ES

- i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF PRELIMIN ARY ANALYSIS ACTIVIT IES

................................ .......... 1

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PREL IMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE A NALYSIS

................................ ................................ ............... 4

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

................................ ................................ ............. 4

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6

ES.3.4 Markups to Determine Product Price

................................ ................................ ........... 15

ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

................................ ............................ 19

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 27

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................. 28

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ . 33

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

................................ .............. 33

ES.4.1 Non

- Compressor Refrigerator Storage Temperatures

................................ ................. 33

ES.4.2 Non

- Compressor Refrigerator Standard Adjustment Factor

................................ ....... 34

ES.4.3 Hybrid Refrigeration Product Classes

................................ ................................ ......... 34

ES.4.4 Stocks, Shipments, and Lifetimes of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

.............. 35

ES.4.5 Energy Use of Non

- Compressor Cooled Cabinets and Refrigerators

......................... 35

ES.4.6 Energy Use and Market Shares of Ice Makers

................................ ............................. 35

ES.4.7 Vapor Compression in Small Cooled Cabinets

................................ ........................... 36

ES.4.8 Relationship between Volume and Efficiency in Thermoelectric Refrigeration

Products

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 36

ES.4.9 Vacuum

- Insulated Panels (VIPs) for Cellar Compartments or Cooled Cabinets

........ 36

LIST OF TABLES

Product Classes for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

................................ ..... 5 Table ES.3.1 Cooled Cabinet Efficiency Levels

................................ ................................ ........... 7 Table ES.3.2

Incremental MSP Results for 6 ft 3 Cooled Cabinet

................................ .................. 8 Table ES.3.3

Incremental MSP Results for 2 ft 3 Cooled Cabinet

................................ .................. 9 Table ES.3.4

Non

- Compressor Refrigerator Efficiency Levels

................................ .................. 10 Table ES.3.5

Incremental MSP Results for Non

- Compressor Refrigerator

................................ 10 Table ES.3.6 Portable Ice Makers Efficiency Levels

................................ ................................ .. 1 1 Table ES.3.7

Cooled

- Storage Ice Makers Efficiency Levels

................................ ...................... 12 Table ES.3.8

Uncooled

- Storage Ice Makers Efficiency Levels

................................ .................. 12 Table ES.3.9

Incremental MSP Results for Portable Ice Makers

................................ ................ 12 Table ES.3.10

Incremental MSP Results for Cooled

- Storage Ice Makers

................................ .... 13 Table ES.3.11

Incrementa l MSP Results for Uncooled

- Storage Ice Makers

................................ 13 Table ES.3.12ES

- ii Hybrid Refrigeration Product Design Changes

................................ ..................... 15 Table ES.3.13 Markups for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

................................ .............. 16 Table ES.3.14 Cooled Cabinets: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

.................... 17 Table ES.3.15

Non

- Compressor Refrigerators: Average Annual Energy Use by Table ES.3.16 Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 Ice Makers: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

............................. 18 Table ES.3.17 Hybrid Products: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

.................... 19 Table ES.3.18 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class CC, Cooled Cabinet

............... 21 Table ES.3.19 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.20 for Product Class CC, Cooled Cabinet

................................ ................................ .. 22 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class NCR , Non

- Compressor Table ES.3.21 Refrigerator

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 23 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.22

for Produc t Class NCR , Non

- Compressor Refrigerator

................................ ........ 23 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class IM

- P, Portable Ice Table ES.3.23

Maker

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.24

for Product Class IM

- P, Portable Ice Maker

................................ .......................... 24 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class IM

- C, Non

- Portable Table ES.3.25 Cooled Storage Ice Maker

................................ ................................ ..................... 25 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.26

for Product Class IM

- C, Non

- Portable Cooled Storage Ice Maker

....................... 25 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class IM

- U, Non

- Portable Table ES.3.27 Uncooled Storage Ice Maker

................................ ................................ ................. 26 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.28

for Product Class IM

- U, Non

- Portable Uncooled Storage Ice Make r

................... 26

Cooled Cabinets: Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel Cycle Results (quads)

.................... 29 Table ES.3.29

Non

- Compressor Refrigerators Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel Cycle Results Table ES.3.30 (quads)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 29

Ice Makers: Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel Cycle Results (quads)

............................ 30 Table ES.3.31 Hybrid Refrigeration Products: Cumulative NES Fuel Full

- Fuel Cycle Table ES.3.32 Results (quads)

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 30 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Cooled Cabinets, Table ES.3.33 in Billion 2013$

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 31

Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Non

- Compressor Table ES.3.34 Refrigerators, in Billion 2013$

................................ ................................ .............. 31 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Ice Makers, 3

- Table ES.3.35

Percent Discount Rate

................................ ................................ ............................ 32 Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e. , higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.

................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Ice Makers, 7

- Table ES.3.36

Percent Discount Rate

................................ ................................ ............................ 32ES

- iii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Rulemaking Process

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 Figure ES.3.1 Cooled Cabinets Shipments Forecasts for the Base Case and Considered Efficiency Levels

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27ES

- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS A CTIVITIES

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) This executi ve summary provides an overview of the activities associated with the preliminary analysis that DOE conducted as part of the current rulemaking to set energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. The executive summary describes t he preliminary analysis activities and summarizes key results from DOE’s preliminary analyses. Additionally, the executive summary delineates issues identified during the analyses about which DOE seeks comments from interested parties. These issues are

als o highlighted in the public meeting presentation.

Figure ES.1.1 presents a summary of the DOE rulemaking phases and the key analyses that constitute each phase. The rulemaking process typically begins with a framework document, which is followed by a pre liminary analysis. DOE then publishes and seeks comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). After considering these comments and other relevant data and information, DOE publishes a final rule establishing any new or amended standards. The figure

pr esents the major analyses in each phase in rectangular boxes. Core analyses for the rulemaking are lined in the center column of the figure, providing a logical sequence that DOE follows in carrying out the rulemaking process. Inputs to the analyses are sh own with arrows pointing toward their respective analysis boxes, and outputs are shown with arrows directed away from their respective analysis boxes. Many outputs also form inputs for the downstream analyses. DOE obtains data for the inputs from various s ources including, but not limited to, technical publications, market

- survey reports, trade publications, interested parties’ comments, industry experts and consultants, interagency guidance, and interactions with end users and the manufacturers. Key output s from the analyses form the basis for setting the new energy

conservation standards.ES

- 2 Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Miscellaneous Refrigeration

Products Rulemaking ProcessES

- 3 ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PREL IMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

For the preliminary analysis, DOE publishes a notice of public meeting (NOPM) in the Federal Register , which announces the availability of the preliminary technical support document (TSD), the date and place of the public meeting, and presentatio n materials interested parties may review before the public meeting. In addition, the NOPM highlights the major analyses DOE developed in the preliminary analysis stage.

The preliminary TSD describes each preliminary analysis in detail, providing detaile d descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD provides an overview of each preliminary analysis, the comments received in response to the analytical approaches DOE described in the framework document, and D OE’s responses to those comments. The following chapters of the preliminary TSD address the analyses performed for the preliminary analysis stage.

• Chapter 3: The market and technology assessment (MTA) characterizes the relevant product markets and technol ogy options, including prototype designs.

• Chapter 4: The screening analysis reviews each technology option uncovered in the MTA

to determine whether it is : technologically feasible; practicable to manufacture, install, and service; likely to adversely aff ect product utility or product availability; or likely to
have adverse impacts on health and safety.

• Chapter 5: The engineering analysis develops cost

- efficiency relationships that show a manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency. DOE uses manu facturer markups to convert manufacturer production cost (MPC) to manufacturer selling price (MSP).

• Chapter 6: The markups analysis converts the MSP derived from the engineering analysis to consumer equipment prices based on distribution chain markups.

• Cha pter 7: The energy use analysis determines the annual energy consumption of the products under consideration.

• Chapter 8: The life

- cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis calculates, at the consumer level, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product, compared to any increase in the product’s installed cost likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard.

• Chapter 9: The shipments analysis forecasts shipments of product s, which are then used to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy consumption, the net present value (NPV) of consumer costs and savings, and future manufacturer cash flows.

• Chapter 10: The national impact analysis (NIA) assesses the cumulati ve national energy savings (NES) from standards and the NPV of consumer costs and savings associated with standards at different efficiency levels.

• Chapter 12: The preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) assesses the potential impacts of energy cons ervation standards on manufacturers, such as effects onES

- 4 expenditures for capital conversion, profitability , shipments, and research and development costs.

The remaining chapters of the preliminary TSD address the analyses to be performed for the NOPR stage :

• Chapter 11: The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates the effects of potential energy conservation standards on various national subgroup s of the population

.

• Chapter 13: The emissions analysis discusses the effects of potential energy conservation

standards on various airborne emissions of electric utilities.

• Chapter 14: Monetization of emissions reductions benefits considers the estimated monetary benefits likely to resu lt from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides expected to result from the standards.

• Chapter 15: The utility impact analysis examines impacts of potential energy conservation standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities.

• Ch apter 16: The employment impact analysis examines the effects of potential energy conservation standards on national employment.

• Chapter 17: A regulatory impact analysis examines the national impacts of non

regulatory alternatives to mandatory energy conse rvation standards.

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE A NALYSIS

The following sections describe in detail the key analyses DOE performed in support of the preliminary analysis for miscellaneous refrigeration products.

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

When initiating an an alysis of potential energy conservation standards for appliances, DOE develops information for the products and characterizes the market and industry structure, evaluating both current and historical information. This activity assesses industries and produ cts both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or o ther performance

- related features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may apply to different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In this current effort , DOE plans to

consider the possible reg u lation of product classes for four distinct types of miscellaneous refrigeration products: cooled cabinets ( i.e., products including wine chillers that are composed entirely of compartments that operate above 39 °F ); ice makers; non

- compressor refrigerators ; and hybrid refrigerators, refrig erator

- freezers, and freezers ( i.e., products that include

compartments that operate above 39 °F, such as wine storage compartments

, in products that otherwise perform the functions of refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, or freezers). Table ES.3.1ES

- 5 describes the product classes being considered for miscellaneous refrigeration products in this rulemaking. The four product classes listed for hybrid refrigeration prod ucts only represent the classes for which DOE is aware of existing hybrid products; however, DOE is considering an approach that would consider corresponding hybrid product classes for all 40 existing product classes for conventional refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers.

Product Classes for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Table ES.3.1

Product Type Product

Class Product Class Description

Cooled Cabinets CC All cooled cabinets

Non

- Compressor

Refrigerators NCR All non

- compressor refrigerators

Ice Makers IM

- P Portable ice makers

IM

- C Cooled

- storage ice makers

IM

- U Uncooled

- storage ice makers

Hybrid Refrigeration

Products H

- 3A

- BI Built

- in standard

- sized* hybrid all

- refrigerators with

automatic defrost

H

- 9I

- BI Built

- in s tandard

- sized hybrid freezers with automatic defrost

and an automatic icemaker

H

- 11A Compact * hybrid all

- refrigerators with manual defrost

H

- 13A Compact hybrid all

- refrigerators with automatic defrost

* Note: “Compact” products are defined as having a total compartment volume of less than 7.75 cubic feet; for compartment sizes larger than this, the term “standard

- sized” is used.

For the miscellaneous refrigeration products that are the topic of this rulemaking, DOE

addressed as part of the market assessment: (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics, (2) existing regulatory and non

- regulatory initiatives for improving product efficiency, and (3) trends in product characteristics and retail markets. Th e information gathered for this assessment provided data and resource material s that were used throughout th is analysis.

DOE reviewed literature and interviewed manufacturers to develop an overall understanding of the miscellaneous refrigeration product market in the United States. Industry publications, including trade journals, and literature from manufacturers, government agencies, and trade organizations comprised the bulk of the information examined by DOE. This

information included : (1) manufacturer identities and individual manufacturer market share s ; (2) shipments by product type; (3) product information; and (4) industry trends. Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD describes the market analysis and the information gathered from DOE’s

research

.

DOE typically uses information about existing and past tec hnology options and prototype designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to attain higher performance levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE developed a list of technologies to be considered. Th e lists were developed from trade publications, technical papers, and manufacturer literature and through consultation with manufacturers of componentsES

- 6 and systems. Because existing products contain many technologies for improving product efficiency, a rev iew of product literature and direct examination of purchased products provided additional information. The identified technologies include all those examined to date that DOE believes are technologically feasible.

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

DOE develops an initia l list of options for enhancing efficiency from the technology assessment described previously. The screening analysis (chapter 4) examines whether identified technologies (1) are technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and

s ervice; (3) have an adverse impact on product utility or availability; or (4) have adverse impacts on health and safety. If the technology option is not technologically feasible, or is not practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale consist ent with the shipment projections predicted

to occur by the time of the standard, DOE will not consider that technology option further. Similarly, if the technology would result in adverse impacts on product utility or availability, or

would have adverse i mpacts on health and safety, DOE will not consider that technology option

further. In the subsequent engineering analysis, DOE further examines the technology options that it did not remove from consideration in the screening analysis.

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis (chapter 5) establishes the relationship between the costs of manufacturing miscellaneous refrigeration products and their efficiencies. This relationship serves as the basis for calculating costs and benefits of modified product designs for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. Chapter 5 describes the product classes DOE analyzed, the representative baseline units, the efficiency levels DOE considered, the methodology DOE used to develop the manufacturing production cost model , and the cost

- efficiency results.

ES.3.3.1 Cooled Cabinets

DOE adopted a combined efficiency level/design option/reverse engineering approach to developing cost

- efficiency curves for cooled cabinets. DOE established efficiency levels defined

as a percent age of baseline energy consumption . DOE’s analysis is based on the efficiency improvements associated with groups of design options. Also, DOE developed manufacturing

cost models based on the reverse engineering of products to support the calculation of the

i ncremental costs associated with efficiency improvements.

Because there are no current F ederal energy conservation standards for cooled cabinets,

DOE select ed a baseline efficiency level consistent with the least

- efficient product evaluated for its analys is , a thermoelectric cooled cabinet of 2 ft 3 capacity

. DOE designated energy use of its efficiency levels as percentages of the equivalent energy use associated with a cooled cabinet that is minimally compliant with the wine chiller energy conservation sta ndards established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in its Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations . The CEC regulations permit a maximum allowable annual energy consumption level based on a product’s interior volume

. M anufacturers have stated t hat the CEC and N atural R esources Can ada (NRCan) standards effectively set the standard level for products sold in the U nitedES

- 7 States. (see, for example, U

- Line, No. 14 at p. 1) DOE used this level in developing a set of efficiency levels to examine as par t of the preliminary analysis. (DOE notes that t he CEC

equivalent efficiency level is equal to the CEC standard, adjusted to account for the fact that DOE’s proposed test procedure includes a usage adjustment factor that differs from the factor

used in t he CEC test procedure. )

DOE tested and conducted reverse

- engineering inspections for eight vapor

- compression wine chillers and three thermoelectric wine chillers for its cooled cabinet analysis. As described in chapter 3 of this TSD, DOE is considering an approach that would combine vapor

compression and non

- compressor cooled cabinets in to the same product class.

A s discussed further in chapter 5 of this TSD, DOE generated cost

- efficiency curves separately for 2 ft 3 and 6 ft 3 cooled cabinets

. Because DOE is not aware of any non

- compressor cooled cabinets significantly larger than 2 ft 3 , the 6 ft 3 analysis does not consider efficiency

levels associated with non

- compressor refrigeration technology. These separate analyses for products having different charac teristics but belonging to the same product class provides broader insights regarding the overall cost

- effectiveness of different efficiency levels. The economic analyses described in subsequent chapters were based on the assumption that both product types would meet the same efficiency level, expressed as a percentage of the CEC

equivalent energy use

. Because of the current efficiency levels of non

- compressor ( i.e.

, thermoelectric) refrigeration technology

, DOE assumed for the analysis that current
thermo electric products would need to be converted to vapor

- compression technology to attain the higher efficiency levels that DOE consider ed in the analysis

.

DOE analyzed efficiency levels (ELs) that spanned the range of energy consumption

observed from all available data, as described further in Chapter 5 of this TSD. The lowest efficiency level observed, which DOE called EL 0, was 267 percent of the CEC

- equivalent energy consumption. The highest efficiency level that DOE considered

– EL 11

– was 32 percent

of CEC

- equivalent energy consumption. The range of efficiency levels that DOE considered in its analysis is presented in Table ES.3.2 . As evidenced by this table, EL 4 represents the CEC

equivalent efficiency level.

Cooled Cabinet Efficiency Levels Table ES.3.2 Efficiency Level Percent of CEC

- Equivalent Energy Consumption

EL 0 2 67 %

EL 1 200%

EL 2 160%

EL 3 130% EL 4 ( CEC

- equivalent ) 100%

EL 5 90%

EL 6 80%

EL 7 70%

EL 8 60%

EL 9 50%

EL 10 40% EL 11 (Max

- Tech) 32%ES

- 8 EL 11 represents the maximum

- technology (max

- tech) level for cooled cabinets, which DOE evaluated through energy modeling and comparison with available maximum

- efficiency products , as described in detail in chapter 5 of this TSD . The energy model for the max

- tech

level was based on the use of all of the design options applicable to cooled cabinets. While this product configuration has not likely been tested as a prototype, all of the individual design options have been incorporated in available refrigeration products , although some, ( e.g. , vacuum insulated panels) may not have been incorporated in commercialized cooled cabinets . The max

tech efficiency level for cooled cabi nets is higher than that of the most

- efficient products currently available ( i.e.

, max

- available) . The costs of the max

- tech efficiency level design options are also quite high, as they are based on extensive use of high

- cost design options as well

as all applicable lower

- cost design options

DOE developed the cost

- efficiency curve for 6 ft 3 cooled cabinets based on three vapor

compression test units

, us ing reverse

- engineering to determine the costs of improving product efficiency using various screened

- in design options. DOE selected 6 ft 3 as a representative volume because it is the size that best represents the full capacity and efficiency range of vapor

compression wine chillers and a wide variety of models. These three 6 ft 3 units represented baseline, medium

- efficiency , and max

- available efficiency levels and provided separate data points to generate the cost curve for this capacity

. DOE also calculated the max

- tech efficiency

level for this curve b y applying additional design options to the max

- available design

. Because

there are no non

- compressor cooled cabinets of this capacity available on the market, DOE did not analyze the full range of efficiency levels for this capacity

— the evaluation spanne d from the

CEC

- equivalent efficiency level (100 percent

– EL4 ) to max tech (32 percent of the CEC

equivalent level ). For the 2 ft 3 cooled cabinet capacity, DOE evaluated the full range of efficiency levels, because products of this size may utilize thermoe lectric or absorption refrigeration technology, as well as vapor compression. Chapter 5 provides a more detailed description of the engineering analysis for cooled cabinet s

. The incremental MSPs are presented

for 6 ft 3 cooled cabinets in Table ES.3.3 and for 2 ft 3 cooled cabinets in Table ES.3.4

.

Incremental MSP Results for 6 ft 3 Cooled Cabinet Table ES.3.3 Efficiency Level (percent of CEC

- Equivalent

energy use ) Total Added MSP

EL 0 (267%) NA EL 1 (200%) NA EL 2 (160%) NA EL 3 (130%) NA

EL 4 ( CEC Equivalent ) $0
EL 5 (90%) $15
EL 6 (80%) $26
EL 7 (70%) $41
EL 8 (60%) $59
EL 9 (50%) $78
EL 10 (40%) $170
EL 11 (32%

– Max

- Tech) $258ES

- 9 Incremental MSP Results for 2 ft 3 Cooled Cabinet Table ES.3.4 Efficiency Level (percent of CEC

- equivalent

energy use ) Total Added MSP

EL 0 ( 267 %) $0
EL 1 (200%) $26
EL 2 (160% $42
EL 3 (130%) $54
EL 4 (100%

– CEC Equivalent ) $66
EL 5 (90%) $70
EL 6 (80%) $ 88 EL 7 (70%) $ 107 EL 8 (60%) $ 122 EL 9 (50%) $ 137 EL 10 (40%) $ 207 EL 11 (32%

– Max

- Tech) $ 275

ES.3.3.2 Non

- Compressor Refrigerators

As with cooled cabinets, DOE also adopted a combined efficiency level/design option/reverse engineering approach to developing cost

- efficiency curves for non

- compressor refrigerators. Using DOE’s proposed test procedure, DOE te sted

, and then reverse engineered

, five models of thermoelectric refrigerators (NCR

- 1), and one absorption

- based refrigerator (NCR

- 2). The proposed test procedure would test products in a 90 ° F ambient temperature

condition and is otherwise similar to the DOE test procedure for refrigerators that is detailed in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix A. However, none of the tested products attained the 39 ° F standardized temperature during testing. Hence, consistent with the test procedure proposal, for

each of th ese products, the energy use measurements are based on a test conducted with the temperature controls in the cold est available setting. Because there are no current F ederal, state, or industry energy conservation standards for non

- compressor refrigerators, and because they have no established test procedure, there is no established baseline efficiency level for these products. Therefore, DOE selected both baseline and max

- available efficiency levels based on

the test data. DOE also calculated the energy use reduction associated with a max

- tech efficiency level using vacuum insulated panel insulation applied to the max

- available design. DOE analyzed the efficiency levels presented in Table ES.3.5

.ES

- 10 Non

- Compressor Refrigerator Efficiency Levels Table ES.3.5 Efficiency L evel Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption EL0 (Baseline) 100%

EL1 95%

EL2 90%

EL3 85%

EL4 80%

EL5 75%

EL6 70%

EL7 65% EL8 (Max

- Tech ) 64%

DOE developed cost

- efficiency relationships for non

- compressor refrigerator s based primarily on the cost difference s associated with the different design option combinations of the

models that it tested

. In addition, DOE calculated the energy use reduction associated with

insulation

- based design options for an intermediate efficiency level and a max

- tech efficiency

level . The incremental MSP costs for non

- compressor refrigerators are presented in Table

ES.3.6

.

Incremental MSP Results for Non

- Compresso r Refrigerator Table ES.3.6 Efficiency Level (percent of baseline energy use) Total Added MSP

EL0 (100%

– Baseline) $0
EL 1 (95%) $0. 3 EL 2 (90%) $0.5
EL 3 (85%) $0.8
EL 4 (80%) $10
EL 5 (75%) $1 7 EL 6 (70%) $17
EL 7 (65%) $27
EL 8 (64%

– Max

- Tech ) $3 6

As mentioned above, the proposed test procedure for non

- compressor refrigerators that

DOE is considering would require testing in a 90 ° F ambient temperature condition, but that many of these products cannot maintain the 39 ° F standardized fresh food compartment temperature when operating in such conditions. As explained in the test procedure noti ce, DOE proposed these test conditions because products marketed as refrigerators are expected to maintain safe food storage conditions under the thermal loads that are simulated by the 90 ° F

ambient condition. However, when considering standards, r ather t han allow products to more easily meet the potential standard by having refrigeration capacity in sufficient to maintain a desired compartment temperature, DOE is considering permitting the allowable standard level to adjust in a manner proportional to the deviation of the measured compartment temperature from the standardized temperature.ES

- 11 ES.3.3.3 Ice Makers

To analyze ice makers, DOE utilized the efficiency

- level approach , which calculates the relative costs of achieving increa ses in energy efficiency levels without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases

.

DOE tested and reverse engineered two ice makers in each of the three product classes currently under consideration : portable ice makers (IM

- P), cooled

- storage ice makers (I M

- C),

and uncooled

- storage ice makers ( IM

- U). These six units were tested using the ice maker test procedure proposed by DOE in the Test Procedure NOPR, which would require measuring the energy use associated with producing 4 pounds of ice per day and with storing ice in its bin. The proposed test uses a 72 ° F ambient temperature condition. For cooled

- storage ice makers, the “ice storage energy” is the energy required to maintain bin temperatures below freezing. For portable and uncooled

- storage ice makers, ice storage energy is the energy required to replace ice

that melts.

Because there are no current F ederal, state, or industry energy conservation standards for ice makers, and because they have no established test procedure, there is no established bas eline efficiency level for these products. Therefore, DOE developed its analysis based on the results

noted above , selecting both baseline and maximum

- efficiency units for each class based on the

data.

DOE analyzed incremental efficiency levels that span ned the range of energy consumption observed from all available test data. The efficiency levels that DOE considered in its ice maker analysis are presented in Table ES.3.7 t hrough Table ES.3.9 below

.

Portable Ice Makers Efficiency Level s Table ES.3.7

Efficiency Level Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption EL 0 (Baseline) 256 100%

EL 1 230 90%

EL 2 205 80%

EL 3 179 70%

EL 4 154 60%

EL 5 128 50%

EL 6 102 40% EL 7 (Max

- Available) 89 35%ES

- 12 Cooled

- Storage Ice Makers Efficiency Level s Table ES.3.8

Efficiency Level Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption EL 0 (Baseline) 552 100%

EL 1 524 95%

EL 2 497 90%

EL 3 469 85%

EL 4 442 80%

EL 5 414 75% EL 6 (Max

- Available) 4 08 74%

Uncooled

- Storage Ice Makers Efficiency Level s Table ES.3.9

Efficiency Level Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption

EL 0 (Baseline) 1,075 100%

EL 1 1,021 95%

EL 2 968 90%

EL 3 914 85%

EL 4 860 80%

EL 5 806 75%

EL 6 753 70%

EL 7 699 65%

EL 8 (Max

- Available) 67 7 63%

DOE developed cost

- efficiency relationships for all three product classes of ice makers

under consideration based on the cost difference associated with the relative design option

combinations of the least

- efficient (baseline) and most

- efficient (max

- available) models that it tested in each class. The incremental MSP costs for all three ice maker product classes are presented in Table ES.3.10 t hrough Tabl e ES.3.12 below.

Incremental MSP Results for Portable Ice Makers Table ES.3.10 Efficiency Level (percent of baseline energy use) Total Added MSP EL 0 (100%

– Baseline) $0
EL 1 (90%) $1.30

EL 2 (80%) $2.59
EL 3 (70%) $3.89
EL 4 (60%) $5.18
EL 5 (50%) $6.48
EL 6 (40%) $7.78
EL 7 (35%

– Max

- Available) $8.43ES

- 13 Incremental MSP Results for Cooled

- Storage Ice Makers Table ES.3.11 Efficiency Level (percent of baseline energy use) Total Added MSP EL 0 (100%

– Baseline) $0
EL 1 (95%) $3
EL 2 (90%) $6
EL 3 (85%) $9
EL 4 (80%) $12
EL 5 (75%) $14
EL 6 (74%

– Max

- Available) $16

Incremental MSP Results for Uncooled

- Storage Ice Makers Table ES.3.12 Efficiency Level (percent of baseline energy use) Total Added MSP EL 0 (100%

– Baseline) $0
EL 1 (95%) $3
EL 2 (90%) $7
EL 3 (85%) $10
EL 4 (80%) $14
EL 5 (75%) $17
EL 6 (70%) $21
EL 7 (65%) $23
EL 8 (63%

– Max

- Available) $26

ES.3.3.1 Hybrid Refrigeration Products

Hybrid refrigeration products are similar in design, construction, and operation to the

re frigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, and freezer that are already covered and subject to Federal energy conservation standards

, often us ing identical components . T he k ey difference is that hybrid products include a compartment operated at warmer temperatures that comprises at least half of the refrigerated volume . Because of the very limited number of known hybrid refrigeration products

, and their similarities with conv entional refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers, DOE considered whether the 2014 energy conservation standards for conventional refrigeration products could be applied to hybrid products

.

DOE analyzed a hybrid refrigerator combining a fresh food compartment and a cellar

compartment. The analysis considered numerous product configurations based on a selection

from a r an ge of options for key features:

• Compact and standard

- size products.

• Hybrids with c ellar compartments comprising 50 percent and 75 percent of refrigerated volume.

• Glass doors covering the cellar compartment, both compartments, neither compartment, or for compact products, a single glass door covering both

compartments

.ES

- 14 DOE considered a range of design details, including the following:

• 1.5

- inch and 2

- inch thick insulation.

• Glass packs for the glass doors involving baseline, medium

- technol o gy, and

maximum

- technology designs. The baseline glass pack was dual

- pane air

- filled; the

medium

- tech glass pack was dual

- pane with argon fill and low

- emissivity coating;

and the max

- tech glass pack was triple

- pane with krypton fill and low

- emissivity coating.

• Compressors of different efficiencies: nominal EER levels of 2.1 Btu/W

- h and “higher

- EER” 2.4 B tu/W

- h for compact products, 3.7 Btu/W

- h and “higher

- EER” 4.4

Btu/W

- h for standard

- size products.

All of these design options

, other than the maximum

- technology glass

, are commonly used for hybrid and wine chiller products.

Table ES.3.13 , summarizes the analysis, showing the design options required for compliance with the standard for different product configurations. In some cases

, two sets of compliant design op tion combinations are presented. The results show that all anticipated product configurations can be designed to achieve the evaluated standard level, and that nearly

all conf igurations can meet it without use of max

- tech glass packs. Even the one configur ation evaluated requiring use of a max

- tech glass pack could, given other design options considered in the analysis as listed above , comply with the applicable 2014 standard using a higher

- EER

compressor . T his configuration is not one that DOE is aware of being currently available on the market, i.e.

, a hybrid refrigerator using glass doors for both the fresh food and cellar compartments. The a nalysis is discussed in greater detail in chapter 5.ES

- 15 Hybrid Refrigeration Product Design Changes Table ES.3.13

Product Configuration Design Options N eeded for C ompliance

Size Cellar

Volume (%) Doors

Fresh

Food CellarThickerInsulationFresh Food MediumTech GlassFresh Food MaxTech GlassCellar Medium-TechGlassCellar Max-TechGlassHigher-EERCompressor

Compact 50% Solid Glass X X

X

Glass Glass X X X X

X X X Single Glass Door

Covering Both Compartments X X X X

X X X

75% Solid Glass X X

X X

Glass Glass X X X Single Glass Door

Covering Both Compartments X X X

Standard 50% Solid Glass X X X

X X

Glass Glass X X X X

75% Solid Glass X X X

X X

Glass Glass X X X X

X X X

ES.3.4 Markups to Determine Product Price

The markups analysis (chapter 6) develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the estimates of MSP derived in the engineering analysis to customer purchase prices. In developing markups, DOE determined the distribution channels for mis cellaneous refrigeration products and the markup associated with each party in the distribution channel. DOE found that an overwhelming majority of residential appliances are sold through retail outlets. DOE is not aware of any other distribution channel t hat plays a significant role for miscellaneous refrigeration products, leading DOE to tentatively conclude that all miscellaneous refrigeration products are purchased by consumers from retail outlets.ES

- 16 DOE developed separate markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for the cost increase associated with improvements required to produce more

- efficient products (incremental markups). DOE also added sales tax to the estimated retail prices. Table ES.3.14

summarizes the markups developed for miscellaneous refrigeration products

.

Markups for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Table ES.3.14
Markup Product Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer Vapor

- compression

cooled cabinets (CC

- 1) 1.26

Thermoelectric cooled cabinets (CC

- 2) 1.22

All non

- compressor refrigerators 1.22

All ice makers 1.2 3

All hybrid products 1.2 6

Retailer All 1.36 1.11

Sales Tax All 1.071

ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis

The energy use analysis provides the basis for estimating the energy savings from higher efficiency appliances used in the LCC and subsequent analyses. The DOE test procedure provides standardized results that can serve as the basis for comparing the performance of different appl iances used under the same conditions, but actual usage in the field may differ from usage estimated by the test procedure.

To determine the distribution of energy use for miscellaneous refrigeration products

, DOE used a combination of laboratory testin g , field measurements, and reported energy use from public databases and manufacturers’ websites . The energy use of cooled cabinets was calculated as a linear function of volume, using online survey data to provide distributions of

internal volumes

.

DOE assumed cooled cabinets , non

- compressor refrigerators, and hybrid products would

be in constant use. For ice makers

, DOE assumed a usage rate of 4 pounds of ice per day, plus ice storage where appropriate. For portable ice makers (IM

- P), DOE applied a 50

- percent usage factor to account for the expectation that these units would not be plugged in for the entire year. For other ice makers (IM

- C and IM

- U), DOE assumed products would be in constant use. These

usage rates are based on the proposed test procedur e.

Table ES.3.15 through Table ES.3.18 show the results of the energy use analysis for

cooled cabinets , non

- compress or refrigerator s
, ice maker s and hybrid refrigeration product classes at each considered efficiency level

. For cooled cabinets

, these tables present results forES

- 17 only a single example with a volume of 2.0 ft 3

, but the energy use was calculated across a rang e of volumes. Chapter 7 provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the energy use analysis.

Cooled Cabinets: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level Table ES.3.15

Efficiency

level CC: Cooled Cabinet ( 2.0 ft 3 )

Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Energy Consumption (kWh/year)

EL0 267% 660

EL1 200% 494

EL2 160% 395

EL3 130% 321

EL4 100% 247

EL5 90% 222

EL6 80% 198

EL7 70% 173

EL8 60% 148

EL9 50% 124

EL10 40% 99

EL11 32% 79ES

- 18 Non

- Compressor Refrigerators: Average Annual Energy Use by Table ES.3.16 Efficiency Level

Efficiency

level NCR: Non

- Compressor Refrigerators (1. 7 ft 3 )

Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Energy Consumption (kWh/year)

EL0 100% 672

EL1 95% 638

EL2 90% 605

EL3 85% 571

EL4 80% 538

EL5 75% 504

EL6 70% 470

EL7 65% 437

EL8 64% 430

Ice Makers: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level Table ES.3.17

Efficiency

level IM

- P : Portable IM

- C : Non

- portable, cooled storage IM

- U:

Non

- portable, uncooled
storage

Percent of

Baseline Energy Use Energy Use (kWh/year) Percent of

Baseline Energy Use Energy Use (kWh/year) Percent of

Baseline Energy Use Energy Use (kWh/year)

EL0 100% 256 100% 552 100% 1075

EL1 90% 230 95% 524 95% 1021

EL2 80% 205 90% 497 90% 968

EL3 70% 179 85% 469 85% 914

EL4 60% 154 80% 442 80% 860

EL5 50% 128 75% 414 75% 806

EL6 40% 102 74% 4 11 70% 753

EL7 35% 8 9 65% 699

EL8 63% 67 2

Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e.

, higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.ES

- 19 Hybrid Products: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level Table ES.3.18

Efficiency

L evel H

- 3A

- BI: Standard

Size, Built

- In Hybrid

All

- Refrigerator with

Automatic Defrost
(13.4 ft 3 ) H

- 11A : Compact Hybrid All

Refrigerator with

Manual Defrost
(4.5 ft 3 ) H

- 13A : Compact Hybrid All

Refrigerator wi th

Automatic Defrost
(5.7 ft 3 ) H

- 9I

- BI:

Standard

- Size, Built

In Hybrid Freezer

with Automatic

Defrost (15.7 ft 3 )*

Percent of

2014

S tandard

E nergy U se Energy

Use (kWh /year) Percent of

2014

Standard

E nergy U se Energy

Use (kWh /year) Percent of

2014

Standard

E nergy U se Energy

Use (kWh /year) Percent of

2014

Standard

E nergy U se Energy

Use (kWh /year)

EL0 160% 538 160% 407 160% 499 100% 500

EL1 130% 437 130% 331 130% 405 95% 4 75

EL2 100% 336 100% 254 100% 312 9 0 % 450

EL3 90% 302 90% 229 90% 280 85% 425

EL4 85% 2 82 80% 204 80% 249 80% 400

EL5 70% 178 70% 218

EL6 60% 153 60% 187

EL7 55% 140 55% 171

* Adjusted volume = cooled cabinet volume + 1.73 times freezer volume Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e.

, higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analys i s

N ew energy conservation standards for products change consumer operating expenses

, which usually decrease

, and consumer price s , which may increase. DOE analyzed the net effect

of new standards on consumers by evaluating the LCC using the cost

- efficiency relationship derived in the engineering analysis, as well as the energy costs derived from the energy use analysis . Inputs to the LCC calcul ation included the installed cost to the consumer (purchase price plus installation cost), operating costs (primarily energy expenses), the lifetime of the appliance, and a discount rate.

Because the installed cost of a product typically increases while o perating cost typically decreases in response to new standards, there is a point in time during the life of products having higher

- than

- baseline efficiency at which the net operating

- cost benefit (in dollars) since the time of purchase is equal to the incr emental first cost of purchasing the higher efficiency product. The length of time required for products to reach this cost

- equivalence point is known as the PBP.

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using values that reflect utilization of the products in the field. DOE utilized data from online surveys to develop household sample s for each product class (or, for cooled cabinets and non

- compressor refrigerators , product subcategory), composed of households that owned that type of product

. Data from the s e surveysES

- 20 provided inform ation on household demographics, product characteristics, product volume for

cooled cabinets

, a s well as purchase, installation, maintenance, and repair costs.

DOE used data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to der ive average annual electricity prices for each S tate and the District of Columbia. DOE then assigned an appropriate price to each household in the sample, depending on its location

. To project future prices, DOE multiplied the se prices by the forecast of annual average price changes in EIA’s

AEO 201 4

.

DOE did not find any lifetime estimates for miscellaneous refrigeration products in the

relevant literature so it used data from online surveys to estimate the distribution of cool ed

cabinet s and non

- compressor refrigerator s in the field. DOE used these data to estimate the survival function of these appliances , which DOE assumed has the form of a cumulative Weibull

distribution. T he analysis yielded an average lifetime of 4 .3 years for cooled cabinets and non

compressor refrigerators

. For hybrid products, DOE assumed the lifetimes would be the same as

those of their non

- hybrid equivalents, which DOE calculated in the previous rulemaking for refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers, the Final Rule for which was published on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57516). These average lifetimes are 17.4 years for standard

- sized

built

- in hybrid all

- refrigerators (H

- 3A

- BI) , 22.3 years for standard

- sized built

- in hybrid freezers (H

- 9I

- BI) , a nd 5.6 years for compact hybrid all

- refrigerator s (H

- 11A and H

- 13A)

. For ice

maker s
, DOE assumed the lifetime would be similar to the lifetime of compact freezers in the previous Final Rule (76 FR 57516), with an average of 8.0 years.

To estimate the share of consumers who would be affected by a standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected distribution ( i.e. , market shares) of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case ( i.e

. , the case without new energy efficiency standards). For cooled cabinets, DOE used data available from the CEC, NRCan, and manufacturer websites, in combination with online surveys and DOE’s own testing and field measurements, to estimate the efficiency d istributions in recent years for each of the products

. For non

- compressor refrigerators, DOE used results from online surveys and testing to estimate the efficiency distribution s

. For ice makers, DOE tested two units from each product

class. DOE assumed fo r each product class that half of all products had an efficiency level equivalent to the lower energy consumption product, and half had an efficiency level equivalent to the higher energy consumption product. For hybrid products DOE used data available fro m manufacturers to determine the energy use of each product, and then determined the base case efficiency distribution relative to the 2014 refrigerator

- freezer standards for appropriate product

classes. DOE assumed that the market shares of the efficiency levels in future years will be roughly the same as the shares in 2012.

Using the projected distribution of product efficiencies for each product class, DOE randomly assigned specific product efficiency levels to each sample household. If a household was assigned a product efficiency that is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC savings calculation would show that this household is not impacted by that standar d level.ES

- 21 Table ES.3.19 t hrough Table ES.3.28 show the results of the L CC and PBP analyses for

cooled cabinets , non

- compressor refrigerators and ice maker product classes at each considered energy efficiency level. The average lifetime operating cost presented in the tables is a discounted value. Figures presented in chapter 8 show the range of LCC savings and PBPs for all of the efficiency levels considered for each product class.

Chapter 8 provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the LCC and PBP analyses.

Average LCC and PBP Results for Produc t Class CC , Cooled Cabinet Table ES.3.19

EL Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime

(years) Installed

Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 267 292 86 357 649

--- 4.3

1 200 318 65 269 587 1.2 4.3

2 160 334 53 217 551 1.2 4.3

3 130 346 43 177 524 1.2 4.3

4 100 358 34 138 496 1.2 4.3

5 90 365 30 125 490 1.3 4.3

6 80 385 27 112 497 1.6 4.3

7 70 407 24 99 506 1.8 4.3

8 60 425 21 86 511 2.0 4.3

9 50 443 18 73 516 2.2 4.3

10 40 531 15 60 591 3.3 4.3

11 32 615 12 49 664 4.3 4.3

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.ES

- 22 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.20

for Product Class CC , Cooled Cabinet

EL Percent of Baseline Energy

Consumption Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net

Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 267 0 0

1 200 0 3

2 160 0 9

3 130 0 19

4 100 0 33

5 90 2 39

6 80 22 32

7 70 44 23

8 60 51 18

9 50 58 13

10 40 87

- 61

11 32 95

- 135

* The calculation includes consumer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 23 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class NCR , Non

- Compress or Table ES.3.21 Refrigerator

EL Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime

(years) Installed

Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 165 98 393 558

--- 4.3

1 95 165 93 374 539 0.1 4.3

2 90 165 88 355 520 0.1 4.3

3 85 166 84 336 502 0.1 4.3

4 80 177 79 317 494 0.7 4.3

5 75 185 74 298 483 0.9 4.3

6 70 185 70 279 464 0.7 4.3

7 65 197 65 260 457 1.0 4.3

8 64 207 64 256 463 1.3 4.3

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.22

for Product Class NCR

, Non

- Compressor Refrigerator

EL Percent of Baseline Energy

Consump tion Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net

Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 17

2 90 0 36

3 85 0 54

4 80 0 62

5 75 0 73

6 70 0 92

7 65 0 99

8 64 0 93

* The calculation includes consumer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 24 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class IM

- P, Portable Ice Table ES.3.23

Maker

EL Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime

(years) Installed

Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 207 37 233 440

--- 8.0

1 90 208 34 211 419 0.5 8.0

2 80 210 30 190 399 0.5 8.0

3 70 211 27 168 379 0.5 8.0

4 60 213 23 146 359 0.5 8.0

5 50 214 20 124 339 0.5 8.0

6 40 216 17 103 319 0.5 8.0

7 35 217 15 91 308 0.5 8.0

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.24

for Product Class IM

- P, Portable Ice Maker

EL Percent of Baseline Energy

Consumption Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net

Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 90 0 10

2 80 0 20

3 70 0 30

4 60 0 40

5 50 0 50

6 40 0 60

7 35 0 66

* The calculation includes consumer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 25 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class IM

- C, Non

- Portable Table ES.3.25 Cooled Storage Ice Maker

EL Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime

(years) Installed

Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 1,109 84 538 1,647

--- 8.0

1 95 1,113 80 516 1,628 1.1 8.0

2 90 1,116 77 493 1,610 1.1 8.0

3 85 1,120 73 471 1,591 1.1 8.0

4 80 1,124 70 448 1,572 1.1 8.0

5 75 1,128 66 426 1,553 1.1 8.0

6 74 1,128 66 423 1,551 1.1 8.0

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.26

for Product Class IM

- C, Non

- Portable Cooled Storage Ice Maker

EL Percent of Baseline Energy

Consumption Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net

Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 9

2 90 0 19

3 85 0 28

4 80 0 38

5 75 0 47

6 74 0 48

* The calculation includes consumer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 26 Average LCC and PBP Results for Product Class IM

- U, Non

- Portable Table ES.3.27 Uncooled Storage Ice Maker

EL Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime

(years) Installed

Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 1,103 150 965 2,068

--- 8.0

1 95 1,107 143 921 2,028 0.6 8.0

2 90 1,111 137 877 1,988 0.6 8.0

3 85 1,115 130 833 1,949 0.6 8.0

4 80 1,120 123 789 1,909 0.6 8.0

5 75 1,124 116 746 1,869 0.6 8.0

6 70 1,128 109 702 1,829 0.6 8.0

7 65 1,132 103 658 1,790 0.6 8.0

8 63 1,134 99 636 1,770 0.6 8.0

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution Table ES.3.28

for Product Class IM

- U, Non

- Portable Uncooled Storage Ice Maker

EL Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net

Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 20

2 90 0 40

3 85 0 60

4 80 0 79

5 75 0 99

6 70 0 119

7 65 0 139

8 63 0 149

* The calculation includes consumer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 27 ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

Shipment forecasts are needed to calculate for each product being considered the national impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE found that very limited d ata were available on miscellaneous refrigeration product shipments

. To estimate the shipments, DOE used the results of a study based upon online surveys to determine the total stock in 2012 and then used the lifetime function to determine the proportion of new shi pments that made up the total stock. 1 DOE assumed that the household saturation rate determined in 2012 would remain the same going forward and, therefore, used AEO 201 4 housing starts projections to determine future total stock and future shipments. DOE split the shipments into market segments for new households, replacements, and, in the case of NCR

- 2 ( i.e.

, absorption refrigerators ) , shipments to hotels. Chapter 9 of t he TSD provides additional detail on the shipments analysis.

Figure ES.3.1 illustrates the total forecasted shipments for cooled cabinets in the base

case and at the considered efficiency levels. DOE estimated that the increased product prices at higher efficiency levels would cause a slight decrease in cooled cabinet shipments. Due to the

cost

- efficiency relationships for non

- compressor refrigerators, hybrid produ cts, and ice makers, DOE does not expect future shipments of these products to be affected by standards.

Figure ES.3.1 Cooled Cabinets Shipments Forecasts for the Base

Case and Considered Efficiency L evel s 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

5Shipments (millions) Base Case

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

EL7

EL8

EL9

EL10

EL11ES

- 28 ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

The NIA estimates the following national impacts from possible efficiency levels for miscellaneous refrigeration products: (1) national energy savings (NES), (2) monetary value of the energy savings due to standards, (3) increased total installed costs of the considered products due to standards, and (4) the NPV of energy savings (difference between value of energy savings and increased total installed costs). DOE prepared a spreadsheet model to forecast energy savings and national consumer economic costs a nd savings resulting from new standards.

A key component of DOE’s estimates of NES and NPV is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the base case (without new standards) and each of the standards cases (with new standards). DOE did not forecast a ny change in the base

- case efficiency distribution s over the forecast period

. In determining standards

- case efficiency distributions, DOE used a “roll

- up” scenario to establish the distribution of efficiencies for the year that the new standards are

assume d to become effective ( i.e. , 20 21 ) and subsequent years. 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 2021

.

Chapter 10 provides additiona l details on this and other aspects of the NIA analysis.

ES.3.8.1 National Energy Savings

DOE calculated annual NES as the difference between national energy consumption in the base case (without new efficiency standards) and under each efficiency level. DOE expre ssed

NES based on full

- fuel cycle values. To do this, DOE first estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy . DOE then converted site energy values to full

- fuel cycle values by using factors that account for (a) the losses in transmission

, distribution and generation of electricity, and (b) the energy consumed by extracting, processing and distributi ng primary fuels

. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES over the period in which products shipped in 2021

- 2050 are in operati on

.

The NES results shown in Table ES.3.29 through Table ES.3.32 are shown as full

- fuel cycle energy savings in quadrillion British thermal units ( i.e.

, quads ).ES

- 29 Cooled Cabinets : Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel Cycle Results (quads) Table ES.3.29

Efficiency

Level Cooled Cabinet

CC

1 0.052

2 0.139

3 0.292

4 0.518

5 0.618

6 0.730

7 0.852

8 0.976

9 1.102

10 1.199

11 1.266

Non

- Compressor Refrigerators Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel Cycle Results Table ES.3.30 (q uads )

Efficiency Level Non

- Compressor Refrigerator

NCR

1 0.063

2 0.134

3 0.204

4 0.275

5 0.346

6 0.416

7 0.487

8 0.501ES

- 30 Ice Makers: Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel Cycle Results (quads) Table ES.3.31

Efficiency Level Portable Ice Maker Non

- Portable Ice Maker, cooled storage Non

- Portable Ice Maker, uncooled
storage

IM

- P IM

- C IM

- U

1 0.012 0.001 0.008

2 0.024 0.003 0.017

3 0.036 0.004 0.025

4 0.048 0.006 0.033

5 0.059 0.007 0.042

6 0.071 0.008 0.050

7 0.077 0.058

8 0.062

Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e.

, higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.

Hybrid Refrigeration Products: Cumulative NES Fuel Full

- Fuel Cycle Table ES.3.32 Results (quads)

Efficiency

Level Standard

- Size

Built

- In Hybrid

All

- Refrigerator Compact Hybrid

All

- Refrigerator

with Manual

Defrost Compact Hybrid

All

- Refrigerator

with Automatic

Defrost St andard

- Size

Built

- In Hybrid

Freezer

H

- 3A

- BI H

- 11A H

- 13A H

- 9I

- BI

1 0.019 0.003 0.014 0.000

2 0.043 0.010 0.048 0.000

3 0.051 0.012 0.059 0.000

4 0.055 0.015 0.071 0.001

5 0.017 0.082

6 0.019 0.093

7 0.020 0.099

Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e.

, higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.

ES.3.8.2 Net Present Value

DOE calculated net monetary savings each year as the difference between total savings in operating costs and increases in total equipment costs in the base case and standards cases. DOE only included cooled cabinets , non

- compressor refrigerators, and ice m akers in the NPV analysis, because there is no cost efficiency curve available at this time to generate robust incremental cost estimations for hybrid refrigeration products at different efficiency levels

. DOE calculated savings over the life of the produc ts purchased in the forecast period. The NPV i s the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of increased

total installed costs. I n accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) t o Federal agencies on regulatory analysis, DOE used discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent to discount future costs and savings to the present.ES

- 31 The NPV results by product are shown in Table ES.3.33 through ES.3.36

. A negative

NPV indicates that the cos ts of a standard at a given efficiency level exceed the savings.

Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Cooled Cabinets, Table ES.3.33

in Billion 2013$

Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Non

Table ES.3.34 Compressor Refrigerators, in Billion 2013$

Efficiency

Level Discount Rate

3 Percent 7 Percent

1 0.470 0.208

2 0.997 0.441

3 1.525 0.675

4 1.779 0.775

5 2.125 0.920

6 2.649 1.151

7 2.891 1.245

8 2.759 1.175 Efficiency

Level Discount Rate

3 Percent 7 Percent

1 0.278 0.118

2 0.743 0.315

3 1.559 0.661

4 2.762 1.171

5 3.278 1.388

6 3.026 1.226

7 2.629 0.989

8 2.485 0.875

9 2.337 0.758

10

- 1.953

- 1.367

11

- 5.985

- 3.345ES

- 32 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Ice Makers, 3

- Table ES.3.35

Percent Discount Rate

Efficiency Level Portable Ice Maker Non

- Portable Ice Maker, cooled storage Non

- Portable Ice Maker, uncooled
storage

IM

- P IM

- C IM

- U

billion 20 1 3 dollars

1 0.082 0.009 0.056

2 0.163 0.018 0.111

3 0.245 0.027 0.167

4 0.327 0.036 0.222

5 0.408 0.044 0.278

6 0.490 0.045 0.334

7 0.533 0.389

8 0.417

Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e.

, higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.

Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Ice Makers, 7

- Table ES.3.36

Percent Discount Rate

Efficiency Level Portable Ice Maker Non

- Portable Ice Maker, cooled storage Non

- Portable Ice Maker, uncooled
storage

IM

- P IM

- C IM

- U

billion 20 1 3 dollars

1 0.036 0.004 0.024

2 0.072 0.008 0.049

3 0.107 0.012 0.073

4 0.143 0.015 0.097

5 0.179 0.019 0.122

6 0.215 0.020 0.146

7 0.234 0.170

8 0.182

Note: Blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels ( i.e.

, higher than max

- tech) for the specific classes.ES

- 33 ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

DOE conduct s the MIA in three phases and further tailor s the analytical framework based

on comments received from interested parties

. In Phase 1

, DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and conducts preliminary manufacturer interviews to identify important issues that require special consideration. The preliminary analysis TSD presents the results of the Phase 1 analysis. In Phase 2

, DOE prepares an industry cash

- flow model and an interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions. In Phase 3

, DOE interviews manufacturers, and

assesses the impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards both quantitatively and qualitatively. The NOPR TSD presents the results of Phase 2 and Phase 3 analyses.

The preliminary MIA identified potential impac ts to manufacturers of refrigeration products through interviews with a representative subset of manufacturers in the refrigeration products industry . Chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD includes details on the key issues

identified by DOE during the prelimi nary MIA.

To summarize, DOE identified the following key areas of impact for manufacturers of refrigeration products :

• Timing of new standards relative to the 2014 energy conservation standard for refrigerators , refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers;

• Impact on shipments and profitability;

• Impact on product mix;

• Cumulative regulatory burden;

• Capital and product conversion costs;

• Product innovation and consumer utility; and

• Impact on small businesses.

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

DOE is intereste d in receiving comments on all aspects of this preliminary analysis. DOE especially invites comments or data to improve DOE’s analysis, including data or information that will respond to the following questions or concerns that were raised in response to t he framework document and in preparation of the preliminary TSD.

ES.4.1 Non

- Compressor Refrigerator Storage Temperatures

DOE has observed through testing that non

- compressor refrigerators are typically unable to achieve storage temperatures of 39 °F or below in its proposed ambient test condition of 90

°F.

• Do any non

- compressor refrigerators

— thermoelectric or absorption

— exist that can maintain storage temperatures of 39 °F or below in ambient temperatures of 90 °F?ES

- 34 ES.4.2 Non

- Compressor Refrigerator Standard Adjustment Factor

As mentioned in chapter 2 of this TSD, DOE is not aware of refrigerators using refrigeration technologies other than vapor compression that can maintain 39 ° F storage temperatures when operating in the 90 ° F ambient conditions used for r efrigerator testing. To address this issue, DOE may consider accounting for this limitation when developing standards for these product types. This approach may compensate for the fact that such products would effectively be rated at a condition that theo retically should require less energy use than operation at the standardized temperature. This standard adjustment factor, depicted in Equation 1 , would adjust the max imum allowable energy use downward so that the standard’s stringency would increase as the product’s coldest temperature increases.

Equation 1

Standard Adjustment Factor = (90 °F

– T Test_Cold ) / ( 90 °F

– 39 °F)

Where: T Test_Cold indicates the fresh food compartment temperature achieved by a non

compressor refrigerator in the cold setting during an energy test. When a group of units of the same model are tested, e.g. , for certification purposes, this value would be the av erage measured for the group.

DOE used this standard adjustment factor to develop its efficiency levels for non

compressor refrigerators, as described in chapter 5 of this TSD.

• How should, if at all, DOE address the different nature of non

- compressor

- ba sed refrigeration products in the context of their inability to reach and maintain storage temperatures of 39 °F or lower under the conditions detailed in DOE’s proposed test procedure conditions?

ES.4.3 Hybrid Refrigeration Product Classes

For hybrid refrigeration products , DOE is considering creating product classes based on all existing product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers that will apply to products manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, as currently found at 10 CFR 430.32(a). DOE proposes to assign hybrid products to these 40 product classes based on their storage volume, compartment temperature ranges, defrost type, ice service, and built

- in status. The hybrid refrigeration products identified by DOE thus far would fall into one of four product

classes: H

- 3A

- BI, comprising built

- in standard

- sized hybrid all

- refrigerators with automatic defrost; H

- 9I

- BI, comprising built

- in standard

- sized hybrid freezers with automatic defrost and an automatic icemaker; H

- 11A, comprising compact hybrid all

- refrigerators with manual defrost;

and H

- 13A, comprising compact hybrid all

- refrigerators with automatic defrost. However, additional hybrid products identified by DOE in the future could potentially fall into any of the 40 pr oduct classes under consideration

.

• Are there hybrid refrigeration products currently on the market that would not be well represented by one of the existing product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, andES

- 35 freezers ? S hould DOE allow separate product classes for built

- in hybrid refrigeration products?

ES.4.4 Stocks, Shipments, and Lifetimes of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

DOE based its analysis on the results of a study that relied on online surveys 1 to estimate stocks, shipments, and lifetimes of cooled cabinets, non

- compressor refrigerators, ice makers, and hybrid refrigeration products. However, for cooled cabinets, shipments estimat es from other sources (AHAM, NPD Group, and Natural Resources Canada) were lower than those derived from survey data, in some cases by a significant factor. DOE also lacked data on the historical shipments of non

- compressor refrigerators, ice makers

, and h ybrid refrigeration products, as well

as projected future shipments of any miscellaneous refrigeration products . Consequently, DOE’s

estimates were based on trends derived from the 2011 Final Rule on Refrigerators, Refrigerator

Freezers and Freezers. DOE is interested in obtaining additional data on historical, current, and projected future stocks and shipments of miscellaneous refrigeration product, as well as lifetime estimates, to help refine its estimates.

• Are additional data available on the historic al, current, and projected future stocks, shipments and lifetimes of cooled cabinets, non

- compressor refrigerators, ice makers, and hybrid refrigeration products?

ES.4.5 Energy Use of Non

- Compressor Cooled Cabinets and Refrigerators

DOE relied on limited energy use data from laboratory testing, field measurements, and manufacturer websites to estimate the annual energy use of non

- compressor (thermoelectric

and /or absorption cooling) cooled cabinets and refrigerators . Manufacturer website data, in particular, were unclear regarding the test conditions under which such measurements were

made. Additional data on the estimated annual field energy consumption of non

- compressor cooled cabinets and refrigerators would help DOE to refine its estimates of the efficiency

di stributions of products currently on the market.

• Are additional data available on the estimated annual field energy use of non

- compressor (thermoelectric and /or absorption cooling) cooled cabinets and refrigerators ? If so, what specific topics or categor ies of data should DOE include and collect as part of its overall analysis?

ES.4.6 Energy Use and Market Shares of Ice Makers

DOE was not able to test more than two ice maker products per product class, and as a result its engineering cost

- efficiency estimates w ere very limited. DOE had no data on the efficiency market share distribution of ice makers and made the assumption that half of the products on the market were at the lower efficiency level, and half were at the higher efficiency

level. Moreover, while DO E was able to estimate from survey data that about 70 percent of ice makers were portable ( IM

- P), very limited information was available on the market share split

between cooled and uncooled non

- portable ice makers ( IM

- C and IM

- U, respectively).ES

- 36 Additional data on the energy consumption and market shares of all ice makers would help DOE to refine its estimates, which could have implications on energy use and potential savings.

• Are additional data , if any, available on the energy consumption and market shar es of ice

makers? If no such data are available , how should DOE begin to collect or develop these data? In lieu of that, what data could DOE use to help approximate the energy consu mption and market shares of these products?

ES.4.7 Vapor Compression in Small Cooled Cabinets

Vapor

- compression refrigeration systems are generally significantly more efficient than thermoelectric refrigeration systems. However, as discussed in chapter 5 of this TSD, the efficiency of compressors commonly used for refrigeration pro ducts drops off significantly below capacities of 300 Btu/hour. Therefore, it may not be efficient or feasible to switch from thermoelectric to vapor

- compression technology in cooled cabinets below a certain size.

• What additional data , if any, are availa ble on the feasibility of using vapor compression for

cooled cabinets above or below a particular size or capacity threshold ? DOE encourages the public to provide these types of data, to the extent they are available, including, but not limited to, studies, test results, and field reports.

ES.4.8 Relationship between Volume and Efficiency in Thermoelectric Refrigeration

Products

DOE found during testing that the efficiency of thermoelectric cooled cabinets increased significantly as product volume decreased and, consequently, seeks to improve its understanding of how efficiency is related to size or bottle capacity.

• DOE requests information and any available data on the relationship between volume and efficiency in thermoelectric refrigeration products.

ES.4.9 Vacuum

- Insulated Panels (VIPs) for Cellar Compartments or Cooled Cabinets

In prior discussions with manufacturers, DOE learned t hat different manufacturers had varying experiences in integrating VIPs to refrigeration products. The energy efficiency improvement reported by manufacturers ranged roughly from 0 to 100 percent of the levels predicted by the models described in the engin eering analysis . DOE used a performance degradation factor of 50 percent in its analysis to account for this variation in experience. However, DOE notes that none of this manufacturer feedback specifically addressed cooled cabinets, and that manufacturers indicated that VIPs provide less performance enhancement for fresh food compartments than they do for freezer compartments. Consequently, this limited

information obtained by DOE regarding VIPs may not apply to those compartments that are

maintained at 55 ° F.

DOE requests information and any available data on the thermal performance of cellar

compartments or cooled cabinets using vacuum insulated panels.ES

- 37 1 Greenblatt, J

. B., S

. J. Young, H

. - C

. Yang, T

. Long, B

. Beraki, S

. Price, S

. Pratt, H

. Wille m, L

. - B

. Desroches , and
S. M. Donovan (2013). “U.S. Residential Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory , LBNL

- 6537E, November.