National Archives and Records Administration

Office ofthe Federal Register

DEC 24 2008

Clara Barley

Federal Register Liaison Officer

Office ofGeneral Counsel

Department ofEnergy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 6E078, GC-74

Washington DC 20585

Dear Ms. Barley:

COPY fOR YOUR

lNfORI,lAT/ON

The material listed in the attachment is approved for incorporation by reference in 10 CFR Part 431.

This approval is contingent upon the final rule containing any language changes, which were agreed

upon by our staffs. The approval to incorporate by reference these publications is effective on the

effective date of your final rule. lfyou wish to enforce some other edition ofthese publications

approved, you must:

1. Publish notice ofthe change(s) in the Federal Register, and amend the Code of Federal

Regulations; and

2. Ensure that a copy ofthat edition is on file at the Office ofthe Federal Register; and

3. Notify me in writing ofthe change.

Federal Register Attorney: IIfIl

Attaclunent

u.s. mail address: 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park. MD 20740-6001

Office location: 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington,. DC 20002--4244

Federal Register web sites: http://www.archives.gov/federal-registcr and hltp:!/www.gpoaccess.gov/nara

EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47
Material Approved for Incorporation By Reference

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute

ARI Standard 1200-2006

Perjormanl% Rating ofCommercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers lind Storage Cabinets

2006

CfR litk, "'11 'S«Ntm

to.431.64

10.431.66

Pagt 1 of'

EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY 

THROUGH: C. H. ALBRIGHT, JR. 

UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

FROM: JOHN F. MIZROCH 

 ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

SUBJECT: ACTION: Approval to Publish in the Federal Register a Final Rule for 

Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

(RIN: 1904-AB59) 

ISSUE: The notice requests approval to publish in the Federal Register the attached notice of 

final rule for ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote-condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers (commercial refrigeration equipment). 

BACKGROUND:

 Commercial refrigeration equipment is used primarily to store and display perishable 

food products for sale in food-sales buildings (e.g., supermarkets and convenience 

stores), some multi-line retail stores, and in some food service applications like 

restaurants, salad bars, and cafeterias. 

 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) amends the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act to add new subsection 342(c)(4)(A), which directs the Secretary of 

Energy to issue by rule energy conservation standards for the above commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A). 

 Major interested parties include Hill Phoenix; Hussman; Tyler Refrigeration; Zero Zone; 

Delfield; Structural Concepts; Master-Bilt; Kysor Warren; the Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute; and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

 In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting trial standard level 

(TSL) 4 for ice cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote-condensing commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

o TSL 4 will result in significant national energy savings and is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

o DOE's adoption of TSL 4 represents the maximum efficiency levels that the 

analysis showed to have positive net present value to the Nation for all equipment 

classes. 

 The energy conservation standard would apply to all commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2012, and offered for sale in the United States. 

SENSITIVITIES: This rulemaking is one of the scheduled actions described in the 

Department’s report to Congress, which was prepared in response to section 141(a) of EPACT 

2005. 

POLICY IMPACT: This rulemaking supports the implementation of EPACT 2005. 

URGENCY: To meet the deadlines in the report to Congress, this notice should be submitted to 

the Federal Register no later than December 31, 2008. 

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend this notice be approved for publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Attachment 

Approve: __________________________ 

Disapprove: ________________________ 

Date: _____________________________ 

 

CONCURRENCE: GC-1/ Eric J. Fygi, 12/18/08 

 PI/Robert C. Marlay for PI-1, 12/15/08 

 OMB/Nathan J. Frey, 12/18/08 
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

MEMORANDUM FOR: David R. Hill 

 General Counsel 

 Jonathan Shrier 

 Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy 

 and International Affairs 

FROM: John F. Mizroch 

 Acting Assistant Secretary 

 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

SUBJECT: ACTION: Approval to Publish in the Federal Register a Final 

Rule for Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment (RIN: 1904-AB59) 

ISSUE: The attached notice concerning the above subject is provided 

for your concurrence or nonconcurrence. 

• This rulemaking is one of the scheduled actions described 

in the Department of Energy’s report to Congress, which 

was prepared in response to section 141(a) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. It has a scheduled publication date of 

January 1, 2009 for a final rule. 

• In order to coordinate the response to this request on a 

timely basis, we have forwarded a copy of the package to 

each addressee for concurrence. 

• Please deliver your response to Robbie Dooms, EE 

ESECS Coordinator, EE-12, in Room 5E-042, by 

_______________. 

Attachments 
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

[BILLING CODE] 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number: EERE–2006–BT–STD–0126] 

RIN 1904–AB59 

Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers; Self-Contained 

Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers, and Commercial RefrigeratorFreezers without Doors; and Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, 

Commercial Freezers, and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers 

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

 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting new energy conservation 

standards for commercial ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 

commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote 

condensing commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers. DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for these types of 

equipment would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

1
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION]. The standards established in today’s final rule will be applicable starting 

January 1, 2012. Incorporation by reference of the material listed is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION]. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the technical 

support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this proceeding, or comments 

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

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 

586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information 

regarding visiting the Resource Room. (Note: DOE’s Freedom of Information Reading 

Room no longer houses rulemaking materials.) You may also obtain copies of certain 

previous rulemaking documents in this proceeding (i.e., framework document, advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, public 

meeting materials, and related test procedure documents from the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s website at 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrigeration_equipment.h

tml.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

2
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-2192, Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents: 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. The Standard Levels 

B. Benefits to Customers of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

C. Impact on Manufacturers 

D. National Benefits 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Commercial Customers and Manufacturers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Definitions Related to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

3
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

a. Air-Curtain Angle Definition 

b. Door Angle Definition 

c. Ice-Cream Freezer Definition 

d. Equipment Configuration Definitions 

e. Hybrid and Wedge Case Definitions 

2. Equipment Classes 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

2. Analytical Models 

a. Cost Model 

b. Energy Consumption Model 

3. Equipment Classes Analyzed 

4. Wedge Cases 

5. Ice-Cream Freezers—Temperature Range 

6. Special Application Temperature Cases 

7. Coverage of Remote Condensing Units 

8. Regulating Secondary Cooling Applications 

C. Markups to Determine Equipment Price 

D. Energy Use Characterization 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 

F. Shipments Analysis 

G. National Impact Analysis 

H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

J. Utility Impact Analysis 

K. Employment Impact Analysis 

L. Environmental Assessment 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

A. Information and Assumptions Used in Analyses 

1. Market and Technology Assessment 

a. Data Sources 

b. Beverage Merchandisers 

2. Engineering Analysis 

a. Design Options 

b. Baseline Models 

c. Consideration of Alternative Refrigerants 

d. Consideration of NSF 7 Type II Equipment 

e. Product Class Extension Factors 

f. TSL Energy Limits 

g. Compressor Selection Oversize Factor 

h. Offset Factors for Self-Contained Equipment 

i. Self-Contained Condensing Coils 

3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. Miscellaneous Equipment 

4
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Commercial Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

b. Commercial Customer Sub-Group Analysis 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

c. Impacts on Employment 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses 

3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

D. Conclusion 

VII. 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 

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 

M. Congressional Notification 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. The Standard Levels

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; 

EPCA), directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish mandatory energy 

conservation standards for commercial ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial 

refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors; and 

5
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

remote condensing commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial 

refrigerator-freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)) These types of equipment are referred to 

collectively hereafter as “commercial refrigeration equipment.” Any such standard must 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) and 6316(e)(1)) Furthermore, the new standard must “result in significant 

conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(e)(1)) The standards in today’s 

final rule, which apply to all commercial refrigeration equipment, satisfy these 

requirements.1

Table I-1 shows the standard levels DOE is adopting today. These standards will 

apply to all commercial refrigeration equipment manufactured for sale in the United States, 

or imported to the United States, on or after January 1, 2012. 

 

1

 Currently, no mandatory Federal energy conservation standards exist for the commercial refrigeration 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

6
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table I-1 Standard Levels for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Equipment 

Class2

Standard Level *,**

(kWh/day)*** 

Equipment 

Class 

Standard Level *,**

(kWh/day) 

VOP.RC.M 0.82 x TDA + 4.07 VCT.RC.I 0.66 x TDA + 3.05 

SVO.RC.M 0.83 x TDA + 3.18 HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 0.13 

HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 2.88 HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 0.26 

VOP.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 0.31 

HZO.RC.L 0.57 x TDA + 6.88 VCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

VCT.RC.M 0.22 x TDA + 1.95 VCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

VCT.RC.L 0.56 x TDA + 2.61 VCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

SOC.RC.M 0.51 x TDA + 0.11 HCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

VOP.SC.M 1.74 x TDA + 4.71 HCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

SVO.SC.M 1.73 x TDA + 4.59 HCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

HZO.SC.M 0.77 x TDA + 5.55 SOC.RC.L 1.08 x TDA + 0.22 

HZO.SC.L 1.92 x TDA + 7.08 SOC.RC.I 1.26 x TDA + 0.26 

VCT.SC.I 0.67 x TDA + 3.29 VOP.SC.L 4.37 x TDA + 11.82 

VCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 VOP.SC.I 5.55 x TDA + 15.02 

HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 0.43 SVO.SC.L 4.34 x TDA + 11.51 

SVO.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 SVO.SC.I 5.52 x TDA + 14.63 

VOP.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 8.7 HZO.SC.I 2.44 x TDA + 9. 

SVO.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 8.7 SOC.SC.I 1.76 x TDA + 0.36 

HZO.RC.I 0.72 x TDA + 8.74 HCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 *

 TDA is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 1200-2006, Appendix D. 

** V is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006, Appendix C. 

*** Kilowatt hours per day. 

B. Benefits to Customers of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Table I-2 indicates the impacts on commercial customers of today’s standards. 

Table I-2 Implications of New Standards for Commercial Consumers 

Equipment Class Energy Conservation 

Standard 

Total 

Installed 

Cost

($) 

Total 

Installed 

Cost 

Increase

($) 

Life-Cycle 

Cost 

Savings 

($) 

Payback 

Period

(years) 

VOP.RC.M 0.82 x TDA + 4.07 $8,065 $536 1,788 2.0 

 

2

 For this rulemaking, equipment class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order separated by 

periods) of: (1) an equipment family code (VOP=vertical open, SVO=semivertical open, HZO=horizontal 

open, VCT=vertical transparent doors, VCS=vertical solid doors, HCT=horizontal transparent doors, 

HCS=horizontal solid doors, or SOC=service over counter); (2) an operating mode code (RC=remote 

condensing or SC=self-contained); and ( 3) a rating temperature code (M=medium temperature (38 °F), L=low 

temperature (0 °F), or I=ice-cream temperature (-15 °F)). For example, “VOP.RC.M” refers to the “vertical 

open, remote condensing, medium temperature” equipment class. See discussion in section V.A.2 and chapter 

3 of the TSD, market and technology assessment, for a more detailed explanation of the equipment class 

terminology. See for a list Table IV-2 of the equipment classes by category. 

7
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

VOP.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 11,222 1,947 3,938 2.8 

VOP.SC.M 1.74 x TDA + 4.71 4,381 633 1,549 2.4 

VCT.RC.M 0.22 x TDA + 1.95 11,654 2,134 2,339 3.9 

VCT.RC.L 0.56 x TDA + 2.61 12,584 2,513 5,419 2.6 

VCT.SC.I 0.67 x TDA + 3.29 6,602 1,385 5,217 1.7 

VCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 4,227 326 1,757 1.3 

SVO.RC.M 0.83 x TDA + 3.18 7,470 435 1,274 1.9 

SVO.SC.M 1.73 x TDA + 4.59 3,719 439 1,136 2.3 

SOC.RC.M 0.51 x TDA + 0.11 12,740 240 945 1.7 

HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 2.88 8,133 248 1,040 1.6 

HZO.RC.L 0.57 x TDA + 6.88 8,194 270 1,102 1.6 

HZO.SC.M 0.77 x TDA + 5.55 3,398 313 826 2.3 

HZO.SC.L 1.92 x TDA + 7.08 3,836 460 1,761 1.7 

HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 0.43 2,478 238 785 1.9 

The economic impacts on commercial consumers (i.e., the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings) are positive for all equipment classes. For example, currently available 

remote condensing vertical open equipment operating at medium temperatures, semivertical 

equipment with those same characteristics, and vertical closed equipment with transparent 

doors and operating at low temperatures—three of the most common types of commercial 

refrigeration equipment—typically have installed prices of $8,065, $7,470 and $12,584, and 

annual energy costs of $1,879, $1,413, and $2,249, respectively. To meet the new standards, 

DOE estimates that the installed prices of such equipment will be $8,601, $7,905, and 

$15,097, respectively, an increase of $536, $435, and $2,513. This price increase will be 

offset by annual energy savings of about $331, $234, and $977. 

C. Impact on Manufacturers

Using a real corporate discount rate of 11.5 percent, DOE estimates the industry net 

present value (INPV) of the commercial refrigeration equipment industry to be $540 million 

in 2007$. DOE expects the impact of today’s standards on the industry net present value 

(INPV) of manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment to be a loss of 7.29 to 

8
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

27.35 percent (-$39 million to -$148 million). Based on DOE’s interviews with 

manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE expects minimal plant closings 

or loss of employment as a result of the standards. 

D. National Benefits

DOE estimates the standards will save approximately 1.035 quads (quadrillion (1015) 

British thermal units (Btu)) of energy over 30 years (2012–2042). This is equivalent to all 

the energy consumed by more than 5 million American households in a single year. 

By 2042, DOE expects the energy savings from the standards to eliminate the need 

for approximately 0.7 new 1,000-megawatt (MW) power plants. These energy savings will 

result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 52.6 million tons 

(Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), or an amount equal to that produced by approximately 

332,500 cars every year. Additionally, the standards will help alleviate air pollution by 

resulting in between approximately 3.64 and 89.97 kilotons (kt) of cumulative nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) emission reductions and between approximately 0 and 1.38 tons of cumulative 

mercury emission reductions from 2012 through 2042. The estimated net present values of 

these emissions reductions are between $0 and $469 million for CO2, between $394,000 and 

$9.7 million for NOX, and between $0 and $284,000 for mercury at a 7-percent discount rate 

in 2007$, discounted to 2008. At a 3-percent discount rate, the estimated net present values 

of these emissions reductions are between $0 and $955 million for CO2, between $0.8 

million and $20.5 million for NOX, and between $0 and $560,000 for mercury. 

 

9
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

The national NPV of the standards is $1.414 billion using a 7-percent discount rate 

and $3.930 billion using a 3-percent discount rate, cumulative from 2012 to 2062 in 2007$. 

This is the estimated total value of future savings minus the estimated increased equipment 

costs, discounted to 2008. 

The benefits and costs of today’s final rule can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized [2007$] values between 2012 and 2042. Using a 7-percent discount rate for the 

annualized cost analysis, the cost of the standards established in today’s final rule is $95 

million per year in increased equipment and installation costs, while the annualized benefits 

are $229 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs. Using a 3-percent discount 

rate, the cost of the standards established in today’s final rule is $81 million per year, while 

the benefits of today’s standards are $253 million per year. 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

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. Part A-1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317) establishes a similar program for “Certain Industrial Equipment,” including 

commercial refrigeration equipment, the subject of this rulemaking.3

 DOE publishes today’s 

final rule pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III, which provides for test procedures, labeling, and 

 

3

 This part was originally titled Part C. However, it was redesignated Part A-1 after Part B of Title III of EPCA 

was repealed by Pub. L. 109-58. 

10
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and certain other 

equipment; and authorizes DOE to require information and reports from manufacturers. The 

test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment appears in Title 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 431.64. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. As indicated above, any new or amended standard for this 

equipment 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) and 

6316(e)(1)) Additionally, EPCA provides specific prohibitions on prescribing such 

standards. DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard for any equipment for 

which DOE has not established a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) 

Further, DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if DOE determines by rule 

that such standard would not result in “significant conservation of energy” or “is not 

technologically feasible or economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 

6316(e)(1)) 

EPCA also provides that in deciding whether such a standard is economically 

justified for equipment such as commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE must, after 

receiving comments on the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven factors: 

11
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

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 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 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 

7. other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

 (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) and 6316(e)(1)) 

In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1)), 

establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard for commercial refrigeration equipment 

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. 

12
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

EPCA further provides that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new 

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

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

type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the 

United States at the time of the Secretary’s finding.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(e)(1)) 

Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is applicable to promulgating standards for most types or 

classes of equipment, including commercial refrigeration equipment, that have two or more 

subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) Under this provision, DOE 

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

class of equipment for any group of 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies such 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on which DOE established such a higher or lower level. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

13
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Federal energy conservation standards for commercial equipment generally 

supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)-(3)) DOE can, however, grant 

waivers of 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); 42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(2)-(3)) 

B. Background 

1. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, 73 FR 50072, 50076 (August 25, 

2008) (the August 2008 NOPR), the EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA require that DOE 

issue energy conservation standards for the equipment covered by this rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)) The amendments also include definitions for terms relevant to this 

equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)). These definitions provide that commercial refrigeration 

equipment is connected to either a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing 

unit (42 U.S.C. 6311 (9)(A)(vii)), the two condenser configurations of equipment covered 

by this rulemaking, and include definitions of a remote condensing unit and self-contained 

condensing unit (42 U.S.C. 6311 (9)(E)-(F)). 

DOE commenced this rulemaking on April 25, 2006, by publishing a notice of a 

public meeting and of the availability of its framework document for the rulemaking. 71 FR 

23876. The framework document described the approaches DOE anticipated using and 

14
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held a public meeting on May 16, 2006, to 

present the contents of the framework document, describe the analyses DOE planned to 

conduct during the rulemaking, obtain public comment on these subjects, and facilitate the 

public’s involvement in the rulemaking. DOE also allowed the submission of written 

statements, after the public meeting, in response to the framework document. 

On July 26, 2007, DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANOPR) in this proceeding. 72 FR 41161 (the July 2007 ANOPR). In the July 2007 

ANOPR, DOE sought comment on its proposed equipment classes for the rulemaking, and 

on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to analyze the impacts of 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. In conjunction with 

the July 2007 ANOPR, DOE published on its website the complete ANOPR TSD, which 

included the results of DOE’s various preliminary analyses in this rulemaking. In the July 

2007 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written comments on these results and on a range of 

other issues. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2007, to present 

the methodology and results of the ANOPR analyses and to receive oral comments from 

those who attended. The oral and written comments DOE received focused on DOE’s 

assumptions, approach, and equipment class breakdown, and were addressed in detail in the 

August 2008 NOPR. 

In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed new energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 73 FR 50072. In conjunction with the August 2008 

NOPR, DOE also published on its website the complete technical support document (TSD) 

15
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

for the proposed rule, which incorporated the final analyses DOE conducted and technical 

documentation for each analysis. The TSD included the engineering analysis spreadsheets, 

the LCC spreadsheet, and the national impact analysis spreadsheet. The standards DOE 

proposed for commercial refrigeration equipment are shown in Table II-1. 

Table II-1 August 2008 Proposed Standard Levels for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment 

Equipment Class Standard Level *,**

(kWh/day) 

Equipment 

Class 

Standard Level *,**

(kWh/day) 

VOP.RC.M 0.82 x TDA + 4.07 VCT.RC.I 0.71 x TDA + 3.05 

SVO.RC.M 0.83 x TDA + 3.18 HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 0.13 

HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 2.88 HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 0.26 

VOP.RC.L 2.28 x TDA + 6.85 HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 0.31 

HZO.RC.L 0.57 x TDA + 6.88 VCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

VCT.RC.M 0.25 x TDA + 1.95 VCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

VCT.RC.L 0.6 x TDA + 2.61 VCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

SOC.RC.M 0.51 x TDA + 0.11 HCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

VOP.SC.M 1.74 x TDA + 4.71 HCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

SVO.SC.M 1.73 x TDA + 4.59 HCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

HZO.SC.M 0.77 x TDA + 5.55 SOC.RC.L 1.08 x TDA + 0.22 

HZO.SC.L 1.92 x TDA + 7.08 SOC.RC.I 1.26 x TDA + 0.26 

VCT.SC.I 0.73 x TDA + 3.29 VOP.SC.L 4.37 x TDA + 11.82 

VCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 VOP.SC.I 5.55 x TDA + 15.02 

HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 0.43 SVO.SC.L 4.34 x TDA + 11.51 

SVO.RC.L 2.28 x TDA + 6.85 SVO.SC.I 5.52 x TDA + 14.63 

VOP.RC.I 2.9 x TDA + 8.7 HZO.SC.I 2.44 x TDA + 9 

SVO.RC.I 2.9 x TDA + 8.7 SOC.SC.I 1.76 x TDA + 0.36 

HZO.RC.I 0.72 x TDA + 8.74 HCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 *

 TDA is the total display area of the case, as measured in the ARI Standard 1200-2006, Appendix D. ** V is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006, Appendix C. 

In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE identified seven issues on which is was particularly 

interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties: light-emitting diode (LED) 

price projections, base case efficiency trends, operating temperature ranges, offset factors 

for smaller equipment, extension of standards developed for the 15 primary classes to the 

remaining 23 secondary classes, standards for hybrid cases and wedges, and standard levels. 

73 FR 50134. After the publication of the August 2008 NOPR, DOE received written 

comments on these and other issues. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on 

16
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

September 23, 2008, to hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the 

proposed rule. The August 2008 NOPR included additional background information on the 

history of this rulemaking. 73 FR 50076-77. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule (the December 2006 final rule) in 

which it adopted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006, “Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,” as the DOE test procedure for 

this equipment.4

 71 FR 71340, 71369-70; 10 CFR 431.63-431.64. ARI Standard 1200-2006 

contains rating temperature specifications of 38 °F (±2 °F) for commercial refrigerators and 

refrigerator compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) for commercial freezers and freezer compartments, 

and -5 °F (±2 °F) for commercial ice-cream freezers. The standard also requires 

performance tests to be conducted according to the ANSI/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72-2005, “Method of 

Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.” In the test procedure final rule, DOE also 

adopted a -15° F (±2° F) rating temperature for commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR 

71370. In addition, DOE adopted ANSI/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) Standard HRF-1-2004, “Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household 

 

4

 The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA) announced on December 17, 2007, that their members voted to approve the merger of two trade 

associations to represent the interests of cooling, heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturers. The merged association became AHRI on January 1, 2008. 

17
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers,” for determining compartment volumes 

for this equipment. 71 FR 71369-70. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

As stated above, any standards that DOE establishes for commercial refrigeration 

equipment must be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B); 42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is in 

use by the respective industry or if research has progressed to the development of a working 

prototype. “Technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes 

will be considered technologically feasible.” 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(4)(i). 

This final rule considers the same design options as those evaluated in the August 

2008 NOPR. (See chapter 4 of the final rule TSD accompanying this notice.) All the 

evaluated technologies have been used (or are being used) in commercially available 

products or working prototypes. Therefore, DOE has determined that all of the efficiency 

levels evaluated in this notice are technologically feasible. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels 

As required by EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) in 

developing the August 2008 NOPR, DOE identified the energy use levels that would 

achieve the maximum reductions in energy use that are technologically feasible (max-tech 

18
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

levels) for commercial refrigeration equipment. 73 FR at 50077-78. (See NOPR TSD 

chapter 5.) DOE received comments indicating that LED efficacy had improved since the 

August 2008 NOPR. DOE also received comments regarding the LED lighting 

configurations assumed in the engineering analysis for various equipment types. This caused 

the max-tech levels proposed in the August 2008 NOPR to change for equipment classes 

with lighting. In general, the max-tech levels for open equipment classes decreased and the 

max-tech levels for closed cases increased from the max-tech levels proposed in the August 

2008 NOPR. For today’s final rule, the max-tech levels for all classes are the levels 

provided in Table III-1. 

Table III-1 “Max-Tech” Energy Use Levels

Equipment Class “Max-Tech” Level 

(kWh/day) Equipment Class “Max-Tech” Level (kWh/day) 

VOP.RC.M 0.74 x TDA + 4.07 VCT.RC.I 0.66 x TDA + 3.05 

SVO.RC.M 0.76 x TDA + 3.18 HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 0.13 

HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 2.88 HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 0.26 

VOP.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 0.31 

HZO.RC.L 0.57 x TDA + 6.88 VCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

VCT.RC.M 0.22 x TDA + 1.95 VCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

VCT.RC.L 0.56 x TDA + 2.61 VCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

SOC.RC.M 0.4 x TDA + 0.11 HCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

VOP.SC.M 1.65 x TDA + 4.71 HCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

SVO.SC.M 1.65 x TDA + 4.59 HCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

HZO.SC.M 0.77 x TDA + 5.55 SOC.RC.L 0.84 x TDA + 0.22 

HZO.SC.L 1.92 x TDA + 7.08 SOC.RC.I 0.99 x TDA + 0.26 

VCT.SC.I 0.67 x TDA + 3.29 VOP.SC.L 4.14 x TDA + 11.82 

VCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 VOP.SC.I 5.26 x TDA + 15.02 

HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 0.43 SVO.SC.L 4.15 x TDA + 11.51 

SVO.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 SVO.SC.I 5.27 x TDA + 14.63 

VOP.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 8.7 HZO.SC.I 2.44 x TDA + 9. 

SVO.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 8.7 SOC.SC.I 1.38 x TDA + 0.36 

HZO.RC.I 0.72 x TDA + 8.74 HCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 

19
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

C. Energy Savings 

DOE forecasted energy savings in its national energy savings (NES) analysis, 

through the use of an NES spreadsheet tool, as discussed in the August 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 

at 50078, 50101-04, 50121. 

One of the criteria that governs DOE’s adoption of standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment is that the standard must result in “significant conservation of 

energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) While EPCA does not define 

the term “significant,” a 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.” 

DOE’s estimates of the energy savings for energy conservation standards at each of the trial 

standard levels (TSLs) in today’s rule indicate that the energy savings each would achieve 

are nontrivial. Therefore, DOE considers these savings “significant” within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to evaluate in determining whether an 

energy conservation standard for commercial refrigeration equipment is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

20
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

a. Economic Impact on Commercial Customers and Manufacturers 

DOE considered the economic impact of the new commercial refrigeration 

equipment standards on commercial customers and manufacturers. For customers, DOE 

measured the economic impact as the change in installed cost and life-cycle operating costs, 

i.e., the LCC. (See sections IV.E and VI.C.1.a, and chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice.) DOE investigated the impacts on manufacturers through the manufacturer impact 

analysis (MIA). (See sections IV.I and VI.C.2, and chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice.) The economic impact on commercial customers and manufacturers is discussed 

in detail in the August 2008 NOPR. 73 FR at 50078-79, 50095-50100, 50104-07, 50013-16, 

50117-21, 50130-31. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

DOE considered life-cycle costs of commercial refrigeration equipment, as discussed 

in the August 2008 NOPR. 73 FR at 50078-79, 50095-50100, 50104, 50013-16, 50117-18. 

DOE calculated the sum of the purchase price and the operating expense—discounted over 

the lifetime of the equipment—to estimate the range in LCC benefits that commercial 

consumers would expect to achieve due to the standards. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for 

imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in determining the 

economic justification of a proposed 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) and 

21
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) As in the August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR at 50078, 50101-04, 50121, for 

today’s final rule DOE used the NES spreadsheet results in its consideration of total 

projected savings that are directly attributable to the standard levels DOE considered. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment 

In selecting today’s standard levels, DOE sought to avoid new standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment that would lessen the utility or performance of that 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) 73 FR at 50079, 

50088-89, 50123. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

DOE considers any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. 

Accordingly, as discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR at 50079, 50123, DOE 

requested that the Attorney General transmit to the Secretary a written determination of the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the proposed standards, 

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) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) 

To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the August 2008 proposed rule and the TSD for 

22
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

review. (DOJ, No. 37 at pp. 1–2) The Attorney General’s response is discussed in section 

VI.C.5 below, and is reprinted at the end of this rule.5

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

In considering standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, the Secretary must 

consider the need of the Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) The Secretary recognizes that energy conservation benefits the Nation in 

several important ways. The non-monetary benefits of the standards are likely to be 

reflected in improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Today’s standards also will likely result in environmental benefits. As discussed in the 

proposed rule, DOE has considered these factors in adopting today’s standards. 73 FR at 

50074, 50079, 50108, 50123-26, 50132. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA directs 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) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) In adopting today’s standard, 

DOE considered the LCC impacts on the commercial refrigeration equipment of 

independent, small grocery/convenience store businesses. Compared to the impact of 

standards on the overall market for commercial refrigeration equipment, the impact of 

standards on these businesses might be disproportionate because these businesses 

 5 A notation in the form “DOJ, No. 37 at pp. 1-2” identifies a written comment that DOE has received and 

has included in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to (1) a comment submitted by the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), (2) in document number 37 in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) appearing 

on pages 1 and 2 of document number 37. 

23
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

experience both higher discount rates and lack of access to national account equipment 

purchases. 73 FR at 50079, 50104, 50117-18. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA states that there is 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 level is less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy (and as applicable water) savings resulting from the standard, as calculated 

under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1)) DOE’s LCC and payback period (PBP) analyses generate values that calculate 

the payback period for consumers of potential energy conservation standards, which 

includes, but is not limited to, the three-year payback period contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test discussed above. However, DOE routinely conducts a full 

economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the consumer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 

42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1). 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). 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology 

DOE used several analytical tools that it developed previously and adapted for use in 

this rulemaking. One is a spreadsheet that calculates LCC and PBP. Another tool calculates 

national energy savings and national NPV. DOE also used the Government Regulatory 

24
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Impact Model (GRIM), along with other methods, in its MIA. Finally, DOE developed an 

approach using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of 

energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment on electric utilities and 

the environment. The TSD appendices discuss each of these analytical tools in detail. 73 FR 

at 50079-108. 

As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to use the spreadsheets and 

approaches explained in the August 2008 NOPR. DOE used the same general methodology 

as applied in the August 2008 NOPR, but revised some of the assumptions and inputs for 

the final rule in response to stakeholder comments. The following paragraphs discuss these 

revisions. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops 

information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 

publicly available information. DOE presented various subjects in the market and 

technology assessment for this rulemaking. (See the August 2008 NOPR and chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD.) These include equipment definitions, equipment classes, manufacturers, 

quantities and types of equipment sold and offered for sale, retail market trends, and 

regulatory and nonregulatory programs. 

25
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

1. Definitions Related to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

a. Air-Curtain Angle Definition 

For equipment without doors, an air curtain divides the refrigerated compartment 

from the ambient space. DOE proposed the following definition of air-curtain angle in the 

August 2008 NOPR that is consistent with the industry-approved standards: “Air-curtain 

angle means: (1) For equipment without doors and without a discharge air grille or 

discharge air honeycomb, the angle between a vertical line extended down from the highest 

point on the manufacturer’s recommended load limit line and the load limit line itself, when 

the equipment is viewed in cross-section; and (2) For all other equipment without doors, the 

angle formed between a vertical line and the straight line drawn by connecting the point at 

the inside edge of the discharge air opening with the point at the inside edge of the return air 

opening, when the equipment is viewed in cross-section.” 73 FR 50080; 50135. DOE did 

not receive any additional comments on the definition of air-curtain angle in response to the 

August 2008 NOPR; thus, DOE is adopting these definitions as proposed. 

b. Door Angle Definition 

The door orientation affects the energy consumption of equipment with doors. This 

equipment can be broadly categorized by the angle of the door. In the August 2008 NOPR, 

DOE proposed the following definition of door angle: “(1) For equipment with flat doors, 

the angle between a vertical line and the line formed by the plane of the door, when the 

equipment is viewed in cross-section; and (2) For equipment with curved doors, the angle 

formed between a vertical line and the straight line drawn by connecting the top and bottom 

points where the display area glass joins the cabinet, when the equipment is viewed in cross26
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

section.” 73 FR 50080; 50135. DOE did not receive any additional comments on the 

definition of door angle in response to the August 2008 NOPR; thus, DOE is adopting the 

definition as proposed. 

c. Ice-Cream Freezer Definition 

During the NOPR public meeting, interested parties expressed concern about the 

definition of an “ice-cream freezer” as used in this rulemaking. Hussman stated that using 

the term “ice cream” to refer to a temperature range might be confusing because ice cream is 

also a product. (Hussman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 15)6

 Southern Store 

Fixtures expressed a similar concern, adding that other types of frozen items, such as frozen 

juice, may be displayed in ice-cream type cases. (Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 18) 

As described in the July 2007 ANOPR, the EPCA provision that required this 

rulemaking identifies specifically the categories “ice-cream freezers,” “self-contained 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors,” and “remote 

condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.” (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(4)(A), added by EPACT 2005, section 136(c)) Because the term “ice-cream 

freezers” was specified in EPCA, the term “ice cream” is appropriate to describe that 

 

6

 A notation in the form “Hussman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 15” identifies an oral comment that 

DOE received during the September 23, 2008, NOPR public meeting. This comment was recorded in the 

public meeting transcript in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0126), maintained in 

the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) 

made during the public meeting by Hussman; (2) recorded in document number 27, which is the public 

meeting transcript filed in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) appearing on page 15 of document number 

27. 

27
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

specific equipment category in this rulemaking, and DOE is therefore maintaining the use of 

that term in the rulemaking. Also, see section IV.A.2 of this final rule. 

d. Equipment Configuration Definitions 

The configuration of commercial refrigeration equipment affects its energy 

consumption and the equipment classes into which this equipment is divided. In the August 

2008 NOPR, DOE proposed five definitions of equipment configurations, shown in Table 

IV-1. 73 FR 50081; 50135. 

Table IV-1 Equipment Configuration Definitions 

Equipment Family Description 

Vertical Open (VOP) Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle ≥ 0 degrees and < 10 

degrees from the vertical. 

Semivertical Open (SVO) Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle ≥ 10 degrees and < 

80 degrees from the vertical. 

Horizontal Open (HZO) Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle ≥ 80 degrees from the 

vertical. 

Vertical Closed (VC) Equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle < 45 degrees. 

Horizontal Closed (HC) Equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle ≥ 45 degrees. 

DOE did not receive any additional comments on the definitions of the five 

configurations; thus, DOE is adopting these definitions as proposed. 

e. Hybrid and Wedge Case Definitions 

As stated in the August 2008 NOPR, certain types of equipment meet the definition 

of “commercial refrigeration equipment” (Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005), but do not 

fall directly into any of the 38 equipment classes defined in the market and technology 

assessment. Among these types are hybrid cases and wedge cases; DOE proposed 

28
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

definitions for these in the August 2008 NOPR. Because DOE did not receive any additional 

comments on the definitions of “commercial hybrid refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers” or on the definition of “wedge case,” DOE is adopting these definitions as 

proposed in section 431.62. 

2. Equipment Classes 

Commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers 

can be divided into various equipment classes categorized largely by physical characteristics 

that affect energy efficiency. Some of these characteristics delineate the categories of 

equipment covered by this rulemaking.7

 Most affect the merchandise that the equipment can 

be used to display and how the customer can access that merchandise. Key physical 

characteristics that affect energy efficiency are the operating temperature, the presence or 

absence of doors (i.e., closed cases or open cases), the type of doors used (i.e., transparent or 

solid), the angle of the door or air-curtain (i.e., horizontal, semivertical, or vertical), and the 

type of condensing unit (i.e., remote or self-contained). As discussed in the August 2008 

NOPR, 73 FR 50080-83, DOE is adopting equipment classes in this rulemaking by: (1) 

dividing commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers into equipment families; (2) subdividing these families based on condensing unit 

configurations and rating temperature designations; and (3) identifying the resulting classes 

that are within each of the three equipment categories covered by this rulemaking. Because 

 

7

 “Commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers” is a type of covered 

commercial equipment. For purposes of discussion only in this proceeding, DOE uses the term “categories” to 

designate groupings of “commercial refrigeration equipment.” The categories of equipment are: self-contained 

commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors; remote 

condensing commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers; and 

commercial ice-cream freezers. DOE will analyze specific equipment classes that fall within these general 

categories and set appropriate standards. 

29
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOE did not receive any comments in response to the presentation of equipment classes in 

the August 2008 NOPR, DOE is adopting the equipment classes as proposed without further 

modification. Table IV-2 presents the equipment classes covered under this rulemaking, 

organized by the three equipment categories. 

30
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table IV-2 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Classes by Category

Equipment 

Category 

Condensing Unit 

Configuration Equipment Family 

Operating 

Temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

Class 

Designation 

≥ 32 VOP.RC.M Vertical Open < 32 VOP.RC.L 

≥ 32 SVO.RC.M Semivertical Open < 32 SVO.RC.L 

≥ 32 HZO.RC.M Horizontal Open < 32 HZO.RC.L 

≥ 32 VCT.RC.M Vertical Closed Transparent < 32 VCT.RC.L 

≥ 32 HCT.RC.M Horizontal Closed Transparent < 32 HCT.RC.L 

≥ 32 VCS.RC.M Vertical Closed Solid < 32 VCS.RC.L 

≥ 32 HCS.RC.M Horizontal Closed Solid < 32 HCS.RC.L 

≥ 32 SOC.RC.M 

Remote 

Condensing 

Commercial 

Refrigerators, 

Commercial 

Freezers, and 

Commercial 

RefrigeratorFreezers 

Remote 

Service Over Counter < 32 SOC.RC.L 

≥ 32 VOP.SC.M Vertical Open < 32 VOP.SC.L 

≥ 32 SVO.SC.M Semivertical Open < 32 SVO.SC.L 

≥ 32 HZO.SC.M 

Self-Contained 

Commercial 

Refrigerators, 

Commercial 

Freezers, and 

Commercial 

RefrigeratorFreezers without 

Doors 

Self-Contained 

Horizontal Open < 32 HZO.SC.L 

Vertical Open VOP.RC.I 

Semivertical Open SVO.RC.I 

Horizontal Open HZO.RC.I 

Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.RC.I 

Horizontal Closed Transparent HCT.RC.I 

Vertical Closed Solid VCS.RC.I 

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.RC.I 

Remote 

Service Over Counter SOC.RC.I 

Vertical Open VOP.SC.I 

Semivertical Open SVO.SC.I 

Horizontal Open HZO.SC.I 

Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.SC.I 

Horizontal Closed Transparent HCT.SC.I 

Vertical Closed Solid VCS.SC.I 

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.SC.I 

Commercial IceCream Freezers 

Self-Contained 

Service Over Counter 

≤ -5* 

SOC.SC.I 

* Ice-cream freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer designed to operate at or below -5 °F 

(-21 °C) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice 

cream. 

31
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

B. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis develops cost-efficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing costs of achieving increased efficiency. As discussed in the August 2008 

NOPR, DOE used the design-option approach, involving consultation with outside experts, 

review of publicly available cost and performance information, and modeling of equipment 

cost and energy consumption. 73 FR 50083-50093. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contained 

detailed discussion of the engineering analysis methodology. In response to the August 2008 

NOPR, DOE received a number of comments on the engineering analysis methodology. 

These comments, and DOE’s response, are detailed in the following paragraphs. 

1. Approach 

For the NOPR, DOE adopted a design-options approach for the engineering analysis. 

The methodology DOE used to perform the design-option analysis is described in detail in 

chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE used industry-supplied data, which were developed using an 

efficiency-level approach, to validate DOE data. DOE received no further comments on the 

design-options approach and, as a result, made no changes to this methodology for the final 

rule. 

2. Analytical Models 

a. Cost Model 

In the engineering analysis, DOE establishes the relationship between manufacturer 

production cost and energy consumption for the commercial refrigeration equipment 

32
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

covered in this rulemaking. In determining this relationship, DOE estimated the incremental 

manufacturer production costs associated with technological changes that reduce the energy 

consumption of the baseline models (i.e., design options). 

During the NOPR public meeting, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE) stated that DOE’s method of estimating manufacturer production costs 

based on a snapshot analysis of available engineering options is flawed, because historical 

data for other building technologies show that incremental costs of complying with 

standards have been much lower than DOE estimated. ACEEE attributed this to 

manufacturers redesigning their processes to meet new energy conservation standards. 

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 28) AHRI disagreed with ACEEE and 

cited the residential central air-conditioner rulemaking as an example of where the actual 

cost of equipment was much higher than DOE estimated. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 29) However, ACEEE responded that this was because commodity 

prices increased dramatically for that equipment and that once this was accounted for, the 

observed price increase in baseline residential air-conditioner units was 2 percent lower than 

DOE’s estimate. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 30) Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project (ASAP) added that a retrospective analysis would be useful for helping 

DOE evaluate its model for predicting costs. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at 

p. 31) ACEEE also commented that DOE’s model for assessing the cost and value of energy 

conservation standards is flawed, because the model fails to account for manufacturer 

learning curves. Over time, the price of most equipment drops as more units are produced, 

regardless of the efficiency standards placed on them. Therefore, DOE’s assumption that 

33
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

greater efficiency standards will cause equipment prices to increase is not valid. (ACEEE, 

No. 31 at p. 1) A comment submitted by representatives of ACEEE, Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, California Energy Commission, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sempra Energy Utilities, and 

Southern California Edison (hereafter referred to as the Joint Comment) agreed with 

ACEEE that DOE’s engineering analysis methodology should take manufacturer learning 

curves into account. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) 

The cost-efficiency curves that DOE presented in the NOPR TSD showed 

incremental costs of implementing design option changes above the baseline. The costefficiency curves are not intended to capture future economies of scale, or other related cost 

reductions that may or may not result from increased cumulative production over time. DOE 

acknowledges that manufacturing efficiency evolves over time, but notes that earlier trends 

do not necessarily reflect future trends. DOE has insufficient data to project final minimized 

unit costs of newer technologies. DOE believes that thorough and rigorous manufacturing 

cost analysis based on actual equipment at all efficiency levels represents the most effective 

and appropriate way to estimate current and near-term incremental manufacturing costs. 

Therefore, DOE has used available information on existing design options in the costefficiency analysis. 

i. LED Price Projections 

DOE estimates the economic impacts of the proposed standards based on current 

costs of technologically feasible energy saving design options used in commercial 

34
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

refrigeration equipment. One such technology, which has been a focal point in this 

rulemaking, is solid-state lighting (i.e., LEDs). For the ANOPR, DOE based LED lighting 

costs on a retrofit case study, but revised its assumptions for the NOPR after gathering 

information from LED chip and fixture manufacturers. These changes caused the original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) cost (i.e., the cost to commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturers) of LED fixtures to increase for both open refrigeration cases and 

refrigeration cases with transparent doors. Based on these revised costs, DOE tentatively 

rejected TSL 5 (i.e., the efficiency level where LEDs were first implemented for most 

equipment classes) because it was not economically feasible. 

However, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis for the NOPR to gauge the effect of 

expected LED price reductions. That analysis estimated NPV and LCC values for 

equipment classes if projected LED prices were used in DOE’s analysis. DOE’s Multi-Year 

Program Plan was used to estimate the reduction in LED chip price by 2012.8 The 

sensitivity analysis used an estimated reduction in LED chip price of 80 percent by 2012, 

which represented a 50-percent reduction in overall LED system cost, assuming the costs of 

the power supply and LED fixtures did not change significantly from the values used in the 

engineering analysis. DOE recognized that if these projected reductions were to be realized 

or exceeded, the economic impacts of this standard could change significantly, possibly 

making higher TSLs economically justified. Therefore, in the NOPR, DOE requested 

 

8

 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting Research and Development, Multi-Year Program Plan 

FY’09–FY’14. This document was prepared under the direction of a Technical Committee from the Next 

Generation Lighting Initiative Alliance (NGLIA). Information about NGLIA and its members is available at 

www.nglia.org. 

35
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

comment on all aspects of the LED issue, specifically soliciting any information or data that 

could increase confidence in the price projections. 

 

DOE received several comments. ASAP, Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), Earthjustice, and the Joint Comment all expressed support for the use of DOE 

LED price projections. They stated that the projections are sufficiently justified and would 

be a more adequate basis for the standard than the assumption that LED prices will remain 

constant at 2007 levels. (ASAP, No. 27 at p. 100; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 

at p. 105; Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 106; Joint Comment, No. 34 

at p. 2) Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Sempra Energy 

Utilities (Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas and Electric Company) (hereafter the 

California Utilities Joint Comment) suggested that the DOE projections might be too 

conservative. (California Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 3) ACEEE agreed, 

attributing this underestimation to the exclusion of scale-dependent factors. ACEEE stated 

that as LED production scales up, there will be greater price reductions and increased 

quality in terms of reproducibility. (ACEEE, No. 31 at p. 7 and Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 27 at p. 111) As evidence of the validity of DOE LED cost projections, the California 

Utilities Joint Comment stated that LED prices have already dropped rapidly, rendering 

DOE analyses based on 2007 prices obsolete. It suggested that the price of LED lighting for 

use in refrigeration has already fallen by roughly 10 percent since 2007. (California Utilities 

Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 13) The California Utilities Joint Comment also stated that 

LED prices will continue to drop after 2012, a fact that should be considered in the NPV 

analyses. (California Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 8) 

36
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

For today’s final rule, DOE updated the LED costs to represent the current cost of 

LEDs. DOE did not receive any data providing a greater level of confidence that LED price 

reductions would occur. However, LED costs have decreased and the costs used in the 

NOPR engineering analysis no longer represent the current cost of LEDs. While 

considerable information is available that suggests LED prices are likely to decline by at 

least as much as DOE’s sensitivity analysis assumed, DOE is not using this information as 

the basis of its analysis due to a lack of certainty about the timing and success of LED 

research and product development. See section V.A.2.a for more detail on the updated LED 

lighting assumptions. 

ii. Material Price Projections 

As discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE performed a sensitivity analysis to 

explore the effects of future LED fixture prices on commercial refrigeration equipment 

prices in the engineering analysis. During the NOPR public meeting, AHRI commented that 

if DOE were to include LED price projections in the technical analyses, equivalent actions 

should be taken for other materials that also have shown recent price variability (i.e., 

refrigerants). (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 102) AHRI believes 

commodity prices are likely to change significantly, which would affect equipment costs 

and change efficiency trends. AHRI cited the potential change in costs of hydrofluorocarbon 

refrigerants (HFCs) if pending legislation capping those refrigerants is passed. (AHRI, No. 

33 at p. 3) True Manufacturing Company (True) added that the industry is already using 

37
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

cheaper, less efficient substitute materials to produce heat transfer devices in response to 

rising copper prices. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 104) 

As stated above, DOE did not use LED price projections in the final rule due to a 

lack of certainty about the timing and extent to which the projections would be realized. 

Similarly, DOE also did not include material price projections in the final rule analysis. 

b. Energy Consumption Model 

 The energy consumption model estimates the daily energy consumption of 

commercial refrigeration equipment at various performance levels using a design-options 

approach. The model is specific to the categories of equipment covered under this 

rulemaking, but is sufficiently generalized to model the energy consumption of all covered 

equipment classes. For a given equipment class, the model estimates the daily energy 

consumption for the baseline and the energy consumption of several levels of performance 

above the baseline. The model is used to calculate each performance level separately. For 

the NOPR, DOE updated its radiation load calculations by revising its assumptions for the 

view factor and changed its calculation method for infiltration load by replacing defrost 

melt-water with infiltrated air. 73 FR 50086. No comments were received in response to 

these changes. Therefore, DOE maintained these revised calculation methodologies for the 

final rule. 

38
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

3. Equipment Classes Analyzed 

For the final rule, DOE did not make any changes to the equipment classes directly 

analyzed in the NOPR engineering analysis. Table IV-3 shows the 15 equipment classes 

DOE directly analyzed. 

Table IV-3 Equipment Classes Directly Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis

Equipment 

Class Description 

VOP.RC.M Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

VOP.RC.L Vertical Freezer without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature 

SVO.RC.M Semivertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

HZO.RC.M Horizontal Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

HZO.RC.L Horizontal Freezer without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature 

VCT.RC.M Vertical Refrigerator with Transparent Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

VCT.RC.L Vertical Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature 

SOC.RC.M Service Over Counter Refrigerator with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

VOP.SC.M Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

SVO.SC.M Semivertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium 

Temperature 

HZO.SC.M Horizontal Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature 

HZO.SC.L Horizontal Freezer without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Low Temperature 

VCT.SC.I Vertical Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, IceCream Temperature 

VCS.SC.I Vertical Ice-Cream Freezer with Solid Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream 

Temperature 

HCT.SC.I Horizontal Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, IceCream Temperature 

4. Wedge Cases 

In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE considered remote condensing and self-contained 

wedge cases as covered equipment.9 DOE proposed that the calculated daily energy 

consumption (CDEC) or total daily energy consumption (TDEC) be measured according to 

 

9

 If a wedge case does not include a refrigeration component and simply serves as a miter transition piece 

between two other cases, then it does not meet the definition of commercial refrigeration equipment, and is not 

covered under this rulemaking. 

39
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 test procedure.10 DOE also proposed that the 

maximum daily energy consumption (MDEC) for each model shall be the amount derived 

by incorporating into the standards equation for the appropriate equipment class a value for 

the TDA that is the product of: (1) the vertical height of the air curtain or glass (in a 

transparent door), and (2) the largest overall width of the case when viewed from the front. 

73 FR 50113. In the NOPR, DOE sought comment regarding appropriate standard levels for 

wedge cases, but did not receive any comments on this specific proposal. 

Hussman, Hill Phoenix, and AHRI commented that wedge cases should be excluded 

from this rulemaking because they are niche products that do not represent a significant part 

of the commercial refrigeration industry. (Hussman, No. 42 at p. 2; Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at 

p. 6; AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) Hill Phoenix further states that most supermarkets and grocery 

stores do not use wedge cases at all, and those that do will only use a few within a store 

because they are much more expensive per linear foot than a standard case. (Hill Phoenix, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 18) Hussman further states that wedge cases use less 

than 0.5 percent of the total energy consumed by the supermarket industry and represent 

only 1.5 percent of the cases shipped. (Hussman, No. 42 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that 

wedge cases are niche equipment and do not represent a significant market share in the 

commercial refrigeration equipment industry. However, market share is not a basis for 

 

10 In the August 2008 NOPR, the test procedure cited was ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005. However, the 

test procedure DOE adopted into section 431.64 of 10 CFR Part 431 is ARI Standard 1200-2006, which 

specifically references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 as the method of testing commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 71 FR 71356 DOE notes that ARI Standard 1200-2006 would give identical test results for the 

measurement of energy consumption as ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005. Therefore, for today’s final rule, 

DOE is referencing ARI Standard 1200-2006 for the measurement of CDEC and TDEC of wedge cases. 

40
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

rejecting an equipment category from consideration in the rulemaking. Therefore, DOE 

concludes that wedge cases are covered in this rulemaking. 

Hill Phoenix and AHRI also commented that wedge cases should be excluded from 

this rulemaking because there are no test procedures in place to test wedges since ARI 

Standard 1200-2006 excludes wedges from its scope of coverage. (Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 

2; AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) As stated in the July 2007 ANOPR, EPCA directs DOE to set 

standards for commercial refrigeration equipment (i.e., the three categories of equipment 

identified above). Any equipment that meets the EPCA definition of a “commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer” and falls under one of these three categories 

will be covered by this rulemaking. In the December 2006 final rule, DOE incorporated by 

reference certain sections of ARI Standard 1200-2006 as the test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, but did not reference section 2.2, which provides exclusions for 

certain equipment such as wedge cases.11 The equipment excluded in this section of ARI 

Standard 1200-2006 will only be excluded from this rulemaking if they do not meet the 

EPACT 2005 definition of a “commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer.”12 72 

FR 41169 DOE believes that the EPACT 2005 definition of a “commercial refrigerator, 

 

11 ARI Standard 1200-2006 refers to wedge cases as “miter transition display merchandisers used as a corner 

section between two refrigerated display merchandisers.” 

12 “(9)(A) The term ‘commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer’ means refrigeration equipment 

that— 

(i) is not a consumer product (as defined in section 321of EPCA [42 U.S.C. 6291(1)]); 

(ii) is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes; 

(iii) operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature; 

(iv) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials horizontally, semivertically, or vertically; 

(v) has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or 

solid doors, or no doors; 

(vi) is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and 

(vii) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)) 

41
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer” is sufficiently broad that it includes wedge cases. Therefore, 

DOE has concluded that wedge cases are properly covered in this rulemaking. 

Hussman, Hill Phoenix, and AHRI also commented that wedge cases should be 

excluded from this rulemaking because they do not function effectively and cannot be tested 

as a stand-alone merchandiser since they require straight cases of the same model on either 

side. This configuration makes accurate performance testing of wedges nearly impossible 

and no specific testing guidelines for wedges exist within ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-

2005 or ANSI/ARI Standard 1200-6006. (Hussman, No. 42 at p. 2; Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at 

p. 6; AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) DOE acknowledges that there is no specific guidance in the 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 or ARI Standard 1200-2006 test procedures that 

addresses the proper operation of wedge cases. However, DOE believes that wedge cases 

are not significantly different from normal display cases used in between other display cases 

(i.e., cases within a display case line-up) in terms of operation and the ability to be tested. A 

wedge case and a normal case within a display case line-up both have display cases adjacent 

to them in normal operation and do not have end panels installed on their sides. DOE 

expects that wedge cases and cases within a display case line-up should be tested in the 

same manner under the test procedure. 

Hussman and Hill Phoenix also commented that wedge cases should be excluded 

from this rulemaking because the TDA for inside wedges approaches zero. Therefore, 

standards for such cases are not meaningful because the TDA in the standards equation is 

zero. (Hussman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 16; Hill Phoenix, Public Meeting 

42
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 19) As stated above, DOE proposed language in the August 2008 

NOPR to specifically address the TDA issue of wedge cases. DOE proposed that for remote 

condensing and self-contained wedge cases, the CDEC or TDEC shall be measured 

according to the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 Test Procedure. DOE also proposed that 

the MDEC for each model shall be the amount derived by incorporating into the standards 

equation for the appropriate equipment class a value for the TDA that is the product of: (1) 

the vertical height of the air curtain or glass (in a transparent door), and (2) the largest 

overall width of the case, when viewed from the front.10 73 FR 50113. (See section VI.A.1.) 

This procedure is conservative because it allows for the widest horizontal dimension of the 

display case to be used in determining TDA. That is, using this procedure, the standards for 

a wedge case would be less stringent than a normal display case, in the same equipment 

class, of equal refrigerated volume. 

If a manufacturer finds that meeting the standard for wedge cases would cause 

hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens, the manufacturer may petition OHA for 

exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 

504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines 

that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, 

inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens. 

43
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

5. Ice-Cream Freezers—Temperature Range 

In the test procedure final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE 

established the definition of ice-cream freezer as “a commercial freezer that is designed to 

operate at or below -5 °F (-21 °C) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for 

the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.” 71 FR 71369-70. DOE incorporated the 

test procedure into its regulations in 10 CFR 431.62. Under this definition, unless equipment 

is designed, marketed, or intended specifically for the storage, display or dispensing of ice 

cream, it would not be considered an ice-cream freezer. For example, multi-purpose 

commercial freezers manufactured for storing and displaying frozen foods in addition to ice 

cream and designed to operate at or below -5 °F (-21 °C) would not meet this definition. 

Thus, DOE would not treat them as commercial ice-cream freezers in this rulemaking. 

However, any commercial freezer that is specifically manufactured for storing, displaying, 

or dispensing ice cream and is designed for normal operation at or below -5 °F, would meet 

the definition. Other equipment that meet the definition include freezers designed to operate 

considerably below -5 °F and are specifically designed for ice cream storage (e.g., 

“hardening” cabinets), as well as ice-cream dipping cabinets designed to operate below -5 

°F. For the NOPR, DOE expanded the definition used to categorize a unit’s rating 

temperature by including a specific operating temperature range for medium-temperature, 

low-temperature, and ice-cream temperature applications. 

Hill Phoenix and AHRI commented on the proposed temperature ranges for lowtemperature and ice-cream temperature freezers. Hill Phoenix, in agreement with AHRI, 

stated that the operating range for low-temperature cases should be changed to less than 32 

44
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

°F and greater than -15 °F, and the operating range for ice-cream temperature cases be 

changed to less than or equal to -15 °F. Hill Phoenix and AHRI stated that freezers that 

operate below -15 °F are constructed differently than cases that operate in the -5 °F to -10 °F 

range. Hill Phoenix stated that DOE’s current temperature range designations would require 

freezers that operate in the -5 °F to -10 °F range to be rated at -15 °F. (Hill Phoenix, No. 32 

at p. 4; AHRI, No. 33 at p. 4) 

As previously stated, ice-cream freezers are defined by the test procedure, which 

states that an ice-cream freezer is “a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or 

below -5 °F (-21 °C) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.” 71 FR 71369; 10 CFR 431.62. Based on the 

comments from AHRI and Hill Phoenix discussed above, DOE is modifying the operating 

temperature ranges used to define each type of equipment from the temperature ranges that 

were used in the NOPR. For today’s final rule, DOE is organizing equipment classes based 

on the three operating temperature ranges shown in Table IV-4. For today’s final rule, DOE 

will continue to classify equipment as medium temperature (refrigerators), low temperature 

(freezers), or ice-cream temperature (ice-cream freezers). Furthermore, DOE maintains the 

required rating temperatures as specified in the test procedure final rule: 38 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial refrigerators and refrigerator compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) for commercial 

freezers and freezer compartments, and -15 °F (±2 °F) for commercial ice-cream freezers. 

71 FR 71370. 

45
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table IV-4 Rating Temperature Designations 

Operating Temperature (°F) Rating Temperature (°F) Description 

≥ 32 (M) 38 Medium temperature (refrigerators) 

< 32 (L) 0 Low temperature (freezers) 

≤ -5 (I)* -15 Ice-cream temperature (ice-cream freezers) 

* Ice-cream freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or 

below -5 °F (-21 °C) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of ice cream. 

6. Special Application Temperature Cases 

After the NOPR public meeting, DOE received comments on including “application 

temperatures” for commercial refrigeration equipment. These are rating temperatures other 

than the standard rating temperatures. Hill Phoenix stated that some refrigerated cases are 

designed for and operate at medium temperature and hold foods with temperature 

requirements that tend to range from10 °F to 20 °F. These cases are not designed to operate 

at the rating temperature of 0 °F. Hill Phoenix also stated that the cases would have to be 

redesigned to operate at the rating temperature, which would cause them to consume more 

energy. Therefore, Hill Phoenix recommended that this type of product be tested using the 

application temperature at which the product is designed to perform, but be required to meet 

the low-temperature standard. (Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 4) AHRI concurred with Hill 

Phoenix, recommending that any case designed specifically to hold products at temperatures 

higher than the rating temperature specified for that class be tested at its application 

temperature and must meet the energy standards of that class. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 5) 

However, the Joint Comment cautioned that rating specialty cases at application 

temperatures could create loopholes allowing equipment to be tested at an application 

temperature different from the temperature at which the equipment is designed to operate in 

the field. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 4) 

46
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

In the test procedure final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE 

adopted ARI Standard 1200-2006 as the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 71 FR 71340, 71369-70; 10 CFR 431.63-431.64. ANSI/ARI Standard 1200–

2006 contains rating temperature specifications of 38 °F (±2 °F) for commercial 

refrigerators and refrigerator compartments, and 0 °F (±2 °F) for commercial freezers and 

freezer compartments. In the test procedure final rule, DOE also adopted a -15 °F (±2 °F) 

rating temperature for commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR 71370. 

Requiring manufacturers to test special application cases at one of the three specified 

standard rating temperatures (38 °F, 0 °F, and -15 °F) instead of at their corresponding 

application temperature could result in higher energy consumption for these cases if they 

have to be redesigned for testing at the standard rating temperature. However, DOE agrees 

with the Joint Comment that allowing such special application cases to be tested at an 

application temperature that is different from the temperature at which the equipment is 

designed to operate in the field could create loopholes. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the 

requirement that all equipment must be tested at one of the three specified standard rating 

temperatures adopted by DOE in the test procedure final rule. In the example from Hill 

Phoenix, the equipment is classified as a medium-temperature unit, but the equipment is 

designed to operate below 32 °F and above -5 °F, thus categorizing it as a low-temperature 

unit under today’s final rule. Because it is a low-temperature unit, it is required to be tested 

at 0 °F (±2 °F). 

47
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Any manufacturer that is unable to test such equipment at its designated rating 

temperature must request a test procedure waiver from DOE under the provisions described 

in 10 CFR 431.401. If the manufacturer believes that meeting the standard would cause 

hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens, it may petition OHA for exception 

relief from the energy conservation standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 

of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 

1003. However, the majority of equipment covered by this rulemaking can be tested using 

the three specified rating temperatures provided in the test procedure. 

7. Coverage of Remote Condensing Units 

In the framework document, ANOPR, and NOPR, DOE considered energy 

conservation standards that covered only the refrigerated cases of remote condensing 

commercial refrigeration equipment, and not the remote condensing unit. DOE cited 

language in EPACT 2005’s definitions for “self contained condensing unit” and “remote 

condensing unit” as a justification for this approach. DOE believes that, by definition, the 

remote condensing units that support remote condensing refrigeration equipment are not 

considered an “integral part” of the refrigeration equipment. (EPACT 2005, Section 

136(a)(3)) As a result, DOE stated in the August 2008 NOPR that remote condensing units 

would not be considered in this rulemaking. 

For the NOPR, the Joint Comment stated that the scope of this rulemaking should 

not be limited to the refrigerated cabinets or display cases of remote condensing systems. 

According to the Joint Comment, regulating the remote condensing units supporting these 

48
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

cabinets has a significant potential to save energy because these units account for 90 percent 

of the total capacity of commercial refrigeration equipment subject to this rulemaking,. 

(Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 7) 

As stated in the framework document and the July 2007 ANOPR, DOE does not 

believe that the remote condensing units of remote condensing refrigeration equipment 

systems are considered part of the equipment to which they are connected. EPCA defines a 

“self-contained condensing unit,” in part, as an “assembly of refrigerating components that 

is an integral part of the refrigerated equipment ...” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(F), added by 

EPACT 2005, section 136(a)(3)). EPCA also defines a “remote condensing unit,” in part, as 

an “assembly of refrigerating components that is remotely located from the refrigerated 

equipment ...” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(E), added by EPACT 2005, section 136(a)(3)) The 

EPCA definition of remote condensing unit implies that the remote condensing unit is not 

part of the refrigeration equipment because it refers to the unit and the refrigeration 

equipment as separate entities. A remote condensing unit functions as a supplement to 

remote condensing refrigeration equipment, but is not an “integral part.” Therefore, energy 

conservation standards for remote condensing commercial refrigerators, commercial 

freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers apply only to the refrigerated equipment (i.e., 

storage cabinets and display cases), but not to the remote condensing units. For the final 

rule, DOE maintains that the energy conservation standards set for remote condensing 

commercial refrigeration equipment only apply to display cases, not to the remote 

condensing units. 

49
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

However, DOE has the authority to classify industrial or commercial equipment as 

covered under EPCA section 341(a) and (b), if classification is “necessary” to improve the 

efficiency of industrial equipment (which includes commercial refrigeration equipment) in 

order to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a) and (b)) If DOE were to add remote 

condensing units as covered equipment, DOE would undertake a separate rulemaking 

process to consider standards for these products in accordance with EPCA section 341(a) 

and (b). 

8. Regulating Secondary Cooling Applications 

In the framework document, DOE decided to exclude equipment designed for 

secondary coolant applications. DOE’s interpretation of the EPACT 2005 definitions of 

“commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” was consistent with the ARI 

Standard 1200-2006, which explicitly excludes secondary coolant applications. Following 

the framework document, many interested parties, including ARI, Southern Company, and 

EEI, agreed with the exclusion of secondary coolant applications in this rule because of their 

insignificant presence in the market and the complexity of modifying the test procedure to 

accommodate them. ACEEE, on the other hand, commented that DOE should have a broad 

scope of coverage and should, in general, cover as much as possible in the rulemaking. 72 

FR 41171. 

After considering the framework comments, DOE decided to continue to exclude 

secondary coolant applications from this rulemaking in the July 2007 ANOPR. Following 

the ANOPR, commercial refrigeration manufacturers expressed concerns that the exclusion 

50
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

of secondary coolant systems could provide a loophole if customers purchased these lower 

efficiency systems instead of regulated direct expansion equipment. 73 FR 50106. For the 

NOPR, the Joint Comment restated that DOE should consider secondary coolant 

applications in its analysis. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 8) 

Section 340(9)(A)(vii) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311((9)(A)(vii), added by EPACT 

2005, section 136(a)(3)), states that the terms commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer refer to equipment that is connected to a self-contained condensing unit 

or to a remote condensing unit. DOE maintains that this language excludes secondary 

coolant applications from coverage in this rulemaking because such applications are not 

directly connected to self-contained or remote condensing units. 72 FR 41171. For this 

reason, DOE is excluding secondary coolant applications from this rule. 

C. Markups to Determine Equipment Price

In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE explained how it developed the distribution 

channel markups it used. 73 FR 50093-95. DOE did not receive comments on these 

markups. However, DOE updated the distribution channel markups by including 2008 sales 

tax data, and updated the markups for commercial refrigeration equipment wholesalers 

using 2008 financial data. DOE used these markups, along with sales taxes, installation 

costs, and manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) developed in the engineering analysis, to 

arrive at the final installed equipment prices for baseline and higher efficiency commercial 

refrigeration equipment. As explained in the August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 50093-95, DOE 

defined three distribution channels for commercial refrigeration equipment to describe how 

51
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

the equipment passes from the manufacturer to the customer. DOE developed market shares 

by distribution channel for remote condensing and self-contained equipment. DOE retained 

the same distribution channel market shares described in the August 2008 NOPR. 

The new overall baseline and incremental markups for sales to supermarkets within 

each distribution channel are shown in Table IV-5, Table IV-6, Table IV-7, and Table IV-8. 

Chapter 6 of the TSD provides additional details on markups. 

Table IV-5 Baseline Markups by Distribution Channel Including Sales Tax for SelfContained Equipment in Supermarkets 

Wholesaler Mechanical Contractor 

(includes wholesaler) 

National Account 

(manufacturer-direct) Overall 

Distributor(s) 

Markup 1.370 2.082 1.185 1.564 

Sales Tax 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 

Overall Markup 1.465 2.226 1.267 1.672 

Table IV-6 Baseline Markups by Distribution Channel Including Sales Tax for Remote 

Condensing Equipment in Supermarkets 

Wholesaler Mechanical Contractor 

(includes wholesaler) 

National Account 

(manufacturer-direct) Overall 

Distributor(s) 

Markup 

1.370 2.082 1.185 1.347 

Sales Tax 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 

Overall Markup 1.465 2.226 1.267 1.440 

Table IV-7 Incremental Markups by Distribution Channel Including Sales Tax for 

Self-Contained Equipment in Supermarkets 

Wholesaler Mechanical Contractor 

(includes wholesaler) 

National Account 

(manufacturer-direct) Overall 

Distributor(s) 

Markup 1.114 1.370 1.057 1.186 

Sales Tax 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 

Overall Markup 1.191 1.465 1.130 1.268 

52
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table IV-8 Incremental Markups by Distribution Channel Including Sales Tax for 

Remote Condensing Equipment in Supermarkets 

Wholesaler Mechanical Contractor 

(includes wholesaler) 

National Account 

(manufacturer-direct) Overall 

Distributor(s) 

Markup 1.114 1.370 1.057 1.112 

Sales Tax 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 

Overall Markup 1.191 1.465 1.130 1.189 

D. Energy Use Characterization

The energy use characterization estimates the annual energy consumption of 

commercial refrigeration equipment systems (including remote condensing units). This 

estimate is used in the subsequent LCC and PBP analyses (chapter 8 of the TSD) and NIA 

(chapter 11 of the TSD). For the August 2008 NOPR, DOE estimated the energy 

consumption of the 15 equipment classes analyzed in the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD) using the relevant test procedure. DOE then validated these energy 

consumption estimates with annual whole-building simulation modeling of selected 

equipment classes and efficiency levels. 73 FR 50095. For the final rule analyses, DOE used 

the same methodology to estimate the annual energy consumption of commercial 

refrigeration systems presented in the August 2008 NOPR. See chapter 7 of the TSD for 

additional detail on the energy use characterization. 

DOE assumed for the energy analysis 24-hour operation of case lighting based on 

input received during the ANOPR. The California Utilities Joint Comment stated that while 

many grocers in California may shut down case lighting for 8 hours per day, national trends 

may be closer to 24-hour operation. (California Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 12) 

The California Utilities Joint Comment also indicated that LED lighting may be more likely 

to be controlled on and off during the operational day or dimmed based on motion sensors, 

53
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

and that this can be done without the risk of moisture or startup problems common to 

fluorescent fixtures. They further speculated that retailers would take advantage of these 

LED characteristics through different operational scenarios. (California Utilities Joint 

Comment, No. 41 at p. 12) However, they provided no data to indicate the likelihood of a 

different LED usage profile, and did not provide costs to implement automatic or manual 

control to support this comment. While the potential for additional lighting controls exists 

and LEDs may offer additional controllability, the actual likelihood and costs of 

implementation are unknown. As a result, DOE did not change its default assumption of 24-

hour operation based on these comments. Additional detail on the energy use 

characterization can be found in chapter 7 of the TSD. 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

In response to the requirements of section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, DOE conducted 

LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts of possible new commercial 

refrigeration equipment standards on individual customers. DOE used the same spreadsheet 

models to evaluate the LCC and PBP as it used for the NOPR; however, DOE updated 

certain specific inputs to the models. Details of the spreadsheet model and of all the inputs 

to the LCC and PBP analyses are in TSD chapter 8. DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analyses using a spreadsheet model developed in Microsoft Excel for Windows 2003. 

The LCC is the total cost for a unit of commercial refrigeration equipment over the 

life of the equipment, including purchase and installation expense and operating costs 

(energy expenditures and maintenance). To compute the LCC, DOE summed the installed 

54
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

price of the equipment and its lifetime operating costs discounted to the time of purchase. 

The PBP is the change in purchase expense due to a given energy conservation standard 

divided by the change in first-year operating cost that results from the standard. DOE 

expresses PBP in years. DOE measures the changes in LCC and in PBP associated with a 

given energy use standard level relative to a base case equipment energy use. The base case 

forecast reflects the market in the absence of mandatory energy conservation standards. 

The data inputs to the PBP calculation are the purchase expense (otherwise known as 

the total installed customer cost or first cost) and the annual operating costs for each 

selected design. The inputs to the equipment purchase expense were the equipment price 

and the installation cost, with appropriate markups. The inputs to the operating costs were 

the annual energy consumption, the electricity price, and the repair and maintenance costs. 

The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis but, because it is a simple 

payback, the operating cost is for the year the standard takes effect, assumed to be 2012. For 

each efficiency level analyzed, the LCC analysis required input data for the total installed 

cost of the equipment, the operating cost, and the discount rate. 

Table IV-9 summarizes the inputs and key assumptions DOE used to calculate the 

economic impacts of various energy consumption levels on customers. Equipment price, 

installation cost, and baseline and standard design selection affect the installed cost of the 

equipment. Annual energy use, electricity costs, electricity price trends, and repair and 

maintenance costs affect the operating cost. The effective date of the standard, the discount 

rate, and the lifetime of equipment affect the calculation of the present value of annual 

55
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

operating cost savings from a proposed standard. Table IV-9 also shows how DOE modified 

these inputs and key assumptions for the final rule, relative to the August 2008 NOPR. The 

changes in the input data and the discussion of the overall approach to the LCC analysis are 

provided in chapter 8 of the TSD. 

56
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table IV-9 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the LCC and PBP 

Analyses 

Input NOPR Description Changes for Final Rule 

Baseline 

Manufacturer 

Selling Price 

Price charged by manufacturer to either a wholesaler or 

large customer for baseline equipment. Developed by 

using industry-supplied efficiency level data and a 

design option analysis. 

Data reflect updated 

engineering analysis. 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer 

Selling Price 

Increases 

Incremental change in manufacturer selling price for 

equipment at each of the higher efficiency standard 

levels. Developed by using a combination of energy 

consumption level and design option analyses. 

Data reflect updated 

engineering analysis. 

Markups and Sales 

Tax 

Associated with converting the manufacturer selling 

price to a customer price (chapter 6 of TSD). 

Developed based on product distribution channels and 

sales taxes. 

Markups updated based 

on revised data on sales 

tax and wholesaler 

financial data. 

Installation Price 

Cost to the customer of installing the equipment. This 

includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts. The total installed cost equals the 

customer equipment price plus the installation price. 

Installation cost data provided by industry comment. 

No change. 

Equipment Energy 

Consumption 

Site energy use associated with the use of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, which includes only the use of 

electricity by the equipment itself. Taken from 

engineering analysis and validated in energy use 

characterization. (chapter 7 of the TSD) 

Data reflect updated 

engineering analysis for 

each efficiency level. 

Electricity Prices 

Established average commercial electricity price 

($/kWh) from EIA data for 2007, in 2007$. DOE then 

established scaling factors for commercial refrigeration 

equipment consumers based on the 2003 Commercial 

Building Energy Consumption Survey. 

No change. 

Electricity Price 

Trends 

Used the AEO2007 reference case to forecast future 

electricity prices and extrapolated prices to 2042. Updated to AEO2008. 

Maintenance Costs 

Labor and material costs associated with maintaining 

the commercial refrigeration equipment (e.g., cleaning 

heat exchanger coils, checking refrigerant charge 

levels, lamp replacement). Estimated from data in RS 

Means Facilities Maintenance and Repair Cost Data13. 

Also considered lighting types and configurations for 

the refrigeration equipment. 

No change in 

methodology; however, 

LED fixture replacement 

costs reflect updated 

engineering analysis 

costs by equipment class. 

Repair Costs 

Labor and material costs associated with repairing or 

replacing components that have failed. Estimated based 

on replacement frequencies and costs for key 

components. 

No change in 

methodology from 

NOPR. Repair costs 

reflect estimates of 

individual component 

life and cost to replace. 

Repair costs increase 

with increasing 

component costs. 

Equipment Lifetime 

Age at which the commercial refrigeration equipment 

is retired from service. Used an average lifetime of 10 

years for large grocery and multi-line retailers and an 

average lifetime of 15 years for small grocers and 

No change. 

 

13 RS Means Company, Inc. 2006. Means Costworks 2006: Facility Maintenance & Repair Cost Data. 

Kingston, Massachusetts. 

57
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

convenience stores. 

Discount Rate 

Computed by estimating the cost of capital for 

companies that purchase refrigeration equipment using 

business financial data from the Damodaran Online 

database. 

Updated based on data 

available in the 2008 

version of the 

Damodaran website. 

Rebound Effect A rebound effect was not taken into account in the 

LCC analysis. No change. 

The changes in the input data and the discussion of the overall approach to the LCC 

analysis are provided in chapter 8 of the TSD. 

In response to the NOPR, DOE received comments on two key issues affecting the 

LCC analysis: electricity price forecasts and lighting maintenance costs. Regarding 

electricity price forecasts, ACEEE asked DOE to confirm whether the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) electricity price forecasts take into account well-documented 

regulatory-based changes in electricity prices and are not just based on responses to fuel cost 

forecasts. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 82) In response, DOE notes that 

the EIA electricity price forecasts are developed through NEMS modeling and rely on a 

comprehensive series of supply- and demand-based modules integrated to capture the 

market dynamics for various energy sources, including oil, coal, and natural gas. These 

models also capture a wide range of consumption purposes, including such events as 

changes in the price and supplies of fossil fuels, developments in electricity markets, likely 

improvements in technology, and the impact of economic growth and various other 

regulatory impacts that affect market electricity prices. NEMS is regularly used to provide 

analyses to Congress and DOE. DOE believes that NEMS does attempt to capture many 

known regulatory changes. 

58
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE should use forecasts for electricity prices other 

than the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), and that electricity price mitigation effects of the 

proposed standard must be documented. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) This comment 

addresses both the LCC and NIA analyses. While DOE considers AEO2008 reference case 

forecasts in its central case fuel price scenario, DOE reviewed LCC and PBP results based 

on both the AEO2008 high price and low price electricity forecasts and discusses the 

resulting differences in the TSD. While the Joint Comment suggests that DOE consider 

other forecasts, it does not point to specific forecast sources or provide justification for the 

selection or weighting of one forecast over the other. The AEO2008 high price forecast used 

in the commercial refrigeration equipment analysis provides sufficient insight into probable 

commercial electricity price variation based on existing data and current regulatory 

schemes. 

DOE considered reporting electricity price impacts but found that the uncertainty of 

price projections, together with the fairly small impact of the standards relative to total 

electricity demand, makes these price changes highly uncertain. As a result, they should not 

be weighed heavily in the decision about the standard level. Given the current complexity of 

utility regulation in the United States (with significant variances among states), it does not 

seem appropriate to attempt to measure impacts on infrastructure costs and prices where 

there is likely to be significant overlap. 

DOE develops estimates for repair and maintenance costs for commercial 

refrigeration equipment in the LCC analysis. In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE assumed that 

59
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

maintenance costs are constant and do not vary with time. AHRI commented that the costs 

of maintenance do not remain constant, as the cost of HFC refrigerants is expected to 

increase by 300 percent to 400 percent over the next decade. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6) DOE 

recognizes that refrigerant costs may increase. For remote condensing equipment, leakage 

during maintenance occurs throughout the entire refrigeration system, including store 

refrigeration piping and remote condensing units, and is expected to be approximately the 

same for all standard levels since little refrigerant is stored in the evaporator coils of remotecondensing commercial refrigeration equipment. The law also requires that any HFC 

refrigerant removed during maintenance must be captured (recovered), and in supermarkets 

it is often reused within the supermarket chain. 69 FR 11946. Any loss of refrigerant during 

maintenance is essentially the same at all standard levels analyzed, and therefore does not 

affect the results of DOE’s LCC or NPV analysis. In self-contained equipment, the 

refrigeration system is sealed and little leakage is expected to occur over the life of the 

equipment. Consequently, DOE did not revise the maintenance costs from the NOPR to 

account for future changes in refrigerant costs. 

DOE also included in the maintenance costs the cost of necessary lighting 

component replacements over the life of the commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE 

received comments on the lighting maintenance costs assumption for LED lamp fixtures. 

The California Utilities Joint Comment cited evidence from recent assessments, as well as 

the physical properties of LEDs, suggesting that 50,000 hours is likely a conservative 

estimate. Fixtures may actually be replaced less frequently than the 5.7 years assumed in the 

NOPR analysis. (California Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at pp. 10–11) The comment 

60
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

noted that the LED light output degrades over time and the amount of degradation is a 

function of the junction temperature of the LED. Reducing the junction temperature can 

result in increased time to failure. 

While DOE agrees with this assessment, the brightness of a particular LED chip and 

the corresponding heat rejection and junction temperature are largely a function of power 

supplied by the LED driver circuitry. As such, manufacturers of LED fixtures can trade off 

brightness, total fixture cost, and design life for LED fixtures designed for commercial 

refrigeration equipment applications. The LED manufacturer equipment specification sheets 

that DOE examined for the final rule provide for a 50,000-hour life for the known 

commercial refrigeration equipment applications. Due to the recent availability of LED 

fixtures for use with commercial refrigeration equipment, there are few instances of installed 

LED light fixtures in this equipment exceeding the 50,000-hour specification. Therefore, 

DOE did not modify its LED fixture replacement cycle assumptions beyond the 

manufacturers’ estimated life. 

 DOE also received comments on using a rebuttable presumption payback period to 

establish the economic justification of an energy conservation standard level. Earthjustice 

commented that DOE does not provide any rationale for why it did not use or does not plan 

to use the rebuttable presumption payback period analysis to set the trial standard level for 

these products. Earthjustice stated that Congress specifically provided that once the 

rebuttable presumption payback period is satisfied for a trial standard level, no further 

economic justification would be necessary for DOE’s selection of that TSL as the final 

61
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

standard. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 88) The Joint Comment also 

stated that DOE should give greater consideration to the rebuttable presumption payback 

period when selecting an appropriate standard level, reflecting the intent of Congress in 42 

USC section 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) that the highest standard level with a 3-year payback 

constitutes the presumptive lowest standard level that DOE must adopt. (Joint Comment, 

No. 34 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE does consider both the rebuttable presumption payback criteria, as well as a 

full analysis including all seven relevant statutory criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

when examining potential standard levels. DOE believes that the commenters may be 

misinterpreting the statutory provision in question. Earthjustice presents one possible 

reading of an ambiguous provision (i.e., that DOE need not look beyond the results of the 

rebuttable presumption inquiry), but DOE believes that such an approach is neither required 

nor appropriate, because it could ask the agency to ignore other relevant information that 

would affect the selection of the most stringent standard level that meets all applicable 

statutory criteria. The commenter’s interpretation would essentially restrict DOE from being 

able to rebut the findings of the preliminary presumptive analysis. However, the statute 

contains no such restriction, and such an approach would hinder DOE’s efforts to base its 

regulations on the best available information. 

Similarly, DOE believes that the Joint Comment misreads the statute in calling for a 

level that meets the rebuttable presumption test to serve as a minimum level when setting 

the final energy conservation standard. To do so would not only eliminate the “rebuttable” 

62
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

aspect of the presumption but would also lock in place a level that may not be economically 

justified based on the full complement of statutory criteria. DOE is already obligated under 

EPCA to select the most stringent standard level that meets the applicable statutory criteria, 

so there is no need to tie the same requirement to the rebuttable presumption. 

DOE also received a comment supporting its selection of commercial refrigeration 

equipment lifetimes. For the NOPR, DOE determined the lifetime of commercial 

refrigeration equipment by consulting industry experts, other interested parties, and 

literature on equipment lifetimes. The Joint Comment stated that DOE’s assumptions in the 

NOPR regarding product life are reasonable. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 2) Therefore, 

DOE has maintained the NOPR assumptions regarding product life for the final rule. 

F. Shipments Analysis

The shipments analysis develops future shipments for each class of commercial 

refrigeration equipment based on current shipments and equipment life assumptions, and 

takes into account the existing stock and expected growth of buildings using commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE received no comments on the shipments analysis or the 

resulting shipments during the NOPR. Therefore, DOE used the same shipments model for 

the final rule analysis as the NOPR. 

G. National Impact Analysis

The national impact analysis (NIA) assesses future NES and the national economic 

impacts of different efficiency levels. The analysis measures economic impacts using the 

63
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

NPV metric (i.e., future amounts discounted to the present) of total commercial customer 

costs, and savings expected to result from new standards at specific efficiency levels. For 

the final rule analysis, DOE used the same spreadsheet model used in the NOPR to calculate 

the energy savings and the national economic costs and savings from new standards, but 

with updates to specific input data. Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not 

use distributions for inputs or outputs. DOE examined sensitivities by applying different 

scenarios. DOE used the NES spreadsheet to perform calculations of national energy 

savings and NPV using the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the 

LCC analysis and estimates of national shipments for each of the 15 primary commercial 

refrigeration equipment classes. DOE forecasted the energy savings from each TSL from 

2012 through 2042. DOE forecasted the energy cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of 

benefits for all primary commercial refrigeration equipment classes from 2012 through 

2062. The forecasts provided annual and cumulative values for all four output parameters. 

DOE calculated the NES by subtracting energy use under a standards scenario from 

energy use in a base case (no new standards) scenario. Energy use is reduced when a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment in the base case efficiency distribution is replaced by a 

more efficient piece of equipment. Energy savings for each equipment class are the same 

national average values as calculated in the LCC and payback period spreadsheet. However, 

these results are normalized on a per-unit-length basis by equipment class and applied to the 

total annual estimated shipments in terms of line-up length of all equipment with the class. 

Table IV-10 summarizes key inputs to the NIA analysis and the changes DOE made in the 

64
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

analysis for the final rule. Chapter 11 of the TSD provides additional information about the 

NIA spreadsheet. 

65
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table IV-10 Summary of National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Inputs 

Input Data Description of NOPR Analysis Changes for Final Rule 

Shipments 

Annual shipments from shipments model for 15 

equipment classes. Shipments model based on 

projected growth in building stock using 

commercial refrigeration equipment (new stock) 

and annual replacements to stock based on an 

equipment life. Equipment lifetime distribution 

based on a 10-year average life in large grocery 

and multi-line retail, and a 15-year average life 

in small grocery and convenience stores (chapter 

10, Shipments Analysis). 

No change. 

Effective Date of 

Standard 

2012 No change. 

Base Case 

Efficiencies 

Distribution of base case shipments by 

efficiency level. 

No change in methodology to 

derive base case shipments by 

efficiency level. 

Standards Case 

Efficiencies

Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for 

each base case and each standards case. Annual 

market shares by efficiency level remain 

constant over time for the base case and each 

standards case. 

No change in methodology to 

derive shipments by efficiency 

level in each standards case. 

Annual Energy 

Consumption per 

Linear Foot 

Annual weighted-average values are a function 

of energy consumption level, which are 

established in the engineering analysis (chapter 

5 of the TSD). Converted to a per linear foot 

basis. 

No change in methodology. 

Energy consumption estimates 

reflect the updated final rule 

engineering analysis. 

Total Installed Cost 

per Linear Foot 

Annual weighted-average values are a function 

of energy consumption level (chapter 8 of the 

TSD). Converted to a per linear foot basis. 

No change in methodology. 

Installed costs reflect the updated 

final rule LCC. 

Repair Cost per 

Linear Foot 

Annual weighted-average values are constant in 

real dollar terms for each energy consumption 

level (chapter 8 of the TSD). Converted to a per 

linear foot basis. 

No change in methodology. 

Repair costs reflect the updated 

final rule LCC values. 

Maintenance Cost 

per Linear Foot 

Annual weighted-average value equals $160 in 

2007$ (chapter 8 of the TSD), plus lighting 

maintenance cost. Converted to a per linear foot 

basis. 

No change. 

Escalation of 

Electricity Prices 

EIA AEO2007 forecasts (to 2030) and 

extrapolation for beyond 2030 (chapter 8 of the 

TSD). 

EIA AEO2008 forecasts (to 2030) 

and extrapolation for beyond 

2030 (chapter 8 of the TSD). 

Electricity Site-toSource Conversion 

Conversion varies yearly and is generated by 

DOE/EIA’s NEMS program (a time series 

conversion factor; includes electric generation, 

transmission, and distribution losses) based on 

AEO2007. 

Conversion factor varies yearly 

and is generated by EIA’s NEMS 

model. Includes the impact of 

electric generation, transmission, 

and distribution losses based on 

AEO2008. 

Discount Rate 3 and 7 percent real. No change. 

Present Year Future costs are discounted to 2008. No change 

Rebound Effect 

A rebound effect (due to changes in shipments 

resulting from standards) was not considered in 

the NIA. 

No change. 

66
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

The modifications DOE made to the NES and NIA analyses for the final rule 

primarily reflect updates to the same data sources used in the NOPR, but not changes in 

methodology. In addition, the underlying input data on equipment costs and energy savings 

by TSL are based on the LCC analysis results as revised in the final rule. 

For the final rule, DOE developed marginal site-source conversion factors that relate 

the national electrical energy savings at the point of use to the fuel savings at the power 

plant. These factors use the NEMS model and the examination of the corresponding energy 

savings from standards scenarios considered in DOE’s utility analysis (chapter 14 of the 

TSD). The conversion factors vary over time, due to projected changes in electricity 

generation sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide electricity to the country) 

and power plant dispatch scenarios. DOE revised the stream of conversion factors based on 

the final rule utility impacts analysis and using a version of NEMS consistent with 

AEO2008. DOE also updated the electricity price forecasts used in the NIA to reflect 

forecasts found in AEO2008 compared to AEO2007. 

DOE did not receive information to support revising the shipments analysis or the 

methodology used in the NIA to estimate future shipments by efficiency level. DOE 

requested input on this methodology or on additional data to estimate future shipments. True 

commented that because so many different features and options can degrade a product’s 

efficiency, True cannot afford to test every permutation’s efficiency. Traditionally, 

therefore, True tests the most severe case, which includes all the options, and makes sure it 

can exceed the standard. As a result, the units shipped out are often more efficient than the 

67
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

testing would indicate. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 119) DOE 

acknowledges this comment, but did not receive sufficient detail to address this concern in 

the final rule analysis for individual commercial refrigeration equipment classes. Because 

the distribution of efficiencies of all TSLs as well as the baseline would be similarly 

affected by some customers removing specific energy consuming options (e.g., shelf 

lighting) from their purchased products, the impact of this particular issue on the potential 

national energy savings of one TSL over another may be insignificant. 

To discount future impacts, DOE used discount rates of both 7 percent and 3 percent, 

in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s guidelines (OMB 

Circular A-4, section E, Regulatory Analysis (September 17, 2003)). ASAP commented that 

DOE leans too heavily on the 7-percent discount rate, and that OMB has DOE looking at 

both the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. ASAP stated that DOE should be giving 

primacy to the lower discount rate, which is the societal discount rate—the time value of the 

society as a whole. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 20–21 and p. 128) 

PG&E stated that a 3-percent discount rate is used for the California Energy Commission 

workshops on efficiency, and that it supports the 3-percent rate for the Federal rulemaking. 

(PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 131) The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

improperly weighs the 7-percent discount rate more than the 3-percent discount rate. The 

Joint Comment noted that DOE should use the 3-percent discount rate because it is the 

required social discount rate and because the actual weighted average cost of capital is lower 

than 7 percent. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) 

68
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOE reports and uses both 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates in its analysis of 

net present value. OMB’s guidance to Federal agencies for developing regulatory analysis 

(OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003)14 references OMB Circular A-9415 for the 

development of discount rates for regulatory analysis. OMB Circular A-94 states that, as a 

default position, constant-dollar benefit-cost analyses of proposed investments and 

regulations should report net present value and other outcomes determined using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of 

return to private capital in the U.S. economy. It is a broad measure that reflects the returns to 

real estate and small business capital as well as corporate capital. It approximates the 

opportunity cost of capital, and it is the appropriate discount rate whenever the main effect 

of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector. OMB A-94 

states that regulatory analyses should show the sensitivity of the discounted net present 

value and other outcomes to variations in the discount rate. The importance of these 

alternative calculations will depend on the specific economic characteristics of the program 

under analysis. OMB A-4 notes that the effects of regulation do not always fall exclusively 

or primarily on the allocation of capital. When regulation primarily and directly affects 

private consumption (e.g., through higher consumer prices for goods and services), a lower 

discount rate is appropriate. The alternative most often used is sometimes called the social 

rate of time preference, or the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. To represent these cases, OMB recommends using the rate the average 

saver uses to discount future consumption as the measure of the social rate of time 

preference, approximating this with the real rate of return on long-term Government debt 

 

14 www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf. 15 www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html. 

69
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

(e.g., the yield on Treasury notes minus the 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. For the 

commercial refrigeration equipment rulemaking in particular, DOE notes that the purchasers 

of commercial refrigeration equipment are indeed commercial businesses and not “savers.” 

Regarding the comment that the average cost of capital calculated for businesses purchasing 

commercial refrigeration equipment was less than 7 percent, DOE notes that the average 

cost of capital calculated for the LCC analysis is the after-tax cost of capital. OMB A-4 

specifically notes that pre-tax rates of return better measure society’s gains from investment. 

This is because corporate capital, in particular, pays an additional layer of taxation: the 

corporate income tax. This tax requires corporate capital to earn a higher pre-tax rate of 

return in order to provide investors with similar after-tax rates of return compared with noncorporate investments. Based on the guidance provided in OMB A-4, DOE considers both 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates in the NIA analysis. 

ASAP stated that discount rates should not be applied to quads because a discount 

rate is a financial instrument and a quad is a physical quantity. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 22) DOE understands ASAP’s concern about discounting of 

physical quantities. Unlike economic factors that are discounted into the future, physical 

quantities are not discounted because they do not change over time. DOE reports the 

undiscounted energy savings in Table VI-31 of today’s final rule. 

70
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on commercial 

customers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., sub-groups) of customers, 

such as different types of businesses that may be disproportionately affected by a National 

standard level. For this rulemaking, DOE identified independent small grocery and 

convenience stores as a commercial refrigeration equipment customer sub-group that could 

be disproportionately affected, and examined the impact of proposed standards on this 

group. DOE determined the impact on this commercial refrigeration equipment customer 

sub-group using the LCC spreadsheet model. DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses 

for commercial refrigeration equipment customers represented by the subgroup. DOE did 

not receive comments on its identification of this class of users as the key sub-group or on 

the assumptions applied to those sub-groups. DOE relied on the same methodology outlined 

in the NOPR for the final rule analysis. The results of DOE’s LCC sub-group analysis are 

summarized in section VI.C.2.e and described in detail in chapter 12 of the TSD. 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

 DOE performed a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the financial 

impact of energy conservation standards on manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and to assess the impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing 

capacity. DOE conducted the MIA for commercial refrigeration equipment in three phases. 

Phase 1, Industry Profile, consisted of preparing an industry characterization, including data 

on market share, sales volumes and trends, pricing, employment, and financial structure. 

Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis, focused on the industry as a whole. In this phase, 

71
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOE used the GRIM to prepare an industry cash-flow analysis. Using publicly available 

information developed in Phase 1, DOE adapted the GRIM's generic structure to perform an 

analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment energy conservation standards. In Phase 3, 

Sub-Group Impact Analysis, DOE conducted interviews with manufacturers representing 

the majority of domestic commercial refrigeration equipment sales. This group included 

large and small manufacturers, providing a representative cross-section of the industry. 

During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics specific to each company and obtained each manufacturer's view of the 

industry. The interviews provided valuable information DOE used to evaluate the impacts of 

an energy conservation standard on manufacturer cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. 

 The GRIM inputs consist of the commercial refrigeration industry’s cost structure, 

shipments, and revenues. This includes information from many of the analyses described 

above, such as manufacturing costs and selling prices from the engineering analysis and 

shipments forecasts from the NES. 

 The GRIM uses the manufacturer production costs in the engineering analysis to 

calculate the MSPs for each equipment class at each TSL. By multiplying the production 

costs by different sets of markups, DOE derives the MSPs used to calculate industry 

revenues. Following the NOPR, DOE revised its engineering cost curves to derive new 

manufacturer production costs. DOE used these updated production costs in the GRIM for 

the final rule. 

72
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

 The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total-unit-shipment forecasts 

and the distribution of these shipments by efficiency. Changes in the efficiency mix at each 

standard level are a key driver of manufacturer finances. For the final rule analysis, DOE 

used the total shipments and efficiency distribution found in the final rule NES. For 

additional detail on the manufacturer impact analysis, refer to chapter 13 of the TSD. 

J. Utility Impact Analysis

The utility impact analysis estimates the effects of reduced energy consumption due 

to improved equipment efficiency on the utility industry. This analysis compares forecast 

results for a case comparable to the AEO2008 reference case and forecast results for policy 

cases incorporating each of the commercial refrigeration equipment TSLs. 

DOE analyzed the effects of proposed standards on electric utility industry 

generation capacity and fuel consumption using a variant of EIA's NEMS. EIA uses NEMS 

to produce its AEO, a widely recognized baseline energy forecast for the United States. 

DOE used a variant known as NEMS-BT. The NEMS-BT is run similarly to the AEO2008

NEMS, except that commercial refrigeration equipment energy usage is reduced by the 

amount of energy (by fuel type) saved due to the TSLs. DOE obtained the inputs of national 

energy savings from the NES spreadsheet model. In response to the August 2008 NOPR, 

DOE did not receive comments directly on the methodology used for the utility impact 

analysis. DOE revised the final rule inputs to use the NEMS-BT consistent with the 

73
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

AEO2008 and to use the NES impacts developed in the commercial refrigeration equipment 

final rule analysis. 

In the utility impact analysis, DOE reported the changes in installed capacity and 

generation by fuel type that result for each TSL, as well as changes in end-use electricity 

sales. Chapter 14 of the TSD provides details of the utility analysis methods and results. 

K. Employment Impact Analysis

DOE considers direct and indirect employment impacts when developing a standard. 

In this case, direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees for, 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, their suppliers, and related service 

firms. Indirect impacts are those changes in employment in the larger economy that occur 

due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation 

of more efficient commercial refrigeration equipment. In this rulemaking, the MIA 

addresses direct impacts (chapter 13 of the TSD), and the employment impact analysis 

addresses indirect impacts (chapter 15 of the TSD).. 

Indirect employment impacts from commercial refrigeration equipment standards 

consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the 

manufacturing sector being regulated, as a consequence of: (1) reduced spending by end 

users on electricity (offset to some degree by the increased spending on maintenance and 

repair), (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased 

spending on the purchase price of new commercial refrigeration equipment, and (4) the 

74
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

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. 

DOE used the same methodology described in the August 2008 NOPR to estimate 

indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy, 

called ImSET (Impact of Sector Energy Technologies), which was developed by DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program. 73 FR 50072, 50107-108. The ImSET model estimates 

changes in employment, industry output, and wage income in the overall U.S. economy 

resulting from changes in expenditures in various economic sectors. DOE estimated changes 

in expenditures using the NES spreadsheet. ImSET then estimated the net national indirect 

employment impacts of potential commercial refrigeration equipment efficiency standards 

on employment by sector. 

In response to the August 2008 NOPR, DOE received several comments on the 

employment impact analysis. ASAP commented that the discussion of the employment 

benefits resulting from the net increase in jobs follows a pattern of DOE trivializing these 

benefits in the rulemakings by stating that they are so small that they would be 

imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other unanticipated effects 

on employment. ASAP stated that it is important that DOE keep performing the 

employment analysis given the cumulative impact of possible DOE rulemakings over the 

next 4 years. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 161) 

75
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

The Joint Comment also stated that TSL 5 would create more jobs than TSL 4, and 

that DOE cannot reject the difference as statistically insignificant because it must consider 

the combined effect of all rulemakings. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 5) The Joint Comment 

further stated that DOE should consider indirect job creation as a serious factor weighing in 

favor of stronger standards. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 5) 

Earthjustice noted that both indirect and direct employment benefits are shown to 

provide positive employment in the respective employment and MIA analyses and that DOE 

should consider this in the final rule. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 

166) 

DOE considers the employment impacts without quantifying the net economic value 

of such impacts. DOE agrees that the indirect employment analysis indicates that new 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment could increase the 

demand for labor in the economy and result in additional employment, a net benefit to 

society that DOE considers in establishing standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Chapter 15 of the TSD describes and provides results for the employment 

impact analysis. 

L. Environmental Assessment 

DOE has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 

6316(a) to determine the environmental impacts of the standards being established in 

76
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

today’s final rule. Specifically, DOE estimated the reduction in total emissions of CO2 using 

the NEMS–BT computer model. DOE calculated a range of estimates for reduction in NOX

emissions and mercury (Hg) emissions using current power sector emission rates. However, 

the EA does not include the estimated reduction in power sector impacts of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), because DOE has determined that any such reduction resulting from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to the presence of national caps on SO2 emissions as addressed below (see 

chapter 16 of the TSD). 

The NEMS–BT is run similarly to the AEO2008 NEMS, except the energy use is 

reduced by the amount of energy saved due to the TSLs. DOE obtained the inputs of 

national energy savings from the NIA spreadsheet model. For the EA, the output is the 

forecasted physical emissions. The net benefit of the standard is the difference between 

emissions estimated by NEMS–BT and the AEO2008 reference case. The NEMS–BT tracks 

CO2 emissions using a detailed module that provides results with a broad coverage of all 

sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an emissions cap on SO2 for all power 

generation. Attaining this target, however, is flexible among generators and is enforced 

through emissions allowances and tradable permits. Because SO2 emissions allowances 

have value, generators will almost certainly use them, although not necessarily immediately 

or in the same year with and without a standard in place. In other words, with or without a 

standard, total cumulative SO2 emissions will always be at or near the ceiling, while there 

77
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

may be some timing differences between yearly forecasts. Thus, it is unlikely that there will 

be an SO2 environmental benefit from electricity savings as long as there is enforcement of 

the emissions ceilings. 

Although there may not be an actual reduction in SO2 emissions from electricity 

savings, there still may be an economic benefit from reduced demand for SO2 emission 

allowances. Electricity savings decrease the generation of SO2 emissions from power 

production, which can decrease the need to purchase or generate SO2 emissions allowance 

credits, and decrease the costs of complying with regulatory caps on emissions. 

Like SO2, future emissions of NOX and Hg would have been subject to emissions 

caps under the Clean Air Interstate Act (CAIR) and Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). 

However, as discussed in section VI.C.6, a Federal court has vacated these rules. The 

NEMS–BT model used for today’s final rule assumed that both NOX and Hg emissions 

would be subject to CAIR and CAMR emissions caps. In the case of NOX emissions, CAIR 

would have permanently capped emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. 

Because the NEMS–BT modeling assumed NOX emissions would be subject to CAIR, DOE 

established a range of NOX reductions based on the use of a NOX low and high emissions 

rates (in kt of NOX emitted per terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity generated) derived from 

the AEO2008. To estimate the reduction in NOX emissions, DOE multiplied these emission 

rates by the reduction in electricity generation due to the standards considered. However, 

because the emissions caps specified by CAMR would have applied to the entire country, 

DOE was unable to use NEMS–BT model to estimate the physical quantity changes in 

78
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

mercury emissions due to energy conservation standards. To estimate mercury emission 

reductions due to standards, DOE used an Hg emission rate (in metric tons of Hg per energy 

produced) based on AEO2008. Because virtually all mercury emitted from electricity 

generation is from coal-fired power plants, DOE based the emission rate on the metric tons 

of mercury emitted per TWh of coal-generated electricity. To estimate the reduction in 

mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the emission rate by the reduction in coal-generated 

electricity associated with standards considered. 

In comments on the August 2008 NOPR, ASAP stated that it was important for DOE 

to consider the economic impact calculations for carbon, noting that the economic savings 

are significant. In addition, until the CRE and packaged terminal air conditioner and heat 

pump (PTAC and PTHP) NOPRs, ASAP did not see that economic values for carbon 

emissions savings were factored into the analysis in a way that could affect decision 

making. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 172) On the other hand, AHRI 

believes DOE has no statutory obligation to monetize CO2 benefits. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 173) 

AHRI further commented that if DOE decides to monetize CO2 benefits, then it 

should account for CO2 emissions that will result from manufacturing more efficient 

products. For example, DOE should consider the CO2 emissions resulting from additional 

copper to be mined and incorporated into the finished product. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 173) True also commented on types of manufacturing processes that 

should be considered in the emissions analysis. True stated that the most significant impact 

79
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

of commercial refrigeration equipment on the environment is from welding agents and 

refrigerants. True further explained with the global warming potentials (GWPs) of some of 

these substances at 1,300, 1,500, and 3,800, the impacts are astronomically greater than 

other impacts the industry faces. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 174) 

On the contrary, ASAP emphasized that the congressional deadline of December 31, 

2008, means that “paralysis by analysis” is not an option at this point in this rulemaking and 

that it is incumbent upon AHRI to demonstrate that any proposed analysis changes would be 

significant. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 173) ACEEE commented that 

for buildings and the equipment used in them (not specific for this class of equipment), the 

energy use during the operating life is roughly 85 percent of the total lifecycle energy. Also, 

the incremental energy change from increased use of a largely recycled metals stock is 

likely have a small impact on this analysis. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at 

p. 173) 

 Several interested parties provided comments on the economic value of CO2 used in 

DOE’s monetization of carbon emissions for the August 2008 NOPR and the final rule for 

PTACs and PTHPs (73 FR 58772, October 7, 2008). ASAP stated that the low range for 

monetization of carbon emission reductions should not be zero. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 23) AHRI stated that DOE should not speculate on the value of CO2

emissions because it has no statutory obligation to do so and that any value DOE used 

would be an estimate. There is no consensus on any single estimate of the value of CO2

80
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

emissions. Therefore, DOE should not indulge in speculation to determine a value when it 

has no statutory obligation to do so. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6) 

 Earthjustice commented that the upper and lower bounds of the values DOE uses for 

its carbon emissions are arbitrarily low. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at pp. 7–14) Specifically, 

Earthjustice stated that by using the value of the social cost of carbon (SCC) estimated in 

Dr. Richard Tol’s 2005 meta-analysis, DOE excluded critical damages and made optimistic 

assumptions that bias the damage cost downwards. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 8) Earthjustice 

noted that Tol released an update of his 2005 meta-analysis in September 2007, which 

reports an increase in his peer-reviewed mean estimate of SCC from $14 to $20/ton CO2 and 

from $43 to $71/ton carbon.16 Earthjustice also asserted that the use of Tol’s mean as an 

upper bound is inconsistent with sound risk analysis and distributions of climate damage 

functions, leading to systematic undervaluation of damages. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 9) 

Lastly, Earthjustice noted that Tol’s estimate relies primarily on estimates that did not use 

the currently accepted climate change discounting procedure of declining discount rate over 

time, and it fails to recognize the distinction between the ways in which scarcity affects the 

value of normal goods and environmental goods. (Earthjustice No. 38 at p. 11) 

AHRI noted that Congress is now engaged in debating a possible cap and trade 

program for the United States. The size of the allowance cap first set by such legislation or 

by implementing regulations and the pace of reduction of the emission allowances will 

largely determine the unit price or value of CO2 emissions reductions. AHRI stated that it 

 

16 Tol, R.S.J. (2007) The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers, and catastrophes. Research Unit Sustainability 

and Global Change, Working Paper FNU-144, Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric 

Science, Hamburg, Germany. 

81
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

would be an arbitrary decision on DOE’s part to rely on valuations identified in the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or valuations used in the European 

Union (EU) cap and trade program when the United States has not yet set an emissions cap 

itself. Further, AHRI stated that DOE should not allow evaluation of environmental impacts 

to negate or render moot what has always been, and should remain, the core analysis in 

appliance standards rulemakings, i.e. consumer payback and life-cycle cost analyses. 

(AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6) NRDC also stated that the cost of carbon emissions will become an 

issue with California adopting a Climate Program and the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative in the Northeast. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 105) 

Earthjustice’s written comment states that DOE’s monetization of CO2 emissions 

should reflect the potential U.S. legislation that would put a national cap on CO2 emissions. 

This includes examining the effect of the standard in reducing allowance prices and the 

benefit of reduced emissions in the NPV. This is Earthjustice’s primary suggested 

consideration for DOE; otherwise, DOE should take into account existing regional CO2 caps 

when monetizing CO2. Finally, the most basic consideration DOE must make, according to 

Earthjustice, is to economically account for the avoided environmental harm from CO2

emissions. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at pp. 2–6) 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE should incorporate the monetization of carbon 

emission reductions in the life-cycle cost analysis and the national impact analysis. The 

Joint Comment further stated that DOE's exclusion of carbon monetization in the LCC and 

NIA results in a systematic underestimation of benefits of new energy conservation 

82
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

standards. (Joint Comment, No. 34 at p. 6) Earthjustice stated that DOE does not account for 

the economic value of CO2 emissions reductions resulting from efficiency standards in any 

meaningful way. Although DOE has begun estimating a range of values for carbon 

emissions, it then ignores these values when choosing the new standard level. Earthjustice 

stated that DOE must address these issues by (1) accounting for the value of emissions 

reductions resulting from a standard in the economic analyses, the LCC, and NIA; and (2) 

using reasonable assumptions and sources when determining the value of carbon emission 

reductions because the current sources evaluated are inadequate. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 

1) Specifically, Earthjustice stated that DOE should quantify the effect of a CO2 emission 

cap on energy prices in the LCC analysis. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 2) 

DOE has made several additions to its monetization of environmental emissions 

reductions in today’s rule, which are discussed in section VI.C.6. DOE has chosen to 

continue to report these benefits separately from the net benefits of energy savings. Nothing 

in EPCA or in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the economic 

value of emissions reduction be incorporated in the net present value analysis of energy 

savings. Unlike energy savings, the economic value of emissions reduction is not priced in 

the marketplace. However, DOE will consider both values when weighing the benefits and 

burdens of standards. 

Although this rulemaking does not affect SO2 emissions, there are markets for SO2

emissions allowances. The market clearing price of SO2 emissions is roughly the marginal 

cost of meeting the regulatory cap, not the marginal value of the cap itself. Further, because 

83
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

national SO2 emissions are regulated by a cap and trade system, the need to meet these caps 

is already included in the price of energy or energy savings. With a cap on SO2, the value of 

energy savings already includes the value of SO2 control for those consumers experiencing 

energy savings. The economic cost savings associated with SO2 emissions caps is 

approximately equal to the change in the price of traded allowances resulting from energy 

savings multiplied by the number of allowances that would be issued each year. That 

calculation is uncertain because the energy savings for commercial refrigeration equipment 

are so small relative to the entire electricity generation market that the resulting emissions 

savings would have almost no impact on price formation in the allowances market. These 

savings would most likely be outweighed by uncertainties in the marginal costs of 

compliance with SO2 emissions caps. 

For those emissions currently not priced (CO2, Hg, and NOX), only a range of 

estimated economic values based on environmental damage studies of varying quality and 

applicability is available. DOE is weighing these values separately and is not including them 

in the NPV analysis. 

 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

Since DOE opened the docket for this rulemaking, it has received more than 100 

comments from a diverse set of parties, including manufacturers and their representatives, 

trade associations, wholesalers and distributors, energy conservation advocates, and electric 

utilities. Section IV of this preamble discusses comments DOE received on the analytic 

methodologies it used. Additional comments DOE received in response to the August 2008 

84
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

NOPR addressed the information DOE used in its analyses, results of and inferences drawn 

from the analyses, impacts of standards, the merits of the different TSLs and standards 

options DOE considered, and other issues affecting adoption of standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE addresses these comments in this section. 

A. Information and Assumptions Used in Analyses

1. Market and Technology Assessment 

a. Data Sources 

DOE summarized its analysis for energy consumption in chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD. Traulsen stated that there are problems with the use of energy consumption data 

reported to government agencies because of inaccurate data reporting. Traulsen cited several 

problems with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ENERGY STAR database 

for self-contained commercial solid-door food service refrigerators and freezers, including 

equipment listed in the database that does not conform to the ENERGY STAR 

specifications. Traulsen suggested that sources such as these not be used in the technical 

analyses because of the errors they contain. (Traulsen, No. 25 at p. 1) 

The ENERGY STAR requirements for commercial solid door refrigerators and 

freezers cover self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

that have solid doors, which are not covered in this commercial refrigeration equipment 

rulemaking. In terms of equipment classes, there is no overlap between the ENERGY STAR 

program and DOE’s rulemaking on commercial refrigeration equipment, except for 

commercial ice-cream freezers. EPA’s commercial ice-cream freezer equipment class does 

85
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

not coincide with DOE’s commercial ice-cream freezer equipment class because they are 

defined differently and tested at different rating temperatures. In addition, DOE understands 

that Traulsen has a large market in the commercial refrigeration industry for self-contained 

commercial refrigerator and freezers with doors. However, these equipment classes are not 

covered in this rulemaking. Also, DOE did not use energy consumption databases from 

other government agencies such as EPA,. Rather, DOE conducted its own evaluation of 

energy consumption data for existing equipment from major manufacturers and compiled a 

performance database. The primary source of information for the database was equipment 

data sheets that were publicly available on manufacturers’ websites. From these data sheets, 

equipment information such as total refrigeration load, evaporator temperature, lighting 

power draw, defrost power draw, and motor power draw allowed determination of 

calculated daily energy consumption (CDEC) according to the DOE test procedure. See 

chapter 3 of the TSD for additional information on market performance data. 

b. Beverage Merchandisers 

In response to the NOPR, Coca-Cola submitted a comment questioning the market 

share and shipment data in DOE’s analysis. Coca-Cola stated that its own purchases 

contradict DOE’s figures. According to Coca-Cola, vertical closed transparent, selfcontained, medium temperature (VCT.SC.M) equipment makes up the majority of CocaCola’s purchases. DOE’s exclusion of this class accounts for the differences between CocaCola’s purchases and the number of units shipped that DOE reported in the engineering 

analysis. (Coca-Cola, No. 21 at p. 1) 

86
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

As explained in the July 2007 ANOPR, VCT.SC.M equipment is currently covered 

by energy conservation standards established in EPCA. 72 FR 41176. Therefore, selfcontained glass-front beverage merchandisers (beverage coolers), which are included in the 

VCT.SC.M equipment class, are not covered in this commercial refrigeration equipment 

rulemaking. As a result, all the shipment and market share data reported in the engineering 

analysis are valid for the classes of commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this 

rulemaking. 

2. Engineering Analysis 

a. Design Options 

In the NOPR, DOE reevaluated the list of design options remaining after the 

ANOPR screening analysis. Based on public comments, DOE made the following design 

option changes in the NOPR and did not receive any further comment for the final rule: 

increasing insulation thickness as a design option; revising anti-sweat heater power values 

for certain equipment classes with glass doors; and revising assumptions made to estimate 

changes in cost and efficiency for high-efficiency, single-speed compressors used in selfcontained equipment. 73 FR 50087. However, there were certain design options for which 

DOE did receive comments and that warranted changes for the final rule. Specifically, LED 

cost and efficiency assumptions were updated. 

For the NOPR, DOE could only identify LED luminaires on the market for use in 

vertical refrigerated cases with transparent doors (i.e., the VCT equipment family). DOE 

used these LED luminaires as the basis for LED lighting for open refrigerated cases, 

87
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

because DOE could not identify LED luminaires for use in open refrigerated cases. 

However, when DOE reexamined the current state of LED lighting for the final rule, DOE 

identified LED luminaries on the market for use in open refrigerated cases. DOE updated 

the LED lighting prices for open refrigerated cases using these newly identified LED 

luminaires. 

For the final rule, DOE also updated the LED prices for lighting used in the VCT 

equipment families using the actual reduction in the lumen-based price of LED chips 

reported in DOE’s Multi-Year Program Plan between 2007 and 2008. DOE’s 2007 MultiYear Program Plan reported that the latest available OEM device price for LED chips was 

$35/kilolumen.17 DOE’s 2008 Multi-Year Program Plan reported that the latest available 

OEM device price for LED chips was $25/kilolumen.18 This equates to a 29-percent 

reduction in lumen-based LED chip costs from 2007-2008. For the final rule, DOE applied 

this 29-percent reduction in lumen-based LED chip costs to the LED lighting for the VCT 

equipment families, representing about a 9-percent reduction in LED system costs, 

assuming the costs of the power supply and LED fixtures did not change from the values 

used in the NOPR engineering analysis. For additional detail regarding LED costs, see 

section IV.B.2.a. 

In addition to expected price reductions, DOE received comments on the unique 

performance advantages of LED systems following the NOPR. Philips stated that LED 

 

17 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting Research and Development, Multi-Year Program Plan 

FY08-FY13. 

18 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting Research and Development, Multi-Year Program Plan 

FY09-FY14. 

88
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

systems are virtually maintenance-free. Without maintenance costs, LED payback periods 

amount to roughly half of their life expectancy. (Philips, No. 29 at pp. 1–6) Philips also 

claimed that LED efficacy (lm/W) is expected to increase. Increases in efficacy effectively 

reduce the operational costs of the system by allowing for less energy consumption while 

maintaining output. (Philips, No. 29 at p. 1) 

As mentioned above, for today’s final rule, DOE reexamined the LED lighting 

assumptions that were used in the NOPR. DOE identified more efficacious LED lighting 

options for use in both vertical refrigerated cases with transparent doors and open 

refrigerated cases than the LED lighting identified in the NOPR analysis. Based on the new 

LED lighting options, DOE updated case lighting configurations for each equipment class 

specific to LED lighting in the engineering analysis. For more detail about the updated LED 

lighting performance assumptions, see chapter 5 and appendix B of the TSD. 

In addition to the life-cycle benefits afforded by LEDs, the California Utilities Joint 

Comment stated that LED systems have a higher degree of controllability, which gives the 

systems dimming, cold start, and short cycling capabilities. (California Utilities Joint 

Comment, No. 41 at p. 3) ASAP added that these features allow LED systems to be turned 

off in situations in which fluorescents could not. This equates to improved energy efficiency 

for commercial refrigeration equipment that uses LED lighting. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 106) 

89
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

The enhanced controllability of LED lighting can offer multiple benefits over 

fluorescent lighting. Specifically, the ability to reduce the operating time of LED lighting 

can lead to increased energy efficiency for commercial refrigeration equipment. Therefore, 

in the July 2007 ANOPR, DOE specifically requested public comment on using 24 hours as 

the case lighting operational hours. 72 FR at 41187. In the August 2008 NOPR, based on 

public comment, DOE determined that 24 hours was an adequate assumption for case 

lighting operating hours regardless of lighting type. 73 FR at 50095. In addition, the test 

procedure DOE adopted for commercial refrigeration equipment, ANSI/ARI Standard 

1200–2006, is a steady-state test procedure, which is unable to capture significant energy 

savings due to dimming controls or motion sensors. 71 FR at 71370. 

Following the NOPR, some manufacturers expressed concerns that implementing 

LED lighting would reduce the quality of their equipment. Specifically, they disagreed with 

the use of general white light LEDs to develop a price specifically for LED lighting used in 

commercial refrigeration equipment. True and Southern Store Fixtures stated that the 

grocery store market will be most affected by the use of LED lighting because certain food 

products, such as meat, dairy, deli, and produce, have to have a special display color. (True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 111; Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 108) Continental Refrigerator added that in low-temperature 

applications, there is degradation in LED color quality, requiring the technology to be 

developed further. (Continental Refrigerator, No.27 at p. 141) Southern Store Fixtures stated 

that LEDs used in commercial refrigeration equipment are more expensive because 

additional labor is required to test and sort the LEDs to meet the industry’s color quality 

90
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

requirements. (Southern Store Fixture, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 108) Hill 

Phoenix agreed with Southern Store Fixtures and added that repeatability and minimizing 

the LED output variance also factors into this costly sorting process (i.e., binning). (Hill 

Phoenix, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 109) PG&E estimated that this premium 

will remain constant independent of any future price reductions. (PG&E, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 110) AHRI and Hill Phoenix suggested that prices for LED systems 

used in commercial refrigeration equipment will not experience the same price reductions 

that the rest of the LED industry will. Both interested parties agreed that, because the 

commercial refrigeration market for LEDs is small, there will not be a great demand for 

high-quality LEDs, providing little incentive for LED suppliers to offer low-price, highquality LEDs. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2 and Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that a premium markup is applied to LED chips used in 

commercial refrigeration applications due to the binning process. This highly selective 

process requires LED chips to be chosen by hand to ensure the consistency in color 

temperature and light quality demanded by commercial refrigeration equipment customers. 

As LED technology advances (e.g., efficacy or price), the binning process for quality 

remains the same, resulting in a constant markup on the price of LED chips used for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE accounted for this premium in the pricing used 

for the NOPR analysis. In the update of LED prices between 2007 and 2008 for the final 

rule, DOE maintained the markup associated with the higher level of quality needed for 

LEDs used in commercial refrigeration equipment. 

91
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOE also received comments on the relative benefits of using LEDs in lowtemperature cases versus medium-temperature cases and in closed cases versus open cases. 

The California Utilities Joint Comment stated that LED luminous output is 10 percent 

higher at 0 °F than at 25 °F. (California Utilities Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 11) Southern 

Store Fixtures stated the heat from the LED fixture could be used to control condensate on 

closed case doors. It suggested using a remote power module for open cases. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 98) Hill Phoenix also stated that it is 

still a challenge for LED lighting in open cases to provide the quality and quantity of light 

required by the food marketing industry. (Hill Phoenix, No. 32 at p. 1) 

As stated above, DOE was able to identify for the final rule LED luminaires 

currently available on the market for both open refrigerated cases and vertical refrigerated 

cases with transparent doors. The benefits of using LEDs vary depending on the type of 

commercial refrigerated equipment in which they are used. However, the luminaires DOE 

identified for use in the final rule analysis were specifically developed for individual types 

of commercial refrigeration equipment, and the luminaire manufacturers reported that the 

performance and quality of those luminaires were developed to meet the specific light 

output requirements of the commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers that use them. 

Therefore, although the LED luminous output may be about 10 percent higher for lowtemperature cases compared to medium-temperature cases, the luminaires chosen for the 

analysis were actual products that commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers 

specified provide appropriate lighting levels. Likewise, the power configuration used in the 

analysis for LED fixtures was also based on actual products used in closed and open cases. 

92
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

However, DOE did modify the LED lighting configurations assumed in the engineering 

analysis based on comments received and lighting manufacturer specification sheets. Most 

notably, for the final rule, DOE doubled the shelf lighting for open cases compared to that 

assumed for the NOPR. This increase in shelf lighting is needed to meet the lighting 

requirements of open cases due to the directional nature of LED lighting. See appendix B 

for more detail regarding the lighting configurations assumed in the engineering analysis. 

b. Baseline Models 

 DOE established baseline specifications for each equipment class modeled in the 

engineering analysis by reviewing available manufacturer data, selecting several 

representative units, and then aggregating the physical characteristics of those units. This 

process created a unit representative of commercial refrigeration equipment currently 

offered for sale in each equipment class, with average characteristics for physical parameters 

(e.g., volume, TDA), and minimum performance of energy-consuming components (e.g., 

fans, lighting). In the NOPR analysis, DOE made several revisions to the baseline 

specifications. These changes include updates to baseline lighting, TDA calculations, and 

baseline energy consumption. Appendix B of the NOPR TSD explained in detail the 

changes made to the baseline design specifications relative to the ANOPR analysis. DOE 

received no comments specific to these changes, and is therefore maintaining them for the 

final rule. 

93
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

c. Consideration of Alternative Refrigerants 

The framework document stated that due to the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in refrigeration equipment, the industry 

would likely use HFC refrigerants in their products. Following the framework document, 

AHRI stated that most of the data it provided to DOE was based on the use of HFC 

refrigerants. In the ANOPR TSD and NOPR, DOE assumed that HFC refrigerants were 

already in wide use in the refrigeration industry, and therefore used HFC refrigerants as the 

basis for the technical analysis conducted in the rulemaking. 

The Joint Comment in response to the NOPR stated that DOE should consider 

alternative primary refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, ammonia, and CO2 in its analysis 

because of their potential energy benefits, and because of the current phase-out of CFCs and 

HCFCs as refrigerants. The Joint Comment pointed out that alternative primary refrigerants 

are widely used in countries other than the United States, principally in Europe. (Joint 

Comment, No. 34 at p. 8) 

As stated in the ANOPR TSD and NOPR, DOE based its technical analysis on the 

use of HFC refrigerants. A Federal phaseout of CFC refrigerants has already occurred, and a 

Federal phaseout of HCFC refrigerants is pending in 2010. Thus, DOE did not consider 

CFCs and HCFCs in its analysis. Likewise, although alternative refrigerants such as 

hydrocarbons, ammonia, and CO2 are used in Europe and elsewhere in the world, there is no 

evidence that they are widely used for commercial refrigeration applications in the United 

States. In addition, current state and local building codes would not allow the use of many 

94
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

alternative refrigerants (Safety Class A3 - most hydrocarbon refrigerants) in remote 

condensing equipment covered by this rulemaking due to flammability concerns. These 

codes would also severely limit the use of ammonia due to toxicity concerns. Both could be 

considered for use with secondary loop refrigeration systems, but these are not the subject of 

this rulemaking. Hydrocarbon refrigerants could possibly be used for small self-contained 

commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking if they contain less than 3 

pounds of refrigerant and if they have been certified by Underwriters Laboratories or 

another product certification lab. However, DOE believes that no such equipment has been 

certified for the U.S. market, and it did not consider these refrigerants as a viable design 

option in the engineering analysis. 

The majority of the U.S. commercial refrigeration industry uses HFC refrigerants in 

commercial refrigeration equipment. Since the analysis should be based on the refrigerant 

most widely used in commercial refrigeration equipment, it is unnecessary to consider 

alternative refrigerants. For these reasons, DOE has continued to use HFC refrigerants as the 

basis for its technical analysis. DOE used the HFC refrigerant R-404A for all remote 

condensing equipment and HFC refrigerant R-404A or refrigerant R-134A for all selfcontained equipment. 

d. Consideration of NSF 7 Type II Equipment 

On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in which it adopted ANSI/ARI 

Standard 1200–2006 as the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 

FR at 71340, 71369–70. DOE incorporated the test procedure into its regulations in 10 CFR 

95
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

431.63–431.64. The standard also requires performance tests to be conducted according to 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2005. Following the NOPR, DOE received comments from 

Southern Store Fixtures and Zero Zone stating that the DOE test procedure is insufficient 

because a subset of the equipment covered in this rulemaking is designed for and operates 

under harsher conditions than the 75.2 °F dry-bulb and 64.4 °F wet-bulb ambient 

temperature condition used in the DOE test procedure. 

According to Southern Store Fixtures and Zero Zone, the hotter, more humid 

ambient condition requires additional energy consumption to power larger compressors and 

the anti-condensate capabilities necessary in this environment. These conditions make it 

more difficult to meet the standards proposed by this rulemaking. As a result, both Zero 

Zone and Southern Store Fixtures suggested that DOE should account for the difference 

between test procedure ambient conditions and operating ambient conditions for this subset 

of equipment by making a distinction similar to the one currently used in the National 

Sanitation Foundation Standard 7 (NSF 7) standard. (Zero Zone Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 27 at p. 17 and Southern Store Fixtures No. 27 at p. 18) Under NSF 7, equipment 

intended for use in more severe environments is designated as “Type II” equipment and is 

tested at 80 °F dry-bulb and 68 °F wet-bulb ambient conditions. NSF “Type I” equipment is 

tested at the same ambient conditions as the DOE test procedure, namely the 75.2 °F drybulb and 64.4 °F wet-bulb temperature ambient condition. 

To address this issue, AHRI suggested exempting Type II equipment from coverage 

or instructing manufacturers of Type II equipment to apply for waivers. (AHRI, Public 

96
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 50) If the waiver approach is pursued, Southern Store 

Fixtures suggested using available NSF Type II testing data to find the relationship among 

food temperature, the metric used in NSF testing, and energy consumption, the metric used 

in the DOE test procedure. This relationship would allow at least some Type II equipment to 

be considered fairly under this rule and mitigate a spike in waiver applications. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 54) 

After consideration of these comments, DOE believes that instituting a distinction 

between Type I and Type II commercial refrigeration equipment, as defined by NSF 7, is 

unnecessary in this rulemaking. The DOE test procedure, ARI Standard 1200-2006, requires 

that energy consumption testing for all commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this 

rulemaking be conducted according to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, which prescribes 

specific ambient conditions. There is no requirement to address the ambient conditions 

specified in the NSF 7 standard. The two standards also serve different purposes. The 

ANSI/ASHRAE 72-2005 standard measures energy consumption for a specific ambient 

condition, whereas the NSF 7 standard measures food temperature at a specific ambient 

condition for food safety purposes. Although these test procedures have different purposes, 

including the NSF 7 Type II test procedure would have a minimal impact on the energy 

consumption of this equipment because the differences between the ANSI/ASHRAE 72-

2005 and NSF 7 Type II ambient test conditions are marginal. NSF 7 Type II equipment is 

defined as a unit intended for use in an environment in which the ambient dry-bulb 

temperature does not exceed 80 °F. This is at most 5 °F higher than the 75 °F ambient dry 

bulb temperature used in the DOE test procedure. Therefore, the test procedure requires all 

97
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking to be tested for energy 

consumption according to the ambient conditions specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-

2005 and will not include any distinction between Type I and Type II equipment as defined 

by NSF 7. 

e. Product Class Extension Factors 

In the NOPR, DOE developed multipliers to extend standards from the 15 equipment 

classes it directly analyzed to the remaining 23 secondary equipment classes of commercial 

refrigeration equipment it did not directly analyze. DOE’s approach involved a matched-pair 

analysis, which examined the relationship between several related pairs of equipment 

classes. Chapter 5 of the TSD discusses the development of the extension multipliers and 

the set of focused matched-pair analyses. 

Following the NOPR, Southern Store Fixtures questioned the extension multiplier 

for self-contained equipment that was based on the analytical results for open remote 

condensing equipment. Southern Store Fixtures believed that the extension multiplier of 

2.51 DOE developed to correlate remote medium-temperature equipment without doors to 

self-contained medium-temperature equipment without doors should be higher to adequately 

account for the more severe conditions in which self contained equipment are typically used, 

but did not offer a recommendation for the value. (Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 27 at p. 37) 

98
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

The DOE test procedure, ARI Standard 1200-2006, requires that energy 

consumption testing for all commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking 

be conducted according to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, which prescribes specific 

ambient conditions. The ambient conditions specified by the DOE test procedure are the 

same regardless of the condensing unit configuration (i.e., remote condensing or selfcontained). In addition, the 2.51 extension multiplier was developed based on the 

relationship between the medium temperature VOP, SVO, and HZO equipment classes that 

DOE directly analyzed. Because neither an alternative value nor contradicting analysis was 

offered, for today’s final rule, DOE will continue to use the 2.51 and other extension 

multipliers developed in the NOPR. 

f. TSL Energy Limits 

After the NOPR, Hussman submitted a comment expressing its concern about the 

technologies required for equipment to meet minimum energy consumption levels for TSL 

4. In particular, Hussman is reluctant to use the no-heat door design option in humid 

climates, such as Houston, Texas. In its experience, no-heat doors in humid climates result 

in more condensation on store floors. According to Hussman, wet floors have led to 

accidents and costly law suits, indirectly linking increased energy efficiency with increased 

safety risks. (Hussman, No. 42 at p. 1) 

Energy conservation standards for today’s final rule set a maximum allowable 

energy conservation level for commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE does not limit the 

technologies manufacturers can use to achieve standards. Manufacturers are free to use any 

99
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

combination of technologies and design options to achieve a required level of energy 

consumption. Manufacturers also have the ability to design equipment for use in specific 

regions where certain design options may cause safety concerns. Certain anti-condensate 

design options consume no energy and could be used to achieve the energy consumption 

levels TSL 4 requires. Anti-condensate films can be applied to the inner surface of glass 

doors to prevent condensation and fog formation. By installing this film, some portion (and 

potentially all) of the glass and/or door mullion heaters can be removed and still maintain 

fog-free operation. In addition, DOE does not have the authority to set regional standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, and therefore cannot customize its analysis to exclude 

the use of design options in a specific climate region. Therefore, in developing the energy 

conservation standards for today’s final rule, DOE did not make any modifications to 

accommodate concerns related to any particular climate regions. 

g. Compressor Selection Oversize Factor 

DOE’s energy consumption model selects the most appropriate compressor by 

comparing each compressor’s capacity to the total refrigeration load in the case multiplied 

by the compressor oversize factor. For the ANOPR analysis, DOE listed capacity at the 

standard rating conditions used in ANSI/ARI Standard 540–2004.19 However, the standard 

rating conditions differed from the operating conditions used in the model, resulting in 

different capacity values. Because the standard conditions and modeled conditions differed, 

 

19 18 ANSI/ARI Standard 540–2004: Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors 

and Compressor Units lists standard rating conditions for hermetic refrigeration compressors. For mediumtemperature equipment, compressors are rated at 20 °F suction dewpoint, 120 °F discharge dewpoint, 40 °F 

return gas, and 0 °F subcooling. For low-temperature equipment, compressors are rated at -10 °F suction 

dewpoint, 120 °F discharge dewpoint, 40 °F return gas, and 0 °F subcooling. For ice-cream-temperature 

equipment, compressors are rated at -25 °F suction dewpoint, 105 °F discharge dewpoint, 40 °F return gas, and 

0 °F subcooling. 

100
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

the model typically overestimated the capacity of the selected compressors. To compensate, 

DOE adjusted the compressor oversize factor to an unrealistic level (typically level 1) for 

the ANOPR model to select the correct compressor. In the NOPR analysis, DOE revised the 

capacity values used to select self-contained compressors in the energy consumption model. 

For the NOPR, DOE used capacities based on the same conditions used to calculate total 

refrigeration load and revised the oversize factor (typically 1.4 in the NOPR model) for all 

self-contained equipment classes to maintain the selection of the correct compressor size. 

See chapter 5 of the TSD for more detail. 

Following the NOPR, Structural Concepts commented that the compressor selection 

criteria in the engineering analysis results in the selection of unreasonable compressors for 

the refrigeration load. Specifically, Structural Concepts stated that the refrigeration load is 

6,990 Btu/h for the VOP.SC.M equipment class, and the compressor sizing value is 9,787 

Btu/h. Using the oversize factor value of 1.4, the compressor selected in the engineering 

analysis has a capacity of 13,219 Btu/h. The selection of an unrealistically large compressor 

unfairly skews the energy efficiency ratio because the larger compressor has a higher 

efficiency rating than the next smallest compressor that has a rated capacity closer to the 

compressor sizing value. (Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p. 3) 

The energy consumption model selects a compressor assuming that the rated 

capacity of the compressor must be at or above the compressor sizing value. This prevents 

the selection of a compressor that is unable to meet the refrigeration load. The example 

Structural Concepts selected highlights one of the more extreme cases of how this model 

101
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

can select a compressor that is larger than necessary. However, Structural Concepts did not 

provide a recommendation that would result in the selection of a more appropriate 

compressor, or a more appropriate compressor oversize factor value to use for all the selfcontained equipment classes. Because manufacturers previously agreed that the compressor 

oversize factor of 1.4 was appropriate to use for all the self-contained equipment classes 

used in the analysis, DOE maintained its assumptions from the NOPR. 

h. Offset Factors for Self-Contained Equipment 

For the NOPR, DOE developed offset factors to adjust the energy consumption 

calculations to accommodate smaller equipment for the equipment classes it directly 

analyzed. These offset factors account for the components of the refrigeration load that 

remain constant even when equipment sizes vary (i.e., the conduction end effects) and 

disproportionately affect smaller cases. In the equation that describes the relationship 

between energy consumption and the corresponding TDA or volume metric, the offset 

factors are intended to approximate these constant loads and provide a fixed end point that 

corresponds to a zero TDA or zero volume case. See chapter 5 of the TSD for further details 

on the development of these offset factors for each equipment class. Following the NOPR, 

Structural Concepts requested that DOE increase the offset factor for self-contained 

equipment because DOE’s analysis selected compressors that were too large and had 

unrealistically high efficiencies. (Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p. 4) 

The compressors suggested by Structural Concepts for DOE’s model would, in some 

cases, be undersized for the refrigeration load. As mentioned in section V.A.2.g, DOE 

102
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

maintained the methodology used to select compressors in the energy consumption model. 

Because DOE did not receive any comments on necessary improvements or data on which 

its analysis can be reevaluated, and because the compressor selections used to develop the 

offset factors have not changed, DOE maintained the offset factors developed in the NOPR. 

i. Self-Contained Condensing Coils 

Following the NOPR, Structural Concepts revealed a discrepancy about the running 

temperature for self-contained equipment using coil enhancements. (Structural Concepts, 

No. 30 at p. 1) Chapter 5, section 5.6.3.7 of the NOPR TSD stated that self-contained 

equipment condenser coil enhancements would allow the condenser to run at a saturated 

condenser temperature (SCT) 10 °F cooler than a standard coil. However, the engineering 

analysis spreadsheet showed a decrease of 14 °F for this design option. There was a 

typographical error in the NOPR TSD and the 14 °F decrease in the engineering analysis is 

correct. In chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE updated its figure to reflect the correct SCT 

14 °F cooler temperature for the coil enhancements design option for self-contained 

equipment. 

Structural Concepts also questioned the validity of using 98 °F as the baseline SCT 

in the engineering analysis. According to Structural Concepts, this value is not 

representative of the current “off the shelf” self-contained condensing units available. It 

believes the baseline SCT value should be closer to 105 °F or 110 °F. (Structural Concepts, 

No. 30 at p. 2) 

103
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

There are condensing coils available that operate at both higher and lower SCT than 

the standard coil used in its model. This discrepancy exists because the standard coil used in 

DOE’s model is not an actual condensing coil. DOE reviewed a range of available 

manufacturer data, selected several representative units, and aggregated the physical 

characteristics of the selected units to create a representative unit for each equipment class. 

The 98 °F operating SCT is an average characteristic. DOE also conducted a sensitivity 

analysis to evaluate Structural Concept’s claim that baseline SCT was too low. In this 

sensitivity analysis in which the SCT was raised to 105 °F, DOE observed only minor 

changes in the energy consumption of the self-contained units. For these reasons, DOE will 

continue to use 98 °F as the baseline SCT for self-contained equipment condensers for 

today’s final rule. 

 

 For the NOPR, DOE used data from teardowns by Southern California Edison’s 

Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center (RTTC) to model the enhanced condenser coil used 

in the engineering analysis. Based on this information, DOE considered both minimum and 

maximum technology levels for this design option. For each level, DOE specified an overall 

UA-value and a coil cost. The UA-value is normalized to the standard coil, and the coil cost 

is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil. This approach allowed DOE to apply 

the details of coil design across all self-contained equipment classes. In consultation with 

outside experts, DOE determined that applying the same coil improvements to different 

sized coils would result in similar performance improvements. See chapter 5 of the TSD for 

more detail on the development of the enhanced condenser coil specifications. 

104
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Following the NOPR, Structural Concepts stated that DOE overstates the magnitude 

of the UA-value increase achievable with an enhanced condenser coil. It claimed the 

enhanced condenser prototype DOE used as a model for this design option is too large for 

use in self-contained equipment and, because UA-value primarily depends on surface area, 

the use of a smaller, practical condenser would yield a lower UA-value. As a result, it 

requested that DOE base the UA-value on coils that are closer in size to the standard coil. 

(Structural Concepts, No. 30 at p. 2) 

The specifications for the enhanced coil used in DOE’s analysis are based on a 

model developed specifically for use in a self-contained refrigeration system. The details of 

the coil construction are based on data from teardowns by Southern California Edison’s 

Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center (RTTC).20 Therefore, DOE is confident that it 

modeled an appropriately sized high efficiency condenser coil. In addition to increased 

exterior dimensions, DOE’s enhanced condenser coil also uses a higher fin pitch, rifled 

tubing, and different tube spacing to achieve a higher UA-value than the standard coil. 

Structural Concepts also did not provide costs for their suggested coil model. Because DOE 

did not receive additional information or data that would suggest that the UA-value is not 

representative of enhanced condenser coils, and the data that was provided were incomplete, 

DOE maintained its assumptions from the NOPR for the enhanced condenser coil. 

3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE gives exclusive consideration to the 

 

20 Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center. Personal communication. Southern California Edison. March 29, 

2007. 

105
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

preservation-of-gross-margin (absolute dollars) scenario. According to the Joint Comment, 

relying solely on this scenario only considers manufacturers’ expectations about the 

manufacturing impacts at the proposed standard. (Joint Comment, No. 7 at p. 2) The Joint 

Comment stated the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage markup scenario provides a 

more plausible representation of impacts on manufacturers due to new energy conservation 

standards. (Joint Comment, No. 7 at p. 3) 

DOE developed two markup scenarios: the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage 

and the preservation-of-gross-margin (absolute dollars). DOE used these scenarios to bound 

the potential impacts on the industry value as a result of new energy conservation standards 

and presented its findings in the August 2008 NOPR for public comment. 73 FR 50107. The 

preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage markup scenario is a lower bound estimate on 

manufacturer impacts because it assumes that manufacturers will be able to fully recover all 

the increases in production costs due to energy conservation standards requirements. The 

preservation-of-gross-margin (absolute dollars) markup scenario is an upper bound estimate 

on manufacturer impacts because it assumes that manufacturers will be able to only partially 

recover cost increases (to maintain an absolute dollar gross margin) due to energy 

conservation standards. The markup scenarios DOE modeled in the GRIM reflect both its 

interpretation of qualitative information learned during manufacturer interviews and the 

analysis of limited profit margin data provided under confidentiality agreements. 

DOE notes the large uncertainty about the actual impacts on the industry due to 

standards. The commercial refrigeration equipment industry has never been regulated for 

106
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

energy efficiency and manufacturers do not have previous experience on how energy 

conservation standards affect their business. The seven manufacturers that DOE interviewed 

for the NOPR expressed a divergence of views on how prices would change after standards. 

Most manufacturers stated that they expect profit levels to decrease due to new energy 

conservation standards based on their recent inability to pass on increases in material and 

component costs to their customers. The portion of production costs reflected in selling 

prices varied significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer. In general, companies with 

lower market shares face greater challenges in passing along costs and would suffer larger 

margin impacts due to new energy conservation standards. Manufacturers with relatively 

large market shares have been more successful passing through costs and they are more 

confident of maintaining profit levels over the long term. Because of the divergence of 

experience with cost pass-through and the implication for prices and profitability after 

standards, DOE considers the full range of potential impacts bounded by the markup 

scenarios and does not consider one scenario to be more likely. 

In response to the NOPR, Earthjustice noted that the direct employment benefits are 

shown to provide positive employment in the MIA analysis. Earthjustice stated DOE should 

consider these benefits in the final rule. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at 

p. 166) 

For the MIA, DOE calculated the direct employment impacts on the commercial 

refrigeration industry. DOE calculated total labor expenditures for the industry using the 

production costs from the engineering analysis, labor information from U.S. Census 

107
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Bureau’s 2006 Annual Survey of Manufactures, and the total industry shipments from the 

NES. DOE translated the total labor expenditures for the industry into the total number of 

domestic jobs using the domestic share of commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturing, the labor rate for the industry, and the annual hours per worker. DOE 

calculated its estimate of the domestic employment for the base case and each TSL. The 

direct employment results characterized by the MIA represent U.S. production and nonproduction workers that are affected by this rulemaking in the commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturing industry. 

For the final rule, DOE examined the impacts of energy conservation standards on 

domestic manufacturing employment levels. The direct employment impact analysis 

conducted as part of the MIA estimates the number of domestic workers who are affected by 

this rulemaking in the commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturing industry, 

assuming that shipment levels and product availability remain at current levels. Because 

labor costs are assumed to be a fixed percentage of total manufacturing production costs, 

which increase with more efficient equipment, the GRIM predicts a gradual increase in 

employment after standards. DOE has considered all employment impacts in weighing the 

benefits and the burdens, including direct (as calculated by the MIA) and indirect (as 

calculated by the employment impact analysis). For further details on the direct employment 

impact analysis, see chapter 13 of the accompanying TSD. 

108
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE selected between four and eight energy consumption levels for each 

commercial refrigeration equipment class in the LCC analysis. Based on the results of the 

analysis, DOE selected five trial standard levels above the baseline level for each equipment 

class for the NOPR. The range of TSLs selected includes the most energy efficient 

combination of design options with a positive NPV at the 7-percent discount rate, and the 

combination of design options with the minimum LCC. TSLs also were selected that filled 

large gaps between the baseline and the level with the minimum LCC. 

For the NOPR, DOE developed offset factors to adjust the energy efficiency 

requirements for smaller equipment in each equipment class analyzed. These offset factors 

account for certain components of the refrigeration load (such as the conduction end effects) 

that remain constant even when equipment sizes vary. These constant loads affect smaller 

cases disproportionately. The offset factors are intended to approximate these constant loads 

and provide a fixed end point, corresponding to a zero TDA or zero volume case, in an 

equation that describes the relationship between energy consumption and the corresponding 

TDA or volume metric. See chapter 5 of the TSD for further details on the development of 

these offset factors for each equipment class. 

For the final rule, DOE preserved the general methodology it used for the selection 

of efficiency levels in the NOPR in establishing specific efficiency levels for equipment 

classes. These levels are based on the results of the updated LCC analysis and made up the 

109
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

TSLs used in the NOPR. Table VI-1 shows the TSL levels DOE selected for energy use for 

the equipment classes analyzed. TSL 5 is the max-tech level for each equipment class. TSL 

4 is the maximum efficiency level with a positive NPV at the 7-percent discount rate, except 

for VOP.RC.M. In this class, the minimal difference in energy efficiency between the 

minimum life-cycle cost level as determined by the LCC analysis and the maximum 

efficiency level with positive NPV prompted DOE to select the minimum life-cycle cost 

level instead of the maximum level with positive NPV. TSL 4 is a combination of the 

efficiency levels selected for TSL 3 and TSL 5. For a given equipment class, the efficiency 

levels selected for TSL 4 are either equivalent to those of TSL 3 or TSL 5. TSL 3 is the 

efficiency level that provides the minimum life-cycle cost determined by the LCC analysis. 

TSL 2 and TSL 1 represent lower efficiency levels that fill in the gap between the current 

baseline and the levels determined to have the minimum LCC. 

Table VI-1 shows the same TSL levels in terms of proposed equations that establish 

an MDEC limit through a linear equation of the form: 

MDEC = A × TDA + B (for equipment using TDA as a normalizing metric)

or

MDEC = A × V + B (for equipment using volume as a normalizing metric)

Coefficients A and B are uniquely derived for each equipment class based on the 

calculated offset factor B (see chapter 5 of the TSD for offset factors) and the equation slope 

A. Equation slope A would be used to describe the efficiency requirements for equipment of 

110
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

different sizes within the same equipment class. Chapter 9 of the TSD explains the 

methodology DOE used for selecting TSLs and developing the coefficients shown in Table 

VI-2. 

Table VI-1 Trial Standard Levels for Analyzed Equipment Expressed in Terms of 

Daily Energy Consumption 

Trial Standard Levels for Equipment Analyzed 

Expressed in Terms of Energy Consumption 

(kWh/day) Equipment 

Class 

Normalization 

Metric

Normalization 

Value*

Test 

Metric Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

VOP.RC.M TDA [ft2

]

** 53.30 CDEC 

kWh/day 57.90 51.99 50.68 47.69 47.69 43.75 

VOP.RC.L TDA [ft2

] 44.66 CDEC 

kWh/day 133.60 118.44 113.28 112.00 108.40 108.40 

VOP.SC.M TDA [ft2

] 14.93 TDEC††

kWh/day 39.60 35.95 33.38 30.70 30.70 29.33 

VCT.RC.M TDA [ft2

] 65.00 CDEC 

kWh/day 33.18 31.77 30.00 16.36 16.18 16.18 

VCT.RC.L TDA [ft2

] 65.00 CDEC 

kWh/day 69.31 65.73 46.90 39.60 39.18 39.18 

VCT.SC.I TDA [ft2

] 26.00 TDEC 

kWh/day 45.63 33.35 23.39 21.17 20.81 20.81 

VCS.SC.I V [ft3

]

† 48.00 TDEC 

kWh/day 27.13 24.31 21.64 19.07 19.07 19.07 

SVO.RC.M TDA [ft2

] 40.00 CDEC 

kWh/day 43.56 39.58 38.59 36.34 36.34 33.61 

SVO.SC.M TDA [ft2

] 12.80 TDEC 

kWh/day 33.11 30.66 28.87 26.74 26.74 25.74 

SOC.RC.M TDA [ft2

] 51.00 CDEC 

kWh/day 31.70 30.01 27.93 26.24 26.24 20.62 

HZO.RC.M TDA [ft2

] 33.00 CDEC 

kWh/day 19.63 17.89 15.73 14.69 14.54 14.54 

HZO.RC.L TDA [ft2

] 46.00 CDEC 

kWh/day 38.38 35.30 33.41 32.97 32.97 32.97 

HZO.SC.M TDA [ft2

] 12.00 TDEC 

kWh/day 19.23 17.85 16.51 14.93 14.81 14.81 

HZO.SC.L TDA [ft2

] 12.00 TDEC 

kWh/day 38.69 36.02 33.52 30.31 30.14 30.14 

HCT.SC.I TDA [ft2

] 5.12 TDEC 

kWh/day 7.25 6.37 3.70 3.53 3.32 3.32 

* This is the assumed baseline size for each equipment class used in DOE’s analyses. 

** TDA is total display area of the case. 

† V is gross refrigerated volume of the case. 

†† TDEC is total daily energy consumption of the case. 

111
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-2 Trial Standard Levels Expressed in Terms of Equations and Coefficients 

for Each Primary Equipment Class 

Equipment Trial Standard Levels for Primary Equipment Classes Analyzed 

Class 

Test 

Metric Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

VOP.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

1.01 x TDA 

+ 4.07 

0.9 x TDA + 

4.07 

0.87 x TDA 

+ 4.07 

0.82 x TDA 

+ 4.07 

0.82 x TDA 

+ 4.07 

0.74 x TDA 

+ 4.07 

VOP.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

2.84 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.5 x TDA + 

6.85 

2.38 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.35 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.27 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.27 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

VOP.SC.M TDEC 

kWh/day 

2.34 x TDA 

+ 4.71 

2.09 x TDA 

+ 4.71 

1.92 x TDA 

+ 4.71 

1.74 x TDA 

+ 4.71 

1.74 x TDA 

+ 4.71 

1.65 x TDA 

+ 4.71 

VCT.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.48 x TDA 

+ 1.95 

0.46 x TDA 

+ 1.95 

0.43 x TDA 

+ 1.95 

0.22 x TDA 

+ 1.95 

0.22 x TDA 

+ 1.95 

0.22 x TDA 

+ 1.95 

VCT.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

1.03 x TDA 

+ 2.61 

0.97 x TDA 

+ 2.61 

0.68 x TDA 

+ 2.61 

0.57 x TDA 

+ 2.61 

0.56 x TDA 

+ 2.61 

0.56 x TDA 

+ 2.61 

VCT.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

1.63 x TDA 

+ 3.29 

1.16 x TDA 

+ 3.29 

0.77 x TDA 

+ 3.29 

0.69 x TDA 

+ 3.29 

0.67 x TDA 

+ 3.29 

0.67 x TDA 

+ 3.29 

VCS.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

0.55 x V + 

0.88 

0.49 x V + 

0.88 

0.43 x V + 

0.88 

0.38 x V + 

0.88 

0.38 x V + 

0.88 

0.38 x V + 

0.88 

SVO.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

1.01 x TDA 

+ 3.18 

0.91 x TDA 

+ 3.18 

0.89 x TDA 

+ 3.18 

0.83 x TDA 

+ 3.18 

0.83 x TDA 

+ 3.18 

0.76 x TDA 

+ 3.18 

SVO.SC.M TDEC 

kWh/day 

2.23 x TDA 

+ 4.59 

2.04 x TDA 

+ 4.59 

1.9 x TDA + 

4.59 

1.73 x TDA 

+ 4.59 

1.73 x TDA 

+ 4.59 

1.65 x TDA 

+ 4.59 

SOC.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.62 x TDA 

+ 0.11 

0.59 x TDA 

+ 0.11 

0.55 x TDA 

+ 0.11 

0.51 x TDA 

+ 0.11 

0.51 x TDA 

+ 0.11 

0.4 x TDA + 

0.11 

HZO.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.51 x TDA 

+ 2.88 

0.45 x TDA 

+ 2.88 

0.39 x TDA 

+ 2.88 

0.36 x TDA 

+ 2.88 

0.35 x TDA 

+ 2.88 

0.35 x TDA 

+ 2.88 

HZO.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.68 x TDA 

+ 6.88 

0.62 x TDA 

+ 6.88 

0.58 x TDA 

+ 6.88 

0.57 x TDA 

+ 6.88 

0.57 x TDA 

+ 6.88 

0.57 x TDA 

+ 6.88 

HZO.SC.M TDEC 

kWh/day 

1.14 x TDA 

+ 5.55 

1.03 x TDA 

+ 5.55 

0.91 x TDA 

+ 5.55 

0.78 x TDA 

+ 5.55 

0.77 x TDA 

+ 5.55 

0.77 x TDA 

+ 5.55 

HZO.SC.L TDEC 

kWh/day 

2.63 x TDA 

+ 7.08 

2.41 x TDA 

+ 7.08 

2.2 x TDA + 

7.08 

1.94 x TDA 

+ 7.08 

1.92 x TDA 

+ 7.08 

1.92 x TDA 

+ 7.08 

HCT.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

1.33 x TDA 

+ 0.43 

1.16 x TDA 

+ 0.43 

0.64 x TDA 

+ 0.43 

0.6 x TDA + 

0.43 

0.56 x TDA 

+ 0.43 

0.56 x TDA 

+ 0.43 

In addition to the standards for the 15 primary equipment classes DOE analyzed, 

DOE is adopting standards for the remaining 23 secondary equipment classes of commercial 

refrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking that were not directly analyzed in the 

engineering analysis due to low annual shipments (less than 100 units per year). DOE’s 

approach involved extension multipliers developed using both the 15 primary equipment 

classes analyzed and a set of focused matched-pair analyses. In addition, standards for 

certain primary equipment classes could be directly applied to other similar secondary 

112
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

equipment classes. Chapter 5 of the TSD discusses the development of the extension 

multipliers and the set of focused matched-pair analyses. 

Using this approach, DOE developed an additional set of TSLs for these secondary 

equipment classes that corresponds to each of the equations shown in Table VI-2 at each 

TSL. Table VI-3 shows this additional set of corresponding TSL levels. 

113
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-3 Trial Standard Levels Expressed in Terms of Equations and Coefficients for 

Each Secondary Equipment Class 

Equipment Trial Standard Levels for Secondary Equipment Classes Analyzed

Class 

Test 

Metric Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

SVO.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

2.84 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.5 x TDA + 

6.85 

2.38 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.35 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.27 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

2.27 x TDA 

+ 6.85 

VOP.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

3.6 x TDA + 

8.7 

3.17 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

3.03 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

2.99 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

2.89 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

2.89 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

SVO.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

3.6 x TDA + 

8.7 

3.17 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

3.03 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

2.99 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

2.89 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

2.89 x TDA 

+ 8.7 

HZO.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.87 x TDA 

+ 8.74 

0.78 x TDA 

+ 8.74 

0.73 x TDA 

+ 8.74 

0.72 x TDA 

+ 8.74 

0.72 x TDA 

+ 8.74 

0.72 x TDA 

+ 8.74 

VCT.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

1.2 x TDA + 

3.05 

1.14 x TDA 

+ 3.05 

0.8 x TDA + 

3.05 

0.67 x TDA 

+ 3.05 

0.66 x TDA 

+ 3.05 

0.66 x TDA 

+ 3.05 

HCT.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.39 x TDA 

+ 0.13 

0.34 x TDA 

+ 0.13 

0.19 x TDA 

+ 0.13 

0.18 x TDA 

+ 0.13 

0.16 x TDA 

+ 0.13 

0.16 x TDA 

+ 0.13 

HCT.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.81 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

0.71 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

0.39 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

0.37 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

0.34 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

0.34 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

HCT.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.95 x TDA 

+ 0.31 

0.83 x TDA 

+ 0.31 

0.46 x TDA 

+ 0.31 

0.43 x TDA 

+ 0.31 

0.4 x TDA + 

0.31 

0.4 x TDA + 

0.31 

VCS.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.16 x V + 

0.26 

0.14 x V + 

0.26 

0.13 x V + 

0.26 

0.11 x V + 

0.26 

0.11 x V + 

0.26 

0.11 x V + 

0.26 

VCS.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.33 x V + 

0.54 

0.3 x V + 

0.54 

0.26 x V + 

0.54 

0.23 x V + 

0.54 

0.23 x V + 

0.54 

0.23 x V + 

0.54 

VCS.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.39 x V + 

0.63 

0.35 x V + 

0.63 

0.31 x V + 

0.63 

0.27 x V + 

0.63 

0.27 x V + 

0.63 

0.27 x V + 

0.63 

HCS.RC.M CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.16 x V + 

0.26 

0.14 x V + 

0.26 

0.13 x V + 

0.26 

0.11 x V + 

0.26 

0.11 x V + 

0.26 

0.11 x V + 

0.26 

HCS.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.33 x V + 

0.54 

0.3 x V + 

0.54 

0.26 x V + 

0.54 

0.23 x V + 

0.54 

0.23 x V + 

0.54 

0.23 x V + 

0.54 

HCS.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

0.39 x V + 

0.63 

0.35 x V + 

0.63 

0.31 x V + 

0.63 

0.27 x V + 

0.63 

0.27 x V + 

0.63 

0.27 x V + 

0.63 

SOC.RC.L CDEC 

kWh/day 

1.3 x TDA + 

0.22 

1.23 x TDA 

+ 0.22 

1.15 x TDA 

+ 0.22 

1.08 x TDA 

+ 0.22 

1.08 x TDA 

+ 0.22 

0.84 x TDA 

+ 0.22 

SOC.RC.I CDEC 

kWh/day 

1.52 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

1.44 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

1.34 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

1.26 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

1.26 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

0.99 x TDA 

+ 0.26 

VOP.SC.L TDEC 

kWh/day 

5.87 x TDA 

+ 11.82 

5.25 x TDA 

+ 11.82 

4.82 x TDA 

+ 11.82 

4.37 x TDA 

+ 11.82 

4.37 x TDA 

+ 11.82 

4.14 x TDA 

+ 11.82 

VOP.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

7.45 x TDA 

+ 15.02 

6.67 x TDA 

+ 15.02 

6.13 x TDA 

+ 15.02 

5.55 x TDA 

+ 15.02 

5.55 x TDA 

+ 15.02 

5.26 x TDA 

+ 15.02 

SVO.SC.L TDEC 

kWh/day 

5.59 x TDA 

+ 11.51 

5.11 x TDA 

+ 11.51 

4.76 x TDA 

+ 11.51 

4.34 x TDA 

+ 11.51 

4.34 x TDA 

+ 11.51 

4.15 x TDA 

+ 11.51 

SVO.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

7.11 x TDA 

+ 14.63 

6.5 x TDA + 

14.63 

6.05 x TDA 

+ 14.63 

5.52 x TDA 

+ 14.63 

5.52 x TDA 

+ 14.63 

5.27 x TDA 

+ 14.63 

HZO.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

3.35 x TDA 

+ 9. 

3.06 x TDA 

+ 9. 

2.8 x TDA + 

9. 

2.46 x TDA 

+ 9. 

2.44 x TDA 

+ 9. 

2.44 x TDA 

+ 9. 

SOC.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

2.13 x TDA 

+ 0.36 

2.02 x TDA 

+ 0.36 

1.88 x TDA 

+ 0.36 

1.76 x TDA 

+ 0.36 

1.76 x TDA 

+ 0.36 

1.38 x TDA 

+ 0.36 

HCS.SC.I TDEC 

kWh/day 

0.55 x V + 

0.88 

0.49 x V + 

0.88 

0.43 x V + 

0.88 

0.38 x V + 

0.88 

0.38 x V + 

0.88 

0.38 x V + 

0.88 

114
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

1. Miscellaneous Equipment 

As stated in the August 2008 NOPR, certain types of equipment meet the definition 

of “commercial refrigeration equipment” (Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005), but do not 

fall directly into any of the 38 equipment classes defined in the market and technology 

assessment. One of these types is hybrid cases, in which two or more compartments are in 

different equipment families and are contained in one cabinet. Another is refrigeratorfreezers, which have two compartments in the same equipment family but have different 

operating temperatures. Hybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two or more compartments are 

in different equipment families and have different operating temperatures, may also exist. 

Another is wedge cases, which form miter transitions (a corner section between two 

refrigerated display merchandisers) between standard display case lineups. DOE is using 

language that will allow manufacturers to determine appropriate standard levels for these 

types of equipment. 

An example of a pure hybrid case (one with two or more compartments in different 

equipment families and operating at the same temperature) is a unit with one open and one 

closed medium-temperature compartment, such as those seen in coffee shops that sell baked 

goods and beverages. These hybrid cases may be either self-contained or remote 

condensing, and may be cooled by one or more condensing units. They may also have one 

evaporator cooling both compartments or one evaporator feeding each compartment 

separately. 

115
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

An example of a refrigerator-freezer is a unit with doors where one compartment 

operates at medium temperature and one compartment operates at low temperature. Remote 

condensing commercial refrigerator-freezers (with and without doors) and self-contained 

commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors may operate in one of two ways. They may 

operate as separate chilled and frozen compartments with evaporators fed by two sets of 

refrigerant lines or two compressors. Alternatively, they may operate as separate chilled and 

frozen compartments fed by one set of low-temperature refrigerant lines (with evaporator 

pressure regulator (EPR) valves or similar devices used to raise the evaporator pressure) or 

one compressor. 

An example of a hybrid refrigerator-freezer is a unit with one open compartment at 

medium temperature and one closed compartment at low temperature. As with pure hybrid 

cases, these cases may be either self-contained or remote condensing, and may be cooled by 

one or more condensing units. In the case of remote condensing equipment, they may 

operate as separate chilled and frozen compartments with evaporators fed by two sets of 

refrigerant lines or two compressors, or they may operate as separate chilled and frozen 

compartments fed by one set of low-temperature refrigerant lines (with EPR valves or 

similar devices used to raise the evaporator pressure of one compartment) or one 

compressor. 

In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed using the following language for 

requiring manufacturers to meet standards for hybrid cases, refrigerator-freezers, and hybrid 

refrigerator-freezers: 

116
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

• For commercial refrigeration equipment with two or more compartments (i.e., hybrid 

refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid 

refrigerator freezers), the MDEC for each model shall be the sum of the MDEC 

values for all of its compartments. For each compartment, measure the TDA or 

volume of that compartment, and determine the appropriate equipment class based 

on that compartment’s equipment family, condensing unit configuration, and 

designed operating temperature. The MDEC limit for each compartment shall be the 

calculated value obtained by entering that compartment’s TDA or volume into the 

standard equation for that compartment’s equipment class. Measure the calculated 

daily energy consumption (CDEC) or total daily energy consumption (TDEC) for 

the entire case as follows: 

o For remote condensing commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, 

hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two 

or more independent condensing units each separately cool only one 

compartment, measure the total refrigeration load of each compartment 

separately according to the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 test 

procedure. Calculate compressor energy consumption (CEC) for each 

compartment using Table 1 in ARI Standard 1200-2006 using the saturated 

evaporator temperature for that compartment. The calculated daily energy 

consumption (CDEC) for the entire case shall be the sum of the CEC for each 

compartment, fan energy consumption (FEC), lighting energy consumption 

(LEC), anti-condensate energy consumption (AEC), defrost energy 

117
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

consumption (DEC), and condensate evaporator pan energy consumption 

(PEC) (as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006). 

o For remote condensing commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, 

hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two 

or more compartments are cooled collectively by one condensing unit, 

measure the total refrigeration load of the entire case according to the 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 test procedure. Calculate a weighted 

saturated evaporator temperature for the entire case by (i) multiplying the 

saturated evaporator temperature of each compartment by the volume of that 

compartment (as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006), (ii) summing the 

resulting values for all compartments, and (iii) dividing the resulting total by 

the total volume of all compartments. Calculate the CEC for the entire case 

using Table 1 in ARI Standard 1200-2006, using the total refrigeration load 

and the weighted average saturated evaporator temperature. The CDEC for 

the entire case shall be the sum of the CEC, FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, and 

PEC. 

o For self-contained commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid 

refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, measure the total 

daily energy consumption (TDEC) for the entire case according to the 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 test procedure. 

In response to the NOPR, Traulsen suggested that DOE address commercial 

refrigerator-freezers by summing the maximum daily energy consumption values for all of 

118
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

its individual compartments. (Traulsen, No. 25 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with this suggestion and notes that it is in alignment with the proposal 

in the August 2008 NOPR for commercial refrigeration equipment with two or more 

compartments. Therefore, DOE is adopting the language above for hybrid cases, 

refrigerator-freezers, and hybrid refrigerator freezers in its final rule. 

Additionally, DOE is adopting the following language to address wedge cases: 

For remote condensing and self-contained wedge cases, measure the CDEC or TDEC 

according to the ANSI/ARI 1200-2006 test procedure. The MDEC for each model shall be 

the amount derived by incorporating into the standard equation for the appropriate 

equipment class a value for the TDA that is the product of: (1) the vertical height of the air 

curtain (or glass in a transparent door), and (2) the largest overall width of the case when 

viewed from the front. 

B. Significance of Energy Savings

To estimate the energy savings through 2042 due to new standards, DOE compared 

the energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment under the base case (no 

standards) to energy consumption of this equipment under each TSL that DOE considered. 

Table VI-4 shows DOE’s NES estimates, which it based on the AEO2008 reference case, 

for each TSL. Chapter 11 of the TSD describes these estimates in more detail. DOE reports 

both undiscounted and discounted values of energy savings. Discounted energy savings 

represent a policy perspective where energy savings farther in the future are less significant 

119
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

than energy savings closer to the present. Each TSL considered in this rulemaking resulted 

in significant energy savings, and the amount of savings increased with higher energy 

conservation standards. Energy savings ranged from an estimated 0.168 quads to 1.298 

quads for TSLs 1 through 5 (undiscounted). 

Table VI-4 Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment (Energy Savings for Units Sold from 2012 to 2042) 

Primary National Energy Savings (quads) 

Trial Standard Level (sum of all equipment classes)

Undiscounted 3% Discounted 7% Discounted

1 0.168 0.088 0.041 

2 0.645 0.339 0.159 

3 1.013 0.532 0.250 

4 1.035 0.544 0.256 

5 1.298 0.683 0.321 

C. Economic Justification

1. Economic Impact on Commercial Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

Commercial customers will be affected by the standards because they will 

experience higher purchase prices and lower operating costs. Generally, these impacts are 

best captured by changes in life-cycle costs and payback period. Therefore, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for the standard levels considered in this rulemaking. DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analyses provided five key outputs for each TSL, reported in Table VI-5 through Table 

VI-19. The first three outputs are the proportion of purchases of commercial refrigeration 

equipment where the purchase of a design that complies with the TSL would create: (1) a 

net life-cycle cost, (2) no impact, or (3) a net life-cycle savings for the consumer. The fourth 

output is the average net life-cycle savings from purchasing a complying design. The fifth 

120
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

output is the average PBP for the customer purchasing a design that complies with the TSL 

compared with purchasing baseline equipment. The PBP is the number of years it would 

take for the customer to recover the increased costs of higher-efficiency equipment through 

energy savings based on the operating cost savings from the first year of ownership. The 

PBP is an economic benefit-cost measure that uses benefits and costs without discounting. 

Table VI-5 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 64 46 29 29 1 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 36 54 71 71 0 

Mean LCC Savings ($)* 1,344 1,308 1,788 1,788 (3,959) 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.8 1.3 2.0 2.0 138.1 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative savings. 

Table VI-6 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VOP.RC.L Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 69 52 23 8 8 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 31 48 77 92 92 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 3,501 4,500 4,610 3,938 3,938 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.8 2.8 

Table VI-7 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VOP.SC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 67 35 21 21 1 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 33 65 79 79 30 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 842 1,209 1,549 1,549 (451) 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.8 1.6 2.4 2.4 11.2 

121
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-8 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.RC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 80 60 17 8 8 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 20 40 83 92 92 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 320 657 2,375 2,339 2,339 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.8 1.3 3.8 3.9 3.9 

Table VI-9 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.RC.L Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 62 43 20 10 10 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 38 57 80 90 90 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 762 4,137 5,450 5,419 5,419 

Mean Payback Period (years) 1.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 

Table VI-10 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.SC.I Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 55 41 20 9 9 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 45 59 80 91 91 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 2,941 4,893 5,234 5,217 5,217 

Mean Payback Period (years) 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 

Table VI-11 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCS.SC.I Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 76 50 11 11 11 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 24 50 89 89 89 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 704 1,321 1,757 1,757 1,757 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Table VI-12 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SVO.RC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 65 47 30 30 1 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 35 53 70 70 0 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 907 896 1,274 1,274 (2,974) 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.8 1.3 1.9 1.9 196.8 

122
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-13 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SVO.SC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 68 36 22 22 2 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 32 64 78 78 29 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 583 853 1,136 1,136 (355) 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.6 1.4 2.3 2.3 11.5 

Table VI-14 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SOC.RC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 82 64 29 29 3 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 18 36 71 71 5 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 405 851 945 945 (1,458) 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.5 0.8 1.7 1.7 19.4 

Table VI-15 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.RC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 80 60 39 19 19 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 20 40 61 81 81 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 419 887 1,063 1,040 1,040 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.6 

Table VI-16 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.RC.L Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 59 39 19 19 19 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 41 61 81 81 81 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 668 1,047 1,102 1,102 1,102 

Mean Payback Period (years) 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Table VI-17 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.SC.M Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 73 45 21 10 10 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 27 55 79 90 90 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 344 615 861 826 826 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.4 1.0 1.8 2.3 2.3 

123
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-18 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.SC.L Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 73 46 21 10 10 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 27 54 79 90 90 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 670 1,215 1,784 1,761 1,761 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.3 0.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 

Table VI-19 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HCT.SC.I Equipment Class 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

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

Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) 65 47 30 14 14 

Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) 35 53 70 86 86 

Mean LCC Savings ($) 211 775 797 785 785 

Mean Payback Period (years) 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.9 

 For five equipment classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and 

SOC.RC.M), TSL 5 resulted in negative LCC savings compared to the purchase of baseline 

equipment. For all other equipment classes, TSL 5 showed positive LCC savings. For 

equipment classes with lighting, including LED lighting at TSL 5 had a significant impact 

on the calculated LCC savings. For equipment classes without lighting (i.e., VCS.SC.I, 

HZO.RC.L, HZO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, and HCT.SC.I), the difference in LCC savings 

between TSL 3 and TSL 5 was small, between $0 and $35 less at TSL 5 than at TSL 3. For 

VCT.RC.L, VCT.RC.I, and VCT.SC.I, the difference in LCC savings between TSL 3 and 

TSL 5 was small as well (between $17 and $36 less savings at TSL 5 than at TSL 3). 

VOP.RC.L showed a more significant reduction in LCC savings at TSL 5 compared to TSL 

3 at $672. 

124
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

b. Commercial Customer Sub-Group Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE estimated the impact of the TSLs on small 

businesses, a customer sub-group. DOE estimated the LCC and PBP for small food sales 

businesses defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by presuming that most 

small business customers could be represented by the analysis performed for small grocery 

and convenience store owners. DOE further assumed that the smaller, independent grocery 

and convenience store chains may not have access to national accounts, but would instead 

purchase equipment primarily through distributors and grocery wholesalers. DOE modified 

the distribution channels for remote condensing and self-contained equipment to these small 

businesses as follows: 

• For remote condensing equipment, 15 percent of the sales were assumed to 

pass through a manufacturer-to-distributor-to-contractor-to-customer 

channel, and 85 percent were assumed to be purchased through a 

manufacturer-to-distributor-to-customer channel. 

• For self-contained equipment, 35 percent of sales were assumed to pass 

through a manufacturer-to-distributor-to-contractor-to-customer channel, and 

65 percent were assumed to be purchased through a manufacturer-todistributor-to-customer channel. 

In both cases, the distribution chain markups were calculated with these revised 

shipment weights. Table VI-20 shows the mean LCC savings from proposed energy 

conservation standards for the small business sub-group, and Table VI-21 shows the mean 

125
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

payback period (in years) for this sub-group. More detailed discussion on the LCC subgroup analysis and results can be found in chapter 12 of the TSD. 

Table VI-20 Mean Life-Cycle Cost Savings for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment Purchased by LCC Sub-Group (Small Business) (2007$)*

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

VOP.RC.M 1,746 1,764 2,443 2,443 (3,463) 

VOP.RC.L 4,534 5,882 6,064 5,549 5,549 

VOP.SC.M 1,094 1,624 2,145 2,145 131 

VCT.RC.M 416 868 3,484 3,458 3,458 

VCT.RC.L 1,001 5,639 7,454 7,447 7,447 

VCT.SC.I 3,811 6,451 6,944 6,949 6,949 

VCS.SC.I 902 1,703 2,314 2,314 2,314 

SVO.RC.M 1,177 1,209 1,738 1,738 (2,637) 

SVO.SC.M 752 1,138 1,565 1,565 61 

SOC.RC.M 521 1,106 1,290 1,290 (948) 

HZO.RC.M 538 1,152 1,397 1,383 1,383 

HZO.RC.L 875 1,383 1,466 1,466 1,466 

HZO.SC.M 440 803 1,156 1,129 1,129 

HZO.SC.L 857 1,574 2,364 2,352 2,352 

HCT.SC.I 272 1,022 1,055 1,057 1,057 *

 Numbers in parentheses indicate negative savings. 

Table VI-21 Mean Payback Period for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Purchased by LCC Sub-Group (Small Business) (Years) 

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

VOP.RC.M 0.71 1.19 1.77 1.77 51.97 

VOP.RC.L 0.64 0.99 1.10 2.53 2.53 

VOP.SC.M 0.70 1.43 2.17 2.17 9.50 

VCT.RC.M 0.73 1.14 3.54 3.64 3.64 

VCT.RC.L 1.00 2.17 2.32 2.42 2.42 

VCT.SC.I 0.90 1.32 1.47 1.57 1.57 

VCS.SC.I 0.33 0.53 1.17 1.17 1.17 

SVO.RC.M 0.70 1.19 1.73 1.73 106.71 

SVO.SC.M 0.55 1.26 2.09 2.09 9.71 

SOC.RC.M 0.48 0.75 1.55 1.55 15.62 

HZO.RC.M 0.46 0.72 1.13 1.47 1.47 

HZO.RC.L 0.93 1.26 1.50 1.50 1.50 

HZO.SC.M 0.36 0.92 1.66 2.06 2.06 

HZO.SC.L 0.29 0.71 1.35 1.55 1.55 

HCT.SC.I 0.58 1.24 1.32 1.74 1.74 

For commercial refrigeration equipment, the LCC and PBP impacts for small 

businesses are similar to those of all customers as a whole. While the discount rate for small 

126
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

grocery stores is higher than the rate for commercial refrigeration equipment customers as a 

whole and equipment prices are higher due to the higher markups, these small business 

customers appear to retain commercial refrigeration equipment over longer periods. Also, 

smaller stores generally tend to pay higher electric prices. The average LCC savings for the 

small business sub-group is slightly higher than that calculated for the average commercial 

refrigeration equipment customer, and the average PBP is slightly shorter than the national 

average. DOE concluded that the small food sales businesses defined by SBA will not 

experience economic impacts significantly different or more negative than those impacts on 

food sales businesses as a whole. 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

DOE determined the economic impacts of today’s standard on manufacturers, as 

described in the proposed rule. 73 FR at 50118-21. For the final rule, DOE analyzed 

manufacturer impacts under two distinct markup scenarios: (1) the preservation-of-grossmargin-percentage markup scenario, and (2) the preservation-of-gross-margin (absolute 

dollars) markup scenario. 73 FR 50107. Under the first scenario, DOE applied a single 

uniform “gross margin percentage” markup that represents the current markup for 

manufacturers in the commercial refrigeration equipment industry. This markup scenario 

implies that as production costs increase with efficiency, the absolute dollar markup will 

also increase. DOE calculated that the non-production cost markup—which consists of 

selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses; research and development (R&D) 

127
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

expenses; interest; and profit—is 1.32. This markup is consistent with the one DOE used in 

its engineering and GRIM analyses for the base case. 

The implicit assumption behind the second scenario is that the industry can only 

maintain its gross margin from the baseline (in absolute dollars) after the standard. The 

industry would do so by passing its increased production costs on to customers without 

passing on its increased R&D and SG&A expenses so the gross profit per unit is the same in 

absolute dollars. DOE implemented this markup scenario in the GRIM by setting the 

production cost markups at each TSL to yield approximately the same gross margin in the 

standards cases in 2012 as they yielded in the base case. 

Together, these two markup scenarios characterize the range of possible conditions 

the commercial refrigeration equipment market will experience as a result of new energy 

conservation standards. See chapter 13 of the TSD for additional details of the markup 

scenarios and analysis. DOE also examined both of these scenarios for this final rule. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

Using two different markup scenarios, 73 FR at 50107, 50118-20, DOE estimated 

the impact of new standards for commercial refrigeration equipment on the INPV of the 

commercial refrigeration equipment industry. The impact consists of the difference between 

INPV in the base case and INPV in the standards case. INPV is the primary metric used in 

the MIA, and represents one measure of the fair value of the industry in today’s dollars. 

128
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOE calculated the INPV by summing all of the net cash flows, discounted at the 

commercial refrigeration equipment industry’s cost of capital or discount rate. 

Table VI-22 and Table VI-23 show the changes in INPV that DOE estimates would 

result from the TSLs DOE considered for this final rule. The tables also present the 

equipment conversion expenses and capital investments that the industry would incur at 

each TSL. Product conversion expenses include engineering, prototyping, testing, and 

marketing expenses incurred by a manufacturer as it prepares to comply with a standard. 

Capital investments are the one-time outlays for tooling and plant changes required for the 

industry to comply (i.e., conversion capital expenditures). 

Table VI-22 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results, Including INPV Estimates, for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Under the Preservation of Gross Margin 

Percentage Markup Scenario 

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario with a Rollup Shipment Scenario 

Trial Standard Level 

 Units Base 

Case 1 2 3 4 5 

INPV 2007$ 

millions 540 540 548 530 501 560 

2007$ 

millions - 0 8 (11) (39) 20 Change in INPV* 

(%) - 0.02 1.42 (1.95) (7.29) 3.73 

New Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Equipment Conversion 

Expenses 

2007$ 

millions - 0.5 2.8 20.6 40.4 51.6 

New Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Capital Investments 

2007$ 

millions - 0.8 5.0 36.3 71.2 90.8 

Total Investment 

Required 

2007$ 

millions - 1.3 7.8 57.0 111.6 142.4 

* Values in Table VI-22 may not appear to sum due to rounding. 

Table VI-23 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results, Including INPV Estimates, for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Under the Preservation of Gross Margin 

(Absolute Dollars) Markup Scenario 

Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario 

with a Rollup Shipment Scenario 

129
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Trial Standard Level 

 Units Base 

Case 1 2 3 4 5 

INPV 2007$ 

millions 540 533 502 442 392 200 

2007$ 

millions - (7) (39) (99) (148) (340) Change in INPV* 

(%) - (1.27) (7.16) (18.26) (27.35) (63.01) 

New Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Equipment Conversion 

Expenses 

2007$ 

millions - 0.5 2.8 20.6 40.4 51.6 

New Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Capital Investments 

2007$ 

millions - 0.8 5.0 36.3 71.2 90.8 

Total Investment 

Required 

2007$ 

millions - 1.3 7.8 57.0 111.6 142.4 

* Values in Table VI-23 may not appear to sum due to rounding. 

The August 2008 NOPR discusses the estimated impact of new commercial 

refrigeration equipment standards on INPV for each equipment class. 73 FR 50118–20. See 

chapter 13 of the TSD for details. 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

DOE’s assesses manufacturer burden through the cumulative impact of multiple 

DOE standards and other regulatory actions that affect manufacturers of the same covered 

equipment and other equipment produced by the same manufacturers or their parent 

companies. 73 FR at 50120. For the August 2008 NOPR, DOE listed the EPA-mandated 

phaseout of HCFCs as refrigerants and blowing agents, and energy conservation standards 

for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps and room air conditioners as 

examples of other Federal regulations that could affect manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 73 FR 50120. 

 

130
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Following the August 2008 NOPR, public comments made DOE aware that 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers must test equipment using the NSF 7 test 

procedure in addition to the DOE test procedure. As mentioned previously, NSF 7 measures 

product temperature for food safety requirements, while the DOE test procedure measures 

energy consumption for energy conservation standards. Although NSF 7 is not a Federal 

regulation, the commercial refrigeration equipment industry in general already tests its 

equipment using this procedure to meet food safety requirements. 

For this final rule, DOE also identified the other DOE regulations commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers are facing for other equipment. DOE identified 

several regulations that go into effect 3 years before and after the effective date of the new 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE recognizes that 

each regulation can significantly affect manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple 

regulations affecting the same manufacturer can quickly reduce manufacturers’ profits and 

possibly cause an exit from the market. 

DOE requested information about the cumulative regulatory burden during 

manufacturer interviews. Manufacturers indicated that they had already begun using other 

non-HCFC refrigerants and blowing agents. Manufacturers did not indicate that the DOE 

regulations on residential central air conditioners and heat pumps or room air conditioners 

were a great concern. DOE sought comment on these and other potential regulations 

affecting manufacturers for the final rule. From its own research, DOE learned that 

manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment or their parent companies could also 

131
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

be affected by rulemakings on PTACs and PTHPs, room air conditioners, residential 

furnaces, and walk-in freezers and coolers. DOE identified the costs of additional 

regulations when these estimates were available from other DOE rulemakings. For example, 

two commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers (or their parent companies) also 

manufacture PTACs and PTHPs. DOE estimated that in the PTAC and PTHP industry, 

manufacturers may incur an estimated total conversion expense of $17.3 million (2007$). 

However, DOE has limited data on the importance of these other regulated products for 

manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment. Differences in market shares and 

manufacturing processes of other regulated products for each manufacturer could cause 

varying degrees of burdens on these manufacturers. See chapter 13 of the TSD for 

additional information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden analysis. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

As discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE expects that employment by 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers would increase under all of the TSLs 

considered for today’s rule. However, this does not take into account any relocation of 

domestic jobs to countries with lower labor costs that might be influenced by the level of 

investment required by new standards. 73 FR at 50120-21. Table VI-24 shows the direct 

employment impacts at each TSL. Further support for this conclusion is set forth in chapter 

13 of the TSD. 

132
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-24 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Estimated Employment 

Impacts in 2012 

Trial Standard Level Base 

Case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production 

Employees in 2012 2,199 2,205 2,291 2,371 2,396 2,978 

Change in Total Number of Domestic 

Production Employees in 2012 Due to 

Standards* 

- 6 92 172 197 779 

Total Number of Domestic NonProduction Employees in 2012* 681 683 709 734 742 922 

Total Number of Domestic Employees 

in 2012* 2,880 2,888 3,000 3,105 3,137 3,900 

* Figures do not take into account any relocation of domestic jobs to countries with lower labor costs that 

might be influenced by the level of investment required by new standards. 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

According to the majority of commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, 

new energy conservation standards will not significantly affect manufacturers’ production 

capacity. Any necessary redesign of commercial refrigeration equipment will not change the 

fundamental assembly of the equipment. However, manufacturers anticipate some minor 

changes to tooling. Thus, manufacturers will be able to maintain manufacturing capacity 

levels and continue to meet market demand under new energy conservation standards. 

e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses 

As discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE expects today’s standard to have little 

or no differential impact on small manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment. 73 

FR at 50121, 50130-31. DOE found that small manufacturers generally have the same 

concerns as large manufacturers regarding energy conservation standards. DOE also found 

no significant differences in the R&D emphasis or marketing strategies between small and 

large manufacturers. Therefore, DOE believes the GRIM analysis, which models each 

equipment class separately and aggregates the results to produce an industry-wide impact, is 

133
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

representative of the small manufacturers that would be affected by standards. The impacts 

on small manufacturers are discussed further in section VII.B of this preamble (“Review 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act”). 

3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment 

The NPV analysis estimates the cumulative benefits or costs to the Nation that 

would result from particular standard levels. While the NES analysis estimates the energy 

savings from each standard level DOE considers, relative to the base case, the NPV analysis 

estimates the national economic impacts of each level relative to the base case. Table VI-25

provides an overview of the NPV results for each TSL considered for this final rule, using 

both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. 

Table VI-25 shows the estimated cumulative NPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment resulting from the sum of the NPV calculated for each of the 15 primary 

equipment classes analyzed. Table VI-25 assumes the AEO2008 reference case forecast for 

electricity prices. At a 7-percent discount rate, TSLs 1-4 show positive cumulative NPVs. 

The highest NPV is provided by TSL 3 at $1.45 billion. TSL 4 provided $1.41 billion, close 

to that of TSL 3. TSL 5 showed a negative NPV at -$2.59 billion, the result of negative 

NPV observed in five equipment classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, 

SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M). 

At a 3-percent discount rate, the picture is similar across the equipment classes. TSL 

5 showed a negative NPV at -$3.79 billion, whereas the highest NPV was provided at TSL 3 

134
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

(i.e., $3.97 billion). TSL 4 provided a near equivalent NPV at $3.93 billion. TSL 5 provided 

a NPV of -$3.79 billion dollars. Five equipment classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, 

SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M) were determined to have negative NPVs at a 3- 

percent discount rate at TSL 5. See TSD chapter 11 for more detailed NPV results. 

Table VI-25 Overview of National Net Present Value Results 

NPV (billion 2007$) Trial Standard Level 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate

1 0.33 0.83 

2 0.98 2.60 

3 1.45 3.97 

4 1.41 3.93 

5 (2.59) (3.79) 

DOE also estimated the national employment impacts that would result from each 

TSL. As discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR at 50107-08, 50122-23, 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. As shown in Table VI-26, DOE estimates net indirect employment 

impacts—those changes of employment in the larger economy (other than in the 

manufacturing sector being regulated)—from commercial refrigeration equipment energy 

conservation standards to be positive but very small relative to total national employment. 

These impacts might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. For details on 

the employment impact analysis methods and results, see TSD chapter 15. 

135
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-26 Net National Change in Indirect Employment, Thousands of Jobs in 

2042 

Net National Change in Jobs Trial Standard Level 2012 2022 2032 2042

1 0 202 289 332

2 (6) 1,056 1,482 1,699

3 (15) 1,591 2,238 2,559

4 (18) 1,658 2,337 2,670

5 (40) 1,856 2,645 3,011

Maximum Job Impact (40) 1,856 2,645 3,011

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment 

As indicated in section V.B.4 of the August 2008 NOPR, the new standards DOE is 

adopting today will not lessen the utility or performance of any commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 73 FR at 50123. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

As discussed in the August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR at 50079, 50123, and in section 

III.D.1.e of this preamble, DOE considers any lessening of competition likely to result from 

standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition. 

DOJ concluded that the commercial refrigeration equipment standards contained in 

the proposed rule would not adversely affect competition. In reaching this conclusion, DOJ 

noted that the proposed standards took into account comments from commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers, ASHRAE, ACEEE, and electric utilities. DOJ noted 

further that all key components are available for purchase by any manufacturer; therefore, 

no manufacturer has a technological advantage in meeting the proposed standards. Finally, 

136
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOJ noted that DOE found no significant differences between the concerns of large and 

small manufacturers, and DOJ found no evidence that certain manufacturers would be 

placed at a competitive disadvantage to other manufacturers. 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

When economically justified, an improvement in the energy efficiency of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is likely to improve the security of the Nation by reducing overall 

energy demand, thus reducing the Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy. Reduced 

demand is also likely to improve the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, DOE expects the new standards 

covered under this rulemaking to eliminate the need for the construction of approximately 

121 megawatts to 2,989 megawatts of new power by 2042. 

Enhanced energy efficiency also produces environmental benefits. The expected 

energy savings from new standards for the equipment covered by this rulemaking will 

reduce the emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity 

production. Table VI-27 provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions that would result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The 

expected energy savings from new standards for commercial refrigeration equipment may 

also reduce the cost of maintaining nationwide emissions standards and constraints. 

137
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-27 Summary of Emissions Reductions for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment (cumulative reductions for equipment sold from 2012 to 2042) 

Trial Standard Levels††

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

CO2 (Mt*) 8.5 32.8 50.7 52.6 66.0 

NOX (kt**) 0.59 to 14.58 2.27 to 56.04 3.51 to 86.77 3.64 to 89.97 4.56 to 112.84 

Hg (t†) 0 to 0.224 0 to 0.86 0 to 1.332 0 to 1.381 0 to 1.732 

* Mt = million metric tons 

** kt = thousand tons 

† t = tons 

†† Negative values indicate emission increases. Detail may not appear to sum to total due to rounding. 

 The estimated cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions for the new 

energy conservation standards range up to 66 Mt for CO2, 1.56 to 112.84 kt for NOX, and 0 

to 1.732 t for Hg for commercial refrigeration equipment from 2012 to 2042. In the EA 

(chapter 16 of the TSD), DOE reports estimated annual changes in CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions attributable to each TSL. As discussed in section IV.L of this final rule, DOE 

does not report SO2 emissions reduction from power plants because reductions from an 

energy conservation standard would not affect the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States due to emissions caps for SO2. 

The NEMS-BT modeling assumed that NOX would be subject to CAIR, issued by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 10, 2005.21 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005). On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

(D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency,

22

in which the court vacated the CAIR. 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). If left in place, CAIR 

would have permanently capped emissions of NOX in 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. As with the SO2 emissions cap, a cap on NOX emissions would have meant that 

 

21 See www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule. 22 Case No. 05-1244, 2008 WL 2698180 at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 11, 2008). 

138
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

energy conservation standards are not likely to have a physical effect on NOX emissions in 

states covered by the CAIR caps. While the caps would have meant that physical emissions 

reductions in those States would not have resulted from the energy conservation standards 

that DOE is establishing today, the standards might have produced an environmental-related 

economic impact in the form of lower prices for emissions allowance credits, if large 

enough. DOE notes that the estimated total reduction in NOX emissions, including projected 

emissions or corresponding allowance credits in States covered by the CAIR cap, was 

insignificant and too small to affect allowance prices for NOX under CAIR. 

Even though the D.C. Circuit vacated CAIR, DOE notes that the D.C. Circuit left 

intact EPA's 1998 NOX SIP Call rule, which capped seasonal (summer) NOX emissions 

from electric generating units and other sources in 23 jurisdictions, and gave those 

jurisdictions the option to participate in a cap and trade program. 63 FR 57356, 57359 (Oct. 

27, 1998).23 The SIP Call rule may provide a similar, although less extensive, regional cap 

and may limit actual reduction in NOX emissions from revised standards occurring in states 

participating in the SIP Call rule. However, the possibility that the SIP Call rule may have 

the same effect as CAIR is highly uncertain. Therefore, DOE established a range of NOX

reductions due to the standards being established in today’s final rule. DOE’s low estimate 

 

23 In the NOx SIP Call rule, EPA found that sources in the District of Columbia and 22 “upwind” states were 

emitting NOx (an ozone precursor) at levels that significantly contributed to “downwind” states not attaining 

the ozone NAAQS or at levels that interfered with states in attainment maintaining the ozone NAAQS. To 

ensure that downwind states attain or continue to attain the ozone NAAQS, EPA established a region-wide cap 

for NOx emissions from certain large combustion sources and set a NOx emissions budget for each State. 

Unlike the cap that CAIR would have established, the NOx SIP Call Rule’s cap only constrains seasonal 

(summertime) emissions. To comply with the NOx SIP Call Rule, states could elect to participate in the NOx 

Budget Trading Program. Under this program, each emission source is required to have one allowance for each 

ton of NOx emitted during the ozone season. States have flexibility in how they allocate allowances through 

their State Implementation Plans, but states must remain within the EPA-established budget. Emission sources 

are allowed to buy, sell, and bank NOx allowances as appropriate. On April 16, 2008, EPA determined that 

Georgia is no longer subject to the NOx SIP Call rule. 73 FR 21528 (April 22, 2008). 

139
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

was based on the emission rate of the cleanest new natural gas combined-cycle power plant 

available for electricity generated, assuming that energy conservation standards would 

displace the generation of only the cleanest available fossil fuels. DOE used the emission 

rate, specified as 0.0341 t of NOX emitted per TWh of electricity generated, associated with 

an advanced natural gas combined-cycle power plant, as specified by NEMS-BT. To 

estimate the reduction in NOX emissions, DOE multiplied this emission rate by the 

reduction in electricity generation due to the new energy conservation standards considered. 

DOE’s high estimate of 0.843 t of NOX per TWh was based on a nationwide NOX emission 

rate for all electrical generation. Use of such an emission rate assumes that future power 

plants displaced are no cleaner than the plants that are being used currently to generate 

electricity. Under the high estimate assumption, energy conservation standards also would 

have little to no effect on the generation mix. Based on AEO2008 for 2006, when no 

regulatory or non-regulatory measures were in effect to limit NOX emissions, DOE 

multiplied this emission rate by the reduction in electricity generation due to the standards 

considered. Table VI-27 shows the range in NOX emission changes calculated using the low 

and high estimate scenarios by TSL. NOX emission reductions range from 0.59 to 112.84 kt 

for the TSLs considered. These changes in NOX emissions are extremely small, ranging 

from 0.001 to 0.168 percent of the national base case emissions forecast by NEMS-BT, 

depending on the TSL. 

 As noted in section IV.L, DOE is able to report an estimate of the physical quantity 

changes in Hg emissions associated with an energy conservation standard. Rather than using 

the NEMS-BT model, DOE established a range of Hg rates to estimate the Hg emissions 

140
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

that could be reduced through standards. DOE’s low estimate assumed that future standards 

would displace electrical generation from natural gas-fired power plants, resulting in an 

effective emission rate of zero. The low-end emission rate is zero because natural gas-fired 

power plants have virtually zero Hg emissions associated with their operation. 

DOE’s high estimate was based on a nationwide mercury emission rate from 

AEO2008. Because power plant emission rates are a function of local regulation, scrubbers, 

and the mercury content of coal, it is extremely difficult to identify a precise high-end 

emission rate. Therefore, DOE believes the most reasonable estimate is based on the 

assumption that all displaced coal generation would have been emitting at the average 

emission rate for coal generation as specified by AEO2008. As noted previously, because 

virtually all mercury emitted from electricity generation is from coal-fired power plants, 

DOE based the emission rate on the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of coal-generated 

electricity. Based on the emission rate for 2006, DOE derived a high-end emission rate of 

0.0255 tons per TWh. To estimate the reduction in mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the 

emission rate by the reduction in coal-generated electricity due to the standards considered 

in the utility impact analysis. The estimated changes in Hg emissions are shown in Table 

VI-27 for commercial refrigeration equipment from 2012 to 2042. Hg emission reductions 

range from 0 to 1.732 tons for the TSLs considered. These changes in Hg emissions are 

extremely small, ranging from 0 to 0.003 percent of the national base case emissions 

forecast by NEMS-BT, depending on the TSL. 

 The NEMS-BT model used for today’s rulemaking could not estimate Hg emission 

reductions due to new energy conservation standards, as it assumed that Hg emissions 

141
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

would be subject to EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule24 (CAMR). CAMR would have 

permanently capped emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired plants in all states 

by 2010. As with SO2 and NOX, DOE assumed that under such a system, energy 

conservation standards would have resulted in no physical effect on these emissions, but 

might have resulted in an environmental-related economic benefit in the form of a lower 

price for emissions allowance credits, if large enough. DOE estimated that the change in the 

Hg emissions from energy conservation standards would not be large enough to influence 

allowance prices under CAMR. 

 On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency25 to vacate CAMR. In light of this development and 

because the NEMS-BT model could not be used to directly calculate Hg emission 

reductions, DOE used the current Hg emission rates discussed above to calculate the 

emissions reductions in Table VI-27. 

 In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE considered accounting for a monetary benefit of 

CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. To put the potential monetary 

benefits from reduced CO2 emissions into a form that is likely to be most useful to decisionmakers and interested parties, DOE used the same methods it used to calculate the net 

present value of consumer cost savings. DOE converted the estimated year-by-year 

reductions in CO2 emissions into monetary values, which were then discounted over the life 

of the affected equipment to the present using both 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. 

 

24 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

25 No. 05-1097, 2008 WL 341338, at * (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 2008). 

142
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

In the August 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the range $0 to $14 per ton. These 

estimates were based on an assumption of no benefit to an average benefit value reported by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).26 DOE derived the IPCC estimate 

used as the upper bound value from an estimate of the mean value of worldwide impacts due 

to climate change, and not just the effects likely to occur within the United States. As DOE 

considers a monetary value for CO2 emission reductions, the value should, if possible, be 

restricted to a representation of those costs and benefits likely to be experienced in the 

United States. DOE explained in the August 2008 NOPR that it expects such values would 

be lower than comparable global values; however, there currently are no consensus 

estimates for the U.S. benefits likely to result from CO2 emission reductions. However, it is 

appropriate to use U.S. benefit values, where available, and not world benefit values, in its 

analysis.27 Because U.S.-specific estimates are unavailable, and DOE did not receive any 

additional information that would help narrow the proposed range of domestic benefits, 

DOE used the global mean value as an upper bound U.S. value for purposes of the 

sensitivity analysis. 

 

26 During the preparation of its most recent review of the state of climate science, the IPCC identified various 

estimates of the present value of reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton over the life that these emissions would 

remain in the atmosphere. The estimates reviewed by the IPCC spanned a range of values. Absent a consensus 

on any single estimate of the monetary value of CO2 emissions, DOE used the estimates identified by the study 

cited in “Summary for Policymakers,” prepared by Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment 

Report, to estimate the potential monetary value of CO2 reductions likely to result from standards finalized in 

this rulemaking. According to IPCC, the mean social cost of carbon (SCC) reported in studies published in 

peer-reviewed journals was $43 per ton of carbon. This translates into about $12 per ton of CO2. The literature 

review (Tol 2005) from which this mean was derived did not report the year in which these dollars were 

denominated. However, DOE understands this estimate was denominated in 1995$. Updating that estimate to 

2007$ yields a SCC of $15 per ton of CO2. 27 In contrast, most of the estimated costs and benefits of increasing the efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment include only economic values of impacts that would be experienced in the United States. DOE 

generally does not consider impacts on manufacturers that occur solely outside of the United States. 

143
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

 DOE received several comments in response to the proposed estimated value of CO2

emissions reductions. In a comment submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of itself and 

NRDC, Earthjustice questioned both the upper and lower bounds of DOE’s range of 

estimated CO2 values, which it argued were too low. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 7) 

Earthjustice also stated that it would be inappropriate to limit the consideration to the value 

of CO2 to a domestic value. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 13) Earthjustice suggested that DOE 

consider relying on the estimate used in DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the LiebermanWarner Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191).28 (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 2) AHRI stated 

that DOE should not rely on the IPCC study or values under the European Union cap and 

trade program, because such a program has not yet been established in the United States. 

(AHRI, No. 33 at p. 6) 

 Given the uncertainty surrounding estimates of the social cost of carbon, relying on 

any single estimate may be inadvisable because any estimate will depend on many 

assumptions. Working Group II’s contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC 

notes the following: 

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large part to differences in assumptions 

regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, 

 

28 According to Earthjustice’s analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, 

implementation of this legislation would lead to a CO2 allowance price of $30 per ton in 2020, rising to $61 

per ton in 2030. 

144
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic 

losses, and discount rates.29

Because of this uncertainty, DOE used the SCC value from Tol (2005), which was 

presented in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and provided a comprehensive metaanalysis of estimates for the value of SCC. Earthjustice commented that this value was out 

of date, because Tol released an update of his 2005 meta-analysis in September 2007. This 

update reported an increase in his mean estimate of SCC from $43 to $71/ton carbon. 

Earthjustice stated that DOE should not continue to use old data and should update its 

sources. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 9) 

Although the Tol study was updated in 2007, the IPCC has not adopted the updated 

Tol study for its report. As a result, DOE continues to rely on the same study used by the 

IPCC. Moreover, DOE notes that the conclusions of Tol (2007) are similar to the 

conclusions of Tol (2005). Tol (2007) continues to indicate that there is no consensus 

regarding the monetary value of reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton. The broad range of 

values in both Tol studies are the result of significant differences in the methodologies used 

in the studies Tol summarized. According to Tol, all of the studies have shortcomings, 

largely because the subject is inherently complex and uncertain and requires broad 

multidisciplinary knowledge. Thus, it is not certain that the values reported in Tol (2007) are 

more accurate or representative than the values reported in Tol (2005). 

 

29 Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 17. Available at www.ipcc-wg2.org (last accessed Aug. 7, 2008). 

145
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

In today’s final rule, DOE is relying on the range of values proposed in the August 

2008 NOPR, which was based on the values presented in Tol (2005), as proposed. DOE 

does note that DOE mistakenly assumed that the values presented in Tol (2005) were in 

2000 dollars. In actuality, the values in Tol (2005) were indicated to be approximately 1995 

values in 1995 dollars. Had DOE at the NOPR stage applied the correct dollar year of the 

values presented in Tol (2005), DOE would have proposed the range of $0 to $15 in the 

August 2008 NOPR. Additionally, DOE has applied an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent to 

the value of SCC, as suggested by the IPCC Working Group II (2007, p. 822). This growth 

rate is based on estimated increases in damage from future emissions that published studies 

have reported. As a result, for today’s final rule, DOE is assigning a range for SCC of $0 to 

$20 ($2007) per ton of CO2 emissions. 

Earthjustice questioned the use of the mean estimated social cost of CO2 as an upper 

bound of the range. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 9) However, the upper bound of the range 

DOE used is based on Tol (2005), which reviewed 103 estimates of SCC from 28 published 

studies. Tol concluded that when only peer-reviewed studies published in recognized 

journals are considered, “climate change impacts may be very uncertain but [it] is unlikely 

that the marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions exceed $50 per ton carbon 

[comparable to a 2007 value of $20 per ton carbon dioxide when expressed in 2007 U.S. 

dollars with a 2.4 percent growth rate.]” 

146
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Earthjustice also questioned using $0 as the lower bound of DOE’s estimated range. 

(Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 10) In setting a lower bound, DOE agrees with the IPCC Working 

Group II (2007) report that “significant warming across the globe and the locations of 

significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to 

be due solely to natural variability of temperatures or natural variability of the systems” (p. 

9), and thus tentatively concludes that a global value of zero for reducing emissions cannot 

be justified. However, it is reasonable to allow for the possibility that the U.S. portion of the 

global cost of CO2 emissions may be quite low. In fact, some of the studies examined by Tol 

(2005) reported negative values for the SCC. As stated in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE is 

using U.S. benefit values, and not world benefit values, in its analysis. Further, U.S. 

domestic values will be lower than the global values. Additionally, the statutory criteria in 

EPCA do not require consideration of global effects. Therefore, DOE is using a lower bound 

of $0 per ton of CO2 emissions in estimating the potential benefits of today’s final rule. 

Table VI-28 presents the resulting estimates of the potential range of net present 

value benefits associated with reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table VI-28 Estimates of Savings from CO2 Emissions Reductions Under Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment Trial Standard Levels at a Seven-Percent Discount Rate and 

Three-Percent Discount Rate 

TSL Estimated Cumulative CO2

(Mt) Emission Reductions

Value of Estimated CO2

Emission Reductions (Million 

2007$) at 7% Discount Rate

Value of Estimated CO2

Emission Reductions (Million 

2007$) at 3% Discount Rate

1 8.52 $0 to $76.01 $0 to $154.73

2 32.76 $0 to $292.26 $0 to $594.94

3 50.71 $0 to $452.49 $0 to $921.1

4 52.59 $0 to $469.19 $0 to $955.1

5 65.95 $0 to $588.44 $0 to $1,197.85

147
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

 DOE also investigated the potential monetary impact from today’s energy 

conservation standards of reducing SO2, NOX, and Hg emissions. As previously stated, 

DOE’s initial analysis assumed the presence of nationwide emission caps on SO2 and Hg, 

and caps on NOX emissions in the 28 states covered by CAIR. In the presence of these caps, 

DOE concluded that no physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur, but that 

the lower generation requirements associated with energy conservation standards could put 

downward pressure on the prices of emissions allowances in cap and trade markets. 

Estimating this effect is very difficult because of factors such as credit banking, which can 

change the trajectory of prices. DOE has further concluded that the effect from energy 

conservation standards on SO2 allowance prices is likely to be negligible, based on runs of 

the NEMS-BT model. See chapter 16 (Environmental Assessment) of the TSD for further 

details. 

 Because the courts have vacated the CAIR rule, projected annual NOX allowances 

from NEMS-BT are no longer relevant. In DOE’s subsequent analysis, NOX emissions are 

not controlled by a nationwide regulatory system. DOE estimated the national monetized 

benefits of NOX and Hg emissions reductions from today’s rule based on environmental 

damage estimates from the literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of 

monetary values for NOX emissions, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX

from stationary sources, measured in 2001$,30 or a range of $432 per ton to $4,441 per ton 

in 2007$. 

 

30 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities. Office of Management and Budget Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington, D.C. 

148
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

DOE has conducted research for today’s final rule and determined that the basic 

science linking mercury emissions from power plants to impacts on humans is considered 

highly uncertain. However, DOE identified two estimates of the environmental damage of 

mercury based on two estimates of the adverse impact of childhood exposure to methyl 

mercury on IQ for American children, and subsequent loss of lifetime economic 

productivity resulting from these IQ losses. The high-end estimate is based on an estimate of 

the current aggregate cost of the loss of IQ in American children that results from exposure 

to mercury of U.S. power plant origin ($1.3 billion per year in year 2000$), which works out 

to $32.6 million per ton emitted per year (2007$).31 The low-end estimate was $664,000 per 

ton emitted in 2004$ or $729,000 per ton in 2007$, which DOE derived from a published 

evaluation of mercury control using different methods and assumptions from the first study, 

but also based on the present value of the lifetime earnings of children exposed.32 Table 

VI-29 and Table VI-30 present the resulting estimates of the potential range of present value 

benefits associated with reducing national NOX and Hg emissions . 

 

31 Trasande, L., et al., “Applying Cost Analyses to Drive Policy that Protects Children,” 1076 ANN. N.Y. 

ACAD. SCI. 911 (2006).

32 Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, “Designing Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation of Mercury 

Emissions,” Regulatory Analysis 05-01. AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies, Washington, D.C., 2004. A 

version of this paper was published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics in 2006. The estimate was derived 

by back-calculating the annual benefits per ton from the net present value of benefits reported in the study. 

149
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Table VI-29 Estimates of Savings from Reducing NOX and Hg Emissions Under 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs at a Seven-Percent Discount Rate 

TSL 

Estimated 

Cumulative NOX

(kt) Emission 

Reductions* 

Value of Estimated 

NOX Emission 

Reductions 

(Thousand 2007$) 

Estimated 

Cumulative 

Hg (tons) 

Emission 

Reductions* 

Value of Estimated Hg 

Emission Reductions 

(Thousand 2007$) 

1 0.59 to 14.58 $64 to $1,578 0 to 0.224 $0 to $46

2 2.27 to 56.04 $245 to $6,067 0 to 0.86 $0 to $177

3 3.51 to 86.77 $380 to $9,394 0 to 1.332 $0 to $274

4 3.64 to 89.97 $394 to $9,741 0 to 1.381 $0 to $284

5 4.56 to 112.84 $494 to $12,216 0 to 1.732 $0 to $356

* Values in Table VI-29 may not appear to sum to the cumulative values in Table VI-27 due to rounding. 

Table VI-30 Estimates of Savings from Reducing NOX and Hg Emissions Under 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs at a Three-Percent Discount Rate. 

TSL 

Estimated 

Cumulative NOX

(kt) Emission 

Reductions* 

Value of Estimated 

NOX Emission 

Reductions 

(Thousand 2007$) 

Estimated 

Cumulative 

Hg (tons) 

Emission 

Reductions* 

Value of Estimated Hg 

Emission Reductions 

(Thousand 2007$) 

1 0.59 to 14.58 $135 to $3,329 0 to 0.224 $0 to $91

2 2.27 to 56.04 $518 to $12,799 0 to 0.86 $0 to $349

3 3.51 to 86.77 $802 to 19,815 0 to 1.332 $0 to $540

4 3.64 to 89.97 $831 to $20,547 0 to 1.381 $0 to $560

5 4.56 to 112.84 $1,042 to $25,769 0 to 1.732 $0 to $702

* Values in Table VI-30 may not appear to sum to the cumulative values in Table VI-27 due to rounding. 

7. 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) and 6316(e)(1)) Under this provision, DOE considered 

LCC impacts on identifiable groups of customers, such as customers of different business 

types who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation standard 

level. DOE also considered the reduction in generated capacity that could result from the 

imposition of any national energy conservation standard level. 

150
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

D. Conclusion

EPCA contains criteria for prescribing new or amended energy conservation 

standards. It provides that any such standard for commercial refrigeration equipment must 

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) 

and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) As stated above, the Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standards exceed its burdens considering the seven factors discussed in 

section II.A. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) A determination is not 

made based on any one of these factors in isolation. The Secretary must weigh each of these 

seven factors in total. Further, the Secretary may not establish a new or amended standard if 

such standard would not result in “significant conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) 

In selecting today’s energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, DOE started by examining the maximum technologically feasible levels to 

determine whether those levels were economically justified. Upon finding the maximum 

technologically feasible levels not to be justified, DOE analyzed the next lower TSL. DOE 

followed this procedure until it identified a TSL that is economically justified. 

Table VI-31 summarizes DOE’s quantitative analysis results for each TSL it 

considered for this final rule. This table presents the results or a range of results for each 

TSL, and will aid the reader in understanding the costs and benefits of each one. The range 

151
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

of values for industry impacts represents the results for the different markup scenarios that 

DOE used to estimate manufacturer impacts. 

Table VI-31 Summary of Results Based Upon the AEO2008 Reference Case Energy 

Price Forecast* 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Primary Energy Saved (quads) 0.168 0.645 1.013 1.035 1.298 

7% Discount Rate 0.041 0.159 0.250 0.256 0.321 

3% Discount Rate 0.088 0.339 0.532 0.544 0.683 

Generation Capacity Reduction 

(GW)** (0.121) (0.465) (0.720) (0.747) (0.936) 

 $ 0.33 $ 0.98 $ 1.45 $1.414 $ (2.59) 

NPV (2007$billion) 

7% Discount Rate 

3% Discount Rate $ 0.83 $ 2.60 $ 3.97 $3.930 $ (3.79) 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2007$ million) 

Industry NPV (% change) 

0–(7) 

0–(1) 

8–(39) 

1–(7) 

(11)–(99) 

(2)–(18) 

(39)–(148) 

(7)–(27) 

20–(340) 

4–(63) 

Cumulative Emissions Impacts†

 CO2 (Mt) 8.52 32.76 50.71 52.59 65.95 

 NOX (kt) 0.59-14.58 2.27-56.04 3.51-86.77 3.64-89.97 4.56-112.84 

 Hg (t) 0-0.224 0-0.86 0-1.332 0-1.381 0-1.732 

Employment Impacts 

Indirect Employment Impacts 

(2042) 332 1,699 2,559 2,670 3,011 

Direct, Domestic Employment 

Impacts (2012) †† 6 92 172 197 779 

Life-Cycle Cost

 Net Savings (%) 18–45 36–65 61–89 70–92 0–92 

 Net Increase (%) 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–99 

 No Change (%) 55–82 35–64 11–39 8–30 1–19 

 Mean LCC Savings (2007$) 211–3501 615–4893 797–5450 785–5419 (3959)–5419 

 Mean PBP (years) 0.3–1.1 0.6–2.4 1.2–3.8 1.3–3.9 1.3–196.8 

* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the 

amount indicated. 

** Change in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO2008 Reference Case. 

†

 CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOX emissions impacts include physical 

reductions at power plants as well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are 

subject to emissions caps. 

†† Change in total number of domestic production employees in 2012 due to standards. 

First, DOE considered TSL 5, the most efficient level for all equipment classes. TSL 

5 would likely save an estimated 1.298 quads of energy through 2042, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Discounted at 7 percent, the projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.321 quads. For the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that TSL 5 would result in a 

152
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

net decrease of $2.59 billion in NPV, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Five equipment 

classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M)) show negative 

NPV at TSL 5, primarily due the use of LED lighting for these cases.33 The emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 are 65.95 Mt of CO2 and up to 112.84 kt of NOX. DOE also estimates 

that under TSL 5, total generating capacity in 2042 will decrease compared to the base case 

by 0.936 gigawatts (GW). 

At TSL 5, DOE projects that the average commercial refrigeration equipment 

customer will experience a reduction in LCC compared to the baseline for 10 of the 15 

equipment classes analyzed, while they will experience an increase in LCC for five 

equipment classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SOC.RC.M). These equipment 

classes are the five that DOE showed had negative NPV. Mean LCC savings for all 15 

equipment classes vary from 

-$3,959 to $5,419. At TSL 5, DOE estimates the fraction of customers experiencing LCC 

increases will vary between 0 and 99 percent depending on equipment class. The mean 

payback period for the average commercial refrigeration equipment customer at TSL 5 

compared to the baseline level is projected to be between 1.3 and 196.8 years, depending on 

equipment class. 

At TSL 5, there is the risk of very large negative impacts on the industry if 

manufacturers’ profit margins are reduced. The investments required to modify all 

equipment lines at the max-tech levels are large. At this level, manufacturers have to make 

 

33 LED lighting for open cases was updated from the August 2008 NOPR to reflect LED lighting fixtures 

currently available for, and specific to, open cases. . DOE also increased the amount of LED lighting assumed 

for open cases. See section V.A.2.a and appendix B of the TSD. 

153
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

costly changes to their production lines. In addition, the incremental cost of adding LED 

lights at TSL 5 are extremely large. Because customers put a much higher priority on 

marketing and displaying their goods than they do on energy efficiency, most manufacturers 

expressed a concern that they would be unable to fully recover the additional cost incurred 

when only manufacturing the most efficient equipment possible. If manufacturers are not 

able to fully pass along these large incremental production costs, the industry could lose up 

to 63 percent of the INPV. 

Although TSL 5 is the most efficient level and thus saves the most energy of all 

TSLs, four of the 15 equipment classes show a reduction in LCC compared to the baseline. 

The energy savings at TSL 5 would reduce installed generating capacity by 0.94 GW, or 

roughly 2.5 large, 400-MW power plants. DOE estimates the associated emissions 

reductions at 66 Mt of CO2. DOE concludes that at TSL 5, the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, and emission reductions would be outweighed by the 

economic burdens on customers as indicated by the net decrease in NPV, long payback 

periods of up to 197 years, and a drop in INPV of up to 63 percent. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that TSL 5 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4, which provides for all equipment classes the maximum 

efficiency levels that the analysis showed to have positive NPV to the Nation. DOE projects 

that the average commercial refrigeration equipment customer will experience a reduction in 

LCC compared to the baseline for all 15 equipment classes analyzed, ranging from $785 to 

$5,419 depending on equipment class. The mean payback period for the average 

154
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

commercial refrigeration equipment customer at TSL 4 is projected to be between 1.3 and 

3.9 years compared to the purchase of baseline equipment. 

TSL 4 would likely save an estimated 1.035 quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. Discounted at 7 percent, the projected energy savings 

through 2042 would be 0.256 quads. For the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that TSL 4 

would result in a net increase of $1.41 billion in NPV, using a discount rate of 7 percent. 

The estimated emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 42.6 Mt of CO2 and up to 90 kt of NOX. 

Similar to TSL 5, there is a risk at TSL 4 of large negative impacts on the industry if 

manufacturers’ profit margins are reduced. The investments required at TSL 4 are also large 

because, based on the construction of the TSL, many equipment classes are at the max-tech 

level. Because a large portion of the equipment classes are at max-tech, the incremental 

manufacturing costs are also large. If manufacturers are not able to fully pass along these 

large incremental production costs, the industry could lose up to 27 percent of the INPV. 

After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens of 

TSL 4, DOE concludes that the benefits of TSL 4 (in terms of energy savings to the Nation 

of 1.035 quads through 2042, economic benefits of $1.41 billion in NPV using a discount 

rate of 7 percent, significant environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions from 

power plants, and national employment benefits) outweigh the burdens in terms of the range 

of possible reductions in INPV of up to 27 percent, and that TSL 4 represents the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 

155
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

justified. Therefore, DOE is adopting the energy conservation standards for this equipment 

at TSL 4. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify in writing the market failure 

or other problem that it intends to address that warrants agency action such as today’s final 

rule, and to assess the significance of that problem in evaluating whether any new regulation 

is warranted. 

In the August 2008 NOPR for this rulemaking, DOE requested feedback related to 

the possible existence of a market failure in the commercial refrigeration equipment 

industry. Because the commercial refrigeration equipment industry is part of the food 

merchandising industry, energy efficiency and energy cost savings are not the primary 

drivers of the business. Selling food products to shoppers is the primary driver. It is difficult 

for store personnel to identify cost-effective efficiency levels for commercial refrigeration 

equipment given reasons identified in the NOPR, and doing so may incur transaction costs, 

thus reducing cost-effectiveness of the energy efficiency investment. 73 FR 50128. DOE 

sought data on the efficiency levels of existing commercial refrigeration equipment by 

owner, electricity price, and equipment class. Following the publication of the August 2008 

NOPR and subsequent public comment period, DOE did not receive any feedback related to 

this request. 

156
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Because today’s regulatory action is a significant regulatory action under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires DOE to 

prepare and submit for review to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 

in OMB an assessment of the costs and benefits of today’s rule. Accordingly, DOE 

presented to OIRA for review the draft final rule and other documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). These documents are included in 

the rulemaking record and are available for public review in the Resource Room of DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

The August 2008 NOPR contained a summary of the RIA, which evaluated the 

extent to which major alternatives to standards for commercial refrigeration equipment 

could achieve significant energy savings at reasonable cost, as compared to the effectiveness 

of the proposed rule. 73 FR 50128–29. The complete RIA (Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment) is 

contained in the TSD prepared for today’s rule. The RIA consists of: (1) a statement of the 

problem addressed by this regulation and the mandate for government action, (2) a 

description and analysis of the feasible policy alternatives to this regulation, (3) a 

quantitative comparison of the impacts of the alternatives, and (4) the national economic 

impacts of today’s standards. 

157
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

As explained in the August 2008 NOPR, none of the alternatives DOE examined 

would save as much energy or have an NPV as high as the proposed standards. That same 

conclusion applies to the standards in today’s rule. Also, several of the alternatives would 

require new enabling legislation, because authority to carry out those alternatives does not 

exist. Additional detail on the regulatory alternatives is found in the RIA report in the TSD. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an 

agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities and 

considers alternative ways of reducing negative impacts. Also, 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 General Counsel’s website: www.gc.doe.gov. 

Small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for the 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturing industry, are manufacturing enterprises 

with 750 employees or fewer. DOE used the small business size standards published by 

158
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

SBA to determine whether any small entities would be required to comply with the rule. 61 

FR 3286 and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333415. 

DOE interviewed two of the nine manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 

equipment it identified as small businesses affected by this rulemaking. 73 FR at 50130. 

DOE reviewed the proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. Id. On the basis of this review, 

DOE determined that it could not certify that the proposed standards (TSL 4) would have no 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Id. DOE made this 

determination because of the potential impacts of the proposed standard levels on 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers generally, including small businesses. 

Id. 

Because of these potential impacts on small manufacturers, DOE prepared an IRFA 

during the NOPR stage of this rulemaking. DOE provided the IRFA in its entirety in the 

August 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 50130–31, and also transmitted a copy to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review. Chapter 13 of the TSD contains more information about 

the impact of this rulemaking on manufacturers. 

The IRFA divided potential impacts on small businesses into two broad categories: 

(1) impacts associated with commercial refrigeration equipment design and manufacturing, 

159
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

and (2) impacts associated with the effect on customers’ ability to merchandise products by 

limiting the flexibility in choosing design options. The commercial refrigeration industry is 

highly customized, and manufacturers were concerned that limiting the choices in design 

options would commoditize the industry and reduce profit margins. However, this concern 

was echoed by all manufacturers, not just small business manufacturers. 

DOE has prepared a FRFA for this rulemaking, which is presented in the following 

discussion. DOE has transmitted a copy of this FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the SBA for review. The FRFA below is written in accordance with the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

1. Reasons for the Final Rule 

Part A-1 of Title III of EPCA addresses the energy efficiency of certain types of 

commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) EPACT 2005, Pub. L. 109–

58, included an amendment to Part A-1 requiring that DOE prescribe energy conservation 

standards for the commercial refrigeration equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking. 

(EPACT 2005, Section 136(c); 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE publishes today’s final rule 

pursuant to Part A-1. The commercial refrigeration equipment test procedures appear at 10 

CFR parts 430-431. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule 

EPCA requires new and amended standards to be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified 

160
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

(see section II.B of this preamble). To determine whether economic justification exists, 

DOE reviews comments received and conducts analysis to determine whether the economic 

benefits of the new standard exceed the burdens to the greatest extent practicable, taking 

into consideration seven factors set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) and 6316(e)(1) (see 

section II.B of this preamble). Further information concerning the background of this 

rulemaking is provided in chapter 1 of the TSD. 

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 

DOE reviewed AHRI’s listing of commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturer 

members and surveyed the industry to develop a list of every manufacturer. DOE also asked 

interested parties and AHRI representatives within the industry if they were aware of any 

other small business manufacturers. DOE then looked at publicly available data and 

contacted manufacturers, when needed, to determine if they meet the SBA’s definition of a 

small business manufacturing facility and if their manufacturing facilities are located within 

the United States. Based on this analysis, DOE identified nine small commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers and conducted on-site interviews with two of them. 

See chapter 13 of the TSD for further discussion about the methodology DOE used in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements 

Potential impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses, come from impacts 

associated with commercial refrigeration equipment design and manufacturing. All 

manufacturers, including small businesses, would have to develop designs to comply with 

161
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

higher TSLs. Product redesign costs tend to be fixed and do not scale with sales volume. 

Thus, small manufacturers would be at a relative disadvantage at higher TSLs because 

research and development efforts would be on the same scale as those for larger companies. 

Furthermore, the level of research and development needed to meet energy conservation 

standards increases with more stringent energy conservation standards. DOE expects that 

small manufacturers will have more difficulty funding the required research and 

development necessary to meet energy conservation standards than larger manufacturers. 

However, as explained in part 6 of the IRFA, “Significant Alternatives to the Proposed 

Rule,” DOE explicitly considered the impacts on small manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment in selecting TSL 4, rather than selecting a higher standard level. 

DOE expects that the differential impact on small manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 

equipment would be smaller in moving from TSL 3 to TSL 4 than it would be in moving 

from TSL 4 to TSL 5. 

5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments 

DOE summarized comments from interested parties, including commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers, in sections IV and V of this preamble. However, 

DOE did not receive any comments regarding impacts specific to small business 

manufacturers for the adoption of TSL 4 or the alternatives identified in section 6 of the 

IRFA, “Significant Alternatives to the Rule.” 

6. Steps DOE Has Taken to Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Manufacturers 

162
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

In consideration of the benefits and burdens of standards, including the burdens 

posed on small manufacturers, DOE concluded that TSL 4 is the highest level that can be 

justified for commercial refrigeration equipment. As explained in part 6 of the IRFA, 

“Significant Alternatives to the Rule,” DOE explicitly considered the impacts on small 

manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment in selecting TSL 4. Levels at TSL 5 

would place excessive burdens on manufacturers, including small manufacturers, of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. Such burdens would include research and development 

costs and also a potential reduction of profit margins by limiting the flexibility of customers 

to choose design options. However, the differential impact on small businesses is expected 

to be lower in moving from TSL 3 to TSL 4 than in moving from TSL 4 to TSL 5, because 

research and development efforts are less at lower TSLs. Chapter 13 of the TSD contains 

additional information about the impact of this rulemaking on manufacturers. 

Section VI.C.2 discusses how small business impacts entered into DOE’s selection 

of today’s standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE made its decision 

regarding standards by beginning with the highest level considered (TSL 5) and 

successively eliminating TSLs until it found a TSL that is both technically feasible and 

economically justified, taking into account other EPCA criteria. As discussed in section 

VI.C.2.e, DOE expects today’s standard to have little or no differential impact on small 

manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment. 

163
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Finally, in the NOPR, DOE requested comment on the impacts on small business 

manufacturers of TSL 4 and any other alternatives to the proposed rule. DOE received no 

comments in reference to any undue burden placed on small manufacturers. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

 DOE stated in the August 2008 NOPR that this rulemaking would impose no new 

information and recordkeeping requirements, and that OMB clearance is not required under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 73 FR at 50131-32. DOE received 

no comments on this in response to the August 2008 NOPR, and, as with the proposed rule, 

today’s rule imposes no information and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, DOE has 

taken no further action in this rulemaking with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act 

DOE prepared an environmental assessment of the impacts of today’s standards 

which it published as chapter 16 within the TSD for the final rule. DOE found the 

environmental effects associated with today’s various standard levels for commercial 

refrigeration equipment to be insignificant. Therefore, DOE is issuing a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

164
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

DOE reviewed this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 

43255 (August 4, 1999), which imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 

implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 

implications. In accordance with DOE’s statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of regulations that 

have federalism implications, 65 FR 13735 (March 14, 2000), DOE examined the proposed 

rule and determined that the rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. 73 FR at 50132. DOE 

received no comments on this issue in response to the August 2008 NOPR, and its 

conclusions on this issue are the same for the final rule as they were for the proposed rule. 

Therefore, DOE is taking no further action in today’s final rule with respect to Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996), 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. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure 

165
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

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, the final 

regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

As indicated in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA), which 

imposes requirements on Federal agencies when their regulatory actions will have certain 

types of impacts on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 73 FR at 

50132. DOE concluded that although this rule would not contain an intergovernmental 

mandate, it may result in expenditure of $100 million or more in one year by the private 

sector. Id. Therefore, in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE addressed the UMRA requirements 

that it prepare a statement as to the basis, costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the 

proposed rule, and that it identify and consider regulatory alternatives to the proposed rule. 

Id. DOE received no comments concerning the UMRA in response to the August 2008 

NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue are the same for the final rule as they were for the 

166
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

proposed rule. Therefore, DOE is taking no further action in today’s final rule with respect 

to the UMRA. 

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

DOE determined that, for this rulemaking, it need not prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment under Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277). Id. DOE received no comments concerning 

Section 654 in response to the August 2008 NOPR, and, therefore, takes no further action in 

today’s final rule with respect to this provision. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE determined under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 

1988), that today’s rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 73 FR at 50132. DOE received no 

comments concerning Executive Order 12630 in response to the August 2008 NOPR, and, 

therefore, takes no further action in today’s final rule with respect to this Executive Order. 

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

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 

167
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

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 

final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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 a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. DOE determined that the proposed rule was not a “significant energy action” 

within the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 73 FR at 50133. Accordingly, it did not 

prepare a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule. DOE received no comments on 

this issue in response to the August 2008 NOPR. As with the proposed rule, DOE has 

concluded that today’s final rule is not a significant energy action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211, and has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the rule. 

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology, issued its “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 

70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s scientific information. The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal Government. As indicated in the August 2008 NOPR, this 

168
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

includes influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions, such as the 

analyses in this rulemaking. 73 FR at 50133. 

As set forth in the August 2008 NOPR, DOE held formal in-progress peer reviews of 

the types of analyses and processes that DOE has used to develop the energy efficiency 

standards in today’s rule, and issued a report on these peer reviews. Id. 

 

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the 

issuance of today’s final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this notice. 

The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is a “major rule” as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). DOE also will submit the supporting analyses to the Comptroller General 

in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and make them available to each 

House of Congress. 

169
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s final rule. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on 

 ___________________________________ 

John F. Mizroch 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

170
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Incorporation by reference. 

 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 431 is amended to read as set forth below. 

PART 431 - ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL 

AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317. 

2. Section 431.62 of subpart C is amended by adding in alphabetical order new definitions 

for “air-curtain angle,” “commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer,” 

“door angle,” “horizontal closed,” “horizontal open,” “semivertical open,” “vertical closed,” 

“vertical open,” and “wedge case” to read as follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

 Air-curtain angle means: 

171
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

(1) For equipment without doors and without a discharge air grille or discharge air 

honeycomb, the angle between a vertical line extended down from the highest point on the 

manufacturer’s recommended load limit line and the load limit line itself, when the 

equipment is viewed in cross-section; and 

(2) For all other equipment without doors, the angle formed between a vertical line 

and the straight line drawn by connecting the point at the inside edge of the discharge air 

opening with the point at the inside edge of the return air opening, when the equipment is 

viewed in cross-section. 

* * * * * 

 Commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means a 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that has two or more chilled and/or 

frozen compartments that are: 

 (1) In two or more different equipment families, 

 (2) Contained in one cabinet, and 

 (3) Sold as a single unit. 

* * * * * 

 Door angle means: 

(1) For equipment with flat doors, the angle between a vertical line and the line 

formed by the plane of the door, when the equipment is viewed in cross-section; and 

(2) For equipment with curved doors, the angle formed between a vertical line and 

the straight line drawn by connecting the top and bottom points where the display area glass 

joins the cabinet, when the equipment is viewed in cross-section. 

* * * * * 

172
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Horizontal Closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle 

greater than or equal to 45°. 

* * * 

Horizontal Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle greater 

than or equal to 80° from the vertical. 

* * * * * 

Semivertical Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle greater 

than or equal to 10° and less than 80° from the vertical. 

* * * * * 

Vertical Closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle less 

than 45°. 

Vertical Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle greater than 

or equal to 0° and less than 10° from the vertical. 

 Wedge case means a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that 

forms the transition between two regularly-shaped display cases. 

3. Section 431.63 of subpart C is revised to read as follows: 

IX. 431.63 Materials incorporated by reference. 

 (a) General. We incorporate by reference the following standards into Subpart C of 

Part 431. The material listed has been approved for incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. Any 

subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-setting organization will not affect the 

DOE regulations unless and until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on 

173
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

the date of the approval and a notice of any change in the material will be published in the

Federal Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 

NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20024, 202-586-2945, or go to: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Standards can be obtained 

from the sources listed below. 

 (b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New 

York, NY 10036, 212-642-4900, or go to http://www.ansi.org: 

 (1) ANSI /AHAM HRF-1-2004, Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, approved July 7, 2004, IBR approved 

for §431.64. 

(2) [Reserved] 

 (c) ARI. Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 4100 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 

200, Arlington, VA 22203, or http://www.ari.org/std/standards.html: 

 (1) ARI Standard 1200–2006, Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 2006, IBR approved for §§ 431.64 and 

431.66. 

(2) [Reserved] 

174
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

 

4. Section 431.66 of subpart C is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§431.66 Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

(a) * * * 

(3) The term “TDA” means the total display area (ft2

) of the case, as defined in 

the ARI Standard 1200-2006, appendix D (incorporated by reference, see §431.63). 

* * * * * 

 (d) Each commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a selfcontained condensing unit and without doors; commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer with a remote condensing unit; and commercial ice-cream freezer 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2012, shall have a daily energy consumption (in 

kilowatt hours per day) that does not exceed the levels specified: 

 (1) For equipment other than hybrid equipment, refrigerator-freezers or wedge cases: 

175
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

Equipment 

Category 

Condensing 

Unit 

Configuration 

Equipment Family Rating 

Temp. (°F) 

Operating Temp. 

(°F) 

Equipment 

Class 

Designation* 

Maximum Daily 

Energy 

Consumption 

(kWh/day) 

Vertical Open 38 (M) ≥ 32 VOP.RC.M 0.82 x TDA + 4.07 

(VOP) 0 (L) < 32 VOP.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 

Semivertical Open 38 (M) ≥ 32 SVO.RC.M 0.83 x TDA + 3.18 

(SVO) 0 (L) < 32 SVO.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 6.85 

Horizontal Open 38 (M) ≥ 32 HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 2.88 

(HZO) 0 (L) < 32 HZO.RC.L 0.57 x TDA + 6.88 

Vertical Closed 38 (M) ≥ 32 VCT.RC.M 0.22 x TDA + 1.95 

Transparent (VCT) 0 (L) < 32 VCT.RC.L 0.56 x TDA + 2.61 

Horizontal Closed 38 (M) ≥ 32 HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 0.13 

Transparent (HCT) 0 (L) < 32 HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 0.26 

Vertical Closed Solid 38 (M) ≥ 32 VCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

(VCS) 0 (L) < 32 VCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

Horizontal Closed 38 (M) ≥ 32 HCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 0.26 

Solid (HCS) 0 (L) < 32 HCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 0.54 

38 (M) ≥ 32 SOC.RC.M 0.51 x TDA + 0.11 

Remote 

Condensing 

Commercial 

Refrigerators 

and 

Commercial 

Freezers 

Remote 

(RC) 

Service Over Counter 

(SOC) 0 (L) < 32 SOC.RC.L 1.08 x TDA + 0.22 

Vertical Open 38 (M) ≥ 32 VOP.SC.M 1.74 x TDA + 4.71 

(VOP) 0 (L) < 32 VOP.SC.L 4.37 x TDA + 11.82 

Semivertical Open 38 (M) ≥ 32 SVO.SC.M 1.73 x TDA + 4.59 

(SVO) 0 (L) < 32 SVO.SC.L 4.34 x TDA + 11.51 

38 (M) ≥ 32 HZO.SC.M 0.77 x TDA + 5.55 

Self-Contained 

Commercial 

Refrigerators 

and 

Commercial 

Freezers 

without Doors 

Self-Contained 

(SC) 

Horizontal Open 0 (L) < 32 HZO.SC.L 1.92 x TDA + 7.08 

Vertical Open 

(VOP) VOP.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 8.7 

Semivertical Open 

(SVO) SVO.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 8.7 

Horizontal Open 

(HZO) HZO.RC.I 0.72 x TDA + 8.74 

Vertical Closed 

Transparent (VCT) VCT.RC.I 0.66 x TDA + 3.05 

Horizontal Closed 

Transparent (HCT) HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 0.31 

Vertical Closed Solid 

(VCS) VCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

Horizontal Closed 

Solid (HCS) HCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 0.63 

Remote 

(RC) 

Service Over Counter 

(SVO) SOC.RC.I 1.26 x TDA + 0.26 

Vertical Open 

(VOP) VOP.SC.I 5.55 x TDA + 15.02 

Semivertical Open 

(SVO) SVO.SC.I 5.52 x TDA + 14.63 

Horizontal Open 

(HZO) HZO.SC.I 2.44 x TDA + 9. 

Vertical Closed 

Transparent (VCT) VCT.SC.I 0.67 x TDA + 3.29 

Horizontal Closed 

Transparent (HCT) HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 0.43 

Vertical Closed Solid 

(VCS) VCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 

Horizontal Closed 

Solid (HCS) HCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 0.88 

Commercial 

Ice-Cream 

Freezers 

Self-Contained 

(SC) 

Service Over Counter 

(SVO) 

-15 (I) ≤ -5** 

SOC.SC.I 1.76 x TDA + 0.36 

* The meaning of the letters in this column is indicated in the three columns to the left. 

** Ice-cream freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or below -

5 °F (-21 °C) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of 

ice cream. 

176
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

(2) For commercial refrigeration equipment with two or more compartments (i.e., 

hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid 

refrigerator freezers), the maximum daily energy consumption (MDEC) for each model 

shall be the sum of the MDEC values for all of its compartments. For each compartment, 

measure the TDA or volume of that compartment, and determine the appropriate equipment 

class based on that compartment’s equipment family, condensing unit configuration, and 

designed operating temperature. The MDEC limit for each compartment shall be the 

calculated value obtained by entering that compartment’s TDA or volume into the standard 

equation in paragraph (d)(1) of this section for that compartment’s equipment class. 

Measure the calculated daily energy consumption (CDEC) or total daily energy 

consumption (TDEC) for the entire case: 

(i) For remote condensing commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid 

refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two or more independent 

condensing units each separately cool only one compartment, measure the total refrigeration 

load of each compartment separately according to the ARI Standard 1200-2006 test 

procedure (incorporated by reference, see §431.63).. Calculate compressor energy 

consumption (CEC) for each compartment using Table 1 in ARI Standard 1200-2006 using 

the saturated evaporator temperature for that compartment. The CDEC for the entire case 

shall be the sum of the CEC for each compartment, fan energy consumption (FEC), lighting 

energy consumption (LEC), anti-condensate energy consumption (AEC), defrost energy 

177
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

consumption (DEC), and condensate evaporator pan energy consumption (PEC) (as 

measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006). 

(ii) For remote condensing commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid 

refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two or more compartments 

are cooled collectively by one condensing unit, measure the total refrigeration load of the 

entire case according to the ARI Standard 1200-2006 test procedure (incorporated by 

reference, see §431.63). Calculate a weighted saturated evaporator temperature for the entire 

case by: 

(A) multiplying the saturated evaporator temperature of each compartment by the 

volume of that compartment (as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006), 

(B) summing the resulting values for all compartments, and 

(C) dividing the resulting total by the total volume of all compartments. 

Calculate the CEC for the entire case using Table 1 in ARI Standard 1200-2006 

(incorporated by reference, see §431.63), using the total refrigeration load and the weighted 

average saturated evaporator temperature. The CDEC for the entire case shall be the sum of 

the CEC, FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, and PEC. 

(iii) For self-contained commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid 

refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers, measure the TDEC for the entire 

case according to the ARI Standard 1200-2006 test procedure (incorporated by reference, 

see §431.63). 

178
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

(3) For remote-condensing and self-contained wedge cases, measure the CDEC or 

TDEC according to the ARI Standard 1200-2006 test procedure (incorporated by reference, 

see §431.63). The MDEC for each model shall be the amount derived by incorporating into 

the standards equation in paragraph (d)(1) of this section for the appropriate equipment class 

a value for the TDA that is the product of: 

(i) the vertical height of the air-curtain (or glass in a transparent door) and 

(ii) the largest overall width of the case, when viewed from the front. 

APPENDIX 

[The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.] 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Main Justice Building 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20530–0001 

(202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645(f) 

antitrust@justice.usdoj.gov 

http://www.usdoj.gov 

October 24, 2008 

Warren Belmar, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Belmar: 

I am responding to your August 12, 2008 letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on competition of the proposed energy efficiency 

179
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(“EPCA”) authorizes the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to establish energy conservation 

standards for a number of appliances where DOE determines that those standards would be 

technologically feasible, economically justified, and result in significant energy savings. 

Your request was submitted pursuant to Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. §6295 (“EPCA”), which states that, before the Secretary of 

Energy may prescribe a new or amended energy conservation standard, the Secretary shall 

ask the Attorney General to make a determination of “the impact of any lessening of 

competition ... that is likely to result from the imposition of standard.” The Attorney 

General’s responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect 

of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the 

Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division 

examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by placing 

certain manufacturers of a product at an unjustified competitive disadvantage compared to 

other manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of 

particular products. In addition to harming consumers directly through higher prices, these 

effects could undercut the ultimate goals of the legislation. 

Along with your request, you sent us the draft final rule and a number of other 

documents relating to commercial refrigeration equipment, including a hearing transcript 

and the names of parties interviewed by DOE’s consultant. 

180
EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126 COMMENT 47 

181

We have concluded that the proposed standards would not adversely affect 

competition. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the proposed standards were 

developed taking into account comments by commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturers, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and electric utilities. We 

note further that all key components are available for purchase by any manufacturer; 

therefore no manufacturer has a technological advantage in meeting the proposed standards. 

Finally, DOE found no significant differences between the concerns of large and small 

manufacturers, and we found no evidence that certain manufacturers would be placed at a 

competitive disadvantage to other manufacturers. 

In conclusion, the Antitrust Division does not believe the proposed final rule would 

adversely affect competition. 

Yours sincerely, 

Deborah A. Garza, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General