70196 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007] 

RIN 1904–AD82 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, 

and Refrigerator-Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer equipment and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

(‘‘commercial refrigeration equipment’’ 

or ‘‘CRE’’). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ ‘‘the 

Department’’) to periodically determine 

whether more stringent standards would 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for CRE, and also announces a public 

meeting to receive comment on these 

proposed standards and associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES:

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR no later than 

December 11, 2023. 

Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard should be sent to the 

Department of Justice contact listed in 

the ADDRESSES section on or before 

November 9, 2023. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on Tuesday, November 7th, 

2023, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in 

Washington, DC. This meeting will also 

be broadcast as a webinar. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 6E–069, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585. See section VII of this 

document, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

further details, including procedures for 

attending the in-person meeting, 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Interested persons are encouraged to 

submit comments using the Federal 

Rulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0007, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) Email: CRE2017STD0007@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007 in the 

subject line of the message. 

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0007. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section VII 

of this document for information on 

how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standards. Interested persons 

may contact the Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–3593. Email: 

Kristin.Koernig@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

CRE 

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

1. Framework Document 

2. Public Comment Period 

3. Amended Test Procedures 

III. General Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Scope of Coverage 

C. Test Procedure 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Equipment Classes and Definitions 

a. Current Equipment Classes 

b. New Definitions 

c. Equipment Class Modifications 

2. CRE Market 

3. Technology Options 

a. Compressors 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70197 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (December 27, 2020), 

which reflect the last statutory amendments that 

impact parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

b. R–290 

c. Insulation 

d. Doors 

e. Evaporators and Condensers 

f. Fan Motors 

g. Defrost 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

a. Increased Insulation Thickness 

b. Vacuum-Insulated Panels 

c. Linear Compressors 

d. Air Curtain Design 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Baseline Energy Use 

b. Higher Efficiency Levels 

c. Engineering Spreadsheet Model 

d. Industry Trade Association Survey 

2. Cost Analysis 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

7. Residual Value 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Changes to the Cabinet Structure 

b. Supply Chain Concerns 

4. Discussion of MIA Comments 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for CRE Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling 

Plan 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Public Meeting and 

Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, part C of EPCA 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) Such 

equipment includes CRE, the subject of 

this proposed rulemaking. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 

Furthermore, the new or amended 

standard must result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

EPCA established standards for 

certain categories of CRE (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(2)–(4)) and directs DOE to 

conduct future rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(B)). 

EPCA also provides that not later than 

6 years after issuance of any final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, 

DOE must publish either a notice of 

determination that standards for the 

equipment do not need to be amended, 

or a notice of proposed rulemaking 

including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE analyzed the benefits 

and burdens of six trial standard levels 

(‘‘TSLs’’) for CRE. The TSLs and their 

associated benefits and burdens are 

discussed in detail in sections V.A 

through V.C of this document. As 

discussed in section V.C, DOE has 

tentatively determined that TSL 5 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and to establish 

new energy conservation standards for 

covered equipment not yet subject to 

energy conservation standards. The 

proposed standards, which are 

expressed in maximum daily energy 

consumption (‘‘MDEC’’), are shown in 

table I.1. These proposed standards, if 

adopted, would apply to all CRE listed 

in table I.1 manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or 

after the date that is (1) 3 years after the 

date on which the final new and 

amended standards are published or (2) 

if the Secretary determines, by rule, that 

3 years is inadequate, not later than 5 

years after the date on which the final 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70198 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

2Under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, entitled 

‘‘Technology Transitions,’’ the EPA may by rule 

restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons (‘‘HFCs’’) in 

sectors or subsectors where they are used. A person 

or entity may also petition EPA to promulgate such 

a rule. ‘‘H.R.133—116th Congress (2019–2020): 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.’’ 

Congress.gov, Library of Congress, December 27, 

2020, available at www.congress.gov/bill/ 

116thcongress/house-bill/133. 

3The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.F.8 of this document). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this 

document). 

4For the HZO.RC.M equipment class, the 

estimated PBP at TSL 5 is 13.8 years for an 

estimated average lifetime of approximately 13 

years. 

rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)(C)). 

DOE notes that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) proposed refrigerant 

restrictions pursuant to the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act 

(‘‘AIM Act’’) 2 affecting CRE in a NOPR 

published on December 15, 2022 

(‘‘December 2022 EPA NOPR’’). 87 FR 

76738. The proposal would prohibit 

manufacture or import of such CRE 

starting January 1, 2025, and would ban 

sale, distribution, purchase, receipt, or 

export of such CRE starting January 1, 

2026. Id. at 87 FR 76809. See section 

IV.C.1.a of this document for more 

details. DOE understands that it would 

be beneficial to CRE equipment 

manufacturers to align the compliance 

date of any DOE amended or established 

standards as closely as possible with the 

refrigerant prohibition dates proposed 

by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing that the 

proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all CRE listed in table I.1 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after the date that is 

3 years after the date on which the final 

new and amended standards are 

published. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CRE 

Equipment class 

Maximum daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

VOP.RC.H ........................... 0.31 × TDA + 1.99 

VOP.RC.M ........................... 0.56 × TDA + 3.57 

VOP.RC.L ............................ 2.04 × TDA + 6.36 

VOP.RC.I ............................. 2.59 × TDA + 8.08 

SVO.RC.H ........................... 0.32 × TDA + 1.55 

SVO.RC.M ........................... 0.58 × TDA + 2.79 

SVO.RC.L ............................ 2.04 × TDA + 6.36 

SVO.RC.I ............................. 2.59 × TDA + 8.08 

HZO.RC.H ........................... 0.19 × TDA + 1.56 

HZO.RC.M ........................... 0.34 × TDA + 2.81 

HZO.RC.L ............................ 0.54 × TDA + 6.81 

HZO.RC.I ............................. 0.69 × TDA + 8.64 

VCT.RC.H ........................... 0.07 × TDA + 0.97 

VCT.RC.M ........................... 0.134 × TDA + 1.74 

VCT.RC.L ............................ 0.47 × TDA + 2.51 

VCT.RC.I ............................. 0.56 × TDA + 2.97 

HCT.RC.M ........................... 0.16 × TDA + 0.13 

HCT.RC.L ............................ 0.34 × TDA + 0.26 

HCT.RC.I ............................. 0.38 × TDA + 0.29 

VCS.RC.H ........................... 0.06 × V + 0.14 

VCS.RC.M ........................... 0.1 × V + 0.26 

VCS.RC.L ............................ 0.21 × V + 0.54 

VCS.RC.I ............................. 0.25 × V + 0.63 

HCS.RC.M ........................... 0.1 × V + 0.26 

HCS.RC.L ............................ 0.21 × V + 0.54 

HCS.RC.I ............................. 0.25 × V + 0.63 

SOC.RC.H ........................... 0.22 × TDA + 0.05 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CRE— 

Continued 

Equipment class 

Maximum daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

SOC.RC.M .......................... 0.39 × TDA + 0.1 

SOC.RC.L ........................... 0.83 × TDA + 0.2 

SOC.RC.I ............................ 1.04 × TDA + 0.25 

CB.RC.M ............................. 0.03 × V + 0.39 

CB.RC.L .............................. 0.13 × V + 1.37 

VOP.SC.H ........................... 0.69 × TDA + 1.94 

VOP.SC.M ........................... 1.25 × TDA + 3.48 

VOP.SC.L ............................ 3.29 × TDA + 9.15 

VOP.SC.I ............................. 4.18 × TDA + 11.63 

SVO.SC.H ........................... 0.65 × TDA + 1.77 

SVO.SC.M ........................... 1.18 × TDA + 3.18 

SVO.SC.L ............................ 3.25 × TDA + 8.78 

SVO.SC.I ............................. 4.13 × TDA + 11.16 

HZO.SC.H ........................... 0.27 × TDA + 2.06 

HZO.SC.M ........................... 0.48 × TDA + 3.71 

HZO.SC.L ............................ 1.48 × TDA + 5.5 

HZO.SC.I ............................. 1.97 × TDA + 7.34 

VCT.SC.H ............................ 0.053 × V + 0.85 

VCT.SC.M ........................... 0.054 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.L ............................ 0.234 × V + 2.38 

VCT.SC.I ............................. 0.6 × TDA + 3.2 

HCT.SC.M ........................... 0.06 × V + 0.37 

HCT.SC.L ............................ 0.08 × V + 1.23 

HCT.SC.I ............................. 0.34 × TDA + 0.43 

VCS.SC.H ........................... 0.0082 × V + 0.21 

VCS.SC.M ........................... 0.02 × V + 0.54 

VCS.SC.L ............................ 0.155 × V + 0.97 

VCS.SC.I ............................. 0.25 × V + 0.88 

HCS.SC.M ........................... 0.022 × V + 0.41 

HCS.SC.L ............................ 0.043 × V + 0.81 

HCS.SC.I ............................. 0.31 × V + 0.81 

SOC.SC.H ........................... 0.17 × TDA + 0.33 

SOC.SC.M ........................... 0.304 × TDA + 0.59 

SOC.SC.L ............................ 1.1 × TDA + 2.1 

SOC.SC.I ............................. 1.53 × TDA + 0.36 

CB.SC.M ............................. 0.049 × V + 0.54 

CB.SC.L .............................. 0.180 × V + 1.92 

PD.SC.M ............................. 0.11 × V + 0.81 

VCT.RC.M.PT ..................... 0.139 × TDA + 1.81 

VCT.SC.M.PT ...................... 0.056 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.L.PT ....................... 0.243 × V + 2.47 

VCS.SC.M.PT ..................... 0.02 × V + 0.56 

VCS.SC.L.PT ...................... 0.161 × V + 1.01 

VCT.RC.M.SD ..................... 0.143 × TDA + 1.86 

VCT.SC.M.SD ..................... 0.058 × V + 0.86 

VCT.RC.M.SDPT ................ 0.149 × TDA + 1.93 

VCT.SC.M.SDPT ................. 0.060 × V + 0.86 

VCT.RC.M.RI ...................... 0.140 × TDA + 1.83 

VCT.SC.M.RI ....................... 0.057 × V + 0.86 

VCS.SC.M.RI ...................... 0.02 × V + 0.57 

VCS.SC.L.RI ....................... 0.162 × V + 1.02 

VCT.RC.M.RT ..................... 0.146 × TDA + 1.9 

VCT.SC.M.RT ..................... 0.059 × V + 0.86 

VCS.SC.M.RT ..................... 0.02 × V + 0.59 

VCS.SC.L.RT ...................... 0.169 × V + 1.06 

HCS.SC.L.FA ...................... 0.052 × V + 0.97 

The equipment classes are separated by equipment family, condensing unit configuration, and operating temperature. Equipment Families: VOP— 

Vertical Open; SVO—Semi-Vertical Open; HZO— 

Horizontal Open; VCT—Vertical Closed Transparent; 

HCT—Horizontal Closed Transparent; VCS—Vertical 

Closed Solid; HCS—Horizontal Closed Solid; SOC— 

Service Over Counter; CB—Chef Base; PD—Pull 

Down. Condensing Unit Configurations: RC—Remote 

Condensing; SC—Self Contained. Operating Temperatures: H—High Temperature; M—Medium Temperature; L—Low Temperature; I—Ice Cream 

Temperature. 

TABLE I.2—DESCRIPTION OF COEFFICIENTS FOR PROPOSED MAXIMUM

DAILY ENERGY CONSUMPTION

STANDARDS FOR CRE 

Unique design characteristic Abbreviation 

Pass-through Door ........................ PT 

Sliding Door ................................... SD 

Sliding and Pass-through Doors ... SDPT 

Roll-in Door .................................... RI 

Roll-through Door .......................... RT 

Forced Air Evaporator ................... FA 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to require that the proposed 

standards, if adopted, would apply to all 

CRE listed in table I.1 manufactured in, 

or imported into, the United States on 

or after the date that is 3 years after the 

date on which the final new and 

amended standards are published. More 

generally, DOE requests comment on 

whether it would be beneficial to CRE 

manufacturers to align the compliance 

date of any DOE amended or established 

standards as closely as possible with the 

refrigerant prohibition dates proposed 

by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.3 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards—represented by TSL 5—on 

consumers of CRE, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings 

and the simple payback period 

(‘‘PBP’’).3 The average LCC savings are 

positive for all equipment classes, and 

the PBP is less than the average lifetime 

for the vast majority of CRE equipment 

classes,4 which is estimated to be 13.9 

years (see section IV.F.7 of this 

document). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70199 

5All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2022 dollars. 

6Conversion costs are incurred between the 

publication of the final rule (modeled as 2025) and 

the compliance year (modeled as 2028) and are 

included in the change in INPV presented in this 

section. 

7The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.2 of this document. 

8A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

9 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 

possible, laws and regulations adopted through 

mid-November 2022, including the Inflation 

Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document 

for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that 

effect air pollutant emissions. 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF CRE 

Equipment class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

CB.SC.L ....................................................................................................................................................... 566.92 2.2 

CB.SC.M ...................................................................................................................................................... 44.90 5.0 

HCS.SC.L .................................................................................................................................................... 7.77 5.1 

HCS.SC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 84.89 1.8 

HCT.SC.I ...................................................................................................................................................... 55.03 7.1 

HCT.SC.L * ................................................................................................................................................... .............................. ..............................

HCT.SC.M * .................................................................................................................................................. .............................. ..............................

HZO.RC.L .................................................................................................................................................... 46.57 13.0 

HZO.RC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 40.29 13.8 

HZO.SC.L .................................................................................................................................................... 841.89 2.8 

HZO.SC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 199.91 5.2 

SOC.RC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 929.51 3.3 

SOC.SC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 698.37 5.4 

SVO.RC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 406.59 7.3 

SVO.SC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 602.17 4.3 

VCS.SC.H .................................................................................................................................................... 162.47 3.7 

VCS.SC.I ...................................................................................................................................................... 486.70 3.4 

VCS.SC.L ..................................................................................................................................................... 260.73 3.2 

VCS.SC.M .................................................................................................................................................... 128.81 4.1 

VCT.RC.L ..................................................................................................................................................... 331.04 6.4 

VCT.RC.M .................................................................................................................................................... 133.62 10.9 

VCT.SC.H * .................................................................................................................................................. .............................. ..............................

VCT.SC.I ...................................................................................................................................................... 77.46 8.3 

VCT.SC.L ..................................................................................................................................................... 120.34 5.8 

VCT.SC.M .................................................................................................................................................... 82.53 7.6 

VOP.RC.L .................................................................................................................................................... 1524.52 3.6 

VOP.RC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 707.13 5.7 

VOP.SC.M ................................................................................................................................................... 992.17 3.6 

* For these equipment classes, TSL 5 corresponds to efficiency level 0. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 5

The industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base 

year through the end of the analysis 

period (2023–2057). Using a real 

discount rate of 10.0 percent, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of CRE in the case 

without new and amended standards is 

$3,286.4 million. Under the proposed 

standards, the change in INPV is 

estimated to range from ¥4.8 percent to 

¥0.9 percent, which is approximately 

¥$159.3 million to ¥$30.9 million. In 

order to bring equipment into 

compliance with new and amended 

standards, it is estimated that the 

industry would incur total conversion 

costs of $226.4 million.6

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J of this 

document. The analytic results of the 

manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) 

are presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for CRE would save a significant amount 

of energy. Relative to the case without 

new and amended standards, the 

lifetime energy savings for CRE 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated year of 

compliance with the new and amended 

standards (2028–2057) amount to 3.11 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.7 This represents a 

savings of 16.8 percent relative to the 

energy use of these equipment in the 

case without new or amended standards 

(referred to as the ‘‘no-new-standards 

case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the proposed standards for CRE ranges 

from $2.4 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $7.1 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment costs for 

CRE purchased in 2028–2057. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for CRE are projected to yield significant 

environmental benefits. DOE estimates 

that the proposed standards would 

result in cumulative emission 

reductions (over the same period as for 

energy savings) of 55.8 million metric 

tons (‘‘Mt’’) 8 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 

17.1 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(‘‘SO2’’), 104.2 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 472 thousand tons of 

methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.54 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.12 tons of 

mercury (‘‘Hg’’).9

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SCVerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Oct 06, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70200 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

10To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

11U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors 

and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 

12 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

TSLs for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SCCH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘SC-N2O’’). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SCGHG’’). DOE used interim SC-GHG 

values (in terms of benefit per ton of 

GHG emissions avoided) developed by 

an Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(‘‘IWG’’).10 The derivation of these 

values is discussed in section IV.L of 

this document. For presentational 

purposes, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate are estimated 

to be $3.04 billion. DOE does not have 

a single central SC-GHG point estimate 

and it emphasizes the importance and 

value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG 

estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions using benefit per ton 

estimates from the Environmental 

Protection Agency,11 as discussed in 

section IV.L of this document. DOE 

estimated the present value of the health 

benefits would be $2.32 billion using a 

7-percent discount rate, and $5.94 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate.12

DOE is currently only monetizing health 

benefits from changes in ambient fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 

concentrations from two precursors 

(SO2 and NOX), and from changes in 

ambient ozone from one precursor (for 

NOX), but will continue to assess the 

ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct 

PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the proposed standards for CRE. 

There are other important unquantified 

effects, including certain unquantified 

climate benefits, unquantified public 

health benefits from the reduction of 

toxic air pollutants and other emissions, 

unquantified energy security benefits, 

and distributional effects, among others. 

TABLE I.4—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

CRE (TSL 5) 

Billion 2022$ 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................................... 12.8 

Climate Benefits * ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3.04 

Health Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5.94 

Total Benefits † ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21.8 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 5.74 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16.1 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) ....................................................................................................................................... (0.16)–(0.03) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................................... 5.55 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ............................................................................................................................................ 3.04 

Health Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2.32 

Total Benefits † ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10.9 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 3.17 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7.74 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) ....................................................................................................................................... (0.16)–(0.03) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028–2057. These results include consumer, climate, and 

health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of 

this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the 

average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 

13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, 

total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70201 

13To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2023, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2023. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, that yields the same present value. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE 

also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the detailed MIA, DOE models 

manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a 

range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, 

including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry 

weighted average cost of capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description 

of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For commercial refrigeration equipment, those values are ¥$159 million to ¥$31 million. DOE 

accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the 

manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit 

scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer 

production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and 

consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for 

this proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $15.94 billion to $16.07 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $7.58 billion 

to $7.71 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in equipment purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the value of 

climate and health benefits of emission 

reductions, all annualized.13

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered equipment 

and are measured for the lifetime of CRE 

shipped in 2028–2057. The benefits 

associated with reduced emissions 

achieved as a result of the proposed 

standards are also calculated based on 

the lifetime of CRE shipped in 2028– 

2057. Total benefits for both the 3- 

percent and 7-percent cases are 

presented using the average GHG social 

costs with 3-percent discount rate. 

Estimates of SC-GHG values are 

presented for all four discount rates in 

section V.L of this document. 

Table I.5 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the proposed standard, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $334.6 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $586.1 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $174.4 million in climate benefits, 

and $245.5 million in health benefits. In 

this case, the net benefit would amount 

to $671.4 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $329.8 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $737.7 million in reduced 

operating costs, $174.4 million in 

climate benefits, and $341.3 million in 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit would amount to $923.5 million 

per year. 

TABLE I.5—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CRE 

(TSL 5) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits estimate High-net-benefits estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 737.7 714.3 773.7 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 174.4 173.5 178.9 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 341.4 339.7 349.9 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................... 1253.3 1227.5 1302.8 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs .................................................................................... 329.8 337.9 328.3 

Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 923.5 889.5 974.1 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................... (17)–(3) (17)–(3) (17)–(3) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 586.1 569.3 613.0 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................................... 174.4 173.5 178.9 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 245.5 244.7 250.9 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................... 1006.0 987.5 1042.8 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs .................................................................................... 334.6 341.7 333.5 

Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 671.4 645.7 709.3 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70202 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

14Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

TABLE I.5—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CRE 

(TSL 5)—Continued 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits estimate High-net-benefits estimate 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................... (17)–(3) (17)–(3) (17)–(3) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits to consumers 

which accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028–2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, 

and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections V.F.1 and 

V.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not 

have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs 

to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing 

decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which 

is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in 

production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted 

average cost of capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For commercial refrigeration equipment, those values are ¥$16.65 million to ¥$3.23 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE 

assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J, to provide 

additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, 

which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this 

proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $906.8 million to $920.3 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from 

$654.7 million to $668.2 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

in sections V.H, V.K, and V.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Specifically, 

with regards to technological feasibility, 

design options used to achieve these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for all 

equipment classes covered by this 

proposal. As for economic justification, 

DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits 

of the proposed standard exceed, to a 

great extent, the burdens of the 

proposed standards. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for CRE is $334.6 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $586.1 million in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $174.4 

million in climate benefits and $245.5 

million in health benefits. The net 

benefit amounts to $671.4 million per 

year. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.14 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

substantial energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these equipment on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than equipment with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

standards are projected to result in 

estimated national energy savings of 

3.11 quad FFC, the equivalent of the 

primary annual energy use of 33 million 

homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for 

these projected energy savings is $2.38 

billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $7.10 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. The 

cumulative emissions reductions 

associated with these energy savings are 

55.8 Mt of CO2, 17.1 thousand tons of 

SO2, 104.2 thousand tons of NOX, 0.12 

tons of Hg, 472.0 thousand tons of CH4, 

and 0.54 thousand tons of N2O. The 

estimated monetary value of the climate 

benefits from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC-GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) is $ 3.04 

billion. The estimated monetary value of 

the health benefits from reduced SO2

and NOX emissions is $ 2.32 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and $ 

5.94 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. As such, DOE has initially 

determined the energy savings from the 

proposed standard levels are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed 

discussion of the basis for these 

tentative conclusions is contained in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70203 

15The NOPR TSD is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. 

remainder of this document and the 

accompanying technical support 

document (‘‘NOPR TSD’’).15

DOE also considered more stringent 

energy efficiency levels as potential 

standards and is still considering them 

in this rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of the more stringent energy 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this document and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels 

presented in this document that are 

either higher or lower than the proposed 

standards, or some combination of 

level(s) that incorporate the proposed 

standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for CRE. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer equipment and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

This equipment includes CRE, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(E)) 

EPCA established standards for 

certain categories of CRE (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(2)–(4)) and directs DOE to 

conduct future rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(B)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 6 years after the issuance of any 

final rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notice of determination that standards 

for the equipment do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e) (applying 

the preemption waiver provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6297)) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

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

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered 

equipment must use the Federal test 

procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), 

and (2) making representations about 

the efficiency of that equipment (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must 

use these test procedures to determine 

whether the equipment complies with 

relevant standards promulgated under 

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

6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for 

CRE appear at title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, 

subpart C, appendix B (‘‘appendix B’’). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, 

including CRE. Any new or amended 

standard for a covered equipment must 

be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary of Energy determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

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

6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) for certain equipment, 

including CRE, if no test procedure has 

been established for the equipment, or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

standard is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

In deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the equipment subject to 

the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered equipment in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered equipment that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered equipment 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing an equipment 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

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

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

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

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

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70204 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

16A wedge case is a CRE that forms the transition 

between two regularly shaped display cases. 10 CFR 

431.62. 

17The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0007-0013. 

18The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for CRE. (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0007, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

may not prescribe an amended or new 

standard if interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States in any covered equipment type 

(or class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered equipment that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of equipment that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that equipment within such 

group: (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered equipment within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

equipment within such type (or class) 

do not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In 

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard for a group of equipment, DOE 

must consider such factors as the utility 

to the consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) 

Any rule prescribing such a standard 

must include an explanation of the basis 

on which such higher or lower level was 

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

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

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

On March 28, 2014, DOE published a 

final rule in the Federal Register that 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for CRE 

manufactured on and after March 27, 

2017 (‘‘March 2014 Final Rule’’). 79 FR 

17725. These standards are set forth in 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.66(e). 

For CRE with two or more 

compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators, 

hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigeratorfreezers, and non-hybrid refrigeratorfreezers), 10 CFR 431.66(e)(2) specifies 

that the maximum daily energy 

consumption for each model shall be 

the sum of the applicable standard for 

each of the compartments, as specified 

in 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). For wedge cases, 

10 CFR 431.66(e)(3) specifies 

instructions to comply with the 

applicable standards specified in 10 

CFR 431.66(e)(1).16 Certain exclusions 

to the standards at 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1) 

are specified at 10 CFR 431.66(f) (i.e., 

the energy conservation standards do 

not apply to salad bars, buffet tables, 

and chef bases or griddle stands). 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

CRE 

On July 16, 2021, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) in the 

Federal Register to undertake an early 

assessment review for amended energy 

conservation standards for CRE to 

determine whether to amend applicable 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment. (‘‘July 2021 RFI’’) 86 FR 

37708. Specifically, through the 

published notice and request for 

information, DOE sought data and 

information that could enable the 

agency to determine whether amended 

energy conservation standards would: 

(1) result in a significant savings of 

energy; (2) be technologically feasible; 

and (3) be economically justified. Id. 

On June 28, 2022, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a notification of the 

availability of a preliminary technical 

support document for CRE (‘‘June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis’’). 87 FR 38296. In 

that notification, DOE sought comment 

on the analytical framework, models, 

and tools that DOE used to evaluate 

potential standards for CRE, the results 

of preliminary analyses performed, and 

the potential energy conservation 

standard levels derived from these 

analyses, which DOE presented in the 

accompanying Preliminary TSD (‘‘June 

2022 Preliminary TSD’’).17 Id. DOE held 

a public meeting related to the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis on August 8, 

2022 (hereafter, the ‘‘August 8, 2022, 

public meeting’’). 

DOE received comments in response 

to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

from the interested parties listed in table 

II.1. 

TABLE II.1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 2022 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

AHT Cooling Systems .................................................................................. AHT ............................... 48 Manufacturer. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute ................................... AHRI ............................. 46 Trade Association. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.Joint Commenters ......... 39 Efficiency Organizations. 

California Investor-Owned Utilities ............................................................... CA IOUs ........................ 43 Energy Utilities. 

Continental Refrigerator ............................................................................... Continental .................... 38 Manufacturer. 

Hillphoenix .................................................................................................... Hillphoenix .................... * 42 Manufacturer. 

Hussmann Corporation ................................................................................. Hussmann ..................... 45 Manufacturer. 

ITW-Food Equipment Group, LLC dba Traulsen/Kairak .............................. ITW ............................... 41 Manufacturer. 

National Automatic Merchandising Association ........................................... NAMA ............................ 37 Trade Association. 

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers ................. NAFEM ......................... 40 Trade Association. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ........................................................... NEEA ............................ 47 Efficiency Organizations. 

Zero Zone, Inc .............................................................................................. Zero Zone ..................... 44 Manufacturer. 

* Hillphoenix requested that its response be treated as Confidential Business Information. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.18 Where interested 

parties have provided written comments 

that are substantively consistent with 

their oral comments provided during 

the August 8, 2022, public meeting, 

DOE cites the written comments 

throughout this document. DOE did not 

identify any oral comments provided 

during the August 8, 2022, public 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70205 

19The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0007-0013. 

20AHRI Standard 1200–2023 (I–P), 2023 

Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets, copyright 2023. 

21Proposed Addendum b to Standard 72–2022, 

Method of Testing Open and Closed Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers. See https://

osr.ashrae.org/Online-Comment-Database/ 

ShowDoc2/Table/DocumentAttachments/ 

FileName/4130-72-2022%20Addendum%20b.21_

072823_chair_approved.pdf/download/false. 

meeting, that are substantively different 

from written comments provided by 

interested parties. 

C. Deviation From Process Rule 

In accordance with 10 CFR 431.4 and 

section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A (‘‘Process Rule’’), DOE 

notes that it is deviating from the 

provision in the Process Rule regarding 

the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages for an 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking. 

1. Framework Document 

Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule 

states that if DOE determines it is 

appropriate to proceed with a 

rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a 

rulemaking to issue or amend an energy 

conservation standard that DOE will 

undertake will be a framework 

document and preliminary analysis, or 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. While DOE published a 

preliminary analysis for this rulemaking 

(see 87 FR 38296), DOE did not publish 

a framework document in conjunction 

with the preliminary analysis. DOE 

notes, however, that chapter 2 of the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD that 

accompanied the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis—entitled Analytical 

Framework, Comments from Interested 

Parties, and DOE Responses—describes 

the general analytical framework that 

DOE used in evaluating and developing 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards.19 As such, 

publication of a separate framework 

document would be largely redundant 

of chapter 2 of the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. 

2. Public Comment Period 

Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule 

specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for a NOPR will be not 

less than 75 calendar days. For this 

NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60- 

day comment period, consistent with 

EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). 

As noted previously, DOE requested 

comment in the July 2021 RFI on the 

analysis conducted in support of the last 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking for CRE and provided a 45- 

day comment period. (See 86 FR 37708). 

In its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

and accompanying TSD, for which DOE 

provided a 60-day comment period, 

DOE’s analysis remained largely the 

same as the analysis conducted in 

support of the last energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for CRE. DOE 

requested comment in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis on the analysis 

conducted in support of this current 

rulemaking. In this NOPR, DOE 

incorporated the most recent data inputs 

but largely relied on many of the same 

analytical assumptions and approaches 

used in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis. Given that the analysis 

presented in this NOPR remains largely 

the same as the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, and in light of the 45-day 

comment period DOE has already 

provided with the July 2021 RFI and the 

60-day comment period DOE has 

already provided with its June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE has 

determined that a 60-day comment 

period is appropriate and will provide 

interested parties with a meaningful 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed rule. 

3. Amended Test Procedures 

Section 8(d)(1) of the Process Rule 

specifies that test procedure 

rulemakings establishing methodologies 

used to evaluate proposed energy 

conservation standards will be finalized 

prior to publication of a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Additionally, 

new test procedures and amended test 

procedures that impact measured energy 

use or efficiency will be finalized at 

least 180 days prior to the close of the 

comment period for (1) a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards or (2) a notice of 

proposed determination that standards 

do not need to be amended. 

On September 26, 2023, DOE 

published a Federal Register notice 

amending and establishing test 

procedures for CRE (‘‘September 2023 

Test Procedure Final Rule’’). 88 FR 

66152. DOE determined that the 

amendments adopted in the September 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule will not 

alter the measured efficiency of CRE 

currently subject to energy conservation 

standards. 88 FR 66152, 66156. 

However, the measured energy use for 

chef bases or griddle stands and hightemperature refrigerators would likely 

change as a result of the September 2023 

Test Procedure Final Rule. Nonetheless, 

the September 2023 Test Procedure 

Final Rule aligns with the requirements 

that the CRE industry has developed or 

proposed. Specifically, AHRI 1200– 

2023 20 was approved by the American 

National Standards Institute on June 12, 

2023, and addendum B to ASHRAE 72– 

2022 21 was proposed on September 15, 

2023. AHRI 1200–2023 specifies that 

high-temperature refrigerators shall be 

tested at an integrated average 

temperature of 55 °F ± 2.0 °F, consistent 

with the September 2023 Test Procedure 

Final Rule. The addendum B to 

ASHRAE 72–2022 proposal specifies a 

dry-bulb temperature of 86.0 °F with a 

tolerance for the average over test period 

of ± 1.8 °F and a tolerance for the 

individual measurements of ± 3.6 °F; 

wet-bulb temperature of 73.7 °F with a 

tolerance for the average over test period 

of ± 1.8 °F and a tolerance for the 

individual measurements of ± 3.6 °F; 

and radiant heat temperature of greater 

than or equal to 81.0 °F, consistent with 

the September 2023 Test Procedure 

Final Rule. Both AHRI 1200–2023 and 

the proposed addendum B to ASHRAE 

72–2022 were developed by the CRE 

industry over several years, and the 

September 2023 Test Procedure Final 

Rule aligns with the provisions 

included in both test standards for chef 

bases or griddle stands and hightemperature refrigerators. As such, DOE 

finds it appropriate to deviate from the 

requirement that the amended test 

procedures for chef bases or griddle 

stands and high-temperature 

refrigerators be finalized at least 180 

days prior to the close of the comment 

period for this NOPR. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposal after 

considering oral and written comments, 

data, and information from interested 

parties that represent a variety of 

interests. The following discussion 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. General Comments 

This section summarizes general 

comments received from interested 

parties regarding rulemaking timing and 

process. 

NEEA generally supported the process 

outlined in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 5) NEEA 

commented that DOE’s analysis in the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD showed a 

strong standard for CRE equipment 

would be economically justified and 

deliver significant energy savings to the 

Nation. (Id.) As a result, NEEA 

recommended DOE adopt increased 

efficiency standards for existing classes 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70206 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

22See 5 U.S.C. 551–559. 

of CRE and continue to push the 

industry toward more-efficient products 

and greater energy savings across all 

CRE equipment classes via technical, 

market, and economic analyses. (Id.) 

NEEA recommended further that DOE 

consider energy-saving technologies in 

CRE and that DOE collect additional 

data for analysis. (Id.) NEEA stated that 

they believe further analysis of specific 

features would help establish stronger 

standards, especially when the analysis 

improved representativeness of 

equipment in the market and 

appropriately characterized energy use 

and energy savings. (Id.) NEEA stated it 

recognized CRE as a complex energy 

conservation standard with many 

combinations of equipment and a 

variety of use cases and commended 

DOE for the depth of analysis and 

concerted efforts to incorporate new 

classes and utilize available data for 

analysis. (Id.) NEEA commented that 

DOE’s analysis demonstrated significant 

cost-effective savings, and NEEA 

recommended DOE adopt increased 

energy conservation standards for 

existing CRE equipment classes as 

supported by the analysis in the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) 

Other commenters expressed concern 

with the rulemaking timeline. NAFEM 

commented that it had previously 

requested a comment period extension, 

which was denied, and requested to see 

the CRE engineering spreadsheets, 

which were provided on August 18, 

2022, leaving an 11-calendar-day review 

period. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 2) NAFEM 

acknowledged that DOE had initiated 

multiple energy efficiency rulemakings 

on a compressed schedule, but NAFEM 

stated that this did not serve as 

justification for neglecting to provide 

important information and adequate 

time for review. (Id.) NAFEM disagreed 

with DOE’s justification that the 

comment period could be shortened due 

to similarities between the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD and its 2014 

counterpart. (Id.) NAFEM commented 

that many of its concerns regarding the 

July 2021 RFI were dismissed or remain 

unresolved in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD. (Id.) Furthermore, NAFEM 

commented that DOE’s claim was 

inaccurate that the engineering 

spreadsheets ‘‘do not contain any new 

or additional information that was not 

already published with the TSD in 

June.’’ (Id.) NAFEM added that it would 

have had two additional weeks to 

analyze the spreadsheets if DOE had 

adhered to the appendix A Process Rule 

permitting no less than a 75-day 

comment period. (Id. at pp. 2–3) 

NAFEM concluded that it was unable to 

provide a complete list of errors or 

concerns due to insufficient time and 

presented its comments as 

representative, but not exhaustive, of 

the types of problems and inaccuracies 

contained in the spreadsheets. (Id. at p. 

3) 

Hussmann commented that it 

supports the comments provided by 

AHRI and NAFEM and noted that it and 

other commenters were denied 

extensions to the August 29, 2022, 

comment deadline. (Hussmann, No. 45 

at p. 1). Hussmann stated that it hopes 

discussions with DOE will improve this 

rulemaking. (Id.) 

NAMA shared its view that, despite 

this CRE rulemaking being one of the 

most complex DOE has undertaken 

within EERE, DOE reduced the time for 

public comment. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 

4) NAMA additionally commented that

DOE released the engineering

spreadsheets on August 8, 2022, leaving

only 7 working days for review prior to

the comment receipt deadline, and that

this limited notice violated all elements

of the notice and comment in the

Administrative Procedure Act.22 (Id.)

NAMA added that the United States has

admonished other countries for similar

regulatory actions. (Id.)

ITW commented that the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD made clear the 

importance of the CRE engineering 

spreadsheet, prompting ITW to request 

that DOE grant access to the 

spreadsheet. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 1). ITW 

stated that DOE provided the 

spreadsheet but did not extend the 

comment period to allow adequate time 

for review of information ITW 

considered critical. (Id.) 

In response to comments regarding 

timing and the 2022 Engineering 

Spreadsheet Related to the Preliminary 

Analysis for Commercial Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers 

Standards (‘‘engineering spreadsheet’’), 

DOE published this document in the 

rulemaking docket on August 18, 2022 

after commenters requested its 

publication. This practice was 

consistent with prior rulemakings 

conducted for CRE, such as when DOE 

did not include an engineering 

spreadsheet with the notice of 

availability of preliminary technical 

support document published on March 

30, 2011 (‘‘March 2011 Preliminary 

Analysis’’). Instead, DOE published the 

engineering spreadsheet with its NOPR 

on September 11, 2013. Similarly, in 

this rulemaking, DOE did not publish 

the engineering spreadsheet used for the 

preliminary analysis at the time of the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

publication. Consistent with past 

practice, DOE is publishing the 

engineering spreadsheet that supports 

this NOPR analysis along with this 

NOPR. 

With respect to comments regarding 

the comment-period, DOE discusses 

deviations from the Process Rule, and 

the justifications for such deviations, in 

section II.C of this NOPR. 

In response to comments regarding 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

U.S.C. 553 provides requirements for a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. The 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis was not 

a notice of proposed rulemaking as it 

was a notification that announced the 

availability of the preliminary analysis 

DOE had conducted for purposes of 

evaluating the need for amended energy 

conservation standards for CRE. 

However, DOE provided notice of that 

preliminary analysis and sought 

comment on the analysis. See 87 FR 

38296. The June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis was in compliance with EPCA 

and the Process Rule. 

Other commenters had general 

comments regarding the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the accompanying 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD, and the 

rulemaking process. NAMA commented 

that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD is 

flawed and should be re-written, with 

CRE categories split into ranges by size. 

(NAMA, No. 37 at p. 8) NAMA stated 

that if the engineering analysis were to 

be incorrect, then the technology 

screening would be incorrect also, 

which means the baseline machine 

design was incorrect and the rest of the 

report could not be used. (Id.) NAMA 

recommended that DOE begin the 

process again, using machines that are 

currently available on the market as its 

baseline. (Id.) NAMA also 

recommended that DOE use low-GWP 

refrigerants and incorporate most of the 

design options shown in table 5.8.10 of 

NAMA’s written submission, along with 

current costs. (Id.) NAMA added that if 

this approach is not possible, DOE 

should acknowledge the costs already 

incurred by manufacturers to meet the 

goals established by the Biden 

Administration to reduce global 

warming. (Id.) 

NAMA commented that while it 

appreciated DOE’s willingness to hold a 

hearing on the proposed energy 

efficiency standards levels, it believed 

that the August 8, 2022, public meeting 

was rushed and abruptly terminated 

before all questions were answered. 

(NAMA, No. 37 at p. 4) NAMA 

requested that DOE return to ‘‘inperson’’ meetings to support dialogue 

on these subjects. (Id.) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70207 

23Most of the activities of the 2019–2021 CRADA 

were directed toward reduction of the risk involved 

in a possible leak situation if it were ever to occur. 

ORNL did extensive testing on leak scenarios and 

proposed new methods to reduce the risk from such 

a leak in a public space. 

24See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0007-0049. 

NAMA commented that the market 

dynamic was currently distorted due to 

the COVID–19 pandemic and a lack of 

available equipment, making efficiency 

a secondary priority to availability. (Id. 

at p. 16) 

NAMA recommended that DOE 

should cease the rulemaking on this 

category of CRE until after the beverage 

vending machines rulemaking is in the 

final rule stage and until the test 

procedure for CRE equipment is 

finalized. (Id. at p. 17) NAMA 

commented that due to the fact that the 

rulemakings for beverage vending 

machines and CRE affect the same 

manufacturers, overlapping comment 

periods result in result increased 

complexity to the responses. (Id.) 

NAMA also stated that a final test 

procedure should be established before 

setting future standard levels, and that 

the Process Rule requires DOE to finish 

the test procedure rulemaking before 

engaging in cost and energy calculations 

for a new standard. (Id.) NAMA further 

commented that DOE has requested 

comments on the CRE test procedure at 

the same time as it requested comments 

on the NOPR for future standards levels. 

(Id.) NAMA stated that, it is illogical to 

set future standards levels because the 

final test procedure for CRE is not yet 

known. (Id.) 

Finally, NAMA commented that it 

does not believe the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD or other documents for 

this rulemaking reflect the state of the 

CRE industry in 2022 or the projections 

for equipment manufactured after this 

rule becomes effective. (Id. at p. 19) 

NAMA requested that DOE conduct a 

complete revision of all energy 

efficiency changes, the base case, the 

standards cases, and the economic 

analysis after the test procedure final 

standard is issued and the Cooperative 

Research and Development Agreement 

(‘‘CRADA’’) 23 extension is complete. 

(Id.) NAMA stated its belief that 

accurate information will show that a 

new set of standards levels for the 

classes of CRE covered by NAMA is 

unwarranted. (Id.) NAMA commented 

that the payback period will grow 

significantly when the net present value 

is re-calculated using accurate numbers. 

(Id.) NAMA recommended allowing 

manufacturers to complete the change to 

hydrocarbon refrigerants, which NAMA 

asserted would have up to 10 times the 

environmental impact of any new DOE 

standards. (Id.) 

In response to NAMA’s comments, 

DOE is maintaining the current 

equipment class structure in this NOPR, 

except for the new equipment classes 

which are proposed and discussed in 

section IV.A.1.c of this document. In 

accordance with section 6(d)(3) of the 

Process Rule, DOE may make any 

necessary changes to the engineering 

analysis or the candidate standard levels 

based on consideration of the comments 

received. DOE notes that it considered 

CRE that are currently available on the 

market when developing the NOPR 

engineering analysis. DOE 

acknowledges and accounts for the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR in this 

NOPR analysis. As noted in section I of 

this document, the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR would prohibit manufacture or 

import of such CRE starting January 1, 

2025, and would ban sale, distribution, 

purchase, receipt, or export of such CRE 

starting January 1, 2026. 87 FR 76809. 

The December 2022 EPA NOPR 

compliance date would occur prior to 

the expected the compliance date of any 

DOE amended or established standards 

(i.e., on or after the date that is 3 years 

after the date on which the final new 

and amended standards are published). 

Thus, the transition to refrigerants in 

compliance with the December 2022 

EPA NOPR (including hydrocarbon 

refrigerants) would have already 

occurred prior to the expected the 

compliance date of any DOE amended 

or established standards. Additionally, 

DOE considered the December 2022 

EPA NOPR when developing the NOPR 

engineering analysis baseline as 

discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this 

document. In the no-new-standards 

case, DOE incorporated the cost of 

refrigerant transition as discussed in 

section IV.J.2.c of this document. DOE 

also revised the components considered 

in the engineering analysis baseline in 

this NOPR as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.a of this document and updated 

the costs as discussed in section IV.C.2. 

of this document. In response to market 

distortions, DOE used the latest 

shipments, market shares, and MPCs 

based on manufacturer feedback. 

Supply chain constraints are discussed 

in section V.B.2.c of this document. 

In response to the comments about 

the August 8, 2022, public meeting, 

DOE notes that it responded to all 

questions asked during the August 8, 

2022, public meeting.24 Similar to the 

process with the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE welcomes comments in 

response to this NOPR and participation 

in the public meeting, and DOE 

provides information on public 

participation in response to this NOPR 

in section VII. of this document. 

DOE notes that section 8(d)(1) of the 

Process Rule specifies that test 

procedure rulemakings establishing 

methodologies used to evaluate 

proposed energy conservation standards 

will be finalized prior to publication of 

a NOPR proposing new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Additionally, energy conservation 

standards for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines are 

separate from CRE, and evaluated 

through a separate rulemaking process, 

and are located at 10 CFR 431.296. 

AHT stated that there is a high risk of 

eliminating the entire equipment class if 

DOE were to further increase 

restrictions for horizontal closed 

transparent self-contained low 

temperature (‘‘HCT.SC.L’’), horizontal 

closed transparent self-contained 

medium temperature (‘‘HCT.SC.M’’), 

horizontal closed transparent selfcontained ice-cream freezer 

(‘‘HCT.SC.I’’), and vertical closed 

transparent self-contained low 

temperature (‘‘VCT.SC.L.’’) equipment 

classes and recommended that DOE 

maintain the current regulatory 

framework in design options and 

efficiency standards for these equipment 

classes. (AHT, No. 48 at p. 6) 

In response to AHT’s comments, DOE 

has revised the components considered 

in the engineering analysis baseline in 

this NOPR as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.a of this document and presented 

the results of this NOPR analysis in 

section V of this document. DOE also 

notes that it observed CRE models 

currently available and rated to the DOE 

Compliance Certification Database 

(‘‘CCD’’) that currently comply with the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

in this NOPR for the equipment classes 

listed in AHT’s comment. 

B. Scope of Coverage 

This NOPR covers those commercial 

refrigeration equipment that meet the 

definition of ‘‘commercial refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers,’’ as 

codified at 10 CFR 431.62. 

A ‘‘commercial refrigerator, freezer, 

and refrigerator-freezer’’ means 

refrigeration equipment that—(1) is not 

consumer equipment (as defined in 

§ 430.2); (2) is not designed and 

marketed exclusively for medical, 

scientific, or research purposes; (3) 

operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; (4) displays or 

stores merchandise and other perishable 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70208 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

25Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this 

document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 

that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9- 

year period. Note that the analysis does not 

consider benefits and costs resulting from the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

26The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

27The numeric threshold for determining the 

significance of energy savings established in a final 

rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 

8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule 

published on December 12, 2021 (86 FR 70892, 

70906). 

materials horizontally, semi-vertically, 

or vertically; (5) has transparent or solid 

doors, sliding or hinged doors, a 

combination of hinged, sliding, 

transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; 

(6) is designed for pull-down 

temperature applications or holding 

temperature applications; and (7) is 

connected to a self-contained 

condensing unit or to a remote 

condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62. 

However, this NOPR does not include 

some types of commercial refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that 

meet the definition at 10 CFR 431.62. 

These include blast chillers, blast 

freezers, buffet tables or preparation 

tables, and mobile refrigerated cabinets. 

See section IV.A.1 of this document 

for discussion of the equipment classes 

analyzed in this NOPR. 

C. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use these test procedures to certify 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with energy conservation standards and 

to quantify the efficiency of their 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d); 42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards for CRE are expressed in 

terms of maximum daily energy 

consumption as measured using 

appendix B. (See 10 CFR 431.66(e)) 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially-available equipment or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; 

sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the 

Process Rule. 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on equipment utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 

sections 6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of 

the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for CRE, particularly 

the designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the standards considered in 

this rulemaking. For further details on 

the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt a new 

or amended standard for a type or class 

of covered equipment, it must 

determine the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency or maximum 

reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible for such 

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

U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for CRE, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

equipment available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section 

IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule and in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from application of the TSL to 

CRE purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the year 2028 with the 

proposed standards (2028–2057).25 The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of CRE purchased in the 

previous 30-year period. DOE quantified 

the energy savings attributable to each 

TSL as the difference in energy 

consumption between each standards 

case and the no-new-standards case. 

The no-new-standards case represents a 

projection of energy consumption that 

reflects how the market for equipment 

would likely evolve in the absence of 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential amended and new standards 

for CRE. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section IV.H of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by equipment at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of primary energy 

savings, which is the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. DOE also 

calculates NES in terms of FFC energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.26 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for covered equipment, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.27 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these equipment on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than equipment with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the 

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70209 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. 

As stated, the standard levels 

proposed in this document are projected 

to result in national energy savings of 

3.11 quad FFC, the equivalent of the 

primary annual energy use of 33 million 

homes. Based on the amount of FFC 

savings, the corresponding reduction in 

emissions, and the need to confront the 

global climate crisis, DOE has initially 

determined the energy savings from the 

proposed standard levels are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

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

6295(o)(3)(B). 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) The following 

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this proposed rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential new or amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows, 

(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in 

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new 

and amended standards. These 

measures are discussed further in the 

following section. For consumers in the 

aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

consumer costs and benefits expected to 

result from particular standards. DOE 

also evaluates the impacts of potential 

standards on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a standard; for 

CRE, DOE evaluated the impacts on 

small businesses. 

DOE requests comment on the 

impacts to CRE manufacturers and 

consumers from the Inflation Reduction 

Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

equipment in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price 

of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

equipment that are likely to result from 

a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts 

this comparison in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of equipment (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as equipment prices, equipment 

energy consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, 

equipment lifetime, and discount rates 

appropriate for consumers. To account 

for uncertainty and variability in 

specific inputs, such as equipment 

lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 

distribution of values, with probabilities 

attached to each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of more-efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered equipment in the first full 

year of compliance with new and 

amended standards. The LCC savings 

for the considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new and amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed 

in section III.E of this document, DOE 

uses the NIA spreadsheet models to 

project national energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In establishing equipment classes and 

in evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards 

proposed in this document would not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

equipment under consideration in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) 

It also directs the Attorney General to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) 

DOE will transmit a copy of this 

proposed rule to the Attorney General 

with a request that the Department of 

Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) provide its 

determination on this issue. DOE will 

publish and respond to the Attorney 

General’s determination in the final 

rule. DOE invites comment from the 

public regarding the competitive 

impacts that are likely to result from 

this proposed rule. In addition, 

stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information to 

send comments to DOJ. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70210 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings 

from the proposed standards are likely 

to provide improvements to the security 

and reliability of the Nation’s energy 

system. Reductions in the demand for 

electricity also may result in reduced 

costs for maintaining the reliability of 

the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The proposed standards 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and GHGs 

associated with energy production and 

use. DOE conducts an emissions 

analysis to estimate how potential 

standards may affect these emissions, as 

discussed in section IV.K of this 

document; the estimated emissions 

impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of 

this document. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE 

identifies any relevant information 

regarding economic justification that 

does not fit into the other categories 

described previously, DOE could 

consider such information under ‘‘other 

factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

EPCA creates a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

equipment that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first year’s energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

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

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of 

this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section V.B.1.c of this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with regard to CRE. Separate 

subsections address each component of 

DOE’s analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

proposed in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential 

amended and new energy conservation 

standards. The national impacts 

analysis uses a second spreadsheet set 

that provides shipments projections and 

calculates national energy savings and 

net present value of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result 

from potential energy conservation 

standards. DOE uses the third 

spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

proposed rulemaking: 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0007. Additionally, DOE 

used output from the 2023 version of 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual Energy Outlook 

(‘‘AEO’’), a widely known energy 

projection for the United States, for the 

emissions and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the equipment, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the equipment. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

equipment classes, (2) manufacturers 

and industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends; and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of CRE. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Equipment Classes and Definitions 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may establish separate standards for a 

group of covered equipment (i.e., 

establish a separate equipment class) if 

DOE determines that separate standards 

are justified based on the type of energy 

used, or if DOE determines that a 

product’s capacity or other 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a 

determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility of the feature to the 

consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (Id.) 

a. Current Equipment Classes 

DOE currently separates CRE into 49 

equipment classes, which are 

categorized according to the following 

performance-related features: (1) 

operating temperature—refrigerator 

(≥32 °F), freezer (<32 °F), or ice-cream 

freezer (≤¥5 °F); (2) presence of doors— 

open or closed; (3) door type—solid or 

transparent; (4) condensing unit— 

remote or self-contained; (5) 

configuration—horizontal, vertical, 

semi-vertical, or service over counter; 

(6) temperature pull-down capability. 

Definitions supporting the equipment 

classes are as follows: 

Closed solid means equipment with 

doors, and in which more than 75 

percent of the outer surface area of all 

doors on a unit are not transparent. 

Closed transparent means equipment 

with doors, and in which 25 percent or 

more of the outer surface area of all 

doors on the unit are transparent. 

Commercial freezer means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment in 

which all refrigerated compartments in 

the unit are capable of operating below 

32 °F (±2 °F). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70211 

Commercial refrigerator means a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

in which all refrigerated compartments 

in the unit are capable of operating at or 

above 32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer means refrigeration 

equipment that—(1) Is not a consumer 

product (as defined in § 430.2); 

(2) Is not designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or 

research purposes; 

(3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; 

(4) Displays or stores merchandise 

and other perishable materials 

horizontally, semi-vertically, or 

vertically; 

(5) Has transparent or solid doors, 

sliding or hinged doors, a combination 

of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid 

doors, or no doors; 

(6) Is designed for pull-down 

temperature applications or holding 

temperature applications; and 

(7) Is connected to a self-contained 

condensing unit or to a remote 

condensing unit. 

Door means a movable panel that 

separates the interior volume of a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

from the ambient environment and is 

designed to facilitate access to the 

refrigerated space for the purpose of 

loading and unloading product. This 

includes hinged doors, sliding doors, 

and drawers. This does not include 

night curtains. 

Holding temperature application 

means a use of commercial refrigeration 

equipment other than a pull-down 

temperature application, except a blast 

chiller or freezer. 

Horizontal Closed means equipment 

with hinged or sliding doors and a door 

angle greater than or equal to 45°. 

Horizontal Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 80° from the 

vertical. 

Ice-cream freezer means: 

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 

for ice-cream freezers, a commercial 

freezer that is capable of an operating 

temperature at or below ¥5.0 °F and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends specifically for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or 

other frozen desserts; or 

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 

for ice-cream freezers, a commercial 

freezer that is capable of an operating 

temperature at or below ¥13.0 °F and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends specifically for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or 

other frozen desserts. 

Pull-down temperature application 

means a commercial refrigerator with 

doors that, when fully loaded with 12 

ounce beverage cans at 90 degrees F, can 

cool those beverages to an average stable 

temperature of 38 degrees F in 12 hours 

or less. 

Remote condensing unit means a 

factory-made assembly of refrigerating 

components designed to compress and 

liquefy a specific refrigerant that is 

remotely located from the refrigerated 

equipment and consists of 1 or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant 

condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory supplied accessories. 

Self-contained condensing unit means 

a factory-made assembly of refrigerating 

components designed to compress and 

liquefy a specific refrigerant that is an 

integral part of the refrigerated 

equipment and consists of 1 or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant 

condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory supplied accessories. 

Semivertical open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 10° and less 

than 80° from the vertical. 

Service over counter means 

equipment that has sliding or hinged 

doors in the back intended for use by 

sales personnel, with glass or other 

transparent material in the front for 

displaying merchandise, and that has a 

height not greater than 66 inches and is 

intended to serve as a counter for 

transactions between sales personnel 

and customers. 

Transparent means greater than or 

equal to 45-percent light transmittance, 

as determined in accordance with the 

ASTM Standard E 1084–86 (Reapproved 

2009), at normal incidence and in the 

intended direction of viewing. 

Vertical Closed means equipment 

with hinged or sliding doors and a door 

angle less than 45°. 

Vertical Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 0° and less than 

10° from the vertical. 

10 CFR 431.62. 

On March 28, 2014, DOE published in 

the Federal Register the March 2014 

Final Rule that established the current 

equipment classes and corresponding 

standards for CRE. 79 FR 17725. DOE 

currently sets forth energy conservation 

standards and relevant definitions for 

CRE equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.66 

and 10 CFR 431.62, respectively. Table 

IV.1 shows the current CRE equipment 

classes and standards. 

TABLE IV.1—CURRENT CRE EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

class 

designation 

Maximum daily 

energy consumption 

(kilowatt-hours 

per day) * 

Remote Condensing 

(RC).

Vertical Open (VOP) .................................................... ≥32 

<32 

VOP.RC.M ..........

VOP.RC.L ...........

0.64 × TDA + 4.07 

2.2 × TDA + 6.85 

≤¥5 VOP.RC.I ............ 2.79 × TDA + 8.7 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ............................................ ≥32 

<32 

SVO.RC.M ..........

SVO.RC.L ...........

0.66 × TDA + 3.18 

2.2 × TDA + 6.85 

≤¥5 SVO.RC.I ............ 2.79 × TDA + 8.7 

Horizontal Open (HZO) ............................................... ≥32 

<32 

HZO.RC.M ..........

HZO.RC.L ...........

0.35 × TDA + 2.88 

0.55 × TDA + 6.88 

≤¥5 HZO.RC.I ............ 0.7 × TDA + 8.74 

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) ............................. ≥32 

<32 

VCT.RC.M ...........

VCT.RC.L ............

0.15 × TDA + 1.95 

0.49 × TDA + 2.61 

≤¥5 VCT.RC.I ............. 0.58 × TDA + 3.05 

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) ......................... ≥32 

<32 

HCT.RC.M ...........

HCT.RC.L ............

0.16 × TDA + 0.13 

0.34 × TDA + 0.26 

≤¥5 HCT.RC.I ............. 0.4 × TDA + 0.31 

Vertical Closed Solid (‘‘VCS’’) ..................................... ≥32 

<32 

VCS.RC.M ...........

VCS.RC.L ............

0.1 × V + 0.26 

0.21 × V + 0.54 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70212 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

28See https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/ 

Document/I7AE76FC19E3011

EDA9D5EB8195EB4110?

viewType=FullText&originationContext=

documenttoc&transitionType=

CategoryPageItem&contextData=

(sc.Default)&bhcp=1. 

TABLE IV.1—CURRENT CRE EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued 

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

class 

designation 

Maximum daily 

energy consumption 

(kilowatt-hours 

per day) * 

≤¥5 VCS.RC.I ............. 0.25 × V + 0.63 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) .................................... ≥32 

<32 

HCS.RC.M ..........

HCS.RC.L ...........

0.1 × V + 0.26 

0.21 × V + 0.54 

≤¥5 HCS.RC.I ............ 0.25 × V + 0.63 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ...................................... ≥32 

<32 

SOC.RC.M ..........

SOC.RC.L ...........

0.44 × TDA + 0.11 

0.93 × TDA + 0.22 

≤¥5 SOC.RC.I ............ 1.09 × TDA + 0.26 

Self-Contained (SC) ..... Vertical Open (VOP) .................................................... ≥32 

<32 

VOP.SC.M ...........

VOP.SC.L ............

1.69 × TDA + 4.71 

4.25 × TDA + 11.82 

≤¥5 VOP.SC.I ............. 5.4 × TDA + 15.02 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ............................................ ≥32 

<32 

SVO.SC.M ...........

SVO.SC.L ............

1.7 × TDA + 4.59 

4.26 × TDA + 11.51 

≤¥5 SVO.SC.I ............. 5.41 × TDA + 14.63 

Horizontal Open (HZO) ............................................... ≥32 

<32 

HZO.SC.M ...........

HZO.SC.L ............

0.72 × TDA + 5.55 

1.9 × TDA + 7.08 

≤¥5 HZO.SC.I ............. 2.42 × TDA + 9 

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) ............................. ≥32 

<32 

VCT.SC.M ...........

VCT.SC.L ............

0.1 × V + 0.86 

0.29 × V + 2.95 

≤¥5 VCT.SC.I ............. 0.62 × TDA + 3.29 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ........................................ ≥32 

<32 

VCS.SC.M ...........

VCS.SC.L ............

0.05 × V + 1.36 

0.22 × V + 1.38 

≤¥5 VCS.SC.I ............. 0.34 × V + 0.88 

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) ......................... ≥32 

<32 

HCT.SC.M ...........

HCT.SC.L ............

0.06 × V + 0.37 

0.08 × V + 1.23 

≤¥5 HCT.SC.I ............. 0.56 × TDA + 0.43 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) .................................... ≥32 

<32 

HCS.SC.M ...........

HCS.SC.L ............

0.05 × V + 0.91 

0.06 × V + 1.12 

≤¥5 HCS.SC.I ............. 0.34 × V + 0.88 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ...................................... ≥32 

<32 

SOC.SC.M ..........

SOC.SC.L ...........

0.52 × TDA + 1 

1.1 × TDA + 2.1 

≤¥5 SOC.SC.I ............ 1.53 × TDA + 0.36 

Pull-Down (PD) ............................................................ ≥32 PD.SC.M ............. 0.11 × V + 0.81 

* The term ‘‘V’’ means the chilled or frozen compartment volume (ft3) as defined in the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(‘‘AHAM’’) Standard HRF 1–2008. The term ‘‘TDA’’ means the total display area (ft2) of the case, as defined in Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) Standard 1200–2006. 

b. New Definitions 

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, 

DOE sought comment on whether 

updates to the existing equipment class 

structure are appropriate. In response, 

ITW commented that DOE failed to 

recognize that manufacturers might use 

other options to produce cabinets with 

increased heat loads due to their 

physical features (other than those 

required by a simple reach-in 

refrigerator), citing the following 

applications as examples: (1) passthrough refrigerators—cabinets with 

doors on both sides, providing access to 

stored items from either side; (2) roll-in 

refrigerators—cabinets with ramps and 

door sweeps that allow for loading of 

bakery carts; and (3) roll-through 

refrigerators—cabinets with ramps and 

door sweeps on both sides that allow for 

bakery carts to move in and out from 

one side to the other. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 

33) 

NAFEM stated that it and other 

commenters recommended separating 

forced-air and cold-wall refrigeration 

systems into different categories in 

response to the July 2021 RFI, yet it 

appeared that DOE deferred making a 

decision until a future proposed rule. 

(NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 3) 

Continental commented that DOE 

should provide separate equipment 

classes and standard levels to segregate 

forced-air from cold-wall models, as 

well as roll-in from reach-in models, 

and pass-through from non-passthrough models, because these 

equipment types have differentiating 

characteristics that impact energy 

consumption, and separate energy 

standard levels are needed to avoid 

weighting standards in an unfair 

manner. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) 

In response to commenter’s 

suggestions and after a review of similar 

terms defined by the California Code of 

Regulations,28 DOE is proposing to 

define the terms ‘‘cold-wall evaporator,’’ 

‘‘forced-air evaporator,’’ ‘‘pass-through 

doors,’’ ‘‘roll-in door,’’ ‘‘roll-through 

doors,’’ and ‘‘sliding door’’ as follows: 

Cold-wall evaporator means an 

evaporator that comprises a portion or 

all of the commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet’s 

interior surface that transfers heat 

through means other than fan-forced 

convection. 

Forced-air evaporator means an 

evaporator that employs the use of fanforced convection to transfer heat 

within the commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70213 

Pass-through doors means doors 

located on both the front and rear of the 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator freezer. 

Roll-in door means a door that 

includes a door sweep to seal the 

bottom of the door and may include a 

ramp that allows wheeled racks of 

product to be rolled into the commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator 

freezer. 

Roll-through doors means doors 

located on both the front and rear of the 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator freezer, that includes a door 

sweep to seal the bottom of the door and 

may include a ramp that allows wheeled 

racks of product to be rolled into and 

through the commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator freezer. 

Sliding door means a door that opens 

when a portion of the door moves in a 

direction generally parallel to its 

surface. 

In addition to proposing to define the 

terms ‘‘cold-wall evaporator,’’ ‘‘forcedair evaporator,’’ ‘‘pass-through doors,’’ 

‘‘roll-in door,’’ ‘‘roll-through doors,’’ 

and ‘‘sliding door,’’ DOE is proposing to 

allow certain equipment classes that 

contain CRE with forced-air evaporators, 

CRE with pass-through doors, CRE with 

roll-in doors, CRE with roll-through 

doors, and CRE with sliding doors to 

use a higher amount of energy use than 

the proposed standards, if the standard 

has been proposed to be amended for an 

equipment class, while also complying 

with EPCA’s ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision. This proposal recognizes the 

unique utility and different energy use 

characteristics of certain types of CRE. 

DOE discusses these unique utility and 

different energy use characteristics in 

further detail in section IV.C.1.a. 

DOE has also reviewed the current 

definitions for CRE at 10 CFR 431.62 

and is proposing to revise the definition 

for ‘‘rating temperature’’ to update the 

reference to the required integrated 

average temperature (‘‘IAT’’) or lowest 

application product temperature 

(‘‘LAPT’’), as applicable, as follows: 

Rating temperature means the 

integrated average temperature a unit 

must maintain during testing, as 

determined in accordance with section 

2.1. or section 2.2. of appendix B to 

subpart C of part 431, as applicable. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘cold-wall 

evaporator,’’ ‘‘forced-air evaporator,’’ 

‘‘pass-through doors,’’ ‘‘roll-in door,’’ 

‘‘roll-through doors,’’ ‘‘sliding door,’’ 

and ‘‘rating temperature.’’ 

c. Equipment Class Modifications 

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, 

DOE had initially determined that 

additional equipment classes may be 

appropriate to address certain CRE 

available on the market. Specifically, 

DOE initially determined to split several 

commercial refrigerator equipment 

classes and establish separate classes for 

high-temperature refrigerators. Also, 

DOE initially determined to establish 

standards for chef bases or griddle 

stands with operating temperatures of 

≥32 °F or <32 °F (10 CFR 431.66(f) 

currently excludes chef bases or griddle 

stands from energy conservation 

standards). See chapter 3 of the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD for additional 

details. 

In the September 2023 Test Procedure 

Final Rule, DOE established and 

amended definitions and test 

procedures for high-temperature 

refrigerators, medium-temperature 

refrigerators, and chef bases or griddle 

stands. 88 FR 66152, 66154–66155. 

Specifically, DOE established 

definitions for ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerators’’ and ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigerators,’’ amended the definition 

for ‘‘chef bases or griddle stands,’’ and 

incorporated by reference AHRI 

Standard 1200–2023 (I–P), which 

provides a IAT of 55 °F ±2.0 °F for which 

high-temperature refrigerators may be 

tested. Id. DOE also established a 

definition for ‘‘low-temperature 

freezers’’ and amended the definition 

for ‘‘ice-cream freezers.’’ Id. The newly 

established and amended definitions in 

the test procedure final rule are as 

follows. 

Chef base or griddle stand means 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

has a maximum height of 32 inches, 

including any legs or casters, and that 

is designed and marketed for the 

express purpose of having a griddle or 

other cooking appliance placed on top 

of it that is capable of reaching 

temperatures hot enough to cook food. 

High-temperature refrigerator means a 

commercial refrigerator that is not 

capable of an operating temperature at 

or below 40.0 °F. 

Medium-temperature refrigerator 

means a commercial refrigerator that is 

capable of an operating temperature at 

or below 40.0 °F. 

Ice-cream freezer means: 

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 

for ice-cream freezers, a commercial 

freezer that is capable of an operating 

temperature at or below ¥5.0 °F and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends specifically for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or 

other frozen desserts; or 

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 

for ice-cream freezers, a commercial 

freezer that is capable of an operating 

temperature at or below ¥13.0 °F and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends specifically for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or 

other frozen desserts. 

Low-temperature freezer means a 

commercial freezer that is not an icecream freezer. 

88 FR 66152, 66223–66224. 

Based on CRE models certified to 

DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Management System (‘‘CCMS’’) under 

the LAPT designation for commercial 

refrigerators, DOE has tentatively 

determined that high-temperature 

refrigerators can be categorized under 

the self-contained and remote 

condensing unit configurations and 

under the vertical closed transparent 

(‘‘VCT’’), vertical closed solid (‘‘VCS’’), 

service over counter (‘‘SOC’’), vertical 

open (‘‘VOP’’), semi-vertical open 

(‘‘SVO’’), and horizontal open (‘‘HZO’’) 

equipment families. For these 

equipment families with hightemperature equipment, DOE proposes 

to sub-categorize them as hightemperature refrigerators (operating 

temperature greater than 40.0 °F) and 

medium-temperature refrigerators 

(operating temperature greater than or 

equal to 32.0 °F and less than or equal 

to 40.0 °F). DOE proposes to maintain 

the categorization of commercial 

refrigerator (operating temperature 

greater than or equal to 32.0 °F) for the 

remaining equipment families (i.e., any 

horizontal closed transparent (‘‘HCT’’), 

horizontal closed solid (‘‘HCS’’), chef 

bases (‘‘CB’’), or pull-down (‘‘PD’’) 

equipment that operates above 40 °F, if 

commercialized, would be considered a 

‘‘commercial refrigerator’’ and required 

to comply with the ‘‘mediumtemperature refrigerator’’ standard when 

tested at the LAPT). For this NOPR, 

DOE has directly analyzed high 

temperature refrigerators in the selfcontained condensing unit 

configuration for the VCT and VCS 

equipment families. 

DOE has also tentatively determined 

that chef bases or griddle stands can be 

categorized under the self-contained 

condensing unit configuration and the 

≥32 °F or <32 °F operating temperatures 

(i.e., commercial refrigerator or lowtemperature freezer, respectively). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70214 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Accordingly, DOE is considering 

potential equipment classes for hightemperature refrigerators and chef bases or griddle stands and is proposing 

potential equipment class structure 

modifications as presented in table IV.2. 

TABLE IV.2—PROPOSED EQUIPMENT CLASSES AND EQUIPMENT CLASS MODIFICATIONS

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family Rating temperature ** 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment class 

designation 

Self-Contained (SC) ......... Vertical Open (VOP) ..................................... HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

VOP.SC.H * 

VOP.SC.M 

VOP.SC.L 

VOP.SC.I 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ............................. HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

SVO.SC.H * 

SVO.SC.M 

SVO.SC.L 

SVO.SC.I 

Horizontal Open (HZO) ................................. HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

HZO.SC.H * 

HZO.SC.M 

HZO.SC.L 

HZO.SC.I 

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) .............. HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

VCT.SC.H * 

VCT.SC.M 

VCT.SC.L 

VCT.SC.I 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ......................... HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

VCS.SC.H * 

VCS.SC.M 

VCS.SC.L 

VCS.SC.I 

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) .......... CR (38 °F) .................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x ≥32 .........................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

HCT.SC.M 

HCT.SC.L 

HCT.SC.I 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) ..................... CR (38 °F) .................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x ≥32 .........................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

HCS.SC.M 

HCS.SC.L 

HCS.SC.I 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ........................ HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

SOC.SC.H * 

SOC.SC.M 

SOC.SC.L 

SOC.SC.I 

Pull-Down (PD) ............................................. CR (38 °F) ................. x ≥32 ......................... PD.SC.M 

Chef Base (CB) ............................................ CR (38 °F) .................

LF (0 °F) ....................

x ≥32 .........................

x <32 .........................

CB.SC.M * 

CB.SC.L* 

Remote Condensing (RC) Vertical Open (VOP) ..................................... HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

VOP.RC.H * 

VOP.RC.M 

VOP.RC.L 

VOP.RC.I 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ............................. HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

SVO.RC.H * 

SVO.RC.M 

SVO.RC.L 

SVO.RC.I 

Horizontal Open (HZO) ................................. HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

HZO.RC.H * 

HZO.RC.M 

HZO.RC.L 

HZO.RC.I 

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) .............. HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

VCT.RC.H * 

VCT.RC.M 

VCT.RC.L 

VCT.RC.I 

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) .......... CR (38 °F) .................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x ≥32 .........................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

HCT.RC.M 

HCT.RC.L 

HCT.RC.I 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ......................... HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

VCS.RC.H * 

VCS.RC.M 

VCS.RC.L 

VCS.RC.I 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) ..................... CR (38 °F) .................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x ≥32 .........................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

HCS.RC.M 

HCS.RC.L 

HCS.RC.I 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ........................ HR (55 °F) .................

MR (38 °F) ................

LF (0 °F) ....................

IF (¥15 °F) ...............

x >40 .........................

40 ≥ x ≥32 .................

x <32 .........................

x ≤¥13 ......................

SOC.RC.H * 

SOC.RC.M 

SOC.RC.L 

SOC.RC.I 

Chef Base (CB) ............................................ CR (38 °F) .................

LF (0 °F) ....................

x ≥32 .........................

x <32 .........................

CB.RC.M * 

CB.RC.L * 

* Proposed new equipment class. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70215 

** HR—High-Temperature Refrigerator. 

LF—Low Temperature Freezer. 

MR—Medium-Temperature Refrigerator. 

IF—Ice-Cream Freezer. 

CR—Commercial Refrigerator. 

DOE received several comments in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis regarding the amendments to 

the equipment classes for CRE. 

Equipment Classes With Newly 

Proposed Standards 

NEEA supported DOE’s proposed 

definitions in the June 2022 CRE Test 

Procedure NOPR for blast chillers and 

blast freezers, buffet tables and 

preparation tables, and hightemperature CRE, noting that these 

definitions allowed consideration of 

potential standards, categorization of 

equipment classes, and testing of the 

equipment separate from other CRE. 

(NEEA, No. 47 at p. 2) 

The Joint Commenters supported 

DOE’s consideration of potential 

standards for additional equipment 

categories. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at 

p. 1) The Joint Commenters stated that 

DOE found cost-effective potential 

energy savings for chef bases/griddle 

stands and high-temperature 

refrigerators in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD and commented that 

they support DOE setting standards for 

these equipment classes. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commended DOE for 

proposing to expand the scope of the 

energy conservation standards for CRE 

to include chef bases or griddle stands 

and high-temperature refrigeration. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1) The CA IOUs 

stated that these added product classes 

constitute a significant inventory of 

equipment with a substantial 

cumulative energy load that were 

previously outside the scope of DOE’s 

regulation. (Id. at pp. 1–2) 

AHRI commented that it has no 

objection to the added equipment 

classes detailed in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 2) 

However, Continental recommended 

that DOE delay inclusion of any new 

categories until applicable industry 

standard test procedures are published 

and have been thoroughly evaluated. 

(Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) 

DOE has proposed standards for new 

equipment classes (e.g., chef bases, and 

high-temperature refrigerators) in this 

NOPR, as supported by commenters. 

And as described in the September 2023 

Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE has 

incorporated by reference the latest 

versions of ASHRAE 72 and AHRI 1200, 

which were evaluated by each 

respective committee and subject to 

public reviews, in the CRE test 

procedure. 88 FR 66152. In addition, 

based on the September 2023 Test 

Procedure Final Rule, chef bases or 

griddle stands must be tested at a drybulb temperature of 86.0 °F and wetbulb temperature of 73.7 °F. 88 FR 

66152, 66203. Therefore, DOE has 

considered higher ambient temperature 

conditions in the analysis of chef bases 

or griddle stands compared to other 

CRE, which are tested at a dry-bulb 

temperature of 75.2 °F and wet-bulb 

temperature of 64.4 °F. See chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional 

information. 

Equipment Classes Without Proposed 

Standards 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

analyze the new equipment classes and 

consider adopting efficiency standards 

that would better reflect the specific 

energy consumption of equipment 

subclasses, resulting in more significant 

energy savings. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 4) 

NEEA commented that DOE had 

analyzed two of the four new product 

classes and, as was shown in the CRE 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD analysis, 

energy conservation standards were 

viable for high-temperature CRE and 

chef bases and griddle stands. (Id.) 

NEEA commented that for vertical 

closed transparent self-contained high 

temperature (‘‘VCT.SC.H’’), vertical 

closed solid self-contained high 

temperature (‘‘VCS.SC.H’’), and chef 

bases self-contained low temperature 

(‘‘CB.SC.L’’), the average life-cost 

savings ranged from $300–$500 at EL 3, 

presenting justification of the energy 

and cost savings for these equipment 

classes. (Id.) NEEA added that DOE 

should conduct similar analyses on 

blast chillers and buffet tables, citing 

DOE’s test procedures for these classes 

as key to allowing data collection. (Id. 

at p. 4) NEEA commented that DOE’s 

analysis of high-temperature 

refrigerators and chef bases indicated 

that additional significant savings 

would likely be available from these 

products. (Id.) 

Similarly, the Joint Commenters 

commented that DOE stated DOE lacked 

sufficient information to fully analyze 

buffet/preparation tables and blast 

chillers/freezers in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD, but the Joint 

Commenters noted that the California 

Energy Commission (‘‘CEC’’) 

Modernized Appliance Efficiency 

Database System (‘‘MAEDbS’’) includes 

over 100 buffet/preparation tables with 

a broad range of energy usage. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 39 at p. 1) The Joint 

Commenters requested that DOE further 

investigate the energy usage and savings 

potential for these products. (Id.) 

However, Continental agreed with 

DOE that a preliminary analysis of 

energy consumption for buffet tables 

and preparation tables is not 

appropriate until a standard test 

procedure is established for these 

equipment types. (Continental. No. 38 at 

p. 2). 

Consistent with comments from 

NEEA and based on the new rating 

temperature in the September 2023 Test 

Procedure Final Rule for hightemperature refrigerators, DOE is 

proposing to amend the energy 

conservation standards for hightemperature refrigerators and to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for chef bases or griddle stands in this 

NOPR. See table IV.2. 

With respect to the comments from 

NEEA and the Joint Commenters 

regarding blast chillers and blast 

freezers, DOE notes that it lacks 

sufficient data and information 

regarding blast chillers and blast freezer 

performance, and related design 

options, for units tested via the DOE test 

procedure. As stated in the September 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, blast 

chillers and blast freezers are designed 

for ‘‘rapid temperature pull-down’’ 

capable of reducing the internal 

temperature from 135 °F to 40 °F within 

a period of 4 hours. 88 FR 66152, 66189. 

Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is not 

currently able to model expected 

performance of this equipment because 

the established test procedure is 

significantly different from the test 

procedure applicable to other CRE 

categories, which are intended for 

‘‘holding temperature application’’. Due 

to a lack of data and information 

regarding performance of blast chillers 

and blast freezers, DOE has not 

conducted an analysis of potential 

energy conservation standards for these 

equipment categories. 

DOE requests comment on blast 

chiller or freezer design options, design 

specifications, and energy consumption 

data tested per the DOE test procedure 

located in appendix D of 10 CFR 431.64. 

With respect to the comments from 

NEEA and the Joint Commenters 

regarding buffet tables and preparation 

tables, while DOE acknowledges that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70216 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

29See table A–1 in 20 CCR section 1604.a.2 

located at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/ 

Document/ID5812C41DABD11ED852

BC9A091C0DD8F?

viewType=FullText&originationContext=

documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&

contextData=(sc.Default). 

30CA IOUs provided the footnote reference 83 FR 

46148 for the granted waiver. 

31 DOE defines customer order storage cabinet at 

§ 431.62 to mean a commercial refrigerator, freezer, 

or refrigerator-freezer that stores customer orders 

and includes individual, secured compartments 

with doors that are accessible to customers for order 

retrieval. 

32See www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017- 

BT-TP-0008-0004. 

CEC’s MAEDbS database contains data 

for buffet/preparation tables, DOE notes 

that title 20 of the California Code of 

Regulations requires refrigerated buffet/ 

preparation tables to follow the ANSI/ 

ASTM F2143–01 test method.29 This 

test method has been revised several 

times, with ASTM F2143–16 being the 

most recent version. In the September 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE 

stated that ASTM F2143–16 cannot be 

referenced as a standalone test method 

but determined the approach based on 

ASTM F2143–16 with additional 

requirements is representative for 

buffet/preparation tables. 88 FR 66152, 

66175. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is 

not able to model expected performance 

of this equipment at this time because 

the established test procedure is 

significantly different from the test 

procedure applicable to other CRE 

categories, and from the test procedure 

used to measure energy consumption for 

the CEC’s MAEDbS. Due to a lack of 

data and information regarding 

performance and related design options 

of refrigerated buffet/preparation tables, 

DOE has not conducted an analysis of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for these equipment categories. 

DOE requests comment on 

refrigerated buffet/preparation table 

design options, design specifications, 

and energy consumption data tested per 

the DOE test procedure located in 

appendix C of 10 CFR 431.64. 

Customer Order Storage Cabinets 

The CA IOUs supported creating a 

separate equipment class for customerorder refrigerated storage lockers. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 10) The CA IOUs 

commented that they expect the 

refrigerated storage locker market to 

increase as grocery delivery and pick up 

continues to be a growing segment of 

grocery sales. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated 

that they support aggregating the 

maximum daily energy consumption 

values for all compartments in a 

refrigerated storage locker according to 

10 CFR 431.66(e)(2). (Id.) The CA IOUs 

also pointed out that ‘‘temperature 

controlled pick up lockers’’ can be 

refrigerated lockers; however, some of 

these models can be either refrigerated 

or heated or neither. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

analyze the individual refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator/freezer 

compartments in customer-order 

refrigerated storage lockers as a separate 

equipment family as noted in the CA 

IOUs comments on DOE’s July 2021 

CRE Test Procedure RFI. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs highlighted the Traulsen waiver 30

to show that these compartments will 

have distinct door-opening conditions 

compared to the CRE equipment 

families. (Id.) 

In response to the CA IOUs 

comments, DOE has not conducted an 

analysis specifically for customer order 

storage cabinets in this NOPR.31 DOE 

has analyzed a representative volume 

for the VCS equipment families of 

which customer order storage cabinets 

are typically included. In the September 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE 

provides a discussion of customer order 

storage cabinets and determination to 

adopt a test procedure based on existing 

test procedure waivers. 88 FR 66152, 

66211–66213. 

Comments on Specific Equipment 

Classes 

The Joint Commenters recommended 

that DOE analyze additional equipment 

classes and stated that DOE did not 

directly analyze the vertical closed solid 

remote condensing medium temperature 

(‘‘VCS.RC.M’’), vertical closed solid 

remote condensing low temperature 

(‘‘VCS.RC.L’’), horizontal closed 

transparent remote condensing medium 

temperature (‘‘HCT.RC.M’’), or 

horizontal closed transparent remote 

condensing low temperature 

(‘‘HCT.RC.L’’) equipment classes in the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint 

Commenters commented that the 

number of models for each of these 

classes in the CCD suggests their market 

share could be larger than the estimated 

volume of shipments for these classes in 

the analysis for the March 2014 Final 

Rule. (Id.) The Joint Commenters stated 

that there are nearly 500 VCS.RC.M 

models certified in the CCD, and there 

are more HCT.RC.M models in the CCD 

than horizontal closed transparent selfcontained medium temperature 

(‘‘HCT.SC.M’’), an equipment class that 

was analyzed by DOE in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters commented that, based on 

these data, the market share of these 

equipment classes may be larger than 

estimated, and the Joint Commenters 

encouraged DOE to analyze these 

additional equipment classes. (Id.) 

AHRI asked that DOE clarify whether 

DOE removed the vertical self-contained 

class from the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 2) And Zero 

Zone commented that it did not see any 

evaluation of solid-door remote 

commercial refrigerators and inquired 

whether DOE is dropping that 

equipment class or has no plans to 

change the energy requirements. (Zero 

Zone, No. 44 at p. 5) 

With respect to the comments from 

the Joint Commenters, AHRI, and Zero 

Zone, DOE notes that the equipment 

classes mentioned by the Joint 

Commenters were not directly analyzed 

as primary equipment classes in the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, but are 

analyzed as secondary equipment 

classes in this NOPR using DOE’s 

primary to secondary equipment class 

multipliers. See chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for additional details on secondary 

equipment classes. Additionally, DOE 

notes that in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE analyzed vertical closed 

solid, self contained equipment, as well 

as other vertical self-contained 

equipment (e.g., vertical open selfcontained medium temperature 

(‘‘VOP.SC.M’’) and vertical closed 

transparent self-contained medium 

temperature (‘‘VCT.SC.M’’)). See table 

5.8.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD 

for a full list of primary equipment 

classes DOE analyzed in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis. 

AHRI commented that breaking 

equipment classes into smaller (under 

30 cubic feet) and larger units (over 30 

cubic feet) could be beneficial. (AHRI, 

No. 46 at p. 7) Additionally, NAMA 

commented that DOE appeared to have 

overlooked or not fully recognized the 

existence of smaller refrigerated singleand double-door beverage (and food) 

coolers. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 5) NAMA 

stated that energy efficiency analyses of 

larger (e.g., 60 cubic feet) units may not 

be applicable to smaller (e.g., 24 cubic 

feet) units. (Id.) NAMA recommended 

that, for purposes of DOE analysis, units 

under 30 cubic feet should be 

considered differently from those over 

30 cubic feet in refrigerated volume. 

(Id.) 

In response to the June 2021 Test 

Procedure RFI, True Manufacturing 

Company, Inc. (‘‘True’’) commented that 

there are examples where the ice-cream 

freezer maximum allowable energy 

consumption is less than for an 

equivalent commercial freezer.32

(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70217 

33See 119 STAT. 639 at https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW109publ58.pdf. 

True, No. 4 at p. 3) True provided three 

examples of common VCT.SC.L CREs 

found in the marketplace where the 

maximum DOE energy allowance for the 

ice-cream freezer is less than that of the 

equivalent commercial freezer. (Id.) 

True also commented that when 

comparing the VCS.SC.I and VCS.SC.L 

formulas, for cabinets with a volume of 

4 cubic feet or less, the energy use 

allowance for the ice-cream freezer is 

less than for the equivalent commercial 

freezer. (Id.) 

Additionally, in response to the July 

2021 RFI, Glastender, Inc. 

(‘‘Glastender’’) provided a chart and 

commented that the energy allowance 

for VCT.SC.M CRE is less than the 

energy allowance for VCS.SC.M CRE 

when the refrigerated volume is less 

than 10 cubic feet. (Glastender, No. 4 at 

p. 1). Glastender commented that it 

believed the requirement curves were 

generated from primarily larger volume 

models and smaller volume refrigerators 

need to be considered when generating 

new curves. (Id.) 

In response to comments from AHRI 

and NAMA, DOE is maintaining the 

current equipment class structure in this 

NOPR, except for the new equipment 

classes which are proposed and 

discussed in section IV.A.1.c of this 

document. DOE considers all volumes 

and TDAs when developing the 

proposed standards in this NOPR in 

addition to the representative volume or 

TDA for each directly analyzed 

equipment class. Based on market 

research and feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE expects 

the use of sliding and pass-through 

doors represent equipment utilities that 

have unique energy use characteristics 

that differentiate CRE in the VCT.SC.M 

equipment class and that beverage 

coolers are a common type of equipment 

in the VCT.SC.M equipment class that 

use sliding and pass-through doors. 

Therefore, based on market research and 

feedback received during manufacturer 

interviews, DOE has proposed separate 

energy use equations based on an energy 

consumption multiplier for CRE with 

sliding and pass-through doors. 

In response to comments from AHRI, 

NAMA, True, and Glastender, DOE 

considered all volumes and TDAs when 

developing the proposed standards in 

this NOPR in addition to the 

representative volume or TDA for each 

directly analyzed equipment class. 

When developing the proposed 

standards in this NOPR, DOE generally 

applied the energy use reduction 

percentage selected in section V.C of 

this document to the baseline energy 

use equation’s slope and intercept. 

However, in three directly analyzed 

equipment classes, VCT.SC.M, 

VCS.SC.I, and HCT.SC.I, DOE has 

tentatively determined that, based on 

the efficiency distribution of the market 

across the equipment classes, additional 

consideration is necessary. For these 

three classes, DOE maintained the 

current standard equation intercept and 

calculated a slope based on the current 

intercept and the proposed energy use 

level at the representative volume or 

TDA. This approach addresses the 

standard line crossover that True and 

Glastender mentioned in their 

comments and better represents the 

energy use characteristics of CRE at 

volumes and TDAs that are smaller than 

the representative volume or TDA for 

these three classes. Additionally, DOE 

reviewed the proposed standard for 

VCT.SC.I and VCT.SC.L and observed 

that the standard lines do not have the 

crossover that True mentioned in its 

comment. 

See section IV.C.1 of this document 

and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details. 

The Joint Commenters recommended 

that DOE eliminate the equipment class 

for pull-down CREs. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters 

stated that while there are currently no 

pull-down models certified in DOE’s 

CCD, the Joint Commenters are 

concerned that models could be 

certified as pull-down CRE in the future 

in order to be subject to a less-stringent 

standard. (Id.) 

In response to the Joint Commenters, 

DOE notes that the ‘‘pull-down 

temperature application’’ is defined in 

42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(d) and the equipment 

class was established by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–58).33 In 

the September 2023 Test Procedure 

Final Rule, DOE established verification 

provisions for pull-down temperature 

applications based on the EPCA 

definition, which are intended to ensure 

CRE are certified correctly as pull-down 

temperature applications. 88 FR 66152, 

66187–66189. Therefore, DOE is not 

proposing to eliminate the equipment 

class for pull-down CREs in this NOPR. 

Equipment Rating 

The CA IOUs recommended changing 

the key metric for service over the 

counter (‘‘SOC’’) refrigeration from total 

display area (‘‘TDA’’) to either 

refrigerated volume or refrigerated floor 

area. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 9–10). The 

CA IOUs commented that the current 

energy conservation standard for SOC is 

based on TDA, which incentivizes the 

use of more glass to increase the TDA 

and the corresponding maximum daily 

energy consumption. (Id. at p. 9) The 

CA IOUs stated that basing the energy 

conservation standard for SOC 

equipment on refrigerated volume 

would ensure that any increases in an 

SOC unit’s maximum allowable energy 

consumption is directly linked to an 

increase in the equipment’s useful 

holding capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs 

commented that this change would 

ensure that manufacturers wanting to 

increase TDA would be incentivized to 

use glass with better thermal insulation 

properties. (Id.) The CA IOUs 

commented also that switching to a 

refrigerated volume metric would also 

be more consistent with other closed 

refrigeration categories with display 

functionality, such as refrigerators with 

glass doors. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated 

that the burden of shifting to 

refrigerated volume as a metric could be 

minimized by allowing either physical 

measurement or measurement based on 

a diagram or computer-aided design 

(‘‘CAD’’) drawing. (Id. at p. 10) The CA 

IOUs added that an alternative metric 

for deli cases without shelving could 

also be refrigerated floor area, which 

would be the available surface area for 

product, although the CA IOUs noted 

that most SOC refrigerators are sold 

with shelving that can be added or 

removed depending on food product 

being displayed. (Id.) 

However, in response to the July 2021 

RFI, other commenters indicated that 

TDA is the appropriate metric for the 

respective equipment classes, and the 

industry has adapted to the use of TDA 

or volume and that no change is 

necessary (see chapter 2 of the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD for additional 

information). Therefore, in this NOPR, 

DOE has not evaluated revising the 

capacity metrics for any equipment 

classes. 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

support the proposal to rate equipment 

capable of operating at temperatures of 

multiple equipment classes at all 

relevant temperature conditions. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8–9) 

Consistent with the CA IOUs 

comment, in the September 2023 Test 

Procedure Final Rule, DOE specified in 

10 CFR 429.42 that basic models of CRE 

that operate in multiple equipment 

classes must be certified and comply 

with the energy conservation standards 

for each applicable equipment class. 88 

FR 66152, 66162. 

2. CRE Market 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE received 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70218 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

34 DOE reviewed the ‘‘2022 Annual Dues Donors’’ 

accessible at namanow.org/foundation/supporters/ 

to identify members of NAMA (last accessed March 

31, 2023). 

35Technical Support Document: Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment: Table 5.5.1 Design 

Options by Equipment. Class. PreTSD CRE 2022. 

June 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013. 

several comments regarding the CRE 

market. 

NAMA commented that it was not 

listed in the proposed regulation or list 

of manufacturers. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 

4) NAMA added that the names of CRE 

manufacturers represented by NAMA, 

which were filed in the DOE’s CCMS, 

were not mentioned. (Id.) 

In response to this comment from 

NAMA, for this NOPR, DOE updated its 

assessment of manufacturer trade 

groups to include NAMA and reviewed 

the list of CRE manufacturers based on 

the list of supporters on NAMA’s 

website.34 See chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD for additional information 

regarding CRE original equipment 

manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) and 

manufacturer trade groups. 

Continental commented that relying 

on manufacturer model counts in the 

CCD is not an accurate way of 

approximating company market share 

and stated that model counts in DOE’s 

CCD reflect the variety of models 

offered, but do not represent the sales or 

market share of a company. 

(Continental, No. 38, p. 2) 

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, 

DOE used manufacturer model counts to 

identify key CRE OEMs operating in the 

United States. DOE presented an 

abridged list of OEMs with more than 1- 

percent share of basic model listings in 

chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD. DOE understands that model 

counts do not reflect company market 

shares. For this NOPR, DOE conducted 

confidential manufacturer interviews. 

During these interviews, DOE asked 

manufacturers about their estimated 

CRE market share, annual shipments by 

equipment class, and the estimated 

market shares of other CRE 

manufacturers. DOE used the 

information from confidential 

interviews, data from the shipments 

analysis, and model listings from CCD 

to estimate manufacturer market shares, 

which were then used to weight certain 

inputs used in the MIA (e.g., industry 

financial parameters, manufacturer 

markups). DOE does not present these 

company-specific market share 

estimates in the NOPR TSD chapter 3 as 

the information is protected under 

nondisclosure agreements (‘‘NDAs’’). 

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details on the CRE market 

and manufacturers. 

DOE requests comment on publicly 

available market data on CRE 

manufacturers or identification of any 

CRE manufacturers with large market 

shares not identified in Chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

3. Technology Options 

In the preliminary market analysis 

and technology assessment, DOE 

identified technology options that 

would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of CRE, as measured by the 

DOE test procedure and shown in table 

IV.3. 

TABLE IV.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR CRE 

Insulation: 

Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type). 

Increased insulation thickness. 

Vacuum-insulated panels. 

Lighting: 

Higher-efficiency lighting. 

Occupancy Sensors. 

Improved transparent doors: * 

Low-emissivity coatings.* 

Inert gas fill.* 

Vacuum-insulated glass.* 

Additional panes.* 

Anti-sweat heater controls.* 

Anti-fog films.* 

Frame design.* 

Compressor.** 

Improved compressor efficiency.** 

Alternative refrigerants.** 

Variable-speed compressors.** 

Linear compressors.** 

Evaporator: 

Increased surface area. 

Improved evaporator coil design. 

Low-pressure differential evaporator. 

Condenser: ** 

Increased surface area.** 

Tube-and-fin enhancements.** 

Microchannel heat exchanger.** 

Fans and fan motors: 

Evaporator fan motors. 

Evaporator fan blades. 

Evaporator fan controls. 

Condenser fan motors.** 

Condenser fan blades.** 

Condenser fan controls.** 

Other technologies: 

Defrost systems. 

Expansion valve improvements. 

Air curtain design.*** 

Night curtains.*** 

Liquid suction heat exchanger.** 

* Only applies to equipment classes with 

doors. 

** Only applies to self-contained equipment 

classes. 

*** Only applies to equipment classes without doors (open equipment classes). 

DOE received several comments in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis regarding the technology 

options. 

a. Compressors 

NEEA referred to its previous 

comment to the July 2021 RFI that DOE 

consider the energy-use impact of 

compressor technologies like scroll 

compressors and variable-speed 

compressors. (NEEA No. 47 at pp. 4–5) 

NEEA commented that DOE had 

expressed agreement with NEEA in the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD that 

variable-speed compressors represented 

an energy-saving technology and 

estimated that implementing variablespeed compressors could save 3–38 

percent of energy consumption, 

depending on equipment class. (Id. at p. 

4) NEEA pointed out that DOE had not 

tested a model with a variable-speed 

compressor and encouraged DOE to 

further research the energy-savings 

potential of variable-speed compressors 

in CRE. (Id.) NEEA commented that, in 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD Table 

5.5.1,35 DOE noted propane variablespeed compressors as a design option 

for a majority of CRE equipment classes. 

(Id.) NEEA encouraged DOE to collect 

data and consider other equipment 

classes that could utilize variable-speed 

compressors to improve the energysavings potential and common use of 

this technology option. (Id. at pp. 4–5) 

Consistent with the preliminary 

analysis, DOE has included R–290 

variable-speed compressors as a 

technology option in this NOPR. Due to 

the refrigerant transition in response to 

the December 2022 EPA NOPR, DOE has 

analyzed R–290 compressors (single and 

variable speed) for all self-contained 

equipment classes. See section IV.C.1 of 

this document and chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional details on the 

refrigerant transition and analyzed 

compressors. Additionally, scroll 

compressors have not been included as 

a design option in this NOPR. While 

DOE has not observed scroll 

compressors in any directly analyzed 

models, DOE is aware that scroll 

compressors may be used on very large, 

self-contained CRE. Based on market 

research, DOE observed that fixed-speed 

scroll compressors have similar 

efficiencies to hermetic, reciprocating 

compressors; therefore, DOE has not 

considered scroll compressors in this 

analysis. 

Continental commented that variablespeed compressors hold promise for 

reducing energy consumption of selfcontained CRE, but the increased 

technical complexity and related 

increases in material and service costs 

have thus far limited use of this 

technology. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) 

Similarly, AHRI commented that 

variable-speed compressors do not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70219 

36See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR2015-04-10/pdf/2015-07895.pdf. 

contribute significantly to energy 

savings in specific products and present 

additional technical challenges for 

servicers. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 5) Further, 

AHRI commented that DOE should not 

assume that equipment employing 

variable-speed compressors will 

automatically have an energy-efficiency 

increase of 15–20 percent and that this 

design option is more complex and 

requires more careful analysis. (Id.) 

To estimate the performance impacts 

of transitioning to a variable-speed 

compressor, DOE incorporated the 

performance data for variable-speed R– 

290 compressors currently available on 

the market into DOE’s engineering 

spreadsheet. DOE assumed that 

variable-speed compressors would 

operate at the minimum speed under 

steady-state operation. DOE also 

assumed that the fan motors would 

operate during the compressor run time 

(i.e., the fan motor operating duration 

would likely increase compared to a 

single-speed compressor). Overall, DOE 

estimated a 0.5–25 percent energy 

consumption reduction when 

implementing variable-speed 

compressors, with savings varying 

depending on equipment class. See 

chapters 3 and 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details on variable speed 

compressors. 

b. R–290 

NAMA stated that it began evaluating 

the changes necessary for CRE to utilize 

lower GWP refrigerants, such as R–290, 

in 2018, and NAMA pointed out that the 

ASHRAE 15 standard was changed in 

the summer of 2020 to allow CRE using 

up to 114 grams of A–3 refrigerants to 

be placed in public places and that CRE 

with A–3 refrigerants began to appear in 

the U.S. market in the first quarter of 

2021. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 6) NAMA 

stated that manufacturers had to redesign heat exchangers, use new 

compressors and expansion valves, and 

make all switches, electrical 

components, motors, wiring, 

connectors, and larger electrical 

components (e.g., compressors) 

compliant with ‘‘spark-proof 

connections’’ to manufacture machines 

using A–3 refrigerant. (Id. at pp. 6–7) 

NAMA commented that the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD did not adequately 

address this level of re-design using 

expensive components, nor the redesign of factories to comply with 

health and safety regulations through 

greater ventilation, safety sensors, and 

other measures. (Id. at p.7) NAMA noted 

that every model, product line, quality 

assurance facility, factory, warehouse, 

and service center must be updated to 

install, warehouse, and service units 

with R–290 refrigerant, and only a 

handful of State and local building 

codes have been updated to 

accommodate these changes. (Id.) 

NAMA stated that significant work 

remains to be done in finalizing these 

codes, and they are unlikely to be 

complete before 2026. (Id.) NAMA 

commented that DOE did not address 

this transition in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. (Id.) 

Similarly, AHRI commented that the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD cited an 

example of a transition from an R–134a 

(ASHRAE Class A1) to an R–290 

(propane or an ASHRAE Class A3) 

compressor as the only required change, 

but AHRI added that compressors, 

switches, and other components in the 

system must also be upgraded to comply 

with UL60335–2–89 requirements to 

reduce the risk of ignition. (AHRI, No. 

46 at p. 13) 

The CA IOUs noted that their 

comments to the July 2021 RFI stated 

that since energy conservation standards 

were last analyzed, the market has 

developed higher-efficiency 

compressors, and self-contained CRE 

has increasingly shifted to R–290. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 4–6) While the CA 

IOUs thanked DOE for analyzing these 

technology advances, they noted that 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD analyzes 

the refrigerant propane as a technology 

option for nearly all self-contained 

refrigeration categories except for 

vertical open self-contained medium 

temperature (‘‘VOP.SC.M’’), semivertical self-contained medium 

temperature (‘‘SVO.SC.M’’), and 

horizontal glass self-contained ice cream 

(‘‘HCT.SC.I’’) categories. (Id. at pp. 4–5) 

The CA IOUs stated that propane had 

already become an industry standard for 

self-contained refrigeration equipment, 

and the CA IOUs recommended 

considering it as a baseline refrigerant 

for all self-contained refrigeration 

categories. (Id. at p. 5) The CA IOUs 

further commented that the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD excludes variablespeed compressors as a technology 

option for almost all categories where it 

does not consider propane as an option. 

(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that 

variable-speed compressors can use any 

refrigerant and are not limited to 

propane. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that 

the current market availability of 

variable-speed compressors that use 

refrigerants other than propane is 

limited to compressors above 1 

horsepower, and the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE work with 

manufacturer stakeholders to determine 

future market availability of variablespeed compressors for all refrigerants. 

(Id. at pp. 5–6) 

NEEA stated support for DOE’s 

consideration of propane refrigerants as 

an energy-saving technology option in 

the technology assessment and 

engineering analysis for CRE, but NEEA 

noted that table 5.5.18 in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD showed that DOE had 

not considered propane as an option for 

all CRE equipment classes. (NEEA, No. 

47 at p. 4) NEEA commented that CRE 

refrigerants are transitioning from 

hydrofluorocarbons (‘‘HFC’’) refrigerants 

to alternative options like propane (R– 

290) and NEEA anticipated an increase 

in the use of propane in other 

equipment classes. (Id.) NEEA 

recommended that DOE ensure its 

analysis take into consideration the 

current availability of propane products 

in the product classes not currently 

considered by DOE as a design option 

(e.g., VOP.SC.M and SVO.SC.M). (Id.) 

NEEA further recommended DOE 

anticipate that more products would 

likely become available with propane 

refrigerants if the charge limit (currently 

150 grams under the EPA’s Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (‘‘SNAP’’)) for 

propane were to increase, as allowed in 

ASHRAE 15–2022. (Id.) 

Similarly, the Joint Commenters 

commented that DOE excluded propane 

compressors as a design option for some 

equipment classes due to propane 

charge limits, but the Joint Commenters 

further commented that ASHRAE 15 is 

proposing to increase the charge limits 

for higher-flammability refrigerants. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) 

Additionally, the Joint Commenters 

stated that models are available on the 

market in some of the equipment classes 

for which DOE excluded propane 

technology options, including the 

VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, and HCT.SC.I 

categories. (Id. at pp. 2–3) The Joint 

Commenters recommended that DOE 

consider propane refrigerant for these 

additional equipment classes. (Id. at p. 

3) 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE considered only CRE that 

could meet the 150-gram charge limit 

for R–290, per the EPA’s SNAP 

regulations.36 Based on the December 

2022 EPA NOPR’s proposed GWP 

limits, DOE anticipates EPA will 

harmonize with UL 60335–2–89 and 

allow R–290 charge limits of 304g for 

closed CRE and 494g for open CRE. 

Therefore, DOE has updated its 

engineering analysis in the NOPR to 

analyze R–290 compressors as a 

technology option for all self-contained 

CRE. See section IV.C.1 of this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70220 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

37The ‘‘core case’’ consists of components, such 

as structural members, shelving, wiring, air curtain 

grilles, and trim, that do not change at higher design 

option levels. To develop the core case cost, DOE 

dismantled units available on the market 

component-by component to develop a bill of 

materials and cost model for the core of the 

refrigerated case. The core case cost is just one 

component of the overall baseline cost, which takes 

into account all manufacturer production costs 

associated with baseline equipment. Therefore, 

changes in CRE case design due to the transition to 

R–290are accounted for in the core case and design 

option manufacturer production costs. 

38See https://ots-rd.com/software-development/ 

for further information on the CoilDesigner 

software. 

document and chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for additional information. 

Additionally, based on information 

gathered from interviews, component 

data, and teardowns, DOE has 

reevaluated the cost associated with the 

switch to R–290 on self-contained units. 

Because DOE has analyzed R–290 as the 

baseline for all self-contained classes in 

response to the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR, the costs associated with 

additional components necessary to 

comply with safety standards for R–290 

are incorporated into the core case 

cost.37 See the engineering analysis in 

section IV.C.1 of this document for more 

detail on the refrigerant transition. 

c. Insulation 

AHT commented that the 

combination of an additional half inch 

of insulation and vacuum-insulated 

panels (‘‘VIPs’’) does not make sense 

and should not be included as two 

cumulative potential savings. (AHT, No. 

48 at p. 6) 

Based on feedback from 

manufacturers, DOE has not analyzed 

increased insulation thickness or VIPs 

as a design option in this NOPR. See 

section IV.B.1 of this document and 

chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional information. 

ITW commented that, in terms of 

improved resistivity of insulation, some 

manufacturers have introduced new 

hydrofluorolefin (‘‘HFO’’) low-GWP 

blowing agents with claims of improved 

efficiencies and thermal resistivities 

from 2 to 11 percent compared to the 

previous typical HFC–245fa blowing 

agents and that DOE expected that 

manufacturers had already incorporated 

these new agents into models currently 

available on the market. (ITW, No. 41 at 

p. 25) ITW commented that, in fact, 

such claims for HFOs were ‘‘marketing 

hype’’ and without much promised 

improvement in thermal performance. 

(Id.) 

Regarding ITW’s comment on foam 

blowing agents, DOE calibrated its 

engineering analysis based on directly 

analyzed units, and, therefore, DOE 

expects that the analysis represents the 

foam blowing agents currently in use for 

units available on the market. 

d. Doors 

AHT commented that the best design 

option to save energy for open CRE is 

to add transparent doors. (AHT, No. 48 

at p. 1) AHT noted that the existing 

equipment class definitions and 

corresponding energy conservation 

standards permit manufacturers that 

cannot reach the energy limits for closed 

transparent units to remove the 

transparent doors, which would then 

require compliance with the increased 

energy limits of open units. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that efficient doors 

are generally used today, but there 

remain instances where charge sizes are 

insufficient and may only be allowed to 

be increased sufficiently if doors are not 

present on equipment. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

p. 13) 

Zero Zone commented that a 

commenter referenced Zero Zone 

marketing literature for customer 

preference on certain types of cases with 

doors in section 2.3.2.5 of the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. (Zero Zone, No 44 at 

p. 5). Zero Zone stated that an interview 

with two grocers is not an exhaustive 

industry study and also noted that, 

since that marketing literature was 

published, Zero Zone has developed an 

open-case product line. (Id.) 

With respect to the comment from 

AHT, AHRI, and Zero Zone, DOE notes 

that open cases provide distinct utility 

with respect to features such as 

unobstructed view and access to 

product, as well as simplified stocking, 

cleaning, and maintenance. While DOE 

understands there are different charge 

size limitations for refrigerant safety for 

open and closed CRE, DOE has 

tentatively determined to not analyze 

the addition of doors to open cases or 

the removal of doors on closed cases 

due to the distinct utility differences 

between open and closed CRE. 

e. Evaporators and Condensers 

Continental commented that larger 

evaporator coils take up more internal 

space, reducing product storage and 

utility of the equipment. (Continental, 

No. 38 at p. 2) 

Zero Zone disagreed with DOE’s 

evaluation of the high-performance coil. 

(Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 4) Zero Zone 

commented that using wavy fins 

without changing the fin pitch in an 

application with high-glide refrigerants 

can lead to a build up of frost and ice 

across the evaporator coil. (Id.) Zero 

Zone commented additionally that 

adding another tube row transverse to 

airflow without a change to the physical 

dimensions of the coil will compact the 

tubes, impeding airflow and causing the 

accumulation of frost and snow. (Id.) 

Zero Zone stated that it does not believe 

the addition of either of these design 

changes to an evaporator coil would 

create a ‘‘high-performance’’ coil. (Id.) 

Zero Zone commented that if coil design 

allowed for an increased evaporator 

temperature, a superheat setting at a 

value that avoids liquid carryover and 

compressor damage would be very 

difficult. (Id.) Zero Zone provided a 

white paper called ‘‘High-glide 

Refrigerants: What’s the Point?’’ to 

describe the challenges with superheat 

settings in door cases. (Id.) 

Based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews and commenters, DOE has 

not considered increased evaporator or 

condenser sizes in this NOPR. DOE has 

tentatively determined that 

manufacturers have maximized the heat 

exchanger size without reducing 

internal storage or increasing the 

external dimensions of the unit, both of 

which would impact product utility. In 

addition, due to refrigerant transition in 

response to the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR, DOE has analyzed refrigerants 

with charge size limitations in this 

NOPR. Because manufacturers have 

only partially converted to refrigerants 

that would be allowed per the December 

2022 EPA NOPR, there is still 

uncertainty in refrigerant charge size, 

and therefore the evaporator and 

condenser design, required for all sizes 

of CRE. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE analyzed ‘‘baseline’’ and 

‘‘high efficiency’’ evaporator and 

condenser design options. While DOE 

understands the exact characteristics of 

the evaporator or condenser may change 

depending on equipment class, the 

evaporator and condenser design 

options normalize the overall 

conductance-area (‘‘UA’’) based on the 

design load. Based on stakeholder 

comments, interviews with 

manufacturers, and CoilDesigner 38

simulation, DOE tentatively determined 

that the ‘‘high efficiency’’ evaporator 

and condenser design options are 

representative of current manufacturer 

designs. Therefore, DOE tentatively 

determined to analyze the ‘‘high 

efficiency’’ evaporator and condenser 

coil as ‘‘baseline’’ in this NOPR and 

remove the ‘‘high efficiency’’ evaporator 

and condenser design options in the 

NOPR. See chapters 3 and 5 of the TSD 

for additional details. 

Zero Zone commented that it believes 

one CRE manufacturer holds a patent on 

split-circuit evaporators. (Zero Zone, 

No. 44 at p. 5) Zero Zone stated that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70221 

39See https://patents.google.com/patent/ 

US3537274; https://patents.google.com/patent/

US3866439A/en; https://patents.google.com/ 

patent/US20120137724A1/en. 

DOE suggested manufacturers use this 

product with propane even though DOE 

does not include patented design 

options in rulemakings. (Id.) Zero Zone 

commented that DOE should plan 

energy levels around the use of A2L 

refrigerants in large, self-contained 

appliances instead of focusing on 

propane. (Id.) 

Based on a limited review of patents 

listed for split-circuit evaporators, DOE 

was able to find several patents for dual 

circuit evaporators, which are all either 

expired or abandoned.39 Zero Zone did 

not specify what is meant by ‘‘splitcircuit evaporators,’’ and DOE was 

unable to locate any patent that would 

impact CRE manufacturer’s ability to 

use evaporators with multiple circuits. 

Additionally, Zero Zone did not specify 

the manufacturer that it believes holds 

a patent on split-circuit evaporators. As 

such, DOE has tentatively determined 

that each manufacturer’s design is 

unique and would not infringe on active 

patents and notes that even if there is an 

intellectual property claim on a specific 

split-circuit design, manufacturers 

could use a multiple circuit design with 

multiple evaporators without 

necessarily using split-circuit 

evaporators. 

f. Fan Motors 

Zero Zone commented that it already 

uses electronically commutated motors 

(‘‘ECM’’) fan motors to meet the current 

energy standard and stated that it 

believes most of industry is also using 

this style of motor. (Zero Zone, No. 44 

at p. 5) Zero Zone requested that DOE 

include the ECM motor in the base 

model. (Id.) Zero Zone stated that the 

opening height for this type of product 

has a disproportional impact on energy 

consumption because larger opening 

heights disproportionally increase 

energy use. (Id.) Zero Zone commented 

that DOE’s models account for this 

characteristic. (Id.) 

DOE has maintained fan motor 

improvements as a technology option in 

this NOPR. As indicated by Zero Zone, 

DOE has observed that ECM fan motors 

are incorporated to a large extent in 

CRE. While DOE has observed ECMs 

incorporated in baseline equipment for 

multiple analyzed equipment classes, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

certain baseline equipment still 

incorporates other less-efficient motor 

types. For these classes, DOE has 

maintained a transition to ECMs as a 

design option change. DOE has also 

updated its motor costs relative to the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis in this 

analysis to reflect current pricing. See 

chapter 3 and 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details. 

Zero Zone commented that DOE 

suggested using permanent magnet 

synchronous motors for CRE. (Zero 

Zone, No. 44 at p. 6) Zero Zone noted 

that the study DOE references was 

completed in 2019, and the motors have 

not permeated the market since that 

time. (Id.) Zero Zone stated that the 

motors of such fans operate at 1800 

RPM, creating unacceptable fan noise, 

and although its fan suppliers are aware 

of this technology, they do not 

recommend this style of motor for use 

in CRE. (Id.) Zero Zone recommended 

screening permanent magnet 

synchronous motors from use in CRE. 

(Id.) 

In response to Zero Zone, DOE has 

observed that permanent magnet 

synchronous motors are available on the 

market for CRE. However, DOE has not 

identified specific commercialized 

designs of permanent magnet 

synchronous motors with the 

appropriate size and rated airflow for 

the equipment analyzed in this NOPR. 

Based on these observations along with 

further discussions with manufacturers, 

DOE has not considered permanent 

magnet synchronous motors as a design 

option in this NOPR, as discussed 

further in section IV.C.1 of this 

document and chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

g. Defrost 

Continental commented that, to its 

knowledge, variable defrost controls 

have not proven to reduce energy 

consumption in CRE. (Continental, No. 

38 at p. 2) 

Zero Zone commented that variable 

defrost is an unreliable option that 

results in lost food product and 

therefore a monetary impact when it 

does not operate as intended. (Zero 

Zone, No. 44 at p. 4) Zero Zone 

commented that the potential energy 

savings of variable defrost are 

outweighed by the potential loss of 

product. (Id.) 

While DOE considered variable 

defrost as a design option in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE has 

tentatively determined to not consider 

this design option in the NOPR. For 

further discussion, see section IV.C.1.b 

of this document and chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in 

commercially viable, existing prototypes 

will not be considered further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production of a technology in 

commercial products and reliable 

installation and servicing of the 

technology could not be achieved on the 

scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the projected 

compliance date of the standard, then 

that technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a 

technology is determined to have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to subgroups of 

consumers, or result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology would 

have significant adverse impacts on 

health or safety, it will not be 

considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a technology has 

proprietary protection and represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, it will not be 

considered further, due to the potential 

for monopolistic concerns. 

(See 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3) 

and 7(b) of the Process Rule). 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed in the following sections. 

The subsequent sections include 

comments from interested parties 

pertinent to the screening criteria, 

DOE’s evaluation of each technology 

option against the screening analysis 

criteria, and whether DOE determined 

that a technology option should be 

excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the 

screening criteria. 

DOE received the following comments 

in response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis regarding the 

screening analysis. 

ITW listed six design options that 

ITW stated sounded good but proved 

problematic: variable-speed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70222 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

40See www.qmpower.com/wp-content/uploads/ 

2022/06/Product_Info-QSync_12W_60Hz-6.2.22- 

WEB.pdf. 

compressors that force other 

components to run; synchronousreluctance fan motors with performance 

that does not match CRE applications; 

enhanced-UA condenser or evaporator 

coils that increase energy consumption; 

microchannel condenser coils that 

cannot be cleaned; additional one-halfinch insulation that adds cost but not 

value; and vacuum-insulated panels that 

prove too fragile for CRE. (ITW, No. 41 

at pp. 34–35) 

AHRI provided feedback on Table 

4.3.1 ‘‘Retained Design Options,’’ stating 

that improved transparent doors; higher 

efficiency lighting; ECM motors; 

evaporator and condenser fans, motors, 

blades and controls (closed selfcontained cases); compressors; and 

variable-speed compressor horizontal 

closed transparent self-contained ice 

cream freezer (‘‘HCT.SCI’’) (specific to 

some specific smaller self-contained 

equipment) were already in use to meet 

the current standard. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

p. 15) AHRI stated vacuum-insulated 

glass (‘‘VIG’’) was not economically 

viable. (Id.) AHRI stated thicker 

insulation, synchronous-speed motors, 

and larger evaporators (due to space 

constraints) had reduced utility. (Id.) 

AHRI stated vacuum-insulated panels 

(prone to puncture, cannot be repaired), 

microchannel condensers (leak and plug 

during operation), evaporator and 

condenser fans, motors, blades, and 

controls (open cases), high-tech defrost 

fans (do not necessarily save energy and 

are unreliable), variable-defrost systems 

(do not reduce energy consumption), 

expansion valves, and larger evaporators 

(limitations due to flammable 

refrigerants) are not technically viable. 

(Id.) AHRI noted that in previous 

comments to DOE these options were 

considered to be max-tech, but, after 

further consultation with members, 

AHRI found them to be not technically 

viable design options. (Id.) AHRI stated 

that antisweat controls and night 

curtains, and occupancy sensors had a 

limited market. (Id.) And AHRI 

concluded that variable speed 

compressors (specific to some smaller, 

self-contained equipment—already used 

in some equipment) were a viable 

design option. (Id.) 

Zero Zone commented that vacuuminsulated glass is not a viable design 

option. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 6) Zero 

Zone stated that its door supplier 

reported that the one vacuum-insulated 

glass supplier in the United States no 

longer offers the product because its 

high cost prevented customers from 

using it. (Id.) 

NAMA commented that several of the 

design options shown in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD could reduce the 

overall machine capacity, such as larger 

condensers or evaporators, more 

insulation, and changes to the type of 

glass that require new structural 

components. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 15) 

NAMA commented that the external 

dimensions of a CRE appliance are 

limited by the height of breakrooms and 

built-in areas, and the width and length 

are limited by the machine’s integration 

with other machines with which CRE 

are paired. (Id.) NAMA commented that 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD did not 

address the resultant change in utility or 

performance caused by a reduction in 

overall capacity. (Id.) NAMA stated that 

smaller capacity resulted in customers 

opening the door for longer periods of 

time and necessitated more frequent restocking, making the appliance more 

difficult for business owners to operate. 

(Id.) 

NAMA also commented that several 

of the design options suggested by DOE 

(e.g., lower-wattage refrigeration 

systems, vacuum-panel insulation, 

different evaporators or condensers, and 

lower-wattage fan motors) could affect 

the overall performance of the machine. 

(Id.) NAMA stated that overall 

performance of CRE is critical and can 

be significantly affected by a difference 

of 1 degree Celsius. (Id.) NAMA 

requested that DOE review the design 

options for energy efficiency and also 

their ability to maintain critical design 

features and performance. (Id.) 

Based on these comments, DOE has 

tentatively determined to screen out two 

technology options mentioned by 

commenters, increased insulation 

thickness and vacuum-insulated panels, 

which are discussed in more detail in 

section IV.B.1 of this document. 

However, DOE disagrees with 

commenters that permanent magnet 

synchronous motors meet the criteria of 

‘‘impacts on product utility’’ because, 

although the permanent magnet 

synchronous motors currently available 

on the market are not optimized for size 

and rated airflow of CRE,40 there is not 

a significant adverse impact on the 

utility of the product. DOE also 

disagrees with commenters that 

increased evaporator or condenser 

surface areas meet the criteria of 

‘‘impacts on product utility’’ because 

there is not a significant adverse impact 

on the utility of the product unless the 

increased evaporator or condenser 

requires a reduction in the overall CRE 

capacity. DOE notes that it did not 

consider any technology options that 

reduce the overall CRE capacity, 

consistent with the criteria ‘‘impacts on 

product utility.’’ 

DOE also disagrees with commenters 

that microchannel condensers, 

evaporator fan controls, variable defrost 

systems, expansion valve 

improvements, and increased 

evaporator surface area meet the criteria 

of ‘‘technological feasibility.’’ 

Microchannel heat exchangers are often 

used in the automobile industry, and 

the stationary air conditioning and 

refrigeration markets have seen recent 

increases in implementation of 

microchannel heat exchangers. As noted 

by commenters and based on feedback 

during manufacturer interviews, DOE 

only considered evaporator fan controls 

as a design option on closed selfcontained CRE equipment classes. DOE 

notes that the amount of energy saved 

for each design option is not a criterion 

for the screening analysis and is 

discussed in the engineering analysis. 

For increased evaporator surface area, 

DOE considered the limitations due to 

flammable refrigerants (e.g., R–290) 

consistent with industry safety 

standards as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.a of this document. 

Additionally, DOE disagrees with 

commenters that vacuum-insulated 

glass is not a viable design option. DOE 

is aware of vacuum-insulated glass door 

suppliers outside of the United States 

and notes that that ‘‘not economically 

viable’’ is not one of the screening 

criteria specified in the Process Rule. 

DOE considered the cost of each design 

option in the engineering analysis. 

Finally, in response to commenters, 

DOE notes that ‘‘high-tech defrost fans,’’ 

‘‘lower-wattage refrigeration systems,’’ 

and ‘‘lower-wattage fan motors’’ are not 

technology options DOE has analyzed in 

the preliminary or NOPR analysis. 

DOE discusses the screened-out 

technologies in section IV.B.1 of this 

document, lists the remaining 

technology options in section IV.B.2 of 

this document, and discusses the design 

options in section IV.C of this document 

and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

For CRE, the screening criteria were 

applied to the technology options to 

either retain or eliminate technology for 

consideration in the engineering 

analysis. The screened-out technology 

options and the rationale for screening 

out each technology option considered 

in this analysis is detailed below. 

a. Increased Insulation Thickness 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Continental 

commented that increasing insulation 

thickness, even by half an inch as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70223 

proposed by DOE, would expand 

equipment sizes and/or reduce internal 

capacity, both of which would have 

significant negative impact on utility for 

the end user. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 

2) 

Zero Zone commented that DOE’s 

expectation that manufacturers will 

increase the thickness of insulation does 

not take into account the importance of 

physical dimensions in CRE equipment. 

(Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 4) Zero Zone 

added that customers need replacement 

equipment that will fit in the existing 

available space and fit through 80-inch 

doorways. (Id.) Zero Zone stated that 

increasing the thickness of the internal 

insulation reduces the refrigerated 

volume, and equipment classes that use 

refrigerated volume in their allowable 

energy calculation would therefore see a 

‘‘double hit.’’ (Id.) Zero Zone asserted 

that the resources in engineering design 

hours and retooling costs for the sheet 

metal necessary to accommodate such 

adjustments to insulation would be 

overly burdensome to manufacturers. 

(Id. at pp. 4–5) Zero Zone stated that 

increasing the thickness of internal 

insulation would result in stranded 

inventory for manufacturers and would 

affect end users’ ability to replace their 

aging equipment due to size limitations. 

(Id. at p. 5) 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD, increasing insulation 

thickness increases the thermal 

resistivity of the exterior of the unit, 

which in turn reduces the heat load that 

must be removed by the CRE’s 

refrigeration system. However, to 

increase insulation thickness, either an 

increase to the size of the unit or a 

decrease to the refrigerated volume of 

the unit must occur. Because CRE is 

typically required to meet standard 

dimensions to fit into a fixed amount of 

space, the refrigerated volume of the 

unit may need to be decreased to 

accommodate increased insulation 

thickness, thus limiting the capacity of 

the unit. As a result, DOE has 

tentatively determined that increased 

insulation thickness meets the screening 

criterion of ‘‘impacts on product 

utility.’’ In this NOPR, DOE has 

screened out increased insulation 

thickness as a design option for 

improving the energy efficiency of CRE. 

b. Vacuum-Insulated Panels 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Continental 

commented that vacuum-insulated 

panels are relatively expensive, 

introduce significant complexity to 

manufacturing, reduce equipment 

structural stability, are subject to 

damage, and are not easily replaceable, 

requiring replacement of the entire unit. 

(Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) 

AHRI commented that cost estimates 

in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD were 

significantly underestimated related to 

pandemic-related scarcity pricing. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at pp. 14–15) AHRI stated 

it planned to complete a survey to 

clarify the cost of vacuum panels 

(estimated by DOE to be considerably 

less expensive than is accurate) among 

other components, but could not do so 

within the 30-day deadline, especially 

given that the comment period for the 

test procedure and the walk-in cooler 

and walk-in freezer Preliminary TSD 

overlapped. (Id. at p. 15) AHRI stated 

that components are difficult to obtain 

because of longer shipping times and 

this impacts research and development 

and testing timelines and time for listing 

through nationally recognized testing 

laboratories. (Id.) AHRI commented that 

these factors should be considered in 

future timing and rulemaking processes. 

(Id.) 

Zero Zone commented that vacuuminsulation panels are insufficiently 

robust and can lose their vacuum 

through bending or flexing. (Zero Zone, 

No 44 at p. 6) Zero Zone commented 

also that it can be difficult to determine 

the vacuum has been lost until the final 

product operation reveals condensation. 

(Id.) Zero Zone stated that large 

commercial refrigerators flex during 

shipping and customers fasten items to 

commercial refrigerators with screws, 

which can increase the risk of failure 

when using vacuum panels. (Id.) Zero 

Zone noted that a vacuum panel failure 

in a continuous line-up of remote 

commercial refrigerators results in the 

entire line up being moved to access the 

panel, which can result in replacement 

of the refrigerator. (Id.) Zero Zone 

recommended that DOE should not 

include vacuum-insulated panels as a 

design option. (Id.) 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD, VIPs allow reduction in 

insulation thickness while maintaining 

or increasing thermal resistivity, due to 

the reduced conductivity that occurs in 

a low vacuum. Because VIPs consist of 

an outer airtight membrane surrounding 

a core material to form a cavity, any 

puncture to a panel renders the VIP 

ineffective. This may prevent customers 

from being able to install any screws or 

fasteners into the panel. VIPs cannot be 

repaired once a leak is detected in the 

field and would require replacement 

upon puncture or failure. In the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 

stated that it had not observed VIPs 

incorporated in CRE but had observed 

VIPs used in other refrigeration 

products (e.g., consumer refrigerators) 

(see section 2.5.1.6 of the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD). 

Based on comments received and 

feedback during manufacturer 

interviews, DOE has tentatively 

determined that because of the 

significant difference in shelf loads 

between commercial and consumer 

refrigeration units, CRE may require 

brackets or other supporting structures 

to accommodate the heavier shelf loads, 

installed with screws or fasteners that 

could puncture the VIP. As a result, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

vacuum-insulated panels meet the 

screening criterion of ‘‘impacts on 

product utility.’’ In this NOPR, DOE has 

screened out vacuum-insulated panels 

as a design option for improving the 

energy efficiency of CRE. 

c. Linear compressors 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD and chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD, linear compressors use 

a linear rather than rotary motion to 

reduce the need for a crankshaft and 

linkage, resulting in reduced friction 

and side forces. Most linear compressors 

use a free-piston arrangement and can 

be controlled for a range of capacities. 

Compressor manufacturers had begun 

development on linear compressors for 

residential refrigerators. However, a lack 

of availability on the market of linear 

compressors with a large enough 

cooling capacity for commercial 

refrigeration sizes has prevented further 

development of this technology for 

commercial refrigeration applications 

and, therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that linear compressors 

meet the screening criterion of 

‘‘practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service.’’ DOE did not receive any 

comments on its tentative determination 

to screen out linear compressors in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, and, in this NOPR, DOE has 

screened out linear compressors as a 

design option for improving the energy 

efficiency of CRE. 

d. Air curtain design 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD and chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD, an air curtain is a fanpowered device that creates a moving 

wall (curtain) of air, which separates 

two spaces of different temperatures. 

Air curtains are used in CRE to 

minimize the infiltration of warmer 

external air into the refrigerated space. 

DOE’s research had presented the 

possibility of advanced air-curtain 

designs with levels of performance 

beyond the traditional air curtains 

generally employed in open display 

cases being used in the CRE industry. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70224 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

However, DOE has tentatively 

determined that advanced air-curtain 

designs are currently only in the 

research stage and, therefore, DOE has 

initially determined that advanced aircurtain designs meet the screening 

criterion of ‘‘practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service.’’ DOE 

did not receive any comments on its 

tentative determination to screen out air 

curtains in response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, and, in this 

NOPR, DOE has screened out improved 

air curtains as a design option for 

improving the energy efficiency of CRE. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Through a review of each technology, 

DOE tentatively concludes that all of the 

other identified technologies listed in 

section IV.A.2 of this document met all 

five screening criteria to be examined 

further as design options in DOE’s 

NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did 

not screen out the following technology 

options presented in table IV.4. 

TABLE IV.4—REMAINING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CRE 

Insulation .................................................................................................. Evaporator 

Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type) ................................... Increased surface area 

Lighting ..................................................................................................... Improved evaporator coil design 

Higher-efficiency lighting .......................................................................... Low-pressure differential evaporator 

Occupancy Sensors ................................................................................. Condenser ** 

Improved transparent doors * ................................................................... Increased surface area ** 

Low-emissivity coatings * .......................................................................... Tube-and-fin enhancements ** 

Inert gas fill * ............................................................................................. Microchannel heat exchanger ** 

Vacuum-insulated glass * ......................................................................... Compressor ** 

Additional panes * ..................................................................................... Improved compressor efficiency ** 

Anti-sweat heater controls * ...................................................................... Alternative refrigerants ** 

Anti-fog films * ........................................................................................... Variable-speed compressors ** 

Frame design * .......................................................................................... Other technologies 

Fans and fan motors ................................................................................ Defrost systems 

Evaporator fan motors .............................................................................. Expansion valve improvements

Evaporator fan blades .............................................................................. Night curtains *** 

Evaporator fan controls ............................................................................ Liquid suction heat exchanger ** 

Condenser fan motors ** ..........................................................................

Condenser fan blades ** ...........................................................................

Condenser fan controls ** .........................................................................

* Only applies to equipment classes with doors. 

** Only applies to self-contained equipment classes. 

*** Only applies to equipment classes without doors (open equipment classes). 

DOE has initially determined that 

these technology options are 

technologically feasible because they are 

being used or have previously been used 

in commercially available equipment or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety, uniquepathway proprietary technologies). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE requests comment on the 

decision to screen out increased 

insulation thickness, vacuum-insulated 

panels, linear compressors, and air 

curtain design as design options for 

improving the energy efficiency of CRE. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of CRE. 

There are two elements to consider in 

the engineering analysis: the selection of 

efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the 

‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of equipment cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

equipment, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

estimates the baseline cost, as well as 

the incremental cost for the equipment 

at efficiency levels above the baseline. 

The output of the engineering analysis 

is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that 

are used in downstream analyses (i.e., 

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing equipment (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design-option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual equipment on the market) may be 

extended using the design-option 

approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge 

large gaps between other identified 

efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate 

to the max-tech level (particularly in 

cases where the max-tech level exceeds 

the maximum efficiency level currently 

available on the market). 

In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a 

design-option approach, supported with 

the testing and reverse engineering of 

directly analyzed CRE. The design 

options were incrementally added to the 

baseline configuration and continued 

through the ‘‘max-tech’’ configuration 

(i.e., implementing the ‘‘best available’’ 

combination of available design 

options). 

Consistent with the March 2014 Final 

Rule analysis (see chapter 5 of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70225 

41See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2010-BT-STD-0003-0102. 

42See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2010-BT-STD-0003-0102. 

March 2014 Final Rule TSD 41), DOE 

estimated the performance of design 

option combinations using an 

engineering analysis spreadsheet model. 

This model estimates the daily energy 

consumption of CRE in kWh/day at 

various performance levels using a 

design-option approach. DOE generally 

relied on test data, CCD information, 

feedback from manufacturer interviews, 

publicly available component 

information, and reverse engineering to 

support and calibrate the engineering 

analysis spreadsheet model. The model 

calculates energy consumption at each 

performance level separately for each 

analysis configuration. 

In the March 2014 Final Rule 

analysis, DOE selected 25 high 

shipment volume equipment classes, 

referred to as ‘‘primary’’ classes, to 

analyze directly in the engineering 

analysis (see chapter 5 of the March 

2014 Final Rule TSD 42). In this NOPR, 

DOE has followed a similar approach of 

directly analyzing 28 primary 

equipment classes. DOE directly 

analyzed the same primary equipment 

classes as the March 2014 Final Rule, 

except that the PD.SC.M equipment 

class was not included, and DOE 

directly analyzed four new equipment 

classes: VCT.SC.H, VCS.SC.H, chef base 

self-contained medium temperature 

(‘‘CB.SC.M’’), chef base self-contained 

low temperature (‘‘CB.SC.L’’). 

Additional details of the engineering 

analysis are available in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

a. Baseline Energy Use 

For each equipment class, DOE 

generally selects a baseline model as a 

reference point for each class, and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each equipment class represents the 

characteristics of equipment typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, 

DOE utilized the current standards for 

CRE for classes with current standards 

and the energy consumption based on 

the assumed baseline specifications 

modeled in the engineering analysis 

spreadsheet for classes without current 

standards as the baseline energy use for 

each analyzed equipment class. For 

higher efficiency levels, DOE assessed 

CRE efficiencies as a percent 

improvement relative to the baseline 

model. This provided a consistent 

efficiency comparison across each 

equipment class. DOE considered the 

efficiency improvements associated 

with implementing available design 

options beyond the baseline to the maxtech efficiency level. See chapter 5 of 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD for 

additional details. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Zero Zone 

commented that, while it believes DOE 

is developing models and setting energy 

levels based on average energy values, 

no data were provided to confirm or 

deny that suspicion. (Zero Zone, No. 44 

at p. 2) Zero Zone stated that setting 

energy values at an average expected 

level and requiring manufacturers to 

have all products meet the average 

energy level is incorrect, and such 

approach necessitates that 

manufacturers develop equipment with 

low enough average energy levels that 

the worst measured performance of any 

product is less than DOE’s average 

value. (Id.) Zero Zone provided figures 

illustrating that if DOE’s regulated 

average energy requirement is 30 kWh/ 

day, then industry must shift to a new 

average that is less than the uncertainty 

level in order to be sure that products 

do not exceed the energy level 

requirement. (Id.) Zero Zone requested 

that DOE account for this lower energy 

level penalty and provide which options 

are included in each energy level so that 

Zero Zone can fully evaluate the 

proposals. (Id. at p. 3) 

Zero Zone additionally commented 

that DOE’s proposed CRE test procedure 

requires manufacturers to calculate the 

uncertainty level and apply it to their 

rating, but DOE does not appear to 

apply the test requirements for 

uncertainty to its own work. (Id. at p. 2) 

Zero Zone stated that DOE proposed a 

5-percent tolerance on total display 

area, but that one variation caused a 

4.62-percent variation in allowable 

energy swinging on Zero Zone’s fivedoor case. (Id.) Zero Zone requested that 

DOE take into account all uncertainty 

when estimating energy consumption of 

CRE. (Id.) 

In response to the comment from Zero 

Zone, DOE notes that the engineering 

spreadsheet model that is used to 

develop the baseline and efficiency 

levels is calibrated using publicly 

available CCD data, which are subject to 

the requirements of the determination of 

represented value at 10 CFR 429.42(a), 

as well as ENERGY STAR data and 

manufacturer-submitted data. The DOE 

requirements specify that manufacturers 

must determine the represented value, 

which includes the certified rating, for 

each basic model of commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer either by testing, in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

provisions, or by applying an alternative 

efficiency determination method 

(‘‘AEDM’’). In the case where the 

reported value is derived from testing, at 

least two or more units should be tested 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.42 and the 

appropriate sampling statistics must be 

applied in order to develop the 

represented value. 79 FR 22277, 22296. 

Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: (1) the mean of the sample or, 

(2) the upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.10. 10 CFR 429.42(a)(1)(ii)(A). These 

requirements provide a statistical 

assessment of test results used to 

determine the represented value for a 

basic model which indicates a high 

level of confidence that the model 

population average energy use is less 

than or equal to the standard. DOE did 

not consider additional uncertainty in 

the proposed maximum daily energy 

consumption standard equation in this 

NOPR analysis. 

DOE expects that Zero Zone is 

referring to section J., Enforcement 

Provisions, of the June 2022 Test 

Procedure NOPR and the respective 

proposed regulatory text at 10 

CFR 429.134. As stated in the June 2022 

Test Procedure NOPR, product-specific 

enforcement provisions specify which 

ratings or measurements DOE will use 

to determine compliance with 

applicable energy or water conservation 

standards. 87 FR 39164, 39211. 

Generally, DOE provides that the 

certified metric is used for enforcement 

purposes (e.g., calculation of the 

applicable energy conservation 

standard) if the average value measured 

during assessment and enforcement 

testing is within a specified percent of 

the rated value. Id. Otherwise, the 

average measured value would be used. 

Id. DOE proposed to add a new productspecific enforcement provision section 

stating that the certified volume for CRE 

will be considered valid only if the 

measurement(s) (either the measured 

volume for a single unit sample or the 

average of the measured volumes for a 

multiple unit sample) is within five 

percent of the certified volume; 

otherwise, the measured volume would 

be used as the basis for determining the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70226 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

applicable energy conservation 

standard. Id. at 87 FR 39212. Similarly, 

DOE proposed that the certified TDA for 

CRE will be considered valid only if the 

measurement(s) (either the measured 

TDA for a single unit sample or the 

average of the measured TDAs for a 

multiple unit sample) is within five 

percent of the certified TDA. Id. If the 

certified TDA is found to not be valid, 

the measured TDA would be used to 

determine the applicable energy 

conservation standard. Id. These 

proposals in the June 2022 Test 

Procedure NOPR are specific to how 

DOE conducts enforcement testing and 

a tolerance on the certified volume or 

TDA of a given CRE model is used to 

decide whether the certified volume or 

TDA will be used to determine 

compliance with the applicable 

standard, or, if the average measured 

volume or TDA is outside of the 

tolerance, the average measured volume 

or TDA of the assessment and 

enforcement units will be used to 

determine compliance with the 

applicable standard. 

Refrigerants. In response to the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 

received several comments from 

stakeholders regarding how refrigerants 

were considered in the preliminary 

engineering analysis. 

AHRI commented that many states 

that adopted the SNAP Rules do not 

allow the use of the refrigerant R404A. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at p. 3) AHRI requested 

clarification regarding whether this 

addresses self-contained cases. (Id.) 

NAFEM expressed concern about 

DOE’s position not to account for future 

refrigerant regulatory changes by the 

EPA. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 3). NAFEM 

stated its concern that DOE had not 

analyzed refrigerant transitions of 

remote condensing systems in the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD and had declined 

to evaluate alternative refrigerants as a 

design option for remote CRE due to the 

lack of a test procedure. (Id.) NAFEM 

recommended that DOE and EPA better 

coordinate their actions to achieve their 

mutual goals, and NAFEM volunteered 

to educate DOE technical staff so that 

any proposed rule accurately reflects 

industry knowledge. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters requested that 

DOE analyze propane refrigerant for 

additional equipment classes. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 39 at p. 1) 

AHRI commented that a preliminary 

transition was in process from R–404A 

to refrigerants with a global warming 

potential of approximately 1500 and 

refrigerants used in colder temperature 

applications have a GWP of 2200. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at p. 12) AHRI noted that 

most lower-GWP refrigerants were 

limited by building codes because the 

necessary standard, UL 60335–2–89, 

was just published recently in October 

2021. (Id.) AHRI commented that the 

second, more complex and costly 

refrigerant transition in January 2026 

was unaccounted for in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD, and that the two 

transitions will have a significant 

reduction in radiative-forcing, shortlived climate-polluting HFCs and 

should be taken into consideration in 

the social cost of carbon and 

environmental impact assessments. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that EPA does not 

yet allow for R–290 or an ASHRAE 

Class A3 refrigerant to be used and few 

of the thousands of State and local 

building codes have been updated to 

charge refrigeration equipment and store 

necessary quantities to supply end-user 

needs. (Id. at p. 13) AHRI stated that 

significant work must be done to 

finalize codes prior to the anticipated 

2026 transition and AHRI noted that 

AZ, CO, IN, ME, MO, NY, TN, TX, VT, 

WA, and WV would allow for the use 

these new refrigerants once the EPA 

listed them. (Id. at pp. 13–14) 

AHRI pointed out that manufacturers 

are still testing refrigerants for the 2026 

transition, and that because refrigerant 

and component manufacturers have 

largely been focused on larger markets 

than many of the equipment types sold 

in the CRE space, not all of the details 

are known about the impact of specific 

refrigerants to energy efficiency. (Id. at 

p. 13) AHRI stated, however, that some 

proposed blends are known to have 

higher glide and lower efficiencies 

(some significantly lower) than those in 

use, especially for colder-temperature 

applications. (Id.) AHRI commented 

that, in addition, the energy efficiency 

impact of an important mitigation 

strategy related to refrigerants has not 

been addressed—the need to 

continuously operate fans to reduce the 

risk of reaching a flammable 

concentration. (Id.) AHRI noted that, in 

some cases, glide is high enough that 

evaporator re-design is needed, making 

costs even higher to conform with 

energy conservation standards. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that most lowerGWP refrigerants have a different 

flammability classification than those 

currently used today and cost estimates 

must also include new electrical 

components required to be ‘‘sparkproof’’ to eliminate the risk of ignition 

in case of a leak. (Id. at p. 12) AHRI 

noted that motors, wiring, compressors, 

and other components must all comply 

with this flammability classification, 

making them more costly than estimated 

in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) 

NAMA stated that several of the 

design options mentioned in the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD are either not 

available or not realistic in NAMA 

equipment, such as the change to an A– 

3 refrigerant that would require nearly 

a dozen other components to also be 

changed. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 7). 

NAMA commented that DOE failed to 

mention the CRADA between the 

NAMA Foundation, DOE, and Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory (‘‘ORNL’’) in 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Id. at 

p. 12) NAMA stated that most of the 

activities during the 2019–2021 CRADA 

were focused on reducing the risk 

during a potential leak situation. (Id.) 

NAMA stated that in nearly all 

scenarios tested by ORNL, additional 

fans were necessary to reduce the 

mixture of air and refrigerant below the 

lower flammability limit (‘‘LFL’’), but 

the energy used by these fans was not 

accounted for in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. (Id.) NAMA 

commented that the proposed DOE test 

procedure would actually penalize selfcontained bottle cooler manufacturers 

for using additional ventilation. (Id.) 

NAMA further stated that the COVID–19 

pandemic had delayed progress in the 

CRADA and that NAMA had requested 

an extension so that the remaining items 

(over half) could be studied. (Id.) NAMA 

commented that these remaining items 

look at possible energy efficiency gains, 

and the lack of results had put its 

industry behind schedule to meet any 

new energy efficiency requirements 

from DOE. (Id.) NAMA requested that 

DOE delay new minimum energy 

efficiency standards until manufacturers 

have the research from ORNL to pursue 

the research and development of new 

technologies. (Id.) 

Zero Zone commented that DOE 

asserted multi-circuit evaporators are a 

design option that would allow larger 

pieces of equipment to use propane in 

multiple small systems. (Zero Zone, No. 

44 at p. 5) Zero Zone commented that 

using propane in systems over 150 

grams requires additional leakmitigation equipment. (Id.) Zero Zone 

stated that until the release of UL 

60335–2–89, CRE could only use 150- 

gram charges of propane and were not 

required to have mitigation strategies, 

which explains why DOE has not 

observed mitigation on CRE on the 

market. (Id.) Zero Zone requested that 

DOE include the mitigation cost in its 

evaluation. (Id.) 

As recommended by stakeholders, 

DOE is considering the impact of the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR on CRE in 

this NOPR. As described in section I of 

this document, DOE understands that it 

would be beneficial to CRE equipment 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70227 

43See www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ 

product/certified-commercial-refrigerators-andfreezers/results. 

44See www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*. 

45See www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-stand-aloneequipment. 

46SNAP Proposed Rule 26 (88 FR 33722) 

harmonizes with UL Standard 60335–2–89, Edition 

2, published on October 27, 2021. 

47See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0007–0013. 

manufacturers to align the compliance 

date of any DOE amended or established 

standards as closely as possible with the 

refrigerant prohibition dates proposed 

by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing that the 

proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all CRE listed in table I.1 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after the date that is 

3 years after the date on which the final 

established and amended standards are 

published. The December 2022 EPA 

NOPR proposed to prohibit manufacture 

or import of such CRE starting January 

1, 2025, which is at least 3 years earlier 

than the expected compliance date for 

any amended CRE standards associated 

with the proposals in this document. 

Hence, the proposed refrigerant 

prohibitions listed in the December 

2022 EPA NOPR are assumed to be 

enacted for the purpose of DOE’s 

analysis in support of this NOPR. 

Refrigerants not prohibited from use 

in CRE in the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR are presumed to be permitted for 

use in CRE. Table IV.5 summarizes the 

relevant provisions from the December 

2022 EPA NOPR. 

TABLE IV.5—DECEMBER 2022 EPA NOPR SUMMARY FOR CRE 

Sectors and subsectors Proposed 

GWP limit 

Compliance 

date 

Retail food refrigeration—stand-alone units ............................................................................................................ 150 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment ............................................... 150 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems with refrigerant charge capacities of 200 pounds or greater ..... 150 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems with refrigeration charge capacities less than 200 pounds 

charge.

300 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems, high temperature side of cascade system ................................ 300 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units with refrigerant charge capacities of 200 pounds or greater 150 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds ..... 300 January 1, 

2025. 

Retail food refrigeration—remote condensing units, high temperature side of cascade systems ......................... 300 January 1, 

2025. 

In the December 2022 EPA NOPR, 

self-contained CRE (EPA refers to selfcontained CRE as ‘‘stand-alone 

equipment’’) are limited to a GWP of 

150 for all DOE self-contained 

equipment classes. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment has typically 

used R–404A or R–134a refrigerant, 

which have a GWP above 150. Because 

of the high GWP of R–404A and R–134a, 

significant research has been conducted 

to find alternative refrigerants with less 

or no GWP. Naturally occurring 

substances such as carbon dioxide, 

ammonia, and hydrocarbons 

(specifically propane (i.e., R–290) for 

commercial refrigeration equipment) all 

have very low GWP. DOE notes that 

several manufacturers currently rate 

CRE models to both ENERGY STAR43

and DOE 44 with CRE equipment using 

R–290 (GWP of 3) and manufacturers 

indicated in manufacturer interviews 

that the industry is planning to 

transition to R–290 for self-contained 

CRE. EPA currently lists R–290 as 

acceptable with use conditions for selfcontained CRE,45 however, EPA has not 

yet updated the use conditions for R– 

290 consistent with the latest industry 

safety standards for CRE. EPA currently 

lists R–290 as acceptable with use 

conditions for a refrigerant charge of up 

to 150 grams in self-contained CRE, but 

in a recent proposed rule, EPA proposed 

to increase the allowable charge to 304 

grams for closed equipment and 494 

grams for open equipment to harmonize 

with the maximum charge quantity 

allowed by industry safety standards 46

and to be consistent with the December 

2022 EPA NOPR (i.e., prohibitions for 

retail food refrigeration—standalone 

units, when using or intended to use a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance with a 

global warming potential of 150 or 

greater). Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that once EPA finalizes the 

proposed increases to the allowable 

charge limits, all self-contained CRE 

equipment can use R–290. 

DOE expects that the use of R–290 

generally will improve efficiency as 

compared with the refrigerants currently 

in use (e.g., R–404A), which are 

proposed to be prohibited by the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR, because R– 

290 has higher refrigeration-cycle 

efficiency than the current refrigerants. 

Thus, DOE expects the December 2022 

EPA NOPR to require redesign that will 

improve the efficiency of self-contained 

CRE equipment. Hence, the baseline 

levels for self-contained CRE in this 

NOPR reflect the design changes made 

by manufacturers in response to the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR, which 

incorporates refrigerant conversion to 

R–290. The expected efficiency 

improvement associated with this 

refrigerant change varies by class and is 

presented in table IV.6. 

DOE considered the requirement for 

components to be ‘‘spark-proof’’ for use 

with the R–290 refrigerant (i.e., 

propane) and the associated costs were 

included in the cost of baseline models. 

In chapter 2 of the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD, DOE stated that DOE 

has not observed any additional leak 

monitoring or ventilation components 

for leak mitigation in any analyzed selfcontained equipment that currently 

incorporates R–290 refrigerant.47 (See 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD, Chapter 2). 

As a result, for the representative 

equipment sizes considered in the 

preliminary engineering analysis, DOE 

initially determined that leak mitigation 

controls are not needed and therefore 

did not account for any additional 

energy consuming components with the 

transition to R–290 refrigerant. (Id.) 

Based on the CRE that DOE tested and 

tore down in support of this NOPR, DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70228 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

48See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0007–0013. 

has not observed any refrigerant leak 

mitigation controls that consume 

additional energy use for self-contained 

CRE that use 150 grams of R–290 or less. 

DOE expects that any refrigerant leak 

mitigation controls that manufacturers 

implement on self-contained CRE would 

not use any additional energy use as 

measured according to the DOE test 

procedure (e.g., any ventilation fans 

used to disperse refrigerant in the event 

of a refrigerant leak would not be on and 

using energy unless a refrigerant leak 

was detected). 

In response to the comment from 

NAMA, DOE acknowledges the ongoing 

research at ORNL under the CRADA. 

DOE recognizes that leak mitigation 

technologies are still under 

development and requests comment and 

data on the use of such technologies, 

how they may impact CRE energy use as 

measured according to the DOE test 

procedure, and the associated cost of 

such technologies. DOE welcomes any 

additional comments and supporting 

data, including any additional results of 

the CRADA, in response to this NOPR. 

DOE is also aware of small CRE 

equipment using R–600a, which is a 

similar refrigerant to R–290. DOE has 

tentatively determined that R–600a has 

similar refrigeration-cycle efficiency as 

R–290 and that the performance of CRE 

using R–290 is representative of CRE 

using R–600a. 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.a, 

remote condensing CRE have proposed 

GWP limits of either 150 or 300, 

depending on the refrigerant system 

charge size or refrigerant system type. In 

chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD, DOE noted that the current and 

proposed DOE test procedures account 

for the refrigeration load of remote cases 

plus any energy consumed by 

components within the equipment.48

(See June 2022 TSD, Chapter 2) By 

reference to table 1 in AHRI 1200, the 

test procedure calculates an expected 

compressor energy consumption 

associated with the case refrigeration 

load, independent of compressor details 

including refrigerant type. (Id.) Hence, 

DOE initially determined that 

alternative refrigerants in remote CRE 

cases do not result in changes in 

measured energy consumption. (Id.) 

Therefore, DOE did not consider 

alternative refrigerants in remote CRE 

cases in the preliminary engineering 

analysis. (Id.) In this NOPR, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the current 

standard is representative of the 

baseline energy use for remotecondensing CRE using refrigerants that 

comply with the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR when tested according to the 

DOE test procedure. 

DOE’s analysis considers that these 

efficiency improvements, equipment 

costs, and manufacturer investments 

required to comply with the December 

2022 EPA NOPR will be in effect prior 

to the time of compliance for the 

proposed amended DOE CRE standards 

for all CRE equipment classes and sizes. 

DOE has updated its baseline equipment 

costs to reflect current costs based on 

feedback received during manufacturer 

interviews, information collected during 

CRE teardowns, and market research. 

TABLE IV.6—EFFECT OF USE OF R– 

290 ON ENERGY USE IN BASELINE

MODELS

Equipment class 

Energy use 

reduction 

below DOE 

standard 

(%) 

VOP.SC.M ............................ 4.4 

SVO.SC.M ............................ 9.2 

HZO.SC.M ............................ 19.5 

HZO.SC.L ............................. 4.8 

VCT.SC.M ............................. 18.8 

VCT.SC.L .............................. 2.8 

VCS.SC.M ............................ 20.5 

VCS.SC.L ............................. 8.5 

HCT.SC.M ............................ 0.0 

HCT.SC.L ............................. 0.0 

HCS.SC.M ............................ 20.1 

HCS.SC.L ............................. 22.1 

SOC.SC.M ............................ 2.7 

VCT.SC.I ............................... 0.0 

HCT.SC.I .............................. 0.0 

VCS.SC.I .............................. 3.3 

The expected energy efficiency 

improvement associated with the 

change to R–290 is based on R–290 

single-speed compressors currently 

available on the market suitable for CRE 

equipment. In this NOPR, DOE did not 

consider additional single-speed 

compressor efficiency improvements 

beyond the baseline because DOE 

expects that the single-speed 

compressors currently available on the 

market for refrigerants that comply with 

the December 2022 EPA NOPR 

represent the maximum single-speed 

compressor efficiency achievable for 

each respective equipment class. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to use baseline levels for CRE 

equipment based upon the anticipated 

design changes that will be made by 

manufacturers in response to the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

DOE further requests comment on its 

estimates of energy-use reduction 

associated with the design changes 

made by manufacturers in response to 

the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

Baseline Components. NAMA 

commented that the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD contained errors and 

appeared to have been prepared prior to 

significant changes that occurred from 

2019–2022. (NAMA, No. 37, p. 4–5) 

NAMA commented also that features 

DOE seemed to believe represented 

future improvements to design had 

already been implemented, leading to 

inaccurate baseline model assumptions 

by DOE about energy efficiency levels 

and incremental costs. (Id. at p. 5) 

NAMA stated that DOE’s design 

changes, project energy efficiency 

improvements, and cost data on the 12 

design options under consideration 

appeared outdated by 10 years and 

applicable only to very large machines 

greater than 50 cubic feet in volume. (Id. 

at p. 7) NAMA further commented that 

the design options were not 

representative of the possible changes, 

availability, and costs associated with 

refrigerated bottle coolers and small 

self-contained display cabinets. (Id.) 

NAMA recommended that DOE change 

its categories and make allowances for 

the differences in energy efficiency 

between small and large equipment, as 

well as differences in cost and costbenefit analysis. (Id. at p. 9) NAMA 

commented that DOE could use data on 

shipments to modify DOE percentages 

according to sales-weighted numbers. 

(Id.) NAMA proposed that DOE 

restructure its categories in the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD to include two 

ranges: Range 1, which would be less 

than 30 cubic feet, and Range 2, which 

would be 30 cubic feet and over in 

volume. (Id.) NAMA commented that it 

believes using these categories would 

enable a more accurate assessment of 

the energy savings and cost burden. (Id.) 

NAFEM and NAMA commented that 

the design options in the 2014 TSD were 

so stringent that industry had to go 

beyond DOE’s standards and 

incorporate features such as LED 

lighting, brushless DC evaporator fan 

motors, high-performance doors, and 

brushless DC condenser fan motors. 

(NAFEM, No. 40 at pp. 5–6; NAMA, No. 

37 at p. 5) 

Zero Zone similarly stated that it 

disagrees with the design options that 

fall above the 2017 equipment class 

maximum daily energy consumption 

standard level and that LED lighting, 

high-efficiency fan motors (like ECM), 

and high-performance doors are already 

employed to meet current maximum 

energy consumption levels. (Zero Zone, 

No. 44 at p. 3) Zero Zone commented 

that this information is available on 

company specification sheets and that 

an analysis using this available 

information would show that the slope 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70229 

of the manufacturer production costs 

versus daily energy use in DOE’s 

engineering spreadsheet should be reevaluated. (Id.) 

ITW recommended adding 

technologies to the baseline as they 

were applied by industry, citing 

examples including ECM fans, highefficiency compressors, and evaporator 

fan controls. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 34) 

NAFEM and NAMA stated that 

because these and other technologies 

were already necessary to meet the 2014 

standard, DOE should not be able to 

claim any new energy efficiency 

benefits when incorporating such 

technologies into the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 

6; NAMA, No. 37 at p. 5) Zero Zone 

similarly commented that DOE’s graph 

in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD 

indicates that using high-performance 

doors would reduce the calculated daily 

energy use from 35.14 kWh/day to 26.60 

kWh/day, but Zero Zone stated that this 

design option is already employed by 

manufacturers, and that DOE is 

therefore double counting the impact of 

high-performance doors. (Zero Zone, 

No. 44 at p. 3). 

AHRI commented that design options 

included in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD—such as high efficiency doors, 

fans, motors, and ECM in self-contained 

cases—are largely already incorporated 

by manufacturers to meet current 

standards and that counting them a 

second time will not cause the 

equipment to meet the proposed energy 

efficiency levels. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 3) 

AHRI noted that vacuum-packed doors 

and insulation are a few of the 

recommended design options that are 

not already in use by manufacturers. 

(Id.) AHRI commented that lowtemperature vertical closed transparent 

(‘‘VCT’’) classes already use highefficiency doors and that DOE’s model 

is incorrect regarding low-temperature 

VCT equipment classes as DOE assumes 

no-sweat anti-heat. (Id. at p. 6) AHRI 

noted that DOE’s baseline does not meet 

current energy-efficiency standards, as 

the current standard for VCT remote low 

temperature allowable is 34.46 kWh/day 

compared to 35.14 kWh/day in DOE’s 

baseline design without design options. 

(Id.) AHRI noted also that there is no 

room for anti-sweat controls under the 

ASHRAE test conditions and therefore 

this technology is not logical. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that many potential 

energy saving scenarios in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD contain elements that 

are already in use or are technically 

impractical for refrigeration equipment. 

(Id. at p. 14) AHRI stated that the teardown analysis must have used 

equipment built before 2019, which 

would have excluded design features 

needed to meet current energy 

conservation standards, such as efficient 

doors and LED lights. (Id.) AHRI 

commented that variable-speed 

compressors are impactful with 

significant changing loads, but not for 

most refrigeration systems. (Id.) AHRI 

also stated that the analysis failed to 

recognize concerns with proposed 

product features; for example, retailers 

generally do not want occupancy 

lighting because a light that is off 

indicates to consumers that equipment 

is not working properly and that food 

may be spoiled. (Id.) AHRI commented 

that energy-saving opportunities are 

lower after the elimination of design 

features that are technically infeasible, 

already in use, or cost prohibitive. (Id.) 

AHRI stated that design options are also 

limited by the equipment footprint: 

larger compressors or additional 

insulation requirements increase case 

sizes and reduce storage capacity, 

creating less utility and requiring 

remodeling to fit in current spaces. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD failed to address the 

impact of design options on 

performance or other design features, 

such as temperature, and offered the 

example of the VCT.RC.M equipment 

class in which some OEMs have begun 

incorporating high-efficiency, triplepane doors and increased insulation. 

(Id.) AHRI stated the baseline 

components in the tear-down analysis 

included evaporator fans that are 

shaded pole motors and have not been 

used in years. (Id.) 

Continental stated that some 

selections in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD technology options have not been 

sufficiently evaluated for their current 

usage, anticipated contribution to 

energy reduction, technological 

viability, cost impact, and/or bearing on 

the utility of the equipment. 

(Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) Continental 

noted that many manufacturers already 

use improved transparent doors, highefficiency LED lighting, and highefficiency ECM fans to meet current 

standards for DOE and/or ENERGY 

STAR. (Id.) 

Zero Zone commented that DOE did 

not conduct manufacturer interviews. 

(Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 5) Zero Zone 

stated that each of its models in the 

compliance database uses a unique code 

to identify the components provided. 

(Id.) Zero Zone questioned how DOE 

determined what is included in this 

base line. (Id.) 

With respect to comments from 

NAMA, NAFEM, ITW, AHRI, 

Continental, and Zero Zone, DOE 

followed a similar approach to the 

March 2014 Final Rule analysis in the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis but 

incorporated additional design options 

and updated the design option 

assumptions based on publicly available 

manufacturer specifications and 

preliminary test data. In support of this 

NOPR, manufacturer interviews were 

conducted and interviews yielded 

feedback on several aspects of the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis, including 

typical CRE baseline components. 

Further, DOE has reviewed the current 

CRE market, incorporated feedback from 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and 

incorporated information gathered 

during manufacturer interviews to 

update the baseline components in this 

NOPR to reflect current designs and 

ensure that design options have not 

already been implemented in a 

representative baseline CRE for each 

equipment class. 

For the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE directly analyzed 

multiple equipment classes intended to 

represent the majority of industry 

shipments for CRE. Within each 

analyzed equipment class, DOE also 

selected a volume or TDA for the 

analysis to best represent the range of 

equipment available in that equipment 

class. For currently covered equipment 

classes, the representative volumes and 

TDAs selected were consistent with 

those analyzed for the March 2014 Final 

Rule. DOE has retained the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis approach in this 

NOPR. Although the NOPR analysis is 

conducted at one representative volume 

or TDA for each directly analyzed class, 

DOE considers the components, design 

options, costs, and energy use 

characteristics of CRE across the entire 

equipment class. 

See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details on the baseline 

components in each equipment class. 

AHT commented that internal LED 

lighting is a common characteristic in 

all closed transparent equipment 

classes, yet in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE does not indicate lights 

for the baseline design options for 

horizontal closed transparent selfcontained equipment classes 

(HCT.SC.M, HCT.SC.L, HCT.SC.I). 

(AHT, No. 48 at p. 1) AHT stated that 

good internal illumination is of high 

importance for these units because their 

purpose is to display refrigerated or 

frozen food to the end consumer, 

whereas open units may be sufficiently 

illuminated with external ceiling lights. 

(Id. at pp. 1–2) AHT commented that 

DOE’s energy rating regulation does not 

consider the energy consumption of 

such external lights or the additional 

headload, further disadvantaging closed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70230 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

units compared to open units. (Id. at p. 

2) AHT commented that the energy 

consumption of open units relying on 

external lights is substantially higher 

than the test result suggests because the 

additional lighting is often higher than 

the 800 lux stated in the test procedure. 

(Id.) 

AHT commented that manufacturers 

have already incorporated many of the 

proposed design options to meet current 

limits for HCT.SC.M/L/I and provided 

the example of a unit from the 

HCT.SC.M equipment class with around 

25 ft2 of TDA, which already uses highefficiency reciprocating compressors, 

brushless DC condenser fan motors, 

variable-speed compressors, and an 

additional half inch of insulation to 

achieve the measured consumption of 

1.9 kWh/24h in the test. (Id. at pp. 2– 

3) 

Based on a review of these comments, 

manufacturer feedback, and the 

available equipment on the market, DOE 

has included lighting and additional 

components at the baseline for 

horizontal closed transparent CRE 

equipment in this NOPR. See chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD for additional details. 

Regarding fan motors, the CA IOUs 

referred DOE to their comments on the 

July 2021 RFI in which they stated that 

there has been continued improvement 

in fan motors since energy conservation 

standards were last analyzed. (CA IOUs, 

No. 43 at p. 2) The CA IOUs expressed 

gratitude that DOE included 

electronically commutated permanent 

magnet motors, also known as brushless 

permanent magnet motors or brushless 

DC motors and synchronous motors; 

however, the CA IOUs also commented 

that the list of fan motor technology 

options analyzed for the closed-door 

refrigeration categories is incomplete, as 

shown in the CA IOUs Table 1, which 

lists all analyzed fan types alongside all 

self-contained equipment families. (Id. 

at pp. 2–3) The CA IOUs recommended 

that the evaporator fan technology 

options analyzed in the vertical closed 

refrigeration category also be analyzed 

for the horizontal closed refrigeration 

category. (Id. at p. 2) The CA IOUs 

stated that several horizontal glass case 

manufacturers offer medium- to lowtemperature convertible units, 

suggesting that analyzing the same 

technology options for these two 

equipment classes makes sense. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters recommended 

that DOE analyze evaporator 

technologies for horizontal, closed CREs 

as DOE had done for the majority of CRE 

equipment classes. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters 

stated that DOE’s analysis found that 

these evaporator-related technology 

options result in significant energy 

savings for other equipment classes 

analyzed. (Id.) The Joint Commenters 

stated that they are unsure why DOE 

excluded evaporator technology options 

for horizontal closed CREs. (Id.) 

In response to the comments from the 

CA IOUs and the Joint Commenters, 

DOE notes that the horizontal closed 

category (horizontal closed transparent 

or solid equipment classes) consists of 

CRE that utilize either cold-wall or 

forced-air evaporators depending on the 

equipment class. DOE observed that 

each primary equipment class that 

utilizes forced air evaporators has an 

evaporator fan and motor and each 

primary equipment class that utilizes 

cold-wall evaporators does not have an 

evaporator fan and motor. Therefore, 

classes with a cold-wall evaporator did 

not have an evaporator fan motor design 

option. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 

for additional details. 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD analysis for 

several equipment categories (e.g., chef 

bases/griddle stands, semi-vertical open, 

and horizontal closed transparent) 

assumes shaded-pole motors as the 

baseline; however, the CA IOUs stated 

that shaded-pole motors are rarely used 

in new equipment in the industry and 

recommended that DOE analyze 

permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) 

motors as the baseline. (CA IOUs, No. 43 

at p. 3) Similarly, AHRI commented that 

there are inconsistencies with the 

assumptions made regarding efficiency 

levels in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD: (1) the VOP.RC.M (open dairy 

cases) class in the baseline already have 

ECMs, which should have been the 

baseline motor, and (2) LED lighting 

contributing to increased efficiency. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at p. 2) 

With respect to the comment from the 

CA IOUs, for chef bases or griddle 

stands, DOE has tentatively determined 

that, based on teardowns conducted in 

support of this NOPR, shaded-pole 

motors (‘‘SPMs’’) are used for fan motors 

in baseline equipment. See chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional details. 

Regarding the equipment noted by 

commenters, DOE has also updated 

baseline components in this NOPR for 

all equipment classes (including those 

components and classes mentioned by 

commenters) to better reflect baseline 

CRE. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional detail. 

Equipment Classes with Unique 

Energy Use Characteristics. ITW 

commented that, in terms of designoptions compliance with the MDEC 

value, DOE failed to recognize that 

manufacturers might use other options 

farther down the list of compliant 

design options to produce cabinets with 

increased heat loads due to their 

physical features (other than those 

required by a simple reach-in 

refrigerator), citing the following 

applications as examples: (1) passthrough refrigerators—cabinets with 

doors on both sides, providing access to 

stored items from either side; (2) roll-in 

refrigerators—cabinets with ramps and 

door sweeps that allow for loading of 

bakery carts; and (3) roll-through 

refrigerators—cabinets with ramps and 

door sweeps on both sides that allow for 

bakery carts to move in and out from 

one side to the other. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 

33) ITW commented that in the 2014 

TSD, DOE proposed many of the same 

design options to achieve compliance 

and manufacturers adopted many of the 

options, such as ECM fans and highefficiency compressors, with the 

industry trending toward R–290 

refrigeration systems. (Id.) ITW 

commented that DOE does not prescribe 

technologies; it recommends them and 

industry selects the technology used for 

compliance. (Id.) 

NAFEM stated that it and other 

commenters recommended separating 

forced-air and cold-wall refrigeration 

systems into different categories, yet 

DOE deferred making a decision until a 

future proposed rule. (NAFEM, No. 40 

at p. 3) NAFEM commented that the 

preliminary TSD stage is the appropriate 

stage to adopt a position on these 

categories and that DOE’s deferral 

missed an opportunity for DOE to work 

with NAFEM members to fully 

understand the issues. (Id.) 

NAFEM also commented that DOE’s 

decision to defer accounting for 

different door configurations (roll-in, 

roll-through, and pass-through doors) 

presented a similar missed opportunity 

for DOE to work with NAFEM members. 

(Id.) 

With respect to the comments from 

ITW and NAFEM, DOE recognizes that 

certain CRE equipment classes may 

contain equipment that utilize either 

forced-air evaporators or cold-wall 

evaporators and that certain CRE 

equipment classes may contain 

equipment that have different door 

configurations (e.g., roll-in, roll-through, 

and pass-through). Based on CCD data, 

information from commenters and 

manufacturer interviews, and DOE’s 

directly analyzed units showing an 

energy use difference between certain 

types of CRE, DOE has tentatively 

determined to include separate energy 

use equations based on an energy use 

multiplier for certain equipment classes 

that contain CRE with unique utility. 

This energy use multiplier will require 

models with certain characteristics (e.g., 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70231 

roll-in doors, roll-thru doors, pass-thru 

doors, forced-air evaporators) to comply 

with an energy conservation standard 

that has a higher maximum daily energy 

consumption than the proposed energy 

conservation standard for a specific 

equipment class. DOE has initially 

determined that the energy use 

multipliers do not result in maximum 

daily energy consumptions that are 

higher than the current energy 

conservation standard for a given 

equipment class (i.e., complying with 

EPCA’s ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, 

which prevents the Secretary from 

prescribing any amended standard that 

either increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

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

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1))). 

In section IV.A.1.b of this NOPR, DOE 

proposes definitions for pass-through, 

roll-in, roll-through, and sliding doors. 

Based on CCD data, information from 

commenters and manufacturer 

interviews, and DOE’s directly analyzed 

units showing an energy use difference 

between certain types of CRE, DOE has 

tentatively developed an energy use 

multiplier for equipment classes that 

DOE observed CRE with pass-through, 

roll-in, roll-through, or sliding doors on 

the market. DOE has tentatively 

developed multipliers for pass-through, 

sliding, and roll-in doors (roll-through is 

a combination of pass-through and rollin), which in combination account for 

all the different door designs currently 

observed on the market. See table IV.7 

for additional details. 

TABLE IV.7—DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT CLASS MULTIPLIERS FOR UNIQUE DOOR CHARACTERISTICS

Door type Applicable equipment classes Equipment type 

coefficient 

Equipment 

class multiplier 

Pass-through .................................. VCT.RC.M; VCT.SC.M; VCT.SC.L; VCS.SC.M; VCS.SC.L ................... PT ..................... 1.04 

Sliding ............................................. VCT.RC.M; VCT.SC.M ............................................................................ SD ..................... 1.07 

Pass-through and Sliding ............... VCT.RC.M; VCT.SC.M ............................................................................ SDPT ................ 1.11 

Roll-in .............................................. VCT.RC.M; VCT.SC.M; VCS.SC.M; VCS.SC.L ...................................... RI ...................... 1.05 

Roll-through .................................... VCT.RC.M; VCT.SC.M; VCS.SC.M; VCS.SC.L ...................................... RT ..................... 1.09 

In section IV.A.1.b of this NOPR, DOE 

additionally proposes definitions for 

cold-wall and forced-air evaporators. 

Based on CCD data, information from 

commenters and manufacturer 

interviews, and DOE’s directly analyzed 

units showing an energy use difference 

between certain types of CRE, DOE has 

tentatively developed an energy use 

multiplier for equipment classes that 

were directly analyzed in this NOPR as 

CRE with a cold-wall evaporator and 

which DOE observed CRE with forcedair evaporators in those equipment 

classes on the market. DOE has 

tentatively developed this multiplier to 

account for the additional energy use 

associated with a forced-air evaporator 

as compared to a cold-wall evaporator. 

See table IV.8 for additional details. 

TABLE IV.8—DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT CLASS MULTIPLIERS FOR UNIQUE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

Refrigeration system Applicable equipment classes Equipment type 

coefficient 

Equipment 

class multiplier 

Forced Air ....................................... HCS.SC.L ................................................................................................ FA ..................... 1.2 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to apply an energy use 

multiplier to certain equipment classes 

that contain CRE with unique utility 

and energy use characteristics. DOE 

additionally requests comment on the 

proposed multiplier values and 

equipment classes for which these 

multipliers would be applied. 

b. Higher Efficiency Levels 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest efficiency unit currently 

available on the market. DOE also 

defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to 

represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given equipment. 

After conducting the screening 

analysis described in section IV.B of this 

document and chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD, DOE considered the remaining 

design options in the engineering 

analysis to achieve higher efficiency 

levels. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 

for additional detail on the design 

options. 

Design Options beyond Baseline. In 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, the CA IOUs recommended 

analyzing variable-speed fan control as 

a technology option for vertical, 

medium-temperature refrigerators. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 2) 

With respect to the recommendation 

from the CA IOUs, DOE has not 

considered variable-speed fan 

technology as a design option for this 

NOPR. For open cases, the evaporator 

fan must run continuously to maintain 

the air curtain so any variable-speed 

function could disrupt the air curtain. 

For closed cases, DOE did not receive 

any data to show energy use savings 

associated with variable-speed fan 

control and has tentatively determined 

that variable-speed fan control would 

not reduce energy use according to the 

DOE test procedure. DOE notes that it 

did consider evaporator fan control (i.e., 

cycling the evaporator fan on and off as 

opposed to running constantly) as a 

design option. See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional information. 

NAFEM commented that DOE should 

make it easier for the public to 

understand how it calculates possible 

improvements that reduce energy 

consumption, providing the example of 

the efficiency of permanent-magnet 

synchronous motors (also known as 

synchronous-reluctance motors). 

(NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 6) NAFEM 

commented that these motors, for which 

NAFEM stated DOE claimed a 

theoretical efficiency of 75 percent, are 

not available in the rated wattages found 

in the 2022 spreadsheet, despite being 

the basis for two design-level options. 

(Id.) 

Based on feedback during 

manufacturer interviews, feedback from 

commenters, and a review of the current 

market, DOE has tentatively determined 

to remove permanent-magnet 

synchronous motors (previously 

referred to as synchronous-reluctance 

motors) from the NOPR analysis because 

motors currently available on the market 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70232 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

do not span the range of CRE fan 

wattages and revolutions per minute 

needed for proper operation. For more 

information, see chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

June 2022 Preliminary TSD 

inconsistently considered variable 

defrost for certain low- and mediumtemperature categories. (CA IOUs, No. 

43 at p. 6) As an example, the CA IOUs 

stated that the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD analyzed variable defrost for 

horizontal open self-contained cases— 

medium temperature (‘‘HZO.SC.M’’) but 

not horizontal open self-contained 

cases—low temperature (‘‘HZO.SC.L’’). 

(Id.) The CA IOUs recommended that 

DOE review technology options 

analyzed across equipment categories 

for consistency and that DOE analyze 

variable defrost as a technology option 

for vertical glass door self-contained 

freezers (‘‘VCT.SC.L’’) and vertical solid 

door self-contained ice cream freezers 

(‘‘VCS.SC.I’’) because there are aftermarket controllers available to enable 

variable defrost in any freezer category. 

(Id.) 

While DOE considered variable 

defrost as a design option in the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE has 

tentatively determined to remove this 

design option in the NOPR. Based on 

manufacturer feedback and test data, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

there is variation across equipment 

classes and defrost types that would not 

allow for a variable-defrost control 

design option that is representative of 

each class. And based on discussions 

with manufacturers, all manufacturers 

are already controlling the defrost 

period on a time- or temperature-based 

defrost specific to each individual 

model to minimize the defrost time and 

energy consumption. For further 

discussion, see chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

AHT commented that it is unable to 

comprehend the listed energy-saving 

potentials for the different temperature 

classes and the values seem incorrect. 

(AHT, No. 48 at p. 6) AHT asked why 

the potential savings for variable-speed 

compressors, for example, are rated at 

20 percent in the ice cream class, 35 

percent in the low-temperature class, 

and zero percent in the mediumtemperature class. (Id.) 

DOE reviewed its engineering 

spreadsheet model and compressors 

analyzed and tentatively determined the 

discrepancy noted by AHT occurs 

because of the energy efficiency ratios 

(‘‘EERs’’) for single-speed and variablespeed compressors available on the 

market. Based on compressors analyzed 

from several manufacturers of CRE 

compressors, single-speed compressors 

available on the market, operating at 

medium back pressure (‘‘MBP’’) 

(medium-temperature refrigerators), 

typically have EERs more similar to 

those of variable-speed compressors 

available on the market, operating at 

MBP, when compared to compressors 

operating at low back pressure (‘‘LBP’’) 

(low-temperature freezers and ice-cream 

freezers). This means that there is less 

potential energy savings for mediumtemperature refrigerators that use 

variable-speed compressors. The 

difference in EERs is based on the 

operation of a single-speed vs variablespeed compressor, which has a 

significant decrease in cooling capacity 

as the operating temperature decreases. 

See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details on the compressor 

analysis. 

Efficiency Levels and Max-Tech. 

AHRI commented that DOE has not 

defined efficiency levels in adequate 

detail and recommended that DOE 

verify its analysis for accuracy and 

consistency. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 3) 

NAMA commented that DOE should 

reduce the demands to make additional 

changes and acknowledge that 

manufacturers have already made 

changes that would contribute 

significantly to the Administration’s 

climate change initiatives. (NAMA, No. 

37 at p. 8) NAMA stated that the actual 

energy savings that can be attributed to 

DOE’s design options in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD engineering analysis 

are closer to a 5–10-percent reduction 

from baseline energy usage after 

removing design options that are not 

technically feasible or that were 

accomplished years ago. (Id.) NAMA 

noted that its estimate of a 5–10-percent 

reduction is significantly lower than 

DOE’s estimate of a 41-percent 

reduction in energy use. (Id.) 

DOE has considered commenters’ 

feedback, information gathered through 

manufacturer interviews, and additional 

testing of analysis units to update the 

analysis, including the efficiency levels 

and max tech. See chapters 3 and 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for a description of each 

design option and how each is 

incorporated into the NOPR analysis. 

AHT commented that the limits from 

the March 2014 Final Rule have almost 

eliminated the equipment classes 

HCT.SC.M, HCT.SC.L, and HCT.SC.I. 

(AHT, No. 48 at p. 2) AHT stated that 

the closed units within these classes are 

among the most efficient food display 

equipment in retail stores and 

corresponding open units consume far 

more energy while being regulated less 

strictly. (Id.) AHT commented that the 

72.6-percent reduction of energy 

consumption for the HCT.SC.M, the 

60.4-percent reduction of energy 

consumption for the HCT.SC.L, and the 

61.6-percent reduction of energy 

consumption for the HCT.SC.I are 

impossible, and AHT recommended 

repeating the engineering analysis for 

these equipment classes. (Id. at p. 3–6) 

DOE has considered commenters’ 

feedback, information gathered through 

manufacturer interviews, and additional 

testing of analysis units to update the 

analysis for horizontal closed 

transparent equipment. See chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional details on 

the baseline specifications and design 

options analyzed for these equipment 

classes. 

The Joint Commenters stated that, for 

several of the equipment classes 

analyzed, multiple models at 

comparable sizes in DOE’s CCD exceed 

the max-tech efficiency level in the 

engineering analysis. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 39 at p. 3) The Joint 

Commenters provided an example that 

DOE’s max-tech level for the 

representative service over counter 

remote condensing medium temperature 

(‘‘SOC.RC.M’’) unit is 14.7 kWh/day, yet 

there are multiple models in the CCD at 

a comparable size with energy 

consumption as low as about 10 kWh/ 

day. (Id.) The Joint Commenters added 

that multiple models of vertical open 

self-contained medium temperature 

(‘‘VOP.SC.M’’) units significantly 

exceed DOE’s max-tech level of 23.5 

kWh/day at similar total display areas. 

(Id.) The Joint Commenters stated that 

models are available beyond DOE’s 

max-tech levels for additional 

equipment classes as well and 

recommended that DOE set max-tech 

levels that are at least as high as 

efficiencies currently available on the 

market. (Id.) 

While DOE considers the maximum 

efficiency level for CRE available on the 

market, there are certain components or 

technologies for equipment classes that 

manufacturers may choose to 

implement that are not directly 

analyzed as a design option. For 

example, some manufacturers may have 

different airflow designs for open cases 

that affect energy use, which are 

calibrated specific to a CRE model, 

referred to as an ‘‘air curtain’’. Air 

curtains are only applicable on open 

units (such as the VOP.SC.M equipment 

class mentioned by the Joint 

Commenters) and are intended to 

mitigate heat infiltration into the CRE. 

See section IV.B.1.d of this NOPR or 

chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details on air curtains. DOE 

analyzes design options that pass the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70233 

49NAFEM included its 2015 brief in addition to 

their comment responses. NAFEM specifically 

referenced pp. 35–51 for this comment. 

screening criteria and have a measurable 

impact on CRE efficiency. 

c. Engineering Spreadsheet Model 

In performing the engineering 

analysis in the March 2014 Final Rule, 

DOE selected representative units for 

each primary equipment class to serve 

as analysis points in the development of 

cost-efficiency curves. 79 FR 17726, 

17746. In selecting these units, DOE 

researched the offerings of major 

manufacturers to select models that 

were generally representative of the 

typical offerings produced within the 

given equipment class. Id. Unit sizes, 

configurations, and features were based 

on high-shipment-volume designs 

prevalent in the market. Id. Using these 

data, a set of specifications was 

developed defining a representative unit 

for each primary equipment class. Id. 

These specifications include geometric 

dimensions, quantities of components 

(such as fans), operating temperatures, 

and other case features that are 

necessary to calculate energy 

consumption. Id. Modifications to the 

units modeled were made as needed to 

ensure that those units were 

representative of typical models from 

industry, rather than a specific unit 

offered by one manufacturer. Id. This 

process created a representative unit for 

each equipment class with typical 

characteristics for physical parameters 

(e.g., volume, TDA), and minimum 

performance of energy-consuming 

components (e.g., fans, lighting). Id. 

As noted in the Executive Summary 

of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, 

DOE analyzed the same representative 

volumes and TDAs developed in the 

March 2014 Final Rule. See 79 FR 

17726, 17746. In the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE kept the 

same design specifications in most 

cases, but updated some design 

specifications to better match the 

directly analyzed units available on the 

market. DOE received several comments 

on the updates made to the engineering 

spreadsheet model, summarized below. 

NAFEM stated that, as demonstrated 

in its 2015 brief,49 errors and omissions 

in the engineering spreadsheet have 

significant effects on DOE’s CRE 

analyses and final standards-setting 

process. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 2) 

NAFEM commented that its members 

could provide important information to 

DOE to improve and correct its 

engineering spreadsheets to make any 

future proposed CRE rules less 

controversial and more representative of 

real-world applications. (Id. at p. 4) 

NAFEM stated that any concerns 

identified by NAFEM are only limited 

examples of issues it believes exist 

throughout the document. (Id.) 

NAFEM stated that ITW compared the 

March 2014 Final Rule engineering 

spreadsheet to the 2022 engineering 

spreadsheet related to the preliminary 

analysis for CRE. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 

4) NAFEM commented that the 

equipment classes subject to review 

were VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, VCS.SC.M, 

and VCS.SC.L, which included selfcontained refrigerators and freezers at 

medium and low temperatures with 

both solid and transparent vertical 

closed doors. (Id.) NAFEM commented 

that many of the observations provided 

by ITW applied to other equipment 

classes as well. (Id. at p. 5) 

ITW commented that the CRE 

engineering spreadsheet made 

generalized assumptions that could be 

considered opinion versus facts and all 

product types in an equipment class are 

not reflected. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 2) ITW 

commented that the spreadsheet 

requires validation, that costs are 

inaccurate to the point of being useless, 

that more collaboration with 

manufacturers is needed, and that DOE 

should build confidence in the 

spreadsheet by making it more visible. 

(Id.) 

Zero Zone commented that some of 

DOE’s models have errors and asked 

that DOE share the raw data for these 

models, including, at minimum, the 

type and number of models that were 

reverse engineered and/or lab tested. 

(Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 1) 

With respect to the comments from 

NAFEM, ITW, and Zero Zone, DOE 

developed and calibrated the 

engineering spreadsheet model based on 

test data from directly analyzed units, 

feedback from manufacturer interviews, 

and market data from the CCD. DOE has 

also published the engineering 

spreadsheet model for the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis and for this NOPR. 

In support of this NOPR, DOE tested 70 

CRE models and reverse engineered 47 

CRE models. These models consisted of 

all equipment families within the scope 

of this NOPR except pull-down 

temperature applications, and all 

temperature classes. The volume range 

of these models is 3 ft3–69 ft3 and the 

TDA range is 5 ft2–32 ft2. 

NAFEM requested an explanation 

regarding the 75-percent reduction in 

‘‘Infiltrated Air Mass Flow (lb/hr)’’ on 

the 2022 engineering spreadsheet under 

‘‘Design Specifications’’ when compared 

with the 2014 spreadsheet. (NAFEM, 

No. 40 at p. 6) 

ITW similarly commented that DOE 

failed to provide any supporting 

documentation, calculations, or impact 

analysis for updates from the 2013 and 

2014 CRE engineering spreadsheets to 

the 2022 revision used to estimate 

performance in terms of Infiltrated Air 

Mass Flow [lb/hr] and Polyurethane 

Foam K-Factor [Btu*in/ft2h°F]. (ITW, 

No. 41 at p. 18) ITW commented that 

some design specifications listed in 

table 5A.2.5 through table 5A.2.8 were 

updated in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD while other changes received only 

brief commentary, such as ‘‘Improved 

Resistivity of Insulation’’ found in 

section 3.3.1.1 concerning polyurethane 

foam. (Id.) ITW further commented that 

this issue was discovered at the end of 

the comment period and that said 

comment period required extension 

because the changes do not represent a 

thermal efficiency improvement for 

polyurethane foam insulation. (Id.) ITW 

questioned why two differing methods 

were used to calculate the ‘‘Conduction 

Through Walls and Solid Doors [Btu/ 

hr]’’ and requested justification for the 

change, stating that one formula in the 

spreadsheet or the other could be 

correct, but not both. (Id.) 

ITW added that DOE spent 

considerable time in 2013 and 2014 

developing the energy consumption 

model and calculating the right values 

for Infiltrated Air Mass Flow [lb/hr], 

working with manufacturers’ detailed 

specifications, calculating sensible and 

latent heat loads due to infiltration, and 

reviewing and revising the infiltrated air 

mass flow values for certain equipment 

classes, including VCT and VCS based 

on stakeholder feedback. (Id. at pp. 18– 

23) ITW commented that, by contrast, in 

the 2022 CRE engineering spreadsheet, 

DOE made significant changes to the 

Infiltrated Air Mass Flow value for 17 

different equipment classes, including 

VCT and VCS models, without an 

explanation other than DOE did update 

design specifications. (Id. at p. 23) ITW 

stated that the formulas used to 

calculate the ‘‘Load Due to Infiltration 

[Btu/hr]’’ on the engineering 

spreadsheet tab ‘‘Calculations’’ and the 

CRE cabinet specification have not 

changed from 2014. (Id.) ITW 

summarized its comment by stating 

DOE needed to explain this discrepancy 

or recalculate the 17 classes with 

revised or reverted values for Infiltrated 

Air Mass Flow [lb/hr]. (Id.) ITW 

concluded that its calculations resulted 

in the following assumptions: (1) DOE 

underestimated by 28 percent the 

theoretical quantity of heat (BTU/hr) 

infiltrating the representative 49 (cu ft) 

VCS.SC.M model during the 2014 CRE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70234 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

50See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0007-0032. 51See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0007-0050. 

rulemaking; (2) DOE would overstate a 

decline in thermal performance for the 

foam insulation by 25 percent for the 

same model in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD; (3) if 1 and 2 were 

correct, DOE would need to correct its 

energy use model for all equipment 

classes; and (4) discrepancies in DOE’s 

own parameter Conduction Through 

Walls and Solid Doors [Btu/hr] between 

the 2014 TSD and the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD should have been 

flagged for further explanation and 

discussion in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD. (Id. at pp. 25–26) 

ITW commented that DOE discarded 

specific data when faced with energy 

consumption values above the MDEC 

for the baseline unit in the 2022 

engineering spreadsheet, instead 

calculating new values for the baseline 

unit and not DOE’s own energy model. 

(Id. at p. 34) ITW questioned whether 

DOE trusted its engineering spreadsheet. 

(Id.) 

Based on comments received from 

NAFEM and ITW, DOE has re-evaluated 

the infiltrated air-mass flow and 

insulation design specifications in this 

NOPR. Based on feedback provided 

from manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE updated 

the infiltrated air-mass flow and 

insulation design specifications in this 

NOPR to be more consistent with the 

March 2014 Final Rule. See chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional details. 

Zero Zone commented that the 

fraction of power into case for 

evaporator motors is missing. (Zero 

Zone, No. 44 at p. 3) Zero Zone stated 

that this heat load is illustrated in the 

component load in the model diagram 

tab but not included in the daily energy 

consumption calculations. (Id.) 

DOE reviewed the engineering 

spreadsheet model published to the 

docket 50 and found that this calculation 

was included (see the ‘‘Calculations’’ 

tab, row 176). 

ITW commented that to review data 

in the CRE engineering spreadsheets, 

the Excel macros needed to function, 

but the 2013 and 2014 CRE engineering 

spreadsheet macros were not found to 

be executable in Excel using a 64-bit 

Windows 10 computer and instead 

required Excel running on a 32-bit 

WindowsNT machine. (ITW, No. 41 at 

p. 6) 

In response to the comment from 

ITW, DOE notes that the data and 

formulas are reviewable regardless of 

the version of the Windows operating 

system being used because the macros 

do not affect the underlying data and 

formulas. 

d. Industry Trade Association Survey 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, three industry 

trade associations surveyed their 

members to provide feedback to DOE on 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. The 

survey is located on the docket,51 and 

DOE has provided a summary of the 

engineering-related results of the 

survey. 

AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM stated 

that more than 50 percent of the data in 

the survey was shared by small 

businesses (<1250 employees). (Trade 

Associations Survey, No. 50 at p. 8) The 

manufacturers surveyed manufacture all 

equipment types (to varying degrees) 

directly analyzed in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, besides VCT.SC.I 

equipment. (Id. at pp. 9–10) 

The survey provided a heat map of 

design options currently used across 

different equipment classes. (Id. at p. 

11) AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM noted 

that all members reported using LED 

lighting and are unaware of any higherefficiency lighting that could be 

incorporated into their equipment. (Id.) 

DOE notes that, based on the survey, all 

design options besides vacuuminsulated panels are currently used by at 

least a small percentage of the market, 

but many technologies are used by less 

than 50 percent of manufacturers 

surveyed. (See Id.) 

AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM provided 

a chart asking manufacturers why 

certain design options were not used. 

(Id. at p. 12) The responses included: 

‘‘not economically justified,’’ ‘‘reduced 

utility,’’ ‘‘not technologically feasible, ’’ 

‘‘limited market (not as desireable),’’ 

‘‘already in use to meet current ECS,’’ 

and ‘‘option not available for this 

equipment.’’ (Id.) AHRI, NAMA, and 

NAFEM added that the most common 

response was that the design options 

were already in use by manufacturers, 

and the second most common response 

was that those design options not 

already in use were not economically 

justified. (Id.) 

AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM stated 

that some manufacturers identified 

ways to use design options to meet EL 

1–3 proposed in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis; however, no 

manufacturers thought EL 4–6 was 

feasible for any equipment class. (Id. at 

p. 14) As a follow up to what ELs 

manufacturers thought were 

appropriate, AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM 

stated that manufacturers responded 

that a 1-percent increase in energy 

efficiency over today’s levels would be 

acceptable, and numerous responses 

stated that max tech has already been 

achieved. (Id. at p. 15) 

AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM 

commented that manufacturers reported 

using the most energy-efficient foam 

insulation available, with an average K 

factor of 0.15. (Id. at p. 19) AHRI, 

NAMA, and NAFEM stated that 

manufacturers primarily use highpressure, two-component foam systems, 

with the remainder using an application 

technique, such as foam boards and 

spray polyurethane foam insulation. 

(Id.) AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM noted 

that refurbished equipment is not 

reinsulated to meet the current 

standard. (Id.) AHRI, NAMA, and 

NAFEM also commented that increased 

thickness either increases the cabinet 

footprint or decreases internal 

dimensions in cases, making them more 

costly for consumers, especially for 

equipment replacement, which would 

require a redesign of the architecture of 

the store. (Id.) AHRI, NAMA, and 

NAFEM commented that survey 

respondents stated that increased 

insulation thickness would require a 

new foam mixture, as well as tooling 

and design changes, and decrease the 

display/storage area or increase the 

footprint of the equipment. (Id. at p. 20) 

AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM noted that 

survey respondents indicated that VIPs 

could not be incorporated into the foam 

matrix without early failures, raising 

concerns that VIPs are not a viable 

design option. (Id. at p. 19) 

DOE has considered the results of this 

survey as part of its NOPR engineering 

analysis. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated equipment, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the equipment on the 

market. The cost approaches are 

summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available equipment, 

component by component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the 

equipment. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing equipment, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70235 

52U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval 

system is available at www.sec.gov/edgar/ 

searchedgar/companysearch (last accessed March 

30, 2023). 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the equipment. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (e.g., for 

tightly integrated products such as 

fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible 

to disassemble and for which parts 

diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, DOE conducted 

the analysis using physical and catalog 

teardowns. See chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for additional details. 

DOE received several comments in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis related to the manufacturer 

production costs (‘‘MPCs’’). 

NAFEM commented that it compared 

inflation index and cost model values in 

DOE’s engineering spreadsheets with 

ITW’s own calculations for the same 

values. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 5) NAFEM 

stated that significant discrepancies 

existed between DOE’s and ITW’s 

calculations of the inflation index for 

evaporator and condenser fan motors, 

evaporator coil, condenser coil, 

insulation, and core case cost. (Id.) 

NAFEM commented also that it found 

inaccuracies in DOE’s calculations used 

for a cost analysis of design-level 

technology options. (Id. p. 5) For 

example, according to NAFEM, the 

simulated condenser and evaporator 

coil costs for self-contained models 

were off or low by 250 percent and the 

costs for evaporator and condenser fan 

blades were off by more than 300 

percent, having not been updated since 

before DOE published the March 2014 

Final Rule. (Id.) 

NAFEM commented that it reviewed 

the calculations and assumptions for 

DOE’s energy analysis at the 16 design 

option levels, and NAFEM noted that 

ITW would supply DOE with a current 

inflation rate for review as a cost 

structure update for 2022. (Id. at pp. 5– 

6) 

NAMA commented that it conducted 

an analysis of the effect of present 

inflation levels on the cost of 

components, summarizing the results of 

its analysis in a table showing the major 

components in efficiency compared 

with cost increases from October 2020 

to April 2021 and from October 2021 to 

April 2022. (NAMA, No. 37 at pp. 13– 

14) NAMA recommended that DOE 

factor in the unprecedented inflation of 

basic constituents in CRE machines into 

the costs shown for design options and 

into the economic analysis. (Id. at p. 14) 

ITW presented several examples of 

spreadsheet data comparing the 2014 

TSD and June 2022 Preliminary TSD 

engineering spreadsheets. (ITW, No. 41 

at pp. 36–47) ITW noted that, for all 

evaluations, MPC appeared to be down 

in 2022 relative to the 2014 reference, 

but the 2022 engineering spreadsheet 

did not reflect actual market changes, 

and when specifications and ordering 

were held to the 2014 reference, energy 

was up. (Id. at p. 37) ITW summarized 

that, as a result, the 2014 and 2022 

engineering spreadsheets did not appear 

to have a strong correlation. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that the baseline 

case should be modified to reflect 

current market prices, including the use 

of LEDs and energy-efficient doors, 

enhanced frames, and ECM fan motors. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at p. 6) AHRI commented 

that components were incorporated and 

upgraded to meet DOE’s previous CRE 

energy-efficiency requirements and that 

the no-standards-case efficiency 

distribution will need to be amended 

based on those corrections. (Id.) AHRI 

stated that prices of various design 

options need to be upgraded for the nostandards-case efficiency distribution. 

(Id.) 

ITW commented that, in DOE’s 

engineering analysis in the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD, DOE failed to 

establish an accurate baseline cost and, 

as a result, justification for any change 

to the MDEC was suspect to bias and/ 

or error. (ITW, No. 41 at pp. 27–28) ITW 

commented that costs have not fallen by 

12.4 percent or even remained flat as 

stated in the June 2022 Preliminary 

TSD, section 5.6 Core Case Costs, and 

that, in fact, costs have risen by up to 

24.9 percent. (Id. at p. 28) ITW 

commented that it cannot make 

determinations or move forward 

without correcting the cost issue found 

in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, 

considering that costs have not gone 

down since 2013 or 2014. (Id.) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

has updated the NOPR analysis to 

reflect current inflation rates (i.e., 2022 

dollars) and component and design 

option costs based on feedback from 

commenters, feedback from 

manufacturer interviews, a review of 

market data, and teardowns of directly 

analyzed units. See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional details. 

NAFEM commented that DOE should 

make it easier for the public to 

understand how it calculates possible 

improvements that reduce energy 

consumption. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 6) 

NAFEM identified the costs of 

microchannel condenser coils as an 

example where it believes improved 

clarity would be beneficial. (Id.) 

With respect to the comment from 

NAFEM, DOE has further described the 

cost and efficiency assumptions for each 

design option, including microchannel 

condensers, in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

NAMA commented that it found 

errors in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD 

for design options as follows: (a) highefficiency reciprocating compressor for 

VCS.SC.M is shown at a cost of $9.23 

but for VCT.SC.M it is shown as $4.01; 

(b) UA evaporator coil is shown for 

VCT.SC.H at $16.01 but for VCT.RC.M 

is $65.84, for VCS.SC.M is $14.33 and 

for VCT.SC.M is $22.90; (c) variablespeed compressor for VCS.SC.M is 

$72.54, for VCT.SC.M is $79.27 but for 

VCT.SC.L is $168.34; and (d) VIG door 

for VCT.SC.M is $837.38 but for 

VCT.RC.M is projected at $2,095.84. 

(NAMA, No. 37 at pp. 10–11) NAMA 

requested DOE’s justification for 

variations in the cost of the same 

component and further stated that this 

rulemaking should be withdrawn and 

replaced with accurate estimates, 

particularly for machines under 30 

cubic feet in capacity. (Id. at p. 12) 

With respect to the comment from 

NAMA, DOE assigns design 

specifications and costs for each 

equipment class based on a 

representative volume or TDA. 

Therefore, components may be a 

different size or capacity than other 

equipment classes, which likely yields a 

different cost. DOE expects that the 

different representative volumes or 

TDAs account for the differences 

described by NAMA. For example, the 

VCT.SC.M primary equipment class 

analyzed has 2 doors, whereas the 

VCT.RC.M primary equipment class 

analyzed has 5 doors. For more 

information on the design option costs, 

see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a multiplier (the manufacturer 

markup) to the MPC. The resulting 

manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is 

the price at which the manufacturer 

distributes a unit into commerce. DOE 

developed an industry average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

prior CRE rulemaking and annual 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports 52 filed by 

publicly traded manufacturers primarily 

engaged in commercial refrigeration 

manufacturing and whose combined 

equipment range includes CRE. 79 FR 

17725, 17758. See section IV.J.2.d of this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70236 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

document and chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD for additional information on the 

manufacturer markup. 

DOE seeks comment on the method 

for estimating manufacturing 

production costs. 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are reported as cost-efficiency data (or 

‘‘curves’’) in the form of daily energy 

consumption (in kWh) versus MPC (in 

dollars). DOE developed curves 

representing the primary equipment 

classes. The methodology for 

developing the curves started with 

determining the energy consumption for 

baseline equipment and MPCs for this 

equipment. Above the baseline, design 

options were implemented until all 

available technologies were employed 

(i.e., at a max-tech level). See chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD for additional detail 

on the engineering analysis and 

appendix 5B of the NOPR TSD for 

complete cost-efficiency results. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the Joint 

Commenters recommended that DOE 

evaluate additional, intermediateefficiency levels for certain equipment 

classes that fall between the 

downstream efficiency levels currently 

analyzed. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at 

p. 4) The Joint Commenters commented 

that EL 5 for the VCS.SC.M equipment 

class is cost effective but EL 6 is not; 

however, an intermediate level between 

EL 5 and EL 6 (a so-called ‘‘EL 5.5’’) 

could be cost effective. (Id.) The Joint 

Commenters stated that they provided a 

table (table 1) showing examples of 

classes in which an intermediate 

efficiency level may be cost effective. 

(Id.) 

NAMA stated that DOE had requested 

comments on the design options for 

each equipment class, but provided very 

little information on which commenters 

can base comments. (NAMA, No. 37 at 

p. 10) NAMA provided a detailed 

review of each of the design options 

considered by DOE in annex A to its 

comment and commented that DOE 

estimated that options AD4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 

and 13 in table 5.8.8 (results for 

VCT.SC.M) each have energy savings of 

less than 3 percent. (Id. at pp. 10, 21– 

40) NAMA further stated that the 

change suggested by AD4 is not 

possible. (Id. at p. 10) NAMA 

commented that for other options, the 

savings potential is very small despite 

being extremely expensive, even using 

DOE’s estimates, which NAMA stated 

are erroneous. (Id.) NAMA stated that it 

provided significantly different energy 

savings and cost estimates that it 

believes to be more accurate than those 

provided by DOE. (Id.) 

In response to the comments from the 

Joint Commenters and NAMA, DOE 

updated the EL structure in its NOPR 

analysis to better reflect the costeffective design path that manufacturers 

can take to achieve the ELs. DOE notes 

that design options are typically ordered 

by cost effectiveness, which may result 

in design options with low energy 

savings and high costs at the end of the 

design option order. DOE has updated 

the NOPR analysis based on comments 

received and manufacturer interview 

feedback. DOE provides additional 

details on design options in chapters 3– 

5 of the NOPR TSD. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., wholesaler 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert the 

MSP estimates derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies mark up the price 

of the equipment to cover business costs 

and profit margin. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE considered the following 

distribution channels: 

1a. Contractor channel with 

replacement (Manufacturer → 

Wholesaler → Mechanical Contractor → 

Consumer) 

1b. Contractor channel with new 

construction (Manufacturer → 

Wholesaler → Mechanical Contractor → 

General Contractor → Consumer) 

2. Wholesale channel (Manufacturer 

→ Wholesaler → Consumer) 

3. National account channel 

(Manufacturer → Consumer). 

Following the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, AHRI suggested that DOE 

should revise several channels, create a 

fourth channel for reused or refurbished 

equipment, and refer to consumers as 

‘‘end-users’’ because the term consumer 

may imply individuals or families. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at pp. 3–4) AHRI also 

recommended DOE to include other 

CRE purchaser categories, such as 

buyer’s clubs, restaurant consortiums, 

food service consultants, and 

governmental bids. (Id.). Further, in the 

Trade Associations Survey, some 

manufacturers proposed including an 

additional channel under channel 2 for 

OEM to OEM that ‘‘moves through a 

supply chain similarly to a wholesaler.’’ 

(Trade Associations Survey, No. 50 at p. 

24) 

In consideration of the AHRI 

feedback, DOE included an additional 

national account channel in which 

manufacturers sell the equipment to 

contractors, who in turn sell the 

equipment to end users. With regard to 

the suggested addition of distribution 

channels for reused or refurbished 

equipment, DOE notes that the markup 

analysis only pertains to new equipment 

purchases; therefore, DOE did not 

consider such distribution channels in 

the markups analysis. However, 

refurbishments were considered in the 

LCC analysis (see section IV.F of this 

document for details). In the Trade 

Associations Survey, no market share 

inputs were provided for the OEM-toOEM channel. As a result, DOE did not 

consider this in the final distribution 

channels. DOE re-estimated the market 

shares of distribution channels based on 

manufacturer inputs from the Trade 

Associations Survey. DOE clarifies that 

it considers all purchasers of CRE in its 

analyses and is using the term CRE 

‘‘purchaser’’ and ‘‘consumer’’ 

interchangeably in this document. 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

should separate distribution channels 

by condensing unit configuration. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 6) The CA IOUs 

stated that there are differences in the 

sales structure for remote-condensing 

and self-contained equipment that 

necessitate a separate pricing analysis. 

(Id.) 

DOE acknowledges that equipment 

with different condensing unit 

configurations would have different 

applications and thus different sales 

structures. In the markups analysis, 

DOE contends that each equipment type 

(e.g., display cases and solid-door 

equipment) consists of equipment with 

different condensing unit 

configurations, and their relative pricing 

structures are already reflected through 

the channels market shares. For 

example, the display-case equipment 

type is represented by a higher fraction 

of remote-condensing units used in 

large grocery store chains; hence, a 

greater share of shipments go through 

the national account channel, which 

provides better price advantages. 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

equipment with baseline efficiency, 

while incremental markups are applied 

to the difference in price between 

baseline and higher-efficiency models 

(the incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70237 

53Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive, it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

54U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. 2018 Commercial 

Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). 

2018. Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

commercial/data/2018/ (last accessed February 1, 

2023). 

operating profit before and after new 

and amended standards.53

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for wholesalers 

and contractors using U.S. Census 

Bureau data from the 2017 Annual 

Wholesale Trade Report and the 2017 

U.S. Economic Census, respectively. 

DOE requests comment on the CRE 

distribution channels and overall on the 

markups analysis. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of the 

markups analysis for CRE. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of CRE at different 

efficiencies in representative U.S. 

commercial buildings, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

CRE efficiency. The energy use analysis 

estimates the range of energy use of CRE 

in the field (i.e., as they are actually 

used by consumers). The energy use 

analysis provides the basis for other 

analyses DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adoption of 

amended or new standards. 

For CRE, DOE calculated the energy 

consumption of the equipment as part of 

the engineering analysis (see chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD). 

DOE requests comment on its 

approach for the energy use analysis. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD addresses 

DOE’s energy use analysis for CRE. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for CRE. The effect of new and amended 

energy conservation standards on 

individual purchasers usually involves 

a reduction in operating cost and an 

increase in purchase cost. DOE used the 

following two metrics to measure 

consumer impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an equipment over the life of 

that equipment, consisting of total 

installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the equipment. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of more-efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the change in purchase cost at 

higher efficiency levels by the change in 

annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of CRE in the absence of 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. In contrast, the PBP for a 

given efficiency level is measured 

relative to the baseline equipment. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each equipment class, DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for a 

nationally representative set of 

commercial buildings that use CRE. 

DOE developed commercial buildings 

samples from the DOE EIA’s 2018 

Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘2018 CBECS’’).54

DOE divided the 2018 CBECS sample 

into building types characterized by 

their principal building activity (CBECS 

variable ‘‘PBA’’) using a subset of the 

data that excluded vacant buildings. 

DOE then grouped building types into 

six categories: (1) large food sales, (2) 

small food sales, (3) large food service, 

(4) small food service, (5) large other, 

and (6) small other. DOE defined small 

buildings as those less than or equal to 

5,000 ft2, while large buildings are 

defined as those greater than 5,000 ft2. 

For each sample commercial building, 

DOE determined the energy 

consumption and the appropriate 

energy price of CRE. By developing a 

representative sample of CRE 

purchasers, the analysis captures the 

variability in energy prices associated 

with the use of CRE. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

equipment—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, 

equipment lifetimes, and discount rates. 

DOE created distributions of values for 

equipment lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 

Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and CRE user 

samples. For this rulemaking, DOE 

conducted probability analyses by 

randomly sampling from probability 

distributions using Python. To calculate 

the LCC and PBP for CRE, DOE 

performed 10,000 Monte Carlo 

simulations for each variable. During a 

single trial, random values are selected 

from the defined probability 

distributions for each variable, which 

enables the estimation of LCC and PBP 

with uncertainty evaluation. The 

analytical results include a distribution 

of 10,000 data points showing the range 

of LCC savings for a given efficiency 

level relative to the no-new-standards 

case efficiency distribution. In 

performing an iteration of the Monte 

Carlo simulation for a given purchaser, 

equipment efficiency is chosen based on 

its probability. If the chosen equipment 

efficiency is greater than or equal to the 

efficiency of the standard level under 

consideration, the LCC calculation 

reveals that a consumer is not impacted 

by the standard level. By accounting for 

consumers who already purchase moreefficient equipment, DOE avoids 

overstating the potential benefits from 

increasing equipment efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of CRE as if each were to 

purchase new equipment in the 

expected year of required compliance 

with new and amended standards. New 

and amended standards would apply to 

CRE manufactured 3 years after the date 

on which any new and amended 

standards are published. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)(C)(i). At this time, DOE 

estimates publication of a final rule in 

the second half of 2024. Therefore, for 

purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2028 

as the first full year of compliance with 

any amended standards for CRE. 

Table IV.9 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the Python model, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70238 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

55For further information, see the Assumptions to 

AEO2023 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed March 30, 

2023). 

56Semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334413334413; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of 

the NOPR TSD and its appendices. 

TABLE IV.9—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Equipment Cost ........................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Apply 

price learning between present (2022) and compliance year (2028) for LED lighting and variable-speed 

compressor electronics, using historical data to derive a price scaling index to project equipment costs for 

those components. 

Installation Costs ......................... Assumed not to change with efficiency level and, therefore, not considered in the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Annual Energy Use ..................... Obtained from the test procedure for each equipment class at each considered efficiency level. 

Energy Prices .............................. Electricity: Edison Electric Institute Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. 

Variability: Regional energy prices across nine census divisions. 

Energy Price Trends ................... Based on AEO2023 55 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ... Material costs derived from the engineering analysis and labor costs derived from RS Means 2023. Assumed 

additional labor time for maintaining equipment with microchannel heat exchangers; considered replacement of LED lighting, evaporators, condensers, and compressors; assumed LED lighting repair frequency 

decreases due to the presence of occupancy sensor. 

Equipment Lifetime ...................... Average: 10 years for large businesses and 20 years for small buildings. 

Discount Rates ............................ Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered equipment or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Compliance Date ......................... 2028. 

* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Equipment Cost 

To calculate consumer equipment 

costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 

developed in the engineering analysis 

by the markups described previously 

(along with sales taxes). DOE used 

different markups for baseline 

equipment and higher-efficiency 

equipment because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

equipment. 

DOE used a price learning analysis to 

account for changes in LED lamp prices 

that are expected to occur between the 

time for which DOE has data for lamp 

prices (2022) and the assumed 

compliance date of the rulemaking 

(2028). See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 

for more details on how price learning 

for LED lighting was applied. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the Joint 

Commenters noted that while DOE 

included price trends for lighting design 

options, other design options, such as 

variable-speed compressors and highefficiency fans were not included, and 

the Joint Commenters encouraged DOE 

to incorporate price trends for 

additional CRE design options. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 39 at p. 5) 

As discussed in section IV.C of this 

document, DOE included variable-speed 

compressors as a technology option for 

higher efficiency levels in certain 

equipment classes. To develop future 

prices specific for that technology, DOE 

applied a different price trend to the 

electronic control board of the variablespeed compressor. DOE estimated that 

the cost of that control board was 50 

percent of the cost of the variable 

frequency drive (‘‘VFD’’) included in the 

variable speed compressor. DOE used 

Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) data on 

‘‘semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing’’ between 1967 and 2021 

to estimate the historic price trend of 

electronic components in the control.56

The regression, performed as an 

exponential trend line fit, results in an 

R-square of 0.99, with an annual price 

decline rate of 6.5 percent. See chapter 

8 of the TSD for further details on this 

topic. 

DOE requests comment on its price 

learning assumptions and methodology. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs 

commented that DOE overestimated 

installation costs for self-contained 

equipment compared to remote 

condensing equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 

43 at p. 7) DOE notes that, in the LCC 

and PBP, such costs were assumed not 

to vary by EL within the same 

equipment class, and, therefore, were 

not considered in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis. 

AHRI commented that more efficient 

equipment can be more expensive to 

install and may require more time to set 

up due to additional programming, 

equipment size changes with type of 

insulation used, and technician training. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at p. 5) Thus, AHRI 

concluded that installation cost may 

change with efficiency level. (Id.) 

Similarly, AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM 

commented that adding components to 

CRE and increasing their energy 

efficiency would lead to increased 

installation costs due to additional 

programing time and floor space 

rearrangement needs. (Trade 

Associations Survey, No. 50 at p. 25) 

AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM also stated 

that technicians require additional 

technical training to install such 

equipment. (Id.) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

found no evidence that any of the 

analyzed design options considered in 

this NOPR require additional 

installation time. DOE estimates that 

installation workers may already have 

the required skills to install the 

analyzed design options or would adjust 

their labor rates equally across all 

efficiency levels if necessary skills are 

lacking. Therefore, as in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE assumed 

that installation costs do not vary by 

efficiency level (within the same 

equipment class) and did not account 

for installation costs in the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70239 

57Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. Available at ees.lbl.gov/ 

publications/non-residential-electricity-prices (last 

accessed March 9, 2023). 

58EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at 

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed March 28, 

2023). 

DOE requests comment and data to 

inform how any of the analyzed design 

options would require additional 

installation time, training, or other 

related skills compared to the baseline 

equipment. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each equipment class, DOE 

determined the annual energy 

consumption for each sample 

equipment user of CRE at different 

efficiency levels using the approach 

described in section IV.E of this 

document. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the equipment purchased in the nonew-standards case, and marginal 

electricity prices for the incremental 

change in energy use associated with 

the other efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 

for each census division using data from 

Edison Electric Institute (‘‘EEI’’) Typical 

Bills and Average Rates reports. Based 

upon comprehensive, industry-wide 

surveys, this semi-annual report 

presents typical monthly electric bills 

and average kilowatt-hour costs to the 

customer as charged by investor-owned 

utilities. For the commercial sector, 

DOE calculated electricity prices using 

the methodology described in Coughlin 

and Beraki (2019).57

DOE’s methodology allows electricity 

prices to vary by sector, region, and 

season. In the analysis, variability in 

electricity prices is chosen to be 

consistent with the way the consumer 

economic and energy use characteristics 

are defined in the LCC analysis. For 

CRE, DOE calculated weighted-average 

values for average and marginal price 

for the nine census divisions for the 

commercial sector for both large-size 

(greater than 5,000 ft2) and small-size 

(less than 5,000 ft2) buildings. As the 

EEI data are published separately for 

summer and winter, DOE calculated 

seasonal prices for each division and 

sector. Each EEI utility in a given region 

was assigned a weight based on the 

number of consumers it serves. DOE 

adjusted these regional weightedaverage prices to account for systematic 

differences between investor-owned 

utilities (‘‘IOUs’’) and publicly owned 

utilities (‘‘POUs’’), as the latter are not 

included in the EEI data set. See chapter 

8 of the NOPR TSD for details. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes for each of the 

nine census divisions from the 

Reference case in AEO2023, which has 

an end year of 2050.58 To estimate price 

trends after 2050, a simple average of 

the 2046–2050 values was used for 2051 

and all subsequent years. 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing equipment 

components that have failed in an 

appliance or equipment; maintenance 

costs are associated with maintaining 

the operation of the equipment. 

Typically, small incremental increases 

in equipment efficiency entail no, or 

only minor, changes in repair and 

maintenance costs compared to baseline 

efficiency equipment. DOE does not 

account for lost time when CRE fails or 

breaks, as DOE does not have data 

indicating how that would affect 

outcomes considered in the LCC, such 

as operating cost. In the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE calculated 

repair costs by considering the typical 

failure rate of refrigeration system 

components (compressor, lighting, and 

evaporator and condenser fan motors), 

component MPCs and associated 

markups, and the labor cost of repairs, 

which is assumed to be performed by 

private vendors. As discussed in 

sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 

considered the following specific CRE 

components and associated failure 

probabilities during typical CRE lifetime 

in its repair cost approach: compressor 

(25 percent), evaporator fan motor (50 

percent), condenser fan motor (25 

percent), and LED lighting (100 

percent), with the presence of 

occupancy sensors decreasing LED 

lighting repair frequency by half. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Continental 

commented that microchannel 

condenser coils require more frequent 

cleaning due to the accumulation of 

debris and are more susceptible to 

corrosion and leaks, which often 

requires replacement. (Continental No. 

38 at p. 2) And AHRI stated that 

microchannel condenser coils require 

more frequent cleaning. (AHRI, No. 46 

at pp. 5–6) 

In response to these comments 

regarding the impact of microchannel 

condenser coils on repair and 

maintenance costs and based on 

feedback from manufacturer interviews, 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

microchannel condenser coils are 

subject to more accumulation of debris, 

which may result in extended cleaning 

time. However, DOE found no evidence 

that microchannel condenser coils may 

be more susceptible to corrosion and 

leaks, or that these problems are not 

repairable with similar labor and 

material inputs as baseline units. 

Accordingly, DOE has updated its 

maintenance costs of equipment with 

microchannel condenser coils to 

account for an additional 10 minutes of 

annual cleaning. 

Continental commented that controls 

for defrost, lighting, and anti-sweat 

heaters can be challenging for 

technicians to diagnose and fix, leading 

to additional labor time and material 

replacement costs. (Continental No. 38 

at p. 2) AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM 

commented that adding higherefficiency CRE components leads to 

increased repair and maintenance costs 

due to the component purchase price 

and labor time. (Trade Associations 

Survey, No. 50 at p. 26) 

With respect to the comments from 

Continental and AHRI, NAMA, and 

NAFEM, DOE clarifies that neither 

vacuum-insulated panels nor controls 

for defrost and anti-sweat heaters are 

considered design options. DOE did not 

consider preventative maintenance for 

other design options, such as lighting 

occupancy sensors and night curtains, 

because DOE assumed they have similar 

average lifetimes to the equipment in 

which they are installed. 

AHRI commented that additional 

labor costs should be considered for 

flammable refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

p. 15) AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM 

commented that equipment using 

alternative refrigerants (R–290) should 

have higher repair costs because leaks 

are harder to detect. (Trade Associations 

Survey, No. 50 at p. 26) DOE reiterates 

in response that equipment classes are 

analyzed individually and all analyzed 

self-contained equipment classes use R– 

290, so there are no refrigerant changes 

by efficiency level. 

AHRI commented that labor shortages 

have caused an increase in servicing 

costs. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 15) AHRI, 

NAMA, and NAFEM commented that 

there is a shortage of qualified service 

technicians for CRE in the United States 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70240 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

59See section 8.3.5 of the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis TSD and section 8.2.3.5 of the March 2014 

Final Rule TSD for details. 60Weibull distributions are commonly used to 

model appliance lifetimes. 

61 Damodaran, A. Data: Cost of Capital by 

Industry Sector, United States. 2023. (Last accessed 

March 1, 2023.) http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/ 

∼adamodar/. 

62U.S. Department of Energy. Compliance 

Certification Management System (CCMS) for 

Refrigeration Equipment—Commercial, Single 

Compartment. Available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS4-Refrigeration_Equipment_-_Commercial__Single_

Compartment.html#q=Product_Group_

s%3A%22Refrigeration%20Equipment%20- 

%20Commercial%2C%20Single%20Compartment

%22 (last accessed April 4, 2023). 

and higher standards would exacerbate 

the issue and lead to longer equipment 

downtimes for food retailers. (Trade 

Associations Survey, No. 50 at p. 30) In 

response to these comments, DOE 

clarifies that short-term labor supply 

variations are not included in its 

analysis because economic theory 

maintains that labor markets are 

expected to adjust in the long-term 

period considered in the LCC analysis. 

DOE requests comment and data on 

its assumptions and approach regarding 

consideration of repair and maintenance 

costs in the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Specifically, DOE requests data on the 

expected lifetimes and repair and 

maintenance frequencies of the 

considered design options in this NOPR. 

6. Equipment Lifetime 

DOE used a lifetime distribution to 

characterize the probability that CRE 

will be retired from service at a given 

age. For the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, consistent with the approach 

followed in the March 2014 Final Rule, 

which was based on discussions with 

industry experts, DOE had assumed that 

lifetime of CRE is correlated to the 

frequency of store renovations. DOE had 

also estimated an average lifetime of 10 

years for all large-size and small foodservice buildings and 15 years for small 

food-sales buildings, and other 

businesses with CRE (per the CBECS 

sample) correlating such buildings with 

businesses that may have longer 

renovation cycles, such as independent 

grocery stores.59 DOE also assumed that 

the probability function for the annual 

survival of CRE would take the form of 

a Weibull distribution. A Weibull 

distribution is a probability distribution 

commonly used to measure failure 

rates.60 Further, in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, due to lack of 

data to suggest otherwise, DOE had 

assumed that retired but functional CRE 

had low salvage value and that the 

refurbished/used market for CRE was 

negligible. Therefore, DOE had not 

considered such CRE in the LCC 

analysis. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented 

that smaller businesses use their 

equipment for 15–25 years due to the 

cost of upgrading. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 

6) AHRI added that, in some cases, 

compressor racks may be used for 30– 

40 years, while display cases are 

switched out once during this time. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that businesses 

replacing CRE may also buy used 

equipment or ‘‘reskin’’ equipment by 

changing out sheet metal panels and 

bumpers. (Id.) NAMA recommended 

that DOE estimate the number of 

refurbished machines with an increased 

energy usage versus refurbished energycompliant ones. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 

16) 

Based on these comments, DOE has 

adjusted the mean lifetime distribution 

assumption for CRE to 10 years for 

large-size buildings and 20 years for 

small-size buildings, with a maximum 

lifetime of 40 years for each. DOE 

clarifies that it does not analyze the 

energy use of refurbished CRE because 

such equipment is not subject to new 

standards. However, DOE accounted for 

purchasers who sell their CRE to a 

refurbisher before the end of the 

equipment lifetime, by assigning a 

credit equivalent to the residual value of 

the used equipment at the selling year. 

See the following section (IV.F.7) for 

details on the residual value approach. 

DOE requests comment and data 

regarding the CRE lifetime assumptions 

and methodology. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

more information. 

7. Residual Value 

To model the phenomenon of CRE 

sold for refurbishment, DOE utilized a 

residual value for such equipment in the 

LCC. The residual value represents the 

remaining dollar value of surviving CRE 

at the average age of refurbishment, 

estimated to be 5 years for small-size 

food service buildings (e.g., restaurants) 

and 10 years for small-size food sales 

and other commercial buildings. To 

account for the value of CRE with 

remaining life to the consumer, the LCC 

model applies this residual value as a 

‘‘credit’’ at the end of the CRE lifetime 

and discounts it back to the start of the 

analysis period. Per manufacturer 

feedback, this was only applied to a 

fraction of self-contained CRE in small 

buildings, totaling about 10 percent of 

all CRE in the LCC sample. 

DOE requests comment and data on 

the assumed business types and the 

corresponding CRE lifetimes at which 

refurbishment may occur. 

8. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

commercial consumers to estimate the 

present value of future operating cost 

savings. 

For purchasers of CRE in the 

commercial sector, DOE used the cost of 

capital to estimate the present value of 

cash flows to be derived from a typical 

company project or investment. Most 

companies use both debt and equity 

capital to fund investments, so the cost 

of capital is the weighted-average cost to 

the firm of equity and debt financing. 

This corporate finance approach is 

referred to as the weighted-average cost 

of capital. DOE used currently available 

economic data in developing 

commercial discount rates, with 

Damodaran Online being the primary 

data source.61 The weighted-average 

discount rates for the commercial sector 

for CRE is 6.4 percent. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

discount rates. 

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of 

equipment efficiencies under the nonew-standards case (i.e., the case 

without amended or new energy 

conservation standards). 

To estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution of CRE for 2028, DOE used 

test data, feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, surveys (see Trade 

Associations Survey, No. 50), and the 

Single Compartment Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment data from 

DOE’s CCMS, accessed in March 2023.62

As discussed in the engineering 

analysis, DOE assumed that all 

manufacturers will switch to R–290 in 

response to the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR, a proposed rule to restrict use of 

certain HFC refrigerants in specific 

equipment, including CRE. The EPA 

compliance date is 2025, which is 

earlier than the expected DOE CRE ECS 

compliance date of 2028. This approach 

reduces the potential maximum energy 

savings below the baseline compared to 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 

To create a robust sample for the 

energy efficiency distribution used in 

the LCC analysis, DOE grouped the 28 

CRE equipment classes into 21 separate 

groups. For the equipment classes that 

DOE relied on CCMS model count data 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70241 

63 DeCanio, S.J. (1998). ‘‘The Efficiency Paradox: 

Bureaucratic and Organizational Barriers to 

Profitable Energy-Saving Investments,’’ Energy 

Policy, 26(5), 441–454. 

to formulate the efficiency distributions, 

this approach was used to allow 

equipment classes with a limited 

sample to share the efficiency 

distribution of a group of similar classes 

with a larger sample in the CCMS. DOE 

compared energy use data from the 

CCMS with energy use equations from 

the engineering analysis to derive model 

counts at each efficiency level. 

Equipment classes whose efficiency 

distributions were derived from 

aggregated data from manufacturer 

interviews, surveys, and test data were 

assigned their own groups. The 

estimated market shares for the no-newstandards case for CRE and the 

corresponding groupings are shown in 

table IV.10. See chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD for further information on the 

derivation of the efficiency 

distributions. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, Continental 

commented that DOE’s approach to 

derive the no-standards-case efficiency 

distribution by relying on manufacturer 

model counts in the CCMS database is 

erroneous. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) 

Continental stated that model counts in 

DOE’s CCMS do not reflect sales or 

market share, but rather the variety of 

different models that manufacturers 

offer. (Id.) 

For this NOPR, as discussed in 

previous sections, DOE was able to 

conduct manufacturer interviews and 

collect shipments data for several 

equipment classes. The equipment 

classes for which data was collected 

account for 85 percent of total 

shipments and are marked with an 

asterisk in table IV.10. For the 

remainder of the equipment classes for 

which DOE was not able to collect 

representative shipments data from 

manufacturers, DOE utilized the CCMS 

database to estimate the no-newstandards-case efficiency distribution. 

TABLE IV.10—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS IN 2028 

Equipment class Group 

Market share by efficiency level 

EL 0 

(%) 

EL 1 

(%) 

EL 2 

(%) 

EL 3 

(%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

EL 7 

(%) 

VOP.RC.M ................................... 1 73 27 0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

VOP.RC.L .................................... 1 73 27 0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

VOP.SC.M * .................................. 2 86 5 4 0 0 5 ................ ................

VCT.RC.M .................................... 3 93 1 6 0 0 ................ ................ ................

VCT.RC.L ..................................... 3 93 1 6 0 ................ ................ ................ ................

VCT.SC.H * .................................. 4 60 15 17 5 0 0 0 3 

VCT.SC.M * .................................. 5 48 17 17 1 0 0 17 0 

VCT.SC.L* .................................... 6 35 5 0 50 0 0 10 0 

VCT.SC.I ...................................... 7 44 19 27 10 0 ................ ................ ................

VCS.SC.H * .................................. 8 70 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 

VCS.SC.M * .................................. 9 71 8 2 11 3 5 ................ ................

VCS.SC.L* ................................... 10 77 8 0 1 14 0 0 ................

VCS.SC.I ...................................... 11 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 ................

SVO.RC.M ................................... 12 76 24 0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

SVO.SC.M .................................... 13 66 2 2 8 8 2 1 10 

SOC.RC.M ................................... 14 98 1 1 0 0 ................ ................ ................

SOC.SC.M ................................... 15 36 7 9 6 15 0 2 25 

HZO.RC.M ................................... 16 100 0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

HZO.RC.L .................................... 16 100 0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

HZO.SC.M .................................... 17 81 4 15 0 0 0 ................ ................

HZO.SC.L ..................................... 17 81 4 15 0 0 0 ................ ................

HCT.SC.M .................................... 18 72 6 0 9 2 0 2 9 

HCT.SC.L ..................................... 18 72 6 0 9 2 0 2 9 

HCT.SC.I ...................................... 18 72 6 0 9 2 0 2 9 

HCS.SC.M .................................... 19 88 12 0 0 ................ ................ ................ ................

HCS.SC.L ..................................... 19 88 12 0 0 ................ ................ ................ ................

CB.SC.M * .................................... 20 50 40 10 0 0 0 0 ................

CB.SC.L * ..................................... 21 70 30 0 0 0 0 0 ................

* The distributions for these equipment classes were derived from aggregated data from the Trade Associations Survey, test data, and manufacturer interview data. 

The LCC Monte Carlo simulations 

draw from the efficiency distributions 

and randomly assign an efficiency to the 

CRE purchased by each sample CRE 

purchaser in the no-new-standards case. 

The resulting percent shares within the 

sample match the market shares in the 

efficiency distributions. 

While DOE acknowledges that 

economic factors may play a role when 

consumers purchase CRE, assignment of 

CRE efficiency for a given installation, 

based solely on economic measures 

such as life-cycle cost or simple payback 

period, most likely would not fully and 

accurately reflect actual real-world 

installations. There are a number of 

market failures discussed in the 

economics literature that illustrate how 

purchasing decisions in the commercial 

sector with respect to energy efficiency 

are unlikely to be perfectly correlated 

with energy use. One study in particular 

showed evidence of substantial gains in 

energy efficiency that could have been 

achieved without negative 

repercussions on profitability, but the 

investments had not been undertaken by 

firms.63 The study found that multiple 

organizational and institutional factors 

caused firms to require shorter payback 

periods and higher returns than the cost 

of capital for alternative investments of 

similar risk. A number of other case 

studies similarly demonstrate the 

existence of market failures preventing 

the adoption of energy-efficient 

technologies in a variety of commercial 

sectors around the world, including 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70242 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

64Prindle 2007, op. cit. Howarth, R.B., Haddad, 

B.M., and Paton, B. (2000). ‘‘The economics of 

energy efficiency: insights from voluntary 

participation programs,’’ Energy Policy, 28, 477– 

486. 

65 Klemick, H., Kopits, E., Wolverton, A. (2017). 

‘‘Potential Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency 

in Commercial Buildings: The Case of Supermarket 

Refrigeration,’’ Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 

8(1), 115–145. 

66de Almeida, E.L.F. (1998), ‘‘Energy efficiency 

and the limits of market forces: The example of the 

electric motor market in France’’, Energy Policy, 

26(8), 643–653. Xenergy, Inc. (1998), United States 

Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market 

Opportunity Assessment (Available at: 

www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/04/f15/ 

mtrmkt.pdf) (Last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

67 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

68ENERGY STAR®. ENERGY STAR® Unit 

Shipment and Market Penetration Report Calendar 

Year 2021 Summary. 2021. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. 

(Last accessed April 11, 2022.) https://

energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ 

2021%20Unit%20Shipment%

20Data%20Summary%20Report_0.pdf. 

office buildings,64 supermarkets,65 and 

the electric motor market.66

DOE requests comment on its 

methodology and data to better inform 

the no-standards-case efficiency 

distribution for CRE. 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more efficient 

equipment, compared to baseline 

equipment, through energy cost savings. 

Payback periods that exceed the life of 

the equipment mean that the increased 

total installed cost is not recovered in 

reduced operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the equipment and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple 

PBP’’ because it does not consider 

changes over time in operating cost 

savings. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis when 

deriving first-year operating costs. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing 

equipment complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). 

For each considered efficiency level, 

DOE determined the value of the first 

year’s energy savings by calculating the 

energy savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure and 

multiplying those savings by the average 

energy price projection for the year in 

which compliance with the new and 

amended standards would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

equipment shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.67 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each equipment class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

equipment shipments as inputs to 

estimate the age distribution of inservice equipment stocks for all years. 

The age distribution of in-service 

equipment stocks is a key input to 

calculations of both the NES and NPV, 

because operating costs for any year 

depend on the age distribution of the 

stock. 

The shipments analysis projects units 

of open and closed refrigeration cases 

sold in future years in each of food 

sales, food service, and all other 

applications combined. These 

equipment classifications and 

applications are defined in EIA’s 2018 

CBECS. DOE estimates demand for these 

equipment categories in these 

applications by calculating demand 

coming from new construction as well 

as the replacement of retiring units, for 

each year. 

To calculate new demand for these 

equipment classes in each application, 

DOE combined new and existing 

floorspace projections from AEO2023 

with saturation estimates based on 2018 

CBECS and AEO2023. Shipments to 

meet this demand for these CRE 

equipment categories in each 

application are then disaggregated 

across the analyzed CRE classes, using 

fixed market shares derived from data 

collected during manufacturer 

interviews. 

To compute demand for 

replacements, DOE used the lifetime 

distributions determined in the LCC 

analysis, which estimates an average 

lifetime of 10 years for large grocery/ 

multi-line stores (food-sales buildings) 

and restaurants (food-service buildings), 

and an average lifetime of 20 years for 

small food-sales and food-service 

buildings, with a maximum lifetime of 

40 years for all equipment. In each 

analysis year of the model, DOE 

calculated retirements across the 

distribution to compute all demand 

arising from the retirements. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHRI stated that 

significantly higher-cost equipment 

would drive growth of the refurbished 

equipment market and lead to 

continued use of older equipment with 

lower efficiencies and higher GWP 

refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 15) As 

discussed in section IV.F.6 of this 

NOPR, DOE revised its assumptions of 

lifetime of equipment for small 

buildings from 15 years at the stage of 

the preliminary analysis to 20 years in 

this NOPR. To account for the use of 

refurbished equipment, DOE assumed 

an elasticity effect for a fraction of the 

CRE shipments, which is limited to 

small-size buildings. DOE applied an 

elasticity constant of ¥0.5 to shipments 

for small-size buildings and scaled this 

constant down to ¥0.15 over a period 

of 20 years (then constant thereafter) 

from the current year of calculations. 

DOE requests comment on the price 

elasticity assumptions for the CRE 

shipments analysis as they relate to the 

overall CRE market and the market for 

refurbished CRE. 

AHRI stated that DOE incorrectly 

estimated the number of existing units 

in use, as well as their average lifespan 

and noted that there are significantly 

more units in current use than DOE 

estimated. (Id. at p. 7). In response, DOE 

notes that it collected shipments data 

during manufacturer interviews and reestimated the market shares for each 

equipment class based on the collected 

data. DOE then used the shipment and 

stock estimates from the floorspace and 

saturations calculations and scaled them 

to the data obtained from the 

manufacturers for the year 2022. DOE 

notes that, due to lack of shipments data 

for some equipment classes with a small 

market share, DOE estimated their 

shipments based on other equipment 

classes with similar characteristics for 

those equipment classes. For example, 

in this NOPR, DOE assumed that 

shipments of VCT.SC.H are one percent 

of VCT.SC.I and that shipments for 

HZO.SC.M are equivalent to HZO.SC.L. 

More information on these assumptions 

can be found in chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. DOE also compared its shipments 

data with the numbers provided by 

ENERGY STAR in its unit shipment and 

market penetration report for the 

calendar year 2021.68 DOE’s shipment 

results are generally consistent with the 

figures provided by ENERGY STAR, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70243 

69The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States 

and U.S. territories. 

which reported 50-percent market 

penetration for the reported year. 

Historically, the annual amount of 

CRE capacity shipped has been depicted 

in linear feet, which is also an 

alternative way to express shipments 

data. DOE determined the linear feet 

shipped for any given year by 

multiplying each unit shipped by its 

associated average length and then 

summing all the linear footage values. 

Chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD presents the 

representative equipment-class lengths 

used for the conversion of per-unit 

shipments to linear footage within each 

equipment class. 

AHRI commented that changes to 

market shares would result in 

corresponding changes to shipping 

methodologies and added that some of 

the imposed requirements would cause 

retailers to favor open cases, or to take 

doors off completely. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

pp. 7–8) AHRI added that the impact of 

pending refrigerant regulations is 

unknown. (Id. at p. 8) AHRI also stated 

that because door cases have a greater 

maximum allowable charge compared to 

cases with doors, customers wishing to 

use A2L refrigerants may choose to use 

larger commercial refrigerators without 

doors. (Id. at p. 8) In response to these 

comments, DOE did not find any 

significant shift from closed cases to 

open cases or vice versa. The ratio 

between closed cases and open cases is 

approximately 93 percent and 7 percent 

respectively, as derived from 

manufacturer provided data for the year 

2022. Based on these data, DOE 

concluded that any shift in the market 

may already have occurred and 

currently DOE does not anticipate any 

new market trends in this direction. 

AHRI shared, in response to DOE’s 

inquiring about market trends in the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, that 

architecture in facilities is anticipated to 

change due to the refrigerant transition. 

(AHRI, No. 46 at p. 7) AHRI added that 

these changes are due in part to the lack 

of available refrigerants and the likely 

consequent growth in market share in 

self-contained and smaller units. (Id.) 

AHRI commented that a great deal of 

uncertainty exists about this direction. 

(Id.) DOE appreciates AHRI’s comments 

and continues to request information on 

market trends and shipments data to 

better inform the shipments analysis. 

Chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD provides 

additional details regarding the 

shipments analysis. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new and 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.69 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the equipment 

being regulated.) DOE calculates the 

NES and NPV for the potential standard 

levels considered based on projections 

of annual equipment shipments, along 

with the annual energy consumption 

and total installed cost data from the 

energy use and LCC analyses. For the 

present analysis, DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

equipment costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits over the lifetime of CRE sold 

from 2028 through 2057. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each equipment 

class in the absence of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. For this projection, DOE 

considers historical trends in efficiency 

and various forces that are likely to 

affect the mix of efficiencies over time. 

DOE compares the no-new-standards 

case with projections characterizing the 

market for each equipment class if DOE 

adopted new and amended standards at 

specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the 

TSLs or standards cases) for that class. 

For the standards cases, DOE considers 

how a given standard would likely 

affect the market shares of equipment 

with efficiencies greater than the 

standard. 

DOE utilized the Python programming 

language for its shipments’ analysis. The 

final results of the shipments analysis 

are available in the NIA spreadsheet 

developed for this analysis, accessible at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0007. Interested parties 

can review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.11 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD 

for further details. 

TABLE IV.11—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments .............................................................. Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance Date of Standard ............................... 2028. 

Efficiency Trends ................................................... N/A (No efficiency trends were applied). 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit .................. Expressed as a function of energy use at each TSL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ................................. Expressed as a function of cost at each TSL. 

Incorporates projection of future equipment prices. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit ................................ Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit 

and energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit ................ Annual, weighted-average values from the LCC model. 

Energy Price Trends ............................................. AEO2023 projections (to 2050) and extrapolation thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion ....... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2023. 

Discount Rate ........................................................ 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Present Year ......................................................... 2023. 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.9 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered equipment classes for the 

first full year of anticipated compliance 

(2028) with an amended or new 

standard. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70244 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

70 DOE notes that, as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.a.i of this document, DOE has accounted for 

CRE efficiency trends by assuming that all selfcontained units will have transitioned to R–290 

(propane) by 2028. 

71For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. 

Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm 

(last accessed March 9, 2023). 

72United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

memoranda/m03-21.html (last accessed February 

17, 2023). 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2028). In this 

scenario, the market shares of 

equipment in the no-new-standards case 

that do not meet the standard under 

consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet 

the new standard level, and the market 

share of equipment above the standard 

would remain unchanged. 

In the absence of data on trends in 

efficiency, DOE assumed no efficiency 

trend over the analysis period for both 

the no-new-standards and standards 

cases. For a given equipment class, 

market shares by efficiency level were 

held fixed to their estimated 

distribution in 2028.70

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption of no efficiency trend for 

CRE and seeks historical CRE efficiency 

data, ideally by equipment class or 

alternatively by equipment family, or 

overall for the CRE market as a whole. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

equipment between each potential 

standards case and the case with no new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE calculated the national 

energy consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each 

equipment (by vintage or age) by the 

unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). DOE calculated annual NES 

based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the no-newstandards case and for each higher 

efficiency standard case. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy (i.e., the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

site electricity) using annual conversion 

factors derived from AEO2023. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for each year over the 

timeframe of the analysis. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 document, DOE published a 

statement of amended policy in which 

DOE explained its determination that 

EIA’s National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool 

for its FFC analysis and its intention to 

use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 71 that EIA uses to prepare its 

AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses 

in production and delivery in the case 

of natural gas (including fugitive 

emissions) and additional energy used 

to produce and deliver the various fuels 

used by power plants. The approach 

used for deriving FFC measures of 

energy use and emissions is described 

in appendix 10B of the NOPR TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each 

equipment shipped during the 

projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE developed price trends 

for CRE with variable speed 

compressors and CRE with LED lighting. 

DOE applied the same trends to project 

component prices for each 

representative unit of each equipment 

class containing variable speed 

compressors and/or LED lighting. By 

2057, which is the end date of the 

projection period, the average CRE LED 

lighting price is expected to drop by 

approximately 25 percent, while the 

average price of variable speed 

compressors is expected to drop by 

approximately 42 percent, relative to 

projected 2028 prices. Because these 

component prices do not typically 

contribute substantively to the overall 

price of equipment, overall equipment 

prices are projected to decrease by at 

most 7 percent by 2057 relative to 2028. 

The price of equipment at the current 

baseline efficiency level is expected to 

drop by at most 3 percent in the same 

period. For details on the price learning 

methodology and assumptions, see 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

The energy cost savings are calculated 

using the estimated energy savings in 

each year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average commercial energy 

price changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2023, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, the 2046–2050 average was used 

for all years. To estimate repair and 

maintenance costs, DOE considered the 

typical failure rate of refrigeration 

system components, component MPCs 

and associated markups, and the labor 

cost of repairs. As part of the NIA, DOE 

also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from variants of the AEO2023 Reference 

case that have lower and higher 

economic growth. Those cases have 

lower and higher energy price trends 

and stock compared to the Reference 

case. NIA results based on these cases 

are presented in appendix 10C of the 

NOPR TSD. 

Use of higher-efficiency equipment is 

occasionally associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the equipment 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to CRE that would 

indicate that end-users or CRE 

purchasers would alter the utilization of 

their equipment as a result of an 

increase in efficiency. CRE are typically 

plugged in and operate continuously; 

therefore, DOE assumed a rebound rate 

of 0. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPR, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.72 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70245 

73U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval 

system. Available at www.sec.gov/edgar/ 

searchedgar/companysearch (last accessed April 

20, 2022). 

74U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. (2013–2022). Available at 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html (last 

accessed February 1, 2023). 

75U.S. Census Bureau. Economic Census. (2012 

and 2017). Available at www.census.gov/programssurveys/economic-census.html (last accessed 

February 1, 2023). 

76U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Survey of Plant 

Capacity Utilization. (2010–2022). Available at 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/qpc/data/ 

tables.html (Last accessed December 14, 2022). 

77 Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers. Subscription login 

accessible at app.dnbhoovers.com/ (last accessed 

March 27, 2023). 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented 

that the cost per energy efficiency 

improvement will be very high and 

especially challenging for small 

business owners, and in particular for 

restaurants and small retailers located in 

rural and urban food deserts, in which 

profit margins are low. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

p. 8) 

For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on small businesses. For this 

subgroup, DOE applied discount rates 

specific to small businesses to the same 

consumer sample that was used in the 

standard LCC analysis. DOE used the 

LCC and PBP model to estimate the 

impacts of the considered efficiency 

levels on this subgroup. For details on 

the subgroup analysis, see chapter 11 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of CRE and to 

estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how new and amended 

energy conservation standards might 

affect manufacturing employment, 

capacity, and competition, as well as 

how standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, equipment shipments, 

manufacturer markups, and investments 

in R&D and manufacturing capital 

required to produce compliant 

equipment. The key GRIM outputs are 

the INPV, which is the sum of industry 

annual cash flows over the analysis 

period, discounted using the industryweighted average cost of capital, and the 

impact to domestic manufacturing 

employment. The model uses standard 

accounting principles to estimate the 

impacts of more stringent energy 

conservation standards on a given 

industry by comparing changes in INPV 

and domestic manufacturing 

employment between a no-newstandards case and the various 

standards cases (i.e., TSLs). To capture 

the uncertainty relating to manufacturer 

pricing strategies following amended 

standards, the GRIM estimates a range of 

possible impacts under different 

scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the CRE manufacturing industry based 

on the market and technology 

assessment and publicly available 

information. This included a top-down 

analysis of CRE manufacturers that DOE 

used to derive preliminary financial 

inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; 

materials, labor, overhead, and 

depreciation expenses; selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’); 

and R&D expenses). DOE also used 

public sources of information to further 

calibrate its initial characterization of 

the CRE manufacturing industry, 

including company filings of form 10– 

K from the SEC,73 corporate annual 

reports, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

ASM,74 the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Economic Census,75 the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant 

Capacity Utilization,76 and reports from 

Dun & Bradstreet.77

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash-flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of the standard and 

extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of CRE in order to 

develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including equipment and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of 

this document for a description of the 

key issues raised by manufacturers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70246 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

78U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed February 

21, 2023). 

79California Energy Commission’s Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database System is available 

at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/ 

AdvancedSearch.aspx (last accessed February 21, 

2023). 

during the interviews. As part of Phase 

3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by new 

and amended standards or that may not 

be accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers, niche players, 

and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. DOE identified one 

subgroup for a separate impact analysis: 

small business manufacturers. The 

small business subgroup is discussed in 

section VI.B of this document, ‘‘Review 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,’’ 

and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to new or 

amended standards that result in a 

higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM uses a standard, annual 

discounted cash-flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. The 

GRIM models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that could 

result from an amended energy 

conservation standard. The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at 

a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

in 2023 (the base year of the analysis) 

and continuing to 2057. DOE calculated 

INPVs by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For manufacturers of CRE, DOE 

used a real discount rate of 10.0 percent, 

which was derived from industry 

financials and then modified according 

to feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the new or amended energy 

conservation standard on 

manufacturers. As discussed previously, 

DOE developed critical GRIM inputs 

using a number of sources, including 

publicly available data, results of the 

engineering analysis, results of the 

shipments analysis, and information 

gathered from industry stakeholders 

during the course of manufacturer 

interviews. The GRIM results are 

presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. Additional details about the 

GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

equipment can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

For this NOPR, DOE relied on a designoption approach, supported with the 

testing and reverse engineering of 

directly analyzed CRE. The design 

options were incrementally added to the 

baseline configuration and continued 

through the ‘‘max-tech’’ configuration 

(i.e., implementing the ‘‘best available’’ 

combination of available design 

options). For a complete description of 

the MPCs, see section IV.C of this 

document and chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections derived from the 

shipments analysis from 2023 (the base 

year) to 2057 (the end year of the 

analysis period). See section IV.J.2.b of 

this document and chapter 9 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional details. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New or amended energy conservation 

standards could cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and equipment 

designs into compliance. DOE evaluated 

the level of conversion-related 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each equipment class. For the 

MIA, DOE classified these conversion 

costs into two major groups: (1) product 

conversion costs; and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make equipment designs comply with 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new compliant equipment designs can 

be fabricated and assembled. 

DOE based its estimates of the 

product conversion costs that would be 

required to meet each efficiency level on 

information obtained from manufacturer 

interviews; the design pathways 

analyzed in the engineering analysis; 

the equipment teardown analysis; the 

shipments analysis; and model count 

information. DOE estimated product 

development effort, including engineer, 

laboratory technician, and marketing 

resources, associated with design 

options and scaled the costs based on 

the number of basic models (or product 

platforms, depending on the nature of 

the design option). Product 

development effort varied by design 

option. DOE modeled door design 

changes (i.e., moving from a doublepane to triple-pane door, incorporating 

vacuum-insulated glass) would require 

more complex system redesigns and 

more cost, as compared to implementing 

more efficient components (e.g., 

incorporating a PSC motor or an ECM). 

DOE also assumed additional 

engineering effort would be required to 

optimize variable-speed compressors to 

ensure energy efficiency benefits, based 

on interview feedback. 

To estimate industry product 

conversion costs, DOE multiplied the 

product development cost estimate at 

each efficiency level for each equipment 

class by the number of industry basic 

models or product platforms that would 

require redesign. DOE used its CCD 78

and California Energy Commission’s 

MAEDbS 79 to identify CRE models 

covered by this proposed rulemaking. 

To identify chef bases and hightemperature CRE models, DOE further 

relied on publicly available data 

aggregated from web scraping retail 

websites. DOE used the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution 

from the shipments analysis to estimate 

the model efficiency distribution. DOE 

also included the estimated cost of 

testing to the DOE test procedure for 

chef bases and high-temperature units 

using the estimated per-unit testing cost 

of $5,000 detailed in the September 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. 88 FR 

66152, 66215. 

In addition to the sources used to 

derive product conversion costs, DOE 

relied on additional sources of 

information such as the Trade 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70247 

80www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0007-0050. 

81See pp. 5–113 of the ‘‘Global Non-CO2

Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal 

Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology 

Documentation’’ (2019). Available at www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_

methodology_report.pdf. 

82The gross margin percentage of 29 percent is 

based on a manufacturer markup of 1.40. 

Associations Survey 80 to estimate the 

capital conversion costs manufacturers 

would incur to comply with potential 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. During interviews, 

manufacturers provided estimates and 

descriptions of the required tooling 

changes required by the considered 

design options. (See Trade Associations 

Survey. No. 50 at pp. 16–18) Based on 

these inputs, DOE assumed that most 

component swaps, while requiring 

moderate product conversion costs, 

would not require changes to existing 

production lines or equipment, and, 

therefore, would not require notable 

capital expenditures because one-forone component swaps would not 

require changes to existing production 

equipment (i.e., manufacturers will 

continue to be able to use their existing 

production equipment and production 

lines to manufacture CREs that achieve 

higher efficiency levels through 

component swaps, which are typically 

associated with lower ELs). However, 

based on manufacturer feedback, DOE 

modeled some tooling and capital 

expenditures when manufacturers 

implement improved door designs and 

variable-speed compressors. For 

improved door designs, some 

manufacturers noted that they would 

need new fixtures. Incorporating 

additional panes of glass for highvolume equipment classes could also 

necessitate heavier duty lifting 

equipment to transport and assemble 

heavier glass packs. For variable-speed 

compressors, which could be larger than 

existing single-speed compressors, 

manufacturers may need new tools for 

the baseplate. To estimate industry 

capital conversion costs, DOE scaled the 

estimated capital expenditures at each 

efficiency level for each equipment class 

by the number of applicable OEMs. 

As previously stated, the Trade 

Associations Survey included 

information about the anticipated 

capital investments associated with a 

range of design options. (Id. at pp. 16– 

18) The survey results showed high 

capital investments associated with 

increasing insulation thickness and 

incorporating vacuum-insulated panels. 

(Id. at p. 18) As discussed in section 

IV.B.1 of this document, DOE excluded 

these technologies from further 

consideration in the engineering 

analysis. Other design options 

potentially requiring notable capital 

investment included microchannel heat 

exchangers, additional panes of glass, 

and variable-speed compressors. DOE 

compared the feedback from the Trade 

Associations Survey with information 

from the equipment teardown analysis 

and manufacturer interviews and 

incorporated the feedback where 

applicable. 

DOE requests detailed comment and 

information on the capital investments 

associated with each analyzed design 

option. In particular, DOE requests 

detailed comment and feedback on the 

specific changes in equipment and 

tooling required to incorporate 

microchannel heat exchangers, as DOE 

currently models microchannel heat 

exchangers as a purchased part that can 

be substituted for tube and fin heat 

exchangers with minor production line 

changes. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new standard. The conversion cost 

figures used in the GRIM can be found 

in section IV.J.2.c of this document. For 

additional information on the estimated 

capital and product conversion costs, 

see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

Regarding the potential investments 

associated with redesigning CRE to use 

flammable refrigerants in response to 

refrigerant regulations such as the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR, DOE did 

not consider these investments as 

conversion costs as they are 

independent of DOE actions related to 

any new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Instead, the 

refrigerant transition expenses are 

modeled as an impact to industry 

cashflow and are incorporated into both 

the no-new-standards case and 

standards cases. The refrigerant 

transition expenses includes 

redesigning CRE to use flammable 

refrigerants and retrofitting production 

facilities to accommodate flammable 

refrigerants. DOE relied on 

manufacturer feedback in confidential 

interviews, a report prepared for EPA,81

results of the engineering analysis, and 

investment estimates submitted by 

NAMA and AHRI in response to the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis to 

estimate the industry refrigerant 

transition costs. Based on feedback, 

DOE assumed that the transition to lowGWP refrigerants would require 

industry to invest approximately $21.3 

million in R&D and $33.3 million in 

capital expenditures (e.g., investments 

in new charging equipment, leak 

detection systems, etc.). These costs are 

included in the no-new-standards case 

as well as the standards cases. See 

section V.B.2.e of this document or 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional information. 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied non-production 

cost markups to the MPCs estimated in 

the engineering analysis for each 

equipment class and efficiency level. 

Modifying these manufacturer markups 

in the standards case yields different 

sets of impacts on manufacturers. For 

the MIA, DOE modeled two standardscase scenarios to represent uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of new and amended 

energy conservation standards: (1) a 

preservation of gross-margin-percentage 

scenario; and (2) a preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario. These 

scenarios lead to different manufacturer 

markup values that, when applied to the 

MPCs, result in varying revenue and 

cash flow impacts. 

Under the preservation-of-grossmargin-percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single uniform ‘‘gross-marginpercentage’’ markup across all efficiency 

levels, which assumes that 

manufacturers would be able to 

maintain the same amount of profit as 

a percentage of revenues at all efficiency 

levels within an equipment class. As 

manufacturer production costs increase 

with efficiency, this scenario implies 

that the per-unit dollar profit will 

increase. DOE assumed a gross-margin 

percentage of 29 percent for all 

equipment classes.82 Manufacturers 

tend to believe it is optimistic to assume 

that they would be able to maintain the 

same gross-margin percentage as their 

production costs increase, particularly 

for minimally efficient equipment. 

Therefore, this scenario represents an 

upper bound of industry profitability 

under a new and amended energy 

conservation standard. 

In the preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario, as the cost of production goes 

up under a standards case, 

manufacturers are generally required to 

reduce their manufacturer markups to a 

level that maintains no-new-standardscase operating profit. DOE implemented 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70248 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

this scenario in the GRIM by lowering 

the manufacturer markups at each TSL 

to yield approximately the same 

earnings before interest and taxes in the 

standards case as in the no-newstandards case in the year after the 

expected compliance date of the new 

and amended standards. The implicit 

assumption behind this scenario is that 

the industry can only maintain its 

operating profit in absolute dollars after 

the standard takes effect. 

DOE seeks comment on the use of a 

1.40 manufacturer markup for all CRE 

equipment classes analyzed in this 

proposed rule. DOE also seeks comment 

on the estimated manufacturer markups 

and incremental MSPs that result from 

the analyzed energy conservation 

standards. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two manufacturer 

markup scenarios is presented in 

section V.B.2.a of this document. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing approximately 60 percent 

of the domestic CRE shipments. 

Participants included domestic-based 

and foreign-based OEMs. Participants 

included manufacturers with a wide 

range of market shares and variety of 

equipment offerings, including four 

manufacturers who offered equipment 

under the expanded scope. 

In interviews, DOE asked 

manufacturers to describe their major 

concerns regarding the potential for 

more stringent energy conservation 

standards for CRE. The following 

section highlights manufacturer 

concerns that helped inform the 

projected potential impacts of an 

amended standard on the industry. 

Manufacturer interviews are conducted 

under NDAs, so DOE does not 

document these discussions in the same 

way that it does public comments in the 

comment summaries and DOE’s 

responses throughout the rest of this 

document. 

a. Changes to the Cabinet Structure 

In interviews, manufacturers 

expressed numerous concerns about 

efficiency levels that would necessitate 

significant changes to the cabinet 

structure (i.e., increasing insulation 

thickness or implementing VIPs). 

Regarding thicker insulation, 

manufacturers noted that changing the 

exterior dimensions of equipment 

would be extremely undesirable for the 

replacement market because customers 

expect equipment to fit within the same 

footprint as the equipment being 

replaced. A change in exterior 

dimensions could cause misalignment 

between existing cases and new cases. 

As manufacturers typically treat exterior 

dimensions as fixed, increasing 

insulation thickness would necessitate 

reducing interior volume, which could 

reduce useable, refrigerated volume. 

Furthermore, manufacturers stated that 

increasing insulation thickness would 

require significant capital and product 

conversion costs. Manufacturers would 

need to invest in new foam fixtures and 

tooling. Manufacturers would likely 

need to update all designs and tooling 

associated with the interior of the 

equipment. 

Regarding VIPs, manufacturers noted 

there is very limited industry 

experience with incorporating VIPs into 

CRE. Manufacturers emphasized that 

commercial environments may not be 

suitable for VIPs as they could be easily 

punctured, which would erode any 

efficiency improvements. Manufacturers 

noted that it would be nearly impossible 

to do in-field replacements of 

ineffectual VIPs, meaning that a 

puncture could require an entirely new 

CRE unit. Manufacturers also noted that 

implementing VIPs would require 

significant investment and redesign to 

the foaming station, manufacturing 

facility, and equipment design. 

Typically, CRE designs require 

numerous fasteners to secure internal 

components to the cabinet, which 

would not be feasible with VIPs. 

Manufacturers also noted the need to 

allocate special warehouse space to 

ensure the VIPs are not jostled or 

roughly handled in the manufacturing 

environment. 

b. Supply Chain Concerns 

Multiple manufacturers expressed 

concerns about the ongoing supply 

chain constraints related to sourcing a 

range of components, such as highefficiency motors, compressors, and 

control boards and electronics. 

Manufacturers noted that limited 

component availability, increases in raw 

material prices, and escalating shipping 

and transportation costs all affect 

manufacturer production costs. In 

addition to higher production costs, 

these manufacturers stated that the 

evolving nature of these component 

shortages requires dedicating personnel 

resources to identify and qualify new 

suppliers, build prototypes, conduct 

testing, and update equipment 

literature. Some manufacturers 

expressed concern about standard levels 

that would necessitate numerous 

component changes, as the 

manufacturers are already experiencing 

delays sourcing parts for prototypes. If 

these supply constraints continue 

through the end of the conversion 

period, industry could face capacity 

constraints. DOE discusses potential 

supply constraints in section V.B.2.c of 

this document. 

4. Discussion of MIA Comments 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, NAMA asserted 

that the convenience services industry 

had suffered greatly over the past 3 

years due to new DOE energy efficiency 

regulations, new ENERGY STAR levels, 

regulations on refrigerants (e.g., 

California Air Resources Board), the 

global pandemic, record inflation, and 

staffing troubles. (NAMA, No. 37 at pp. 

2–3) NAMA commented that DOE 

assumed during the previous 

rulemaking that the industry would be 

using natural refrigerants, but industry 

had not completed these transitions due 

in part to pandemic shutdowns and the 

cost of redesigning and manufacturing. 

(Id. at p. 3) 

Furthermore, NAMA commented that 

the costs associated with setting up the 

production of R–290 machines can 

easily cost between $0.5 million and 

$1.0 million per production line 

depending on the scale and stated that 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD does not 

capture these costs. (Id. at pp. 7–8) 

NAMA commented further that the cost 

of redesigning equipment for lower 

GWP chemicals and the associated costs 

for safety compliance, improvements to 

factories, changes to service, and 

training of factory employees and 

service providers proved a huge burden 

to smaller manufacturers. (Id. at p. 3) 

NAMA stated that several of its member 

manufacturing companies qualified as 

small- and medium-enterprise 

businesses and requested that DOE pay 

close attention to the economic impacts 

of a new set of energy regulations on an 

industry already under extreme 

pressure. (Id.) NAMA recommended 

that the environmental impact analysis 

include the fact that the CRE industry 

has spent many millions of dollars 

converting to lower-GWP refrigerant 

blends and hydrocarbon refrigerants 

such as R–290, which have a direct and 

immediate impact on climate change. 

(Id. at p. 8) 

AHRI commented similarly on the 

costs and burdens to transition to 

alternative refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

pp. 12–13, 17–18) AHRI commented 

that the AIM Act requires refrigerant 

manufacturers to phase down the 

supply of high-GWP HFCs, encouraging 

CRE manufacturers to switch to lowGWP refrigerants, which often have 

some degree of flammability. (Id. at p. 

18) AHRI commented that new lowGWP refrigerants would significantly 

impact CRE and that new safety 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70249 

83See pp. 5–113 of the ‘‘Global Non-CO2

Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal 

Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology 

Documentation’’ (2019). Available at www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_

methodology_report.pdf. 

standards must address the application 

of these new flammable refrigerants and 

subsequent leak mitigation. (Id.) AHRI 

commented that flammable refrigerant 

sensors would likely be employed, with 

significant redesign of equipment 

needed to achieve required mitigation 

capability, and all equipment would 

require certification to these new 

standards, which included a number of 

additional requirements due to the 

combination of multiple standards. (Id.) 

AHRI added that all equipment would 

also need to eliminate potential ignition 

sources. (Id.) AHRI stated that 

manufacturers estimate the capital 

investment needed to safely handle and 

store flammable refrigerants at 

manufacturing facilities at $0.5 to $1.0 

million for small facilities that only 

manufacture self-contained equipment 

and $2.0 to $4.0 million for medium and 

larger facilities. (Id. at pp. 12–13) AHRI 

noted that some companies have made 

this investment and transitioned 

products with smaller charges (114 

grams in areas of egress, such as 

hallways) and 150 grams limit in 

occupied spaces for A3 products (such 

as propane). (Id. at p. 13) 

Regarding the comments about new 

DOE energy efficiency regulations, 

DOE’s cumulative regulatory burden 

analysis is based on rulemakings that go 

into effect within a 3-year time frame 

before or after the expected compliance 

date of amended CRE energy 

conservation standards (2028). Section 

V.B.2.e of this document includes a list 

of DOE energy conservation standards 

rulemakings that contribute to 

cumulative regulatory burden within 

the 3-year period before or after the 

expected compliance date of new and 

amended CRE energy conservation 

standards, should they be finalized. 

Regarding the comments about EPA’s 

new ENERGY STAR levels, DOE notes 

that participating in ENERGY STAR is 

voluntary and not considered in DOE’s 

analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden. 

Regarding the comments about the 

costs associated with redesigning 

equipment to make use of lower-GWP 

refrigerants, DOE understands that 

manufacturers of CRE using high-GWP 

refrigerants (e.g., R–404a) will likely 

need to transition to alternative, lowerGWP refrigerants to comply with 

anticipated refrigeration regulations, 

such as the December 2022 EPA NOPR, 

prior to the expected 2028 compliance 

date of potential energy conservation 

standards. See 87 FR 76738. DOE did 

incorporate the estimated expenses 

associated with redesigning CRE to 

make use of flammable refrigerants and 

upgrading production facilities to 

accommodate flammable refrigerants in 

the GRIM. DOE relied on a range of 

sources to estimate the investment 

required to transition CRE using highGWP refrigerants to low-GWP 

refrigerants that satisfy the restrictions 

outlined in the December 2022 EPA 

NOPR. These sources included feedback 

from confidential manufacturer 

interviews, a report prepared for EPA,83

results of the engineering analysis, and 

investment estimates submitted by 

NAMA and AHRI in response to the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. DOE 

also reviewed other public sources, such 

as retail websites, EPA’s ENERGY STAR 

Product Finder dataset, and equipment 

literature to estimate the portion of the 

CRE market that still needs to transition 

to low-GWP refrigerants (e.g., R–290). 

The expenses associated with a change 

in refrigerant are independent on DOE’s 

proposal to amend energy conservation 

standards and are separate from DOE’s 

estimates of conversion costs to meet 

amended standards. See section V.B.2.e 

of this document and chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional discussion on 

cumulative regulatory burden. 

NAMA commented that DOE should 

not discount the time and resources 

needed to evaluate and respond to 

simultaneous proposed test procedures 

and energy conservation standards for 

multiple equipment over a short period 

of time. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 17) NAMA 

stated that when rulemakings occur 

simultaneously, the cumulative burden 

increases dramatically. (Id.) NAMA 

noted that manufacturers of CRE are in 

the middle of transitioning from HFC 

refrigerants to lower-GWP refrigerants 

and commented that additional 

requirements from DOE would increase 

the time necessary for transition. (Id.) 

NAMA commented that the transition to 

lower-GWP refrigerants is more 

impactful to the environment than the 

new energy efficiency requirements 

shown in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis. (Id.) NAMA requested that 

DOE incorporate the financial results of 

the current cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis directly into the MIA by 

adding the combined costs of complying 

with multiple regulations into the 

product conversion costs in the GRIM. 

(Id. at p. 18) NAMA requested that DOE 

complete a consolidated analysis for 

multiple regulations starting from the 

time of the first regulation. (Id.) NAMA 

stated that DOE has asserted such an 

analysis would require counting the 

costs/investments and the revenues/ 

profits for both equipment, which is 

correct and represents a feature, not a 

deficiency. (Id.) NAMA further 

commented that if this is not possible, 

DOE should incorporate a value 

reduction factor in the first postregulation year of the analysis that 

subtracts the value lost from the 

remaining years of the previous 

regulation. (Id.) 

Regarding NAMA’s suggestion to 

account for the financial results of the 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

into the GRIM, DOE incorporated the 

estimated refrigerant transition costs 

that occur in the timeframe of the 

analysis directly into the GRIM in both 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards-case to reflect the impact of 

refrigerant regulation on CRE industry 

cash flow. See section V.B.2.e of this 

document for additional information. 

NAMA requested also that DOE stage 

its energy efficiency regulations at least 

3, and preferably 5, years away from 

other significant and overlapping 

governmental regulations. (Id.) NAMA 

commented that changes to State and 

local building codes are another 

regulatory burden that should have been 

factored in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis. 

Regarding NAMA’s suggestion to 

promulgate energy efficiency 

regulations at least 3, and preferably 5, 

years away from other significant and 

overlapping governmental regulations, 

DOE has statutory requirements under 

EPCA on the timing of rulemakings. For 

CRE, EPCA requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for each type of 

covered equipment and publish either a 

notification of determination that the 

standards do not need to be amended, 

or a NOPR that includes new proposed 

energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The current CRE 

energy conservation standards were 

implemented by the March 2014 Final 

Rule. 79 FR 17725. Under EPCA, any 

potential new and amended standards 

would go into effect (1) 3 years after the 

date on which the final amended 

standard is published or (2) if the 

Secretary determines, by rule, that 3 

years is inadequate, not later than 5 

years after the date on which the final 

rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)(C)). For this NOPR, DOE has 

proposed a 3-year compliance period 

after the date on which final amended 

standard is published. DOE welcomes 

stakeholder feedback on choice of 3 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70250 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

years or 5 years between the final rule 

publication and the compliance date. 

NAMA commented that large 

inaccuracies exist in the tables of design 

options in the June 2022 TSD and that 

the June 2022 Preliminary TSD failed to 

take into account the substantial capital 

costs caused by these design options, 

not including recent cost increases due 

to inflation. (NAMA, No. 37 at pp. 9–10) 

NAMA stated that it sees no sign DOE 

has factored into its estimates the cost 

of capital-intensive design options, such 

as increased insulation, vacuum panels, 

heavier doors, and microchannel coils, 

and that these costs, which would be 

accrued on top of the millions of dollars 

being invested to move from high-GWP 

refrigerants to low-GWP refrigerants, 

comprise an issue of cumulative burden. 

(Id.) 

With respect to NAMA’s comment on 

design options and capital costs, DOE 

did not estimate capital conversion 

costs for the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis as DOE does not conduct a full 

MIA for rulemaking stages prior to the 

NOPR analysis stage. For this NOPR, 

DOE accounts for the capital 

investments required to implement the 

considered design options in the MIA. 

See section IV.J.2.c of this document for 

additional details on conversion costs. 

AHRI commented that its members 

face significant regulatory burdens 

requiring redesign, retooling, testing, 

and listing of equipment; new 

regulations related to the inclusion of 

special/definite-purpose motors as 

regulated; state-mandated refrigerant 

emissions limits, which coincide with a 

change in the safety standard for CRE; 

and new regulations requiring 

elimination of the use of phenyl 

isopropylated phosphate (PIP 3:1) in 

components. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 16) 

AHRI commented that recent changes to 

the scope of test procedures for electric 

motors will increase the burden on 

manufacturers significantly if all 

equipment using special and definitepurpose motors were suddenly forced to 

certify compliance with standards for 

component parts, including the testing, 

paperwork, and recordkeeping 

requirements that accompany 

certification. (Id. at pp. 16–17) AHRI 

stated that efficient electric motors 

incorporated into finished equipment 

are already a major part of the energy 

equation when OEMs consider what 

design options to apply to meet new 

standards, as is evidenced by the June 

2022 Preliminary TSD, and urged DOE 

to account for these costs. (Id. at p. 17) 

AHRI recommended that DOE should 

consider the impact of new motor 

designs on CRE and stated that, for 

equipment yet to be produced, the 

impact could range from retesting/ 

recertification aligning with safety 

standards to a full equipment redesign 

accommodating a new, larger motor. 

(Id.) AHRI commented that the impact 

could be devastating for equipment 

already installed in businesses as 

motors could no longer be available as 

replacement parts, thereby forcing 

consumers to prematurely discard 

equipment that could have otherwise 

been repaired, imposing significant 

additional costs on consumers, and 

generating environmental impacts that 

would likely entirely offset any 

marginal gains from the increased 

scope. (Id.) AHRI recommended that 

DOE should account for the decrease in 

useful life from this component 

regulation in the product’s LCC 

calculations. (Id.) AHRI stated that the 

180-day timeline for motor 

manufacturers to comply with the 

electric motor test procedure puts the 

need to consider the impact of motor 

test procedures into this analysis. (Id.) 

AHRI calculated and submitted a 

detailed cost analysis of changing an 

embedded motor totaling $304,000 for 

one model of commercial HVAC 

equipment in response to the electric 

motor rulemaking. (Id.) AHRI stated that 

CRE will likely face similar costs and 

that the expanded definition of 

‘‘manufacturer’’ would redefine OEMs 

as electric motor manufacturers and 

they would need to comply with these 

certification requirements, which is a 

burden that DOE has not accounted for 

this burden in its analysis. (Id.) 

DOE analyzes cumulative regulatory 

burden pursuant to section 13(g) of the 

Process Rule. Regarding comments 

related to the electric motors test 

procedure final rule published on 

October 19, 2022 (‘‘October 2022 Final 

Rule’’), DOE tentatively expects that the 

motors used in the CRE covered by this 

rulemaking would not be directly 

impacted by the electric motors 

rulemaking because the motors used in 

CRE are typically below 0.25 

horsepower, and, thus, are outside the 

scope of the October 2022 Final Rule. 

See 87 FR 63588, 63601. Regarding 

comments related to a change in safety 

standards for CRE, DOE understands 

that existing safety standards will be 

replaced by UL 60335–2–89 in 2024 

after which all new equipment and 

certain modifications to existing CRE 

will require evaluation to the latest 

edition of UL 60335–2–89. Some 

manufacturers noted that the latest 

edition of UL 60335–2–89 is more 

onerous than existing safety standards 

for CRE. DOE understood that the 

product conversion cost feedback from 

manufacturer interviews reflects the 

additional time investment associated 

with testing to UL 60335–2–89. 

Regarding comments related to 

regulations requiring elimination of the 

use of PIP 3:1 in components, DOE did 

not consider chemical regulations in its 

NOPR cumulative regulatory burden 

analysis as EPA’s final rule is not a CREspecific Federal regulatory action and 

the required compliance date does not 

occur within the specified 3-year 

cumulative regulatory burden timeframe 

analyzed in this NOPR. See 87 FR 

12875. 

AHRI commented that manufacturers 

of chef bases, griddle stands, and other 

equipment for which there is no test 

procedure would have to spend 

additional time and funds to determine 

test efficacy and whether it is possible 

to meet DOE-designated energy 

conservation standards. (AHRI, No. 46 

at p. 8) 

DOE is proposing new and amended 

conservation standards for chef bases 

and high-temperature units (e.g., 

VCT.SC.H, VCS.SC.H, CB.SC.M, 

CB.SC.L). In its modeling, DOE 

incorporated the upfront per-unit costs 

associated with testing to the September 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule for the 

classes of equipment for which there 

was no test procedure. DOE 

incorporated the testing costs into its 

product conversion cost estimates. See 

section IV.J.2.c of this document and 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional details. 

NAMA commented that the CRE 

industry has suffered shortages in the 

supply chain of critical parts during 

recent years. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 14) 

Specifically, NAMA commented 

regarding difficulties in acquiring 

fabricated computer chips and other 

components in the electronics, displays, 

and electrical area. (Id.) NAMA stated 

that the economic analysis in support of 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis did 

not account for these disruptions. (Id.) 

NAMA recommended that DOE 

consider the impact of supply chain 

issues as part of the new energy 

efficiency standards levels. (Id.) NAMA 

commented that unavailable 

components had increased the 

complexity of equipment design, and 

further changes based on perceived 

energy efficiency added additional 

complexity without benefiting the 

customer. (Id.) 

As detailed in section IV.J.3 of this 

document, DOE received similar 

comments about the challenges sourcing 

certain CRE components in recent years 

during confidential manufacturer 

interviews. DOE notes that increased 

costs associated with recent supply 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70251 

84Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed March 9, 2023). 

85For further information, see the Assumptions to 

AEO2023 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed March 30, 

2023). 

86CSAPR requires States to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain States to 

address the ozone season (May–September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five States in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (December 27, 

2011) (Supplemental Rule). 

87 In order to continue operating, coal power 

plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or 

dry sorbent injection systems installed. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

chain issues have been implemented in 

the cost analysis and are presented in 

the MPCs in this NOPR analysis, 

specifically by way of 5-year moving 

averages for materials and the most upto-date information on purchased part 

prices for this NOPR analysis. 

DOE requests comment on the 

availability of computer chips and other 

electronic components used in CREs in 

the timeframe of 2028, and specifically 

how availability would affect industry’s 

ability to achieve higher efficiency 

levels. 

NAFEM commented that DOE was 

evasive in DOE’s response to comments 

regarding negative impacts on a 

substantial number of small businesses 

in the July 2021 RFI. (NAFEM, No. 40 

at p. 4) NAFEM commented that it 

continues to work with the Small 

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) Office 

of Advocacy to ensure that small 

businesses have a direct avenue for 

input and that DOE properly assesses 

cumulative regulatory burden and 

conducts a fair regulatory flexibility 

analysis. (Id.) 

DOE notes that there is no regulatory 

flexibility analysis or manufacturer 

impact analysis in the preliminary 

analysis stage of rulemakings. At this 

NOPR stage, DOE identified 25 small 

domestic OEMs selling covered CRE in 

the United States. In support of this 

NOPR analysis, DOE contractors 

conducted confidential manufacturer 

interviews, which included discussions 

with small, domestic OEMs. DOE 

incorporated their feedback into the 

MIA. Additionally, DOE analyzed the 

impact of the proposed amended 

standards on small business 

manufacturers in section VI.B of this 

document and in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

NAMA commented that no contact 

between DOE consultants and its 

manufacturing members was apparent 

and stated its belief that the information 

in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD 

would have been more accurate and 

reflective of today’s market if NAMA’s 

members had been interviewed. 

(NAMA, No. 37 at p. 6) 

DOE did not conduct preliminary 

manufacturer interviews in support of 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 

However, DOE conducted interviews 

with a range of manufacturers in 

support of this NOPR analysis. DOE 

conducted manufacturer interviews 

with eight CRE OEMs, representing 

approximately 60 percent of domestic 

industry shipments. For additional 

information on manufacturer 

interviews, see section IV.J.3 of this 

document and chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions to emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions factors intended to 

represent the marginal impacts of the 

change in electricity consumption 

associated with amended or new 

standards. The methodology is based on 

results published for the AEO, including 

a set of side cases that implement a 

variety of efficiency-related policies. 

The methodology is described in 

appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The 

analysis presented in this document 

uses projections from AEO2023. Power 

sector emissions of CH4 and N2O from 

fuel combustion are estimated using 

Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories published by the EPA.84

FFC upstream emissions, which 

include emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

For power sector emissions, specific 

emissions intensity factors are 

calculated by sector and end use. Total 

emissions reductions are estimated 

using the energy savings calculated in 

the national impact analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2023 

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and 

regulations adopted through midNovember 2022, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs the emissions 

control programs discussed in the 

following paragraphs, and the Inflation 

Reduction Act.85

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (D.C.). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 

SO2 emissions from numerous States in 

the eastern half of the United States are 

also limited under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 

States to reduce certain emissions, 

including annual SO2 emissions, and 

went into effect as of January 1, 2015.86

The AEO incorporates implementation 

of CSAPR, including the update to the 

CSAPR ozone season program emission 

budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 

81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 

Compliance with CSAPR is flexible 

among EGUs and is enforced through 

the use of tradable emissions 

allowances. Under existing EPA 

regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the 

adoption of an efficiency standard could 

be used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants.87 77 FR 

9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final 

rule, EPA established a standard for 

hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 

acid gas hazardous air pollutants 

(‘‘HAP’’), and also established a 

standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70252 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

as an alternative equivalent surrogate 

standard for acid gas HAP. The same 

controls are used to reduce HAP and 

non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions 

are being reduced as a result of the 

control technologies installed on coalfired power plants to comply with the 

MATS requirements for acid gas. In 

order to continue operating, coal power 

plants must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed. Both technologies, 

which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

Because of the emissions reductions 

under the MATS, it is unlikely that 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand would be needed or used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation would generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

cases, NOX emissions would remain 

near the limit even if electricity 

generation goes down. A different case 

could possibly result, depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, such that NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. In this case, 

energy conservation standards might 

reduce NOX emissions in covered 

States. Despite this possibility, DOE has 

chosen to be conservative in its analysis 

and has maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Energy conservation standards would be 

expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE 

used AEO2023 data to derive NOX

emissions factors for the group of States 

not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, DOE considered 

the estimated monetary benefits from 

the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, 

N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to 

result from each of the TSLs considered. 

To make this calculation analogous to 

the calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of equipment shipped in the 

projection period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

values used for monetizing the 

emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this NOPR. 

To monetize the benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in 

February 2021 by the IWG (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHRI expressed 

concern that DOE’s social cost of carbon 

(‘‘SCC’’) analysis used to generate the 

original 2007 and updated 2020 new 

interim value for the social cost of 

carbon dioxide extends beyond the 

statutory authority and the scope 

contemplated by Congress. (AHRI, No. 

46 at p. 9) AHRI stated its belief that 

DOE should withdraw the SCC values 

and refrain from using the SCC in any 

other rulemaking or policymaking until 

the SCC undergoes a more rigorous 

notice, review and comment process. 

(Id.) AHRI added that while AHRI 

agrees that the SCC should be estimated, 

presented, and made publicly available 

for every DOE rule, the SCC has not 

been adequately reviewed before being 

used as a factor in calculating net 

benefits. (Id.) 

As stated in section III.F.1.f of this 

document, DOE accounts for the 

environmental and public health 

benefits associated with the more 

efficient use of energy, including those 

connected to global climate change, and 

considers them important to take into 

account when considering the need for 

national energy conservation. (See 42 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, 

Executive Order 13563 states that each 

agency must, among other things: 

‘‘select, in choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, those approaches 

that maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity).’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) For 

these reasons, DOE includes monetized 

emissions reductions in its evaluation of 

potential standard levels and reporting 

of net benefits. As previously stated, 

however, DOE would reach the same 

conclusion presented in this proposed 

rulemaking in the absence of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases. 

AHRI stated that the SCC’s timeperiod for analysis renders its 

applicability suspect. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

p. 9) AHRI noted that, in contrast to the 

timeframe considered for carbon 

emissions, DOE calculates the present 

value of the costs to consumers and 

manufacturers over a 30-year period. 

(Id.) AHRI contends that DOE’s 

comparison of 30 years of cost to 

hundreds of years of presumed future 

benefits is inconsistent and improper. 

(Id.) 

In response, DOE notes that its 

analysis considers the costs and benefits 

associated with 30 years of shipments of 

a covered product. Because such 

products continue to operate beyond 30 

years, DOE accounts for energy cost 

savings and reductions in emissions 

until all products shipped within the 

30-year period are retired. In the case of 

CO2 emissions, which remain in the 

atmosphere and contribute to climate 

change for many decades, the benefits of 

reductions in emissions likewise occur 

over a lengthy period. To not include 

such benefits would be inappropriate. 

However, because benefits associated 

with a ton of CO2 emissions are 

discounted to derive the SCC value for 

a given emissions year, and then the 

benefits from potential standards are 

discounted to the present, the 

contribution of climate change benefits 

in the far future to the total benefits 

from CO2 reduction is very small. 

AHRI stated that EPCA’s focus is 

exclusively on benefits accruing within 

this nation, and thus SCC figures 

reported by DOE at the global level are 

beyond the scope and authority of DOE. 

(Id. at p. 10) As previously discussed in 

this section, many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents are better reflected by global 

measures of the SC–GHG. In addition, 

assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 

mitigation activities requires 

consideration of how those actions may 

affect mitigation activities by other 

countries, as those international 

mitigation actions will provide a benefit 

to U.S. citizens and residents by 

mitigating climate impacts that affect 

U.S. citizens and residents. 

AHRI stated that DOE wrongly 

assumes that SCC values will increase 

over time. (Id.) AHRI contended that the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70253 

88See the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD at p. 4. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

89Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. 

Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

90National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24651/ 

valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-ofthe-social-cost-of. 

more economic development that 

occurs, the more adaptation and 

mitigation efforts are both undertaken 

by humanity and that a population 

living in a growing economy can afford 

to undertake. (Id.) In response, DOE 

notes that there are many reasons why 

the analysis of the IWG, along with 

other rigorous assessments, shows SCC 

values rising over time. Briefly, as 

concentrations of GHGs increase, so do 

the impacts on climate and sea level. 

Growing population in many parts of 

the world mean more people who 

would suffer the effects of heat waves 

and rising sea levels, and continued 

economic growth means that the overall 

magnitude of economic damage from 

climate change is likely to rise. In its 

February 2021 TSD, the IWG notes that 

various limitations in the analysis 

suggest that the range of SC–GHG 

estimates presented in the TSD likely 

underestimate societal damages from 

GHG emissions.88

AHRI commented that if DOE still 

chooses to include the SCC, DOE should 

consider the benefits of foam blowing 

and the refrigerant transition in its 

analysis. (Id. at p. 9) In response, DOE 

notes that the benefits of foam blowing 

agents and the refrigerant transition is 

independent of DOE actions related to 

any new and amended energy 

conservation standards, therefore such 

benefits are not accounted for in its 

monetizing emissions analysis. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., ‘‘SC–CO2’’). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

proposed rulemaking in the absence of 

the social cost of greenhouse gases. That 

is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, 

whether measured using the February 

2021 interim estimates presented by the 

IWG or by another means, did not affect 

the rule ultimately proposed by DOE. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O emission 

reductions using SC–GHG values that 

were based on the interim values 

presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 

Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates under Executive Order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG 

(‘‘February 2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). The 

SC–GHG is the monetary value of the 

net harm to society associated with a 

marginal increase in emissions in a 

given year, or the benefit of avoiding 

that increase. In principle, the SC–GHG 

includes the value of all climate change 

impacts, including (but not limited to) 

changes in net agricultural productivity, 

human health effects, property damage 

from increased flood risk and natural 

disasters, disruption of energy systems, 

risk of conflict, environmental 

migration, and the value of ecosystem 

services. Therefore, the SC–GHG reflects 

the societal value of reducing emissions 

of the gas in question by one metric ton. 

The SC–GHG is the theoretically 

appropriate value to use in conducting 

benefit-cost analyses of policies that 

affect CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions. As 

a member of the IWG involved in the 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim 

SC–GHG estimates represent the most 

appropriate estimate of the SC–GHG 

until revised estimates have been 

developed reflecting the latest peerreviewed science. 

The SC–GHG estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using a transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which 

included DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices, was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the SC–CO2

values used across agencies. The IWG 

published SC–CO2 estimates in 2010 

that were developed from an ensemble 

of three widely cited integrated 

assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’) that 

estimate global climate damages using 

highly aggregated representations of 

climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016 the IWG published estimates of the 

social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’) and 

nitrous oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’) using 

methodologies consistent with the 

methodology underlying the SC–CO2

estimates. The modeling approach that 

extends the IWG SC–CO2 methodology 

to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone 

multiple stages of peer review. The SC– 

CH4 and SC–N2O estimates were 

developed by Marten et al.89 and 

underwent a standard double-blind 

peer-review process prior to journal 

publication. In 2015, as part of the 

response to public comments received 

to a 2013 solicitation for comments on 

the SC–CO2 estimates, the IWG 

announced a National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,’’ and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process.90 Shortly thereafter, 

in March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 

13783 used SC–GHG estimates that 

attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific 

share of climate change damages as 

estimated by the models and were 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70254 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

91 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010. 

United States Government, available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf (last accessed March 

9, 2023); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. 2013, available at 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/ 

2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatoryimpact (last accessed March 9, 2023); Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under 

Executive Order 12866. August 2016, available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201612/documents/ 

sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed March 9, 

2023); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 

Addendum to Technical Support Document on 

Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 

of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of 

Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. 

August 2016, available at www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_scghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed January 18, 

2022). 

calculated using two discount rates 

recommended by Circular A–4, 3 

percent and 7 percent. All other 

methodological decisions and model 

versions used in SC–GHG calculations 

remained the same as those used by the 

IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations in the National 

Academies 2017 report. The IWG was 

tasked with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this proposed 

rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG 

to undertake a fuller update of the SC– 

GHG estimates that takes into 

consideration the advice in the National 

Academies 2017 report and other recent 

scientific literature. The February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD provides a complete 

discussion of the IWG’s initial review 

conducted under E.O. 13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that the SC– 

GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 

fail to reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, tourism, and spillover 

pathways, such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the United States and its 

citizens—is for all countries to base 

their policies on global estimates of 

damages. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees with this assessment and, 

therefore, in this proposed rule, DOE 

centers attention on a global measure of 

SC–GHG. This approach is the same as 

that taken in DOE regulatory analyses 

from 2012 through 2016. A robust 

estimate of climate damages that accrue 

only to U.S. citizens and residents does 

not currently exist in the literature. As 

explained in the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, existing estimates are both 

incomplete and an underestimate of 

total damages that accrue to the citizens 

and residents of the United States 

because they do not fully capture the 

regional interactions and spillovers 

discussed above; nor do they include all 

of the important physical, ecological, 

and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change 

literature. As noted in the February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG will 

continue to review developments in the 

literature, including more robust 

methodologies for estimating a U.S.- 

specific SC–GHG value, and explore 

ways to better inform the public of the 

full range of carbon impacts. As a 

member of the IWG, DOE will continue 

to follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies and the economic 

literature, the IWG continued to 

conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context,91 and recommended that 

discount rate uncertainty and relevant 

aspects of intergenerational ethical 

considerations be accounted for in 

selecting future discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates 

as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also 

reminds agencies that ‘‘different 

regulations may call for different 

emphases in the analysis, depending on 

the nature and complexity of the 

regulatory issues and the sensitivity of 

the benefit and cost estimates to the key 

assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular 

A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical 

considerations arise when comparing 

benefits and costs across generations,’’ 

and Circular A–4 acknowledges that 

analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount 

future costs and consumption benefits 

. . . at a lower rate than for 

intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015 

Response to Comments on the Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG 

members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4 

is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of 

7 percent is not considered appropriate 

for intergenerational discounting. There 

is wide support for this view in the 

academic literature, and it is recognized 

in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE 

concludes that a 7-percent discount rate 

is not appropriate to apply to value the 

social cost of greenhouse gases in the 

analysis presented in this NOPR. 

To calculate the present and 

annualized values of climate benefits, 

DOE uses the same discount rate as the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70255 

92 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf (last 

accessed March 9, 2023). 

93See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed 

February 21, 2023). 

rate used to discount the value of 

damages from future GHG emissions, for 

internal consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5-percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the 

above assessment and will continue to 

follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest peer-reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent estimates developed 

by the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies revert 

to the same set of four values drawn 

from the SC–GHG distributions based 

on three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 

2016 and were subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3-percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, this 

update reflects the immediate need to 

have an operational SC–GHG for use in 

regulatory benefit-cost analyses and 

other applications that was developed 

using a transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, and the 

science available at the time of that 

process, and DOE agrees with this 

determination. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 

lower.92 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’—(i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages)—lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

model IAMs, their incomplete treatment 

of adaptation and technological change, 

the incomplete way in which interregional and intersectoral linkages are 

modeled, uncertainty in the 

extrapolation of damages to high 

temperatures, and inadequate 

representation of the relationship 

between the discount rate and 

uncertainty in economic growth over 

long time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 SC–GHG 

TSD, the IWG has recommended that, 

taken together, the limitations suggest 

that the interim SC–GHG estimates used 

in this proposed rule likely 

underestimate the damages from GHG 

emissions. DOE concurs with this 

assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

NOPR are discussed in the following 

sections, and the results of DOE’s 

analyses estimating the benefits of the 

reductions in emissions of these GHGs 

are presented in section V.B.6 of this 

document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this 

NOPR were based on the values 

presented for the IWG’s February 2021 

TSD, which are shown in table IV.12 in 

five-year increments from 2020 to 2050. 

shows the updated sets of SC–CO2

estimates from the IWG’s TSD in 5-year 

increments from 2020 to 2050. The set 

of annual values that DOE used, which 

was adapted from estimates published 

by EPA,93 is presented in appendix 14– 

A of the final rule TSD. These estimates 

are based on methods, assumptions, and 

parameters identical to the estimates 

published by the IWG (which were 

based on EPA modeling), and include 

values for 2051 to 2070. DOE expects 

additional climate benefits to accrue for 

products still operating after 2070, but 

a lack of available SC–CO2 estimates for 

emissions years beyond 2070 prevents 

DOE from monetizing these potential 

benefits in this analysis. 

TABLE IV.10—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2020 ................................................................................................. 14 51 76 152 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70256 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

94See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/30/ 

2021-27854/revised-2023-and-later-model-yearlight-duty-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissionsstandards (last accessed March 9, 2023). 

95U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone 

Precursors from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/benmap/ 

estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emittedpm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors. 

TABLE IV.10—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050—Continued 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2025 ................................................................................................. 17 56 83 169 

2030 ................................................................................................. 19 62 89 187 

2035 ................................................................................................. 22 67 96 206 

2040 ................................................................................................. 25 73 103 225 

2045 ................................................................................................. 28 79 110 242 

2050 ................................................................................................. 32 85 116 260 

For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC–CO2

estimates published by EPA, adjusted to 

2020$.94 These estimates are based on 

methods, assumptions, and parameters 

identical to the 2020–2050 estimates 

published by the IWG. DOE expects 

additional climate benefits to accrue for 

any longer-life CRE after 2070, but a 

lack of available SC–CO2 estimates for 

emissions years beyond 2070 prevents 

DOE from monetizing these potential 

benefits in this analysis. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. DOE adjusted the values 

to 2020$ using the implicit price 

deflator for gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this NOPR were based on the values 

developed for the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD. Table IV.13 shows the 

updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in appendix 14–A of 

the NOPR TSD. To capture the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as 

recommended by the IWG. DOE derived 

values after 2050 using the approach 

described above for the SC–CO2. 

TABLE IV.13—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2020 ............. 670 1,500 2,000 3,900 5,800 18,000 27,000 48,000 

2025 ............. 800 1,700 2,200 4,500 6,800 21,000 30,000 54,000 

2030 ............. 940 2,000 2,500 5,200 7,800 23,000 33,000 60,000 

2035 ............. 1,100 2,200 2,800 6,000 9,000 25,000 36,000 67,000 

2040 ............. 1,300 2,500 3,100 6,700 10,000 28,000 39,000 74,000 

2045 ............. 1,500 2,800 3,500 7,500 10,000 30,000 42,000 81,000 

2050 ............. 1,700 3,100 3,800 8,200 13,000 33,000 45,000 88,000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ 

using the implicit price deflator for GDP 

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX and SO2

emissions reductions from electricity 

generation using the latest benefit per 

ton estimates for that sector from the 

EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis 

Program.95 DOE used EPA’s values for 

PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related 

benefits associated with NOX for 2025, 

2030, and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. DOE used linear interpolation 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 

beyond 2040 the values are held 

constant. DOE combined the EPA 

regional benefit-per-ton estimates with 

regional information on electricity 

consumption and emissions from 

AEO2023 to define weighted-average 

national values for NOX and SO2 (see 

appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD). 

DOE also estimated the monetized 

value of NOX and SO2 emissions 

reductions from site use of natural gas 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70257 

96 ‘‘Area sources’’ represents all emission sources 

for which states do not have exact (point) locations 

in their emissions inventories. Because exact 

locations would tend to be associated with larger 

sources, ‘‘area sources’’ would be fairly 

representative of small dispersed sources like 

homes and businesses. 

97 ‘‘Area sources’’ are a category in the 2018 

document from EPA, but are not used in the 2021 

document cited above. Available at www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/ 

sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf (last accessed 

March 9, 2023). 

98See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at apps.bea.gov/ 

scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last 

accessed March 9, 2023). 

99Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 

in CRE using benefit-per-ton estimates 

from the EPA’s Benefits Mapping and 

Analysis Program. Although none of the 

sectors covered by EPA refers 

specifically to residential and 

commercial buildings, the sector called 

‘‘area sources’’ would be a reasonable 

proxy for residential and commercial 

buildings.96 The EPA document 

provides high and low estimates for 

2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates.97 DOE used the same 

linear interpolation and extrapolation as 

it did with the values for electricity 

generation. 

DOE multiplied the site emissions 

reduction (in tons) in each year by the 

associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation projected to 

result for each considered TSL. The 

analysis is based on published output 

from the NEMS associated with 

AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO 

Reference case, as well as a number of 

side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. For the current 

analysis, impacts are quantified by 

comparing the levels of electricity sector 

generation, installed capacity, fuel 

consumption, and emissions in the 

AEO2023 Reference case and various 

side cases. Details of the methodology 

are provided in the appendices to 

chapters 13 and 15 of the NOPR TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity, and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts from new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

include both direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are 

any changes in the number of 

employees of manufacturers of the 

equipment subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts are changes in 

national employment that occur due to 

the shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more-efficient appliances. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the equipment to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.98 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this NOPR using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).99

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

there are uncertainties involved in 

projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rulemaking. 

Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 

generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2028–2032), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. For more 

details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for CRE. It 

addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, 

the projected impacts of each of these 

levels if adopted as energy conservation 

standards for CRE, and the standards 

levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in 

this NOPR. Additional details regarding 

DOE’s analyses are contained in the 

NOPR TSD supporting this document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential new or amended standards for 

equipment by grouping individual 

efficiency levels for each class into 

TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to 

identify and consider manufacturer cost 

interactions between the equipment 

classes, to the extent that there are such 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70258 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

interactions, and price elasticity of 

consumer purchasing decisions that 

may change when different standard 

levels are set. 

In the analysis conducted for this 

NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of six TSLs for CRE. DOE 

developed TSLs that combine efficiency 

levels for each analyzed equipment 

class. DOE presents the results for the 

TSLs in this document, while the results 

for all efficiency levels that DOE 

analyzed are in the NOPR TSD. 

Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels that 

DOE has identified for potential new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for CRE. TSL 6 represents the 

maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) energy efficiency for all 

equipment classes. TSL 5 represents the 

highest efficiency level with positive 

LCC savings, including subgroups, for 

all equipment classes. TSL 4 represents 

the highest efficiency level with 

maximum LCC savings for all 

equipment classes. TSL 3 represents the 

highest efficiency level with positive 

LCC savings and single speed 

compressor for equipment classes in 

which this design option was 

considered. TSL 2 represents the highest 

efficiency level with maximum LCC 

savings and single speed compressor for 

equipment classes with compressors, 

which also corresponds to the minimum 

efficiency level between TSL 4 and TSL 

3. TSL 1 represents the minimum 

efficiency level with positive LCC 

savings. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CRE—EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

VOP.RC.M ............................................................................................... 1 2 2 2 2 2 

VOP.RC.L ................................................................................................ 1 2 2 2 2 2 

VOP.SC.M ................................................................................................ 1 2 2 4 5 5 

VCT.RC.M ................................................................................................ 1 1 3 1 3 4 

VCT.RC.L ................................................................................................. 1 2 2 2 2 3 

VCT.SC.M ................................................................................................ 1 1 1 3 3 7 

VCT.SC.L ................................................................................................. 1 3 3 5 6 7 

VCT.SC.I .................................................................................................. 1 2 2 2 2 4 

VCT.SC.H ................................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 7 

VCS.SC.M ................................................................................................ 1 3 3 3 4 5 

VCS.SC.L ................................................................................................. 1 4 4 5 6 6 

VCS.SC.I .................................................................................................. 1 4 4 5 6 6 

VCS.SC.H ................................................................................................ 1 1 5 1 6 7 

SVO.RC.M ............................................................................................... 1 1 2 1 2 2 

SVO.SC.M ................................................................................................ 1 4 4 6 7 7 

SOC.RC.M ............................................................................................... 1 1 3 1 3 4 

SOC.SC.M ............................................................................................... 1 3 3 5 7 7 

HZO.RC.M ............................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 

HZO.RC.L ................................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 

HZO.SC.M ................................................................................................ 1 2 2 3 5 5 

HZO.SC.L ................................................................................................. 1 2 2 3 5 5 

HCT.SC.M ................................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 7 

HCT.SC.L ................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 7 

HCT.SC.I .................................................................................................. 1 0 0 1 2 7 

HCS.SC.M ................................................................................................ 1 1 2 1 2 4 

HCS.SC.L ................................................................................................. 1 1 1 1 1 3 

CB.SC.M .................................................................................................. 1 2 4 2 5 6 

CB.SC.L ................................................................................................... 1 4 4 5 6 6 

Table V.2 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding percent reduction in 

energy use below baseline by equipment 

class. The baseline values for the selfcontained equipment classes are presented in table IV.6 in section 

IV.C.1.a of this document. 

TABLE V.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CRE—% ENERGY REDUCTION BELOW ANALYZED BASELINE

Equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

TSL 6 

(%) 

VOP.RC.M ............................................................................................... 4.5 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 

VOP.RC.L ................................................................................................ 1.6 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1

VOP.SC.M ................................................................................................ 2.6 11.0 11.0 21.9 22.6 22.6 

VCT.RC.M ................................................................................................ 9.5 9.5 10.8 9.5 10.8 11.6 

VCT.RC.L ................................................................................................. 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 6.8 

VCT.SC.M ................................................................................................ 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.8 24.8 27.7 

VCT.SC.L ................................................................................................. 2.9 4.6 4.6 16.7 17.0 20.1 

VCT.SC.I .................................................................................................. 0.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 8.8 

VCT.SC.H ................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 

VCS.SC.M ................................................................................................ 26.7 40.4 40.4 40.4 50.1 51.0 

VCS.SC.L ................................................................................................. 6.6 13.8 13.8 22.6 23.2 23.2 

VCS.SC.I .................................................................................................. 4.8 10.0 10.0 22.0 22.1 22.1 

VCS.SC.H ................................................................................................ 53.9 53.9 69.3 53.9 77.6 78.1 

SVO.RC.M ............................................................................................... 5.0 5.0 12.2 5.0 12.2 12.2 

SVO.SC.M ................................................................................................ 3.4 14.9 14.9 22.6 23.7 23.7 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70259 

TABLE V.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CRE—% ENERGY REDUCTION BELOW ANALYZED BASELINE—Continued 

Equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

TSL 6 

(%) 

SOC.RC.M ............................................................................................... 10.9 10.9 11.1 10.9 11.1 11.2 

SOC.SC.M ............................................................................................... 13.7 22.9 22.9 38.9 39.8 39.8 

HZO.RC.M ............................................................................................... 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 

HZO.RC.L ................................................................................................ 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

HZO.SC.M ................................................................................................ 3.8 5.2 5.2 14.7 16.9 16.9 

HZO.SC.L ................................................................................................. 2.4 3.1 3.1 17.7 18.4 18.4 

HCT.SC.M ................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 

HCT.SC.L ................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 

HCT.SC.I .................................................................................................. 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 33.4 42.5 

HCS.SC.M ................................................................................................ 36.7 36.7 44.2 36.7 44.2 45.4 

HCS.SC.L ................................................................................................. 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 44.3 

CB.SC.M .................................................................................................. 22.4 50.3 58.2 50.3 60.9 61.2 

CB.SC.L ................................................................................................... 15.6 38.4 38.4 54.1 54.4 54.4 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on CRE consumers by looking at the 

effects that potential new and amended 

standards at each TSL would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

selected consumer subgroups. These 

analyses are discussed in the following 

sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency 

equipment affect consumers in two 

ways: (1) purchase price increases and 

(2) annual operating costs decrease. 

Inputs used for calculating the LCC and 

PBP include total installed costs (i.e., 

equipment price plus installation costs), 

and operating costs (i.e., annual energy 

use, energy prices, energy price trends, 

repair costs, and maintenance costs). 

The LCC calculation also uses 

equipment lifetime and a discount rate. 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides 

detailed information on the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

Table V.3 through table V.58 show the 

LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each equipment class. In 

the first of each pair of tables, the 

simple payback is measured relative to 

the baseline equipment. In the second 

table, impacts are measured relative to 

the efficiency distribution in the nonew-standards case in the compliance 

year (see section IV.F.9 of this 

document). Because some consumers 

purchase equipment with higher 

efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 

the average savings are less than the 

difference between the average LCC of 

the baseline equipment and the average 

LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only 

to consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase an equipment with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 

TABLE V.3—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR CB.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022F$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 2,413.64 275.08 2,506.40 4,780.95 ........................ 14.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 2,447.35 239.80 2,212.22 4,518.53 1.0 14.0 

2 ..................... 2,480.02 195.85 1,840.56 4,177.65 0.8 14.0 

3 ..................... 2,496.88 192.38 1,814.45 4,167.42 1.0 14.0 

2,3 ................................ 4 ..................... 2,513.22 188.05 1,780.62 4,148.99 1.1 14.0 

4 ................................... 5 ..................... 2,654.88 155.98 1,527.83 4,029.69 2.0 14.0 

5,6 ................................ 6 ..................... 2,675.72 155.68 1,613.81 4,135.31 2.2 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CB.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 263.09 0.0 

2 524.57 0.0 

3 534.80 0.0 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 4 553.24 0.0 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 672.54 0.2 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 6 566.92 1.3 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70260 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.5—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR CB.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) 

Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline ......... 1,750.66 86.90 797.20 2,452.05 ........................ 13.9 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 1,767.51 71.40 669.43 2,340.22 1.1 13.9 

2,4 ................................ 2 ..................... 1,783.85 52.08 507.74 2,193.97 1.0 13.9 

3 ..................... 1,800.70 49.43 488.95 2,191.11 1.3 13.9 

3 ................................... 4 ..................... 1,817.04 46.12 464.25 2,181.85 1.6 13.9 

5 ................................... 5 ..................... 1,958.70 45.03 484.78 2,336.27 5.0 13.9 

6 ................................... 6 ..................... 1,992.58 44.94 571.95 2,455.47 5.8 13.9 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CB.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 111.31 0.0 

2,4 ............................................................................................................................................ 2 208.70 0.0 

3 190.07 4.1 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 199.32 3.3 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 44.90 45.9 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 6 (74.29) 73.7 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.7—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCS.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 1,646.86 44.53 428.89 1,984.18 ........................ 14.0 

1–5 ............................... 1 ..................... 1,661.72 41.62 407.13 1,976.45 5.1 14.0 

2 ..................... 1,803.38 28.51 321.35 2,024.44 9.8 14.0 

6 ................................... 3 ..................... 1,827.70 27.85 404.44 2,130.49 10.8 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HCS.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1–5 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 7.77 22.2 

2 (41.22) 72.9 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 (147.27) 96.1 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.9—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCS.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 1,658.31 37.22 382.20 1,953.10 ........................ 14.0 

1,2,4 ............................. 1 ..................... 1,667.94 25.66 279.21 1,859.23 0.8 14.0 

3,5 ................................ 2 ..................... 1,682.80 23.32 262.46 1,856.56 1.8 14.0 

3 ..................... 1,707.13 23.02 348.86 1,965.99 3.4 14.0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70261 

TABLE V.9—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCS.SC.M—Continued 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

6 ................................... 4 ..................... 1,848.81 22.94 379.24 2,130.58 13.3 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HCS.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1,2,4 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 94.14 0.0 

3,5 ............................................................................................................................................ 2 84.89 4.9 

3 (24.55) 73.5 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 (189.13) 99.1 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.11—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCT.SC.I 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

2,3 ................................ Baseline ......... 1,532.98 115.03 1,152.21 2,599.07 ........................ 14.0 

1,4 ................................ 1 ..................... 1,674.44 85.83 923.71 2,504.07 4.8 14.0 

5 ................................... 2 ..................... 1,764.26 82.51 870.76 2,535.89 7.1 14.0 

3 ..................... 1,795.72 81.94 954.60 2,649.42 7.9 14.0 

4 ..................... 1,869.93 75.95 901.32 2,666.17 8.6 14.0 

5 ..................... 1,882.40 74.88 891.73 2,668.35 8.7 14.0 

6 ..................... 1,885.31 74.52 888.53 2,667.90 8.7 14.0 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 2,146.62 73.68 881.07 2,907.06 14.8 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.12—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HCT.SC.I 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1,4 ............................................................................................................................................ 1 93.84 15.0 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 2 55.03 32.5 

3 (58.42) 56.4 

4 (68.58) 63.7 

5 (69.11) 65.2 

6 (68.66) 65.0 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 (306.51) 85.8 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.13—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCT.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1–5 ............................... Baseline ......... 1,426.49 71.52 740.91 2,089.70 ........................ 13.9 

1 ..................... 1,567.94 53.78 614.92 2,097.45 8.0 13.9 

2 ..................... 1,657.75 50.47 562.23 2,129.67 11.0 13.9 

3 ..................... 1,689.21 49.85 645.27 2,242.46 12.1 13.9 

4 ..................... 1,763.42 46.64 616.76 2,284.11 13.5 13.9 

5 ..................... 1,775.89 46.06 611.63 2,290.76 13.7 13.9 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70262 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.13—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCT.SC.L—Continued 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

6 ..................... 1,778.80 45.87 609.92 2,291.80 13.7 13.9 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 2,040.10 45.42 605.93 2,534.87 23.5 13.9 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.14—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HCT.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 (8.05) 42.8 

2 (39.67) 57.0 

3 (152.24) 71.5 

4 (178.19) 81.8 

5 (180.80) 83.9 

6 (181.84) 83.8 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 (421.60) 90.5 

*The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set 

at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.15—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HCT.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1–5 ............................... Baseline ......... 1,310.11 33.30 378.46 1,617.43 ........................ 14.0 

1 ..................... 1,451.54 30.61 386.32 1,759.03 52.6 14.0 

2 ..................... 1,541.34 27.30 333.51 1,791.13 38.5 14.0 

3 ..................... 1,572.79 27.05 420.09 1,907.45 42.1 14.0 

4 ..................... 1,646.98 25.79 408.84 1,966.35 44.9 14.0 

5 ..................... 1,659.45 25.56 406.81 1,976.12 45.1 14.0 

6 ..................... 1,662.35 25.48 406.14 1,978.19 45.1 14.0 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 1,923.61 25.31 404.56 2,223.67 76.8 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.16—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HCT.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 (141.71) 72.3 

2 (164.18) 76.8 

3 (279.83) 77.8 

4 (307.69) 87.5 

5 (309.50) 89.8 

6 (311.58) 89.8 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 (551.40) 91.4 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.17—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HZO.RC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 6,037.15 1,214.59 11,439.53 17,476.68 ........................ 13.0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70263 

TABLE V.17—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HZO.RC.L—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1–6 ............................... 1 ..................... 6,180.64 1,203.55 11,249.48 17,430.12 13.0 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.18—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HZO.RC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1–6 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 46.57 7.8 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.19—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HZO.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 6,023.23 543.01 5,247.93 11,271.17 ........................ 13.0 

1–6 ............................... 1 ..................... 6,166.77 532.57 5,064.11 11,230.88 13.8 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.20—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HZO.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1–6 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 40.29 10.8 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.21—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HZO.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 3,086.17 1,070.30 9,605.52 12,578.04 ........................ 13.1 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 3,102.46 1,048.99 9,428.65 12,416.86 0.8 13.1 

2,3 ................................ 2 ..................... 3,117.28 1,042.34 9,374.71 12,377.19 1.1 13.1 

4 ................................... 3 ..................... 3,399.80 911.71 8,295.65 11,570.22 2.0 13.1 

4 ..................... 3,425.87 908.91 8,358.49 11,658.16 2.1 13.1 

5,6 ................................ 5 ..................... 3,542.47 905.58 8,287.58 11,699.54 2.8 13.1 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.22—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HZO.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 160.85 0.0 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 2 193.59 0.0 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 971.22 0.2 

4 883.28 0.5 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70264 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.22—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HZO.SC.L—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 5 841.89 0.9 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.23—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HZO.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 2,397.43 429.17 3,921.92 6,226.78 ........................ 13.1 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 2,412.25 415.60 3,812.49 6,131.59 1.1 13.1 

2,3 ................................ 2 ..................... 2,427.07 410.44 3,771.80 6,105.15 1.6 13.1 

4 ................................... 3 ..................... 2,568.36 376.54 3,509.56 5,978.72 3.3 13.1 

4 ..................... 2,594.43 371.96 3,556.41 6,050.63 3.4 13.1 

5,6 ................................ 5 ..................... 2,711.05 368.63 3,398.99 6,005.32 5.2 13.1 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.24—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR HZO.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings* 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 95.03 0.0 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 2 117.44 0.2 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 226.50 6.8 

4 154.59 19.6 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 5 199.91 14.8 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.25—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SOC.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 13,455.98 847.97 8,984.53 22,440.51 ........................ 12.9 

1,2,4 ............................. 1 ..................... 13,653.31 770.99 7,801.16 21,454.47 2.6 12.9 

2 ..................... 13,701.42 769.68 7,789.05 21,490.47 3.1 12.9 

3,5 ................................ 3 ..................... 13,712.64 769.26 7,785.15 21,497.79 3.3 12.9 

6 ................................... 4 ..................... 14,720.84 768.26 7,775.94 22,496.78 15.9 12.9 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.26—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR SOC.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1,2,4 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 986.27 0.0 

2 944.21 0.6 

3,5 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 929.51 1.4 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 (70.50) 70.9 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70265 

TABLE V.27—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SOC.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 15,074.90 1,010.13 10,218.96 24,736.27 ........................ 13.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 15,084.50 894.71 9,215.75 23,742.30 0.1 13.0 

2 ..................... 15,216.87 841.08 8,823.37 23,477.38 0.8 13.0 

2,3 ................................ 3 ..................... 15,292.93 816.47 8,630.16 23,357.41 1.1 13.0 

4 ..................... 15,575.42 761.20 8,212.91 23,212.16 2.0 13.0 

4 ................................... 5 ..................... 15,772.73 681.78 7,036.90 22,226.13 2.1 13.0 

6 ..................... 15,820.79 676.67 6,992.45 22,227.96 2.2 13.0 

5,6 ................................ 7 ..................... 16,888.21 673.64 7,052.97 23,316.27 5.4 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.28—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR SOC.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 994.55 0.0 

2 1,085.17 0.4 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1,015.54 0.9 

4 1,063.82 3.7 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1,834.72 0.0 

6 1,832.85 0.0 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 7 698.37 25.6 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.29—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SVO.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 6,998.28 1,115.54 11,064.57 18,062.84 ........................ 13.0 

1,2,4 ............................. 1 ..................... 7,222.52 1,068.46 10,317.17 17,539.69 4.8 13.0 

3,5,6 ............................. 2 ..................... 7,833.88 1,001.65 9,696.11 17,529.99 7.3 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.30—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR SVO.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1,2,4 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 522.85 0.0 

3,5,6 ......................................................................................................................................... 2 406.59 18.4 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.31—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SVO.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 4,779.96 902.18 8,199.62 12,793.46 ........................ 13.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 4,810.58 876.57 7,995.58 12,618.85 1.2 13.0 

2 ..................... 4,844.20 864.11 7,897.08 12,552.66 1.7 13.0 

3 ..................... 4,876.77 848.60 7,771.84 12,458.72 1.8 13.0 

2,3 ................................ 4 ..................... 5,080.56 789.90 7,264.50 12,147.21 2.7 13.0 

5 ..................... 5,363.08 746.66 6,953.23 12,107.44 3.8 13.0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70266 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.31—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SVO.SC.M—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

4 ................................... 6 ..................... 5,479.68 731.65 6,718.66 11,984.91 4.1 13.0 

5,6 ................................ 7 ..................... 5,550.97 723.43 6,733.74 12,068.50 4.3 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.32—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR SVO.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 175.56 0.0 

2 237.26 0.2 

3 324.02 0.1 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 4 600.52 0.1 

5 586.37 8.2 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 6 692.32 4.6 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 7 602.17 11.0 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.33—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCS.SC.H 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 3,949.97 101.23 969.24 4,701.69 ........................ 14.0 

1,2,4 ............................. 1 ..................... 3,959.60 55.10 558.87 4,300.41 0.2 14.0 

2 ..................... 3,991.29 50.58 535.86 4,307.35 0.8 14.0 

3 ..................... 4,021.01 44.95 501.90 4,301.47 1.3 14.0 

4 ..................... 4,037.86 43.59 494.32 4,309.82 1.5 14.0 

3 ................................... 5 ..................... 4,054.20 41.89 483.62 4,314.55 1.8 14.0 

5 ................................... 6 ..................... 4,195.84 34.74 451.10 4,415.86 3.7 14.0 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 4,242.12 34.34 536.33 4,544.82 4.4 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.34—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCS.SC.H 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1,2,4 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 399.54 0.0 

2 270.97 17.8 

3 276.86 15.0 

4 268.51 17.4 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 263.78 18.4 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 6 162.47 31.6 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 33.51 52.8 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.35—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCS.SC.I 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 4,529.28 627.67 5,752.96 10,031.71 ........................ 14.1 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 4,538.91 602.08 5,524.85 9,812.69 0.4 14.1 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70267 

TABLE V.35—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCS.SC.I—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

2 ..................... 4,568.63 584.86 5,387.74 9,703.65 0.9 14.1 

3 ..................... 4,585.48 580.39 5,352.37 9,684.20 1.2 14.1 

2,3 ................................ 4 ..................... 4,601.82 574.81 5,307.05 9,654.31 1.4 14.1 

4 ................................... 5 ..................... 4,885.14 511.08 4,801.64 9,416.52 3.1 14.1 

5,6 ................................ 6 ..................... 4,931.42 510.61 4,886.41 9,545.00 3.4 14.1 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.36—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCS.SC.I 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 219.02 0.0 

2 328.05 0.0 

3 347.51 0.0 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 4 377.40 0.0 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 615.19 3.6 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 6 486.70 8.9 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.37—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCS.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 4,195.10 411.78 3,767.90 7,721.94 ........................ 14.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 4,204.73 388.98 3,565.71 7,528.82 0.4 14.0 

2 ..................... 4,234.45 373.64 3,446.25 7,437.36 1.0 14.0 

3 ..................... 4,251.30 369.23 3,411.70 7,418.70 1.3 14.0 

2,3 ................................ 4 ..................... 4,267.64 363.74 3,367.39 7,389.78 1.5 14.0 

4 ................................... 5 ..................... 4,409.29 332.97 3,125.76 7,281.65 2.7 14.0 

5,6 ................................ 6 ..................... 4,455.57 331.05 3,197.27 7,396.77 3.2 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.38—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCS.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 193.07 0.0 

2 265.56 0.1 

3 284.18 0.2 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 4 309.04 0.2 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 375.85 4.3 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 6 260.73 17.1 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.39—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCS.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 3,956.46 112.72 1,080.77 4,809.78 ........................ 14.1 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 3,966.08 87.24 854.78 4,592.87 0.4 14.1 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70268 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.39—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCS.SC.M—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

2 ..................... 3,995.80 77.73 786.61 4,552.70 1.1 14.1 

2–4 ............................... 3 ..................... 4,012.13 74.16 759.47 4,540.95 1.4 14.1 

5 ................................... 4 ..................... 4,153.76 64.87 709.37 4,624.33 4.1 14.1 

6 ................................... 5 ..................... 4,200.04 64.02 790.45 4,749.02 5.0 14.1 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.40—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCS.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 217.33 0.0 

2 235.40 1.3 

2–4 ........................................................................................................................................... 3 240.66 1.6 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 128.81 27.0 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 0.17 56.2 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.41—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCT.RC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 9,261.69 1,277.59 12,897.96 22,159.65 ........................ 14.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 9,486.23 1,241.24 12,349.78 21,836.00 6.2 14.0 

2–5 ............................... 2 ..................... 9,525.84 1,236.13 12,299.80 21,825.64 6.4 14.0 

6 ................................... 3 ..................... 13,084.28 1,204.29 11,988.81 25,073.10 52.2 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.42—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.RC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 323.67 0.0 

2–5 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 331.04 0.4 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 (2,934.72) 99.7 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.43—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCT.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 9,052.59 433.39 4,761.74 13,814.33 ........................ 13.9 

1,2,4 ............................. 1 ..................... 9,277.06 398.58 4,228.77 13,505.84 6.5 13.9 

2 ..................... 9,446.82 394.88 4,192.70 13,639.51 10.2 13.9 

3,5 ................................ 3 ..................... 9,486.42 393.69 4,181.07 13,667.49 10.9 13.9 

6 ................................... 4 ..................... 13,043.92 390.88 4,153.62 17,197.54 93.9 13.9 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70269 

TABLE V.44—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1,2,4 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 308.65 0.0 

2 171.49 8.1 

3,5 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 133.62 24.0 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 (3,397.02) 100.0 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.45—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCT.SC.H 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1–5 ............................... Baseline ......... 4,470.66 126.82 1,370.85 5,586.32 ........................ 14.0 

1 ..................... 4,531.98 116.79 1,315.87 5,589.16 6.1 14.0 

2 ..................... 4,565.12 112.31 1,285.13 5,589.67 6.5 14.0 

3 ..................... 4,706.57 97.60 1,186.12 5,624.01 8.1 14.0 

4 ..................... 4,823.32 85.18 1,008.73 5,556.70 8.5 14.0 

5 ..................... 4,907.08 83.82 996.65 5,623.60 10.2 14.0 

6 ..................... 4,953.92 83.25 1,080.12 5,751.23 11.1 14.0 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 6,377.25 82.48 1,073.29 7,086.37 43.0 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.46—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.SC.H 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 (2.49) 30.6 

2 (2.54) 42.4 

3 (36.07) 62.7 

4 33.12 46.7 

5 (33.78) 63.8 

6 (161.50) 79.4 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 (1,496.81) 96.9 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.47—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCT.SC.I 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 6,606.39 717.90 6,723.31 12,967.00 ........................ 14.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 6,622.23 714.41 6,692.45 12,951.12 4.6 14.0 

2–5 ............................... 2 ..................... 6,738.97 701.99 6,515.27 12,884.25 8.3 14.0 

3 ..................... 7,046.29 690.86 6,505.12 13,164.53 16.3 14.0 

6 ................................... 4 ..................... 8,469.43 664.72 6,273.60 14,277.88 35.0 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.48—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.SC.I 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 15.76 1.5 

2–5 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 77.46 1.1 

3 (226.28) 85.6 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70270 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.48—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.SC.I—Continued 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 (1,318.52) 100.0 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.49—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCT.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs (2022$) 

Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 6,441.77 616.41 5,793.30 11,866.44 ........................ 14.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 6,471.45 601.18 5,674.48 11,775.59 2.0 14.0 

2 ..................... 6,487.76 595.37 5,627.26 11,743.75 2.2 14.0 

2,3 ................................ 3 ..................... 6,503.61 592.42 5,601.15 11,732.58 2.6 14.0 

4 ..................... 6,786.54 541.91 5,215.01 11,613.15 4.6 14.0 

4 ................................... 5 ..................... 6,903.32 529.48 5,037.56 11,545.79 5.3 14.0 

5 ................................... 6 ..................... 6,956.92 527.53 5,108.98 11,667.74 5.8 14.0 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 8,380.48 511.74 4,968.73 12,869.46 18.5 14.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.50—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.SC.L 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 91.06 0.3% 

2 111.65 0.6% 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 122.78 0.7% 

4 174.92 22.6% 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 242.33 18.8% 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 6 120.34 37.5% 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 (1,093.50) 98.2% 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.51—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VCT.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 4,523.51 173.05 1,797.38 6,066.11 ........................ 13.9 

1–3 ............................... 1 ..................... 4,539.82 168.71 1,763.44 6,047.55 3.8 13.9 

2 ..................... 4,681.25 149.19 1,623.12 6,040.70 6.6 13.9 

4,5 ................................ 3 ..................... 4,798.00 136.78 1,446.54 5,974.28 7.6 13.9 

4 ..................... 4,865.91 135.23 1,432.85 6,024.67 9.1 13.9 

5 ..................... 4,881.76 134.73 1,428.43 6,035.20 9.4 13.9 

6 ..................... 4,928.59 133.74 1,507.74 6,158.71 10.3 13.9 

6 ................................... 7 ..................... 6,351.83 132.58 1,497.52 7,491.48 45.2 13.9 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.52—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1–3 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 18.80 5.7% 

2 20.52 29.8 

4,5 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 82.53 20.1 

4 30.92 42.4 

5 20.36 45.9 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70271 

TABLE V.52—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VCT.SC.M—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

6 (103.42) 64.6 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... 7 (1,417.22) 100.0 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.53—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VOP.RC.L 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 9,804.18 3,953.75 37,429.46 47,233.63 ........................ 13.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 10,028.41 3,901.88 36,591.13 46,619.55 4.3 13.0 

2–6 ............................... 2 ..................... 10,639.77 3,719.92 34,905.64 45,545.41 3.6 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.54—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VOP.RC.L 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 615.37 0.0 

2–6 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1,524.52 0.0 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.55—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VOP.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 8,943.72 1,436.26 14,170.99 23,114.71 ........................ 13.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 9,167.99 1,381.81 13,308.67 22,476.66 4.1 13.0 

2–6 ............................... 2 ..................... 9,779.42 1,290.04 12,457.83 22,237.25 5.7 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.56—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VOP.RC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2022$) 

% of Consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 638.01 0.0 

2–6 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 707.13 8.2 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

TABLE V.57—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VOP.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

Baseline ......... 6,563.78 1,076.62 9,936.29 16,264.24 ........................ 13.0 

1 ................................... 1 ..................... 6,612.64 1,053.03 9,745.17 16,120.22 2.1 13.0 

2,3 ................................ 2 ..................... 6,816.42 977.96 9,092.80 15,664.28 2.6 13.0 

3 ..................... 7,098.92 897.61 8,457.71 15,301.52 3.0 13.0 

4 ................................... 4 ..................... 7,242.43 879.28 8,164.31 15,146.45 3.4 13.0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70272 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.57—LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR VOP.SC.M—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

5,6 ................................ 5 ..................... 7,303.09 872.97 8,196.09 15,236.71 3.6 13.0 

Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline equipment. 

TABLE V.58—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR VOP.SC.M 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average 

LCC savings * 

(2022$) 

% of consumers 

that experience 

net cost 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 143.30 0.6 

2,3 ............................................................................................................................................ 2 590.02 0.0 

3 927.32 1.0 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1,082.34 0.4 

5,6 ............................................................................................................................................ 5 992.17 1.0 

* The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard 

set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on small businesses. 

Table V.59 compares the average LCC 

savings and PBP at each efficiency level 

for small businesses with the entire 

consumer sample for CRE. In most 

cases, the average LCC savings and PBP 

for small businesses at the considered 

efficiency levels are not substantially 

different from the average for all 

businesses. Chapter 11 of the NOPR 

TSD presents the complete LCC and 

PBP results for the subgroup. 

TABLE V.59—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS COMPARISON FOR SMALL BUSINESSES FOR CRE 

Equipment class EL 

Average LCC savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

Net cost 

(%) 

Small 

business 

All 

purchasers Small 

business 

All 

purchasers 

Small 

business 

All 

purchasers 

CB.SC.L ............................... 1 227.9 263.09 1.0 1.0 0 0 

2 455.5 524.57 0.8 0.8 0 0 

3 462.59 534.80 1.0 1.0 0 0 

4 476.95 553.24 1.1 1.1 0 0 

5 565.61 672.54 2.0 2.0 0 0 

6 473.70 566.92 2.2 2.2 2 1 

CB.SC.M .............................. 1 96.14 111.31 1.1 1.1 0 0 

2 180.72 208.70 1.0 1.0 0 0 

3 162.71 190.07 1.3 1.3 5 4 

4 168.99 199.32 1.6 1.6 4 3 

5 16.80 44.90 5.0 5.0 53 46 

6 (88.63) (74.29) 5.8 5.8 79 74 

HCS.SC.L ............................. 1 5.13 7.77 5.11 5.1 28 22 

2 (54.10) (41.22) 9.77 9.8 77 73 

3 (146.77) (147.27) 10.84 10.8 98 96 

HCS.SC.M ............................ 1 81.56 94.14 0.83 0.8 0 0 

2 71.87 84.89 1.76 1.8 6 5 

3 (23.76) (24.55) 3.44 3.4 76 74 

4 (184.84) (189.13) 13.34 13.3 99 99 

HCT.SC.I .............................. 1 66.18 93.84 4.84 4.8 19 15 

2 21.88 55.03 7.11 7.1 40 33 

3 (78.05) (58.42) 7.94 7.9 60 56 

4 (93.01) (68.58) 8.62 8.6 69 64 

5 (94.20) (69.11) 8.70 8.7 70 65 

6 (94.15) (68.66) 8.70 8.7 70 65 

7 (334.29) (306.51) 14.84 14.8 89 86 

HCT.SC.L ............................. 1 (23.30) (8.05) 7.97 8.0 49 43 

2 (61.20) (39.67) 10.99 11.0 61 57 

3 (160.47) (152.24) 12.13 12.1 75 72 

4 (189.47) (178.19) 13.54 13.5 85 82 

5 (192.51) (180.80) 13.72 13.7 87 84 

6 (193.78) (181.84) 13.73 13.7 87 84 

7 (435.54) (421.60) 23.51 23.5 91 90 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70273 

TABLE V.59—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS COMPARISON FOR SMALL BUSINESSES FOR CRE—Continued 

Equipment class EL 

Average LCC savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

Net cost 

(%) 

Small 

business 

All 

purchasers Small 

business 

All 

purchasers 

Small 

business 

All 

purchasers 

HCT.SC.M ............................ 1 (140.89) (141.71) 52.63 52.6 72 72 

2 (170.95) (164.18) 38.53 38.5 77 77 

3 (272.85) (279.83) 42.07 42.1 78 78 

4 (303.34) (307.69) 44.85 44.9 87 87 

5 (305.59) (309.50) 45.14 45.1 90 90 

6 (307.77) (311.58) 45.07 45.1 90 90 

7 (549.59) (551.40) 76.76 76.8 91 91 

HZO.RC.L ............................ 1 20.91 46.57 12.99 13.0 32 8 

HZO.RC.M ........................... 1 15.27 40.29 13.75 13.8 38 11 

HZO.SC.L ............................. 1 140.87 160.85 0.76 0.8 0 0 

2 168.35 193.59 1.11 1.1 0 0 

3 826.60 971.22 1.98 2.0 0 0 

4 749.21 883.28 2.10 2.1 1 0 

5 698.01 841.89 2.77 2.8 1 1 

HZO.SC.M ............................ 1 82.72 95.03 1.09 1.1 0 0 

2 101.05 117.44 1.58 1.6 0 0 

3 182.80 226.50 3.25 3.3 8 7 

4 119.58 154.59 3.44 3.4 24 20 

5 141.74 199.91 5.18 5.2 22 15 

SOC.RC.M ........................... 1 828.50 986.27 2.56 2.6 0 0 

2 785.91 944.21 3.13 3.1 1 1 

3 771.98 929.51 3.26 3.3 1 1 

4 (229.00) (70.50) 15.87 15.9 82 71 

SOC.SC.M ........................... 1 880.09 994.55 0.08 0.1 0 0 

2 947.58 1085.17 0.84 0.8 0 0 

3 880.22 1015.54 1.13 1.1 1 1 

4 894.49 1063.82 2.01 2.0 5 4 

5 1551.11 1834.72 2.13 2.1 0 0 

6 1543.96 1832.85 2.24 2.2 0 0 

7 422.14 698.37 5.39 5.4 32 26 

SVO.RC.M ........................... 1 422.15 522.85 4.76 4.8 0 0 

2 253.11 406.59 7.34 7.3 26 18 

SVO.SC.M ............................ 1 152.71 175.56 1.20 1.2 0 0 

2 203.94 237.26 1.69 1.7 0 0 

3 277.65 324.02 1.81 1.8 0 0 

4 500.97 600.52 2.68 2.7 0 0 

5 461.06 586.37 3.75 3.8 11 8 

6 540.59 692.32 4.10 4.1 7 5 

7 456.68 602.17 4.31 4.3 16 11 

VCS.SC.H ............................ 1 349.72 399.54 0.21 0.2 0 0 

2 233.72 270.97 0.82 0.8 20 18 

3 235.66 276.86 1.26 1.3 17 15 

4 226.40 268.51 1.52 1.5 19 17 

5 220.36 263.78 1.76 1.8 20 18 

6 114.89 162.47 3.70 3.7 36 32 

7 (0.49) 33.51 4.37 4.4 57 53 

VCS.SC.I .............................. 1 191.10 219.02 0.38 0.4 0 0 

2 283.57 328.05 0.92 0.9 0 0 

3 298.70 347.51 1.19 1.2 0 0 

4 323.05 377.40 1.37 1.4 0 0 

5 498.66 615.19 3.05 3.1 5 4 

6 383.73 486.70 3.44 3.4 11 9 

VCS.SC.L ............................. 1 168.73 193.07 0.42 0.4 0 0 

2 229.45 265.56 1.03 1.0 0 0 

3 243.92 284.18 1.32 1.3 0 0 

4 264.03 309.04 1.51 1.5 0 0 

5 307.51 375.85 2.72 2.7 5 4 

6 204.16 260.73 3.23 3.2 20 17 

VCS.SC.M ............................ 1 189.78 217.33 0.38 0.4 0 0 

2 202.56 235.40 1.12 1.1 1 1 

3 205.44 240.66 1.44 1.4 2 2 

4 91.46 128.81 4.12 4.1 31 27 

5 (23.05) 0.17 5.00 5.0 61 56 

VCT.RC.L ............................. 1 245.49 323.67 6.18 6.2 0 0 

2 246.83 331.04 6.37 6.4 0 0 

3 (3056.29) (2934.72) 52.15 52.2 100 100 

VCT.RC.M ............................ 1 233.10 308.65 6.45 6.5 0 0 

2 91.96 171.49 10.24 10.2 26 8 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70274 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.59—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS COMPARISON FOR SMALL BUSINESSES FOR CRE—Continued 

Equipment class EL 

Average LCC savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

Net cost 

(%) 

Small 

business 

All 

purchasers Small 

business 

All 

purchasers 

Small 

business 

All 

purchasers 

3 57.11 133.62 10.93 10.9 45 24 

4 (3476.87) (3397.02) 93.89 93.9 100 100 

VCT.SC.H ............................ 1 (8.77) (2.49) 6.12 6.1 34 31 

2 (11.19) (2.54) 6.51 6.5 47 42 

3 (55.34) (36.07) 8.07 8.1 67 63 

4 (8.95) 33.12 8.47 8.5 57 47 

5 (77.88) (33.78) 10.15 10.2 71 64 

6 (192.35) (161.50) 11.09 11.1 86 79 

7 (1538.28) (1496.81) 43.00 43.0 97 97 

VCT.SC.I .............................. 1 11.97 15.76 4.55 4.6 3 2 

2 51.25 77.46 8.34 8.3 6 1 

3 (244.33) (226.28) 16.27 16.3 89 86 

4 (1372.20) (1318.52) 35.04 35.0 100 100 

VCT.SC.L ............................. 1 76.90 91.06 1.95 2.0 0 0 

2 93.55 111.65 2.19 2.2 1 1 

3 101.44 122.78 2.58 2.6 1 1 

4 118.16 174.92 4.63 4.6 29 23 

5 161.77 242.33 5.31 5.3 26 19 

6 51.55 120.34 5.80 5.8 46 38 

7 (1182.18) (1093.50) 18.52 18.5 99 98 

VCT.SC.M ............................ 1 14.68 18.80 3.75 3.8 6 6 

2 0.46 20.52 6.61 6.6 36 30 

3 43.04 82.53 7.57 7.6 29 20 

4 (10.13) 30.92 9.05 9.1 52 42 

5 (21.33) 20.36 9.35 9.4 55 46 

6 (132.37) (103.42) 10.31 10.3 69 65 

7 (1451.68) (1417.22) 45.18 45.2 100 100 

VOP.RC.L ............................ 1 502.94 615.37 4.32 4.3 0 0 

2 1234.55 1524.52 3.57 3.6 0 0 

VOP.RC.M ........................... 1 522.36 638.01 4.12 4.1 0 0 

2 516.94 707.13 5.72 5.7 13 8 

VOP.SC.M ............................ 1 121.91 143.30 2.07 2.1 1 1 

2 495.13 590.02 2.56 2.6 0 0 

3 764.98 927.32 2.99 3.0 1 1 

4 882.37 1082.34 3.44 3.4 1 0 

5 798.96 992.17 3.63 3.6 2 1 

Notes: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. The savings represent the average LCC savings for affected consumers. 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.F.10 of this 

document, EPCA establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for an equipment that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

In calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for each of the 

considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedure for CRE. In contrast, the 

PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this 

document were calculated using 

distributions that reflect the range of 

energy use in the field. 

Table V.60 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for CRE. While DOE 

examined the rebuttable-presumption 

criterion, it considered whether the 

standard levels considered for the NOPR 

are economically justified through a 

more detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full 

range of impacts to the consumer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment. 

The results of that 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. 

TABLE V.60—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS

Rebuttable payback period 

(years) 

Equipment class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 EL 7 

CB.SC.L ....................... 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.8 2.0 ........................

CB.SC.M ...................... 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.4 4.4 5.1 ........................

HCS.SC.L ..................... 4.5 8.7 9.6 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70275 

100The gross margin percentage of 29 percent is 

based on a manufacturer markup of 1.40. 

TABLE V.60—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS—Continued 

Rebuttable payback period 

(years) 

Equipment class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 EL 7 

HCS.SC.M .................... 0.7 1.6 3.0 11.8 ........................ ........................ ........................

HCT.SC.I ...................... 4.3 6.3 7.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 13.2 

HCT.SC.L ..................... 7.1 9.7 10.7 12.0 12.1 12.1 20.8 

HCT.SC.M .................... 46.7 34.2 37.3 39.8 40.0 40.0 68.1 

HZO.RC.L .................... 11.6 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

HZO.RC.M ................... 12.3 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

HZO.SC.L ..................... 0.7 1.0 1.8 1.9 2.5 ........................ ........................

HZO.SC.M .................... 1.0 1.4 2.9 3.1 4.6 ........................ ........................

SOC.RC.M ................... 2.3 2.8 2.9 14.1 ........................ ........................ ........................

SOC.SC.M ................... 0.1 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 4.8 

SVO.RC.M ................... 4.3 6.6 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

SVO.SC.M .................... 1.1 1.5 1.6 2.4 3.3 3.7 3.9 

VCS.SC.H .................... 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.6 3.3 3.9 

VCS.SC.I ...................... 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.2 2.7 3.0 ........................

VCS.SC.L ..................... 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.3 2.4 2.9 ........................

VCS.SC.M .................... 0.3 1.0 1.3 3.7 4.5 ........................ ........................

VCT.RC.L ..................... 5.5 5.7 46.3 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

VCT.RC.M .................... 5.7 9.1 9.7 83.3 ........................ ........................ ........................

VCT.SC.H .................... 5.4 5.8 7.2 7.5 9.0 9.8 38.1 

VCT.SC.I ...................... 4.0 7.4 14.4 31.1 ........................ ........................ ........................

VCT.SC.L ..................... 1.7 1.9 2.3 4.1 4.7 5.1 16.4 

VCT.SC.M .................... 3.3 5.9 6.7 8.0 8.3 9.1 40.0 

VOP.RC.L .................... 3.9 3.2 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

VOP.RC.M ................... 3.7 5.1 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

VOP.SC.M .................... 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.2 ........................ ........................

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of CRE. The following 

section describes the expected impacts 

on manufacturers at each considered 

TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD 

explains the analysis in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from new and amended 

standards. Table V.61 summarizes the 

estimated financial impacts (represented 

by changes in INPV) of potential new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of CRE, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of CRE would 

incur at each TSL. 

The impact of potential new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

was analyzed under two scenarios: (1) 

the preservation of gross margin 

percentage; and (2) the preservation of 

operating profit, as discussed in section 

IV.J.2.d of this document. The 

preservation of gross margin percentages 

applies a ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ of 

29 percent for all equipment classes 

across all efficiency levels.100 This 

scenario assumes that a manufacturer’s 

per-unit dollar profit would increase as 

MPCs increase in the standards cases 

and represents the upper-bound to 

industry profitability under potential 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario reflects manufacturers’ 

concerns about their inability to 

maintain margins as MPCs increase to 

reach more stringent efficiency levels. In 

this scenario, while manufacturers make 

the necessary investments required to 

convert their facilities to produce 

compliant equipment, operating profit 

does not change in absolute dollars and 

decreases as a percentage of revenue. 

The preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario represents the lower (or more 

severe) bound to industry profitability 

under potential new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Each of the modeled scenarios 

resulted in a unique set of cash flows 

and corresponding INPV for each TSL. 

INPV is the sum of the discounted cash 

flows to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2023–2057). The ‘‘change in INPV’’ 

results refer to the difference in industry 

value between the no-new-standards 

case and standards case at each TSL. To 

provide perspective on the short-run 

cash flow impact, DOE includes a 

comparison of free cash flow between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards case at each TSL in the year 

before new and amended standards 

would take effect. This figure provides 

an understanding of the magnitude of 

the required conversion costs relative to 

the cash flow generated by the industry 

in the no-new-standards case. 

Conversion costs are one-time 

investments for manufacturers to bring 

their manufacturing facilities and 

equipment designs into compliance 

with potential new and amended 

standards. As described in section 

IV.J.2.c of this document, conversion 

cost investments occur between the year 

of publication of the final rule and the 

year by which manufacturers must 

comply with the new standards. The 

conversion costs can have a significant 

impact on the short-term cash flow on 

the industry and generally result in 

lower free cash flow in the period 

between the publication of the final rule 

and the compliance date of potential 

new and amended standards. 

Conversion costs are independent of the 

manufacturer markup scenarios and are 

not presented as a range in this analysis. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70276 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.61—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS

Unit No-new-standards case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

INPV .............................. 2022$ Million.3,286.4 3,274.2 to 3,290.8 ........ 3,241.9 to 

3,279.6.

3,224.4 to 

3,271.4.

3,182.5 to 

3,269.6.

3,127.0 to 

3,255.5.

2,985.9 to 

3,529.9. 

Change in INPV ............ 2022$ Million......................... (12.2) to 4.5 .................. (44.4) to (6.7) (61.9) to 

(15.0).

(103.8) to 

(16.7).

(159.3) to 

(30.9).

(300.4) to 

243.6. 

% ............... ........................ (0.4) to 0.1 .................... (1.4) to (0.2) .. (1.9) to (0.5) .. (3.2) to (0.5) .. (4.8) to (0.9) .. (9.1) to 7.4. 

Free Cash Flow (2027) 2022$ Million.291.2 285.7 ............................. 268.0 ............. 258.3 ............. 238.7 ............. 210.8 ............. 170.9. 

Change in Free Cash 

Flow (2027).

% ............... ........................ (1.9) .............................. (8.0) ............... (11.3) ............. (18.0) ............. (27.6) ............. (41.3). 

Product Conversion 

Costs.

2022$ Million.- 12.6 ............................... 66.1 ............... 94.0 ............... 121.5 ............. 187.5 ............. 299.9. 

Capital Conversion 

Costs.

2022$ Million......................... 2.7 ................................. 2.2 ................. 3.1 ................. 26.0 ............... 38.9 ............... 43.9. 

Total Conversion Costs 2022$ Million......................... 15.3 ............................... 68.3 ............... 97.1 ............... 147.5 ............. 226.4 ............. 343.8. 

* Parentheses denote negative (-) values. 

The following cash flow discussion 

refers to the equipment classes as 

detailed in table IV.1 in section IV.A of 

this document and the TSLs as detailed 

in section V.A of this document. Table 

V.62 through table V.66 show the design 

options analyzed in the engineering 

analysis for each directly analyzed 

equipment class by TSL. See section 

IV.C of this document and chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional 

information on the engineering analysis. 

TABLE V.62—DESIGN OPTIONS ANALYZED AS COMPARED TO BASELINE BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR VERTICAL, OPEN

EQUIPMENT FAMILIES

Equipment 

class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

VOP.RC.M ...... Occupancy Sensors ............ Night Curtains; Occupancy Sensors. 

VOP.RC.L ....... Occupancy Sensors ............ Night Curtains; Occupancy Sensors. 

VOP.SC.M ...... Electronically Commutated 

(‘‘EC’’) Cond. Fan Motor.

EC Cond. Fan Motor; Night 

Curtains 

EC Cond. Fan Motor; Night 

Curtains; variable-speed 

compressors (‘‘VSCs’’); 

Occupancy Sensors.

EC Cond. Fan Motor; Night 

Curtains; VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors; Microchannel Condenser. 

TABLE V.63—DESIGN OPTIONS ANALYZED AS COMPARED TO BASELINE BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR VERTICAL, 

CLOSED EQUIPMENT FAMILIES

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

VCT.RC.M ........ Occupancy Sensors Occupancy Sensors; 

Triple Pane Door— 

Krypton Fill.

Occupancy Sensors Occupancy Sensors; 

Triple Pane Door— 

Krypton Fill.

Occupancy Sensors; 

VIG Door. 

VCT.RC.L ......... Occupancy Sensors.Occupancy Sensors; Triple Pane Door—Krypton Fill. Occupancy Sensors; 

VIG Door. 

VCT.SC.H ......... Baseline. EC Evap. Fan Motor; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; VSC; Occupancy Sensors; 

Microchannel Condenser; VIG Door. 

VCT.SC.M ........ EC Cond. Fan Motor EC Cond. Fan Motor; VSC; Occupancy Sensors. EC Cond. Fan Motor; 

VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors; Microchannel Condenser; VIG Door. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I 

I 

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70277 

TABLE V.63—DESIGN OPTIONS ANALYZED AS COMPARED TO BASELINE BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR VERTICAL, 

CLOSED EQUIPMENT FAMILIES—Continued 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

VCT.SC.L ......... EC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; Triple Pane Door— 

Krypton Fill. 

EC Evap. Fan Motor; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; Triple Pane 

Door—Krypton Fill; 

VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; Triple Pane 

Door—Krypton Fill; 

VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors; Microchannel Condenser.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; VSC; Occupancy Sensors; 

Microchannel Condenser; VIG Door. 

VCT.SC.I .......... Triple Pane 

Door—Krypton 

Fill.

Triple Pane Door—Krypton Fill; Occupancy Sensors Occupancy Sensors; 

Microchannel Condenser; VIG Door. 

VCS.SC.H ......... Evap. Fan Control Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor.

Evap. Fan Control .... Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC.

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC; 

Microchannel Condenser. 

VCS.SC.M ........ Evap. Fan Control.Evap. Fan Control; EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. Fan 

Motor. 

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC.

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC; 

Microchannel Condenser. 

VCS.SC.L; 

VCS.SC.I.

Evap. Fan Control.Evap. Fan Control; EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. Fan Motor 

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC.

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC; 

Microchannel Condenser..

TABLE V.64—DESIGN OPTIONS ANALYZED AS COMPARED TO BASELINE BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR SEMI-VERTICAL, 

OPEN AND SERVICE OVER-COUNTER EQUIPMENT FAMILIES

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

SVO.RC.M ........ Occupancy Sensors. Occupancy Sensors; Night Curtains.Occupancy Sensors.Occupancy Sensors; Night Curtains. 

SVO.SC.M ........ EC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; Night Curtains 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; Night 

Curtains; VSC; 

Occupancy Sensors.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; Night Curtains; SC; Occupancy 

Sensors; Microchannel Condenser. 

SOC.RC.M ........ Occupancy Sensors Occupancy Sensors; Triple 

Pane Door— 

Krypton Fill.

Occupancy Sensors.Occupancy Sensors; Triple 

Pane Door— 

Krypton Fill.

Occupancy Sensors; VIG Door. 

SOC.SC.M ........ Evap. Fan Control Evap. Fan Control; EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. Fan Motor 

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC; 

Occupancy Sensors.

Evap. Fan Control; EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. Fan Motor; VSC; Occupancy Sensors; Microchannel Condenser; VIG Door. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70278 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.65—DESIGN OPTIONS ANALYZED AS COMPARED TO BASELINE BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR HORIZONTAL

EQUIPMENT FAMILIES

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

HZO.RC.M; 

HZO.RC.L.

Occupancy Sensors. 

HZO.SC.M; 

HZO.SC.L.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. Fan 

Motor 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC; 

Microchannel 

Condenser; Occupancy Sensors..

HCT.SC.M ........ Baseline VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors; VIG 

Door. 

HCT.SC.L ......... Baseline VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors; Microchannel Condenser; VIG 

Door. 

HCT.SC.I .......... VSC ...................... Baseline VSC ...................... VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors.

VSC; Occupancy 

Sensors; Microchannel Condenser; VIG 

Door. 

HCS.SC.M ........ Evap. Fan Control Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor.

Evap. Fan Control Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor.

Evap. Fan Control; 

EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; Microchannel Condenser; VSC. 

HCS.SC.L ......... EC Cond. Fan Motor EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; VSC; 

Microchannel 

Condenser. 

TABLE V.66—DESIGN OPTIONS ANALYZED AS COMPARED TO BASELINE BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR CHEF BASE

EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment 

class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

CB.SC.M ........ PSC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC.

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC; 

Microchannel 

Condenser. 

CB.SC.L ......... PSC Evap. Fan 

Motor.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. Fan 

Motor 

EC Evap. Fan 

Motor; EC Cond. 

Fan Motor; VSC.

EC Evap. Fan Motor; EC Cond. Fan 

Motor; VSC; Microchannel Condenser. 

At TSL 6, the standard represents the 

max-tech efficiencies for all equipment 

classes. The change in INPV is expected 

to range from ¥$300.4 million to $243.6 

million, which represents a change in 

INPV of –9.1 percent to 7.4 percent, 

respectively. At this level, free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 41.3 percent 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $291.2 million in the year 2027, 

the year before compliance would be 

required. In 2027, approximately 2.2 

percent of covered CRE shipments are 

expected to meet the efficiencies 

required at TSL 6. See table V.67 for the 

percent of equipment class shipments 

that would meet or exceed the 

efficiencies required at each TSL in 

2027. 

The design options DOE analyzed at 

TSL 6 included the max-tech 

technologies for all equipment classes. 

For all open (i.e., equipment classes 

without doors) and transparent door 

equipment classes, DOE expects 

manufacturers would likely need to 

incorporate occupancy sensors with 

dimming capability. Open equipment 

classes would also likely require the use 

of night curtains. For equipment classes 

with transparent doors, DOE expects 

manufacturers would likely need to 

incorporate vacuum-insulated glass. For 

self-contained equipment classes, DOE 

expects manufacturers would need to 

incorporate EC evaporator and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70279 

condenser fan motors, variable-speed 

compressors, and microchannel 

condensers. For closed, self-contained 

equipment classes using forced-air 

refrigeration systems, DOE expects 

manufacturers would also need to 

incorporate evaporator fan control. Of 

the 28 directly analyzed equipment 

classes, 5 equipment classes 

(VCT.RC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, 

VCS.SC.M, and VCS.SC.L) account for 

approximately 81.5 percent of industry 

shipments. For VCT.RC.M, TSL 6 

corresponds to EL 4. For VCT.SC.M and 

VCT.SC.L, TSL 6 corresponds to EL 7. 

For VCS.SC.M, TSL 6 corresponds to EL 

5. For VCS.SC.L, TSL 6 corresponds to 

EL 6. See section of this V.A of this 

document for more information on the 

efficiency levels analyzed at each TSL. 

At max-tech, DOE expects that nearly 

all manufacturers would need to 

dedicate notable engineering resources 

to update equipment designs and 

source, qualify, and test high-efficiency 

components across their CRE portfolio. 

However, most design options analyzed 

involve more efficient components (e.g., 

high-efficiency motors) and would not 

necessitate significant capital 

investment. Self-contained CRE 

equipment classes account for 87.1 

percent of industry shipments in 2027 

and DOE estimates 2.5 percent of selfcontained CRE shipments would meet 

TSL 6 in 2027. Incorporating variablespeed compressors into self-contained 

CRE designs would likely require 

additional development and testing time 

to optimize for different CRE 

applications to realize maximum 

efficiency benefits. Capital conversion 

costs may be necessary for new tooling 

if additional modifications are required 

to accommodate a larger compressor 

system. 

CRE equipment classes with 

transparent doors (i.e., HCT.SC.I, 

HCT.SC.L, HCT.SC.M, SOC.RC.M, 

SOC.SC.M, VCT.RC.L, VCT.RC.M, 

VCT.SC.H, VCT.SC.I, VCT.SC.L, 

VCT.SC.M) account for approximately 

43.8 percent of industry shipments in 

2027. For the 71 OEMs that offer 

directly analyzed CRE with transparent 

doors, implementing vacuum-insulated 

glass would require significant 

engineering resources and testing time 

to ensure adequate durability of their 

doors in all commercial settings. Capital 

conversion costs may be necessary for 

new fixtures. In interviews, some 

manufacturers raised concerns about 

standards requiring a widespread 

adoption of vacuum-insulated glass as it 

is still a relatively untested technology 

in the commercial refrigeration market. 

There is very little industry experience 

with implementing vacuum-insulated 

glass in CRE applications and DOE 

estimates that approximately 1.7 percent 

of CRE equipment classes with 

transparent doors would meet the maxtech efficiencies in 2027. Manufacturers 

expressed concerns that the 3-year 

conversion period between the 

publication of the final rule and the 

compliance date of the new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

might be insufficient to design and test 

a full portfolio of CRE with vacuuminsulated glass doors that meet the maxtech efficiencies and maintain their 

internal performance metrics for 

durability and safety over the 

equipment lifetime. DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs of $43.9 million 

and product conversion costs of $299.9 

million. Conversion costs total $343.8 

million. 

At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all CRE is expected to 

increase by 25.0 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all CRE in 

2028. Given the projected increase in 

production costs, DOE expects an 

estimated 2.9 percent drop in shipments 

in the year the standard takes effect 

relative to the no-new-standards case. In 

the preservation of gross margin 

percentage scenario, the large increase 

in cashflow from the higher MSP 

outweighs the $343.8 million in 

conversion costs, causing an increase in 

INPV at TSL 6 under this scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the manufacturer 

markup decreases in 2028, the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $343.8 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation 

of operating profit scenario. See section 

IV.J.2.d of this document for further 

details on the manufacturer markup 

scenarios. 

At TSL 5, the standard represents the 

highest efficiency level with positive 

LCC savings for all equipment classes. 

The change in INPV is expected to range 

from ¥$159.3 million to ¥$30.9 

million, which represents a change in 

INPV of ¥4.8 percent to ¥0.9 percent, 

respectively. At this level, free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 27.6 percent 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $291.2 million in the year 2027, 

the year before compliance is required. 

In 2027, approximately 10.8 percent of 

covered CRE shipments are expected to 

meet the efficiencies required at TSL 5. 

The design options DOE analyzed at 

TSL 5 are similar to the design options 

analyzed at TSL 6 except most 

equipment classes with transparent 

doors would not need to incorporate 

vacuum-insulated glass doors. All VCT 

equipment classes would likely need to 

incorporate triple pane glass with 

krypton fill except for VCT.SC.H and 

VCT.SC.M (together accounting for 26.4 

percent of industry shipments), which 

would likely not require improved door 

designs. DOE expects that HCT 

equipment classes would not need to 

incorporate additional panes of glass to 

meet TSL 5 levels. At this level, DOE 

also expects that fewer self-contained 

equipment classes would need to 

incorporate microchannel condensers. 

Additionally, manufacturers of HCS 

equipment classes may not need to 

incorporate variable-speed compressors 

to meet the efficiencies required. For the 

five highest-volume equipment classes, 

TSL 5 corresponds to lower efficiency 

levels for four equipment classes: 

VCT.RC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and 

VCS.SC.M. For VCT.RC.M and 

VCT.SC.M, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 3. 

For VCT.SC.M, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 

5. For VCT.SC.L, TSL 5 corresponds to 

EL 6. For VCS.SC.M, TSL 5 corresponds 

to EL 4. For VCS.SC.M and VCS.SC.L, 

the efficiencies required at TSL 5 are the 

same as TSL 6. At this level, the 

VCT.RC.M and VCT.SC.L equipment 

classes would both need to incorporate 

triple pane glass with krypton fill. Out 

of the four highest volume selfcontained classes, only VCT.SC.L and 

VCS.SC.L would require the use of 

microchannel condensers. 

Similar to TSL 6, DOE expects 

manufacturers would spend 

development time updating equipment 

designs to incorporate high-efficiency 

components. However, at this level, 

DOE expects that most manufacturers of 

CRE with transparent doors could meet 

the TSL 5 efficiencies without 

implementing vacuum-insulated glass 

doors. Of the 11 directly analyzed 

transparent door equipment classes, 

only SOC.SC.M would likely require the 

use of vacuum-insulated glass doors to 

meet the efficiencies required. 

SOC.SC.M accounts for approximately 

0.4 percent of analyzed industry 

shipments in 2027. DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs of $38.9 million 

and product conversion costs of $187.5 

million. Conversion costs total $226.4 

million. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all CRE is expected to 

increase by 6.0 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all CRE in 

2028. Given the projected increase in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70280 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

production costs, DOE expects an 

estimated 0.7 percent drop in shipments 

in the year the standard takes effect 

relative to the no-new-standards case. In 

the preservation of gross margin 

percentage scenario, the increase in 

cashflow from the higher MSP is 

outweighed by the $226.4 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slight 

decrease in INPV at TSL 5 under this 

scenario. Under the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same per-unit operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. In this scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, 

the analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $226.4 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 

negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 4, the standard represents the 

highest efficiency level with maximum 

LCC savings for all equipment classes. 

The change in INPV is expected to range 

from -$103.8 million to ¥$16.7 million, 

which represents a change in INPV of 

¥3.2 percent to ¥0.5 percent, 

respectively. At this level, free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 18.0 percent 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $291.2 million in the year 2027, 

the year before compliance is required. 

In 2027, approximately 15.7 percent of 

covered CRE shipments are expected to 

meet the efficiencies required at TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the efficiency levels 

required for most equipment classes are 

lower than the efficiency levels required 

at TSL 5, including for the five highestvolume equipment classes. At this level, 

no self-contained equipment classes are 

expected to require the use of 

microchannel condensers. At TSL 4, 

none of the highest-volume selfcontained equipment classes 

(VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, VCS.SC.M, 

VCS.SC.L) would need to incorporate 

microchannel condensers. Additionally, 

DOE does not expect VCS.SC.M would 

require the use of variable-speed 

compressors to meet TSL 5 efficiencies. 

For VCT.RC.M and VCT.SC.M, DOE 

expects manufacturers would not need 

to implement additional panes of glass 

to meet the efficiencies required. For 

VCT.RC.M, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 1. 

For VCT.SC.M, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 

3. For VCT.SC.L, TSL 4 corresponds to 

EL 5. For VCS.SC.M, TSL 4 corresponds 

to EL 3. For VCS.SC.L, TSL 4 

corresponds to EL 5. At this level, 

product conversion costs may be 

necessary to source, qualify, and test 

high-efficiency components but to a 

lesser extent than higher TSLs. Some 

manufacturers of self-contained 

equipment classes may need to invest in 

new tooling if incorporating variablespeed compressors require additional 

modifications to CRE designs. Some 

manufacturers of transparent door 

equipment classes may need to invest in 

new fixtures to accommodate additional 

panes of glass into CRE designs. DOE 

estimates capital conversion costs of 

$26.0 million and product conversion 

costs of $121.5 million. Conversion 

costs total $147.5 million. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all CRE is expected to 

increase by 4.1 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all CRE in 

2028. Given the projected increase in 

production costs, DOE expects an 

estimated 0.4 percent drop in shipments 

in the year the standard takes effect 

relative to the no-new-standards case. In 

the preservation-of-gross-marginpercentage scenario, the increase in 

cashflow from the higher MSP is 

slightly outweighed by the $147.5 

million in conversion costs, causing a 

small decrease in INPV at TSL 4 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same per-unit operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. In this scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, 

the analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $147.5 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 3, the standard represents the 

highest efficiency level with positive 

LCC savings and the incorporation of 

single speed compressors for all 

equipment classes in which this design 

option was considered. The change in 

INPV is expected to range from ¥$ 61.9 

million to ¥$15.0 million, which 

represents a change in INPV of ¥1.9 

percent to ¥0.5 percent, respectively. 

At this level, free cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by 11.3 percent compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of 

$291.2 million in the year 2027, the year 

before compliance is required. In 2027, 

approximately 28.8 percent of covered 

CRE shipments are expected to meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the efficiency levels 

required for many equipment classes are 

lower than the efficiency levels required 

at TSL 4. However, the efficiency levels 

required for some equipment classes are 

the same or are higher (i.e., more 

stringent) than the TSL 4 efficiencies. At 

this level, DOE expects that none of the 

self-contained equipment classes would 

require the use of variable-speed 

compressor systems. DOE also expects 

that fewer equipment classes with 

transparent doors would need to 

incorporate additional panes of glass to 

meet TSL 3. For the five highest-volume 

equipment classes, the efficiency levels 

required at TSL 3, as compared to TSL 

4, are lower for VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, 

and VCS.SC.L; higher for VCT.RC.M; 

and the same for VCT.SC.M. For 

VCT.RC.M, TSL 3 corresponds to EL 3. 

For VCT.SC.M, TSL 3 corresponds to EL 

1. For VCT.SC.L, TSL 3 corresponds to 

EL 3. For VCS.SC.L, TSL 3 corresponds 

to EL 4. At this level, DOE expects 

industry would incur minimal capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs may be necessary to source, 

qualify, and test high-efficiency 

components but to a lesser extent than 

higher TSLs. DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $3.1 million and 

product conversion costs of $94.0 

million. Conversion costs total $97.1 

million. 

At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all CRE is expected to 

increase by 2.2 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all CRE in 

2028. Given the relatively small increase 

in production costs, DOE does not 

project a notable drop in shipments in 

the year the standard takes effect. In the 

preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage 

scenario, the minor increase in cashflow 

from the higher MSP is slightly 

outweighed by the $97.1 million in 

conversion costs, causing a small 

decrease in INPV at TSL 3 under this 

scenario. Under the preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same per-unit operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. In this scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, 

the analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $97.1 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

3 under the preservation-of-operatingprofit scenario. 

At TSL 2, the standard represents the 

highest efficiency level with maximum 

LCC savings and the incorporation of 

single speed compressors for all 

equipment classes in which this design 

option was considered. The change in 

INPV is expected to range from ¥$44.4 

million to ¥$6.7 million, which 

represents a change in INPV of ¥1.4 

percent to ¥0.2 percent, respectively. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70281 

At this level, free cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by 8.0 percent compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of 

$291.2 million in the year 2027, the year 

before compliance is required. In 2027, 

approximately 29.9 percent of covered 

CRE shipments are expected to meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 2. 

At this level, the efficiency levels 

required for most equipment classes are 

the same as TSL 3. For the five highestvolume equipment classes, TSL 2 

corresponds to lower efficiency levels 

for one equipment class: VCT.RC.M. 

DOE expects manufacturers would 

likely need to implement occupancy 

sensors into VCT.RC.M designs. For 

VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, VCS.SC.M, and 

VCS.SC.L, the efficiencies at TSL 2 are 

the same as TSL 3. At this level, DOE 

expects industry would incur minimal 

capital conversion costs. The lower 

efficiency levels required for two 

equipment classes—VCT.RC.M and 

SOC.RC.M—drive the drop in product 

conversion costs at this level. For 

VCT.RC.M and SOC.RC.M, DOE expects 

manufacturers could meet TSL 2 

efficiencies by incorporating occupancy 

sensors, which requires minimal 

development effort. DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs of $2.2 million 

and product conversion costs of $66.1 

million. Conversion costs total $68.3 

million. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all CRE is expected to 

increase by 1.7 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all CRE in 

2028. Given the relatively small increase 

in production costs, DOE does not 

project a notable drop in shipments in 

the year the standard takes effect. In the 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

scenario, the minor increase in cashflow 

from the higher MSP is slightly 

outweighed by the $68.3 million in 

conversion costs, causing a minor 

decrease in INPV at TSL 2 under this 

scenario. Under the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same per-unit operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. In this scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, 

the analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $68.3 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

2 under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario. 

At TSL 1, the standard represents the 

minimum efficiency level with positive 

LCC savings. The change in INPV is 

expected to range from ¥$12.2 million 

to $4.5 million, which represents a 

change in INPV of –0.4 percent to 0.1 

percent, respectively. At this level, free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by 1.9 

percent compared to the no-newstandards case value of $291.2 million 

in the year 2027, the year before 

compliance is required. In 2027, 

approximately 35.6 percent of covered 

CRE shipments are expected to meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 1. 

At this level, the efficiency levels 

correspond to EL 1 for nearly all 

equipment classes (except for 

VCT.SC.H, HCT.SC.M, and HCT.SC.L, 

which are set to baseline or EL 0). DOE 

expects most self-contained equipment 

classes would need to incorporate 

higher-efficiency fan motors (i.e., EC 

evaporator or condenser fan motors or 

PSC evaporator fan motors for chef 

bases). Other self-contained equipment 

classes may need to incorporate 

evaporator fan controls in lieu of higherefficiency motors. DOE expects that 

HCT.SC.L and HCT.SC.I may require the 

use of variable-speed compressors to 

meet TSL 1 efficiencies. At this level, 

DOE expects that manufacturers of 

VCT.SC.I may need to incorporate an 

additional pane of glass. Remotecontrolled equipment classes would 

likely need to incorporate occupancy 

sensors. Capital conversion costs are 

driven by tooling costs associated with 

incorporating variable-speed 

compressors into HCT.SC.L and 

HCT.SC.I designs. Product conversion 

costs are driven by incorporating highefficiency components into CRE 

designs. DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $2.7 million and 

product conversion costs of $12.6 

million. Conversion costs total $15.3 

million. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all CRE is expected to 

increase by 0.8 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all CRE in 

2028. Given the relatively small increase 

in production costs, DOE does not 

project a notable drop in shipments in 

the year the standard takes effect. In the 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

scenario, the minor increase in cashflow 

from the higher MSP slightly outweighs 

the $15.3 million in conversion costs, 

causing a minor increase in INPV at TSL 

1 under this scenario. Under the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario, manufacturers earn the same 

per-unit operating profit as would be 

earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the manufacturer 

markup decreases in 2028, the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $15.3 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 1 under the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

DOE seeks comments, information, 

and data on the capital conversion costs 

and product conversion costs estimated 

for each TSL. 

TABLE V.67—PERCENTAGES OF 2027 NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE SHIPMENTS THAT MEET EACH TSL BY EQUIPMENT

CLASS

Directly analyzed equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

TSL 6 

(%) 

CB.SC.L ................................................... 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

CB.SC.M .................................................. 50.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 

HCS.SC.L ................................................. 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 0.0 

HCS.SC.M ................................................ 12.4 12.4 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 

HCT.SC.I .................................................. 28.3 100.0 100.0 28.3 22.3 8.9 

HCT.SC.L ................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8.9 

HCT.SC.M ................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8.9 

HZO.RC.L ................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HZO.RC.M ............................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HZO.SC.L ................................................. 18.9 15.2 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HZO.SC.M ................................................ 18.9 15.2 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

SOC.RC.M ............................................... 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.0 

SOC.SC.M ............................................... 63.7 47.2 47.2 26.7 24.8 24.8 

SVO.RC.M ............................................... 23.8 23.8 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70282 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

101U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry 

Groups and Industries in the U.S (2021).’’ Available 

at www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/ 

asm/2018–2021-asm.html (last accessed January 20, 

2023). 

102U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer 

Costs for Employee Compensation. December 15, 

2022. Available at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ 

ecec.pdf (last accessed January 20, 2023). 

103U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘Definitions and 

Instructions for the Annual Survey of Manufactures, 

MA–10000.’’ Available at www2.census.gov/ 

programs-surveys/asm/technical-documentation/ 

questionnaire/2021/instructions/MA_10000_

Instructions.pdf (last accessed January 25, 2023). 

104 Id. 

TABLE V.67—PERCENTAGES OF 2027 NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE SHIPMENTS THAT MEET EACH TSL BY EQUIPMENT

CLASS—Continued 

Directly analyzed equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

TSL 6 

(%) 

SVO.SC.M ................................................ 34.0 21.5 21.5 11.4 10.5 10.5 

VCS.SC.H ................................................ 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 

VCS.SC.I .................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

VCS.SC.L ................................................. 23.0 14.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

VCS.SC.M ................................................ 29.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 8.0 5.0 

VCT.RC.L ................................................. 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.4 

VCT.RC.M ................................................ 7.0 7.0 0.4 7.0 0.4 0.0 

VCT.SC.H ................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 

VCT.SC.I .................................................. 55.8 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 0.0 

VCT.SC.L ................................................. 65.0 60.0 60.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 

VCT.SC.M ................................................ 52.0 52.0 52.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 

VOP.RC.L ................................................ 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

VOP.RC.M ............................................... 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

VOP.SC.M ................................................ 14.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Overall Industry ........................................ 35.6 29.9 28.8 15.7 10.8 2.2 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the CRE industry, DOE 

used the GRIM to estimate the domestic 

labor expenditures and number of direct 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and in each of the standards cases 

during the analysis period. DOE 

calculated these values using statistical 

data from the 2021 ASM,101 BLS 

employee compensation data,102 results 

of the engineering analysis, and 

manufacturer interviews. 

Labor expenditures related to 

equipment manufacturing depend on 

the labor intensity of the equipment, the 

sales volume, and an assumption that 

wages remain fixed in real terms over 

time. The total labor expenditures in 

each year are calculated by multiplying 

the total MPCs by the labor percentage 

of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in 

the GRIM were then converted to total 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the average fully burdened wage 

multiplied by the average number of 

hours worked per year per production 

worker. To do this, DOE relied on the 

ASM inputs: Production Workers 

Annual Wages, Production Workers 

Annual Hours, Production Workers for 

Pay Period, and Number of Employees. 

DOE also relied on the BLS employee 

compensation data to determine the 

fully burdened wage ratio. The fully 

burdened wage ratio factors in paid 

leave, supplemental pay, insurance, 

retirement and savings, and legally 

required benefits. 

Total production employees was then 

multiplied by the U.S. labor percentage 

to convert total production employment 

to total domestic production 

employment. The U.S. labor percentage 

represents the industry fraction of 

domestic manufacturing production 

capacity for the covered equipment. 

This value is derived from manufacturer 

interviews, equipment database 

analysis, DOE’s shipments analysis, and 

publicly available information. DOE 

estimates that approximately 77 percent 

of currently covered CRE are produced 

domestically. 

The domestic production employees 

estimate covers production line 

workers, including line supervisors, 

who are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling equipment within the 

OEM facility. Workers performing 

services that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as materials 

handling tasks using forklifts, are also 

included as production labor.103 DOE’s 

estimates only account for production 

workers who manufacture the specific 

equipment covered by this proposed 

rule. 

Non-production workers account for 

the remainder of the direct employment 

figure. The non-production employees 

category covers domestic workers who 

are not directly involved in the 

production process, such as sales, 

engineering, human resources, 

management, etc.104 Using the number 

of domestic production workers 

calculated above, non-production 

domestic employees are extrapolated by 

multiplying the ratio of non-production 

workers in the industry compared to 

production employees. DOE assumes 

that this employee distribution ratio 

remains constant between the no-newstandards case and standards cases. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the 

absence of new energy conservation 

standards there would be 7,472 

domestic workers for CRE in 2028. 

Table V.68 shows the range of the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on U.S. manufacturing 

employment in the CRE industry. The 

discussion below provides a qualitative 

evaluation of the range of potential 

impacts presented in the table. 

TABLE V.68—DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR DOMESTIC CRE MANUFACTURERS IN 2028 * 

No-new-standards case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Direct Employment in 2028 (Production Workers + Non-Production Workers).7,472 ................ 7,475 ................ 7,467 ................ 7,464 ................ 7,429 ................ 7,393 ................ 7,234. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70283 

TABLE V.68—DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR DOMESTIC CRE MANUFACTURERS IN 2028 *—Continued 

No-new-standards case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Potential Changes in Direct Employment in 2028*........................... (5,484) to 3 ...... (5,484) to (5) .... (5,484) to (8) .... (5,484) to (43) .. (5,484) to (79) .. (5,484) to (238). 

* DOE presents a range of potential employee impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

The direct employment impacts in 

table V.68 represent the potential 

domestic employment changes that 

could result following the compliance 

date for CRE in this proposal. The upper 

bound estimate corresponds to a 

potential change in the number of 

domestic workers that would result 

from new and amended energy 

conservation standards if manufacturers 

continue to produce the same scope of 

covered equipment within the United 

States after compliance takes effect. 

To establish a conservative lower 

bound, DOE assumes all manufacturers 

would shift production to foreign 

countries with lower labor costs. Most 

of the design options analyzed in the 

engineering analysis require 

manufacturers to purchase moreefficient components from suppliers. 

These components do not require 

significant additional labor to assemble 

or significant production line updates. 

Incorporating vacuum-insulated panels 

could lead to greater labor requirements, 

however, as discussed in section IV.B.1 

of this document, DOE did not consider 

vacuum-insulated panels as a design 

option in its engineering analysis. As a 

result, DOE believes the likelihood of 

changes in production location due to 

new and amended standards are 

relatively low. 

Additional detail on the analysis of 

direct employment can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additionally, the employment impacts 

discussed in this section are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 16 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

In interviews, most manufacturers 

noted potential manufacturing capacity 

concerns relating to widespread 

adoption of increased insulation 

thickness or VIPs. As discussed in 

section IV.B.1 of this document, DOE 

excluded these technologies from 

further consideration in the engineering 

analysis and, thus, DOE does not expect 

manufacturers would need to increase 

insulation thickness or incorporate VIPs 

to meet any of the efficiency levels 

analyzed in this NOPR. Therefore, when 

considering potential new and amended 

energy conservation standards in 

isolation, DOE believes manufacturers 

would be able to maintain 

manufacturing capacity levels and 

continue to meet market demand under 

the proposed new and amended energy 

conservation standards. However, 

multiple manufacturers raised concerns 

about technical and laboratory resource 

constraints due to overlapping 

regulations over a short time period. 

Specifically, these manufacturers 

mentioned the testing and redesign 

required for new safety standards and 

the various regulations necessitating the 

transition to low-GWP refrigerants. 

Some manufacturers stated that there 

are already experiencing testing 

laboratory shortages, which would 

further be exacerbated should EPA 

finalize its proposals in the December 

2022 EPA NOPR and DOE set more 

stringent standards that necessitate the 

redesign of the majority of basic models. 

Manufacturers noted that the ongoing 

supply chain constraints further strain 

technical and laboratory resources as 

manufacturers are forced to identify and 

qualify new component suppliers due to 

shortages and long lead times. 

DOE seeks comment on whether 

manufacturers expect that 

manufacturing capacity constraints, 

engineering resource constraints, or 

laboratory constraints would limit 

equipment availability to consumers in 

the timeframe of the new and amended 

standards compliance date (2028). 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Small business, low volume, and 

niche equipment manufacturers, and 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. As discussed in 

section IV.J of this document, using 

average cost assumptions to develop an 

industry cash flow estimate is 

inadequate to assess differential impacts 

among manufacturer subgroups. 

For CRE, DOE identified and 

evaluated the impact of new and 

amended conservation standards on one 

subgroup: small manufacturers. The 

SBA defines a ‘‘small business’’ as 

having 1,250 employees or less for 

NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and 

Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing,’’ which 

includes CRE manufacturing. Based on 

this definition, DOE identified 25 

domestic OEM in the CRE industry that 

qualify as a ‘‘small business.’’ 

For a discussion of the impacts on the 

small manufacturer subgroup, see the 

regulatory flexibility analysis in section 

VI.B of this document or chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the equipment/productspecific regulatory actions of other 

Federal agencies that affect the 

manufacturers of a covered product or 

equipment. While any one regulation 

may not impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Assessing the impact of a 

single regulation may overlook this 

cumulative regulatory burden. In 

addition to energy conservation 

standards, other regulations can 

significantly affect manufacturers’ 

financial operations. Multiple 

regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing equipment. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. DOE evaluates 

equipment/product-specific regulations 

that will take effect approximately three 

years before or after the estimated 2028 

compliance date of any new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for CRE. This information is presented 

in table V.69. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70284 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

105The proposed rule was published on 

December 15, 2022. 87 FR 76738. 

106See pp. 5–113 of the ‘‘Global Non-CO2 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal 

Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology 

Documentation’’ (2019). Available at www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2019–09/documents/nonco2_

methodology_report.pdf. 

TABLE V.69—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT OEMS

Federal energy conservation standard Number of 

OEMs* 

Number of 

OEMs affected 

by this 

rulemaking ** 

Approx. 

standards 

compliance 

year 

Industry 

conversion 

costs 

(Millions $) 

Industry 

conversion 

costs/ 

equipment 

revenue*** 

( %) 

Consumer Furnaces† 87 FR 40590 (July 7, 2022) ..... 15 2 2029 $150.6 (2020$) 1.4 

Consumer Clothes Dryers † 87 FR 51734 (August 23, 

2022) ........................................................................ 15 3 2027 149.7 (2020$) 1.8 

Consumer Conventional Cooking Products 88 FR 

6818 † (February 1, 2023) ........................................ 34 4 2027 183.4 (2021$) 1.2 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers †

88 FR 12452 ............................................................

(February 27, 2023) ..................................................... 49 8 2027 1,323.6 (2021$) 3.8 

Residential Clothes Washers † 88 FR 13520 (March 

3, 2023) .................................................................... 19 3 2027 690.8 (2021$) 5.2 

Room Air Conditioners 88 FR 34298 (May 26, 2023) 8 1 2026 24.8 (2021$) 0.4 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products † 88 FR 19382 

(March 31, 2023) ...................................................... 38 6 2029 126.9 (2021$) 3.1 

Dishwashers† 88 FR 32514 (May 19, 2023) ............... 22 5 2027 125.6 

(2021$) 

2.1 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers † 88 FR 30508 

(May 11, 2023) ......................................................... 23 7 2027 15.9 (2022$) 0.6 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending 

Machines † 88 FR 33968 ..........................................

May 25, 2023) .............................................................. 5 2 2027 1.5 (2022$) 0.7 

Microwave Ovens 88 FR 39912 (June 20, 2023) ....... 18 3 2026 46.1 (2021$) 0.7 

Walk-in Coolers and Freezers † 88 FR 60746 (September 5, 2023) ........................................................ 79 5 2027 89.0 (2022$) 0.8 

* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

** This column presents the number of OEMs producing CRE that are also listed as OEMs in the identified energy conservation standard that 

is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of equipment revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion 

costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the 

revenue from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs 

are made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period 

typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking. †These rulemakings are at the NOPR stage, and all values are subject to change until finalized through publication of a final rule. 

DOE requests information regarding 

the impact of cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers of CRE 

associated with multiple DOE standards 

or equipment/product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies. 

Refrigerant Regulations 

The December 2022 EPA NOPR105

rulemaking proposes to restrict the use 

of HFCs in specific sectors or 

subsectors, including use in certain CRE 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE is 

considering the impacts of change in 

refrigerants in its analysis. DOE 

understands that switching from nonflammable to flammable refrigerants 

(e.g., R–290) requires time and 

investment to redesign CRE models and 

upgrade production facilities to 

accommodate the additional structural 

and safety precautions required. As 

discussed in section IV.C.1 of this 

document, DOE expects CRE 

manufacturers will transition most 

models to R–290 to comply with 

anticipated refrigeration regulations, 

such as the December 2022 EPA NOPR, 

prior to the expected 2028 compliance 

date of any potential energy 

conservation standards. Therefore, the 

engineering analysis assumes the use of 

R–290 compressors as a baseline design 

option for select equipment classes. See 

section IV.C.1 of this document for 

additional information on refrigerant 

assumptions in the engineering analysis. 

DOE accounted for the costs 

associated with redesigning CRE to 

make use of flammable refrigerants and 

retrofitting production facilities to 

accommodate flammable refrigerants in 

the GRIM. DOE considers the expenses 

associated with the refrigerant transition 

as independent of DOE actions related 

to any new and amended energy 

conservation standards. Therefore, DOE 

incorporated the refrigerant transition 

expenses into both the no-newstandards case and standards cases. 

DOE relied on manufacturer feedback in 

confidential interviews, a report 

prepared for EPA,106 results of the 

engineering analysis, and investment 

estimates submitted by NAMA and 

AHRI in response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis to estimate the 

industry refrigerant transition costs. 

Based on feedback, DOE assumed that 

the transition to low-GWP refrigerants 

would require industry to invest 

approximately $21.3 million in R&D and 

$33.3 million in capital expenditures 

(e.g., investments in new charging 

equipment, leak detection systems, etc.). 

DOE requests comments on the 

magnitude of costs associated with 

transitioning CRE designs and 

production facilities to accommodate 

low-GWP refrigerants that would be 

incurred between the publication of this 

NOPR and the proposed compliance 

date of new and amended standards. 

Quantification and categorization of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70285 

107U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed February 17, 

2023). 

108EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)) While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year 

compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes 

that it may undertake reviews at any time within 

the 6-year period and that the 3-year compliance 

date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year 

analysis period may not be appropriate given the 

variability that occurs in the timing of standards 

reviews and the fact that for some products, the 

compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

109U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a–4 (last accessed February 17, 

2023). 

these costs, such as engineering efforts, 

testing lab time, certification costs, and 

capital investments (e.g., new charging 

equipment), would enable DOE to refine 

its analysis. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential new and amended 

standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential new and 

amended standards for CRE, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

equipment purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with new and 

amended standards (2028–2057). Table 

V.70 presents DOE’s projections of the 

national energy savings for each TSL 

considered for CRE. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.E of this document. 

TABLE V.70—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CRE; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2028–2057) 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

(quads) 

Primary energy ......................................... 1.00 1.70 1.79 2.70 3.02 3.29 

FFC energy .............................................. 1.03 1.75 1.83 2.78 3.11 3.38 

OMB Circular A–4 107 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of 

equipment shipments. The choice of a 

9-year period is a proxy for the timeline 

in EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.108 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

equipment lifetime, equipment 

manufacturing cycles, or other factors 

specific to CRE. Thus, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. The NES sensitivity 

analysis results based on a 9-year 

analytical period are presented in table 

V.71. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of CRE purchased in 2028– 

2036. 

TABLE V.71—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CRE; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2028–2036) 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

(quads) 

Primary energy ......................................... 0.28 0.48 0.51 0.77 0.86 0.93 

FFC energy .............................................. 0.29 0.50 0.52 0.79 0.88 0.96 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for CRE. In accordance 

with OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis,109 DOE calculated NPV using 

both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. Table V.72 shows the 

consumer NPV results with impacts 

counted over the lifetime of equipment 

purchased in 2028–2057. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 
70286 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.72—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CRE; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2028– 

2057) 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

(billion [2022$]) 

3 percent .................................................. 4.39 6.01 5.87 8.59 7.10 ¥16.5 

7 percent .................................................. 1.80 2.38 2.27 3.24 2.38 ¥10.1 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in 2022$ table V.73. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

equipment purchased in 2028–2036. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABL—V.73—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CRE; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2028– 

2036) 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

(billion [2022$]) 

3 percent .................................................. 1.68 2.30 2.25 3.16 2.50 ¥6.42 

7 percent .................................................. 0.92 1.21 1.16 1.58 1.09 ¥5.21 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for CRE over the analysis period 

(see section IV.F.1 of this document). 

DOE also conducted a sensitivity 

analysis that considered one scenario 

with a lower rate of price decline than 

the reference case and one scenario with 

a higher rate of price decline than the 

reference case. The results of these 

alternative cases are presented in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the 

high-price-decline case, the NPV of 

consumer benefits is higher than in the 

default case. In the low-price-decline 

case, the NPV of consumer benefits is 

lower than in the default case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimates that that new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for CRE would reduce energy 

expenditures for consumers of those 

equipment, with the resulting net 

savings being redirected to other forms 

of economic activity. These expected 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this 

document, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered. There are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes (2028– 

2032), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

standards would be likely to have a 

negligible impact on the net demand for 

labor in the economy. The net change in 

jobs is so small that it would be 

imperceptible in national labor statistics 

and might be offset by other, 

unanticipated effects on employment. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents 

detailed results regarding anticipated 

indirect employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of 

this document, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not lessen the 

utility or performance of the CRE under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Manufacturers of these equipment 

currently offer units that meet or exceed 

the proposed standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new and amended 

standards. As discussed in section 

III.F.1 of this document, the Attorney 

General determines the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from a proposed standard, and 

transmits such determination in writing 

to the Secretary, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such 

impact. To assist the Attorney General 

in making this determination, DOE has 

provided DOJ with copies of this NOPR 

and the accompanying TSD for review. 

DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on 

the proposed rule in determining 

whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE 

will publish and respond to DOJ’s 

comments in that document. DOE 

invites comment from the public 

regarding the competitive impacts that 

are likely to result from this proposed 

rule. In addition, stakeholders may also 

provide comments separately to DOJ 

regarding these potential impacts. See 

the ADDRESSES section for information 

to send comments to DOJ. 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

impacts on electricity generating 

capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this proposed rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for CRE is expected to yield 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70287 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Tabl— 

V.74 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.L.1 

of this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.74—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 16.7 28.5 29.9 45.3 50.7 55.1 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 1.24 2.11 2.21 3.35 3.75 4.08 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.17 0.29 0.31 0.47 0.52 0.57 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 7.89 13.4 14.1 21.3 23.9 26.0 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 5.53 9.43 9.89 15.0 16.8 18.2 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.13 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 1.70 2.90 3.04 4.61 5.15 5.61 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 155 263 277 419 468 509 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 26.5 45.2 47.4 71.8 80.3 87.4 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 0.10 0.17 0.18 0.28 0.31 0.34 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 18.4 31.4 33.0 49.9 55.8 60.7 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 156 266 279 422 472 514 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.18 0.31 0.32 0.49 0.54 0.59 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 34.4 58.6 61.5 93.1 104 113 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 5.64 9.60 10.1 15.3 17.1 18.6 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.13 

As part of the analysis for this 

rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE 

estimated for each of the considered 

TSLs for CRE. Section IV.L of this 

document discusses the SC–CO2 values 

that DOE used. Table V.75 presents the 

value of CO2 emissions reduction at 

each TSL for each of the SC–CO2 cases. 

The time-series of annual values is 

presented for the proposed TSL in 

chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.75—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–CO2 Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(million 2022$) 

1 ................................................................................................................... 183 788 1,233 2,391 

2 ................................................................................................................... 312 1,342 2,101 4,074 

3 ................................................................................................................... 327 1,408 2,205 4,276 

4 ................................................................................................................... 495 2,132 3,337 6,472 

5 ................................................................................................................... 554 2,384 3,733 7,239 

6 ................................................................................................................... 602 2,593 4,060 7,872 

As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this 

document, DOE estimated the climate 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of methane and N2O 

that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for CRE. Table V.76 

presents the value of the CH4 emissions 

reduction at each TSL, and table V.77 

presents the value of the N2O emissions 

reduction at each TSL. The time-series 

of annual values is presented for the 

proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

The time-series of annual values is 

presented for the proposed TSL in 

chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70288 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.76—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–CH4 Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(Million 2022$) 

1 ................................................................................................................... 70.7 213 297 562 

2 ................................................................................................................... 120 362 506 958 

3 ................................................................................................................... 126 380 532 1005 

4 ................................................................................................................... 191 576 805 1522 

5 ................................................................................................................... 214 644 900 1702 

6 ................................................................................................................... 233 700 979 1852 

TABLE V.77—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–N2O Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(Million 2022$) 

1 ................................................................................................................... 0.69 2.74 4.25 7.30 

2 ................................................................................................................... 1.17 4.67 7.23 12.4 

3 ................................................................................................................... 1.23 4.90 7.59 13.0 

4 ................................................................................................................... 1.85 7.42 11.5 19.8 

5 ................................................................................................................... 2.07 8.29 12.9 22.1 

6 ................................................................................................................... 2.25 9.02 14.0 24.0 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the global and U.S. 

economy continues to evolve rapidly. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

methodologies for estimating the 

monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. DOE notes that 

the proposed standards would be 

economically justified even without 

inclusion of monetized benefits of 

reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the health benefits associated 

with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for CRE. The dollarper-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V.78 shows the present 

value for NOX emissions reduction for 

each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 

3-percent discount rates, and table V.79 

presents similar results for SO2

emissions reductions. The results in 

these tables reflect application of EPA’s 

low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE 

used to be conservative. The time-series 

of annual values is presented for the 

proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.78—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

million [2022$] 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,597 623 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,721 1,061 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,855 1,114 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,322 1,686 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,834 1,885 

6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 5,257 2,048 

TABLE V.79—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

million [2022$] 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 145 366 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 247 624 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70289 

TABLE V.79—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CRE SHIPPED IN 2028–2057—Continued 

TSL 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 260 655 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 393 992 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 439 1109 

6 ................................................................................................................................................................... 478 1206 

Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of direct PM and other co-pollutants 

may be significant. DOE has not 

included monetary benefits of the 

reduction of Hg emissions because the 

amount of reduction is very small. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors 

were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V.80 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the potential economic benefits 

resulting from reduced GHG and NOX

and SO2 emissions to the NPV of 

consumer benefits calculated for each 

TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered equipment, 

and are measured for the lifetime of 

equipment shipped in 2028–2057. The 

climate benefits associated with reduced 

GHG emissions resulting from the 

adopted standards are global benefits, 

and are also calculated based on the 

lifetime of CRE shipped in 2028–2057. 

TABLE V.80—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case .................... 6.6 9.8 9.8 14.6 13.8 ¥9.2 

3% Average SC–GHG case .................... 7.4 11.1 11.2 16.6 16.1 ¥6.7 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ................. 7.9 12.0 12.1 18.1 17.7 ¥5.0 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .......... 9.3 14.4 14.7 21.9 22.0 ¥0.3 

Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case .................... 2.8 4.1 4.1 6.0 5.5 ¥6.7 

3% Average SC–GHG case .................... 3.6 5.4 5.4 8.0 7.7 ¥4.2 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ................. 4.1 6.3 6.4 9.5 9.4 ¥2.5 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .......... 5.5 8.7 8.9 13.3 13.7 2.2 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered 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. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens by, to 

the greatest extent practicable, 

considering the seven statutory factors 

discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

The new or amended standard must also 

result in significant conservation of 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this NOPR, DOE considered the 

impacts of new and amended standards 

for CRE at each TSL, beginning with the 

maximum technologically feasible level, 

to determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases; (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments; (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher-than-expected rate between 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70290 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for CRE Standards 

Table V.81 and table V.82 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for CRE. The national impacts 

are measured over the lifetime of CRE 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated year of 

compliance with new and amended 

standards (2028–2057). The energy 

savings, emissions reductions, and 

value of emissions reductions refer to 

full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency 

levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A of this 

document. 

TABLE V.81—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CRE TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings 

Quads ....................................................... 1.03 1.75 1.83 2.78 3.11 3.38 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 18.4 31.4 33.0 49.9 55.8 60.7 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 156 266 279 422 472 514 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.18 0.31 0.32 0.49 0.54 0.59 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 34.4 58.6 61.5 93.1 104 113 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 5.64 9.60 10.1 15.3 17.1 18.6 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.13 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......... 5.28 8.03 8.38 12.6 12.8 11.2 

Climate Benefits * ..................................... 1.00 1.71 1.79 2.71 3.04 3.30 

Health Benefits ** ..................................... 1.96 3.34 3.51 5.31 5.94 6.46 

Total Benefits† .................................. 8.25 13.1 13.7 20.7 21.8 21.0 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 

Costs‡ ................................................... 0.89 2.02 2.51 4.05 5.74 27.7 

Consumer Net Benefits .................... 4.39 6.01 5.87 8.59 7.10 ¥16.5 

Total Net Benefits ............................. 7.36 11.1 11.2 16.6 16.1 ¥6.72 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......... 2.28 3.47 3.62 5.46 5.55 4.84 

Climate Benefits * ..................................... 1.00 1.71 1.79 2.71 3.04 3.30 

Health Benefits ** ..................................... 0.77 1.31 1.37 2.08 2.32 2.53 

Total Benefits† .................................. 4.05 6.49 6.79 10.3 10.9 10.7 

Consumer Incremental Equipment 

Costs‡ ................................................... 0.48 1.08 1.35 2.22 3.17 14.9 

Consumer Net Benefits .................... 1.80 2.38 2.27 3.24 2.38 ¥10.1 

Total Net Benefits ............................. 3.58 5.40 5.44 8.03 7.74 ¥4.24 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028—2057. These results include benefits to consumers 

which accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028¥2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global 

SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To 

monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

TABLE V.82—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * TSL 5 * TSL 6 * 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-newstandards case INPV = 3,286.4) ....... 3,274.2 to 3,290.8 3,241.9 to 3,279.6 3,224.4 to 3,271.4 3,182.5 to 3,269.6 3,127.0 to 3,255.5 2,985.9 to 3,529.9 

Industry NPV (% change) ..................... (0.4) to 0.1 (1.4) to (0.2) (1.9) to (0.5) (3.2) to (0.5) (4.8) to (0.9) (9.1) to 7.4 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70291 

TABLE V.82—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * TSL 5 * TSL 6 * 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$) 

CB.SC.L ................................................ $263.1 $263.1 $553.2 $672.5 $566.9 $566.9 

CB.SC.M ............................................... 111.3 111.3 199.3 208.7 44.9 ¥74.3 

HCS.SC.L .............................................. 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 ¥147.3 

HCS.SC.M ............................................. 94.1 94.1 84.9 94.1 84.9 ¥189.1 

HCT.SC.I ............................................... 93.8 NA NA 93.8 55.0 ¥306.5 

HCT.SC.L .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA ¥421.6 

HCT.SC.M ............................................. NA NA NA NA NA ¥551.4 

HZO.RC.L .............................................. 46.6 46.6 46.6 46.6 46.6 46.6 

HZO.RC.M ............................................. 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 

HZO.SC.L .............................................. 160.9 193.6 193.6 971.2 841.9 841.9 

HZO.SC.M ............................................. 95.0 117.4 117.4 226.5 199.9 199.9 

SOC.RC.M ............................................ 986.3 986.3 929.5 986.3 929.5 ¥70.5 

SOC.SC.M ............................................. 994.6 1,015.5 1,015.5 1,834.7 698.4 698.4 

SVO.RC.M ............................................. 522.8 522.8 406.6 522.8 406.6 406.6 

SVO.SC.M ............................................. 175.6 600.5 600.5 692.3 602.2 602.2 

VCS.SC.H ............................................. 399.5 399.5 263.8 399.5 162.5 33.5 

VCS.SC.I ............................................... 219.0 377.4 377.4 615.2 486.7 486.7 

VCS.SC.L .............................................. 193.1 309.0 309.0 375.8 260.7 260.7 

VCS.SC.M ............................................. 217.3 240.7 240.7 240.7 128.8 0.2 

VCT.RC.L .............................................. 323.7 331.0 331.0 331.0 331.0 ¥2,934.7 

VCT.RC.M ............................................. 308.7 308.7 133.6 308.7 133.6 ¥3,397.0 

VCT.SC.H .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA ¥1,496.8 

VCT.SC.I ............................................... 15.8 77.5 77.5 77.5 77.5 ¥1,318.5 

VCT.SC.L .............................................. 91.1 122.8 122.8 242.3 120.3 ¥1,093.5 

VCT.SC.M ............................................. 18.8 18.8 18.8 82.5 82.5 ¥1,417.2 

VOP.RC.L .............................................. 615.4 1,524.5 1,524.5 1,524.5 1,524.5 1,524.5 

VOP.RC.M ............................................. 638.0 707.1 707.1 707.1 707.1 707.1 

VOP.SC.M ............................................. 143.3 590.0 590.0 1,082.3 992.2 992.2 

Shipment-Wtd Average * ....................... 169.8 169.8 192.3 242.7 165.5 ¥649.8 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

CB.SC.L ................................................ 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 

CB.SC.M ............................................... 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.0 5.0 5.8 

HCS.SC.L .............................................. 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 10.8 

HCS.SC.M ............................................. 0.8 0.8 1.8 0.8 1.8 13.3 

HCT.SC.I ............................................... 4.8 NA NA 4.8 7.1 14.8 

HCT.SC.L .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 23.5 

HCT.SC.M ............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 76.8 

HZO.RC.L .............................................. 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

HZO.RC.M ............................................. 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 

HZO.SC.L .............................................. 0.8 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.8 2.8 

HZO.SC.M ............................................. 1.1 1.6 1.6 3.3 5.2 5.2 

SOC.RC.M ............................................ 2.6 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 15.9 

SOC.SC.M ............................................. 0.1 1.1 1.1 2.1 5.4 5.4 

SVO.RC.M ............................................. 4.8 4.8 7.3 4.8 7.3 7.3 

SVO.SC.M ............................................. 1.2 2.7 2.7 4.1 4.3 4.3 

VCS.SC.H ............................................. 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.2 3.7 4.4 

VCS.SC.I ............................................... 0.4 1.4 1.4 3.1 3.4 3.4 

VCS.SC.L .............................................. 0.4 1.5 1.5 2.7 3.2 3.2 

VCS.SC.M ............................................. 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.1 5.0 

VCT.RC.L .............................................. 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 52.2 

VCT.RC.M ............................................. 6.5 6.5 10.9 6.5 10.9 93.9 

VCT.SC.H .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 43.0 

VCT.SC.I ............................................... 4.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 35.0 

VCT.SC.L .............................................. 2.0 2.6 2.6 5.3 5.8 18.5 

VCT.SC.M ............................................. 3.8 3.8 3.8 7.6 7.6 45.2 

VOP.RC.L .............................................. 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 

VOP.RC.M ............................................. 4.1 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 

VOP.SC.M ............................................. 2.1 2.6 2.6 3.4 3.6 3.6 

Shipment-Wtd Average * ....................... 2.2 2.2 3.1 4.1 5.5 23.1 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost 

CB.SC.L ................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 1.3 

CB.SC.M ............................................... 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 45.9 73.7 

HCS.SC.L .............................................. 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 96.1 

HCS.SC.M ............................................. 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 4.9 99.1 

HCT.SC.I ............................................... 15.0 NA NA 15.0 32.5 85.8 

HCT.SC.L .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 90.5 

HCT.SC.M ............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 91.4 

HZO.RC.L .............................................. 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 

HZO.RC.M ............................................. 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 

HZO.SC.L .............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.9 

HZO.SC.M ............................................. 0.0 0.2 0.2 6.8 14.8 14.8 

SOC.RC.M ............................................ 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 70.9 

SOC.SC.M ............................................. 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 25.6 25.6 

SVO.RC.M ............................................. 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 18.4 18.4 

SVO.SC.M ............................................. 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.6 11.0 11.0 

VCS.SC.H ............................................. 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 31.6 52.8 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70292 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.82—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * TSL 5 * TSL 6 * 

VCS.SC.I ............................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 8.9 8.9 

VCS.SC.L .............................................. 0.0 0.2 0.2 4.3 17.1 17.1 

VCS.SC.M ............................................. 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 27.0 56.2 

VCT.RC.L .............................................. 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 99.7 

VCT.RC.M ............................................. 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 24.0 100.0 

VCT.SC.H .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 96.9 

VCT.SC.I ............................................... 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 100.0 

VCT.SC.L .............................................. 0.3 0.7 0.7 18.8 37.5 98.2 

VCT.SC.M ............................................. 5.7 5.7 5.7 20.1 20.1 100.0 

VOP.RC.L .............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

VOP.RC.M ............................................. 0.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 

VOP.SC.M ............................................. 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 

Shipment-Wtd Average * ....................... 2.0 2.0 4.2 8.2 21.9 69.0 

Note: The entry ‘‘NA’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs. 

* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2022. 

DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency levels 

for all equipment classes. The design 

options DOE analyzed at this level 

included the max-tech technologies for 

all equipment classes. For all open (i.e., 

equipment classes without doors) and 

transparent door equipment classes, 

DOE expects manufacturers would 

likely need to incorporate occupancy 

sensors with dimming capability. Open 

equipment classes would also likely 

require the use of night curtains. For 

equipment classes with transparent 

doors, DOE expects manufacturers 

would likely need to incorporate 

vacuum-insulated glass doors. For selfcontained equipment classes, DOE 

expects manufacturers would need to 

incorporate EC evaporator and 

condenser fan motors, variable-speed 

compressors, and microchannel 

condensers. For closed, self-contained 

equipment classes using forced-air 

refrigeration systems, DOE expects 

manufacturers would also need to 

incorporate evaporator fan control. 

TSL 6 would save an estimated 3.38 

quads of FFC energy over 30 years of 

shipments (2028–2057), an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 6, the 

NPV of consumer benefits would be 

¥$10.1 billion using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and ¥$16.5 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent for the same 

30-year period. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 60.7 Mt of CO2, 18.6 

thousand tons of SO2, 113 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.13 tons of Hg, 514 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.59 

thousand tons of N2O for the same 30- 

year period. The estimated monetary 

value of the climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions (associated 

with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 6 is $3.30 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 6 is $2.53 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and 

$6.46 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 6 is ¥$4.24 billion. 

Using a 3¥percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 6 are ¥$6.72 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information; however, DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 6, affected purchasers of CRE 

experience an average LCC savings 

ranging from ¥$3,397.0. to $1,524.5 

with a payback period ranging from 94 

years to 2.1 years. For example, for 

equipment classes VCS.SC.M, 

VCT.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, VCT.SC.L, and 

VCT.RC.M, which account for 82% of 

annual CRE shipments, there is a net 

LCC savings of $0.171, ¥$1,417.24, 

$260.731, ¥$1,093.53, and ¥$3,397.0 

and a PBP of 5.04, 4539, 3.2, 18.5, and 

94 years, respectively. Overall, a 

majority of CRE purchasers (69.0 

percent) would experience a net cost 

and the LCC savings would be negative 

for 13 of 28 analyzed equipment classes, 

representing 48% of annual shipments. 

Furthermore, the shipment-weightedaverage PBP is estimated at 23 years, 

which is generally higher than the 

average CRE lifetime. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $300.4 

million to an increase of $243.6 million, 

which corresponds to a decrease of 9.1 

percent and an increase of 7.4 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $343.8 million to 

update equipment designs and source, 

qualify, and test high-efficiency 

components across their entire CRE 

portfolio. In 2027, a year before 

compliance is required, DOE estimates 

that approximately 2.2 percent of CRE 

shipments would meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 6. 

At this level, nearly all manufacturers 

would need to spend notable 

development time incorporating the 

analyzed max-tech design options 

across their entire CRE portfolio. 

However, most design options analyzed 

involve more efficient components (e.g., 

high-efficiency motors) and would not 

necessitate significant capital 

investment. CRE equipment classes with 

transparent doors (i.e., HCT.SC.I, 

HCT.SC.L, HCT.SC.M, SOC.RC.M, 

SOC.SC.M, VCT.RC.L, VCT.RC.M, 

VCT.SC.H, VCT.SC.I, VCT.SC.L, and 

VCT.SC.M) account for approximately 

43.8 percent of industry shipments in 

2027. For the 71 manufacturers that 

offer CRE with transparent doors, 

implementing vacuum-insulated glass 

would require significant engineering 

resources and testing time to ensure 

adequate safety and durability of their 

equipment in all commercial settings. In 

interviews, most manufacturers raised 

concerns about standards requiring a 

widespread adoption of vacuuminsulated glass as it is still a relatively 

untested technology in the commercial 

refrigeration market. Manufacturers 

expressed concerns about the potential 

for reduced equipment reliability as 

vacuum-insulated glass can be relatively 

more fragile than existing glass door 

designs and there is very little industry 

experience with implementing vacuuminsulated glass in CRE applications. 

DOE estimates that less than 2 percent 

of shipments of CRE equipment classes 

with transparent doors would meet the 

max-tech efficiencies in 2027. In 

interviews, manufacturers emphasized 

that there are currently a limited 

number of suppliers of vacuuminsulated glass for CRE applications. 

Based on this analysis, the Secretary 

tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for 

CRE, the benefits of energy savings, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70293 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, 

economic burden on many CRE 

purchasers, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs that could result in a reduction in 

INPV. For the manufacturers of CRE 

with transparent doors, implementing 

vacuum-insulated glass would require 

significant engineering resources and 

testing time to ensure adequate safety 

and durability of their equipment in all 

commercial settings. There is limited 

industry experience incorporating 

vacuum-insulated glass into CRE 

designs. And a majority of CRE 

purchasers (69.0 percent) would 

experience a net cost and the average 

LCC savings would be negative. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 5, which 

represents the highest efficiency level 

with positive LCC savings for each 

equipment class. For approximately half 

of the classes, this TSL represents 

efficiency levels less than max-tech. For 

most open (i.e., equipment classes 

without doors) and transparent door 

equipment classes, DOE expects 

manufacturers would likely need to 

incorporate occupancy sensors with 

dimming capability. Open equipment 

classes would also likely require the use 

of night curtains. For most equipment 

classes with transparent doors, DOE 

expects manufacturers would need to 

incorporate triple-pane, krypton-filled 

glass doors or vacuum-insulated glass 

doors. For self-contained equipment 

classes, DOE expects manufacturers 

would need to incorporate EC 

evaporator and condenser fan motors 

and may require microchannel 

condensers and variable-speed 

compressors. For closed, self-contained 

equipment classes using forced-air 

refrigeration systems, DOE expects 

manufacturers would also need to 

incorporate evaporator fan control. 

TSL 5 would save an estimated 3.11 

quads of full fuel cycle energy over 30 

years of shipments (2028 to 2057), an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $2.38 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.10 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 55.8 Mt of CO2, 17.1 

thousand tons of SO2, 104 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.12 tons of Hg, 472 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.54 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 5 is 

3.04 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

5 is $2.32 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $5.94 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 5 is $7.74 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 5 is $16.1 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 5, affected purchasers for each 

CRE equipment class experience an 

average LCC savings ranging from $7.77 

to $1,524.52 with a payback period 

ranging from 1.765 years to 13.8 years. 

For example, for equipment classes 

VCS.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, 

VCT.SC.L, and VCT.RC.M, which 

account for 82% of annual CRE 

shipments, there is a net LCC savings of 

$128.91, $82.53, $260.73, $120.34,1 and 

$133.625 and a PBP of 4.1, 7.6, 3.2, 5.8, 

and 10.9 years, respectively. Overall, 

approximately 78 percent of affected 

CRE purchasers would experience a net 

benefit or not be affected at TSL 5. 

Furthermore, the estimated shipmentweighted-average LCC savings is 

$165.52 and PBP is 5.5 years, which is 

lower than the average CRE lifetime. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $159.3 

million to a decrease of $30.9 million, 

which correspond to decreases of 4.8 

percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$226.4 million to comply with 

standards set at TSL 5. In 2027, the year 

before compliance is required, DOE 

estimates that approximately 10.8 

percent of CRE shipments would meet 

the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 5. 

Similar to TSL 6, DOE expects 

manufacturers would spend 

development time updating equipment 

designs to incorporate high-efficiency 

components. However, at this level, 

DOE expects that most manufacturers of 

CRE with transparent doors could meet 

the TSL 5 efficiencies without 

implementing vacuum-insulated glass 

doors. Of the 11 directly analyzed 

transparent door equipment classes, 

only the SOC.SC.M equipment class 

would likely require vacuum-insulated 

glass doors to meet the TSL 5 efficiency 

levels. SOC.SC.M accounts for 

approximately 0.4 percent of analyzed 

industry shipments in 2027. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

at a standard set at TSL 5 for CRE would 

be economically justified. At this TSL, 

the average LCC savings for all affected 

purchasers is positive. An estimated 

67.1 percent of purchasers experience a 

net benefit, while 21.9 percent of 

purchasers experience a net LCC cost. 

The FFC national energy savings are 

significant and the NPV of consumer 

benefits is positive using both a 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rate. 

Notably, the benefits to consumers 

vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At TSL 5, the NPV of 

consumer benefits, even measured at the 

more conservative discount rate of 7 

percent is over 14 times higher than the 

maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss 

in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 5 

are economically justified even without 

weighing the estimated monetary value 

of emissions reductions. When those 

emissions reductions are included— 

representing $3.04 billion in climate 

benefits (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), 

and $5.94 billion (using a 3-percent 

discount rate) or $2.32 billion (using a 

7-percent discount rate) in health 

benefits—the rationale becomes stronger 

still. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the proposed energy conservation 

standards, DOE notes that TSL 5 

represents the highest efficiency level 

for each equipment class with positive 

LCC savings for each equipment class, 

and a considerably lower reduction in 

INPV, and positive consumer NPV 

compared to TSL 6. 

Although DOE considered proposed 

new and amended standard levels for 

CRE by grouping the efficiency levels 

for each equipment class into TSLs, 

DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency 

levels in its analysis. For all equipment 

classes, the proposed standard level 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70294 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

represents the maximum energy savings 

that does not result in negative LCC 

savings. The ELs at the proposed 

standard level result in positive LCC 

savings for all equipment classes, 

significantly reduce the number of 

purchasers experiencing a net cost, and 

reduce the decrease in INPV and 

conversion costs to the point where 

DOE has tentatively concluded they are 

economically justified, as discussed for 

TSL 5 in the preceding paragraphs. As 

previously discussed, setting standards 

at max-tech (TSL 6) would result in 

negative LCC savings for 13 of the 

analyzed equipment classes, 

representing 48 percent of the estimated 

CRE shipments. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

CRE at TSL 5. The proposed new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for CRE, which are expressed as kWh/ 

day, are shown in table V.83. 

TABLE V.83—PROPOSED NEW OR

AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR CRE 

Equipment class 

Maximum daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

VOP.RC.H ............. 0.31 × TDA + 1.99. 

VOP.RC.M ............. 0.56 × TDA + 3.57. 

VOP.RC.L .............. 2.04 × TDA + 6.36. 

VOP.RC.I ............... 2.59 × TDA + 8.08. 

SVO.RC.H ............. 0.32 × TDA + 1.55. 

SVO.RC.M ............. 0.58 × TDA + 2.79. 

SVO.RC.L .............. 2.04 × TDA + 6.36. 

SVO.RC.I ............... 2.59 × TDA + 8.08. 

HZO.RC.H ............. 0.19 × TDA + 1.56. 

HZO.RC.M ............. 0.34 × TDA + 2.81. 

HZO.RC.L .............. 0.54 × TDA + 6.81. 

HZO.RC.I ............... 0.69 × TDA + 8.64. 

VCT.RC.H ............. 0.07 × TDA + 0.97. 

VCT.RC.M ............. 0.134 × TDA + 1.74. 

VCT.RC.L .............. 0.47 × TDA + 2.51. 

VCT.RC.I ............... 0.56 × TDA + 2.97. 

HCT.RC.M ............. 0.16 × TDA + 0.13. 

HCT.RC.L .............. 0.34 × TDA + 0.26. 

HCT.RC.I ............... 0.38 × TDA + 0.29. 

VCS.RC.H ............. 0.06 × V + 0.14. 

VCS.RC.M ............. 0.1 × V + 0.26. 

VCS.RC.L .............. 0.21 × V + 0.54. 

VCS.RC.I ............... 0.25 × V + 0.63. 

HCS.RC.M ............. 0.1 × V + 0.26. 

HCS.RC.L .............. 0.21 × V + 0.54. 

HCS.RC.I ............... 0.25 × V + 0.63. 

SOC.RC.H ............. 0.22 × TDA + 0.05. 

TABLE V.83—PROPOSED NEW OR

AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR CRE—Continued 

Equipment class 

Maximum daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

SOC.RC.M ............ 0.39 × TDA + 0.1. 

SOC.RC.L ............. 0.83 × TDA + 0.2. 

SOC.RC.I .............. 1.04 × TDA + 0.25. 

CB.RC.M ............... 0.03 × V + 0.39. 

CB.RC.L ................ 0.13 × V + 1.37. 

VOP.SC.H ............. 0.69 × TDA + 1.94. 

VOP.SC.M ............. 1.25 × TDA + 3.48. 

VOP.SC.L .............. 3.29 × TDA + 9.15. 

VOP.SC.I ............... 4.18 × TDA + 11.63. 

SVO.SC.H ............. 0.65 × TDA + 1.77. 

SVO.SC.M ............. 1.18 × TDA + 3.18. 

SVO.SC.L .............. 3.25 × TDA + 8.78. 

SVO.SC.I ............... 4.13 × TDA + 11.16. 

HZO.SC.H ............. 0.27 × TDA + 2.06. 

HZO.SC.M ............. 0.48 × TDA + 3.71. 

HZO.SC.L .............. 1.48 × TDA + 5.5. 

HZO.SC.I ............... 1.97 × TDA + 7.34. 

VCT.SC.H .............. 0.053 × V + 0.85. 

VCT.SC.M ............. 0.054 × V + 0.86. 

VCT.SC.L .............. 0.234 × V + 2.38. 

VCT.SC.I ............... 0.6 × TDA + 3.2. 

HCT.SC.M ............. 0.06 × V + 0.37. 

HCT.SC.L .............. 0.08 × V + 1.23. 

HCT.SC.I ............... 0.34 × TDA + 0.43. 

VCS.SC.H ............. 0.0082 × V + 0.21. 

VCS.SC.M ............. 0.02 × V + 0.54. 

VCS.SC.L .............. 0.155 × V + 0.97. 

VCS.SC.I ............... 0.25 × V + 0.88. 

HCS.SC.M ............. 0.022 × V + 0.41. 

HCS.SC.L .............. 0.043 × V + 0.81. 

HCS.SC.I ............... 0.31 × V + 0.81. 

SOC.SC.H ............. 0.17 × TDA + 0.33. 

SOC.SC.M ............. 0.304 × TDA + 0.59. 

SOC.SC.L .............. 1.1 × TDA + 2.1. 

SOC.SC.I ............... 1.53 × TDA + 0.36. 

CB.SC.M ............... 0.049 × V + 0.54. 

CB.SC.L ................ 0.180 × V + 1.92. 

PD.SC.M ............... 0.11 × V + 0.81. 

VCT.RC.M.PT ....... 0.139 × TDA + 1.81. 

VCT.SC.M.PT ........ 0.056 × V + 0.86. 

VCT.SC.L.PT ......... 0.243 × V + 2.47. 

VCS.SC.M.PT ....... 0.02 × V + 0.56. 

VCS.SC.L.PT ........ 0.161 × V + 1.01. 

VCT.RC.M.SD ....... 0.143 × TDA + 1.86. 

VCT.SC.M.SD ....... 0.058 × V + 0.86. 

VCT.RC.M.SDPT .. 0.149 × TDA + 1.93. 

VCT.SC.M.SDPT ... 0.060 × V + 0.86. 

VCT.RC.M.RI ........ 0.140 × TDA + 1.83. 

VCT.SC.M.RI ......... 0.057 × V + 0.86. 

VCS.SC.M.RI ........ 0.02 × V + 0.57. 

VCS.SC.L.RI ......... 0.162 × V + 1.02. 

VCT.RC.M.RT ....... 0.146 × TDA + 1.9. 

VCT.SC.M.RT ....... 0.059 × V + 0.86. 

VCS.SC.M.RT ....... 0.02 × V + 0.59. 

VCS.SC.L.RT ........ 0.169 × V + 1.06. 

HCS.SC.L.FA ........ 0.052 × V + 0.97. 

Unique design characteristic Abbreviation 

Pass-through Door ............... PT. 

Sliding Door .......................... SD. 

Sliding and Pass-through 

Doors.

SDPT. 

Roll-in Door .......................... RI. 

Roll-through Door ................. RT. 

Forced Air Evaporator .......... FA. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022$) of 

the benefits from operating equipment 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase costs), 

and (2) the annualized monetary value 

of the climate and health benefits from 

emission reductions. 

Table V.84 shows the annualized 

values for CRE under TSL 5, expressed 

in 2022$. The results under the primary 

estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for CRE is $335 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $586 million from reduced 

equipment operating costs, $174 million 

from climate benefits, and $246 million 

from health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $671 million per 

year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for CRE is $330 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $738 million in reduced 

operating costs, $174 million from 

climate benefits, and $341 million from 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $923 million per 

year. 

TABLE V.84—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CRE (TSL 5) 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-netbenefits 

estimate 

High-netbenefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 738 714 774 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70295 

TABLE V.84—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CRE (TSL 

5)—Continued 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-netbenefits 

estimate 

High-netbenefits 

estimate 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 174 173 179 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 341 340 350 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................... 1253 1227 1302 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs .................................................................................... 330 338 328 

Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 923 890 974 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................... (17)–(3) (17)–(3) (17)–(3) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 586 569 613 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................................... 174 173 179 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 246 245 251 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................... 1006 987 1043 

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs .................................................................................... 335 342 334 

Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 671 646 709 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) ..................................................................................... (17)–(3) (17)–(3) (17)–(3) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028¥2057. These include consumer, climate, and health 

benefits that accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028¥2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections 

IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not 

have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 

sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate.

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE 

also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, 

DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA 

produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is 

calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For commercial refrigeration equipment, those values are 

¥$16.65 million to ¥$3.23 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of 

Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, 

and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in 

proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, 

drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this 

proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If 

DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from 

$907 million to $920 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $655 million to $668 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses 

() indicate negative values. 

D. Reporting, Certification, and 

Sampling Plan 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use equipment-specific 

certification templates to certify 

compliance to DOE. For CRE, the 

certification template reflects the 

general certification requirements 

specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the 

equipment-specific requirements 

specified at 10 CFR 429.42 DOE is not 

proposing to amend the equipmentspecific certification requirements for 

this equipment. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70296 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB has emphasized that 

such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

proposed regulatory action, together 

with, to the extent feasible, a 

quantification of those costs; and an 

assessment, including the underlying 

analysis, of costs and benefits of 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives to the planned 

regulation, and an explanation as to 

why the planned regulatory action is 

preferable to the identified potential 

alternatives. These assessments are 

summarized in this preamble and 

further detail can be found in the 

technical support document for this 

rulemaking. 

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, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

equipment that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking. 

For manufacturers of CRE, the SBA 

has set a size threshold, which defines 

those entities classified as ‘‘small 

businesses’’ for the purposes of the 

statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of CRE is 

classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

DOE is proposing new and amended 

energy conservation standards for CRE. 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

This equipment includes CRE, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(E)) EPCA established standards 

for certain categories of CRE (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(2)–(4)) and directs DOE to 

conduct future rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(B)) On 

March 28, 2014, DOE published a final 

rule that prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for CRE 

manufactured on and after March 27, 

2017. 79 FR 17725. EPCA provides that, 

not later than 6 years after the issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the equipment do not need 

to be amended, or a NOPR including 

new proposed energy conservation 

standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This proposed 

rulemaking is in accordance with DOE’s 

obligations under EPCA. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

EPCA established standards for certain 

categories of CRE (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)– 

(4)) and directs DOE to conduct future 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)(B)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 6 years after the issuance of any 

final rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notice of determination that standards 

for the equipment do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70297 

110U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

#q=Product_Group_s%3A*. (last accessed April 13, 

2023.) 

111California Energy Commission’s Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database is available at: 

https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ 

Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx. (last accessed 

February 2, 2022.) 

112S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence. 

panjiva.com/import-export/United-States. (last 

accessed April 13, 2023.) 

113 D&B Hoover’s subscription login is accessible 

at: app.dnbhoovers.com. (last accessed April 13, 

2023.) 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

DOE reviewed this proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a 

market assessment to identify potential 

small manufacturers of CRE. DOE began 

its assessment by compiling an 

equipment database of CRE models 

available in the United States. To 

develop a comprehensive equipment 

database of CRE basic models, DOE 

reviewed its Compliance Certification 

Database (‘‘CCD’’) 110 supplemented by 

information from California Energy 

Commission’s Modernized Appliance 

Efficiency Database System,111

individual company websites, and prior 

CRE rulemakings. To identify chef 

bases, griddle stands, and hightemperature units, DOE reviewed 

publicly available data from web 

scraping retail websites. DOE then 

reviewed the comprehensive equipment 

database to identify the OEMs of the 

CRE models identified. DOE consulted 

publicly available data, such as 

manufacturer websites, manufacturer 

specifications and equipment literature, 

import/export logs (e.g., bills of lading 

from Panjiva 112), and basic model 

numbers, to identify OEMs of CRE. DOE 

further relied on public data and 

subscription-based market research 

tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports 113) 

to determine company, location, 

headcount, and annual revenue. DOE 

also asked industry representatives if 

they were aware of any small 

manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer equipment 

covered by this rulemaking, do not meet 

the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. 

DOE initially identified 83 OEMs that 

sell CRE in the United States. Of the 83 

OEMs identified, DOE tentatively 

determined that 25 companies qualify as 

small businesses and are not foreignowned and operated. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

Of the 25 small, domestic CRE OEMs, 

24 OEMs manufacture vertical 

equipment classes (i.e., vertical open 

(‘‘VOP’’), vertical closed transparent 

(‘‘VCT’’), or vertical closed solid 

(‘‘VCS’’)), 8 OEMs manufacture semivertical open (‘‘SVO’’) equipment 

classes (i.e., medium temperature 

remote condensing (‘‘RC’’; 

‘‘SVO.RC.M’’) or medium temperature 

self-contained (‘‘SC’’; ‘‘SVO.SC.M’’)), 7 

OEMs manufacture service-over-counter 

(‘‘SOC’’) equipment classes (i.e., 

SOC.RC.M or SOC.SC.M), 10 OEMs 

manufacture horizontal equipment 

classes (i.e., horizontal open (‘‘HZO’’), 

horizontal closed transparent (‘‘HCT’’), 

or horizontal closed solid (‘‘HCS’’)), and 

3 OEMs manufacture chef bases. 

For the purposes of this IRFA, DOE 

assumed that the industry capital 

conversion costs would be evenly 

distributed across the OEMs that 

manufacture each equipment class to 

avoid underestimating the potential 

capital investments small manufacturers 

may incur as a result of the proposed 

standard. As discussed in section 

IV.J.2.c of this document, DOE scaled 

the industry capital conversion costs by 

the number of OEMs offering models of 

the respective equipment class. For 

product conversion costs, DOE assumed 

all small businesses would choose to 

redesign or replace models that do not 

meet the proposed TSL 5 efficiency 

levels. DOE used basic model counts to 

scale the industry product conversion 

costs, as discussed in section IV.J.2.c of 

this document. DOE expects 

manufacturers would have to 

incorporate various high-efficiency 

components to meet the TSL 5 

efficiencies across their CRE offerings. 

For certain transparent door equipment 

classes, capital conversion costs may be 

necessary to incorporate improved door 

designs. For self-contained equipment 

classes, many manufacturers would 

likely have to incorporate VSCs into 

CRE designs. To incorporate VSCs, 

which could be larger than existing 

single-speed compressors, 

manufacturers may need new tools for 

the baseplate. Product conversion costs 

may be necessary to qualify, source, and 

test new high-efficiency components 

(e.g., electronically commutated 

motors). 

Out of the 24 small OEMs of vertical 

equipment classes, DOE expects 23 

OEMs would incur some conversion 

costs to redesign models that do not 

currently the proposed efficiency levels. 

The remaining small OEM would likely 

not incur conversion costs as a direct 

result of the proposed standard as all of 

their vertical CRE models currently 

meet or exceed the proposed levels. 

Vertical equipment classes account for 

approximately 90.1 percent of industry 

shipments in 2027. All the VOP and 

VCT equipment classes would likely 

require manufacturers to incorporate 

occupancy sensors to meet TSL 5. DOE 

further expects VOP equipment classes 

would also need to incorporate night 

curtains. DOE expects manufacturers of 

VOP.SC.M would likely also need to 

incorporate EC condenser fan motors, 

VSCs, and microchannel condensers. 

Some VCT equipment classes would 

likely need to incorporate triple pane 

glass with krypton fill. VCT.SC.M, and 

VCT.SC.L likely would further need to 

incorporate EC condenser fan motors 

and VSCs. For most VCS equipment 

classes, manufacturers would likely 

need to incorporate evaporator fan 

controls, EC evaporator fan motors, EC 

condenser fan motors, VSCs, and 

microchannel condensers. 

DOE expects all 8 small OEMs of 

semi-vertical equipment classes would 

incur some conversion costs to redesign 

models that do not currently meet the 

proposed efficiency levels. Semi-vertical 

equipment classes account for 

approximately 2.1 percent of industry 

shipments in 2027. All semi-vertical 

equipment classes would likely need to 

incorporate occupancy sensors and 

night curtains. SVO.SC.M would also 

likely require EC evaporator fan motors, 

EC condenser fan motors, VSCs, and 

microchannel condensers. 

Out of the 7 small OEMs of serviceover-counter equipment classes, DOE 

expects 6 OEMs would incur some 

conversion costs to redesign models that 

do not currently the proposed efficiency 

levels. The remaining small OEM would 

likely not incur conversion costs as a 

direct result of the proposed standard as 

all of their service-over-counter CRE 

models currently meet or exceed the 

proposed levels. Service-over-counter 

equipment classes account for 

approximately 0.5 percent of industry 

shipments in 2027. SOC.RC.M and 

SOC.SC.M would likely incorporate 

occupancy sensors. SOC.RC.M would 

also likely require triple pane glass 

doors with krypton fill. SOC.SC.M 

would also likely require VIG doors, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70298 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

evaporator fan controls, EC evaporator 

fan motors, EC condenser fan motors, 

VSCs, and microchannel condensers. 

Out of the 10 small OEMs of 

horizontal equipment classes, DOE 

expects 9 OEMs would incur some 

conversion costs to redesign models that 

do not currently the proposed efficiency 

levels. The remaining small OEM would 

likely not incur conversion costs as a 

direct result of the proposed standard as 

all of their horizontal CRE models 

currently meet or exceed the proposed 

levels. Horizontal equipment classes 

account for approximately 5.9 percent of 

industry shipments in 2027. For HZO 

equipment classes, manufacturers 

would likely incorporate occupancy 

sensors. For HZO.SC.M and HZO.SC.L 

equipment classes, manufacturers 

would likely incorporate EC evaporator 

fan motors, EC condenser fan motors, 

VSCs, and microchannel condensers. 

DOE expects that HCT.SC.I would likely 

need to incorporate VSCs and 

occupancy sensors to meet TSL 5 levels. 

For HCS equipment classes, 

manufacturers would likely incorporate 

EC condenser fan motors. HCS.SC.M 

would also likely require evaporator fan 

controls and EC condenser fan motors. 

DOE expects all 3 small OEMs 

offering chef base equipment classes to 

incur some conversion costs to redesign 

models that do not meet efficiency 

levels at TSL 5. Chef base equipment 

classes account for approximately 1.4 

percent of industry shipments in 2027. 

Manufacturers would likely incorporate 

EC evaporator fan motors, EC condenser 

fan motors, and VSCs for CB.SC.M. 

None of the small businesses offer 

CB.SC.L. 

Based on annual revenue estimates 

from market research tools (e.g., Dun & 

Bradstreet reports), the annual revenue 

of the small, domestic OEMs identified 

range from approximately $2.8 million 

to $448.6 million, with an average 

annual revenue of approximately $112.9 

million. DOE estimates that conversion 

costs could range from $0.0 million to 

$15.3 million, with the average per OEM 

conversion costs of $2.8 million. The 

estimated total conversion costs as a 

percent of company revenue over the 3- 

year conversion period range from 

approximately 0.0 percent to 9.6 

percent, with an average of 1.7 percent. 

See table VI.1 for additional details. 

TABLE VI.1—POTENTIAL SMALL BUSINESS IMPACTS (TSL 5) 

Company 

Est. 

conversion 

costs 

($ millions) 

Est. annual 

revenue 

($ millions) 

Conversion 

costs as a % 

of conversion 

period 

revenue** 

(%) 

Vertical Semivertical 

Serviceover-counter Horizontal Chef base 

A ............................................................ 0.25 2.8 3.0 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

B ............................................................ 0.21 4.1 1.7 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

C ............................................................ 1.58 5.5 9.6 X X X .................... ....................

D ............................................................ 0.00 6.3 0.0 .................... .................... .................... X ....................

E ............................................................ 2.41 10.8 7.4 X X X .................... ....................

F ............................................................ 0.88 13.6 2.2 X .................... .................... X ....................

G ............................................................ 0.05 25.4 0.1 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

H ............................................................ 0.22 26.9 0.3 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

I ............................................................. 1.42 28.6 1.7 X X .................... .................... ....................

J ............................................................. 1.78 58.1 1.0 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

K ............................................................ 0.77 71.9 0.4 X .................... .................... X ....................

L ............................................................ 0.26 74.9 0.1 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

M ........................................................... 5.46 85.3 2.1 X .................... .................... X ....................

N ............................................................ 2.15 96.8 0.7 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

O ............................................................ 7.35 110.3 2.2 X X X X X 

P ............................................................ 15.31 131.1 3.9 X X X X ....................

Q ............................................................ 5.70 142.3 1.3 X X X X ....................

R ............................................................ 0.24 143.1 0.1 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

S ............................................................ 14.29 156.1 3.1 X .................... .................... X X 

T ............................................................ 2.35 156.3 0.5 X .................... .................... X X 

U ............................................................ 0.48 193.7 0.1 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

V ............................................................ 0.63 212.5 0.1 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

W ........................................................... 4.86 269.3 0.6 X X X X ....................

X ............................................................ 0.28 307.9 0.0 X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Y ............................................................ 0.56 488.6 0.0 X X X .................... ....................

* The ‘‘X’’ indicates that the manufacturer offers CRE models of the respective equipment family. 

** This column is calculated by dividing the estimated conversion costs by the revenue during the three year the conversion period: (Est. Conversion Costs) ÷ [(Est. 

Annual Revenue) × 3 years]. 

*** All models of directly analyzed CRE equipment classes meet or exceed the proposed efficiency levels. Therefore, DOE tentatively does not expect this manufacturer would incur conversion costs as direct result of the rule, if the standards were finalized as proposed. 

DOE seeks comments, information, 

and data on the number of small 

businesses in the industry, the names of 

those small businesses, and their market 

shares by equipment class. DOE also 

requests comment on the potential 

impacts of the proposed standards on 

small manufacturers. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

proposed rule, represented by TSL 5. In 

reviewing alternatives to the proposed 

rule, DOE examined energy 

conservation standards set at lower 

efficiency levels. While TSL 1, TSL 2, 

TSL 3, and TSL 4 would reduce the 

impacts on small business 

manufacturers, it would come at the 

expense of a reduction in energy 

savings. TSL 1 achieves 67.0 percent 

lower energy savings compared to the 

energy savings at TSL 5. TSL 2 achieves 

43.7 percent lower energy savings 

compared to the energy savings at TSL 

5. TSL 3 achieves 41.0 percent lower 

energy savings compared to the energy 

savings at TSL 5. TSL 4 achieves 10.6 

percent lower energy savings as 

compared to the energy savings at TSL 

5. 

Based on the presented discussion, 

establishing standards at TSL 5 balances 

the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 

5 with the potential burdens placed on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70299 

CRE manufacturers, including small 

business manufacturers. Accordingly, 

DOE does not propose one of the other 

TSLs considered in the analysis, or the 

other policy alternatives examined as 

part of the regulatory impact analysis 

and included in chapter 17 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

Manufacturers subject to DOE’s energy 

efficiency standards may apply to DOE’s 

Office of Hearings and Appeals for 

exception relief under certain 

circumstances. Manufacturers should 

refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 

10 CFR part 1003 for additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of CRE must certify to 

DOE that their equipment comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedures for CRE, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer equipment and 

commercial equipment, including CRE. 

(See generally 10 CFR part 429). The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this proposed 

rulemaking qualifies for categorical 

exclusion B5.1 because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, none 

of the exceptions identified in 

categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it otherwise meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 

will complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it 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. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 

U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further 

action is required by 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 E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70300 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

114The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at 

energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed May 22, 2023). 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

Although this proposed rule does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more in any one year by 

the private sector. Such expenditures 

may include: (1) investment in research 

and development and in capital 

expenditures by CRE manufacturers in 

the years between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency CRE, starting at the 

compliance date for the applicable 

standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The content requirements of section 

202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private 

sector mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this NOPR and the TSD for this 

proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE is 

obligated to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives before promulgating a rule 

for which a written statement under 

section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 

1535(a)) DOE is required to select from 

those alternatives the most cost effective 

and least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the proposed 

rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), 

this proposed rule would establish new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for CRE that are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified, as 

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

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). 

A full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in 

chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed 

rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

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 Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%

20Final%20Updated%20IQA

%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. 

DOE has reviewed this NOPR 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 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for CRE, is not a significant 

energy action because the proposed 

standards are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this proposed rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.114

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70301 

115The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve the 

Department’s analyses. DOE is in the 

process of evaluating the resulting 

report.115

VII. Public Participation 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE received a 

comment from NAMA requesting the 

Department to conduct an in person 

public meeting. NAMA commented that 

it is requesting an in person public 

meeting due to the webinar held on 

August 8, 2022, feeling rushed and to 

allow time for full dialogue on these 

important subjects. (NAMA, No. 37, p. 

4) 

After carefully considering NAMA’s 

request, the Department has decided to 

grant the request for an in-person public 

meeting. Consequently, DOE will be 

hosting an in-person public meeting in 

addition to the webinar. Please note that 

attendance will be limited for the inperson public meeting due to room size 

capacity limits. 

A. Participation in the Public Meeting 

and Webinar 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, you must notify the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff no later than November 1, 

2023, either by phone at (202) 287–1445 

or by email: ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. Please note 

advance registration is required and 

capacity in the meeting room will be 

limited. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures which require advance 

notice prior to attendance at the public 

meeting. If a foreign national wishes to 

participate in the public meeting, please 

inform DOE as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Regina Washington at 

(202) 586–1214 or by email: 

Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov so that 

the necessary procedures can be 

completed. 

DOE requires visitors to have laptops 

and other devices, such as tablets, 

checked upon entry into the building. 

Any person wishing to bring these 

devices into the building will be 

required to obtain a property pass. 

Visitors should avoid bringing these 5 

devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to 

check in. Please report to the visitor’s 

desk to have devices checked before 

proceeding through security. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (‘‘DHS’’), there have been 

recent changes regarding ID 

requirements for individuals wishing to 

enter Federal buildings from specific 

States and U.S. territories. DHS 

maintains an updated website 

identifying the State and territory 

driver’s licenses that currently are 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities 

at www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcementbrief. A driver’s licenses from a State or 

territory identified as not compliant by 

DHS will not be accepted for building 

entry and one of the alternate forms of 

ID listed below will be required. 

Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID 

include U.S. Passport or Passport Card; 

an Enhanced Driver’s License or 

Enhanced ID-Card issued by States and 

territories as identified on the DHS 

website (Enhanced licenses issued by 

these States and territories are clearly 

marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

Government-issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website at www.energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/public-meetings-andcomment-deadlines. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this document. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and are to be emailed. 

Please include a telephone number to 

enable DOE staff to make follow-up 

contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. There shall not be 

discussion of proprietary information, 

costs or prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the public meeting 

and until the end of the comment 

period, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings 

and any aspect of the rulemaking. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed rulemaking. Each participant 

will be allowed to make a general 

statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70302 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to require that the proposed 

standards, if adopted, would apply to all 

CRE listed in table I.1 manufactured in, 

or imported into, the United States on 

or after the date that is 3 years after the 

date on which the final new and 

amended standards are published. More 

generally, DOE requests comment on 

whether it would be beneficial to CRE 

manufacturers to align the compliance 

date of any DOE amended or established 

standards as closely as possible with the 

refrigerant prohibition dates proposed 

by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

(2) DOE requests comment on the 

impacts to CRE manufacturers and 

consumers from the Inflation Reduction 

Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). 

(3) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘cold-wall 

evaporator,’’ ‘‘forced-air evaporator,’’ 

‘‘pass-through doors,’’ ‘‘roll-in door,’’ 

‘‘roll-through doors,’’ ‘‘sliding door,’’ 

and ‘‘rating temperature.’’ 

(4) DOE requests comment on blast 

chiller or freezer design options, design 

specifications, and energy consumption 

data tested per the DOE test procedure 

located in appendix D of 10 CFR 431.64. 

(5) DOE requests comment on 

refrigerated buffet/preparation table 

design options, design specifications, 

and energy consumption data tested per 

the DOE test procedure located in 

appendix C of 10 CFR 431.64. 

(6) DOE requests comment on 

publicly available market data on CRE 

manufacturers or identification of any 

CRE manufacturers with large market 

shares not identified in Chapter 3 of the 

TSD NOPR. 

(7) DOE requests comment on the 

decision to screen out increased 

insulation thickness, vacuum-insulated 

panels, linear compressors, and air 

curtain design as design options for 

improving the energy efficiency of CRE. 

(8) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to use baseline levels for CRE 

equipment based upon the anticipated 

design changes that will be made by 

manufacturers in response to the 

December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

(9) DOE further requests comment on 

its estimates of energy-use reduction 

associated with the design changes 

made by manufacturers in response to 

the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 

(10) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to apply an energy use 

multiplier to certain equipment classes 

that contain CRE with unique utility 

and energy use characteristics. DOE 

additionally requests comment on the 

proposed multiplier values and 

equipment classes for which these 

multipliers would be applied. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70303 

(11) DOE seeks comment on the 

method for estimating manufacturing 

production costs. 

(12) DOE requests comment on the 

CRE distribution channels and overall 

on the markups analysis. 

(13) DOE requests comment on its 

approach for the energy use analysis. 

(14) DOE requests comment on its 

price learning assumptions and 

methodology. 

(15) DOE requests comment and data 

to inform how any of the analyzed 

design options would require additional 

installation time, training, or other 

related skills compared to the baseline 

equipment. 

(16) DOE requests comment and data 

on its assumptions and approach 

regarding consideration of repair and 

maintenance costs in the LCC and PBP 

analyses. Specifically, DOE requests 

data on the expected lifetimes and 

repair and maintenance frequencies of 

the considered design options in this 

NOPR. 

(17) DOE requests comment and data 

regarding the CRE lifetime assumptions 

and methodology. 

(18) DOE requests comment and data 

on the assumed business types and the 

corresponding CRE lifetimes at which 

refurbishment may occur. 

(19) DOE requests comment on its 

methodology and data to better inform 

the no-standards-case efficiency 

distribution for CRE. 

(20) DOE requests comment on the 

price elasticity assumptions for the CRE 

shipments analysis as they relates to the 

overall CRE market and the market for 

refurbished CRE. 

(21) DOE requests comment on its 

assumption of no efficiency trend for 

CRE and seeks historical CRE efficiency 

data, ideally by equipment class or 

alternatively by equipment family, or 

overall for the CRE market as a whole. 

(22) DOE seeks comment on the use 

of a 1.40 manufacturer markup for all 

CRE equipment classes analyzed in this 

proposed rule. DOE also seeks comment 

on the estimated manufacturer markups 

and incremental MSPs that result from 

the analyzed energy conservation 

standards. 

(23) DOE requests detailed comment 

and information on the capital 

investments associated with each 

analyzed design option. In particular, 

DOE requests detailed comment and 

feedback on the specific changes in 

equipment and tooling required to 

incorporate microchannel heat 

exchangers, as DOE currently models 

microchannel heat exchangers as a 

purchased part that can be substituted 

for tube and fin heat exchangers with 

minor production line changes. 

(24) DOE requests comment on the 

availability of computer chips and other 

electrical components used in CREs and 

specifically if these components are 

used to achieve higher efficiency levels. 

(25) DOE seeks comments, 

information, and data on the capital 

conversion costs and product 

conversion costs estimated for each 

TSL. 

(26) DOE seeks comment on whether 

manufacturers expect that 

manufacturing capacity constraints, 

engineering resource constraints, or 

laboratory constraints would limit 

equipment availability to consumers in 

the timeframe of the new and amended 

standards compliance date (2028). 

(27) DOE requests information 

regarding the impact of cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers of 

CRE associated with multiple DOE 

standards or equipment/productspecific regulatory actions of other 

Federal agencies. 

(28) DOE requests comments on the 

magnitude of costs associated with 

transitioning CRE designs and 

production facilities to accommodate 

low-GWP refrigerants that would be 

incurred between the publication of this 

NOPR and the proposed compliance 

date of new and amended standards. 

Quantification and categorization of 

these costs, such as engineering efforts, 

testing lab time, certification costs, and 

capital investments (e.g., new charging 

equipment), would enable DOE to refine 

its analysis. 

(29) DOE seeks comments, 

information, and data on the number of 

small businesses in the industry, the 

names of those small businesses, and 

their market shares by equipment class. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

standards on small manufacturers. 

(30) Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 28, 

2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

29, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of chapter II of title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, 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; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 431.62 by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Cold-wall evaporator’’, 

‘‘Forced-air evaporator’’, and ‘‘Passthrough doors’’; 

■ b. Revising the definition of ‘‘Rating 

temperature’’; and 

■ c. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Roll-in door’’, ‘‘Rollthrough doors’’, and ‘‘Sliding door’’. 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

Cold-wall evaporator means an 

evaporator that comprises a portion or 

all of the commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet’s 

interior surface that transfers heat 

through means other than fan-forced 

convection. 

* * * * * 

Forced-air evaporator means an 

evaporator that employs the use of fanVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:45 Oct 06, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70304 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

forced convection to transfer heat 

within the commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet. 

* * * * * 

Pass-through doors means doors 

located on both the front and rear of the 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator freezer. 

* * * * * 

Rating temperature means the 

integrated average temperature a unit 

must maintain during testing, as 

determined in accordance with section 

2.1. or section 2.2. of appendix B to 

subpart C of this part, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

Roll-in door means a door that 

includes a door sweep to seal the 

bottom of the door and may include a 

ramp that allows wheeled racks of 

product to be rolled into the commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator 

freezer. 

Roll-through doors means doors 

located on both the front and rear of the 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator freezer, that includes a door 

sweep to seal the bottom of the door and 

may include a ramp that allows wheeled 

racks of product to be rolled into and 

through the commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator freezer. 

* * * * * 

Sliding door means a door that opens 

when a portion of the door moves in a 

direction generally parallel to its 

surface. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 431.66 to read as follows: 

§ 431.66 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

(a) In this section— 

(1) The term ‘‘V’’ means the volume 

of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer, as determined in 

accordance with section 3.1. of 

appendix B to subpart C of this part. 

(2) The term ‘‘TDA’’ means the total 

display area of a commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigeratorfreezer, as determined in accordance 

with section 3.2. of appendix B to 

subpart C of this part. 

(b) Each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator-freezer, except 

as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, manufactured on or after March 

27, 2017 and before [Date 3 Years after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], shall have a daily 

energy consumption (in kilowatt-hours 

per day or ‘‘kWh/day’’), when measured 

in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure at § 431.64, that does not 

exceed the following: 

(1) For commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers other 

than commercial hybrids, commercial 

refrigerator-freezers, or wedge cases: 

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family 

Rating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

class 

designation * 

Maximum 

daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

Remote Condensing (RC) ........... Vertical Open (VOP) .................... 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

VOP.RC.M ..

VOP.RC.L ...

VOP.RC.I ....

0.64 × TDA + 4.07. 

2.2 × TDA + 6.85. 

2.79 × TDA + 8.7. 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ............ 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

SVO.RC.M ..

SVO.RC.L ...

SVO.RC.I ....

0.66 × TDA + 3.18. 

2.2 × TDA + 6.85. 

2.79 × TDA + 8.7. 

Horizontal Open (HZO) ................ 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

HZO.RC.M ..

HZO.RC.L ...

HZO.RC.I ....

0.35 × TDA + 2.88. 

0.55 × TDA + 6.88. 

0.7 × TDA + 8.74. 

Vertical Closed Transparent 

(VCT).

38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

VCT.RC.M ...

VCT.RC.L ....

VCT.RC.I .....

0.15 × TDA + 1.95. 

0.49 × TDA + 2.61. 

0.58 × TDA + 3.05. 

Horizontal Closed Transparent 

(HCT).

38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

HCT.RC.M ...

HCT.RC.L ....

HCT.RC.I .....

0.16 × TDA + 0.13. 

0.34 × TDA + 0.26. 

0.4 × TDA + 0.31. 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ........ 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

VCS.RC.M ...

VCS.RC.L ....

VCS.RC.I .....

0.1 × V + 0.26. 

0.21 × V + 0.54. 

0.25 × V + 0.63. 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) .... 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

HCS.RC.M ..

HCS.RC.L ...

HCS.RC.I ....

0.1 × V + 0.26. 

0.21 × V + 0.54. 

0.25 × V + 0.63. 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ....... 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

SOC.RC.M ..

SOC.RC.L ...

SOC.RC.I ....

0.44 × TDA + 0.11. 

0.93 × TDA + 0.22. 

1.09 × TDA + 0.26. 

Self-Contained (SC) ..................... Vertical Open (VOP) .................... 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

VOP.SC.M ...

VOP.SC.L ....

VOP.SC.I .....

1.69 × TDA + 4.71. 

4.25 × TDA + 11.82. 

5.4 × TDA + 15.02. 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ............ 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

SVO.SC.M ...

SVO.SC.L ....

SVO.SC.I .....

1.7 × TDA + 4.59. 

4.26 × TDA + 11.51. 

5.41 × TDA + 14.63. 

Horizontal Open (HZO) ................ 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

HZO.SC.M ...

HZO.SC.L ....

HZO.SC.I .....

0.72 × TDA + 5.55. 

1.9 × TDA + 7.08. 

2.42 × TDA + 9. 

Vertical Closed Transparent 

(VCT).

38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

VCT.SC.M ...

VCT.SC.L ....

VCT.SC.I .....

0.1 × V + 0.86. 

0.29 × V + 2.95. 

0.62 × TDA + 3.29. 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ........ 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

VCS.SC.M ...

VCS.SC.L ....

VCS.SC.I .....

0.05 × V + 1.36. 

0.22 × V + 1.38. 

0.34 × V + 0.88. 

Horizontal Closed Transparent 

(HCT).

38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

HCT.SC.M ...

HCT.SC.L ....

HCT.SC.I .....

0.06 × V + 0.37. 

0.08 × V + 1.23. 

0.56 × TDA + 0.43. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70305 

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family 

Rating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

class 

designation * 

Maximum 

daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) .... 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

HCS.SC.M ...

HCS.SC.L ....

HCS.SC.I .....

0.05 × V + 0.91. 

0.06 × V + 1.12. 

0.34 × V + 0.88. 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ....... 38.0 (M) 

0.0 (L) 

¥15.0 (I) 

≥32.0 

<32.0 

≤¥5.0 

SOC.SC.M ..

SOC.SC.L ...

SOC.SC.I ....

0.52 × TDA + 1. 

1.1 × TDA + 2.1. 

1.53 × TDA + 0.36. 

Pull-Down (PD) ............................ 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 PD.SC.M ..... 0.11 × V + 0.81. 

* The meaning of the letters in this column is indicated in the columns to the left. 

(2) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial 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 (b)(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 

model: 

(i) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers where 

two or more independent remote 

condensing units are each connected to 

separate, individual compartments, 

measure the total refrigeration load of 

each compartment separately according 

to appendix B to subpart C of this part. 

The CDEC for the model shall be the 

sum of the compressor energy 

consumption (CEC) for each 

compartment, fan energy consumption 

(FEC), lighting energy consumption 

(LEC), anti-condensate energy 

consumption (AEC), defrost energy 

consumption (DEC), condensate 

evaporator pan energy consumption 

(PEC), and other applicable energy 

consumption (OEC). 

(ii) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers where 

two or more compartments are 

connected to one remote condensing 

unit, measure the total refrigeration load 

of the model according to appendix B to 

subpart C of this part. 

(A) Calculate a weighted adjusted dew 

point temperature for the model by: 

(1) Multiplying the adjusted dew 

point temperature of each compartment 

by the volume of that compartment, 

(2) Summing the resulting values for 

all compartments; and 

(3) Dividing the resulting total by the 

total volume of all compartments. 

(B) Calculate the CEC for the model 

using the total refrigeration load and the 

weighted average adjusted dew point 

temperature. The CDEC for the model 

shall be the sum of the CEC, FEC, LEC, 

AEC, DEC, PEC, and OEC. 

(iii) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers 

connected to a self-contained 

condensing unit, measure the TDEC for 

the model according to appendix B to 

subpart C of this part. 

(3) For wedge cases, measure the 

CDEC or TDEC according to appendix B 

to subpart C of this part. For wedge 

cases in equipment classes for which a 

volume metric is used, the MDEC shall 

be the amount derived from the 

appropriate standards equation in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. For 

wedge cases of equipment classes for 

which a TDA metric is used, the MDEC 

shall be the amount derived from the 

appropriate standards equation in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

incorporating a value for the TDA that 

is the product of: 

(i) The vertical height of the aircurtain (or glass in a transparent door) 

and 

(ii) The largest overall width of the 

case, when viewed from the front. 

(c) Each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator-freezer, except 

as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, manufactured on or after [Date 

3 years after publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register], shall have a 

daily energy consumption (in kilowatthours per day or ‘‘kWh/day’’), when 

measured in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure at § 431.64, that does not 

exceed the following: 

(1) For commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers other 

than commercial hybrids, commercial 

refrigerator-freezers, or wedge cases: 

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family 

Rating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

class 

designation* 

Maximum 

daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

Remote Condensing (RC) .. Vertical Open (VOP) ........................................................ 55.0 (H) >40.0 VOP.RC.H 0.31 × TDA + 1.99 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 VOP.RC.M 0.56 × TDA + 3.57 

0.0 (L) <32.0 VOP.RC.L 2.04 × TDA + 6.36 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 VOP.RC.I 2.59 × TDA + 8.08 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ................................................ 55.0 (H) >40.0 SVO.RC.H 0.32 × TDA + 1.55 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 SVO.RC.M 0.58 × TDA + 2.79 

0.0 (L) <32.0 SVO.RC.L 2.04 × TDA + 6.36 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 SVO.RC.I 2.59 × TDA + 8.08 

Horizontal Open (HZO) .................................................... 55.0 (H) >40.0 HZO.RC.H 0.19 × TDA + 1.56 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 HZO.RC.M 0.34 × TDA + 2.81 

0.0 (L) <32.0 HZO.RC.L 0.54 × TDA + 6.81 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 HZO.RC.I 0.69 × TDA + 8.64 

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) ................................. 55.0 (H) >40.0 VCT.RC.H 0.07 × TDA + 0.97 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 VCT.RC.M 0.134 × TDA + 1.74 

VCT.RC.M.PT 0.139 × TDA + 1.81 

VCT.RC.M.SD 0.143 × TDA + 1.86 

VCT.RC.M.SDPT 0.149 × TDA + 1.93 

VCT.RC.M.RI 0.140 × TDA + 1.83 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
70306 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Condensing unit 

configuration Equipment family 

Rating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Operating 

temperature 

(°F) 

Equipment 

class 

designation* 

Maximum 

daily energy 

consumption 

(kWh/day) 

VCT.RC.M.RT 0.146 × TDA + 1.9 

0.0 (L) <32.0 VCT.RC.L 0.47 × TDA + 2.51 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 VCT.RC.I 0.56 × TDA + 2.97 

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) ............................. 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 HCT.RC.M 0.16 × TDA + 0.13 

0.0 (L) <32.0 HCT.RC.L 0.34 × TDA + 0.26 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 HCT.RC.I 0.38 × TDA + 0.29 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ............................................ 55.0 (H) >40.0 VCS.RC.H 0.06 × V + 0.14 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 VCS.RC.M 0.1 × V + 0.26 

0.0 (L) <32.0 VCS.RC.L 0.21 × V + 0.54 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 VCS.RC.I 0.25 × V + 0.63 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) ........................................ 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 HCS.RC.M 0.1 × V + 0.26 

0.0 (L) <32.0 HCS.RC.L 0.21 × V + 0.54 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 HCS.RC.I 0.25 × V + 0.63 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ........................................... 55.0 (H) >40.0 SOC.RC.H 0.22 × TDA + 0.05 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 SOC.RC.M 0.39 × TDA + 0.1 

0.0 (L) <32.0 SOC.RC.L 0.83 × TDA + 0.2 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 SOC.RC.I 1.04 × TDA + 0.25 

Chef Base (CB) ............................................................... 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 CB.RC.M 0.03 × V + 0.39 

0.0 (L) <32.0 CB.RC.L 0.13 × V + 1.37 

Self-Contained (SC) ............ Vertical Open (VOP) ........................................................ 55.0 (H) >40.0 VOP.SC.H 0.69 × TDA + 1.94 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 VOP.SC.M 1.25 × TDA + 3.48 

0.0 (L) <32.0 VOP.SC.L 3.29 × TDA + 9.15 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 VOP.SC.I 4.18 × TDA + 11.63 

Semivertical Open (SVO) ................................................ 55.0 (H) >40.0 SVO.SC.H 0.65 × TDA + 1.77 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 SVO.SC.M 1.18 × TDA + 3.18 

0.0 (L) <32.0 SVO.SC.L 3.25 × TDA + 8.78 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 SVO.SC.I 4.13 × TDA + 11.16 

Horizontal Open (HZO) .................................................... 55.0 (H) >40.0 HZO.SC.H 0.27 × TDA + 2.06 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 HZO.SC.M 0.48 × TDA + 3.71 

0.0 (L) <32.0 HZO.SC.L 1.48 × TDA + 5.5 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 HZO.SC.I 1.97 × TDA + 7.34 

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) ................................. 55.0 (H) >40.0 VCT.SC.H 0.053 × V + 0.85 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 VCT.SC.M 0.054 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.M.PT 0.056 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.M.SD 0.058 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.M.SDPT 0.060 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.M.RI 0.057 × V + 0.86 

VCT.SC.M.RT 0.059 × V + 0.86 

0.0 (L) <32.0 VCT.SC.L 0.234 × V + 2.38 

VCT.SC.L.PT 0.243 × V + 2.47 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 VCT.SC.I 0.6 × TDA + 3.2 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ............................................ 55.0 (H) >40.0 VCS.SC.H 0.0082 × V + 0.21 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 VCS.SC.M 0.02 × V + 0.54 

VCS.SC.M.PT 0.02 × V + 0.56 

VCS.SC.M.RI 0.02 × V + 0.57 

VCS.SC.M.RT 0.02 × V + 0.59 

0.0 (L) <32.0 VCS.SC.L 0.155 × V + 0.97 

VCS.SC.L.PT 0.161 × V + 1.01 

VCS.SC.L.RI 0.162 × V + 1.02 

VCS.SC.L.RT 0.169 × V + 1.06 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 VCS.SC.I 0.25 × V + 0.88 

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) ............................. 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 HCT.SC.M 0.06 × V + 0.37 

0.0 (L) <32.0 HCT.SC.L 0.08 × V + 1.23 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 HCT.SC.I 0.34 × TDA + 0.43 

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) ........................................ 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 HCS.SC.M 0.022 × V + 0.41 

0.0 (L) <32.0 HCS.SC.L 0.043 × V + 0.81 

HCS.SC.L.FA 0.052 × V + 0.97 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 HCS.SC.I 0.31 × V + 0.81 

Service Over Counter (SOC) ........................................... 55.0 (H) >40.0 SOC.SC.H 0.17 × TDA + 0.33 

38.0 (M) 40.0≥ × ≥32.0 SOC.SC.M 0.304 × TDA + 0.59 

0.0 (L) <32.0 SOC.SC.L 1.1 × TDA + 2.1 

¥15.0 (I) ≤¥13.0 SOC.SC.I 1.53 × TDA + 0.36 

Chef Base (CB) ............................................................... 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 CB.SC.M 0.049 × V + 0.54 

0.0 (L) <32.0 CB.SC.L 0.180 × V + 1.92 

Pull-Down (PD) ................................................................ 38.0 (M) ≥32.0 PD.SC.M 0.11 × V + 0.81 

* The meaning of the letters in this column are indicated in the columns to the left or as follows: ‘‘.PT’’ represents pass-through doors; ‘‘.SD’’ represents sliding 

doors; ‘‘.SDPT’’ represents sliding and pass-through doors; ‘‘.RI’’ represents roll-in doors; ‘‘.RT’’ represents roll-through doors; and ‘‘.FA’’ represents forced air 

evaporators. 

(2) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial 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 in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section for that 

compartment’s equipment class. 

Measure the CDEC or TDEC for the 

model: 

(i) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers where 

two or more independent remote 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 70307 

condensing units are each connected to 

separate, individual compartments, 

measure the total refrigeration load of 

each compartment separately according 

to appendix B to subpart C of this part. 

The CDEC for the model shall be the 

sum of the CEC for each compartment, 

FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, PEC, and OEC. 

(ii) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers where 

two or more compartments are 

connected to one remote condensing 

unit, measure the total refrigeration load 

of the model according to appendix B to 

subpart C of this part. 

(A) Calculate a weighted adjusted dew 

point temperature for the model by: 

(1) Multiplying the adjusted dew 

point temperature of each compartment 

by the volume of that compartment, 

(2) Summing the resulting values for 

all compartments, and 

(3) Dividing the resulting total by the 

total volume of all compartments. 

(B) Calculate the CEC for the model 

using the total refrigeration load and the 

weighted average adjusted dew point 

temperature. The CDEC for the model 

shall be the sum of the CEC, FEC, LEC, 

AEC, DEC, PEC, and OEC. 

(iii) For commercial hybrids and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers 

connected to a self-contained 

condensing unit, measure the TDEC for 

the model according to appendix B to 

subpart C of this part. 

(3) For wedge cases, measure the 

CDEC or TDEC according to appendix B 

to subpart C of this part. For wedge 

cases in equipment classes for which a 

volume metric is used, the MDEC shall 

be the amount derived from the 

appropriate standards equation in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. For 

wedge cases of equipment classes for 

which a TDA metric is used, the MDEC 

shall be the amount derived from the 

appropriate standards equation in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section 

incorporating a value for the TDA that 

is the product of: 

(i) The vertical height of the aircurtain (or glass in a transparent door) 

and 

(ii) The largest overall width of the 

case, when viewed from the front. 

(d) The energy conservation standards 

in paragraph (b) of this section do not 

apply to chef bases or griddle stands. 

The energy conservation standards in 

paragraphs (b) through (c) of this section 

do not apply to buffet tables or 

preparation tables, blast chillers, blast 

freezers, or mobile refrigerated cabinets. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21987 Filed 10–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2