presented in Table I.1 and Table I.2, based on this NOPR analysis, as a result of proposing appropriate energy use standards across the overall capacity range for a given type of equipment ( i.e., B-IMH-W, B-IMH-A, B-SC-A, C-SC-A). DOE reviewed the ACIM market and tentatively determined that the adjusted capacity ranges are representative of the energy use characteristics of each equipment type.
a. Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
DOE has tentatively determined that additional equipment classes may be appropriate to address certain automatic commercial ice makers available on the market. Specifically, DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, which are not currently subject to energy conservation standards. DOE has tentatively determined that the low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers can all be categorized under the self-contained equipment configuration and air-cooled condenser cooling fluid designation
on the market. Specifically, DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, which are not currently subject to energy conservation standards. DOE has tentatively determined that the low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers can all be categorized under the self-contained equipment configuration and air-cooled condenser cooling fluid designation. DOE has also tentatively determined that the low capacity of these automatic commercial ice makers would require different energy conservation standards as compared to those already in place for automatic commercial ice makers with higher capacities. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the unique operation of refrigerated storage and portable automatic commercial ice makers would require separate equipment classes from other self-contained, air-cooled, low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. Based on a review of the low-capacity ACIM market, DOE tentatively determined that batch automatic commercial ice makers models represent nearly the entire market and include both portable and refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers. However, DOE has identified a limited number of continuous low-capacity ACIM models available on the market similar to batch automatic commercial ice makers, except that DOE found no continuous refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers available on the market. Accordingly, DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment classes presented in Table IV.1.
Table IV.1—Proposed Low-Capacity ACIM Equipment Classes Process Equipment type Condenser cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 h) Designation Batch Self-Contained Air ≤50 B-SC-A (≤50). Portable Air ≤38 B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38). Air >38 and ≤50 B-SC-A (Portable) (>38 and ≤50). Refrigerated Storage Air ≤50 B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM). Continuous Self-Contained Air ≤50 C-SC-A (≤50). Portable Air ≤50 C-SC-A (Portable ACIM)
acity ACIM Equipment Classes Process Equipment type Condenser cooling Harvest rate (lb ice/24 h) Designation Batch Self-Contained Air ≤50 B-SC-A (≤50). Portable Air ≤38 B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38). Air >38 and ≤50 B-SC-A (Portable) (>38 and ≤50). Refrigerated Storage Air ≤50 B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM). Continuous Self-Contained Air ≤50 C-SC-A (≤50). Portable Air ≤50 C-SC-A (Portable ACIM). DOE received many comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis regarding the potential equipment classes for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers.
Scope of Coverage
AHAM commented that consumer stand-alone ice makers are not automatic commercial ice makers, and the term “commercial” in the ACIM category indicates an intent to cover commercial, not residential/consumer products. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3) AHAM added that automatic commercial ice makers are included in EPCA part A-1 for “Certain Industrial Equipment” not part A, which is for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. ( Id. ) AHAM noted that automatic commercial ice makers are “covered equipment,” which is defined by EPCA as “The term `covered equipment' means one of the following types of industrial equipment . . . automatic commercial ice makers.” 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(F), and therefore, automatic commercial ice makers are, by definition, industrial equipment. ( Id. )
AHAM provided an example that commercial clothes washers are “covered equipment,” and that commercial and residential clothes washers share similar construction and are often both used by individual consumers, but these equipment classes are differentiated by EPCA. ( Id. ) AHAM stated that Congress intended to include only truly commercial ice makers under the scope of the ACIM definition and DOE should not include consumer stand-alone ice makers in the scope of this commercial equipment rulemaking. ( Id
idential clothes washers share similar construction and are often both used by individual consumers, but these equipment classes are differentiated by EPCA. ( Id. ) AHAM stated that Congress intended to include only truly commercial ice makers under the scope of the ACIM definition and DOE should not include consumer stand-alone ice makers in the scope of this commercial equipment rulemaking. ( Id. )
Similarly, Whirlpool stated that DOE should not include residential appliances, which are defined as “consumer products,” under any energy conservation standards and test procedures in 10 CFR part 431 and added that EPCA has delineated between consumer products regulated under 10 CFR part 430, and commercial and industrial products regulated under 10 CFR part 431. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2)
AHAM and Whirlpool both commented that stand-alone ice makers that are capable of making 50 pounds of ice per day or less more squarely fit under the definition of consumer product, according to the definition found in 10 CFR 430.2. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2)
AHRI commented that DOE has already created a residential and commercial product distinction for other types of refrigeration equipment (such as distinguishing household refrigerators and freezers and commercial refrigeration equipment), and that this distinction should also apply to ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 7)
Hoshizaki commented that low-capacity models should be given their own category and separate section to review, similar to the division between domestic and commercial refrigerators. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that although they prefer DOE not regulate residential ice making products under the ACIM rulemaking, the energy use of ice makers in residential freezers is certainly worthy of regulation and testing. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p
en their own category and separate section to review, similar to the division between domestic and commercial refrigerators. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that although they prefer DOE not regulate residential ice making products under the ACIM rulemaking, the energy use of ice makers in residential freezers is certainly worthy of regulation and testing. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 5) The CA IOUs commented that the current DOE regulatory approach of including a universal adder for ice makers without testing the energy use of the devices may lead to a lack of improvements in ice-making efficiency. ( Id. ) The CA IOUs recommended that, in a future refrigerator/freezer rulemaking conducted under DOE's consumer product authority, DOE include ice making and dispensing in the energy test cycle. ( Id. )
AHRI commented that residential ice makers have much different operating and market characteristics from other commercial ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 6) AHRI also noted that commercial ice makers operate in offices and large commercial establishments and produce 50-4,000 lb of ice, and that DOE's TSD should analyze commercial equipment and maintain those products in scope. ( Id. at pp. 6-7) AHRI commented that DOE extending the scope beyond commercial equipment makes providing feedback challenging. ( Id. at p. 8)
Whirlpool recommended that DOE separately define “residential ice makers” and exclude them from the scope of any amended ACIM standard. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 4) In the alternative, Whirlpool also recommended that DOE could make an amendment to the definition of automatic commercial ice maker that clarifies it as “any ice maker which is not a consumer product, per the definition in 10 CFR 430.2.” ( Id. )
AHAM commented that consumer ice makers should be distinguished from commercial ice makers and stated it is not appropriate under EPCA or DOE's regulations for DOE to include them in the scope of the ACIM rulemaking (including the test procedure and standards). (AHAM, No. 27 at p
ker that clarifies it as “any ice maker which is not a consumer product, per the definition in 10 CFR 430.2.” ( Id. )
AHAM commented that consumer ice makers should be distinguished from commercial ice makers and stated it is not appropriate under EPCA or DOE's regulations for DOE to include them in the scope of the ACIM rulemaking (including the test procedure and standards). (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4)
AHAM stated that DOE makes its consumer/commercial product determination based on distinguishing design features or characteristics, whether the model operates in a manner that is significantly different from models of the same product type ( e.g., the energy use or energy-efficiency characteristics are significantly different), and the extent to which the product type can be used in a residential application. ( Id. at pp. 3-5)
Joint Commenters supported the inclusion of low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers and evaluating potential standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, and Joint Commenters additionally supported the scope expansion in response to the December 2021 ACIM Test Procedure NOPR so that low-capacity ACIM efficiency and capacity are based on a standardized test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 22 at p. 1)
DOE Guidance
AHAM noted that DOE's prior guidance stated that “consumer products and industrial equipment are mutually exclusive categories. An appliance model can only be considered commercial under the Act if it does not fit the definition of `consumer product'.” ( Id. at p. 3) AHAM added that DOE stated that it made this determination without regard to how the model is in fact distributed, and instead looks to whether a product is the “type” of product sold for personal use or consumption by individuals. ( Id. ) AHAM stated that it is not consistent with EPCA or DOE's own regulations to regulate residential stand-alone ice makers as commercial equipment, and DOE must not include them as automatic commercial ice makers under Id. at p
ut regard to how the model is in fact distributed, and instead looks to whether a product is the “type” of product sold for personal use or consumption by individuals. ( Id. ) AHAM stated that it is not consistent with EPCA or DOE's own regulations to regulate residential stand-alone ice makers as commercial equipment, and DOE must not include them as automatic commercial ice makers under Id. at p. 5)
The CA IOUs commented to note that the question of the proper division between DOE's consumer and commercial authority is not a new one, even within the refrigeration context. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs commented that in 2010, DOE issued guidance in response to confusion regarding the scope of newly adopted residential refrigerator regulations. ( Id. ) The CA IOUs commented that, at that time, DOE indicated that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), it would make a determination if a product is “of a type” that could be sold to consumers, specifically noting that a dorm-style refrigerator a manufacturer marketed as a “hotel mini-fridge” would still be considered a residential product. ( Id. ) The CA IOUs stated that furthermore, DOE made clear that industrial/commercial and consumer/residential products must be mutually exclusive, as the statutory definition of “industrial equipment” specifies that such equipment “is not a covered [consumer] product” under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Thus, the CA IOUs concluded that a product defined as residential cannot also be commercial. ( Id. )
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products
AHAM commented that the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) working group for the miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREF) declined to cover consumer stand-alone ice makers as part of that rulemaking due to large differences from other products in the MREF category and low shipments of low-capacity ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p
. )
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products
AHAM commented that the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) working group for the miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREF) declined to cover consumer stand-alone ice makers as part of that rulemaking due to large differences from other products in the MREF category and low shipments of low-capacity ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 2) AHAM added that it is confusing how DOE could attempt to cover these products as consumer products in the MREF rulemaking and then, several years later, as commercial equipment in the ACIM rulemaking. ( Id. at p. 3)
Likewise, Whirlpool commented that it supports and echoes the AHAM positions, particularly that DOE had concluded properly in the rulemaking for MREF to not include residential ice makers under the scope of DOE's energy conservation standards. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2) Whirlpool agreed with the ways in which AHAM described the differences between residential ice makers made by manufacturers like Whirlpool, and true commercial ice makers. ( Id. )
Whirlpool commented that DOE had previously proposed the inclusion of these residential ice makers in the MREF Conservation Standards, indicating DOE's previous belief that these residential ice makers meet the definition of a consumer product and were under evaluation for possible standards under 10 CFR part 430. ( Id. at p. 3)
End Users
AHAM commented that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are primarily used in residential applications, and, even if a business chooses to purchase a residential type product, that does not mean it is a commercial product, and added that low-capacity ice makers designed for consumers are not the same as lower capacity ice makers that are designed for businesses. (AHAM, No. 27 at p
Users
AHAM commented that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are primarily used in residential applications, and, even if a business chooses to purchase a residential type product, that does not mean it is a commercial product, and added that low-capacity ice makers designed for consumers are not the same as lower capacity ice makers that are designed for businesses. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 5) AHAM additionally stated one main reason low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers do not produce as much ice as the larger commercial products is because residential applications do not require the same amount of ice as commercial applications that must produce ice on a daily basis and throughout the day, as opposed to on an intermittent basis, likely not even daily for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. ( Id. )
Similarly, Whirlpool commented that there are key differences between residential and commercial icemakers: the end-purchasers of the products, the usage of the products, and the design of the products. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3) Whirlpool commented that the end-purchasers of residential ice makers are consumers, whereas ice makers are purchased by businesses and business owners. ( Id. )
Scotsman commented that ice makers with production capacities under 50 pounds per day should not be considered for inclusion in the automatic commercial ice machine category. (Scotsman, No. 30 at p. 2) Scotsman added that the application for low production ice makers is for residential, in-the-home installations, and those icemakers not designed or intended to support commercial foodservice, commercial business or retail operations. ( Id. at pp
on capacities under 50 pounds per day should not be considered for inclusion in the automatic commercial ice machine category. (Scotsman, No. 30 at p. 2) Scotsman added that the application for low production ice makers is for residential, in-the-home installations, and those icemakers not designed or intended to support commercial foodservice, commercial business or retail operations. ( Id. at pp. 2-3)
Portable Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
AHAM commented that portable ice makers are designed to fit on the countertop and are not plumbed into the water supply but rely on a reservoir, and are designed this way because they are meant to go in residential spaces or to be moved from space-to-space within a residence and are not intended to support a business. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4) AHAM added that a refillable reservoir is not a design feature that a commercial application would find practical or efficient because it would require constant re-filling throughout the day, particularly for the volume of ice required by the commercial user, whereas residential consumers, who use far less ice, are not bothered by the need to fill the reservoir. ( Id. ) AHAM commented that portable automatic commercial ice makers are designed for a residential application and designed to be able to move from room to room, avoiding the need for a complex, expensive installation because they are not plumbed into a water line. ( Id. at p. 5) AHAM added that portable automatic commercial ice makers must be compact in size, light enough to move, and contain a water reservoir. ( Id. ) AHAM stated that the portable automatic commercial ice makers only allow small amounts of ice storage before turning the unit off. ( Id. ) AHAM added that portable automatic commercial ice makers are distinct from all other products DOE is considering under the scope of this proposed rulemaking. ( Id. at pp
akers must be compact in size, light enough to move, and contain a water reservoir. ( Id. ) AHAM stated that the portable automatic commercial ice makers only allow small amounts of ice storage before turning the unit off. ( Id. ) AHAM added that portable automatic commercial ice makers are distinct from all other products DOE is considering under the scope of this proposed rulemaking. ( Id. at pp. 5-6) AHAM concluded that it is more likely that residential consumers are purchasing a portable ice maker specifically for its portability and less complex and costly installation with the intent of using it only occasionally; thus these design differences make sense. ( Id. at p. 4)
Safety Standards
In addition, AHAM commented there are different applicable safety standard requirements for consumer and commercial stand-alone ice-makers, but stated that commercial icemakers are covered by UL 60335-2-89, “Particular Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor,” whereas residential ice makers are covered by UL 60335-2-24, “Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances, and Ice Makers.” ( Id. at. 6)
Sanitary Guidelines
AHAM commented that stand-alone ice makers designed for residential use do not need to meet commercial kitchen safety and sanitary guidelines (NSF certification/listing), which essentially prohibits the installation of residential ice makers in commercial spaces ( e.g., mopping the floor with certain chemicals in a commercial kitchen could damage a residential ice maker, whereas commercial ice makers are designed to be higher off the ground so that critical components are shielded from liquid intrusions). ( Id. at p. 6)
Durability Requirements
AHAM stated that consumer stand-alone ice makers do not need to meet the same durability requirements of commercial ice makers because they are used less frequently. ( Id. at p
tchen could damage a residential ice maker, whereas commercial ice makers are designed to be higher off the ground so that critical components are shielded from liquid intrusions). ( Id. at p. 6)
Durability Requirements
AHAM stated that consumer stand-alone ice makers do not need to meet the same durability requirements of commercial ice makers because they are used less frequently. ( Id. at p. 6)
Warranties
AHAM stated also that consumer stand-alone ice maker warranties may only be valid if the product is used in a residential application, adding that many warranties are void if used in a commercial kitchen. ( Id. at p. 6)
Space Constraints
AHAM commented that undercounter ice makers are constrained by space (countertop height and cabinet depth), whereas commercial ice makers can be larger in height and depth. ( Id. at p. 4) AHAM added that residential ice makers are designed this way because they are designed to fit in residential kitchens and other residential spaces, not in commercial spaces. ( Id. )
GEA stated that there are significant and definite differences between residential and commercial ice makers, and those differences are reflected in GEA's residential ice makers. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) GEA's residential ice makers are space constrained, certified to different UL standards than commercial ice makers, sold through traditional residential sales channels, and their warranties limit use of the products to residential applications. ( Id. ) GEA's portable icemakers are designed to fit on a standard residential depth counter. ( Id. )
Whirlpool agreed that residential ice makers are typically designed for undercounter installation or countertop placement, whereas commercial ice makers can be designed for a number of different commercial installation locations, not limited to undercounter or countertop placement. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p
A's portable icemakers are designed to fit on a standard residential depth counter. ( Id. )
Whirlpool agreed that residential ice makers are typically designed for undercounter installation or countertop placement, whereas commercial ice makers can be designed for a number of different commercial installation locations, not limited to undercounter or countertop placement. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3)
Ice Quality
AHAM commented that low-capacity ice makers make clear, cubed ice, and some make nugget ice depending on consumer choice, while commercial ice makers are designed for larger capacity and higher production rates with less focus on the quality or type of ice. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4)
Utilization Factor
GEA agreed with AHAM's comments that there are significant and definite differences between residential and commercial ice makers and noted that those differences are reflected in GEA's residential ice makers. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2). GEA recommended that the intermittent usage for residential ice makers should be taken into account for the standards for these products and is yet a further reason why regulations for commercial equipment should not apply to residential products. ( Id. )
Equipment Classes
AHAM stated that it opposes DOE's decision to include the low-capacity equipment classes (harvest rates 50 lb or less per day) to the extent that they include consumer/residential ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 2) AHAM added that doing so conflicts with EPCA's distinction between consumer and commercial equipment and DOE's guidance on the distinction between consumer and commercial equipment. ( Id., p. 2)
AHRI commented that adding the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment classes may not be appropriate, and AHRI does not believe it is helpful to categorize these types of ice makers in the same energy conservation standard as automatic commercial ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p
mer and commercial equipment and DOE's guidance on the distinction between consumer and commercial equipment. ( Id., p. 2)
AHRI commented that adding the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment classes may not be appropriate, and AHRI does not believe it is helpful to categorize th

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

## Nearby sections

- [88 FR 16 Kiwifruit Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-28369.md)
- [88 FR 34 Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards for Airmen; Incorporation by Reference](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-28378.md)
- [88 FR 805 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-27994.md)
- [88 FR 820 Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-28505.md)
- [88 FR 1149 Changes Related to Reserve Account Administration in Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Direct Loan Programs](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00140.md)
- [88 FR 1171 Consideration of Updates to Trade Practice Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00111.md)
- [88 FR 1331 Inmate Financial Responsibility Program: Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00244.md)
- [88 FR 1341 Air Plan Approval; Illinois; VOC RACT Requirements for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00245.md)
- [88 FR 1532 Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California; Restricted Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00380.md)
- [88 FR 1543 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Coachella Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification to Extreme](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00330.md)
- [88 FR 2047 Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00437.md)
- [88 FR 2050 Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Richmond-Petersburg Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00091.md)
- [88 FR 2057 Approval of the Clean Air Act, Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos Management and Control; State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00112.md)
- [88 FR 2273 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00186.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-09676. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.