Final Rules Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Friday,
January 9, 2009
Part III
Department of
Energy
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment;
Final Rule
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2
VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:15 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09JAR2.SGM 09JAR2
1092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, 6. Special Application Temperature Cases
public meeting materials, and related 7. Coverage of Remote Condensing Units
10 CFR Part 431 test procedure documents from the 8. Regulating Secondary Cooling
Applications
[Docket Number EERE2006BTSTD Office of Energy Efficiency and

C. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
0126] Renewable Energys Web site at http:// D. Energy Use Characterization
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
RIN 1904AB59 appliance_standards/commercial/ Analyses
refrigeration_equipment.html. F. Shipments Analysis

Energy Conservation Program for G. National Impact Analysis
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
Energy Conservation Standards for Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers; Self- Energy, Energy Efficiency and J. Utility Impact Analysis
Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Renewable Energy, Building K. Employment Impact Analysis
Commercial Freezers, and Commercial Technologies Program, EE2J, 1000 L. Environmental Assessment
Refrigerator-Freezers Without Doors; Independence Avenue, SW., V. Discussion of Other Comments
and Remote Condensing Commercial Washington, DC 205850121, (202) 586 A. Information and Assumptions Used in
2192, Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. Analyses
Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers, 1. Market and Technology Assessment
and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of General Counsel, a. Data Sources
AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of b. Beverage Merchandisers
GC72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 2. Engineering Analysis
Energy Efficiency and Renewable SW., Washington, DC 205850121, (202) a. Design Options
Energy. 5869507, Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. b. Baseline Models
ACTION: Final rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: c. Consideration of Alternative Refrigerants
d. Consideration of NSF 7 Type II
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy Table of Contents Equipment
(DOE) is adopting new energy I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits e. Product Class Extension Factors
conservation standards for commercial A. The Standard Levels f. TSL Energy Limits
ice-cream freezers; self-contained B. Benefits to Customers of Commercial g. Compressor Selection Oversize Factor
commercial refrigerators, commercial Refrigeration Equipment h. Offset Factors for Self-Contained
freezers, and commercial refrigerator- C. Impact on Manufacturers Equipment
freezers without doors; and remote D. National Benefits i. Self-Contained Condensing Coils
II. Introduction 3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
condensing commercial refrigerators, VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Authority
commercial freezers, and commercial B. Background A. Trial Standard Levels
refrigerator-freezers. DOE has 1. History of Standards Rulemaking for 1. Miscellaneous Equipment
determined that energy conservation Commercial Refrigeration Equipment B. Significance of Energy Savings
standards for these types of equipment III. General Discussion C. Economic Justification
would result in significant conservation A. Test Procedures 1. Economic Impact on Commercial
of energy, and are technologically B. Technological Feasibility Customers
feasible and economically justified. 1. General a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
b. Commercial Customer Sub-Group
DATES: The effective date of this rule is Levels

Analysis
March 10, 2009. The standards C. Energy Savings 2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
established in todays final rule will be D. Economic Justification a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
applicable starting January 1, 2012. 1. Specific Criteria b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
Incorporation by reference of the a. Economic Impact on Commercial
c. Impacts on Employment
material listed is approved by the Customers and Manufacturers
d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Director of the Federal Register on b. Life-Cycle Costs e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are
March 10, 2009. c. Energy Savings Small Businesses
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 3. National Net Present Value and Net
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to Equipment National Employment
read background documents, the e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
technical support document, transcripts f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy Equipment
of the public meetings in this g. Other Factors 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
proceeding, or comments received, visit 2. Rebuttable Presumption 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource IV. Methodology and Discussion of 7. Other Factors
Room of the Building Technologies Comments on Methodology D. Conclusion
A. Market and Technology Assessment VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
Program, 950 LEnfant Plaza, SW., 6th
1. Definitions Related to Commercial
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) Refrigeration Equipment
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
5862945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., a. Air-Curtain Angle Definition Act
Monday through Friday, except Federal b. Door Angle Definition C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
holidays. Please call Brenda Edwards at c. Ice-Cream Freezer Definition Act
the above telephone number for d. Equipment Configuration Definitions D. Review Under the National
additional information regarding e. Hybrid and Wedge Case Definitions Environmental Policy Act
visiting the Resource Room. (Note: 2. Equipment Classes E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
DOEs Freedom of Information Reading B. Engineering Analysis F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
1. Approach G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Room no longer houses rulemaking

2. Analytical Models Reform Act of 1995
materials.) You may also obtain copies a. Cost Model H. Review Under the Treasury and General
of certain previous rulemaking b. Energy Consumption Model Government Appropriations Act, 1999
documents in this proceeding (i.e., 3. Equipment Classes Analyzed I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
framework document, advance notice of 4. Wedge Cases J. Review Under the Treasury and General
proposed rulemaking, notice of 5. Ice-Cream FreezersTemperature Range Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1093
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 commercial refrigerators, commercial Furthermore, the new standard must
L. Review Under the Information Quality freezers, and commercial refrigerator- result in significant conservation of
Bulletin for Peer Review freezers without doors; and remote energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
M. Congressional Notification condensing commercial refrigerators,
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 6316(e)(1)) The standards in todays
commercial freezers, and commercial final rule, which apply to all
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its refrigerator-freezers. (42 U.S.C. commercial refrigeration equipment,
Benefits 6313(c)(4)(A)) These types of equipment satisfy these requirements.1
are referred to collectively hereafter as
A. The Standard Levels commercial refrigeration equipment. Table I1 shows the standard levels
The Energy Policy and Conservation Any such standard must be designed to DOE is adopting today. These standards
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; achieve the maximum improvement in will apply to all commercial
EPCA), directs the Department of Energy energy efficiency * * * which the refrigeration equipment manufactured
(DOE) to establish mandatory energy Secretary determines is technologically for sale in the United States, or
conservation standards for commercial feasible and economically justified. (42 imported to the United States, on or
ice-cream freezers; self-contained U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) after January 1, 2012.
TABLE I1STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

Standard level * ** Standard level * **
Equipment class 2 Equipment class
(kWh/day) *** (kWh/day)
VOP.RC.M ............................................... 0.82 TDA + 4.07 VCT.RC.I ................................................. 0.66 TDA + 3.05
SVO.RC.M ............................................... 0.83 TDA + 3.18 HCT.RC.M ............................................... 0.16 TDA + 0.13
HZO.RC.M ............................................... 0.35 TDA + 2.88 HCT.RC.L ................................................ 0.34 TDA + 0.26
VOP.RC.L ................................................ 2.27 TDA + 6.85 HCT.RC.I ................................................. 0.4 TDA + 0.31
HZO.RC.L ................................................ 0.57 TDA + 6.88 VCS.RC.M ............................................... 0.11 V + 0.26
VCT.RC.M ............................................... 0.22 TDA + 1.95 VCS.RC.L ................................................ 0.23 V + 0.54
VCT.RC.L ................................................ 0.56 TDA + 2.61 VCS.RC.I ................................................. 0.27 V + 0.63
SOC.RC.M ............................................... 0.51 TDA + 0.11 HCS.RC.M .............................................. 0.11 V + 0.26
VOP.SC.M ............................................... 1.74 TDA + 4.71 HCS.RC.L ............................................... 0.23 V + 0.54
SVO.SC.M ............................................... 1.73 TDA + 4.59 HCS.RC.I ................................................ 0.27 V + 0.63
HZO.SC.M ............................................... 0.77 TDA + 5.55 SOC.RC.L ............................................... 1.08 TDA + 0.22
HZO.SC.L ................................................ 1.92 TDA + 7.08 SOC.RC.I ................................................ 1.26 TDA + 0.26
VCT.SC.I .................................................. 0.67 TDA + 3.29 VOP.SC.L ................................................ 4.37 TDA + 11.82
VCS.SC.I ................................................. 0.38 V + 0.88 VOP.SC.I ................................................. 5.55 TDA + 15.02
HCT.SC.I ................................................. 0.56 TDA + 0.43 SVO.SC.L ................................................ 4.34 TDA + 11.51
SVO.RC.L ................................................ 2.27 TDA + 6.85 SVO.SC.I ................................................. 5.52 TDA + 14.63
VOP.RC.I ................................................. 2.89 TDA + 8.7 HZO.SC.I ................................................. 2.44 TDA + 9.
SVO.RC.I ................................................. 2.89 TDA + 8.7 SOC.SC.I ................................................ 1.76 TDA + 0.36
HZO.RC.I ................................................. 0.72 TDA + 8.74 HCS.SC.I ................................................. 0.38 V + 0.88
* TDA is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 12002006, Appen
dix D.
** V is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 12002006, Appendix C.
*** Kilowatt hours per day.
2 For this rulemaking, equipment class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order separated by periods) of: (1) An equipment
family code (VOP=vertical open, SVO=semivertical open, HZO=horizontal open, VCT=vertical transparent doors, VCS=vertical solid doors,
HCT=horizontal transparent doors, HCS=horizontal solid doors, or SOC=service over counter); (2) an operating mode code (RC=remote con
densing or SC=self contained); and (3) a rating temperature code (M=medium temperature (38 F), L=low temperature (0 F), or I=ice-cream
temperature (15 F)). For example, VOP.RC.M refers to the vertical open, remote condensing, medium temperature equipment class. See
discussion in section V.A.2 and chapter 3 of the TSD, market and technology assessment, for a more detailed explanation of the equipment
class terminology. See Table IV2 for a list of the equipment classes by category.
B. Benefits to Customers of Commercial

Refrigeration Equipment
Table I2 indicates the impacts on
commercial customers of todays
standards.
TABLE I2IMPLICATIONS OF NEW STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMERS

Total
Total installed Life-cycle Payback
installed
Equipment class Energy conservation standard cost cost savings period
cost increase ($) (years)
($) ($)
VOP.RC.M ................................. 0.82 TDA + 4.07 ................................................... 8,065 536 1,788 2.0
VOP.RC.L .................................. 2.27 TDA + 6.85 ................................................... 11,222 1,947 3,938 2.8
VOP.SC.M ................................. 1.74 TDA + 4.71 ................................................... 4,381 633 1,549 2.4
1 Currently, no mandatory Federal energy
conservation standards exist for the commercial

refrigeration equipment covered by this rulemaking.
TABLE I2IMPLICATIONS OF NEW STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMERSContinued

Total
Total installed Life-cycle Payback
installed
Equipment class Energy conservation standard cost cost savings period
cost increase ($) (years)
($) ($)
VCT.RC.M ................................. 0.22 TDA + 1.95 ................................................... 11,654 2,134 2,339 3.9
VCT.RC.L .................................. 0.56 TDA + 2.61 ................................................... 12,584 2,513 5,419 2.6
VCT.SC.I ................................... 0.67 TDA + 3.29 ................................................... 6,602 1,385 5,217 1.7
VCS.SC.I ................................... 0.38 V + 0.88 ........................................................ 4,227 326 1,757 1.3
SVO.RC.M ................................. 0.83 TDA + 3.18 ................................................... 7,470 435 1,274 1.9
SVO.SC.M ................................. 1.73 TDA + 4.59 ................................................... 3,719 439 1,136 2.3
SOC.RC.M ................................ 0.51 TDA + 0.11 ................................................... 12,740 240 945 1.7
HZO.RC.M ................................. 0.35 TDA + 2.88 ................................................... 8,133 248 1,040 1.6
HZO.RC.L .................................. 0.57 TDA + 6.88 ................................................... 8,194 270 1,102 1.6
HZO.SC.M ................................. 0.77 TDA + 5.55 ................................................... 3,398 313 826 2.3
HZO.SC.L .................................. 1.92 TDA + 7.08 ................................................... 3,836 460 1,761 1.7
HCT.SC.I ................................... 0.56 TDA + 0.43 ................................................... 2,478 238 785 1.9
The economic impacts on commercial by more than 5 million American todays final rule is $95 million per year
consumers (i.e., the average life-cycle households in a single year. in increased equipment and installation
cost (LCC) savings) are positive for all By 2042, DOE expects the energy costs, while the annualized benefits are
equipment classes. For example, savings from the standards to eliminate $229 million per year in reduced
currently available remote condensing the need for approximately 0.7 new equipment operating costs. Using a 3-
vertical open equipment operating at 1,000-megawatt (MW) power plants. percent discount rate, the cost of the
medium temperatures, semivertical These energy savings will result in standards established in todays final
equipment with those same cumulative greenhouse gas emission rule is $81 million per year, while the
characteristics, and vertical closed reductions of approximately 52.6 benefits of todays standards are $253
equipment with transparent doors and million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide million per year.
operating at low temperaturesthree of (CO2), or an amount equal to that
II. Introduction
the most common types of commercial produced by approximately 332,500
refrigeration equipmenttypically have cars every year. Additionally, the A. Authority
installed prices of $8,065, $7,470 and standards will help alleviate air Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety
$12,584, and annual energy costs of pollution by resulting in between of provisions designed to improve
$1,879, $1,413, and $2,249, respectively. approximately 3.64 and 89.97 kilotons energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42
To meet the new standards, DOE (kt) of cumulative nitrogen oxide (NOX) U.S.C. 62916309) provides for the
estimates that the installed prices of emission reductions and between Energy Conservation Program for
such equipment will be $8,601, $7,905, approximately 0 and 1.38 tons of Consumer Products Other than
and $15,097, respectively, an increase of cumulative mercury emission Automobiles. Part A1 of Title III (42
$536, $435, and $2,513. This price reductions from 2012 through 2042. The U.S.C. 63116317) establishes a similar
increase will be offset by annual energy estimated net present values of these program for Certain Industrial
savings of about $331, $234, and $977. emissions reductions are between $0 Equipment, including commercial
and $469 million for CO2, between refrigeration equipment, the subject of
C. Impact on Manufacturers
$394,000 and $9.7 million for NOX, and this rulemaking.3 DOE publishes todays
Using a real corporate discount rate of between $0 and $284,000 for mercury at final rule pursuant to Part A1 of Title
11.5 percent, DOE estimates the a 7-percent discount rate in 2007$, III, which provides for test procedures,
industry net present value (INPV) of the discounted to 2008. At a 3-percent labeling, and energy conservation
commercial refrigeration equipment discount rate, the estimated net present standards for commercial refrigeration
industry to be $540 million in 2007$. values of these emissions reductions are equipment and certain other equipment;
DOE expects the impact of todays between $0 and $955 million for CO2, and authorizes DOE to require
standards on the industry net present between $0.8 million and $20.5 million information and reports from
value (INPV) of manufacturers of for NOX, and between $0 and $560,000 manufacturers. The test procedure for
commercial refrigeration equipment to for mercury. commercial refrigeration equipment
be a loss of 7.29 to 27.35 percent ($39 The national NPV of the standards is appears in Title 10 Code of Federal
million to $148 million). Based on $1.414 billion using a 7-percent Regulations (CFR) part 431.64.
DOEs interviews with manufacturers of discount rate and $3.930 billion using a EPCA provides criteria for prescribing
commercial refrigeration equipment, 3-percent discount rate, cumulative new or amended standards for
DOE expects minimal plant closings or from 2012 to 2062 in 2007$. This is the commercial refrigeration equipment. As
loss of employment as a result of the estimated total value of future savings indicated above, any new or amended
standards. minus the estimated increased standard for this equipment must be
equipment costs, discounted to 2008. designed to achieve the maximum
D. National Benefits
The benefits and costs of todays final improvement in energy efficiency that is
DOE estimates the standards will save rule can also be expressed in terms of technologically feasible and
approximately 1.035 quads (quadrillion annualized [2007$] values between 2012
(1015) British thermal units (Btu)) of and 2042. Using a 7-percent discount 3 This part was originally titled Part C. However,
energy over 30 years (20122042). This rate for the annualized cost analysis, the it was redesignated Part A1 after Part B of Title
is equivalent to all the energy consumed cost of the standards established in III of EPCA was repealed by Public Law 10958.
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. standard, as calculated under the test 50076 (August 25, 2008) (the August
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) procedure in place for that standard. 2008 NOPR), the EPACT 2005
Additionally, EPCA provides specific EPCA further provides that the amendments to EPCA require that DOE
prohibitions on prescribing such Secretary may not prescribe an amended issue energy conservation standards for
standards. DOE may not prescribe an or new standard if interested persons the equipment covered by this
amended or new standard for any have established by a preponderance of rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A))
equipment for which DOE has not the evidence that the standard is likely The amendments also include
established a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. to result in the unavailability in the definitions for terms relevant to this
6295(o)(3)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) Further, United States in any covered product equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)). These
DOE may not prescribe an amended or type (or class) of performance definitions provide that commercial
new standard if DOE determines by rule characteristics (including reliability), refrigeration equipment is connected to
that such standard would not result in features, sizes, capacities, and volumes either a self-contained condensing unit
significant conservation of energy or that are substantially the same as those or to a remote condensing unit (42
is not technologically feasible or generally available in the United States U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vii)), the two
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. at the time of the Secretarys finding. condenser configurations of equipment
6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(e)(1)) (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(e)(1)) covered by this rulemaking, and include
EPCA also provides that in deciding Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is definitions of a remote condensing unit
whether such a standard is applicable to promulgating standards for and self-contained condensing unit (42
economically justified for equipment most types or classes of equipment, U.S.C. 6311(9)(E)(F)).
such as commercial refrigeration including commercial refrigeration DOE commenced this rulemaking on
equipment, DOE must, after receiving equipment, that have two or more April 25, 2006, by publishing a notice
comments on the proposed standard, subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and of a public meeting and of the
determine whether the benefits of the 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) Under this availability of its framework document
standard exceed its burdens by provision, DOE must specify a different for the rulemaking. 71 FR 23876. The
considering, to the greatest extent standard level than that which applies framework document described the
practicable, the following seven factors: generally to such type or class of approaches DOE anticipated using and
1. The economic impact of the equipment for any group of products issues to be resolved in the rulemaking.
standard on manufacturers and which have the same function or DOE held a public meeting on May 16,
consumers of the products subject to the intended use, if * * * products within 2006, to present the contents of the
standard; such group(A) consume a different framework document, describe the
2. The savings in operating costs kind of energy from that consumed by analyses DOE planned to conduct
throughout the estimated average life of other covered products within such type during the rulemaking, obtain public
products in the type (or class) compared (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other comment on these subjects, and
to any increase in the price, initial performance-related feature which other facilitate the publics involvement in the
charges, or maintenance expenses for products within such type (or class) do rulemaking. DOE also allowed the
the covered products that are likely to not have and such feature justifies a submission of written statements, after
result from the imposition of the higher or lower standard than applies the public meeting, in response to the
standard; or will apply to the other products. (42 framework document.
3. The total projected amount of U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In On July 26, 2007, DOE published an
energy savings likely to result directly determining whether a performance- advance notice of proposed rulemaking
from the imposition of the standard; related feature justifies such a different (ANOPR) in this proceeding. 72 FR
4. Any lessening of the utility or the 41161 (the July 2007 ANOPR). In the
standard for a group of products, DOE
performance of the products likely to July 2007 ANOPR, DOE sought
must consider such factors as the
result from the imposition of the comment on its proposed equipment
utility to the consumer of such a
standard; classes for the rulemaking, and on the
feature and other factors DOE deems
5. The impact of any lessening of analytical framework, models, and tools
appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any
competition, as determined in writing that DOE used to analyze the impacts of
rule prescribing such a standard must
by the Attorney General, that is likely to energy conservation standards for
include an explanation of the basis on
result from the imposition of the commercial refrigeration equipment. In
which DOE established such a higher or
standard; conjunction with the July 2007 ANOPR,
lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
6. The need for national energy DOE published on its Web site the
Federal energy conservation standards
conservation; and complete ANOPR TSD, which included
7. Other factors the Secretary of for commercial equipment generally
the results of DOEs various preliminary
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. supersede State laws or regulations
analyses in this rulemaking. In the July
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(ii) and concerning energy conservation testing,
2007 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and
6316(e)(1)) labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
written comments on these results and
In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 6297(a)(c); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)(3)) on a range of other issues. DOE held a
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1)), DOE can, however, grant waivers of public meeting in Washington, DC, on
establishes a rebuttable presumption preemption for particular State laws or August 23, 2007, to present the
that a standard for commercial regulations, in accordance with the methodology and results of the ANOPR
refrigeration equipment is economically procedures and other provisions of analyses and to receive oral comments
justified if the Secretary finds that the section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. from those who attended. The oral and
additional cost to the consumer of 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)(3)) written comments DOE received
purchasing a product complying with B. Background focused on DOEs assumptions,

an energy conservation standard level approach, and equipment class
will be less than three times the value 1. History of Standards Rulemaking for breakdown, and were addressed in
of the energy (and as applicable, water) Commercial Refrigeration Equipment detail in the August 2008 NOPR.
savings during the first year that the As discussed in the notice of In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE
consumer will receive as a result of the proposed rulemaking, 73 FR 50072, proposed new energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration the proposed rule, which incorporated LCC spreadsheet, and the national
equipment. 73 FR 50072. In conjunction the final analyses DOE conducted and impact analysis spreadsheet. The
with the August 2008 NOPR, DOE also technical documentation for each standards DOE proposed for commercial
published on its Web site the complete analysis. The TSD included the refrigeration equipment are shown in
technical support document (TSD) for engineering analysis spreadsheets, the Table II1.
TABLE II1AUGUST 2008 PROPOSED STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
Standard level* ** Standard level* **
Equipment class Equipment class
(kWh/day) (kWh/day)
VOP.RC.I ................................................. 2.9 TDA + 8.7 HZO.SC.I ................................................. 2.44 TDA + 9
* TDA is the total display area of the case, as measured in the ARI Standard 12002006, Appendix D.
** V is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 12002006, Appendix C.
In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE procedure for this equipment.4 71 FR B. Technological Feasibility
identified seven issues on which is was 71340, 7136970; 10 CFR 431.63
1. General
particularly interested in receiving 431.64. ARI Standard 12002006
comments and views of interested contains rating temperature As stated above, any standards that
parties: Light-emitting diode (LED) price specifications of 38 F (2 F) for DOE establishes for commercial
projections, base case efficiency trends, commercial refrigerators and refrigerator refrigeration equipment must be
operating temperature ranges, offset compartments, 0 F (2 F) for technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
factors for smaller equipment, extension commercial freezers and freezer 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C.
of standards developed for the 15 compartments, and 5 F (2 F) for 6316(e)(1)) DOE considers a design
primary classes to the remaining 23 option to be technologically feasible if it
commercial ice-cream freezers. The
secondary classes, standards for hybrid is in use by the respective industry or
standard also requires performance tests
cases and wedges, and standard levels. if research has progressed to the
to be conducted according to the ANSI/ development of a working prototype.
73 FR 50134. After the publication of American Society of Heating, Technologies incorporated in
the August 2008 NOPR, DOE received Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning commercial products or in working
written comments on these and other Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 722005, prototypes will be considered
issues. DOE also held a public meeting Method of Testing Commercial technologically feasible. 10 CFR part
in Washington, DC, on September 23, Refrigerators and Freezers. In the test 430, subpart C, appendix A, section
2008, to hear oral comments on and procedure final rule, DOE also adopted 4(a)(4)(i).
solicit information relevant to the a 15 F (2 F) rating temperature for This final rule considers the same
proposed rule. The August 2008 NOPR commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR design options as those evaluated in the
included additional background 71370. In addition, DOE adopted ANSI/ August 2008 NOPR. (See chapter 4 of
information on the history of this Association of Home Appliance the final rule TSD accompanying this
rulemaking. 73 FR 5007677. Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF notice.) All the evaluated technologies
III. General Discussion 12004, Energy, Performance and have been used (or are being used) in
Capacity of Household Refrigerators, commercially available products or
A. Test Procedures Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, for working prototypes. Therefore, DOE has
determining compartment volumes for determined that all of the efficiency
On December 8, 2006, DOE published
this equipment. 71 FR 7136970. levels evaluated in this notice are
a final rule (the December 2006 final
technologically feasible.
rule) in which it adopted American
4 The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air- 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
(ARI) and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Association (GAMA) announced on December 17,
Levels
(ARI) Standard 12002006, 2007, that their members voted to approve the As required by EPCA (42 U.S.C.
Performance Rating of Commercial merger of two trade associations to represent the
interests of cooling, heating, and commercial
6295(p)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) in
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and refrigeration equipment manufacturers. The merged developing the August 2008 NOPR, DOE
Storage Cabinets, as the DOE test association became AHRI on January 1, 2008. identified the energy use levels that
would achieve the maximum reductions DOE also received comments regarding decreased and the max-tech levels for
in energy use that are technologically the LED lighting configurations assumed closed cases increased from the max-
feasible (max-tech levels) for in the engineering analysis for various tech levels proposed in the August 2008
commercial refrigeration equipment. 73 equipment types. This caused the max- NOPR. For todays final rule, the max-
FR at 5007778. (See NOPR TSD tech levels proposed in the August 2008 tech levels for all classes are the levels
chapter 5.) DOE received comments NOPR to change for equipment classes provided in Table III1.
indicating that LED efficacy had with lighting. In general, the max-tech
improved since the August 2008 NOPR. levels for open equipment classes
TABLE III1MAX-TECH ENERGY USE LEVELS

Max-tech level Max-tech level
Equipment class Equipment class
(kWh/day) (kWh/day)
VOP.RC.I ................................................. 2.89 TDA + 8.7 HZO.SC.I ................................................. 2.44 TDA + 9.
C. Energy Savings standard for commercial refrigeration the sum of the purchase price and the
DOE forecasted energy savings in its equipment is economically justified. (42 operating expensediscounted over the
national energy savings (NES) analysis, U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. lifetime of the equipmentto estimate
through the use of an NES spreadsheet 6316(e)(1)) The following sections the range in LCC benefits that
tool, as discussed in the August 2008 discuss how DOE has addressed each of commercial consumers would expect to
NOPR. 73 FR at 50078, 5010104, those seven factors in this rulemaking. achieve due to the standards.
50121. a. Economic Impact on Commercial c. Energy Savings
One of the criteria that governs DOEs Customers and Manufacturers Although significant conservation of
adoption of standards for commercial
DOE considered the economic impact energy is a separate statutory
refrigeration equipment is that the
of the new commercial refrigeration requirement for imposing an energy
standard must result in significant
equipment standards on commercial conservation standard, EPCA also
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
customers and manufacturers. For requires DOE, in determining the
6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1))
customers, DOE measured the economic economic justification of a proposed
While EPCA does not define the term
impact as the change in installed cost standard, to consider the total projected
significant, a U.S. Court of Appeals,
and life-cycle operating costs, i.e., the energy savings that are expected to
in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
LCC. (See sections IV.E and VI.C.1.a, result directly from the standard. (42
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC
and chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 42 U.S.C.
Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress
this notice.) DOE investigated the 6316(e)(1)) As in the August 2008
intended significant energy savings in
impacts on manufacturers through the NOPR, 73 FR at 50078, 5010104,
this context to be savings that were not
manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). 50121, for todays final rule DOE used
genuinely trivial. DOEs estimates of
(See sections IV.I and VI.C.2, and the NES spreadsheet results in its
the energy savings for energy
chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying consideration of total projected savings
conservation standards at each of the
this notice.) The economic impact on that are directly attributable to the
trial standard levels (TSLs) in todays
commercial customers and standard levels DOE considered.
rule indicate that the energy savings
manufacturers is discussed in detail in
each would achieve are nontrivial. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
the August 2008 NOPR. 73 FR at 50078
Therefore, DOE considers these savings Equipment
79, 5009550100, 5010407, 5001316,
significant within the meaning of In selecting todays standard levels,
5011721, 5013031.
section 325 of EPCA. DOE sought to avoid new standards for
b. Life-Cycle Costs
D. Economic Justification commercial refrigeration equipment that

DOE considered life-cycle costs of would lessen the utility or performance
1. Specific Criteria commercial refrigeration equipment, as of that equipment. (42 U.S.C.
As noted earlier, EPCA provides discussed in the August 2008 NOPR. 73 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 42 U.S.C.
seven factors to evaluate in determining FR at 5007879, 5009550100, 50104, 6316(e)(1)) 73 FR at 50079, 5008889,
whether an energy conservation 5001316, 5011718. DOE calculated 50123.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of standards on these businesses might be assumptions and inputs for the final
Competition disproportionate because these rule in response to stakeholder
DOE considers any lessening of businesses experience both higher comments. The following paragraphs
competition that is likely to result from discount rates and lack of access to discuss these revisions.
standards. Accordingly, as discussed in national account equipment purchases.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
the August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR at 50079, 73 FR 50079, 50104, 5011718.
When beginning an energy
50123, DOE requested that the Attorney 2. Rebuttable Presumption conservation standards rulemaking,
General transmit to the Secretary a
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA DOE develops information that provides
written determination of the impact, if
states that there is a rebuttable an overall picture of the market for the
any, of any lessening of competition
presumption that an energy equipment concerned, including the
likely to result from the proposed
conservation standard is economically purpose of the equipment, the industry
standards, together with an analysis of
justified if the additional cost to the structure, and market characteristics.
the nature and extent of such impact.
consumer of a product that meets the This activity includes both quantitative
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)
standard level is less than three times and qualitative assessments based
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1))
To assist the Attorney General in the value of the first-year energy (and as primarily on publicly available
making such a determination, DOE applicable water) savings resulting from information. DOE presented various
provided the Department of Justice the standard, as calculated under the subjects in the market and technology
(DOJ) with copies of the August 2008 applicable DOE test procedure. (42 assessment for this rulemaking. (See the
proposed rule and the TSD for review. U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. August 2008 NOPR and chapter 3 of the
(DOJ, No. 37 at pp. 12) The Attorney 6316(e)(1)) DOEs LCC and payback NOPR TSD.) These include equipment
Generals response is discussed in period (PBP) analyses generate values definitions, equipment classes,
section VI.C.5 below, and is reprinted at that calculate the payback period for manufacturers, quantities and types of
consumers of potential energy equipment sold and offered for sale,
the end of this rule.5
conservation standards, which includes, retail market trends, and regulatory and
f. Need of the Nation To Conserve but is not limited to, the three-year nonregulatory programs.
Energy payback period contemplated under the
1. Definitions Related to Commercial
In considering standards for rebuttable presumption test discussed
Refrigeration Equipment
commercial refrigeration equipment, the above. However, DOE routinely
Secretary must consider the need of the conducts a full economic analysis that a. Air-Curtain Angle Definition
Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. considers the full range of impacts, For equipment without doors, an air
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 42 U.S.C. including those to the consumer, curtain divides the refrigerated
6316(e)(1)) The Secretary recognizes manufacturer, Nation, and environment, compartment from the ambient space.
that energy conservation benefits the as required under 42 U.S.C. DOE proposed the following definition
Nation in several important ways. The 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. of air-curtain angle in the August 2008
non-monetary benefits of the standards 6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis NOPR that is consistent with the
are likely to be reflected in serve as the basis for DOE to definitively industry-approved standards: Air-
improvements to the security and evaluate the economic justification for a curtain angle means: (1) For equipment
reliability of the Nations energy system. potential standard level (thereby without doors and without a discharge
Todays standards also will likely result supporting or rebutting the results of air grille or discharge air honeycomb,
in environmental benefits. As discussed any preliminary determination of the angle between a vertical line
in the proposed rule, DOE has economic justification). extended down from the highest point
considered these factors in adopting IV. Methodology and Discussion of on the manufacturers recommended
todays standards. 73 FR 50074, 50079, Comments on Methodology load limit line and the load limit line
50108, 5012326, 50132. itself, when the equipment is viewed in
DOE used several analytical tools that cross-section; and (2) For all other
g. Other Factors it developed previously and adapted for equipment without doors, the angle
EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy, use in this rulemaking. One is a formed between a vertical line and the
in determining whether a standard is spreadsheet that calculates LCC and straight line drawn by connecting the
economically justified, to consider any PBP. Another tool calculates national point at the inside edge of the discharge
other factors that the Secretary deems to energy savings and national NPV. DOE air opening with the point at the inside
be relevant. (42 U.S.C. also used the Government Regulatory edge of the return air opening, when the
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 42 U.S.C. Impact Model (GRIM), along with other equipment is viewed in cross-section.
6316(e)(1)) In adopting todays standard, methods, in its MIA. Finally, DOE 73 FR 50080; 50135. DOE did not
DOE considered the LCC impacts on the developed an approach using the receive any additional comments on the
commercial refrigeration equipment of National Energy Modeling System definition of air-curtain angle in
independent, small grocery/ (NEMS) to estimate impacts of energy response to the August 2008 NOPR;
convenience store businesses. efficiency standards for commercial thus, DOE is adopting these definitions
Compared to the impact of standards on refrigeration equipment on electric as proposed.
the overall market for commercial utilities and the environment. The TSD
appendices discuss each of these b. Door Angle Definition
refrigeration equipment, the impact of
analytical tools in detail. 73 FR 50079 The door orientation affects the
5 A notation in the form DOJ, No. 37 at pp. 1 108. energy consumption of equipment with
2 identifies a written comment that DOE has As a basis for this final rule, DOE has doors. This equipment can be broadly
received and has included in the docket of this continued to use the spreadsheets and categorized by the angle of the door. In
rulemaking. This particular notation refers to (1) a approaches explained in the August the August 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed
comment submitted by the Department of Justice
(DOJ), (2) in document number 37 in the docket of
2008 NOPR. DOE used the same general the following definition of door angle:
this rulemaking, and (3) appearing on pages 1 and methodology as applied in the August (1) For equipment with flat doors, the
2 of document number 37. 2008 NOPR, but revised some of the angle between a vertical line and the
line formed by the plane of the door, Hussman stated that using the term ice U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A), added by EPACT
when the equipment is viewed in cross- cream to refer to a temperature range 2005, section 136(c)) Because the term
section; and (2) For equipment with might be confusing because ice cream is ice-cream freezers was specified in
curved doors, the angle formed between also a product. (Hussman, Public EPCA, the term ice cream is
a vertical line and the straight line Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 15) 6 appropriate to describe that specific
drawn by connecting the top and bottom Southern Store Fixtures expressed a equipment category in this rulemaking,
points where the display area glass joins similar concern, adding that other types and DOE is therefore maintaining the
the cabinet, when the equipment is of frozen items, such as frozen juice, use of that term in the rulemaking. Also,
viewed in cross-section. 73 FR 50080; may be displayed in ice-cream type see section IV.A.2 of this final rule.
50135. DOE did not receive any cases. (Southern Store Fixtures, Public
additional comments on the definition Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 18) d. Equipment Configuration Definitions
of door angle in response to the August As described in the July 2007 ANOPR,
2008 NOPR; thus, DOE is adopting the the EPCA provision that required this The configuration of commercial
definition as proposed. rulemaking identifies specifically the refrigeration equipment affects its
categories ice-cream freezers, self- energy consumption and the equipment
c. Ice-Cream Freezer Definition contained commercial refrigerators, classes into which this equipment is
During the NOPR public meeting, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers divided. In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE
interested parties expressed concern without doors, and remote proposed five definitions of equipment
about the definition of an ice-cream condensing commercial refrigerators, configurations, shown in Table IV1. 73
freezer as used in this rulemaking. freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. (42 FR 50081; 50135.
TABLE IV1EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION DEFINITIONS

Equipment family Description
Vertical Open (VOP) .................................. Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle 0 degrees and <10 degrees from the vertical.
Semivertical Open (SVO) .......................... Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle 10 degrees and <80 degrees from the vertical.
Horizontal Open (HZO) .............................. Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle 80 degrees from the vertical.
Vertical Closed (VC) .................................. Equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle <45 degrees.
Horizontal Closed (HC) .............................. Equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle 45 degrees.
DOE did not receive any additional 2. Equipment Classes discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, 73
comments on the definitions of the five FR 5008083, DOE is adopting
configurations; thus, DOE is adopting Commercial refrigerators, commercial equipment classes in this rulemaking
these definitions as proposed. freezers, and commercial refrigerator- by: (1) Dividing commercial
freezers can be divided into various
e. Hybrid and Wedge Case Definitions refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
equipment classes categorized largely by
commercial refrigerator-freezers into
As stated in the August 2008 NOPR, physical characteristics that affect
equipment families; (2) subdividing
certain types of equipment meet the energy efficiency. Some of these
characteristics delineate the categories these families based on condensing unit
definition of commercial refrigeration
equipment (Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT of equipment covered by this configurations and rating temperature
2005), but do not fall directly into any rulemaking.7 Most affect the designations; and (3) identifying the
of the 38 equipment classes defined in merchandise that the equipment can be resulting classes that are within each of
the market and technology assessment. used to display and how the customer the three equipment categories covered
Among these types are hybrid cases and can access that merchandise. Key by this rulemaking. Because DOE did
wedge cases; DOE proposed definitions physical characteristics that affect not receive any comments in response
for these in the August 2008 NOPR. energy efficiency are the operating to the presentation of equipment classes
Because DOE did not receive any temperature, the presence or absence of in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE is
additional comments on the definitions doors (i.e., closed cases or open cases), adopting the equipment classes as
of commercial hybrid refrigerators, the type of doors used (i.e., transparent proposed without further modification.
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers or on or solid), the angle of the door or air- Table IV2 presents the equipment
the definition of wedge case, DOE is curtain (i.e., horizontal, semivertical, or classes covered under this rulemaking,
adopting these definitions as proposed vertical), and the type of condensing organized by the three equipment
in section 431.62. unit (i.e., remote or self-contained). As categories.
6 A notation in the form Hussman, Public Hussman; (2) recorded in document number 27, categories of equipment are: Self-contained
Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 15 identifies an which is the public meeting transcript filed in the commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
oral comment that DOE received during the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) appearing on commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors;
September 23, 2008, NOPR public meeting. This page 15 of document number 27. remote condensing commercial refrigerators,
comment was recorded in the public meeting 7 Commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers,
commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-
transcript in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket and commercial refrigerator-freezers is a type of
freezers; and commercial ice-cream freezers. DOE
No. EE2006STD0126), maintained in the covered commercial equipment. For purposes of
Resource Room of the Building Technologies discussion only in this proceeding, DOE uses the will analyze specific equipment classes that fall
Program. This particular notation refers to a term categories to designate groupings of within these general categories and set appropriate
comment (1) made during the public meeting by commercial refrigeration equipment. The standards.
TABLE IV2COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CLASSES BY CATEGORY

Operating Equipment
Equipment category Condensing unit configuration Equipment family temperature class
(F) designation
Remote Condensing Commercial Remote ............................................ Vertical Open ................................... 32 VOP.RC.M

Refrigerators, Commercial Freez <32 VOP.RC.L
ers, and Commercial Refrigerator-
Freezers.
Semivertical Open ........................... 32 SVO.RC.M
<32 SVO.RC.L
Horizontal Open ............................... 32 HZO.RC.M
<32 HZO.RC.L
Vertical Closed Transparent ............ 32 VCT.RC.M
<32 VCT.RC.L
Horizontal Closed Transparent ........ 32 HCT.RC.M
<32 HCT.RC.L
Vertical Closed Solid ....................... 32 VCS.RC.M
<32 VCS.RC.L
Horizontal Closed Solid ................... 32 HCS.RC.M
<32 HCS.RC.L
Service Over Counter ...................... 32 SOC.RC.M
<32 SOC.RC.L
Self-Contained Commercial Refrig Self-Contained ................................. Vertical Open ................................... 32 VOP.SC.M
erators, Commercial Freezers, <32 VOP.SC.L
and Commercial Refrigerator-
Freezers without Doors.
Semivertical Open ........................... 32 SVO.SC.M
<32 SVO.SC.L
Horizontal Open ............................... 32 HZO.SC.M
<32 HZO.SC.L
Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers ..... Remote ............................................ Vertical Open ................................... * 5 VOP.RC.I
Semivertical Open ........................... .................... SVO.RC.I
Horizontal Open ............................... .................... HZO.RC.I
Vertical Closed Transparent ............ .................... VCT.RC.I
Horizontal Closed Transparent ........ .................... HCT.RC.I
Vertical Closed Solid ....................... .................... VCS.RC.I
Horizontal Closed Solid ................... .................... HCS.RC.I
Service Over Counter ...................... .................... SOC.RC.I
Self-Contained ................................. Vertical Open ................................... .................... VOP.SC.I
Semivertical Open ........................... .................... SVO.SC.I
Horizontal Open ............................... .................... HZO.SC.I
Vertical Closed Transparent ............ .................... VCT.SC.I
Horizontal Closed Transparent ........ .................... HCT.SC.I
Vertical Closed Solid ....................... .................... VCS.SC.I
Horizontal Closed Solid ................... .................... HCS.SC.I
Service Over Counter ...................... .................... SOC.SC.I
* Ice-cream freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer designed to operate at or below 5 F (21 C) and that the manu
facturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.
B. Engineering Analysis 1. Approach energy consumption for the commercial

refrigeration equipment covered in this
The engineering analysis develops For the NOPR, DOE adopted a design-
rulemaking. In determining this
cost-efficiency relationships to show the options approach for the engineering
relationship, DOE estimated the
manufacturing costs of achieving analysis. The methodology DOE used to
incremental manufacturer production
increased efficiency. As discussed in the perform the design-option analysis is
costs associated with technological
August 2008 NOPR, DOE used the described in detail in chapter 5 of the
changes that reduce the energy
design-option approach, involving TSD. DOE used industry-supplied data,
consumption of the baseline models
consultation with outside experts, which were developed using an
(i.e., design options).
review of publicly available cost and efficiency-level approach, to validate During the NOPR public meeting, the
performance information, and modeling DOE data. DOE received no further American Council for an Energy-
of equipment cost and energy comments on the design-options Efficient Economy (ACEEE) stated that
consumption. 73 FR 5008350093. approach and, as a result, made no DOEs method of estimating
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contained changes to this methodology for the manufacturer production costs based on
detailed discussion of the engineering final rule. a snapshot analysis of available
analysis methodology. In response to 2. Analytical Models engineering options is flawed, because

the August 2008 NOPR, DOE received a historical data for other building
a. Cost Model
number of comments on the engineering technologies show that incremental
analysis methodology. These comments, In the engineering analysis, DOE costs of complying with standards have
and DOEs response, are detailed in the establishes the relationship between been much lower than DOE estimated.
following paragraphs. manufacturer production cost and ACEEE attributed this to manufacturers
redesigning their processes to meet new thorough and rigorous manufacturing could increase confidence in the price
energy conservation standards. (ACEEE, cost analysis based on actual equipment projections.
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at at all efficiency levels represents the DOE received several comments.
p. 28) AHRI disagreed with ACEEE and most effective and appropriate way to ASAP, Natural Resources Defense
cited the residential central air- estimate current and near-term Council (NRDC), Earthjustice, and the
conditioner rulemaking as an example incremental manufacturing costs. Joint Comment all expressed support for
of where the actual cost of equipment Therefore, DOE has used available the use of DOE LED price projections.
was much higher than DOE estimated. information on existing design options They stated that the projections are
(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. in the cost-efficiency analysis. sufficiently justified and would be a
27 at p. 29) However, ACEEE responded more adequate basis for the standard
i. LED Price Projections than the assumption that LED prices
that this was because commodity prices
increased dramatically for that DOE estimates the economic impacts will remain constant at 2007 levels.
equipment and that once this was of the proposed standards based on (ASAP, No. 27 at p. 100; NRDC, Public
accounted for, the observed price current costs of technologically feasible Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 105;
increase in baseline residential air- energy saving design options used in Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript,
conditioner units was 2 percent lower commercial refrigeration equipment. No. 27 at p. 106; Joint Comment, No. 34
than DOEs estimate. (ACEEE, Public One such technology, which has been a at p. 2) Pacific Gas and Electric
Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 30) focal point in this rulemaking, is solid- Company, Southern California Edison,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project state lighting (i.e., LEDs). For the and Sempra Energy Utilities (Southern
(ASAP) added that a retrospective ANOPR, DOE based LED lighting costs California Gas and San Diego Gas and
analysis would be useful for helping on a retrofit case study, but revised its Electric Company) (hereafter the
DOE evaluate its model for predicting assumptions for the NOPR after California Utilities Joint Comment)
costs. (ASAP, Public Meeting gathering information from LED chip suggested that the DOE projections
Transcript, No. 27 at p. 31) ACEEE also and fixture manufacturers. These might be too conservative. (California
commented that DOEs model for changes caused the original equipment Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 3)
assessing the cost and value of energy manufacturer (OEM) cost (i.e., the cost ACEEE agreed, attributing this
conservation standards is flawed, to commercial refrigeration equipment underestimation to the exclusion of
because the model fails to account for manufacturers) of LED fixtures to scale-dependent factors. ACEEE stated
increase for both open refrigeration that as LED production scales up, there
manufacturer learning curves. Over
cases and refrigeration cases with will be greater price reductions and
time, the price of most equipment drops
transparent doors. Based on these increased quality in terms of
as more units are produced, regardless
revised costs, DOE tentatively rejected reproducibility. (ACEEE, No. 31 at p. 7
of the efficiency standards placed on
TSL 5 (i.e., the efficiency level where and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at
them. Therefore, DOEs assumption that
LEDs were first implemented for most p. 111) As evidence of the validity of
greater efficiency standards will cause
equipment classes) because it was not DOE LED cost projections, the California
equipment prices to increase is not
economically feasible. Utilities Joint Comment stated that LED
valid. (ACEEE, No. 31 at p. 1) A However, DOE conducted a
comment submitted by representatives prices have already dropped rapidly,
sensitivity analysis for the NOPR to rendering DOE analyses based on 2007
of ACEEE, Appliance Standards gauge the effect of expected LED price
Awareness Project, Alliance to Save prices obsolete. It suggested that the
reductions. That analysis estimated NPV price of LED lighting for use in
Energy, California Energy Commission, and LCC values for equipment classes if refrigeration has already fallen by
Natural Resources Defense Council, projected LED prices were used in roughly 10 percent since 2007.
Northeast Energy Efficiency DOEs analysis. DOEs Multi-Year (California Utilities Joint Comment, No.
Partnerships, Northwest Power and Program Plan was used to estimate the 41 at p. 13) The California Utilities Joint
Conservation Council, Pacific Gas and reduction in LED chip price by 2012.8 Comment also stated that LED prices
Electric Company, Sempra Energy
The sensitivity analysis used an will continue to drop after 2012, a fact
Utilities, and Southern California
estimated reduction in LED chip price that should be considered in the NPV
Edison (hereafter referred to as the Joint
of 80 percent by 2012, which analyses. (California Utilities Joint
Comment) agreed with ACEEE that
represented a 50-percent reduction in Comment, No. 41 at p. 8)
DOEs engineering analysis For todays final rule, DOE updated
overall LED system cost, assuming the
methodology should take manufacturer the LED costs to represent the current
costs of the power supply and LED
learning curves into account. (Joint cost of LEDs. DOE did not receive any
fixtures did not change significantly
Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) data providing a greater level of
from the values used in the engineering
The cost-efficiency curves that DOE analysis. DOE recognized that if these confidence that LED price reductions
presented in the NOPR TSD showed projected reductions were to be realized would occur. However, LED costs have
incremental costs of implementing or exceeded, the economic impacts of decreased and the costs used in the
design option changes above the this standard could change significantly, NOPR engineering analysis no longer
baseline. The cost-efficiency curves are possibly making higher TSLs represent the current cost of LEDs.
not intended to capture future economically justified. Therefore, in the While considerable information is
economies of scale, or other related cost NOPR, DOE requested comment on all available that suggests LED prices are
reductions that may or may not result aspects of the LED issue, specifically likely to decline by at least as much as
from increased cumulative production soliciting any information or data that DOEs sensitivity analysis assumed,
over time. DOE acknowledges that DOE is not using this information as the
manufacturing efficiency evolves over 8 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting basis of its analysis due to a lack of
time, but notes that earlier trends do not Research and Development, Multi-Year Program certainty about the timing and success
necessarily reflect future trends. DOE Plan FY09FY14. This document was prepared of LED research and product
under the direction of a Technical Committee from
has insufficient data to project final the Next Generation Lighting Initiative Alliance
development. See section V.A.2. a for
minimized unit costs of newer (NGLIA). Information about NGLIA and its more detail on the updated LED lighting
technologies. DOE believes that members is available at http://www.nglia.org. assumptions.
ii. Material Price Projections that the industry is already using equipment class, the model estimates
cheaper, less efficient substitute the daily energy consumption for the
As discussed in the August 2008 materials to produce heat transfer baseline and the energy consumption of
NOPR, DOE performed a sensitivity devices in response to rising copper several levels of performance above the
analysis to explore the effects of future prices. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, baseline. The model is used to calculate
LED fixture prices on commercial No. 27 at p. 104) each performance level separately. For
refrigeration equipment prices in the As stated above, DOE did not use LED the NOPR, DOE updated its radiation
engineering analysis. During the NOPR price projections in the final rule due to load calculations by revising its
public meeting, AHRI commented that if a lack of certainty about the timing and assumptions for the view factor and
DOE were to include LED price extent to which the projections would changed its calculation method for
projections in the technical analyses, be realized. Similarly, DOE also did not infiltration load by replacing defrost
equivalent actions should be taken for include material price projections in the melt-water with infiltrated air. 73 FR
other materials that also have shown final rule analysis. 50086. No comments were received in
recent price variability (i.e., response to these changes. Therefore,
refrigerants). (AHRI, Public Meeting b. Energy Consumption Model
DOE maintained these revised
Transcript, No. 27 at p. 102) AHRI The energy consumption model calculation methodologies for the final
believes commodity prices are likely to estimates the daily energy consumption rule.
change significantly, which would affect of commercial refrigeration equipment
equipment costs and change efficiency at various performance levels using a 3. Equipment Classes Analyzed
trends. AHRI cited the potential change design-options approach. The model is For the final rule, DOE did not make
in costs of hydrofluorocarbon specific to the categories of equipment any changes to the equipment classes
refrigerants (HFCs) if pending covered under this rulemaking, but is directly analyzed in the NOPR
legislation capping those refrigerants is sufficiently generalized to model the engineering analysis. Table IV3 shows
passed. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 3) True energy consumption of all covered the 15 equipment classes DOE directly
Manufacturing Company (True) added equipment classes. For a given analyzed.
TABLE IV3 EQUIPMENT CLASSES DIRECTLY ANALYZED IN THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Equipment class Description
VOP.RC.M ............... Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
VOP.RC.L ................ Vertical Freezer without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
SVO.RC.M ............... Semivertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
HZO.RC.M ............... Horizontal Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
HZO.RC.L ................ Horizontal Freezer without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
VCT.RC.M ............... Vertical Refrigerator with Transparent Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
VCT.RC.L ................ Vertical Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
SOC.RC.M ............... Service Over Counter Refrigerator with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
VOP.SC.M ............... Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
SVO.SC.M ............... Semivertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
HZO.SC.M ............... Horizontal Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
HZO.SC.L ................ Horizontal Freezer without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
VCT.SC.I .................. Vertical Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream Temperature.
VCS.SC.I ................. Vertical Ice-Cream Freezer with Solid Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream Temperature.
HCT.SC.I ................. Horizontal Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream Temperature.
4. Wedge Cases DOE also proposed that the maximum excluded from this rulemaking because
daily energy consumption (MDEC) for they are niche products that do not
In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE each model shall be the amount derived represent a significant part of the
considered remote condensing and self- by incorporating into the standards commercial refrigeration industry.
contained wedge cases as covered equation for the appropriate equipment (Hussman, No. 42 at p. 2; Hill Phoenix,
equipment.9 DOE proposed that the class a value for the TDA that is the No. 32 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) Hill
calculated daily energy consumption product of: (1) The vertical height of the Phoenix further states that most
(CDEC) or total daily energy air curtain or glass (in a transparent supermarkets and grocery stores do not
consumption (TDEC) be measured door), and (2) the largest overall width use wedge cases at all, and those that do
according to the ANSI/ASHRAE of the case when viewed from the front. will only use a few within a store
Standard 722005 test procedure.10 73 FR 50113. In the NOPR, DOE sought because they are much more expensive
9 If a wedge case does not include a refrigeration
comment regarding appropriate per linear foot than a standard case.
component and simply serves as a miter transition standard levels for wedge cases, but did (Hill Phoenix, Public Meeting
piece between two other cases, then it does not not receive any comments on this Transcript, No. 27 at p. 18) Hussman
meet the definition of commercial refrigeration specific proposal. further states that wedge cases use less
equipment, and is not covered under this Hussman, Hill Phoenix, and AHRI than 0.5 percent of the total energy
rulemaking.
10 In the August 2008 NOPR, the test procedure commented that wedge cases should be consumed by the supermarket industry
cited was ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 722005. and represent only 1.5 percent of the
However, the test procedure DOE adopted into would give identical test results for the cases shipped. (Hussman, No. 42 at p.
section 431.64 of 10 CFR Part 431 is ARI Standard measurement of energy consumption as ANSI/ 2) DOE acknowledges that wedge cases
12002006, which specifically references ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 722005. Therefore, for todays
ASHRAE Standard 722005 as the method of final rule, DOE is referencing ARI Standard 1200
are niche equipment and do not
testing commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 FR 2006 for the measurement of CDEC and TDEC of represent a significant market share in
71356 DOE notes that ARI Standard 12002006 wedge cases. the commercial refrigeration equipment
industry. However, market share is not rulemaking because they do not case, in the same equipment class, of
a basis for rejecting an equipment function effectively and cannot be tested equal refrigerated volume.
category from consideration in the as a stand-alone merchandiser since If a manufacturer finds that meeting
rulemaking. Therefore, DOE concludes they require straight cases of the same the standard for wedge cases would
that wedge cases are covered in this model on either side. This configuration cause hardship, inequity, or unfair
rulemaking. makes accurate performance testing of distribution of burdens, the
Hill Phoenix and AHRI also wedges nearly impossible and no manufacturer may petition OHA for
commented that wedge cases should be specific testing guidelines for wedges exception relief or exemption from the
excluded from this rulemaking because exist within ANSI/ASHRAE Standard standard pursuant to OHAs authority
there are no test procedures in place to 722005 or ANSI/ARI Standard 1200 under section 504 of the DOE
test wedges since ARI Standard 1200 6006. (Hussman, No. 42 at p. 2; Hill Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as
2006 excludes wedges from its scope of Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 33 implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR
coverage. (Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 2; at p. 5) DOE acknowledges that there is part 1003. OHA has the authority to
AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) As stated in the grant such relief on a case-by-case basis
no specific guidance in the ANSI/
July 2007 ANOPR, EPCA directs DOE to if it determines that a manufacturer has
ASHRAE Standard 722005 or ARI
set standards for commercial demonstrated that meeting the standard
Standard 12002006 test procedures
refrigeration equipment (i.e., the three would cause hardship, inequity, or
categories of equipment identified that addresses the proper operation of unfair distribution of burdens.
above). Any equipment that meets the wedge cases. However, DOE believes
that wedge cases are not significantly 5. Ice-Cream FreezersTemperature
EPCA definition of a commercial
different from normal display cases Range
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
freezer and falls under one of these used in between other display cases In the test procedure final rule for
three categories will be covered by this (i.e., cases within a display case line-up) commercial refrigeration equipment,
rulemaking. In the December 2006 final in terms of operation and the ability to DOE established the definition of ice-
rule, DOE incorporated by reference be tested. A wedge case and a normal cream freezer as a commercial freezer
certain sections of ARI Standard 1200 case within a display case line-up both that is designed to operate at or below
2006 as the test procedure for have display cases adjacent to them in 5 F (21 C) and that the
commercial refrigeration equipment, but normal operation and do not have end manufacturer designs, markets, or
did not reference section 2.2, which panels installed on their sides. DOE intends for the storing, displaying, or
provides exclusions for certain expects that wedge cases and cases dispensing of ice cream. 71 FR 71369
equipment such as wedge cases.11 The within a display case line-up should be 70. DOE incorporated the test procedure
equipment excluded in this section of tested in the same manner under the test into its regulations in 10 CFR 431.62.
ARI Standard 12002006 will only be procedure. Under this definition, unless equipment
excluded from this rulemaking if they Hussman and Hill Phoenix also is designed, marketed, or intended
do not meet the EPACT 2005 definition commented that wedge cases should be specifically for the storage, display or
of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or dispensing of ice cream, it would not be
excluded from this rulemaking because
refrigerator-freezer. 12 72 FR 41169 considered an ice-cream freezer. For
the TDA for inside wedges approaches
DOE believes that the EPACT 2005 example, multi-purpose commercial
zero. Therefore, standards for such cases
definition of a commercial refrigerator, freezers manufactured for storing and
are not meaningful because the TDA in
freezer, or refrigerator-freezer is displaying frozen foods in addition to
the standards equation is zero. ice cream and designed to operate at or
sufficiently broad that it includes wedge (Hussman, Public Meeting Transcript,
cases. Therefore, DOE has concluded below 5 F (21 C) would not meet
No. 27 at p. 16; Hill Phoenix, Public this definition. Thus, DOE would not
that wedge cases are properly covered in Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 19) As
this rulemaking. treat them as commercial ice-cream
stated above, DOE proposed language in freezers in this rulemaking. However,
Hussman, Hill Phoenix, and AHRI
the August 2008 NOPR to specifically any commercial freezer that is
also commented that wedge cases
should be excluded from this address the TDA issue of wedge cases. specifically manufactured for storing,
DOE proposed that for remote displaying, or dispensing ice cream and
11 ARI Standard 12002006 refers to wedge cases condensing and self-contained wedge is designed for normal operation at or
as miter transition display merchandisers used as cases, the CDEC or TDEC shall be below 5 F would meet the definition.
a corner section between two refrigerated display measured according to the ANSI/ Other equipment that meet the
merchandisers. ASHRAE Standard 722005 Test
12 (9)(A) The term commercial refrigerator, definition include freezers designed to
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means refrigeration
Procedure. DOE also proposed that the operate considerably below 5 F and
equipment that MDEC for each model shall be the are specifically designed for ice cream
(i) Is not a consumer product (as defined in amount derived by incorporating into storage (e.g., hardening cabinets), as
section 321of EPCA [42 U.S.C. 6291(1)]); the standards equation for the well as ice-cream dipping cabinets
(ii) Is not designed and marketed exclusively for appropriate equipment class a value for
medical, scientific, or research purposes; designed to operate below 5 F. For
(iii) Operates at a chilled, frozen, combination
the TDA that is the product of: (1) The the NOPR, DOE expanded the definition
chilled and frozen, or variable temperature; vertical height of the air curtain or glass used to categorize a units rating
(iv) Displays or stores merchandise and other (in a transparent door), and (2) the temperature by including a specific
perishable materials horizontally, semivertically, or largest overall width of the case, when
vertically;
operating temperature range for
viewed from the front.10 73 FR 50113. medium-temperature, low-temperature,
(v) Has transparent or solid doors, sliding or
hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, (See section VI.A.1.) This procedure is and ice-cream temperature applications.
transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; conservative because it allows for the Hill Phoenix and AHRI commented
(vi) Is designed for pull-down temperature widest horizontal dimension of the on the proposed temperature ranges for
applications or holding temperature applications; display case to be used in determining low-temperature and ice-cream
and
(vii) Is connected to a self-contained condensing
TDA. That is, using this procedure, the temperature freezers. Hill Phoenix, in
unit or to a remote condensing unit. (42 U.S.C. standards for a wedge case would be agreement with AHRI, stated that the
6311(9)(A)) less stringent than a normal display operating range for low-temperature
cases should be changed to less than 32 procedure, which states that an ice- will continue to classify equipment as
F and greater than 15 F, and the cream freezer is a commercial freezer medium temperature (refrigerators), low
operating range for ice-cream that is designed to operate at or below temperature (freezers), or ice-cream
temperature cases be changed to less 5 F (21 C) and that the temperature (ice-cream freezers).
than or equal to 15 F. Hill Phoenix manufacturer designs, markets, or Furthermore, DOE maintains the
and AHRI stated that freezers that intends for the storing, displaying, or required rating temperatures as
operate below 15 F are constructed dispensing of ice cream. 71 FR 71369; specified in the test procedure final
differently than cases that operate in the 10 CFR 431.62. Based on the comments rule: 38 F (2 F) for commercial
5 F to 10 F range. Hill Phoenix from AHRI and Hill Phoenix discussed refrigerators and refrigerator
stated that DOEs current temperature above, DOE is modifying the operating
compartments, 0 F (2 F) for
range designations would require temperature ranges used to define each
commercial freezers and freezer
freezers that operate in the 5 F to type of equipment from the temperature
compartments, and 15 F (2 F) for
10 F range to be rated at 15 F. ranges that were used in the NOPR. For
todays final rule, DOE is organizing commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR
(Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 4; AHRI, No.
33 at p. 4) equipment classes based on the three 71370.
As previously stated, ice-cream operating temperature ranges shown in
freezers are defined by the test Table IV4. For todays final rule, DOE
TABLE IV4RATING TEMPERATURE DESIGNATIONS

Rating temperature
Operating temperature (F) Description
(F)
32 (M) ................................................................................................. 38 Medium temperature (refrigerators).

<32 (L) .................................................................................................. 0 Low temperature (freezers).
5 (I) * ................................................................................................ 15 Ice-cream temperature (ice-cream freezers).
* Ice-cream freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or below 5 F (21 C) and that the
manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.
6. Special Application Temperature is designed to operate in the field. (Joint DOE in the test procedure final rule. In
Cases Comment, No. 34 at p. 4) the example from Hill Phoenix, the
After the NOPR public meeting, DOE In the test procedure final rule for equipment is classified as a medium-
received comments on including commercial refrigeration equipment, temperature unit, but the equipment is
application temperatures for DOE adopted ARI Standard 12002006 designed to operate below 32 F and
commercial refrigeration equipment. as the DOE test procedure for above 5 F, thus categorizing it as a
These are rating temperatures other than commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 low-temperature unit under todays
the standard rating temperatures. Hill FR 71340, 7136970; 10 CFR 431.63 final rule. Because it is a low-
Phoenix stated that some refrigerated 431.64. ANSI/ARI Standard 12002006 temperature unit, it is required to be
cases are designed for and operate at contains rating temperature tested at 0 F (2 F).
medium temperature and hold foods specifications of 38 F (2 F) for Any manufacturer that is unable to
with temperature requirements that tend commercial refrigerators and refrigerator test such equipment at its designated
to range from 10 F to 20 F. These cases compartments, and 0 F (2 F) for rating temperature must request a test
are not designed to operate at the rating commercial freezers and freezer procedure waiver from DOE under the
temperature of 0 F. Hill Phoenix also compartments. In the test procedure provisions described in 10 CFR 431.401.
stated that the cases would have to be final rule, DOE also adopted a 15 F If the manufacturer believes that
redesigned to operate at the rating (2 F) rating temperature for meeting the standard would cause
temperature, which would cause them commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR hardship, inequity, or unfair
to consume more energy. Therefore, Hill 71370. distribution of burdens, it may petition
Phoenix recommended that this type of Requiring manufacturers to test OHA for exception relief from the
product be tested using the application special application cases at one of the energy conservation standard pursuant
temperature at which the product is three specified standard rating to OHAs authority under section 504 of
designed to perform, but be required to temperatures (38 F, 0 F, and 15 F) the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
meet the low-temperature standard. instead of at their corresponding 7194), as implemented at subpart B of
(Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 4) AHRI application temperature could result in 10 CFR part 1003. However, the
concurred with Hill Phoenix, higher energy consumption for these majority of equipment covered by this
recommending that any case designed cases if they have to be redesigned for rulemaking can be tested using the three
specifically to hold products at testing at the standard rating specified rating temperatures provided
temperatures higher than the rating temperature. However, DOE agrees with in the test procedure.
temperature specified for that class be the Joint Comment that allowing such 7. Coverage of Remote Condensing Units
tested at its application temperature and special application cases to be tested at
must meet the energy standards of that an application temperature that is In the framework document, ANOPR,
class. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) However, different from the temperature at which and NOPR, DOE considered energy
the Joint Comment cautioned that rating the equipment is designed to operate in conservation standards that covered
specialty cases at application the field could create loopholes. only the refrigerated cases of remote
temperatures could create loopholes Therefore, DOE is maintaining the condensing commercial refrigeration
allowing equipment to be tested at an requirement that all equipment must be equipment, and not the remote
application temperature different from tested at one of the three specified condensing unit. DOE cited language in
the temperature at which the equipment standard rating temperatures adopted by EPACT 2005s definitions for self
contained condensing unit and display cases), but not to the remote the NOPR, the Joint Comment restated
remote condensing unit as a condensing units. For the final rule, that DOE should consider secondary
justification for this approach. DOE DOE maintains that the energy coolant applications in its analysis.
believes that, by definition, the remote conservation standards set for remote (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 8)
condensing units that support remote condensing commercial refrigeration Section 340(9)(A)(vii) of EPCA (42
condensing refrigeration equipment are equipment only apply to display cases, U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vii), added by EPACT
not considered an integral part of the not to the remote condensing units. 2005, section 136(a)(3)) states that the
refrigeration equipment. (EPACT 2005, However, DOE has the authority to terms commercial refrigerator, freezer,
Section 136(a)(3)) As a result, DOE classify industrial or commercial and refrigerator-freezer refer to
stated in the August 2008 NOPR that equipment as covered under EPCA equipment that is connected to a self-
remote condensing units would not be section 341(a) and (b), if classification is contained condensing unit or to a
considered in this rulemaking. necessary to improve the efficiency of remote condensing unit. DOE maintains
For the NOPR, the Joint Comment industrial equipment (which includes that this language excludes secondary
stated that the scope of this rulemaking commercial refrigeration equipment) in coolant applications from coverage in
should not be limited to the refrigerated order to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. this rulemaking because such
cabinets or display cases of remote 6312(a) and (b)) If DOE were to add applications are not directly connected
condensing systems. According to the remote condensing units as covered to self-contained or remote condensing
Joint Comment, regulating the remote equipment, DOE would undertake a units. 72 FR 41171. For this reason, DOE
condensing units supporting these separate rulemaking process to consider is excluding secondary coolant
cabinets has a significant potential to standards for these products in applications from this rule.
save energy because these units account accordance with EPCA section 341(a)
for 90 percent of the total capacity of and (b). C. Markups To Determine Equipment
commercial refrigeration equipment Price
8. Regulating Secondary Cooling
subject to this rulemaking. (Joint
Applications In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE
Comment, No. 34 at p. 7)
As stated in the framework document In the framework document, DOE explained how it developed the
and the July 2007 ANOPR, DOE does decided to exclude equipment designed distribution channel markups it used.
not believe that the remote condensing for secondary coolant applications. 73 FR 5009395. DOE did not receive
units of remote condensing refrigeration DOEs interpretation of the EPACT 2005 comments on these markups. However,
equipment systems are considered part definitions of commercial refrigerator, DOE updated the distribution channel
of the equipment to which they are freezer, and refrigerator-freezer was markups by including 2008 sales tax
connected. EPCA defines a self- consistent with the ARI Standard 1200 data, and updated the markups for
contained condensing unit, in part, as 2006, which explicitly excludes commercial refrigeration equipment
an assembly of refrigerating secondary coolant applications. wholesalers using 2008 financial data.
components that is an integral part of Following the framework document, DOE used these markups, along with
the refrigerated equipment * * * (42 many interested parties, including ARI, sales taxes, installation costs, and
U.S.C. 6311(9)(F), added by EPACT Southern Company, and EEI, agreed manufacturer selling prices (MSPs)
2005, section 136(a)(3)). EPCA also with the exclusion of secondary coolant developed in the engineering analysis,
defines a remote condensing unit, in applications in this rule because of their to arrive at the final installed equipment
part, as an assembly of refrigerating insignificant presence in the market and prices for baseline and higher efficiency
components that is remotely located the complexity of modifying the test commercial refrigeration equipment. As
from the refrigerated equipment * * * procedure to accommodate them. explained in the August 2008 NOPR, 73
(42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(E), added by EPACT ACEEE, on the other hand, commented FR 5009395, DOE defined three
2005, section 136(a)(3)) The EPCA that DOE should have a broad scope of distribution channels for commercial
definition of remote condensing unit coverage and should, in general, cover refrigeration equipment to describe how
implies that the remote condensing unit as much as possible in the rulemaking. the equipment passes from the
is not part of the refrigeration 72 FR 41171. manufacturer to the customer. DOE
equipment because it refers to the unit After considering the framework developed market shares by distribution
and the refrigeration equipment as comments, DOE decided to continue to channel for remote condensing and self-
separate entities. A remote condensing exclude secondary coolant applications contained equipment. DOE retained the
unit functions as a supplement to from this rulemaking in the July 2007 same distribution channel market shares
remote condensing refrigeration ANOPR. Following the ANOPR, described in the August 2008 NOPR.
equipment, but is not an integral part. commercial refrigeration manufacturers The new overall baseline and
Therefore, energy conservation expressed concerns that the exclusion of incremental markups for sales to
standards for remote condensing secondary coolant systems could supermarkets within each distribution
commercial refrigerators, commercial provide a loophole if customers channel are shown in Table IV5, Table
freezers, and commercial refrigerator- purchased these lower efficiency IV6, Table IV7, and Table IV8.
freezers apply only to the refrigerated systems instead of regulated direct Chapter 6 of the TSD provides
equipment (i.e., storage cabinets and expansion equipment. 73 FR 50106. For additional details on markups.
TABLE IV5BASELINE MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR SELF-CONTAINED EQUIPMENT
IN SUPERMARKETS
Mechanical con National account

Wholesaler tractor (includes (manufacturer- Overall
wholesaler) direct)
Distributor(s) Markup ....................................................................... 1.370 2.082 1.185 1.564

Sales Tax ......................................................................................... 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069
TABLE IV5BASELINE MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR SELF-CONTAINED EQUIPMENT
IN SUPERMARKETSContinued

wholesaler) direct)
Overall Markup ................................................................................ 1.465 2.226 1.267 1.672
TABLE IV6BASELINE MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR REMOTE CONDENSING
EQUIPMENT IN SUPERMARKETS
Mechanical National account

contractor
Wholesaler (manufacturer- Overall
(includes direct)
wholesaler)

Sales Tax ......................................................................................... 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069
Overall Markup ................................................................................ 1.465 2.226 1.267 1.440
TABLE IV7INCREMENTAL MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR SELF-CONTAINED

wholesaler) direct)

Sales Tax ......................................................................................... 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069
Overall Markup ................................................................................ 1.191 1.465 1.130 1.268
TABLE IV8INCREMENTAL MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR REMOTE CONDENSING

wholesaler) direct)

Sales Tax ......................................................................................... 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069
Overall Markup ................................................................................ 1.191 1.465 1.130 1.189
D. Energy Use Characterization detail on the energy use indicate the likelihood of a different
characterization. LED usage profile, and did not provide
The energy use characterization
DOE assumed for the energy analysis costs to implement automatic or manual
estimates the annual energy
24-hour operation of case lighting based control to support this comment. While
consumption of commercial
on input received during the ANOPR. the potential for additional lighting
refrigeration equipment systems
The California Utilities Joint Comment controls exists and LEDs may offer
(including remote condensing units).
stated that while many grocers in additional controllability, the actual
This estimate is used in the subsequent
LCC and PBP analyses (chapter 8 of the California may shut down case lighting likelihood and costs of implementation
TSD) and NIA (chapter 11 of the TSD). for 8 hours per day, national trends may are unknown. As a result, DOE did not
For the August 2008 NOPR, DOE be closer to 24-hour operation. change its default assumption of 24-
estimated the energy consumption of (California Utilities Joint Comment, No. hour operation based on these
the 15 equipment classes analyzed in 41 at p. 12) The California Utilities Joint comments. Additional detail on the
the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of Comment also indicated that LED energy use characterization can be
the NOPR TSD) using the relevant test lighting may be more likely to be found in chapter 7 of the TSD.
procedure. DOE then validated these controlled on and off during the E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
energy consumption estimates with operational day or dimmed based on Analyses
annual whole-building simulation motion sensors, and that this can be
modeling of selected equipment classes done without the risk of moisture or In response to the requirements of
and efficiency levels. 73 FR 50095. For startup problems common to fluorescent section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, DOE
conducted LCC and PBP analyses to
the final rule analyses, DOE used the fixtures. They further speculated that
same methodology to estimate the retailers would take advantage of these evaluate the economic impacts of
annual energy consumption of LED characteristics through different possible new commercial refrigeration
commercial refrigeration systems operational scenarios. (California equipment standards on individual
presented in the August 2008 NOPR. Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 12) customers. DOE used the same
See chapter 7 of the TSD for additional However, they provided no data to spreadsheet models to evaluate the LCC
and PBP as it used for the NOPR; associated with a given energy use installed cost of the equipment, the
however, DOE updated certain specific standard level relative to a base case operating cost, and the discount rate.
inputs to the models. Details of the equipment energy use. The base case Table IV9 summarizes the inputs
spreadsheet model and of all the inputs forecast reflects the market in the and key assumptions DOE used to
to the LCC and PBP analyses are in TSD absence of mandatory energy calculate the economic impacts of
chapter 8. DOE conducted the LCC and conservation standards. various energy consumption levels on
PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model The data inputs to the PBP calculation customers. Equipment price, installation
developed in Microsoft Excel for are the purchase expense (otherwise cost, and baseline and standard design
Windows 2003. known as the total installed customer selection affect the installed cost of the
The LCC is the total cost for a unit of cost or first cost) and the annual equipment. Annual energy use,
commercial refrigeration equipment operating costs for each selected design. electricity costs, electricity price trends,
over the life of the equipment, including The inputs to the equipment purchase and repair and maintenance costs affect
purchase and installation expense and expense were the equipment price and the operating cost. The effective date of
operating costs (energy expenditures the installation cost, with appropriate the standard, the discount rate, and the
and maintenance). To compute the LCC, markups. The inputs to the operating lifetime of equipment affect the
DOE summed the installed price of the costs were the annual energy calculation of the present value of
equipment and its lifetime operating consumption, the electricity price, and annual operating cost savings from a
costs discounted to the time of the repair and maintenance costs. The proposed standard. Table IV9 also
purchase. The PBP is the change in PBP calculation uses the same inputs as shows how DOE modified these inputs
purchase expense due to a given energy the LCC analysis but, because it is a and key assumptions for the final rule,
conservation standard divided by the simple payback, the operating cost is for relative to the August 2008 NOPR. The
change in first-year operating cost that the year the standard takes effect, changes in the input data and the
results from the standard. DOE assumed to be 2012. For each efficiency discussion of the overall approach to the
expresses PBP in years. DOE measures level analyzed, the LCC analysis LCC analysis are provided in chapter 8
the changes in LCC and in PBP required input data for the total of the TSD.
TABLE IV9SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES
Input NOPR description Changes for final rule
Baseline Manufacturer Sell Price charged by manufacturer to either a wholesaler or Data reflect updated engineering analysis.
ing Price. large customer for baseline equipment. Developed by
using industry-supplied efficiency level data and a
design option analysis.
Standard-Level Manufacturer Incremental change in manufacturer selling price for Data reflect updated engineering analysis.
Selling Price Increases. equipment at each of the higher efficiency standard
levels. Developed by using a combination of energy
consumption level and design option analyses.
Markups and Sales Tax ....... Associated with converting the manufacturer selling Markups updated based on revised data on sales tax
price to a customer price (chapter 6 of TSD). Devel and wholesaler financial data.
oped based on product distribution channels and
sales taxes.
Installation Price ................... Cost to the customer of installing the equipment. This No change.
includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous ma
terials and parts. The total installed cost equals the
customer equipment price plus the installation price.
Installation cost data provided by industry comment.
Equipment Energy Con Site energy use associated with the use of commercial Data reflect updated engineering analysis for each effi
sumption. refrigeration equipment, which includes only the use ciency level.
of electricity by the equipment itself. Taken from en
gineering analysis and validated in energy use char
acterization. (chapter 7 of the TSD).
Electricity Prices ................... Established average commercial electricity price ($/ No change.
kWh) from EIA data for 2007, in 2007$. DOE then
established scaling factors for commercial refrigera
tion equipment consumers based on the 2003 Com
mercial Building Energy Consumption Survey.
Electricity Price Trends ........ Used the AEO2007 reference case to forecast future Updated to AEO2008.
electricity prices and extrapolated prices to 2042.
Maintenance Costs .............. Labor and material costs associated with maintaining No change in methodology; however, LED fixture re
the commercial refrigeration equipment (e.g., clean placement costs reflect updated engineering analysis
ing heat exchanger coils, checking refrigerant charge costs by equipment class.
levels, lamp replacement). Estimated from data in RS
Means Facilities Maintenance and Repair Cost
Data.13 Also considered lighting types and configura
tions for the refrigeration equipment.
13 RS Means Company, Inc., 2006. Means
Costworks 2006: Facility Maintenance & Repair

Cost Data. Kingston, Massachusetts.
TABLE IV9SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSESContinued
Input NOPR description Changes for final rule
Repair Costs ........................ Labor and material costs associated with repairing or No change in methodology from NOPR. Repair costs
replacing components that have failed. Estimated reflect estimates of individual component life and cost
based on replacement frequencies and costs for key to replace. Repair costs increase with increasing
components. component costs.
Equipment Lifetime .............. Age at which the commercial refrigeration equipment is No change.
retired from service. Used an average lifetime of 10
years for large grocery and multi-line retailers and an
average lifetime of 15 years for small grocers and
convenience stores.
Discount Rate ...................... Computed by estimating the cost of capital for compa Updated based on data available in the 2008 version of
nies that purchase refrigeration equipment using the Damodaran Web site.
business financial data from the Damodaran Online
database.
Rebound Effect .................... A rebound effect was not taken into account in the LCC No change.
analysis.
The changes in the input data and the reviewed LCC and PBP results based on remote condensing units, and is
discussion of the overall approach to the both the AEO2008 high price and low expected to be approximately the same
LCC analysis are provided in chapter 8 price electricity forecasts and discusses for all standard levels since little
of the TSD. the resulting differences in the TSD. refrigerant is stored in the evaporator
In response to the NOPR, DOE While the Joint Comment suggests that coils of remote-condensing commercial
received comments on two key issues DOE consider other forecasts, it does not refrigeration equipment. The law also
affecting the LCC analysis: electricity point to specific forecast sources or requires that any HFC refrigerant
price forecasts and lighting maintenance provide justification for the selection or removed during maintenance must be
costs. Regarding electricity price weighting of one forecast over the other. captured (recovered), and in
forecasts, ACEEE asked DOE to confirm The AEO2008 high price forecast used supermarkets it is often reused within
whether the Energy Information in the commercial refrigeration the supermarket chain. 69 FR 11946.
Administration (EIA) electricity price equipment analysis provides sufficient Any loss of refrigerant during
forecasts take into account well- insight into probable commercial maintenance is essentially the same at
documented regulatory-based changes electricity price variation based on all standard levels analyzed, and
in electricity prices and are not just existing data and current regulatory therefore does not affect the results of
based on responses to fuel cost schemes. DOEs LCC or NPV analysis. In self-
forecasts. (ACEEE, Public Meeting DOE considered reporting electricity contained equipment, the refrigeration
Transcript, No. 27 at p. 82) In response, price impacts but found that the system is sealed and little leakage is
DOE notes that the EIA electricity price uncertainty of price projections, expected to occur over the life of the
forecasts are developed through NEMS together with the fairly small impact of equipment. Consequently, DOE did not
modeling and rely on a comprehensive the standards relative to total electricity revise the maintenance costs from the
series of supply- and demand-based demand, makes these price changes NOPR to account for future changes in
modules integrated to capture the highly uncertain. As a result, they refrigerant costs.
market dynamics for various energy should not be weighed heavily in the DOE also included in the
sources, including oil, coal, and natural decision about the standard level. Given maintenance costs the cost of necessary
gas. These models also capture a wide the current complexity of utility lighting component replacements over
range of consumption purposes, regulation in the United States (with the life of the commercial refrigeration
including such events as changes in the significant variances among states), it equipment. DOE received comments on
price and supplies of fossil fuels, does not seem appropriate to attempt to the lighting maintenance costs
developments in electricity markets, measure impacts on infrastructure costs assumption for LED lamp fixtures. The
likely improvements in technology, and and prices where there is likely to be California Utilities Joint Comment cited
the impact of economic growth and significant overlap. evidence from recent assessments, as
various other regulatory impacts that DOE develops estimates for repair and well as the physical properties of LEDs,
affect market electricity prices. NEMS is maintenance costs for commercial suggesting that 50,000 hours is likely a
regularly used to provide analyses to refrigeration equipment in the LCC conservative estimate. Fixtures may
Congress and DOE. DOE believes that analysis. In the August 2008 NOPR, actually be replaced less frequently than
NEMS does attempt to capture many DOE assumed that maintenance costs the 5.7 years assumed in the NOPR
known regulatory changes. are constant and do not vary with time. analysis. (California Utilities Joint
The Joint Comment stated that DOE AHRI commented that the costs of Comment, No. 41 at pp. 1011) The
should use forecasts for electricity maintenance do not remain constant, as comment noted that the LED light
prices other than the Annual Energy the cost of HFC refrigerants is expected output degrades over time and the
Outlook (AEO), and that electricity price to increase by 300 percent to 400 amount of degradation is a function of
mitigation effects of the proposed percent over the next decade. (AHRI, the junction temperature of the LED.
standard must be documented. (Joint No. 33 at p. 6) DOE recognizes that Reducing the junction temperature can
Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) This comment refrigerant costs may increase. For result in increased time to failure.
addresses both the LCC and NIA remote condensing equipment, leakage While DOE agrees with this
analyses. While DOE considers during maintenance occurs throughout assessment, the brightness of a
AEO2008 reference case forecasts in its the entire refrigeration system, particular LED chip and the
central case fuel price scenario, DOE including store refrigeration piping and corresponding heat rejection and
junction temperature are largely a presumption inquiry), but DOE believes G. National Impact Analysis
function of power supplied by the LED that such an approach is neither
driver circuitry. As such, manufacturers required nor appropriate, because it The national impact analysis (NIA)
of LED fixtures can trade off brightness, could ask the agency to ignore other assesses future NES and the national
total fixture cost, and design life for LED relevant information that would affect economic impacts of different efficiency
fixtures designed for commercial the selection of the most stringent levels. The analysis measures economic
refrigeration equipment applications. standard level that meets all applicable impacts using the NPV metric (i.e.,
The LED manufacturer equipment statutory criteria. The commenters future amounts discounted to the
specification sheets that DOE examined interpretation would essentially restrict present) of total commercial customer
for the final rule provide for a 50,000- DOE from being able to rebut the costs, and savings expected to result
hour life for the known commercial findings of the preliminary presumptive from new standards at specific
refrigeration equipment applications. analysis. However, the statute contains efficiency levels. For the final rule
Due to the recent availability of LED no such restriction, and such an analysis, DOE used the same
fixtures for use with commercial approach would hinder DOEs efforts to spreadsheet model used in the NOPR to
refrigeration equipment, there are few base its regulations on the best available calculate the energy savings and the
instances of installed LED light fixtures information. national economic costs and savings
in this equipment exceeding the 50,000- Similarly, DOE believes that the Joint from new standards, but with updates to
hour specification. Therefore, DOE did Comment misreads the statute in calling specific input data. Unlike the LCC
not modify its LED fixture replacement for a level that meets the rebuttable analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not
cycle assumptions beyond the presumption test to serve as a minimum use distributions for inputs or outputs.
manufacturers estimated life. level when setting the final energy DOE examined sensitivities by applying
DOE also received comments on using conservation standard. To do so would different scenarios. DOE used the NES
a rebuttable presumption payback not only eliminate the rebuttable spreadsheet to perform calculations of
period to establish the economic aspect of the presumption but would national energy savings and NPV using
justification of an energy conservation also lock in place a level that may not the annual energy consumption and
standard level. Earthjustice commented be economically justified based on the total installed cost data from the LCC
that DOE does not provide any rationale full complement of statutory criteria. analysis and estimates of national
for why it did not use or does not plan DOE is already obligated under EPCA to shipments for each of the 15 primary
to use the rebuttable presumption select the most stringent standard level commercial refrigeration equipment
payback period analysis to set the trial that meets the applicable statutory classes. DOE forecasted the energy
standard level for these products. criteria, so there is no need to tie the savings from each TSL from 2012
Earthjustice stated that Congress same requirement to the rebuttable through 2042. DOE forecasted the
specifically provided that once the presumption. energy cost savings, equipment costs,
rebuttable presumption payback period DOE also received a comment and NPV of benefits for all primary
is satisfied for a trial standard level, no supporting its selection of commercial commercial refrigeration equipment
further economic justification would be refrigeration equipment lifetimes. For classes from 2012 through 2062. The
necessary for DOEs selection of that the NOPR, DOE determined the lifetime forecasts provided annual and
TSL as the final standard. (Earthjustice, of commercial refrigeration equipment cumulative values for all four output
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. by consulting industry experts, other parameters.
88) The Joint Comment also stated that interested parties, and literature on DOE calculated the NES by
DOE should give greater consideration equipment lifetimes. The Joint subtracting energy use under a
to the rebuttable presumption payback Comment stated that DOEs assumptions standards scenario from energy use in a
period when selecting an appropriate in the NOPR regarding product life are base case (no new standards) scenario.
standard level, reflecting the intent of reasonable. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. Energy use is reduced when a unit of
Congress in 42 U.S.C. section 2) Therefore, DOE has maintained the commercial refrigeration equipment in
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) that the highest NOPR assumptions regarding product the base case efficiency distribution is
standard level with a 3-year payback life for the final rule. replaced by a more efficient piece of
constitutes the presumptive lowest equipment. Energy savings for each
standard level that DOE must adopt. F. Shipments Analysis equipment class are the same national
(Joint Comment, No. 34 at pp. 34) The shipments analysis develops average values as calculated in the LCC
DOE does consider both the rebuttable future shipments for each class of and payback period spreadsheet.
presumption payback criteria, as well as commercial refrigeration equipment However, these results are normalized
a full analysis including all seven based on current shipments and on a per-unit-length basis by equipment
relevant statutory criteria under 42 equipment life assumptions, and takes class and applied to the total annual
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), when examining into account the existing stock and estimated shipments in terms of line-up
potential standard levels. DOE believes expected growth of buildings using length of all equipment with the class.
that the commenters may be commercial refrigeration equipment. Table IV10 summarizes key inputs to
misinterpreting the statutory provision DOE received no comments on the the NIA analysis and the changes DOE
in question. Earthjustice presents one shipments analysis or the resulting made in the analysis for the final rule.
possible reading of an ambiguous shipments during the NOPR. Therefore, Chapter 11 of the TSD provides
provision (i.e., that DOE need not look DOE used the same shipments model for additional information about the NIA
beyond the results of the rebuttable the final rule analysis as the NOPR. spreadsheet.
TABLE IV10SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE INPUTS
Input data Description of NOPR analysis Changes for final rule
Shipments ................ Annual shipments from shipments model for 15 equipment classes. Shipments No change.
model based on projected growth in building stock using commercial refrig
eration equipment (new stock) and annual replacements to stock based on
an equipment life. Equipment lifetime distribution based on a 10-year aver
age life in large grocery and multi-line retail, and a 15-year average life in
small grocery and convenience stores (chapter 10, Shipments Analysis).
Effective Date of 2012 ...................................................................................................................... No change.
Standard.
Base Case Effi- Distribution of base case shipments by efficiency level ....................................... No change in methodology to derive
ciencies. base case shipments by efficiency
level.
Standards Case Effi- Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each base case and each No change in methodology to derive
ciencies. standards case. Annual market shares by efficiency level remain constant shipments by efficiency level in each
over time for the base case and each standards case. standards case.
Annual Energy Con Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy consumption level, No change in methodology. Energy
sumption per Lin which are established in the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the TSD). consumption estimates reflect the
ear Foot. Converted to a per linear foot basis. updated final rule engineering anal
ysis.
Total Installed Cost Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy consumption level No change in methodology. Installed
per Linear Foot. (chapter 8 of the TSD). Converted to a per linear foot basis. costs reflect the updated final rule
LCC.
Repair Cost per Lin Annual weighted-average values are constant in real dollar terms for each en No change in methodology. Repair
ear Foot. ergy consumption level (chapter 8 of the TSD). Converted to a per linear costs reflect the updated final rule
foot basis. LCC values.
Maintenance Cost Annual weighted-average value equals $160 in 2007$ (chapter 8 of the TSD), No change.
per Linear Foot. plus lighting maintenance cost. Converted to a per linear foot basis.
Escalation of Elec- EIA AEO2007 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation for beyond 2030 (chapter EIA AEO2008 forecasts (to 2030) and
tricity Prices. 8 of the TSD). extrapolation for beyond 2030 (chap
ter 8 of the TSD).
Electricity Site-to- Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/EIAs NEMS program (a Conversion factor varies yearly and is
Source Conversion. time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and generated by EIAs NEMS model. In
distribution losses) based on AEO2007. cludes the impact of electric genera
tion, transmission, and distribution
losses based on AEO2008.
Discount Rate ...........
3 and 7 percent real .............................................................................................
No change.
Present Year ............
Future costs are discounted to 2008 ....................................................................
No change
Rebound Effect ........
A rebound effect (due to changes in shipments resulting from standards) was No change.
not considered in the NIA.
The modifications DOE made to the updated the electricity price forecasts efficiencies of all TSLs as well as the
NES and NIA analyses for the final rule used in the NIA to reflect forecasts baseline would be similarly affected by
primarily reflect updates to the same found in AEO2008 compared to some customers removing specific
data sources used in the NOPR, but not AEO2007. energy consuming options (e.g., shelf
changes in methodology. In addition, DOE did not receive information to lighting) from their purchased products,
the underlying input data on equipment support revising the shipments analysis the impact of this particular issue on the
costs and energy savings by TSL are or the methodology used in the NIA to potential national energy savings of one
based on the LCC analysis results as estimate future shipments by efficiency TSL over another may be insignificant.
revised in the final rule. level. DOE requested input on this To discount future impacts, DOE used
For the final rule, DOE developed methodology or on additional data to discount rates of both 7 percent and 3
marginal site-source conversion factors estimate future shipments. True percent, in accordance with the Office
that relate the national electrical energy commented that because so many of Management and Budget (OMB)s
savings at the point of use to the fuel different features and options can guidelines (OMB Circular A4, section
savings at the power plant. These factors degrade a products efficiency, True E, Regulatory Analysis (September 17,
use the NEMS model and the cannot afford to test every permutations 2003)). ASAP commented that DOE
examination of the corresponding efficiency. Traditionally, therefore, True leans too heavily on the 7-percent
energy savings from standards scenarios tests the most severe case, which discount rate, and that OMB has DOE
considered in DOEs utility analysis includes all the options, and makes sure looking at both the 3-percent and 7-
(chapter 14 of the TSD). The conversion it can exceed the standard. As a result, percent discount rates. ASAP stated that
factors vary over time, due to projected the units shipped out are often more DOE should be giving primacy to the
changes in electricity generation sources efficient than the testing would indicate. lower discount rate, which is the
(i.e., the power plant types projected to (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 societal discount ratethe time value of
provide electricity to the country) and at p. 119) DOE acknowledges this the society as a whole. (ASAP, Public
power plant dispatch scenarios. DOE comment, but did not receive sufficient Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 2021
revised the stream of conversion factors detail to address this concern in the and p. 128) PG&E stated that a 3-percent
based on the final rule utility impacts final rule analysis for individual discount rate is used for the California
analysis and using a version of NEMS commercial refrigeration equipment Energy Commission workshops on
consistent with AEO2008. DOE also classes. Because the distribution of efficiency, and that it supports the 3-
percent rate for the Federal rulemaking. (e.g., the yield on Treasury notes minus identification of this class of users as the
(PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. the annual rate of change in the key sub-group or on the assumptions
27 at p. 131) The Joint Comment stated Consumer Price Index), which has applied to those sub-groups. DOE relied
that DOE improperly weighs the 7- averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax on the same methodology outlined in
percent discount rate more than the 3- basis for the last 30 years. For the the NOPR for the final rule analysis. The
percent discount rate. The Joint commercial refrigeration equipment results of DOEs LCC sub-group analysis
Comment noted that DOE should use rulemaking in particular, DOE notes that are summarized in section VI.C.2.e and
the 3-percent discount rate because it is the purchasers of commercial described in detail in chapter 12 of the
the required social discount rate and refrigeration equipment are indeed TSD.
because the actual weighted average commercial businesses and not
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
cost of capital is lower than 7 percent. savers. Regarding the comment that
(Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) the average cost of capital calculated for DOE performed a manufacturer
DOE reports and uses both 3-percent businesses purchasing commercial impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the
and 7-percent discount rates in its refrigeration equipment was less than 7 financial impact of energy conservation
analysis of net present value. OMBs percent, DOE notes that the average cost standards on manufacturers of
guidance to Federal agencies for of capital calculated for the LCC commercial refrigeration equipment,
developing regulatory analysis (OMB analysis is the after-tax cost of capital. and to assess the impact of such
Circular A4, September 17, 2003) 14 OMB A4 specifically notes that pre-tax standards on employment and
references OMB Circular A94 15 for the rates of return better measure societys manufacturing capacity. DOE conducted
development of discount rates for gains from investment. This is because the MIA for commercial refrigeration
regulatory analysis. OMB Circular A94 corporate capital, in particular, pays an equipment in three phases. Phase 1,
states that, as a default position, additional layer of taxation: The Industry Profile, consisted of preparing
constant-dollar benefit-cost analyses of corporate income tax. This tax requires an industry characterization, including
proposed investments and regulations corporate capital to earn a higher pre-tax data on market share, sales volumes and
should report net present value and rate of return in order to provide trends, pricing, employment, and
other outcomes determined using a real investors with similar after-tax rates of financial structure. Phase 2, Industry
discount rate of 3 percent. The 7-percent return compared with non-corporate Cash Flow Analysis, focused on the
rate is an estimate of the average before- investments. Based on the guidance industry as a whole. In this phase, DOE
tax rate of return to private capital in the provided in OMB A4, DOE considers used the GRIM to prepare an industry
U.S. economy. It is a broad measure that both 3-percent and 7-percent discount cash-flow analysis. Using publicly
reflects the returns to real estate and rates in the NIA analysis. available information developed in
small business capital as well as ASAP stated that discount rates Phase 1, DOE adapted the GRIMs
corporate capital. It approximates the should not be applied to quads because generic structure to perform an analysis
opportunity cost of capital, and it is the a discount rate is a financial instrument of commercial refrigeration equipment
appropriate discount rate whenever the and a quad is a physical quantity. energy conservation standards. In Phase
main effect of a regulation is to displace (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis, DOE
or alter the use of capital in the private 27 at p. 22) DOE understands ASAPs conducted interviews with
sector. OMB A94 states that regulatory concern about discounting of physical manufacturers representing the majority
analyses should show the sensitivity of quantities. Unlike economic factors that of domestic commercial refrigeration
the discounted net present value and are discounted into the future, physical equipment sales. This group included
other outcomes to variations in the quantities are not discounted because large and small manufacturers,
discount rate. The importance of these they do not change over time. DOE providing a representative cross-section
alternative calculations will depend on reports the undiscounted energy savings of the industry. During these interviews,
the specific economic characteristics of in Table VI31 of todays final rule. DOE discussed engineering,
the program under analysis. OMB A4 manufacturing, procurement, and
H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis financial topics specific to each
notes that the effects of regulation do
not always fall exclusively or primarily In analyzing the potential impact of company and obtained each
new or amended standards on manufacturers view of the industry.
on the allocation of capital. When
commercial customers, DOE evaluates The interviews provided valuable
regulation primarily and directly affects
the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., information DOE used to evaluate the
private consumption (e.g., through
sub-groups) of customers, such as impacts of an energy conservation
higher consumer prices for goods and
different types of businesses that may be standard on manufacturer cash flows,
services), a lower discount rate is
disproportionately affected by a manufacturing capacities, and
appropriate. The alternative most often
National standard level. For this employment levels.
used is sometimes called the social rate
rulemaking, DOE identified The GRIM inputs consist of the
of time preference, or the rate at which
independent small grocery and commercial refrigeration industrys cost
society discounts future consumption
convenience stores as a commercial structure, shipments, and revenues.
flows to their present value. To
refrigeration equipment customer sub- This includes information from many of
represent these cases, OMB
group that could be disproportionately the analyses described above, such as
recommends using the rate the average
affected, and examined the impact of manufacturing costs and selling prices
saver uses to discount future
proposed standards on this group. DOE from the engineering analysis and
consumption as the measure of the
determined the impact on this shipments forecasts from the NES.
social rate of time preference,
commercial refrigeration equipment The GRIM uses the manufacturer
approximating this with the real rate of
customer sub-group using the LCC production costs in the engineering

return on long-term Government debt
spreadsheet model. DOE conducted the analysis to calculate the MSPs for each
14 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
LCC and PBP analyses for commercial equipment class at each TSL. By
a004/a-4.pdf. refrigeration equipment customers multiplying the production costs by
15 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ represented by the subgroup. DOE did different sets of markups, DOE derives
a094/a094.html. not receive comments on its the MSPs used to calculate industry
revenues. Following the NOPR, DOE the number of employees for, employment analysis given the
revised its engineering cost curves to commercial refrigeration equipment cumulative impact of possible DOE
derive new manufacturer production manufacturers, their suppliers, and rulemakings over the next 4 years.
costs. DOE used these updated related service firms. Indirect impacts (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
production costs in the GRIM for the are those changes in employment in the 27 at p. 161)
final rule. larger economy that occur due to the The Joint Comment also stated that
The GRIM estimates manufacturer shift in expenditures and capital TSL 5 would create more jobs than TSL
revenues based on total-unit-shipment investment caused by the purchase and 4, and that DOE cannot reject the
forecasts and the distribution of these operation of more efficient commercial difference as statistically insignificant
shipments by efficiency. Changes in the refrigeration equipment. In this because it must consider the combined
efficiency mix at each standard level are rulemaking, the MIA addresses direct effect of all rulemakings. (Joint
a key driver of manufacturer finances. impacts (chapter 13 of the TSD), and the Comment, No. 34 at p. 5) The Joint
For the final rule analysis, DOE used the employment impact analysis addresses Comment further stated that DOE
total shipments and efficiency indirect impacts (chapter 15 of the should consider indirect job creation as
distribution found in the final rule NES. TSD). a serious factor weighing in favor of
For additional detail on the Indirect employment impacts from stronger standards. (Joint Comment, No.
manufacturer impact analysis, refer to commercial refrigeration equipment 34 at p. 5)
chapter 13 of the TSD. standards consist of the net jobs created Earthjustice noted that both indirect
or eliminated in the national economy, and direct employment benefits are
J. Utility Impact Analysis shown to provide positive employment
other than in the manufacturing sector
The utility impact analysis estimates being regulated, as a consequence of: (1) in the respective employment and MIA
the effects of reduced energy Reduced spending by end users on analyses and that DOE should consider
consumption due to improved electricity (offset to some degree by the this in the final rule. (Earthjustice,
equipment efficiency on the utility increased spending on maintenance and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p.
industry. This analysis compares repair), (2) reduced spending on new 166)
forecast results for a case comparable to energy supply by the utility industry, (3) DOE considers the employment
the AEO2008 reference case and forecast increased spending on the purchase impacts without quantifying the net
results for policy cases incorporating price of new commercial refrigeration economic value of such impacts. DOE
each of the commercial refrigeration equipment, and (4) the effects of those agrees that the indirect employment
equipment TSLs. three factors throughout the economy. analysis indicates that new energy
DOE analyzed the effects of proposed DOE expects the net monetary savings conservation standards for commercial
standards on electric utility industry from standards to be redirected to other refrigeration equipment could increase
generation capacity and fuel forms of economic activity. DOE also the demand for labor in the economy
consumption using a variant of EIAs expects these shifts in spending and and result in additional employment, a
NEMS. EIA uses NEMS to produce its economic activity to affect the demand net benefit to society that DOE considers
AEO, a widely recognized baseline for labor. in establishing standards for commercial
energy forecast for the United States. DOE used the same methodology refrigeration equipment. Chapter 15 of
DOE used a variant known as NEMS described in the August 2008 NOPR to the TSD describes and provides results
BT. The NEMSBT is run similarly to estimate indirect national employment for the employment impact analysis.
the AEO2008 NEMS, except that impacts using an input/output model of
L. Environmental Assessment
commercial refrigeration equipment the U.S. economy, called ImSET (Impact
energy usage is reduced by the amount of Sector Energy Technologies), which DOE has prepared an environmental
of energy (by fuel type) saved due to the was developed by DOEs Building assessment (EA) pursuant to the
TSLs. DOE obtained the inputs of Technologies Program. 73 FR 50072, National Environmental Policy Act and
national energy savings from the NES 50107108. The ImSET model estimates the requirements under 42 U.S.C.
spreadsheet model. In response to the changes in employment, industry 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a) to
August 2008 NOPR, DOE did not output, and wage income in the overall determine the environmental impacts of
receive comments directly on the U.S. economy resulting from changes in the standards being established in
methodology used for the utility impact expenditures in various economic todays final rule. Specifically, DOE
analysis. DOE revised the final rule sectors. DOE estimated changes in estimated the reduction in total
inputs to use the NEMSBT consistent expenditures using the NES emissions of CO2 using the NEMSBT
with the AEO2008 and to use the NES spreadsheet. ImSET then estimated the computer model. DOE calculated a
impacts developed in the commercial net national indirect employment range of estimates for reduction in NOX
refrigeration equipment final rule impacts of potential commercial emissions and mercury (Hg) emissions
analysis. refrigeration equipment efficiency using current power sector emission
In the utility impact analysis, DOE standards on employment by sector. rates. However, the EA does not include
reported the changes in installed In response to the August 2008 NOPR, the estimated reduction in power sector
capacity and generation by fuel type DOE received several comments on the impacts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), because
that result for each TSL, as well as employment impact analysis. ASAP DOE has determined that any such
changes in end-use electricity sales. commented that the discussion of the reduction resulting from an energy
Chapter 14 of the TSD provides details employment benefits resulting from the conservation standard would not affect
of the utility analysis methods and net increase in jobs follows a pattern of the overall level of SO2 emissions in the
results. DOE trivializing these benefits in the United States due to the presence of
rulemakings by stating that they are so national caps on SO2 emissions as

K. Employment Impact Analysis small that they would be imperceptible addressed below (see chapter 16 of the
DOE considers direct and indirect in national labor statistics and might be TSD).
employment impacts when developing a offset by other unanticipated effects on The NEMSBT is run similarly to the
standard. In this case, direct employment. ASAP stated that it is AEO2008 NEMS, except the energy use
employment impacts are any changes in important that DOE keep performing the is reduced by the amount of energy
saved due to the TSLs. DOE obtained electricity generation due to the demonstrate that any proposed analysis
the inputs of national energy savings standards considered. However, because changes would be significant. (ASAP,
from the NIA spreadsheet model. For the emissions caps specified by CAMR Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p.
the EA, the output is the forecasted would have applied to the entire 173) ACEEE commented that for
physical emissions. The net benefit of country, DOE was unable to use NEMS buildings and the equipment used in
the standard is the difference between BT model to estimate the physical them (not specific for this class of
emissions estimated by NEMSBT and quantity changes in mercury emissions equipment), the energy use during the
the AEO2008 reference case. The due to energy conservation standards. operating life is roughly 85 percent of
NEMSBT tracks CO2 emissions using a To estimate mercury emission the total lifecycle energy. Also, the
detailed module that provides results reductions due to standards, DOE used incremental energy change from
with a broad coverage of all sectors and an Hg emission rate (in metric tons of increased use of a largely recycled
inclusion of interactive effects. Hg per energy produced) based on metals stock is likely have a small
The Clean Air Act Amendments of AEO2008. Because virtually all mercury impact on this analysis. (ACEEE, Public
1990 set an emissions cap on SO2 for all emitted from electricity generation is Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 173)
power generation. Attaining this target, from coal-fired power plants, DOE based Several interested parties provided
however, is flexible among generators the emission rate on the metric tons of comments on the economic value of CO2
and is enforced through emissions mercury emitted per TWh of coal- used in DOEs monetization of carbon
allowances and tradable permits. generated electricity. To estimate the emissions for the August 2008 NOPR
Because SO2 emissions allowances have reduction in mercury emissions, DOE and the final rule for PTACs and PTHPs
value, generators will almost certainly multiplied the emission rate by the (73 FR 58772, October 7, 2008). ASAP
use them, although not necessarily reduction in coal-generated electricity stated that the low range for
immediately or in the same year with associated with standards considered. monetization of carbon emission
and without a standard in place. In In comments on the August 2008 reductions should not be zero. (ASAP,
other words, with or without a standard, NOPR, ASAP stated that it was Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p.
total cumulative SO2 emissions will important for DOE to consider the 23) AHRI stated that DOE should not
always be at or near the ceiling, while economic impact calculations for speculate on the value of CO2 emissions
there may be some timing differences carbon, noting that the economic because it has no statutory obligation to
between yearly forecasts. Thus, it is savings are significant. In addition, until do so and that any value DOE used
unlikely that there will be an SO2 the CRE and packaged terminal air would be an estimate. There is no
environmental benefit from electricity conditioner and heat pump (PTAC and consensus on any single estimate of the
savings as long as there is enforcement PTHP) NOPRs, ASAP did not see that value of CO2 emissions. Therefore, DOE
of the emissions ceilings. economic values for carbon emissions should not indulge in speculation to
Although there may not be an actual savings were factored into the analysis determine a value when it has no
reduction in SO2 emissions from in a way that could affect decision statutory obligation to do so. (AHRI, No.
electricity savings, there still may be an making. (ASAP, Public Meeting 33 at p. 6)
economic benefit from reduced demand Transcript, No. 27 at p. 172) On the Earthjustice commented that the
for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity other hand, AHRI believes DOE has no upper and lower bounds of the values
savings decrease the generation of SO2 statutory obligation to monetize CO2 DOE uses for its carbon emissions are
emissions from power production, benefits. (AHRI, Public Meeting arbitrarily low. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at
which can decrease the need to Transcript, No. 27 at p. 173) pp. 714) Specifically, Earthjustice
purchase or generate SO2 emissions AHRI further commented that if DOE stated that by using the value of the
allowance credits, and decrease the decides to monetize CO2 benefits, then social cost of carbon (SCC) estimated in
costs of complying with regulatory caps it should account for CO2 emissions that Dr. Richard Tols 2005 meta-analysis,
on emissions. will result from manufacturing more DOE excluded critical damages and
Like SO2, future emissions of NOX efficient products. For example, DOE made optimistic assumptions that bias
and Hg would have been subject to should consider the CO2 emissions the damage cost downwards.
emissions caps under the Clean Air resulting from additional copper to be (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 8) Earthjustice
Interstate Act (CAIR) and Clean Air mined and incorporated into the noted that Tol released an update of his
Mercury Rule (CAMR). However, as finished product. (AHRI, Public Meeting 2005 meta-analysis in September 2007,
discussed in section VI.C.6, a Federal Transcript, No. 27 at p. 173) True also which reports an increase in his peer-
court has vacated these rules. The commented on types of manufacturing reviewed mean estimate of SCC from
NEMSBT model used for todays final processes that should be considered in $14 to $20/ton CO2 and from $43 to $71/
rule assumed that both NOX and Hg the emissions analysis. True stated that ton carbon.16 Earthjustice also asserted
emissions would be subject to CAIR and the most significant impact of that the use of Tols mean as an upper
CAMR emissions caps. In the case of commercial refrigeration equipment on bound is inconsistent with sound risk
NOX emissions, CAIR would have the environment is from welding agents analysis and distributions of climate
permanently capped emissions in 28 and refrigerants. True further explained damage functions, leading to systematic
eastern states and the District of with the global warming potentials undervaluation of damages.
Columbia. Because the NEMSBT (GWPs) of some of these substances at (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 9) Lastly,
modeling assumed NOX emissions 1,300, 1,500, and 3,800, the impacts are Earthjustice noted that Tols estimate
would be subject to CAIR, DOE astronomically greater than other relies primarily on estimates that did
established a range of NOX reductions impacts the industry faces. (True, Public not use the currently accepted climate
based on the use of a NOX low and high Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 174) change discounting procedure of
emissions rates (in kt of NOX emitted On the contrary, ASAP emphasized

per terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity that the congressional deadline of 16 Tol, R.S.J. (2007) The social cost of carbon:
generated) derived from the AEO2008. December 31, 2008, means that trends, outliers, and catastrophes. Research Unit
Sustainability and Global Change, Working Paper
To estimate the reduction in NOX paralysis by analysis is not an option FNU144, Hamburg University and Centre for
emissions, DOE multiplied these at this point in this rulemaking and that Marine and Atmospheric Science, Hamburg,
emission rates by the reduction in it is incumbent upon AHRI to Germany.
declining discount rate over time, and it reductions resulting from efficiency uncertainties in the marginal costs of
fails to recognize the distinction standards in any meaningful way. compliance with SO2 emissions caps.
between the ways in which scarcity Although DOE has begun estimating a For those emissions currently not
affects the value of normal goods and range of values for carbon emissions, it priced (CO2, Hg, and NOX), only a range
environmental goods. (Earthjustice, No. then ignores these values when of estimated economic values based on
38 at p. 11) choosing the new standard level. environmental damage studies of
AHRI noted that Congress is now Earthjustice stated that DOE must varying quality and applicability is
engaged in debating a possible cap and address these issues by (1) accounting available. DOE is weighing these values
trade program for the United States. The for the value of emissions reductions separately and is not including them in
size of the allowance cap first set by resulting from a standard in the the NPV analysis.
such legislation or by implementing economic analyses, the LCC, and NIA; V. Discussion of Other Comments
regulations and the pace of reduction of and (2) using reasonable assumptions
the emission allowances will largely and sources when determining the value Since DOE opened the docket for this
determine the unit price or value of CO2 of carbon emission reductions because rulemaking, it has received more than
emissions reductions. AHRI stated that the current sources evaluated are 100 comments from a diverse set of
it would be an arbitrary decision on inadequate. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 1) parties, including manufacturers and
DOEs part to rely on valuations Specifically, Earthjustice stated that their representatives, trade associations,
identified in the Intergovernmental DOE should quantify the effect of a CO2 wholesalers and distributors, energy
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or emission cap on energy prices in the conservation advocates, and electric
valuations used in the European Union LCC analysis. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. utilities. Section IV of this preamble
(EU) cap and trade program when the 2) discusses comments DOE received on
United States has not yet set an the analytic methodologies it used.
DOE has made several additions to its
emissions cap itself. Further, AHRI Additional comments DOE received in
monetization of environmental
stated that DOE should not allow response to the August 2008 NOPR
emissions reductions in todays rule,
evaluation of environmental impacts to addressed the information DOE used in
which are discussed in section VI.C.6.
negate or render moot what has always its analyses, results of and inferences
DOE has chosen to continue to report
been, and should remain, the core drawn from the analyses, impacts of
these benefits separately from the net
analysis in appliance standards standards, the merits of the different
benefits of energy savings. Nothing in
rulemakings, i.e., consumer payback TSLs and standards options DOE
EPCA or in the National Environmental
and life-cycle cost analyses. (AHRI, No. considered, and other issues affecting
Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the
33 at p. 6) NRDC also stated that the cost adoption of standards for commercial
economic value of emissions reduction
of carbon emissions will become an refrigeration equipment. DOE addresses
be incorporated in the net present value
issue with California adopting a Climate these comments in this section.
analysis of energy savings. Unlike
Program and the Regional Greenhouse
energy savings, the economic value of A. Information and Assumptions Used
Gas Initiative in the Northeast. (NRDC,
emissions reduction is not priced in the in Analyses
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p.
marketplace. However, DOE will
105) 1. Market and Technology Assessment
Earthjustices written comment states consider both values when weighing the
benefits and burdens of standards. a. Data Sources
that DOEs monetization of CO2
emissions should reflect the potential Although this rulemaking does not DOE summarized its analysis for
U.S. legislation that would put a affect SO2 emissions, there are markets energy consumption in chapter 3 of the
national cap on CO2 emissions. This for SO2 emissions allowances. The NOPR TSD. Traulsen stated that there
includes examining the effect of the market clearing price of SO2 emissions are problems with the use of energy
standard in reducing allowance prices is roughly the marginal cost of meeting consumption data reported to
and the benefit of reduced emissions in the regulatory cap, not the marginal government agencies because of
the NPV. This is Earthjustices primary value of the cap itself. Further, because inaccurate data reporting. Traulsen cited
suggested consideration for DOE; national SO2 emissions are regulated by several problems with U.S.
otherwise, DOE should take into a cap and trade system, the need to meet Environmental Protection Agencys
account existing regional CO2 caps these caps is already included in the (EPAs) ENERGY STAR database for
when monetizing CO2. Finally, the most price of energy or energy savings. With self-contained commercial solid-door
basic consideration DOE must make, a cap on SO2, the value of energy food service refrigerators and freezers,
according to Earthjustice, is to savings already includes the value of including equipment listed in the
economically account for the avoided SO2 control for those consumers database that does not conform to the
environmental harm from CO2 experiencing energy savings. The ENERGY STAR specifications. Traulsen
emissions. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at pp. economic cost savings associated with suggested that sources such as these not
26) SO2 emissions caps is approximately be used in the technical analyses
The Joint Comment stated that DOE equal to the change in the price of because of the errors they contain.
should incorporate the monetization of traded allowances resulting from energy (Traulsen, No. 25 at p. 1)
carbon emission reductions in the life- savings multiplied by the number of The ENERGY STAR requirements for
cycle cost analysis and the national allowances that would be issued each commercial solid door refrigerators and
impact analysis. The Joint Comment year. That calculation is uncertain freezers cover self-contained
further stated that DOEs exclusion of because the energy savings for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
carbon monetization in the LCC and commercial refrigeration equipment are refrigerator-freezers that have solid
NIA results in a systematic so small relative to the entire electricity doors, which are not covered in this
underestimation of benefits of new generation market that the resulting commercial refrigeration equipment
energy conservation standards. (Joint emissions savings would have almost no rulemaking. In terms of equipment
Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) Earthjustice impact on price formation in the classes, there is no overlap between the
stated that DOE does not account for the allowances market. These savings ENERGY STAR program and DOEs
economic value of CO2 emissions would most likely be outweighed by rulemaking on commercial refrigeration
equipment, except for commercial ice- 2. Engineering Analysis the NOPR engineering analysis. For
cream freezers. EPAs commercial ice- a. Design Options additional detail regarding LED costs,
cream freezer equipment class does not see section IV.B.2.a.
coincide with DOEs commercial ice- In the NOPR, DOE reevaluated the list In addition to expected price
cream freezer equipment class because of design options remaining after the reductions, DOE received comments on
they are defined differently and tested at ANOPR screening analysis. Based on the unique performance advantages of
different rating temperatures. In public comments, DOE made the LED systems following the NOPR.
addition, DOE understands that following design option changes in the Philips stated that LED systems are
Traulsen has a large market in the NOPR and did not receive any further virtually maintenance-free. Without
commercial refrigeration industry for comment for the final rule: increasing maintenance costs, LED payback
self-contained commercial refrigerator insulation thickness as a design option; periods amount to roughly half of their
and freezers with doors. However, these revising anti-sweat heater power values life expectancy. (Philips, No. 29 at
equipment classes are not covered in for certain equipment classes with glass pp. 16) Philips also claimed that LED
this rulemaking. Also, DOE did not use doors; and revising assumptions made efficacy (lm/W) is expected to increase.
energy consumption databases from to estimate changes in cost and Increases in efficacy effectively reduce
other government agencies such as EPA. efficiency for high-efficiency, single- the operational costs of the system by
Rather, DOE conducted its own speed compressors used in self- allowing for less energy consumption
evaluation of energy consumption data contained equipment. 73 FR 50087. while maintaining output. (Philips, No.
However, there were certain design 29 at p. 1)
for existing equipment from major
options for which DOE did receive As mentioned above, for todays final
manufacturers and compiled a
comments and that warranted changes rule, DOE reexamined the LED lighting
performance database. The primary
for the final rule. Specifically, LED cost assumptions that were used in the
source of information for the database
and efficiency assumptions were NOPR. DOE identified more efficacious
was equipment data sheets that were
updated. LED lighting options for use in both
publicly available on manufacturers For the NOPR, DOE could only
Web sites. From these data sheets, vertical refrigerated cases with
identify LED luminaires on the market transparent doors and open refrigerated
equipment information such as total for use in vertical refrigerated cases with
refrigeration load, evaporator cases than the LED lighting identified in
transparent doors (i.e., the VCT the NOPR analysis. Based on the new
temperature, lighting power draw, equipment family). DOE used these LED
defrost power draw, and motor power LED lighting options, DOE updated case
luminaires as the basis for LED lighting lighting configurations for each
draw allowed determination of for open refrigerated cases, because DOE
calculated daily energy consumption equipment class specific to LED lighting
could not identify LED luminaires for in the engineering analysis. For more
(CDEC) according to the DOE test use in open refrigerated cases. However, detail about the updated LED lighting
procedure. See chapter 3 of the TSD for when DOE reexamined the current state performance assumptions, see chapter 5
additional information on market of LED lighting for the final rule, DOE and appendix B of the TSD.
performance data. identified LED luminaries on the market In addition to the life-cycle benefits
b. Beverage Merchandisers for use in open refrigerated cases. DOE afforded by LEDs, the California
updated the LED lighting prices for Utilities Joint Comment stated that LED
In response to the NOPR, Coca-Cola open refrigerated cases using these systems have a higher degree of
submitted a comment questioning the newly identified LED luminaires. controllability, which gives the systems
market share and shipment data in For the final rule, DOE also updated dimming, cold start, and short cycling
DOEs analysis. Coca-Cola stated that its the LED prices for lighting used in the capabilities. (California Utilities Joint
own purchases contradict DOEs figures. VCT equipment families using the Comment, No. 41 at p. 3) ASAP added
According to Coca-Cola, vertical closed actual reduction in the lumen-based that these features allow LED systems to
transparent, self-contained, medium price of LED chips reported in DOEs be turned off in situations in which
temperature (VCT.SC.M) equipment Multi-Year Program Plan between 2007 fluorescents could not. This equates to
makes up the majority of Coca-Colas and 2008. DOEs 2007 Multi-Year improved energy efficiency for
purchases. DOEs exclusion of this class Program Plan reported that the latest commercial refrigeration equipment that
accounts for the differences between available OEM device price for LED uses LED lighting. (ASAP, Public
Coca-Colas purchases and the number chips was $35/kilolumen.17 DOEs 2008 Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 106)
of units shipped that DOE reported in Multi-Year Program Plan reported that The enhanced controllability of LED
the engineering analysis. (Coca-Cola, the latest available OEM device price for lighting can offer multiple benefits over
No. 21 at p. 1) LED chips was $25/kilolumen.18 This fluorescent lighting. Specifically, the
As explained in the July 2007 equates to a 29-percent reduction in ability to reduce the operating time of
ANOPR, VCT.SC.M equipment is lumen-based LED chip costs from 2007 LED lighting can lead to increased
currently covered by energy 2008. For the final rule, DOE applied energy efficiency for commercial
conservation standards established in this 29-percent reduction in lumen- refrigeration equipment. Therefore, in
EPCA. 72 FR 41176. Therefore, self- based LED chip costs to the LED lighting the July 2007 ANOPR, DOE specifically
contained glass-front beverage for the VCT equipment families, requested public comment on using 24
merchandisers (beverage coolers), which representing about a 9-percent reduction hours as the case lighting operational
are included in the VCT.SC.M in LED system costs, assuming the costs hours. 72 FR 41187. In the August 2008
equipment class, are not covered in this of the power supply and LED fixtures NOPR, based on public comment, DOE
commercial refrigeration equipment did not change from the values used in determined that 24 hours was an
rulemaking. As a result, all the adequate assumption for case lighting

shipment and market share data 17 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting
operating hours regardless of lighting
reported in the engineering analysis are Research and Development, Multi-Year Program type. 73 FR 50095. In addition, the test
Plan FY08FY13.
valid for the classes of commercial 18 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting procedure DOE adopted for commercial
refrigeration equipment covered in this Research and Development, Multi-Year Program refrigeration equipment, ANSI/ARI
rulemaking. Plan FY09FY14. Standard 12002006, is a steady-state
test procedure, which is unable to or price), the binning process for quality notably, for the final rule, DOE doubled
capture significant energy savings due remains the same, resulting in a the shelf lighting for open cases
to dimming controls or motion sensors. constant markup on the price of LED compared to that assumed for the
71 FR 71370. chips used for commercial refrigeration NOPR. This increase in shelf lighting is
Following the NOPR, some equipment. DOE accounted for this needed to meet the lighting
manufacturers expressed concerns that premium in the pricing used for the requirements of open cases due to the
implementing LED lighting would NOPR analysis. In the update of LED directional nature of LED lighting. See
reduce the quality of their equipment. prices between 2007 and 2008 for the appendix B for more detail regarding the
Specifically, they disagreed with the use final rule, DOE maintained the markup lighting configurations assumed in the
of general white light LEDs to develop associated with the higher level of engineering analysis.
a price specifically for LED lighting quality needed for LEDs used in
used in commercial refrigeration commercial refrigeration equipment. b. Baseline Models
equipment. True and Southern Store DOE also received comments on the DOE established baseline
Fixtures stated that the grocery store relative benefits of using LEDs in low- specifications for each equipment class
market will be most affected by the use temperature cases versus medium- modeled in the engineering analysis by
of LED lighting because certain food temperature cases and in closed cases reviewing available manufacturer data,
products, such as meat, dairy, deli, and versus open cases. The California selecting several representative units,
produce, have to have a special display Utilities Joint Comment stated that LED and then aggregating the physical
color. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, luminous output is 10 percent higher at characteristics of those units. This
No. 27 at p. 111; Southern Store 0 F than at 25 F. (California Utilities process created a unit representative of
Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 11) commercial refrigeration equipment
27 at p. 108) Continental Refrigerator Southern Store Fixtures stated the heat currently offered for sale in each
added that in low-temperature from the LED fixture could be used to equipment class, with average
applications, there is degradation in control condensate on closed case characteristics for physical parameters
LED color quality, requiring the doors. It suggested using a remote power (e.g., volume, TDA), and minimum
technology to be developed further. module for open cases. (Southern Store performance of energy-consuming
(Continental Refrigerator, No. 27 at Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. components (e.g., fans, lighting). In the
p. 141) Southern Store Fixtures stated 27 at p. 98) Hill Phoenix also stated that NOPR analysis, DOE made several
that LEDs used in commercial it is still a challenge for LED lighting in revisions to the baseline specifications.
refrigeration equipment are more open cases to provide the quality and These changes include updates to
expensive because additional labor is quantity of light required by the food baseline lighting, TDA calculations, and
required to test and sort the LEDs to marketing industry. (Hill Phoenix, No. baseline energy consumption. Appendix
meet the industrys color quality 32 at p. 1) B of the NOPR TSD explained in detail
requirements. (Southern Store Fixture, As stated above, DOE was able to
the changes made to the baseline design
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. identify for the final rule LED
specifications relative to the ANOPR
108) Hill Phoenix agreed with Southern luminaires currently available on the
analysis. DOE received no comments
Store Fixtures and added that market for both open refrigerated cases
specific to these changes, and is
repeatability and minimizing the LED and vertical refrigerated cases with
transparent doors. The benefits of using therefore maintaining them for the final
output variance also factors into this
LEDs vary depending on the type of rule.
costly sorting process (i.e., binning).
(Hill Phoenix, Public Meeting commercial refrigerated equipment in c. Consideration of Alternative
Transcript, No. 27 at p. 109) PG&E which they are used. However, the Refrigerants
estimated that this premium will remain luminaires DOE identified for use in the
constant independent of any future final rule analysis were specifically The framework document stated that
price reductions. (PG&E, Public Meeting developed for individual types of due to the phaseout of
Transcript, No. 27 at p. 110) AHRI and commercial refrigeration equipment, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
Hill Phoenix suggested that prices for and the luminaire manufacturers hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in
LED systems used in commercial reported that the performance and refrigeration equipment, the industry
refrigeration equipment will not quality of those luminaires were would likely use HFC refrigerants in
experience the same price reductions developed to meet the specific light their products. Following the framework
that the rest of the LED industry will. output requirements of the commercial document, AHRI stated that most of the
Both interested parties agreed that, refrigeration equipment manufacturers data it provided to DOE was based on
because the commercial refrigeration that use them. Therefore, although the the use of HFC refrigerants. In the
market for LEDs is small, there will not LED luminous output may be about 10 ANOPR TSD and NOPR, DOE assumed
be a great demand for high-quality percent higher for low-temperature that HFC refrigerants were already in
LEDs, providing little incentive for LED cases compared to medium-temperature wide use in the refrigeration industry,
suppliers to offer low-price, high-quality cases, the luminaires chosen for the and therefore used HFC refrigerants as
LEDs. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2 and Hill analysis were actual products that the basis for the technical analysis
Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 2) commercial refrigeration equipment conducted in the rulemaking.
DOE acknowledges that a premium manufacturers specified provide The Joint Comment in response to the
markup is applied to LED chips used in appropriate lighting levels. Likewise, NOPR stated that DOE should consider
commercial refrigeration applications the power configuration used in the alternative primary refrigerants such as
due to the binning process. This highly analysis for LED fixtures was also based hydrocarbons, ammonia, and CO2 in its
selective process requires LED chips to on actual products used in closed and analysis because of their potential
be chosen by hand to ensure the open cases. However, DOE did modify energy benefits, and because of the
consistency in color, temperature and the LED lighting configurations assumed current phase-out of CFCs and HCFCs as
light quality demanded by commercial in the engineering analysis based on refrigerants. The Joint Comment pointed
refrigeration equipment customers. As comments received and lighting out that alternative primary refrigerants
LED technology advances (e.g., efficacy manufacturer specification sheets. Most are widely used in countries other than
the United States, principally in Europe. conducted according to ANSI/ASHRAE requires that energy consumption
(Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 8) Standard 722005. Following the NOPR, testing for all commercial refrigeration
As stated in the ANOPR TSD and DOE received comments from Southern equipment covered in this rulemaking
NOPR, DOE based its technical analysis Store Fixtures and Zero Zone stating be conducted according to ANSI/
on the use of HFC refrigerants. A that the DOE test procedure is ASHRAE Standard 722005, which
Federal phaseout of CFC refrigerants has insufficient because a subset of the prescribes specific ambient conditions.
already occurred, and a Federal equipment covered in this rulemaking is There is no requirement to address the
phaseout of HCFC refrigerants is designed for and operates under harsher ambient conditions specified in the NSF
pending in 2010. Thus, DOE did not conditions than the 75.2 F dry-bulb and 7 standard. The two standards also serve
consider CFCs and HCFCs in its 64.4 F wet-bulb ambient temperature different purposes. The ANSI/ASHRAE
analysis. Likewise, although alternative condition used in the DOE test 722005 standard measures energy
refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, procedure. consumption for a specific ambient
ammonia, and CO2 are used in Europe According to Southern Store Fixtures condition, whereas the NSF 7 standard
and elsewhere in the world, there is no and Zero Zone, the hotter, more humid measures food temperature at a specific
evidence that they are widely used for ambient condition requires additional ambient condition for food safety
commercial refrigeration applications in energy consumption to power larger purposes. Although these test
the United States. In addition, current compressors and the anti-condensate procedures have different purposes,
state and local building codes would not capabilities necessary in this including the NSF 7 Type II test
allow the use of many alternative environment. These conditions make it procedure would have a minimal
refrigerants (Safety Class A3most more difficult to meet the standards impact on the energy consumption of
hydrocarbon refrigerants) in remote proposed by this rulemaking. As a this equipment because the differences
condensing equipment covered by this result, both Zero Zone and Southern between the ANSI/ASHRAE 722005
rulemaking due to flammability Store Fixtures suggested that DOE and NSF 7 Type II ambient test
concerns. These codes would also should account for the difference conditions are marginal. NSF 7 Type II
severely limit the use of ammonia due between test procedure ambient equipment is defined as a unit intended
to toxicity concerns. Both could be conditions and operating ambient for use in an environment in which the
considered for use with secondary loop conditions for this subset of equipment ambient dry-bulb temperature does not
refrigeration systems, but these are not by making a distinction similar to the exceed 80 F. This is at most 5 F higher
the subject of this rulemaking. one currently used in the National than the 75 F ambient dry bulb
Hydrocarbon refrigerants could possibly Sanitation Foundation Standard 7 (NSF temperature used in the DOE test
be used for small self-contained 7) standard. (Zero Zone Public Meeting procedure. Therefore, the test procedure
commercial refrigeration equipment Transcript, No. 27 at p. 17 and Southern requires all commercial refrigeration
covered in this rulemaking if they Store Fixtures No. 27 at p. 18) Under equipment covered under this
contain less than 3 pounds of refrigerant NSF 7, equipment intended for use in rulemaking to be tested for energy
and if they have been certified by more severe environments is designated consumption according to the ambient
Underwriters Laboratories or another as Type II equipment and is tested at conditions specified in ANSI/ASHRAE
product certification lab. However, DOE 80 F dry-bulb and 68 F wet-bulb Standard 722005 and will not include
believes that no such equipment has ambient conditions. NSF Type I any distinction between Type I and
been certified for the U.S. market, and equipment is tested at the same ambient Type II equipment as defined by NSF 7.
it did not consider these refrigerants as conditions as the DOE test procedure,
a viable design option in the namely the 75.2 F dry-bulb and 64.4 F e. Product Class Extension Factors
engineering analysis. wet-bulb temperature ambient In the NOPR, DOE developed
The majority of the U.S. commercial condition. multipliers to extend standards from the
refrigeration industry uses HFC To address this issue, AHRI suggested 15 equipment classes it directly
refrigerants in commercial refrigeration exempting Type II equipment from analyzed to the remaining 23 secondary
equipment. Since the analysis should be coverage or instructing manufacturers of equipment classes of commercial
based on the refrigerant most widely Type II equipment to apply for waivers. refrigeration equipment it did not
used in commercial refrigeration (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. directly analyze. DOEs approach
equipment, it is unnecessary to consider 27 at p. 50) If the waiver approach is involved a matched-pair analysis, which
alternative refrigerants. For these pursued, Southern Store Fixtures examined the relationship between
reasons, DOE has continued to use HFC suggested using available NSF Type II several related pairs of equipment
refrigerants as the basis for its technical testing data to find the relationship classes. Chapter 5 of the TSD discusses
analysis. DOE used the HFC refrigerant among food temperature, the metric the development of the extension
R404A for all remote condensing used in NSF testing, and energy multipliers and the set of focused
equipment and HFC refrigerant R404A consumption, the metric used in the matched-pair analyses.
or refrigerant R134A for all self- DOE test procedure. This relationship Following the NOPR, Southern Store
contained equipment. would allow at least some Type II Fixtures questioned the extension
equipment to be considered fairly under multiplier for self-contained equipment
d. Consideration of NSF 7 Type II this rule and mitigate a spike in waiver that was based on the analytical results
Equipment applications. (Southern Store Fixtures, for open remote condensing equipment.
On December 8, 2006, DOE published Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. Southern Store Fixtures believed that
a final rule in which it adopted ANSI/ 54) the extension multiplier of 2.51 DOE
ARI Standard 12002006 as the DOE After consideration of these developed to correlate remote medium-
test procedure for commercial comments, DOE believes that instituting temperature equipment without doors to
refrigeration equipment. 71 FR at 71340, a distinction between Type I and Type self-contained medium-temperature
7136970. DOE incorporated the test II commercial refrigeration equipment, equipment without doors should be
procedure into its regulations in 10 CFR as defined by NSF 7, is unnecessary in higher to adequately account for the
431.63431.64. The standard also this rulemaking. The DOE test more severe conditions in which self
requires performance tests to be procedure, ARI Standard 12002006, contained equipment are typically used,
but did not offer a recommendation for have the authority to set regional the compressor selected in the
the value. (Southern Store Fixtures, standards for commercial refrigeration engineering analysis has a capacity of
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. equipment, and therefore cannot 13,219 Btu/h. The selection of an
37) customize its analysis to exclude the use unrealistically large compressor unfairly
The DOE test procedure, ARI of design options in a specific climate skews the energy efficiency ratio
Standard 12002006, requires that region. Therefore, in developing the because the larger compressor has a
energy consumption testing for all energy conservation standards for higher efficiency rating than the next
commercial refrigeration equipment todays final rule, DOE did not make smallest compressor that has a rated
covered in this rulemaking be any modifications to accommodate capacity closer to the compressor sizing
conducted according to ANSI/ASHRAE concerns related to any particular value. (Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p.
Standard 722005, which prescribes climate regions. 3)
specific ambient conditions. The The energy consumption model
ambient conditions specified by the g. Compressor Selection Oversize Factor selects a compressor assuming that the
DOE test procedure are the same DOEs energy consumption model rated capacity of the compressor must
regardless of the condensing unit selects the most appropriate compressor be at or above the compressor sizing
configuration (i.e., remote condensing or by comparing each compressors value. This prevents the selection of a
self-contained). In addition, the 2.51 capacity to the total refrigeration load in compressor that is unable to meet the
extension multiplier was developed the case multiplied by the compressor refrigeration load. The example
based on the relationship between the oversize factor. For the ANOPR analysis, Structural Concepts selected highlights
medium temperature VOP, SVO, and DOE listed capacity at the standard one of the more extreme cases of how
HZO equipment classes that DOE rating conditions used in ANSI/ARI this model can select a compressor that
directly analyzed. Because neither an Standard 5402004.19 However, the is larger than necessary. However,
alternative value nor contradicting standard rating conditions differed from Structural Concepts did not provide a
analysis was offered, for todays final the operating conditions used in the recommendation that would result in
rule, DOE will continue to use the 2.51 model, resulting in different capacity the selection of a more appropriate
and other extension multipliers values. Because the standard conditions compressor, or a more appropriate
developed in the NOPR. and modeled conditions differed, the compressor oversize factor value to use
model typically overestimated the for all the self-contained equipment
f. TSL Energy Limits
capacity of the selected compressors. To classes. Because manufacturers
After the NOPR, Hussman submitted compensate, DOE adjusted the previously agreed that the compressor
a comment expressing its concern about compressor oversize factor to an oversize factor of 1.4 was appropriate to
the technologies required for equipment unrealistic level (typically level 1) for use for all the self-contained equipment
to meet minimum energy consumption classes used in the analysis, DOE
the ANOPR model to select the correct
levels for TSL 4. In particular, Hussman maintained its assumptions from the
compressor. In the NOPR analysis, DOE
is reluctant to use the no-heat door NOPR.
revised the capacity values used to
design option in humid climates, such
select self-contained compressors in the h. Offset Factors for Self-Contained
as Houston, Texas. In its experience, no-
energy consumption model. For the Equipment
heat doors in humid climates result in
NOPR, DOE used capacities based on
more condensation on store floors. For the NOPR, DOE developed offset
the same conditions used to calculate
According to Hussman, wet floors have factors to adjust the energy consumption
total refrigeration load and revised the
led to accidents and costly law suits, calculations to accommodate smaller
oversize factor (typically 1.4 in the
indirectly linking increased energy equipment for the equipment classes it
efficiency with increased safety risks. NOPR model) for all self-contained directly analyzed. These offset factors
(Hussman, No. 42 at p. 1) equipment classes to maintain the account for the components of the
Energy conservation standards for selection of the correct compressor size. refrigeration load that remain constant
todays final rule set a maximum See chapter 5 of the TSD for more detail. even when equipment sizes vary (i.e.,
allowable energy conservation level for Following the NOPR, Structural the conduction end effects) and
commercial refrigeration equipment. Concepts commented that the disproportionately affect smaller cases.
DOE does not limit the technologies compressor selection criteria in the In the equation that describes the
manufacturers can use to achieve engineering analysis results in the relationship between energy
standards. Manufacturers are free to use selection of unreasonable compressors consumption and the corresponding
any combination of technologies and for the refrigeration load. Specifically, TDA or volume metric, the offset factors
design options to achieve a required Structural Concepts stated that the are intended to approximate these
level of energy consumption. refrigeration load is 6,990 Btu/h for the constant loads and provide a fixed end
Manufacturers also have the ability to VOP.SC.M equipment class, and the point that corresponds to a zero TDA or
design equipment for use in specific compressor sizing value is 9,787 Btu/h. zero volume case. See chapter 5 of the
regions where certain design options Using the oversize factor value of 1.4, TSD for further details on the
may cause safety concerns. Certain anti- 19 18ANSI/ARI Standard 5402004: Performance
development of these offset factors for
condensate design options consume no Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant each equipment class. Following the
energy and could be used to achieve the Compressors and Compressor Units lists standard NOPR, Structural Concepts requested
energy consumption levels TSL 4 rating conditions for hermetic refrigeration that DOE increase the offset factor for
requires. Anti-condensate films can be compressors. For medium-temperature equipment, self-contained equipment because
compressors are rated at 20 F suction dewpoint,
applied to the inner surface of glass 120 F discharge dewpoint, 40 F return gas, and DOEs analysis selected compressors
doors to prevent condensation and fog 0 F subcooling. For low-temperature equipment, that were too large and had
formation. By installing this film, some compressors are rated at 10 F suction dewpoint, unrealistically high efficiencies.
portion (and potentially all) of the glass 120 F discharge dewpoint, 40 F return gas, and (Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p. 4)
0 F subcooling. For ice-cream-temperature
and/or door mullion heaters can be equipment, compressors are rated at 25 F suction
The compressors suggested by
removed and still maintain fog-free dewpoint, 105 F discharge dewpoint, 40 F return Structural Concepts for DOEs model
operation. In addition, DOE does not gas, and 0 F subcooling. would, in some cases, be undersized for
the refrigeration load. As mentioned in as the baseline SCT for self-contained provided were incomplete, DOE
section V.A.2.g, DOE maintained the equipment condensers for todays final maintained its assumptions from the
methodology used to select compressors rule. NOPR for the enhanced condenser coil.
in the energy consumption model. For the NOPR, DOE used data from
teardowns by Southern California 3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
Because DOE did not receive any
comments on necessary improvements Edisons Refrigeration and Thermal Test The Joint Comment stated that DOE
or data on which its analysis can be Center (RTTC) to model the enhanced gives exclusive consideration to the
reevaluated, and because the condenser coil used in the engineering preservation-of-gross-margin (absolute
compressor selections used to develop analysis. Based on this information, dollars) scenario. According to the Joint
the offset factors have not changed, DOE DOE considered both minimum and Comment, relying solely on this
maintained the offset factors developed maximum technology levels for this scenario only considers manufacturers
in the NOPR. design option. For each level, DOE expectations about the manufacturing
specified an overall UA-value and a coil impacts at the proposed standard. (Joint
i. Self-Contained Condensing Coils cost. The UA-value is normalized to the Comment, No. 7 at p. 2) The Joint
Following the NOPR, Structural standard coil, and the coil cost is Comment stated the preservation-of-
Concepts revealed a discrepancy about normalized to the heat removal capacity gross-margin-percentage markup
the running temperature for self- of the coil. This approach allowed DOE scenario provides a more plausible
contained equipment using coil to apply the details of coil design across representation of impacts on
enhancements. (Structural Concepts, all self-contained equipment classes. In manufacturers due to new energy
No. 30 at p. 1) Chapter 5, section 5.6.3.7 consultation with outside experts, DOE conservation standards. (Joint Comment,
of the NOPR TSD stated that self- determined that applying the same coil No. 7 at p. 3)
contained equipment condenser coil improvements to different sized coils DOE developed two markup
enhancements would allow the would result in similar performance scenarios: The preservation-of-gross-
condenser to run at a saturated improvements. See chapter 5 of the TSD margin-percentage and the preservation-
condenser temperature (SCT) 10 F for more detail on the development of of-gross-margin (absolute dollars). DOE
cooler than a standard coil. However, the enhanced condenser coil used these scenarios to bound the
the engineering analysis spreadsheet specifications. potential impacts on the industry value
showed a decrease of 14 F for this Following the NOPR, Structural as a result of new energy conservation
design option. There was a Concepts stated that DOE overstates the standards and presented its findings in
typographical error in the NOPR TSD magnitude of the UA-value increase the August 2008 NOPR for public
and the 14 F decrease in the achievable with an enhanced condenser comment. 73 FR 50107. The
engineering analysis is correct. In coil. It claimed the enhanced condenser preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE prototype DOE used as a model for this markup scenario is a lower bound
updated its figure to reflect the correct design option is too large for use in self- estimate on manufacturer impacts
SCT 14 F cooler temperature for the contained equipment and, because UA- because it assumes that manufacturers
coil enhancements design option for value primarily depends on surface will be able to fully recover all the
self-contained equipment. area, the use of a smaller, practical increases in production costs due to
Structural Concepts also questioned condenser would yield a lower UA- energy conservation standards
the validity of using 98 F as the value. As a result, it requested that DOE requirements. The preservation-of-gross-
baseline SCT in the engineering base the UA-value on coils that are margin (absolute dollars) markup
analysis. According to Structural closer in size to the standard coil. scenario is an upper bound estimate on
Concepts, this value is not (Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p. 2) manufacturer impacts because it
representative of the current off the The specifications for the enhanced assumes that manufacturers will be able
shelf self-contained condensing units coil used in DOEs analysis are based on to only partially recover cost increases
available. It believes the baseline SCT a model developed specifically for use (to maintain an absolute dollar gross
value should be closer to 105 F or 110 in a self-contained refrigeration system. margin) due to energy conservation
F. (Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p. 2) The details of the coil construction are standards. The markup scenarios DOE
There are condensing coils available based on data from teardowns by modeled in the GRIM reflect both its
that operate at both higher and lower Southern California Edisons interpretation of qualitative information
SCT than the standard coil used in its Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center learned during manufacturer interviews
model. This discrepancy exists because (RTTC).20 Therefore, DOE is confident and the analysis of limited profit margin
the standard coil used in DOEs model data provided under confidentiality
that it modeled an appropriately sized
is not an actual condensing coil. DOE agreements.
high efficiency condenser coil. In
reviewed a range of available DOE notes the large uncertainty about
addition to increased exterior
manufacturer data, selected several the actual impacts on the industry due
dimensions, DOEs enhanced condenser
representative units, and aggregated the to standards. The commercial
coil also uses a higher fin pitch, rifled
physical characteristics of the selected refrigeration equipment industry has
tubing, and different tube spacing to
units to create a representative unit for never been regulated for energy
achieve a higher UA-value than the
each equipment class. The 98 F efficiency and manufacturers do not
standard coil. Structural Concepts also
operating SCT is an average have previous experience on how
did not provide costs for their suggested
characteristic. DOE also conducted a energy conservation standards affect
coil model. Because DOE did not
sensitivity analysis to evaluate their business. The seven manufacturers
receive additional information or data
Structural Concepts claim that baseline that DOE interviewed for the NOPR
that would suggest that the UA-value is
SCT was too low. In this sensitivity expressed a divergence of views on how
not representative of enhanced
analysis in which the SCT was raised to prices would change after standards.
condenser coils, and the data that was
105 F, DOE observed only minor Most manufacturers stated that they
changes in the energy consumption of 20 Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center. expect profit levels to decrease due to
the self-contained units. For these Personal communication. Southern California new energy conservation standards
reasons, DOE will continue to use 98 F Edison. March 29, 2007. based on their recent inability to pass on
increases in material and component as part of the MIA estimates the number details on the development of these
costs to their customers. The portion of of domestic workers who are affected by offset factors for each equipment class.
production costs reflected in selling this rulemaking in the commercial For the final rule, DOE preserved the
prices varied significantly from refrigeration equipment manufacturing general methodology it used for the
manufacturer to manufacturer. In industry, assuming that shipment levels selection of efficiency levels in the
general, companies with lower market and product availability remain at NOPR in establishing specific efficiency
shares face greater challenges in passing current levels. Because labor costs are levels for equipment classes. These
along costs and would suffer larger assumed to be a fixed percentage of total levels are based on the results of the
margin impacts due to new energy manufacturing production costs, which updated LCC analysis and made up the
conservation standards. Manufacturers increase with more efficient equipment, TSLs used in the NOPR. Table VI1
with relatively large market shares have the GRIM predicts a gradual increase in shows the TSL levels DOE selected for
been more successful passing through employment after standards. DOE has energy use for the equipment classes
costs and they are more confident of considered all employment impacts in analyzed. TSL 5 is the max-tech level
maintaining profit levels over the long weighing the benefits and the burdens, for each equipment class. TSL 4 is the
term. Because of the divergence of including direct (as calculated by the maximum efficiency level with a
experience with cost pass-through and MIA) and indirect (as calculated by the positive NPV at the 7-percent discount
the implication for prices and employment impact analysis). For rate, except for VOP.RC.M. In this class,
profitability after standards, DOE further details on the direct employment the minimal difference in energy
considers the full range of potential impact analysis, see chapter 13 of the efficiency between the minimum life-
impacts bounded by the markup accompanying TSD. cycle cost level as determined by the
scenarios and does not consider one LCC analysis and the maximum
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
scenario to be more likely. efficiency level with positive NPV
In response to the NOPR, Earthjustice A. Trial Standard Levels prompted DOE to select the minimum
noted that the direct employment life-cycle cost level instead of the
benefits are shown to provide positive DOE selected between four and eight maximum level with positive NPV. TSL
employment in the MIA analysis. energy consumption levels for each 4 is a combination of the efficiency
Earthjustice stated DOE should consider commercial refrigeration equipment levels selected for TSL 3 and TSL 5. For
these benefits in the final rule. class in the LCC analysis. Based on the a given equipment class, the efficiency
(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, results of the analysis, DOE selected five levels selected for TSL 4 are either
No. 27 at p. 166) trial standard levels above the baseline equivalent to those of TSL 3 or TSL 5.
For the MIA, DOE calculated the level for each equipment class for the TSL 3 is the efficiency level that
direct employment impacts on the NOPR. The range of TSLs selected provides the minimum life-cycle cost
commercial refrigeration industry. DOE includes the most energy efficient determined by the LCC analysis. TSL 2
calculated total labor expenditures for combination of design options with a and TSL 1 represent lower efficiency
the industry using the production costs positive NPV at the 7-percent discount levels that fill in the gap between the
from the engineering analysis, labor rate, and the combination of design current baseline and the levels
information from U.S. Census Bureaus options with the minimum LCC. TSLs determined to have the minimum LCC.
2006 Annual Survey of Manufacturers, also were selected that filled large gaps Table VI1 shows the same TSL levels
and the total industry shipments from between the baseline and the level with in terms of proposed equations that
the NES. DOE translated the total labor the minimum LCC. establish an MDEC limit through a
expenditures for the industry into the For the NOPR, DOE developed offset linear equation of the form:
total number of domestic jobs using the factors to adjust the energy efficiency MDEC = A TDA + B (for equipment
domestic share of commercial requirements for smaller equipment in using TDA as a normalizing metric)
refrigeration equipment manufacturing, each equipment class analyzed. These
offset factors account for certain or
the labor rate for the industry, and the
annual hours per worker. DOE components of the refrigeration load MDEC = A V + B (for equipment using
calculated its estimate of the domestic (such as the conduction end effects) that volume as a normalizing metric)
employment for the base case and each remain constant even when equipment Coefficients A and B are uniquely
TSL. The direct employment results sizes vary. These constant loads affect derived for each equipment class based
characterized by the MIA represent U.S. smaller cases disproportionately. The on the calculated offset factor B (see
production and non-production workers offset factors are intended to chapter 5 of the TSD for offset factors)
that are affected by this rulemaking in approximate these constant loads and and the equation slope A. Equation
the commercial refrigeration equipment provide a fixed end point, slope A would be used to describe the
manufacturing industry. corresponding to a zero TDA or zero efficiency requirements for equipment
For the final rule, DOE examined the volume case, in an equation that of different sizes within the same
impacts of energy conservation describes the relationship between equipment class. Chapter 9 of the TSD
standards on domestic manufacturing energy consumption and the explains the methodology DOE used for
employment levels. The direct corresponding TDA or volume metric. selecting TSLs and developing the
employment impact analysis conducted See chapter 5 of the TSD for further coefficients shown in Table VI2.
TABLE VI1TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR ANALYZED EQUIPMENT EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF DAILY ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
Trial standard levels for equipment analyzed expressed in

terms of energy consumption
Normal Test
Normalization (kWh/day)
Equipment class ization metric
metric value * (kWh/day) Base- TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
line
VOP.RC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ** ............ 53.30 CDEC ....................... 57.90 51.99 50.68 47.69 47.69 43.75
VOP.RC.L ................. TDA [ft2] ............... 44.66 CDEC ....................... 133.60 118.44 113.28 112.00 108.40 108.40
VOP.SC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 14.93 TDEC .................... 39.60 35.95 33.38 30.70 30.70 29.33
VCT.RC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 65.00 CDEC ....................... 33.18 31.77 30.00 16.36 16.18 16.18
VCT.RC.L ................. TDA [ft2] ............... 65.00 CDEC ....................... 69.31 65.73 46.90 39.60 39.18 39.18
VCT.SC.I ................... TDA [ft2] ............... 26.00 TDEC ........................ 45.63 33.35 23.39 21.17 20.81 20.81
VCS.SC.I .................. V [ft3] .................. 48.00 TDEC ........................ 27.13 24.31 21.64 19.07 19.07 19.07
SVO.RC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 40.00 CDEC ....................... 43.56 39.58 38.59 36.34 36.34 33.61
SVO.SC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 12.80 TDEC ........................ 33.11 30.66 28.87 26.74 26.74 25.74
SOC.RC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 51.00 CDEC ....................... 31.70 30.01 27.93 26.24 26.24 20.62
HZO.RC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 33.00 CDEC ....................... 19.63 17.89 15.73 14.69 14.54 14.54
HZO.RC.L ................. TDA [ft2] ............... 46.00 CDEC ....................... 38.38 35.30 33.41 32.97 32.97 32.97
HZO.SC.M ................ TDA [ft2] ............... 12.00 TDEC ........................ 19.23 17.85 16.51 14.93 14.81 14.81
HZO.SC.L ................. TDA [ft2] ............... 12.00 TDEC ........................ 38.69 36.02 33.52 30.31 30.14 30.14
HCT.SC.I .................. TDA [ft2] ............... 5.12 TDEC ........................ 7.25 6.37 3.70 3.53 3.32 3.32
* This is the assumed baseline size for each equipment class used in DOEs analyses.
** TDA is total display area of the case.
V is gross refrigerated volume of the case.
TDEC is total daily energy consumption of the case.
TABLE VI2TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH PRIMARY
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard levels for primary equipment classes analyzed
Equipment Test metric
class (kWh/day) Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
VOP.RC.M ..... CDEC ............ 1.01 TDA + 4.07 0.9 TDA + 4.07 0.87 TDA + 4.07 0.82 TDA + 4.07 0.82 TDA + 4.07 0.74 TDA + 4.07
VOP.RC.L ...... CDEC ............ 2.84 TDA + 6.85 2.5 TDA + 6.85 2.38 TDA + 6.85 2.35 TDA + 6.85 2.27 TDA + 6.85 2.27 TDA + 6.85
VOP.SC.M ...... TDEC ............. 2.34 TDA + 4.71 2.09 TDA + 4.71 1.92 TDA + 4.71 1.74 TDA + 4.71 1.74 TDA + 4.71 1.65 TDA + 4.71
VCT.RC.M ...... CDEC ............ 0.48 TDA + 1.95 0.46 TDA + 1.95 0.43 TDA + 1.95 0.22 TDA + 1.95 0.22 TDA + 1.95 0.22 TDA + 1.95
VCT.RC.L ....... CDEC ............ 1.03 TDA + 2.61 0.97 TDA + 2.61 0.68 TDA + 2.61 0.57 TDA + 2.61 0.56 TDA +2.61 0.56 TDA + 2.61
VCT.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 1.63 TDA + 3.29 1.16 TDA + 3.29 0.77 TDA + 3.29 0.69 TDA + 3.29 0.67 TDA + 3.29 0.67 TDA + 3.29
VCS.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 0.55 V + 0.88 0.49 V + 0.88 0.43 V + 0.88 0.38 V + 0.88 0.38 V + 0.88 0.38 V + 0.88
SVO.RC.M ..... CDEC ............ 1.01 TDA + 3.18 0.91 TDA + 3.18 0.89 TDA + 3.18 0.83 TDA + 3.18 0.83 TDA + 3.18 0.76 TDA + 3.18
SVO.SC.M ...... TDEC ............. 2.23 TDA + 4.59 2.04 TDA + 4.59 1.9 TDA + 4.59 1.73 TDA + 4.59 1.73 TDA + 4.59 1.65 TDA + 4.59
SOC.RC.M ..... CDEC ............ 0.62 TDA + 0.11 0.59 TDA + 0.11 0.55 TDA + 0.11 0.51 TDA + 0.11 0.51 TDA + 0.11 0.4 TDA + 0.11
HZO.RC.M ..... CDEC ............ 0.51 TDA + 2.88 0.45 TDA + 2.88 0.39 TDA + 2.88 0.36 TDA + 2.88 0.35 TDA + 2.88 0.35 TDA + 2.88
HZO.RC.L ...... CDEC ............ 0.68 TDA + 6.88 0.62 TDA + 6.88 0.58 TDA + 6.88 0.57 TDA + 6.88 0.57 TDA + 6.88 0.57 TDA + 6.88
HZO.SC.M ...... TDEC ............. 1.14 TDA + 5.55 1.03 TDA + 5.55 0.91 TDA + 5.55 0.78 TDA + 5.55 0.77 TDA + 5.55 0.77 TDA + 5.55
HZO.SC.L ....... TDEC ............. 2.63 TDA + 7.08 2.41 TDA + 7.08 2.2 TDA + 7.08 1.94 TDA + 7.08 1.92 TDA + 7.08 1.92 TDA + 7.08
HCT.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 1.33 TDA + 0.43 1.16 TDA + 0.43 0.64 TDA + 0.43 0.6 TDA + 0.43 0.56 TDA + 0.43 0.56 TDA + 0.43
In addition to the standards for the 15 DOEs approach involved extension the extension multipliers and the set of
primary equipment classes DOE multipliers developed using both the 15 focused matched-pair analyses.
analyzed, DOE is adopting standards for primary equipment classes analyzed Using this approach, DOE developed
the remaining 23 secondary equipment and a set of focused matched-pair an additional set of TSLs for these
classes of commercial refrigeration analyses. In addition, standards for secondary equipment classes that
equipment covered in this rulemaking certain primary equipment classes could corresponds to each of the equations
that were not directly analyzed in the be directly applied to other similar shown in Table VI2 at each TSL. Table
engineering analysis due to low annual secondary equipment classes. Chapter 5 VI3 shows this additional set of
shipments (less than 100 units per year). of the TSD discusses the development of corresponding TSL levels.
TABLE VI3TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH SECONDARY
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard levels for secondary equipment classes analyzed
SVO.RC.L ...... CDEC ............ 2.84 TDA + 6.85 2.5 TDA + 6.85 2.38 TDA + 6.85 2.35 TDA + 6.85 2.27 TDA + 6.85 2.27 TDA + 6.85
VOP.RC.I ....... CDEC ............ 3.6 TDA + 8.7 3.17 TDA + 8.7 3.03 TDA + 8.7 2.99 TDA + 8.7 2.89 TDA + 8.7 2.89 TDA + 8.7
SVO.RC.I ....... CDEC ............ 3.6 TDA + 8.7 3.17 TDA + 8.7 3.03 TDA + 8.7 2.99 TDA + 8.7 2.89 TDA + 8.7 2.89 TDA + 8.7
HZO.RC.I ....... CDEC ............ 0.87 TDA + 8.74 0.78 TDA + 8.74 0.73 TDA + 8.74 0.72 TDA + 8.74 0.72 TDA + 8.74 0.72 TDA + 8.74
VCT.RC.I ........ CDEC ............ 1.2 TDA + 3.05 1.14 TDA + 3.05 0.8 TDA + 3.05 0.67 TDA + 3.05 0.66 TDA + 3.05 0.66 TDA + 3.05
HCT.RC.M ...... CDEC ............ 0.39 TDA + 0.13 0.34 TDA + 0.13 0.19 TDA + 0.13 0.18 TDA + 0.13 0.16 TDA + 0.13 0.16 TDA + 0.13
TABLE VI3TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH SECONDARY
EQUIPMENT CLASSContinued
Trial standard levels for secondary equipment classes analyzed

HCT.RC.L ....... CDEC ............ 0.81 TDA + 0.26 0.71 TDA + 0.26 0.39 TDA + 0.26 0.37 TDA + 0.26 0.34 TDA + 0.26 0.34 TDA + 0.26
HCT.RC.I ........ CDEC ............ 0.95 TDA + 0.31 0.83 TDA + 0.31 0.46 TDA + 0.31 0.43 TDA + 0.31 0.4 TDA + 0.31 0.4 TDA + 0.31
VCS.RC.M ...... CDEC ............ 0.16 V + 0.26 0.14 V + 0.26 0.13 V + 0.26 0.11 V + 0.26 0.11 V + 0.26 0.11 V + 0.26
VCS.RC.L ....... CDEC ............ 0.33 V + 0.54 0.3 V + 0.54 0.26 V + 0.54 0.23 V + 0.54 0.23 V + 0.54 0.23 V + 0.54
VCS.RC.I ........ CDEC ............ 0.39 V + 0.63 0.35 V + 0.63 0.31 V + 0.63 0.27 V + 0.63 0.27 V + 0.63 0.27 V + 0.63
HCS.RC.M ..... CDEC ............ 0.16 V + 0.26 0.14 V + 0.26 0.13 V + 0.26 0.11 V + 0.26 0.11 V + 0.26 0.11 V + 0.26
HCS.RC.L ...... CDEC ............ 0.33 V + 0.54 0.3 V + 0.54 0.26 V + 0.54 0.23 V + 0.54 0.23 V + 0.54 0.23 V + 0.54
HCS.RC.I ....... CDEC ............ 0.39 V + 0.63 0.35 V + 0.63 0.31 V + 0.63 0.27 V + 0.63 0.27 V + 0.63 0.27 V + 0.63
SOC.RC.L ...... CDEC ............ 1.3 TDA + 0.22 1.23 TDA + 0.22 1.15 TDA + 0.22 1.08 TDA + 0.22 1.08 TDA + 0.22 0.84 TDA + 0.22
SOC.RC.I ....... CDEC ............ 1.52 TDA + 0.26 1.44 TDA + 0.26 1.34 TDA + 0.26 1.26 TDA + 0.26 1.26 TDA + 0.26 0.99 TDA + 0.26
VOP.SC.L ....... TDEC ............. 5.87 TDA + 11.82 5.25 TDA + 11.82 4.82 TDA + 11.82 4.37 TDA + 11.82 4.37 TDA + 11.82 4.14 TDA + 11.82
VOP.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 7.45 TDA + 15.02 6.67 TDA + 15.02 6.13 TDA + 15.02 5.55 TDA + 15.02 5.55 TDA + 15.02 5.26 TDA + 15.02
SVO.SC.L ....... TDEC ............. 5.59 TDA + 11.51 5.11 TDA + 11.51 4.76 TDA + 11.51 4.34 TDA + 11.51 4.34 TDA + 11.51 4.15 TDA + 11.51
SVO.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 7.11 TDA + 14.63 6.5 TDA + 14.63 6.05 TDA + 14.63 5.52 TDA + 14.63 5.52 TDA + 14.63 5.27 TDA + 14.63
HZO.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 3.35 TDA + 9 3.06 TDA + 9 2.8 TDA + 9 2.46 TDA + 9 2.44 TDA + 9 2.44 TDA + 9
SOC.SC.I ....... TDEC ............. 2.13 TDA + 0.36 2.02 TDA + 0.36 1.88 TDA + 0.36 1.76 TDA + 0.36 1.76 TDA + 0.36 1.38 TDA + 0.36
HCS.SC.I ........ TDEC ............. 0.55 V + 0.88 0.49 V + 0.88 0.43 V + 0.88 0.38 V + 0.88 0.38 V + 0.88 0.38 V + 0.88
1. Miscellaneous Equipment temperature and one compartment freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator
As stated in the August 2008 NOPR, operates at low temperature. Remote freezers), the MDEC for each model
certain types of equipment meet the condensing commercial refrigerator- shall be the sum of the MDEC values for
definition of commercial refrigeration freezers (with and without doors) and all of its compartments. For each
equipment (Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT self-contained commercial refrigerator- compartment, measure the TDA or
2005), but do not fall directly into any freezers without doors may operate in volume of that compartment, and
one of two ways. They may operate as determine the appropriate equipment
of the 38 equipment classes defined in
separate chilled and frozen class based on that compartments
the market and technology assessment.
compartments with evaporators fed by equipment family, condensing unit
One of these types is hybrid cases, in
two sets of refrigerant lines or two configuration, and designed operating
which two or more compartments are in
compressors. Alternatively, they may temperature. The MDEC limit for each
different equipment families and are
operate as separate chilled and frozen compartment shall be the calculated
contained in one cabinet. Another is
compartments fed by one set of low- value obtained by entering that
refrigerator-freezers, which have two
temperature refrigerant lines (with compartments TDA or volume into the
compartments in the same equipment
evaporator pressure regulator (EPR) standard equation for that
family but have different operating
valves or similar devices used to raise compartments equipment class.
temperatures. Hybrid refrigerator- the evaporator pressure) or one
freezers, where two or more Measure the calculated daily energy
compressor. consumption (CDEC) or total daily
compartments are in different An example of a hybrid refrigerator-
equipment families and have different energy consumption (TDEC) for the
freezer is a unit with one open entire case as follows:
operating temperatures, may also exist. compartment at medium temperature
Another is wedge cases, which form and one closed compartment at low For remote condensing
miter transitions (a corner section temperature. As with pure hybrid cases, commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid
between two refrigerated display these cases may be either self-contained freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers,
merchandisers) between standard or remote condensing, and may be and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers,
display case lineups. DOE is using cooled by one or more condensing units. where two or more independent
language that will allow manufacturers In the case of remote condensing condensing units each separately cool
to determine appropriate standard levels equipment, they may operate as separate only one compartment, measure the
for these types of equipment. chilled and frozen compartments with total refrigeration load of each
An example of a pure hybrid case evaporators fed by two sets of refrigerant compartment separately according to
(one with two or more compartments in lines or two compressors, or they may the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 722005
different equipment families and operate as separate chilled and frozen test procedure. Calculate compressor
operating at the same temperature) is a compartments fed by one set of low- energy consumption (CEC) for each
unit with one open and one closed temperature refrigerant lines (with EPR compartment using Table 1 in ARI
medium-temperature compartment, valves or similar devices used to raise Standard 12002006 using the saturated
such as those seen in coffee shops that the evaporator pressure of one evaporator temperature for that
sell baked goods and beverages. These compartment) or one compressor. compartment. The calculated daily
hybrid cases may be either self- In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE energy consumption (CDEC) for the
contained or remote condensing, and proposed using the following language entire case shall be the sum of the CEC
may be cooled by one or more for requiring manufacturers to meet for each compartment, fan energy
condensing units. They may also have standards for hybrid cases, refrigerator- consumption (FEC), lighting energy
one evaporator cooling both freezers, and hybrid refrigerator- consumption (LEC), anti-condensate
compartments or one evaporator feeding freezers: energy consumption (AEC), defrost
each compartment separately. For commercial refrigeration energy consumption (DEC), and
An example of a refrigerator-freezer is equipment with two or more condensate evaporator pan energy
a unit with doors where one compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators, consumption (PEC) (as measured in ARI
compartment operates at medium hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator- Standard 12002006).
For remote condensing total daily energy consumption (TDEC) in a transparent door), and (2) the
commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid for the entire case according to the largest overall width of the case when
freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 722005 test viewed from the front.
and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, procedure.
where two or more compartments are In response to the NOPR, Traulsen B. Significance of Energy Savings
cooled collectively by one condensing suggested that DOE address commercial To estimate the energy savings
unit, measure the total refrigeration load refrigerator-freezers by summing the
through 2042 due to new standards,
of the entire case according to the ANSI/ maximum daily energy consumption
DOE compared the energy consumption
ASHRAE Standard 722005 test values for all of its individual
of commercial refrigeration equipment
procedure. Calculate a weighted compartments. (Traulsen, No. 25 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with this suggestion and under the base case (no standards) to
saturated evaporator temperature for the energy consumption of this equipment
entire case by (i) multiplying the notes that it is in alignment with the
proposal in the August 2008 NOPR for under each TSL that DOE considered.
saturated evaporator temperature of Table VI4 shows DOEs NES estimates,
each compartment by the volume of that commercial refrigeration equipment
with two or more compartments. which it based on the AEO2008
compartment (as measured in ARI reference case, for each TSL. Chapter 11
Standard 12002006), (ii) summing the Therefore, DOE is adopting the language
above for hybrid cases, refrigerator- of the TSD describes these estimates in
resulting values for all compartments, more detail. DOE reports both
freezers, and hybrid refrigerator-freezers
and (iii) dividing the resulting total by undiscounted and discounted values of
in its final rule.
the total volume of all compartments. Additionally, DOE is adopting the energy savings. Discounted energy
Calculate the CEC for the entire case following language to address wedge savings represent a policy perspective
using Table 1 in ARI Standard 1200 cases: For remote condensing and self- where energy savings farther in the
2006, using the total refrigeration load contained wedge cases, measure the future are less significant than energy
and the weighted average saturated CDEC or TDEC according to the ANSI/ savings closer to the present. Each TSL
evaporator temperature. The CDEC for ARI 12002006 test procedure. The considered in this rulemaking resulted
the entire case shall be the sum of the MDEC for each model shall be the in significant energy savings, and the
CEC, FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, and PEC. amount derived by incorporating into amount of savings increased with higher
For self-contained commercial the standard equation for the energy conservation standards. Energy
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, appropriate equipment class a value for savings ranged from an estimated 0.168
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non- the TDA that is the product of: (1) The quads to 1.298 quads for TSLs 1 through
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, measure the vertical height of the air curtain (or glass 5 (undiscounted).
TABLE VI4SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
(ENERGY SAVINGS FOR UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042)
Primary national energy savings (quads)
(sum of all equipment classes)
Trial standard level
Undiscounted 3% Discounted 7% Discounted
1 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.168 0.088 0.041

2 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.645 0.339 0.159
3 ............................................................................................................................................. 1.013 0.532 0.250
4 ............................................................................................................................................. 1.035 0.544 0.256
5 ............................................................................................................................................. 1.298 0.683 0.321
C. Economic Justification considered in this rulemaking. DOEs design. The fifth output is the average
LCC and PBP analyses provided five key PBP for the customer purchasing a
1. Economic Impact on Commercial
Customers outputs for each TSL, reported in Table design that complies with the TSL
VI5 through Table VI19. The first compared with purchasing baseline
a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period three outputs are the proportion of equipment. The PBP is the number of
Commercial customers will be purchases of commercial refrigeration years it would take for the customer to
affected by the standards because they equipment where the purchase of a recover the increased costs of higher-
will experience higher purchase prices design that complies with the TSL efficiency equipment through energy
and lower operating costs. Generally, would create: (1) A net life-cycle cost, savings based on the operating cost
these impacts are best captured by (2) no impact, or (3) a net life-cycle savings from the first year of ownership.
changes in life-cycle costs and payback savings for the consumer. The fourth The PBP is an economic benefit-cost
period. Therefore, DOE calculated the output is the average net life-cycle measure that uses benefits and costs
LCC and PBP for the standard levels savings from purchasing a complying without discounting.
TABLE VI5SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 99

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) .................................................. 64 46 29 29 1
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) .................................................... 36 54 71 71 0
Mean LCC Savings ($) * .......................................................................... 1,344 1,308 1,788 1,788 (3,959)
TABLE VI5SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASSContinued
1 2 3 4 5
Mean Payback Period (years) ................................................................. 0.8 1.3 2.0 2.0 138.1
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative savings.
TABLE VI6SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.RC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 3,501 4,500 4,610 3,938 3,938
TABLE VI7SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 842 1,209 1,549 1,549 (451)
TABLE VI8SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCT.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 320 657 2,375 2,339 2,339
TABLE VI9SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCT.RC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 762 4,137 5,450 5,419 5,419
TABLE VI10SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCT.SC.I EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 2,941 4,893 5,234 5,217 5,217
TABLE VI11SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCS.SC.I EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 704 1,321 1,757 1,757 1,757
TABLE VI12SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SVO.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 907 896 1,274 1,274 (2,974)
TABLE VI13SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SVO.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 583 853 1,136 1,136 (355)
TABLE VI14SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SOC.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 405 851 945 945 (1,458)
TABLE VI15SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 419 887 1,063 1,040 1,040
TABLE VI16SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.RC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 668 1,047 1,102 1,102 1,102
TABLE VI17SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 344 615 861 826 826
TABLE VI18SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.SC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 670 1,215 1,784 1,761 1,761
TABLE VI19SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HCT.SC.I EQUIPMENT CLASS
1 2 3 4 5

Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................ 211 775 797 785 785
For five equipment classes b. Commercial Customer Sub-Group pass through a manufacturer-to-
(VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, Analysis distributor-to-contractor-to-customer
SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M), TSL 5 Using the LCC spreadsheet model, channel, and 85 percent were assumed
resulted in negative LCC savings DOE estimated the impact of the TSLs to be purchased through a
compared to the purchase of baseline on small businesses, a customer sub- manufacturer-to-distributor-to-customer
equipment. For all other equipment group. DOE estimated the LCC and PBP channel.
classes, TSL 5 showed positive LCC for small food sales businesses defined For self-contained equipment, 35
savings. For equipment classes with by the Small Business Administration percent of sales were assumed to pass
lighting, including LED lighting at TSL (SBA) by presuming that most small through a manufacturer-to-distributor-
5 had a significant impact on the business customers could be to-contractor-to-customer channel, and
calculated LCC savings. For equipment represented by the analysis performed 65 percent were assumed to be
classes without lighting (i.e., VCS.SC.I, for small grocery and convenience store purchased through a manufacturer-to-
HZO.RC.L, HZO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, and owners. DOE further assumed that the distributor-to-customer channel.
HCT.SC.I), the difference in LCC savings smaller, independent grocery and
convenience store chains may not have In both cases, the distribution chain
between TSL 3 and TSL 5 was small, markups were calculated with these
between $0 and $35 less at TSL 5 than access to national accounts, but would
instead purchase equipment primarily revised shipment weights. Table VI20
at TSL 3. For VCT.RC.L, VCT.RC.I, and shows the mean LCC savings from
through distributors and grocery
VCT.SC.I, the difference in LCC savings proposed energy conservation standards
wholesalers. DOE modified the
between TSL 3 and TSL 5 was small as distribution channels for remote for the small business sub-group, and
well (between $17 and $36 less savings condensing and self-contained Table VI21 shows the mean payback
at TSL 5 than at TSL 3). VOP.RC.L equipment to these small businesses as period (in years) for this sub-group.
showed a more significant reduction in follows: More detailed discussion on the LCC
LCC savings at TSL 5 compared to TSL For remote condensing equipment, sub-group analysis and results can be
3 at $672. 15 percent of the sales were assumed to found in chapter 12 of the TSD.
TABLE VI20MEAN LIFE-CYCLE COST SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY LCC
SUB-GROUP (SMALL BUSINESS) (2007$)*
Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
VOP.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 1,746 1,764 2,443 2,443 (3,463)

VOP.RC.L .......................................................................................................... 4,534 5,882 6,064 5,549 5,549
TABLE VI20MEAN LIFE-CYCLE COST SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY LCC
SUB-GROUP (SMALL BUSINESS) (2007$)*Continued
VOP.SC.M .......................................................................................................... 1,094 1,624 2,145 2,145 131

VCT.RC.M .......................................................................................................... 416 868 3,484 3,458 3,458
VCT.RC.L ........................................................................................................... 1,001 5,639 7,454 7,447 7,447
VCT.SC.I ............................................................................................................ 3,811 6,451 6,944 6,949 6,949
VCS.SC.I ............................................................................................................ 902 1,703 2,314 2,314 2,314
SVO.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 1,177 1,209 1,738 1,738 (2,637)
SVO.SC.M .......................................................................................................... 752 1,138 1,565 1,565 61
SOC.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 521 1,106 1,290 1,290 (948)
HZO.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 538 1,152 1,397 1,383 1,383
HZO.RC.L .......................................................................................................... 875 1,383 1,466 1,466 1,466
HZO.SC.M .......................................................................................................... 440 803 1,156 1,129 1,129
HZO.SC.L ........................................................................................................... 857 1,574 2,364 2,352 2,352
HCT.SC.I ............................................................................................................ 272 1,022 1,055 1,057 1,057
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative savings.
TABLE VI21MEAN PAYBACK PERIOD FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY LCC SUB-GROUP
(SMALL BUSINESS) (YEARS)
VOP.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 0.71 1.19 1.77 1.77 51.97

VOP.RC.L .......................................................................................................... 0.64 0.99 1.10 2.53 2.53
VOP.SC.M .......................................................................................................... 0.70 1.43 2.17 2.17 9.50
VCT.RC.M .......................................................................................................... 0.73 1.14 3.54 3.64 3.64
VCT.RC.L ........................................................................................................... 1.00 2.17 2.32 2.42 2.42
VCT.SC.I ............................................................................................................ 0.90 1.32 1.47 1.57 1.57
VCS.SC.I ............................................................................................................ 0.33 0.53 1.17 1.17 1.17
SVO.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 0.70 1.19 1.73 1.73 106.71
SVO.SC.M .......................................................................................................... 0.55 1.26 2.09 2.09 9.71
SOC.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 0.48 0.75 1.55 1.55 15.62
HZO.RC.M ......................................................................................................... 0.46 0.72 1.13 1.47 1.47
HZO.RC.L .......................................................................................................... 0.93 1.26 1.50 1.50 1.50
HZO.SC.M .......................................................................................................... 0.36 0.92 1.66 2.06 2.06
HZO.SC.L ........................................................................................................... 0.29 0.71 1.35 1.55 1.55
HCT.SC.I ............................................................................................................ 0.58 1.24 1.32 1.74 1.74
For commercial refrigeration 2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers The implicit assumption behind the
equipment, the LCC and PBP impacts DOE determined the economic second scenario is that the industry can
for small businesses are similar to those impacts of todays standard on only maintain its gross margin from the
of all customers as a whole. While the manufacturers, as described in the baseline (in absolute dollars) after the
discount rate for small grocery stores is proposed rule. 73 FR 5011821. For the standard. The industry would do so by
higher than the rate for commercial final rule, DOE analyzed manufacturer passing its increased production costs
refrigeration equipment customers as a impacts under two distinct markup on to customers without passing on its
whole and equipment prices are higher scenarios: (1) The preservation-of-gross- increased R&D and SG&A expenses so
due to the higher markups, these small margin-percentage markup scenario, the gross profit per unit is the same in
business customers appear to retain and (2) the preservation-of-gross-margin absolute dollars. DOE implemented this
commercial refrigeration equipment (absolute dollars) markup scenario. 73 markup scenario in the GRIM by setting
over longer periods. Also, smaller stores FR 50107. Under the first scenario, DOE the production cost markups at each
generally tend to pay higher electric applied a single uniform gross margin TSL to yield approximately the same
prices. The average LCC savings for the percentage markup that represents the gross margin in the standards cases in
small business sub-group is slightly current markup for manufacturers in the 2012 as they yielded in the base case.
higher than that calculated for the commercial refrigeration equipment Together, these two markup scenarios
average commercial refrigeration industry. This markup scenario implies
characterize the range of possible
equipment customer, and the average that as production costs increase with
conditions the commercial refrigeration
PBP is slightly shorter than the national efficiency, the absolute dollar markup
will also increase. DOE calculated that equipment market will experience as a
average. DOE concluded that the small result of new energy conservation
food sales businesses defined by SBA the non-production cost markup
which consists of selling, general, and standards. See chapter 13 of the TSD for
will not experience economic impacts additional details of the markup
significantly different from or more administrative (SG&A) expenses;

research and development (R&D) scenarios and analysis. DOE also
negative than those impacts on food examined both of these scenarios for
expenses; interest; and profitis 1.32.
sales businesses as a whole. this final rule.
This markup is consistent with the one
DOE used in its engineering and GRIM
analyses for the base case.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results one measure of the fair value of the expenses and capital investments that
industry in todays dollars. DOE the industry would incur at each TSL.
Using two different markup scenarios, calculated the INPV by summing all of Product conversion expenses include
73 FR 50107, 5011820, DOE estimated the net cash flows, discounted at the engineering, prototyping, testing, and
the impact of new standards for commercial refrigeration equipment marketing expenses incurred by a
commercial refrigeration equipment on industrys cost of capital or discount manufacturer as it prepares to comply
the INPV of the commercial refrigeration rate.
with a standard. Capital investments are
equipment industry. The impact Table VI22 and Table VI23 show the one-time outlays for tooling and
consists of the difference between INPV the changes in INPV that DOE estimates
plant changes required for the industry
in the base case and INPV in the would result from the TSLs DOE
to comply (i.e., conversion capital
standards case. INPV is the primary considered for this final rule. The tables
metric used in the MIA, and represents also present the equipment conversion expenditures).
TABLE VI22MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS, INCLUDING INPV ESTIMATES, FOR COMMERCIAL
REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO
[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario with a rollup shipment scenario]

Base
Units case 1 2 3 4 5
INPV ................................................................ 2007$ millions ............ 540 540 548 530 501 560
Change in INPV * ............................................ 2007$ millions ............ ................ 0 8 (11) (39) 20
(%) .............................. ................ 0.02 1.42 1.95 (7.29) 3.73
New Energy Conservation Standards Equip 2007$ millions ............ ................ 0.5 2.8 20.6 40.4 51.6
ment Conversion Expenses.
New Energy Conservation Standards Capital 2007$ millions ............ ................ 0.8 5.0 36.3 71.2 90.8
Investments.
Total Investment Required .............................. 2007$ millions ............ ................ 1.3 7.8 57.0 111.6 142.4
* Values in Table VI22 may not appear to sum due to rounding.
TABLE VI23MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS, INCLUDING INPV ESTIMATES, FOR COMMERCIAL
REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN (ABSOLUTE DOLLARS) MARKUP SCENARIO
[Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario with a rollup shipment scenario]

Base
Units case 1 2 3 4 5
INPV ................................................................ 2007$ millions ............ 540 533 502 442 392 200
Change in INPV * ............................................ 2007$ millions ............ ................ (7) (39) (99) (148) (340)
(%) .............................. ................ (1.27) (7.16) (18.26) (27.35) (63.01)
New Energy Conservation Standards Equip 2007$ millions ............ ................ 0.5 2.8 20.6 40.4 51.6
ment Conversion Expenses.
New Energy Conservation Standards Capital 2007$ millions ............ ................ 0.8 5.0 36.3 71.2 90.8
Investments.
Total Investment Required .............................. 2007$ millions ............ ................ 1.3 7.8 57.0 111.6 142.4
* Values in Table VI23 may not appear to sum due to rounding.
The August 2008 NOPR discusses the residential central air conditioners and general already tests its equipment
estimated impact of new commercial heat pumps and room air conditioners using this procedure to meet food safety
refrigeration equipment standards on as examples of other Federal regulations requirements.
INPV for each equipment class. 73 FR that could affect manufacturers of For this final rule, DOE also identified
5011820. See chapter 13 of the TSD for commercial refrigeration equipment. 73 the other DOE regulations commercial
details. FR 50120.
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden Following the August 2008 NOPR, are facing for other equipment. DOE
public comments made DOE aware that identified several regulations that go
DOEs assesses manufacturer burden commercial refrigeration equipment into effect 3 years before and after the
through the cumulative impact of manufacturers must test equipment
effective date of the new energy
multiple DOE standards and other using the NSF 7 test procedure in
conservation standards for commercial
regulatory actions that affect addition to the DOE test procedure. As
refrigeration equipment. DOE recognizes
manufacturers of the same covered mentioned previously, NSF 7 measures
equipment and other equipment product temperature for food safety that each regulation can significantly
affect manufacturers financial
produced by the same manufacturers or requirements, while the DOE test

their parent companies. 73 FR 50120. procedure measures energy operations. Multiple regulations
For the August 2008 NOPR, DOE listed consumption for energy conservation affecting the same manufacturer can
the EPA-mandated phaseout of HCFCs standards. Although NSF 7 is not a quickly reduce manufacturers profits
as refrigerants and blowing agents, and Federal regulation, the commercial and possibly cause an exit from the
energy conservation standards for refrigeration equipment industry in market.
DOE requested information about the costs of additional regulations when TSD for additional information
cumulative regulatory burden during these estimates were available from regarding the cumulative regulatory
manufacturer interviews. Manufacturers other DOE rulemakings. For example, burden analysis.
indicated that they had already begun two commercial refrigeration equipment
using other non-HCFC refrigerants and manufacturers (or their parent c. Impacts on Employment
blowing agents. Manufacturers did not companies) also manufacture PTACs As discussed in the August 2008
indicate that the DOE regulations on and PTHPs. DOE estimated that in the
NOPR, DOE expects that employment
residential central air conditioners and PTAC and PTHP industry,
by commercial refrigeration equipment
heat pumps or room air conditioners manufacturers may incur an estimated
were a great concern. DOE sought total conversion expense of $17.3 manufacturers would increase under all
comment on these and other potential million (2007$). However, DOE has of the TSLs considered for todays rule.
regulations affecting manufacturers for limited data on the importance of these However, this does not take into
the final rule. From its own research, other regulated products for account any relocation of domestic jobs
DOE learned that manufacturers of manufacturers of commercial to countries with lower labor costs that
commercial refrigeration equipment or refrigeration equipment. Differences in might be influenced by the level of
their parent companies could also be market shares and manufacturing investment required by new standards.
affected by rulemakings on PTACs and processes of other regulated products for 73 FR 5012021. Table VI24 shows the
PTHPs, room air conditioners, each manufacturer could cause varying direct employment impacts at each TSL.
residential furnaces, and walk-in degrees of burdens on these Further support for this conclusion is
freezers and coolers. DOE identified the manufacturers. See chapter 13 of the set forth in chapter 13 of the TSD.
TABLE VI24COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS IN 2012
Base
Trial standard level TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
case
Total Number of Domestic Production Employees in 2012 ................................ 2,199 2,205 2,291 2,371 2,396 2,978
Change in Total Number of Domestic Production Employees in 2012 Due to
Standards * ....................................................................................................... .............. 6 92 172 197 779
Total Number of Domestic Non-Production Employees in 2012 * ...................... 681 683 709 734 742 922
Total Number of Domestic Employees in 2012 * ................................................. 2,880 2,888 3,000 3,105 3,137 3,900
* Figures do not take into account any relocation of domestic jobs to countries with lower labor costs that might be influenced by the level of in
vestment required by new standards.
d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity emphasis or marketing strategies refrigeration equipment resulting from
According to the majority of between small and large manufacturers. the sum of the NPV calculated for each
commercial refrigeration equipment Therefore, DOE believes the GRIM of the 15 primary equipment classes
manufacturers, new energy conservation analysis, which models each equipment analyzed. Table VI25 assumes the
standards will not significantly affect class separately and aggregates the AEO2008 reference case forecast for
manufacturers production capacity. results to produce an industry-wide electricity prices. At a 7-percent
Any necessary redesign of commercial impact, is representative of the small discount rate, TSLs 14 show positive
refrigeration equipment will not change manufacturers that would be affected by cumulative NPVs. The highest NPV is
the fundamental assembly of the standards. The impacts on small provided by TSL 3 at $1.45 billion. TSL
equipment. However, manufacturers manufacturers are discussed further in 4 provided $1.41 billion, close to that of
anticipate some minor changes to section VII.B of this preamble (Review TSL 3. TSL 5 showed a negative NPV at
tooling. Thus, manufacturers will be Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act). $2.59 billion, the result of negative
able to maintain manufacturing capacity NPV observed in five equipment classes
3. National Net Present Value and Net
levels and continue to meet market (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M,
National Employment
demand under new energy conservation SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M).
standards. The NPV analysis estimates the At a 3-percent discount rate, the
cumulative benefits or costs to the picture is similar across the equipment
e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Nation that would result from particular classes. TSL 5 showed a negative NPV
Small Businesses standard levels. While the NES analysis at $3.79 billion, whereas the highest
As discussed in the August 2008 estimates the energy savings from each NPV was provided at TSL 3 (i.e., $3.97
NOPR, DOE expects todays standard to standard level DOE considers, relative billion). TSL 4 provided a near
have little or no differential impact on to the base case, the NPV analysis equivalent NPV at $3.93 billion. TSL 5
small manufacturers of commercial estimates the national economic impacts provided a NPV of $3.79 billion
refrigeration equipment. 73 FR at 50121, of each level relative to the base case. dollars. Five equipment classes
5013031. DOE found that small Table VI25 provides an overview of the (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M,
manufacturers generally have the same NPV results for each TSL considered for SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M) were
concerns as large manufacturers this final rule, using both a 7-percent determined to have negative NPVs at a
regarding energy conservation and a 3-percent real discount rate. 3-percent discount rate at TSL 5. See
standards. DOE also found no Table VI25 shows the estimated TSD chapter 11 for more detailed NPV
significant differences in the R&D cumulative NPV for commercial results.
TABLE VI25OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS

NPV (billion 2007$)
7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate
1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.33 0.83

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.98 2.60
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 1.45 3.97
4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 1.41 3.93
5 ............................................................................................................................................................... (2.59) (3.79)
DOE also estimated the national spending and economic activity to affect conservation standards to be positive
employment impacts that would result the demand for labor. As shown in but very small relative to total national
from each TSL. As discussed in the Table VI26, DOE estimates net indirect employment. These impacts might be
August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 5010708, employment impactsthose changes of offset by other, unanticipated effects on
5012223, DOE expects the net employment in the larger economy employment. For details on the
monetary savings from standards to be (other than in the manufacturing sector employment impact analysis methods
redirected to other forms of economic being regulated)from commercial and results, see TSD chapter 15.
activity. DOE also expects these shifts in refrigeration equipment energy
TABLE VI26NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT, THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN 2042

Net national change in jobs
2012 2022 2032 2042
1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 0 202 289 332

2 ............................................................................................................................................................... (6) 1,056 1,482 1,699
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... (15) 1,591 2,238 2,559
4 ............................................................................................................................................................... (18) 1,658 2,337 2,670
5 ............................................................................................................................................................... (40) 1,856 2,645 3,011
Maximum Job Impact .............................................................................................................................. (40) 1,856 2,645 3,011
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of refrigeration equipment manufacturers, system, particularly during peak-load
Equipment ASHRAE, ACEEE, and electric utilities. periods. As a measure of this reduced
As indicated in section V.B.4 of the DOJ noted further that all key demand, DOE expects the new
August 2008 NOPR, the new standards components are available for purchase standards covered under this
DOE is adopting today will not lessen by any manufacturer; therefore, no rulemaking to eliminate the need for the
the utility or performance of any manufacturer has a technological construction of approximately 121
commercial refrigeration equipment. 73 advantage in meeting the proposed megawatts to 2,989 megawatts of new
FR 50123. standards. Finally, DOJ noted that DOE power by 2042.
found no significant differences
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Enhanced energy efficiency also
between the concerns of large and small
Competition manufacturers, and DOJ found no produces environmental benefits. The
evidence that certain manufacturers expected energy savings from new
As discussed in the August 2008
NOPR, 73 FR 50079, 50123, and in would be placed at a competitive standards for the equipment covered by
section III.D.1.e of this preamble, DOE disadvantage to other manufacturers. this rulemaking will reduce the
considers any lessening of competition emissions of air pollutants and
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve greenhouse gases associated with
likely to result from standards. The
Energy electricity production. Table VI27
Attorney General determines the
impact, if any, of any lessening of When economically justified, an provides DOEs estimate of cumulative
competition. improvement in the energy efficiency of CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions
DOJ concluded that the commercial commercial refrigeration equipment is that would result from the TSLs
refrigeration equipment standards likely to improve the security of the considered in this rulemaking. The
contained in the proposed rule would Nation by reducing overall energy expected energy savings from new
not adversely affect competition. In demand, thus reducing the Nations standards for commercial refrigeration
reaching this conclusion, DOJ noted that reliance on foreign sources of energy. equipment may also reduce the cost of
the proposed standards took into Reduced demand is also likely to maintaining nationwide emissions
account comments from commercial improve the reliability of the electricity standards and constraints.
TABLE VI27SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT (CUMULATIVE
REDUCTIONS FOR EQUIPMENT SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042)
Trial standard levels
TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
CO2 (Mt *) ................. 8.5 ............................. 32.8 ........................... 50.7 ........................... 52.6 ........................... 66.0.
TABLE VI27SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT (CUMULATIVE
REDUCTIONS FOR EQUIPMENT SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042)Continued
Trial standard levels
NOX (kt **) ................. 0.59 to 14.58 ............. 2.27 to 56.04 ............. 3.51 to 86.77 ............. 3.64 to 89.97 ............. 4.56 to 112.84.
Hg (t ) ...................... 0 to 0.224 .................. 0 to 0.86 .................... 0 to 1.332 .................. 0 to 1.381 .................. 0 to 1.732.
* Mt = million metric tons.
** kt = thousand tons.
t = tons.
Negative values indicate emission increases. Detail may not appear to sum to total due to rounding.
The estimated cumulative CO2, NOX, allowance credits, if large enough. DOE for electricity generated, assuming that
and Hg emissions reductions for the notes that the estimated total reduction energy conservation standards would
new energy conservation standards in NOX emissions, including projected displace the generation of only the
range up to 66 Mt for CO2, 1.56 to emissions or corresponding allowance cleanest available fossil fuels. DOE used
112.84 kt for NOX, and 0 to 1.732 t for credits in States covered by the CAIR the emission rate, specified as 0.0341 t
Hg for commercial refrigeration cap, was insignificant and too small to of NOX emitted per TWh of electricity
equipment from 2012 to 2042. In the EA affect allowance prices for NOX under generated, associated with an advanced
(chapter 16 of the TSD), DOE reports CAIR. natural gas combined-cycle power plant,
estimated annual changes in CO2, NOX, Even though the DC Circuit vacated as specified by NEMSBT. To estimate
and Hg emissions attributable to each CAIR, DOE notes that the DC Circuit left the reduction in NOX emissions, DOE
TSL. As discussed in section IV.L of this intact EPAs 1998 NOX SIP Call rule, multiplied this emission rate by the
final rule, DOE does not report SO2 which capped seasonal (summer) NOX reduction in electricity generation due
emissions reduction from power plants emissions from electric generating units to the new energy conservation
because reductions from an energy and other sources in 23 jurisdictions, standards considered. DOEs high
conservation standard would not affect and gave those jurisdictions the option estimate of 0.843 t of NOX per TWh was
the overall level of SO2 emissions in the to participate in a cap and trade based on a nationwide NOX emission
United States due to emissions caps for program. 63 FR 57356, 57359 (Oct. 27, rate for all electrical generation. Use of
SO2. 1998).23 The SIP Call rule may provide such an emission rate assumes that
The NEMSBT modeling assumed a similar, although less extensive, future power plants displaced are no
that NOX would be subject to CAIR, regional cap and may limit actual cleaner than the plants that are being
issued by the U.S. Environmental reduction in NOX emissions from used currently to generate electricity.
Protection Agency on March 10, 2005.21 revised standards occurring in states Under the high estimate assumption,
70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). On July 11, participating in the SIP Call rule. energy conservation standards also
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the However, the possibility that the SIP would have little to no effect on the
District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) Call rule may have the same effect as generation mix. Based on AEO2008 for
issued its decision in North Carolina v. CAIR is highly uncertain. Therefore, 2006, when no regulatory or non-
Environmental Protection Agency,22 in DOE established a range of NOX regulatory measures were in effect to
which the court vacated the CAIR. 531 reductions due to the standards being limit NOX emissions, DOE multiplied
F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). If left in place, established in todays final rule. DOEs this emission rate by the reduction in
CAIR would have permanently capped low estimate was based on the emission electricity generation due to the
emissions of NOX in 28 eastern States rate of the cleanest new natural gas standards considered. Table VI27
and the District of Columbia. As with combined-cycle power plant available shows the range in NOX emission
the SO2 emissions cap, a cap on NOX changes calculated using the low and
emissions would have meant that 23 In the NO SIP Call rule, EPA found that
X
high estimate scenarios by TSL. NOX
energy conservation standards are not sources in the District of Columbia and 22
upwind states were emitting NOX (an ozone emission reductions range from 0.59 to
likely to have a physical effect on NOX precursor) at levels that significantly contributed to 112.84 kt for the TSLs considered.
emissions in states covered by the CAIR downwind states not attaining the ozone NAAQS These changes in NOX emissions are
caps. While the caps would have meant or at levels that interfered with states in attainment
extremely small, ranging from 0.001 to
that physical emissions reductions in maintaining the ozone NAAQS. To ensure that
downwind states attain or continue to attain the 0.168 percent of the national base case
those States would not have resulted ozone NAAQS, EPA established a region-wide cap emissions forecast by NEMSBT,
from the energy conservation standards for NOX emissions from certain large combustion depending on the TSL.
that DOE is establishing today, the sources and set a NOX emissions budget for each
standards might have produced an State. Unlike the cap that CAIR would have As noted in section IV.L, DOE is able
established, the NOX SIP Call Rules cap only to report an estimate of the physical
environmental-related economic impact constrains seasonal (summertime) emissions. To
in the form of lower prices for emissions comply with the NOX SIP Call Rule, states could
quantity changes in Hg emissions
elect to participate in the NOX Budget Trading associated with an energy conservation
21 On December 23, 2008, the DC Circuit decided Program. Under this program, each emission source standard. Rather than using the NEMS
to allow CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced is required to have one allowance for each ton of BT model, DOE established a range of
by a rule consistent with the courts earlier opinion. NOX emitted during the ozone season. States have
North Carolina v. EPA, No. 051244, 2008 WL flexibility in how they allocate allowances through
Hg rates to estimate the Hg emissions
5335481 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). Neither the July their State Implementation Plans, but states must that could be reduced through
11, 2008, nor the December 23, 2008, decisions of remain within the EPA-established budget. standards. DOEs low estimate assumed
the DC Circuit change the standard-setting Emission sources are allowed to buy, sell, and bank that future standards would displace
conclusions reached in this rule. See http:// NOX allowances as appropriate. On April 16, 2008,
www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule. EPA determined that Georgia is no longer subject
electrical generation from natural gas-
22 Case No. 051244, 2008 WL 2698180 at *1 (DC to the NOX SIP Call rule. 73 FR 21528 (April 22, fired power plants, resulting in an
Cir. July 11, 2008). 2008). effective emission rate of zero. The low-
end emission rate is zero because Environmental Protection Agency 25 to benefits likely to result from CO2
natural gas-fired power plants have vacate CAMR. In light of this emission reductions. However, it is
virtually zero Hg emissions associated development and because the NEMS appropriate to use U.S. benefit values,
with their operation. BT model could not be used to directly where available, and not world benefit
DOEs high estimate was based on a calculate Hg emission reductions, DOE values, in its analysis.27 Because U.S.-
nationwide mercury emission rate from used the current Hg emission rates specific estimates are unavailable, and
AEO2008. Because power plant discussed above to calculate the DOE did not receive any additional
emission rates are a function of local emissions reductions in Table VI27. information that would help narrow the
In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed range of domestic benefits,
regulation, scrubbers, and the mercury
considered accounting for a monetary DOE used the global mean value as an
content of coal, it is extremely difficult
benefit of CO2 emission reductions upper bound U.S. value for purposes of
to identify a precise high-end emission
associated with this rulemaking. To put the sensitivity analysis.
rate. Therefore, DOE believes the most DOE received several comments in
reasonable estimate is based on the the potential monetary benefits from
reduced CO2 emissions into a form that response to the proposed estimated
assumption that all displaced coal value of CO2 emissions reductions. In a
generation would have been emitting at is likely to be most useful to decision-
makers and interested parties, DOE used comment submitted by Earthjustice on
the average emission rate for coal behalf of itself and NRDC, Earthjustice
the same methods it used to calculate
generation as specified by AEO2008. As questioned both the upper and lower
the net present value of consumer cost
noted previously, because virtually all bounds of DOEs range of estimated CO2
savings. DOE converted the estimated
mercury emitted from electricity values, which it argued were too low.
year-by-year reductions in CO2
generation is from coal-fired power (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 7) Earthjustice
emissions into monetary values, which
plants, DOE based the emission rate on also stated that it would be
were then discounted over the life of the
the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of inappropriate to limit the consideration
affected equipment to the present using
coal-generated electricity. Based on the to the value of CO2 to a domestic value.
both 3-percent and 7-percent discount
emission rate for 2006, DOE derived a (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 13)
rates.
high-end emission rate of 0.0255 tons Earthjustice suggested that DOE
In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE
per TWh. To estimate the reduction in consider relying on the estimate used in
proposed to use the range $0 to $14 per
mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the DOEs analysis of the impacts of the
ton. These estimates were based on an
emission rate by the reduction in coal- Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act
assumption of no benefit to an average
generated electricity due to the of 2007 (S. 2191).28 (Earthjustice, No. 38
benefit value reported by the
standards considered in the utility at p. 2) AHRI stated that DOE should not
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
impact analysis. The estimated changes rely on the IPCC study or values under
Change (IPCC).26 DOE derived the IPCC
in Hg emissions are shown in Table VI the European Union cap and trade
estimate used as the upper bound value
27 for commercial refrigeration program, because such a program has
from an estimate of the mean value of
equipment from 2012 to 2042. Hg not yet been established in the United
worldwide impacts due to climate
emission reductions range from 0 to States. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6)
change, and not just the effects likely to
1.732 tons for the TSLs considered. Given the uncertainty surrounding
occur within the United States. As DOE
These changes in Hg emissions are estimates of the social cost of carbon,
considers a monetary value for CO2
extremely small, ranging from 0 to 0.003 relying on any single estimate may be
emission reductions, the value should,
percent of the national base case inadvisable because any estimate will
if possible, be restricted to a
emissions forecast by NEMSBT, depend on many assumptions. Working
representation of those costs and
depending on the TSL. Group IIs contribution to the Fourth
benefits likely to be experienced in the Assessment Report of the IPCC notes the
The NEMSBT model used for todays United States. DOE explained in the
rulemaking could not estimate Hg following:
August 2008 NOPR that it expects such The large ranges of SCC are due in the
emission reductions due to new energy values would be lower than comparable
conservation standards, as it assumed large part to differences in assumptions
global values; however, there currently regarding climate sensitivity, response
that Hg emissions would be subject to are no consensus estimates for the U.S.
EPAs Clean Air Mercury Rule 24 lags, the treatment of risk and equity,
economic and non-economic impacts,
(CAMR). CAMR would have 25 No. 051097, 2008 WL 341338, at * (DC Cir.
the inclusion of potentially catastrophic
permanently capped emissions of Feb. 9, 2008).
26 During the preparation of its most recent losses, and discount rates.29
mercury for new and existing coal-fired
review of the state of climate science, the IPCC Because of this uncertainty, DOE used
plants in all states by 2010. As with SO2 identified various estimates of the present value of the SCC value from Tol (2005), which
and NOX, DOE assumed that under such reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton over the life that was presented in the IPCCs Fourth
a system, energy conservation standards these emissions would remain in the atmosphere.
would have resulted in no physical The estimates reviewed by the IPCC spanned a
27 In contrast, most of the estimated costs and
range of values. Absent a consensus on any single
effect on these emissions, but might estimate of the monetary value of CO2 emissions, benefits of increasing the efficiency of commercial
have resulted in an environmental- DOE used the estimates identified by the study refrigeration equipment include only economic
related economic benefit in the form of cited in Summary for Policymakers, prepared by values of impacts that would be experienced in the
Working Group II of the IPCCs Fourth Assessment United States. DOE generally does not consider
a lower price for emissions allowance impacts on manufacturers that occur solely outside
Report, to estimate the potential monetary value of
credits, if large enough. DOE estimated CO2 reductions likely to result from standards of the United States.
that the change in the Hg emissions finalized in this rulemaking. According to IPCC, the 28 According to Earthjustices analysis of the
from energy conservation standards mean social cost of carbon (SCC) reported in studies Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007,
would not be large enough to influence published in peer-reviewed journals was $43 per implementation of this legislation would lead to a
ton of carbon. This translates into about $12 per ton CO2 allowance price of $30 per ton in 2020, rising
allowance prices under CAMR. of CO2. The literature review (Tol 2005) from which to $61 per ton in 2030.
On February 8, 2008, the DC Circuit this mean was derived did not report the year in 29 Climate Change 2007Impacts, Adaptation
issued its decision in New Jersey v. which these dollars were denominated. However, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group
DOE understands this estimate was denominated in II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 17.
1995$. Updating that estimate to 2007$ yields a Available at http://www.ipcc-wg2.org (last accessed
24 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). SCC of $15 per ton of CO2. Aug. 7, 2008).
Assessment Report and provided a on the values presented in Tol (2005), expressed in 2007 U.S. dollars with a
comprehensive meta-analysis of as proposed. DOE does note that DOE 2.4 percent growth rate.]
estimates for the value of SCC. mistakenly assumed that the values Earthjustice also questioned using $0
Earthjustice commented that this value presented in Tol (2005) were in 2000 as the lower bound of DOEs estimated
was out of date, because Tol released an dollars. In actuality, the values in Tol range. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 10) In
update of his 2005 meta-analysis in (2005) were indicated to be
setting a lower bound, DOE agrees with
September 2007. This update reported approximately 1995 values in 1995
the IPCC Working Group II (2007) report
an increase in his mean estimate of SCC dollars. Had DOE at the NOPR stage
from $43 to $71/ton carbon. Earthjustice applied the correct dollar year of the that significant warming across the
stated that DOE should not continue to values presented in Tol (2005), DOE globe and the locations of significant
use old data and should update its would have proposed the range of $0 to observed changes in many systems
sources. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 9) $15 in the August 2008 NOPR. consistent with warming is very
Although the Tol study was updated Additionally, DOE has applied an unlikely to be due solely to natural
in 2007, the IPCC has not adopted the annual growth rate of 2.4 percent to the variability of temperatures or natural
updated Tol study for its report. As a value of SCC, as suggested by the IPCC variability of the systems (p. 9), and
result, DOE continues to rely on the Working Group II (2007, p. 822). This thus tentatively concludes that a global
same study used by the IPCC. Moreover, growth rate is based on estimated value of zero for reducing emissions
DOE notes that the conclusions of Tol increases in damage from future cannot be justified. However, it is
(2007) are similar to the conclusions of emissions that published studies have reasonable to allow for the possibility
Tol (2005). Tol (2007) continues to reported. As a result, for todays final that the U.S. portion of the global cost
indicate that there is no consensus rule, DOE is assigning a range for SCC of CO2 emissions may be quite low. In
regarding the monetary value of of $0 to $20 ($2007) per ton of CO2 fact, some of the studies examined by
reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton. The emissions. Tol (2005) reported negative values for
broad range of values in both Tol Earthjustice questioned the use of the the SCC. As stated in the August 2008
studies are the result of significant mean estimated social cost of CO2 as an NOPR, DOE is using U.S. benefit values,
differences in the methodologies used in upper bound of the range. (Earthjustice, and not world benefit values, in its
the studies Tol summarized. According No. 38 at p. 9) However, the upper analysis. Further, U.S. domestic values
to Tol, all of the studies have bound of the range DOE used is based will be lower than the global values.
shortcomings, largely because the on Tol (2005), which reviewed 103 Additionally, the statutory criteria in
subject is inherently complex and estimates of SCC from 28 published
EPCA do not require consideration of
uncertain and requires broad studies. Tol concluded that when only
global effects. Therefore, DOE is using a
multidisciplinary knowledge. Thus, it is peer-reviewed studies published in
lower bound of $0 per ton of CO2
not certain that the values reported in recognized journals are considered,
climate change impacts may be very emissions in estimating the potential
Tol (2007) are more accurate or
uncertain but [it] is unlikely that the benefits of todays final rule.
representative than the values reported
in Tol (2005). marginal damage costs of carbon Table VI28 presents the resulting
In todays final rule, DOE is relying on dioxide emissions exceed $50 per ton estimates of the potential range of net
the range of values proposed in the carbon [comparable to a 2007 value of present value benefits associated with
August 2008 NOPR, which was based $20 per ton carbon dioxide when reducing CO2 emissions.
TABLE VI28 ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION
EQUIPMENT TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A SEVEN-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE AND THREE-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE
Estimated Value of estimated Value of estimated

cumulative CO2 emission re- CO2 emission re-
TSL CO2 (Mt) ductions (million ductions (million
emission 2007$) at 7% dis 2007$) at 3% dis
reductions count rate count rate
1 ........................................................................................................................................ 8.52 $0 to $76.01 .......... $0 to $154.73.

2 ........................................................................................................................................ 32.76 $0 to $292.26 ........ $0 to $594.94.
3 ........................................................................................................................................ 50.71 $0 to $452.49 ........ $0 to $921.1.
4 ........................................................................................................................................ 52.59 $0 to $469.19 ........ $0 to $955.1.
5 ........................................................................................................................................ 65.95 $0 to $588.44 ........ $0 to $1,197.85.
DOE also investigated the potential downward pressure on the prices of Because the courts have vacated the
monetary impact from todays energy emissions allowances in cap and trade CAIR rule, projected annual NOX
conservation standards of reducing SO2, markets. Estimating this effect is very allowances from NEMSBT are no
NOX, and Hg emissions. As previously difficult because of factors such as longer relevant. In DOEs subsequent
stated, DOEs initial analysis assumed credit banking, which can change the analysis, NOX emissions are not
the presence of nationwide emission trajectory of prices. DOE has further controlled by a nationwide regulatory
caps on SO2 and Hg, and caps on NOX concluded that the effect from energy system. DOE estimated the national
emissions in the 28 states covered by conservation standards on SO2 monetized benefits of NOX and Hg
CAIR. In the presence of these caps, allowance prices is likely to be emissions reductions from todays rule
DOE concluded that no physical negligible, based on runs of the NEMS based on environmental damage
reductions in power sector emissions BT model. See chapter 16 estimates from the literature. Available
would occur, but that the lower (Environmental Assessment) of the TSD estimates suggest a very wide range of
generation requirements associated with monetary values for NOX emissions,
for further details.
energy conservation standards could put ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per
ton of NOX from stationary sources, exposure to methyl mercury on IQ for $664,000 per ton emitted in 2004$ or
measured in 2001$,30 or a range of $432 American children, and subsequent loss $729,000 per ton in 2007$, which DOE
per ton to $4,441 per ton in 2007$. of lifetime economic productivity derived from a published evaluation of
DOE has conducted research for resulting from these IQ losses. The high- mercury control using different methods
todays final rule and determined that end estimate is based on an estimate of and assumptions from the first study,
the basic science linking mercury the current aggregate cost of the loss of but also based on the present value of
emissions from power plants to impacts IQ in American children that results the lifetime earnings of children
on humans is considered highly from exposure to mercury of U.S. power exposed.32 Table VI29 and Table VI30
uncertain. However, DOE identified two plant origin ($1.3 billion per year in present the resulting estimates of the
estimates of the environmental damage year 2000$), which works out to $32.6 potential range of present value benefits
of mercury based on two estimates of million per ton emitted per year associated with reducing national NOX
the adverse impact of childhood (2007$).31 The low-end estimate was and Hg emissions.
TABLE VI29ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM REDUCING NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION
EQUIPMENT TSLS AT A SEVEN-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE
Estimated cumu Value of estimated Estimated cumu Value of estimated
lative NOX (kt) NOX emission lative Hg (tons) Hg emission
TSL emission reductions emission reductions
reductions* (thousand 2007$) reductions * (thousand 2007$)
1 ......................................................................................... 0.59 to 14.58 ......... $64 to $1,578 ........ 0 to 0.224 .............. $0 to $46.
2 ......................................................................................... 2.27 to 56.04 ......... $245 to $6,067 ...... 0 to 0.86 ................ $0 to $177.
3 ......................................................................................... 3.51 to 86.77 ......... $380 to $9,394 ...... 0 to 1.332 .............. $0 to $274.
4 ......................................................................................... 3.64 to 89.97 ......... $394 to $9,741 ...... 0 to 1.381 .............. $0 to $284.
5 ......................................................................................... 4.56 to 112.84 ....... $494 to $12,216 .... 0 to 1.732 .............. $0 to $356.
* Values in Table VI29 may not appear to sum to the cumulative values in Table VI27 due to rounding.
TABLE VI30ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM REDUCING NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION
EQUIPMENT TSLS AT A THREE-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE
Estimated cumu Value of estimated Estimated cumu Value of estimated
lative NOX (kt) NOX emission lative Hg (tons) Hg emission
TSL emission reductions emission reductions
reductions* (thousand 2007$) reductions * (thousand 2007$)
1 ......................................................................................... 0.59 to 14.58 ......... $135 to $3,329 ...... 0 to 0.224 .............. $0 to 91.
2 ......................................................................................... 2.27 to 56.04 ......... $518 to $12,799 .... 0 to 0.86 ................ $0 to $349.
3 ......................................................................................... 3.51 to 86.77 ......... $802 to 19,815 ...... 0 to 1.332 .............. $0 to $540.
4 ......................................................................................... 3.64 to 89.97 ......... $831 to $20,547 .... 0 to 1.381 .............. $0 to $560.
5 ......................................................................................... 4.56 to 112.84 ....... $1,042 to $25,769 0 to 1.732 .............. $0 to $702.
* Values in Table VI30 may not appear to sum to the cumulative values in Table VI27 due to rounding.
7. Other Factors D. Conclusion each of these seven factors in total.

EPCA contains criteria for prescribing Further, the Secretary may not establish
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, a new or amended standard if such
in determining whether a standard is new or amended energy conservation
standards. It provides that any such standard would not result in
economically justified, to consider any significant conservation of energy. (42
standard for commercial refrigeration
other factors that the Secretary deems to U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C.
equipment must be designed to achieve
be relevant. (42 U.S.C. the maximum improvement in energy 6316(e)(1))
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(e)(1)) efficiency that the Secretary determines
Under this provision, DOE considered In selecting todays energy
is technologically feasible and conservation standards for commercial
LCC impacts on identifiable groups of economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
customers, such as customers of refrigeration equipment, DOE started by
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) examining the maximum
different business types who may be As stated above, the Secretary must
disproportionately affected by any technologically feasible levels to
determine whether the benefits of the
national energy conservation standard determine whether those levels were
standards exceed its burdens
level. DOE also considered the economically justified. Upon finding the
considering the seven factors discussed
reduction in generated capacity that maximum technologically feasible
in section II.A. (42 U.S.C.
could result from the imposition of any 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. levels not to be justified, DOE analyzed
national energy conservation standard 6316(e)(1)) A determination is not made the next lower TSL. DOE followed this
level. based on any one of these factors in procedure until it identified a TSL that
isolation. The Secretary must weigh is economically justified.
30 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and 31 Trasande, L., et al., Applying Cost Analyses to AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies,
Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Drive Policy that Protects Children, 1076 Ann. Washington, DC, 2004. A version of this paper was
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Office N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006). published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics
of Management and Budget Office of Information
32 Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, Designing in 2006. The estimate was derived by back-
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC. Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation calculating the annual benefits per ton from the net
of Mercury Emissions, Regulatory Analysis 0501. present value of benefits reported in the study.
Table VI31 summarizes DOEs of results for each TSL, and will aid the results for the different markup
quantitative analysis results for each reader in understanding the costs and scenarios that DOE used to estimate
TSL it considered for this final rule. benefits of each one. The range of values manufacturer impacts.
This table presents the results or a range for industry impacts represents the
TABLE VI31SUMMARY OF RESULTS BASED UPON THE AEO2008 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY PRICE FORECAST *
Primary Energy Saved (quads) ........................................... 0.168 0.645 1.013 1.035 1.298
7% Discount Rate ......................................................... 0.041 0.159 0.250 0.256 0.321
3% Discount Rate ......................................................... 0.088 0.339 0.532 0.544 0.683
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** .............................. (0.121) (0.465) (0.720) (0.747) (0.936)
NPV (2007$ billion)
7% Discount Rate ......................................................... $0.33 $0.98 $1.45 $1.414 $(2.59)
3% Discount Rate ......................................................... $0.83 $2.60 $3.97 $3.930 $(3.79)
Industry Impacts
Industry NPV (2007$ million) ........................................ 0(7) 8(39) (11)(99) (39)(148) 20(340)
Industry NPV (% change) ............................................. 0(1) 1(7) (2)(18) (7)(27) 4(63)
Cumulative Emissions Impacts
CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................ 8.52 32.76 50.71 52.59 65.95
NOX (kt) ........................................................................ 0.5914.58 2.2756.04 3.5186.77 3.6489.97 4.56112.84
Hg (t) ............................................................................. 00.224 00.86 01.332 01.381 01.732
Employment Impacts
Indirect Employment Impacts (2042) ............................ 332 1,699 2,559 2,670 3,011
Direct, Domestic Employment Impacts (2012) ......... 6 92 172 197 779
Life-Cycle Cost
Net Savings (%) ............................................................ 1845 3665 6189 7092 092
Net Increase (%) ........................................................... 00 00 00 00 099
No Change (%) ............................................................. 5582 3564 1139 830 119
Mean LCC Savings (2007$) ......................................... 2113501 6154893 7975450 7855419 (3959)5419
Mean PBP (years) ........................................................ 0.31.1 0.62.4 1.23.8 1.33.9 1.3196.8
* Parentheses indicate negative () values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** Change in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO2008 Reference Case.
CO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as
2 X
well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps.
Change in total number of domestic production employees in 2012 due to standards.
First, DOE considered TSL 5, the most classes analyzed, while they will expressed a concern that they would be
efficient level for all equipment classes. experience an increase in LCC for five unable to fully recover the additional
TSL 5 would likely save an estimated equipment classes (VOP.RC.M, cost incurred when only manufacturing
1.298 quads of energy through 2042, an VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SOC.RC.M). the most efficient equipment possible. If
amount DOE considers significant. These equipment classes are the five manufacturers are not able to fully pass
Discounted at 7 percent, the projected that DOE showed had negative NPV. along these large incremental
energy savings through 2042 would be Mean LCC savings for all 15 equipment production costs, the industry could
0.321 quads. For the Nation as a whole, classes vary from $3,959 to $5,419. At lose up to 63 percent of the INPV.
DOE projects that TSL 5 would result in TSL 5, DOE estimates the fraction of Although TSL 5 is the most efficient
a net decrease of $2.59 billion in NPV, customers experiencing LCC increases level and thus saves the most energy of
using a discount rate of 7 percent. Five will vary between 0 and 99 percent all TSLs, four of the 15 equipment
equipment classes (VOP.RC.M, depending on equipment class. The classes show a reduction in LCC
VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and mean payback period for the average compared to the baseline. The energy
SOC.RC.M) show negative NPV at TSL commercial refrigeration equipment savings at TSL 5 would reduce installed
5, primarily due the use of LED lighting customer at TSL 5 compared to the generating capacity by 0.94 GW, or
for these cases.33 The emissions baseline level is projected to be between roughly 2.5 large, 400-MW power
reductions at TSL 5 are 65.95 Mt of CO2 1.3 and 196.8 years, depending on plants. DOE estimates the associated
and up to 112.84 kt of NOX. DOE also equipment class. emissions reductions at 66 Mt of CO2.
estimates that under TSL 5, total DOE concludes that at TSL 5, the
generating capacity in 2042 will At TSL 5, there is the risk of very benefits of energy savings, generating
decrease compared to the base case by large negative impacts on the industry if capacity reductions, and emission
0.936 gigawatts (GW). manufacturers profit margins are reductions would be outweighed by the
At TSL 5, DOE projects that the reduced. The investments required to economic burdens on customers as
average commercial refrigeration modify all equipment lines at the max- indicated by the net decrease in NPV,
equipment customer will experience a tech levels are large. At this level, long payback periods of up to 197 years,
reduction in LCC compared to the manufacturers have to make costly and a drop in INPV of up to 63 percent.
baseline for 10 of the 15 equipment changes to their production lines. In Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL
addition, the incremental cost of adding 5 is not economically justified.

33 LED lighting for open cases was updated from LED lights at TSL 5 are extremely large. DOE then considered TSL 4, which
the August 2008 NOPR to reflect LED lighting Because customers put a much higher provides for all equipment classes the
fixtures currently available for, and specific to,
open cases. DOE also increased the amount of LED
priority on marketing and displaying maximum efficiency levels that the
lighting assumed for open cases. See section V.A.2.a their goods than they do on energy analysis showed to have positive NPV to
and appendix B of the TSD. efficiency, most manufacturers the Nation. DOE projects that the
average commercial refrigeration warrants agency action such as todays analysis of the feasible policy
equipment customer will experience a final rule, and to assess the significance alternatives to this regulation, (3) a
reduction in LCC compared to the of that problem in evaluating whether quantitative comparison of the impacts
baseline for all 15 equipment classes any new regulation is warranted. of the alternatives, and (4) the national
analyzed, ranging from $785 to $5,419 In the August 2008 NOPR for this economic impacts of todays standards.
depending on equipment class. The rulemaking, DOE requested feedback As explained in the August 2008
mean payback period for the average related to the possible existence of a NOPR, none of the alternatives DOE
commercial refrigeration equipment market failure in the commercial examined would save as much energy or
customer at TSL 4 is projected to be refrigeration equipment industry. have an NPV as high as the proposed
between 1.3 and 3.9 years compared to Because the commercial refrigeration standards. That same conclusion applies
the purchase of baseline equipment. equipment industry is part of the food to the standards in todays rule. Also,
TSL 4 would likely save an estimated merchandising industry, energy several of the alternatives would require
1.035 quads of energy through 2042, an efficiency and energy cost savings are new enabling legislation, because
amount DOE considers significant. not the primary drivers of the business. authority to carry out those alternatives
Discounted at 7 percent, the projected Selling food products to shoppers is the does not exist. Additional detail on the
energy savings through 2042 would be primary driver. It is difficult for store regulatory alternatives is found in the
0.256 quads. For the Nation as a whole, personnel to identify cost-effective RIA report in the TSD.
DOE projects that TSL 4 would result in efficiency levels for commercial
B. Review Under the Regulatory
a net increase of $1.41 billion in NPV, refrigeration equipment given reasons
Flexibility Act
using a discount rate of 7 percent. The identified in the NOPR, and doing so
estimated emissions reductions at TSL 4 may incur transaction costs, thus The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
are 42.6 Mt of CO2 and up to 90 kt of reducing cost-effectiveness of the energy U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
NOX. efficiency investment. 73 FR 50128. of an initial regulatory flexibility
Similar to TSL 5, there is a risk at TSL DOE sought data on the efficiency levels analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
4 of large negative impacts on the of existing commercial refrigeration must be proposed for public comment,
industry if manufacturers profit equipment by owner, electricity price, and a final regulatory flexibility analysis
margins are reduced. The investments and equipment class. Following the (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
required at TSL 4 are also large because, publication of the August 2008 NOPR adopts as a final rule, unless the agency
based on the construction of the TSL, and subsequent public comment period, certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
many equipment classes are at the max- DOE did not receive any feedback will not have a significant economic
tech level. Because a large portion of the related to this request. impact on a substantial number of small
Because todays regulatory action is a entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis
equipment classes are at max-tech, the
significant regulatory action under examines the impact of the rule on
incremental manufacturing costs are
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, small entities and considers alternative
also large. If manufacturers are not able
section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order ways of reducing negative impacts.
to fully pass along these large
requires DOE to prepare and submit for Also, as required by Executive Order
incremental production costs, the
review to the Office of Information and 13272, Proper Consideration of Small
industry could lose up to 27 percent of
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB an Entities in Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR
the INPV.
assessment of the costs and benefits of 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
After carefully considering the
todays rule. Accordingly, DOE published procedures and policies on
analysis and weighing the benefits and
presented to OIRA for review the draft February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that
final rule and other documents prepared potential impacts of its rules on small
the benefits of TSL 4 (in terms of energy
for this rulemaking, including a entities are properly considered during
savings to the Nation of 1.035 quads
regulatory impact analysis (RIA). These the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990.
through 2042, economic benefits of
documents are included in the DOE has made its procedures and
$1.41 billion in NPV using a discount
rulemaking record and are available for policies available on the Office of
rate of 7 percent, significant
public review in the Resource Room of General Counsels Web site: http://
environmental benefits in terms of
DOEs Building Technologies Program, www.gc.doe.gov.
reduced emissions from power plants, Small businesses, as defined by the
950 LEnfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,
and national employment benefits) Small Business Administration (SBA)
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 5869127,
outweigh the burdens in terms of the for the commercial refrigeration
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
range of possible reductions in INPV of equipment manufacturing industry, are
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
up to 27 percent, and that TSL 4 The August 2008 NOPR contained a manufacturing enterprises with 750
represents the maximum improvement summary of the RIA, which evaluated employees or fewer. DOE used the small
in energy efficiency that is the extent to which major alternatives to business size standards published by
technologically feasible and standards for commercial refrigeration SBA to determine whether any small
economically justified. Therefore, DOE equipment could achieve significant entities would be required to comply
is adopting the energy conservation energy savings at reasonable cost, as with the rule. 61 FR 3286 and codified
standards for this equipment at TSL 4. compared to the effectiveness of the at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory proposed rule. 73 FR 5012829. The are listed by North American Industry
Review complete RIA (Regulatory Impact Classification System (NAICS) code and
Analysis for Proposed Energy industry description. Commercial
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 Conservation Standards for Commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturing
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order Refrigeration Equipment) is contained is classified under NAICS 333415.
12866, Regulatory Planning and in the TSD prepared for todays rule. DOE interviewed two of the nine
Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), The RIA consists of: (1) A statement of manufacturers of commercial
requires each agency to identify in the problem addressed by this refrigeration equipment it identified as
writing the market failure or other regulation and the mandate for small businesses affected by this
problem that it intends to address that government action, (2) a description and rulemaking. 73 FR 50130. DOE reviewed
the proposed rule under the provisions 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the conservation standards. DOE expects
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Rule that small manufacturers will have more
procedures and policies published on EPCA requires new and amended difficulty funding the required research
February 19, 2003. Id. On the basis of standards to be designed to achieve the and development necessary to meet
this review, DOE determined that it maximum improvement in energy energy conservation standards than
could not certify that the proposed larger manufacturers. However, as
efficiency that is technologically
standards (TSL 4) would have no explained in part 6 of the IRFA,
feasible and economically justified (see
significant economic impact on a Significant Alternatives to the
section II.B of this preamble). To
substantial number of small entities. Id. Proposed Rule, DOE explicitly
determine whether economic
DOE made this determination because considered the impacts on small
justification exists, DOE reviews
of the potential impacts of the proposed manufacturers of commercial
comments received and conducts
standard levels on commercial refrigeration equipment in selecting TSL
analysis to determine whether the
refrigeration equipment manufacturers 4, rather than selecting a higher
economic benefits of the new standard
generally, including small businesses. standard level. DOE expects that the
exceed the burdens to the greatest extent
Id. differential impact on small
Because of these potential impacts on practicable, taking into consideration manufacturers of commercial
small manufacturers, DOE prepared an seven factors set forth in 42 U.S.C. refrigeration equipment would be
IRFA during the NOPR stage of this 6295(o)(2)(B) and 6316(e)(1) (see section smaller in moving from TSL 3 to TSL 4
rulemaking. DOE provided the IRFA in II.B of this preamble). Further than it would be in moving from TSL 4
its entirety in the August 2008 NOPR, information concerning the background to TSL 5.
73 FR 5013031, and also transmitted a of this rulemaking is provided in
copy to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy chapter 1 of the TSD. 5. Significant Issues Raised by Public
of the SBA for review. Chapter 13 of the Comments
3. Description and Estimated Number of
TSD contains more information about Small Entities Regulated DOE summarized comments from
the impact of this rulemaking on interested parties, including commercial
manufacturers. DOE reviewed AHRIs listing of refrigeration equipment manufacturers,
The IRFA divided potential impacts commercial refrigeration equipment in sections IV and V of this preamble.
on small businesses into two broad manufacturer members and surveyed However, DOE did not receive any
categories: (1) Impacts associated with the industry to develop a list of every comments regarding impacts specific to
commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturer. DOE also asked interested small business manufacturers for the
design and manufacturing, and (2) parties and AHRI representatives within adoption of TSL 4 or the alternatives
impacts associated with the effect on the industry if they were aware of any identified in section 6 of the IRFA,
customers ability to merchandise other small business manufacturers. Significant Alternatives to the Rule.
products by limiting the flexibility in DOE then looked at publicly available
data and contacted manufacturers, when 6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize
choosing design options. The
needed, to determine if they meet the the Economic Impact on Small
commercial refrigeration industry is
SBAs definition of a small business Manufacturers
highly customized, and manufacturers
were concerned that limiting the manufacturing facility and if their In consideration of the benefits and
choices in design options would manufacturing facilities are located burdens of standards, including the
commoditize the industry and reduce within the United States. Based on this burdens posed on small manufacturers,
profit margins. However, this concern analysis, DOE identified nine small DOE concluded that TSL 4 is the highest
was echoed by all manufacturers, not commercial refrigeration equipment level that can be justified for
just small business manufacturers. manufacturers and conducted on-site commercial refrigeration equipment. As
DOE has prepared a FRFA for this interviews with two of them. See explained in part 6 of the IRFA,
rulemaking, which is presented in the chapter 13 of the TSD for further Significant Alternatives to the Rule,
following discussion. DOE has discussion about the methodology DOE DOE explicitly considered the impacts
transmitted a copy of this FRFA to the used in the manufacturer impact on small manufacturers of commercial
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA analysis. refrigeration equipment in selecting TSL
for review. The FRFA below is written 4. Levels at TSL 5 would place
4. Description and Estimate of
in accordance with the requirements of excessive burdens on manufacturers,
Compliance Requirements
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. including small manufacturers, of
Potential impacts on manufacturers, commercial refrigeration equipment.
1. Reasons for the Final Rule including small businesses, come from Such burdens would include research
Part A1 of Title III of EPCA impacts associated with commercial and development costs and also a
addresses the energy efficiency of refrigeration equipment design and potential reduction of profit margins by
certain types of commercial and manufacturing. All manufacturers, limiting the flexibility of customers to
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311 including small businesses, would have choose design options. However, the
6317) EPACT 2005, Public Law 10958, to develop designs to comply with differential impact on small businesses
included an amendment to Part A1 higher TSLs. Product redesign costs is expected to be lower in moving from
requiring that DOE prescribe energy tend to be fixed and do not scale with TSL 3 to TSL 4 than in moving from
conservation standards for the sales volume. Thus, small TSL 4 to TSL 5, because research and
commercial refrigeration equipment that manufacturers would be at a relative development efforts are less at lower
is the subject of this rulemaking. disadvantage at higher TSLs because TSLs. Chapter 13 of the TSD contains
(EPACT 2005, Section 136(c); 42 U.S.C. research and development efforts would additional information about the impact
6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE publishes todays be on the same scale as those for larger of this rulemaking on manufacturers.
final rule pursuant to Part A1. The companies. Furthermore, the level of Section VI.C.2 discusses how small
commercial refrigeration equipment test research and development needed to business impacts entered into DOEs
procedures appear at 10 CFR parts 430 meet energy conservation standards selection of todays standards for
431. increases with more stringent energy commercial refrigeration equipment.
DOE made its decision regarding intergovernmental consultation process (UMRA), which imposes requirements
standards by beginning with the highest it will follow in the development of on Federal agencies when their
level considered (TSL 5) and regulations that have federalism regulatory actions will have certain
successively eliminating TSLs until it implications, 65 FR 13735 (March 14, types of impacts on State, local, and
found a TSL that is both technically 2000), DOE examined the proposed rule Tribal governments and the private
feasible and economically justified, and determined that the rule would not sector. 73 FR 50132. DOE concluded
taking into account other EPCA criteria. have a substantial direct effect on the that although this rule would not
As discussed in section VI.C.2.e, DOE States, on the relationship between the contain an intergovernmental mandate,
expects todays standard to have little or National Government and the States, or it may result in expenditure of $100
no differential impact on small on the distribution of power and million or more in one year by the
manufacturers of commercial responsibilities among the various private sector. Id. Therefore, in the
refrigeration equipment. levels of Government. 73 FR 50132. August 2008 NOPR, DOE addressed the
Finally, in the NOPR, DOE requested DOE received no comments on this UMRA requirements that it prepare a
comment on the impacts on small issue in response to the August 2008 statement as to the basis, costs, benefits,
business manufacturers of TSL 4 and NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue and economic impacts of the proposed
any other alternatives to the proposed are the same for the final rule as they rule, and that it identify and consider
rule. DOE received no comments in were for the proposed rule. Therefore, regulatory alternatives to the proposed
reference to any undue burden placed DOE is taking no further action in rule. Id. DOE received no comments
on small manufacturers. todays final rule with respect to concerning the UMRA in response to
Executive Order 13132. the August 2008 NOPR, and its
C. Review Under the Paperwork
conclusions on this issue are the same
Reduction Act F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
for the final rule as they were for the
DOE stated in the August 2008 NOPR With respect to the review of existing proposed rule. Therefore, DOE is taking
that this rulemaking would impose no regulations and the promulgation of no further action in todays final rule
new information and recordkeeping new regulations, section 3(a) of with respect to the UMRA.
requirements, and that OMB clearance Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
is not required under the Paperwork Reform, 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), H. Review Under the Treasury and
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). imposes on Federal agencies the general General Government Appropriations
73 FR 5013132. DOE received no duty to adhere to the following Act, 1999
comments on this in response to the requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting DOE determined that, for this
August 2008 NOPR, and, as with the errors and ambiguity, (2) write rulemaking, it need not prepare a
proposed rule, todays rule imposes no regulations to minimize litigation, and Family Policymaking Assessment under
information and recordkeeping (3) provide a clear legal standard for Section 654 of the Treasury and General
requirements. Therefore, DOE has taken affected conduct rather than a general Government Appropriations Act, 1999
no further action in this rulemaking standard and promote simplification (Pub. L. 105277). Id. DOE received no
with respect to the Paperwork and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of comments concerning Section 654 in
Reduction Act. Executive Order 12988 specifically response to the August 2008 NOPR, and,
requires that executive agencies make therefore, takes no further action in
D. Review Under the National every reasonable effort to ensure that the todays final rule with respect to this
Environmental Policy Act regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the provision.
DOE prepared an environmental preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
assessment of the impacts of todays specifies any effect on existing Federal I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
standards which it published as chapter law or regulation; (3) provides a clear DOE determined under Executive
16 within the TSD for the final rule. legal standard for affected conduct Order 12630, Governmental Actions
DOE found the environmental effects while promoting simplification and and Interference with Constitutionally
associated with todays various standard burden reduction; (4) specifies the Protected Property Rights, 53 FR 8859
levels for commercial refrigeration retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately (March 18, 1988), that todays rule
equipment to be insignificant. defines key terms; and (6) addresses would not result in any takings that
Therefore, DOE is issuing a Finding of other important issues affecting clarity might require compensation under the
No Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant and general draftsmanship under any Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
to the National Environmental Policy guidelines issued by the Attorney Constitution. 73 FR 50132. DOE
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order received no comments concerning
seq.), the regulations of the Council on 12988 requires executive agencies to Executive Order 12630 in response to
Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts review regulations in light of applicable the August 2008 NOPR, and, therefore,
15001508), and DOEs regulations for standards in section 3(a) and section takes no further action in todays final
compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 3(b) to determine whether they are met rule with respect to this Executive
1021). The FONSI is available in the or it is unreasonable to meet one or Order.
docket for this rulemaking. more of them. DOE has completed the
J. Review Under the Treasury and
required review and determined that, to
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 General Government Appropriations
the extent permitted by law, the final
DOE reviewed this rule pursuant to Act, 2001
regulations meet the relevant standards
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, of Executive Order 12988. Section 515 of the Treasury and
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), which General Government Appropriations
G. Review Under the Unfunded
imposes certain requirements on Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
agencies formulating and implementing Mandates Reform Act of 1995 for agencies to review most
policies or regulations that preempt As indicated in the August 2008 disseminations of information to the
State law or that have federalism NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule public under guidelines established by
implications. In accordance with DOEs under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates each agency pursuant to general
statement of policy describing the Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 1044) guidelines issued by OMB. OMBs
guidelines were published at 67 FR 5 U.S.C. 804(2). DOE also will submit commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOEs the supporting analyses to the refrigerator-freezer that has two or more
guidelines were published at 67 FR Comptroller General in the U.S. chilled and/or frozen compartments that
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has Government Accountability Office are:
reviewed todays final rule under the (GAO) and make them available to each (1) In two or more different
OMB and DOE guidelines and has House of Congress. equipment families,
concluded that it is consistent with (2) Contained in one cabinet, and
VIII. Approval of the Office of the (3) Sold as a single unit.
applicable policies in those guidelines.
Secretary
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 * * * * *
The Secretary of Energy has approved Door angle means:
Executive Order 13211, Actions publication of todays final rule. (1) For equipment with flat doors, the
Concerning Regulations That Issued in Washington, DC, on December angle between a vertical line and the
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 31, 2008. line formed by the plane of the door,
Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May John F. Mizroch, when the equipment is viewed in cross-
22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency section; and
prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement and Renewable Energy. (2) For equipment with curved doors,
of Energy Effects for any significant the angle formed between a vertical line
energy action. DOE determined that the List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
and the straight line drawn by
proposed rule was not a significant Administrative practice and connecting the top and bottom points
energy action within the meaning of procedure, Confidential business where the display area glass joins the
Executive Order 13211. 73 FR 50133. information, Energy conservation, cabinet, when the equipment is viewed
Accordingly, it did not prepare a Incorporation by reference. in cross-section.
Statement of Energy Effects on the For the reasons set forth in the * * * * *
proposed rule. DOE received no preamble, chapter II of title 10, Code of Horizontal Closed means equipment
comments on this issue in response to Federal Regulations, part 431 is with hinged or sliding doors and a door
the August 2008 NOPR. As with the amended as set forth below. angle greater than or equal to 45.
proposed rule, DOE has concluded that
todays final rule is not a significant PART 431ENERGY EFFICIENCY * * * * *
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN Horizontal Open means equipment
energy action within the meaning of
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL without doors and an air-curtain angle
Executive Order 13211, and has not
EQUIPMENT greater than or equal to 80 from the
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
vertical.
on the rule. 1. The authority citation for part 431 * * * * *
L. Review Under the Information continues to read as follows: Semivertical Open means equipment
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review Authority: 42 U.S.C. 62916317. without doors and an air-curtain angle
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in greater than or equal to 10 and less
2. Section 431.62 of subpart C is
consultation with the Office of Science than 80 from the vertical.
amended by adding in alphabetical
and Technology, issued its Final order new definitions for air-curtain * * * * *
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer angle, commercial hybrid refrigerator, Vertical Closed means equipment
Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 freezer, and refrigerator-freezer, door with hinged or sliding doors and a door
(January 14, 2005). The purpose of the angle, horizontal closed, horizontal angle less than 45.
Bulletin is to enhance the quality and open, semivertical open, vertical Vertical Open means equipment
credibility of the Governments closed, vertical open, and wedge without doors and an air-curtain angle
scientific information. The Bulletin case to read as follows: greater than or equal to 0 and less than
establishes that certain scientific 10 from the vertical.
information shall be peer reviewed by 431.62 Definitions concerning Wedge case means a commercial
qualified specialists before it is commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
disseminated by the Federal refrigerator-freezers. freezer that forms the transition between
Government. As indicated in the August Air-curtain angle means: two regularly shaped display cases.
2008 NOPR, this includes influential (1) For equipment without doors and 3. Section 431.63 of subpart C is
scientific information related to agency without a discharge air grille or revised to read as follows:
regulatory actions, such as the analyses discharge air honeycomb, the angle
in this rulemaking. 73 FR 50133. between a vertical line extended down 431.63 Materials incorporated by
As set forth in the August 2008 NOPR, from the highest point on the reference.
DOE held formal in-progress peer manufacturers recommended load limit (a) General. We incorporate by
reviews of the types of analyses and line and the load limit line itself, when reference the following standards into
processes that DOE has used to develop the equipment is viewed in cross- Subpart C of Part 431. The material
the energy efficiency standards in section; and listed has been approved for
todays rule, and issued a report on (2) For all other equipment without incorporation by reference by the
these peer reviews. Id. doors, the angle formed between a Director of the Federal Register in
vertical line and the straight line drawn accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
M. Congressional Notification by connecting the point at the inside CFR 51. Any subsequent amendment to
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will edge of the discharge air opening with a standard by the standard-setting
the point at the inside edge of the return
submit to Congress a report regarding organization will not affect the DOE
the issuance of todays final rule prior air opening, when the equipment is regulations unless and until amended
to the effective date set forth at the viewed in cross-section. by DOE. Material is incorporated as it
outset of this notice. The report will * * * * * exists on the date of the approval and
state that it has been determined that Commercial hybrid refrigerator, a notice of any change in the material
the rule is a major rule as defined by freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means a will be published in the Federal
Register. All approved material is (1) ANSI /AHAM HRF12004, (3) The term TDA means the total
available for inspection at the National Energy, Performance and Capacity of display area (ft2) of the case, as defined
Archives and Records Administration Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator- in the ARI Standard 12002006,
(NARA). For information on the Freezers and Freezers, approved July 7, appendix D (incorporated by reference,
availability of this material at NARA, 2004, IBR approved for 431.64. see 431.63).
call 2027416030 or go to http:// (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
www.archives.gov/federal_register/ (c) ARI. Air-Conditioning and
code_of_federal_regulations/ Refrigeration Institute, 4100 N. Fairfax (d) Each commercial refrigerator,
ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is Dr., Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203, or freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a
available for inspection at U.S. http://www.ari.org/std/standards.html: self-contained condensing unit and
Department of Energy, Office of Energy (1) ARI Standard 12002006, without doors; commercial refrigerator,
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Performance Rating of Commercial freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a
Building Technologies Program, 6th Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and remote condensing unit; and
Floor, 950 LEnfant Plaza, SW., Storage Cabinets, 2006, IBR approved commercial ice-cream freezer
Washington, DC 20024, 2025862945, for 431.64 and 431.66. manufactured on or after January 1,
or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ (2) [Reserved] 2012, shall have a daily energy
buildings/appliance_standards/. 4. Section 431.66 of subpart C is consumption (in kilowatt hours per day)
Standards can be obtained from the amended by adding new paragraphs that does not exceed the levels
sources listed below. (a)(3) and (d) to read as follows: specified:
(b) ANSI. American National
Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 431.66 Energy conservation standards (1) For equipment other than hybrid
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, 212 and their effective dates. equipment, refrigerator-freezers or
6424900, or go to http://www.ansi.org: (a) * * * wedge cases:
Condensing Equipment Maximum daily en

Rating Operating
Equipment category unit Equipment family class des ergy consumption
temp. (F) temp. (F)
configuration ignation * (kWh/day)
Remote Condensing Com- Remote (RC) Vertical Open (VOP) ........... 38 (M) 32 VOP.RC.M ... 0.82 TDA + 4.07
mercial Refrigerators and 0 (L) <32 VOP.RC.L .... 2.27 TDA + 6.85
Commercial Freezers.
Semivertical Open (SVO) .... 38 (M) 32 SVO.RC.M ... 0.83 TDA + 3.18
0 (L) <32 SVO.RC.L .... 2.27 TDA + 6.85
Horizontal Open (HZO) ....... 38 (M) 32 HZO.RC.M ... 0.35 TDA + 2.88
0 (L) <32 HZO.RC.L .... 0.57 TDA + 6.88
Vertical Closed Transparent 38 (M) 32 VCT.RC.M .... 0.22 TDA + 1.95
(VCT). 0 (L) <32 VCT.RC.L ..... 0.56 TDA + 2.61
Horizontal Closed Trans 38 (M) 32 HCT.RC.M ... 0.16 TDA + 0.13
parent (HCT). 0 (L) <32 HCT.RC.L .... 0.34 TDA + 0.26
Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) 38 (M) 32 VCS.RC.M ... 0.11 V + 0.26
0 (L) <32 VCS.RC.L .... 0.23 V + 0.54
Horizontal Closed Solid 38 (M) 32 HCS.RC.M ... 0.11 V + 0.26
(HCS). 0 (L) <32 HCS.RC.L .... 0.23 V + 0.54
Service Over Counter 38 (M) 32 SOC.RC.M ... 0.51 TDA + 0.11
(SOC). 0 (L) <32 SOC.RC.L .... 1.08 TDA + 0.22
Self-Contained Commercial Self-Con- Vertical Open (VOP) ........... 38 (M) 32 VOP.SC.M ... 1.74 TDA + 4.71
Refrigerators and Com tained (SC). 0 (L) <32 VOP.SC.L .... 4.37 TDA + 11.82
mercial Freezers without
Doors.
Semivertical Open (SVO) .... 38 (M) 32 SVO.SC.M ... 1.73 TDA + 4.59
0 (L) <32 SVO.SC.L .... 4.34 TDA + 11.51
Horizontal Open .................. 38 (M) 32 HZO.SC.M ... 0.77 TDA + 5.55
0 (L) <32 HZO.SC.L .... 1.92 TDA + 7.08
Commercial Ice-Cream Remote (RC) Vertical Open (VOP) ........... 15 (I) 5 ** VOP.RC.I ..... 2.89 TDA + 8.7
Freezers.
Semivertical Open (SVO) .... SVO.RC.I ..... 2.89 TDA + 8.7
Horizontal Open (HZO) ....... HZO.RC.I ..... 0.72 TDA + 8.74
Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.RC.I ...... 0.66 TDA + 3.05
(VCT).
Horizontal Closed Trans HCT.RC.I ..... 0.4 TDA + 0.31
parent (HCT).
Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) VCS.RC.I ..... 0.27 V + 0.63
Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.RC.I ..... 0.27 V + 0.63
(HCS).
Service Over Counter SOC.RC.I ..... 1.26 TDA + 0.26
(SVO).
Self-Con Vertical Open (VOP) ........... VOP.SC.I ..... 5.55 TDA + 15.02
tained (SC).
Semivertical Open (SVO) .... SVO.SC.I ..... 5.52 TDA + 14.63

Horizontal Open (HZO) ....... HZO.SC.I ..... 2.44 TDA + 9
Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.SC.I ...... 0.67 TDA + 3.29
(VCT).
Horizontal Closed Trans HCT.SC.I ...... 0.56 TDA + 0.43
parent (HCT).
Condensing Equipment Maximum daily en

Rating Operating
Equipment category unit Equipment family class des ergy consumption
temp. (F) temp. (F)
configuration ignation * (kWh/day)
Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) VCS.SC.I ...... 0.38 V + 0.88

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.SC.I ..... 0.38 V + 0.88
(HCS).
Service Over Counter SOC.SC.I ..... 1.76 TDA + 0.36
(SVO).
* The
meaning of the letters in this column is indicated in the three columns to the left.
freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or below 5 F (21 C) and that the
** Ice-cream
manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.
(2) For commercial refrigeration where two or more compartments are Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
equipment with two or more cooled collectively by one condensing Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania
compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators, unit, measure the total refrigeration load Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530
0001, (202) 5142401/(202) 6162645(f,
hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator- of the entire case according to the ARI
antitrust@justice.usdoj.gov, http://
freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator- Standard 12002006 test procedure www.usdoj.gov.
freezers), the maximum daily energy (incorporated by reference, see October 24, 2008.
consumption (MDEC) for each model 431.63). Calculate a weighted
Warren Belmar, Esq., Deputy General
shall be the sum of the MDEC values for saturated evaporator temperature for the Counsel for Energy Policy, Department of
all of its compartments. For each entire case by: Energy, Washington, DC 20585.
compartment, measure the TDA or (A) Multiplying the saturated Dear Deputy General Counsel Belmar: I am
volume of that compartment, and evaporator temperature of each responding to your August 12, 2008 letter
determine the appropriate equipment compartment by the volume of that seeking the views of the Attorney General
class based on that compartments compartment (as measured in ARI about the potential impact on competition of
equipment family, condensing unit Standard 12002006), the proposed energy efficiency standards for
configuration, and designed operating (B) Summing the resulting values for commercial refrigeration equipment. The
temperature. The MDEC limit for each Energy Policy and Conservation Act
all compartments, and
compartment shall be the calculated (EPCA) authorizes the Department of
(C) Dividing the resulting total by the Energy (DOE) to establish energy
value obtained by entering that total volume of all compartments. conservation standards for a number of
compartments TDA or volume into the Calculate the CEC for the entire case appliances where DOE determines that those
standard equation in paragraph (d)(1) of using Table 1 in ARI Standard 1200 standards would be technologically feasible,
this section for that compartments 2006 (incorporated by reference, see economically justified, and result in
equipment class. Measure the calculated 431.63), using the total refrigeration significant energy savings.
daily energy consumption (CDEC) or Your request was submitted pursuant to
load and the weighted average saturated Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy
total daily energy consumption (TDEC) evaporator temperature. The CDEC for
for the entire case: and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6295
the entire case shall be the sum of the (EPCA), which states that, before the
(i) For remote condensing commercial CEC, FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, and PEC. Secretary of Energy may prescribe a new or
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, (iii) For self-contained commercial amended energy conservation standard, the
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non- hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, Secretary shall ask the Attorney General to
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non- make a determination of the impact of any
or more independent condensing units hybrid refrigerator-freezers, measure the lessening of competition * * * that is likely
each separately cool only one to result from the imposition of standard.
TDEC for the entire case according to
compartment, measure the total The Attorney Generals responsibility for
the ARI Standard 12002006 test responding to requests from other
refrigeration load of each compartment procedure (incorporated by reference, departments about the effect of a program on
separately according to the ARI see 431.63). competition has been delegated to the
Standard 12002006 test procedure (3) For remote-condensing and self- Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
(incorporated by reference, see contained wedge cases, measure the Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). In conducting
431.63). Calculate compressor energy CDEC or TDEC according to the ARI its analysis the Antitrust Division examines
consumption (CEC) for each Standard 12002006 test procedure whether a proposed standard may lessen
compartment using Table 1 in ARI competition, for example, by placing certain
(incorporated by reference, see
Standard 12002006 using the saturated manufacturers of a product at an unjustified
431.63). The MDEC for each model competitive disadvantage compared to other
evaporator temperature for that shall be the amount derived by
compartment. The CDEC for the entire manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable
incorporating into the standards inefficiencies in production or distribution of
case shall be the sum of the CEC for equation in paragraph (d)(1) of this particular products. In addition to harming
each compartment, fan energy section for the appropriate equipment consumers directly through higher prices,
consumption (FEC), lighting energy class a value for the TDA that is the these effects could undercut the ultimate
consumption (LEC), anti-condensate product of: goals of the legislation.
energy consumption (AEC), defrost (i) The vertical height of the air- Along with your request, you sent us the
energy consumption (DEC), and curtain (or glass in a transparent door)
draft final rule and a number of other
condensate evaporator pan energy documents relating to commercial
and (ii) The largest overall width of the refrigeration equipment, including a hearing
consumption (PEC) (as measured in ARI
case, when viewed from the front. transcript and the names of parties
Standard 12002006).
interviewed by DOEs consultant.
(ii) For remote condensing Appendix
We have concluded that the proposed
commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid [The following letter from the Department standards would not adversely affect
freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, of Justice will not appear in the Code of competition. In reaching this conclusion, we
and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, Federal Regulations.] note that the proposed standards were
developed taking into account comments by a technological advantage in meeting the In conclusion, the Antitrust Division does
commercial refrigeration equipment proposed standards. Finally, DOE found no not believe the proposed final rule would
manufacturers, the American Society of significant differences between the concerns adversely affect competition.
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning of large and small manufacturers, and we Yours sincerely,
Engineers, the American Council for an found no evidence that certain manufacturers Deborah A. Garza,
Energy Efficient Economy and electric would be placed at a competitive Acting Assistant Attorney General.
utilities. We note further that all key disadvantage to other manufacturers.
components are available for purchase by any [FR Doc. E831449 Filed 1809; 8:45 am]
manufacturer; therefore no manufacturer has BILLING CODE 645001P

Final Rules Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final Rules Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Friday,

[Docket Number EERE2006BTSTD Office of Energy Efficiency and

RIN 1904AB59 appliance_standards/commercial/ Analyses

refrigeration_equipment.html. F. Shipments Analysis

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy Table of Contents Equipment

freezers, and commercial refrigerator- C. Impact on Manufacturers Equipment

of energy, and are technologically B. Technological Feasibility Customers

DATES: The effective date of this rule is Levels

March 10, 2009. c. Energy Savings Small Businesses

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 3. National Net Present Value and Net

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to Equipment National Employment

Room no longer houses rulemaking

TABLE I1STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

B. Benefits to Customers of Commercial

TABLE I2IMPLICATIONS OF NEW STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMERS

1 Currently, no mandatory Federal energy

conservation standards exist for the commercial

TABLE I2IMPLICATIONS OF NEW STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMERSContinued

purchasing a product complying with B. Background focused on DOEs assumptions,

(ARI) and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers

TABLE III1MAX-TECH ENERGY USE LEVELS

D. Economic Justification commercial refrigeration equipment that

TABLE IV1EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION DEFINITIONS

TABLE IV2COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CLASSES BY CATEGORY

Remote Condensing Commercial Remote ............................................ Vertical Open ................................... 32 VOP.RC.M

B. Engineering Analysis 1. Approach energy consumption for the commercial

analysis methodology. In response to 2. Analytical Models engineering options is flawed, because

TABLE IV4RATING TEMPERATURE DESIGNATIONS

32 (M) ................................................................................................. 38 Medium temperature (refrigerators).

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Mechanical con National account

Distributor(s) Markup ....................................................................... 1.370 2.082 1.185 1.564

Mechanical con National account

Overall Markup ................................................................................ 1.465 2.226 1.267 1.672

Mechanical National account

Distributor(s) Markup ....................................................................... 1.370 2.082 1.185 1.347

Mechanical con National account

Distributor(s) Markup ....................................................................... 1.114 1.370 1.057 1.186

Mechanical con National account

Distributor(s) Markup ....................................................................... 1.114 1.370 1.057 1.112

13 RS Means Company, Inc., 2006. Means

Costworks 2006: Facility Maintenance & Repair

customer sub-group using the LCC production costs in the engineering

rulemakings by stating that they are so national caps on SO2 emissions as

emissions rates (in kt of NOX emitted On the contrary, ASAP emphasized

rulemaking. As a result, all the adequate assumption for case lighting

Trial standard levels for equipment analyzed expressed in

Trial standard levels for secondary equipment classes analyzed

1 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.168 0.088 0.041

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 99

Trial standard level

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 69

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 99

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 69

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 92

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0