Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-21987

Proposed Rule2023-21987

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

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

October 10, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer equipment and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers ("commercial refrigeration equipment" or "CRE"). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE" "the Department") to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR"), DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for CRE, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70196-70307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21987]

[[Page 70195]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 194

October 10, 2023

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 70196]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AD82

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

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

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

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

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

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than December 11, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before November 9, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, November 7th,
2023, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. This meeting will also
be broadcast as a webinar.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6E-069, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. See section VII of this document, ``Public
Participation,'' for further details, including procedures for
attending the in-person meeting, webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal Rulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b08190e797b7a7c181f0f7b7b7b7c0b2e2e652f242e652c243d">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standards. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b0e050e190c1245181f0a050f0a190f182b1e180f0401450c041d">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eeaf9e9e82878f808d8bbd9a8f808a8f9c8a9dbf9b8b9d9a8781809dae8b8bc08a818bc0898198">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cd86bfa4beb9a4a3e386a2a8bfa3a4aa8da5bce3a9a2a8e3aaa2bb">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRE
C. Deviation From Process Rule
1. Framework Document
2. Public Comment Period
3. Amended Test Procedures
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes and Definitions
a. Current Equipment Classes
b. New Definitions
c. Equipment Class Modifications
2. CRE Market
3. Technology Options
a. Compressors

[[Page 70197]]

b. R-290
c. Insulation
d. Doors
e. Evaporators and Condensers
f. Fan Motors
g. Defrost
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Increased Insulation Thickness
b. Vacuum-Insulated Panels
c. Linear Compressors
d. Air Curtain Design
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Energy Use
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
c. Engineering Spreadsheet Model
d. Industry Trade Association Survey
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Residual Value
8. Discount Rates
9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
10. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Changes to the Cabinet Structure
b. Supply Chain Concerns
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for CRE Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Public Meeting and Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\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 established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes CRE, the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA established standards for certain categories of CRE (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(2)-(4)) and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(B)).
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need
to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for CRE. The TSLs and their associated
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C, DOE has tentatively
determined that TSL 5 represents the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified
and to establish new energy conservation standards for covered
equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. The
proposed standards, which are expressed in maximum daily energy
consumption (``MDEC''), are shown in table I.1. These proposed
standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRE listed in table I.1
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the
date that is (1) 3 years after the date on which the final new and
amended standards are published or (2) if the Secretary determines, by
rule, that 3 years is inadequate, not later than 5 years after the date
on which the final

[[Page 70198]]

rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(C)).
DOE notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act (``AIM Act'') \2\ affecting CRE in a NOPR
published on December 15, 2022 (``December 2022 EPA NOPR''). 87 FR
76738. The proposal would prohibit manufacture or import of such CRE
starting January 1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase,
receipt, or export of such CRE starting January 1, 2026. Id. at 87 FR
76809. See section IV.C.1.a of this document for more details. DOE
understands that it would be beneficial to CRE equipment manufacturers
to align the compliance date of any DOE amended or established
standards as closely as possible with the refrigerant prohibition dates
proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. Therefore, DOE is proposing
that the proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRE listed
in table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or
after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final new
and amended standards are published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 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.'' <a href="http://Congress.gov">Congress.gov</a>, Library of Congress,
December 27, 2020, available at <a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133">www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133</a>.

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for CRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily energy
Equipment class consumption (kWh/
day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP.RC.H.......................................... 0.31 x TDA + 1.99
VOP.RC.M.......................................... 0.56 x TDA + 3.57
VOP.RC.L.......................................... 2.04 x TDA + 6.36
VOP.RC.I.......................................... 2.59 x TDA + 8.08
SVO.RC.H.......................................... 0.32 x TDA + 1.55
SVO.RC.M.......................................... 0.58 x TDA + 2.79
SVO.RC.L.......................................... 2.04 x TDA + 6.36
SVO.RC.I.......................................... 2.59 x TDA + 8.08
HZO.RC.H.......................................... 0.19 x TDA + 1.56
HZO.RC.M.......................................... 0.34 x TDA + 2.81
HZO.RC.L.......................................... 0.54 x TDA + 6.81
HZO.RC.I.......................................... 0.69 x TDA + 8.64
VCT.RC.H.......................................... 0.07 x TDA + 0.97
VCT.RC.M.......................................... 0.134 x TDA + 1.74
VCT.RC.L.......................................... 0.47 x TDA + 2.51
VCT.RC.I.......................................... 0.56 x TDA + 2.97
HCT.RC.M.......................................... 0.16 x TDA + 0.13
HCT.RC.L.......................................... 0.34 x TDA + 0.26
HCT.RC.I.......................................... 0.38 x TDA + 0.29
VCS.RC.H.......................................... 0.06 x V + 0.14
VCS.RC.M.......................................... 0.1 x V + 0.26
VCS.RC.L.......................................... 0.21 x V + 0.54
VCS.RC.I.......................................... 0.25 x V + 0.63
HCS.RC.M.......................................... 0.1 x V + 0.26
HCS.RC.L.......................................... 0.21 x V + 0.54
HCS.RC.I.......................................... 0.25 x V + 0.63
SOC.RC.H.......................................... 0.22 x TDA + 0.05
SOC.RC.M.......................................... 0.39 x TDA + 0.1
SOC.RC.L.......................................... 0.83 x TDA + 0.2
SOC.RC.I.......................................... 1.04 x TDA + 0.25
CB.RC.M........................................... 0.03 x V + 0.39
CB.RC.L........................................... 0.13 x V + 1.37
VOP.SC.H.......................................... 0.69 x TDA + 1.94
VOP.SC.M.......................................... 1.25 x TDA + 3.48
VOP.SC.L.......................................... 3.29 x TDA + 9.15
VOP.SC.I.......................................... 4.18 x TDA + 11.63
SVO.SC.H.......................................... 0.65 x TDA + 1.77
SVO.SC.M.......................................... 1.18 x TDA + 3.18
SVO.SC.L.......................................... 3.25 x TDA + 8.78
SVO.SC.I.......................................... 4.13 x TDA + 11.16
HZO.SC.H.......................................... 0.27 x TDA + 2.06
HZO.SC.M.......................................... 0.48 x TDA + 3.71
HZO.SC.L.......................................... 1.48 x TDA + 5.5
HZO.SC.I.......................................... 1.97 x TDA + 7.34
VCT.SC.H.......................................... 0.053 x V + 0.85
VCT.SC.M.......................................... 0.054 x V + 0.86
VCT.SC.L.......................................... 0.234 x V + 2.38
VCT.SC.I.......................................... 0.6 x TDA + 3.2
HCT.SC.M.......................................... 0.06 x V + 0.37
HCT.SC.L.......................................... 0.08 x V + 1.23
HCT.SC.I.......................................... 0.34 x TDA + 0.43
VCS.SC.H.......................................... 0.0082 x V + 0.21
VCS.SC.M.......................................... 0.02 x V + 0.54
VCS.SC.L.......................................... 0.155 x V + 0.97
VCS.SC.I.......................................... 0.25 x V + 0.88
HCS.SC.M.......................................... 0.022 x V + 0.41
HCS.SC.L.......................................... 0.043 x V + 0.81
HCS.SC.I.......................................... 0.31 x V + 0.81
SOC.SC.H.......................................... 0.17 x TDA + 0.33
SOC.SC.M.......................................... 0.304 x TDA + 0.59
SOC.SC.L.......................................... 1.1 x TDA + 2.1
SOC.SC.I.......................................... 1.53 x TDA + 0.36
CB.SC.M........................................... 0.049 x V + 0.54
CB.SC.L........................................... 0.180 x V + 1.92
PD.SC.M........................................... 0.11 x V + 0.81
VCT.RC.M.PT....................................... 0.139 x TDA + 1.81
VCT.SC.M.PT....................................... 0.056 x V + 0.86
VCT.SC.L.PT....................................... 0.243 x V + 2.47
VCS.SC.M.PT....................................... 0.02 x V + 0.56
VCS.SC.L.PT....................................... 0.161 x V + 1.01
VCT.RC.M.SD....................................... 0.143 x TDA + 1.86
VCT.SC.M.SD....................................... 0.058 x V + 0.86
VCT.RC.M.SDPT..................................... 0.149 x TDA + 1.93
VCT.SC.M.SDPT..................................... 0.060 x V + 0.86
VCT.RC.M.RI....................................... 0.140 x TDA + 1.83
VCT.SC.M.RI....................................... 0.057 x V + 0.86
VCS.SC.M.RI....................................... 0.02 x V + 0.57
VCS.SC.L.RI....................................... 0.162 x V + 1.02
VCT.RC.M.RT....................................... 0.146 x TDA + 1.9
VCT.SC.M.RT....................................... 0.059 x V + 0.86
VCS.SC.M.RT....................................... 0.02 x V + 0.59
VCS.SC.L.RT....................................... 0.169 x V + 1.06
HCS.SC.L.FA....................................... 0.052 x V + 0.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The equipment classes are separated by equipment family, condensing unit
configuration, and operating temperature. Equipment Families: VOP--
Vertical Open; SVO--Semi-Vertical Open; HZO--Horizontal Open; VCT--
Vertical Closed Transparent; HCT--Horizontal Closed Transparent; VCS--
Vertical Closed Solid; HCS--Horizontal Closed Solid; SOC--Service Over
Counter; CB--Chef Base; PD--Pull Down. Condensing Unit Configurations:
RC--Remote Condensing; SC--Self Contained. Operating Temperatures: H--
High Temperature; M--Medium Temperature; L--Low Temperature; I--Ice
Cream Temperature.

Table I.2--Description of Coefficients for Proposed Maximum Daily Energy
Consumption Standards for CRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique design characteristic Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass-through Door........................ PT
Sliding Door............................. SD
Sliding and Pass-through Doors........... SDPT
Roll-in Door............................. RI
Roll-through Door........................ RT
Forced Air Evaporator.................... FA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that the proposed
standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRE listed in table I.1
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the
date that is 3 years after the date on which the final new and amended
standards are published. More generally, DOE requests comment on
whether it would be beneficial to CRE manufacturers to align the
compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards as closely
as possible with the refrigerant prohibition dates proposed by the
December 2022 EPA NOPR.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards--represented by TSL 5--on consumers of CRE, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the
simple payback period (``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are
positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the
average lifetime for the vast majority of CRE equipment classes,\4\
which is estimated to be 13.9 years (see section IV.F.7 of this
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this document).
\4\ For the HZO.RC.M equipment class, the estimated PBP at TSL 5
is 13.8 years for an estimated average lifetime of approximately 13
years.

[[Page 70199]]

Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
Consumers of CRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
Equipment class savings (2022$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB.SC.L........................... 566.92 2.2
CB.SC.M........................... 44.90 5.0
HCS.SC.L.......................... 7.77 5.1
HCS.SC.M.......................... 84.89 1.8
HCT.SC.I.......................... 55.03 7.1
HCT.SC.L *........................ ................. .................
HCT.SC.M *........................ ................. .................
HZO.RC.L.......................... 46.57 13.0
HZO.RC.M.......................... 40.29 13.8
HZO.SC.L.......................... 841.89 2.8
HZO.SC.M.......................... 199.91 5.2
SOC.RC.M.......................... 929.51 3.3
SOC.SC.M.......................... 698.37 5.4
SVO.RC.M.......................... 406.59 7.3
SVO.SC.M.......................... 602.17 4.3
VCS.SC.H.......................... 162.47 3.7
VCS.SC.I.......................... 486.70 3.4
VCS.SC.L.......................... 260.73 3.2
VCS.SC.M.......................... 128.81 4.1
VCT.RC.L.......................... 331.04 6.4
VCT.RC.M.......................... 133.62 10.9
VCT.SC.H *........................ ................. .................
VCT.SC.I.......................... 77.46 8.3
VCT.SC.L.......................... 120.34 5.8
VCT.SC.M.......................... 82.53 7.6
VOP.RC.L.......................... 1524.52 3.6
VOP.RC.M.......................... 707.13 5.7
VOP.SC.M.......................... 992.17 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For these equipment classes, TSL 5 corresponds to efficiency level 0.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers \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 base year through the
end of the analysis period (2023-2057). Using a real discount rate of
10.0 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of CRE in
the case without new and amended standards is $3,286.4 million. Under
the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -
4.8 percent to -0.9 percent, which is approximately -$159.3 million to
-$30.9 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with new
and amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur
total conversion costs of $226.4 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Conversion costs are incurred between the publication of the
final rule (modeled as 2025) and the compliance year (modeled as
2028) and are included in the change in INPV presented in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for CRE would save a significant amount of energy. Relative
to the case without new and amended standards, the lifetime energy
savings for CRE purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards
(2028-2057) amount to 3.11 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''),
or quads.\7\ This represents a savings of 16.8 percent relative to the
energy use of these equipment in the case without new or amended
standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for CRE ranges from $2.4 billion (at
a 7-percent discount rate) to $7.1 billion (at a 3-percent discount
rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs
for CRE purchased in 2028-2057.
In addition, the proposed standards for CRE are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 55.8 million metric tons (``Mt'') \8\
of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 17.1 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 104.2 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 472 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.54 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.12 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\9\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-

[[Page 70200]]

CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''),
and the social cost of nitrous oxide (``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together
these represent the social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim
SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG emissions avoided)
developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\10\ The derivation of these values is
discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational
purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a
3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $3.04 billion. DOE does not
have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the
importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all
four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 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''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency,\11\ as discussed in section
IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health
benefits would be $2.32 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and
$5.94 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\12\ DOE is currently
only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from two
precursors (SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in
ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\12\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for CRE. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.4--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for CRE (TSL 5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2022$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 12.8
Climate Benefits *................................... 3.04
Health Benefits **................................... 5.94
------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 21.8
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs................. 5.74
------------------
Net Benefits..................................... 16.1
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger][Dagger])... (0.16)-(0.03)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 5.55
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................ 3.04
Health Benefits **................................... 2.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 10.9
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs................. 3.17
------------------
Net Benefits..................................... 7.74
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger][Dagger])... (0.16)-(0.03)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE
shipped in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and
health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in
2028-2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are
shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To
monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses
the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] 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.

[[Page 70201]]

[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life
cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in
detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA
includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price
experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed
analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J.
In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based
on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and
margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's
expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value
of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production
costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change
in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of
capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry
weighted average cost of capital). For commercial refrigeration
equipment, those values are -$159 million to -$31 million. DOE
accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL
is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is
presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer
markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is
the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer
Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of
Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not
be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to
increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of
estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained
further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional
context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to
society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE
were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this
proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $15.94 billion to
$16.07 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $7.58
billion to $7.71 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ()
indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in equipment purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2023. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of CRE shipped in
2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of CRE shipped in 2028-2057. Total benefits for both the 3-
percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are
presented for all four discount rates in section V.L of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $334.6 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $586.1 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $174.4 million in climate benefits,
and $245.5 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $671.4 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $329.8 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$737.7 million in reduced operating costs, $174.4 million in climate
benefits, and $341.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $923.5 million per year.

Table I.5--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for CRE (TSL 5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 737.7 714.3 773.7
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 174.4 173.5 178.9
Health Benefits **.............................................. 341.4 339.7 349.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 1253.3 1227.5 1302.8
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs............................ 329.8 337.9 328.3
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 923.5 889.5 974.1
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............. (17)-(3) (17)-(3) (17)-(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 586.1 569.3 613.0
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 174.4 173.5 178.9
Health Benefits **.............................................. 245.5 244.7 250.9
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 1006.0 987.5 1042.8
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs............................ 334.6 341.7 333.5
Net Benefits................................................ 671.4 645.7 709.3

[[Page 70202]]

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............. (17)-(3) (17)-(3) (17)-(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028-2057. These results include
benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net
Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference
case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections V.F.1 and V.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and
Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it
emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG
estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates
presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both
costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also
separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the
detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments,
conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected
impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including
changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in
INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated
in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of
capital). For commercial refrigeration equipment, those values are -$16.65 million to -$3.23 million. DOE
accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section
V.C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the
Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of
Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE
assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in
manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above
table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J, to provide additional context for assessing the
estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the
annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $906.8
million to $920.3 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $654.7 million to $668.2 million at
7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, design options used to achieve these
standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment
classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's
analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a
great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for CRE is $334.6 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $586.1 million
in reduced equipment operating costs, $174.4 million in climate
benefits and $245.5 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts
to $671.4 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced
than equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 3.11 quad FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 33 million homes. The NPV of consumer
benefit for these projected energy savings is $2.38 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.10 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these
energy savings are 55.8 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>, 17.1 thousand tons of
SO<INF>2</INF>, 104.2 thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.12 tons of Hg,
472.0 thousand tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.54 thousand tons of
N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
percent discount rate) is $ 3.04 billion. The estimated monetary value
of the health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions is $ 2.32 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $ 5.94
billion using a 3-percent discount rate. As such, DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more
detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is
contained in the

[[Page 70203]]

remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support
document (``NOPR TSD'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The NOPR TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also considered more stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards and is still considering them in this rulemaking.
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of
the more stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the
projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer equipment and certain industrial equipment. Title III, part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes CRE, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E))
EPCA established standards for certain categories of CRE (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(2)-(4)) and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(B))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e) (applying the
preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures
as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies
with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated
under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for CRE appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart C, appendix B (``appendix B'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including CRE. Any new or
amended standard for a covered equipment must be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of
Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
equipment, including CRE, if no test procedure has been established for
the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is
not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing an equipment complying with an
energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the
Secretary

[[Page 70204]]

may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered equipment that has two or
more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a
type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use,
if DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard
for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility
to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
(Id.) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation
of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42
U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
On March 28, 2014, DOE published a final rule in the Federal
Register that prescribed the current energy conservation standards for
CRE manufactured on and after March 27, 2017 (``March 2014 Final
Rule''). 79 FR 17725. These standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 431.66(e).
For CRE with two or more compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators,
hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid
refrigerator-freezers), 10 CFR 431.66(e)(2) specifies that the maximum
daily energy consumption for each model shall be the sum of the
applicable standard for each of the compartments, as specified in 10
CFR 431.66(e)(1). For wedge cases, 10 CFR 431.66(e)(3) specifies
instructions to comply with the applicable standards specified in 10
CFR 431.66(e)(1).\16\ Certain exclusions to the standards at 10 CFR
431.66(e)(1) are specified at 10 CFR 431.66(f) (i.e., the energy
conservation standards do not apply to salad bars, buffet tables, and
chef bases or griddle stands).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ A wedge case is a CRE that forms the transition between two
regularly shaped display cases. 10 CFR 431.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRE
On July 16, 2021, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
in the Federal Register to undertake an early assessment review for
amended energy conservation standards for CRE to determine whether to
amend applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment.
(``July 2021 RFI'') 86 FR 37708. Specifically, through the published
notice and request for information, DOE sought data and information
that could enable the agency to determine whether amended energy
conservation standards would: (1) result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) be technologically feasible; and (3) be economically
justified. Id.
On June 28, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a
notification of the availability of a preliminary technical support
document for CRE (``June 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 38296. In
that notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework,
models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for
CRE, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential
energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which
DOE presented in the accompanying Preliminary TSD (``June 2022
Preliminary TSD'').\17\ Id. DOE held a public meeting related to the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on August 8, 2022 (hereafter, the
``August 8, 2022, public meeting'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in the docket
for this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table II.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Abbreviation the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHT Cooling Systems...................... AHT....................... 48 Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating and AHRI...................... 46 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters.......... 39 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
California Investor-Owned Utilities...... CA IOUs................... 43 Energy Utilities.
Continental Refrigerator................. Continental............... 38 Manufacturer.
Hillphoenix.............................. Hillphoenix............... * 42 Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation..................... Hussmann.................. 45 Manufacturer.
ITW-Food Equipment Group, LLC dba ITW....................... 41 Manufacturer.
Traulsen/Kairak.
National Automatic Merchandising NAMA...................... 37 Trade Association.
Association.
North American Association of Food NAFEM..................... 40 Trade Association.
Equipment Manufacturers.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance..... NEEA...................... 47 Efficiency Organizations.
Zero Zone, Inc........................... Zero Zone................. 44 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hillphoenix requested that its response be treated as Confidential Business Information.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\18\
Where interested parties have provided written comments that are
substantively consistent with their oral comments provided during the
August 8, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this document. DOE did not identify any oral comments
provided during the August 8, 2022, public

[[Page 70205]]

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

\18\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for CRE. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0007, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Process Rule

In accordance with 10 CFR 431.4 and section 3(a) of 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR
and NOPR stages for an energy conservation standard rulemaking.
1. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines
it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages
of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that
DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary
analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE
published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (see 87 FR 38296),
DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the
preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the June
2022 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis--entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested
Parties, and DOE Responses--describes the general analytical framework
that DOE used in evaluating and developing potential new and amended
energy conservation standards.\19\ As such, publication of a separate
framework document would be largely redundant of chapter 2 of the June
2022 Preliminary TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in the docket
for this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of
the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar
days. For this NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60-day comment period,
consistent with EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p).
As noted previously, DOE requested comment in the July 2021 RFI on
the analysis conducted in support of the last energy conservation
standard rulemaking for CRE and provided a 45-day comment period. (See
86 FR 37708). In its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and accompanying
TSD, for which DOE provided a 60-day comment period, DOE's analysis
remained largely the same as the analysis conducted in support of the
last energy conservation standards rulemaking for CRE. DOE requested
comment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on the analysis conducted
in support of this current rulemaking. In this NOPR, DOE incorporated
the most recent data inputs but largely relied on many of the same
analytical assumptions and approaches used in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis. Given that the analysis presented in this NOPR remains
largely the same as the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and in light of
the 45-day comment period DOE has already provided with the July 2021
RFI and the 60-day comment period DOE has already provided with its
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE has determined that a 60-day
comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with
a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
3. Amended Test Procedures
Section 8(d)(1) of the Process Rule specifies that test procedure
rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy
conservation standards will be finalized prior to publication of a NOPR
proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Additionally,
new test procedures and amended test procedures that impact measured
energy use or efficiency will be finalized at least 180 days prior to
the close of the comment period for (1) a NOPR proposing new or amended
energy conservation standards or (2) a notice of proposed determination
that standards do not need to be amended.
On September 26, 2023, DOE published a Federal Register notice
amending and establishing test procedures for CRE (``September 2023
Test Procedure Final Rule''). 88 FR 66152. DOE determined that the
amendments adopted in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule will
not alter the measured efficiency of CRE currently subject to energy
conservation standards. 88 FR 66152, 66156. However, the measured
energy use for chef bases or griddle stands and high-temperature
refrigerators would likely change as a result of the September 2023
Test Procedure Final Rule. Nonetheless, the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule aligns with the requirements that the CRE industry
has developed or proposed. Specifically, AHRI 1200-2023 \20\ was
approved by the American National Standards Institute on June 12, 2023,
and addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022 \21\ was proposed on September 15,
2023. AHRI 1200-2023 specifies that high-temperature refrigerators
shall be tested at an integrated average temperature of 55 [deg]F
<plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F, consistent with the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule. The addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022 proposal
specifies a dry-bulb temperature of 86.0 [deg]F with a tolerance for
the average over test period of <plus-minus> 1.8 [deg]F and a tolerance
for the individual measurements of <plus-minus> 3.6 [deg]F; wet-bulb
temperature of 73.7 [deg]F with a tolerance for the average over test
period of <plus-minus> 1.8 [deg]F and a tolerance for the individual
measurements of <plus-minus> 3.6 [deg]F; and radiant heat temperature
of greater than or equal to 81.0 [deg]F, consistent with the September
2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. Both AHRI 1200-2023 and the proposed
addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022 were developed by the CRE industry over
several years, and the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule aligns
with the provisions included in both test standards for chef bases or
griddle stands and high-temperature refrigerators. As such, DOE finds
it appropriate to deviate from the requirement that the amended test
procedures for chef bases or griddle stands and high-temperature
refrigerators be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the
comment period for this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ AHRI Standard 1200-2023 (I-P), 2023 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers
and Storage Cabinets, copyright 2023.
\21\ Proposed Addendum b to Standard 72-2022, Method of Testing
Open and Closed Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. See <a href="https://osr.ashrae.org/Online-Comment-Database/ShowDoc2/Table/DocumentAttachments/FileName/4130-72-2022%20Addendum%20b.21_072823_chair_approved.pdf/download/false">https://osr.ashrae.org/Online-Comment-Database/ShowDoc2/Table/DocumentAttachments/FileName/4130-72-2022%20Addendum%20b.21_072823_chair_approved.pdf/download/false</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
NEEA generally supported the process outlined in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 5) NEEA commented that DOE's
analysis in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD showed a strong standard for
CRE equipment would be economically justified and deliver significant
energy savings to the Nation. (Id.) As a result, NEEA recommended DOE
adopt increased efficiency standards for existing classes

[[Page 70206]]

of CRE and continue to push the industry toward more-efficient products
and greater energy savings across all CRE equipment classes via
technical, market, and economic analyses. (Id.) NEEA recommended
further that DOE consider energy-saving technologies in CRE and that
DOE collect additional data for analysis. (Id.) NEEA stated that they
believe further analysis of specific features would help establish
stronger standards, especially when the analysis improved
representativeness of equipment in the market and appropriately
characterized energy use and energy savings. (Id.) NEEA stated it
recognized CRE as a complex energy conservation standard with many
combinations of equipment and a variety of use cases and commended DOE
for the depth of analysis and concerted efforts to incorporate new
classes and utilize available data for analysis. (Id.) NEEA commented
that DOE's analysis demonstrated significant cost-effective savings,
and NEEA recommended DOE adopt increased energy conservation standards
for existing CRE equipment classes as supported by the analysis in the
June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Id.)
Other commenters expressed concern with the rulemaking timeline.
NAFEM commented that it had previously requested a comment period
extension, which was denied, and requested to see the CRE engineering
spreadsheets, which were provided on August 18, 2022, leaving an 11-
calendar-day review period. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 2) NAFEM acknowledged
that DOE had initiated multiple energy efficiency rulemakings on a
compressed schedule, but NAFEM stated that this did not serve as
justification for neglecting to provide important information and
adequate time for review. (Id.) NAFEM disagreed with DOE's
justification that the comment period could be shortened due to
similarities between the June 2022 Preliminary TSD and its 2014
counterpart. (Id.) NAFEM commented that many of its concerns regarding
the July 2021 RFI were dismissed or remain unresolved in the June 2022
Preliminary TSD. (Id.) Furthermore, NAFEM commented that DOE's claim
was inaccurate that the engineering spreadsheets ``do not contain any
new or additional information that was not already published with the
TSD in June.'' (Id.) NAFEM added that it would have had two additional
weeks to analyze the spreadsheets if DOE had adhered to the appendix A
Process Rule permitting no less than a 75-day comment period. (Id. at
pp. 2-3) NAFEM concluded that it was unable to provide a complete list
of errors or concerns due to insufficient time and presented its
comments as representative, but not exhaustive, of the types of
problems and inaccuracies contained in the spreadsheets. (Id. at p. 3)
Hussmann commented that it supports the comments provided by AHRI
and NAFEM and noted that it and other commenters were denied extensions
to the August 29, 2022, comment deadline. (Hussmann, No. 45 at p. 1).
Hussmann stated that it hopes discussions with DOE will improve this
rulemaking. (Id.)
NAMA shared its view that, despite this CRE rulemaking being one of
the most complex DOE has undertaken within EERE, DOE reduced the time
for public comment. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 4) NAMA additionally commented
that DOE released the engineering spreadsheets on August 8, 2022,
leaving only 7 working days for review prior to the comment receipt
deadline, and that this limited notice violated all elements of the
notice and comment in the Administrative Procedure Act.\22\ (Id.) NAMA
added that the United States has admonished other countries for similar
regulatory actions. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See 5 U.S.C. 551-559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITW commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD made clear the
importance of the CRE engineering spreadsheet, prompting ITW to request
that DOE grant access to the spreadsheet. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 1). ITW
stated that DOE provided the spreadsheet but did not extend the comment
period to allow adequate time for review of information ITW considered
critical. (Id.)
In response to comments regarding timing and the 2022 Engineering
Spreadsheet Related to the Preliminary Analysis for Commercial
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers Standards
(``engineering spreadsheet''), DOE published this document in the
rulemaking docket on August 18, 2022 after commenters requested its
publication. This practice was consistent with prior rulemakings
conducted for CRE, such as when DOE did not include an engineering
spreadsheet with the notice of availability of preliminary technical
support document published on March 30, 2011 (``March 2011 Preliminary
Analysis''). Instead, DOE published the engineering spreadsheet with
its NOPR on September 11, 2013. Similarly, in this rulemaking, DOE did
not publish the engineering spreadsheet used for the preliminary
analysis at the time of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis publication.
Consistent with past practice, DOE is publishing the engineering
spreadsheet that supports this NOPR analysis along with this NOPR.
With respect to comments regarding the comment-period, DOE
discusses deviations from the Process Rule, and the justifications for
such deviations, in section II.C of this NOPR.
In response to comments regarding the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 553 provides requirements for a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The June 2022 Preliminary Analysis was not a notice of proposed
rulemaking as it was a notification that announced the availability of
the preliminary analysis DOE had conducted for purposes of evaluating
the need for amended energy conservation standards for CRE. However,
DOE provided notice of that preliminary analysis and sought comment on
the analysis. See 87 FR 38296. The June 2022 Preliminary Analysis was
in compliance with EPCA and the Process Rule.
Other commenters had general comments regarding the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, the accompanying June 2022 Preliminary TSD, and
the rulemaking process. NAMA commented that the June 2022 Preliminary
TSD is flawed and should be re-written, with CRE categories split into
ranges by size. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 8) NAMA stated that if the
engineering analysis were to be incorrect, then the technology
screening would be incorrect also, which means the baseline machine
design was incorrect and the rest of the report could not be used.
(Id.) NAMA recommended that DOE begin the process again, using machines
that are currently available on the market as its baseline. (Id.) NAMA
also recommended that DOE use low-GWP refrigerants and incorporate most
of the design options shown in table 5.8.10 of NAMA's written
submission, along with current costs. (Id.) NAMA added that if this
approach is not possible, DOE should acknowledge the costs already
incurred by manufacturers to meet the goals established by the Biden
Administration to reduce global warming. (Id.)
NAMA commented that while it appreciated DOE's willingness to hold
a hearing on the proposed energy efficiency standards levels, it
believed that the August 8, 2022, public meeting was rushed and
abruptly terminated before all questions were answered. (NAMA, No. 37
at p. 4) NAMA requested that DOE return to ``in-person'' meetings to
support dialogue on these subjects. (Id.)

[[Page 70207]]

NAMA commented that the market dynamic was currently distorted due
to the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of available equipment, making
efficiency a secondary priority to availability. (Id. at p. 16)
NAMA recommended that DOE should cease the rulemaking on this
category of CRE until after the beverage vending machines rulemaking is
in the final rule stage and until the test procedure for CRE equipment
is finalized. (Id. at p. 17) NAMA commented that due to the fact that
the rulemakings for beverage vending machines and CRE affect the same
manufacturers, overlapping comment periods result in result increased
complexity to the responses. (Id.) NAMA also stated that a final test
procedure should be established before setting future standard levels,
and that the Process Rule requires DOE to finish the test procedure
rulemaking before engaging in cost and energy calculations for a new
standard. (Id.) NAMA further commented that DOE has requested comments
on the CRE test procedure at the same time as it requested comments on
the NOPR for future standards levels. (Id.) NAMA stated that, it is
illogical to set future standards levels because the final test
procedure for CRE is not yet known. (Id.)
Finally, NAMA commented that it does not believe the June 2022
Preliminary TSD or other documents for this rulemaking reflect the
state of the CRE industry in 2022 or the projections for equipment
manufactured after this rule becomes effective. (Id. at p. 19) NAMA
requested that DOE conduct a complete revision of all energy efficiency
changes, the base case, the standards cases, and the economic analysis
after the test procedure final standard is issued and the Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (``CRADA'') \23\ extension is
complete. (Id.) NAMA stated its belief that accurate information will
show that a new set of standards levels for the classes of CRE covered
by NAMA is unwarranted. (Id.) NAMA commented that the payback period
will grow significantly when the net present value is re-calculated
using accurate numbers. (Id.) NAMA recommended allowing manufacturers
to complete the change to hydrocarbon refrigerants, which NAMA asserted
would have up to 10 times the environmental impact of any new DOE
standards. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Most of the activities of the 2019-2021 CRADA were directed
toward reduction of the risk involved in a possible leak situation
if it were ever to occur. ORNL did extensive testing on leak
scenarios and proposed new methods to reduce the risk from such a
leak in a public space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to NAMA's comments, DOE is maintaining the current
equipment class structure in this NOPR, except for the new equipment
classes which are proposed and discussed in section IV.A.1.c of this
document. In accordance with section 6(d)(3) of the Process Rule, DOE
may make any necessary changes to the engineering analysis or the
candidate standard levels based on consideration of the comments
received. DOE notes that it considered CRE that are currently available
on the market when developing the NOPR engineering analysis. DOE
acknowledges and accounts for the December 2022 EPA NOPR in this NOPR
analysis. As noted in section I of this document, the December 2022 EPA
NOPR would prohibit manufacture or import of such CRE starting January
1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase, receipt, or export
of such CRE starting January 1, 2026. 87 FR 76809. The December 2022
EPA NOPR compliance date would occur prior to the expected the
compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards (i.e., on
or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final new
and amended standards are published). Thus, the transition to
refrigerants in compliance with the December 2022 EPA NOPR (including
hydrocarbon refrigerants) would have already occurred prior to the
expected the compliance date of any DOE amended or established
standards. Additionally, DOE considered the December 2022 EPA NOPR when
developing the NOPR engineering analysis baseline as discussed in
section IV.C.1.a of this document. In the no-new-standards case, DOE
incorporated the cost of refrigerant transition as discussed in section
IV.J.2.c of this document. DOE also revised the components considered
in the engineering analysis baseline in this NOPR as discussed in
section IV.C.1.a of this document and updated the costs as discussed in
section IV.C.2. of this document. In response to market distortions,
DOE used the latest shipments, market shares, and MPCs based on
manufacturer feedback. Supply chain constraints are discussed in
section V.B.2.c of this document.
In response to the comments about the August 8, 2022, public
meeting, DOE notes that it responded to all questions asked during the
August 8, 2022, public meeting.\24\ Similar to the process with the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE welcomes comments in response to
this NOPR and participation in the public meeting, and DOE provides
information on public participation in response to this NOPR in section
VII. of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0049">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0049</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that section 8(d)(1) of the Process Rule specifies that
test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate
proposed energy conservation standards will be finalized prior to
publication of a NOPR proposing new and amended energy conservation
standards. Additionally, energy conservation standards for refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines are separate from CRE, and
evaluated through a separate rulemaking process, and are located at 10
CFR 431.296.
AHT stated that there is a high risk of eliminating the entire
equipment class if DOE were to further increase restrictions for
horizontal closed transparent self-contained low temperature
(``HCT.SC.L''), horizontal closed transparent self-contained medium
temperature (``HCT.SC.M''), horizontal closed transparent self-
contained ice-cream freezer (``HCT.SC.I''), and vertical closed
transparent self-contained low temperature (``VCT.SC.L.'') equipment
classes and recommended that DOE maintain the current regulatory
framework in design options and efficiency standards for these
equipment classes. (AHT, No. 48 at p. 6)
In response to AHT's comments, DOE has revised the components
considered in the engineering analysis baseline in this NOPR as
discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document and presented the
results of this NOPR analysis in section V of this document. DOE also
notes that it observed CRE models currently available and rated to the
DOE Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'') that currently comply
with the proposed energy conservation standards in this NOPR for the
equipment classes listed in AHT's comment.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those commercial refrigeration equipment that meet
the definition of ``commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
and freezers,'' as codified at 10 CFR 431.62.
A ``commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer''
means refrigeration equipment that--(1) is not consumer equipment (as
defined in Sec. 430.2); (2) is not designed and marketed exclusively
for medical, scientific, or research purposes; (3) operates at a
chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable
temperature; (4) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable

[[Page 70208]]

materials horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically; (5) has
transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of
hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; (6) is
designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature
applications; and (7) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit
or to a remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62.
However, this NOPR does not include some types of commercial
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that meet the
definition at 10 CFR 431.62. These include blast chillers, blast
freezers, buffet tables or preparation tables, and mobile refrigerated
cabinets.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment
classes analyzed in this NOPR.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) DOE's current energy
conservation standards for CRE are expressed in terms of maximum daily
energy consumption as measured using appendix B. (See 10 CFR 431.66(e))

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available equipment or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1)
of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for CRE, particularly the designs DOE considered,
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or
class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
improvements in energy efficiency for CRE, using the design parameters
for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working
prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking
are described in section IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule and in chapter
5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the
TSL to CRE purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year 2028
with the proposed standards (2028-2057).\25\ The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of CRE purchased in the previous 30-year
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as
the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and
the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for
equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new and amended energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. Note
that the analysis does not consider benefits and costs resulting
from the December 2022 EPA NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended
and new standards for CRE. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\27\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced
than equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy
savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to

[[Page 70209]]

confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 12, 2021 (86 FR 70892, 70906).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended standard
on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new and amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard; for CRE, DOE evaluated the impacts on
small businesses.
DOE requests comment on the impacts to CRE manufacturers and
consumers from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates
appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE
uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each
value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first full year of compliance
with new and amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered
efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects
projected market trends in the absence of new and amended standards.
DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section
IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
In establishing equipment classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance
of the equipment under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a
copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that
the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.

[[Page 70210]]

f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document;
the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this
document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of
this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e(1)); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses
generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy
conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers.
These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback
period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full
range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for
DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption
payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this proposed
rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to CRE. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended and new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007</a>. Additionally, DOE
used output from the 2023 version of the Energy Information
Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely
known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of CRE. The key findings of
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes and Definitions
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment
(i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that
separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or
if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-
related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (Id.)
a. Current Equipment Classes
DOE currently separates CRE into 49 equipment classes, which are
categorized according to the following performance-related features:
(1) operating temperature--refrigerator (>=32 [deg]F), freezer (<32
[deg]F), or ice-cream freezer (<=-5 [deg]F); (2) presence of doors--
open or closed; (3) door type--solid or transparent; (4) condensing
unit--remote or self-contained; (5) configuration--horizontal,
vertical, semi-vertical, or service over counter; (6) temperature pull-
down capability. Definitions supporting the equipment classes are as
follows:
Closed solid means equipment with doors, and in which more than 75
percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are not
transparent.
Closed transparent means equipment with doors, and in which 25
percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are
transparent.
Commercial freezer means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are
capable of operating below 32 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]F).

[[Page 70211]]

Commercial refrigerator means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are
capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]F).
Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means
refrigeration equipment that--(1) Is not a consumer product (as defined
in Sec. 430.2);
(2) Is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes;
(3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen,
or variable temperature;
(4) Displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials
horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically;
(5) Has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a
combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no
doors;
(6) Is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding
temperature applications; and
(7) Is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote
condensing unit.
Door means a movable panel that separates the interior volume of a
unit of commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment
and is designed to facilitate access to the refrigerated space for the
purpose of loading and unloading product. This includes hinged doors,
sliding doors, and drawers. This does not include night curtains.
Holding temperature application means a use of commercial
refrigeration equipment other than a pull-down temperature application,
except a blast chiller or freezer.
Horizontal Closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and
a door angle greater than or equal to 45[deg].
Horizontal Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 80[deg] from the vertical.
Ice-cream freezer means:
(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of any amended energy
conservation standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream
freezers, a commercial freezer that is capable of an operating
temperature at or below -5.0 [deg]F and that the manufacturer designs,
markets, or intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or
dispensing of ice cream or other frozen desserts; or
(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream freezers, a
commercial freezer that is capable of an operating temperature at or
below -13.0 [deg]F and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or
intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice
cream or other frozen desserts.
Pull-down temperature application means a commercial refrigerator
with doors that, when fully loaded with 12 ounce beverage cans at 90
degrees F, can cool those beverages to an average stable temperature of
38 degrees F in 12 hours or less.
Remote condensing unit means a factory-made assembly of
refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific
refrigerant that is remotely located from the refrigerated equipment
and consists of 1 or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant
condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory supplied
accessories.
Self-contained condensing unit means a factory-made assembly of
refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific
refrigerant that is an integral part of the refrigerated equipment and
consists of 1 or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers,
condenser fans and motors, and factory supplied accessories.
Semivertical open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 10[deg] and less than 80[deg] from the
vertical.
Service over counter means equipment that has sliding or hinged
doors in the back intended for use by sales personnel, with glass or
other transparent material in the front for displaying merchandise, and
that has a height not greater than 66 inches and is intended to serve
as a counter for transactions between sales personnel and customers.
Transparent means greater than or equal to 45-percent light
transmittance, as determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard E
1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), at normal incidence and in the intended
direction of viewing.
Vertical Closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a
door angle less than 45[deg].
Vertical Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 0[deg] and less than 10[deg] from the
vertical.
10 CFR 431.62.
On March 28, 2014, DOE published in the Federal Register the March
2014 Final Rule that established the current equipment classes and
corresponding standards for CRE. 79 FR 17725. DOE currently sets forth
energy conservation standards and relevant definitions for CRE
equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.66 and 10 CFR 431.62, respectively.
Table IV.1 shows the current CRE equipment classes and standards.

Table IV.1--Current CRE Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Maximum daily energy
Condensing unit configuration Equipment family temperature Equipment class consumption (kilowatt-
([deg]F) designation hours per day) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote Condensing (RC)....... Vertical Open >=32 VOP.RC.M.............. 0.64 x TDA + 4.07
(VOP). <32 VOP.RC.L.............. 2.2 x TDA + 6.85
<=-5 VOP.RC.I.............. 2.79 x TDA + 8.7
Semivertical >=32 SVO.RC.M.............. 0.66 x TDA + 3.18
Open (SVO). <32 SVO.RC.L.............. 2.2 x TDA + 6.85
<=-5 SVO.RC.I.............. 2.79 x TDA + 8.7
Horizontal Open >=32 HZO.RC.M.............. 0.35 x TDA + 2.88
(HZO). <32 HZO.RC.L.............. 0.55 x TDA + 6.88
<=-5 HZO.RC.I.............. 0.7 x TDA + 8.74
Vertical Closed >=32 VCT.RC.M.............. 0.15 x TDA + 1.95
Transparent <32 VCT.RC.L.............. 0.49 x TDA + 2.61
(VCT).
<=-5 VCT.RC.I.............. 0.58 x TDA + 3.05
Horizontal >=32 HCT.RC.M.............. 0.16 x TDA + 0.13
Closed <32 HCT.RC.L.............. 0.34 x TDA + 0.26
Transparent
(HCT).
<=-5 HCT.RC.I.............. 0.4 x TDA + 0.31
Vertical Closed >=32 VCS.RC.M.............. 0.1 x V + 0.26
Solid (``VCS''). <32 VCS.RC.L.............. 0.21 x V + 0.54

[[Page 70212]]

<=-5 VCS.RC.I.............. 0.25 x V + 0.63
Horizontal >=32 HCS.RC.M.............. 0.1 x V + 0.26
Closed Solid <32 HCS.RC.L.............. 0.21 x V + 0.54
(HCS).
<=-5 HCS.RC.I.............. 0.25 x V + 0.63
Service Over >=32 SOC.RC.M.............. 0.44 x TDA + 0.11
Counter (SOC). <32 SOC.RC.L.............. 0.93 x TDA + 0.22
<=-5 SOC.RC.I.............. 1.09 x TDA + 0.26
Self-Contained (SC).......... Vertical Open >=32 VOP.SC.M.............. 1.69 x TDA + 4.71
(VOP). <32 VOP.SC.L.............. 4.25 x TDA + 11.82
<=-5 VOP.SC.I.............. 5.4 x TDA + 15.02
Semivertical >=32 SVO.SC.M.............. 1.7 x TDA + 4.59
Open (SVO). <32 SVO.SC.L.............. 4.26 x TDA + 11.51
<=-5 SVO.SC.I.............. 5.41 x TDA + 14.63
Horizontal Open >=32 HZO.SC.M.............. 0.72 x TDA + 5.55
(HZO). <32 HZO.SC.L.............. 1.9 x TDA + 7.08
<=-5 HZO.SC.I.............. 2.42 x TDA + 9
Vertical Closed >=32 VCT.SC.M.............. 0.1 x V + 0.86
Transparent <32 VCT.SC.L.............. 0.29 x V + 2.95
(VCT).
<=-5 VCT.SC.I.............. 0.62 x TDA + 3.29
Vertical Closed >=32 VCS.SC.M.............. 0.05 x V + 1.36
Solid (VCS). <32 VCS.SC.L.............. 0.22 x V + 1.38
<=-5 VCS.SC.I.............. 0.34 x V + 0.88
Horizontal >=32 HCT.SC.M.............. 0.06 x V + 0.37
Closed <32 HCT.SC.L.............. 0.08 x V + 1.23
Transparent
(HCT).
<=-5 HCT.SC.I.............. 0.56 x TDA + 0.43
Horizontal >=32 HCS.SC.M.............. 0.05 x V + 0.91
Closed Solid <32 HCS.SC.L.............. 0.06 x V + 1.12
(HCS).
<=-5 HCS.SC.I.............. 0.34 x V + 0.88
Service Over >=32 SOC.SC.M.............. 0.52 x TDA + 1
Counter (SOC). <32 SOC.SC.L.............. 1.1 x TDA + 2.1
<=-5 SOC.SC.I.............. 1.53 x TDA + 0.36
Pull-Down (PD).. >=32 PD.SC.M............... 0.11 x V + 0.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The term ``V'' means the chilled or frozen compartment volume (ft\3\) as defined in the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') Standard HRF 1-2008. The term ``TDA'' means the total display area (ft\2\)
of the case, as defined in Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') Standard 1200-
2006.

b. New Definitions
In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE sought comment on whether
updates to the existing equipment class structure are appropriate. In
response, ITW commented that DOE failed to recognize that manufacturers
might use other options to produce cabinets with increased heat loads
due to their physical features (other than those required by a simple
reach-in refrigerator), citing the following applications as examples:
(1) pass-through refrigerators--cabinets with doors on both sides,
providing access to stored items from either side; (2) roll-in
refrigerators--cabinets with ramps and door sweeps that allow for
loading of bakery carts; and (3) roll-through refrigerators--cabinets
with ramps and door sweeps on both sides that allow for bakery carts to
move in and out from one side to the other. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 33)
NAFEM stated that it and other commenters recommended separating
forced-air and cold-wall refrigeration systems into different
categories in response to the July 2021 RFI, yet it appeared that DOE
deferred making a decision until a future proposed rule. (NAFEM, No. 40
at p. 3)
Continental commented that DOE should provide separate equipment
classes and standard levels to segregate forced-air from cold-wall
models, as well as roll-in from reach-in models, and pass-through from
non-pass-through models, because these equipment types have
differentiating characteristics that impact energy consumption, and
separate energy standard levels are needed to avoid weighting standards
in an unfair manner. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2)
In response to commenter's suggestions and after a review of
similar terms defined by the California Code of Regulations,\28\ DOE is
proposing to define the terms ``cold-wall evaporator,'' ``forced-air
evaporator,'' ``pass-through doors,'' ``roll-in door,'' ``roll-through
doors,'' and ``sliding door'' as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ See <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I7AE76FC19E3011EDA9D5EB8195EB4110?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=">https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I7AE76FC19E3011EDA9D5EB8195EB4110?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=</a>(sc.Default
)&bhcp=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cold-wall evaporator means an evaporator that comprises a portion
or all of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator
freezer cabinet's interior surface that transfers heat through means
other than fan-forced convection.
Forced-air evaporator means an evaporator that employs the use of
fan-forced convection to transfer heat within the commercial
refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet.

[[Page 70213]]

Pass-through doors means doors located on both the front and rear
of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer.
Roll-in door means a door that includes a door sweep to seal the
bottom of the door and may include a ramp that allows wheeled racks of
product to be rolled into the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and
refrigerator freezer.
Roll-through doors means doors located on both the front and rear
of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer, that
includes a door sweep to seal the bottom of the door and may include a
ramp that allows wheeled racks of product to be rolled into and through
the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer.
Sliding door means a door that opens when a portion of the door
moves in a direction generally parallel to its surface.
In addition to proposing to define the terms ``cold-wall
evaporator,'' ``forced-air evaporator,'' ``pass-through doors,''
``roll-in door,'' ``roll-through doors,'' and ``sliding door,'' DOE is
proposing to allow certain equipment classes that contain CRE with
forced-air evaporators, CRE with pass-through doors, CRE with roll-in
doors, CRE with roll-through doors, and CRE with sliding doors to use a
higher amount of energy use than the proposed standards, if the
standard has been proposed to be amended for an equipment class, while
also complying with EPCA's ``anti-backsliding'' provision. This
proposal recognizes the unique utility and different energy use
characteristics of certain types of CRE. DOE discusses these unique
utility and different energy use characteristics in further detail in
section IV.C.1.a.
DOE has also reviewed the current definitions for CRE at 10 CFR
431.62 and is proposing to revise the definition for ``rating
temperature'' to update the reference to the required integrated
average temperature (``IAT'') or lowest application product temperature
(``LAPT''), as applicable, as follows:
Rating temperature means the integrated average temperature a unit
must maintain during testing, as determined in accordance with section
2.1. or section 2.2. of appendix B to subpart C of part 431, as
applicable.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``cold-wall
evaporator,'' ``forced-air evaporator,'' ``pass-through doors,''
``roll-in door,'' ``roll-through doors,'' ``sliding door,'' and
``rating temperature.''
c. Equipment Class Modifications
In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE had initially determined that
additional equipment classes may be appropriate to address certain CRE
available on the market. Specifically, DOE initially determined to
split several commercial refrigerator equipment classes and establish
separate classes for high-temperature refrigerators. Also, DOE
initially determined to establish standards for chef bases or griddle
stands with operating temperatures of >=32 [deg]F or <32 [deg]F (10 CFR
431.66(f) currently excludes chef bases or griddle stands from energy
conservation standards). See chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD
for additional details.
In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE established
and amended definitions and test procedures for high-temperature
refrigerators, medium-temperature refrigerators, and chef bases or
griddle stands. 88 FR 66152, 66154-66155. Specifically, DOE established
definitions for ``high-temperature refrigerators'' and ``medium-
temperature refrigerators,'' amended the definition for ``chef bases or
griddle stands,'' and incorporated by reference AHRI Standard 1200-2023
(I-P), which provides a IAT of 55 [deg]F <plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F for
which high-temperature refrigerators may be tested. Id. DOE also
established a definition for ``low-temperature freezers'' and amended
the definition for ``ice-cream freezers.'' Id. The newly established
and amended definitions in the test procedure final rule are as
follows.
Chef base or griddle stand means commercial refrigeration equipment
that has a maximum height of 32 inches, including any legs or casters,
and that is designed and marketed for the express purpose of having a
griddle or other cooking appliance placed on top of it that is capable
of reaching temperatures hot enough to cook food.
High-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator that
is not capable of an operating temperature at or below 40.0 [deg]F.
Medium-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator
that is capable of an operating temperature at or below 40.0 [deg]F.
Ice-cream freezer means:
(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of any amended energy
conservation standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream
freezers, a commercial freezer that is capable of an operating
temperature at or below -5.0 [deg]F and that the manufacturer designs,
markets, or intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or
dispensing of ice cream or other frozen desserts; or
(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream freezers, a
commercial freezer that is capable of an operating temperature at or
below -13.0 [deg]F and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or
intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice
cream or other frozen desserts.
Low-temperature freezer means a commercial freezer that is not an
ice-cream freezer.

88 FR 66152, 66223-66224.
Based on CRE models certified to DOE's Compliance Certification
Management System (``CCMS'') under the LAPT designation for commercial
refrigerators, DOE has tentatively determined that high-temperature
refrigerators can be categorized under the self-contained and remote
condensing unit configurations and under the vertical closed
transparent (``VCT''), vertical closed solid (``VCS''), service over
counter (``SOC''), vertical open (``VOP''), semi-vertical open
(``SVO''), and horizontal open (``HZO'') equipment families. For these
equipment families with high-temperature equipment, DOE proposes to
sub-categorize them as high-temperature refrigerators (operating
temperature greater than 40.0 [deg]F) and medium-temperature
refrigerators (operating temperature greater than or equal to 32.0
[deg]F and less than or equal to 40.0 [deg]F). DOE proposes to maintain
the categorization of commercial refrigerator (operating temperature
greater than or equal to 32.0 [deg]F) for the remaining equipment
families (i.e., any horizontal closed transparent (``HCT''), horizontal
closed solid (``HCS''), chef bases (``CB''), or pull-down (``PD'')
equipment that operates above 40 [deg]F, if commercialized, would be
considered a ``commercial refrigerator'' and required to comply with
the ``medium-temperature refrigerator'' standard when tested at the
LAPT). For this NOPR, DOE has directly analyzed high temperature
refrigerators in the self-contained condensing unit configuration for
the VCT and VCS equipment families.
DOE has also tentatively determined that chef bases or griddle
stands can be categorized under the self-contained condensing unit
configuration and the >=32 [deg]F or <32 [deg]F operating temperatures
(i.e., commercial refrigerator or low-temperature freezer,
respectively).

[[Page 70214]]

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

Table IV.2--Proposed Equipment Classes and Equipment Class Modifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Condensing unit configuration Equipment family Rating temperature Equipment class
temperature ** ([deg]F) designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained (SC)........... Vertical Open HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... VOP.SC.H *
(VOP). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... VOP.SC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... VOP.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... VOP.SC.I
Semivertical Open HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... SVO.SC.H *
(SVO). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... SVO.SC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... SVO.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... SVO.SC.I
Horizontal Open HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... HZO.SC.H *
(HZO). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... HZO.SC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... HZO.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... HZO.SC.I
Vertical Closed HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... VCT.SC.H *
Transparent MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... VCT.SC.M
(VCT). LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... VCT.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... VCT.SC.I
Vertical Closed HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... VCS.SC.H *
Solid (VCS). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... VCS.SC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... VCS.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... VCS.SC.I
Horizontal Closed CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... HCT.SC.M
Transparent LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... HCT.SC.L
(HCT). IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... HCT.SC.I
Horizontal Closed CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... HCS.SC.M
Solid (HCS). LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... HCS.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... HCS.SC.I
Service Over HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... SOC.SC.H *
Counter (SOC). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... SOC.SC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... SOC.SC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... SOC.SC.I
Pull-Down (PD)... CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... PD.SC.M
Chef Base (CB)... CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... CB.SC.M *
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... CB.SC.L*
Remote Condensing (RC)........ Vertical Open HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... VOP.RC.H *
(VOP). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... VOP.RC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... VOP.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... VOP.RC.I
Semivertical Open HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... SVO.RC.H *
(SVO). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... SVO.RC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... SVO.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... SVO.RC.I
Horizontal Open HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... HZO.RC.H *
(HZO). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... HZO.RC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... HZO.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... HZO.RC.I
Vertical Closed HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... VCT.RC.H *
Transparent MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... VCT.RC.M
(VCT). LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... VCT.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... VCT.RC.I
Horizontal Closed CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... HCT.RC.M
Transparent LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... HCT.RC.L
(HCT). IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... HCT.RC.I
Vertical Closed HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... VCS.RC.H *
Solid (VCS). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... VCS.RC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... VCS.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... VCS.RC.I
Horizontal Closed CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... HCS.RC.M
Solid (HCS). LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... HCS.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... HCS.RC.I
Service Over HR (55 [deg]F).. x >40........... SOC.RC.H *
Counter (SOC). MR (38 [deg]F).. 40 >= x >=32.... SOC.RC.M
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... SOC.RC.L
IF (-15 [deg]F). x <=-13......... SOC.RC.I
Chef Base (CB)... CR (38 [deg]F).. x >=32.......... CB.RC.M *
LF (0 [deg]F)... x <32........... CB.RC.L *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Proposed new equipment class.

[[Page 70215]]

** HR--High-Temperature Refrigerator.
LF--Low Temperature Freezer.
MR--Medium-Temperature Refrigerator.
IF--Ice-Cream Freezer.
CR--Commercial Refrigerator.

DOE received several comments in response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis regarding the amendments to the equipment classes
for CRE.
Equipment Classes With Newly Proposed Standards
NEEA supported DOE's proposed definitions in the June 2022 CRE Test
Procedure NOPR for blast chillers and blast freezers, buffet tables and
preparation tables, and high-temperature CRE, noting that these
definitions allowed consideration of potential standards,
categorization of equipment classes, and testing of the equipment
separate from other CRE. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters supported DOE's consideration of potential
standards for additional equipment categories. (Joint Commenters, No.
39 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters stated that DOE found cost-effective
potential energy savings for chef bases/griddle stands and high-
temperature refrigerators in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD and
commented that they support DOE setting standards for these equipment
classes. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commended DOE for proposing to expand the scope of the
energy conservation standards for CRE to include chef bases or griddle
stands and high-temperature refrigeration. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs stated that these added product classes constitute a
significant inventory of equipment with a substantial cumulative energy
load that were previously outside the scope of DOE's regulation. (Id.
at pp. 1-2)
AHRI commented that it has no objection to the added equipment
classes detailed in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (AHRI, No. 46 at p.
2) However, Continental recommended that DOE delay inclusion of any new
categories until applicable industry standard test procedures are
published and have been thoroughly evaluated. (Continental, No. 38 at
p. 2)
DOE has proposed standards for new equipment classes (e.g., chef
bases, and high-temperature refrigerators) in this NOPR, as supported
by commenters. And as described in the September 2023 Test Procedure
Final Rule, DOE has incorporated by reference the latest versions of
ASHRAE 72 and AHRI 1200, which were evaluated by each respective
committee and subject to public reviews, in the CRE test procedure. 88
FR 66152. In addition, based on the September 2023 Test Procedure Final
Rule, chef bases or griddle stands must be tested at a dry-bulb
temperature of 86.0 [deg]F and wet-bulb temperature of 73.7 [deg]F. 88
FR 66152, 66203. Therefore, DOE has considered higher ambient
temperature conditions in the analysis of chef bases or griddle stands
compared to other CRE, which are tested at a dry-bulb temperature of
75.2 [deg]F and wet-bulb temperature of 64.4 [deg]F. See chapter 5 of
the NOPR TSD for additional information.
Equipment Classes Without Proposed Standards
NEEA recommended that DOE analyze the new equipment classes and
consider adopting efficiency standards that would better reflect the
specific energy consumption of equipment subclasses, resulting in more
significant energy savings. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 4) NEEA commented that
DOE had analyzed two of the four new product classes and, as was shown
in the CRE June 2022 Preliminary TSD analysis, energy conservation
standards were viable for high-temperature CRE and chef bases and
griddle stands. (Id.) NEEA commented that for vertical closed
transparent self-contained high temperature (``VCT.SC.H''), vertical
closed solid self-contained high temperature (``VCS.SC.H''), and chef
bases self-contained low temperature (``CB.SC.L''), the average life-
cost savings ranged from $300-$500 at EL 3, presenting justification of
the energy and cost savings for these equipment classes. (Id.) NEEA
added that DOE should conduct similar analyses on blast chillers and
buffet tables, citing DOE's test procedures for these classes as key to
allowing data collection. (Id. at p. 4) NEEA commented that DOE's
analysis of high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases indicated
that additional significant savings would likely be available from
these products. (Id.)
Similarly, the Joint Commenters commented that DOE stated DOE
lacked sufficient information to fully analyze buffet/preparation
tables and blast chillers/freezers in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD,
but the Joint Commenters noted that the California Energy Commission
(``CEC'') Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (``MAEDbS'')
includes over 100 buffet/preparation tables with a broad range of
energy usage. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters
requested that DOE further investigate the energy usage and savings
potential for these products. (Id.)
However, Continental agreed with DOE that a preliminary analysis of
energy consumption for buffet tables and preparation tables is not
appropriate until a standard test procedure is established for these
equipment types. (Continental. No. 38 at p. 2).
Consistent with comments from NEEA and based on the new rating
temperature in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule for high-
temperature refrigerators, DOE is proposing to amend the energy
conservation standards for high-temperature refrigerators and to
establish energy conservation standards for chef bases or griddle
stands in this NOPR. See table IV.2.
With respect to the comments from NEEA and the Joint Commenters
regarding blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE notes that it lacks
sufficient data and information regarding blast chillers and blast
freezer performance, and related design options, for units tested via
the DOE test procedure. As stated in the September 2023 Test Procedure
Final Rule, blast chillers and blast freezers are designed for ``rapid
temperature pull-down'' capable of reducing the internal temperature
from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of 4 hours. 88 FR 66152,
66189. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is not currently able to model
expected performance of this equipment because the established test
procedure is significantly different from the test procedure applicable
to other CRE categories, which are intended for ``holding temperature
application''. Due to a lack of data and information regarding
performance of blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE has not conducted
an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for these
equipment categories.
DOE requests comment on blast chiller or freezer design options,
design specifications, and energy consumption data tested per the DOE
test procedure located in appendix D of 10 CFR 431.64.
With respect to the comments from NEEA and the Joint Commenters
regarding buffet tables and preparation tables, while DOE acknowledges
that

[[Page 70216]]

CEC's MAEDbS database contains data for buffet/preparation tables, DOE
notes that title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires
refrigerated buffet/preparation tables to follow the ANSI/ASTM F2143-01
test method.\29\ This test method has been revised several times, with
ASTM F2143-16 being the most recent version. In the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule, DOE stated that ASTM F2143-16 cannot be
referenced as a standalone test method but determined the approach
based on ASTM F2143-16 with additional requirements is representative
for buffet/preparation tables. 88 FR 66152, 66175. Therefore, in this
NOPR, DOE is not able to model expected performance of this equipment
at this time because the established test procedure is significantly
different from the test procedure applicable to other CRE categories,
and from the test procedure used to measure energy consumption for the
CEC's MAEDbS. Due to a lack of data and information regarding
performance and related design options of refrigerated buffet/
preparation tables, DOE has not conducted an analysis of potential
energy conservation standards for these equipment categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See table A-1 in 20 CCR section 1604.a.2 located at <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID5812C41DABD11ED852BC9A091C0DD8F?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=">https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID5812C41DABD11ED852BC9A091C0DD8F?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=</a>(sc.Default
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on refrigerated buffet/preparation table
design options, design specifications, and energy consumption data
tested per the DOE test procedure located in appendix C of 10 CFR
431.64.
Customer Order Storage Cabinets
The CA IOUs supported creating a separate equipment class for
customer-order refrigerated storage lockers. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 10)
The CA IOUs commented that they expect the refrigerated storage locker
market to increase as grocery delivery and pick up continues to be a
growing segment of grocery sales. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that they
support aggregating the maximum daily energy consumption values for all
compartments in a refrigerated storage locker according to 10 CFR
431.66(e)(2). (Id.) The CA IOUs also pointed out that ``temperature
controlled pick up lockers'' can be refrigerated lockers; however, some
of these models can be either refrigerated or heated or neither. (Id.)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE analyze the individual
refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator/freezer compartments in
customer-order refrigerated storage lockers as a separate equipment
family as noted in the CA IOUs comments on DOE's July 2021 CRE Test
Procedure RFI. (Id.) The CA IOUs highlighted the Traulsen waiver \30\
to show that these compartments will have distinct door-opening
conditions compared to the CRE equipment families. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ CA IOUs provided the footnote reference 83 FR 46148 for the
granted waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the CA IOUs comments, DOE has not conducted an
analysis specifically for customer order storage cabinets in this
NOPR.\31\ DOE has analyzed a representative volume for the VCS
equipment families of which customer order storage cabinets are
typically included. In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule,
DOE provides a discussion of customer order storage cabinets and
determination to adopt a test procedure based on existing test
procedure waivers. 88 FR 66152, 66211-66213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ DOE defines customer order storage cabinet at Sec. 431.62
to mean a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer
that stores customer orders and includes individual, secured
compartments with doors that are accessible to customers for order
retrieval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Specific Equipment Classes
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE analyze additional
equipment classes and stated that DOE did not directly analyze the
vertical closed solid remote condensing medium temperature
(``VCS.RC.M''), vertical closed solid remote condensing low temperature
(``VCS.RC.L''), horizontal closed transparent remote condensing medium
temperature (``HCT.RC.M''), or horizontal closed transparent remote
condensing low temperature (``HCT.RC.L'') equipment classes in the June
2022 Preliminary TSD. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint
Commenters commented that the number of models for each of these
classes in the CCD suggests their market share could be larger than the
estimated volume of shipments for these classes in the analysis for the
March 2014 Final Rule. (Id.) The Joint Commenters stated that there are
nearly 500 VCS.RC.M models certified in the CCD, and there are more
HCT.RC.M models in the CCD than horizontal closed transparent self-
contained medium temperature (``HCT.SC.M''), an equipment class that
was analyzed by DOE in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters commented that, based on these data, the market share of
these equipment classes may be larger than estimated, and the Joint
Commenters encouraged DOE to analyze these additional equipment
classes. (Id.)
AHRI asked that DOE clarify whether DOE removed the vertical self-
contained class from the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (AHRI, No. 46 at p.
2) And Zero Zone commented that it did not see any evaluation of solid-
door remote commercial refrigerators and inquired whether DOE is
dropping that equipment class or has no plans to change the energy
requirements. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 5)
With respect to the comments from the Joint Commenters, AHRI, and
Zero Zone, DOE notes that the equipment classes mentioned by the Joint
Commenters were not directly analyzed as primary equipment classes in
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, but are analyzed as secondary
equipment classes in this NOPR using DOE's primary to secondary
equipment class multipliers. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for
additional details on secondary equipment classes. Additionally, DOE
notes that in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed vertical
closed solid, self contained equipment, as well as other vertical self-
contained equipment (e.g., vertical open self-contained medium
temperature (``VOP.SC.M'') and vertical closed transparent self-
contained medium temperature (``VCT.SC.M'')). See table 5.8.1 of the
June 2022 Preliminary TSD for a full list of primary equipment classes
DOE analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
AHRI commented that breaking equipment classes into smaller (under
30 cubic feet) and larger units (over 30 cubic feet) could be
beneficial. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 7) Additionally, NAMA commented that
DOE appeared to have overlooked or not fully recognized the existence
of smaller refrigerated single- and double-door beverage (and food)
coolers. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 5) NAMA stated that energy efficiency
analyses of larger (e.g., 60 cubic feet) units may not be applicable to
smaller (e.g., 24 cubic feet) units. (Id.) NAMA recommended that, for
purposes of DOE analysis, units under 30 cubic feet should be
considered differently from those over 30 cubic feet in refrigerated
volume. (Id.)
In response to the June 2021 Test Procedure RFI, True Manufacturing
Company, Inc. (``True'') commented that there are examples where the
ice-cream freezer maximum allowable energy consumption is less than for
an equivalent commercial freezer.\32\ (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008,

[[Page 70217]]

True, No. 4 at p. 3) True provided three examples of common VCT.SC.L
CREs found in the marketplace where the maximum DOE energy allowance
for the ice-cream freezer is less than that of the equivalent
commercial freezer. (Id.) True also commented that when comparing the
VCS.SC.I and VCS.SC.L formulas, for cabinets with a volume of 4 cubic
feet or less, the energy use allowance for the ice-cream freezer is
less than for the equivalent commercial freezer. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008-0004">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, in response to the July 2021 RFI, Glastender, Inc.
(``Glastender'') provided a chart and commented that the energy
allowance for VCT.SC.M CRE is less than the energy allowance for
VCS.SC.M CRE when the refrigerated volume is less than 10 cubic feet.
(Glastender, No. 4 at p. 1). Glastender commented that it believed the
requirement curves were generated from primarily larger volume models
and smaller volume refrigerators need to be considered when generating
new curves. (Id.)
In response to comments from AHRI and NAMA, DOE is maintaining the
current equipment class structure in this NOPR, except for the new
equipment classes which are proposed and discussed in section IV.A.1.c
of this document. DOE considers all volumes and TDAs when developing
the proposed standards in this NOPR in addition to the representative
volume or TDA for each directly analyzed equipment class. Based on
market research and feedback received during manufacturer interviews,
DOE expects the use of sliding and pass-through doors represent
equipment utilities that have unique energy use characteristics that
differentiate CRE in the VCT.SC.M equipment class and that beverage
coolers are a common type of equipment in the VCT.SC.M equipment class
that use sliding and pass-through doors. Therefore, based on market
research and feedback received during manufacturer interviews, DOE has
proposed separate energy use equations based on an energy consumption
multiplier for CRE with sliding and pass-through doors.
In response to comments from AHRI, NAMA, True, and Glastender, DOE
considered all volumes and TDAs when developing the proposed standards
in this NOPR in addition to the representative volume or TDA for each
directly analyzed equipment class. When developing the proposed
standards in this NOPR, DOE generally applied the energy use reduction
percentage selected in section V.C of this document to the baseline
energy use equation's slope and intercept. However, in three directly
analyzed equipment classes, VCT.SC.M, VCS.SC.I, and HCT.SC.I, DOE has
tentatively determined that, based on the efficiency distribution of
the market across the equipment classes, additional consideration is
necessary. For these three classes, DOE maintained the current standard
equation intercept and calculated a slope based on the current
intercept and the proposed energy use level at the representative
volume or TDA. This approach addresses the standard line crossover that
True and Glastender mentioned in their comments and better represents
the energy use characteristics of CRE at volumes and TDAs that are
smaller than the representative volume or TDA for these three classes.
Additionally, DOE reviewed the proposed standard for VCT.SC.I and
VCT.SC.L and observed that the standard lines do not have the crossover
that True mentioned in its comment.
See section IV.C.1 of this document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD
for additional details.
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE eliminate the equipment
class for pull-down CREs. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint
Commenters stated that while there are currently no pull-down models
certified in DOE's CCD, the Joint Commenters are concerned that models
could be certified as pull-down CRE in the future in order to be
subject to a less-stringent standard. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Commenters, DOE notes that the ``pull-down
temperature application'' is defined in 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(d) and the
equipment class was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.
L. 109-58).\33\ In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE
established verification provisions for pull-down temperature
applications based on the EPCA definition, which are intended to ensure
CRE are certified correctly as pull-down temperature applications. 88
FR 66152, 66187-66189. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to eliminate the
equipment class for pull-down CREs in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See 119 STAT. 639 at <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equipment Rating
The CA IOUs recommended changing the key metric for service over
the counter (``SOC'') refrigeration from total display area (``TDA'')
to either refrigerated volume or refrigerated floor area. (CA IOUs, No.
43 at pp. 9-10). The CA IOUs commented that the current energy
conservation standard for SOC is based on TDA, which incentivizes the
use of more glass to increase the TDA and the corresponding maximum
daily energy consumption. (Id. at p. 9) The CA IOUs stated that basing
the energy conservation standard for SOC equipment on refrigerated
volume would ensure that any increases in an SOC unit's maximum
allowable energy consumption is directly linked to an increase in the
equipment's useful holding capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that
this change would ensure that manufacturers wanting to increase TDA
would be incentivized to use glass with better thermal insulation
properties. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented also that switching to a
refrigerated volume metric would also be more consistent with other
closed refrigeration categories with display functionality, such as
refrigerators with glass doors. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that the
burden of shifting to refrigerated volume as a metric could be
minimized by allowing either physical measurement or measurement based
on a diagram or computer-aided design (``CAD'') drawing. (Id. at p. 10)
The CA IOUs added that an alternative metric for deli cases without
shelving could also be refrigerated floor area, which would be the
available surface area for product, although the CA IOUs noted that
most SOC refrigerators are sold with shelving that can be added or
removed depending on food product being displayed. (Id.)
However, in response to the July 2021 RFI, other commenters
indicated that TDA is the appropriate metric for the respective
equipment classes, and the industry has adapted to the use of TDA or
volume and that no change is necessary (see chapter 2 of the June 2022
Preliminary TSD for additional information). Therefore, in this NOPR,
DOE has not evaluated revising the capacity metrics for any equipment
classes.
The CA IOUs commented that they support the proposal to rate
equipment capable of operating at temperatures of multiple equipment
classes at all relevant temperature conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p.
8-9)
Consistent with the CA IOUs comment, in the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule, DOE specified in 10 CFR 429.42 that basic models
of CRE that operate in multiple equipment classes must be certified and
comply with the energy conservation standards for each applicable
equipment class. 88 FR 66152, 66162.
2. CRE Market
In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received

[[Page 70218]]

several comments regarding the CRE market.
NAMA commented that it was not listed in the proposed regulation or
list of manufacturers. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 4) NAMA added that the names
of CRE manufacturers represented by NAMA, which were filed in the DOE's
CCMS, were not mentioned. (Id.)
In response to this comment from NAMA, for this NOPR, DOE updated
its assessment of manufacturer trade groups to include NAMA and
reviewed the list of CRE manufacturers based on the list of supporters
on NAMA's website.\34\ See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional
information regarding CRE original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'')
and manufacturer trade groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ DOE reviewed the ``2022 Annual Dues Donors'' accessible at
<a href="http://namanow.org/foundation/supporters/">namanow.org/foundation/supporters/</a> to identify members of NAMA (last
accessed March 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continental commented that relying on manufacturer model counts in
the CCD is not an accurate way of approximating company market share
and stated that model counts in DOE's CCD reflect the variety of models
offered, but do not represent the sales or market share of a company.
(Continental, No. 38, p. 2)
In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE used manufacturer model
counts to identify key CRE OEMs operating in the United States. DOE
presented an abridged list of OEMs with more than 1-percent share of
basic model listings in chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE
understands that model counts do not reflect company market shares. For
this NOPR, DOE conducted confidential manufacturer interviews. During
these interviews, DOE asked manufacturers about their estimated CRE
market share, annual shipments by equipment class, and the estimated
market shares of other CRE manufacturers. DOE used the information from
confidential interviews, data from the shipments analysis, and model
listings from CCD to estimate manufacturer market shares, which were
then used to weight certain inputs used in the MIA (e.g., industry
financial parameters, manufacturer markups). DOE does not present these
company-specific market share estimates in the NOPR TSD chapter 3 as
the information is protected under nondisclosure agreements (``NDAs'').
See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on the CRE market
and manufacturers.
DOE requests comment on publicly available market data on CRE
manufacturers or identification of any CRE manufacturers with large
market shares not identified in Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.
3. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of CRE, as measured by the DOE test procedure and shown in
table IV.3.

Table IV.3--Technology Options for CRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insulation:
Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type).
Increased insulation thickness.
Vacuum-insulated panels.
Lighting:
Higher-efficiency lighting.
Occupancy Sensors.
Improved transparent doors: *
Low-emissivity coatings.*
Inert gas fill.*
Vacuum-insulated glass.*
Additional panes.*
Anti-sweat heater controls.*
Anti-fog films.*
Frame design.*
Compressor.**
Improved compressor efficiency.**
Alternative refrigerants.**
Variable-speed compressors.**
Linear compressors.**
Evaporator:
Increased surface area.
Improved evaporator coil design.
Low-pressure differential evaporator.
Condenser: **
Increased surface area.**
Tube-and-fin enhancements.**
Microchannel heat exchanger.**
Fans and fan motors:
Evaporator fan motors.
Evaporator fan blades.
Evaporator fan controls.
Condenser fan motors.**
Condenser fan blades.**
Condenser fan controls.**
Other technologies:
Defrost systems.
Expansion valve improvements.
Air curtain design.***
Night curtains.***
Liquid suction heat exchanger.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only applies to equipment classes with doors.
** Only applies to self-contained equipment classes.
*** Only applies to equipment classes without doors (open equipment
classes).

DOE received several comments in response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis regarding the technology options.
a. Compressors
NEEA referred to its previous comment to the July 2021 RFI that DOE
consider the energy-use impact of compressor technologies like scroll
compressors and variable-speed compressors. (NEEA No. 47 at pp. 4-5)
NEEA commented that DOE had expressed agreement with NEEA in the June
2022 Preliminary TSD that variable-speed compressors represented an
energy-saving technology and estimated that implementing variable-speed
compressors could save 3-38 percent of energy consumption, depending on
equipment class. (Id. at p. 4) NEEA pointed out that DOE had not tested
a model with a variable-speed compressor and encouraged DOE to further
research the energy-savings potential of variable-speed compressors in
CRE. (Id.) NEEA commented that, in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD Table
5.5.1,\35\ DOE noted propane variable-speed compressors as a design
option for a majority of CRE equipment classes. (Id.) NEEA encouraged
DOE to collect data and consider other equipment classes that could
utilize variable-speed compressors to improve the energy-savings
potential and common use of this technology option. (Id. at pp. 4-5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Technical Support Document: Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment: Table 5.5.1 Design Options by Equipment. Class. PreTSD
CRE 2022. June 2022. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the preliminary analysis, DOE has included R-290
variable-speed compressors as a technology option in this NOPR. Due to
the refrigerant transition in response to the December 2022 EPA NOPR,
DOE has analyzed R-290 compressors (single and variable speed) for all
self-contained equipment classes. See section IV.C.1 of this document
and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on the refrigerant
transition and analyzed compressors. Additionally, scroll compressors
have not been included as a design option in this NOPR. While DOE has
not observed scroll compressors in any directly analyzed models, DOE is
aware that scroll compressors may be used on very large, self-contained
CRE. Based on market research, DOE observed that fixed-speed scroll
compressors have similar efficiencies to hermetic, reciprocating
compressors; therefore, DOE has not considered scroll compressors in
this analysis.
Continental commented that variable-speed compressors hold promise
for reducing energy consumption of self-contained CRE, but the
increased technical complexity and related increases in material and
service costs have thus far limited use of this technology.
(Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) Similarly, AHRI commented that variable-
speed compressors do not

[[Page 70219]]

contribute significantly to energy savings in specific products and
present additional technical challenges for servicers. (AHRI, No. 46 at
p. 5) Further, AHRI commented that DOE should not assume that equipment
employing variable-speed compressors will automatically have an energy-
efficiency increase of 15-20 percent and that this design option is
more complex and requires more careful analysis. (Id.)
To estimate the performance impacts of transitioning to a variable-
speed compressor, DOE incorporated the performance data for variable-
speed R-290 compressors currently available on the market into DOE's
engineering spreadsheet. DOE assumed that variable-speed compressors
would operate at the minimum speed under steady-state operation. DOE
also assumed that the fan motors would operate during the compressor
run time (i.e., the fan motor operating duration would likely increase
compared to a single-speed compressor). Overall, DOE estimated a 0.5-25
percent energy consumption reduction when implementing variable-speed
compressors, with savings varying depending on equipment class. See
chapters 3 and 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on variable
speed compressors.
b. R-290
NAMA stated that it began evaluating the changes necessary for CRE
to utilize lower GWP refrigerants, such as R-290, in 2018, and NAMA
pointed out that the ASHRAE 15 standard was changed in the summer of
2020 to allow CRE using up to 114 grams of A-3 refrigerants to be
placed in public places and that CRE with A-3 refrigerants began to
appear in the U.S. market in the first quarter of 2021. (NAMA, No. 37
at p. 6) NAMA stated that manufacturers had to re-design heat
exchangers, use new compressors and expansion valves, and make all
switches, electrical components, motors, wiring, connectors, and larger
electrical components (e.g., compressors) compliant with ``spark-proof
connections'' to manufacture machines using A-3 refrigerant. (Id. at
pp. 6-7) NAMA commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD did not
adequately address this level of re-design using expensive components,
nor the re-design of factories to comply with health and safety
regulations through greater ventilation, safety sensors, and other
measures. (Id. at p.7) NAMA noted that every model, product line,
quality assurance facility, factory, warehouse, and service center must
be updated to install, warehouse, and service units with R-290
refrigerant, and only a handful of State and local building codes have
been updated to accommodate these changes. (Id.) NAMA stated that
significant work remains to be done in finalizing these codes, and they
are unlikely to be complete before 2026. (Id.) NAMA commented that DOE
did not address this transition in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Id.)
Similarly, AHRI commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD cited
an example of a transition from an R-134a (ASHRAE Class A1) to an R-290
(propane or an ASHRAE Class A3) compressor as the only required change,
but AHRI added that compressors, switches, and other components in the
system must also be upgraded to comply with UL60335-2-89 requirements
to reduce the risk of ignition. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 13)
The CA IOUs noted that their comments to the July 2021 RFI stated
that since energy conservation standards were last analyzed, the market
has developed higher-efficiency compressors, and self-contained CRE has
increasingly shifted to R-290. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 4-6) While the
CA IOUs thanked DOE for analyzing these technology advances, they noted
that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD analyzes the refrigerant propane as
a technology option for nearly all self-contained refrigeration
categories except for vertical open self-contained medium temperature
(``VOP.SC.M''), semi-vertical self-contained medium temperature
(``SVO.SC.M''), and horizontal glass self-contained ice cream
(``HCT.SC.I'') categories. (Id. at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs stated that
propane had already become an industry standard for self-contained
refrigeration equipment, and the CA IOUs recommended considering it as
a baseline refrigerant for all self-contained refrigeration categories.
(Id. at p. 5) The CA IOUs further commented that the June 2022
Preliminary TSD excludes variable-speed compressors as a technology
option for almost all categories where it does not consider propane as
an option. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that variable-speed compressors
can use any refrigerant and are not limited to propane. (Id.) The CA
IOUs stated that the current market availability of variable-speed
compressors that use refrigerants other than propane is limited to
compressors above 1 horsepower, and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE
work with manufacturer stakeholders to determine future market
availability of variable-speed compressors for all refrigerants. (Id.
at pp. 5-6)
NEEA stated support for DOE's consideration of propane refrigerants
as an energy-saving technology option in the technology assessment and
engineering analysis for CRE, but NEEA noted that table 5.5.18 in the
June 2022 Preliminary TSD showed that DOE had not considered propane as
an option for all CRE equipment classes. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 4) NEEA
commented that CRE refrigerants are transitioning from
hydrofluorocarbons (``HFC'') refrigerants to alternative options like
propane (R-290) and NEEA anticipated an increase in the use of propane
in other equipment classes. (Id.) NEEA recommended that DOE ensure its
analysis take into consideration the current availability of propane
products in the product classes not currently considered by DOE as a
design option (e.g., VOP.SC.M and SVO.SC.M). (Id.) NEEA further
recommended DOE anticipate that more products would likely become
available with propane refrigerants if the charge limit (currently 150
grams under the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (``SNAP''))
for propane were to increase, as allowed in ASHRAE 15-2022. (Id.)
Similarly, the Joint Commenters commented that DOE excluded propane
compressors as a design option for some equipment classes due to
propane charge limits, but the Joint Commenters further commented that
ASHRAE 15 is proposing to increase the charge limits for higher-
flammability refrigerants. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2)
Additionally, the Joint Commenters stated that models are available on
the market in some of the equipment classes for which DOE excluded
propane technology options, including the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, and
HCT.SC.I categories. (Id. at pp. 2-3) The Joint Commenters recommended
that DOE consider propane refrigerant for these additional equipment
classes. (Id. at p. 3)
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered only CRE that
could meet the 150-gram charge limit for R-290, per the EPA's SNAP
regulations.\36\ Based on the December 2022 EPA NOPR's proposed GWP
limits, DOE anticipates EPA will harmonize with UL 60335-2-89 and allow
R-290 charge limits of 304g for closed CRE and 494g for open CRE.
Therefore, DOE has updated its engineering analysis in the NOPR to
analyze R-290 compressors as a technology option for all self-contained
CRE. See section IV.C.1 of this

[[Page 70220]]

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

\36\ See <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-04-10/pdf/2015-07895.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-04-10/pdf/2015-07895.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, based on information gathered from interviews,
component data, and teardowns, DOE has reevaluated the cost associated
with the switch to R-290 on self-contained units. Because DOE has
analyzed R-290 as the baseline for all self-contained classes in
response to the December 2022 EPA NOPR, the costs associated with
additional components necessary to comply with safety standards for R-
290 are incorporated into the core case cost.\37\ See the engineering
analysis in section IV.C.1 of this document for more detail on the
refrigerant transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ The ``core case'' consists of components, such as
structural members, shelving, wiring, air curtain grilles, and trim,
that do not change at higher design option levels. To develop the
core case cost, DOE dismantled units available on the market
component-by component to develop a bill of materials and cost model
for the core of the refrigerated case. The core case cost is just
one component of the overall baseline cost, which takes into account
all manufacturer production costs associated with baseline
equipment. Therefore, changes in CRE case design due to the
transition to R-290are accounted for in the core case and design
option manufacturer production costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Insulation
AHT commented that the combination of an additional half inch of
insulation and vacuum-insulated panels (``VIPs'') does not make sense
and should not be included as two cumulative potential savings. (AHT,
No. 48 at p. 6)
Based on feedback from manufacturers, DOE has not analyzed
increased insulation thickness or VIPs as a design option in this NOPR.
See section IV.B.1 of this document and chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR
TSD for additional information.
ITW commented that, in terms of improved resistivity of insulation,
some manufacturers have introduced new hydrofluorolefin (``HFO'') low-
GWP blowing agents with claims of improved efficiencies and thermal
resistivities from 2 to 11 percent compared to the previous typical
HFC-245fa blowing agents and that DOE expected that manufacturers had
already incorporated these new agents into models currently available
on the market. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 25) ITW commented that, in fact, such
claims for HFOs were ``marketing hype'' and without much promised
improvement in thermal performance. (Id.)
Regarding ITW's comment on foam blowing agents, DOE calibrated its
engineering analysis based on directly analyzed units, and, therefore,
DOE expects that the analysis represents the foam blowing agents
currently in use for units available on the market.
d. Doors
AHT commented that the best design option to save energy for open
CRE is to add transparent doors. (AHT, No. 48 at p. 1) AHT noted that
the existing equipment class definitions and corresponding energy
conservation standards permit manufacturers that cannot reach the
energy limits for closed transparent units to remove the transparent
doors, which would then require compliance with the increased energy
limits of open units. (Id.)
AHRI commented that efficient doors are generally used today, but
there remain instances where charge sizes are insufficient and may only
be allowed to be increased sufficiently if doors are not present on
equipment. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 13)
Zero Zone commented that a commenter referenced Zero Zone marketing
literature for customer preference on certain types of cases with doors
in section 2.3.2.5 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Zero Zone, No 44
at p. 5). Zero Zone stated that an interview with two grocers is not an
exhaustive industry study and also noted that, since that marketing
literature was published, Zero Zone has developed an open-case product
line. (Id.)
With respect to the comment from AHT, AHRI, and Zero Zone, DOE
notes that open cases provide distinct utility with respect to features
such as unobstructed view and access to product, as well as simplified
stocking, cleaning, and maintenance. While DOE understands there are
different charge size limitations for refrigerant safety for open and
closed CRE, DOE has tentatively determined to not analyze the addition
of doors to open cases or the removal of doors on closed cases due to
the distinct utility differences between open and closed CRE.
e. Evaporators and Condensers
Continental commented that larger evaporator coils take up more
internal space, reducing product storage and utility of the equipment.
(Continental, No. 38 at p. 2)
Zero Zone disagreed with DOE's evaluation of the high-performance
coil. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 4) Zero Zone commented that using wavy
fins without changing the fin pitch in an application with high-glide
refrigerants can lead to a build up of frost and ice across the
evaporator coil. (Id.) Zero Zone commented additionally that adding
another tube row transverse to airflow without a change to the physical
dimensions of the coil will compact the tubes, impeding airflow and
causing the accumulation of frost and snow. (Id.) Zero Zone stated that
it does not believe the addition of either of these design changes to
an evaporator coil would create a ``high-performance'' coil. (Id.) Zero
Zone commented that if coil design allowed for an increased evaporator
temperature, a superheat setting at a value that avoids liquid
carryover and compressor damage would be very difficult. (Id.) Zero
Zone provided a white paper called ``High-glide Refrigerants: What's
the Point?'' to describe the challenges with superheat settings in door
cases. (Id.)
Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews and commenters, DOE
has not considered increased evaporator or condenser sizes in this
NOPR. DOE has tentatively determined that manufacturers have maximized
the heat exchanger size without reducing internal storage or increasing
the external dimensions of the unit, both of which would impact product
utility. In addition, due to refrigerant transition in response to the
December 2022 EPA NOPR, DOE has analyzed refrigerants with charge size
limitations in this NOPR. Because manufacturers have only partially
converted to refrigerants that would be allowed per the December 2022
EPA NOPR, there is still uncertainty in refrigerant charge size, and
therefore the evaporator and condenser design, required for all sizes
of CRE.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed ``baseline''
and ``high efficiency'' evaporator and condenser design options. While
DOE understands the exact characteristics of the evaporator or
condenser may change depending on equipment class, the evaporator and
condenser design options normalize the overall conductance-area
(``UA'') based on the design load. Based on stakeholder comments,
interviews with manufacturers, and CoilDesigner \38\ simulation, DOE
tentatively determined that the ``high efficiency'' evaporator and
condenser design options are representative of current manufacturer
designs. Therefore, DOE tentatively determined to analyze the ``high
efficiency'' evaporator and condenser coil as ``baseline'' in this NOPR
and remove the ``high efficiency'' evaporator and condenser design
options in the NOPR. See chapters 3 and 5 of the TSD for additional
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See <a href="https://ots-rd.com/software-development/for">https://ots-rd.com/software-development/for</a> further
information on the CoilDesigner software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zero Zone commented that it believes one CRE manufacturer holds a
patent on split-circuit evaporators. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 5) Zero
Zone stated that

[[Page 70221]]

DOE suggested manufacturers use this product with propane even though
DOE does not include patented design options in rulemakings. (Id.) Zero
Zone commented that DOE should plan energy levels around the use of A2L
refrigerants in large, self-contained appliances instead of focusing on
propane. (Id.)
Based on a limited review of patents listed for split-circuit
evaporators, DOE was able to find several patents for dual circuit
evaporators, which are all either expired or abandoned.\39\ Zero Zone
did not specify what is meant by ``split-circuit evaporators,'' and DOE
was unable to locate any patent that would impact CRE manufacturer's
ability to use evaporators with multiple circuits. Additionally, Zero
Zone did not specify the manufacturer that it believes holds a patent
on split-circuit evaporators. As such, DOE has tentatively determined
that each manufacturer's design is unique and would not infringe on
active patents and notes that even if there is an intellectual property
claim on a specific split-circuit design, manufacturers could use a
multiple circuit design with multiple evaporators without necessarily
using split-circuit evaporators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US3537274">https://patents.google.com/patent/US3537274</a>; <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US3866439A/en">https://patents.google.com/patent/US3866439A/en</a>; <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120137724A1/en">https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120137724A1/en</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Fan Motors
Zero Zone commented that it already uses electronically commutated
motors (``ECM'') fan motors to meet the current energy standard and
stated that it believes most of industry is also using this style of
motor. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 5) Zero Zone requested that DOE include
the ECM motor in the base model. (Id.) Zero Zone stated that the
opening height for this type of product has a disproportional impact on
energy consumption because larger opening heights disproportionally
increase energy use. (Id.) Zero Zone commented that DOE's models
account for this characteristic. (Id.)
DOE has maintained fan motor improvements as a technology option in
this NOPR. As indicated by Zero Zone, DOE has observed that ECM fan
motors are incorporated to a large extent in CRE. While DOE has
observed ECMs incorporated in baseline equipment for multiple analyzed
equipment classes, DOE has tentatively determined that certain baseline
equipment still incorporates other less-efficient motor types. For
these classes, DOE has maintained a transition to ECMs as a design
option change. DOE has also updated its motor costs relative to the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis in this analysis to reflect current
pricing. See chapter 3 and 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.
Zero Zone commented that DOE suggested using permanent magnet
synchronous motors for CRE. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 6) Zero Zone noted
that the study DOE references was completed in 2019, and the motors
have not permeated the market since that time. (Id.) Zero Zone stated
that the motors of such fans operate at 1800 RPM, creating unacceptable
fan noise, and although its fan suppliers are aware of this technology,
they do not recommend this style of motor for use in CRE. (Id.) Zero
Zone recommended screening permanent magnet synchronous motors from use
in CRE. (Id.)
In response to Zero Zone, DOE has observed that permanent magnet
synchronous motors are available on the market for CRE. However, DOE
has not identified specific commercialized designs of permanent magnet
synchronous motors with the appropriate size and rated airflow for the
equipment analyzed in this NOPR. Based on these observations along with
further discussions with manufacturers, DOE has not considered
permanent magnet synchronous motors as a design option in this NOPR, as
discussed further in section IV.C.1 of this document a

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 10, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.