1

 

[6450-01-P]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE–2008–BT–STD–0012] 

RIN: 1904–AB79

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial 

equipment, including residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. EPCA 

also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more stringent, 

amended standards for these products are technologically feasible and economically 

justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this NOPR, DOE proposes 

amended energy conservation standards for residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. The NOPR also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these 

proposed standards and associated analyses and results. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
2

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 14, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 

4 p.m., in Washington, DC. DOE must receive requests to speak at the public meeting 

before 4 p.m., Thursday, September 30, 2010. Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the 

public meeting via webinar. To participate via webinar, DOE must be notified by no 

later than Thursday, October 7, 2010. Participants seeking to present statements in 

person during the meeting must submit to DOE a signed original and an electronic copy 

of statements to be given at the public meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, October 7, 2010. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than 

Friday, November 26, 2010. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 

20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Please note that 

foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening 

procedures, requiring a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign national wishing to 

participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 to initiate the necessary procedures.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation 

Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, and provide docket 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
3

number EE-2008–BT–STD–0012 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 

1904-AB79. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal

2. 

: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: ResRefFreez-2008-STD-0012@hq.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

 and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

3. Mail

4. 

: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies 

 Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 

 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper copy. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed 

original paper copy.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on 

the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation). 

 Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments 

received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, (202) 586-

2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
4

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

 Subid Wagley, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, 202-287-1414, e-mail: Subid.Wagley@ee.doe.gov 

or Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

 For information on how to submit or review public comments and on how to 

participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945. E-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers

III. General Discussion

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
5

A. Test Procedures

1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule

2. Icemaking

3. Circumvention

4. Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control

5. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Life-Cycle Costs

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers from This Rulemaking

2. Product Classes

a. French Door Refrigerators with Through-the-Door Ice Service

b. Chest Freezers with Automatic Defrost

c. All-Refrigerators

d. Products with Automatic Icemakers

e. Built-In Products

f. Combining Product Classes 2 with 1, and 12 with 11

g. Modification of the Definition for Compact Products

B. Screening Analysis

1. Discussion of Comments

a. Alternative Refrigerants

b. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents

c. Vacuum-Insulated Panels

2. Technologies Considered

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Product Classes Analyzed / Representative Products

2. Baseline Energy Use Curves

a. Baseline Energy Use Under the Proposed New Test Procedure

b. Change of Energy Use Equation Slope

c. Energy Use Measurement Changes Associated with Other Test Procedure 

Changes

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
6

3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

4. Engineering Analysis Treatment of Design Options

a. Heat Exchangers

b. Variable Speed Compressors for Compact Products

c. Variable Anti-Sweat Heaters

d. Vacuum-Insulated Panels

5. Energy Modeling

6. Cost-Efficiency Curves

7. Development of Standards for Low-Volume Products

D. Markups to Determine Product Cost

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Energy Price Projections

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Product Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

9. Compliance Date of Amended Standards

10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. National Impact Analysis–National Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis

1. Shipments

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

3. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion

4. Discount Rates

5. Benefits from Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

a. Phase 1: Industry Profile

b. Phase 2: Industry Cash-Flow Analysis

c. Phase 3: Subgroup Impact Analysis

2. GRIM Analysis

a. GRIM Key Inputs

b. GRIM Scenarios

3. Discussion of Comments

a. Potential Regulation of HFCs

b. Manufacturer Tax Credits

c. Standards-Induced Versus Normal Capital Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markups

4. Manufacturer Interviews

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
7

a. Potential for Significant Changes to Manufacturing Facilities

b. VIPs

c. Impact on U.S. Production and Jobs

d. Impacts to Product Utility

e. Technical Difficulties Associated with Higher Efficiency Levels

f. Changes in Consumer Behavior

g. Separate Product Classes for Built-Ins

h. Test Procedure Concerns

J. Employment Impact Analysis

K. Utility Impact Analysis

L. Environmental Analysis

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

N. Demand Response

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Proposed Standards

1. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

2. Standard-Size Freezers

3. Compact Refrigeration Products

4. Built-In Refrigeration Products

5. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards

6. Energy Standard Round-off

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
8

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA or the 

Act), as amended, provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard DOE 

prescribes for certain consumer products, such as residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers (collectively referred to in this document as “refrigeration

products”), shall be designed to “achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 

. . . which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically 

justified.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The new or amended standard must “result in 

significant conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these 

and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration products. The proposed standards, which are the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
9

maximum allowable energy use expressed as a function of the calculated adjusted volume 

of a given product, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United 

States on or after January 1, 2014. 

Table I.1. Proposed Refrigeration Product Energy Conservation Standards 

(Effective Starting 1/1/2014) 

Product Class

Equations for Maximum Energy 

Use (kWh/yr)

based on AV (ft3) based on av (L)

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost. 7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost. 6.79AV + 193.6 0.240av + 193.6 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted 

freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.04AV + 232.7 0.284av + 232.7 

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.57AV + 248.2 0.303av + 248.2 

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without throughthe-door ice service.

8.04AV + 316.7 0.284av + 316.7 

3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.57AV + 332.2 0.303av + 332.2 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 7.07AV + 201.6 0.250av + 201.6

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 7.55AV + 215.1 0.266av + 215.1

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.48AV + 296.5 0.299av + 296.5 

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 9.04AV + 316.2 0.319av + 316.2 

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without throughthe-door ice service.

8.48AV + 380.5 0.299av + 380.5 

4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

9.04AV + 400.2 0.319av + 400.2 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.80AV + 315.4 0.311av + 315.4 

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 9.35AV + 335.1 0.330av + 335.1 

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without throughthe-door ice service.

8.80AV + 399.4 0.311av + 399.4 

5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

9.35AV + 419.1 0.330av + 419.1 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
10

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 9.15AV + 471.3 0.323av + 471.3 

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 9.72AV + 495.5 0.343av + 495.5 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service. 8.36AV + 384.1 0.295av + 384.1 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 8.50AV + 431.1 0.300av + 431.1 

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 9.07AV + 454.3 0.320av + 454.3 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost. 5.57AV + 193.7 0.197av + 193.7

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an 

automatic icemaker. 8.62AV + 228.3 0.305av + 228.3 

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without 

an automatic icemaker. 9.24AV + 244.6 0.326av + 244.6 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact 

freezers. 7.29AV + 107.8 0.257av + 107.8 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost. 10.24AV + 148.1 0.362av + 148.1

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 

manual defrost. 9.03AV + 252.3 0.319av + 252.3 

11A.Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 

manual defrost. 7.84AV + 219.1 0.277av + 219.1 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 5.91AV + 335.8 0.209av + 335.8

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer. 11.80AV + 339.2 0.417av + 339.2 

13A. Compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost. 9.17AV + 259.3 0.324av + 259.3

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer. 6.82AV + 456.9 0.241av + 456.9 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer. 12.88AV + 368.7 0.455av + 368.7 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost. 8.65AV + 225.7 0.306av + 225.7

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost. 10.17AV + 351.9 0.359av + 351.9

18. Compact chest freezers. 9.25AV + 136.8 0.327av + 136.8

AV= adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters

 DOE’s analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant 

amount of energy–an estimated 4.48 quads of cumulative energy over 30 years (2014 

through 2043). This amount is equivalent to three times the total energy used annually for 

refrigeration and freezers in U.S. homes. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
11

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for products shipped in 2014–2043, in 2009$, ranges 

from $2.44 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $18.57 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate).1 The net present value (NPV) is the estimated total value of future operating-cost 

savings during the analysis period, minus the estimated increased product costs, 

discounted to 2010. The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2010 

to 2043). Using a real discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that INPV for 

manufacturers of all refrigeration products in the base case is $4.434 billion in 2009$. If 

DOE adopts the proposed standards, it expects that manufacturers may lose 11 to 22 

percent of their INPV, or approximately $0.495 to $0.995 billion. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate, the NPV of consumer costs and savings from today’s proposed standards 

would amount to 2.5 to 4.9 times the total estimated industry losses. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate, the NPV would amount to 19 to 38 times the total estimated industry 

losses.

 The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual 

consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings are $22 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, $19 for bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, $37 for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, $148 for upright freezers, 

 

1 DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent based on guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget. See section IV.G for further information.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
12

$56 for chest freezers, $10 for compact refrigerators, $11 for compact freezers, and from 

$0 to -$116 for built-in refrigeration products, depending on the product class.2

 In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy saved is in the form of electricity and DOE expects the energy 

savings from the proposed standards to eliminate the need for approximately 4.2 

gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity by 2043. The savings would result in cumulative 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of 305 million metric tons (Mt)3 of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) in 2014–2043. During this period, the proposed standards would result in 

emissions reductions of 245 kilotons (kt) of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 1.55 tons (t) of 

mercury (Hg). DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reduction is between $1.04 and $16.22 billion, expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 

2010. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reduction, expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 2010, is between $22 and $229 million 

at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $53 and $546 million at a 3-percent discount 

rate.

DOE estimates emissions reduction benefits according to a multi-step approach. 

First, DOE analyzes monetized emissions benefits separately from the NPV of consumer 

benefits. Second, DOE calculates emissions relative to an "existing regulations" baseline 

determined by the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook forecast. The base 

 

2 The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of purchase and installation 

costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance and repair). To compute the operating 

costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the 

product.

3 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NOX and Hg are given in short tons.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
13

case emissions scenario is described at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_6.pdf. 

Finally, any emissions reductions are in addition to the regulatory emissions reductions 

modeled in AEO. DOE calculates this value by doing a perturbation of the base case 

AEO forecast as described in the TSD chapter 15 at section 15.2.4. As noted in section 

15.2.4 of TSD chapter 15, the baseline accounts for regulatory emissions reductions 

through 2008, including CAIR but not CAMR. Subsequent regulations, including the 

currently proposed CAIR replacement rule, the Clean Air Transport Rule, do not appear 

in the baseline. DOE requests comment on its baseline treatment of regulatory emissions 

reductions. See Issue 1 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E. 

 The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values over the 2014–2043 period. Estimates of annualized values 

are shown in Table I.2. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 

national economic value, expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from operating products that 

meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 

less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.4

 

4 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value for the time-series of costs and benefits using a discount rate 

of either three or seven percent. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment 

over the analysis time period (2014 through 2043) that yielded the same present value. The fixed annual 

payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of 

payments.

 The value of the CO2 reductions, 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of 

values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent interagency process. The monetary 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
14

costs and benefits of cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2009$ to permit 

comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units. The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. 

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed with different 

methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of refrigeration products shipped in 2014–2043. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts go well beyond 2100. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 

2007$), which is discounted at 3 percent (see note below in Table I.2), the cost of the 

standards proposed in today’s rule is $1,841 million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the annualized benefits are $2,112 million per year in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $316 million in CO2 reductions, and $7 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $594 million per year. Using a 3-

percent discount rate and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$), the cost of the 

standards proposed in today’s rule is $1,849 million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the benefits are $2,929 million per year in reduced operating costs, $316 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
15

million in CO2 reductions, and $33 million in reduced NOX emissions. At a 3-percent 

discount rate, the net benefit amounts to $1,429 million per year.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
16

Table I.2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Refrigeration 

Products for 2014-2043 Period

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate* Low Estimate* High Estimate* 

Monetized (million 2009$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 

7% 2112 1852 2377

3% 2929 2520 3335

CO2 Reduction at $4.7/t** 5% 85 85 85

CO2 Reduction at $21.4/t** 3% 316 316 316

CO2 Reduction at $35.1/t** 2.5% 492 492 492

CO2 Reduction at $64.9/t** 3% 963 963 963

NOX Reduction at $2,519/t** 

7% 7 7 7

3% 33 33 33

Total (Operating Cost 

Savings, CO2 Reduction and 

NOx Reduction)† 

7% plus CO2

range 2204 - 3082 1944 - 2822 2469 - 3348

7% 2435 2175 2700

3% 3278 2869 3684

3% plus CO2

range 3047 - 3925 2638 - 3516 3453 - 4331

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 1841 1733 1950

3% 1849 1729 1969

Net Benefits/Costs

Total (Operating Cost 

Savings, CO2 Reduction and 

NOx Reduction, minus 

Incremental Product Costs)†

7% plus CO2

range 363 - 1241 211 - 1089 519 - 1397

7% 594 442 750

3% 1429 1140 1714

3% plus CO2

range 1198 - 2076 909 - 1787 1483 - 2362

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the 

AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and Low Economic Growth case, respectively.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 

2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.70, $21.40, and $35.10 per ton are the averages of SCC 

distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.90 per ton 

represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for 

NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. NOx savings are in 

addition to the regulatory emissions reductions modeled in the Annual Energy Outlook forecast. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
17

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values with the $4.70/ton value at the low end, and the $64.90/ton value

at the high end.

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE 

further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially 

available for at least some, if not most, product classes covered by today’s proposal. 

Based on the analyses described above, DOE found the benefits of the proposed 

standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer 

LCC savings, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 

manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers). 

DOE also considered lower energy use levels as trial standard levels, and is still 

considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

potential burdens of the lower energy use levels would outweigh the projected benefits. 

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice 

and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking 

effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels presented in this notice that are either higher or 

lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the 

proposed standards in part. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
18

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today’s 

proposal as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the 

establishment of standards for refrigeration products. 

A.

 Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. Part A of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other than Automobiles.

Authority

5

II.B

 EPCA covers consumer 

products and certain commercial equipment (referred to collectively hereafter as “covered 

products”), including the types of refrigeration products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for 

these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)-(2)), and directed DOE to conduct three cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(A)(i), 

(b)(3)(B)-(C), and (b)(4)) As explained in further detail in section , this rulemaking 

represents the third round of amendments to the standards for refrigeration products 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b). (DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must 

periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered 

product. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct would 

occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a 

standard for a covered product.) 

 

5 This part was titled Part B in EPCA, but was subsequently codified as Part A in the U.S. Code for 

editorial reasons.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
19

 Under the Act, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered products consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder 

of the program. Section 323 of the Act authorizes DOE, subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for 

certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding 

the energy use of efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 

standards adopted under EPCA. Id. The test procedures for refrigeration products 

currently appear at title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, 

appendices A1 and B1, respectively. (These procedures are undergoing possible 

amendments and may ultimately be recodified as part of new appendices A and B. See 

75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010) (discussing possible amendments to the test procedures for 

refrigeration products).

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered products. 

As indicated above, any amended standard for a covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, EPCA precludes 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
20

DOE from adopting any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for 

certain products, including refrigeration products, if no test procedure has been 

established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is 

not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) The 

Act also provides that, in deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, 

DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must do so after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the imposition of the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy conservation; and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
21

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))

 

 EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe a new 

standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered 

product type (or class) with performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and 

volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of 

purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). 

 Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a 

standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE 

must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
22

class of products “for any group of covered products which have the same function or 

intended use, if . . . products within such group – (A) consume a different kind of energy 

from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a 

capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 

class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard” than applies or 

will apply to the other products within that type or class. Id. In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE 

must “consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature” and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or 

regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of section 

327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

 Finally, Section 310(3) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg))) amended EPCA to 

require that energy conservation standards address standby mode and off mode energy 

use. Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after July 1, 2010, it

must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards in section 325(o) of EPCA (42 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
23

U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, if 

feasible, or adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE’s current test procedures and standards for refrigeration 

products address standby and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to 

incorporate such energy use into any amended standard it adopts in the final rule, which 

is scheduled to be issued by December 31, 2010. 

B.

1. Current Standards 

Background

 In a final rule published on April 28, 1997 (1997 Final Rule), DOE prescribed the 

current energy conservation standards for refrigeration products manufactured on or after 

July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102. This final rule completed the second round of rulemaking to 

amend the standards for refrigeration products, required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(B)-

(C). The standards consist of separate equations for each product class. Each equation 

provides a means to calculate the maximum levels of energy use permitted under the 

regulations. These levels vary based on the storage volume of the refrigeration product 

and on the particular characteristics and features included in a given product (i.e., based 

on product class). 10 CFR 430.32(a). The current standards are set forth in Table II.1. 

DOE notes that the standard levels denoted in the proposed product classes listed as 5A 

and 10A were established by the Office of Hearings and Appeals through that Office’s 

exception relief process.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
24

Table II.1: Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers

Product Class

Energy Standard 

Equations for 

Maximum Energy

Use (kWh/yr)

Made Effective

by the 1997 

Final Rule

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost. 8.82AV+248.4

0.31av+248.4 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost. 8.82AV+248.4

0.31av+248.4

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service and all-refrigerator—automatic 

defrost.

9.80AV+276.0 

0.35av+276.0 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service.

4.91AV+507.5

0.17av+507.5 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice service.

4.60AV+459.0

0.16av+459.0

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 

with through-the-door ice service.

10.20AV+356.0

0.36av+356.0

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer 

with through-the-door ice service. 

10.10AV+406.0

0.36av+406.0 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost. 7.55AV+258.3

0.27av+258.3

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost. 12.43AV+326.1

0.44av+326.1 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers. 9.88AV+143.7

0.35av+143.7

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost. 10.70AV+299.0

0.38av+299.0

12. Compact refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost. 7.00AV+398.0

0.25av+398.0 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted 

freezer and compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost.

12.70AV+355.0

0.45av+355.0

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer.

7.60AV+501.0

0.27av+501.0

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer.13.10AV+367.0

0.46av+367.0 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost. 9.78AV+250.8

0.35av+250.8

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost. 11.40AV+391.0

0.40av+391.0

18. Compact chest freezers. 10.45AV+152.0

0.37av+152.0 

Product Class

Made Effective

Through OHA 

Exception Relief

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer 

with through-the-door ice service.

5.0AV+539.0

0.18av+539.0

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
25

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost. 14.76AV+211.5

0.52av+211.5

AV: Adjusted Volume in ft3; av: Adjusted Volume in liters (L)

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers 

 The amendments made to EPCA by the National Appliance Energy Conservation 

Act of 1987 (NAECA; Pub. L. 100-12) included mandatory energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products and requirements that DOE conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1), (2), 

(3)(A)(i), and (3)(B)-(C)) DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 1989 

and 1990 by adopting amended performance standards for all refrigeration products 

manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989); 55 FR 

42845 (October 24, 1990). As indicated above, DOE completed a second rulemaking 

cycle to amend the standards for refrigeration products by issuing a final rule in 1997, 

which adopted the current standards for these products. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997). 

In 2005, DOE granted a petition, submitted by a coalition of state governments, 

utility companies, consumer and low-income advocacy groups, and environmental and 

energy efficiency organizations, requesting that it conduct a rulemaking to amend the 

standards for residential refrigerator-freezers.

6

 

6 The petition, submitted June 1, 2004, can be viewed at 

 DOE then conducted limited analyses to 

examine the technological and economic feasibility of amended standards at the 

ENERGY STAR levels that were in effect for 2005 for the two most popular product 

classes of refrigerator-freezers. These analyses identified potential energy savings and 

http://www.standardsasap.org/documents/rfdoe.pdf (last accessed August 18, 2010)

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
26

other potential benefits and burdens from such standards, and assessed other issues 

associated with such standards. Most recently, DOE has undertaken this rulemaking to 

satisfy the statutory requirement that DOE publish a final rule no later than December 31, 

2010, to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigeration products 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) 

DOE initiated this rulemaking on September 18, 2008, by publishing on its 

website its “Rulemaking Framework Document for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers.” (A PDF of the framework document is available at

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/refrigerator_

freezer_framework.pdf). DOE also published a notice announcing the availability of the 

framework document and a public meeting to discuss the document. It also requested 

public comment on the document. 73 FR 54089 (September 18, 2008). The framework 

document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using 

to evaluate energy conservation standards for refrigeration products and identified 

various issues to be resolved in conducting the rulemaking. 

On September 29, 2008, DOE held the framework document public meeting. At 

that meeting, DOE discussed the issues detailed in the framework document and 

described the analyses the agency planned to conduct during the rulemaking. Through 

the public meeting, DOE sought feedback from interested parties on these subjects and 

provided information regarding the rulemaking process that DOE would follow. 

Interested parties discussed the following major issues at the public meeting: test 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
27

procedure revisions; product classes; technology options; approaches to the engineering, 

life-cycle cost, and payback period analyses; efficiency levels analyzed in the engineering 

analysis; and the approach for estimating typical energy consumption. At the meeting, 

and during the related comment period, DOE received many comments that helped it 

identify and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking. 

 DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses 

for the purpose of developing potential amended energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products. This process culminated in DOE’s announcement of the 

preliminary analysis public meeting, at which DOE would discuss and receive comments 

on the following matters: the product classes DOE analyzed; the analytical framework, 

models, and tools that DOE was using to evaluate standards; the results of the 

preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and potential standard levels that DOE could 

consider. 74 FR 58915 (November 16, 2009) (the November 2009 notice). DOE also 

invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its website 

of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) it had prepared to inform 

interested parties and enable them to provide comments. Id. (The preliminary TSD is 

available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ref_frz_pren

opr_prelim_tsd.pdf) Finally, DOE stated its interest in receiving views concerning other 

relevant issues that participants believed would affect energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products, or that DOE should address in this NOPR. Id. at 58917-18. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
28

The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE undertook in

developing standards for the refrigeration products, and discussed the comments DOE 

received in response to the framework document. It also described the analytical 

framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in this rulemaking, including a 

description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships among the 

various analyses that are part of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD presented and 

described in detail each analysis DOE had performed up to that point, including 

descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as 

follows: 

• A market and technology assessment addressed the scope of this rulemaking, 

identified the potential classes for refrigeration products, characterized the markets for 

these products, and reviewed techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency 

• A screening analysis reviewed technology options to improve the efficiency of 

refrigeration products, and weighed these options against DOE’s four prescribed 

screening criteria: (1) technological feasibility, (2) practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service, (3) impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability, (4) adverse 

impacts on health or safety 

• An engineering analysis estimated the increases in manufacturer selling prices 

(MSPs) associated with more energy-efficient refrigeration products; 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
29

• An energy use analysis estimated the annual energy use in the field of 

refrigeration products as a function of efficiency levels; 

• A markups analysis converted estimated manufacturer selling price (MSP) 

increases derived from the engineering analysis to consumer prices;

• A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, at the consumer level, the discounted 

savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product, compared 

to any increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of a given 

standard; 

• A payback period (PBP) analysis estimated the amount of time it would take 

consumers to recover the higher expense of purchasing more energy efficient products 

through lower operating costs; 

• A shipments analysis estimated shipments of the refrigeration products over the 

30-year analysis period (2014-2043), which were used in performing the national impact 

analysis (NIA);

• A national impact analysis assessed the national energy savings, and the national 

net present value of total consumer costs and savings, expected to result from specific, 

potential energy conservation standards for refrigeration products; 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
30

• A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis took the initial steps in evaluating 

the effects new efficiency standards may have on manufacturers. 

In the November 2009 notice, DOE summarized the nature and function of the 

following analyses: (1) engineering, (2) energy use characterization, (3) markups to 

determine installed prices, (4) LCC and PBP analyses, and (5) national impact analysis. 

Id. at 58917. 

The preliminary analysis public meeting announced in the November 2009 notice 

took place on December 10, 2009. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies 

and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Major topics discussed at the 

meeting included test procedure revisions, product classes (including wine coolers, allrefrigerators,7

 

7 An “all-refrigerator” is defined as “an electric refrigerator which does not include a compartment for the 

freezing and long time storage of food at temperatures below 32 °F (0.0 °C). It may include a compartment 

of 0.50 cubic feet capacity (14.2 liters) or less for the freezing and storage of ice.” (10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1, section 1.4). 

 and built-in refrigeration products), the use of alternative foam blowing 

agents and refrigerants, engineering analysis tools, the use of VIPs, mark-ups, field 

energy consumption, life-cycle cost inputs, efficiency distribution forecasts, and trial 

standard level selection criteria. DOE also discussed plans for conducting the NOPR 

analyses. The comments received since publication of the November 2009 notice, 

including those received at the preliminary analysis public meeting, have contributed to 

DOE’s proposed resolution of the issues in this rulemaking. This NOPR quotes and 

summarizes many of these comments, and responds to the issues they raised. A 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
31

parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the 

item in the public record. 

In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE also received a comment submitted 

by groups representing manufacturers (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 

Whirlpool, General Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, BSH, Alliance 

Laundry, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp 

Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, 

Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, 

DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships); and consumer groups 

(Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center). This collective set 

of comments, which DOE refers to in this notice as the “Joint Comments”8

 

8 DOE Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012, Comment 49. DOE considered the Joint Comments to 

supersede earlier comments by the listed parties regarding issues subsequently discussed in the Joint 

Comments.

recommends 

specific energy conservation standards for refrigeration products that, in the commenters’ 

view, would satisfy the requirements under EPCA. DOE neither organized nor was a 

member of the group but sent staff to observe some meetings and made its contractors

available to perform data processing. Consistent with its legal obligations when 

developing an energy conservation standard, DOE is providing the public with the 

opportunity to comment on the proposed levels that DOE is considering adopting for 

refrigeration products, which mirror those recommended in the Joint Comments. As 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
32

DOE has not yet reached a final decision on the levels it should prescribe, DOE invites 

comment on these proposed levels, possible alternative levels, and all other aspects 

presented in today’s NOPR.

III. General Discussion

The following section discusses various technical aspects related to this proposed 

rulemaking. In particular, it addresses aspects involving the test procedures for 

refrigeration products, the technological feasibility of potential standards to assign to 

these products, and the potential energy savings and economic justification for 

prescribing the proposed amended standards for refrigeration products. 

A.

 As noted above, DOE’s current test procedures for refrigeration products appear 

at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 (for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers) 

and B1 (for freezers). DOE recently issued a NOPR in which it proposed to amend these 

appendices, and to create new Appendices A and B, applicable to refrigerators/ 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers, respectively, for products covered by today’s proposed 

standards, (

Test Procedures

i.e., those manufactured on or after January 1, 2014). 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 

2010). While the proposed test procedures would retain or revise many of the provisions 

currently in appendices A1 and B1, they would also add some new procedures. Most of 

the revisions and additions would apply to all refrigeration products, and would be 

reflected in both new appendices, as follows: updating references to the Association of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
33

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF-1 test standard; incorporating icemaking 

energy use into the energy use metric for products with automatic icemakers; clarifying 

the procedures for test sample preparation; modifying the test methods for convertible 

compartments and special-purpose compartments; modifying the anti-sweat heater 

definition to include those heaters that prevent sweat (i.e., moisture condensation) on 

interior surfaces; establishing new compartment temperatures and volume calculation 

methods; modifying the test methods for advanced defrost systems; eliminating the 

optional third part of the test method for products with variable defrost systems; and 

adjusting and correcting the various energy use equations included in the test procedure 

regulatory text. Id. 

DOE also proposed to adopt language in a new appendix A to incorporate test 

methods for products equipped with variable anti-sweat heater control systems that are 

currently addressed in waivers. These waivers apply only to refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. Id. at 29835-37. 

Finally, DOE proposed to amend certain other provisions to clarify that 

combination freezer-wine storage products are not subject to the standards for 

refrigerator-freezers and to require manufacturers and private labelers to include 

additional information when they certify to DOE the compliance of refrigeration products 

that use advanced controls. Id. at 29829 and 29841-42. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
34

The test procedure NOPR public meeting was held June 22, 2010. DOE received 

numerous comments from stakeholders at this meeting, addressing all aspects of the 

proposed test procedure amendments. The comment period for the test procedure 

rulemaking ended on August 10, 2010. Id. at 29824. 

1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule 

The preliminary analysis documents were published, and the preliminary analysis 

public meeting was held, prior to publication of the test procedure NOPR describing the 

amended test procedure on which the preliminary analysis was based. Because of this 

situation, AHAM commented that it was difficult for it to comment fully on the 

preliminary analysis because the specific test procedure changes were not yet known. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 17)9 Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

expressed concern about completion of the energy standards rulemaking, since the test 

procedure NOPR had not yet been published. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at 

p. 25) The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that test 

procedure rulemakings have been completed by the time of the energy standards NOPR 

in the past, and that this is a reasonable approach. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

28 at p. 26) 

While DOE acknowledges the advantages of publishing the test procedure 

rulemaking prior to discussing the preliminary analysis, the agency is working diligently 

 

9 Comments made during the public meeting are cited as (Commenter acronym, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 28 at [pages in the transcript at which the comment appears])

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
35

to complete all of the rulemakings related to refrigeration products within the statutorily 

mandated schedule. DOE notes that under EPCA, an amended or new energy 

conservation standard may not be prescribed unless a test procedure for the regulated 

product has been prescribed. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3). DOE has every intention of 

complying with this requirement. 

2. Icemaking

DOE received numerous comments regarding energy use attributable to 

icemaking during the preliminary analysis phase of this rulemaking. 

Stakeholders generally agreed that icemaking energy use should be incorporated 

into the energy use metric for refrigeration products. American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and ASAP submitted a joint comment (hereafter referred to 

as ACEEE/ASAP) urging that icemaker energy use and losses associated with throughthe-door ice and water service be incorporated into the test method and rulemaking. 

(ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 1)10 These commenters added that water service as well as 

ice service should be included in the refrigeration product energy use metric. (Id

 

10 Written comments are cited as (Commenter acronym, No. [assigned comment number in the docket] at p. 

[page number at which the comment appears])

. at 1-2) 

A group of California utilities consisting of Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and 

Electric, Southern California Gas Company, and Southern California Edison, collectively 

organized as the California Investor Owned Utilities (IOU), commented that the energy 

associated with operating automatic ice makers should be addressed, because operational 

automatic ice makers contribute significantly to the refrigerator energy consumption.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
36

(IOU, No. 36 at p. 2) IOU also commented that energy use associated with water 

dispensing should be considered in the test procedure. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 6) The Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) agreed with the guidance DOE developed on how to 

treat icemakers during testing (75 FR 2122 (January 14, 2010)), and commented that the 

guidance will be adequate for use in this rulemaking. NRDC added that it is imperative 

that DOE revise the test procedure to include ice maker energy usage in the next 

standard. (NRDC, No. 39 at p. 2) Support for incorporating icemaking energy use 

explicitly in the energy metric was also expressed by LG Electronics U.S.A. (LG), 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC), ASAP, and in unpaginated comments submitted by Sub Zero-Wolf, 

Inc. (Sub Zero). (LG, No. 41 at p. 1; NEEP, No. 38 at p. 1; NPCC, No. 33 at p. 1; ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 28; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 2) 

Regarding the inclusion of a method in the test procedure for measuring the 

energy use attributable to water dispensing, DOE is unaware of any publicly available 

information about the daily water usage by consumers using water dispenser-equipped 

refrigeration products. DOE developed a preliminary estimate for this energy use as 

follows. Assuming an average consumption of 0.63 gallons per standard size refrigerator 

per day,11

 

11 Based on 0.22 gallons of drinking water per person per day (Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol

283: R993-R1004, 2002.) and 2.89 people per household with a standard sized refrigerator (2005 RECS 

data for standard-size refrigerators with TTD ice.).

a water temperature of 70  ̊F when entering the system (typical household 

ambient temperature to which the water in the refrigerator supply tubing would 

equilibrate between icemaking cycles) and a dispensed temperature of 39  ̊F (the 

standardized temperature for the fresh food compartment in the HRF-1-2008 test 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
37

procedure), and a refrigeration system EER12 of 5 Btu/hr-W, this energy use is equal to 

12 kWh per year, roughly 2.5 percent of the average energy use of a typical refrigeratorfreezer. Based on these data, there appears to be limited potential for savings from 

increasing the efficiency of the cooling and processing of the dispensed water. Although 

solenoid valves are energized while water is dispersed, the duration of valve actuation is 

so short that the valves do not contribute significantly to energy use. The only significant 

energy use attributable to water dispensation by the refrigeration system is for cooling the 

water. Unlike with the case of automatic icemaking, in which electric heaters are 

typically used to free ice from an ice mold, there is no obvious portion of the energy use 

that can be reduced or eliminated by improving component efficiency. Based on the 

limited amount of available data, DOE currently lacks sufficient information regarding 

the level of water consumption associated with water dispenser-equipped refrigeration 

equipment to either develop a test procedure or set a standard within the context of the 

agency’s current rulemaking activities. DOE may consider the adoption of such a method 

in a future rulemaking to amend its test procedures. 

Several stakeholders highlighted the challenges involved in the development of a 

test procedure for icemaking energy use. AHAM commented that developing a procedure 

to determine automatic icemaking energy consumption would be complex, and that any 

such procedure must be robust and repeatable. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) GE commented 

 

12 EER, the energy efficiency ratio, is a measure of the efficiency of a compressor or a refrigeration system, 

being equal to the delivered cooling in British Thermal Units per hour (Btu/hr) divided by the compressor 

or system power input in Watts (W). The value 5 Btu/hr-W is based on a typical EER of 5.5 Btu/hr-W for 

the compressor of a baseline standard-size refrigerator (See NOPR TSD Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, 

section 5.8.4), with some reduction of this efficiency associated with the additional power input of the 

evaporator and condenser fans.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
38

that it is critical that DOE insist on a robust, repeatable procedure that minimizes 

variability for calculating icemaker energy prior to inclusion in any standards. (GE, No. 

37 at p. 1) LG commented on the complexity of such a procedure and also emphasized 

that any such procedure that DOE adopts be verifiable, repeatable, and reliable. (LG, No. 

41 at p. 3) Other stakeholders commenting on the complexity of development of an 

icemaking test procedure include Sub Zero and AHAM. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3; Sub 

Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 29; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, at 

pp. 30, 31) 

AHAM’s ongoing work to develop a test procedure to measure icemaking energy 

use was mentioned at the public meeting. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 28 – 

33) AHAM noted that there was significant variation in the initial measurements made by 

AHAM members to assess a preliminary icemaking energy use test procedure and that 

additional work is required to better understand the reasons for this variation. (See 

“AHAM Update to DOE on Status of Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure,” 11/19/2009, 

No. 46) AHAM further commented that the next step is to complete round robin 

evaluation, which is expected to take 3 to 4 months. The initial measurements made by 

AHAM members did not explore the potential impact of volume or product type on 

automatic ice maker energy use and provided no indication of how icemaker energy 

might be incorporated into the baseline energy efficiency curves. Additional testing to 

provide this information is expected to take another 4 months. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) 

The projected date of completion of this process, based on the January 15 date of the 

comments, was at best the middle of August 2010. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
39

Given the complexity of this test procedure development work, many 

stakeholders suggested that finalizing a standard in 2010 based on a test procedure which 

includes a measurement of icemaking energy use is not critical for purposes of setting 

appropriate energy efficiency levels. Stakeholders who held this view included 

ACEEE/ASAP, GE, NRDC, and Sub Zero. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 1-2; GE, No. 37 

at p. 1; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 2; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p.3) NEEP disagreed with this 

viewpoint and commented that DOE should consider imposing a deadline for the 

industry-led process to finalize an updated test procedure that incorporates icemaking 

energy use, after which DOE should quickly finalize a procedure to incorporate into its 

regulations. NEEP also suggested that a test procedure update prior to promulgation of 

standards was a more ideal solution. (NEEP, No. 38 at p. 1) Sub Zero and NEEP 

commented that a short delay in publication of the final rule for this rulemaking would be 

acceptable if necessary to allow sufficient time to develop the icemaking test procedure. 

(Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 38 at p. 2) 

Several stakeholder comments addressed details associated with an icemaking test 

procedure. AHAM commented that the energy use metric should be expressed in annual 

kWh per year. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 32) The AHAM draft 

proposal is based on converting a measurement of the energy required to produce one 

pound of ice by a production quantity of 1.8 pounds per day to determine annual 

icemaking energy use. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) IOU recommended consideration of 

either a “kWh per pound of ice” metric or a “kWh per year” metric. (IOU, No. 36 at pp. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
40

2-3) In light of these comments, DOE proposes to establish an annual energy use for ice 

that will be added to the energy use measured using the current test procedure (or an 

amended version of the current procedure) to provide a total annual energy use metric 

that includes the energy associated with icemaking.

Additionally, AHAM commented that “the test procedure may need to allow 

manufacturers to subtract the thermodynamic energy required to convert water to ice, so 

that this energy is not targeted for energy efficiency improvements.” (AHAM, No. 34 at 

p. 2) However, AHAM acknowledged that the theoretical efficiency depends on the 

Coefficient of Performance (COP)13 of the particular refrigerator-freezer, which can vary. 

(Id

 

13 Coefficient of Performance, equal to cooling energy delivered by the refrigeration product divided by 

energy input. This is related to EER, explained above, by the conversion of the units of energy input from 

British Thermal Units (Btu) to Watt-Hours (W-h).

.) Consideration of the COP in this context is important, because the AHAM comment 

implication is that the thermodynamic energy required to convert water to ice is 

independent of refrigerator design. On the contrary, this energy use is indirectly 

proportional to the COP, which is a characteristic of the refrigerator’s design. However, 

EPCA requires that test procedures “shall be reasonably designed to produce test results 

which measure energy efficiency, energy use . . . or estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use . . . ” (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). This statutory provision calls for measuring energy use, and does not 

single out for incorporation into the test procedure only that portion of the energy use that 

could be eliminated or reduced through design modifications. DOE tentatively interpreted 

this requirement to mean that the test procedure must measure all of the energy use 

associated with a given product function. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
41

LG commented that an icemaking test procedure should consider the potential 

overlap of icemaking and defrost periods. (LG, No. 41 at p. 3) DOE interprets this 

comment as addressing the fact that achieving steady state operation during icemaking 

may take a long time to achieve -- possibly longer than the elapsed time between defrosts. 

Hence, the energy use increment associated with icemaking is difficult to distinguish 

from the energy use increment associated with defrost. DOE is not at this time 

considering this level of detail regarding a potential icemaking test.

Both AHAM and Sub Zero mentioned the need to consider manual as well as 

automatic icemaking. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 32; Sub Zero, No. 

40 at p. 3) DOE notes that there is limited information available regarding the energy use 

of automatic icemakers, while there is no publicly available information regarding the 

energy use involved in manual icemaking. Hence, DOE is examining the possibility of 

incorporating the energy use of automatic icemakers into the energy use metric while 

leaving open for the time being the treatment of energy use related to manual icemaking. 

DOE plans to incorporate icemaking energy use into the energy use metric for 

refrigeration products. However, DOE acknowledges the challenges in developing an 

accurate and repeatable test procedure and the need to avoid uncontrolled variability in 

energy test results associated with adopting a premature procedure. DOE also seeks to 

address this aspect of energy consumption and to improve the accuracy of representations 

of energy use (i.e., on the EnergyGuide label used to inform consumers regarding product 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
42

energy use) and has attempted to lay the initial foundations for an improved measurement 

by proposing a fixed placeholder representing icemaking energy use in kWh per year for 

all products equipped with an automatic icemaker. 75 FR 29846-47 (May 27, 2010). The 

proposed placeholder value is equal to the average reported by AHAM of measurements 

made using a draft icemaking energy use test procedure. (“AHAM Update to DOE on 

Status of Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure,” No. 46 at p. 11) DOE intends to closely 

monitor industry efforts in developing a method of measuring icemaking energy use and 

may propose the incorporation of such a measurement into the test procedure and energy 

conservation standard at the appropriate time. 

Stakeholders also commented regarding the approach used to set standards for 

icemaking energy use or to adjustment of energy standards to include icemaking energy 

use. DOE sought input regarding an appropriate method to establish maximum 

icemaking energy use as a function of product class and adjusted volume, as well as the 

available technology options to reduce icemaking energy use. (Preliminary Analysis 

Public Meeting Presentation, No. 26 at p. 19) EEI commented that maximum icemaking 

energy is more a function of the number and characteristics of occupants/users than it is a 

function of volume. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 34) DOE agrees with 

this comment, but notes that energy conservation standards, defined by EPCA as “a 

performance standard which prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a 

maximum quantity of energy use . . . for a covered product . . . “ (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(A)), 

do not address characteristics of the product purchasers or users. IOU commented that ice 

maker efficiency is directly affected by refrigeration system efficiency, ice maker 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
43

component efficiency, allowable sub freezing temperature, and ice maker type. (IOU, No. 

36 at p. 6) Stakeholders including AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool commented that it is 

premature to evaluate design options for reducing icemaking energy use and/or to set 

standards for icemaking at other than current baseline levels. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 3; 

AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 32, 33; GE, No. 37 at p. 1; Whirlpool, 

No. 31 at p. 5) AHAM further elaborated that a necessary first step before setting 

standards for icemaking would be to develop a robust test procedure and to establish that 

function’s baseline energy use. In AHAM’s view, the evaluation of design options and 

the potential for energy use reduction should be considered for a future rulemaking after 

fully demonstrating the validity of the test procedure (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 3) 

DOE agrees that proposing a standard level for icemaking energy use is premature 

prior to the development of a test procedure that can be used to evaluate baseline 

icemaking energy use. EPCA prohibits the establishment of energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products if no test procedure has been prescribed. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A). DOE’s proposed approach of assigning a fixed quantity of energy 

to icemaking in the test procedure in lieu of a test that measures each product’s 

icemaking efficiency for comparison with a standard would provide information to 

consumers regarding the additional energy use associated with icemaking, since the 

energy use measurement reported on EnergyGuide labels will include this component. 

This proposed method would also give the industry additional time in which to perfect its 

test procedure to address this particular energy-consuming component. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
44

The test procedure, which is the basis for the engineering analysis, does not 

consider variation of icemaking energy use as a function of product characteristics (other 

than the presence of an automatic icemaker). For that reason, DOE stated during the 

preliminary analysis public meeting that the engineering analysis does not consider 

icemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 27) NPCC pointed out that DOE’s 

energy use analysis (see chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD) does address icemaking 

energy use through application in the calculations of the Usage Adjustment Factor (UAF) 

that converts energy test measurements to field energy use. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 27) DOE agrees that the usage adjustment factors (UAF) 

incorporate an adjustment to include icemaking energy use. (See Preliminary TSD, No. 

22 at p. 7-6.) In the preliminary LCC analysis, DOE calculated energy savings by 

multiplying the energy use reduction under consideration (e.g., 20-percent energy use 

reduction) by multiplying this percentage reduction by all of the calculated baseline field 

energy use, including icemaking energy use for products having automatic icemakers. In 

contrast, the NOPR analysis separated icemaking energy use from consideration of 

energy use reduction as much as possible, which is consistent with the proposal DOE is 

currently considering to incorporate icemaking energy use into the test procedure. This 

process is described more fully in the NOPR TSD. 

3. Circumvention 

Consumers Union submitted comments that specifically addressed circumvention. 

Key points made in its submittal included the following:

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
45

• Test procedures need to keep up with product development and must be 

continually updated and strengthened. Test procedures must be updated more 

frequently. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at pp. 5, 6) 

• Regulations should explicitly provide a procedure for DOE to quickly close 

testing loopholes and to hold manufacturers accountable for any intentional 

manipulation of test procedures. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at pp. 5, 6) 

• The test procedure should require compartment temperatures to be within a 

smaller range of acceptable values, such as within +/- 2 ̊ F of ideal storage 

values. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at p. 5) 

• The test procedure should reflect typical consumer conditions by explicitly 

forbidding any special energy savings at test temperatures, settings, or 

conditions that consumers are unlikely to experience. (Consumers Union, No. 

44 at p. 5) 

DOE acknowledges the need to update test procedures more frequently. DOE 

also acknowledges that enforcement and verification activities are needed to ensure that 

manufacturers cannot circumvent the test procedure. To this end, DOE is examining a 

variety of options to address these concerns and notes that its concurrent test procedure 

rulemaking would likely deal with these issues. Additionally, by statute, the agency is 

obligated to update its test procedure at least once every seven years, which DOE has 

every intention to fulfill. See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b). 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
46

4. Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control

Anti-sweat heaters are used to prevent the condensation of moisture on 

refrigeration product surfaces. Such accumulation of moisture as liquid droplets is 

undesirable because (1) it is unsightly, (2) it encourages mold growth, and (3) the water 

drops can fall to the floor and create a slip hazard. These heaters are often electricityconsuming resistance heaters. However, many refrigeration products also use waste heat 

from the refrigeration system to provide anti-sweat heating functions. This is 

accomplished by routing hot gas or warm liquid refrigerant tubing in the regions of the 

cabinet that require anti-sweat heating.

GE and AHAM both supported DOE’s proposal to amend the current test 

procedure to address the treatment of products equipped with a variable anti-sweat heater 

control system. These systems control anti-sweat heater operation by reducing or 

eliminating their energy use when ambient conditions, such as humidity, indicate that 

heater operation at full load is unnecessary. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 10) 

DOE notes that, while it plans to modify the current test procedure to enable it to address 

variable anti-sweat heater control systems, the agency may choose not to directly 

incorporate the current waiver language covering these types of systems into the test 

procedure. See, e.g., variable antisweat heater waivers published at 73 FR 10425 

(February 27, 2008) and 74 FR 20695 (May 5, 2009). DOE proposed as part of its test 

procedure amendments to incorporate a modified version of that procedure (see 75 FR 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
47

29835-37 (May 27, 2010)), and is considering public comments in finalizing those 

amendments.

5. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

 DOE also notes that EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, requires DOE to amend 

its test procedures for all covered products, including those for refrigeration products, to 

include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, except where 

current test procedures fully address such energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) 

As indicated above, DOE’s current test procedures for refrigeration products fully 

address standby and off mode energy use, and any amended test procedure that DOE 

adopts for these products will continue to do so. 

B.

1. General

Technological Feasibility

 In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that have 

the potential to improve product or equipment efficiency. To conduct the analysis, DOE

develops a list of design options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, 

design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these

means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers a design 

option to be technologically feasible if it is currently in use by the relevant industry, or if 

a working prototype exists. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
48

4(a)(4)(i) (providing that “[t]echnologies incorporated in commercially available 

products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.”) 

Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically 

feasible, it evaluates each of these design options using the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse 

impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)). Section IV.B of this notice 

discusses the results of the screening analysis for refrigeration products, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial 

standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for 

this rulemaking, see chapter 4, Screening Analysis, of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

 When DOE proposes to adopt (or not adopt) an amended standard for a type or 

class of covered product, it must “determine the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible” for such 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (hereafter max-tech) reductions in energy use for refrigeration 

products in the engineering analysis. 

As described in the preliminary TSD, DOE conducted a full analysis of a set of 

product classes that comprise a large percentage of product shipments in the market 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
49

today. DOE’s approach for extending proposed standard levels established for these 

product classes to the non-analyzed product classes is described in chapter 2, Analytical 

Framework, of the preliminary TSD, in section 2.15. However, this section of this notice 

reports the max-tech efficiency levels only for the directly analyzed product classes.

DOE used the proposed test procedures that would apply once manufacturers 

must comply with the new standard to determine the max-tech efficiency levels of the 

directly analyzed product classes. The efficiency levels are defined as reductions in that 

portion of the energy use not associated with icemaking. As described in section III.A, 

above, the energy use associated with icemaking under the proposed test procedure is a 

fixed quantity not correlated with an efficiency level. Separating this fixed quantity of 

energy use from the definition of efficiency level allows a more direct comparison of 

products, irrespective of whether a given product is equipped with an automatic 

icemaker. This approach also allows DOE to compare the efficiency levels based on the 

proposed test procedure (i.e., projections of possible energy use reductions) against the 

energy use based on the existing test procedure and current standard.14 

DOE used the full set of design options considered applicable for these products 

classes to determine the max-tech efficiency levels for the analyzed product classes. (See 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, section 5.4.4.) Table III.1 lists the max-tech levels that 

DOE determined for this rulemaking. The table also presents the max-tech levels that are 

 

14 In other words, a product with energy usage that is a certain percentage below the current energy 

standard should remain the same percentage below the baseline energy use under the proposed test 

procedure after subtracting icemaking energy use. Hence, the max-tech levels expressed as percentage of 

energy use reduction should be the same for both sets of test procedures.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
50

commercially available. The max-tech levels differ from those presented in the 

preliminary TSD, and are generally lower (i.e., the percent energy use reductions are 

lower for the NOPR analysis, thus the max-tech energy use is higher). The reduction in 

the max-tech efficiency levels is due to the revisions DOE implemented in the NOPR 

engineering analysis to address new information obtained during this phase of the work. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
51

Table III.1 Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for the Refrigeration Products Rulemaking

Product 

Class

Description Efficiency Level (Percent 

Energy Use Reduction)

DOE 

Analysis 

Max Tech 

Commercially 

Available

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

3 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer without through-the-door 

ice service

36% 30%

5 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service

36% 33%

7 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service

33% 32%

Standard-Size Freezers

9 Upright freezers with automatic defrost 44% 27%

10 Chest freezers and all other freezers except 

compact freezers

41% 16%

Compact Products

11 Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with manual defrost

59% 27%

18 Compact chest freezers 42% 23%

Built-In Products

3A-BI Built-In All-refrigerators—automatic defrost 28% 31%

5-BI Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service

27% 27%

7-BI Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service

22% 21%

9-BI Built-In Upright freezers with automatic 

defrost

27% 27%

The max-tech efficiency levels identified for commercially available products are 

in most cases different from the max-tech levels shown in Table III.1. These levels are 

significantly higher than the commercially available max-tech levels for product classes 9 

(upright freezers with automatic defrost), 10 (chest freezers), 11 (compact refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost), and 18 (compact chest freezers). DOE 

determined that higher max-tech levels for these products were possible because the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
52

commercially available products generally do not use all of the energy efficient design 

options considered in the DOE max-tech analyses. Prototypes with the DOE max-tech 

levels have not been identified, but the design options are all used in commercially 

available products.

DOE determined the max-tech levels using the EPA Refrigerator Analysis (ERA) 

program to conduct energy modeling. DOE conducted this energy modeling for specific 

products examined during the engineering analysis. DOE created energy models for the 

existing products and adjusted these models to represent modified designs using the 

screened-in design options. The max-tech levels represent the most efficient design 

option combinations applicable for the analyzed products. This process is described in the 

NOPR TSD in chapter 5, Engineering Analysis in sections 5.4.4 and 5.7. DOE considered 

different sets of design options for each product class, as indicated in Table III.2, 

Table III.2 Design Options Considered for Max Tech

Product 

Class

Design Option

BLDC* Fan Motors Heat Exchanger Improvement Thicker WallsVacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs)Variable Speed Compressor Adaptive DefrostVariable Anti-sweat Heater ControlIsobutane Refrigerant

3     

5      

7      

9      

10    

11     

18    

3A-BI     

5-BI      

7-BI      

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
53

9-BI     

*Brushless-Direct-Current 

Stakeholder comments and questions regarding the preliminary analysis max-tech 

levels primarily address (a) the validity of max tech that is calculated based on 

technology options that are used in commercialized products but which is not achieved in 

actual products or prototypes, (b) the validity of consideration of variable speed 

compressors for compact products, (c) whether some of the design options, particularly 

heat exchanger size increases, would fit physically in the products, and (d) the validation 

of the energy modeling predictions. Comments falling under categories (b) through (d) 

address engineering analysis issues and are discussed in section IV.C, below. 

Some stakeholders questioned DOE’s use of energy analysis based on design 

options used in commercial products to determine max-tech levels rather than the 

maximum efficiency levels of available products. 

AHAM questioned DOE’s use of the max-tech evaluation. AHAM supports 

DOE’s historical approach of using the max-tech reference to identify those units in the 

market that have achieved the maximum efficiency. (AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 10, 15) 

GE also pointed out the discrepancy between the commercially available maxtech level and the theoretical max-tech level. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at 

p. 77) GE mentioned that DOE has not provided a detailed comparison of the maximum 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
54

efficiency levels currently available in the market with the model-based max tech. (Id.)

In written comments, GE also stated that DOE should not use theoretical max-tech levels 

not yet proven as viable alternatives in the marketplace and noted that there may be some 

instances where the inclusion of certain designs options may not yield additive 

improvements in efficiency. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2) 

While DOE has often selected max-tech levels that are based on commercially 

available efficiency levels, max-tech selections are not required to be limited to 

commercially available products or prototypes. DOE follows a prescribed method for 

evaluating technologies, which is laid out in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A. 

When DOE evaluates design options in ascertaining max-tech levels, these options are 

ones that have been incorporated into commercial products or in working prototypes. See, 

e.g., 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) and 5(b)(1). The range 

of candidate standard levels will typically include the most energy efficient combination 

of design options. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 5(c)(3)(i)(A). 

Because all of the design options represented by the max-tech levels examined by DOE 

are in use in the marketplace, DOE is considering max-tech levels that employ 

combinations of these design options, which, for some of the product classes, are not 

currently found in the marketplace. DOE considered in the analysis whether the chosen 

design options used for the max-tech analyses can be combined and concluded that the 

chosen combinations are valid. For example, when considering VIPs, DOE adjusted the 

analysis to remove some conventional insulation, and when considering variable-speed 

compressors, DOE removed high-efficiency single-speed compressor design options. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
55

DOE requests comment on the max-tech levels identified and on the combinations 

of design options considered applicable to achieve max-tech designs. DOE requests that 

comments also address as appropriate the differences in applicable design options for 

different product classes. See Issue 2 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in 

section VII.E. Based on comments received in response to these issues, DOE may make 

adjustments to its proposed levels. 

C.

1. Determination of Savings 

Energy Savings

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended 

standards for the refrigeration products that are the subject of this rulemaking.

15 For each 

TSL, DOE forecasted energy savings beginning in 2014, the year that manufacturers 

would be required to comply with amended standards, and ending in 2043. DOE 

quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy 

consumption between the standards case and the base case. The base case represents the 

forecast of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency 

standards, and considers market demand for more-efficient products. 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in “site energy” 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy directly consumed by 

refrigeration products at the locations where they are used. DOE reports national energy 

savings on an annual basis in terms of the aggregated source (primary) energy savings, 

 

15 The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of this notice.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
56

which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site energy. 

(See TSD chapter 10.) To convert site energy to source energy, DOE derived annual 

conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010). 

2. Significance of Savings

 As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard 

for a covered product if such standard would not result in “significant” energy savings. 

While the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 

indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be 

savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 

“significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA. 

D.

1. Specific Criteria

Economic Justification

 As noted in section II.B, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed 

each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
57

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers 

 In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first 

determines the quantitative impacts using an annual cash-flow approach. This step 

includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between the issuance of a regulation and when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year analysis period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows), cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on 

different types of manufacturers, paying particular attention to impacts on small 

manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer 

employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in 

plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative 

impacts of different DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 

manufacturers.

 For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in 

LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, which is 

separately specified in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be considered in determining 

the economic justification for a new or amended standard, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), 

is discussed in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also 

calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts on consumers over the 

forecast period used in a particular rulemaking. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
58

b. Life-Cycle Costs

 The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) 

and the operating expense (including energy and maintenance and repair expenditures) 

discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects likely trends in the 

absence of amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 

product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, 

product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. DOE assumed in its analysis that 

consumers will purchase the considered products in 2014. 

 To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product 

lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values with probabilities attached 

to each value. A distinct advantage of this approach is that DOE can identify the 

percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC 

increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard 

level. In addition to identifying ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national standard. 

c. Energy Savings

 While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for 

imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
59

economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE 

uses the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

 In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to develop standards for refrigeration 

products that would not lessen the utility or performance of these products. None of the 

TSLs presented in today’s NOPR would substantially reduce the utility or performance of 

the products under consideration in the rulemaking. However, manufacturers may reduce 

the availability of features that increase energy use, such as multiple drawers, in response 

to amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result 

from standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney 

General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE has transmitted a 

copy of today’s proposed rule to the Attorney General and has requested that the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address 

the Attorney General’s determination in the final rule. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
60

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

 Certain benefits of the proposed standards are likely to be reflected in 

improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation’s energy system. Reductions in 

the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability 

of the Nation’s electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how 

standards may affect the Nation’s needed power generation capacity. 

 Energy savings from the proposed standards are also likely to result in 

environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse 

gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the environmental effects from the 

proposed standards for refrigeration products, and from each TSL it considered, in the 

environmental assessment contained in chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD. DOE also reports 

estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

TSLs. 

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In developing the proposals of this notice, 

DOE has also considered the comments of the stakeholders, including those raised in the 

Joint Comments. 

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
61

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

 As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the 

additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three 

times the value of the first-year of energy savings resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses 

generate values used to calculate the payback period for consumers of potential amended 

energy conservation standards. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 

payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE 

routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the

consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 

evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The 

rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.12 of this NOPR

and chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

 DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today’s proposed 

standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and payback periods of potential new 

energy conservation standards. The second provides shipments forecasts, and then 

calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential new energy 

conservation standards. DOE also assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
62

the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The two spreadsheets will be made 

available online at the rulemaking website: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/refrigerators_free

zers.html . 

Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment of 

energy efficiency standards for refrigeration products. DOE used a version of EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. 

The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a widely known energy forecast for the United 

States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT16, 

and is based on the AEO version with minor modifications.17 The NEMS-BT offers a 

sophisticated picture of the effect of standards because it accounts for the interactions 

between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole. 

 

16 BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies Program.

17 The EIA allows the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs 

the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers 

to the model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
63

A.

 When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops 

information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics. 

Market and Technology Assessment

This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on 

publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 

assessment for this rulemaking include product classes and manufacturers; quantities, and 

types of products sold and offered for sale; retail market trends; regulatory and nonregulatory programs; and technologies or design options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of the product(s) under examination. See chapter 3, Market and Technology 

Assessment, of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology 

assessment.

Discussion presented in this section of today’s NOPR primarily addresses the 

scope of coverage of refrigeration products and the product class structure. Both of these 

issues were discussed at length during the preliminary analysis public meeting. DOE is 

proposing several modifications of the product class structure, as discussed in section 

IV.A.2, below. 

1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers from This Rulemaking 

 During the preliminary analysis, DOE considered whether wine coolers are 

covered products under EPCA, and whether they would be considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE modified the definition of “Electric Refrigerator” on November 19, 2001, by 

limiting the definition to products designed for the refrigerated storage of food at 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
64

temperatures above 32° F and below 39° F. 66 FR 57845, 57848 (November 19, 2001). 

The modification imposed an upper limit on the applicable storage temperature range, 

thus eliminating wine storage products, which operate with storage temperatures above 

40  ̊F (and generally near 55  ̊F) from consideration as electric refrigerators. The industry 

generally urged DOE to consider wine coolers within the scope of its rulemaking. 

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 9; Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 108; Sub Zero, 

No. 40 at p. 9; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 2) AHAM further argued that DOE does have the 

authority to regulate wine coolers, and stated that regulation of wine coolers under a DOE 

standard is important to prevent manufacturers from having to meet multiple State 

requirements. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 36) Sub Zero suggested 

that DOE establish a standard that is consistent with current standards set by the 

California Energy Commission (CEC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and also 

argued that no State or foreign requirement should set a de facto national standard for any 

appliance. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 9) Other commenters, IOU and Energy Solutions, 

representing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), supported DOE’s proposal. (IOU, No. 36 

at p. 12; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 36) 

DOE notes that residential wine coolers are appliances designed for the storage of 

wine at a temperature of approximately 55  ̊F. Because they are neither designed for food 

storage, nor maintain storage temperatures below 39  ̊F, they are not “electric 

refrigerators” as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. Since EPCA does not define the term 

“refrigerators” or “refrigeration products,” a definition could be developed to account for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
65

those products that operate with warmer compartment temperature ranges, including wine 

storage products. DOE may consider such a change in a future rulemaking. 

2. Product Classes

In evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally 

divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other 

performance-related feature that justifies a different standard for those products. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)). In deciding whether a feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider factors such as the utility of the feature to users. (Id.) DOE normally establishes 

different energy conservation standards for different product classes based on these 

criteria. The CFR sets forth 18 product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers.18 These classes are based on the following characteristics: type of unit 

(refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer), size of the cabinet (standard or compact), 

type of defrost system (manual, partial, or automatic), presence or absence of throughthe-door (TTD) ice service, and placement of the fresh food and freezer compartments for 

refrigerator-freezers (top, side, bottom). 

DOE proposes to create 19 new product classes to account for the increasingly 

wider number of variants of products. Six new product classes were discussed and 

proposed in the preliminary analysis phase. Table IV.1 presents the product classes under 

consideration in this rulemaking, including both current and proposed classes. Note that 

the designation of some of the current product classes has changed in order to address the 

 

18 Title 10—Energy, Chapter II—Department of Energy, Part 430—Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products, Subpart A—General Provisions, Section 430.32—Energy and Water Conservation 

Standards and Effective Dates.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
66

proposed division of these product classes. The subsections below provide additional 

details and discussion of comments relating to the product classes under consideration. 

Table IV.1 Proposed Product Classes for Refrigeration Products

No. Product Class

Classes Listed in the CFR

1 Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost

2 Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost

3 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker

4 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker

5 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker

6 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service

7 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service 

8 Upright freezers with manual defrost

9 Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

10 Chest freezers with manual defrost and all other freezers except compact freezers

11 Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost

12 Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost

13 Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 

14 Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer

15 Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

16 Compact upright freezers with manual defrost

17 Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost

18 Compact chest freezers

Product Classes Proposed to be Established in this Rulemaking

and Introduced in the Preliminary TSD

1A All-refrigerators—manual defrost

3A All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

5A Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service

10A Chest freezers with automatic defrost

11A Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost

13A Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost

Additional Product Classes Proposed to be Established in this Rulemaking

3-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an 

automatic icemaker

3I Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
67

No. Product Class

3I-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an 

automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service 

3A-BI Built-in all-refrigerators—automatic defrost

4I Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service

4-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an 

automatic icemaker

4I-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an 

automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

5I Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service

5-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an 

automatic icemaker

5I-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an 

automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

5A-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with throughthe-door ice service 

7-BI Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with throughthe-door ice service 

9-BI Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

DOE proposed six new product classes in the preliminary TSD. Two of these,

product class 5A, “automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezer 

with through-the-door ice service,” and product class 10A, “chest freezers with automatic 

defrost,” were identified in the framework document as product classes 19 and 20. DOE 

modified the designation of these product classes in order to maintain consistency with 

the product class designations adopted by Canada. DOE received comments from AHAM 

and Whirlpool supporting this modification (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 

at pp. 40; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 1) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
68

Four additional product classes proposed in the preliminary TSD are allrefrigerators. As described below, the proposed new test procedure has led to DOE’s 

proposal to establish separate product classes for these products. 

As part of today’s NOPR, DOE proposes 13 additional new product classes. 

These classes are based on incorporation of icemaking energy use into the test procedure, 

and the need to address the different consumer utility and energy use characteristics of 

built-in products. 

EPCA requires that the establishment of separate product classes be based on 

either (A) consumption of a different kind of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or class); or (B) a capacity or other performancerelated feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have, where such 

feature justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies to other products 

within such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). The second of these criteria is applicable 

to all of the new product classes proposed in this rulemaking. 

a. French Door Refrigerators with Through-the-Door Ice Service

DOE proposes to establish a new product class 5A (refrigerator-freezers—

automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). Most, 

if not all, products of this class have a pair of French doors rather than a single door 

serving the upper fresh food compartment. Products of class 5A have TTD ice service 

features which are not present in current product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
69

defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service). These added 

features increase energy use because of the thermal load associated with the TTD 

dispenser penetration and the anti-sweat heater energy generally used in this area of the 

product. See, e.g., Decision and Order (Maytag Corporation), Office of Hearings and 

Appeals, Case No. TEE-0022 (published August 11, 2005) (granting exception relief to 

Maytag and creating a revised energy equation to permit the sale of refrigerator-freezers 

equipped with a bottom-mounted freezer and through-the-door ice service). Hence, 

because of the presence of this capability, DOE has determined that these unique features 

merit a separate product class and justify a separate maximum energy use standard. 

b. Chest Freezers with Automatic Defrost

Products of class 10A (chest freezers with automatic defrost) include an automatic 

defrost function, a feature not present in chest freezers with manual defrost. Automatic, 

as opposed to manual, defrost is recognized as a feature with distinct consumer utility 

that increases energy use, justifying a separate energy use standard. See, e.g., Decision 

and Order (Electrolux Home Products, Inc.), Office of Hearings and Appeals, Case No. 

TEE-0012 (published September 13, 2004). 

c. All-Refrigerators

DOE proposes establishing four new all-refrigerator product classes to separate 

these products from their current product classes. These current product classes -- 1 

(refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost), 3 (refrigerator-freezers—

automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service and allEERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
70

refrigerators—automatic defrost), 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 

manual defrost), and 13 (compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer and compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost)—include refrigerators 

with freezer compartments (“basic refrigerators”), refrigerator-freezers, and allrefrigerators. The proposed test procedure changes described in section III.A will result in 

significantly higher measured energy use for basic refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

and somewhat less energy use for all-refrigerators. At this time, DOE believes that these 

differences in energy use characteristics under the proposed new test procedures, 

combined with the distinct utility difference associated with presence of a freezer 

compartment (of 0.5 cubic foot size or greater) satisfy the criteria under EPCA to 

establish separate product classes. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)). DOE received 

comments supporting this proposal from AHAM and Whirlpool (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 40; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 4; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 28 at pp. 41-42) Whirlpool clarified in written comments that separate product 

classes should not be added for multi-door refrigerators (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 1) 

DOE’s proposal to separate all-refrigerators from the product classes that 

currently include all-refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and basic refrigerators is based 

on the performance afforded by the freezer compartments of refrigerator-freezers and 

basic refrigerators. All-refrigerators were not explicitly mentioned when the 1990 energy 

standard was established. 54 FR 6062, 6077 (February 7, 1989). Product class 1 includes 

all-refrigerators with manual defrost, since “all-refrigerator” is a sub-category of

“refrigerator.” That final rule did not explicitly recognize the existence of all-refrigerators 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
71

with automatic defrost. (Id.) These products were subsequently added to product class 3 

starting with the 1993 standard. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989). The NOPR for that 

final rule, made this change in response to comments received from Whirlpool and 

AHAM. 53 FR 48798, 48809 (December 2, 1988). When compact products were later 

separated from standard-size products with the 2001 standard, the compact allrefrigerators became part of product classes 11 (for manual defrost products) and 13 (for 

automatic defrost products). 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997). 

Under the proposed test procedures that underpin today’s proposed levels, the 

energy use characteristics of all-refrigerators will not be consistent with the refrigeratorfreezers and basic refrigerators of the same current product classes. Specifically, the 

measured energy use of all-refrigerators is expected to decrease under the proposed new 

test procedures, while the measured energy use of refrigerator-freezers and basic 

refrigerators is expected to increase significantly (See the preliminary TSD chapter 5, 

Engineering Analysis, section 5.4.2.1). Since the freezer compartments of refrigeratorfreezers and basic refrigerators provide a different level of consumer utility than allrefrigerators, and because the product differences also contribute to different efficiency 

characteristics, DOE tentatively believes that separating these product classes is justified 

under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

With respect to the treatment of those products equipped with off-cycle defrost, 

DOE sought comment on whether stakeholders agree with the agency’s interpretation 

that this feature is a form of automatic defrost and whether the proposed product class 1A 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
72

(all-refrigerators with manual defrost) is needed. In products with off-cycle defrost, the 

evaporator warms above freezing temperature when the compressor turns off, thus 

allowing the frost to melt. Such defrost systems are used only in all-refrigerators or fresh 

food compartments of refrigerator-freezers, because the compartment temperature must 

be above 32 ̊F for the evaporator to warm above freezing. The proposed product class 1A 

includes standard-size all-refrigerators with manual defrost. If off-cycle defrost is treated 

as automatic defrost rather than manual defrost, product class 1A would consist primarily 

of refrigerators with roll-bond evaporators enclosing freezer compartments with a size of 

less than 0.5 cubic foot. During the preliminary analysis discussion, DOE was unaware of 

whether standard-size products with such small freezer compartments exist and requested 

comment on these issues for this reason. 

AHAM commented during the public meeting that it considers off-cycle defrost 

to be automatic defrost, but that it was not aware of any all-refrigerator products with 

manual defrost (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 40) However, Sanyo 

E&E Corporation (Sanyo) indicated in written comments that it manufacturers such 

products (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 3) Based on this information, DOE proposes that product 

class 1A be established in addition to the other all-refrigerator product classes.

ASAP urged DOE to avoid introducing too many product classes, and that 

streamlining product classes has been shown to reduce overall energy consumption. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 41) DOE believes that each of its 

proposed product classes is needed to ensure that meaningful efficiency levels will be 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
73

established for each of these products. Because the measured energy use of products with 

freezer compartments larger than 0.5 cubic foot is expected to increase roughly 15 

percent under the proposed new test procedure and the energy use of all-refrigerators is 

expected to decrease roughly 3 percent (see chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, of the 

preliminary TSD, section 5.4.2.1), the energy use characteristics of the former group of 

products will determine the new standards for these product classes. The proposed test 

procedure would be more representative of field energy use differences of these product 

classes and would show higher energy use for basic refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

than all-refrigerators. Accordingly, by DOE’s estimates, the potential energy savings 

associated with all-refrigerators resulting from the new energy standard would be roughly 

18 percent less if DOE retains the current product class structure than they would be if 

DOE establishes separate all-refrigerator product classes. 

d. Products with Automatic Icemakers

The test procedure proposed to apply to refrigeration products covered under the 

proposed new energy conservation standards incorporates energy use associated with 

automatic icemaking. 75 FR 29846 (May 27, 2010). DOE considers an automatic 

icemaker to be a feature that provides unique consumer utility. Products equipped with an 

automatic icemaker would have energy characteristics that are distinct from those without 

one because the energy use measured under the proposed test procedure depends on the 

presence of an automatic icemaker. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that 

establishing product class distinctions based on the presence of an automatic icemaker is 

justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
74

Some of the existing product classes denote products that inherently have 

automatic icemakers. These include product classes 6 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service) and 7 (refrigeratorfreezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service). However, some of the other product classes denote products that may or may 

not include automatic icemakers. For these products, DOE proposes to establish new 

product classes, as indicated in Table IV.1, above. These proposed new product classes 

include conventional (free-standing) and built-in classes of refrigerator-freezers with 

automatic defrost. Built-in product classes are discussed further in section IV.A.2.e

below. 

DOE requests comments on its proposal to establish product classes for products 

with automatic icemakers, including DOE’s proposed approach to account for icemakers 

in the product class structure. See Issue 3 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” 

in section VII.E of this NOPR. The classes and levels that DOE ultimately adopts may 

be adjusted from the proposal based on the comments an information DOE receives and 

gathers.

e. Built-In Products 

DOE received several comments on the possible establishment of separate 

product classes for built-in refrigeration products. Sub Zero supported establishing 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
75

separate product classes, citing (i) inherent design differences between built-in and freestanding products that make attaining higher efficiency levels more difficult for built-ins 

(the efficiency level difference was quantified as about 15 percent), (ii) limited design 

options for improving built-in unit efficiency, (iii) the unique utility of these products, not 

offered by conventional units, which, in Sub Zero’s view, satisfies the criteria under 

EPCA to justify creating a new product class, and (iv) the precedent set in the previous 

refrigeration product rulemaking, where separate product classes were established for 

compact refrigerators. (Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 101-04; Sub 

Zero, No. 40 at pp. 5-7) In Sub Zero’s view, the unique consumer utility offered by builtins is their ability to fit seamlessly into the surrounding kitchen cabinetry. (Sub-Zero, No. 

40 at p. 6) Sub Zero also commented that built-ins have numerous differences when 

compared to their free-standing counterparts. Typically, built-in units have more doors 

and drawers than other products, and may also have glass doors and several different 

temperature compartments. (Id.) Sub Zero supported these statements with additional 

comments and concluded that DOE’s decision on whether to create product classes for 

built-in units is pivotal to Sub Zero’s ability to compete in the market. (Sub Zero, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 104; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 7) 

AHAM, Whirlpool, and Sanyo all submitted comments supporting Sub Zero’s 

request for separate product classes for built-in units. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 104-05; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4; and 

Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM supported Sub Zero’s statement that built-in products 

provide an important utility to a subset of refrigeration product consumers. (AHAM, No. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
76

34 at p. 8) Whirlpool agreed that the characteristics of built-in units are sufficiently 

different from free-standing models, and noted that built-ins have significantly different 

cost requirements to reach higher efficiencies. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4) Sanyo stated 

that the design issues affecting standard-sized built-in models affect compact built-ins as 

well. (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2) 

To address the built-in issue, AHAM suggested a definition for built-in products: 

Refrigerators, freezers and refrigerators with freezer units that are 7.75 cubic feet 

or greater; are totally encased by cabinetry or panels by either accepting a custom 

front panel or being equipped with an integral factory‐finished face; are intended 

to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor; has sides which are 

not fully finished and are not intended to be visible after installation. 

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 8) 

Despite these comments in favor of establishing a separate built-in class, DOE 

also received a number of comments opposing this approach. In their joint comments, 

ACEEE and ASAP voiced concern that lower standards for built-in products would lead 

to a consumer shift toward the built-in segment, thereby reducing the projected energy 

savings from the standard. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 5) IOU agreed with the 

ACEEE/ASAP concern regarding an increasing built-in market share and noted that the 

incremental cost and associated price increase that manufacturers would incur to design 

built-in products that would satisfy the same level of efficiency as their free-standing 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
77

counterparts is likely to be small when compared to the final retail price. Additionally, 

IOU, along with Earthjustice and NRDC, indicated that built-in products provide 

essentially the same amenity and service as free-standing products, and do not warrant 

separate product classes on the basis of offering a unique customer utility. (IOU, No. 36 

at p. 11; Earthjustice, No. 35 at pp. 1-5; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 2) 

 

Requirements for consideration of separate product classes are addressed in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q). That section provides that when creating a separate class of products, 

certain criteria must be met:

(q) Special rule for certain types or classes of products 

(1) A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of 

covered products shall specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or lower 

than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any group of 

covered products which have the same function or intended use, if the Secretary 

determines that covered products within such group - 

(A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products 

within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 

standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products within such 

type (or class). 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
78

In making a determination under this paragraph concerning whether a 

performance-related feature justifies the establishment of a higher or lower 

standard, the Secretary shall consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature, and such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.

(2) Any rule prescribing a higher or lower level of energy use or efficiency under 

paragraph (1) shall include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or 

lower level was established.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

Based on the available facts currently before DOE, built-in products appear to 

provide unique consumer utility by enabling consumers to build these products 

seamlessly into their kitchen cabinetry. These products are designed with standard 

dimensions to fit standard cabinet sizes, including a shallow depth of 24 inches. As SubZero pointed out, many of the design differences that permit this capability also have an 

impact on energy use. DOE’s analysis confirms the increased difficulty these products 

have as compared with freestanding units in achieving further reductions in energy use. 

This information is presented in detail in the NOPR TSD, and some of the information is 

summarized below in this section.

However, the use of glass doors or additional doors and drawers do not appear to 

be unique to built-in products. DOE’s website research of the product offerings of four 

built-in manufacturers (Sub Zero, GE Monogram, Kitchenaid, and Viking, websites 

accessed June 3, 2010) showed that most built-in products do not have these features 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
79

(“Online Research on Built-in Refrigeration Features”, No. 51). Table IV.2 shows the 

results of a review of built-in products on the websites of these four major manufacturers 

of built-in refrigeration products. A very limited number of the available products (13 out 

of 116) had these special features. Additionally, DOE’s review of product offerings of 

conventional free-standing products shows that many product offerings have French 

doors or multiple drawers. Because these features are neither exclusive to built-ins and 

nor shared by a vast majority of built-ins, DOE does not consider these features to be 

particularly relevant to the consideration of the consumer utility provided by built-in 

products. 

Table IV.2 Built-In Product Special Features

Glass Window One Extra 

Drawer

French Doors One Extra Door 

and Three Extra 

Drawers

Number of 

Products 

X 3

X X 1

X 6

X 2

X 1

No special features 103

Total number of products 116

Note: Based on products on the websites of four key manufacturers of built-in 

refrigeration products. 

As noted above, in addition to providing special consumer utility, EPCA requires 

that the consumer utility offered by the product form the basis for the different efficiency 

characteristics that would merit the creation of a separate product class. Sub Zero’s 

comments to DOE have enumerated the design differences associated with the utility 

provided by built-in products that affect their energy efficiency, including the following: 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
80

1. Built-ins are typically constrained by kitchen cabinetry, which can increase 

the exterior surface area and the door perimeter length per interior volume, 

and also limit manufacturers’ ability to increase wall thickness for built-in 

products more so than for conventional products because depth increase is 

limited by the standard cabinetry depth.

2. Built-ins have more complex hinge motion to avoid adjacent cabinets, which 

increases the size of the hinge hardware embedded in the cabinet walls, thus 

increasing thermal loss.

3. Air flow is more restricted for built-ins, since the installation imposes more 

limits on access for air movement. Condenser air flow is often in and out of 

the front of the condenser area, thus reducing condenser air flow rate.

(Sub-Zero, No. 40 at p. 6) 

In addition, some built-in products use hot gas rather than warm liquid anti-sweat 

heating loops. Nearly all conventional free-standing products with refrigerant anti-sweat 

loop use warm liquid. Warm liquid loops use refrigerant liquid that has left the condenser 

to warm the surfaces in question, while hot gas loops use hot gas that has not yet entered 

the condenser. Because the hot gas refrigerant is at a higher temperature than the warm 

liquid used in a warm liquid loop, it can transfer significantly more heat to the heated 

surface and, in turn, to the cabinet interior. Hot gas loops are sometimes used in built-ins 

because the paneling mounted on the doors blocks the door frame surfaces from being 

warmed by ambient air, which more readily leads to condensation during field use (i.e., in 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
81

a customer’s home). This design can increase cabinet load, resulting in a higher measured 

energy use.19

DOE analyzed four built-in products for the NOPR to determine whether their 

efficiency characteristics differ significantly from those of conventional free-standing 

products. These four products represent four key product classes for built-in products, all 

of standard (not compact) size: all-refrigerator—automatic defrost (proposed product 

class 3A), refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service (product class 5), refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service (product class 7), and 

upright freezers with automatic defrost (product class 9). DOE compared the results of 

these analyses with those conducted for conventional (free-standing) products for product 

classes 3 (refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service), 5, 7, and 9. 

Product class 3 under the current standard includes both all-refrigerator—

automatic defrost and refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service. Because there are very few shipments of built-in 

top-mount refrigerators, and all-refrigerators are a minority product for the free-standing 

market, DOE compared a conventional top-mount refrigerator with the built-in allrefrigerator.

 

19 Cabinet load refers to the thermal load (heat) entering the cabinet. The refrigeration system must remove 

this load from the cabinet to maintain compartment temperatures, and it expends energy in doing so.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
82

DOE analyzed two conventional products of each examined product class. The 

max-tech levels for the analyzed built-ins and conventional products are compared in 

Table IV.3. The max-tech levels for the built-in products are significantly lower than 

those for the conventional products, by roughly 10 percent for the refrigerator-freezers 

(product classes 5 and 7) and 15 percent for the upright freezers (product class 9). The 

difference is greater for upright freezers because DOE considered wall thickness 

increases appropriate for conventional upright freezers but not for built-in upright 

freezers, due to the limited-space kitchen installation typical for built-in upright freezers. 

Table IV.3 Max-Tech Differences between Built-In and Conventional Products

Product 

Class

Built-In: 3A

Conventional: 3

5

(see Note 1)

7 9

Design 

Options 

• Larger Heat 

Exchangers

• BLDC Fan 

Motors 

• VIPs (see 

Note 2) 

• VariableSpeed 

Compressors 

• Adaptive 

Defrost 

• Larger Heat 

Exchangers

• BLDC Fan 

Motors 

• VIPs (see 

Note 2) 

• VariableSpeed 

Compressors 

• Adaptive 

Defrost 

• Variable AntiSweat Heater 

Control (see 

Note 4) 

• Larger 

Heat 

Exchangers

• BLDC 

Fan Motors 

• VIPs (see 

Note 2) 

• VariableSpeed 

Compressors 

• Adaptive 

Defrost 

• Variable 

Anti-Sweat 

Heater Control 

for Ice 

Dispenser

• Larger Heat 

Exchangers

• BLDC Fan 

Motors 

• VIPs (see 

Note 2) 

• VariableSpeed 

Compressors 

• Adaptive 

Defrost 

• Forced 

Convection 

Condenser (see 

Note 5) 

• Wall 

Thickness 

Increase (see 

Note 6)

Percentage energy use lower than a baseline-efficiency product:

Built-In Max 

Tech

29% 27% 22% 27%

Conventional 

Max Tech

36% 36% 33% 44%

Notes:

1. Percentage reduction is from reference standard curve with increased slope for product class 5.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
83

2. VIPs applied fully to doors and to half of cabinet.

3. Many of the design options such as BLDC fan motors and adaptive defrost are already present in 

baseline-efficiency built-in products.

4. Variable Anti-Sweat Heater control was not considered for the built-in products of product class 5, since 

French doors are not common for product class 5 built-ins. 

5. Forced convection condenser already present in the baseline built-in upright freezer. 

6. Wall thickness increase considered only for the conventional upright freezer, since the built-in upright 

freezer is designed primarily for installation in a kitchen, where limitations to product growth apply.

Information provided by built-in unit manufacturers during the NOPR 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) discussions is generally consistent with the design 

differences between built-in and conventional products shown in the detailed analysis 

described above. For example, achieving the ENERGY STAR efficiency level for builtin standard-size refrigerator-freezers generally requires use of variable-speed 

compressors, VIPs, or both. In contrast, conventional standard-size refrigerator-freezers 

generally achieve this efficiency level without use of either of these design options. This 

situation leaves fewer options available for further efficiency improvements for built-in 

products. Accordingly, based on this information, there do not appear to be additional 

design options currently available to enable manufacturers to produce built-ins to an 

efficiency level matching their free-standing counterparts. 

Moreover, the unique consumer utility offered by built-in products is 

demonstrated in part by the higher costs some customers are willing to pay to obtain this 

utility. While cost difference alone is generally not considered to be basis for consumer 

utility, the significantly higher price paid by consumers for built-in products can be 

considered an indicator that consumers value the utility associated with the built-in 

design. The cost difference between built-in and conventional products is presented in 

Table IV.4 for product classes 4 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sideEERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
84

mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 5, 7, and 9. This comparison is 

based on proprietary retail price data collected by The NPD Group, which includes retail 

purchase price information for millions of purchases of refrigeration products. The 

comparison between the built-in and conventional product types is based on separate 

consideration of brands that include only built-in products and brands that include only 

conventional products. Brands that include both built-in and conventional products (e.g.,

KitchenAid) are not represented in the table because the NPD Group dataset does not 

clearly distinguish built-in status in the data of such brands. The data show that built-in 

product average prices are approximately $3,500 to $6,200 higher than those of 

conventional products. 

Table IV.4 Built-In Product Cost Compared with Conventional Products

Product 

Class 4

Product 

Class 5

Product 

Class 7

Product 

Class 9

Built-In

 Median

 Average 

 Std. Deviation 

$6,214 

$7,017 

$1,990 

$5,190 

$4,983 

$817 

$6,637 

$7,213 

$1,018 

$3,181 

$4,062 

$1,023 

Conventional

 Median

 Average 

 Std. Deviation

$1,073 

$2,220 

$1,333

$797 

$852 

$239

$1,019 

$1,048 

$485

$509 

$520 

$209

Source: NPD, 2007-2008 

DOE notes that retail price differences alone do not form the basis for consumer 

utility. In the commercial clothes washer (CCW) rulemaking, Alliance Laundry Systems 

(Alliance) asserted that the ability to load a clothes washer from the top is a “feature”

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295 because it provides consumers the opportunity to 

purchase lower cost CCWs. 75 FR 1122, 1130 (January 8, 2010). DOE disagreed and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
85

noted that while price is an important consideration to consumers, DOE accounts for 

these consumer impacts in its LCC and PBP analyses. 75 FR 1134. 

In the case of built-in refrigeration products, the facts suggest that the higher price 

paid for a built-in unit reflects the view of consumers that these products have a special 

utility when compared to free-standing equivalent products. As a result, unlike in the 

case of commercial clothes washers, where pricing itself was alleged to be a critical 

feature within the meaning of EPCA, pricing with respect to built-in products reflects the 

additional utility provided by these units. This price differential between built-in and 

stand-alone units indicates that consumers believe that built-in products offer a unique 

utility or other performance characteristic not offered by stand-alone units -- in this case, 

that utility or performance would be the seamless integration of refrigeration products 

into kitchen cabinetry and the surrounding environment. 

In summary, DOE tentatively concludes that built-in products provide consumer 

utility associated with the ability to build the products into the kitchen cabinetry, an 

attribute that is not provided by other products, and that the design details associated with 

this product characteristic result in the reduced efficiency of these products. DOE has 

tentatively concluded that these criteria satisfy 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and is tentatively 

proposing the creation of a separate built-in product class. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
86

DOE also proposes to adopt a modified version of the draft definition developed 

by AHAM for built-in products cited above, which would read as follows (changes from 

the AHAM draft are shown with italics for additions and bracketed text for deletions): 

Built-In Refrigerator/Refrigerator-Freezer/Freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with 7.75 cubic feet or greater total volume and 24 

inches or less depth not including handles and not including custom front panels; 

is designed to be [totally] encased on the sides and rear by cabinetry [or panels by 

either accepting a custom front panel or being equipped with an integral factorfinish face]; is designed [intended] to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, 

walls or floor; and has sides which are not fully finished and are not designed to 

be visible after installation.

DOE considered AHAM’s draft definition’s exclusion of products with volumes 

less than 7.75 cubic feet. This limitation would exclude compact products, which are 

currently defined as having total volume less than 7.75 cubic feet and height less than 36 

inches. (10 CFR 430.2). The draft definition would also exclude non-compact products 

that have volume less than 7.75 cubic feet (such products would exceed 36 inches in 

height). DOE proposes retaining the AHAM draft definition’s omission of additional 

clarification regarding the 36-inch height limitation because DOE proposes to remove 

this limitation from the definition of compact products (see section IV.A.2.g, below). 

Sanyo suggested that DOE consider compact products as part of any built-in product 

classes that the agency establishes. (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2) However, DOE notes that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
87

special consideration for compact products was provided when the current energy 

standards were established in 1997. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997). In particular, DOE 

created separate product classes with less stringent standards for all compact refrigeration 

products to address their particular characteristics. (Id.) As discussed in section IV.A.2.g, 

the arguments for creating separate product classes for compact products at that time 

emphasized the issues associated with undercounter products (essentially built-in 

compact products) rather than compact products in general. For this reason, in DOE’s 

view, the relief sought by Sanyo for compact built-in products has already been provided 

and, under the available facts, no additional consideration appears to be merited at this 

time.

Further, DOE understands that undercounter products are generally sold with 

finished sides to permit both free-standing and undercounter use. As a result, these 

products would not meet the proposed built-in definition. DOE does not propose relaxing 

the requirement for unfinished sides to allow for the inclusion of undercounter products. 

DOE is declining to take this step to prevent potential gaming by manufacturers seeking 

to claim their conventional products as built-in units. 

DOE also proposes to include a depth limitation in the definition for built-in 

products. The consumer utility and energy impacts associated with the depth limitation 

are highlighted in stakeholder comments (see, e.g., Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 6). 

Investigation of dimensional data for built-in products shows that nearly all of these 

products have a 24-inch depth. DOE requests comments on whether any adjustment of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
88

the 24-inch dimension specified in the proposed definition should be made. See Issue 4

under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.

DOE does not propose to adopt the portion of AHAM’s proposed built-in 

definition that addresses the front portion of the product—i.e., “. . . by either accepting a 

custom front panel or being equipped with an integral factory‐finished face . . .”) DOE 

declines to adopt this aspect of AHAM’s definition because it does not distinguish builtin products from conventional free-standing products, which generally have an integral 

factory-finished face.

DOE is aware of the potential that manufacturers may attempt to apply the 

proposed definition in order to avail themselves of the more lenient efficiency levels that 

DOE proposes to permit built-in units to meet. DOE tentatively believes that the modified 

definition presented above provides sufficient protection against such improper use of the 

definition. DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition is adequate to 

prevent potential gaming or whether changes are needed to further strengthen it while 

avoiding disqualifying any legitimate built-in products. (See Issue 4 under “Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) 

DOE’s investigation of the built-in market through examination of built-in 

product offerings and discussion with manufacturers shows that the key standard-size 

built-in product classes include current product classes 4, 5, 7, 9, and the all-refrigerators 

associated with current product class 3. DOE proposes establishing seven new built-in 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
89

product classes, as listed in Table IV.1, above. Two of these product classes address the 

need to separate products with automatic icemakers from those without automatic 

icemakers, as described in section IV.A.2.d above. 

DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish separate product classes for 

built-in products. (See Issue 4 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section 

VII.E of this NOPR.) As with all other aspects of this proposal, DOE may adjust its 

treatment of built-in products depending on the comments and information it receives in 

response to the NOPR. 

DOE also requests comment on whether any additional product classes are 

required to fully address icemaking and built-in products. (See Issue 5 under “Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) 

f. Combining Product Classes 2 with 1, and 12 with 11 

In the preliminary analysis phase, DOE proposed combining product class 2 

(refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost) with product class 1 (refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost); and product class 12 (compact refrigeratorfreezers—partial automatic defrost), with product class 11 (refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers with manual defrost). DOE noted that units in product classes 2 and 12 contain 

freezer compartments that undergo manual defrost and fresh food compartments that 

undergo off-cycle defrost, a process which does not require additional energy to defrost. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
90

Hence, the defrost energy consumption for these units is expected to be the same as it 

would be for an identical unit in either product class 1 or 11. 

Additionally, DOE noted that shipments for product classes 1 and 2 are very low 

(representing roughly 0.1 percent of shipments), and the energy consumption standards 

for those product classes are identical. The shipments for product class 12 are also very 

low (representing less than 0.1 percent of shipments). 

Finally, DOE noted that although the energy consumption standard for product 

class 12 is currently at a higher energy level than for product class 11, there is no obvious 

technical basis for this distinction. AHAM supported DOE’s proposal to combine these 

pairs of product classes into two classes (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 

40 and No. 34 at p. 4) The Joint Comments that DOE received, to which AHAM was a 

signatory, suggested that DOE continue to maintain these separate classes. 

DOE requests comment on whether these proposed combinations (combining 

product class 2 with product class 1 and combining product class 12 with product class 

11) should be adopted. DOE notes that the Joint Comments suggested maintaining the 

current separation.20 (See Issue 6 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in 

section VII.E of this NOPR.) This approach may be adjusted based on comments and 

information submitted in response to today’s NOPR. 

 

20 DOE Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012, Comment 49.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
91

g. Modification of the Definition for Compact Products 

Sanyo suggested in its comments that DOE remove the current 36 inch height 

limit for compact products. Sanyo stated that this requirement qualifies some Sanyo 

products as standard-size units even though they meet the volume provision under the 

compact unit definition. The energy consumption standards for standard-size products are 

more stringent than the standards for compact products. Sanyo believes that energy 

consumption is strongly correlated with volume, and only minimally correlated with 

height. (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes that a relationship between energy consumption and internal 

volume exists. DOE notes that the compact product classes were created as part of the 

rulemaking establishing the 2001 energy standards. As DOE explained in a July 1995 

NOPR, these classes were created because fewer design options exist for reducing the 

energy consumption in these products. 60 FR 37388, 37396 (July 20, 1995). The July 

1995 NOPR discussed this 36-inch limitation within the context of insulation thickness 

and noted that issues related to the increase in insulation thickness in top and bottom 

panels “is recognized in the new definition of the compact class as limited to models 

below 36 inches in height.” 60 FR 37397. U-Line comments summarized in the 1995 

NOPR indicated that “consumer uses of undercounter refrigerators and freezers will not 

permit increased exterior cabinet dimensions; exterior cabinet dimensions cannot exceed 

24 inches in depth and width and 34 inches in height.” (Id.) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
92

However, the majority of compact products are not undercounter products with 

these specified dimensions. For example, the external dimensions of the compact 

products examined for reverse engineering during the engineering analysis, are 

summarized in Table IV.5.

21 Some of these products are smaller than the undercounter 

maximum dimensions and some are larger. If smaller, increasing the height of these 

products to a 34-inch height and/or 24-inch depth or width would be possible. If larger, 

the product would not be used in the restricted undercounter application. The chest 

freezers would not be used in undercounter applications in any case because such 

installation would interfere with door operation, since the doors of chest freezer open 

upwards. As a result, DOE believes that the absolute restriction on external size increase 

suggested by the undercounter dimension limits (i.e., 24 inches and 34 inches) does not 

apply to these products. Hence, DOE tentatively concludes that, while the 36-inch height 

limitation may be relevant for undercounter products, it is not relevant for compact 

products in general. 

Table IV.5 External Dimensions of Compact Reverse-Engineered Products

Product Height (inches) Width (inches) Depth (inches)1

1.7 cubic foot refrigerator 18.5 17.5 17.6

4 cubic foot refrigerator 32.9 18.6 17.5

4 cubic foot ENERGY STAR 

refrigerator

33.0 19.5 19.8

3.4 cubic foot chest freezer 32.0 21.0 23.0

7 cubic foot chest freezer 31.5 36.5 20.4

Second 7 cubic foot chest freezer 31.0 37.0 23.0

1 Depth does not include door handle and condenser (if applicable).

 

21 Throughout this notice the term “reverse-engineered product” refers to the products purchased and 

examined (reverse engineered) as part of the engineering analysis. Many of these products were entirely 

dismantled (torn down) to completely examine manufacturing details.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
93

Basic thermal considerations also suggest that the 36-inch limitation is not a 

particularly reliable indicator of the potential for energy use reduction. For example, 

consider two 7-cubic foot volume products, one 40 inches high and the other 30 inches 

high, both with a depth of 20 inches. Assuming a 1.5-inch insulation thickness and 

ignoring the volume associated with the evaporator, the 40-inch product would have an 

insulated surface area of 28 square feet (based on external dimensions) and door gasket 

perimeter length of 121 inches, while the 30-inch product would have both less surface 

area (27 square feet) and less door gasket perimeter length (114 inches). DOE expects 

that the taller product would have a greater thermal load as a result (because of the 

greater surface area and door perimeter length), yet it would not be considered a compact 

product under the current definition and would, thus, have to satisfy a more stringent 

energy standard. This example shows that basic theoretical considerations do not support 

the 36-inch limitation.

Because the justification of limited undercounter space that led to the 36-inch 

limitation does not apply to most compact products, and because basic thermal 

considerations suggest that the limitation does not have a firm theoretical basis, DOE 

proposes to eliminate the limitation from the definition of compact products. DOE 

requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the 36-inch height limitation for compact 

products. (See Issue 7 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of 

this NOPR.)

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
94

B.

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which design options 

are suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking: 

Screening Analysis

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will consider technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass production and 

reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercially available products 

could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time the 

standard comes into effect, DOE would consider that technology practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability

4. 

. If DOE determines

that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 

significant subgroups of consumers, or would result in the unavailability of any covered 

product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in 

the United States at the time, it will not consider this technology further.

Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a technology will 

have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this technology 

further.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
95

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b) 

 In the framework document22 and accompanying public workshop held on 

September 29, 2008, DOE identified the technologies for improving refrigeration product 

efficiency that were under consideration for the rulemaking analyses. These technologies 

are listed in Table IV.6. Please see chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for detailed descriptions 

of these technology options. 

 

22 Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/refrigerator_freezer_framewor

k.pdf

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
96

Table IV.6 Technologies DOE Considered for Residential Refrigeration Products

Insulation Expansion Valve

Improved resistivity of insulation Improved expansion valves

Increased insulation thickness Cycling Losses

VIPs Fluid control or solenoid valve

Gas-filled panels Defrost System

Gasket and Door Design Reduced energy for automatic defrost

Improved gaskets Adaptive defrost

Double door gaskets Condenser hot gas

Improved door face frame Control System

Reduced heat load for TTD feature Temperature control

Anti-Sweat Heater Air-distribution control

Condenser hot gas Other Technologies

Electric heater sizing Alternative refrigerants 

Electric heater controls Component location

Compressor Alternative Refrigeration Cycles

Improved compressor efficiency Lorenz-Meutzner cycle

Variable-speed compressors Dual-loop system

Linear compressors Two-stage system

Evaporator Control valve system

Increased surface area Ejector refrigerator

Improved heat exchange Tandem system

Condenser Alternative Refrigeration Systems

Increased surface area Stirling cycle

Improved heat exchange Thermoelectric

Force convection condenser Thermoacoustic

Fans and Fan Motor

Evaporator fan and fan motor improvements

Condenser fan and fan motor improvements

DOE requested, but did not receive any comments, at either the framework 

workshop or during the framework comment period identifying additional technologies 

not mentioned that should be considered. Likewise, DOE received no comments 

recommending additional technologies during the preliminary analysis public meeting or 

comment period. 

As described in chapter 4, Screening Analysis of the NOPR TSD, DOE screened 

out several of the technologies listed in Table IV.6 from consideration in this rulemaking 

based on one or more of the screening criteria described above. A summary of the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
97

screening analysis identifying technologies that were screened out and the EPCA criteria 

used for the screening is presented in Table IV.7. The checkmarks in the table indicate 

which screening criteria were used to screen out the listed technologies. For greater detail 

regarding the screening analysis, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

Table IV.7 Summary of Screening Analysis 

EPCA Criteria for Screening

Excluded Technology 

Option 

Technological 

Feasibility

Practicability to 

Manufacture, 

Install, and 

service

Adverse 

Impacts on 

Product 

Utility

Adverse 

Impacts on 

Health and 

Safety

Improved Insulation 

Resistivity



Gas-Filled Panels  

Improved Gaskets, 

Double Gaskets, 

Improved Door Frame

 

Linear Compressors 

Improved Evaporator 

Heat Exchange

 

Improved Condenser 

Heat Exchange

 

Component Location   

Lorenz-Meutzner 

Cycle

 

Two-Stage System  

Control Valve System 

and Tandem System

 

Ejector Refrigerator  

Stirling Cycle  

Thermoelectric  

Thermoacoustic  

In addition to this screening, DOE did not analyze a number of technologies in the 

engineering analysis because they were judged unsuitable for improving the measured 

energy use of refrigeration products for one or more of the following reasons: 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
98

• technology already used in baseline products and incapable of generating 

additional energy efficiency or reducing energy consumption. 

• technology does not reduce energy use.

• insufficient data available demonstrating benefit of the technology.

The technologies not analyzed for these reasons include Improved Expansion 

Valve, Off-Cycle Valve, Reduced Energy for Automatic Defrost, Condenser Hot Gas 

Defrost, Reduced Heat Load for TTD Feature, Warm Liquid or Hot Gas Refrigerant 

Anti-Sweat Heating, Electric Anti-Sweat Heater Sizing, Electronic Temperature Control, 

Air Distribution Control, Fan Blade Improvements, and Dual Loop System. Chapter 4 of 

the NOPR TSD discusses the reasons for not analyzing these technologies in greater 

detail.

1. Discussion of Comments 

AHAM commented that efficiency levels based on noteworthy technologies can 

have implications on competition within the market, since technologies may be 

proprietary or in limited supply (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 15) AHAM specifically pointed out 

VIPs as an example of such a technology. (Id.) Neither EPCA nor the CFR (i.e., 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A) identify the proprietary status of a technology as a 

reason for screening out technologies. If a technology is in sufficiently limited supply to 

make its use in manufacturing of products impractical, DOE has the option of screening 

out such a technology based on one of the EPCA screening criteria. While proprietary 

status is not a filter for screening out potential technologies, DOE is required to consider 

“the impact of any lessening of competition . . . that is likely to result from the imposition 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
99

of the standard” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)). Section IV.B.1.c below, discusses 

VIPs. DOE considered whether any others selected design options may be screened out 

based on supply constraints or whether their use might impact competition. DOE 

tentatively concluded that these screening criteria did not preclude further consideration 

of the selected design options in the analysis. 

During the NOPR phase manufacturer interviews, some manufacturers expressed 

concerns that the supply of the highest-efficiency compressors and/or variable-speed 

compressors might be limited. Initial investigation of the compressor vendors supplying 

high-efficiency compressors and variable speed compressors during the preliminary 

analysis phase indicated that one compressor supplier, Embraco, served as the primary 

source for these components. Embraco is a business unit of Whirlpool S/A, a majorityowned subsidiary of the Whirlpool Corporation. Discussions with compressor 

manufacturers during the NOPR phase of the rulemaking indicated that most 

manufacturers are planning to commercialize high-efficiency compressors that would 

match the peak performance under consideration in the NOPR analysis and that these 

compressors would be available well before the arrival of the 2014 compliance date that 

would apply to the final rule under development. In addition, DOE is aware that these 

other manufacturers have been developing and perfecting variable-speed compressors for 

over ten years. Information gathered during the NOPR phase indicates that these 

manufacturers are prepared to commercialize this technology and ramp up production as 

the market for such compressors emerges and grows. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
100

Based on all of this information, DOE tentatively concludes that neither highefficiency compressors nor variable-speed compressors would be in limited supply if the 

efficiency levels selected by DOE were to require the use of these types of compressors. 

DOE requests comment on these findings, including information that would confirm or 

cast doubt on DOE’s conclusions regarding compressor supply. (See Issue 8 under 

“Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) 

DOE’s review of the screened-in technologies did not reveal that they would 

involve the use of proprietary technologies or that they would be in short supply, or that 

their use would lead to a lessening of competition. 

Additionally, DOE received comments on the screening analysis from several 

interested parties primarily addressing the following design options: alternative 

refrigerants, alternative foam-blowing agents, and VIPs. The following sections describe 

the comments associated with these design options in detail. 

a. Alternative Refrigerants

Most refrigeration products sold in the U.S. currently use HFC-134a refrigerant, a 

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) with a high global warming potential (GWP). 

ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) all stated that DOE must consider hydrocarbon refrigerants as a design option 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
101

because hydrocarbons are in widespread use overseas (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at pp. 4-5; 

Earthjustice, No. 35 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 7) Earthjustice and NRDC both also 

claimed that DOE has not provided evidence to support the exclusion of isobutane23 as an 

alternative refrigerant. (Earthjustice, No. 35 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 7) AHAM 

commented that the relevant safety standard—Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 

250, “Household Refrigerators and Freezers” (UL 250)24—currently limits the quantity 

of hydrocarbon refrigerants permitted to be used in refrigeration products to 50 grams.25

AHAM suggested that this quantity of refrigerant is insufficient for most typical 

refrigeration products and that UL had recently reopened the rulemaking process for UL 

250 under a proposal calling for a higher hydrocarbon limit. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 49-50) GE stated that although the UL restriction may make it 

difficult to use isobutane, it does not make it impossible, and that UL may consider 

increasing the limit. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 50) Sub Zero agreed 

with GE’s comment but pointed out that there can be a significant capital expenditure 

associated with adopting isobutane refrigerant or hydrocarbon blowing agents. (Sub Zero, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 50) 

Many of the comments addressed issues with HFCs used both as refrigerant and 

as a blowing agent. These comments are presented in this section, but they apply equally 

to section IV.B.1.b, below, which addresses blowing agents. 

 

23Isobutane, also known as R-600a, is used as a refrigerant in a large percentage of the world’s refrigeration 

products, particularly in Europe, where it was first adopted in the 1990s.

24 This UL safety standard sets numerous requirements for refrigeration products and details tests for 

evaluating compliance with many of the requirements.

25 The isobutane limitation of UL 250 specifies 50 grams maximum leakage during a system breach. 

Because some of the refrigerant remains in the system in such a scenario, the total allowable charge is 

somewhat higher than 50 grams under this standard, generally in a range approaching 60 grams. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
102

Many stakeholders noted the trend away from HFC use both worldwide and in the 

United States. The stakeholders commented that DOE’s analysis should more thoroughly 

consider this trend in order to avoid becoming immediately outdated, and that DOE 

should develop cost-efficiency analyses that account for a mandated phase-down of HFC 

substances. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 47-48; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 18; Greenpeace, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 50-51; 

ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 5; Sub-Zero, No. 40 at p. 7; Greenpeace, No. 42 at pp. 1, 2; 

GE, No. 37 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 31 at pp. 4, 5; AHAM, No. 34 

at pp. 8-9) 

AHAM commented that upcoming regulations and legislation on the phase-down 

of HFCs could have a substantial impact on efficiency in the refrigeration products 

industry (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 18) AHAM, Whirlpool, and 

Sub Zero further stated that they believe a phase-down of HFCs would have a net 

negative impact on energy efficiency and manufacturing cost (AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 8-9; 

Sub Zero, No. 40 at p.7; Whirlpool, No. 31 at pp. 4-5) AHAM and Whirlpool also argued 

that any analysis that does not account for an HFC phase-down would likely result in 

energy consumption standards that are unattainable (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 9; Whirlpool, 

No. 31 at pp. 4-5) 

GE suggested that DOE consider the positions of the current administration and 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on HFCs and other macro trends that GE 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
103

asserts will significantly impact the industry. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at 

pp. 47-48) For this rulemaking, GE commented that it is important for DOE to evaluate 

the potential industry impact of the HFC phase-down from a technical and economic 

perspective to avoid creating a disincentive for manufacturers to employ low-GWP foams 

and refrigerants. GE commented that DOE should recognize the potential environmental 

benefits that could be realized in a transition to low-GWP foams and refrigerants. (GE, 

No. 37 at p. 2) 

Comments from the IOUs supported DOE’s use of HFCs in the baseline analysis 

but encouraged consideration of discontinued or reduced use of HFCs in case legislation 

is enacted or regulations established limiting their use (IOU, No. 36 at p. 12) Whirlpool 

stated that it would not switch to non-GWP substances, because of the costs associated 

with doing so, unless this is required by legislation (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 5) 

DOE eliminated alternative refrigerants as a design option for most product 

classes because the available alternatives are either banned, have lower thermodynamic 

efficiencies, or, as in the case of hydrocarbons, are currently only allowed in limited 

quantities due to UL safety requirements. The UL proposal for modification of UL 250 

calls for transition from an allowance of 50 g refrigerant being permitted to escape from a 

refrigeration product in case of a leak to a higher limit of 60 g total charge.26

 

26 Personal communication with Randall J. Haseman of Underwriters Laboratories, February 1, 2010 and 

June 28, 2010.

This 

proposed change would not significantly affect the amount of refrigerant that can be used 

because roughly 10 g remains absorbed in the compressor oil during a typical 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
104

catastrophic leak. DOE notes that UL had not made a final determination regarding 

changes to UL 250 at the time of the preparation of this notice. UL has indicated that due 

to the large number of comments to the proposals, UL’s next step would be to convene a 

Standards Technical Panel meeting, which would likely be held no earlier than 

September 2010.26 

DOE also considered EPA’s recently published proposed rule addressing 

hydrocarbon refrigerants, which includes a proposal to include isobutane on the EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program list of allowed alternative 

refrigerants. 75 FR 25799 (May 10, 2010). The EPA proposal calls for a total charge limit 

of 57 g of isobutane. Id. at 25803. No final rule had issued at the time of the preparation 

of this notice. 

DOE calculated the potential range of isobutane charge levels that could replace 

the HFC-134a refrigerant in the products purchased for reverse engineering. DOE 

converted the actual charge of each reverse-engineered product to an equivalent 

isobutane charge (measured in grams), by adjusting for the lower density of isobutane. 

The equivalent isobutane charge levels for these products were in excess of both the 

EPA-proposed limit and the charge limit in the UL 250 standard for all of the products 

covered by today’s NOPR except in the case of compact refrigerators. In order for a 

standard-size refrigerator-freezer to meet those charge levels, it would be necessary to 

make engineering changes such as adding a second refrigerant loop. Such a design 

change would reduce useful interior volume in the appliance, which represents a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
105

reduction in consumer utility. DOE is under general legal obligations to avoid 

promulgating standards that would either reduce the utility of a product, 42 U.S.C. § 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) or eliminate those products with capacities and volumes available at 

the time that DOE establishes its standard, 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(4). Therefore, DOE 

considered use of isobutane refrigerant as a design option only for compact refrigerators. 

DOE requests comment on the consideration of conversion to use of isobutane 

refrigerant as a design option only for compact refrigerators. (See Issue 9 under “Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) 

b. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents 

Blowing agents are included in the materials that are used to form insulation 

during the manufacturing process. The blowing agents help form the closed cell 

microstructure of the insulation as the blowing agent gases expand after the insulation 

components are injected into the wall cavities. Manufacturers selling refrigeration 

products in the U.S. market have predominantly used HFC blowing agents since 2003, 

which is when the EPA imposed a ban on the primary hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 

blowing agent most manufacturers were using at the time. See 58 FR 65018 (December 

10, 1993) (phasing out production of HCFC-141b through the accelerated phase out rule 

promulgated under section 606 of the Clean Air Act). In response, some manufacturers 

have started using cyclopentane as a blowing agent rather than HFCs because of its much 

lower GWP. However, insulation made using cyclopentane during the blowing process 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
106

has higher conductivity (see for example the preliminary TSD chapter 3, Table 3.3.2), 

leading to higher energy use. 

DOE received many comments encouraging DOE to consider the shift from HFCs 

to refrigerants and/or blowing agents with low GWP in refrigeration products. These 

comments are cited in section IV.B.1.a, above. None of the comments specifically 

indicated that use of alternative foam-blowing agents would reduce energy use. DOE has 

investigated this issue and has concluded that use of alternative foam-blowing agents 

would not reduce energy use (see chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD, section 3.3.2.1, for more 

detail). Hence, DOE did not treat alternative foam-blowing agents as a design option in 

its analyses.

DOE recognizes that possible legislation or regulations limiting the use of HFCs 

would have an impact on the industry’s transition to higher efficiency designs and, 

depending on the performance impact of insulation made without HFCs, may reduce the 

potential for efficiency improvement. Given that this step has not occurred, DOE 

believes that basing energy conservation standards on the uncertain prospect of passage 

of certain legislation would be speculative. DOE is, however, prepared to address this 

issue by evaluating the efficiency improvement and trial standard levels for products 

using alternative foam insulation materials, if legislation or some other legal requirements 

banning HFCs should be enacted or otherwise become effective. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
107

c. Vacuum-Insulated Panels

 DOE received comments concerning the viability of VIPs as a design option. 

These comments, examined below, addressed the supply, longevity, durability, and cost 

of VIPs. 

NPCC and ASAP emphasize that the standards are not prescriptive, and therefore 

manufacturers are not required to use VIPs to meet the standard even if the design 

options analysis has used VIPs (NPCC, No. 33 at p. 3; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 28 at p. 96) DOE agrees with this statement, but without being able to show that 

alternative design paths can be used to reach certain efficiency levels without VIPs, the 

viability of this technology must be considered when contemplating these levels. 

AHAM, LG, Sub Zero, and Whirlpool expressed concern regarding the ability of 

VIP vendors to keep up with the demand that might be generated by more stringent 

energy conservation standards for refrigeration products (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 94; Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 97; LG, 

No. 41 at p. 4; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p.4; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 

6, 7) Some of these comments raise the concern that VIP costs could increase to levels 

significantly greater than the levels DOE used in its analysis (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 94; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 6, 7) 

AHAM, LG, Whirlpool, and Sub Zero recommended that DOE assess the market’s 

ability to mass-produce VIPs (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 94; Sub 

VIP Supply 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
108

Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 97; LG, No. 41 at p.4; Sub Zero, No. 40 at 

p.4; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 6-7) An additional factor cited by 

stakeholders that could potentially exacerbate any VIP supply issue is the increase in 

stringency of refrigeration product standards in other regions of the world, such as India 

and Europe. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 95; AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 94) Whirlpool commented that it is expensive to 

increase VIP production capacity (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4) 

In contrast, IOU, ACEEE/ASAP, NRDC, and NPCC stated that the VIP industry 

is prepared to ramp up production to meet the high demand predicted for the refrigeration 

industry (IOU, No. 36 at p. 9; ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at pp. 2-4; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 3; 

NPCC, No. 33 at p. 2) IOU estimated that demand would rise to the low millions to tens 

of millions of panels at most based on the results of the preliminary DOE analysis (IOU, 

No. 36 at p. 9) IOU also noted that there is rising interest for VIP use as building 

insulation, which could further stimulate growth in the market. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 10) 

ACEEE/ASAP also reported that the VIP manufacturers were confident about scaling up 

to meet global demand (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 4) 

As Sub Zero notes, manufacturers have installed VIPs in refrigeration products 

for at least 20 years. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 4) Sub Zero, which has installed VIPs in 

their products for the past 10 years, commented that three VIP suppliers are confident 

that they can meet the expected VIP demand, but that it is unclear whether they could 

meet the potential demand associated with major manufacturers and millions of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
109

refrigeration products. (Id.) IOU and the ACEEE/ASAP joint comment stated that VIPs 

have been incorporated into various new refrigerator models (IOU, No. 36 at p. 7; 

ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 4) 

Several adjustments made to the assumptions in the engineering analysis reduced 

the relative importance of VIPs in meeting the proposed standard levels decreased when 

compared to the preliminary. Specifically, the adjustments involved reduced panel 

coverage, reduced effectiveness, and application only after all other design options were 

considered. (Details about the changes in relevant assumptions can be found in chapter 5, 

section 5.8.3 of the NOPR TSD). In response to stakeholder comments, DOE conducted 

an assessment of the VIP market and the potential ramp-up required by proposed 

standards and concluded that the market does not show ramp-up to be a critical issue 

leading to price pressure. From this analysis, DOE does not expect the estimated lead 

time for expanded VIP production to limit the availability of VIPs at mass-production 

levels. 

DOE contacted several VIP suppliers during the NOPR analysis phase to better 

assess the current production capacity and the ability of the industry to ramp up to 

expected demand by 2014. These suppliers include Porextherm (Germany), Va-Q-tec 

(Germany), ThermoCor (U.S.), NanoPore Insulation LLC (U.S.), Glacier Bay (U.S.), and 

ThermalVisions (U.S.). DOE did not receive a response from any Asian companies it 

attempted to contact during this phase, but Porextherm estimated that there are five VIP 

producers based in China and Japan. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
110

DOE estimates the current worldwide VIP market to be in the range of 2.5 to 5 

million square meters based on input from VIP manufacturers. Va-Q-tec estimated that 

world demand is approximately 2 million square meters. ThermoCor estimated it to be 

about 5 million square meters. Other vendors interviewed declined to provide estimates. 

ThermoCor noted that most of the growth in the U.S. market has happened since 

2008, driven largely by the Federal manufacturer tax credit available for high efficiency 

refrigerators. (Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343, 

Div. B, Sec. 305 (October 3, 2008)) In the U.S., major refrigerator manufacturers have 

started using VIPs in commodity models in addition to higher end products as a result of 

the manufacturer tax credit (available from 2008-2010). Manufacturers can receive $200 

per unit for units with energy use at least 30 percent lower than the standard. Va-Q-tec 

stated that the VIP demand was largely concentrated in Japan prior to 2008, and that the 

U.S. tax credit rapidly changed the landscape for VIP manufacturers, creating much 

greater demand. The VIP industry responded with a dramatic ramp-up in production, 

which demonstrates the industry’s ability to respond quickly to rapid increases in 

demand. 

DOE estimates that approximately 5.8 million square meters of VIPs would be 

needed in the U.S. to meet the proposed standard levels in 2014 based on the design 

options presented in the NOPR engineering analysis (see the discussion of this estimate 

in TSD appendix 4-A, Investigation of VIP Supply, section 4-A-2).

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
111

DOE also considered the potential increase in demand for VIPs in Europe and 

India, as highlighted by stakeholders during the preliminary analysis public meeting 

(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 95; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 94) 

 As part of this examination, DOE reviewed a variety of European directives 

aimed at improving energy efficiency. The European Energy Labeling Directive 

(94/2/EC) for cold appliances, which was issued by the European Commission on 

January 21, 1994, established 7 efficiency levels for these products, from least efficient 

(G) to most efficient (A). In 2003, additional higher efficiency levels A+ and A++ were 

established. These levels all represent different percentages of reference energy use 

(representative energy use when the labeling directive was first established), called 

Energy Efficiency Index (EEI). The levels range from less than 30 percent of the 

reference value for A++ (the most efficient) to 125 percent of the reference value for G. 

The European Union established efficiency standards for residential refrigeration 

products with EU Council Directive 96/57/EC, dated September 3,1996. Maximum 

energy use standards were established for 10 “product categories,” the equivalent of the 

different product classes associated with DOE regulations. Commission Regulation (EC) 

No 643/2009 requires that the maximum allowable EEI will be 55 starting July 1, 2010 

(“European Commission Regulation 643/2009”, No. 52). This level will drop to 44 on 

July 1, 2012, and to 42 (equivalent to current efficiency level A+) on July 1, 2014. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
112

DOE received estimates from various VIP manufacturers that European demand 

is expected to rise to 2-5 million square meters in response to the new standards. 

Information obtained from a manufacturer that has used VIPs in multiple products 

suggests that VIPs will be used primarily for A++ products, which may be considered the 

equivalent of the U.S. ENERGY STAR products. 

Along similar lines, India introduced a labeling program in 2006 that was initially 

voluntary but became mandatory in January 2010 (“Indian Refrigerator Regulations”, No. 

53). The program establishes efficiency levels represented by ranges of energy use. The 

product label is required to indicate the product’s efficiency level. The allowable 

maximum energy use values associated with the efficiency levels are scheduled to be 

reduced in three steps between 2010 and 2014. Based on discussions with manufacturers, 

India’s proposed standards for 2014 are not expected to be as stringent as those in the 

U.S. or Europe, and are not expected to require use of VIPs.

 

Based on the available data, DOE estimates that the potential VIP demand for the 

U.S. and Europe would reach an annual level of roughly 10 million to 15 million square 

meters. While this represents significant growth compared to the current market, it is 

consistent with the growth that the market has experienced recently for which VIP 

vendors have successfully ramped up their production. 

Several VIP manufacturers are currently expanding their facilities, while others 

have plans to expand if the increased demand becomes more reliable. Overall, the VIP 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
113

manufacturers interviewed were confident that neither the time nor the capital investment 

is a limiting factor as long as they have a stable backlog. Five of the manufacturers 

interviewed have recently undergone significant expansion efforts. One manufacturer has 

increased its production capacity by 10 times between 2008 and spring 2010 to reach a 

level of about 1.5 million square meters. Two other manufacturers have doubled their 

capacities in the past 9 months, one reaching 1 million square meters and another 

reaching 120,000 square meters. A fourth manufacturer has reached the capacity of about 

300,000 square meters over the past 1.5 years. Lastly, as mentioned by ACEEE/ASAP, 

NanoPore has recently doubled its capacity and has plans to expand to 0.9 million square 

meters of capacity by 2010. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 4) 

VIP manufacturer estimates of the time required to bring a new plant on-line 

ranged from 6 to 18 months. The required time depends on whether existing production 

technology is replicated, or whether further improvements in production technology are 

designed and incorporated into new plants. Possible improvements include increased 

automation of the panel assembly and a shift to continuous rather than batch processing. 

Automation may involve the drying of the core material and the cutting of the bag and 

core. DOE visited a VIP production facility during the course of this investigation and 

concluded that the estimates provided by VIP vendors of time required to bring new 

production capacity online are consistent with the production process, given the 

equipment used. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
114

Sub Zero noted that large volume refrigerator manufacturers could produce VIPs 

in-house to control costs, though Sub Zero and other small manufacturers would not have 

that ability (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 4) ThermoCor agreed that large manufacturers would 

have the means to develop VIP production capability in-house by 2014. Several VIP 

manufacturers have considered joint ventures and licensing opportunities with 

refrigerator manufacturers. Manufacturers of VIPs suggest that transferring the 

knowledge and expertise of VIP production would be a straightforward process. A new 

VIP fabrication facility would need to have a production capacity between 300,000 and 

1.5 million square meters per year to be cost-effective at today’s VIP price levels. The 

capacity will typically vary based on the manufacturer, the panel type, and the facility 

location. 

VIP manufacturers do not anticipate the supply of raw materials to be an issue as 

production ramps up. The industry uses multiple suppliers for both the barrier film and 

the fill material. Materials used for the fill include glass fiber, fumed silica, and aerogel. 

Glass fiber is produced for a wide range of uses worldwide. Fumed silica, used as fill by 

some VIP manufacturers, currently is produced on a much smaller scale. Asked if the 

more limited range of uses of fumed silica could present material supply issues due to 

capacity ramp-up delays or intellectual property issues, Porextherm noted that intellectual 

property issues would not prevent new suppliers from building new fumed silica plants, 

citing several new production facilities that have come online recently in Asia.

Porextherm also noted that the solar collector industry in particular is helping to expand 

the production of pure silica, which produces fumed silica as a by-product. Va-Q-tec 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
115

estimates that it would take approximately 2.5 years to build a new fumed silica plant, but 

that current worldwide production capacity is sufficient to provide enough fumed silica 

for production of 100 million m2 of VIPs annually. Thermal Visions did not anticipate 

suppliers needing more than one year to respond to the ramp-up in production. 

NRDC recommended that DOE explore other applications in which durable 

vacuum-sealing is required in large production volumes for lessons and strategies 

(NRDC, No. 39 at p. 4) DOE interprets this comment to mean that the production 

technologies required for this aspect of VIP production may have already been developed 

for other industries, thus potentially limiting the required time to development the process 

for the VIP industry. Through its research discussed above, DOE confirmed that current 

technology is already enabling mass production of VIPs, so an additional survey of other 

applications was unnecessary.

In summary, based on all of the above, DOE tentatively concludes that the VIP 

industry has the ability to increase production to meet the potential demand for VIPs 

within the three year gap between the final rule’s issuance and the compliance date for 

any amended standard. 

AHAM questioned whether the average lifetime of VIPs is consistent with 

lifetime expectations for refrigeration products (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

28 at p. 94-95) In response, DOE investigated the issue of VIP longevity in more depth. 

VIP Longevity 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
116

ACEEE and ASAP commented that VIP manufacturers have used accelerated aging 

techniques to estimate panel life. Manufacturers have estimated lifetimes between 20 and 

50 years for silica core panels, and generally up to 15 years for panels constructed of 

other core materials (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 3) 

 ThermoCor and Va-Q-tec provided data on VIP degradation. ThermoCor panels, 

which have a glass fiber core, have been shown to retain about 75 percent of their 

insulation value over 10 years, a finding extrapolated from 7 years of data collected from 

panels aged at room temperature. Va-Q-tec determined that their panels would yield a 15 

percent increase in thermal conductivity over 15 years, based on 7 years of observation of 

panels held in storage (“Va-q-tec Lifetime Analysis”, No. 55). In both cases, the data 

suggest that the degradation in insulation value is similar to that of polyurethane foam 

(Wilkes 2001),27 the insulating material used currently in nearly all products, and the 

insulation value would remain well above that of the baseline polyurethane foam for the 

lifetime of the refrigerator. As such, DOE did not factor VIP degradation into its analysis.

AHAM and LG expressed concern that a short transition time to mass produce 

VIPs would adversely impact their quality (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 7; LG, No. 41 at p. 4) 

Sub Zero commented that there is a significant learning curve for commercialization of 

VIPs that will be steepened if standards require the wholesale transition to use of VIPs 

(Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 4) 

VIP Quality and Durability

 

27 Wilkes, K., et al. "Aging of Polyurethane Foam Insulation in Simulated Refrigerator Panels — One-Year

Results with Third-Generation Blowing Agents." 29 Sep. 1999. 

<http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/pres/107629.pdf. >. Accessed 14 June 2010.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
117

 

Sub Zero also pointed out that shipping and handling may weaken a panel, 

causing it to fail slowly, without becoming apparent during visual inspections prior to 

installation. In addition, Sub Zero commented that panel installation is more critical to 

performance and reliability than it is for most other components, contributing to a 

steepened learning curve. In Sub Zero’s experience, VIP failure can cause the wall to 

bulge, leading to higher rejection rates, installation problems for built-ins, condensation, 

and compromised door structures. Sub Zero added, however, that their own service 

records for VIPs indicate that these panels have performed well in the field. (Sub Zero, 

No. 40 at p. 4; Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 105) 

The IOUs asserted that technological advancements have occurred in core 

materials, external barriers, and methods to maintain vacuum integrity, all of which 

would help to improve panel durability. Additionally, VIP manufacturers are taking steps 

to maintain quality throughout the installation process, including the use of on-site 

quality checking devices and training programs for workers to help ensure that proper 

handling techniques are used. Also, the IOUs pointed out that some products have high 

insulation values even when the vacuum has been compromised (IOU, No. 36 at pp. 6-8) 

NRDC commented that the risk of premature failure is overstated given the ample 

opportunities for detection (NRDC, No. 39 at p. 4) NPCC concurred that concerns over 

VIP durability are overstated, but recommended that DOE assess efficiency 

improvements feasible without VIPs to identify efficiency levels that are particularly 

“robust” (NPCC, No. 33 at p. 2-3) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
118

DOE acknowledges that VIPs are more sensitive to handling issues during 

transport and installation when compared to other components. With this fact in mind, 

DOE still anticipates that manufacturers will make adjustments to their handling 

procedures to improve success rates of applying VIPs to their products, including taking 

those needed steps to ensure that VIPs remain intact after fabricating a refrigeration 

product. DOE also believes that innovations such as (1) the rapid VIP integrity testing 

system that one VIP manufacturer has developed for installation into each panel, which 

allows verification of each panel’s integrity even after installation into the product, and 

(2) the compartmentalized design of another available VIP technology that limits 

performance degradation to a small region of a VIP will mitigate the potential impacts of 

VIP damage prior to installation. DOE believes that, after installation, VIPs would likely

be very well protected from damage because they are encased inside the product walls or 

door, protected on one side by the product’s external shell (or interior liner) and on the 

other side by the polyurethane foam insulation. DOE notes that its discussions with 

manufacturers did not reveal a single instance in which a VIP field failure occurred. 

While this tentative finding does not imply that there have been no failures, DOE 

believes, based on the information made available for review, that this particular issue 

has had minimal to no impact on manufacturer warranty or maintenance costs. DOE 

tentatively concludes that the risk of VIP failure is an issue that can be sufficiently 

addressed through design innovations and careful handling procedures during the 

manufacturing process. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
119

Several specific comments were made regarding VIP cost assumptions. These 

comments address treatment of the technology in the engineering analysis, and are 

addressed later in section 

VIP Cost Assumptions

IV.C.4.d, below. 

DOE requests comment and information on aspects of VIP technology that affect 

its suitability for consideration as a design option. Particularly, DOE seeks any new 

information not already discussed or considered in the rulemaking. (See Issue 10 under 

“Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) 

2. Technologies Considered 

DOE has tentatively concluded that: (1) all of the efficiency levels discussed in 

today’s NOPR are technologically feasible; (2) products at these efficiency levels could 

be manufactured, installed, and serviced on a scale needed to serve the relevant markets; 

(3) these efficiency levels would not force manufacturers to use technologies that would 

adversely affect product utility or availability; and (4) these efficiency levels would not 

adversely affect consumer health or safety. Thus, the efficiency levels that DOE analyzed 

and is discussing in this notice are all achievable using ”screened in” technology options 

identified through the screening analysis. The technologies DOE considered for each 

group of products are shown in Table IV.8. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
120

Table IV.8 Technologies Considered by DOE for Residential Refrigeration 

Products, by Product Group

Design Option

Standard-Size 

RefrigeratorFreezers

StandardSize 

Freezers

Compact 

Refrigerators

Compact 

Freezers

Increased Insulation 

Thickness 



(see Note 

1)

  

Isobutane Refrigerant 

VIPs    

Improved Compressor 

Efficiency    

Variable-Speed 

Compressor

   

Increased Evaporator 

Surface Area

   

Increased Condenser 

Surface Area    

Forced Convection 

Condenser 

Brushless DC Evaporator 

Fan

 

Brushless DC Condenser 

Fan

 

Adaptive Defrost  

Variable Anti-Sweat 

Heater Control 

Note 1: Increased Insulation Thickness was not considered for built-in, standard-size 

freezers.

C.

The engineering analysis uses cost-efficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing cost increases associated with achieving increased efficiency. DOE has 

identified the following three methodologies to generate the manufacturing costs needed 

for the engineering analysis: (1) the design-option approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its 

Engineering Analysis

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
121

efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of 

achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 

options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 

engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for 

achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for 

parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels.

 DOE conducted the engineering analysis for this rulemaking using a combined 

efficiency level/design option/reverse engineering approach. DOE defined efficiency 

levels using percentages representing energy use reductions. The reductions are defined 

to apply to energy use (not including icemaking energy use) measured using the proposed 

new test procedure, DOE’s premise that efficiency levels expressed as a percentage of 

energy use lower than that of baseline products are equivalent when calculated based on 

both the current test procedure and the proposed new test procedure (without icemaking 

energy use) allowed DOE to compare information developed from different sources. 

However, DOE’s analysis is based on the efficiency improvements associated with 

groups of design options. DOE developed estimates for efficiency improvements for 

design options through energy use modeling analysis conducted for selected reverseengineered products. The energy models were first established based on the existing 

product designs, and the models were subsequently adjusted to reflect application of the 

groups of design options considered for analysis. DOE based some of the design option 

information on data gained through reverse-engineering analysis, but also used other 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
122

sources, such as component vendor inquiries and discussions with manufacturers as 

appropriate. Details of the engineering analysis are provided in the NOPR TSD chapter 5.

DOE received several comments from interested parties on its approach to the 

engineering analysis, as described below. 

1. Product Classes Analyzed / Representative Products 

DOE initially selected seven key product classes for direct analysis. These 

product classes are summarized in Table IV.9. The direct analysis included reverse 

engineering, manufacturing cost modeling, and energy use modeling. 

Table IV.9 Product Classes Directly Analyzed in the Preliminary Engineering 

Analysis 

Product Category Product Class

Standard-size refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers

 

3. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer without through-the-door 

ice service

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service

Standard-size freezers 9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except 

compact freezers

Compact refrigerators 11. Compact refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers with manual defrost

Compact freezers 18. Compact chest freezers

DOE selected representative products from each of these product classes to 

analyze and assess the products’ potential for energy use reduction. DOE selected these 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
123

products by reviewing product offerings on manufacturer and retailer websites and 

selecting products for analysis that had features affecting energy use that are typical for 

the product classes. DOE selected products of two volumes for each analyzed product 

class and attempted to select two products of one of these volumes to serve as a product 

pair. Each product of this pair would be nearly identical in design except that one would 

be rated at the maximum allowable energy use and the other would satisfy the ENERGY 

STAR requirements. DOE presented these representative product selections at the 

Framework Workshop. For these directly-analyzed product classes, DOE developed two 

cost-efficiency curves for each class based on two of the three products purchased for 

reverse engineering that represented distinct designs. (The third reverse-engineered 

product of each class, as mentioned above, was typically a variant of one of the other 

products, and full analysis of this third product would not have provided additional useful 

information.) 

During the preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE again requested comment 

on the variation present in refrigeration product design, and the distribution of 

incremental costs to achieve energy use reductions as compared to the designs selected 

for analysis. 

AHAM commented that it is unable to provide detailed design data for its 

members, because such data are impossible to aggregate. AHAM suggested that DOE 

work with individual manufacturers during the MIA interviews to obtain this specific 

information. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 55; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 5) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
124

Whirlpool commented that detailed study would be required to gather such information, 

and this analysis should be discussed in NOPR-phase manufacturer interviews. 

(Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 2) LG suggested that DOE review company websites to 

determine product design options. (LG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 56) 

DOE discussed with individual manufacturers the improvement potential of 

design options and the design option groupings required to achieve different efficiency 

levels for different product classes during the MIA interviews. Alone, this information 

was insufficient to clearly identify the design option pathways required to achieve all of 

the considered efficiency levels, but DOE made many engineering analysis adjustments 

based on the information gathered in these discussions (see Table IV.10 for a summary of 

key changes in the analysis). 

Based on the manufacturer discussions and accompanying analytical work, DOE 

concluded that the average characteristics of the products initially purchased for reverse 

engineering and subsequently used as the basis for the engineering analyses provide a 

reasonable representation of baseline products. DOE calculated the representative 

engineering cost-efficiency curve for each product class listed in Table IV.9, above, as 

the average of the two cost-efficiency curves developed for the two reverse-engineered 

products of that class. Regarding LG’s suggestion that DOE examine manufacturer 

websites to obtain the information sought for its analysis, DOE notes that the detailed 

information DOE requires for its analysis is unavailable on these websites. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
125

Table IV.10 Summary of Key Adjustments to the Engineering Analysis

Parameter(s) Preliminary Changes for the Proposed Rule

VIP Surface Coverage Full product 

coverage, except for 

chest freezer walls.

Full coverage of doors, 50% coverage of cabinet 

to assure structural integrity, preference for 

coverage of freezer compartments, no change to 

exception for chest freezer walls.

VIP Effectiveness Full effectiveness as 

determined by the 

ERA energy model. 

50% of ERA energy model effectiveness to 

better match results reported by manufacturers.

Cost Increase for 

Higher-Efficiency 

Components

Adjusted based on additional information.

Conversion Costs for 

Increase of Door and 

Cabinet Insulation 

Thickness

Based on 

Manufacturing Cost 

Model 

Increased due to updating of production 

equipment costs in manufacturing cost model. 

Shift in allocation of this cost to increase the 

portion allocated to the door thickness increase.

Heat Exchanger 

(Condenser and 

Evaporator) Size 

Increase

Application of a 

20% increase in the 

UA value (inverse of 

thermal resistance) 

of the heat 

exchangers.

Application of this design option based on 

examination of product design details only for 

products for which size increase was possible. 

Direct modeling of heat exchanger performance 

based on selected geometry changes. Increase 

of fan power requirement for heat exchanger 

depth increases.

Standby Power for 

Variable Speed 

Controls

Not included. Addition of 1.5W load outside the cabinet for 

products not already having electronic control. 

Variable Speed 

Compressor System 

Fan Control

Inconsistent 

selection of fan 

speed.

Fan operation at reduced speed to deliver 

reduced air flow at 50% power input consistent 

with cubic fan law.

Variable Speed 

Compressor 

Performance for 

Compact Products

Degradation of compressor capacity in ERA 

energy modeling based on performance data 

obtained from a manufacturer.

Isobutane Refrigerant Not considered Consideration of isobutane refrigerant for 

compact refrigerators, with 5% energy use 

reduction.

Variable Anti-Sweat 

Heater Control

Considered for 

product class 5* 

Considered for product classes 5* and 7**

Baseline Anti-Sweat 

Heater Operation 

(Product Class 5* 

only) 

Baseline average wattage reduced for both 

directly analyzed products. 

Variable Defrost 

Compressor Run time 

between defrosts 

38 hours 30 hours; 

Also, adjustment made in this value when 

converting to variable speed compressors to 

avoid modeling excessive defrost frequency.

* Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice 

service

** Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
126

DOE also analyzed four product classes of built-in products (see Table IV.11).

DOE selected one representative built-in product for analysis for each of these product 

classes. DOE judged the representativeness of these product selections based on 

discussions with manufacturers regarding design option groupings required to meet key 

efficiency levels with built-in products. 

Table IV.11 Built-In Product Classes Analyzed

Product Category Product Class

Standard-size refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers

 

3A-BI. All-Refrigerators with automatic defrost 

5-BI. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service.

7-BI. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service. 

Standard-size freezers 9-BI. Upright freezers with automatic defrost. 

DOE’s proposal to directly analyze a limited number of product classes was 

initially presented in the framework document and discussed at the framework workshop. 

(“Framework Document Public Meeting on Energy Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,” No. 6 at p. 45) DOE did not conduct 

a full analysis of all product classes in light of limited resources and the limited value this 

additional data would have yielded given the small number of product shipments 

associated with the non-analyzed product classes. Instead, DOE developed an approach 

to extend the energy standards to these product classes. Discussion of this extension of 

the standards and associated comments is presented in section IV.C.7, below. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
127

2. Baseline Energy Use Curves

a. Baseline Energy Use Under the Proposed New Test Procedure

As described in section III.A, above, DOE has proposed new test procedures for 

refrigeration products that will affect their measured energy use. DOE developed 

equations for baseline product energy use as a function of adjusted volume under the 

proposed new test procedures (which excludes the energy required to make ice—i.e., 

icemaking energy use) based on information provided by AHAM, as described in chapter 

5, section 5.4.2, of the preliminary TSD. (Icemaking energy is the additional energy used 

to produce ice, which is distinct from the energy expended by an automatic ice 

dispensing system to dispense ice.) These equations address the test procedure changes 

associated with compartment temperatures and volume calculation method.

DOE sought comment on the proposed baseline energy use/adjusted volume 

relationships under the proposed new test procedure. AHAM and Whirlpool supported

the DOE approach and found it to be well-summarized and sufficiently rigorous. 

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 5 and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 61; Whirlpool, No. 

31 at p. 1) 

LG questioned the development of baseline energy use equations that do not 

include automatic icemaker energy use for products with automatic icemakers and 

suggested that the energy use of automatic icemakers should be included in the DOE 

analysis and in the baseline energy use equations. (LG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
128

at p. 60) The LG comment also suggests that it would not be possible to develop a 

baseline energy use equation prior to finalization of the applicable test procedure, 

indicating that the portion of the measurement associated with automatic icemakers is 

still in development. (Id.) 

The proposed test procedure includes a value for icemaking energy use for those 

products that have automatic icemakers. 75 FR 29846 (May 27, 2010). However, the 

discussion regarding efficiency levels is based on the percentages of energy use 

reductions from baseline energy use excluding icemaking energy use. In this context, 

icemaking energy use is the 84 kWh assigned to icemaking in the proposed test 

procedure. Id. at 29847. As described in section III.A, above, sufficient information is 

unavailable to accurately determine the variation of icemaking energy use as a function 

of efficiency level. Hence, DOE is not considering reductions of the 84 kWh allocated to 

icemaking energy use as part of this standard. Instead, the examined energy use 

reductions exclude icemaking energy use. DOE believes this treatment also allows more 

meaningful comparisons to other information sources, such as information obtained from 

discussions with manufacturers regarding design option groups required to achieve 

efficiency levels. 

Electrolux requested that DOE clarify its definition of baseline energy use, as 

referenced throughout the preliminary TSD. (Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

28 at pp. 62-63) Sub Zero also commented that it is unclear in the preliminary TSD 

whether references to baseline energy refer to calculations under the current test 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
129

procedure or under the proposed test procedure. (Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 28 at pp. 63-66) 

DOE interprets these comments to mean that the preliminary TSD did not clearly 

explain in its discussion of cost-efficiency curves and efficiency levels whether the 

examined percentage energy use reductions applied to the current energy standard (i.e., a 

baseline product tested using the current test procedure) or to a baseline product tested 

under the new proposed test procedure. To clarify stakeholders’ concerns, DOE notes that 

standards determined by reducing the current standard levels by the stated percentage 

reductions applied to products tested under the proposed new test procedure would have 

hidden in them the additional energy use reductions associated with the impacts of 

applying the proposed new test procedure. The equation below indicates, for products 

with automatic icemakers, how energy use associated with the analyzed efficiency levels 

would be calculated. For products without automatic icemakers, the icemaking energy 

use would not be added (i.e., the last term in the expression would be eliminated).

TECEL+ICE,NEW = TECSTD,NEW × (1 – R) + TECICE

Where: 

TECEL+ICE,NEW = Test energy consumption at a given efficiency level, including 

icemaking energy consumption, using the new test procedure 

TECSTD,NEW = Test energy consumption under the current standard, not including 

icemaking energy consumption, using the new test procedure 

R = Reduction in energy consumption (expressed as fraction) due to 

efficiency improvements at a given efficiency level

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
130

TECICE = Icemaking test energy consumption

DOE conducted the analysis based on the proposed new test procedure. However, 

as discussed, DOE applies the energy use reduction associated with the efficiency level to 

the baseline energy use, excluding icemaking energy use. For the purposes of this 

discussion, DOE defines the Proposed Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use as the 

representative energy use28 not including the icemaking energy use of a minimally 

compliant product measured under the proposed new test procedure. For a product with a 

20 percent efficiency level (i.e., with energy use 20 percent lower than the maximum 

allowable energy use) and with an automatic icemaker, the energy use measured under 

the proposed test procedure would be equal to the icemaking energy use plus 80 percent

of the Proposed Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use. Equations representing the 

Proposed Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use are presented in Table 5.4.10 of the 

preliminary TSD. For a product at a 20 percent efficiency level without an automatic 

icemaker, the energy measured under the proposed new test procedure would be 80 

percent of the Proposed Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use. 

Whirlpool questioned the change in adjusted volume for product class 7 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service) associated with the new test procedure, as reported in the preliminary 

TSD (Tables 5.4.5 through 5.4.7), suggesting that the new volume calculation method, 

 

28 The word “representative” is inserted here to indicate that the Proposed Procedure Reduced Baseline 

Energy Use is intended to be representative of the products in a product class, rather than applying to any 

one particular product that is minimally-compliant under the current standard. This distinction is made 

because there is variation in the change in measured energy use when applying the proposed test procedure.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
131

which has eliminated the insulating hump and cup recess areas from the volume 

calculation, should result in lower volumes. The cup recess area is the recess on the 

outside of the product under the dispenser, where a cup would be placed to fill it with ice 

or water. The insulating hump is the “bulge” towards the inside of product that is 

necessary to provide insulation around the back of the cup recess and around the ice 

dispensing chute. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 58-59) 

DOE notes that the data associated with the tables were provided by AHAM as 

aggregated data, which limited the extent to which DOE could draw conclusions about 

these data. However, the information indicates that the average freezer volume for the 24 

examined product class 7 samples dropped from 9.3 cubic feet under the current test 

procedure to 9.0 cubic feet under the proposed new test procedure, consistent with 

expectations of a reduction in volume. The larger volume adjustment factor associated 

with the proposed new test temperatures (the volume adjustment factor for the freezer 

compartment increases from 1.63 to 1.76 under the proposed test procedure) more than 

compensates for the reduction in volume and results in a small increase in adjusted 

volume. 

b. Change of Energy Use Equation Slope 

The energy standards for refrigeration products are expressed as a product’s 

adjusted volume multiplied by a parameter called the slope and added to another 

parameter called the intercept. Energy use is expressed using an equation rather than as a 

fixed value to reflect the fact that a larger product consumes more energy. An energy use 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
132

equation with a larger slope means that energy use increases more rapidly as the size 

increases (i.e., is more sensitive to product size), while a lower slope means that energy 

use increases less rapidly. Different slope and intercept parameters are established to 

represent the energy standard for each product class. Casting the energy standards in this 

fashion allows DOE to set a standard for each product class as a single relationship 

applicable for a wide range of product volumes, rather than providing separate standards 

for many limited volume ranges.

Based on information derived from energy use modeling, the preliminary TSD 

(see chapter 5, section 5.4.2) suggested that the slopes for at least some of the examined 

products may need adjustment. DOE sought comment on whether to adjust the slopes of 

the baseline energy use curves under the new test procedure for any of the proposed 

product classes. 

AHAM requested additional information on (a) how product classes were selected 

for evaluating the slope adjustment, (b) how the modified slopes were determined, and 

(c) how the intercepts would change with proposed slope changes. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 

6 and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 68-69) AHAM supported DOE's proposal 

to increase the slope for current product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service) to 12.3 assuming the 

intercept value remains the same, since the slope for this product class was 16.5 in 1993 

and it dropped to 4.6 with the 2001 rulemaking, thus making the standard more stringent 

for large products than for small products. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 6 and Public Meeting 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
133

Transcript, No. 28 at p. 68) AHAM expressed concerns about the slopes for the product 

classes the preliminary TSD did not analyze, such as product classes 17 (compact upright 

freezers with automatic defrost), 3A (all-refrigerators—automatic defrost), 5A

(refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service), 10A (chest freezers with automatic defrost), and 11A (compact 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost). However, AHAM’s 

comments regarding product class 17 appear to address the magnitude of the energy 

standard rather than the slope of the energy use equation for this product class. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 69) Finally, AHAM commented that the slopes 

determined using energy modeling should be validated if possible to determine if the 

proposed slope values are realistic. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 68) 

Whirlpool commented that the preliminary TSD provides insufficient information on the 

assessment of energy equation slopes to allow the company to either support or reject of 

the proposal. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 1) 

DOE presented during the preliminary analysis meeting background information 

regarding the slopes of different product classes based on energy modeling. DOE 

highlighted the need to obtain data and feedback to properly assess which slopes should 

change and what the new slope and intercept values should be. DOE explicitly asked for 

information that might help in making slope adjustments at the preliminary analysis 

public meeting and as part of the preliminary analysis comment period, but did not 

receive any relevant data at that time. DOE also asked for data on this topic during the 

NOPR phase manufacturer interviews and received information for two pairs of product 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
134

class 5 products. As described in the NOPR TSD in chapter 5, section 5.4.2, DOE 

incorporated this information into its evaluation of the applicable energy efficiency 

equation for this product class. DOE proposes to apply the slope for product class 7 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service) to product class 4 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer without through-the-door ice service) because the presence of throughthe-door ice features for product class 7 products should have only a limited impact on 

the increase in energy use associated with cabinet growth, which the slope represents. 

These adjustments are also described in section 5.4.2 of chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Otherwise, DOE is not proposing any slope changes based solely on energy modeling 

information. DOE will consider modifying its slope and intercept values if sufficient data 

are received. 

In assessing possible slope changes, DOE primarily chose products for which 

energy use models had already been prepared as part of the preliminary analysis. As 

described in the preliminary TSD, chapter 5, section 5.4.2, the analysis started with the 

energy models of minimally-compliant products based on the two reverse-engineered

products for each product class DOE examined. DOE examined the trend in calculated 

energy use as the product size changes with insulation thickness remaining constant. For 

the smaller of the two reverse-engineered products, DOE examined the trend as size 

increases, and for the larger of the two products, DOE examined the trend as size

decreases. DOE averaged these two results. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
135

For the analysis of compact refrigerators, DOE considered the change in 

efficiency of typically available compressors sized appropriately for the products 

examined. For standard-size products, DOE used a constant compressor efficiency in the 

analysis. DOE selected this approach based on observed data indicating that compressor 

efficiency does not vary significantly in the capacity range suitable for most standard-size 

products (see, e.g., Figure 5.8.1 of chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD). 

The preliminary TSD did not address the approach for determining new intercepts 

for baseline energy use equations with modified slopes. Changing the slope without a 

corresponding change to the intercept value would result in a dramatic increase or 

decrease in the calculated baseline energy use. For example, consider the preliminary 

baseline energy use equation for product class 5, which is 5.32 × AV + 542.5. DOE 

proposes to change this slope from 5.32 to 11.0. If the intercept remains equal to 542.5, 

the calculated energy use of a product with an adjusted volume equal to 20 would 

increase from 648.9 to 762.5, an increase of 17.5 percent. A lower intercept would be 

needed in order to offset this change and permit the calculated baseline energy use for 

products with typical adjusted volumes to remain constant. Without this corresponding 

adjustment, the resulting equation would not be representative of baseline product energy 

use. For a product with an adjusted volume equal to 20, an intercept equal to 428.9 would 

assure that the energy use remains 648.9. 

Rather than keep the same intercept value, as suggested by AHAM (AHAM, No. 

34 at p. 6), DOE proposes, in developing a new baseline energy use equation, that the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
136

calculated baseline energy use for the typically-shipped range of products of the class 

remains constant. Ideally, this approach would require knowledge of shipment quantities 

for the product class disaggregated by adjusted volume. DOE does not have access to

such shipment data and cannot conduct a calculation to determine an intercept that is 

known to result in zero change in the shipment-weighted average baseline energy use. To 

work around this limitation, DOE proposes to select a new intercept so that the increase 

in the baseline energy calculated for the largest adjusted volume (based on the new 

proposed test procedure with its modified volume adjustment factor) typical for the 

examined product class is equal to the decrease in the baseline energy use for the smallest 

adjusted volume typical for that product class. For product class 5, DOE selected 

representative minimum and maximum adjusted volumes for this calculation equal to the 

adjusted volumes of the 18.5 and 25 cubic foot reverse engineered products. The adjusted 

volumes for these products are 22.4 and 29.8 cubic feet. With the proposed new intercept 

of 394.2, the baseline energy use for the smaller product decreases 21.2 kWh from 661.6 

to 640.4 kWh, while the baseline energy use for the larger product increases 21.2 kWh 

from 701.3 to 722.5 kWh. A similar approach is proposed for product class 4, as 

described in section 5.4.2 of chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. The chapter also discusses 

development of a baseline energy use equation for product class 5A. DOE’s Proposed 

Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use equations for all of the proposed product classes 

are presented in Table 5.4.12 of chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. These equations are the 

basis for development of the energy standards in this NOPR. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
137

DOE requests comment on the approach used to develop Proposed Procedure 

Reduced Baseline Energy Use equations with adjusted slopes for product classes 4, 5, 

and 5A. DOE also seeks relevant data that would allow more rigorous adjustment of the 

curve intercept to ensure that the shipment-weighted average impact of the slope change 

would be neutral (i.e., zero change) with respect to energy use. DOE also seeks any 

additional information that would support similar development of adjusted-slope baseline 

energy curves for other product classes. (See Issue 11 under “Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) 

c. Energy Use Measurement Changes Associated with Other Test Procedure 

Changes

As described in section IV.C.2.a, above, DOE developed the Proposed Procedure 

Reduced Baseline Energy Use equations based on energy use measurement changes 

associated with proposed test procedure changes associated with compartment 

temperatures and volume calculation methods. DOE calculated the new energy 

conservation standards proposed in this notice by applying efficiency level percentages to 

the Proposed Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use equations. Section III.A, above, 

describes the test procedure rulemaking and its associated NOPR, which has proposed 

numerous test procedure changes in addition to the compartment temperature and volume 

calculation method changes. The test procedure final rule has not yet been published. 

However, DOE tentatively concludes, based on its analysis and the comments received in 

response to the proposed procedure, that none of these other proposed test procedure 

changes will affect measured energy use. Therefore, DOE has used the Proposed 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
138

Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use equations developed during the preliminary 

analysis (subject to changes in some of these equations to address equation slope) to 

establish the proposed standards in this notice. 

3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

DOE selected baseline products as reference points for all of the product classes 

and compared these baselines to projected changes resulting from using energy saving 

design options. The baseline products in each product class represent the common 

characteristics of equipment in that class. 

DOE established a series of incremental efficiency levels for which it has 

developed incremental cost data and quantified the cost-efficiency relationship for each 

of the eleven analyzed product classes. In each product class, the highest efficiency level 

is the max-tech level, which represents the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all 

available design options are incorporated. Because the two products selected for reverse 

engineering for each of the seven conventional (free-standing) product classes had 

differing characteristics, the max-tech levels for the two products were not the same. 

DOE did not consider that the higher of the two max-tech levels would be representative 

of the entire product class. Instead, DOE calculated max tech for the product class as the 

average of the max-tech levels for the two products analyzed. 

DOE sought comment on the incremental efficiency levels and the max-tech level 

for each product class. Stakeholders primarily made comments about the max-tech levels. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
139

The comments primarily addressed (a) validity of max tech that is calculated based on 

technology options that are used in commercialized products but whose combinations in 

the max-tech designs may not be represented by products or prototypes, (b) validity of 

DOE’s consideration of variable speed compressors for compact products, (c) questions 

regarding whether some of the design options, particularly heat exchanger size increases, 

fit physically in the products, and (d) questions regarding validation of the energy 

modeling predictions. The specific comments are detailed below. The comments 

described by topics (b) and (c) address the treatment in the engineering analysis of design 

options that have been screened-in, and are discussed in section IV.C.4, below. DOE 

modified its treatment of some of these design options in the NOPR analysis, which

resulted in adjusting the max-tech levels. The comments described by topic (d) address 

validation of the energy modeling tool DOE used in the analysis and are discussed in 

section IV.C.5, below. Comments that specifically address max-tech levels but not 

energy model validation or treatment of design options in the analysis are discussed in 

section III.B.2, above.

4. Engineering Analysis Treatment of Design Options 

GE recommended that DOE reevaluate its assumptions underlying the 

technologies included in the max-tech levels, because some of the design options are not 

feasible for certain product classes and some design options are not as effective when 

combined with other design options. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2) But GE did not identify 

specific options it believed were problematic. DOE cannot directly respond to comments 

that do not address particular design options in question and the specific concerns with 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
140

the way they were evaluated. The energy modeling used to determine impacts of groups 

of design options modeled the design option groups rather than modeling each design 

option individually. The modeling showed the reduced effectiveness of design options 

added after other design options had already been considered. This resulted in less 

reduction in energy use for such design option groups. Hence, the analysis captured the 

reduced effectiveness associated with the grouping of design options and DOE did not 

modify its analysis in response to this comment. 

a. Heat Exchangers

AHAM, Sub Zero, and GE commented that some of the design options considered 

could not be implemented due to cabinet size limitations. (AHAM, Public Meeting

Transcript, No. 28 p. 73; Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 p. 73; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 28 p. 74) GE did not offer any specifics in its statements or 

comments. When asked to identify specific design options that were size-dependent, Sub 

Zero cited heat exchangers (Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 p. 73) As a 

result, DOE revised its assessment of the benefits from increased heat exchanger sizes in 

the NOPR analysis by (a) evaluating the potential to increase heat exchanger size in each 

analyzed product based on the reverse-engineered product details and limiting the size 

increase—in some cases, to no increase—and (b) revising the analysis to analyze the heat 

transfer benefit, the increase in refrigerant-side pressure drop, and the added airside 

pressure drop and/or possible fan power increase associated with the change. DOE 

adopted the latter approach rather than applying a factor representing an increase in 

performance, as was done for the preliminary engineering analysis. This revised 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
141

assessment is discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD in sections 5.8.6 and 

5.8.7. 

b. Variable Speed Compressors for Compact Products 

Whirlpool and Electrolux commented that variable speed compressors may not be 

available in the market for product class 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers with manual defrost). (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 75; 

Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 75) DOE utilized performance data 

for commercialized variable-speed compressors in its analysis. For the compact product 

classes, DOE considered the smallest-capacity variable speed compressors operating at 

their lowest rated speed. For the smallest compact refrigerator analyzed, DOE considered 

replacement of the baseline compressor, nominally rated at 211 Btu/hr capacity and an 

EER of 3.02 Btu/hr-W, with a variable speed compressor with ratings of 139 Btu/hr 

capacity and 4.96 Btu/hr-W EER at low speed (capacity, power input, and EER all vary 

as compressor speed varies). DOE confirmed with the compressor vendor that these 

compressors can be used in this fashion, although doing so may not be cost effective. 

Based on data provided by a manufacturer, DOE also degraded the modeled performance 

of variable speed compressors when applied to compact products, by reducing their 

modeled capacity by 11 percent.

c. Variable Anti-Sweat Heaters

Whirlpool commented that the variable anti-sweat heater design option would 

apply to product class 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
142

freezer with through-the-door ice service) and possibly 6 (refrigerator-freezers—

automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service), in 

addition to product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer without through-the-door ice service). (Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 44-45) In response, DOE included this design option for 

analysis of product class 7. The design option had already been incorporated into the 

analysis for product class 5, with respect to the gasket heaters used between this product 

class’s French Doors (see Preliminary TSD, chapter 5, section 5.8.9). DOE did not 

develop cost-efficiency curves for product class 6, as this was not one of the directlyanalyzed product classes (see section IV.C.1, above). 

d. Vacuum-Insulated Panels 

Section IV.B.1.c, above, discusses VIPs from the perspective of the screening 

analysis. As described in that section, VIPs were not screened out for the NOPR analysis. 

This section addresses comments associated with the treatment of VIP technology in the 

engineering analysis.

AHAM stated that the VIP application cost is higher for cabinets than it is for 

doors and questioned whether DOE had incorporated the additional cost in its analysis 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 94; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 7) In 

addressing this issue, DOE assumed for the preliminary analysis that VIP installation in a 

cabinet requires 10 times as much labor as installation in a door. Information DOE 

obtained during manufacturer interviews during the NOPR suggests that its labor cost 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
143

estimates are appropriate. DOE used these assumptions in calculating its VIP labor cost 

assumptions in the NOPR analysis. 

LG urged DOE to study the incremental installation, maintenance, and service 

costs for products using VIPs. (LG, No. 41 at p. 4) As discussed in more detail in chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD, the VIP cost estimate includes labor costs and a cost contribution 

attributable to overhead and capital costs. As discussed in section IV.B.1.c, above, no 

information is available regarding any VIP field failure. DOE is also unaware of any 

specific maintenance or service costs associated with VIPs. Hence, DOE did not include 

these costs in the analyses for VIPs. 

Sub Zero commented that VIP costs offered by three different VIP manufacturers 

are similar, indicating that an industry standard has been established at present levels of 

technology, maturity, and volume. It added that costs may rise to ensure that shipping and 

handling are conducted in a way that does not damage the panels. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 

4) IOU agrees with the costs used by DOE in the preliminary analysis and expects that 

costs will likely decline in the future due to economies-of-scale (IOU, No. 36 at p. 10) 

ThermoCor, a VIP vendor contacted as part of DOE’s investigation of VIP supply issues 

(see section IV.B.1.c, above), expects the increase in supply to drive down raw material 

prices and the transition to increased automation to reduce production cost. DOE did not 

change the VIP cost assumptions from the preliminary analysis, because, based on 

available information, (1) DOE expects that VIP production capacity can be increased as 

needed within the necessary timeframe, thus avoiding a supply/demand imbalance that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
144

would lead to cost increases, and (2) adjustments to shipping costs to reduce VIP failure 

risk during transport are insignificant compared to overall VIP application cost. (DOE 

projects that if, in order to account for the need for special handling, transport costs are 

twice as high as normal bulk materials transport costs via truck, they would still only 

amount to about 2 percent of total VIP costs). 

IOU predicted that the cost premium for VIPs could become less significant under 

future regulations that require manufacturers to switch from HFC blowing agents to 

alternatives (IOU, No. 36 at p. 10) DOE does not agree with this statement. Information 

obtained through manufacturer interviews and discussion with an insulation vendor 

indicates that material cost for insulation made using HFC-245fa is more expensive than 

for insulation made using the most likely replacement blowing agent, cyclopentane. 

Hence, the cost premium for VIPs may more likely increase slightly. As an example, 

HFC-245fa may represent 12.5 percent of the mass of the foam insulation. At a cost of 

roughly $5/lb and insulation density of roughly 2 pounds per cubic foot, the blowing 

agent represents $1.25 per cubic foot of insulation. Cyclopentane costs roughly $1 per 

pound. Hence, when switching to cyclopentane-blown insulation, the blowing agent 

represents $0.25 per cubic foot of insulation. DOE used a VIP price in its analysis of 

$3.19 per square foot at a thickness of one-half inch—this is equal to $76.56 per cubic 

foot on a volume basis. The total cost of the displaced HFC-245fa foam insulation when 

applying VIPs is roughly 2 percent of the VIP cost, or $1.53. Hence, switch from HFC245fa to cyclopentane blowing agent will increase the cost of the use of VIPs from 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
145

$75.03 to $76.03 per cubic foot. This increase is very small compared to the overall cost 

of implementing VIPs. 

The IOU comment also suggests that VIPs could be used to maintain thermal 

performance with reduced impact on external size or internal volume (IOU, No. 36 at p. 

10) DOE agrees with this statement, and expects that some manufacturers might use this 

approach to maintain internal volume. However, this possibility has no bearing on DOE’s 

engineering analysis, in which DOE must determine the most cost effective groups of 

screened-in design options that are needed to achieve each considered efficiency level. 

NRDC stated that VIPs could alleviate some of the cost burden associated with 

potential climate change legislation or regulation that would increase the cost of HFC 

blowing agents by reducing the amount of foam insulation needed (NRDC, No. 39 at p. 

4) At this time, DOE does not believe that a scenario involving limits on HFC use would 

involve manufacturers switching to increased use of VIPs while continuing to use HFC 

blowing agent. Instead, the available information leads DOE to predict that 

manufacturers would instead switch to insulation not containing HFC blowing agent, 

since this approach is much more cost effective than the adoption of VIPs. This result 

assumes that additional moderate-cost design options can be applied to make up for any 

efficiency loss associated with the switch to alternative blowing agents. DOE believes 

that VIPs would be used only if they are the most cost-effective design option for making 

up this efficiency difference.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
146

DOE requests comment on its treatment of design options in the engineering 

analysis. (See Issue 12 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E 

of this NOPR, below.) 

5. Energy Modeling 

DOE upgraded the ERA program used in the previous refrigerator rulemaking in 

preparation for the energy analysis conducted for this rulemaking. Upgrades, including 

use of heat exchanger models based on more recent literature and development for a 

Windows platform are described in more detail in appendix 5-B of the NOPR TSD. The 

program has also been made available on the DOE rulemaking website at the following 

URL: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/refrigerators_free

zers_prelim_analytical_spreadsheets.html . 

Sub Zero asked DOE whether and to what extent it used actual test data to 

calibrate ERA models, and how well it predicted performance over a range of operating 

conditions. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 8) AHAM questioned the evaluation of design options 

and requested that the ERA simulation program be made available. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 

10) Electrolux also posed questions regarding calibration of the ERA model and asked 

whether the model could be made available. (Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

28 at p. 76) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
147

DOE notes that the ERA program has been posted on the DOE’s rulemaking 

website since the end of February 2010. Additionally, the preliminary TSD described 

many of the inputs that were used in developing of the energy use models for the reverseengineered products that served as the basis of DOE’s efficiency improvement 

calculations. DOE tested many of the reverse-engineered products, including tests for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers for both the current test procedure compartment 

temperatures and the proposed new compartment temperatures. DOE instructed the test 

facility to measure refrigerant tube temperatures during these tests to indicate refrigerant 

conditions during compressor on-cycles. DOE measured the power input of fans as part 

of the reverse-engineering process, and used this information as input for the models. 

DOE also used the compressor power input during on-cycles during testing to help 

calibrate teardown product energy models. DOE adjusted input data for the energy 

models based on all available information to obtain energy use estimates within a few 

percentage points of the rated or measured energy of the products analyzed. In some 

cases, DOE adjusted the input using additional load and/or other input factors to degrade 

or improve system or cabinet thermal performance to match measured energy use or 

operating parameters. Examples include (1) boost of performance of one style of 

condenser to match measured condensing temperature and compressor power input 

during the on-cycle, and (2) addition of thermal load for some products, particularly sidemount refrigerator-freezers and upright freezers, to match total energy use. The energy 

model input data for the reverse-engineered products are presented in appendix 5-A of 

the NOPR TSD. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
148

DOE also examined whether model predictions for the design options groups 

required to achieve higher efficiency levels matched the design options used in actual 

products, where such information was available. For example, DOE obtained information 

from manufacturers during the NOPR phase discussions regarding the combination of 

design options required to achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy use in standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers as compared with the current standard. Achieving this level 

generally required using the highest-efficiency single-speed compressors, brushless-DC 

fan motors, and substantial use of VIPs. The energy model results were consistent with 

this information.

DOE requests comments, information, and data that would help adjust its energy 

modeling input and/or results that would allow more accurate representation of the 

energy use impacts of design options using the ERA energy model. (See Issue 13 under 

“Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR, below.) 

6. Cost-Efficiency Curves

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides the full list of manufacturer production 

costs (MPCs) and MSPs at each efficiency level for each analyzed product class. 

ACEEE/ASAP stated that DOE should not rely principally on manufacturerprovided cost curves. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 6) This comment addresses the 

variation in the cost information provided to DOE by AHAM. ACEEE/ASAP cited (a) 

the lack of transparency of consolidated data provided by AHAM and (b) the expectation 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
149

that such data do not accurately predict future costs as reasons why DOE should not rely 

on these data. The commenters urged DOE to use the lowest cost information provided 

by any manufacturer, since other manufacturers would have to adopt the lowest-cost 

design approaches to remain competitive, or they would lose market share, thus 

increasing the representativeness of the lowest-cost designs. (Id.) AHAM expressed 

concerns regarding how manufacturers reported cost data and will reevaluate its 

submissions to DOE. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 89-90) 

DOE has not received updated information. Because of the questions cited above 

regarding AHAM’s data collection and aggregation, DOE has not attempted to present 

comparisons of DOE’s NOPR analysis results with the preliminary analysis data 

provided by AHAM. DOE has developed curves representing the cost of achieving the 

analyzed efficiency levels using manufacturing cost modeling and energy modeling based 

on reverse engineering. DOE used its own curves in the downstream analyses such as the 

LCC/PBP and NIA analyses.

AHAM and GE requested clarification regarding the cost-efficiency curve 

presented on page 55 of the preliminary TSD, specifically asking which of the two design 

options labeled “VIP to FZR door” was actually the “VIP to FZR door” design option. 

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 10; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 85) DOE has since 

adjusted the analyses on which this comment was based (see the changes made to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
150

analyses between the preliminary analysis and NOPR phases listed in Table IV.10, 

above). Accordingly, this comment has been superseded by intervening events. 

7. Development of Standards for Low-Volume Products 

DOE sought comment on its approach to developing energy standards for lowvolume products. Sub Zero commented on the high degree of uncertainty of the analysis 

which was based on computer models and selective teardowns, and suggested adding 

margins of uncertainty to the results. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3-4) AHAM recommended 

that DOE generate cost-efficiency curves for all product classes, since low shipment 

product classes (i.e., low-volume compacts) have much smaller economies of scale and 

greater design challenges due to size and special constraints. As a result, these product 

classes have much higher costs and reduced energy efficiency improvements compared to 

the high-volume product classes. AHAM suggested that DOE request data to estimate 

cost-efficiency curves for low-volume products during MIA interviews. Finally, AHAM 

stressed that low-volume product classes can make up a major portion of a niche 

manufacturer’s sales, so it is critical to evaluate these product classes as realistically as 

possible to be fair to these manufacturers. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at 

pp. 98, 99 and No. 34 at pp. 7-8) Whirlpool agreed with AHAM and offered to provide 

data for all product classes in an effort to help DOE model low-volume product classes 

accurately. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE adopted AHAM’s suggestion for certain low-volume products 

such as built-ins, for which DOE obtained detailed engineering data from a built-in 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
151

manufacturer to allow development of cost-efficiency curves. However, because of 

limited resources, DOE cannot conduct a complete analysis for every product variation. 

DOE explained the proposed approach thoroughly during the framework meeting and in 

the framework document and was not urged by stakeholders at that time to consider 

detailed analyses of more product classes. 

D.

 The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to 

convert the estimates of manufacturer cost derived in the engineering analysis to 

consumer prices. DOE determined the distribution channels for refrigeration products and 

the markups associated with the main parties in the distribution chain, manufacturers and 

retailers. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by four publicly-traded 

manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes residential refrigeration products. For retailers, DOE developed 

separate markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of 

more-efficient products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients 

that relate the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher-efficiency models to the 

change in the retailer sales price.

Markups to Determine Product Cost

Commenting on the preliminary TSD, AHAM filed supplemental comments that 

criticized DOE’s application of “incremental” markups to the incremental manufacturer 

selling price of products more efficient than the baseline products. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
152

14) In Exhibit B accompanying this comment, AHAM stated that (1) DOE provides no 

empirical evidence to validate that retailers obtain only incremental markups on products 

with greater features and costs; and (2) DOE is asserting a normative approach without 

any support showing that its model reflects actual retail practices. These comments 

effectively criticized two of the key assumptions in DOE’s theoretical construct. The first 

of these assumptions is that the costs incurred by appliance retailers can be divided into 

costs that vary in proportion to the MSP (variable costs), and costs that do not vary with 

the MSP (fixed costs). The second of these assumptions is that retailer prices vary in 

proportion to retailer costs that are included in the balance sheets. 

Regarding the first assumption, AHAM stated that DOE has offered no evidence 

that the fixed/variable cost mix of a retailer has anything to do in practice with the 

markups that will be earned by a retailer on products that meet a new energy conservation 

standard. It added that DOE uses a “spurious analogy” of HVAC contractors as a basis 

for considering the costs of a retailer, and that DOE did not analyze the actual drivers of 

retail costs, where the cost structure has considerably different characteristics from those 

of an HVAC contractor. It stated that DOE has not presented any data or analysis that 

would yield a fixed versus variable cost allocation applicable to retailers. Regarding 

DOE’s second assumption, AHAM stated that DOE’s approach depends on the presence 

of a relatively high level of competition the retail industry. AHAM presented data 

showing that the four firm concentration ratio (FFCR) of the sectors that sell major 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
153

appliances ranges from 42 to 65 percent, which verges on the standard definition of an 

oligopoly.29

In conclusion, AHAM viewed DOE’s incremental markup approach as lacking a 

credible theoretical underpinning and demonstrated reliability and asserted that the data 

required for the approach are not available. AHAM stated that DOE should return to its 

traditional practice of using average markups for both the baseline products and for the 

added costs of efficiency improvements. In AHAM’s view, the stability of markups in the 

retailing sectors leads to the reasonable inference that such markups will continue and 

apply to higher-efficiency products in the future when they become the bulk of sales 

under amended standards (AHAM, No. 34, Exhibit B, p. 12) In addition to AHAM’s 

comment, GE expressed concerns with the assumptions DOE is using in proposing a 

lower markup on energy efficiency improvements. (GE, No. 37 at pp. 2-3)

In response to the above comments, DOE extensively reviewed its incremental 

markup approach. It assembled and analyzed relevant data from other retail sectors, and 

held preliminary discussions with an expert retailing consultant. As a result of this 

research, DOE found that empirical evidence is lacking with respect to appliance retailer 

markup practices when a product increases in cost (due to increased efficiency or other 

factors). DOE understands that real-world retailer markup practices vary depending on 

market conditions and on the magnitude of the change in cost of goods sold (CGS) 

associated with an increase in appliance efficiency. 

 

29 The FFCR represents the market share of the four largest firms in the relevant sector. Generally, an 

FFCR of less than 40 percent indicates that a sector is not concentrated and an FFCR of more than 70

percent indicates that a sector is highly concentrated.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
154

Given this uncertainty with respect to actual markup practices in appliance 

retailing, DOE uses an approach that reflects two key concepts. First, changes in the 

efficiency of the appliances sold are not expected to increase economic profits. Thus, 

DOE calculates markups/gross margins to allow cost recovery for retailers (including 

changes in the cost of capital) without changes in company profits. Second, efficiency 

improvements only impact some distribution costs. DOE sets markups to cover only the 

variable costs expected to change with efficiency.

DOE’s separation of operating expenses into fixed and variable components to 

estimate an incremental markup follows from the above concepts. DOE defines fixed 

expenses as including labor and occupancy expenses because these costs are not likely to 

increase as a result of a rise in CGS due to amended efficiency standards. All other 

expenses, as well as the net profit, are assumed to vary in proportion to the change in 

CGS. DOE acknowledges that its allocation of expenses into fixed and variable 

categories is based largely on limited information and seeks additional information from 

interested parties to help refine its allocation approach. 

DOE’s method results in an outcome in which retailers are assumed to cover their 

costs while maintaining their profit margins when the CGS of appliances changes. 

Market competition is a main reason why DOE believes that profit margins would not 

change in a significant way. Regarding AHAM’s assertion that the degree of competition 

in appliance retailing is not sufficient to support DOE’s model, DOE believes that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
155

AHAM’s measure of competition is faulty. AHAM measured the FFCR of three retail 

channels: Electronics and Appliance Stores, Building and Material and Supplies Dealers, 

and General Merchandise Stores. These values represent competitiveness within each 

sector, but refrigerators are sold across all three sectors, preventing major retailers in each 

sector from exercising significant market power. To properly measure the 

competitiveness within appliance retailing, DOE believes that one should measure the 

FFCR for only the appliance sub-sector within the above channels, and accordingly 

estimated the “appliance sales” FFCR, equal to the sector FFCR times the percent of 

appliance sales within each sector. DOE estimated that these sub-sector FFCRs are under 

the 40 percent threshold. Furthermore, “Household Appliance Stores,” a subsector of the 

Electronics and Appliance Stores sector that specifically represents appliance retailers, 

rather than computer or other electronics stores, has an FFCR of 17 percent, signifying an 

unconcentrated sector. 

Regarding AHAM’s observation about the relative stability of average markups 

for the major retail channels that sell home appliances, DOE believes that the usefulness 

of this information for estimating markups on specific product lines is limited. The 

markups implied by gross margin at the level of major retail channels30

 

30 The channels for which AHAM provided gross margin data for 1993-2007 are Electronics and Appliance 

Stores, General Merchandise Stores, and Building Material and Supplies Dealers. According to AHAM, 

these channels accounted for 43%, 31% and 17% of major appliance sales in 2007, respectively.

are averaged over 

multiple product lines and many different store types. The empirical data at this level do 

not provide useful guidance for estimating what happens to the markup on specific 

products when their costs change. Applying the same markup as CGS increases, as 

AHAM recommends, would mean that the rise in CGS associated with higher-efficiency 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
156

products would translate into higher retail gross margins for that product line. Since the 

majority of operating expenses would not be affected by the rise in CGS, the result would 

be an increase in net profit as a share of sales. While such an outcome could occur in the 

short run, DOE believes that competitive forces in the market would tend to decrease the 

profit margin over time.

Based on the above considerations, DOE has decided to continue to apply an 

incremental markup to the incremental MSP of products with higher efficiency than the 

baseline products. As part of its review, DOE developed a new breakdown into fixed and 

variable components using the latest expense data provided by the U.S. Census for 

Electronics and Appliance Stores, which cover 2002. The newly-derived incremental 

markup, which would be applied to an incremental change in CGS, is 1.17, which is 

slightly higher than the value of 1.15 that DOE used in the preliminary analysis. Chapter 

6 of the NOPR TSD provides a description of both the method and its current application 

using the afore-mentioned data. 

DOE requests information regarding the response of retailers to incremental 

change in the CGS of appliances associated with energy conservation standards. (See 

Issue 14 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E, below.) 

 Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides additional detail on the markups analysis. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
157

E.

DOE’s analysis of the energy use of refrigeration products estimated the annual 

energy use of products in the field that would meet the considered efficiency levels, 

Energy Use Analysis

i.e., 

as they are actually used by consumers. The energy use analysis provides the basis for 

other analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy-savings and the 

savings in consumer operating costs that could result from DOE’s adoption of amended 

standard levels. In contrast to the DOE test procedure, which provides standardized 

results that can serve as the basis for comparing the performance of different appliances 

used under the same conditions, the energy use analysis seeks to capture the range of 

operating conditions for refrigeration products in U.S. homes. 

To determine the field energy use of products that would meet possible amended 

standard levels, DOE used data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s 

2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which was the most recent such 

survey available at the time of DOE’s analysis.31

 

31 For information on RECS, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/. 

 RECS is a national sample survey of 

housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures 

for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the 

housing units and occupants. RECS provides sufficient information to establish the type 

(product class) of refrigeration product used in each household, and also provides an 

estimate of the household’s energy consumption attributable to “refrigerators” or 

“freezers”. As a result, DOE was able to develop household samples for the 

representative product classes for standard-size units. DOE did not use RECS for 

compact refrigerators and freezers because a large fraction of these products are used 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
158

outside the residential sector. Instead, it based the energy use for these products on the 

DOE test procedure. 

The preliminary analysis treated the energy consumption attributed by RECS to 

refrigerators or freezers as the field energy consumption, referred to as FECRECS, of the 

refrigeration product(s) in each sample household. DOE derived a multiplicative ‘usage 

adjustment factor’ (UAF) that relates this quantity to the estimated test energy 

consumption of the products in each household. To develop a UAF for each RECS 

household, DOE utilized information that RECS provides on the size (i.e., volume), age 

and the product class of the refrigeration product in use. DOE determined, for each 

household’s unit, the corresponding maximum allowable tested energy consumption, 

referred to as TECSTD, based on the energy conservation standard that was in effect at the 

time the household purchased the refrigeration product. Using FECRECS and TECSTD, 

DOE then developed the UAF for each household to capture the combined effects of 

consumer behavior (e.g., door openings), operating conditions (e.g., room temperature 

and humidity), and product characteristics (e.g., efficiency relative to the minimum 

allowable). The UAF represents the adjustment that needs to be made to the maximum 

allowable tested energy use to arrive at the field energy consumption of the refrigeration 

product. 

 Commenting on the preliminary TSD, AHAM criticized DOE’s proposed 

approach for estimating the energy use of refrigerator‐freezers, and stated that DOE 

should instead rely on the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 11-12) Accompanying 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
159

its comment, AHAM submitted Exhibit A, which elaborated on AHAM’s concerns 

criticisms.32 In AHAM’s view: 

1. RECS data has served well as a directional, general guidance tool in energy 

policymaking, but the preliminary TSD proposes an unprecedented use of these 

data in a specific appliance energy efficiency rulemaking.

2. Use of RECS data to set a refrigerator/freezer standard is improper, legally flawed 

and is arbitrary and capricious. The proposed RECS data approach operates as a 

“black box,” the inner workings of which are not well understood. The input data 

are not direct and actual measurements of energy use, but rather statistical 

inferences.

3. While the current, long-standing methodology that relies on the test procedure for 

determining future energy savings and PBP under a new or amended efficiency 

standard has a very clear basis in current law, the preliminary TSD proposal to 

use RECS data does not. 

4. Because of its statistical deficiencies, the UAF approach does not permit the 

Secretary to rationally and substantially meet his legal obligation in this 

rulemaking to determine savings in operating costs and total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly from imposition of the standard.

 

32 Exhibit A: Evaluation of the Proposed Use by the Department of Energy of RECS Data in its Energy Use 

Determination Under the Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD) for Refrigerators, Freezers and 

Refrigerator‐Freezers. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
160

5. Rather than use RECS data, as the preliminary TSD proposes, DOE should amend 

and use the test procedure. 

Whirlpool and LG also questioned DOE’s approach, and recommended that DOE 

should use the test procedure and drop UAFs from the analysis. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 

2; LG, No. 41 at p. 1) 

In response, DOE first addresses the appropriateness of using RECS data to 

estimate appliance energy use (AHAM’s points 1 and 3, above). As further discussed 

below, DOE has used RECS data to help determine the energy use of covered products in 

many residential appliance standards rulemakings over the past decade. Regarding the 

legal basis for using RECS data, DOE uses RECS data because it helps DOE to evaluate 

two of the factors that EPCA directs the Secretary to consider in determining whether an 

energy conservation standard for a particular covered product is economically justified. 

The first of these is the economic impact of potential standards on the manufacturers and 

the consumers of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The second factor 

is the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial 

charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result 

from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
161

To evaluate economic impacts on consumers and the savings in operating costs as 

accurately as possible, DOE needs to determine the energy savings that are likely to 

result from a given standard. Such a determination requires knowledge of actual use of 

covered products by consumers. RECS provides information that helps DOE to determine 

such use. 

In addition, DOE uses RECS data because it is consistent with the guidance 

contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A—Procedures, Interpretations and 

Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for 

Consumer Products. Specifically, section 11 of appendix A lists variation in consumer 

impacts as one of the principles for the analysis of impacts on consumers. Because RECS 

is a representative sample of U.S. households that provides considerable information 

about each household in the sample, it allows DOE to evaluate factors that contribute to 

variation in the energy use of covered products. In turn, this allows DOE to estimate the 

fraction of consumers that will benefit from standards at various efficiency levels.

Consistent with the statute and DOE’s regulatory guidance, DOE has used RECS 

data in a variety of ways over the past decade. In most cases, DOE has used the relevant 

DOE test procedure or a similar procedure as the basis for energy use calculation, and 

used RECS data to provide a range for key input variables concerning the operation of 

covered products. Examples include the standards rulemaking for water heaters 

concluded in 2001 (66 FR 4474 (January 17, 2001)), and in the recently-concluded 

rulemaking that amended standards for water heaters (75 FR 20112 (April 16, 2010)). In 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
162

both rulemakings, DOE used data for each of the households in the RECS sample to 

estimate the amount of household daily hot water use, and to specify certain factors that 

affect water heater operating conditions. 

Additionally, DOE’s 2001 final rule for central air conditioners and heat pumps 

relied on annual energy use based on the annual end-use energy consumption values in 

RECS. 66 FR 7170 (January 22, 2001). DOE determined that basing the energy use on 

RECS household data provided a more accurate measure of the savings possible from 

more-efficient equipment, and accounted for variability due to climatic conditions and 

consumer behavior. The particular use of RECS data in the preliminary TSD to derive 

UAFs reflected a new analytical approach, but it was consistent with the purposes 

underlying DOE’s use of RECS in previous rulemakings. 

Regarding AHAM’s recommendation that DOE should use the amended test 

procedure for refrigerator-freezers to estimate energy use for the purposes of its analysis 

of standards, test procedures must be reasonably designed to produce test results which 

measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) Relying solely on a representative average use cycle or period of use does not 

provide an accurate measure of the possible energy savings since this approach 

inadequately evaluates the economic impact of the standard on consumers, and the 

savings in operating costs throughout the estimated life of the product—two factors under 

EPCA that DOE must consider when promulgating an amended energy conservation 

standard. Further, the approach suggested by AHAM would not account for the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
163

variability stemming from household differences or be consistent with the above-cited 

guidance contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A. In contrast, the approach 

that DOE has used in residential product rulemakings for over a decade accounts for all 

of these factors. 

DOE applies the test procedure to ascertain whether the consumer costs 

associated with the purchase of a product that complies with the proposed standard level 

is less than three times the value of the energy savings the consumer will receive during 

the first year of ownership. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) This calculation is separate 

from the payback periods calculated in the LCC and payback period analysis, as the latter 

is intended to assess the economic impact of potential standards on the consumers of the 

covered products. Both calculations are part of DOE’s routine analysis when evaluating 

potential standards for a given product. 

AHAM also questioned how DOE justifies using the test procedure to carry out 

its engineering analysis and manufacturing impact analysis while using a different set of 

values for carrying out a life-cycle cost and national impact analysis. (AHAM, No. 34 at 

p. 11) In the engineering analysis, DOE uses the test procedure to evaluate the relative 

improvement in energy efficiency provided by different design options. The 

manufacturing impact analysis uses the same cost-efficiency curves developed in the 

engineering analysis to calculate industry revenue. DOE does not rely solely on the test 

procedure in the LCC and payback period analysis or the national impact analysis for the 

reasons stated above.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
164

AHAM’s criticism of the statistical technique that DOE used to develop UAFs for 

refrigerator-freezers was echoed by other interested parties who raised issues regarding 

use of the RECS data. Whirlpool and GE stated that DOE should refrain from using 

RECS data for the rulemaking because it will be outdated and it does not discriminate 

between top- and bottom-mount refrigerators. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 

2) LG also commented that the RECS data are outdated, as many factors involved in 

household usage have changed since 2005. (LG, No. 41 at p. 2) 

ACEEE supported DOE’s efforts to develop UAFs to capture the difference 

between measured energy use in the lab and in-field energy use, but commented that the 

suggested approach is flawed. It urged DOE to look for any existing sets of metered field 

data that can be used to develop UAFs. (ACEEE, No. 43 at p. 2) NRDC also cautioned 

against the use of RECS data without metered data to help justify the conclusions, and 

urged DOE to collect metered data and explore all other data sources to keep the UAFs in 

perspective. (NRDC, No. 39 at p. 6) The IOUs also supported use of UAFs, but stated 

that ideally they should be based on metered data. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 10) NEEP 

expressed its general support for DOE’s approach, but cautioned that RECS data 

misrepresents refrigeration-only energy use because it includes the energy used for 

icemaking. NEEP recommended taking icemaking energy use in the RECS data into 

account when developing UAFs. (NEEP, No. 38 at p. 2) Similarly, NPCC supported 

DOE’s effort to estimate in situ energy use, but stated that DOE’s use of statistical 

regression may result in exaggerated differences between test and field energy use. It 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
165

stated that UAFs should be based on metered energy use or a regression that permits 

isolation of icemaking energy use. (NPCC, No. 33 at p. 2) 

For the reasons previously discussed, DOE believes that, in general, using RECS 

data in the estimation of field energy use of refrigeration products is valid. However, it 

acknowledges that the approach used in the preliminary analysis has shortcomings. 

Recognition of these shortcomings, combined with the urging of several interested parties 

that DOE should look for existing sets of metered field data, prompted DOE to develop a 

new approach for the NOPR to estimate energy use of refrigeration products in U.S. 

homes. This approach involved collecting field-metered electricity use data for residential 

refrigeration products. 

DOE was able to obtain data from seven studies, including about 100 data points 

that DOE collected itself. A total of 1,967 data points were collected that included units 

from all representative product classes except compact freezers, and spanned a variety of 

collection years, unit ages, U.S. locations and household populations, including some 

units used in commercial settings (e.g., offices and hotels). DOE made various 

adjustments to the raw data, including extrapolation to annual electricity consumption 

where necessary.

Test energy consumption was obtained for each unit. From identifying 

information about each unit, test energy consumption was estimated for each unit and the 

UAF was calculated as the ratio of metered energy use to test energy use. The data were 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
166

pooled into four categories: primary refrigerators, secondary refrigerators, freezers and 

compact refrigerators. Although DOE considered including data for compact refrigerators 

in the final analysis, it decided not to include those data due to concerns over data quality 

and representativeness. 

 For each category, DOE performed weighted least-squares regressions on 

numerous variables of potential interest in order to construct a function that predicts the 

UAF based on household and climate variables. DOE selected for final evaluation a small 

number of variables for which the regression results had sufficient statistical significance, 

and that could be obtained or reasonably inferred from RECS variables. Within each of 

the three product categories modeled, DOE used the appropriate set of regression 

coefficients, along with values for the relevant variables specific to each household to 

generate UAF estimates for each RECS household. For compact refrigeration products, a 

UAF of 1 was used. 

 Using the UAF derived for each RECS household, DOE determined the field 

energy consumption in each household of a new refrigeration product at each considered 

efficiency level using the following equation:

 

FECEL = FECRECS • (1 – R) = UAFRECS • TECRECS • (1 – R) 

where:

FECEL = new refrigeration product’s field energy consumption at a given efficiency 

level;

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
167

FECRECS = new refrigeration product’s field energy consumption at baseline 

efficiency level;

R = reduction in energy consumption (expressed as fraction) due to efficiency 

improvements; 

UAFRECS = usage adjustment factor specific to RECS household; 

TECRECS = maximum allowable test energy consumption for the new baseline 

refrigeration product. 

In order to make the 2005 RECS sample more representative of current 

refrigeration products, DOE made two modifications. First, DOE modified the RECS 

weights for top- vs. bottom-mount refrigerators in order to reflect current information on 

the relationship between income and refrigerator door style (i.e., top- or bottom-mount) 

provided by AHAM in 2010. Second, DOE examined recent data from three sources33

 

33 California Energy Commission, Appliances Database—Refrigeration, 1998-2009. 

<www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/excel_based_files/Refrigeration/> (Last accessed April 25, 

2009); The NPD Group, Inc., The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld – POS, Refrigerators, January – 

December 2008, 2007-2008, Port Washington, NY; and Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 

data from 2005-2008, memoranda dated January 19, 2009 and March 26, 2010, Washington, D.C.

 to 

scale the average interior volume of standard-size refrigerator-freezers from the 2005 

RECS data. The average scaled volumes for product classes 3 (refrigerator-freezer—

automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 5 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without throughthe-door ice service) and 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service) are now 18.3, 20.9 and 24.8 cubic feet, 

respectively (approximately 2, 16 and 18 percent higher, respectively, than in the 

preliminary analysis). As for other factors affecting household usage, the field metered 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
168

data indicate no significant differences in UAF with respect to survey year after 1993. 

DOE requests comments on the weighting of the RECS sample using income 

relationships and volume scaling. (See Issue 15 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment” in section VII.E, below.) 

For compact refrigerators, DOE used a UAF of 1 in the preliminary analysis. 

AHAM commented that it supports using UAF of 1 for compact refrigeration products. 

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 12) Because DOE has concerns about the reliability of the metered 

data for compact refrigerators, it continued to use a UAF of 1 for the NOPR analysis. 

Table IV.12 presents a comparison of the UAFs calculated using the above 

approach with those calculated for the preliminary TSD. The average UAFs in the NOPR 

analysis are less than those used in the preliminary TSD, particularly for standard-size 

freezers. DOE requests comments on its approach for developing UAFs using fieldmetered data. (See Issue 16 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section 

VII.E, below.)

Table IV.12 Average Unit Adjustment Factors Used in the Energy Use Analysis

Product Class Preliminary TSD NOPR

No. Description

3 

Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer without through-the-door 

ice service

1.23 0.93 (0.82 to 1.04)* 

5 

Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service1.08 0.92 (0.81 to 1.02)* 

7 

Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service

1.44 0.94 (0.84 to 1.03)* 

0.85 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
169

9 Upright freezers with automatic defrost 1.37

10 Chest freezers 1.48 0.89

11

Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with manual defrost 1.00 1.00

18 Compact chest freezers 1.00 1.00

* Averages are based on lifetime distribution and include conversion to 2nd refrigerators. Range indicates 

average UAF in year 1 (minimum) and year 20 (maximum).

Whirlpool stated that DOE used a flawed approach in backing out icemaker 

energy use by identifying products with TTD ice as ice-making products and counting 

other types as not having an ice maker. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 3) In fact, DOE made no 

such adjustments in deriving UAF data in the preliminary analysis. However, DOE was 

able to obtain from the field-metered data an average value for TTD icemaking energy 

consumption, which was subsequently removed for the purpose of calculating average 

UAFs. There were no data available in the metered data or in the 2005 RECS data to 

indicate whether an automatic icemaker was present. The revised UAF distributions 

implicitly include an uncertainty due to the possible presence of non-TTD automatic 

icemaking. 

A detailed description of DOE’s energy use analysis for refrigeration products is 

given in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.

F.

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on 

individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for refrigeration 

products. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of 

purchase and installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
170

maintenance and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. The PBP is 

the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased 

purchase cost (including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost (normally higher) 

due to a more stringent standard by the change in average annual operating cost 

(normally lower) that results from the standard.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC 

relative to an estimate of the base-case appliance efficiency levels. The base-case 

estimate reflects the market in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, 

including the market for products that exceed the current energy conservation standards. 

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. For the preliminary 

analysis and the analysis for today’s proposed rule, DOE developed household samples 

from the 2005 RECS. For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the refrigeration product and the electricity price. By developing a 

representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy 

consumption and energy prices associated with the use of residential refrigeration

products. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
171

 Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—

which includes manufacturer selling prices, retailer markups, and sales taxes—and 

installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating costs include annual energy 

consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, discount rates, and the year that proposed standards take effect. DOE 

determined the operating costs for each sampled household using that household’s unique 

energy consumption and the household’s energy price. DOE created distributions of 

values for some inputs, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. DOE used probability distributions to characterize product 

lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes. 

 The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which incorporates 

Crystal Ball (a commercially available software program) relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo 

simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and 

household samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each 

efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in TSD chapter 8 

and its appendices. 

 Table IV.13 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the 

LCC and PBP calculations. The table provides the data and approach DOE used for the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
172

preliminary TSD, as well as the changes made for today’s NOPR. The subsections that 

follow discuss the initial inputs and the changes DOE made to them. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
173

Table IV.13 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions in the LCC and PBP 

Analysis* 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the Proposed Rule

Installed Costs

Product Cost Derived by multiplying 

manufacturer cost by manufacturer

and retailer markups and sales tax, 

as appropriate.

Incremental retail markup changed 

as described in section IV.D. 

Operating Costs

Annual Energy Use Based on energy use given in 2005 

RECS for refrigerators or freezers, 

adjusted using a ‘usage adjustment 

factor’ (UAF) that adjusts the 

energy use from its test energy 

consumption to reflect field 

conditions. 

Based on a multiple linear 

regression of field-metered energy 

use data, adjusted using a UAF 

function based on 2005 RECS 

household characteristics.

Energy Prices Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 

861 data for 2006. 

Variability: Regional energy prices 

determined for 13 regions. 

Electricity: Updated using Form 

861 data for 2007. 

Variability: No change. 

Energy Price Trends Forecasted using Annual Energy 

Outlook 2009 AEO2009. 

Forecasts updated using 

AEO2010

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs

. 

Not included. Used repair cost estimation method 

that estimates the rate of failure for 

selected components along with the 

incremental cost of repair or 

replacement compared to the 

baseline product. 

Present Value of Operating Cost Savings

Product Lifetime Estimated using survey results from

RECS (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 

2005) and the U.S. Census 

American Housing Survey (2005, 

2007), along with historic data on 

appliance shipments. 

Variability: characterized using 

Weibull probability distributions.

No change.

Discount Rates Approach involves identifying all 

possible debt or asset classes that 

might be used to purchase the 

considered appliances, or might be 

affected indirectly. Primary data 

source was the Federal Reserve 

Board’s SCF** for 1989, 1992, 

1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007. 

No change.

Compliance Date of 

New Standard

2014. No change.

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or 

in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
174

** Survey of Consumer Finances.

1. Product Cost 

 To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the manufacturer selling 

prices developed in the engineering analysis by the supply-chain markups described 

above (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and 

higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the MSP 

increase associated with higher-efficiency products. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and 

parts needed to install the equipment. DOE did not include installation cost for 

refrigeration products because it understands that this cost would be the same at all of the 

considered efficiency levels.

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption for a 

refrigeration product at different efficiency levels using the approach described above in 

section IV.E.

4. Energy Prices

DOE derived average energy prices for 13 geographic areas consisting of the nine 

U.S. Census divisions, with four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
175

treated separately. For Census divisions containing one of these large States, DOE 

calculated the regional average excluding the data for the large State. 

DOE estimated average residential electricity prices for each of the 13 geographic 

areas based on data from EIA Form 861, “Annual Electric Power Industry Database.” 

DOE calculated an average annual regional residential electricity price by: (1) estimating 

an average residential price for each utility (by dividing the residential revenues by 

residential sales); and (2) weighting each utility by the number of residential consumers 

served in that region (based on EIA Form 861). DOE calculated average commercial 

electricity prices in a similar manner. For the preliminary TSD, DOE used EIA data for 

2006. The NOPR analysis used the data for 2007. 

5. Energy Price Projections

To estimate energy prices in future years for the preliminary TSD, DOE 

multiplied the above average regional electricity prices by the forecast of annual average 

residential electricity price changes in the Reference Case from AEO2009.

34 AEO2009

forecasted prices through 2030. For today’s proposed rule, DOE updated its energy price 

forecasts using AEO2010, which has an end year of 2035.35 To estimate the electricity 

price trend after 2035, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 

to 2035. DOE intends to update its energy price forecasts for the final rule based on the 

latest available AEO

 

34 The spreadsheet tool that DOE used to conduct the LCC and PBP analyses allows users to select price 

forecasts from either AEO’s High Economic Growth or Low Economic Growth Cases. Users can thereby 

estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP results to different energy price forecasts.

. 

35 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Washington, DC. April 2010.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
176

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have 

failed in the appliance, whereas maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. In its preliminary analysis, DOE did not include repair and 

maintenance costs because it did not have information suggesting that these costs would 

change with higher efficiency levels. Commenting on this approach, Whirlpool stated 

that maintenance and repair costs could be at least double current levels if there is greater 

reliance on more complex technologies to meet new efficiency levels, as such 

technologies have a higher cost of replacement components and may require additional 

training of service technicians. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 3) AHAM stated that higher 

efficiency products typically contain more components that may need repair and have a 

higher individual component cost. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 13) In contrast, ACEEE 

supported DOE’s finding that repair and maintenance costs do not vary with efficiency 

level. (ACEEE, No. 43 at p. 6) 

For the NOPR, DOE developed a new repair cost estimation method that 

estimates the rate of failure for selected components (compressor, evaporator, condenser, 

evaporator fan, condenser fan, electronics and automatic icemaker). The estimated 

average annual repair cost for a given efficiency level can be expressed as the product of 

two elements: the average rate of repair of a component (expressed as annual probability 

of failure) times the incremental cost of repair or replacement compared to the baseline 

product. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
177

DOE obtained repair rates for some components from a prior DOE rulemaking for 

commercial refrigeration equipment,36 and used these rates to make estimates of repair 

rates for some other components. In addition, DOE obtained cumulative total annual 

repair rates for standard-size refrigerator-freezers for units up to five years old from 

Consumer Reports magazine. DOE used these data to adjust the repair rates estimated for 

specific components for each product class. DOE was not able to determine a clear trend 

in repair rate with age, so it used the average repair rate for all years for each product 

class. For product classes not covered by the Consumer Reports data, DOE used the 

average repair rate for standard-size refrigerator-freezers.

To estimate the total annual repair cost for the baseline products, DOE used retail 

repair costs by component from data reported by Best Buy Co., Inc. Detailed data on 

incremental MSP for components was available from the engineering analysis by product 

class and efficiency level. To convert these values to repair costs, DOE derived the cost 

to the contractor, and then scaled it to account for the contractor markup. 

Nearly all residential refrigerators are sold with a one-year repair warranty. Based 

on this fact, DOE assumed there were no repair costs for consumers during the first year 

of operation and the annual average incremental repair cost as calculated above was 

imposed for all subsequent years of the lifetime of the product. Table IV.14 shows the 

annual average incremental repair cost by efficiency level for product classes 3 

 

36 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Final Rule Technical Support Document. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrig_equip_final_rule_tsd.html

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
178

(refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service), 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice service), and 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). DOE requests 

comments on its derivation of repair costs. (See Issue 17 under “Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment” in section VII.E, below.)

Table IV.14 Annual Average Incremental Repair Cost by Efficiency Level for 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline 

energy use)

Product Class 3

($)

Product Class 5

($)

Product Class 7

($)

Baseline ─ ─ ─

1 (10) $0.04 $0.22 $0.09

2 (15) $0.08 $0.33 $0.21

3 (20) $0.37 $0.42 $0.36

4 (25) $0.40 $0.76 $0.73

5 (30) $0.43 $1.32 $1.10

6 (33-36)* $0.67 $1.76 $1.10

*Max-tech level varies with product class. 

7. Product Lifetime

Because the basis for lifetime estimates in the literature for refrigeration products 

is uncertain, DOE used other data sources to estimate the distribution of standard-size 

refrigerator and freezer lifetimes in the field for both the preliminary analysis and today’s 

NOPR. By combining survey results from various years of RECS and the U.S. Census’s 

American Housing Survey37

 

37 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey. Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html

 with the known history of appliance shipments, DOE 

estimated the fraction of appliances of a given age still in operation. The survival 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
179

function, which DOE assumed has the form of a cumulative Weibull distribution, 

provides an average and median appliance lifetime. 

For compact refrigerators, DOE estimated an average lifetime of 5.6 years in the 

preliminary analysis using data on shipments and the stock-in-place (i.e., the number of 

units in use). NRDC commented that the estimated lifetime for compact refrigerators is 

too low and that “the industry suggested” life of ten years is more accurate. (NRDC, No. 

39 at p. 6) In contrast, AHAM and Whirlpool supported DOE’s estimate. (AHAM, No. 

34 at p. 13; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 3) DOE found that, given the data on historic 

shipments of compact refrigerators, using a longer lifetime would result in an equipment 

stock that is far larger than the stock given by 2005 RECS and EIA’s 2003 Commercial 

Building Energy Consumption Survey. Since the estimate used in the preliminary 

analysis provides a reasonable match between shipments and the stock, DOE used the 

same lifetime distribution for the NOPR.

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the method and sources 

DOE used to develop product lifetimes. 

8. Discount Rates

To establish discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all debt or asset 

classes that might be used to purchase refrigeration products, including household assets 

that might be affected indirectly. DOE used data from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

“Survey of Consumer Finances” (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
180

2007 to estimate the average percentages of the various debt and equity classes in the 

average U.S. household portfolios. DOE used SCF data and other sources to develop 

distributions of interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt. The 

average rate across all types of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each 

class, is 5.1 percent. While this value corresponds to the average discount rate, DOE 

assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from the distributions. 

DOE derived the discount rate for commercial-sector compact refrigeration 

products from the cost of capital of publicly-traded firms in the sectors that purchase 

those products (these include lodging and other commercial sectors). The firms typically 

finance equipment purchases through debt and/or equity capital. DOE estimated the cost 

of the firms’ capital as the weighted average of the cost of equity financing and the cost 

of debt financing for recent years for which data were available (2001 through 2008). The 

estimated average discount rate for companies that purchase compact refrigeration 

products is 6.2 percent. 

See chapter 8 in the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of 

discount rates for refrigeration products. 

9. Compliance Date of Amended Standards 

In the context of EPCA, the compliance date is the future date when parties 

subject to the requirements of a new standard must begin to comply. As described in 

DOE’s semi-annual implementation report for energy conservation standards activities 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
181

submitted to Congress, a final rule for the refrigeration products that are the subject of 

this rulemaking is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2010. Compliance with 

amended standards for refrigeration products promulgated by DOE would be required 

three years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP for refrigeration products as if consumers would purchase new products in 

the year compliance with the standard is required. 

10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution

To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a 

standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case (i.e., the 

case without new energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of product 

of efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. DOE developed base-case efficiency 

distributions for each of the seven representative product classes. These distributions 

were developed from industry-supplied data for the year 2007 and were comprised of 

product efficiencies ranging from existing baseline levels (i.e., meeting existing energy 

conservation standards) to levels meeting and exceeding ENERGY STAR levels. DOE 

then projected these distributions to the year that new standards are assumed to become 

effective (2014). To forecast the base-case efficiency distribution for each representative 

product class in the preliminary analysis, DOE accounted for change in the market shares 

of ENERGY STAR appliances based on historical trends. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
182

In the preliminary analysis public meeting, ASAP and Whirlpool questioned 

DOE’s forecast that, in 2014, ENERGY STAR products would reach a market share of 

88 percent for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers. (ASAP, No. 28 at p. 179-180; 

Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 180) In their comments, AHAM, GE and Whirlpool expressed 

doubt with respect to DOE’s forecast, and AHAM and GE noted that consumer payback 

diminishes at higher efficiency levels. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 3; 

AHAM, No. 34 at p. 14) 

Based on the comments and shipments data for 2008, DOE modified its approach 

for estimating base-case efficiency distributions for the NOPR analysis. DOE agrees that 

because the current ENERGY STAR efficiency level is higher than it was prior to the 

requirements established in 2008, the growth in market share may be slower. To address 

this issue, DOE adopted a projected market share of ENERGY STAR models in 2014 

(under current requirements) that is equal to the average of ENERGY STAR market 

shares in 2007 (the last year under the old requirements) and 2008 (when current 

requirements took effect). With this approach, the ENERGY STAR market shares for 

product class 3 (refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service) and product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service) grow more 

slowly between 2008 and 2014 than they had under the old requirements before 2008. 

ENERGY STAR products reach a market share in 2014 of 8 percent for product class 3 

and 68 percent for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers. For standard-size freezers and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
183

compact products, DOE maintained the same approach for the NOPR as it used in the 

preliminary analysis. 

For further information on DOE’s estimate of base-case efficiency distributions, 

see chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. DOE requests comments on its approach for estimating 

base-case efficiency distributions. (See Issue 18 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR, below.) 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

 The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to baseline products, 

through energy cost savings. The simple payback period does not account for changes in 

operating expense over time or the time value of money. Payback periods are expressed 

in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total 

installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.

 The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the equipment to 

the customer for each efficiency level and the average annual operating expenditures for 

each efficiency level. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, 

except that discount rates are not needed. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
184

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a 

standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level 

will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings 

during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as 

calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the 

first year’s energy savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance with 

the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the average energy 

price forecast for the year in which compliance with the amended standard would be 

required. 

G.

 DOE’s NIA assessed the national energy savings (NES) and the national NPV of 

total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels. (“Consumer” in this context refers to consumers of 

the product being regulated.) 

National Impact Analysis–National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis 

To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all interested parties, 

DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. MS Excel is the most widely used 

spreadsheet calculation tool in the United States and there is general familiarity with its 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
185

basic features. Thus, DOE’s use of MS Excel as the basis for the spreadsheet models 

provides interested parties with access to the models within a familiar context. In 

addition, the TSD and other documentation that DOE provides during the rulemaking 

help explain the models and how to use them, and interested parties can review DOE’s 

analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. 

 DOE used the NIA spreadsheet to calculate the NES and NPV, based on the 

annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use 

characterization and the LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the energy savings, energy cost 

savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits for each product class for products 

sold from 2014 through 2043. The forecasts provided annual and cumulative values for 

all four output parameters. In addition, DOE used its NIA spreadsheet to analyze 

scenarios that used inputs from the AEO2010 Low Economic Growth and High 

Economic Growth cases. These cases have higher and lower energy price trends 

compared to the Reference case, as well as higher and lower housing starts, which result 

in higher and lower appliance shipments to new homes. NIA results based on these cases 

are presented in appendix 10-A of the NOPR TSD.

DOE evaluated the impacts of amended standards for refrigeration products by 

comparing base-case projections with standards-case projections. The base-case 

projections characterize energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the 

absence of amended energy conservation standards. DOE compared these projections 

with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE were to adopt 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
186

amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the standards cases) for that 

class.

Table IV.15 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the inputs to 

the NES and NPV analyses for the preliminary analysis and the changes to the analyses 

for the proposed rule. A discussion of these inputs and changes follows the table. See

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details. 

Table IV.15 Approach and Data Used for National Energy Savings and Consumer 

Net Present Value Analyses 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the Proposed Rule

Shipments Annual shipments from shipments 

model. 

No change in approach; used 

2008 data to estimate the ratio 

of bottom‐ mount share to 

side-by-side share.

Compliance Date 

of Standard

2014. No change.

Base-Case 

Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Used a “roll-up + ENERGY STAR” 

scenario to establish the distribution of 

efficiencies. 

No change in basic approach; 

modified efficiency distributions 

based on new information.

Standards-Case 

Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Used a “roll-up + ENERGY STAR” 

scenario to establish the distribution of 

efficiencies. 

No change in basic approach; 

modified efficiency distributions 

based on new information.

Annual Energy 

Consumption per 

Unit

Annual weighted-average values as a 

function of SWEUF.* 

No change.

Total Installed 

Cost per Unit 

Annual weighted-average values as a 

function of SWEUF.* 

No change.

Energy Cost per 

Unit

Annual weighted-average values as a 

function of the annual energy 

consumption per unit and energy 

prices. 

No change.

Repair and 

Maintenance Cost 

per Unit

Annual values as a function of 

efficiency level.

No change.

Escalation of 

Energy Prices

AEO2009 forecasts (to 2035) and Updated using 

extrapolation through 2043. 

AEO2010

Energy Site-toSource Conversion 

Factor

forecasts.

Varies yearly and is generated by 

DOE/EIA’s NEMS 

No change.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
187

Discount Rate Three and seven percent real. No change.

Present Year Future expenses are discounted to 

2010, when the final rule will be 

published. 

No change.

*Shipments-Weighted Energy Use Factor

1. Shipments 

The shipments portion of the NIA spreadsheet is a model that uses historical data 

as a basis for projecting future shipments of the products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. In projecting shipments for refrigeration products, DOE accounted for 

installations in new homes and replacement of failed equipment. In addition, for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, DOE estimated purchases driven by the conversion of 

a first refrigerator to a second refrigerator. It also estimated purchases by existing 

households who enter the market as new owners for standard-size freezers.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE examined the historical trends in the market 

shares of different refrigerator-freezer configurations to disaggregate the total shipments 

of refrigerator-freezers into the three considered refrigerator-freezer product categories 

(top-mount, bottom-mount and side-by-side configurations). The market share of side-byside refrigerator-freezer models has grown significantly during the past two decades. 

Bottom-freezer models historically had a small market share, but that share has also 

grown in recent years. However, DOE had insufficient data to forecast long-term growth 

of this product class, so DOE assumed that consumer behavior related to bottom-mount 

models in the future would mirror behavior regarding side-by-side models. DOE 

developed a model to forecast the combined bottom-mount and side-by-side market 

shares throughout the 30-year forecast period (beginning in 2014), and assumed that the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
188

ratio of bottom-mount share to side-by-side share would remain constant at the 2007 

level (the last year for which DOE had disaggregated data). 

AHAM commented that DOE’s forecasted shares look realistic, but it suggested 

that DOE consider generating a separate forecast for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers. 

(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 14) Whirlpool stated that DOE's approach is directionally correct, 

but in recent years the decline in top-mount sales and the rise in bottom-mount sales have 

been more pronounced. It also suggested that DOE should forecast bottom-mount sales 

separately and reassess the proportion of top-mount sales. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4) 

As discussed above, DOE was not able to obtain sufficient information to 

separately forecast sales of bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers. Therefore, it retained the 

approach used for the preliminary analysis in conducting the NOPR analysis, but it used 

2008 data to estimate the ratio of bottom-mount share to side-by-side share.

To estimate the effects on product shipments from increases in product price 

projected to accompany amended standards at higher efficiency levels, DOE applied a 

price elasticity parameter. It estimated this parameter with a regression analysis that used 

purchase price and efficiency data specific to residential refrigerators, clothes washers, 

and dishwashers over the period 1980–2002. The estimated “relative price elasticity” 

incorporates the impacts from purchase price, operating cost, and household income, and 

it also declines over time. DOE estimated shipments in each standards case using the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
189

relative price elasticity along with the change in the relative price between a standards 

case and the base case.

ACEEE commented that DOE should revisit its estimates of price elasticity to 

avoid overstating the impact of standards on future refrigerator sales. It noted that 

refrigerators are different from clothes washers and dishwashers because consumers have 

few, if any, alternatives for storing perishable foods. It recommended that DOE consider 

refrigerator shipments for new construction to be inelastic and that DOE should use a 

significantly lower price elasticity for replacement purchases. (ACEEE, No. 43 at p. 5) 

NPCC and the IOUs made similar comments. (NPCC, No. 33 at p. 3; IOUs, No. 36 at p. 

12) Earthjustice commented that the price elasticity for refrigerators is less elastic than 

for other white goods (i.e., large electrical home appliances that are typically finished in 

white enamel), and it should not be applied to new construction. (Earthjustice, No. 35 at 

p. 6) 

In response, DOE believes that the price elasticity calculated using the full data 

set for refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers is more robust than an elasticity 

calculated only for refrigerators because it is based on a larger data sample. Furthermore, 

the elasticity calculated only for refrigerators is not very different from the value derived 

from the combined appliance regression equation. DOE does not agree with the comment 

that there would be no sensitivity to product price of refrigerator shipments for new 

homes because there is some discretion regarding purchase of a second unit. Furthermore, 

since DOE derived its price elasticity using data for all shipments, it is appropriate to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
190

apply the parameter to total shipments (rather than total shipments excluding shipments 

to new homes). Based on the above considerations, DOE retained the approach used for 

the preliminary analysis in the NOPR analysis.

For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

 A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the 

base case (without new standards) and each of the standards cases. To forecast the basecase efficiency distribution for each representative product class, DOE accounted for 

change in the market shares of ENERGY STAR appliances based on historical trends. 

For its determination of standards-case efficiency distributions, DOE used a “roll-up + 

ENERGY STAR” scenario to establish the distribution of efficiencies for the year in 

which compliance with amended standards is required (i.e., 2014). DOE assumed that 

product efficiencies in the base case that did not meet the standard level under 

consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level in 2014. It further assumed 

that the ENERGY STAR program and related efforts would continue to promote efficient 

appliances after the introduction of amended standards in 2014, and that this would lead 

to increased market shares for products with an efficiency level above the standard level. 

 For the NOPR analysis, DOE used the same basic approach, but, as discussed 

below, it modified its base-case and standards-case efficiency distributions based on 

information obtained in discussion with ENERGY STAR program staff. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
191

 To project the efficiency distributions after 2014 for the base case, DOE first 

considered the potential for changes in ENERGY STAR qualification levels. DOE 

assumed that, in the absence of a new standard, the ENERGY STAR program would reexamine and possibly revise its qualification levels regardless of the market share in 

2014. When setting a minimum product efficiency level for ENERGY STAR 

qualification, one important metric is that the average payback period compared to the 

current standard level should not exceed five years. Using the payback period calculation 

described in section IV.F, DOE applied this criterion to all product classes to evaluate the 

extent to which the current ENERGY STAR efficiency levels would be increased in the 

future. 

DOE then estimated the market shares for ENERGY STAR products in 2021 

based on past experience in the market for these products. As in the preliminary analysis, 

rather than make long-term projections based on limited information, DOE assumed there 

would be no further change in market shares between 2021 and the end of the forecast 

period. DOE recognizes that some change in shares is likely to occur in reality. However, 

since DOE used the same assumption in the standards cases, the accuracy of the 

assumption makes no difference to the analysis of energy savings. 

For the standards cases (also referred to as candidate standard levels, or CSLs), 

DOE used the same approach as for the base case and assumed that in the case of 

amended standards, the ENERGY STAR program would re-evaluate its qualifying levels 

for all product classes using the five-year payback period criterion. For each CSL, DOE 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
192

identified the maximum efficiency level with a payback of five years or less. If that level 

was below the current ENERGY STAR level, DOE maintained the current ENERGY 

STAR level. At higher CSLs, there is no efficiency level above the standard level with a 

payback period of less than 5 years. DOE assumed that the ENERGY STAR program 

would be suspended with standards at higher CSLs on a product-class specific basis. This 

result is projected to occur for all product classes at CSL 3 and above; for product classes 

9 (upright freezers with automatic defrost) and 10 (chest freezers and all other freezers 

except compact freezers), it occurs at lower CSLs. The market share estimates for 

ENERGY STAR products in 2021 and beyond were based on a similar approach as for 

the base case.

For further details about the forecasted efficiency distributions, see chapter 10 of 

the NOPR TSD. DOE requests comments on its approach for forecasting base-case and 

standards-case efficiency distributions. (See Issue 19 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.)

3. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance standards, DOE 

uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy consumption (at the home or 

commercial building) into primary or source energy consumption (the energy required to 

convert and deliver the site energy). These conversion factors account for the energy used 

at power plants to generate electricity and losses in transmission and distribution, as well 

as for natural gas losses from pipeline leakage and energy used for pumping. For 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
193

electricity, the conversion factors vary over time due to projected changes in generation 

sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide electricity to the country). The 

factors that DOE developed are marginal values, which represent the response of the 

system to an incremental decrease in consumption associated with appliance standards.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used annual site-to-source conversion factors 

based on the version of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2009. For today’s NOPR, DOE 

updated its conversion factors based on AEO2010, which provides energy forecasts 

through 2035. For 2036-2043, DOE used conversion factors that remain constant at the 

2035 values.

In response to a request from DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (EERE), the National Research Council (NRC) appointed a committee on “Pointof-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” 

to conduct a study required by section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 

No. 109-58 (August 8, 2005)). The fundamental task before the committee was to 

evaluate the methodology used for setting energy efficiency standards and to comment on 

whether site (point-of-use) or source (full-fuel-cycle) measures of energy savings would 

better support rulemaking efforts to achieve energy conservation goals. The NRC 

committee defined site (point-of-use) energy consumption as reflecting the use of 

electricity, natural gas, propane, and/or fuel oil by an appliance at the site where the 

appliance is operated. Full-fuel-cycle energy consumption was defined as including, in 

addition to site energy use, the following: energy consumed in the extraction, processing, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
194

and transport of primary fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas; energy losses in thermal 

combustion in power generation plants; and energy losses in transmission and 

distribution to homes and commercial buildings.38 

In evaluating the merits of using point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle measures, the 

NRC committee noted that DOE uses what the committee referred to as “extended site” 

energy consumption to assess the impact of energy use on the economy, energy security, 

and environmental quality. The extended site measure of energy consumption includes 

the energy consumed during the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity 

but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle measure, does not include the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels. A majority of the NRC committee 

concluded that extended site energy consumption understates the total energy consumed 

to make an appliance operational at the site. As a result, the NRC committee 

recommended that DOE consider shifting its analytical approach over time to use a fullfuel-cycle measure of energy consumption when assessing national and environmental 

impacts, especially with respect to the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. The NRC 

committee also recommended that DOE provide more comprehensive information to the 

public through labels and other means, such as an enhanced website. For those appliances 

that use multiple fuels (e.g.

 

38 The National Academies, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Letter to Dr. John Mizroch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE, Office of EERE from James W. Dally, Chair, Committee on Pointof-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards, May 15, 2009.

, water heaters), the NRC committee indicated that measuring 

full-fuel-cycle energy consumption would provide a more complete picture of energy 

consumed and permit comparisons across many different appliances, as well as an 

improved assessment of impacts. The NRC committee also acknowledged the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
195

complexities inherent in developing a full-fuel-cycle measure of energy use and stated 

that a majority of the committee recommended a gradual transition from extended site to 

full-fuel-cycle measurement. 

DOE acknowledges that its site-to-source conversion factors do not capture all of 

the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels. DOE also 

agrees with the NRC committee’s conclusion that developing site-to-source conversion 

factors that capture the energy associated with the extraction, processing, and 

transportation of primary fuels is inherently complex and difficult. However, in 

implementing the NRC committee’s recommendation to gradually shift its analytical 

approach, DOE has performed some preliminary evaluation of a full-fuel-cycle measure 

of energy use. 

Based on two studies completed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) in 1999 and 2000, DOE estimated the ratio of the energy used upstream to the 

energy content of the coal or natural gas delivered to power plants. For coal, the NREL 

analysis considered typical mining practices and mine-to-plant transportation distances, 

and used data for the State of Illinois. Based on data in this report, the estimated 

multiplicative factor for coal is 1.08 (i.e., it takes approximately 1.08 units of coal energy 

equivalent to provide 1 unit of coal to a power plant). A similar analysis of the energy 

consumed in upstream processes needed to produce and deliver natural gas to a power 

plant yielded a multiplicative factor of 1.19.39

 

39 For further information on the NREL studies, please see: Spath, Pamela L., Margaret K. Mann, and

Dawn Kerr, Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production, NREL/TP-570-25119, June 1999; and 

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
196

While the above factors are indicative of the magnitude of the impacts of using 

full-fuel-cycle measures of energy use, there are two issues that warrant further study. 

The first is refinement of the estimates of the multiplicative factors, particularly to 

incorporate regional variation. The second is developing forecasts of the multiplicative 

factors over the time frames used in the rulemaking analyses, typically ten to fifty years. 

The existing NEMS forecast of power plant electricity generation by fuel type can be 

used to estimate the impact of a changing mix of fuels. However, NEMS provides no 

information on potential changes to the relative ease with which the different fuels can be 

extracted and processed, which shape the multiplicative factors. DOE intends to further 

evaluate the viability of using full-fuel-cycle measures of energy consumption for 

assessment of national and environmental impacts of appliance standards. 

4. Discount Rates

DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by the discount factor to 

determine the present value. For the preliminary analysis and today’s NOPR, DOE 

estimated the NPV of appliance consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development 

of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, “Identifying and 

Measuring Benefits and Costs”).

 

Spath, Pamela L. and Margaret K. Mann, Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power 

Generation System, NREL/TP-570-27715, September 2000.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
197

5. Benefits from Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

Reduction in electricity consumption associated with amended standards for 

refrigeration products could reduce the electricity prices charged to consumers in all 

sectors of the economy and thereby reduce their electricity expenditures. In chapter 2 of 

the preliminary TSD, DOE explained that, because the power industry is a complex mix 

of fuel and equipment suppliers, electricity producers and distributors, it did not plan to 

estimate the value of potentially reduced electricity costs for all consumers associated 

with amended standards for refrigeration products. 

Commenting on this decision, NRDC urged DOE to not ignore the benefits to 

consumers from reduced electricity rates and avoided new capacity construction due to 

amended standards for refrigeration products. (NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 5-6) Earthjustice, 

NEEP, and the IOUs stated that DOE should account for the economic value of avoided 

investments in electric utility capacity resulting from the standards under consideration. 

(Earthjustice, No. 35 at p. 6; NEEP, No. 38 at p. 2; IOUs, No. 36 at pp. 12-13) Similarly, 

NPCC stated that DOE should estimate the economic benefits of the reduced need for 

new electric power plants and infrastructure and include these in its utility impacts 

analysis. (NPCC, No. 33 at pp. 4-5) 

For the NOPR, DOE incorporated the same approach that it did in the recentlypromulgated final rule for residential heating products. 75 FR 20112 (April 16, 2010). As 

part of the utility impact analysis (described in section IV.K below), DOE used NEMSBT to assess the impacts of the reduced need for new electric power plants and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
198

infrastructure projected to result from standards. In NEMS-BT, changes in power 

generation infrastructure affect utility revenue requirements, which in turn affect 

electricity prices. DOE estimated the impact on electricity prices associated with each

considered TSL. 

Although the aggregate benefits for all electricity users are potentially large, there 

may be negative effects on the actors involved in electricity supply. The electric power 

industry is a complex mix of power plant providers, fuel suppliers, electricity generators, 

and electricity distributors. While the distribution of electricity is regulated everywhere, 

the institutional structure of the power sector varies, and has changed over time. For these 

reasons, an assessment of impacts on the actors involved in electricity supply from 

reduction in electricity demand associated with energy conservation standards is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

In considering the potential benefits to electricity users, DOE takes under 

advisement the guidance provided by OMB on the development of regulatory analysis. 

Specifically, at page 38, Circular A-4 instructs that transfers should be excluded from the 

estimates of the benefits and costs of a regulation. Because there is uncertainty about the 

extent to which the calculated impacts from reduced electricity prices are a transfer from 

the actors involved in electricity supply to electricity consumers, DOE has concluded 

that, at present, it should not give a heavy weight to this factor in its consideration of the 

economic justification of standards on refrigeration products. DOE is continuing to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
199

investigate the extent to which electricity price changes projected to result from standards 

represent a net gain to society.

H.

 In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on consumers, 

DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable sub-groups of consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national standard. DOE evaluates impacts on particular 

sub-groups of consumers primarily by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those 

particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For the NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard levels on low-income consumers and senior citizens. 

DOE did not estimate impacts for compact refrigeration products because the household 

sample sizes were not large enough to yield meaningful results.

Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

 Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD notes that did not plan to analyze renters as a 

sub-group. NRDC disagreed with DOE’s view that renters do not warrant a sub-group 

analysis, as they may be more positively affected by higher standards than the population 

of all consumers. (NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 4-5) NRDC provided no supporting data for its 

assertion. DOE notes that, in most cases, renters pay the electricity bill but do not own 

the refrigerator in their home. To some extent, the higher cost of a more-efficient 

refrigerator-freezer incurred by the building owner would likely be passed on to the 

renter through increased rent. Because DOE is not aware of information that would allow 

it to reliably assess the extent to which such “pass-through” would occur, it is not able to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
200

quantitatively analyze the impacts of alternative standard levels on renters. To the extent 

that “pass-through” of the incremental cost of of a more-efficient refrigerator-freezer 

does not occur, DOE acknowledges that renters would likely experience more favorable 

LCC impacts than non-renters.

Chapter 11 in the NOPR describes the consumer sub-group analysis. 

I.

The following sections address the various steps taken to analyze the impacts of 

standards on manufacturers. These steps include conducting a series of analyses, 

interviewing manufacturers, and evaluating the comments received from interested 

parties up to this point during the course of this rulemaking. 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

In determining whether an amended energy conservation standard for residential 

refrigeration products subject to this rulemaking is economically justified, the Secretary 

is required to consider “the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on 

the consumers of the products subject to such standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) 

The statute also calls for an assessment of the impact of any lessening of competition as 

determined by the Attorney General that is likely to result from the adoption of a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE conducted the MIA to estimate the 

financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of 

residential refrigeration products, and to assess the impacts of such standards on 

employment and manufacturing capacity. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
201

The MIA is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative part of 

the MIA relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cashflow model customized for the residential refrigeration products covered in this 

rulemaking. See section IV.I.2, below, for details on the GRIM analysis. The qualitative 

part of the MIA addresses factors such as product characteristics, characteristics of 

particular firms, and market trends. The qualitative discussion also includes an 

assessment of the impacts of standards on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is 

discussed in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE conducted the MIA in the three phases

described below. 

a. Phase 1: Industry Profile 

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the residential refrigeration 

industry based on the market and technology assessment prepared for this rulemaking. 

Before initiating the detailed impact studies, DOE collected information on the present 

and past structure and market characteristics of each industry. This information included 

market share data, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and the cost structure for 

various manufacturers. The industry profile includes: (1) further detail on the overall 

market and product characteristics; (2) estimated manufacturer market shares; (3) 

financial parameters such as net plant, property, and equipment; selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses; cost of goods sold, etc.; and (4) trends in the number of 

firms, market, and product characteristics. The industry profile included a top-down cost 

analysis of residential refrigeration manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
202

financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g.

http://www.sec.gov

, revenues, depreciation, SG&A, and research and 

development (R&D) expenses). DOE also used public sources of information to further 

calibrate its initial characterization of each industry, including Security and Exchange 

Commission 10–K filings (available at ), Standard & Poor’s stock 

reports (available at http://www2.standardandpoors.com), and corporate annual reports. 

DOE supplemented this public information with data released by privately held 

companies.

b. Phase 2: Industry Cash-Flow Analysis

Phase 2 focused on the financial impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on the industry as a whole. More stringent energy conservation 

standards can affect manufacturer cash flows in three distinct ways: (1) by creating a 

need for increased investment, (2) by raising production costs per unit, and (3) by altering

revenue due to higher per-unit prices and/or possible changes in sales volumes. To 

quantify these impacts, DOE used the GRIM to perform a cash-flow analysis for 

residential refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. In performing these analyses, 

DOE used the financial values derived during Phase 1 and the shipment scenarios used in 

the NIA.

c. Phase 3: Subgroup Impact Analysis 

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry-cash-flow estimate may 

not adequately assess differential impacts of amended energy conservation standards 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
203

among manufacturer subgroups. For example, small manufacturers, niche players, or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs significantly from the industry 

average could be more negatively affected. To address this possible impact, DOE used 

the results of the industry characterization analysis in Phase 1 to group manufacturers that 

exhibit similar production and cost structure characteristics. During the manufacturer 

interviews, DOE discussed financial topics specific to each manufacturer and obtained 

each manufacturer’s view of the industry as a whole. 

DOE reports the MIA impacts of amended energy conservation standards by 

grouping together the impacts on manufacturers of certain product classes. DOE presents 

the industry impacts by the major product types (i.e., standard size refrigerator-freezers, 

standard size freezers, compact refrigerators and freezers, and built-in refrigeration 

products). These product groupings represent markets that are served by the same 

manufacturers. By segmenting the results into these product types, DOE is able to discuss 

how these subgroups of manufacturers will be impacted by amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE also investigated whether small business manufacturers should be analyzed 

as a manufacturer subgroup. During its research, DOE identified only one company 

which manufactures products covered by this rulemaking and qualifies as a small 

business under the applicable Small Business Administration (SBA) definition. DOE did 

not analyze a separate subgroup of small business manufacturer for this NOPR because 

this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
204

small entities. See section VI.B of today’s NOPR, below, for more information on this 

determination. 

A second potential subgroup would be manufacturers of built-in refrigeration 

products. However, because DOE is establishing separate product classes for built-in 

products, DOE is already presenting separate results and impacts for this potential 

manufacturer subgroup. The impacts on the manufacturers of these niche products are 

therefore already characterized in the broader MIA and do not require an explicit 

subgroup analysis.

2. GRIM Analysis

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow that result in a higher or 

lower industry value. The GRIM analysis is a standard, annual cash-flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, manufacturer selling prices, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs, and models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, 

investments, and manufacturer margins that would result from amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of 

annual cash flows, beginning with the base year of the analysis, 2010 (which accounts for 

the investments needed to bring products into compliance by 2014), and continuing to 

2043. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows 

during this period. For residential refrigeration products, DOE uses a real discount rate of 

7.2 percent for all products. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
205

DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard accounting principles 

and to compare changes in INPV between a base case and various TSLs (the standards 

cases). The difference in INPV between the base and standards cases represents the 

financial impact of the amended standard on manufacturers. DOE collected this 

information from a number of sources, including publicly available data and interviews 

with a number of manufacturers (described in the next section). Additional details about 

the GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

In conducting its analysis, DOE treated certain product classes of residential 

refrigeration products separately. For example, DOE created specialized interview guides 

for different groups of product classes: one for standard-size products, one for compact 

products, and one for all products. Additionally, DOE grouped product classes made by 

the same manufacturers; this allowed DOE to better understand the impacts on 

manufacturers of these product classes. 

Similarly, in this notice, DOE presents the MIA results for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers, standard-size freezers, compact refrigerators and freezers, and builtin refrigeration products separately. Each of the four groups of product classes and results 

is based on a unique set of considered TSLs. DOE describes the TSLs in section V.A of 

today’s NOPR, below. Because the combinations of efficiency levels that compose a TSL

can make it more difficult to discuss the required efficiencies for each product class, 

DOE presents the MIA results in section V.B.2 of today’s NOPR, below and chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD by groups of manufacturers that make the covered products. DOE 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
206

presents the MIA results for standard-size refrigerator-freezers, standard-size freezers, 

compact refrigerators and freezers, and built-in refrigeration products separately.

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

i. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing a higher-efficiency product is typically more expensive than 

manufacturing a baseline product due to the use of more complex components and 

higher-cost raw materials. The changes in the MPCs of the analyzed products can affect 

revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry, making these product cost data 

key GRIM inputs for DOE’s analysis. 

DOE used the MPCs calculated in the engineering analysis for the residential 

refrigeration products, as described in section IV.C, above, and further detailed in chapter

5, section 5.9, of the NOPR TSD. 

To calculate baseline MPCs, DOE followed a three step process. First, DOE 

derived each of the baseline products’ retail price from the NPD market data described in 

section IV.F.1, above. Next, DOE discounted these baseline retail prices by the sales tax 

and retail markup to arrive at the baseline MSPs. Next, DOE discounted the baseline 

MSPs by the manufacturer markup to arrive at the average baseline MPCs. For all nonbuilt-in product classes, DOE used a 1.26 manufacturer markup to calculate baseline 

MPCs and MSPs. (DOE received comments on the manufacturer markup and DOE 

describes the methodology used to calculate this figure in section IV.I.3.d, below.) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
207

Because built-in product classes are high-end products that are made in much lower 

production volumes, DOE used a different cost structure for these products than for the 

other product classes. DOE used information submitted during manufacturer interviews 

to estimate that a typical baseline manufacturer markup for built-in products is 1.40. To 

calculate baseline MPCs for the built-in product classes, DOE discounted the NPD 

baseline retail prices by the 1.40 manufacturer markup and a distributor markup to 

account for products sold through that distribution chain. 

DOE also used the information from its tear-down analysis to verify the accuracy 

of the markup information and cost data for the units it tore down. In addition, DOE used 

the tear-down cost data to disaggregate the MPCs into material, labor, and overhead 

costs. To calculate the MPCs for products above the baseline, DOE added the 

incremental material, labor, and overhead costs from the engineering cost efficiency 

curves to the baseline MPCs. 

ii. Base-Case Shipments Forecast

The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of these values by efficiency level. Changes in the 

efficiency mix at each standard level affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 

GRIM uses the NIA shipments forecasts from 2010 to 2043, the end of the analysis 

period. In the shipments analysis, DOE also estimated the distribution of efficiencies in 

the base case for all product classes. See section IV.G.1, above, for additional details. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
208

iii. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to incur onetime conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into 

compliance. For the MIA, DOE classified these one-time conversion costs into two major 

groups: (1) product conversion costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are one-time investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other 

non-capitalized costs focused on making product designs comply with the amended 

energy conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are one-time investments in 

property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change existing production facilities so that 

new product designs can be fabricated and assembled.

DOE based its estimates of the product conversion costs that would be required to 

meet each TSL on information obtained from manufacturer interviews, the design 

pathways analyzed in the engineering analysis, and market information about the number 

of platform and product families for each manufacturer. DOE assigned estimates for the 

total product development required for each design option based on the necessary 

engineering resources required to implement each design option across a product 

platform. DOE multiplied the estimate by the number of platforms and product families 

for each manufacturer. DOE also assumed that VIP use and/or wall thickness increases 

would require more significant changes to existing platforms than other design options 

that amount to component swaps. For wall thickness increases, DOE used product 

development efforts that were analogous to designing a new platform. For VIPs, which 

are not yet common on large-scale production lines for most products in the industry, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
209

DOE assumed more substantial product development costs than required for component 

swaps. However, DOE also assumed that manufacturers’ recent experience with the 

technology would indicate that less effort would be required for incorporating VIPs than 

for designing completely new products. Finally, DOE estimated industry product 

conversion costs by extrapolating the interviewed manufacturers’ product conversion 

costs for each product class to account for the market share of companies that were not 

interviewed. DOE’s estimates of the product conversion costs for all of the refrigeration 

products addressed in this rulemaking can be found in section V.B.2, below, of today’s 

NOPR and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD also contains 

more detail on the assumptions DOE used to calculate the product conversion costs for 

each design option and other details about the product conversion costs. 

As discussed above, to calculate industry cash flow impacts DOE also estimated 

the capital conversion costs manufacturers would incur to comply with potential amended 

energy conservation standards. During interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to estimate 

the capital conversion costs required to expand the production of higher-efficiency 

products or to quantify the required tooling and plant changes if product lines meeting the 

potential required efficiency level do not currently exist. As with product conversion 

costs, DOE based its capital conversion cost estimates on these interviews and 

assumptions from the engineering analysis. DOE assumed that most component changes, 

while requiring moderate product conversion costs, would not require changes to existing 

production lines and equipment, and therefore not require additional capital expenditures 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
210

because one-for-one component swaps would not require changes to existing production 

equipment. 

However, DOE calculated and included in its analysis the capital conversion costs 

required for design options that involved VIPs, wall thickness increases, and changes to 

heat exchangers. For changes to heat exchangers, DOE estimated the tooling investment 

required for the fabrication equipment and the consequent slight changes to the internal 

dimensions of the existing products. These tooling changes would likely include 

purchasing new dies or plastic molds for a small change in internal dimensions or 

shelving. For VIPs and wall thickness increases, DOE estimated the cost of the 

equipment required to manufacture new product lines because DOE assumed that these 

design changes would be extremely disruptive to current operations. Because the changes 

required to implement these design options would greatly change existing products, DOE 

expects that the capital conversion costs would be closer to purchasing new production 

equipment. DOE also used the assumptions from the engineering analysis regarding the 

incremental depreciation costs for adding additional VIPs and manufacturer market 

shares to calculate incremental equipment necessary for adding more VIPs. 

DOE’s estimates of the capital conversion costs for all of the residential 

refrigeration products can be found in section V.B.2, below, of today’s NOPR and in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
211

b. GRIM Scenarios

i. Residential Refrigeration Shipment Forecasts

The GRIM used the shipments developed in the NIA for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers, standard-size freezers, compact refrigerators and freezers, and builtin refrigeration products. To determine efficiency distributions for the standards case, 

DOE used a “roll-up + market shift” scenario for 2014, the year that revised standards are 

assumed to become effective, through 2043. DOE assumed that product efficiencies in 

the base case that did not meet the standard under consideration would roll up to meet the 

new standard in 2014. DOE further assumed that revised standards would result in a 

market shift such that market shares of products with efficiency better than the standard 

would gradually increase because the ENERGY STAR program would continue to 

promote efficient appliances after revised standards are introduced in 2014. See section 

IV.G.1 of this NOPR, above, and chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for more information on 

the residential refrigeration standards-case shipment scenarios.

ii. Markup Scenarios 

As discussed above, manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) include direct 

manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, material, and overhead estimated in DOE’s 

MPCs) and all non-production costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit.

To calculate the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied markups to the MPCs estimated in the 

engineering analysis for each product class and efficiency level. Modifying these 

markups in the standards case yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the 

MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case markup scenarios to represent the uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
212

the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: (1) a flat markup 

scenario, and (2) a preservation of operation profit scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different markups values, which, when applied to the inputted MPCs, result in varying 

revenue and cash flow impacts. 

 

The flat markup scenario assumes that the cost of goods sold for each product is 

marked up by a flat percentage to cover standard SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, and 

profit. The flat markup scenario uses the baseline manufacturer markup (discussed in 

chapter 6 of the TSD) for all products in both the base case and the standards case. To 

derive this percentage, DOE evaluated publicly available financial information for 

manufacturers of white goods. DOE also requested feedback on this value during 

manufacturer interviews. This scenario represents the upper bound of industry 

profitability in the standards case because manufacturers are able to fully pass through 

additional costs due to standards to their customers. 

 

DOE also modeled a lower bound profitability scenario. During interviews, 

multiple manufacturers stated that higher production costs could severely harm 

profitability. Because of the highly competitive market, several manufacturers suggested 

that the additional costs required at higher efficiencies could not be fully passed through 

to customers. In particular, several manufacturers noted their customer base is composed 

of a limited number of retailers that have substantial buying power. They also noted that 

the average costs of refrigeration products within product categories have been fairly 

constant or fallen even as new products and additional features have been added. Finally, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
213

manufacturers noted that their retail customers price products at fixed (or “sticky”) price 

points with step-increases to premium price points reflecting different bundles of 

features.

Because of the market dynamics among manufacturers and retailers, and because 

of the pressure to keep the current price points fixed for a given bundle of features, DOE 

also modeled the preservation of operating profit markup scenario. In this scenario, the 

manufacturer markups are lowered such that, in the standards case, manufacturers are 

only able to maintain the base-case total operating profit in absolute dollars, despite 

higher product costs and investment. DOE implemented this scenario in GRIM by 

lowering the manufacturer markups at each TSL to yield approximately the same 

earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case in the year after the compliance 

date of the amended standards as in the base case. This scenario represents the lower 

bound of industry profitability following amended energy conservation standards because 

higher production costs and the investments required to comply with the amended energy 

conservation standard do not yield additional operating profit.

3. Discussion of Comments 

During the December 2009 public meeting, interested parties commented on the 

assumptions and results of the preliminary analysis. Oral and written comments discussed 

several topics, including pending legislation resulting in a phase-down of HFCs, 

manufacturer tax credits, the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers, and 

standards-driven investments. DOE addresses these comments below.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
214

a. Potential Regulation of HFCs

Several manufacturers expressed concern about the impact of a potential phasedown of HFCs, a possible scenario in light of pending climate legislation contained in the 

bill proposing enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 

2454). GE stated that if DOE did not recognize the trend toward HFC limits in its 

analysis, the department would risk creating a disincentive for manufacturers to employ 

low-GWP foams and refrigerants. GE noted the industry’s concern about HFC limits 

reflects not only the pending climate legislation but also regulation from the EPA as well 

as the Montreal Protocol. As such, GE argued DOE should evaluate the impact of the 

potential phase-down on the industry from a technical and economic perspective. (GE, 

No. 37 at p. 2; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 47-48) AHAM reiterated that 

the phase-down of HFCs would have a substantial cost impact on the industry. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 18) Sub Zero added that the capital investment of 

the potential switch to hydrocarbons (i.e.

 

, non-HFCs) should be considered in DOE’s 

analysis. (Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 50) 

DOE acknowledges that an HFC phase-out or similar legislation requiring a 

refrigerant or blowing agent change could necessitate substantial changes for residential 

refrigeration products. DOE has monitored legislation and rulemakings from UL, EPA, 

and Congress to understand what HFC limitations might go into effect in the near term 

and what changes are being proposed for use of alternatives. EPA has proposed allowing 

use of isobutane refrigerant in residential refrigeration products up to a charge limit of 57 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
215

grams. 75 FR 25803 (May 10, 2010). DOE has included this refrigerant as a design 

option where appropriate and is prepared to evaluate the impact of HFC phase-out 

legislation, if it is enacted.

b. Manufacturer Tax Credits

ACEEE stated that manufacturer tax credits in the pending climate legislation for 

higher efficiency products should be taken into account in DOE’s analysis. (ACEEE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 209) NEEP also stated that manufacturer tax 

credits and market pull programs reduce transition costs for manufacturers as they help 

build the demand and manufacturing capabilities at the higher end efficiencies. (NEEP, 

No. 38 at pp. 2-3) 

DOE agrees that manufacturer tax credits help offset the costs of developing 

higher efficiency products. DOE includes the benefit of tax credits earned by the industry 

in 2010 under the provisions of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 

(EIEA 2008), Pub. L. No. 110-343, Div. B, Sec. 305 (October 3, 2008), in the GRIM 

calculations. Using publicly available information and recent SEC filings, DOE estimated 

manufacturers’ market shares and shipment projections in 2010 and calculated the 

Federal production tax credits based on shipments of 30-percent efficiency level units--

those units which qualified for the tax credit in 2010. DOE’s analysis suggests that 

manufacturers will collect approximately $37 million in Federal production tax credits in 

2010 from the provisions of EIEA 2008. In the GRIM, DOE accounts for the Federal 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
216

production tax credit as a direct cash benefit in the base and standards cases that directly 

increases INPV. Because 2010 is the base year to which industry cash flows are 

discounted, any Federal production tax credits received prior to 2010 fall outside of the 

analysis period. These tax credits are consequently not considered in the INPV analysis. 

However, any tax benefit received in 2010 falls within the analysis period and, hence, 

increases industry value (potentially mitigating the impacts on manufacturers due to 

energy conservation standards). The estimated $37 million benefit to manufacturers does 

not significantly impact the INPV calculated by DOE. 

DOE believes that ACEEE, in its comments related to pending legislation, was 

referring to the tax credits that would impact manufacturers of residential refrigerators in 

the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 that passed the House of 

Representatives on June 26, 2009. That bill (H.R. 2454) contained provisions that provide 

bonus payments for the production of superefficient best-in-class products for years 

2011-2013. The impacts of these tax credit provisions under H.R. 2454 are not quantified 

in the GRIM, as the legislation is still pending. It would be highly speculative to try to 

predict the passage of such legislation, much less the details of its provisions, all of which 

are highly uncertain. Appendix 12-C of the NOPR TSD discusses in detail the tax credits 

currently available to residential refrigeration product manufacturers and their impacts.

DOE research suggests that Federal production tax credits and other market pull 

programs such as ENERGY STAR have helped spur the development and market 

acceptance of more advanced technologies in residential refrigeration products. However, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
217

such tax credits and other market pull programs would not substantially defray the capital 

conversion costs required if all products were required to employ a given technology. 

Much higher production volumes would be required under a national standard and would 

require manufacturers to upgrade each of their production lines, rather than selectively 

improve the products that could reach the qualifying level most economically. 

Furthermore, the actual design pathway manufacturers may take to achieve the 

proposed efficiency levels on a national scale could vary from those pathways 

manufacturers have taken to produce the much smaller subset of tax-credit qualifying 

products today. For example, if manufacturers no longer received a production credit for 

products under a national standard, any of the additional costs that could not be passed to 

consumers could cause manufacturers to consider more capital intense design pathways 

that would result in lower per unit costs. Therefore, the tax credits have helped to 

alleviate a portion of the product conversion costs required by amended energy 

conservation standards by providing manufacturers with experience implementing more 

efficient technology. DOE has taken this experience using advanced technology into 

account in its methodology for calculating product conversion costs. However, the 

production tax credits have not driven wholesale adoption of the new technology or 

caused manufacturers to make substantial changes to their production facilities to use 

these technologies on a wide scale. 

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
218

c. Standards-Induced Versus Normal Capital Conversion Costs 

ASAP noted that not all capital investments that manufacturers would make to 

comply with potential amended standards should be directly attributed to the standards, 

since a certain amount of investment in plants and equipment is a necessary cost of doing 

business. ASAP urged DOE to be careful to disaggregate incremental impacts due to the 

standards in the MIA. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 209-11) 

In its analysis, DOE separates capital conversion costs that are directly 

attributable to standards from normal capital expenditures. The equipment with 

remaining useful life that is not repurposed is counted as stranded assets (i.e.

IV.I.2.a

, net plant, 

property, and equipment that have not been fully depreciated that can no longer be used 

in the production of standards-compliant products). DOE estimates that capital 

conversion costs at today’s proposed level are $895 million out of a net PPE of $1,529 

million. Typical capital expenditures in the base year are $252 million. DOE also notes 

that the promulgation of a standard that would require VIPs or wall thickness increases 

could be extremely disruptive to existing facilities. These types of capital costs would not 

be attributed to ongoing capital expenses (to replace worn equipment and tooling for new 

products, for example). These plant modification and equipment changes would be 

attributable to a potential amended energy conservation standard. A discussion of DOE’s 

methodology in developing capital and product conversion costs for residential 

refrigeration manufacturers is located in section , above, of today’s NOPR and in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
219

d. Manufacturer Markups 

 AHAM stated that DOE did not show any empirical support for the manufacturer 

markup used in the preliminary TSD and requested that DOE provide more information 

with respect to how the manufacturer markup was determined. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 14) 

GE and Sub Zero also requested that DOE qualify how it determined its markups, 

including the manufacturer markups. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2-3; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 9; Sub 

Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 112) 

 In developing the baseline manufacturer markup of 1.26 used in DOE’s analysis, 

DOE began by researching the annual 10–K reports filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission by residential white goods manufacturers to determine an 

industry-wide market-share weighted markup. This baseline manufacturer markup was 

used for the 2009 final rule for cooking products and the 2010 commercial clothes 

washers final rule. 74 FR 16040 (April 8, 2009); 75 FR 1122 (January 8, 2010). Because 

all publicly traded companies that manufacture residential refrigeration equipment also 

manufacture a number of other appliances, and because the 1.26 baseline manufacturer 

markup had already been vetted during the rulemakings for these other products and 

equipment, DOE used the same baseline manufacturer markup as an initial estimate for 

residential refrigeration products. A description of the methodology used to calculate this 

baseline manufacturer markup can be found in the NOPR and NOPR TSD for these 

rulemakings. See 73 FR 62034 (October 17, 2008) and the related TSD, available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washers

.html. DOE requested manufacturer feedback on the accuracy of this estimate and other 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
220

financial assumptions during DOE’s confidential manufacturer impact analysis 

interviews.

 

Finally, as discussed above in section IV.I.2.b, above, in the standards case, DOE 

modeled manufacturers’ concerns about potential profitability impacts due to amended 

energy conservation standards in its preservation of operating profit markup scenario. 

DOE continues to welcome feedback on any of the assumptions it used for its baseline 

manufacturer markups and its markup scenarios. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews

DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 95 percent of standardsize refrigerator-freezer sales, approximately 95 percent of standard-size freezer sales, 

about 75 percent of compact refrigerator and freezer sales, and more than 95 percent of 

built-in refrigeration products. These interviews were in addition to those DOE conducted 

as part of the engineering analysis. DOE contacted companies from its database of 

manufacturers, which provided a representative sample of each industry. DOE used these 

interviews to tailor the GRIM to incorporate unique financial characteristics for the 

residential refrigeration industry. All interviews provided information that DOE used to 

evaluate the impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on 

manufacturer cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and employment levels. Before each 

telephone interview or site visit, DOE provided company representatives with an 

interview guide that included the topics for which DOE sought input. The MIA interview 

topics included: (1) key issues to this rulemaking; (2) a company overview and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
221

organizational characteristics; (3) engineering analysis and life cycle cost analysis followup; (4) manufacturer markups and profitability; (5) shipment projections; (6) financial 

parameters; (7) conversion costs; (8) cumulative regulatory burden; (9) possible impacts 

from potential HFC regulations; (10) direct employment impact assessment; (11) exports, 

foreign competition, and outsourcing; (12) consolidation; and (13) impacts on small 

business. Appendix 12-A of the NOPR TSD contains the three interview guides DOE 

used to conduct the MIA interviews. 

In the manufacturer interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major 

concerns about this rulemaking. The following sections describe the most significant 

issues identified by manufacturers. These summaries are provided in aggregate to protect 

manufacturer confidentiality. DOE also includes additional concerns in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

a. Potential for Significant Changes to Manufacturing Facilities

A number of manufacturers indicated that conversion costs would be 

exponentially greater if the adopted standards require significant rather than incremental 

increases in efficiency. While DOE does not analyze design options that would lower 

consumer utility, manufacturers indicated that for some product classes they would 

consider wall thickness increases if they resulted in lower per unit costs. However, 

manufacturers also indicated that wall thickness increases in response to more stringent 

energy standards would be extremely capital intensive. Changing the wall thickness of 

refrigeration products would require extensive investments to completely replace 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
222

injection molding equipment, interior fabrication feeder lines and equipment, and 

foaming fixtures on every production line. Such substantial changes would require many 

times the investment required for incremental efficiency improvements. For example, the 

design and implementation of a new heat exchanger design would only require new 

fabrication tooling for the component and slight adjustments to production line tooling 

but would leave most of the existing production equipment intact. Smaller manufacturers 

were generally concerned that conversion costs would disproportionately impact their 

operations since comparable product and capital conversion costs would be spread over a 

smaller shipment volume. 

Additionally, several manufacturers stated that new standards could increase the 

total steady state invested capital necessary to maintain current production levels. As an 

example, many plants leverage economies of scale by utilizing a shared front end of 

production (cabinet and door bending, for example) to serve multiple product lines. These 

economies would be forfeited if amended standards disproportionately affected one 

product class utilizing the shared front end. As such, manufacturing plants could have 

relatively lower capital intensity following standards. 

b. VIPs

Manufacturers were also concerned about potential issues with a standard that 

effectively required the widespread adoption of VIPs. In particular, the material costs of 

VIPs would add significant costs to the products, especially at the retail level. 

Manufacturers were concerned that using this design option in product classes that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
223

historically have been low-cost options could have unintended consequences such as 

inducing consumers to prolong the life of the products or switch to less profitable 

products. Manufacturers were also concerned about the additional labor that is required to 

install VIPs. Additional production steps would be required with VIPs, which involve 

greater care in handling to prevent damaging the components. While less of a concern on 

lower volume products, the additional production steps on high-speed production lines 

would add tremendous complexity. The additional production steps and slower line rates 

would lengthen the production lines and require additional equipment. 

Manufacturers were also concerned about the ability of VIP suppliers to ramp up 

production to meet necessary demand from more stringent standards. 

Finally, manufacturers indicated that their experience with VIPs has revealed a 

range of efficiency improvements – all of which point to lower benefits than the 

theoretical potential of VIPs. They also expressed concern about the degradation of the 

panels over the lifetime of their products. Because of the range of efficiency 

improvements in practice, some manufacturers indicated they could elect to employ other 

design pathways that would eliminate these potential problems with the technology. 

c. Impact on U.S. Production and Jobs 

Manufacturers generally agreed that potential standards that would require 

substantial capital conversion costs would lower U.S. production and employment. 

Depending on the level of these expenditures, some manufacturers stated that new 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
224

investments would not be made in the U.S., given the lower labor costs overseas. Margins 

are already thin for certain product classes, and manufacturers believed that higher 

standards could further reduce profitability. The lower labor costs available overseas 

could offset some of the impact on profitability, especially for their lower margin product 

lines. Some manufacturers stated they could also choose to source or drop altogether 

certain product lines they currently manufacture if they did not believe they could recoup 

the capital investments required to meet amended energy conservation standards on those 

lines. Any decision to drop or source more product lines would also lead to less domestic 

production and fewer domestic jobs. 

d. Impacts to Product Utility 

Several manufacturers expressed concern that more stringent energy standards 

could impact the utility of their products. Most residential kitchens have standardized size 

openings for refrigerators, which would force any wall thickness growth inward and 

decrease internal volume. While this scenario was not analyzed as a design option for all 

products, manufacturers indicated some in the industry could elect to use thicker walls to 

meet new standards for full size refrigerator-freezers. Finally, several manufacturers 

indicated that other product features currently available may have to be removed in order 

to both meet new standard levels and maintain product prices that would be acceptable to 

consumers. Examples of these features that industry cited included ice and water 

dispensers, glass doors, soda can dispensers, crisper compartments, anti-sweat features, 

and food preservation capabilities. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
225

Manufacturers also expressed concern that the energy savings from more stringent 

energy conservation standards would not be great enough to justify passing through the 

added costs to consumers. Currently, manufacturers bundle higher efficiency with other 

desirable features to justify higher prices for those ENERGY STAR models. According 

to manufacturers, if amended standards cause prices to rise even higher, the lower 

operating costs would not justify higher prices, since the savings as a percentage of the 

purchase price would be very low. Therefore, the increased cost of meeting more 

stringent efficiency requirements may cause manufacturers to reduce the number of other 

features bundled with these products in order to retain a reasonable price point, causing 

consumer utility to decline. 

The value of future ENERGY STAR levels is also a concern for manufacturers. 

Many retailers and other distribution channels require ENERGY STAR products. Since 

the features bundled with ENERGY STAR products are the greatest justification for the 

added costs, manufacturers were concerned that a higher ENERGY STAR level after 

potentially stricter standards would offer less value to consumers. Consumers would save 

less energy relative to the added efficiency costs or would have a product with fewer 

features.

Manufacturers also stated that the financial burden of developing products to meet 

amended energy conservation standards has an opportunity cost due to limited capital and 

R&D dollars. Investments incurred to meet amended standards reflect foregone 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
226

investments in innovation and the development of new features that consumers value and 

on which manufacturers earn a premium. 

e. Technical Difficulties Associated with Higher Efficiency Levels

Many manufacturers expressed concerns about the technical difficulties involved 

in achieving new standards that are significantly more stringent than current levels. 

Manufacturers were concerned there might not be adequate supplies of particular 

components. In particular they were concerned about supplies of high efficiency 

compressors and VIPs, for all product classes, and especially at higher efficiency levels 

that would increase the demand for these components many times over current levels. 

Manufacturers also stated that there are fewer low-cost technology improvements 

available than there were during past rulemakings. Compact units, in general, pose an 

additional challenge because there are fewer low-capacity compressors with sufficiently 

high EER ratings. Specifically, compact freezers were cited as a product class in which it 

would be especially difficult to make significant energy improvements. Current standards 

for compact freezers are already more stringent relative to capacity than are standards for 

compact refrigerators. 

f. Changes in Consumer Behavior 

Several manufacturers noted that higher consumer prices resulting from amended 

energy conservation standards could result in product switching between lines of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers. Currently, top-mount refrigerator-freezers are 

inexpensive commodity products, on which manufacturers said they make little to no 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
227

profit margin. Instead, manufacturers earn a profit on more expensive and more featureloaded side-mount and bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers. Manufacturers are concerned 

that if amended energy conservation standards cause retail prices to increase across 

product classes, many consumers will no longer be willing to pay the premium for sidemount and bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers and will switch to buying the less 

expensive and less profitable top-mount refrigerator-freezers.

Similarly, a number of manufacturers expressed concern that higher retail prices 

could alter consumers’ decisions to repair or replace their standard-size refrigeratorfreezers. Many consumers who in the base case would buy a new refrigerator when their 

current unit fails would instead opt to repair their existing unit in the potential standards 

case due to the higher cost of purchasing a new unit. This decision would result in lower 

shipments for manufacturers and would leave less efficient units in the existing stock. 

g. Separate Product Classes for Built-Ins

Most manufacturers expressed their support for separate product classes for builtin refrigerators and freezers. Manufacturers stated that built-in units are inherently less 

efficient than their free-standing counterparts for several reasons, including more limited 

air flow. Because of such limitations, the incremental costs of improving efficiency are 

higher at every efficiency level. Built-in manufacturers also believed that their 

components costs per unit were higher than for conventional products due to less bulk 

purchasing power. Built-in manufacturers also argued that their products offer distinct 

utility (i.e., the ability to build products into the kitchen cabinetry), justifying the need for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
228

separate product classes for built-ins. Without separate product classes for built-ins, 

depending on the stringency of new standards, some or all built-in models could 

disappear from the market because of the designs’ inability to satisfy the proposed 

standards for free-standing equivalent models. Built-in manufacturers also suggested that 

an average correction based on conventional free-standing products could be an 

appropriate means of accounting for the inherently lower efficiency of built-in products. 

h. Test Procedure Concerns 

Many manufacturers expressed concerns over the test procedures for refrigerators 

and freezers. Several stated that icemaking energy use, which represents a large portion 

of unit energy consumption, should be included in the amended test procedure to reward 

more efficient icemakers. However, manufacturers acknowledged that testing icemaker 

energy use is difficult. All manufacturers wanted to ensure that tests for icemaking 

energy are repeatable and could be implemented correctly. Manufacturers also did not 

want a test for icemaking energy use to result in the elimination of TTD units.

J.

 DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in 

selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts consist of direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the appliance products which are the subject of this rulemaking, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national 

employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 

Employment Impact Analysis

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
229

the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. The MIA addresses the direct 

employment impacts that concern manufacturers of refrigeration products. The 

employment impact analysis addresses the indirect employment impacts.

 Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or 

eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 

regulated, due to: (1) reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced spending on 

new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased spending on new products to 

which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 

economy. DOE expects the net monetary savings from standards to be redirected to other 

forms of economic activity. DOE also expects these shifts in spending and economic 

activity to affect the demand for labor in the short term, as explained below. 

One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare sectoral employment statistics developed by the 

Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).40

 

40 Data on industry employment, hours, labor compensation, value of production, and the implicit price 

deflator for output for these industries are available upon request by calling the Division of Industry 

Productivity Studies (202-691-5618) or by sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.nr0.htm.

 The BLS regularly publishes its 

estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 

sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this 

same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector 

generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other 

sectors of the economy. There are many reasons for these differences, including wage 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
230

differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital intensive and less labor 

intensive than other sectors.41 

Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures 

in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is to shift 

economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based on the BLS data alone, 

DOE believes net national employment will increase due to shifts in economic activity 

resulting from amended standards for refrigeration products. 

 For the standards considered in today’s NOPR, DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a spreadsheet model of the U.S. 

economy that focuses on 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use.42

 

41 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.

 ImSET is a special purpose version of the “U.S. 

Benchmark National Input-Output” (I–O) model, which has been designed to estimate the 

national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O model with structural coefficients to characterize 

economic flows among the 187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic I–O structure is 

based on a 2002 U.S. benchmark table, specially aggregated to the 187 sectors. DOE 

42 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009. Available at: 

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
231

estimated changes in expenditures using the NIA spreadsheet. Using ImSET, DOE then 

estimated the net national, indirect employment impacts by sector of potential amended 

efficiency standards for refrigeration products. 

For more details on the employment impact analysis, see TSD chapter 13. 

K.

The utility impact analysis estimates several important effects on the utility 

industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended standards. For this 

analysis, DOE used the NEMS-BT model to generate forecasts of electricity 

consumption, electricity generation by plant type, and electric generating capacity by 

plant type, that would result from each TSL. DOE obtained the energy savings inputs 

associated with efficiency improvements to considered products from the NIA. DOE 

conducts the utility impact analysis as a scenario that departs from the latest 

Utility Impact Analysis

AEO2010

Reference case. In other words, the estimated impacts of a proposed standard are the 

differences between values forecasted by NEMS–BT and the values in the AEO2010

Reference case. 

 As part of the utility impact analysis, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess the impacts 

on electricity prices of the reduced need for new electric power plants and infrastructure 

projected to result from the considered standards. In NEMS-BT, changes in power 

generation infrastructure affect utility revenue requirements, which in turn affect 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
232

electricity prices. DOE estimated the change in electricity prices projected to result over 

time from each TSL.

Chapter 14 of the TSD accompanying this notice describes the utility impact 

analysis.

L.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the requirements 

of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a), DOE has prepared a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) of the impacts of the potential standards for refrigeration products in 

today’s proposed rule, which it has included as chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD. 

Environmental Analysis

In the EA, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector emissions of CO2, NOX, 

and Hg using the NEMS–BT computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT is run similarly to 

the AEO NEMS, except that refrigeration product energy use is reduced by the amount of 

energy saved (by fuel type) due to each TSL. The inputs of national energy savings come 

from the NIA spreadsheet model, and the output is the forecasted physical emissions. 

NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed module that provides results with broad 

coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. The net benefit of the 

standards in today’s proposed rule is the difference between the forecasted emissions 

estimated by NEMS–BT at each TSL and the AEO2010 Reference Case. For the final 

rule, DOE intends to revise the emissions analysis using the most current AEO. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
233

DOE has preliminarily determined that sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from 

affected Electric Generating Units (EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional 

emissions cap and trading programs that create uncertainty about the standards’ impact 

on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for 

all affected EGUs. SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States and the District of Columbia 

(D.C.) are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Published in the 

Federal Register on May 12, 2005, CAIR creates an allowance-based trading program 

that will gradually replace the Title IV program in those States and D.C. 70 FR 25162. 

(The recent legal history surrounding CAIR is discussed below.) The attainment of the 

emissions caps is flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2

emission allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 

imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. However, if the standard resulted in a permanent 

increase in the quantity of unused emission allowances, there would be an overall 

reduction in SO2 emissions from the standards. While there remains some uncertainty 

about the ultimate effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered by the 

existing cap and trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast 

emissions reductions currently indicates that no physical reductions in power sector 

emissions would occur for SO2. 

NEMS-BT also has an algorithm for estimating NOX emissions from power 

generation. The impact of these emissions, however, will be affected by the CAIR. Much 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
234

like SO2, NOX emissions from 28 eastern States and DC are limited under the CAIR. 

Although CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit, it will remain in effect 

until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the Court’s July 11, 2008, opinion in North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Because all States covered by CAIR opted to reduce NOX

emissions through participation in cap-and-trade programs for electric generating units, 

emissions from these sources are capped across the CAIR region. 

In the 28 eastern States and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, DOE’s forecasts 

indicate that because of the permanent cap no NOX emissions reductions will occur due 

to energy conservation standards. If their impact on electricity demand is large enough

energy conservation standards have the potential to produce an environmentally-related 

economic impact in the form of lower prices for NOX emissions allowances. However, 

DOE has preliminarily concluded the proposed standard would not have such an effect 

because the estimated reduction in NOX emissions or the corresponding allowance credits 

in States covered by the CAIR cap would be too small to affect allowance prices for NOX

under the CAIR. The proposed standards would reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

not affected by the CAIR. As a result, DOE used NEMS–BT to forecast emission 

reductions from the standards that are considered in today’s NOPR. 

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) would have 

permanently capped emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired plants in all 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
235

States beginning in 2010. 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). However, the CAMR was 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its decision in New Jersey v. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 517 F 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, DOE was able to use the NEMS–BT 

model, which reflects the fact that CAMR was vacated and does not incorporate CAMR 

emission caps, to estimate the changes in Hg emissions resulting from the proposed rule. 

However, DOE continues to review the impact of rules that reduce energy consumption 

on Hg emissions, and may revise its assessment of Hg emission reductions in future 

rulemakings. 

Commenting on the preliminary analysis, Whirlpool stated that analysis of CO2

emissions is only complete if the changes in CO2 emissions resulting from manufacturing 

and transporting the higher efficiency products are also included. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 

5) AHAM made a similar point. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 15) In response, DOE notes that 

the inputs to the EA for national energy savings come from the NIA. In the NIA, DOE 

only accounts for primary energy savings associated with considered standards. In so 

doing, EPCA directs DOE to consider (when determining whether a standard is 

economically justified) “the total projected amount of energy . . . savings likely to result 

directly from the imposition of the standard.” 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) DOE 

interprets “directly from the imposition of the standard” to include energy used in the 

generation, transmission, and distribution of fuels used by appliances. In addition, DOE is 

evaluating the full-fuel-cycle measure, which includes the energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary fuels (see section IV.G.3). Both DOE’s current 

accounting of primary energy savings and the full-fuel-cycle measure are directly linked 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
236

to the energy used by appliances. In contrast, energy used in manufacturing and 

transporting appliances is a step removed from the energy used by appliances. Thus, 

DOE did not consider such energy use in either the NIA or the EA.

M.

 As part the development of this proposed rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and other pollutants 

that are expected to result from each of the TSLs considered. This section summarizes 

the basis for the estimated monetary values used for each of these emissions and presents 

the benefits estimates considered. 

Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 

 For today’s NOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social cost of carbon 

(SCC) that were developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis for these 

new values is provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used 

is provided in appendix 15-A of the NOPR TSD.

 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

 Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, 

“assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that 

some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the social 

monetized benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
237

actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. The 

estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, 

explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values 

using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently 

and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process. 

 The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. 

Three values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th 

percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3 percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails 

of the SCC distribution. For emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in later years, 

these values grow in real terms over time, as depicted in Table IV.16. 

Table IV.16 Social Cost of CO2, 2010 – 2050 (in 2007 dollars per metric ton) 

Discount Rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3%

Avg Avg Avg 95th

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
238

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental 

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited 

to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the social cost of 

carbon are provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 

 

 When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide 

emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the 

National Research Council43

 

43 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and 

Use. National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 2009. 

points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes 

in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
239

monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of 

science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits in the areas of both quantification and monetization, 

SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. Under Executive Order 12866, agencies are required, to the extent permitted 

by law, “to assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs.” The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to make it possible 

for agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions 

into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on 

cumulative global emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have 

marginal impacts on global emissions. 

 

 For such policies, the benefits from reduced (or costs from increased) emissions 

in any future year can be estimated by multiplying the change in emissions in that year by 

the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate discount factor 

and summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the marginal damages 

from increased emissions are constant for small departures from the baseline emissions 

path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on emissions that 

are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions. For policies that have a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
240

large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question 

of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced 

emissions. DOE does not attempt to answer that question here. 

 At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent interagency 

estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 2010 

were $4.7, $21.4, $35.1, and $64.9 per metric ton in 2007 dollars. These values were 

adjusted to 2009$ using the standard GDP deflator value for 2008 and 2009. For 

emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these values grow in real 

terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values 

from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate 

domestic effects, although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating 

these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its 

impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a 

preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within two years or at such time as 

substantially updated models become available, and to continue to support research in 

this area. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues 

raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency 

process. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
241

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

 To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the 

final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a 

“domestic” SCC value of $2 per ton of CO2 and a “global” SCC value of $33 per ton of 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007 dollars), increasing both values at 2.4 percent 

per year. It also included a sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. A domestic SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit 

change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages worldwide. 

 A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton 

CO2 (in 2006 dollars) for 2011 emission reductions (with a range of $0-$14 for sensitivity 

analysis), also increasing at 2.4 percent per year. A regulation finalized by DOE in 

October of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 emission 

reductions (in 2007 dollars). In addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases identified what it described as “very preliminary” 

SCC estimates subject to revision. EPA’s global mean values were $68 and $40 per ton 

CO2 for discount rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006 

dollars for 2007 emissions). 

 In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of 

how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
242

consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the interagency group sought 

to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking 

process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The 

interagency group did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 

estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. 

 

The outcome of the preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006 dollars) of $55, $33, $19, 

$10, and $5 per ton of CO2. The $33 and $5 values represented model-weighted means 

of the published estimates produced from the most recently available versions of three 

integrated assessment models—DICE, PAGE, and FUND—at approximately 3 and 5 

percent discount rates. The $55 and $10 values were derived by adjusting the published 

estimates for uncertainty in the discount rate (using factors developed by Newell and 

Pizer (2003)) at 3 and 5 percent discount rates, respectively. The $19 value was chosen as 

a central value between the $5 and $33 per ton estimates. All of these values were 

assumed to increase at 3 percent annually to represent growth in incremental damages 

over time as the magnitude of climate change increases.

These interim values represent the first sustained interagency effort within the 

U.S. government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this 

preliminary effort were presented in several proposed and final rules and were offered for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
243

public comment in connection with proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission proposed rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

 Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. 

 It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that 

current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will 

evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also 

recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of 

producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of 

carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of 

concerns and problems that should be addressed by the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of the agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC.

 The U.S. Government will periodically review and reconsider estimates of the 

SCC used for cost-benefit analyses to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context, 

statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for further research take 

on exceptional significance. The interagency group offers the new SCC values with all 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
244

due humility about the uncertainties embedded in them and with a sincere promise to 

continue work to improve them. 

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced 

CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values identified by the interagency process, 

adjusted to 2009$ using the standard GDP deflator values for 2008 and 2009. For each of 

the four cases specified, the values used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.1, $36.3, 

and $67.1 per metric ton avoided (expressed in 2009$). To monetize the CO2 emissions 

reductions expected to result from amended standards for refrigeration products in 2014–

2043, DOE used the values identified in Table A1 of the “Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,” which is reprinted in 

appendix 15-A of the NOPR TSD for the full range of annual SCC estimates from 2010 

to 2050. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted 

the values in each of the four cases using the discount rates that had been used to obtain 

the SCC values in each case.

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions 

As previously stated, DOE’s analysis assumed the presence of nationwide 

emission caps on SO2 and caps on NOX emissions in the 28 States covered by the CAIR. 

In the presence of these caps, the NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE used to forecast 

emissions reduction indicated that no physical reductions in power sector emissions 

would occur for SO2, but that the standards could put slight downward pressure on the 

prices of emissions allowances in cap-and-trade markets. Estimating this effect is very 

difficult because such factors as credit banking can change the trajectory of prices. From 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
245

its modeling to date, DOE is unable to estimate a benefit from SO2 emissions reductions 

at this time. See the environmental assessment, chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD for further 

details. 

DOE also investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOX emissions 

from the TSLs it considered. As noted above, new or amended energy conservation 

standards would reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by the 

CAIR, in addition to the reduction in site NOX emissions nationwide. DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs 

considered for today’s NOPR based on environmental damage estimates from the 

available literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary values, 

ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary sources, measured in 

2001$ (equivalent to a range of $447 to $4,591 per ton in 2009$).44 In accordance with 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance,45 DOE conducted two 

calculations of the monetary benefits derived using each of the economic values used for 

NOX, one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 

7 percent. 

DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of 

values to use in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. 

 

44 Refer to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “2006 Report to Congress on the Costs 

and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities,” 

Washington, DC, for additional information.

45 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
246

DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting 

of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings. 

N.

This section discusses comments received regarding demand response or smart 

grid controls. These are controls that can react to signals from utilities or other external 

organizations and adapt the product operation. This capability might be used to allow 

utilities to reduce energy use during peak demand hours by reducing the power input of 

many connected appliances.

Demand Response

DOE received comments from LG urging consideration of smart grid controls for 

refrigeration products when setting standards. LG commented that the investment 

required to meet new energy standards may displace the investment to develop and 

implement smart grid refrigeration products, thus limiting the potential to meet DOE’s 

goals for establishment of a smart grid. (LG, No. 41 at p. 5) DOE received some 

additional information regarding smart grid issues during NOPR phase interviews with 

manufacturers. This information did not clearly indicate that smart grid controls could 

provide significant benefits when used in refrigeration products that are comparable to 

the benefits associated with energy use reductions that are proposed in this notice. Some 

of the potential benefits, such as the initiation of defrost only during off-peak periods 

could be implemented without the use of smart grid controls. Because of the uncertain 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
247

value of the smart grid benefits, DOE did not consider the possible offset of smart grid 

development investment when selecting proposed standard levels. 

The U.S. Navy (USN) commented that DOE should consider implementing a 

credit or other form of encouragement for demand response technologies in the energy 

conservation standard or other standards, or in voluntary programs such as ENERGY 

STAR. (USN, No. FDMS Draft 0022.1 at p. 2) IOU commented that DOE should include 

as part of any standard a requirement that refrigeration products include a demand 

response feature. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 13) IOU asked for a response to this comment and 

requested that the response indicate whether States would be allowed to implement 

demand response requirements if DOE does not do so. (Id.) 

The requirement to include demand response capability in a product constitutes a 

design requirement that a product include such a feature. EPCA allows establishment of 

design requirements, but only for certain products. EPCA defines “energy conservation 

standard” as:

(A) a performance standard which prescribes a minimum level of energy 

efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use, or, in the case of showerheads, faucets, 

water closets, and urinals, water use, for a covered product, determined in accordance 

with test procedures prescribed under section 6293 of this title; or 

(B) a design requirement for the products specified in paragraphs (6), (7), (8), 

(10), (15), (16), (17), and (19) of section 6292(a) of this title . . . 

42 U.S.C. 6291(6) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
248

Refrigeration products do not belong to the group of products for which DOE can 

set design requirements (such as demand response capability) under 6291(6)(B). Based 

on this limitation and the available facts, it is DOE’s tentative view that a demand 

response requirement cannot be included as part of today’s NOPR. 

DOE next considered whether a credit may be allowed for demand response 

features. DOE understands that such features, when applied to refrigeration products, 

could be used to reduce energy costs by shifting portions of the energy use associated 

with defrost or icemaking to times when the electricity cost is lower, but that they would 

not contribute significantly to reduction of energy use. EPCA does not allow 

establishment of energy conservation standards if, “the establishment of such standard 

will not result in significant conservation of energy” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). Hence, 

DOE cannot consider implementing a credit in the energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products to encourage use of this technology. 

DOE and other agencies are not prohibited from developing voluntary programs 

to encourage use of demand response technology. However, such programs are not the 

subject matter of this notice.

EPCA’s requirement on preemption on or after the compliance date for Federal 

energy conservation standards for a given product states that “no State regulation 

concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
249

be effective with respect to such product . . .” (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)). EPCA provides a 

number of exceptions to this requirement, but none of these apply to refrigeration 

products. DOE interprets “regulation concerning energy use” to be equivalent to “energy 

conservation standard”. The title of section 6297(c), “General rule of preemption for 

energy conservation standards when Federal standard becomes effective for product,” 

further clarifies that this section addresses energy conservation standards, which would 

mean, in this instance, a performance-based standard. Based on the limited facts made 

available to DOE, a design requirement would not likely meet this requirement. 

Preemption under these conditions would not likely apply. 

V. Analytical Results

The following section addresses the results from DOE’s analyses with respect to 

potential energy efficiency standards for the various product classes examined as part of 

this rulemaking. Issues discussed include the trial standard levels examined by DOE, the 

projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy efficiency standards for 

refrigeration products, and the standards levels that DOE is tentatively proposing in 

today’s NOPR. Additional details regarding the analyses conducted by the agency are 

contained in the publicly available NOPR TSD supporting this notice. 

A.

 DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of a number of TSLs for the refrigeration 

products that are the subject of today’s proposed rule. A description of each TSL DOE 

analyzed is provided below. DOE attempted to limit the number of TSLs considered for 

Trial Standard Levels

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
250

the NOPR by excluding efficiency levels that do not exhibit significantly different 

economic and/or engineering characteristics from the efficiency levels already selected as 

a TSL. While DOE only presents the results for those efficiency levels in TSL 

combinations in today’s NOPR, DOE presents the results for all efficiency levels that it 

analyzed in the NOPR TSD.

 Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding product class efficiencies for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers. TSL 1 consists of those efficiency levels that meet 

current ENERGY STAR criteria. TSL 2 consists of the highest efficiency levels for 

which the consumer NPV is positive, using a 7-percent discount rate. TSL 3 consists of 

the highest efficiency levels for which the consumer NPV is positive, using a 3-percent 

discount rate, as well as the levels recommended in the Joint Comments. TSL 4 consists 

of those efficiency levels that yield energy use 30 percent below the baseline products. 

TSL 5 consists of the max-tech efficiency levels. 

Table V.1 Trial Standard Levels for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Trial 

Standard

Level

Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Product classes 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I and 6 

Product classes 5, 5A, 

and 5I

Product classes 4, 4I, 

and 7

Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use)

1 3 (20) 3 (20) 3 (20)

2 3(20) 3 (20) 4 (25)

3 4 (25)* 3 (20) 4 (25)

4 5 (30) 5 (30) 5 (30)

5 6 (36) 6 (36) 6 (33)

* Level for product classes 1, 1A, and 2 is 20%.

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
251

 Table V.2 presents the TSLs and the corresponding product class efficiencies for 

standard-size freezers. TSL 1 consists of those efficiency levels that yield energy use 20 

percent below the baseline products. TSL 2 consists of the levels recommended in the 

Joint Comments. TSL 3 consists of incrementally higher efficiency levels than the 

preceding TSL. TSL 4 consists of the efficiency levels for which the consumer NPV is 

positive, using a 7-percent discount rate. TSL 5 consists of the max-tech efficiency levels, 

which are also the efficiency levels for which the consumer NPV is positive, using a 3-

percent discount rate. 

Table V.2 Trial Standard Levels for Standard-Size Freezers

Trial Standard

Level

Upright Freezers Chest Freezers

Product class 9 Product class 8

Product classes 

10 and 10A

Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use)

1 3 (20) 3 (20) 3 (20)

2 5 (30) 4 (25) 4 (25)*

3 6 (35) 5 (30) 5 (30)

4 7 (40) 6 (35) 6 (35)

5 8 (44) 7 (41) 7 (41)

* Level for product class 10A is 30%.

 Table V.3 presents the TSLs and the corresponding product class efficiencies for 

compact refrigeration products. TSL 1 consists of efficiency levels that meet current 

ENERGY STAR criteria for some compact refrigerators (product classes 11, 11A, 12 and 

13A), and efficiency levels that are 10 percent below the baseline energy use for other 

compact refrigerators (product classes 13, 14, and 15) and compact freezers (product 

classes 16, 17, and 18). TSL 2 consists of the levels recommended in the Joint 

Comments. TSL 3 consists of the highest efficiency levels for which the consumer NPV 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
252

is positive, using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. TSL 4 consists of 

incrementally higher efficiency levels than TSL 3. TSL 5 consists of the max-tech 

efficiency levels. 

Table V.3 Trial Standard Levels for Compact Refrigeration Products

Trial Standard

Level

Compact Refrigerators and

Refrigerator-Freezers

Compact Freezers

Product classes 11, 

11A, 12, and 13A

Product classes 

13, 14, and 15

Product classes 16, 

17, 18

Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use)

1 3 (20) 1 (10) 1 (10)

2 4 (25) 2 (15)* 1 (10)

3 5 (30) 2 (15) 2 (15)

4 7 (40) 4 (25) 4 (25)

5 10 (59) 7 (42) 7 (42)

* Level for product class 14 is 20%.

 Table V.4 presents the TSLs and the corresponding product class efficiencies for 

built-in refrigeration products. TSL 1 consists of the efficiency levels that are 10 percent 

better than the current standard. TSL 2 consists of the highest efficiency levels for which 

the consumer NPV is positive, using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. TSL 

3 consists of the levels recommended in the Joint Comments. TSL 4 consists of 

incrementally higher efficiency levels than TSL 3. TSL 5 consists of the max-tech 

efficiency levels. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
253

Table V.4 Trial Standard Levels for Built-in Refrigeration Products

Trial Standard

Level

Built-in AllRefrigerators 

Built-in BottomMount 

RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Side-bySide RefrigeratorFreezersBuilt-in 

Upright 

Freezers 

Product class 

3A-BI

Product classes 

5-BI and 5I-BI

Product classes 

4-BI, 4I-BI and 

7-BI

Product class 

9-BI

Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use)

1 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10)

2 2 (15) 2 (15) 1 (10) 3 (20)

3 3 (20) 2 (15) 3 (20) 4 (25)

4 4 (25) 4 (25) 3 (20) 4 (25)

5 5 (29) 5 (27) 4 (22) 5 (27)

B.

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers 

Economic Justification and Energy Savings

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Consumers affected by new or amended standards usually experience higher 

purchase prices and lower operating costs. DOE evaluates these impacts on individual 

consumers by calculating changes in life-cycle costs (LCC) and the payback period 

(PBP) associated with potential standard levels. Using the approach described in section 

IV.F, DOE calculated the LCC impacts and PBPs for the efficiency levels considered in 

this rulemaking. For each representative product class, DOE’s analysis provided several 

outputs V.5 V.15. Each table 

includes the average total LCC and the average LCC savings, as well as the fraction of 

product consumers for which the LCC will either decrease (net benefit), increase (net 

cost), or exhibit no change (no impact) relative to the product purchased in the base case.

The last output in the tables is the median PBP for the consumer purchasing a design that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
254

complies with a given TSL. The results for each TSL are relative to the energy efficiency

distribution in the base case (no amended standards). DOE based the LCC and PBP 

analyses on energy consumption under conditions of actual product use, whereas it based 

the rebuttable presumption PBPs on energy consumption under conditions prescribed by 

the DOE test procedure, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

Table V.5 Product Class 3, Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers: LCC and PBP 

Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $543 $750 $1,293

1 (10) $555 $696 $1,251 $42 1. 7% 21.6% 76.8% 2.7

2 (15) $563 $668 $1,231 $62 2.3% 17.4% 80.3% 3.0

1, 2 3 (20) $624 $640 $1,264 $29 42.3% 8.1% 49.6% 9.2

3 4 (25) $667 $605 $1,272 $22 54.9% 0.0% 45.1% 10.9

4 5 (30) $759 $571 $1,330 -$37 73.8% 0.0% 26.2% 15.4

5 6 (36) $892 $535 $1,427 -$133 85.4% 0.0% 14.6% 20.5

Table V.6 Product Class 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers: LCC and PBP 

Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

Payback 

Period 

(years) 

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $945 $917 $1,862 

1 (10) $947 $908 $1,856 $8 0.2% 86.9% 12.9% 2.5

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
255

2 (15) $949 $904 $1,853 $12 0.3% 86.9% 12.9% 2.7

1, 2,3 3 (20) $955 $892 $1,847 $19 4.5% 67.8% 27.7% 4.9

4 (25) $1,020 $853 $1,873 -$8 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 17.5

4 5 (30) $1,127 $817 $1,945 -$79 88.2% 0.0% 11.8% 24.8

5 6 (36) $1,276 $770 $2,046 -$180 93.3% 0.0% 6.7% 29.0

Table V.7 Product Class 7, Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers with Through-theDoor Ice Service: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $1,152 $1,178 $2,330

1 (10) $1,155 $1,156 $2,310 $20 0.1% 78.1% 21.8% 1.5

2 (15) $1,160 $1,132 $2,292 $40 0.5% 51.7% 47.8% 2.4

1 3 (20) $1,179 $1,100 $2,279 $53 7.3% 36.9% 55.8% 4.8

2, 3 4 (25) $1,244 $1,051 $2,295 $37 50.8% 0.0% 49.2% 10.9

4 5 (30) $1,385 $1,002 $2,387 -$55 77.7% 0.0% 22.3% 18.6

5 6 (33) $1,496 $970 $2,466 -$134 86.2% 0.0% 13.9% 22.6

Table V.8 Product Class 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $560 $969 $1,529

1 (10) $571 $897 $1,468 $62 1.7% 19.9% 78.5% 2.3

2 (15) $592 $852 $1,445 $85 9.7% 1.7% 88.6% 4.3

1 3 (20) $611 $807 $1,418 $111 11.7% 0.6% 87.8% 4.8

4 (25) $640 $760 $1,401 $128 16.2% 0.4% 83.4% 5.8

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
256

2 5 (30) $667 $714 $1,381 $148 18.7% 0.2% 81.1% 6.2

3 6 (35) $727 $673 $1,399 $130 30.8% 0.0% 69.2% 8.4

4 7 (40) $810 $632 $1,442 $87 45.0% 0.0% 55.0% 11.0

5 8 (44) $994 $599 $1,593 -$63 70.2% 0.0% 29.8% 17.4

Table V.9 Product Class 10, Chest Freezer: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $407 $578 $985

1 (10) $414 $533 $946 $38 0.0% 16.2% 83.8% 2.1

2 (15) $424 $506 $930 $55 0.7% 1.2 98.1% 3.4

1 3 (20) $436 $479 $915 $70 1.6% 0.2% 98.2% 4.2

2 4 (25) $483 $451 $935 $50 25.8% 0.2% 74.0% 8.7

3 5 (30) $504 $424 $928 $56 28.3% 0.2% 71.5% 9.1

4 6 (35) $565 $404 $968 $17 53.5% 0.0% 46.5% 13.1

5 7 (41) $687 $369 $1,055 -$71 79.0% 0.0% 21.0% 19.3

Table V.10 Product Class 11, Compact Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results 

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $146 $165 $311

1 (10) $151 $150 $301 $10 11.9% 1.6% 86.5% 2.0

2 (15) $156 $142 $297 $13 17.0% 1.4% 81.6% 2.3

1 3 (20) $162 $134 $296 $15 24.4% 1.4% 74.2% 2.8

2 4 (25) $174 $126 $300 $10 43.3% 1.0% 55.7% 3.9

3 5 (30) $184 $118 $302 $8 50.6% 0.9% 48.5% 4.4

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
257

6 (35) $212 $111 $324 -$13 77.2% 0.0% 22.8% 6.7

4 7 (40) $221 $103 $324 -$13 76.1% 0.0% 23.9% 6.5

8 (45) $255 $97 $351 -$41 87.4% 0.0% 12.6% 8.6

9 (50) $274 $88 $362 -$51 88.8% 0.0% 11.2% 9.0

5 10 (59) $341 $75 $416 -$105 93.8% 0.0% 6.2% 11.6

Table V.11 Product Class 18, Compact Freezers: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $202 $200 $402

1,2 1 (10) $209 $182 $391 $11 9.9% 4.7% 85.4% 2.5

3 2 (15) $223 $172 $395 $7 40.6% 0.0% 59.4% 4.6

3 (20) $268 $163 $430 -$29 91.1% 0.0% 8.9% 10.9

4 4 (25) $279 $153 $432 -$30 88.5% 0.0% 11.5% 10.0

5 (30) $312 $146 $458 -$57 94.6% 0.0% 5.4% 12.6

6 (35) $320 $137 $457 -$55 92.7% 0.0% 7.3% 11.5

5 7 (42) $399 $124 $523 -$121 97.8% 0.0% 2.3% 15.9

Table V.12 Product Class 3A-BI, Built-In All-Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $4,676 $776 $5,451

1 1 (10) $4,683 $721 $5,404 $47 0.3% 22.6% 77.2% 1.6

2 2 (15) $4,696 $693 $5,388 $63 2.6% 18.4% 79.0% 3.0

3 3 (20) $4,826 $660 $5,486 -$34 69.1% 9.1% 21.9% 15.9

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
258

4 4 (25) $5,017 $629 $5,646 -$195 94.5% 0.0% 5.5% 29.7

5 5 (29) $5,162 $607 $5,769 -$318 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 36.7

Table V.13 Product Class 5-BI, Built-In Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers: LCC 

and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $5,386 $908 $6,294

1 1 (10) $5,390 $899 $6,289 $7 1.2% 87.1% 11.7% 4.4

2,3 2 (15) $5,401 $906 $6,307 $0 8.2% 87.0% 4.8% 12.9

3 (20) $5,435 $892 $6,328 -$21 29.3% 67.5% 3.3% 26.2

4 4 (25) $5,607 $864 $6,471 -$164 99.0% 0.0% 1.1% 62.8

5 5 (27) $5,706 $845 $6,551 -$244 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 61.8

Table V.14 Product Class 7-BI, Built-In Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers with 

Through-the-Door Ice Service: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $7,887 $1,293 $9,180

1,2 1 (10) $7,902 $1,276 $9,178 $7 8.0% 78.5% 13.5% 8.7

2 (15) $7,947 $1,261 $9,208 -$18 39.8% 52.4% 7.8% 21.0

3,4 3 (20) $8,078 $1,228 $9,306 -$116 60.2% 37.2% 2.5% 36.7

5 4 (22) $8,197 $1,211 $9,409 -$219 98.8% 0.0% 1.2% 60.0

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
259

Table V.15 Product Class 9-BI, Built-In Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Life-Cycle Cost 2009$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost LCC

Average 

Savings 

2009$

% of Households that 

Experience

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline $4,383 $947 $5,330

1 1 (10) $4,400 $876 $5,276 $54 4.3% 19.9% 75.8% 3.4

2 (15) $4,415 $834 $5,249 $82 8.6% 1.7% 89.7% 4.3

2 3 (20) $4,509 $797 $5,306 $24 53.1% 0.6% 46.3% 12.8

3,4 4 (25) $4,657 $752 $5,409 -$78 78.2% 0.5% 21.3% 21.1

5 5 (27) $4,770 $730 $5,500 -$169 87.1% 0.3% 12.6% 26.8

 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

 As described in section IV.H, DOE determined the impact of the considered TSLs 

on low-income households and senior-only households. DOE did not estimate impacts for 

compact refrigeration products because the household sample sizes were not large 

enough to yield meaningful results. 

 Table V.16 through Table V.18 compare the average LCC savings at each 

efficiency level for the two consumer subgroups with the average LCC savings for the 

entire sample for each representative product class. In general, the average LCC savings 

for low-income households and senior-only households at the considered efficiency 

levels are not substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of 

the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the two subgroups. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
260

 

Table V.16 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: Comparison of Average LCC 

Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households

Efficiency 

Level

(% less 

than 

baseline 

energy use)

Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Product class 3 Product class 5 Product class 7

Senior

LowIncome All SeniorLowIncome All SeniorLowIncome All

1 (10) $40 $44 $42 $53 $9 $8 $20 $21 $20

2 (15) $58 $65 $61 $77 $13 $12 $40 $41 $40

3 (20) $22 $32 $28 $90 $20 $19 $53 $55 $53

4 (25) $12 $25 $20 $62 -$7 -$8 $37 $36 $37

5 (30) -$49 -$33 -$38 -$2 -$78 -$79 -$55 -$59 -$55

6 (36/36/33) -$149 -$129 -$135 -$29 -$180 -$180 -$134 -$140 -$134

Table V.17 Standard-Size Freezers: Comparison of Average LCC Savings for 

Consumer Subgroups and All Households

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Upright Freezers Chest Freezers

Product class 9 Product class 10 

Senior

LowIncome All SeniorLowIncome All

1 (10) $62 $58 $61 $38 $37 $38

2 (15) $85 $79 $83 $55 $53 $55

3 (20) $111 $102 $109 $70 $68 $70

4 (25) $128 $117 $126 $50 $47 $50

5 (30) $148 $134 $146 $56 $53 $56

6 (35) $130 $113 $127 $17 $12 $17

7 (40/41) $87 $68 $84 -$71 -$76 -$71

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
261

8 (44) -$63 -$85 -$71

Table V.18 Built-In Refrigeration Products: Comparison of Average LCC Savings 

for Consumer Subgroups and All Households

Efficiency 

Level

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use)

Built-in All 

Refrigerators

Built-in Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Built-in Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Built-in Upright 

Freezers

Product class 3A-BI Product class 5-BI 

Product class

7-BI

Product class

9-BI

Senior

LowIncome All SeniorLowIncome All SeniorLowIncome All SeniorLowIncome All

1 (10) $44 $49 $47 $6 $7 $7 $7 $6 $7 $54 $50 $54

2 (15) $58 $65 $63 -$3 -$1 $0 -$18 -$24 -$18 $82 $74 $82

3 (20) -$47 -$37 -$34 -$26 -$24 -$21 -$116 -$135 -

$116 $24 $13 $24

4 (25) -$211 -$198 -

$195 -$173 -$167 -$164 -$219 -$239 -$219 -$78 -$93 -$78

5 

(29/27/22/27) -$337 -$321 -$318 -$255 -$247 -$244 -$169 -$185 -$169

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

 As discussed in section III.D.2, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an 

energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a 

product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 

savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback 

period for the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than 

distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation 

on the DOE test procedures for refrigeration products. As a result, DOE calculated a 

single rebuttable presumption payback value, and not a distribution of payback periods, 

for each efficiency level. Tables V.19 through V.22 present the average rebuttable 

presumption payback periods for those efficiency levels where the increased purchase 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
262

cost for a product that meets a standard at that level is less than three times the value of 

the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. 

Table V.19 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: Efficiency Levels With Rebuttable 

Payback Period Less Than Three Years

Product Class 3: 

Top-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer

Product Class 5: 

Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer

Product Class 7: 

Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezer 

with TTD*

Efficiency Level

(% less than 

baseline energy use)

PBP

years

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline 

energy use)

PBP

years

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline 

energy use)

PBP

years

1 (10) 2.4 1 (10) 2.1 1 (10) 1.4

2 (15) 2.6 2 (15) 2.4 2 (15) 1.7

3 (20) 2.9

* Through-the-door ice service

Table V.20 Standard-Size Freezers: Efficiency Levels With Rebuttable Payback 

Period Less Than Three Years

Product Class 9: 

Upright Freezer

Product Class 10: 

Chest Freezer

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline 

energy use)

PBP

years

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline 

energy use)

PBP

years

1 (10) 1.9 1 (10) 1.8

2 (15) 2.7

Table V.21 Compact Refrigeration Products: Efficiency Levels With Rebuttable 

Payback Period Less Than Three Years

Product Class 11: 

Compact Refrigerator

Product Class 18: 

Compact Freezer

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline energy 

use)

PBP

years

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline energy 

use)

PBP

years

1 (10) 1.8 1 (10) 2.0

2 (15) 2.1

3 (20) 2.7

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
263

Table V.22 Built-In Refrigeration Products: Efficiency Levels With Rebuttable 

Payback Period Less Than Three Years

Product Class 3A-BI: 

Built-in AllRefrigerator

Product Class 5-BI: 

Built-In Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezer

Product Class 7-BI: 

Built-In Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezer with 

TTD*

Product Class 9-BI: 

Built-In Upright 

Freezer

Efficiency 

Level

(% less 

than 

baseline 

energy 

use)

PBP

years

Efficiency 

Level

(% less 

than 

baseline 

energy 

use)

PBP

years

Efficiency 

Level

(% less 

than 

baseline 

energy 

use)

PBP

years

Efficiency 

Level

(% less 

than 

baseline 

energy 

use)

PBP

years

1 (10) 1.5 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 2.7

2 (15) 2.6

* Through-the-door ice service

While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether 

the standard levels considered for today’s rule are economically justified through a more 

detailed analysis of the economic impacts of these levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 

evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of residential refrigeration products. The section below 

describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each potential TSL. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
264

a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results

The tables below depict the financial impacts on manufacturers (represented by 

changes in INPV) and the conversion costs DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at 

each TSL. DOE shows four sets of results, corresponding to the four sets of TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. Each set of TSLs reflect the impacts on manufacturers of a 

certain group of product classes. 

The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the base case 

and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing the discounted industry cash 

flows from the base year (2010) through the end of the analysis period. The discussion 

also notes the difference in cash flow between the base case and the standards case in the 

year before the compliance date of potential amended energy conservation standards. 

This figure provides a proxy for the magnitude of the required conversion costs, relative 

to the cash flow generated by the industry in the base case. In its discussion of the MIA 

results, DOE frequently references the common technology options that achieve the 

efficiencies required by a given TSL in the relevant representative product classes. To 

find to a complete description of technology options and the required efficiencies at each 

IV.B.2 of today’s NOPR and appendix 5-A of the TSD. 

Each set of results below shows two tables of INPV impacts: the first table 

reflects the lower (less severe) bound of impacts and the second represents the upper 

bound. To evaluate this range of cash-flow impacts on the residential refrigeration 

products industry, DOE modeled two different scenarios using different markup 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
265

assumptions. These assumptions correspond to the bounds of a range of market responses 

that DOE anticipates could occur in the standards case. Each scenario results in a unique 

set of cash flows and corresponding industry value at each TSL. 

To assess the lower (less severe) end of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled the flat markup scenario. The flat markup scenario assumes that in the standards 

case manufacturers would be able to pass the higher productions costs required for more 

efficient products on to their customers. Specifically, the industry would be able to 

maintain its average base-case gross margin, as a percentage of revenue, despite higher 

product costs. In general, the larger the product price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are to achieve the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario 

because the less likely it is that manufacturers would be able to fully markup these larger 

cost increases. 

Through its discussions with manufacturers, DOE found that overall profit is 

driven more by bundles of product features, such as stainless steel exteriors, ice 

dispensers, and digital displays, than by energy efficiency characteristics. In other words, 

more efficient products command higher prices, but these prices are driven by the many 

other features that are also bundled with efficiency. However, the overall profit margin 

percentage does widely vary even if the dollar profit per unit increases for products with 

these additional features. Manufacturers are skeptical that customers would accept higher 

prices for increased energy efficiency because it does not command higher margins in the 

current market. Under such a scenario, it follows that the large retailers that compose the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
266

relatively concentrated customer base of the industry would not accept manufacturers 

fully passing through the additional cost of improved efficiency because consumers 

would be wary of higher prices without additional features. Therefore, to assess the 

higher (more severe) end of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup scenario in which higher energy conservation 

standards result in lower manufacturer markups. This scenario models manufacturers’ 

concerns that the higher costs of more efficient technology would harm profitability if the 

full cost increases cannot be passed on. The scenario represents the upper end of the 

range of potential impacts on manufacturers because no additional operating profit is 

earned on the investments required to meet the proposed amended energy conservation 

standards, while higher production costs erode profit margins and result in lower cash 

flows from operations. 

DOE used the main NIA shipment scenario for the both the lower- and higherbound MIA scenarios that were used to characterize the potential INPV impacts. The 

shipment forecast is an important driver of the INPV results below. The main NIA 

shipment scenario includes a price elasticity effect, meaning higher prices in the 

standards case result in lower shipments. Lower shipments also reduce industry revenue, 

and, in turn, INPV. 

i. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
267

Table V.23. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

– Flat Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 3,173 3,088 2,997 2,886 2,530 2,344 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (84.8) (175.9) (287.5) (643.0) (828.9) 

(%) - -2.7% -5.5% -9.1% -20.3% -26.1%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 153 197 229 348 406 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 229 393 620 1,405 2,013 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 382 590 848 1,753 2,419 

Table V.24. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

– Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 3,173 2,871 2,713 2,511 1,676 1,018 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (301.7) (459.8) (662.1) (1,496.8) (2,154.7) 

(%) - -9.5% -14.5% -20.9% -47.2% -67.9%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 153 197 229 348 406 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 229 393 620 1,405 2,013 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 382 590 848 1,753 2,419 

TSL 1 represents the current ENERGY STAR level for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers or a 20 percent reduction in measured energy consumption over the current 

energy conservation standards for the analyzed product class 3 (automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), product class 5 (automatic 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
268

defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), and product 

class 7 (automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range -$84.8 million to -$301.7 million, or 

a change in INPV of -2.7 percent to -9.5 percent. At this proposed level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 64.8 percent to $71.3 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $202.6 million in the year leading up to the proposed 

energy conservation standards. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 are relatively minor, in part because the vast majority 

of manufacturers produce ENERGY STAR units in significant volumes, particularly for 

product class 5 and 7. Approximately 42 percent of product class 7 shipments and 47 

percent of product class 5 shipments currently meet this TSL. By contrast, the vast 

majority of product class 3 shipments are baseline units. Additionally, most of the design 

options DOE analyzed at this proposed level are one-for-one component swaps, including 

more efficient compressors and brushless DC condenser and evaporator fan motors, 

which require only modest changes to the manufacturing process at TSL 1. As such, DOE 

estimated total product conversion costs of $153 million and capital conversion costs of 

$229 million. 

While substantial on a nominal basis, the total conversion costs are relatively low 

compared to the industry value of $3.2 billion. The total conversion costs at TSL 1 are 

mostly driven by the design options that manufacturers could use to improve the 

efficiency of the smaller-sized units of the product classes analyzed. For example, the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
269

analyzed design options for the 22 cubic foot product class 7 unit included a VIP in the 

freezer door, while the 26 cubic foot product class 7 unit only analyzed less costly 

component swaps. VIP implementation would require significant capital and product 

conversion costs because additional production steps are required to hold and bind each 

panel in its location before the product is foamed. Each additional step requires more 

equipment to lengthen production lines and, because of lower throughput, more 

production lines for each manufacturer to maintain similar shipment volumes. Some 

manufacturers have experience with VIPs, but DOE expects substantial engineering and 

testing resources would be required for their use in new platforms and/or at higher 

production volumes. 

Similarly, the 16 cubic foot product class 3 unit uses a variable speed compressor 

as a design option. While not a capital intensive solution, variable speed compressors 

would require substantial engineering time to integrate the complex component, 

especially if electronic control systems would also be required. Because these changes 

are more complex than the other analyzed design options, more than three-quarters of the 

conversion costs for TSL 1 are attributable to the use of the VIPs and variable speed 

compressors in the smaller-volume product class 7 and product class 3 units, respectively. 

The flat markup scenario shows slightly negative impacts at TSL 1, indicating 

that the outlays for conversion costs marginally outweigh any additional profit earned on 

incrementally higher variable costs. On a shipment-weighted basis, the average MPC for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers increases by 10 percent at TSL 1. These small 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
270

component cost changes are not significant enough to fully recoup these investments 

even if manufacturers earn additional profit on these costs, as the flat markup scenario 

assumes. Hence, there is a slight negative impact, even in the upper-bound scenario, at 

TSL 1. 

The efficiency requirements for product class 3 and product class 5 refrigeratorfreezers are the same at TSL 2 as TSL 1. However, the efficiency requirements for 

product class 7 increase to a 25 percent reduction in measured energy consumption from 

current energy conservation standards. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 2 range 

from -$175.9 million to -$459.8 million, or a change in INPV of -5.5 percent to -14.5 

percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 102.8 percent to -$5.7 million, compared to the base-case value of $202.6 

million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation standard. 

The additional impacts at TSL 2 relative to TSL 1 result from the further 

improvements manufacturers must make to product class 7 refrigerator-freezers to 

achieve a 25 percent energy reduction, as very few shipments of product class 7 currently 

exceed the ENERGY STAR level. Specifically, for the 22-cubic foot product, the design 

options DOE analyzed include a variable speed compressor and a VIP in the freezer 

cabinet, instead of the door as in TSL 1. For the 26-cubic foot product class 7 unit, the 

design options analyzed include a VIP in the freezer door in addition to additional 

component swaps and the component swaps needed to meet TSL 1. Total conversion 

costs increase by $208 million compared to TSL 1, which is largely driven by the initial 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
271

use of VIPs in the 26-cubic foot product class 7 unit. Besides these specific changes to 

side-by-side units, at TSL 2 most production lines of standard-size refrigerator-freezers 

do not use of VIPs or other very costly components, mitigating some of the disruption to 

current facilities. Consequently, the INPV impacts, while greater than at TSL 1, are still 

relatively moderate compared to the value of the industry. 

At TSL 2, the INPV in the flat markup is lower than at TSL 1, which means the 

additional conversion costs to add more VIPs leaves manufacturers worse off even if they 

can earn additional profit on these costly components. In the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the industry earns no additional profit on this greater investment, 

lowering cash flow from operations in the standards case and resulting in greater INPV 

impacts. 

The efficiency requirements for product class 5 and product class 7 refrigeratorfreezers are the same at TSL 3 as TSL 2. However, the efficiency requirements for 

product class 3 increase to a 25 percent reduction in measured energy consumption from 

current energy conservation standards. TSL 3 represents a 25 percent reduction in 

measured energy consumption over the current energy conservation standards both 

product class 3 and product class 7. In addition, TSL 3 represents a 20 percent reduction 

in measured energy consumption for the unanalyzed product classes 1, 1A, and 2. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 3 to range from -$287.5 million to -$662.1 million, or 

a change in INPV of -9.1 percent to -20.9 percent. At this proposed level, the industry 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
272

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 151.6 percent to -$104.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $202.6 million in the year leading up to the standards. 

The additional negative impacts on industry cash flow result from the changes to 

product class 3 refrigerator-freezers to reach a 25 percent reduction in energy use (sideby-side products met this proposed level at TSL 2). Specifically, the design options DOE 

analyzes at TSL 3 for 16 cubic foot top-mount refrigerator-freezers include the use of 

VIPs for the first time (in the freezer cabinet), in addition to the component swaps 

discussed above. In total, DOE estimates product conversion costs of $229 million and 

capital conversion costs of $620 million at TSL 3. The high cost to purchase new 

production equipment and the large engineering effort to manufacture new platforms for 

these smaller-sized product class 3 units drive the vast majority of this additional $258 

million in conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at TSL 3. 

Because the smaller size top-mounts account for a large percentage of total shipments, 

the production equipment necessary to implement new platforms for these products is 

costly. 

While production of units meeting TSL 3 is fairly limited, several manufacturers 

have introduced products that meet this proposed level in response to Federal production 

tax credits. This experience mitigates some of the product conversion costs by giving 

manufacturers some experience with the newer technologies. However, the more severe 

impacts at TSL 3, relative to TSL 2, are due to the incremental outlays for conversion 

costs to make the changes described above. In particular, any experience with VIPs on 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
273

some products does not lower the substantial capital conversion necessary to purchase 

production equipment necessary to manufacturer products that are substantially different 

from existing products. 

As mentioned above, the preservation of operating profit markup scenario 

assumes no additional profit is earned on the higher production costs, which lower profit 

margins as a percentage of revenue and leads to worse impacts on INPV. In the flat 

markup scenario, the impact of the investments is mitigated by the assumption that 

manufacturers can earn a similar profit margin as a percentage of revenues on their higher 

variable costs. At TSL 3 MPCs increase by an average of 16 percent over the base case, 

leading to additional per-unit profit in this scenario in this scenario. However, the 

magnitude of the conversion investments still leads to negative INPV impacts even if 

additional profit is earned on the incremental manufacturing costs. The lower industry 

shipments driven by the relative price elasticity assumption account for approximately 19 

percent of the impact in the flat markup scenario. 

TSL 4 represents a 30 percent reduction in measured energy consumption over the 

current energy conservation standards for product class 3, product class 5, and product 

class 7. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 4 to range from -$643.0 million to -

$1,496.8 million, or a change in INPV of -20.3 percent to -47.2 percent. At this proposed 

level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately a factor of 3.2 to -

$449.6 million, compared to the base-case value of $202.6 million in the year leading up 

to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
274

At TSL 4, significant changes to the manufacturing process are necessary for all 

refrigerator-freezers. A 30 percent reduction in energy consumption is the max available 

top-mount on the market; the maximum available side-by-side and bottom-mount only 

slightly exceed a 30 percent reduction. The design options DOE analyzed for all 

standard-size products—with the exception of the 25 cubic foot product class 5 unit—use 

multiple VIPs in the fresh food compartment, freezer doors, and cabinets to reach 30 

percent efficiency level. The design options also include the use of variable speed 

compressors for all units analyzed except the 21 cubic foot product class 3 unit. These 

product changes substantially increase the variable costs across nearly all platforms at 

this TSL. 

While products that meet the efficiency requirements of TSL 4 are not in 

widespread production, several manufacturers produce units at these efficiencies due to 

tax credit incentives. However, at TSL 4 most manufacturers expect to completely 

redesign existing production lines if the proposed energy conservation standards were set 

at levels that necessitated these changes across most or all of their products. 

Manufacturers would need to purchase injection molding equipment, cabinet bending 

equipment, and other equipment for interior tooling as they would need to create new 

molds for these production lines. These changes drive DOE’s estimate of the large 

product and capital conversion costs at TSL 4 ($348 million and $1,405 million, 

respectively). The significant incremental investment relative to TSL 3 results, in large 

part, from the design option of adding VIPs to the 21 cubic foot analyzed product class 3 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
275

unit. This top-mounted refrigerator-freezer represents a substantial portion of the market 

and manufacturers would have to completely redesign these platforms. 

As a result of the large investment necessary to meet this proposed level, some 

manufacturers could move production to Mexico or other lower-labor-costs countries to 

achieve cost savings for labor expenditures. (More information on employment impacts is 

provided in section V.B.2.b.) In addition to the large capital conversion costs, the 

shipment-weighted average MPC increases by approximately 36 percent at TSL 4 

compared to the base case. However, the magnitude of the conversion costs at TSL 4 are 

so large that even if manufacturers can reap additional profit from these higher product 

costs (as in the flat markup scenario), they would still be substantially impacted, as 

shown by the negative INPV results in the flat markup scenario. Additionally, the 36 

percent increase in MPC drives shipments lower due to the price elasticity. Lower 

industry volume due to the decline in shipments accounts for approximately one-quarter 

of the change in industry value in the flat markup scenario. The large, negative impact on 

INPV is even greater under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario due to 

the inability to pass on the higher costs of expensive design options such as variable 

speed compressors and VIPs. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for all standard-size refrigerator-freezers. The maxtech level corresponds to reductions in measured energy consumption of 36 percent, 36 

percent, and 33 percent over the current energy conservation standards for product class 

3, product class 5, and product class 7, respectively. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
276

TSL 5 to range from -$828.9 million to -$2,154.7 million, or a change in INPV of -26.1 

percent to -67.9 percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by a factor of approximately 4.5 to -$707.8 million, compared to the base-case 

value of $202.6 million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation 

standards. 

No products that meet TSL 5 are currently offered on the U.S. market. At TSL 5, 

the changes required to meet this proposed level are similar to those at TSL 4, as 

complete redesigns of all platforms would be required.TSL 5 requires much more 

extensive use of VIPs, however. The higher conversion costs at TSL 5 are primarily due 

to the use of VIPs in additional locations in the door, cabinet and freezer, whereas at TSL 

4 some of the analyzed design options of the larger-sized units included limited or no VIP 

use. This would require manufacturers to further lengthen assembly lines and even 

modify or move their entire facilities, driving the $2,419 million conversion cost estimate 

at this proposed level. As with TSL 4, at TSL 5 some manufacturers could elect to move 

production out of the U.S. to offset some of the addition product costs. At TSL 5, DOE 

estimates MPCs increase by approximately 58 percent compared to the base case. Similar 

to TSL 4, this substantially reduces shipments due to the price elasticity effect and 

exacerbates the industry impacts in both markup scenarios. 

As with other TSLs, the impact on INPV is mitigated under the flat markup 

scenario because manufacturers are able to fully pass on the large increase in MPC to 

consumers, thereby increasing manufacturers’ gross profit in absolute terms. However, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
277

even assuming manufacturers could earn the same gross margin percentage per unit on 

those higher costs, the capital and product conversion costs cause negative INPV impacts, 

as shown by the 26.15 percent decline in INPV in the flat markup scenario. This large 

impact even in the lower bound scenario demonstrates that the large conversion costs to 

redesign all existing platforms results in substantial harm even if manufacturers earn a 

historical margin on these additional costs. Due to the extremely large cost increases at 

the max-tech level, it is more unlikely at TSL 5 that manufacturers could fully pass 

through the increase production costs. If margins are impacted, TSL 5 would result in a 

substantial INPV loss under this scenario. 

 

ii. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for Standard-Size Freezers

Table V.25. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Standard-Size Freezers – Flat 

Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 403 378 292 308 344 300 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (24.9) (110.6) (94.5) (59.0) (102.4) 

(%) - -6.2% -27.5% -23.5% -14.6% -25.4%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 22 51 55 63 70 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 50 175 182 183 320 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 72 226 237 247 390 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
278

Table V.26. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Standard-Size Freezers – 

Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 403 345 217 202 184 37 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (57.3) (186.0) (201.1) (218.9) (365.1) 

(%) - -14.2% -46.2% -49.9% -54.4% -90.7%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 22 51 55 63 70 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 50 175 182 183 320 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 72 226 237 247 390 

TSL 1 represents a 20 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for the analyzed product class 9 (upright freezers with 

automatic defrost) and product class 10 (chest freezers and all other freezers except 

compact freezers). DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 1 to range from -$24.9 

million to -$57.3 million, or a change in INPV of -6.2 percent to -14.2 percent. At this 

proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 100.4 

percent to -$0.1 million, compared to the base-case value of $25.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

While products meeting TSL 1 are only currently produced in limited volumes, 

the changes in the manufacturing process would not require completely new platforms to 

meet the energy requirements at this TSL. For most standard-size freezer platforms, the 

design options DOE analyzed include the use of brushless DC evaporator fan motors and 

compressors with higher EERs. However, the design options to meet this efficiency level 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
279

also include increasing door insulation thickness for all analyzed products except the 20 

cubic foot product class 10 unit. Increasing door insulation thickness drives the majority 

of the conversion cost outlay DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at TSL 1. To 

increase door insulation thickness, manufacturers would need to purchase new equipment 

tooling equipment for their door assembly. DOE estimates that these changes would 

result in product conversion costs of $22 million and capital conversion costs of $50 

million at TSL 1. However, the conversion costs are somewhat mitigated at TSL 1 

because the design options analyzed would not change the production equipment for the 

cabinet. 

At TSL 1, variable costs increase by approximately 10 percent relative to base 

case MPCs. The flat markup scenario shows less severe impacts because it assumes 

manufacturers can pass on these substantially higher product costs and maintain gross 

margin percentages. Additionally, the reduction in shipments due to the price elasticity 

has only a marginally negative effect at this proposed level. The relatively large 

conversion costs decrease industry value under both markup scenarios and account for a 

substantial portion of the INPV impacts especially if manufacturers are not able to earn 

any additional profit on the higher production costs (the preservation of operating profit 

scenario).

TSL 2 represents a 30 percent reduction in measured energy consumption over the 

current energy conservation standards for product class 9 and 25 percent for product class 

10. TSL 2 also represents a 25 percent reduction in measured energy consumption for the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
280

unanalyzed product class 8 (upright freezers with manual defrost) and a 30 percent 

reduction for the analyzed product class 10A (chest freezers with automatic defrost). 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 2 to range from -$110.6 million to -$186.0 

million, or a change in INPV of -27.5 percent to -46.2 percent. At this proposed level, the 

industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately a factor of 3.2 to -$57.5 

million, compared to the base-case value of $25.7 million in the year leading up to the 

proposed energy conservation standards. 

The vast majority of the standard-size freezer market does not currently meet the 

efficiency requirements at TSL 2. DOE’s design options assume that, in addition to the 

component swaps noted above, manufacturers would increase the insulation thickness of 

both the door and cabinet. As a result, product redesigns are expected across most 

platforms, which could substantially disrupting current manufacturing processes. These 

changes account for the majority of DOE’s estimates for total product conversion costs of 

$51 million and capital conversion costs of $175 million, an increase over TSL 1 of $29 

million and $125 million, respectively. The magnitude of the investments, relative to the 

industry value, results in severe INPV impacts. Even if manufacturers are able to pass on 

the estimated 24 percent increase in product costs onto their customers, the large product 

and capital conversion costs resulting from increased insulation thickness decrease INPV. 

If manufacturers are not able to pass on these costs, as shown by the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, INPV impacts are projected to be severe.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
281

TSL 3 represents a 35 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 9 and a 30 percent reduction for product 

class 10. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 3 to range from -$94.5 million to -

$201.1 million, or a change in INPV of -23.5 percent to -49.9 percent. At this proposed 

level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by a factor of approximately 3.4 to -

$61.3 million, compared to the base-case value of $25.7 million in the year leading up to 

the proposed energy conservation standards. 

The efficiency requirements at TSL 3 are more stringent than the max available 

products in the market for product class 9 and product class 10. The impacts at TSL 3 are 

similar to those at TSL 2 because the design options analyzed by DOE already required 

platform redesigns at TSL 2. However, the additional design options analyzed at TSL 3 

also include a variable speed compressor in the 14-cubic foot product class 9 unit and 

VIPs in the bottom wall of the 20-cubic foot product class 10 unit. These design options 

substantially increase the variable costs associated with these products but do not greatly 

change the product and capital conversion costs. The average MPC of a standard-size 

freezer shipped at TSL 3 is estimated to be approximately 34 percent more expensive 

than in the base case, leading to a 9 percent decline in shipments due to the price 

elasticity assumption in 2014 alone. 

The impacts at TSL 3 under the flat markup scenario become less severe than at 

TSL 2 because the scenario assumes manufacturers can fully pass on the added cost to 

consumers, while investments do not significantly increase from TSL 2 to TSL 3. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
282

However, under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, manufacturers do 

not receive any extra profit on units of higher cost, resulting in worse INPV impacts at 

TSL 3 than at TSL 2. 

TSL 4 represents a 40 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 9 and a 35 percent reduction for product 

class 10. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 4 to range from -$59.0 million to -

$218.9 million, or a change in INPV of -14.6 percent to -54.4 percent. At this proposed 

level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by a factor of approximately 3.5 to -

$64.0 million, compared to the base-case value of $25.7 million in the year leading up to 

the proposed energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 4, the design options DOE analyzed include the addition of a variable 

speed compressor for the 20-cubic foot product class 9 unit, the 15-cubic foot product 

class 10 unit, and the 20-cubic foot product class 10 unit. For the 14 cubic foot product 

class 9 unit, the design options analyzed were even thicker wall cabinet insulation and the 

implementation of VIPs. 

The relative impacts at TSL 4 are also caused by the incremental MPCs compared 

to the conversion costs to implement these design options. Outlays for conversion costs 

increase only slightly at TSL 4 (by 4 percent, compared to TSL 3) while variable costs 

increase substantially (by approximately 50 percent compared to the baseline) due to the 

addition of variable speed compressors and VIPs. Because manufacturers earn 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
283

incrementally more profit on each unit at TSL 4 compared to TSL 3 in the flat markup 

scenario—without substantial changes to conversion costs—further declines in industry 

value, though still substantial, are mitigated in this scenario. However, manufacturers 

expressed skepticism that such large cost increases could be passed on. This view is 

reflected by the severely negative results in the preservation of operating profit scenario.

TSL 5 represents max tech for the standard-size freezer product classes. This TSL 

reflects a 44 percent reduction in measured energy use for product class 9 and a 41 

percent reduction for product class 10. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 5 to 

range from -$102.4 million to -$365.1 million, or a change in INPV of -25.4 percent to -

90.7 percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by a 

factor of approximately 5.7 to -$120.3 million, compared to the base-case value of $25.7 

million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

To achieve the max-tech level at TSL 5, DOE analyzed design options that 

include the widespread implementation of multiple VIPs on all standard-size freezers, in 

addition to the use of more efficient components and thicker insulation already necessary 

to achieve the efficiency requirements at TSL 4. DOE estimated that TSL 5 would 

require product and capital conversion costs of $70 million and $320 million, 

respectively. These large conversion costs result from the changes associated with 

multiple VIP implementation and wall thickness increases. In addition, DOE estimates 

that product costs would almost double base-case MPCs, driven by the use of variable 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
284

speed compressors and VIPs in the doors and cabinet of all product lines. As a result, 

INPV decreases substantially from TSL 4 to TSL 5.

iii. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for Compact Refrigeration Products 

 .Table V.27. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Compact Refrigeration Products – 

Flat Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 200 185 169 143 170 67 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (14.3) (30.8) (56.8) (29.6) (133.0) 

(%) - -7.2% -15.4% -28.4% -14.8% -66.6%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 15 35 41 48 67 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 24 46 76 71 220 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 39 80 118 119 287 

Table V.28. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Compact Refrigeration Products – 

Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 200 168 133 101 85 (96) 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (32.1) (66.7) (99.2) (114.4) (295.6) 

(%) - -16.1% -33.4% -49.6% -57.3% -148.0%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 15 35 41 48 67 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 24 46 76 71 220 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 39 80 118 119 287 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
285

TSL 1 represents a 20 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 11 (compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost) and a 10 percent reduction for product class 18 

(compact chest freezers). DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 1 to range from -

$14.3 million to -$32.1 million, or a change in INPV of -7.2 percent to -16.1 percent. At 

this proposed level, industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 112.9 

percent to -$1.5 million, compared to the base-case value of $11.9 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. A small percentage of product 

class 18 shipments currently meet this TSL, but most product class 11 shipments are 

baseline units. 

The design options analyzed by DOE at TSL 1 assumed that more significant 

changes in the manufacturing process would be required for product class 11, while 

product class 18 would only require increased compressor efficiency. For product class 

11, DOE analyzed several design options that represent component changes, such as a 

more efficient compressor and increased heat exchanger area, which do not have a 

significant impact on consumer prices or conversion costs. However, DOE also analyzed 

increasing door insulation thickness for product class 11, which drives the bulk of the 

estimated $15 million and $24 million outlays for product conversion and capital 

conversion costs, respectively. As described for standard-size refrigerator-freezers and 

standard-size freezers, increasing insulation thickness requires manufacturers to invest in 

injection molding equipment and other equipment for interior tooling to manufacturer 

products with different door dimensions. The overall impacts at TSL 1 are relatively 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
286

moderate because the conversion costs are still small compared to the industry value of 

$200 million. 

The higher production costs at TSL 1 do not have a substantial impact on INPV at 

TSL 1. The MPC of compact refrigeration products on a shipment-weighted basis 

increases 11 percent over the base case at TSL 1. The combined INPV impacts are 

greater under the preservation of operating profit scenario since manufacturers cannot 

pass on any of the added cost to consumers under that scenario, resulting in lower cash 

flows from operations. However, because production costs do not greatly increase at TSL 

1, the impacts on INPV are relatively low under this scenario as well. 

TSL 2 represents a 25 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 11 and a 10 percent reduction for product 

class 18. TSL 2 also represents a 15 percent reduction in measured energy consumption 

for the analyzed product classes 13 and 15, and a 20 percent reduction for the unanalyzed 

product class 14. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 2 to range from -$30.8 million 

to -$66.7 million, or a change in INPV of -15.4 percent to -33.4 percent. At this proposed 

level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 230.1 percent to -

$15.4 million, compared to the base-case value of $11.9 million in the year leading up to 

the proposed energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 2, further changes are required for product class 11. In addition to 

component swaps, the design options analyzed by DOE also include thicker cabinet 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
287

insulation. As discussed for TSL 1, increasing insulation thickness significantly impacts 

product and capital conversion costs, but much more so when adding insulation to the 

cabinet (as opposed to the door). To increase the insulation thickness of the cabinet, 

manufacturers must replace virtually all stamping equipment which greatly increases the 

capital conversion costs. Additionally, DOE analyzed the use of isobutane refrigerant as a 

design option for the 4-cubic foot product class 11 unit. At TSL 2, a substantial portion of 

the investment to reach TSL 2 would likely go towards training service technicians to 

handle the explosive refrigerant. As a result of thicker cabinet insulation and conversion 

to isobutane, product conversion and capital conversion costs roughly double at TSL 2 (to 

$35 million for product conversion costs and $46 million for capital conversion costs). 

The shipment-weighted MPC increased 22 percent at TSL 2 compared to baseline costs, 

which also contributed to the more severe impacts projected under the preservation of 

operation profit scenario if manufacturers do not earn additional profit on these higher 

costs. 

TSL 3 represents a 30 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 11 and a 15 percent reduction for product 

class 18. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 3 to range from -$56.8 million to -

$99.2 million, or a change in INPV of -28.4 percent to -49.6 percent. At this proposed 

level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by a factor of approximately 3.5 to -

$29.4 million, compared to the base-case value of $11.9 million in the year leading up to 

the proposed energy conservation standards. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
288

At TSL 3, the design options analyzed for both product class 18 units include 

thicker door insulation, which further increases the capital conversion costs over TSL 1 

and TSL 2, where this was not analyzed as a design option. The additional impacts at 

TSL 3 are also due to more stringent requirements for product class 11. A 30 percent 

reduction for product class 11 is greater than the most efficient units on the market today. 

For both analyzed sizes of product class 11, DOE analyzed the design option of thicker 

insulation in the cabinet for both units analyzed. The net effect is a large increase in 

conversion costs due to the much higher cost of the equipment necessary to manufacture 

the cabinet. At TSL 3, DOE estimated total product conversion costs of $41 million and 

capital conversion costs of $76 million, a 46 percent total increase in conversion costs 

over TSL 2. The effect of the design changes at TSL 3 on shipment-weighted unit cost is 

a 27 percent increase over the baseline MPC. The magnitude of the investments relative 

to the industry value leads to significant impacts, although they are moderated somewhat 

in the flat markup because manufacturers earn additional profit on the investments. 

 

TSL 4 represents a 40 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 11 and a 25 percent reduction for product 

class 18. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 4 to range from -$29.6 million to -

$114.4 million, or a change in INPV of -14.8 percent to -57.3 percent. At this proposed 

level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 344.1 percent to -

$29.0 million, compared to the base-case value of $11.9 million in the year leading up to 

the proposed energy conservation standards. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
289

The design options analyzed at TSL 4 would also severely disrupt current 

manufacturing processes. For the 1.7-cubic foot product class 11 unit, DOE analyzed a 

variable speed compressor and isobutane refrigerant as design options. For the 4 cubic 

foot product class 11 unit and the 7-cubic foot product class 18 unit, DOE analyzed 

thicker insulation in the cabinets. For 3.4-cubic foot product class 18 unit, DOE analyzed 

both an increase to cabinet insulation thickness and VIPs in the bottom wall as design 

options. Although increasing insulation thickness, converting to isobutane, and 

implementing VIPs all would necessitate large conversion costs, capital conversion costs 

decrease slightly from TSL 3 to TSL 4 because of the removal of all previous design 

options in the 1.7-cubic foot unit. In other words, the design options analyzed for this unit 

cause less substantial changes to existing production equipment, but would also require a 

large investment by manufacturers to train service technicians to deal with the explosive 

refrigerant. Because this would require a large outlay for product conversion costs, total 

conversion costs are roughly the same at TSL 3 and TSL 4. The addition of a variable 

speed compressor in the smaller product class 11 unit analyzed also has a substantial 

impact on unit price because of its high component cost. At TSL 4, the shipmentweighted MPC is 60 percent higher than the baseline MPC. These cost increases are 

projected to cause a 16 percent decrease in shipments at TSL 4 in 2014 alone. Over time, 

the decline in shipments is a big contributor to the negative impacts on INPV in both 

markup scenarios. 

The large conversion costs and higher prices leading to lower shipments cause a 

decrease in INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 4 under the preservation of operating profit markup 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
290

scenario (since this scenario assumes higher production costs are not passed on to 

consumers). However, under the flat markup scenario, manufacturers are able to earn 

additional profit on the new high-cost components such as variable speed compressors, 

resulting in an increase in INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 4. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for both product classes 11 and 18. The max-tech level 

corresponds to a 59 percent and 42 percent reduction in measured energy use for product 

class 11 and product class 18, respectively. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 5 to 

range from -$133.0 million to -$295.6 million, or a change in INPV of -66.6 percent to -

148.0 percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease 

approximately nine-fold to -$95.7 million, compared to the base-case value of $11.9 

million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

The design options DOE analyzed include the use of VIPs for all analyzed 

product class 11 and 18 units to reach max-tech efficiency levels. Additionally, the 

design options analyzed for some products also included other costly changes. For the 

1.7- cubic foot product class 11 unit, the design options analyzed included multiple VIPs, 

a larger heat exchanger, and thicker insulation. The design options analyzed for the 4-

cubic foot product class 11 unit also included a variable speed compressor and thicker 

insulation. For product class 18, DOE assumed that manufacturers would remove the 

design options necessary to meet TSLs 1 through 4 and add a variable speed compressor 

and thicker insulation for both analyzed products. These significant changes greatly 

increase the investment required to manufacture standards-compliant products. DOE 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
291

estimated that product conversion costs would be $67 million at TSL 5, an increase of 

almost 40 percent over TSL 4. DOE also estimated that capital conversion costs would be 

$220 million, a more than three-fold increase over TSL 4. This drastic increase in 

conversion costs demonstrates the significant investments required by implementing 

widespread use of VIPs and increasing wall thickness. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted MPC increases by over 150 percent over the 

baseline due to the high material costs of VIPs and variable speed compressors. These 

large jumps cause shipments to decrease by 42 percent due to the price elasticity in 2014 

alone. As a result of lower industry shipments and extremely high conversion costs, 

INPV decreases substantially from TSL 4 to TSL 5 and becomes negative under the 

preservation of operating profit scenario, which indicates the industry loses more than its 

base-case value in the standards case under this scenario. 

iv. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for Built-In Refrigeration Products 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
292

Table V.29. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Built-In Refrigeration Products – 

Flat Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 658 607 604 593 579 574 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (51.7) (54.7) (65.8) (79.7) (84.9) 

(%) - -7.9% -8.3% -10.0% -12.1% -12.9%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 41 51 65 75 87 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 40 38 55 74 84 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 81 89 119 149 171 

Table V.30. Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Built-In Refrigeration Products – 

Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2009$ 

millions) 658 606 601 578 555 538 

Change in 

INPV

(2009$ 

millions) - (52.9) (57.0) (80.5) (103.0) (120.3) 

(%) - -8.0% -8.7% -12.2% -15.6% -18.3%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 41 51 65 75 87 

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 40 38 55 74 84 

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2009$ 

millions) - 81 89 119 149 171 

TSL 1 represents a 10 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for product class 3A-BI (built-in all-refrigerators—

automatic defrost), product class 5-BI (built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker), product class 7-BI (builtEERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
293

in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service), and product class 9-BI (built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost 

without an automatic icemaker). DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 1 to range 

from -$51.7 million to -$52.9 million, or a change in INPV of -7.9 percent to -8.0 

percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 63.9 percent to $15.0 million, compared to the base-case value of $41.5 

million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 1, the design options that DOE analyzes result in moderate changes in the 

manufacturing process for built-in refrigeration products. For product classes 3A-BI and 

9-BI, the design options that DOE analyzed to reach TSL 1 included the use of more 

efficient components that do not require significant changes to the manufacturing 

process. However, for product class 5-BI and product class 7-BI, the design options DOE 

analyzed also include the use of VIPs in the freezer door. While these components add to 

the overall costs of production, the added costs represent a small percentage of the total 

cost of a built-in refrigeration product. These cost deltas are low compared to the overall 

cost of the products and result in small impacts even if no additional profit is earned on 

the incremental MPCs. The estimated product conversion costs for all built-in 

refrigeration products at TSL 1 are $41 million and the estimated capital conversion costs 

are $40 million. The implementation of VIPs represents a substantial part of the 

conversion costs, but several built-in refrigeration manufacturers have products that use 

similar technology, which helps to mitigate some of the product conversion costs that 

would be required to design products from the ground up. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
294

TSL 2 represents a 15 percent reduction in measured energy use for product class 

3A-BI and product class 5-BI. For product classes 7-BI and 9-BI, TSL 2 represents a 

reduction of 10 percent and 20 percent, respectively. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at 

TSL 2 to range from -$54.7 million to -$57.0 million, or a change in INPV of -8.3 

percent to -8.7 percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 68.0 percent to $13.3 million, compared to the base-case 

value of $41.5 million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation 

standards. 

The efficiency requirements for product class 7-BI refrigerator-freezers do not 

change from TSL 1 to TSL 2, but the efficiency requirements for all other analyzed builtin product classes increase. The design options that DOE analyzes at TSL 2 for product 

classes 3A-BI and 7-BI still only include component swaps to reach a 15 percent 

efficiency improvement. Product class 5-BI uses a variable speed compressor in the 

freezer with a brushless DC condenser fan motor, but no longer use the VIPs used to 

reach TSL 1. The design options analyzed for product class 9-BI include a brushless DC 

evaporator and condenser fan motor, a larger condenser, a variable speed compressor, 

and a VIP in the upper door. Because product class 5-BI no longer uses VIPs and fewer 

changes to existing products are necessary, the overall impact is a slight decrease in 

capital conversion costs from $40 million at TSL 1 to $38 million at TSL 2. Product 

conversion costs increase to $51 million at TSL 2 because additional engineering time 

would be required to implement the additional component changes. However, because 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
295

the complexity of the changes to the products and production facilities are similar at TSL 

1 and TSL 2, there is only a small decrease in INPV from TSL 1 to TSL 2. 

TSL 3 represents a 20 percent reduction in measured energy use for product class 

3A-BI and product class 7-BI. For product classes 5-BI and 9-BI, TSL 2 represents a 

reduction of 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at 

TSL 3 to range from -$65.8 million to -$80.5 million, or a change in INPV of -10.0 

percent to -12.2 percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 93.0 percent to $2.9 million, compared to the base-case value 

of $41.5 million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

The efficiency requirements for product class 5-BI do not change from TSL 2 to 

TSL 3. However, the design options for all other built-in refrigeration products at TSL 3 

include the implementation of VIPs. The widespread implementation of VIPs increases 

product and capital conversion costs, which are estimated to be $65 million and $55 

million at TSL 3, respectively. Substantial changes to existing production facilities would 

be required to manufacture products that meet the required efficiencies at TSL 3. Most of 

the capital conversion costs involve purchasing new production equipment and would 

result in high stranded assets. The extensive changes that manufacturers would be 

required to make to existing facilities and the projected erosion of profitability if the 

additional production cost of implementing VIPs does not yield additional profit result in 

a projected decrease in INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 4. However, the industry value is high 

relative to the required capital conversion costs and the cost of the additional VIP panels 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
296

is relatively small compared to the overall cost of the products, which helps to mitigate 

some of the negative impacts caused by these changes.

TSL 4 represents a 25 percent reduction in measured energy use over the current 

energy conservation standards for the following product classes: 3A-BI, 5-BI, and 9-BI. 

For product class 7-BI, TSL 4 represents a 20 percent reduction in measured energy use 

from current energy conservation standards. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 4 

to range from -$79.7 million to -$103.0 million, or a change in INPV of -12.1 percent to -

15.6 percent. At this proposed level, the industry cash flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 117.8 percent to -$7.4 million, compared to the base-case value of $41.5 

million in the year leading up to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

The efficiency requirements for product class 7-BI do not change from TSL 3 to 

TSL 4. The design options for the other built-in refrigeration products all include the 

addition of more VIPs to reach TSL 4. The design options analyzed for product classes 

3A-BI and 5-BI also include using a variable speed compressor. The complexity of 

implementing multiple component swaps and the additional production equipment 

necessary to use additional VIPs increases both the product and capital conversion costs. 

These costs are estimated to be $75 million and $74 million at TSL 4, respectively, and 

result in a decrease in INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 4. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for the four built-in product classes. This proposed 

level represents a reduction in measured energy use of 29 percent, 27 percent, 22 percent, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
297

and 27 percent, respectively, for product classes 3A-BI, 5-BI, 7-BI, and 9-BI. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 5 to range from -$84.9 million to -$120.3 million, or 

a change in INPV of -12.9 percent to -18.3 percent. At this proposed level, the industry 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 135.1 percent to -$14.6 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $41.5 million in the year leading up to the proposed 

energy conservation standards.

The design options analyzed by DOE include the widespread use of VIPs to 

achieve the max-tech efficiency levels at TSL 5. Additionally, product class 3A-BI uses 

multiple variable speed compressors. Since the implementation of VIPs is both research 

and capital intensive, product and capital conversion costs increase to $87 million and 

$84 million, respectively. The complexity of implementing multiple component swaps 

and the additional production equipment necessary to use additional VIPs increases both 

the product and capital costs. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on employment. DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic 

labor expenditures and number of domestic production workers in the base case and at 

each TSL from 2010 to 2043. DOE used statistical data from the most recent U.S. Census 

Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census, the results of the engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and domestic employment levels. Labor expenditures involved with the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
298

manufacture of the product are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. 

In each GRIM, DOE used the labor content of each product and the 

manufacturing production costs from the engineering analysis to estimate the annual 

labor expenditures in the residential refrigeration product industry. DOE used Census 

data and interviews with manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to U.S. (i.e., domestic) labor. 

The production worker estimates in this section only cover workers up to the linesupervisor level who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling a product within 

an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers performing services that 

are closely associated with production operations, such as material handing with a 

forklift, are also included as production labor. DOE’s estimates only account for 

production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by this rulemaking. 

For example, a worker on a wine cooler line would not be included with the estimate of 

the number of residential refrigeration workers. 

The employment impacts shown in Table V.31 through Table V.34 represent the 

potential production employment that could result following amended energy 

conservation standards. The upper end of the results in these tables estimates the 

maximum change in the number of production workers after amended energy 

conservation standards must be met. The upper end of the results assumes manufacturers 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
299

would continue to produce the same scope of covered products in the same production 

facilities. The upper end of the range also assumes that domestic production does not 

shift to lower-labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers 

evaluating sourcing decisions in response to amended energy conservation standards, the 

lower end of the range of employment results in Table V.31 through Table V.34 includes 

the estimated total number of U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose 

their jobs if all existing production were moved outside of the U.S. While the results 

present a range of employment impacts following the compliance date of amended 

energy conservation standards, the discussion below also includes a qualitative discussion 

of the likelihood of negative employment impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are independent of the employment impacts from the broader 

U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 13, Employment Impact Analysis, of the 

NOPR TSD. 

i. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Employment Impacts

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 8,517 domestic production workers involved in 

manufacturing standard-size refrigerator-freezers in 2014. Using 2007 Census Bureau

data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE estimates that approximately 42 percent of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers sold in the United States are manufactured 

domestically. Table V.31 shows the range of the impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the standard-size refrigeratorfreezer market.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
300

Table V.31. Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Standard-Size 

Refrigerator-Freezer Production Workers in 2014 

Trial Standard Level

Base Case 1 2 3 4 5

Total Number of Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 

(without changes in 

production locations)

8,517 8,300 8,258 8,309 8,236 8,088 

Potential Changes in 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014*

- (217) - 

(8,517) 

(259) -

(8,517) 

(208) -

(8,517) 

(281) -

(8,517) 

(429) -

(8,517) 

*DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative 

numbers. 

All examined TSLs show relatively minor impacts on domestic employment 

levels at the lower end of the range. Most of the design options used in the engineering 

analysis involve the swapping of components in baseline units with more efficient parts 

for top-mounted, side-by-side, and bottom-mounted refrigerator-freezers. These 

component swaps for these design options add primarily material costs and do not greatly 

impact the labor content of the baseline products. The relatively small decreases in 

domestic production employment for the lower end of the range of the employment 

impacts arise from higher product prices lowering shipments the year the standard 

becomes effective. At these higher TSLs, the effects of lower shipments more than offset 

the additional product labor that is required to manufacture products that use VIP panels. 

During interviews, manufacturers indicated that their domestic employment levels 

could be impacted under two scenarios: (1) the widespread adoption of VIPs or (2) 

significant capital conversion costs that would force them to consider non-domestic 

manufacturing locations once the compliance date for the amended energy conservation 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
301

standards arrive. The widespread adoption of VIPs would increase the labor content of 

today’s products. The labor content of products with VIPs increases because of the extra 

handling steps that would be required to ensure that VIPs are not damaged during 

production. Because of the competitive nature of the industry, manufacturers believed the 

extra labor costs could force them to move their remaining domestic production to 

Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper labor. 

Manufacturers also indicated that large conversion costs would likely force them 

to consider investing in lower-labor-cost countries. For most product categories, there is a 

range of efficiency levels that can be met with relatively low-cost components (as 

analyzed in the engineering analysis). Beyond these levels, manufacturers would need to 

decide to follow the MPC design options analyzed in the engineering analysis for each 

product category. Manufacturers indicated the analyzed design options that use multiple 

VIPs would involve significant capital conversion costs and add very large material costs 

to their products that would likely result in the relocation of their production facilities 

abroad. However, manufacturers indicated they would face even larger capital conversion 

costs at lower efficiencies if they redesigned their products with thicker walls. While not 

analyzed as a design option for standard-size refrigerator-freezers, increasing wall 

thickness would likely result in moving domestic production outside of the U.S. at lower 

efficiency levels. 

ii. Standard-Size Freezer Employment Impacts

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
302

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that, in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 1,904 standard-size freezer production workers in 

the U.S. in 2014. Using the 2007 Census data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 

estimates that approximately 80 percent of standard-size freezers sold in the United States 

are manufactured domestically. Table V.32 shows the impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the standard-size freezer market. 

Table V.32 Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Standard-Size 

Freezer Production Workers in 2014 

Trial Standard Level 

Base Case 1 2 3 4 5

Total Number of 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014 

(without changes in 

production locations)

1,904 1,850 1,781 1,734 1,634 1,508 

Potential Changes in 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014*

- (54) - 

(1,904) 

(123) - 

(1,904) 

(170) - 

(1,904) 

(270) - 

(1,904) 

(396) - 

(1,904) 

*DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative 

numbers. 

Similar to standard-size refrigerator-freezers, there are relatively small decreases 

in employment at the lower end of the range of employment impacts. These slight 

declines are caused by higher prices that drive lower shipments once manufacturers must 

meet the amended energy conservation standard. Standard-size freezer manufacturers 

also indicated that domestic production could be shifted abroad with any efficiency level 

that required large capital conversion costs. At TSL 1, DOE does not expect substantial 

changes to domestic employment in the standard-size freezer market if manufacturers use 

the design options listed in the engineering analysis to reach the efficiency requirements 

at this TSL. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
303

However, at TSL 2 through TSL 5, manufacturers indicated that there could be 

domestic employment impacts depending on the design pathway used to reach the 

required efficiencies. At TSL 2 and above, the engineering analysis assumes that 

manufacturers would have to use wall thickness changes to reach the required 

efficiencies. Manufacturers indicated that because these products are typically low-end, 

they would likely follow the design pathways in the engineering analysis and increase the 

wall insulation thickness to reach higher efficiencies in order to avoid having to pass 

large price increases on to consumers. While this would result in extremely large 

conversion costs and would more likely lead to manufacturers moving production abroad, 

manufacturers believed this strategy would help to maintain sales volumes. 

iii. Compact Refrigeration Product Employment Impacts 

DOE’s research suggests that a limited percentage of compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers are made domestically (see Table V.33). The overwhelming majority 

of products are imported. Manufacturers with domestic manufacturing facilities tend to 

source or import their compact products. The small employment numbers are mostly 

from remaining domestic production of compact chest freezers. As a result, amended 

energy conservation standards for compact refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers are 

unlikely to noticeably alter domestic employment levels. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
304

Table V.33 Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Compact 

Refrigeration Product Production Workers in 2014 

Trial Standard Level 

Base

Case 1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014 (without 

changes in production 

locations) 

31 30 29 29 28 46 

Potential Changes in 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014*

- (1) - (31) (2) - (31) (2) - (31) (3) - (31) 15 - (31)

*DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative 

numbers. 

iv. Built-In Refrigeration Product Employment Impacts

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that, in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 1,320 U.S. works manufacturing built-in 

refrigeration products in 2014. Using the 2007 Census data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that approximately 94 percent of the built-in refrigeration 

products sold in the United States are manufactured domestically. Table V.34 shows the 

impacts of amended energy conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the 

built-in refrigeration market. 

Table V.34 Potential Changes in the Total Number of Built-In Refrigeration 

Product Production Workers in 2014 

Trial Standard Level

Base 

Case 1 2 3 4 5

Total Number of 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014 (without 

changes in production 

locations)

1,320 1,320 1,319 1,327 1,331 1,357

Potential Changes in 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2014*

- 0 -

(1,320)

(1) - 

(1,320)

7 - 

(1,320)

11 - 

(1,320)

37 -

(1,320)

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
305

*DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative 

numbers. 

Employment in the built-in refrigeration market follows a pattern similar to that 

seen in the market for standard-size refrigerator-freezers and standard-size freezers at 

lower TSLs. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, higher prices result in fewer shipments, and a 

consequent reduction in labor expenditures that more than offsets the additional labor 

required to manufacture products with VIPs. However, at TSL 3 and above, the use of 

additional VIPs in built-in refrigeration products requires enough additional labor to 

cause a slight increase in the number of domestic production workers. Because built-in 

products are high-end products with far fewer shipments, it is less likely that 

manufacturers would chose to move all production facilities in response to amended 

energy conservation standards. The higher margins and profit earned in this market also 

make it more likely that manufacturers could earn a return on the investments required to 

reach the amended energy conservation standards and invest in existing facilities rather 

than move production abroad. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Manufacturers indicated that design changes involving thicker walls or multiple 

VIP panels would require substantial changes to their current manufacturing process. 

While these technologies would require the purchase of millions of dollars of production 

equipment, most manufacturers indicated they would likely be able to make the required 

changes in between the announcement of the final rule and compliance date of an 

amended energy conservation standard. For most product classes, the design changes and 

investments required by the proposed rule are similar in magnitude to the introduction of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
306

a new product line. Manufacturers have experience with the design options involving 

VIPs, but not at the scale that would be required if the proposed rule’s provisions are 

adopted. The primary capacity concern of manufacturers is the ability of their suppliers, 

particularly manufacturers of VIPs and more efficient compressors, to ramp up 

production in time to meet the amended energy conservation standard. DOE analyzed 

VIP supply issues in section IV.B.1.c. Issues associated with supply of compressors are 

discussed in section IV.B.1, above. 

 

d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers 

As discussed in section IV.I.1.c, using average cost assumptions to develop an 

industry cash-flow estimate is inadequate for assessing differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and 

manufacturers that exhibit a cost structure substantially different from the industry 

average could be affected disproportionately. For this rulemaking, DOE used the results 

of the industry characterization to identify any subgroups of refrigerator manufacturers 

that exhibit similar characteristics different from the industry as a whole. The only such 

subgroup DOE identified was built-in manufacturers.

However, as discussed previously, DOE is proposing to establish separate product 

classes for built-in products and is presenting separate analytical results for those 

products classes. Therefore, the MIA results DOE presents for those product classes 

already allow DOE to examine the MIA impacts on this potential manufacturer subgroup. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
307

Section V.B.2 presents a more detailed discussion of the results for built-in product 

classes.

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

 While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several impending regulations may have serious consequences 

for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 

to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial health. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can 

strain profits and can lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower 

expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an 

analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency.

 During previous stages of this rulemaking DOE identified a number of 

requirements with which manufacturers of these refrigeration products must comply and 

which take effect within three years of the anticipated effective date of the amended 

standards. The following section briefly addresses comments DOE received with respect 

to cumulative regulatory burden and summarizes other key related concerns 

manufacturers raised during interviews. 

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
308

Sub Zero stated that the cumulative regulatory burden is a serious concern for 

appliance manufacturers. Sub Zero recommended that DOE include the cost and burden 

of these upcoming requirements when assessing manufacturers’ capacity to meet 

proposed new standards. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 9) 

DOE notes that it routinely assesses the cumulative regulatory burden on 

manufacturers in its analysis and the results of this assessment are discussed in this 

section of today’s NOPR and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. The cumulative regulatory 

burden section of the TSD shows that manufacturers of residential refrigeration products 

also have significant market shares of other products will be affected by either ongoing or 

pending rulemakings that will establish amended energy conservation standards. These 

parallel rulemakings will likely require manufacturers to comply with amended standards 

within three years of the anticipated compliance date for residential refrigeration 

products. 

Part of this assessment included investigating and tracking what manufacturers 

expressed during interviews as one of the most critical potential elements of regulatory 

burden—the near-term possibility of changes to HFC availability. As stated in section 

IV.B.1.b, DOE is prepared to address this issue by evaluating the efficiency improvement 

and trial standard levels for products using alternative foam insulation materials, if 

legislation or some other legal requirements banning HFCs should be enacted or 

otherwise effective. A further complication that DOE tracked was the use of isobutane 

refrigerant as a design option. Isobutane could be used as an alternative refrigerant to the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
309

HFC-based refrigerants currently used by the industry. The current limit for an isobutane 

charge appears to be sufficient as a design option only for smaller products (see the 

discussion in section IV.B.1.a).

 

Several manufacturers also expressed concern during interviews about the overall 

volume of DOE energy conservation standards with which they must comply. Most 

refrigerator manufacturers also make a full range of appliances and share engineering and 

other resources with these other internal manufacturing divisions for different appliances 

(including certification testing for regulatory compliance). Many of these other 

appliances, such as kitchen ranges and ovens, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and 

microwave ovens, are also subject to recently amended or soon-to-be amended Federal 

energy conservation standards. Some of the test procedures for these other products are 

also currently being amended through ongoing rulemakings that would, if adopted, 

incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption measurements.46 Manufacturers 

were concerned that the other products facing amended or new energy conservation 

standards would compete for the same engineering and financial resources, especially if 

the proposed refrigeration product standards would cause manufacturers to build new 

production lines instead of repurposing existing ones. 

While DOE acknowledges that rulemakings for other covered products could 

affect the resources available to residential refrigeration manufacturers, DOE has not 

included manufacturers’ conversion costs related to complying with other rulemakings as 

 

46 The schedule for all DOE rulemakings can be found at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/schedule_setting.html. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
310

a cash outflow in the GRIM. This method is consistent with how DOE treats revenue 

generated from sales of those products. However, DOE addresses the residential 

refrigeration manufacturers’ conversion costs related to complying with other DOE 

rulemakings that have compliance dates falling within three years of the anticipated 

compliance date of this rulemaking in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE has quantified 

these other conversion costs where applicable and considered those costs in its decision 

to propose the levels presented in today’s rulemaking. 

Manufacturers also expressed concern about the increasing stringency of 

international energy efficiency standards and materials requirements. Specifically, 

changing energy standards in Canada and elsewhere abroad also increase the regulatory 

burden on manufacturers by duplicating testing requirements. Many manufacturers would 

prefer more global standardization and harmonization of standards and testing. Variations

among testing requirements often require that manufacturers refit or redesign test 

facilities so that tests tailored for specific testing requirements can be performed. The

resources expended on these refits or redesigns could have been used for new product 

development. Examples of European standards that create additional compliance costs for 

manufacturers that compete in Europe include the Restriction on the use of Hazardous 

Substances (RoHS), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and the 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

 

 DOE discusses these and other requirements, and includes the full details of the 

cumulative regulatory burden, in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
311

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

To estimate the national energy savings attributable to potential standards for 

refrigeration products, DOE compared the energy consumption of these products under 

the base case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. Tables V.35 

through V.38 present DOE’s forecasts of the national energy savings for each TSL, 

which were calculated using the approach described in section IV.G. Chapter 10 of the 

NOPR TSD presents tables that also show the magnitude of the energy savings if the 

savings are discounted at rates of seven and three percent. Discounted energy savings 

represent a policy perspective in which energy savings realized farther in the future are 

less significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term. 

Table V.35 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: Cumulative National Energy 

Savings in Quads

Trial Standard

Level

Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Product classes 1, 1A, 2, 3, 

3A, 3I and 6

Product classes 5, 5A, and 

5I

Product classes 4, 4I, 

and 7

1 1.62 0.09 0.54

2 1.62 0.09 0.88

3 2.07 0.09 0.88

4 2.49 0.45 1.20

5 2.90 0.65 1.39

Table V.36 Standard-Size Freezers: Cumulative National Energy Savings in Quads

Trial Standard

Level Upright Freezers Chest Freezers

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
312

Table V.37 Compact Refrigeration Products: Cumulative National Energy Savings 

in Quads

Trial Standard

Level

Compact Refrigerators Compact Freezers

Product classes 11, 11A, 12, 13, 

13A, 14, and 15 Product classes 16, 17, 18 

1 0.27 0.03

2 0.34 0.03

3 0.39 0.04

4 0.47 0.07

5 0.50 0.09

Table V.38 Built-In Refrigeration Products: Cumulative National Energy Savings in 

Quads

Trial Standard 

Level Built-in All 

Refrigerators 

Built-in BottomMount

RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Side-bySide RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Upright 

Freezers 

Product class 

3A-BI

Product classes 

5-BI and 5I-BI

Product classes

4-BI, 4I-BI and

7-BI

Product class

9-BI

1 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

2 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

3 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01

4 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01

5 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01

Product classes 8 and 9 Product classes 10 and 

10A 

1 0.43 0.28

2 0.66 0.36

3 0.77 0.43

4 0.86 0.49

5 0.89 0.56

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
313

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the Nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from particular standard levels for refrigeration products. 

In accordance with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, 

section E, September 17, 2003), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-

percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return on private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns on real estate and 

small business capital as well as corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to 

approximate the opportunity cost of capital in the private sector, since recent OMB 

analysis has found the average rate of return on capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the potential effects of standards on private 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices for products and the purchase of reduced 

amounts of energy). This rate represents the rate at which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present value. It can be approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus annual rate of change 

in the Consumer Price Index), which has averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for 

the last 30 years.

Tables V.39 V.46 show the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE 

considered for refrigeration products, using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount 

rate. In each case, the impacts cover the lifetime of products purchased in 2014-2043. See 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for more detailed NPV results.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
314

Table V.39 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Standard-Size 

Refrigerator-Freezers, 3-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard

Level

Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Product classes 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I and 6

Product classes 5, 5A, and 

5I

Product classes 4, 4I, and 

7

billion 2009 dollars

1 6.68 0.79 4.37

2 6.68 0.79 3.62

3 6.00 0.79 3.62

4 (1.95) (3.22) (2.35)

5 (14.63) (7.32) (7.38)

Table V.40 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Standard-Size 

Refrigerator-Freezers, 7-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard

Level

Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Bottom-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Side-by-Side 

Refrigerator-Freezers

Product classes 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I and 6

Product classes 5, 5A, and 

5I

Product classes 4, 4I, and 

7

billion 2009 dollars

1 0.85 0.27 1.42

2 0.85 0.27 0.46

3 (0.32) 0.27 0.46

4 (5.36) (2.43) (3.26)

5 (12.86) (4.95) (6.26)

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
315

Table V.41 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Standard-Size 

Freezers, 3-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard

Level

Upright Freezers Chest Freezers

Product classes 8 and 9 Product classes 10 and 10A

billion 2009 dollars

1 3.91 2.74

2 5.42 2.37

3 5.13 2.75

4 4.20 1.82

5 0.67 (0.16)

Table V.42 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Standard-Size 

Freezers, 7-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard

Level

Upright Freezers Chest Freezers

Product classes 8 and 9 Product classes 10 and 10A

1 

billion 2009 dollars

1.25 0.90

2 1.57 0.54

3 1.22 0.59

4 0.55 0.00

5 (1.42) (1.21)

Table V.43 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Compact 

Refrigeration Products, 3-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard

Level

Compact Refrigerators Compact Freezers

Product classes 11, 11A, 12, 13, 

13A, 14, and 15 Product classes 16, 17, 18 

1 

billion 2009 dollars

1.25 0.17

2 0.69 0.17

3 0.82 0.14

4 (0.64) (0.25)

5 (4.49) (0.96)

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
316

Table V.44 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Compact 

Refrigeration Products, 7-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard

Level

Compact Refrigerators Compact Freezers

Product classes 11, 11A, 12, 13, 

13A, 14, and 15 Product classes 16, 17, 18 

1 

billion 2009 dollars

0.50 0.07

2 0.18 0.07

3 0.22 0.04

4 (0.59) (0.19)

5 (2.68) (0.60)

Table V.45 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Built-In

Refrigeration Products, 3-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard 

Level

Built-in All 

Refrigerators 

Built-in BottomMount 

RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Side-bySide RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Upright 

Freezers 

Product class 

3A-BI

Product classes 

5-BI and 5I-BI

Product classes

4-BI, 4I-BI and

7-BI

Product class

9-BI

1 

billion 2009 dollars

0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04

2 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04

3 (0.01) 0.00 (0.43) (0.02)

4 (0.10) (0.36) (0.43) (0.02)

5 (0.17) (0.54) (0.83) (0.07)

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
317

Table V.46 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Built-In

Refrigeration Products, 7-Percent Discount Rate

Trial Standard 

Level

Built-in All 

Refrigerators 

(3A-BI)

Built-in BottomMount 

RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Side-bySide RefrigeratorFreezers

Built-in Upright 

Freezers (9-BI)

Product class 

3A-BI

Product classes 

5-BI and 5I-BI

Product classes

4-BI, 4I-BI and

7-BI

Product class

9-BI

billion 2009 dollars

1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

2 0.02 (0.00) 0.01 0.00

3 (0.02) (0.00) (0.28) (0.03)

4 (0.07) (0.21) (0.28) (0.03)

5 (0.11) (0.32) (0.51) (0.06)

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of potential 

standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE expects amended energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration products to reduce energy bills for consumers 

and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic activity. These 

expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.J, above, to estimate these effects DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy. Table V.47 presents the estimated net indirect employment 

impacts in 2020 and 2043 for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. Chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD presents more detailed results. 

Table V.47 Net Increase in Jobs from Indirect Employment Effects Under 

Refrigeration Product TSLs 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

thousands

 2020 1.30 1.07 0.74 -2.87 -7.16 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
318

 2043 10.99 12.05 13.49 12.95 10.34

Standard-Size Freezers

 2020 

 2043 

0.72 

4.34 

0.69 

5.79 

0.69 

5.79 

0.18 

6.77 

-0.97 

5.80 

Compact Refrigeration Products

 2020 

 2043 

0.46 

1.24 

0.43 

1.26 

0.49 

1.44 

0.29 

1.21 

-0.45 

0.14 

Built-In Refrigeration Products

 2020 

 2043 

0.02 

0.10 

0.01 

0.13 

-0.10 

0.08 

-0.18 

0.01 

-0.31 

-0.13 

 The input/output model suggests that today’s proposed standards are likely to 

increase the net demand for labor in the economy. However, the model suggests that the 

projected gains are very small relative to total national employment (currently 

approximately 120 million). Moreover, neither the BLS data nor the input/output model 

DOE uses includes the quality or wage level of the jobs. Therefore, because the analysis 

indicates an increased demand for labor would likely result from the amended energy 

conservation standards under consideration in this rulemaking, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the proposed standards are likely to produce employment benefits 

sufficient to offset fully any adverse impacts on employment in the manufacturing 

industry for the refrigeration products that are the subject of this rulemaking.

 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 

 As presented in section III.D.1.d of this notice, DOE concluded that none of the 

TSLs considered in this notice would substantially reduce the utility or performance of 

the products under consideration in this rulemaking. However, manufacturers may reduce 

the availability of features that increase energy use, such as multiple drawers. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
319

Manufacturers currently offer refrigeration products that meet or exceed the proposed 

standards for most of the product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

 DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

amended standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening 

of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such 

determination to the Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such 

impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

To assist the Attorney General in making such determination, DOE has provided 

DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ’s 

comments on the proposed rule in preparing the final rule, and DOE will publish and 

respond to DOJ’s comments in that document. 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

 An improvement in the energy efficiency of the products subject to today’s rule is 

likely to improve the security of the Nation’s energy system by reducing overall demand 

for energy. Reduced electricity demand may also improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced demand, V.48 presents the estimated 

reduction in generating capacity in 2043 for the TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
320

Table V.48 Reduction in Electric Generating Capacity in 2043 Under Refrigeration 

Product TSLs

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Gigawatts

2.28 2.63 3.10 4.23 5.07

Standard-Size Freezers 0.740 0.740 1.25 1.42 1.53

Compact Refrigeration Products 0.271 0.324 0.383 0.475 0.506

Built-In Refrigeration Products 0.019 0.027 0.054 0.067 0.080

DOE used NEMS-BT to assess the impacts on electricity prices of the reduced 

need for new electric power plants and infrastructure projected to result from standards. 

The projected impacts on prices, and their value to electricity consumers, are presented in 

chapter 14 and chapter 10, respectively, of the NOPR TSD. Although the aggregate 

benefits for all electricity users are potentially large, there may be negative effects on the 

actors involved in electricity supply. Because there is uncertainty about the extent to 

which the calculated impacts from reduced electricity prices would be a transfer from the 

actors involved in electricity supply to electricity consumers, DOE has concluded that, at 

present, it should not assign a heavy weight to this factor in considering the economic 

justification of standards on refrigeration products. 

 Energy savings from amended standards for refrigeration products could also 

produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table V.49 provides DOE’s 

estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions projected to result from 

the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
321

As discussed in sect IV.M, DOE did not report SO2 emissions reductions from 

power plants because there is uncertainty about the effect of energy conservation 

standards on the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United States due to SO2 emissions 

caps. DOE also did not include NOX emissions reduction from power plants in States 

subject to CAIR because an energy conservation standard would not affect the overall 

level of NOX emissions in those States due to the emissions caps mandated by CAIR. 

Table V.49 Summary of Emissions Reduction Estimated for Refrigeration Product

TSLs (cumulative for 2014 through 2043) 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

 CO2 (Mt)

 NOX (kt)

 Hg (t)

154 

124 

0.79 

177 

142 

0.91 

208 

168 

1.07 

283 

228 

1.45 

338 

272 

1.73 

Standard-Size Freezers

 CO2 (Mt)

 NOX (kt)

 Hg (t)

48 

39 

0.24 

69 

55 

0.34 

81 

65 

0.41 

92 

74 

0.47 

99 

79 

0.50 

Compact Refrigeration Products

 CO2 (Mt)

 NOX (kt)

 Hg (t)

20 

16 

0.10 

24 

19 

0.12 

28 

23 

0.15 

35 

28 

0.19 

39 

31 

0.21 

Built-In Refrigeration Products

 CO2 (Mt)

 NOX (kt)

 Hg (t)

1.23 

0.99 

0.01 

1.79 

1.44 

0.01 

3.58 

2.88 

0.02 

4.45 

3.58 

0.02 

5.32 

4.28 

0.03 

As part the analysis for this proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for each 

of the TSLs considered. As discussed in section IV.M, DOE used values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. The four values for CO2 emissions reductions 

resulting from that process (expressed in 2007$) are $4.7/ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 5-percent discount rate), $21.4/ton (the average value from a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
322

distribution that uses a 3-percent discount rate), $35.1/ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and $64.9/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent discount rate). These values correspond to the 

value of emission reductions in 2010; the values for later years are higher due to 

increasing damages as the magnitude of climate change increases. 

Table V.50 Table V.53 present the global values of CO2 emissions 

reductions at each TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a present value of the 

stream of annual values using the same discount rate as was used in the studies upon 

which the dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, and these results are presented in Table 

V.54 V.57. 

Table V.50 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: Estimates of Global Present Value 

of CO2 Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

Million 2009$

5% discount 

rate, 

average*

3% discount 

rate, 

average*

2.5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile*

1 526 2,696 4,570 8,223

2 605 3,104 5,261 9,465

3 713 3,653 6,192 11,140

4 970 4,975 8,432 15,170

5 1,160 5,947 10,080 18,135

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
323

Table V.51 Standard-Size Freezers: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2

Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels

TSL

5% discount 

rate, 

average*

Million 2009$

3% discount 

rate, 

average*

2.5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile*

1 164 840 1,425 2,562

2 234 1,205 2,043 3,673

3 277 1,421 2,409 4,332

4 314 1,615 2,738 4,923

5 337 1,733 2,938 5,283

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

Table V.52 Compact Refrigeration Products: Estimates of Global Present Value of 

CO2 Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

5% discount 

rate, 

average*

Million 2009$

3% discount 

rate, 

average*

2.5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile*

1 65 333 564 1,015

2 78 400 678 1,220

3 93 475 804 1,448

4 117 598 1,013 1,823

5 130 665 1,126 2,029

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
324

Table V.53 Built-In Refrigeration Products: Estimates of Global Present Value of 

CO2 Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

5% discount 

rate, 

average*

Million 2009$

3% discount 

rate, 

average*

2.5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile*

1 4 22 37 66

2 6 31 53 96

3 12 63 106 191

4 15 78 132 238

5 18 93 158 284

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

Table V.54 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: Estimates of Domestic Present 

Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

Million 2009$

5% discount 

rate, average**

*

3% discount 

rate, average**

2.5% discount 

rate, average**

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile**

1 37 to 121 189 to 620 320 to 1,051 576 to 1,891

2 42 to 139 217 to 714 368 to 1,210 663 to 2,177

3 50 to 164 256 to 840 433 to 1,424 780 to 2,562

4 68 to 223 348 to 1,144 590 to 1,939 1,062 to 3,489

5 81 to 267 416 to 1,368 706 to 2,318 1,269 to 4,171

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values.

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
325

Table V.55 Standard-Size Freezers: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO2

Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

Million 2009$

5% discount 

rate, average**

*

3% discount 

rate, average**

2.5% discount 

rate, average**

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile**

1 11 to 38 59 to 193 100 to 328 179 to 589

2 16 to 54 84 to 277 143 to 470 257 to 845

3 19 to 64 99 to 327 169 to 554 303 to 996

4 22 to 72 113 to 371 192 to 630 345 to 1,132

5 24 to 78 121 to 398 206 to 676 370 to 1,215

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values.

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

Table V.56 Compact Refrigeration Products: Estimates of Domestic Present Value 

of CO2 Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

Million 2009$

5% discount 

rate, average**

*

3% discount 

rate, average**

2.5% discount 

rate, average**

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile**

1 5 to 15 23 to 77 39 to 130 71 to 233

2 5 to 18 28 to 92 47 to 156 85 to 281

3 6 to 21 33 to 109 56 to 185 101 to 333

4 8 to 27 42 to 137 71 to 233 128 to 419

5 9 to 30 47 to 153 79 to 259 142 to 467

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values.

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
326

Table V.57 Built-In Refrigeration Products: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of 

CO2 Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels 

TSL

Million 2009$

5% discount 

rate, average**

*

3% discount 

rate, average**

2.5% discount 

rate, average**

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile**

1 0 to 1 2 to 5 3 to 8 5 to 15

2 0 to 1 2 to 7 4 to 12 7 to 22

3 1 to 3 4 to 14 7 to 24 13 to 43

4 1 to 4 5 to 18 9 to 30 17 to 55

5 1 to 4 7 to 21 11 to 36 20 to 65

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values.

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ 

to 2009$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice, and incorporate the escalation of the 

SCC over time.

DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution 

of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value 

placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is subject to change. DOE, together 

with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review 

will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this and 

other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 

with this particular issue, DOE has included in this NOPR the most recent values and 

analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic 

benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions anticipated to result from amended 

standards for refrigeration products. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
327

discussed in section IV.M. Table V.58 presents the cumulative present values for each 

TSL calculated using seven-percent and three-percent discount rates. 

Table V.58 Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 

Under Refrigeration Product Trial Standard Levels 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Standard-Size RefrigeratorFreezers 

million 2009$

 Using 7% discount rate 

 Using 3% discount rate 

11 to 117 

27 to 278 

13 to 135 

31 to 320 

15 to 159 

37 to 376 

21 to 217 

50 to 513 

25 to 260 

60 to 614 

Standard-Size Freezers

 Using 7% discount rate 

 Using 3% discount rate 

3.5 to 36 

8.4 to 86 

5.0 to 52 

12 to 123 

5.9 to 61 

14 to 146 

6.8 to 69 

16 to 166 

7.3 to 75 

17 to 178 

Compact Refrigeration Products

 Using 7% discount rate 

 Using 3% discount rate 

1.3 to 13 

3.3 to 33 

1.5 to 16

3.9 to 40 

1.8 to 19

4.7 to 48 

2.3 to 24 

5.9 to 60 

2.7 to 28 

6.6 to 68

Built-In Refrigeration Products

 Using 7% discount rate 

 Using 3% discount rate 

0.1 to 0.9 

0.2 to 2.2 

0.1 to 1.4 

0.3 to 3.2 

0.3 to 2.7 

0.6 to 6.5 

0.3 to 3.4 

0.8 to 8.0 

0.4 to 4.0 

0.9 to 9.6 

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be 

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. Table V.59 shows an example of the calculation of the 

combined NPV including benefits from emissions reductions for the case of TSL 3 for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers. Table V.60 and Table V.61 present the NPV values 

that would result if DOE were to add the estimates of the potential economic benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 and NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the 

NPV of consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both 

a seven-percent and three-percent discount rate. The CO2 values used in the columns of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
328

each table correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2 emission reductions 

presented in section IV.M. 

Table V.59 Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present Value of 

Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions at TSL 3 for 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Category Present Value Discount 

billion 2009$ Rate

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 13.62 7% 

34.75 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

(at $4.7/Metric Ton)* 0.713 5% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

(at $21.4/Metric Ton)* 3.65 3% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value

(at $35.1/Metric Ton)* 6.19 2.5% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

(at $64.9/Metric Ton)* 11.14 3% 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value 

(at $2,519/Ton)* 

0.087 7%

0.206 3% 

Total Monetary Benefits ** 

17.36 7% 

38.61 3% 

Costs

Total Incremental Installed Costs 13.21 7%

24.35 3%

Net Benefits/Costs

Including CO2 and NOX** 4.15 7%

14.26 3%

* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several 

scenarios. The values of $4.7, $21.4, and $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated 

using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.9 per ton represents the 95th

percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. See section IV.M for details. The 

value for NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2

emissions calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2007$).

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
329

Table V.60 Estimates of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7% 

Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX

Emissions Reductions at Trial Standard Levels for Refrigeration Products

TSL

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$4.7/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for 

NOX**

SCC Value of 

$21.4/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2009$

SCC Value of 

$35.1/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2009$

SCC Value of 

$64.9/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX**

billion 2009$

1

billion 2009$

6.07 9.28 11.98 17.33

2 5.03 8.94 12.24 18.75 

3 3.27 7.90 11.81 19.52

4 (10.43) (4.43) 0.62 10.60

5 (29.30) (22.33) (16.47) (4.86)

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2007$. Their present values have been 

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of 

these values.

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per 

ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions.

Table V.61 Estimates of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3% 

Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX

Emissions Reductions at Trial Standard Levels for Refrigeration Products

TSL

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$4.7/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for 

NOX**

SCC Value of 

$21.4/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2009$

SCC Value of 

$35.1/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2009$

SCC Value of 

$64.9/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX**

billion 2009$

1 

billion 2009$

20.82 24.14 26.85 32.30 

2 21.04 25.09 28.39 35.04

3 19.93 24.72 28.62 36.49

4 (1.80) 4.40 9.45 19.65

5 (34.16) (26.96) (21.09) (9.25) 

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2007$. Their present values have been 

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of 

these values.

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per 

ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions.

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
330

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission 

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a 

result of market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed 

with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of refrigeration products shipped in 

2014–2043. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future 

climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each 

year. These impacts go well beyond 2100. 

7. Other Factors

The Secretary, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may 

consider any other factors that he deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) 

DOE is aware of pending legislation that proposes to phase out substances with 

significant GWP and that HFCs are included in the list of substances to be phased out. 

DOE recognizes the significance that such legislation would have to the refrigeration 

products industry and the impact it would have on the ability of manufacturers to meet 

energy conservation standards. Given the uncertainty regarding such legislation, 

however, DOE did not factor the impact of potential HFC limitations in developing the 

proposed levels presented in today’s NOPR. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
331

C.

 When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 

determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, 

in light of the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

The new or amended standard must also “result in significant conservation of energy.” 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Proposed Standards

 For today’s NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of standards at each trial 

standard level, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine 

whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not 

justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 

evaluation until it reached the most efficient level that is both technologically feasible 

and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy. 

For ease of presentation, DOE separately discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 

each trial standard level for standard-size refrigerator-freezers, standard-size freezers, 

compact refrigeration products, and built-in refrigeration products. To aid the reader as 

DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each trial standard level, tables present a 

summary of the results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for each TSL. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
332

 In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers 

other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1 presents the 

estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.

 DOE notes that the proposed standards set forth in the Joint Comments were also 

carefully considered by the agency. These suggested standards, along with the comments 

from all interested parties and the agency’s analytical work developed in preparation of 

today’s NOPR, were considered during the development of the standards being proposed 

today. DOE is giving serious consideration to these suggested standards as well as 

alternative standards that differ from them. As with other aspects of this proposal, the 

agency solicits comments from interested parties on these proposed standards as well as 

any other issues commenters believe merit consideration.

DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion 

of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of 

government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers 

appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that 

regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
333

(2) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases (e.g. an 

inefficient ventilation fan in a new building or the delayed replacement of a water pump), 

(3) inconsistent (e.g. excessive short-term) weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other investments, (4) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (5) a divergence in incentives 

(e.g. renter versus owner; builder v. purchaser). Other literature indicates that with less 

than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may 

trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate between current 

consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings. While DOE is not prepared at 

present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework for this discussion at this time, DOE 

seeks comments on how to assess these possibilities. 

1. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

Table V.62 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for standard-size refrigerator-freezers. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
334

Table V.62 Summary of Results for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

National Energy Savings (quads) 2.25 2.59 3.05 4.14 4.94

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion)

3% discount rate 11.83 11.08 10.40 (7.51) (29.33)

7% discount rate 2.53 1.58 0.41 (11.05) (24.08)

Industry Impacts

Standard-Size Refrigerator Freezers

Industry NPV (2009$ million) (84.8) to 

(301.7)

(175.9) to

(459.8)

(287.5) to 

(662.1)

(643.0) to

(1,496.8)

(828.9) to

(2,154.7)

Industry NPV (% change) (2.7) to 

(9.5)

(5.5) to

(14.5)

(9.1) to

(20.9)

(20.3) to

(47.2)

(26.1) to

(67.9)

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO2 (Mt) 154 177 208 283 338

NOX (kt) 124 142 168 228 272

Hg (t) 0.79 0.91 1.07 1.45 1.73

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

 CO2 (2009$ billion)* 0.53 to 

8.22

0.61 to 

9.47

0.71 to 

11.14

0.97 to 

15.17

1.16 to 

18.14

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2009$ million) 27 to 278 31 to 320 37 to 376 50 to 513 60 to 614

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2009$ million) 11 to 117 13 to 135 15 to 159 21 to 217 25 to 260

Mean LCC Savings** (2009$)

 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 29 29 22 (37) (133)

 Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 19 19 19 (79) (180)

 Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers 53 37 37 (55) (134)

Median PBP (years)

 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 9.2 9.2 10.9 15.4 20.5

 Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 4.9 4.9 4.9 24.8 29.0

 Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers 4.8 10.9 10.9 18.6 22.6

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

Net Cost (%) 42.3 42.3 54.9 73.8 85.4

No Impact (%) 8.1 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 49.6 49.6 45.1 26.2 14.6

 Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

Net Cost (%) 4.5 4.5 4.5 88.2 93.3

No Impact (%) 67.8 67.8 67.8 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 27.7 27.7 27.7 11.8 6.7

 Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers

Net Cost (%) 7.3 50.8 50.8 77.7 86.2

No Impact (%) 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 55.8 49.2 49.2 22.3 13.9

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)

† 2.28 2.63 3.10 4.23 5.07

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 (thousands)

(0.22) to 

(8.52)

(0.26) to 

(8.52)

(0.21) to 

(8.52)

(0.28) to 

(8.52)

(0.43) to 

(8.52)

 Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † 10.99 12.05 13.49 12.95 10.34

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
335

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

emissions.

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.

† Changes in 2043.

DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 would save 4.94 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under 

TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$24.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and -$29.33 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 338 Mt of CO2, 272 kt of NOX, 

and 1.73 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $1.16 billion to $18.14 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 5.07 GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $133 for topmount refrigerator-freezers, a cost of $180 for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and a 

cost of $134 for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The median payback period is 21 years 

for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 29 years for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

23 years for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 15 percent for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 7 percent for bottommount refrigerator-freezers, and 14 percent for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 85 percent for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers, 93 percent for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 86 percent for side-byside refrigerator-freezers.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
336

At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $828.9 million 

to a decrease of $2,154.7 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are 

realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 68 percent in INPV to standard-size refrigerator-freezer 

manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very large 

reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively 

concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 4.14 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$11.05 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$7.51 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 283 Mt of CO2, 228 kt of NOX, 

and 1.45 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
337

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $0.97 billion to $15.17 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 4.23 GW under TSL 4.

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of 

$37 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, a cost of $79 for bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers, and a cost of $55 for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The median payback 

period is 15 years for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 25 years for bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, and 19 years for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 26 percent for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 

12 percent for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 22 percent for side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 74 percent 

for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 88 percent for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 

and 78 percent for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers.

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $643.0 million 

to a decrease of $1,496.8 million. DOE recognizes the risk of large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high 

end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 

47 percent in INPV to standard-size refrigerator-freezer manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, and emission 

reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
338

outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a substantial 

reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively 

concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 3.05 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.41 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $10.40 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 208 Mt of CO2, 168 kt of NOX, 

and 1.07 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.71 billion to $11.14 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 3.10 GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of $22 for topmount refrigerator-freezers, a gain of $19 for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and a 

gain of $37 for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The median payback period is 11 years 

for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 5 years for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

11 years for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 45 percent for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, 28 percent for bottommount refrigerator-freezers, and 49 percent for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
339

fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 55 percent for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers, 5 percent for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 51 percent for side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $287.5 million 

to a decrease of $662.1 million. DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high 

end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 

21 percent in INPV to standard-size refrigerator-freezer manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 

emissions reductions outweigh the economic burden on a significant fraction of 

consumers due to the increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. In 

addition to the aforementioned benefits of the proposed standards, DOE notes that the 

efficiency levels in TSL 3 correspond to the recommended levels in the Joint Comments.

After considering the analysis, comments to the November 2009 notice and the 

preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 3, the Secretary tentatively 

concludes that this trial standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
340

significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 3 for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers. The proposed amended energy conservation standards 

for standard-size refrigerator-freezers, expressed as equations for maximum energy use, 

are shown in Table V.63. 

Table V.63 Proposed Standards for Standard-Size Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers

Product Class

Equations for Maximum Energy 

Use (kWh/yr)

based on AV (ft3) based on av (L)

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost.

7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost. 6.79AV + 193.6 0.240av + 193.6

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.

8.04AV + 232.7 0.284av + 232.7

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.04AV + 316.7 0.284av + 316.7

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 7.07AV + 201.6 0.250av + 201.6

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.

8.48AV + 296.5 0.299av + 296.5

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.48AV + 380.5 0.299av + 380.5 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.80AV + 315.4 0.311av + 315.4 

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.80AV + 399.4 0.311av + 399.4 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 9.15AV + 471.3 0.323av + 471.3 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 8.36AV + 384.1 0.295av + 384.1 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 8.50AV + 431.1 0.300av + 431.1 

AV= adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
341

2. Standard-Size Freezers

V.64 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for standard-size freezers. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described 

in section V.A. 

Table V.64 Summary of Results for Standard-Size Freezers

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

National Energy Savings (quads) 0.71 1.01 1.19 1.35 1.45

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion)

3% discount rate 6.64 7.78 7.87 6.02 0.51

7% discount rate 2.14 2.12 1.81 0.55 (2.63)

Industry Impacts

Standard-Size Freezers 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) (24.9) to

(57.3)

(110.6) to

(186.0)

(94.5) to

(201.1)

(59.0) to

(218.9)

(102.4) to

(365.1)

Industry NPV (% change) (6.2) to

(14.2) 

(27.5) to

(46.2) 

(23.5) to

(49.9) 

(14.6.) to

(54.4) 

(25.4) to 

(90.7) 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO2 (Mt) 48 69 81 92 99

NOX (kt) 39 55 65 74 79

Hg (t) 0.24 0.34 0.41 0.47 0.50

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

 CO2 (2009$ billion)* 0.16 to 

2.56

0.23 to 

3.67

0.27 to 

4.33

0.31 to 

4.92

0.33 to 

5.28

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2009$ million) 8.4 to 86 12 to 123 14 to 143 16 to 166 17 to 178

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2009$ million) 3.5 to 36 5.0 to52 5.9 to 61 6.8 to 69 7.3 to 75

Mean LCC Savings** (2009$)

Upright Freezers 111 148 130 87 (63)

Chest Freezers 70 50 56 17 (71)

Median PBP (years)

Upright Freezers 4.8 6.2 8.4 11.0 17.4

Chest Freezers 4.2 8.7 9.1 13.1 19.3

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Upright Freezers 

Net Cost (%) 11.7 18.7 30.8 45.0 70.2

No Impact (%) 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 87.8 81.1 69.2 55.0 29.8

Chest Freezers

Net Cost (%) 1.6 25.8 28.3 53.5 79.0

No Impact (%) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 98.2 74.0 71.5 46.5 21.0

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
342

 

 DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 would save 1.45 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under 

TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$2.63 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $0.51 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 99 Mt of CO2, 79 kt of NOX, 

and 0.50 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $0.33 billion to $5.28 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.53 GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $63 for upright 

freezers, and a cost of $71 for chest freezers. The median payback period is 17 years for 

upright freezers and 19 years for chest freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 30 percent for upright freezers and 21 percent for chest freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 70 percent for upright freezers and 79 

percent for chest freezers.

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)

† 0.74 0.74 1.25 1.42 1.53

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 (thousands)

(0.05) to 

(1.90)

(0.12) to 

(1.90)

(0.17) to 

(1.90)

(0.27) to 

(1.90)

(0.40) to 

(1.90)

 Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † 4.34 5.79 5.79 6.77 5.80

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.

† Changes in 2043. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
343

At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $102.4 million 

to a decrease of $365.1 million. DOE recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. Standards at 

TSL 5 would require efficiency levels that are far higher than the most efficient products 

currently available on the market. Manufacturing products to meet standards at TSL 5 

would require large investments in product redesign and conversion of facilities. Because 

standard-size freezers are currently low-cost, low-margin products, there is a limited 

ability to pass on to consumers the required conversion costs and added product costs 

associated with efficiency-improving technologies for freezers. If the high end of the 

range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net loss of 91 

percent in INPV to standard-size freezer manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions

reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on a significant fraction of 

consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts that could result in a very large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified.

 DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 1.35 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.55 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
344

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $6.02 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 92 Mt of CO2, 74 kt of NOX, 

and 0.47 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $0.31 billion to $4.92 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.42 GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of $87 for 

upright freezers and a gain of $17 for chest freezers. The median payback period is 11 

years for upright freezers and 13 years for chest freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 55 percent for upright freezers and 47 percent for chest 

freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 45 percent for upright 

freezers and 54 percent for chest freezers.

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $59.0 million

to a decrease of $218.9 million. DOE recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. Standards at 

TSL 4 would require efficiency levels that are substantially higher than the most efficient 

products currently available on the market. Manufacturing products to meet standards at 

TSL 4 would require large investments in product redesign and conversion of facilities. 

Because standard-size freezers are currently low-cost, low-margin products, there is a 

limited ability to pass on to consumers the required conversion costs and added product 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
345

costs associated with efficiency-improving technologies for freezers. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 54 

percent in INPV to standard-size freezer manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 

emissions reductions, and the economic benefit on a significant fraction of upright freezer 

consumers would be outweighed by the economic burden on a significant fraction of 

chest freezer consumers due to the increase in product cost, and the large capital 

conversion costs and margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. 

 DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 1.19 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $1.81 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.87 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 81 Mt of CO2, 65kt of NOX, 

and 0.41 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.27 billion to $4.33 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.25 GW under TSL 3. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
346

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of $130 for 

upright freezers and a gain of $56 for chest freezers. The median payback period is 8 

years for upright freezers and 9 years for chest freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 69 percent for upright freezers and 72 percent for chest 

freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 31 percent for upright 

freezers and 28 percent for chest freezers.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $94.5 million 

to a decrease of $201.1 million. DOE recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. Standards at 

TSL 3 would require efficiency levels that are substantially higher than the most efficient 

products currently available on the market. Similar to the case of TSL 4, manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 3 would require large investments in product redesign 

and conversion of facilities. Because standard-size freezers are currently low-cost, lowmargin products, there is a limited ability to pass on to consumers the required 

conversion costs and added product costs associated with efficiency-improving 

technologies for freezers. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 50 percent in INPV to standard-size freezer 

manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
347

emissions reductions, and the economic benefit for a significant fraction of freezer 

consumers would be outweighed by the large capital conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. 

 DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 1.01 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $2.12 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.78 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 69 Mt of CO2, 55kt of NOX, 

and 0.34 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.23 billion to $3.67 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.74 GW under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of $148 for 

upright freezers and a gain of $50 for chest freezers. The median payback period is 6 

years for upright freezers and 9 years for chest freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 81 percent for upright freezers and 74 percent for chest 

freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent for upright 

freezers and 26 percent for chest freezers.

DOE estimated the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $110.6 

million to a decrease of $186.0 million. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes the risk of negative 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
348

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. 

Standards at TSL 2 would pose many of the same issues as discussed above for TSL3, 

but the projected negative impacts are somewhat less. If the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 46 percent in 

INPV to standard-size freezer manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 

emissions reductions, and the economic benefit for a significant fraction of freezer 

consumers would outweigh the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. In addition to the 

aforementioned benefits of the proposed standards, DOE notes that the efficiency levels 

in TSL 2 correspond to the recommended levels in the Joint Comments.

After considering the analysis, comments on the November 2009 notice and the 

preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary tentatively 

concludes that this trial standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 2 for standard-size 

freezers. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for standard-size freezers, 

expressed as equations for maximum energy use, are shown in Table V.65. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
349

Table V.65 Proposed Standards for Standard-Size Freezers

Product Class

Equations for Maximum Energy 

Use (kWh/yr)

based on AV (ft3) based on av (L)

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost. 5.57AV + 193.7 0.197av + 193.7

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic 

icemaker. 8.62AV + 228.3 0.305av + 228.3 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact 

freezers. 7.29AV + 107.8 0.257av + 107.8 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost. 10.24AV + 148.1 0.362av + 148.1

AV= adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters

3. Compact Refrigeration Products 

V.66 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for compact refrigeration products. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
350

Table V.66 Summary of Results for Compact Refrigeration Products

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

National Energy Savings (quads) 0.30 0.37 0.43 0.54 0.59

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion)

3% discount rate 1.42 0.86 0.96 (0.89) (5.45)

7% discount rate 0.58 0.25 0.27 (0.78) (3.28)

Industry Impacts

Compact Refrigeration Products

Industry NPV (2009$ million) (14.3) to

(32.1) 

(30.8) to

(66.7) 

(56.8) to

(99.2) 

(29.6) to

(114.4) 

(133.0) 

to

(295.6) 

Industry NPV (% change) (7.2) to

(16.1) 

(15.4) to

(33.4) 

(28.4) to

(49.6) 

(14.8) to

(57.3) 

(66.6) to

(148.0) 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO2 (Mt) 20 24 28 35 39

NOX (kt) 16 19 23 28 31

Hg (t) 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.21

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction

 CO2 (2009$ billion)* 0.07 to 

1.02 

0.08 to 

1.22

0.10 to 

1.45

0.12 to 

1.82

0.13 to 

2.03

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2009$ million) 3.3 to 33 3.9 to 40 4.7 to 48 5.9 to 60 6.6 to 68

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2009$ million) 1.3 to 13 1.5 to 16 1.8 to 19 2.3 to 24 2.7 to 28

Mean LCC Savings** (2009$)

Compact Refrigerators 15 10 8 (13) (105)

Compact Freezers 11 11 7 (30) (121)

Median PBP (years)

Compact Refrigerators 2.8 3.9 4.4 6.5 11.6

Compact Freezers 2.5 2.5 4.6 10.0 15.9

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Compact Refrigerators

Net Cost (%) 24.4 43.3 50.6 76.1 93.8

No Impact (%) 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 74.2 55.7 48.5 23.9 6.2

Compact Freezers

Net Cost (%) 9.9 9.9 40.6 88.5 97.8

No Impact (%) 4.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 85.4 85.4 59.4 11.5 2.3

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)

† 0.02 0.32 0.38 0.48 0.51

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 (thousands)

(0.00) to

(0.03)

(0.00) to

(0.03)

(0.00) to

(0.03)

(0.00) to

(0.03)

(0.02) to

(0.03)

 Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † 1.24 1.26 1.44 1.21 0.14

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.

† Changes in 2043.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
351

 DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 would save 0.59 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under 

TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$3.28 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and -$5.45 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 39 Mt of CO2, 31 kt of NOX, 

and 0.21 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $0.13 billion to $2.03 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.51 GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $105 for compact 

refrigerators and a cost of $121 for compact freezers. The median payback period is 12 

years for compact refrigerators and 16 years for compact freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent for compact refrigerators and 2 

percent for compact freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 94 

percent for compact refrigerators and 98 percent for compact freezers.

At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $133.0 million 

to a decrease of $295.6 million. DOE recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. 

Manufacturing products to meet standards at TSL 5 would require large investments in 

product redesign and conversion of facilities. Because compact refrigeration products are 

currently low-cost, low-margin products, there is a limited ability to pass on to consumers 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
352

the required conversion costs and added product costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 5 could result in a net loss of 148.0 percent in INPV to compact 

refrigeration product manufacturers. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in product cost, the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV 

for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 

is not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.54 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$0.78 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$0.89 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 35 Mt of CO2, 28 kt of NOX, 

and 0.19 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $0.12 billion to $1.82 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.48 GW under TSL 4. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
353

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $13 for compact 

refrigerators and a cost of $30 for compact freezers. The median payback period is 7 

years for compact refrigerators and 10 years for compact freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 24 percent for compact refrigerators and 12 

percent for compact freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 76 

percent for compact refrigerators and 89 percent for compact freezers.

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $29.6 million 

to a decrease of $114.4 million. DOE recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. Manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 4 would require large investments in product redesign 

and conversion of facilities. Because compact refrigeration products are currently lowcost, low-margin products, there is a limited ability to pass on to consumers the required 

conversion costs and added product costs associated with efficiency-improving 

technologies. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 

could result in a net loss of 57 percent in INPV to compact refrigeration product 

manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
354

significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in product costs, and the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV 

for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 

is not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.43 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.27 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.96 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 28 Mt of CO2, 23 kt of NOX, 

and 0.15 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.10 billion to $1.45 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.38 GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of $8 for 

compact refrigerators and a gain of $7 for compact freezers. The median payback period 

is 4 years for compact refrigerators and 5 years for compact freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 49 percent for compact refrigerators and 59 

percent for compact freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 51 

percent for compact refrigerators and 41 percent for compact freezers.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
355

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $56.8 million 

to a decrease of $99.2 million. DOE recognizes the risk of large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. Manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 3 would require large investments in product redesign 

and conversion of facilities. Because compact refrigeration products are currently lowcost, low-margin products, there is a limited ability to pass on to consumers the required 

conversion costs and added product costs associated with efficiency-improving 

technologies. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 3 

could result in a net loss of 50 percent in INPV to compact refrigeration product 

manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in product costs, and by the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV 

for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 

is not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.37 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.25 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
356

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.86 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 24 Mt of CO2, 19 kt of NOX, 

and 0.12 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.08 billion to $1.22 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.32 GW under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of $10 for 

compact refrigerators and a gain of $11 for compact freezers. The median payback period 

is 4 years for compact refrigerators and 3 years for compact freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 56 percent for compact refrigerators and 85 

percent for compact freezers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 43 

percent for compact refrigerators and 10 percent for compact freezers.

At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $30.8 million 

to a decrease of $66.7 million. DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. Manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 2 would require investments in product redesign and 

conversion of facilities. Because compact refrigeration products are currently low-cost, 

low-margin products, there is a limited ability to pass on to consumers the required 

conversion costs and added product costs associated with efficiency-improving 

technologies. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 2

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
357

could result in a net loss of 33 percent in INPV to compact refrigeration product 

manufacturers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the cumulative 

CO2 emissions reductions, and the economic benefit to a significant fraction of consumers 

would outweigh the capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for 

the manufacturers. In addition to the aforementioned benefits of the proposed standards, 

DOE notes that the efficiency levels in TSL 2 correspond to the recommended levels in 

the Joint Comments.

After considering the analysis, comments on the November 2009 notice and the 

preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary tentatively 

concludes that this trial standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 2 for compact 

refrigeration products. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for compact 

refrigeration products, expressed as equations for maximum energy use, are shown in 

Table V.67. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
358

Table V.67 Proposed Standards for Compact Refrigeration Products 

Product Class

Equations for Maximum 

Energy Use (kWh/yr)

based on AV (ft3) based on av (L)

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost. 9.03AV + 252.3 0.319av + 252.3 

11A.Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 

manual defrost. 7.84AV + 219.1 0.277av + 219.1 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 5.91AV + 335.8 0.209av + 335.8

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer. 11.80AV + 339.2 0.417av + 339.2 

13A. Compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost. 9.17AV + 259.3 0.324av + 259.3

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer. 6.82AV + 456.9 0.241av + 456.9 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer. 12.88AV + 368.7 0.455av + 368.7 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost. 8.65AV + 225.7 0.306av + 225.7

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost. 10.17AV + 351.9 0.359av + 351.9

18. Compact chest freezers. 9.25AV + 136.8 0.327av + 136.8

AV= adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters

4. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

V.68 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for built-in refrigeration products. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A. 

Table V.68 Summary of Results for Built-in Refrigeration Products

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

National Energy Savings (quads) 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion)

3% discount rate 0.13 0.12 (0.46) (0.91) (1.62) 

7% discount rate 0.04 0.02 (0.34) (0.60) (1.00)

Industry Impacts

Built-in Refrigeration Products 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) (51.7) to

(52.9) 

(54.7) 

to

(57.0) 

(65.8) to

(80.5) 

(79.7) to

(103.0) 

(84.9) 

to

(120.3) 

Industry NPV (% change) (7.9) to

(8.0)

(8.3) to

(8.7) 

(10.0) to

(12.2) 

(12.1) to 

(15.6) 

(12.9) 

to

(18.3)

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
359

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

CO2 (Mt) 1 2 4 5 5

NOX (kt) 1 1 3 4 4

Hg (t) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction

 CO2 (2009$ billion)* 0.00 to 

0.07

0.01 to 

0.10

0.01 to 

0.19

0.02 to 

0.24

0.02 to 

0.28

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2009$ million) 0 to 2 0 to 3 1 to 7 1 to 8 1 to 10

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2009$ million) 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 3 0 to 3 0 to 4

Mean LCC Savings** (2009$)

Built-in All-Refrigerators 47 63 (34) (195) (318)

Built-in Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers 7 0 0 (164) (244)

Built-in Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezers 7 7 (116) (116) (219)

Built-in Upright Freezers 54 24 (78) (78) (169)

Median PBP (years)

Built-in All-Refrigerators 1.6 3.0 15.9 29.7 36.7

Built-in Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers 4.4 12.9 12.9 62.8 61.8

Built-in Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezers 8.7 8.7 36.7 36.7 60.0

Built-in Upright Freezers 3.4 12.8 21.1 21.1 26.8

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Built-in All-Refrigerators 

Net Cost (%) 0.3 2.6 69.1 94.5 97.2

No Impact (%) 22.6 18.4 9.1 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 77.2 79.0 21.9 5.5 2.8

Built-in Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers 

Net Cost (%) 1.2 8.2 8.2 99.0 99.3

No Impact (%) 87.1 87.0 87.0 0.0 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 11.7 4.8 4.8 1.1 0.7

Built-in Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezers

Net Cost (%) 8.0 8.0 60.2 60.2 98.8

No Impact (%) 78.5 78.5 37.2 37.2 0.0

Net Benefit (%) 13.5 13.5 2.5 2.5 1.2

 Built-in Upright Freezers 

Net Cost (%) 4.3 53.1 78.2 78.2 87.1

No Impact (%) 19.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3

Net Benefit (%) 75.8 46.3 21.3 21.3 12.6

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)

† 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 (thousands)

0.00 to 

(1.32)

(0.00)

to 

(1.32)

0.01 to 

(1.32)

0.01 to 

(1.32)

0.04 to 

(1.32)

 Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.01 (0.13)

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
360

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

reduced CO2 emissions.

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.

† Changes in 2043.

DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 would save 0.08 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under 

TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$1.00 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and -$1.62 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 5 Mt of CO2, 4 kt of NOX, and 

0.03 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 ranges from $0.02 billion to $0.28 billion. Total generating capacity in 2043 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.08 GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $318 for built-in 

all-refrigerators, a cost of $244 for built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, a cost of 

$219 for built-in side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and a cost of $169 for built-in upright 

freezers. The median payback period is 37 years for built-in all-refrigerators, 62 years for 

built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 60 years for built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 27 years for built-in upright freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 3 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 1 percent for builtin bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 1 percent for built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 13 percent for built-in upright freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 97 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 99 percent for builtEERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
361

in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 99 percent for built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 87 percent for built-in upright freezers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $84.9 million 

to a decrease of $120.3 million. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 5 could result in a net loss of 18 percent in INPV to built-in refrigeration 

product manufacturers. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for built-in refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in 

INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

TSL 5 is not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.07 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$0.60 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$0.91 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
362

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 5 Mt of CO2, 4 kt of NOX, and 

0.02 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 ranges from $0.02 billion to $0.24 billion. Total generating capacity in 2043 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.07 GW under TSL 4.

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of 

$195 for built-in all-refrigerators, a cost of $164 for built-in bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers, a cost of $116 for built-in side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and a cost of $78 

for built-in upright freezers. The median payback period is 30 years for built-in allrefrigerators, 63 years for built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 37 years for builtin side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and 21 years for built-in upright freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent for built-in allrefrigerators, 1 percent for built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 3 percent for 

built-in side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and 21 percent for built-in upright freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 95 percent for built-in allrefrigerators, 99 percent for built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 60 percent for 

built-in side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and 78 percent for built-in upright freezers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $79.7 million 

to a decrease of $103.0 million. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 16 percent in INPV to built-in refrigeration 

product manufacturers. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
363

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for built-in refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in product cost, and the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for 

the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.05 quads of energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be -$0.34 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$0.46 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 4 Mt of CO2, 3 kt of NOX, and 

0.02 t of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions reduction at 

TSL 3 ranges from $0.01 billion to $0.19 billion. Total generating capacity in 2043 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.05 GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $34 for built-in allrefrigerators, a cost of $0 for built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, a cost of $116 

for built-in side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and a cost of $78 for built-in upright 

freezers. The median payback period is 16 years for built-in all-refrigerators, 13 years for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
364

built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 37 years for built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 21 years for built-in upright freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 22 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 5 percent for 

built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 3 percent for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 21 percent for built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 69 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 8 percent 

for built-in bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 60 percent for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 78 percent for built-in upright freezers. Although a significant 

fraction of consumers would experience an LCC cost, in the majority of cases the cost as 

a percentage of the purchase price (which ranges from approximately $4,500 to $8,000) 

is small.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $65.8 million 

to a decrease of $80.5 million. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 12 percent in INPV to built-in refrigeration 

product manufacturers. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for built-in refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would 

outweigh the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the slight economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in product cost, and the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
365

the manufacturers. In addition to the aforementioned benefits of the proposed standards, 

DOE notes that the efficiency levels in TSL 3 correspond to the recommended levels in 

the Joint Comments.

 

 After considering the analysis, comments on the November 2009 notice and the 

preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 3, the Secretary tentatively 

concludes that this trial standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 3 for built-in 

refrigeration products. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for built-in 

refrigeration products, expressed as equations for maximum energy use, are shown in 

Table V.69. 

DOE requests comment on the considerations leading to the above conclusion, 

particularly regarding the negative net consumer impacts of the proposed standards for 

built-in refrigeration products. (See Issue 20 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR, below.) 

Table V.69 Proposed Standards for Built-In Refrigeration Products

Product Class

Equations for Maximum 

Energy Use (kWh/yr)

based on AV (ft3) based on av (L)

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.57AV + 248.2 0.303av + 248.2 

3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.57AV + 332.2 0.303av + 332.2 

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 7.55AV + 215.1 0.266av + 215.1

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 9.04AV + 316.2 0.319av + 316.2

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
366

side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.

4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

9.04AV + 400.2 0.319av + 400.2 

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 9.35AV + 335.1 0.330av + 335.1 

5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

9.35AV + 419.1 0.330av + 419.1 

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 9.72AV + 495.5 0.343av + 495.5 

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 9.07AV + 454.3 0.320av + 454.3 

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without 

an automatic icemaker. 9.24AV + 244.6 0.326av + 244.6 

AV= adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters

5. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values over the 2014–2043 period. Estimates of annualized values 

are shown in Table V.70. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings 

from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another 

way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of 

emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.47

 

47 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value for the time-series of costs and benefits using a discount rate 

of either three or seven percent. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment 

over the analysis time period (2014 through 2043) that yielded the same present value. The fixed annual 

payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of 

payments.

The value of the CO2

reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a 

range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent interagency process. The 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
367

monetary costs and benefits of cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2009$ to 

permit comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units. 

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed with different 

methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of refrigeration products shipped in 2014–2043. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts go well beyond 2100. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 

2007$), the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $1,841 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $2,112 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, $316 million in CO2 reductions, and $7 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $594 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$), the 

cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $1,849 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the benefits are $2,929 million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $316 million in CO2 reductions, and $33 million in reduced NOX emissions. At a 3-

percent discount rate, the net benefit amounts to $1,429 million per year.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
368

Table V.70. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Refrigeration 

Products for 2014-2043 Period

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
369

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate* Low Estimate* High Estimate* 

Monetized (million 2009$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 

7% 2112 1852 2377

3% 2929 2520 3335

CO2 Reduction at $4.7/t** 5% 85 85 85

CO2 Reduction at $21.4/t** 3% 316 316 316

CO2 Reduction at $35.1/t** 2.5% 492 492 492

CO2 Reduction at $64.9/t** 3% 963 963 963

NOX Reduction at $2,519/t** 

7% 7 7 7

3% 33 33 33

Total† 

7% plus CO2

range 2204 - 3082 1944 - 2822 2469 - 3348 

7% 2435 2175 2700

3% 3278 2869 3684

3% plus CO2

range 3047 - 3925 2638 - 3516 3453 - 4331 

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 1841 1733 1950

3% 1849 1729 1969

Net Benefits/Costs

Total† 

7% plus CO2

range 363 - 1241 211 - 1089 519 - 1397

7% 594 442 750

3% 1429 1140 1714

3% plus CO2

range 1198 - 2076 909 - 1787 1483 - 2362 

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the 

AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and Low Economic Growth case, respectively.

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under 

several scenarios. The values of $4.70, $21.40, and $35.10 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.90 per ton represents the 

95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is 

the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. NOx savings are in addition to the 

regulatory emissions reductions modeled in the Annual Energy Outlook forecast. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
370

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values with the $4.70/ton value at the low end, and the $64.90/ton value 

at the high end.

6. Energy Standard Round-off

The rounding off of energy use measurements for refrigeration products is 

discussed in the test procedure NOPR published on May 27, 2010. 75 FR 29824, 29849 

Comments received from stakeholders during the test procedure rulemaking comment 

period support rounding off such measurements to the nearest kWh per year. (Whirlpool, 

Refrigerator Test Procedure Rulemaking No. 12 at p. 7; AHAM, Refrigerator Test 

Procedure Rulemaking No. 16 at pp. 10, 11) The test procedure NOPR mentions that, if 

the test procedure calls for such round off, the energy standard would also need to include 

round off, in order to avoid noncompliance associated with inconsistency between the 

two rules. For example, For example, if the energy standard was 500.7 kWh for a product 

whose energy use measurement was 500.6 kWh, rounding the measurement to 501 kWh 

might appear to show energy use higher than the maximum allowable under the standard. 

DOE expects to implement rounding off of energy use measurements in the 

refrigeration product test procedure. Hence, DOE also proposes such round off for the 

energy standard. DOE proposes to implement this by including in 10 CFR part 430.32(a) 

the following statement: “The energy standards as determined by the equations of the 

following table shall be rounded off to the nearest kWh per year” 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
371

DOE requests comment on this proposal for round off of the energy standard. 

(See Issue 21 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this 

NOPR, below.) 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A.

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to 

address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The 

problems that today’s standards address are as follows: 

Review Under Executive Order 12866 

(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability 

about energy efficiency opportunities in the home appliance market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better 

information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering 

information and effecting exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of 

refrigeration products that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These 

benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and energy 

security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of 

greenhouse gases.

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
372

 In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is an 

“economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires that DOE prepare a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this 

rule. DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and has included these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the 

technical support document (Chapter 16) for this rulemaking. They are available for 

public review in the Resource Room of DOE’s Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9:00 

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

B.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

et seq.) requires preparation of an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 

67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures 

and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website (www.gc.doe.gov ).

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
373

For manufacturers of residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 

the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended 

at 65 FR 53533, 53545 (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size

standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf . 

Residential refrigeration product manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335222, 

“Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 

1,000 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 

category.

DOE reviewed the potential standard levels considered in today’s NOPR under 

the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published 

on February 19, 2003. To better assess the potential impacts of this rulemaking on small 

entities, DOE conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could be small 

business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. During its market 

survey, DOE used all available public information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE’s research involved industry trade association membership 

directories (including AHAM), product databases (e.g., FTC, The Thomas Register, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
374

CEC, and ENERGY STAR databases), individual company websites, and marketing 

research tools (e.g., Dunn and Bradstreet reports) to create a list of every company that 

manufactures or sells residential refrigeration products covered by this rulemaking. DOE 

also asked stakeholders and industry representatives if they were aware of any additional 

small manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at DOE public meetings. DOE 

reviewed all publicly-available data and contacted various companies on its complete list

of manufacturers, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA’s definition of a 

small business manufacturer of covered residential refrigeration products. DOE screened 

out companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the 

definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated. 

DOE initially identified at least 65 distinct brands of residential refrigeration 

products sold in the U.S. by 47 parent companies. Out of these 47 companies, DOE 

determined that the majority (31 of 47) were distributors or resellers of branded products 

rather than original equipment manufacturers. Of the 16 manufacturers, DOE found 15 to 

be either large manufacturers or foreign-owned and operated. Thus, DOE identified one 

small residential refrigeration product manufacturer that produces covered products and 

can be considered a small business. Next, DOE contacted this potential small business 

manufacturer to request an interview about the possible impacts on small business 

manufacturers generally. From these discussions, DOE determined the expected impacts 

of the rule on affected small entities and whether an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

was needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify that this rulemaking would not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities). 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
375

The majority of residential refrigeration products are currently manufactured in 

the United States, though production for the domestic market has increasingly been 

relocated to Mexico. For standard-size refrigerator-freezers, three large manufacturers 

control the overwhelming majority of sales. Many foreign-owned manufacturers of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers offer products for sale in the United States and 

constitute part of the remaining domestic standard-size refrigerator-freezer market. These 

products are either manufactured domestically or imported depending on the specific 

manufacturer. Additionally, several domestic companies focus on premium built-in 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, which represent the remainder of the market. None of 

the standard-size refrigerator manufacturers DOE identified are small business 

manufacturers.

 For standard-size freezers, one large manufacturer controls the majority of the 

market. Another domestic manufacturer with a significant standard-size freezer market 

share recently went out of business, but its market share is expected to be taken by other 

large manufacturers of refrigeration products. The remaining market share is spread in 

small percentages across foreign-owned and foreign-operated manufacturers and some of 

the same niche manufacturers that produce premium built-in standard-size refrigeratorfreezers. None of the standard-size freezer manufacturers identified by DOE are small 

business manufacturers. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
376

The majority of compact refrigeration products are imported, and market share is 

divided among many domestic and foreign manufacturers. Several manufacturers who 

still produce compact products domestically focus on the premium niche market of 

undercounter refrigerators and freezers. Undercounter refrigerator and freezers are highend products that are meant to be either free-standing or recessed. Based on its market 

research, the one small business manufacturer of residential refrigeration products 

identified by DOE is a niche manufacturer that produces these premium undercounter 

units. The company manufactures primarily products that are covered by this rulemaking, 

such as undercounter refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, plus several products outside 

of the scope of coverage for this rulemaking, such as ice makers and wine coolers. The 

small business manufacturer currently offers five basic ENERGY STAR models (13 

individual products) but many of its product lines may need upgrading or may be 

discontinued in response to the proposed energy conservation standards. 

DOE does not believe the small business manufacturer will be differentially 

impacted by the proposed energy conservation standard. The small business manufacturer 

has the largest market share of undercounter refrigerator and freezers. Since undercounter 

units are a very small segment of compact refrigerators and freezers, the small business 

manufacturer is the market leader of a very small segment of compact products. The 

company represents an even smaller percentage of total shipments of covered products. 

Many of the other undercounter manufacturers, while not technically small businesses by 

the SBA definition, also have low overall production volumes. Finally, the undercounter 

market is a niche market that does not compete with overall compact refrigeration sales. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
377

Undercounter products are luxury items purchased by consumers that are typically less 

concerned about first costs compared to purchasers of other residential refrigeration 

products. While most compact sales are inexpensive products with retail prices in the low 

hundreds of dollars, undercounter products typically cost many times that. Despite the 

small size of this niche market, the much higher sales price and lower volumes indicate 

that profit margins are likely higher. 

 Since only one small business manufacturer would potentially be impacted by the 

proposed energy conservation standards in today’s rule and that manufacturer represents 

a small percentage of covered products is a leader in a niche market, DOE believes that 

these combined factors make it likely that the manufacturer would not be differentially 

impacted compared to its competition. As a result, DOE certifies that the standards for 

residential refrigeration products set forth in the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. 

DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). 

 

DOE requests comment on the above analysis, as well as any information 

concerning small businesses that could be impacted by this rulemaking and the nature 

and extent of those potential impacts of the proposed energy conservation standards on 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
378

small residential refrigeration product manufacturers. (See Issue 22 under “Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR, below.) 

C.

 This rulemaking will impose no new information or record keeping requirements. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 

U.S.C. 3501 

Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

et seq.) 

D.

 DOE has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the impacts of the 

proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4321 

Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (10 CFR part 1021). This assessment includes an examination of the 

potential effects of emission reductions likely to result from the rule in the context of 

global climate change, as well as other types of environmental impacts. The draft EA has 

been included as chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD. Before issuing a final rule for 

refrigeration products, DOE will consider public comments and, as appropriate, 

determine whether to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) as part of a final 

EA or to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for this rulemaking. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
379

E.

 Executive Order 13132, "Federalism," 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations 

that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires 

agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 

2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation 

process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation 

for the products that are the subject of today’s proposed rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. 

Review Under Executive Order 13132

F.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform," imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 

promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996). Section 

Review Under Executive Order 12988

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
380

3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, 

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; 

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under 

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, 

to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. No. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 

U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause 

the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), 

section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective 

Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
381

process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments 

on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for 

giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

 Although today’s proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may impose expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. 

Specifically, the proposed rule will likely result in a final rule that could impose 

expenditures of $100 million or more. Such expenditures may include (1) investment in 

research and development and in capital expenditures by refrigeration product 

manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new 

standard, and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higherefficiency refrigeration products, starting in 2014. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed 

rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to 

a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The Supplementary 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
382

Information section of the notice of proposed rulemaking and the “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis” section of the TSD for this proposed rule respond to those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider 

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 

42 U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), 6313(e), and 6316(a), today’s proposed rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for residential refrigeration products that are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be 

both technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the 

alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section 

of the TSD for today’s proposed rule. 

H.

 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment 

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
383

I.

 DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 

1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Review Under Executive Order 12630

J.

 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of 

information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 

22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE 

has reviewed today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K.

 Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as 

any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 

rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

Review Under Executive Order 13211

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
384

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 

significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must 

give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 

 DOE has tentatively concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for refrigeration products, is not a significant energy action 

because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the proposed rule. 

L.

 On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the 

Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by 

the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 

the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin 

Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
385

defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does 

have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 

decisions.” 70 FR 2667. 

 In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews 

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, 

and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The 

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 

has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

. 

VII. Public Participation

A.

 The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. To attend the public meeting, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or 

Attendance at Public Meeting

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

As explained in the ADDRESSES section, foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters 

are subject to advance security screening procedures. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
386

B.

 Any person who has an interest in today’s NOPR, or who is a representative of a 

group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity 

to make an oral presentation. Such persons may hand-deliver requests to speak, along 

with a computer diskette or CD in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) 

file format, to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning between 

the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Requests may also be sent by mail, or by e-mail to: 

Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

 Persons requesting an opportunity to speak should briefly describe the nature of 

their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons scheduled to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of 

their statements at least one week before the public meeting. At its discretion, DOE may 

permit any person who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if 

that person has made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies 

Program. The request to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative 

arrangements.

C.

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also 

use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 

Conduct of Public Meeting

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
387

and section 336 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6306. A court reporter will be present to record the 

proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public 

meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the 

proceedings as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment 

period. 

 The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for 

presentations by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a prepared 

general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of 

specific topics. DOE will permit other participants to comment briefly on any general 

statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to 

clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants 

should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning 

these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 

matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will 

accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above 

procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
388

DOE will make the entire record of this proposed rulemaking, including the 

transcript from the public meeting, available for inspection at the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, 

SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. Any person may buy a copy of the transcript 

from the transcribing reporter.

D.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the proposed rule 

before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided at the beginning of 

this NOPR. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE’s email address for 

this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text 

(ASCII) file format. Interested parties should avoid the use of special characters or any 

form of encryption and, wherever possible, comments should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted 

electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting a signed original paper 

document to the address provided at the beginning of this notice. Comments, data, and 

information submitted to DOE via mail or hand delivery/courier should include one 

signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Submission of Comments

 According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
389

copies: one copy of the document including all the information believed to be 

confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status 

of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why 

such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the 

information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning 

its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person 

which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the 

information would be contrary to the public interest.

E.

 In addition to the issues that DOE has identified throughout the earlier portions of 

this preamble, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 

interested parties concerning the following issues: 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

1. DOE requests comment on its baseline treatment of regulatory emissions 

reductions. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
390

2. DOE requests comment on the max-tech levels identified, and on the 

combinations of design options considered applicable to achieve max-tech designs. 

DOE requests that comments also address as appropriate the differences in applicable 

design options for different product classes. 

3. DOE requests comments on the establishment of product classes for 

refrigeration products with automatic icemakers, including comment on the approach 

DOE proposes to use to account for icemakers in the product class structure. 

4. DOE requests comment on the proposal to establish separate product 

classes for built-in refrigeration products. DOE also requests comment on the 

proposed definition for built-in products, including what changes could be made to 

further strengthen it while not disqualifying any true built-in products, and whether 

any adjustment of the 24-inch dimension specified in the proposed definition should 

be made.

5. DOE requests comment on whether any additional product classes are 

required to fully address icemaking and built-in products 

6. DOE requests comment on the proposal to combine product class 2 

(refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost) with product class 1 (refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost) and the proposal to combine product 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
391

class 12 (compact refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost) with product class 

11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost). 

7. DOE requests comment on the proposal to eliminate the current 36-inch 

height limitation for compact products. 

8. DOE requests comment on DOE’s findings regarding projections 

regarding supply of high-efficiency and variable-speed compressors. In particular, 

DOE seeks information that would confirm or cast doubt on DOE’s conclusions 

regarding compressor supply. 

9. DOE requests comment on the consideration of use of isobutane 

refrigerant as a design option only for compact refrigerators. 

10. DOE requests comment and information on aspects of VIP technology that 

affect its suitability for consideration as a design option. DOE in particular seeks any 

new information not already discussed or considered in the rulemaking. 

11. DOE requests comment on the approach used to develop Proposed 

Procedure Reduced Baseline Energy Use equations with adjusted slopes for product 

classes 4 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service), 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), and 5A (refrigeratorEERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
392

freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service) . DOE also seeks relevant data that would allow adjustment of the curve 

intercept so that the shipment-weighted average impact of the slope change would be 

neutral (i.e., zero change) with respect to energy use. DOE also seeks any additional 

information that would support similar development of adjusted-slope baseline 

energy curves for other product classes.

12. DOE requests comment on its treatment of design options in the 

engineering analysis.

13. DOE requests comments, information, and data that would inform 

adjustment of energy modeling input and/or results that would allow more accurate 

representation of the energy use impacts of design options using the ERA energy 

model. 

14. DOE requests information regarding the response of retailers to 

incremental change in the CGS of appliances associated with proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

15. DOE requests comment on the weighting of the 2005 RECS sample using 

income relationships and volume scaling. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
393

16. DOE requests comments on its approach for developing UAFs using fieldmetered data.

17. DOE requests comment on the approach used for estimating repair costs. 

18. DOE requests comments on its approach for estimating base-case 

efficiency distributions.

19. DOE requests comments on its approach for forecasting base-case and 

standards-case efficiency distributions.

20. DOE requests comment on its considerations leading to the proposed 

standards for built-in refrigeration products, particularly regarding the negative net 

consumer impacts of the proposed standards. 

21. DOE requests comment on the proposal for round off of the energy 

standard. 

22. DOE requests comment on the regulatory flexibility determination, as well 

as any information concerning small businesses that could be impacted by this 

rulemaking and the nature and extent of those potential impacts of the proposed 

energy conservation standards on small residential refrigeration product 

manufacturers. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
394

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

 The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2010. 

________________________________ 

Cathy Zoi

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
395

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend chapter II, subchapter 

D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 430 - ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 

2. In §430.2, add the definition for “Built-in refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer,” in 

alphabetical order, and revise the definition for “Compact refrigerator/refrigeratorfreezer/freezer” to read as follows: 

§430.2 Definitions.

* * * * * 

Built-in refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with 7.75 cubic feet or greater total volume and 24 inches 

or less depth not including handles and not including custom front panels; is designed to 

be encased on the sides and rear by cabinetry; is designed to be securely fastened to 

adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor; and has sides which are not fully finished and are not 

designed to be visible after installation.

* * * * * 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
396

Compact refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer 

* * * * * 

means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with total volume less than 7.75 cubic foot (220 liters) 

(rated volume as determined in appendix A1 and B1 of subpart B of this part). 

3. In §430.32 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their effective dates. 

* * * 

(a) Refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/freezers. 

 

These standards do not apply to 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 39 cubic 

foot (1104 liters) or freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 30 cubic foot (850 

liters). The energy standards as determined by the equations of the following table shall 

be rounded off to the nearest kWh per year. 

Product Class

Equations for Maximum Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)

based on AV (ft3) based on av (L)

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost.

7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost. 6.79AV + 193.6 0.240av + 193.6

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.

8.04AV + 232.7 0.284av + 232.7

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.57AV + 248.2 0.303av + 248.2 

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.04AV + 316.7 0.284av + 316.7 

3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.57AV + 332.2 0.303av + 332.2 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 7.07AV + 201.6 0.250av + 201.6

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 7.55AV + 215.1 0.266av + 215.1

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.

8.48AV + 296.5 0.299av + 296.5

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
397

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker.

9.04AV + 316.2 0.319av + 316.2

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service.

8.48AV + 380.5 0.299av + 380.5 

4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

9.04AV + 400.2 0.319av + 400.2 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 8.80AV + 315.4 0.311av + 315.4 

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker.

9.35AV + 335.1 0.330av + 335.1 

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.80AV + 399.4 0.311av + 399.4 

5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

9.35AV + 419.1 0.330av + 419.1 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

9.15AV + 471.3 0.323av + 471.3 

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

9.72AV + 495.5 0.343av + 495.5 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 8.36AV + 384.1 0.295av + 384.1 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 8.50AV + 431.1 0.300av + 431.1 

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

9.07AV + 454.3 0.320av + 454.3 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost. 5.57AV + 193.7 0.197av + 193.7

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an 

automatic icemaker. 8.62AV + 228.3 0.305av + 228.3 

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost 

without an automatic icemaker. 9.24AV + 244.6 0.326av + 244.6 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact 

freezers. 7.29AV + 107.8 0.257av + 107.8 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost. 10.24AV + 148.1 0.362av + 148.1

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 

manual defrost. 9.03AV + 252.3 0.319av + 252.3 

11A.Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 

manual defrost. 7.84AV + 219.1 0.277av + 219.1 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic 

defrost 5.91AV + 335.8 0.209av + 335.8 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with top-mounted freezer. 11.80AV + 339.2 0.417av + 339.2 

13A. Compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost. 9.17AV + 259.3 0.324av + 259.3

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer. 6.82AV + 456.9 0.241av + 456.9 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 12.88AV + 368.7 0.455av + 368.7

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57
398

with bottom-mounted freezer.

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost. 8.65AV + 225.7 0.306av + 225.7

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost. 10.17AV + 351.9 0.359av + 351.9

18. Compact chest freezers. 9.25AV + 136.8 0.327av + 136.8

AV=Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in Appendices A and B of subpart B 

of this part.

av=Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters.

* * * * * 

 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 57