Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

United States Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

April 30, 2010 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program .............................. 1

1.2 Definitions................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Rulemaking History.................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Standards Prescribed by Statute .................................................................. 3

1.3.2 Standards Established by Rulemaking ........................................................ 3

1.4 Current Energy Conservation Standards.................................................................... 6

1.5 Standby Mode and Off Mode Standards.................................................................... 7

1.6 Overview of the Rulemaking Process........................................................................ 8

1.6.1 Rulemaking Process and Participation of Interested Parties ........................ 8

1.6.2 Test Procedures.......................................................................................... 9

1.7 Preliminary Analysis................................................................................................. 9

1.8 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking................................................................................ 11

1.9 Final Rule ................................................................................................................. 12

1.10 Overview of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment................................................... 12

1.10.1 Ice-Cream Freezers..................................................................................... 12

1.10.2 Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers ................................................................................................................... 13

1.10.3 Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and 

Refrigerator-Freezers................................................................................................ 13

1.10.4 Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators with Transparent Doors 

Designed for Pull-Down Temperature Applications.................................................. 13

1.11 Other Equipment Classification Issues...................................................................... 14

1.11.1 Niche Equipment........................................................................................ 14

1.11.2 Secondary Coolant Applications................................................................. 14

2.0 ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKING ..................................................................................... 15

3.0 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 16

3.1 Market Assessment ................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Equipment Classes.................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Technology Assessment............................................................................................ 20

3.4 Baseline Units........................................................................................................... 22

4.0 SCREENING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 22

5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 23

5.1 Engineering Analysis Overview................................................................................ 23

5.2 Proposed Approach for Determining the Cost-Efficiency Relationship...................... 24

5.3 Manufacturer Prices.................................................................................................. 25

5.4 Proprietary Designs................................................................................................... 25

5.5 Representative Sizes ................................................................................................. 26

5.6 Normalization Metrics .............................................................................................. 27

5.7 Offset Factors........................................................................................................... 27

5.8 Extension of Standards.............................................................................................. 28

5.9 Outside Regulatory Changes Affecting the Engineering Analysis ............................. 29

6.0 ENERGY USE AND END-USE LOAD CHARACTERIZATION....................................... 30

7.0 MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PRICE DETERMINATION.............................................. 31

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
8.0 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS............................................. 33

8.1 Energy Prices............................................................................................................ 35

8.2 Life-Cycle Cost Discount Rates................................................................................ 35

8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs.............................................................. 36

8.4 Equipment Lifetimes................................................................................................. 37

9.0 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 37

9.1 Base Case Forecast ................................................................................................... 37

9.2 Accounting Methodology.......................................................................................... 38

9.3 Standards Impacts on Shipments............................................................................... 39

10.0 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 39

10.1 Inputs to Forecast...................................................................................................... 39

10.2 Calculation of Energy Savings .................................................................................. 41

10.3 Net Present Value of Consumer Savings................................................................... 41

11.0 LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS................................................................... 42

12.0 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 42

12.1 Sources of Information.............................................................................................. 43

12.2 Industry Cash Flow Analysis .................................................................................... 43

12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis.............................................................................. 44

12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment.............................................................................. 44

12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden................................................................................. 45

13.0 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 45

14.0 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................... 45

15.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.................................................................................. 46

15.1 Sulfur Dioxide .......................................................................................................... 47

15.2 Nitrogen Oxides........................................................................................................ 47

15.3 Mercury.................................................................................................................... 48

16.0 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ........................................................... 49

17.0 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 50

APPENDIX A – LIST OF ITEMS FOR COMMENT ................................................................... 51

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards 

Rulemaking Process.................................................................................................................. 16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards Prescribed by EPCA – Effective 

January 1, 2010...........................................................................................................................6

Table 1.2. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards Established in the 2009 Final Rule – 

Effective January 1, 2012............................................................................................................7

Table 3.1. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Classes Established in the 2009 Final Rule .... 19

Table 3.2. Proposed Classes for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment for which Standards were 

Prescribed by EPCA.................................................................................................................. 20

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Table 5.1. Representative Equipment Sizes Used in 2009 Final Rule Engineering Analysis....... 26

Table 7.1. Percentage Distribution of Remote-Condensing and Self-Contained Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment Sales by Market Channel ................................................................... 32

Table 8.1. Inputs to the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses Input............................. 35

Table 10.1. Inputs to the National Impact Analysis.................................................................... 40

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

AHAM Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AHRI Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute

ANOPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ARI Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (now AHRI)

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers

BT Building Technologies Program

°C degrees Celsius

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule

CEC California Energy Commission

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

CSL candidate standard level

DC (Washington) District of Columbia

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

ECM electronically commutated motors

EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EGU electric generating unit

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

E.O. Executive Order

EPACT 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FR Federal Register

GHG greenhouse gas

GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

Hg mercury

HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

IQ intelligence quotient

ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

kWH kilowatt-hour

LCC life-cycle cost

LED light-emitting diode

MIA manufacturer impact analysis

MPC manufacturer production cost

NCI Navigant Consulting, Inc.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
NEMS National Energy Modeling System

NES national energy savings

NIA national impact analysis

NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPV net present value

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PBP payback period

PM particulate matter

Pub. L. Public Law

R&D research and development

RIA regulatory impact analysis

SCC social cost of carbon

SG&A selling, general, and administrative costs

SO2 sulfur dioxide

TDA total display area

TSD technical support document

TSL trial standard level

U.S. United States

U.S.C. U.S. Code

WACC weighted-average cost of capital

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Appliances and Commercial 

Equipment Standards Program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s 

(EERE) Building Technologies Program (BT) develops and promulgates test procedures and 

energy conservation standards for certain consumer appliances and commercial equipment. The 

process for developing standards involves analysis, public notice and comment, and consultation 

with interested parties. “Interested parties” include manufacturers, consumers, energy 

conservation and environmental advocates, State and Federal agencies, and any other groups or 

individuals with an interest in these standards and test procedures. 

The purpose of this document is to describe the procedural and analytical approaches 

DOE anticipates using to determine whether to amend the energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment and, if so, to evaluate potential amended standards (see 

section 1.1 for a discussion of the statutory authority for this rulemaking). This document is 

intended to inform interested parties of the process DOE will follow for this rulemaking for 

commercial refrigeration equipment and to encourage and facilitate the input of interested 

parties. This document is the starting point for determining whether to amend standards, and if 

so, developing such standards and is not a definitive statement on any issue to be determined in 

the rulemaking.

Section 1.0 of this report provides an overview of DOE’s rulemaking process. Section 2.0

through section 17.0 discuss analyses DOE intends to conduct to fulfill the statutory 

requirements and guidance for this energy conservation standards rulemaking for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE is required, as part of this rulemaking, to determine whether to 

amend existing energy conservations standards for this equipment. DOE believes that the 

conduct of these analyses will support its determination whether to amend the standards, as well 

as, if the determination is positive, to establish any amended standards. DOE will maintain 

information about this rulemaking on its website at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrigeration_equipmen

t.html

While DOE invites comment on all aspects of the material presented in this document, 

several specific issues on which DOE seeks comment are set out in comment boxes like this 

one. DOE uses these comment boxes to highlight issues and ask specific questions on the 

approaches DOE plans to follow to conduct the analyses required for the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. Such requests for feedback are numbered sequentially 

throughout the document and are repeated in appendix A.

1.1 The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, Pub. L. 94-163 (42 

U. S. Code (U.S.C.) 6291 et seq.), established an energy conservation program for major 

household appliances. More specifically, Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) establishes 

the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Part A-1 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) establishes a similar program for “Certain Industrial 

Equipment,” which includes commercial refrigeration equipment, which is the focus of this 

document. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. L. 109-58, included amendments to 

EPCA that updated several existing standards and test procedures; prescribed definitions, 

standards, and test procedures for certain new consumer products and commercial equipment; 

and mandated that DOE commence rulemakings to develop test procedures and standards for 

certain new consumer products and commercial equipment. With respect to the standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, also states that:

 (A) Not later than January 1, 2013, the Secretary shall issue a final rule to determine 

whether the standards established under this subsection should be amended.

(B) Not later than 3 years after the effective date of any amended standards under 

subparagraph (A) or the publication of a final rule determining that the standards should 

not be amended, the Secretary shall issue a final rule to determine whether the standards 

established under this subsection or the amended standards, as applicable, should be 

amended. 

(C) If the Secretary issues a final rule under subparagraph (A) or (B) establishing 

amended standards, the final rule shall provide that the amended standards apply to 

products manufactured on or after the date that is – 

(i) 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published; or

(ii) 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)(5).

 

1.2 Definitions 

Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005 amended section 340 of EPCA by inserting definitions 

for the following terms that describe commercial refrigeration equipment:

(9)(A) The term ‘commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer’ means 

refrigeration equipment that— 

(i) is not a consumer product (as defined in section 321); 

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

research purposes;

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

temperature;

 (iv) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials 

horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically;

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

hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors;

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

temperature applications; and

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
 (vii) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote 

condensing unit.

(B) The term ‘holding temperature application’ means a use of commercial 

refrigeration equipment other than a pull-down temperature application, except a 

blast chiller or freezer.

* * * 

(D) The term ‘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.

(E) The term ‘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 one or 

more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory supplied accessories.

(F) The term ‘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 one or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers, condenser fans and motors, and 

factory supplied accessories.”

42 USC 6311(9).

1.3 Rulemaking History

Two subsets of commercial refrigeration equipment standards currently exist: standards 

prescribed by EPACT 2005 for certain equipment, and standards established by DOE for other 

equipment. 

1.3.1 Standards Prescribed by Statute

Section 136(c) of EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to prescribe energy consumption 

standards for self-contained equipment consisting of refrigerators with solid doors, refrigerators 

with transparent doors, freezers with solid doors, freezers with transparent doors,

refrigerator/freezers with solid doors, and refrigerators with transparent doors designed for pulldown temperature applications.(42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(1–3)) These standards became effective on

January 1, 2010. See Table 1.1 in section 1.4. 

1.3.2 Standards Established by Rulemaking 

Section 136(c) of EPACT 2005 also amended EPCA to mandate that DOE set standards 

for the following additional categories of equipment: ice-cream freezers; self-contained 

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

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

6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE undertook a rulemaking process beginning in April 2006, when it published 

a Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Including Ice-Cream 

Freezers; Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
without doors; and Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers. That framework described the procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipated 

using to evaluate the establishment of energy conservation standards for these types of

commercial refrigeration equipment. This document is available at: 

DOE held a public meeting on May 16, 2006, to discuss procedural and analytical 

approaches to the rulemaking, and to inform and facilitate the involvement of interested parties

in the rulemaking process. The analytical framework presented at the public meeting described 

different analyses, such as the engineering analysis and the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

period (PBP) analyses, the methods proposed for conducting them, and the relationships among 

the various analyses. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/comml_refrig_fra

mework.pdf

After the analytical framework public meeting, as part of the information gathering and 

sharing process for the preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), DOE organized and 

held interviews with commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers. DOE selected 

companies that represented production of all types of equipment covered by the rulemaking, 

ranging from small to large manufacturers, and included both Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 1

DOE developed a preliminary engineering analysis to estimate the cost of manufacturing

equipment at efficiencies above the baseline levels. DOE also developed spreadsheets to conduct 

the LCC, PBP, and national impact analysis (NIA). The LCC spreadsheet calculates national 

distributions of life cycle cost savings at various energy efficiency levels above the baseline. It 

can also provide LCC savings based on typical input values for several business types that use 

commercial refrigeration equipment. The NIA spreadsheet calculates the national energy savings 

(NES) and national net present values (NPVs) at various energy efficiency levels. It also includes 

a model that forecasts shipments for the various equipment classes of commercial refrigeration 

equipment at different efficiency levels.

member companies and non-ARI member companies. DOE had 

four objectives for these interviews: (1) solicit feedback on the draft engineering analysis 

(including methodology, production costs, manufacturing processes, and findings); (2) solicit 

feedback on topics related to the preliminary MIA; (3) provide an opportunity, early in the 

rulemaking process, for these manufacturers to express specific concerns to DOE; and (4) foster 

cooperation between the manufacturers and DOE. 

In July 2007, DOE published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Including Ice-Cream Freezers; Self-Contained 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers without doors; and Remote 

Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers. In that ANOPR, 

DOE considered establishing energy conservation standards for these types of commercial 

refrigeration equipment and announced a public meeting to receive comments on a variety of 

issues. This document is available at 

 

1 On January 1, 2008, the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) merged to become the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), to 

represent the interests of cooling, heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/comml_refrig_ano

pr_072607.pdf. 

DOE held a public meeting on August 23, 2007, to provide interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on the proposed equipment classes DOE was considering; the analytical 

framework, models, and tools (e.g., LCC and NES spreadsheets) that DOE had developed to 

perform analyses of the impacts of potential energy conservation standards; the results of the 

preliminary analyses; and the candidate energy conservation standard levels. 

After the publication of the ANOPR (July 26, 2007, 72 Federal Register (FR) 41162-

41210) and the presentation of the ANOPR to interested parties at the public meeting, DOE 

conducted additional interviews with commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers as part 

of its development of the MIA for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). There were 13 

general topics discussed during each of the interviews: (1) general key issues; (2) company 

overview and organizational characteristics; (3) company financial parameters; (4) production 

cost breakdown; (5) shipment projections and market shares; (6) equipment mixes; (7) 

conversion costs; (8) markups and profitability; (9) cumulative regulatory burden; (10) exports, 

foreign competition, and outsourcing; (11) direct employment impact assessment; (12) market 

consolidation; and (13) baseline products and different design options. 

Based on findings from the preliminary engineering, analyses (LCC, NES, and NIA), and 

public comments provided in response to the ANOPR, DOE made certain updates to these 

analyses. In updating these analyses, DOE reviewed the recommendations made on April 21, 

1998, by the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards. (Advisory 

Committee, No. 96)2

On August 25, 2008, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment Including Ice-Cream Freezers; Self-Contained Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers without doors; and Remote Condensing 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers, to propose energy conservation 

standards for these types of commercial refrigeration equipment, and to announce a public 

meeting to receive comments on a variety of issues. 73 FR 50072–50137. This document is 

available at

DOE’s analysis implemented recommendations related to (1) defining a 

range of energy price futures for each fuel used in the economic analyses; and (2) defining a 

range of primary energy conversion factors and associated emission reductions based on the 

generation of energy and emissions that would be displaced by energy efficiency standards for 

each rulemaking. In addition, DOE performed additional analyses assessing impacts on national 

employment, consumer subgroups, utilities, and the environment. DOE also developed analysis 

of alternatives to efficiency standard regulations.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_nopr_fr_final.

pdf. 

 

2 Advisory Committee, No. 96 refers to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy 

Efficiency Standards and is available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20024 (Resource Room) in the file under “Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products,” RIN [1904–AA83], as document number 96.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
DOE held a public meeting on September 23, 2008 to provide interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on the proposed standards, results of the analyses and the trial standard 

levels (TSLs). 

After the publication of the NOPR and the presentation of the NOPR to interested parties 

at the public meeting, DOE received more than 100 comments from a diverse set of parties, 

including manufacturers and their representatives, trade associations, wholesalers and 

distributors, energy conservation advocates, and electric utilities. Comments addressed DOE 

methodology, the information DOE used in its analyses, results of and inferences drawn from the 

analyses, impacts of standards, the merits of the different TSLs, standards options DOE 

considered and other issues affecting adoption of standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment.

DOE considered these comments in developing a final rule for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, published on January 9, 2009. 74 FR 1092 (herein referred to as the “2009 

rulemaking” and the “2009 final rule,” respectively). The 2009 rulemaking established standards 

for ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers without doors; and remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers, which will become effective in January 1, 2012. 

1.4 Current Energy Conservation Standards

Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 show the current standards for the two subsets of commercial 

refrigeration equipment.

Table 1.1. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards Prescribed by EPCA – 

Effective January 1, 2010

Category Maximum daily energy 

consumption (kilowatt hours per 

day)

Refrigerators with solid doors 0.10 V + 2.04

Refrigerators with transparent doors 0.12 V + 3.34

Freezers with solid doors 0.40 V + 1.38

Freezers with transparent door 0.75 V + 4.10

Refrigerators/freezers with solid doors the greater of 0.27 AV - 0.71 or 0.70

Self-contained refrigerators with transparent doors 

designed for pull-down temperature applications

0.126V + 3.51

 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Table 1.2. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards Established in the 2009 

Final Rule – Effective January 1, 2012

Equipment 

Class†

Standard Level *,**

kWh/day)

***

Equipment 

Class

Standard Level *,**

kWh/day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HZO.RC.I 0.72 × TDA + 8.74 HCS.SC.I 0.38 × V + 0.88 * TDA is the total display area of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006, Appendix D. ** V is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006, Appendix C. *** Kilowatt-hours per day.

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

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

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

HCT=horizontal transparent doors, HCS=horizontal solid doors, or SOC=service over counter); 

(2) an operating mode code (RC=remote condensing or SC=self-contained); and ( 3) a rating 

temperature code (M=medium temperature (38°Fahrenheit (°F)), L=low temperature (0 °F), or 

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

condensing, medium temperature” equipment class. See Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 for more 

information on equipment class nomenclature.

1.5 Standby Mode and Off Mode Standards

Section 310 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended 

EPCA to define the terms “active mode,” “off mode,” and “standby mode.” “Active mode” is 

defined as the condition in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source, 

has been activated, and provides one or more main functions. “Off mode” is defined as the 

condition in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source, and is not 

providing any standby or active mode function. “Standby mode” is defined as the condition in 

which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source and offers one or more of 

the following user-oriented or protective functions: facilitating the activation or deactivation of 

other functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal 

sensor, or timer; or providing continuous functions, including information or status displays 

(including clocks) or sensor-based functions. 42 USC 6295(gg)(1)(A). DOE may by rule amend 

these definitions after considering the most current versions of certain industry standards. 42 

USC 6295(gg)(1)(B). 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
DOE believes that the “off mode” and “standby mode” conditions of operation do not 

apply to the equipment covered by this rulemaking because commercial refrigeration equipment, 

whether in retail, foodservice, or other applications, operates continuously to maintain product at 

the necessary temperature for safe storage or retailing. DOE welcomes comment on standby and 

off mode energy consumption as it relates to commercial refrigeration equipment. 

1.6 Overview of the Rulemaking Process

1.6.1 Rulemaking Process and Participation of Interested Parties

Under EPCA, any new or amended standards must achieve the maximum achievement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In setting any new 

or amended standards, DOE must consider: (1) the economic impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers and consumers of the affected products; (2) the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost 

or maintenance expense; (3) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; (4) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 

products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (5) the impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard; (6) the need for national energy conservation; and (7) other factors 

the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)) As 

discussed in further detail below, the standards rulemaking process typically involves four public 

notices that are published in the Federal Register, including a notice announcing the availability 

of the framework document. Publication of the framework document, preliminary analysis, and

NOPR are typically accompanied by public meetings to solicit comment from interested parties 

to enhance the rulemaking process. DOE encourages interested parties to develop and submit 

joint recommendations and will carefully consider such recommendations in its decision making.

Preliminary analysis results could serve as the initial basis for the development of these 

recommendations. As stated previously, DOE believes that the conduct of the analyses 

accompanying these notices will support DOE’s determination whether to amend the standards, 

as well as, if the determination is positive, to establish any amended standards. 

• Preliminary Analysis (section 1.7). The preliminary analysis is designed to publicly vet 

the models and tools that DOE intends to use in the rulemaking, and to facilitate public 

participation before the proposed rule stage. Using these models and tools, DOE performs 

preliminary analyses to assess candidate standard levels (CSLs), which span the range of 

efficiencies from baseline equipment to the most efficient technology. 

• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (section 1.8). The NOPR presents a discussion of 

comments received in response to the preliminary analysis; DOE’s analysis of the 

impacts of potential standards on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation; DOE’s 

weighting of these impacts; and any proposed standard levels for public comment. 

• Final Rule (section 1.9). The final rule presents a discussion of comments received in 

response to the NOPR, revised analysis, as appropriate, of the impacts of any standards, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
DOE’s weighting of those impacts, and the standard levels, if any, that DOE is adopting. 

The final rule also establishes the date for compliance with any standards. 

1.6.2 Test Procedures

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

which it adopted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ARI Standard 1200–2006, 

“Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,” 

as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 71 FR 71340, 71369–70; Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) parts 431.63–431.64. ARI Standard 1200–2006 contains rating 

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

compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) for commercial freezers and freezer compartments, and -15 °F (±2 

°F) for commercial ice-cream freezers. The standard also requires performance tests to be 

conducted according to the ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72–2005, “Method of Testing Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers.” In the test procedure final rule, DOE also adopted a -15 °F (±2 °F) 

rating temperature for commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR 71370. In addition, DOE adopted 

ANSI/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF– 1–2004, 

“Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers,” for measuring compartment volumes for this equipment. 71 FR 71369–70. Since the 

publication of the final rule, AHRI has updated its test procedure, the most recent version of 

which is AHRI 1200-2008, which includes changes to the equipment class nomenclature used 

within the test procedure, as well as the method of normalizing equipment energy consumption. 

These changes aligned the test procedure with the nomenclature and methodology used in the 

2009 rulemaking. DOE believes that the aforementioned changes were largely editorial in nature, 

and would not affect the method of test or other technical aspects of the test procedure. 

DOE is considering modifications to its test procedure to better address certain energy

efficiency features that currently are not accounted for in the test procedure. Specific possible 

changes include provision for measuring the impact of lighting sensors and controls, night 

curtains, and anti-sweat heater controls on commercial refrigeration equipment energy 

consumption. DOE encourages input on how these technologies could best be addressed in a test 

procedure rulemaking. DOE will conduct a separate rulemaking process for any modifications to 

the test procedure. 

Item 1-1 DOE requests comment regarding the development of updated test procedures 

for the commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking. 

1.7 Preliminary Analysis

As part of its initial rulemaking activity, DOE typically identifies equipment technology 

options and makes a preliminary determination on whether to retain each option for detailed 

analysis or to eliminate it from further consideration. This process includes a market and 

technology assessment (section 3.0) and a screening analysis (section 4.0). DOE applies four 

screening criteria in the screening analysis to determine which technology options to eliminate 

from further consideration: (1) technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
and service; (3) adverse impacts on utility or availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or 

safety. Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are evaluated, and referred to as 

design options, in the engineering analysis.

DOE consults with interested parties and independent technical experts, and conducts 

research into industry literature to identify the key issues and design options or efficiency levels 

that DOE will consider in the rulemaking. DOE initiates dialogue with interested parties with 

this framework document, the public meeting following its publication, and the request for 

public comment. This dialogue also provides an opportunity for input into the structural and 

analytical approach planned for this energy conservation standards rulemaking.

At the start of the preliminary analysis, DOE considers design options or efficiency levels 

for each equipment class. DOE uses these design options or efficiency levels to collect 

manufacturer cost data, historical shipment data, shipment-weighted average efficiency data, and 

preliminary manufacturer impact data (e.g., capital conversion expenditures, marketing costs, 

and research and development costs). Concurrent with the preliminary analysis, DOE also 

conducts other principal analyses, including: (1) the engineering analysis (section 5.0); (2) the 

consumer LCC and PBP analyses (section 8.0); (3) the NIA, which considers NES and consumer 

NPV (section 10.0); and (4) a preliminary MIA (section 12.0). DOE will present the results of 

these analyses in the preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD).

DOE selects CSLs from the energy efficiency or energy use levels considered in the 

preliminary analysis. Discussion of various CSLs in the preliminary analysis will help interested 

parties review the spreadsheet models that underpin the analyses. DOE will use interested 

parties’ comments to refine the models for the next stage of the rulemaking analyses. In addition 

to the efficiency corresponding to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) design 

and the efficiency corresponding to the minimum LCC point, DOE generally considers levels or 

design options that span the full range of technologically-achievable efficiencies. The range of 

levels DOE typically analyzes includes:

• The baseline efficiency level (i.e., the minimum level), which is typically the type of 

equipment with the lowest energy efficiency level on the market for a given category. For 

equipment categories where minimum energy conservation standards already exist, the 

baseline efficiency level is typically defined by the existing energy conservation 

standard;

• The level with the minimum LCC or greatest LCC savings;

• The highest energy efficiency level or lowest energy consumption level that is 

technologically feasible (i.e., max-tech); and

• Levels that incorporate noteworthy technologies or fill in large gaps between other 

efficiency levels considered.

At the preliminary analysis stage, DOE uses analytical models and tools to assess the 

different equipment classes at each efficiency or energy use level analyzed. Many of these 

analytical models and tools are in the form of spreadsheets, which are used to conduct the LCC 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
and PBP analyses and to determine the national energy savings and NPV of prospective 

standards. 

DOE will make the spreadsheet tools and results of the preliminary analysis available on 

its website for review.3

1.8 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

When it publishes the preliminary analysis, DOE will also make a 

preliminary TSD available containing the details of all the analyses performed to date. After 

publication of the preliminary analysis, DOE will provide a public comment period and hold one 

public meeting. 

In developing the NOPR, DOE will consider all the comments it received after 

publication of the preliminary analysis. This process may result in revisions to the preliminary 

analysis, including the engineering and LCC analyses. At this point, DOE will conduct additional 

economic and environmental impact analyses. These analyses generally include a consumer LCC 

subgroup analysis (section 11.0), a complete MIA (section 12.0), a utility impact analysis 

(section 13.0), an employment impact analysis (section 14.0), an environmental assessment 

(section 15.0), and an RIA (section 17.0).

DOE will describe the methodology used and make the results of all the analyses 

available on its website for review. Based on comments from interested parties, further revisions 

to the analysis may be made. This analytical process ends with the selection of proposed standard 

levels, if any, that DOE will present in the NOPR. DOE selects the proposed standard levels 

from the TSLs analyzed during the NOPR phase of the rulemaking. The NOPR, published in the 

Federal Register, will document the evaluation and selection of any proposed standards levels, 

along with a discussion of other TSLs considered but not selected and the reasons DOE did not 

select them. 

For each equipment class, DOE will identify the max-tech efficiency level. If DOE 

proposes a lower level, DOE will sequentially explain the reasons for eliminating higher levels, 

beginning with the highest level considered. DOE will present the analytical results in the 

NOPR, and provide the details of the analysis in an accompanying TSD.

DOE considers many factors in selecting proposed standards. These factors are contained 

in EPCA and take into consideration the benefits, costs, and impacts of energy conservation 

standards. 

When DOE publishes the NOPR, it will provide the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

with copies of the NOPR and TSD to solicit feedback on the impact of any proposed standard 

levels on competition in the commercial refrigeration industry. DOJ reviews standard levels in 

light of any lessening of competition likely to result from the imposition of such standards (42 

 

3 All materials associated with the rulemakings for commercial refrigeration equipment test procedures and energy 

conservation standards are available on DOE’s website at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrigeration_equipment.html

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) Publication of the NOPR will be followed by a public 

comment period that includes a public meeting. 

1.9 Final Rule

After publication of the NOPR, DOE will consider public comments it receives on the 

proposal and accompanying analyses. DOE will review the engineering and economic impact 

analyses and any proposed standards based on these comments and consider modifications where 

necessary. Before any final rule is issued, DOE also will consider DOJ comments on the NOPR 

relating to the impacts of any proposed standard levels on competition to determine whether 

changes to these standard levels are needed. DOE will publish the DOJ comments and DOE’s 

response as part of the final rule.

In any final rule, DOE would determine whether to amend the standards, and if such 

determination is positive, would select the final standard level based on the complete record of 

the standards rulemaking. The final rule would promulgate any final standard levels and the 

compliance date, and would also explain the basis for the selection of any final standard levels. 

The final rule would be accompanied by a final TSD.

1.10 Overview of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

The commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking consists of four

categories of equipment: 

1. Ice-cream freezers; 

2. Self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (with and 

without doors); 

3. Remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; and

4. Self-contained commercial refrigerators with transparent doors designed for pull-down 

temperature applications. 

These four categories of equipment are discussed in sections 1.10.1, 1.10.2, 1.10.3, and 1.10.4. 

1.10.1 Ice-Cream Freezers

“Ice-cream freezer” means “a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or below 

-5 °F (-21 °Celsius (°C)) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.” 71 FR 71369; 10 CFR 431.62. 

Under this definition, unless equipment is designed, marketed, or intended specifically 

for the storage, display or dispensing of ice cream, it would not be considered an “ice-cream 

freezer.” Multi-purpose commercial freezers, manufactured for storage and display, for example, 

of frozen foods as well as ice cream would not meet this definition, and DOE would not treat 

them as commercial ice-cream freezers in this rulemaking. This is in accord with comments 

DOE received during the 2009 rulemaking, which indicated that DOE should not classify such 

freezers as ice-cream freezers. 74 FR 1103. On the other hand, any commercial freezer that is 

specifically manufactured for storing, displaying or dispensing ice cream, and that is designed so 

that in normal operation it can operate at or below -5 °F (-21 °C), would meet the definition. This 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
includes equipment that some interested parties referred to as true ice-cream cabinets—freezers 

designed to operate considerably below -5 °F and that are sometimes referred to as ‘‘hardening’’ 

cabinets and are specifically designed for ice cream storage, for example—as well as those icecream dipping cabinets that are designed to operate below -5 °F. 

1.10.2 Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

EPCA defines a “self-contained condensing unit,” in part, as “an integral part of the 

refrigerated equipment”. Under the definitions quoted in section 1.2, a self-contained commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer is a category of commercial refrigeration equipment 

that is connected to a self-contained condensing unit. Self-contained commercial refrigeration 

equipment is primarily used in small to medium-size grocery and similar retail stores (as 

distinguished from supermarkets), restaurants and hotels, and in cafeteria-style food service 

venues, for storing, displaying, and/or merchandising food products that include delicatessen

items, eggs, meat, produce, seafood, prepared foods, beverages, frozen foods, and dairy items. 

For self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with 

doors, EPACT 2005 prescribed energy conservation standards. For self-contained commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors, DOE established energy 

conservation standards in the 2009 final rule, specifying allowable daily electrical energy 

consumption levels as a function of total display area. 

1.10.3 Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers

Under the definitions quoted in section 1.2, a remote condensing refrigerator, freezer, or

refrigerator-freezer is a type of commercial refrigeration equipment that is connected to a remote 

condensing unit. Remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment is generally used to 

display and merchandise supermarket goods in large scale installations. In addition, remote 

condensing equipment with doors is used for food storage in commercial locations where food is 

prepared and/or served.

EPCA defines a “remote condensing unit,” in part, as being “remotely-located from the 

refrigerated equipment.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(F)) DOE concluded during the 2009 rulemaking

that the difference in language from the definition of “self-contained condensing unit,” described 

above means that a remote condensing unit is not a part of the refrigerated equipment. 74 FR 

1104–1105. Therefore in the 2009 final rule DOE adopted energy conservation standards for 

remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers that apply to the 

refrigerated equipment, but not to the remote condensing unit.

1.10.4 Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators Designed for Pull-Down Temperature 

Applications

As stated in section 1.2, EPCA defines “pull-down temperature application” to mean “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.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)) Units fitting this description are most typically known as 

beverage merchandisers or beverage coolers because of their use in displaying individually 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
packaged beverages for sale. EPCA prescribed standards for such equipment, and specifically 

only for self-contained units with transparent doors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(3)) Correspondingly, 

DOE intends to keep this equipment as a separate class in this rulemaking. Additionally, DOE 

notes that EPCA does not currently contain a standard for self-contained commercial 

refrigerators for pull-down temperature applications with solid doors. DOE requests input on 

how to address this subject. 

Item 1-2 DOE seeks comment on the existence and/or prevalence of self-contained 

commercial refrigerators for pull-down temperature applications with doors 

other than transparent doors. 

1.11 Other Equipment Classification Issues

1.11.1 Niche Equipment

EPCA prescribed standards for self-contained equipment with doors based on the 

refrigerated volume of the unit. In the 2009 final rule, DOE developed standards for remotecondensing equipment with transparent doors based on the total display area of the unit and 

standards for remote-condensing equipment with solid doors based on the refrigerated volume of 

the unit. Manufacturers contend that for service over counter niche equipment covered by the 

ECPA standards, energy consumption should be calculated based on total display area, similar to 

the calculations for equipment with transparent doors covered by DOE’s 2009 final rule. 

DOE is interested in receiving comments from interested parties regarding issues 

pertaining specifically to the niche equipment.

Item 1-3 DOE seeks comment on issues relating to the treatment of niche equipment under 

EPCA. 

1.11.2 Secondary Coolant Applications

In supermarket applications, secondary-coolant systems differ from direct-expansion 

systems in that the refrigeration of display cases is provided by a chilled, secondary-fluid, which 

is pumped between the central refrigeration system and the refrigerated display cases. The 

secondary coolant transfers heat from the display cases to the central refrigeration system, where 

the refrigeration cycle associated with liquid chilling occurs. By contrast, in direct expansion 

systems, liquid refrigerant is piped directly to each refrigerated display case, evaporated to 

produce cooling, then the resulting vapor is piped back to the central compressor system, 

completing the refrigeration cycle. DOE understands that these secondary coolant systems 

represent a small amount, at most 10 percent, of the commercial refrigeration market. 73 FR 

50106. 

In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE concluded the language in item (vii) of the EPCA

definition for “commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” (42 U.S.C. 

6311(9)(A)(vii)) precluded coverage of secondary-coolant applications under that rulemaking. 72 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
FR 41171-41172. DOE concluded that this interpretation of EPCA is consistent with AHRI 

Standard 1200-2008, “Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers 

and Storage Cabinets,” which explicitly excludes secondary-coolant applications. Therefore, 

DOE does not consider secondary coolant systems to be within the scope of this rulemaking. 

2.0 ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKING

The purpose of the analyses is to support DOE’s determination whether to amend the 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, and if so to ensure that 

DOE selects standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and economically justified and will result in significant energy savings, 

as required by EPCA. Economic justification includes the consideration of the factors set forth in 

EPCA (see section 1.6.1 of this framework document), which encompass economic impacts on 

domestic manufacturers and consumers, national benefits including environmental impacts, 

issues of consumer utility, and impacts from any lessening of competition. 

Figure 2.1 summarizes the analytical components of the DOE standards-setting process.

The analyses are presented in the center column. Each analysis has a set of key inputs, which are 

data and information required for the analysis. “Approaches” are the methods that DOE will use

to obtain key inputs, which may vary depending on the information in question. Some key inputs 

exist in public databases. DOE will also collect information from interested parties or others with 

special knowledge and develop information independently in support of the rulemaking. The 

results of each analysis are key outputs, which feed directly into the rulemaking. Arrows indicate 

the flow of information between the various analyses. DOE ensures a consistent approach to its 

analyses throughout the rulemaking by considering each analysis as a part of the overall 

standard-setting framework. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Figure 2.1. Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Standards Rulemaking Process

3.0 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

The market and technology assessment will provide information about the commercial 

refrigeration industry that DOE will use throughout the rulemaking. This assessment is 

particularly important at the outset of the rulemaking to determine equipment classes and to 

identify potential design options or efficiency levels for each equipment class.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
3.1 Market Assessment

DOE will qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the structure of the commercial 

refrigeration industry and market. In the market assessment, DOE will identify and characterize 

the manufacturers of this equipment; estimate market shares and trends in the market; address 

regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve the energy efficiency or reduce the 

energy consumption of the commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking; 

and explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacture of such 

equipment.

This market assessment will establish the context for this rulemaking, and it will serve as 

a resource to guide the analyses that follow. For example, DOE may use historical shipments and 

prices as indicators of future shipments and prices. Similarly, DOE plans to use market structure 

data for the MIA, data that will be particularly useful for assessing competitive impacts. This 

phase also allows DOE to start updating design options by reviewing equipment literature and 

industry publications.

The Commercial Refrigeration Manufacturers Division of AHRI is the trade association 

for manufacturers of equipment covered under this rulemaking. DOE expects that AHRI will 

play a critical role in providing market information, including input on characterizing current and 

historical trends in equipment shipments and energy efficiency. This type of data is an important 

input for analyses that determine whether any amended energy conservation standards are 

economically justified and will result in significant energy savings. 

DOE encourages interested parties to submit data that will improve DOE’s understanding 

of the commercial refrigeration equipment market. DOE aggregates data provided by 

manufacturers and other organizations for use in its analyses. 

Item 3-1 DOE seeks information that would contribute to the market assessment (e.g., the 

manufacturers of this equipment in the United States and the equipment they sell, 

by equipment class). It is particularly important that DOE be aware of the major 

and small/niche manufacturers. 

Item 3-2 DOE seeks information on annual shipments into the U.S. market from 1995 to 

2010 (both domestic and imports) by equipment class, and the corresponding 

shipment-weighted average efficiency of these shipments.

Item 3-3 DOE seeks information on the proportion(s) of equipment shipped annually that 

replaces existing equipment.

3.2 Equipment Classes

DOE separates the commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking 

into equipment classes (Table 3.1 and Table 3.2). The criteria for separation into different classes 

are type of energy used and capacity or other performance-related features that justify the 

establishment of a separate energy conservation standard. DOE must consider such factors as

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
utility to the consumer or others deemed appropriate in setting standards for separate equipment 

classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(e). 

DOE is considering the equipment classes listed below in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. These 

classes are defined according to equipment category, condensing unit configuration, operating 

temperature, and orientation and type of doors. DOE developed the proposed classes in the 2009 

rulemaking, which included equipment class designations for equipment for which EPCA had 

prescribed standards and the equipment covered by that rulemaking. 73 FR 50072, 50082-83 

(Aug. 25, 2008).

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Table 3.1. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Classes Established in the 2009 Final 

Rule

Equipment Category Condensing 

Unit 

Configuration

Equipment Family Operating 

Temperature 

°F

Equipment 

Class 

Designation

Remote Condensing 

Commercial Refrigerators, 

Commercial Freezers, and 

Commercial RefrigeratorFreezers* 

Remote Vertical Open ≥ 32 VOP.RC.M

< 32 VOP.RC.L

Semivertical Open ≥ 32 SVO.RC.M

< 32 SVO.RC.L

Horizontal Open ≥ 32 HZO.RC.M

< 32 HZO.RC.L

Vertical Closed Transparent ≥ 32 VCT.RC.M

< 32 VCT.RC.L

Horizontal Closed Transparent ≥ 32 HCT.RC.M

< 32 HCT.RC.L

Vertical Closed Solid ≥ 32 VCS.RC.M

< 32 VCS.RC.L

Horizontal Closed Solid ≥ 32 HCS.RC.M

< 32 HCS.RC.L

Service Over Counter ≥ 32 SOC.RC.M

< 32 SOC.RC.L

Self-Contained Commercial 

Refrigerators, Commercial 

Freezers, and Commercial 

Refrigerator-Freezers* without 

Doors

Self-Contained Vertical Open ≥ 32 VOP.SC.M

< 32 VOP.SC.L

Semivertical Open ≥ 32 SVO.SC.M

< 32 SVO.SC.L

Horizontal Open ≥ 32 HZO.SC.M

< 32 HZO.SC.L

Commercial Ice-Cream 

Freezers

Remote Vertical Open ≤ -5 VOP.RC.I

Semivertical Open SVO.RC.I

Horizontal Open HZO.RC.I

Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.RC.I

Horizontal Closed Transparent HCT.RC.I

Vertical Closed Solid VCS.RC.I

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.RC.I

Service Over Counter SOC.RC.I

Self-Contained Vertical Open VOP.SC.I

Semivertical Open SVO.SC.I

Horizontal Open HZO.SC.I

Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.SC.I

Horizontal Closed Transparent HCT.SC.I

Vertical Closed Solid VCS.SC.I

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.SC.I

Service Over Counter SOC.SC.I

*While DOE did not establish separate equipment classes for refrigerator-freezers in the 2009 final rule, DOE did 

provide a methodology for applying standards to commercial refrigerator-freezers in the rule. Please see 10 CFR 

431.66. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Table 3.2. Proposed Classes for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment for which 

Standards were Prescribed by EPCA

Equipment Category Condensing 

Unit 

Configuration

Equipment Family Operating 

Temperature 

°F

Equipment 

Class 

Designation

Commercial Refrigerators, 

Commercial Freezers, and 

Commercial RefrigeratorFreezers With Doors

Self-Contained Vertical Closed Transparent ≥ 32 VCT.SC.M

< 32 VCT.SC.L

Horizontal Closed Transparent ≥ 32 HCT.SC.M

< 32 HCT.SC.L

Vertical Closed Solid ≥ 32 VCS.SC.M

< 32 VCS.SC.L

Horizontal Closed Solid ≥ 32 HCS.SC.M

< 32 HCS.SC.L

Service Over Counter ≥ 32 SOC.SC.M

< 32 SOC.SC.L

Commercial Refrigerators with 

Transparent Doors for PullDown Temperature

Applications* 

Self-Contained Pull-Down ≥ 32 PD.SC.M

*For further discussion of equipment for pull-down temperature applications, please see section 1.10.4. 

Item 3-4 DOE requests feedback on the proposed classes for the commercial refrigeration 

equipment covered under this rulemaking, and the criteria used in creating the 

classes.

3.3 Technology Assessment

The technology assessment centers on understanding how equipment uses energy and 

what measures can reduce energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment. Measures 

that could potentially improve the energy efficiency of equipment are called technology options, 

and they are based on existing technologies as well as prototype designs and concepts. In 

consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technology options that 

should be considered in the analysis. 

DOE is studying technology options by reviewing manufacturer catalogues, recent trade 

publications, technical journals, and patent filings. DOE also intends to consult with technical 

experts within the field and to conduct manufacturer interviews about these technology options. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE is currently considering the specific technologies and designs 

listed below.

The following technologies and designs are relevant to all of the equipment classes listed 

above: 

1. Higher efficiency lighting (e.g., T8 fluorescent lamps, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), 

fiber optic lighting); 

2. Higher efficiency lighting ballasts (e.g., electronic ballasts instead of magnetic 

ballasts); 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
3. Remote lighting ballast location (i.e., outside the refrigerated space); 

4. Higher efficiency expansion valves (e.g., dual-port thermostatic expansion valves and 

electronic expansion valves); 

5. Higher efficiency evaporator fan motors (e.g., electronically commutated motors 

(ECMs)); 

6. Variable-speed evaporator fan motors; 

7. Increased evaporator surface area or efficiency to achieve lower case-evaporator 

temperature differential (with a possible increase in fan energy); 

8. Evaporator-fan-motor controllers; 

9. Higher efficiency evaporator fan blades; 

10. Low-pressure-differential evaporators; 

11. Anti-sweat heater controls; 

12. Case-insulation increases or improvements; 

13. Defrost mechanism (hot-gas defrost rather than electric defrost); 

14. Defrost-cycle control (partially or fully demand-based defrost rather than partially or 

fully time-based defrost); 

15. Anti-fog films on transparent doors; and

16. Occupancy sensors for lighting controls.

The following designs are relevant to equipment without doors only:

1. Air curtain design (optimization of the discharge air grille (DAG) configuration and 

velocity profile to minimize ambient air infiltration); 

2. Night curtains placed over open cases during non-business hours to aid in maintaining 

product temperature; 

3. Strip curtains; and

4. Radiation shields. 

The following technologies and designs are relevant to self-contained equipment only:

1. Higher efficiency compressors (e.g., variable-speed compressors);

2. Liquid-to-suction heat exchanger (subcool liquid refrigerant with suction line);

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
3. Increased condenser surface area or efficiency to achieve lower ambient-condenser 

temperature differential (with a possible increase in fan energy);

4. Higher efficiency condenser fan motors (e.g., ECMs);

5. Variable-speed condenser fan motors. 

6. Condenser-fan-motor controllers; and

7. Higher efficiency condenser fan blades.

Item 3-5 What technologies or designs, if any, should be added to or removed from the 

above list? If certain changes to the list are not applicable to all equipment 

classes, what equipment classes are affected?

3.4 Baseline Units

Once DOE establishes equipment classes, it will select a baseline model as a reference 

point for each class, against which it can measure changes resulting from amended energy 

conservation standards. The baseline model in each class represents the characteristics of 

equipment in that class. For equipment covered by the 2009 final rule, DOE will select baseline 

models that are minimally compliant with the required energy conservation standards set forth in 

that final rule. For equipment classes for which EPCA prescribed standards, DOE will use 

models that are minimally compliant with these standards as the baseline units. 

DOE will use the baseline models in the engineering analysis and may also use them in 

the LCC and PBP analyses. To determine energy savings and changes in price, DOE will 

compare each higher-energyefficiency or lower-energy-consumption design option with the 

baseline model.

Item 3-6 DOE seeks information on what particular components and features 

characterize the baseline model in each equipment class (e.g., materials, 

dimensions, insulation, refrigerant type, compressors, evaporators, condensers, 

expansion devices, fans, motors, air-curtains, anti-condensate devices and 

controls, defrost mechanisms and controls, lighting, etc.). 

4.0 SCREENING ANALYSIS

The purpose of the screening analysis is to screen out technology options that will not be 

further analyzed in the engineering analysis. DOE will follow the process set forth below to 

screen out technology options.

DOE will use the list of technology options (developed through its own research and in 

consultation with interested parties in the technology assessment) for consideration in the 

engineering analysis (section 5.0). DOE will review each technology option or best available 

technology in light of the following four criteria:

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
1. Technological feasibility. DOE will screen out technologies that are not incorporated in 

commercially available products or working prototypes.

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If DOE determines 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 by the time of the effective date of the standard, it will not consider that 

technology further.

3. Adverse impacts on product or equipment utility or availability. If DOE determines a 

technology has significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for significant 

consumer subgroups, or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type 

with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, size, capacities, and 

volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United 

States at the time, it will not consider that technology further.

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a technology will have 

significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider that technology 

further.

DOE will fully document its reasons for eliminating any technology options during the 

screening analysis and will publish this documentation for interested parties to review as part of 

the preliminary analysis. Those technology options not screened out by the above four criteria 

will be considered design options in the development of cost-efficiency curves in the engineering 

analysis.

Item 4-1 DOE welcomes comments on how the above four screening criteria might apply 

to any additional technology option(s) that an interested party recommends to 

DOE.

5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

After conducting the screening analysis, DOE performs an engineering analysis based on 

the remaining design options. The engineering analysis consists of estimating the costs of 

equipment at various levels of increased energy efficiency or reduced energy consumption. This 

section provides an overview of the engineering analysis (section 5.1), and includes discussion of

(1) the approach for determining the cost-efficiency relationship (section 5.2), (2) manufacturer 

prices (section 5.3), (3) proprietary designs (section 5.4), and (4) regulatory changes outside the 

realm of DOE’s energy conservation standards process (section 5.9).

5.1 Engineering Analysis Overview 

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the relationship between 

manufacturer selling price and energy consumption for commercial refrigeration equipment. In 

determining this relationship, DOE will estimate the increase in manufacturer selling price 

associated with technological changes that decrease the energy consumption of the baseline 

models.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
DOE will obtain cost estimates for the engineering analysis (which it will also use in the 

MIA) from detailed incremental cost data disaggregated into the cost of incremental material, 

labor, and overhead. DOE will create an industry-wide analysis based primarily on cost estimates 

of specific design options.

Therefore, DOE seeks design and cost information to determine the cost of improving the 

energy consumption of the baseline models. In addition, DOE must identify the model with the 

lowest energy consumption that is technologically feasible within each equipment class (i.e., the 

“max-tech” model).

Item 5-1 Within each equipment class, for energy consumption levels below the baseline

DOE seeks information on daily energy consumption and on incremental 

manufacturing costs and components (see Item 3-6) (e.g., differentiation in 

components from the baseline, material costs,

4 labor costs,5 factory overhead 

costs6

Item 5-2 DOE is also interested in receiving equipment test data (e.g., test procedure 

used, rating conditions, refrigerated volume, total display area, case length, 

voltage, integrated average product temperature, daily energy consumption, 

etc.). Test data representative of the baseline model in each equipment class is 

particularly important. 

(excluding depreciation), building conversion capital expenditures, 

tooling/equipment conversion capital expenditures, research and development 

(R&D) expenses, marketing expenses, etc.).

5.2 Proposed Approach for Determining the Cost-Efficiency Relationship

DOE typically structures its engineering analysis using one of three approaches: (1) 

design-option; (2) efficiency-level; or (3) reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment). A designoption approach uses individual design options, or combinations of design options, to identify 

increases in efficiency. Under this approach, cost estimates are based on manufacturer or 

component supplier data or engineering computer simulation models. Individual design options, 

or combinations of design options, are added to the baseline model in ascending order of costeffectiveness. An efficiency-level approach establishes the relationship between manufacturer 

cost and increased efficiency at predetermined efficiency levels above the baseline. Under this 

approach, manufacturers typically provide manufacturer cost data for incremental increases in 

efficiency, without identifying the technology or design options they would use to achieve such 

 

4 This consists of costs of raw materials including scrap that can be traced to final or end products. Direct material 

costs do not include indirect material costs which are attributed to supplies that may be used in the production 

process but not incorporated into final products (e.g., lubricating oil for production machinery).

5 This refers to earnings of workers who assemble parts into a finished good or operate machines in the production 

process. Direct labor includes the fringe benefits of direct laborers such as group health care, as well as overtime 

pay. Direct labor does not include indirect labor which is defined as the earnings of employees who do not work 

directly in assembling a product such as supervisors, janitors, stockroom personnel, inspectors, and forklift 

operators.

6

 Factory overhead includes indirect labor, downtime, set-up costs, indirect material, expendable tools, maintenance, 

property taxes, insurance on assets, and utility costs. Factory overhead does not include depreciation, (SG&A); 

R&D; interest; or profit (accounted for by DOE separately).

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
increases. A reverse-engineering or cost-assessment approach involves purchasing representative 

units of commercial refrigeration equipment, disassembling the units, and reverse-engineering 

the manufacturing costs based on a “bottoms-up” manufacturing cost assessment.

In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE originally proposed to use an efficiency level approach. 

DOE planned to utilize a number of cost-efficiency curves provided by a trade association (ARI), 

representing the equipment classes with the highest volumes of shipments. This approach was to 

be augmented by a number of additional curves for other equipment classes, developed by DOE 

using a design-option approach. During the rulemaking, concerns developed over whether the 

industry-supplied data provided a sufficient basis for DOE’s engineering analysis. ARI stated 

that the intent of providing the curves was only to validate analyses performed by DOE, rather 

than to serve as the basis for the analyses themselves. ARI also stated that the aggregated data 

provided may not have been sufficient in order to completely and fully describe the range of 

equipment available within the industry. As a result of these concerns, DOE modified its 

analyses for the NOPR stage of the rulemaking to use its own design option methodology for the 

engineering analysis, rather than cost-efficiency curves provided by ARI. This approach was also 

used as a basis for the 2009 final rule. 73 FR 50084. 

Similarly, for this rulemaking, DOE plans to use a design-option approach for 

determining the cost-efficiency relationship.. This approach will involve consultation with 

outside experts, review of publicly available cost and performance information, and modeling of 

equipment cost and energy consumption. 

For each equipment class, the engineering analysis will estimate manufacturer production 

cost (MPC) for each design option considered. DOE plans to use a cost model to estimate the 

cost of the case, refrigeration system (when applicable), and other energy-consuming 

components. This cost model was developed for the 2009 rulemaking. 

Item 5-3 DOE requests feedback on the use of a design option approach to determine the 

relationship between manufacturer selling price and energy consumption for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

5.3 Manufacturer Prices

DOE plans to apply markups to convert MPC to manufacturer selling prices. DOE will 

estimate manufacturer markups from publicly available financial information (e.g., Securities 

and Exchange Commission 10-K reports).

Item 5-4 DOE seeks comment on the markup approach proposed for developing estimates 

of manufacturer selling prices.

5.4 Proprietary Designs

DOE considers in its engineering and economic analyses all design options that have not 

been screened out, including proprietary designs. DOE will consider proprietary designs in the 

analyses only if they are not part of a unique path to a given efficiency level. If the proprietary 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
design is the only approach available to achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE will reject 

that efficiency level from further analysis. Further, DOE is sensitive to manufacturer concerns 

regarding proprietary designs and will make provisions to maintain the confidentiality of any 

proprietary data submitted by manufacturers consistent with applicable law. This information 

will provide input to the competitive impacts assessment and other economic analyses.

Item 5-5 Are there proprietary designs that DOE should consider for any of the equipment 

under consideration by this rulemaking? If so, how should DOE acquire the cost 

data necessary for evaluating these designs?

5.5 Representative Sizes

In performing the engineering analysis, DOE will select equipment models from the 

range of available equipment with sizes that best represent the most typical offerings within that 

specific equipment class. Proper selection of representative sizes will allow for the analyses to 

accurately model the majority of available equipment. DOE plans to select a model with 

representative size for each equipment class, while considering the possible design constraints at 

very small and very large capacities. DOE plans to use the representative sizes it used in 

developing the 2009 final rule, shown in Table 5.1, as starting values for the engineering analysis

in this rulemaking. 

Table 5.1. Representative Equipment Sizes Used in 2009 Final Rule Engineering 

Analysis 

Equipment Class Case Length 

ft

Case Gross 

Refrigerated Volume 

ft3

Case Total Display 

Area 

ft2

VCT.RC.L 12.7 113.5 65.0

VOP.RC.M 12.0 130.2 53.3

SVO.RC.M 12.0 46.6 40.0

HZO.RC.L 12.0 55.0 46.0

HZO.RC.M 12.0 33.0 33.0

VCT.RC.M 12.7 142.0 65.0

VOP.RC.L 12.0 109.8 44.7

SOC.RC.M 12.0 66.0 51.0

VOP.SC.M 4.0 32.0 14.9

SVO.SC.M 4.0 9.4 12.8

HZO.SC.L 4.0 7.4 12.0

HZO.SC.M 4.0 7.5 12.0

HCT.SC.I 3.4 10.2 5.1

VCT.SC.I 4.3 48.0 26.0

VCS.SC.I 4.3 48.0 0.0

Item 5-6 DOE requests feedback on representative sizes. Are the representative sizes used 

for the 2009 final rule adequate, and should they be retained or modified? What 

representative sizes should DOE use for analysis of the equipment for which 

EPCA prescribed standards? 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
5.6 Normalization Metrics

Some of the equipment covered by this rulemaking is currently subject to standards 

developed by DOE in the 2009 final rule, while the remainder of the equipment is currently 

covered by standards set forth in EPCA. These two sets of standards use two different 

normalization metrics to quantify daily energy consumption. The standards EPCA prescribed are 

based on a normalization metric of chilled or frozen compartment volume (as measured with 

AHAM Standard HRF1-1979). This is true whether the equipment has transparent or opaque 

doors. The standards developed in the 2009 rulemaking, however, are largely based on a 

normalization metric of total display area (TDA), for equipment both without doors and with 

transparent doors, because this metric better reflects the effects of warm air infiltration and 

lighting in open display cases, as well as infiltration, lighting, and door heat gains (conduction 

and infiltration) in equipment with transparent doors. The standards developed in the 2009 

rulemaking for equipment with no display area (i.e., units with solid doors) are based on volume.

Because this rulemaking addresses equipment subject to both the DOE-developed and 

the EPCA standards, DOE is considering whether to use the same normalization metric for 

certain like product classes where it makes sense to do so. In particular, DOE considers that TDA 

could be used for all equipment types with transparent doors. In doing this however, DOE would 

have to develop a conversion from the existing volume-based normalization metric to a TDAbased normalization metric for baseline equipment in order to translate the existing standards 

into terms of the new normalization metric. Such a conversion would need to be fair and accurate 

across the entire range of equipment to which it would be applied. Additionally, certain existing 

equipment classes could potentially be subdivided further to develop an accurate mapping 

between metrics for baseline units. This could occur because use of the TDA metric for certain 

additional classes of equipment might demonstrate to DOE that distinctions exist among

equipment designs that currently are in a single class, such as the service-over-counter and 

under-counter self contained niche products discussed previously section 1.11.1, and that

separate classes are warranted for such equipment. 

Item 5-7 DOE requests feedback on the use of total display area as a normalization 

metric for all equipment with transparent doors. 

Item 5-8 DOE requests feedback on the selection of a representative baseline for use in 

mapping between the existing volume metric and a total display area metric, as 

well as on the methodology needed to translate baseline energy use between the 

two metrics.

Item 5-9 DOE requests feedback regarding specific equipment classes which may need to 

be subdivided, or equipment categories which may need their own equipment 

classes, should revised normalization metrics be used in this rulemaking. 

5.7 Offset Factors

The energy use of commercial refrigeration equipment scales with equipment size, but 

smaller equipment tends to use more energy per unit of capacity than larger equipment of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
same design. This extra energy use is attributed to components of case load, commonly referred 

to as “end effects,” that do not scale proportionally with equipment size, whether the metric is in 

terms of volume or TDA, and thus have a disproportionate effect on the energy consumption of 

small equipment.

In its engineering analysis for the 2009 rulemaking, DOE developed cost-energy 

consumption curves for a single size within each equipment class. For the remote condensing 

equipment in particular, the representative size selected for each class was generally nearer to the 

larger end of the equipment available within that class and reflected the most common equipment 

sizes sold. In the ANOPR public meeting for the 2009 rulemaking, interested parties raised 

concerns that standards developed for large sizes of equipment would be unfair when applied to 

smaller equipment in the same class, because of the end effects that disproportionately affect 

smaller equipment. In the NOPR, therefore, DOE developed offset factors and incorporated them 

into the equations for the proposed standard level and TSL for each product class. These offset 

factors are used to fix the energy consumption at a finite, non-zero value when the normalization 

metric goes to zero in the standards equation, effectively providing a proportionally higher limit 

on energy consumption for smaller equipment. DOE retained these offset factors in the 2009 

final rule, as a way to adjust the energy consumption requirements to make them more equitable 

for smaller equipment. Similar factors exist in the standards incorporated into EPCA in 2005.

For this rulemaking, DOE intends to continue the use of offset factors as a method for 

compensating for the inherent relative inefficiency of smaller-capacity equipment.

Item 5-10 DOE welcomes data from interested parties that could aid in accurately 

quantifying the impact of end effects on smaller equipment. 

5.8 Extension of Standards

For the 2009 final rule, DOE did not directly analyze all covered equipment classes but 

focused its engineering, LCC, and impact analyses on 15 high-shipment equipment classes, 

which represented 98 percent of the shipments of covered commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Once DOE established TSLs for these classes, it developed an extension approach to apply the 

TSLs developed for these 15 “primary” classes to the remaining 23 “secondary” classes. This 

approach involved extension multipliers developed with the 15 sets of primary results and a set 

of focused matched-pair analyses. In addition, standards for certain primary equipment classes 

could be directly applied to other similar secondary equipment classes. 

In the NOPR, TSLs were presented for each of the 15 primary equipment classes in the 

form of standards equations that used the selected normalization metrics. DOE examined the 

relationships between similar primary and secondary equipment types and developed multipliers 

based on these relationships of the performance of the specific equipment classes. The standards 

equations consisted of capacity-dependent multipliers (slope) and offset factors. DOE applied the 

extension multipliers to the slopes and offset factors of the primary standards equations to reflect 

energy consumption for each secondary equipment class using similar technologies. In this 

rulemaking DOE intends to employ the same method of using standards it develops for a 

number of high-shipment equipment classes to derive standards for the remaining equipment 

classes. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 5-11 DOE welcomes data from interested parties that could aid in supplementing the 

matched pair analyses performed in developing extension multipliers for 

secondary equipment classes. 

5.9 Outside Regulatory Changes Affecting the Engineering Analysis

In conducting an engineering analysis, DOE must consider the effects of regulatory 

changes outside DOE’s statutory energy conservation standards rulemaking process that can 

affect the energy efficiency or energy consumption of the covered equipment, and/or the cost of 

improving such efficiency or consumption. DOE will attempt to identify all such outside 

regulatory issues that could impact the engineering analysis. The consideration of these issues is 

closely related to the cumulative regulatory burden assessment that DOE will carry out as part of 

the MIA. Based on consideration of the comments received for the preliminary analysis, DOE 

will make the necessary changes to the analysis. These changes will be reflected in the 

documentation of the NOPR.

One issue that may be relevant to this equipment is alternative refrigerants. Federal 

phaseouts of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants are complete, and phaseouts of 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants have already begun. In the case of the HCFC R22, new equipment cannot incorporate or use this refrigerant. 74 FR 66450 (December 15, 2009). 

Manufacturers and purchasers of commercial refrigeration equipment are far along in the 

transition to hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. Thus, DOE did not consider CFC and HCFC

refrigerants in its analysis for the 2009 final rule. The most common alternatives used in 

commercial refrigeration are the HFC blends R-404A and R-507 for remote condensing 

equipment and the HFC R-134A for self-contained equipment. Although alternative refrigerants 

such as hydrocarbons, ammonia, and carbon dioxide (CO2) are used in Europe and elsewhere in 

the world, there was no evidence at the time of the analyses for the 2009 rulemaking that they are 

widely used for commercial refrigeration applications in the United States. In addition, DOE

found that current state and local building codes would not allow the use of many alternative 

refrigerants (Safety Class A3—most hydrocarbon refrigerants) in remote condensing equipment 

due to flammability concerns. These codes would also severely limit the use of ammonia due to 

toxicity concerns. However, both hydrocarbon refrigerants and ammonia could be considered for 

use with secondary loop refrigeration systems. Also, hydrocarbon refrigerants could possibly be 

used for small self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking if 

they contain less than 3 pounds of refrigerant and if they have been certified by Underwriters 

Laboratories or another product-safety certification lab. However, DOE received no information 

in the previous rulemaking that would indicate that any such equipment has been certified for the 

U.S. market. 

The majority of the U.S. commercial refrigeration industry uses HFC refrigerants in 

commercial refrigeration equipment. For this reason, DOE used HFC refrigerants as the basis for 

its technical analyses in the 2009 final rule, and plans to do so for this rule as well. However, 

DOE would like to receive any available information from interested parties regarding the 

prevalence and feasibility of systems utilizing alternative refrigerants.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 5-12 Should DOE consider any alternatives to the HFCs mentioned for its analysis of 

commercial refrigeration equipment?

Item 5-13 Are there additional outside regulatory issues that DOE should consider in its 

engineering analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment?

6.0 ENERGY USE AND END-USE LOAD CHARACTERIZATION

The purpose of the energy use and end-use load characterization analysis is to assess the 

energy- and peak-demand-savings potential of different equipment efficiencies for various 

commercial building types and across a range of climate zones in which commercial 

refrigeration equipment is used. As part of the energy use analysis, DOE must make certain 

engineering assumptions regarding equipment application, including how the equipment is 

operated and under what conditions. Characterizing the energy use of commercial refrigeration 

equipment is a critical part of the standards rulemaking analysis, as it establishes the per-unit 

energy-savings potential achievable from energy conservation standards.

Studies conducted by Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NCI), Southern California Edison, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and others provide information on the energy 

consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment. These studies have primarily focused on 

refrigerated display cases packaged with remote condensing units. These studies could assist in 

characterizing the annual energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment for certain 

equipment classes. The equipment classes, building types, and climate zones covered by the 

studies are limited, and thus may not be applicable for the broad-based NIA necessary for this 

rulemaking.

Lighting is a significant fraction of the energy use and the internal refrigeration load in 

certain equipment classes. Limited monitoring data for display case lighting energy is available 

and could assist in characterizing the annual energy consumption baseline as well as the benefits 

of improving lighting technologies. In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE requested information on 

display case lighting operating hours, but received little firm data. DOE assumed 24-hour/day 

lighting for the engineering analysis. DOE also assumed 24-hour/day case lighting for the energy 

use characterization, but provided a sensitivity of the energy savings of higher efficiency levels 

to 20-hour/day and 16-hour/day lighting schedules. Manufacturers commenting on the sensitivity 

analysis in the ANOPR stated that due to re-start issues and moisture related maintenance issues 

with fluorescent lighting, store owners commonly leave lighting on for 24 hours. They also 

commented that this is not necessary with LED lighting. While acknowledging that 24-hour 

lighting was a worst case scenario, commenters stated it was an appropriate assumption for the 

2009 CRE rulemaking. DOE requests information on whether it should continue to use a 24-

hour/day assumption for the current rulemaking.

A second issue is the impact of higher efficiency standards on the overall building energy

use. The recent energy conservation standards rulemaking on commercial refrigeration 

equipment utilized a number of industry sources to characterize the types of businesses that use 

this type of equipment. For buildings using commercial refrigeration equipment, the primary 

energy consumption and demand impact of energy conservation standards will be from the 

reduction of energy and power usage of the equipment itself, with the energy response of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment having a secondary 

impact.

In the analysis for the 2009 final rule, DOE determined through building simulation 

modeling that the refrigeration equipment design improvements considered did not have a 

significant impact on building space-conditioning loads in food sales applications (i.e., grocery 

application). The majority of the equipment examined in that rulemaking was remote condensing 

equipment where much of the lighting and other energy-related heat generation of the equipment 

was rejected outside of the building by the refrigeration system. For this reason, DOE relied on 

energy consumption estimates developed from the engineering analysis for the calculation of 

energy savings at different efficiency levels. Based on the previous rulemaking experience, DOE 

proposes not to model building interactive effects for remote-condensing equipment for the 

current analysis. DOE seeks input on the value of including building interactive effects for selfcontained commercial refrigeration equipment.

In the current rulemaking, a larger fraction of the equipment is self-contained and is used 

in food service (self-service restaurant or cafeteria-type) applications as opposed to food sales 

applications. In this type of equipment, a reduction in electric consumption for the equipment 

results in a direct reduction of the heat load in the building, decreasing building cooling loads

and increasing building heating loads. DOE is considering whether or not to try to incorporate 

these HVAC energy use impacts into its analysis of energy savings.

Item 6-1 DOE seeks data or data sources that could be used to characterize the energy 

use of commercial refrigeration equipment and how this may deviate from that 

estimated using the DOE test procedure.

Item 6-2 DOE seeks data or data sources that could be used to characterize the operating 

hours assumptions that could be used to assess lighting energy for different 

lighting and lighting control technologies used in commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 

Item 6-3 DOE seeks input on whether the impact of higher efficiency refrigeration 

equipment in self-contained equipment on the building space conditioning loads 

is significant enough to warrant taking them into account in the energy analysis 

If so, what methods could best be used to estimate the net energy consumption 

and load impacts of higher efficiency commercial refrigeration equipment in 

buildings using this equipment? 

Item 6-4 DOE seeks feedback on this approach to the energy use and end-use load 

characterization. 

7.0 MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PRICE DETERMINATION

DOE uses manufacturer-to-consumer markups to convert the manufacturer-selling-price 

estimates from the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and 

PBP analyses and the MIA. Retail prices are needed for the baseline efficiency level and all other 

efficiency levels under consideration. DOE will obtain these retail prices by applying 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
manufacturer-to-consumer markups (consisting of shipping and transportation charges, 

distribution channel markups, and sales tax) to the manufacturer-selling-price estimates. 

Before it can develop markups, DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., how the 

equipment is distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer). Once it establishes proper 

distribution channels for each of the equipment classes, DOE will rely on economic census data 

from the U.S. Census Bureau and input from the industry as it did in the 2009 rulemaking to 

define how equipment is marked up from the manufacturer to the consumer. To the extent 

possible, DOE also will use collected retail price data to help qualify overall manufacturer-toconsumer markups.

This analysis will generate retail prices for each efficiency level that DOE considers. 

Because it expects to generate a range of price estimates, DOE plans to describe new retail prices 

within a range of uncertainty. If the range of retail prices for the equipment is large enough, DOE 

will conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine how high or low estimates of retail price impact 

the economic feasibility of potential energy conservation standard levels. 

In the past, DOE has done a great deal of work to estimate manufacturer-to-consumer 

markups for commercial refrigeration equipment. Virtually all commercial refrigeration 

equipment is sold either to food sales establishments (supermarkets and grocery stores, 

convenience stores, specialty stores such as butchers and liquor stores, and multiline department 

stores) or to food service establishments (restaurants). A comparative handful is sold to other 

specialty retail establishments such as florists. For the 2009 final rule, analysis of distribution 

channel markups focused on distributors, mechanical contractors, and national accounts. DOE 

also made estimates of the distribution of sales of equipment among the states based on sales of 

refrigerated and frozen food from 2002 Census of Business. These state-level sales were used to 

determine what state and local sales taxes applied to equipment sales. 

For the 2009 rulemaking, DOE’s review of information for commercial refrigeration 

equipment distribution suggested a set of distribution channels described as follows:

Manufacturer  Wholesaler  Mechanical Contractor  Consumer (“Contractor” Channel)

Manufacturer  Wholesaler  Consumer (“Distributor” Channel)

Manufacturer  Customer (“National Account” Channel )

DOE determined that, for the equipment covered by that rulemaking, sales were 

distributed among the three channels in the percentages shown in the following table (Table 7.1). 

In the 2009 rulemaking remote-condensing units comprised about 92 percent of the linear feet of 

commercial refrigeration equipment shipped. DOE expects that the equipment covered by the 

current rulemaking will consist of a greater proportion of self-contained units. The overall 

percentages by market channel will be adjusted accordingly.

Table 7.1. Percentage Distribution of Shipments of Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment Covered by the 2009 Rulemaking, by Market Channel

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Remote Condensing Equipment

% 

New and Replacement Construction National Account Distributor Contractor

70 15 15

Self-Contained Equipment

% 

New and Replacement Construction National Account Distributor Contractor

30 35 35

DOE’s understanding is that a general contractor would not normally enter into the 

distribution path for this equipment. DOE also understands that the relative fractions of 

equipment distributed in each channel could be different depending on whether the equipment is 

self-contained or remote condensing, as indicated by Table 7.1, and on whether the equipment is 

sold to a food sales establishment or a food service establishment. 

Item 7-1 DOE also requests information on the fraction of shipments expected for each 

distribution channel for the commercial refrigeration equipment covered under 

this rulemaking; specifically, whether the distribution channels derived for food 

sales establishments adequately covers sales to food service establishments.

DOE intends to develop both markups for baseline equipment and incremental markups 

which are applied only to the incremental cost of higher-efficiency equipment. DOE proposes to

base the LCC analysis on the markups developed in the 2009 commercial refrigeration 

equipment rulemaking, but possibly adding shipping costs to the markups or to the 

manufacturer’s sales price, as appropriate. DOE calculated markups in the 2009 rulemaking from 

data supplied by Heating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International and the 

U.S. Census of Business. State and local tax data came from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 

Item 7-2 DOE requests feedback on its proposal to use incremental distribution channel 

markups for the LCC analysis.

Item 7-3 DOE seeks comment on other sources of relevant data that could be used to 

characterize markups for the commercial refrigeration industry.

Item 7-4 DOE seeks comment on appropriate transportation and shipping costs to include 

in the analysis and whether those costs are likely to vary for higher efficiency 

equipment. 

8.0 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

The effects of amended energy conservation standards on consumers include a change in 

operating expense (usually decreased) and a change in purchase price (usually increased). The 

LCC of a piece of equipment is the cost it incurs over its lifetime, taking into account both 

purchase price and operating expenses. The PBP represents the time it takes to recover the 

additional installed cost of the more-efficient device through annual operating cost savings. DOE 

analyzes the net effect of new or amended standards on individual consumers by calculating the 

LCC and PBP using the engineering performance data (section 5.0), the energy-use and end-use 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
load characterization data (section 6.0), and the markups for equipment price determination 

(section 7.0). Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the consumer (purchase 

price, including transportation and markups, plus installation cost), operating expenses (energy 

expenses, repair costs, and maintenance costs), the lifetime of the equipment or other defined 

period of analysis, and a discount rate appropriate to the consumer of the equipment. Inputs to 

the PBP calculation include the installed cost to the consumer and annual operating costs. 

In addition to the LCC and PBP calculations, DOE also conducts a rebuttable 

presumption analysis for certain equipment. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1), 

the statute establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard for commercial refrigeration 

equipment is economically justified “[i]f the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the 

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

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

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

While the rebuttable presumption calculation is helpful in understanding that certain 

standard levels have short PBPs, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers 

the full range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and 

environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as 

the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level 

(thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic 

justification). 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE will conduct the LCC and PBP analyses using typical 

values for the following to reflect actual conditions for the purchase and use of the equipment: 

retail price, installation costs, lifetime, energy costs, energy usage, repair and maintenance costs, 

and discount rates. If DOE determines that there is significant variability in any of these inputs, it 

will conduct uncertainty analyses (e.g., Monte Carlo analysis) to determine how the statistical 

distribution of estimates for each input affects the LCC and PBP. The detailed impact 

calculation, which DOE will conduct after the preliminary analysis, will include an assessment 

of LCC and PBP impacts on consumer subgroups, as described in section 11.0. For the NOPR, 

DOE will augment the analysis with inputs received from interested parties.

The following sections discuss the methodologies DOE plans to use to develop (1) 

energy prices, (2) discount rates, (3) maintenance, repair, and installation costs, and (4) lifetimes 

for commercial refrigeration equipment. Table 8.1 lists some of the major inputs DOE 

anticipates it will develop for the LCC and PBP analyses.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Table 8.1. Inputs to the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses Input

Input Type Description

Equipment Price DOE will establish the price of commercial refrigeration equipment including 

transportation charges, based on manufacturer’s sales prices developed in the 

Engineering Analysis and the markups established in section 7, Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination. 

Sales Tax Sales tax is applied to convert the product price to a final consumer price. DOE 

will develop sales tax mark-ups as described in section 7, Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination. 

Installation, Maintenance, and 

Repair Costs 

These inputs represent the cost to customers of installing and maintaining 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Annual Operating Hours The annual operating hours are the estimated hours that commercial refrigeration 

equipment is in use over 1 year. DOE will develop operating hours as described 

in section 6, Energy-Use and End-Use Load Characterization. 

Product Energy Consumption 

Rate 

The product energy consumption rate is the site-energy usage rate associated with 

operating the commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE will develop this rate as 

described in section 6, Energy-Use and End-Use Load Characterization. 

Electricity Prices Electricity prices used in the analysis are the average price per kilowatt-hour 

(e.g., $/kWh) that customers pay in each state for each type of business (e.g., 

grocery, convenience store, restaurant) that uses the equipment. 

Electricity Price Trends Electricity price trends estimate the future cost of electricity. 

Lifetime Lifetime is the number years a commercial refrigeration case is in operation 

before the consumer retires the case from service. 

Discount Rate The discount rate is the consumer rate at which DOE discounts future 

expenditures to establish their present value. 

Analysis Period The analysis period is the time span over which DOE calculates the LCC. 

8.1 Energy Prices

DOE will survey average state-level electricity prices for consumers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Average prices will be used because commercial refrigeration 

equipment runs on a 24-hour, 7-day basis and the cost of operation is effectively captured using 

average electricity prices. DOE will conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine how high and 

low electricity price estimates might affect the economic feasibility of any amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE will use projections of national average energy prices—principally 

from the most recent Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO)7

Item 8-1 DOE seeks comment on the proposed approaches for estimating current and 

forecasted energy prices.

—as inputs for future energy prices in the LCC analysis.

8.2 Life-Cycle Cost Discount Rates

Calculation of consumer LCC requires use of an appropriate discount rate. DOE uses the 

discount rate to determine the present value of lifetime operating expenses. Because consumers 

of commercial refrigeration equipment are typically commercial entities, DOE will derive the 

discount rates for consumers by estimating the cost of capital of these types of companies. The 

cost of capital is commonly used 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 

 

7 www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average cost of equity and debt financing. This 

corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC). DOE 

proposes to use the same method as it used in the 2009 rulemaking to calculate WACC from 

equity and debt cost data on individual Value Line reported companies from the Damodaran 

Online website. 8

Because the set of commercial companies purchasing commercial refrigeration 

equipment may differ from those who purchase other types of commercial equipment, each 

rulemaking requires development of its own targeted discount rates. DOE will develop the 

discount rates and associated calculations and provide an opportunity for comment on them in 

the preliminary analysis. Interested parties may comment on this issue during the preliminary 

analysis comment period. DOE will make necessary changes to the preliminary analysis based 

on the comments it receives on the LCC and PBP analyses, and will reflect those changes in the 

NOPR. 

Item 8-2 DOE seeks comment on the proposed approaches for estimating discount rates 

for consumers of the equipment covered under this rulemaking.

Item 8-3 Given the relatively narrow commercial application of most of the equipment 

covered under this rulemaking, which, if any, commercial sectors beyond 

grocery stores and restaurants should be considered in the evaluation of 

discount rates? In addition, are government purchases of this equipment large 

enough to require that they be included in the evaluation of discount rates?

8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs

DOE will consider expected changes to maintenance, repair, and installation costs for the 

equipment covered in this rulemaking. In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE based repair costs on 

annualized costs of key components and frequency of replacement in the field. Maintenance 

costs were based on estimates of preventative maintenance and a separate estimate of 

maintenance for different lighting system technologies. DOE took annualized maintenance costs 

for commercial refrigeration equipment from data in RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair 

Cost Data. Because data were not available to indicate how preventative maintenance costs vary 

with equipment efficiency level, DOE used preventative maintenance costs that remain constant 

as equipment efficiency is increased. Because the lighting configurations and the frequency of 

lighting replacement can vary by efficiency level and lighting technology incorporated, DOE 

estimated the relative maintenance costs for lighting by each case type where case lighting was 

employed and for which DOE performed a design option analysis. DOE will rely on input from 

manufacturers and other interested parties in deciding whether to use a different approach for 

developing appropriate repair and maintenance costs for this rulemaking. 

Unless the efficiency increases considered for this rulemaking result in significantly 

larger or heavier equipment, DOE expects that more-efficient commercial refrigeration 

equipment will not incur increased installation costs.

 

8 See http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 8-4 DOE seeks feedback on whether it is correct to assume that changes in 

preventative maintenance, repair, and installation costs will be negligible for 

equipment with lower energy consumption.

Item 8-5 If it is not appropriate to assume that changes in maintenance, repair, or 

installation costs would be negligible for equipment with lower energy 

consumption, DOE seeks comment on appropriate methodologies for assessing 

how these costs would change for equipment with lower energy consumption.

8.4 Equipment Lifetimes

In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE determined that commercial refrigeration equipment is 

typically replaced when stores are renovated—about every 7 to 10 years for large grocery 

chains—which is before the units would have physically worn out. In that rulemaking, DOE used 

an average lifetime of 10 years for large grocery and multi-line retailers and an average lifetime 

of 15 years for small grocery and convenience stores. As appropriate, DOE will also use 

information from various literature sources (e.g., Appliance Magazine, handbooks published by 

ASHRAE, etc.) and input from manufacturers and other interested parties to better establish 

average equipment lifetimes for use in the LCC and subsequent analyses.

Item 8-6 DOE seeks comment on appropriate equipment lifetimes for the classes of 

equipment covered in this rulemaking. 

9.0 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Shipment forecasts are required to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy

use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE plans to develop shipment forecasts based 

on an analysis of key market drivers for commercial refrigeration equipment.

9.1 Base Case Forecast

To evaluate the various impacts of standards, DOE must develop a base case forecast 

against which to compare forecasts for higher efficiency levels. The base case forecast is 

designed to depict what will happen to energy consumption and energy costs over time if DOE 

does not adopt amended energy conservation standards for the equipment covered under this 

rulemaking. In determining the base case forecast, DOE will consider historical shipments, the 

mix of efficiencies sold under current standards, and how that mix might change over time. For 

these purposes, DOE needs data on historical shipments and the market shares of the different 

efficiency levels offered in each equipment class.

In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE relied on the limited historical shipments data available in 

a few sources. AHRI provided DOE with shipments data broken out by specific commercial 

refrigeration equipment class for 1 year (2005) that allowed DOE to allocate sales of equipment 

to equipment classes. DOE calculated the proportion of these sales that were sales to new 

grocery outlets and then scaled this estimate by using AEO estimates of new construction for 

food sales buildings. Replacements were based on the number of units removed from the 

inventory in each year. The stock of equipment was based on the proportion of 2005 equipment 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
sales believed to be for replacement, divided by the average equipment life. Data were checked 

against estimates by the Freedonia market consulting firm. The 2005 AHRI data covered selfcontained equipment with doors, but did not state whether it included pull-down units. In 

addition, it covered only shipments from AHRI members. During the current rulemaking DOE 

plans to review the 2005 AHRI data and any other data that becomes available to determine the 

most appropriate distribution of shipments among equipment classes and the most appropriate 

distribution for equipment stock. 

Appliance Magazine reports historical shipments for commercial refrigerated display 

cases as a single group. The U.S. Census Bureau (the Bureau) has also published limited 

statistics on the quantity and value of shipments for those companies with shipments over 

$100,000 in both 1997 and 2002. Similar shipments data are expected to be published during 

2010 for shipments in 2007. While the Bureau data identifies several equipment classes 

separately, the data by equipment class are limited. Data for remote condensing and selfcontained refrigeration equipment are provided separately. Additionally, this data provides the 

dollar-value of shipments rather than the actual shipment quantities in most cases.

DOE intends to collect shipment data within each equipment class, as well as marketshare efficiency data (i.e., data on the distribution of product shipments by efficiency) for each 

class. Based on experience in the 2009 rulemaking, DOE recognizes that this information may be 

difficult to collect, and may therefore consider other methods to estimate the efficiency 

distribution in the market. For example, when market-share efficiency data are not available, 

DOE may use efficiency distributions based on available equipment models as a proxy. DOE 

may also request separate shipment information for equipment sold with specific design features 

(e.g., ECM evaporator fan motors).

9.2 Accounting Methodology 

DOE proposes to determine annual shipments in the base case by accounting for new 

building construction and historical rates of ownership (saturation rates) in buildings. For 

equipment retirements, DOE will use the same equipment lifetimes and retirement functions that 

it generates for the LCC and PBP analysis. This method has the distinct advantage of separately 

accounting for units installed in new construction and existing buildings. More importantly, DOE 

can express saturation rates as a function of consumer price and operating cost to capture their 

impact on future shipments. DOE plans to rely on EIA’s AEO to forecast new commercial 

construction.

DOE will also consider any other input provided by interested parties.

Item 9-1 DOE seeks information on historical shipments of commercial refrigeration 

equipment for each equipment class covered under this rulemaking, as well as 

industry-trend data regarding relative growth in each equipment class.

Item 9-2 DOE seeks information on representative saturation rates for each equipment 

class covered under this rulemaking, as well as industry-trend data regarding 

relative growth in each equipment class.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
9.3 Standards Impacts on Shipments

For each equipment class, DOE will develop a set of shipment forecasts for the covered 

equipment for each set of potential standards analyzed. These standards case forecasts will be 

used to evaluate the impacts of standards on shipments. Standards case forecasts are derived 

using the same data-sets as base case forecasts; however, because the standards case forecasts 

take into account the increase in purchase price and the decrease in operating costs caused by 

new or amended standards, forecasted shipments could deviate from the base case. The 

magnitude of the difference between the standards case and base case shipment forecasts 

depends on the estimated purchase-price-increase as well as the operating-cost-savings caused by 

the standard. Because the purchase price tends to have a larger impact than operating cost on 

equipment purchase decisions, standards case forecasts typically show a drop in shipments 

relative to the base case.

DOE’s past standards analyses have attempted to quantify the sensitivity of shipments to 

purchase price and operating-cost-savings. Because the data required to develop these 

sensitivities are limited and often difficult to obtain, DOE will consider modeling standards case 

shipments forecasts with scenarios (i.e., specified impacts to equipment shipments) rather than 

developing sensitivities to purchase price or operating-cost-savings.

Market-pull programs, such as consumer rebate programs that encourage the purchase of 

more-efficient equipment and manufacturer tax credits that encourage the production of moreefficient equipment, also affect standards case forecasts. When such programs exist, DOE 

considers their impact on the forecast of both standards case and base case shipments.

Item 9-3 DOE requests input from manufacturers on the potential impact of new energy 

conservation standards on equipment shipments. Other interested parties are 

also welcome to provide input. DOE also requests input on any market-pull 

programs that currently exist to promote the adoption of more-efficient 

equipment. 

10.0 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The NIA discusses DOE’s assessment of the aggregate impacts of potential efficiency 

standards at the national level. Measures of impact that DOE will report include future NES from 

CSLs (i.e., the cumulative incremental primary energy savings from an increased energy 

conservation standard relative to a base case that assumes no change in the energy conservation 

national standard over a specific forecast period) and the NPV for consumers in the aggregate 

from CSLs (i.e., the cumulative incremental LCC from an increased energy conservation 

standard relative to the base case over a specific forecast period).

10.1 Inputs to Forecast

Analyzing impacts of Federal energy conservation standards requires a comparison of 

projected United States energy consumption for the commercial refrigeration equipment covered 

under this rulemaking with, and without, new or amended energy conservation standards. The 

forecasts contain projections of unit energy consumption for new equipment, annual equipment 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
shipments, and the price of purchased equipment. The derivations of the base case shipments 

forecasts are discussed in section 9.1. Approaches to determining retail prices are described in 

section 7.0, while approaches to determining per unit net energy consumption impact are 

described in section 6.0. 

One factor often considered in DOE rulemakings is the rebound effect, generally 

considered in the input to the NIA. Often, consumers that encounter lower operating costs 

associated with more energy-efficient equipment will use that equipment more often than lessefficient equipment. The rebound effect analysis accounts for this increase in consumer use. In 

the 2009 rulemaking—because of the fixed circumscribed nature of the services provided by 

commercial refrigeration equipment (i.e., fixed temperature regime in a specific marketing 

context and 24-hour continuous operation) —DOE determined that there would be limited scope 

for a rebound effect to occur. Interested parties in the 2009 rulemaking generally agreed that a 

rebound effect, if any, would likely be minimal. DOE did not incorporate a rebound effect in the 

2009 rulemaking. DOE will investigate incorporating a rebound effect based on the economics 

literature concerning energy efficiency in the commercial sector.

Table 10.1 describes some of the major inputs DOE anticipates it will develop for the 

NIA. 

Table 10.1. Inputs to the National Impact Analysis

Input Data Description of Data Sources

Shipments DOE develops annual shipments over a 30 year analysis period as 

described in section 9.0, Shipment Analysis. 

Stock of Commercial Refrigeration Cases This stock is calculated from the service life of equipment 

developed as described in section 8.0, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, 

and annual shipments of equipment developed as described in 

section 9.0, Shipment Analysis. 

Compliance Date of Standard The compliance date of the standard is January 1, 2016. 

Analysis Period This analysis period is 2016 to 2045 (30 years).

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiency Distribution of base-case shipments by efficiency level over time 

developed as described in section 9.0, Shipment Analysis. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiency Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each standards 

case over time as described in section 9.0, Shipment Analysis. 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) This is the average energy consumption of commercial 

refrigeration equipment established as described in section 6.0, 

Energy-Use and End-Use Load Characterization. 

Total Installed Cost Established as described in section 7.0, Markups for Equipment 

Price Determination, and section 8.0, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. 

Electricity Price Forecast Established as described in section 8.0, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. 

Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Conversion varies yearly and is generated from detailed EIA AEO

forecasts of electricity generation by technology and electricityrelated losses. 

Discount Rate The discount rate is the rate at which DOE discounts future 

expenditures to establish their present value. DOE will use 3- and 

7-percent discount rates mandated by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

Present Year Future costs and savings will be discounted to 2010.

Rebound Effect The difference between the projected and actual savings due to 

increased efficiency. DOE may base this effect on economics 

literature on energy efficiency in the commercial and industrial 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
sectors. 

10.2 Calculation of Energy Savings

DOE intends to calculate national energy consumption for each year beginning with the 

expected compliance date of the standards. It will calculate national energy consumption by fuel 

type for the base case and each standard level analyzed. DOE plans to perform this calculation 

through the use of a spreadsheet model that effectively multiplies annual equipment stock 

forecasts by efficiency level (based on shipments and retirements in each year) by unit electricity 

use at the site of use, for each efficiency level. DOE then plans to multiply the site electricity use 

by year-by-year marginal site-to-source conversion factors that account for energy losses in 

generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in order to estimate national primary 

energy savings. In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE based the site-to-source conversion factors on 

modeled savings of primary energy in the electric utility industry of EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) (section 13.0). DOE plans to use the same method for this 

rulemaking. 

In response to comments by interested parties who asked for a simple, transparent model, 

DOE developed NES spreadsheet models for its standards rulemakings starting in 1996. These 

models project energy savings and demonstrate how to account for the growth in efficiency over 

time.9

Item 10-1 DOE welcomes comments from interested parties on the NES spreadsheet 

models it plans to use for estimating national impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.

DOE expects the NES spreadsheet model to provide a credible, stand-alone forecast of 

national energy savings and aggregate consumer NPV for commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE will make any necessary changes to the preliminary analysis based on the comments it 

receives. It will reflect those changes in the NOPR. 

10.3 Net Present Value of Consumer Savings

DOE calculates the national NPV of the standards in conjunction with the NES. It 

calculates annual energy expenditures from annual energy consumption by incorporating 

forecasted energy prices, using the shipment forecasts described in section 9.1, Shipment 

Analysis and electricity savings forecasts described in section 10.2. DOE calculates annual 

equipment expenditures by multiplying the price per unit by the forecasted shipments. The 

difference between a base case and a standards case scenario gives the national energy bill 

savings and increased equipment expenditures in dollars. The difference each year between 

energy bill savings and increased equipment expenditures is the net savings (if positive) or net 

cost (if negative). DOE discounts these annual values to the present time and sums them to give 

an NPV. Since the national cost of capital may differ from the consumer cost of capital, the 

discount rate used in the NIA can be different from the rate used in the LCC. In accordance with 

 

9

 Several examples of NES spreadsheet models from previous rulemakings can be found on DOE’s website at 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
OMB guidance, DOE will conduct two NPV calculations, one using a real discount rate of 3 

percent and another using a real discount rate of 7 percent.10

Based on consideration of the comments received for the preliminary analysis, DOE will 

make any necessary changes to the analysis and the CSLs.. 

 

11.0 LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

DOE recognizes that there are potential subgroups of commercial customers/purchasers 

of commercial refrigeration equipment who may be impacted by standards differently than 

customers/purchasers generally. DOE analyzes such differences in impacts by dividing 

consumers into subgroups and accounting for variations in key inputs to the LCC analysis. A 

customer subgroup comprises a subset of the purchaser population that is likely, for one reason 

or another, to be impacted disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards. 

The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of this disproportional impact. In 

the 2009 rulemaking, after considering available Census statistics on small businesses in the food 

sales business, DOE used owners of small grocery and convenience stores as representative of 

likely small business purchasers of commercial refrigeration equipment affected by the 

rulemaking. Because the scope of this rulemaking also includes greater number of equipment 

shipments to food services (as opposed to food sales) applications, DOE will also consider 

whether to analyze independent restaurant owners as small businesses affected by the 

rulemaking. DOE will work with interested parties early in the rulemaking process to identify 

any subgroups for this consideration and will analyze the consumer subgroups in the NOPR 

stage of the analysis.

In comparing potential impacts on the different consumer subgroups, DOE will evaluate 

variations in regional energy prices, variations in energy use, and variations in installation costs 

that might affect the NPV of a standard to consumer subgroups. To the extent possible, DOE 

may obtain estimates of the variability in each input variable and consider this variability in its 

calculation of consumer impacts. It will discuss the variability in each input variable and likely 

sources of information with interested parties.

Item 11-1 DOE seeks input as to what customer subgroups DOE should consider in the 

present rulemaking. Examples of possible subgroups DOE could consider 

appropriate for commercial refrigeration equipment include small independent 

grocery stores and small convenience stores and independently owned 

restaurants. 

12.0 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE will collect, evaluate, and report preliminary manufacturer impact information and 

data in the preliminary analysis. (Standards Activities, p. 48) Such preliminary manufacturer 

impact information includes the anticipated conversion capital expenditures by efficiency level 

and the corresponding, anticipated impacts on jobs. DOE will solicit this information during the 

engineering analysis manufacturer interviews for the preliminary analysis.. 

 

10 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
The analysis of impacts on manufacturers is intended to provide DOE with an assessment 

of the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers. In addition to 

financial impacts, a wide range of quantitative and qualitative effects may occur following 

adoption of a standard that may require changes to the manufacturing practices for this 

equipment. DOE will identify these effects through interviews with manufacturers and other 

interested parties. 

12.1 Sources of Information

Many of the analyses described earlier provide important information that DOE uses as 

inputs for the MIA. Such information includes financial parameters developed in the market 

assessment (section 3.1), manufacturing costs and prices from the engineering analysis (sections 

5.2 and 5.3), retail price forecasts (section 7.0), and shipments forecasts (section 9.1). DOE

supplements this information with information gathered during manufacturer interviews. The 

interview process will play a key role in the MIA, as it provides an opportunity for interested 

parties to express their views on important issues. 

DOE will conduct detailed interviews with manufacturers to gain insight into the range of 

potential impacts of standards. During the interviews, DOE will solicit information on the 

possible impacts of standards on manufacturing costs, equipment prices, sales, direct 

employment, capital assets, and industry competitiveness. Both qualitative and quantitative 

information are valuable. In addition, an interview guide will be provided before the interviews 

to allow the manufacturers to gather the appropriate information. Although a written response to 

the questionnaire is acceptable, DOE prefers an interactive interview process because it helps 

clarify responses and provides the opportunity for additional issues to be identified.

DOE will ask that interview participants identify all confidential information provided, 

both in writing and orally. While it will consider information gathered, as appropriate, in its 

decision-making process, DOE will protect confidential information from disclosure consistent 

with applicable law. 

DOE will collate the completed interview questionnaires and prepare a summary of the 

major issues and outcomes. This summary will become part of the TSD produced for this 

rulemaking.

Item 12-1 What procedures should DOE follow when scheduling interviews and requesting 

information? 

12.2 Industry Cash Flow Analysis

The industry cash flow analysis relies primarily on the Government Regulatory Impact 

Model (GRIM). DOE uses the GRIM to analyze the financial impacts of more stringent energy 

conservation standards on the industry that produces the equipment covered by the standard.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
The GRIM analysis uses a number of factors—annual expected revenues; manufacturer 

costs such as costs of goods sold; selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) costs; taxes; and 

capital expenditures related to depreciation, new standards, and maintenance—to arrive at a 

series of annual cash flows beginning from the announcement of the new standard and 

continuing for several years after its implementation. DOE compares the results against base case 

projections that involve no new standards. The financial impact of new standards then is the 

difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows. Other performance metrics, 

such as return on invested capital, also are available from the GRIM.

DOE will gather this information from two primary sources: (1) the analyses conducted 

to this point; and (2) interviews with manufacturers and other interested parties. Information 

gathered from previous analyses will include financial parameters, manufacturing costs, price 

forecasts, and shipments forecasts. Interviews with manufacturers and other interested parties

will be essential in supplementing this information.

12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

It is possible that the use of average industry cost values will not adequately assess 

differential impacts among subgroups of manufacturers. DOE recognizes that smaller 

manufacturers, niche players, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs largely 

from the industry average may be differentially impacted by the imposition of standards. Ideally, 

DOE would consider the impact on every firm individually. In highly concentrated industries, 

this may be possible. In industries having numerous participants, however, DOE will use the 

results of the market and technology assessment to group manufacturers into subgroups, as 

appropriate.

Item 12-2 DOE seeks comment on the establishment of manufacturer subgroups for 

commercial refrigeration equipment.

12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

the imposition of standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(e). It further directs the 

Attorney General to determine, in writing, the impacts, if any, of any lessening of competition.

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

DOE will make a determined effort to gather firm-specific financial information and 

impacts. DOE will then report the aggregated impact of the standard on manufacturers. The 

competitive impacts assessment will include a focus on the assessment of the impacts to smaller 

manufacturers. DOE will provide the Attorney General with a copy of the NOPR for 

consideration in his/her evaluation of the impact, if any, of standards on any lessening of 

competition. DOE will base the assessment on manufacturing cost data and on information 

collected from interviews with manufacturers. One focus of the manufacturer interviews will be 

to gather information that would help in assessing asymmetrical cost increases to some 

manufacturers, increased proportion of fixed costs potentially increasing business risks, and 

potential barriers to market entry (e.g., proprietary technologies).

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

Finally, DOE is aware that other regulations may be placed on equipment covered under 

this rulemaking as well as on other equipment which may be manufactured by the manufacturers 

of equipment covered under this rulemaking. Multiple regulations may result in a cumulative 

regulatory burden on these manufacturers. DOE will address and seek to mitigate the 

overlapping effects on manufacturers of amended DOE standards and other regulatory actions 

affecting the same equipment or companies.

Item 12-3 What regulations or pending regulations should DOE consider in the analysis of 

cumulative regulatory burden?

13.0 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

The utility impact analysis will include an analysis of the electric utility industry. DOE is 

considering adapting NEMS produced by the EIA for this analysis. NEMS (EIA 2009) is a large 

multi-sectoral partial-equilibrium model of the United States energy sector that has been 

developed over the past decade by the EIA, primarily to prepare DOE’s AEO. In prior 

rulemakings, a variant of NEMS (currently termed NEMS-BT, BT referring to the DOE Building 

Technologies Program) was developed to better address the specific impacts of equipment 

efficiency standards. 11

The NEMS produces a widely recognized baseline energy forecast for the United States 

through 2035 and is available in the public domain. The typical NEMS outputs include forecasts 

of electricity sales, price, and avoided capacity. DOE plans to conduct the utility impact analysis 

as a scenario departing from the latest AEO reference case. In other words, the energy savings 

impacts from amended energy conservation standards will be modeled using NEMS-BT to 

generate forecasts that deviate from the AEO reference case. 12

Item 13-1 DOE seeks input from interested parties on its proposed use of NEMS-BT to 

conduct the utility impact analysis.

14.0 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

The imposition of standards can impact employment both directly and indirectly. Direct 

employment impacts are changes in the number of employees at the plants that produce the 

covered equipment, along with the affiliated distribution and service companies, resulting from 

 

11 For more information on NEMS, please refer to DOE EIA documentation. A useful summary is National Energy 

Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581 (October 2009), available at 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html. EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an official 

version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because this analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and the model is run under various policy scenarios that are variations on EIA assumptions, DOE 

refers to the model by the name NEMS-BT. (-BT refers to DOE’s Building Technologies Program, under whose 

aegis this work is performed.)

12 Several descriptions of NEMS-BT models and utilization from previous commercial equipment rulemakings, 

including beverage vending machines, can be found on DOE’s website at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/beverage_machines_final_rule_tsd.html

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
the imposition of standards. DOE will evaluate direct employment impacts in the MIA, as 

described in section 12.0. 

Indirect employment impacts may result from expenditures shifting between goods (the 

substitution effect) and changes in income and overall expenditure levels (the income effect) that 

occur due to the imposition of standards. The combined direct and indirect employment impacts 

will be investigated in the employment impact analysis using the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory’s “Impact of Sector Energy Technologies” (ImSET) model.

13

Item 14-1 DOE requests feedback on this approach to assessing employment impacts.

The ImSET model was 

developed for EERE and estimates the employment and income effects of energy-saving 

technologies in buildings, industry, and transportation. In comparison with simple economic 

multiplier approaches, ImSET allows for more complete and automated analysis of the economic 

impacts of energy conservation investments.

15.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The intent of the environmental assessment is to quantify and consider the environmental 

effects of amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. The 

primary environmental effects of these standards would be reduced power plant emissions 

resulting from reduced consumption of electricity. DOE will assess these environmental effects 

by using NEMS-BT to provide key inputs to its analysis. The portion of the environmental 

assessment that will be produced by NEMS-BT considers CO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg). After a brief discussion of general methodology, this section 

will address each of the relevant emissions. Section 16.0, explains how DOE plans to monetize 

the benefits associated with emissions reductions.

The NEMS-BT is run similarly to the AEO2010 NEMS, except that commercial 

refrigeration equipment energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved due to each TSL. 

The inputs of national energy savings come from the NIA spreadsheet model; the output is the 

forecasted physical emissions at each TSL. The net benefit of the standard is the difference 

between emissions estimated by NEMS-BT at each TSL and the AEO Reference Case. NEMSBT tracks emissions using a detailed module that provides results with broad coverage of all 

sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. To assess the environmental impact on CO2

emissions, DOE analyzes forecasted physical emissions. 

15.1 Carbon Dioxide

In the absence of any Federal emissions control regulation of power plant emissions of 

CO2, a DOE standard is likely to result in reductions of these emissions. The CO2 emission 

reductions likely to result from a standard will be estimated using NEMS-BT and national energy 

savings estimates drawn from the NIA spreadsheet model. The net benefit of the standard is the 

 

13 Scott M.J., O.V. Livingston, J.M. Roop, R.W. Schultz, and P.J. Balducci. ImSET 3.1:Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User’s Guide. 2009. PNNL-18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, WA). 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
difference between emissions estimated by NEMS-BT at each standard level considered and the 

AEO Reference Case. NEMS-BT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed module that provides 

results with broad coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. 

15.2 Sulfur Dioxide

DOE has preliminarily determined that SO2 emissions from affected electric generating 

units (EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs that 

create uncertainty about the amended standards’ impact on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean 

Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for all affected EGUs. SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern States and the District of Columbia (DC) are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which creates an allowance-based trading program 

that will gradually replace the Title IV program in those States and DC. (The recent legal history 

surrounding CAIR is discussed below.) The attainment of the emissions caps is flexible among 

EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. The 

standard could lead EGUs to trade allowances and increase SO2 emissions that offset some or all 

SO2 emissions reductions attributable to the amended standard. As a result, DOE is not certain 

that there will be reduced overall SO2 emissions from the amended standards. The NEMS-BT 

modeling system that DOE plans to use to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that 

no physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2. However, remaining 

uncertainty prevents DOE from estimating SO2 reductions from the standards at this time.

15.3 Nitrogen Oxides

NEMS-BT also has an algorithm for estimating NOx emissions from power generation. 

The impact of these emissions, however, will be affected by the CAIR, which the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued on May 12, 2005. CAIR will permanently cap 

emissions of NOx in 28 eastern states and DC. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).

Much like SO2 emissions, a cap on NOx emissions means that the amended commercial 

refrigeration equipment standards may have little or no physical effect on these emissions in the 

28 eastern States and the DC covered by CAIR. Although CAIR has been remanded to the EPA 

by the DC Circuit, it will remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the Court’s 

July 11, 2008, opinion in North Carolina v. EPA. 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008); see also North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). Because all States covered by CAIR opted to 

reduce NOx emissions through participation in cap-and-trade programs for EGUs, emissions 

from these sources are capped across the CAIR region.

 

DOE plans to use NEMS-BT to estimate the emissions reductions from possible 

standards in the 22 States where emissions are not capped. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
15.4 Mercury

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOx, future emissions of Hg would have been subject to 

emissions caps. In May 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). 70 FR 28606 

(May 18, 2005). CAMR would have permanently capped emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired power plants in all States by 2010. However, on February 8, 2008, the D.C. 

Circuit issued its decision in New Jersey v. EPA, in which the DC Circuit, among other actions, 

vacated the CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA has decided to develop emissions 

standards for power plants under the Clean Air Act (Section 112), consistent with the DC 

Circuit’s opinion on the CAMR. See

www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/certpetition_withdrawal.pdf. Pending EPA’s forthcoming 

revisions to the rule, DOE is excluding the CAMR from its environmental analysis. In the 

absence of CAMR, a DOE standard would likely reduce Hg emissions and DOE plans to use 

NEMS-BT for this rulemaking to estimate these emission reductions. However, DOE continues 

to review the impact of rules that reduce energy consumption on Hg emissions, and may revise 

its assessment of Hg emission reductions in future rulemakings.

15.5 Particulate Matter

DOE acknowledges that particulate matter (PM) impacts are of concern due to human 

exposures that can impact health. But impacts of PM emissions reduction are much more 

difficult to estimate than other emissions reductions due to the complex interactions between 

PM, other power plant emissions, meteorology, and atmospheric chemistry that impact human 

exposure to particulates. Human exposure to PM usually occurs at a significant distance from the 

power plants that are emitting particulates and particulate precursors. When power plant 

emissions travel this distance, they undergo highly complex atmospheric chemical reactions. 

Although the EPA does keep inventories of direct PM emissions of power plants, in its source 

attribution reviews, the EPA does not separate direct PM emissions from power plants from the 

sulfate particulates indirectly produced through complex atmospheric chemical reactions. The 

great majority of PM emissions from power plants are of these secondary particles (secondary 

sulfates). Thus, it is not useful to examine how the amended standard impacts direct PM 

emissions independent of indirect PM production and atmospheric dynamics. Therefore, DOE is 

not planning to assess the impact of these standards on particulate emissions. Further, even the 

cumulative impact of PM emissions from power plants and indirect emissions of pollutants from 

other sources is unlikely to be significant.

Item 15-1 DOE seeks input on its plans to use NEMS-BT to conduct the environmental 

impact analysis on the equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE is 

particularly interested in whether there are any other approaches to the 

environmental assessment that it should consider and the advantages and 

disadvantages for each approach.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
16.0 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

For those emissions for which real national emission reductions are anticipated (CO2, Hg, 

and NOx), only a range of estimated economic values based on environmental damage studies of 

varying quality and applicability are available. Therefore, DOE plans on reporting and weighing 

these values. According to OMB guidance, DOE will then conduct two calculations: one using a 

real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 7 percent.14

In order to estimate the monetary value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions of 

CO2 emissions, it is DOE’s intent to use in its analysis the most current social cost of carbon 

(SCC) values developed and/or agreed to by interagency reviews. The SCC is intended to be a 

monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

including but not limited to net agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property

damage from sea level rise, and changes in ecosystem services. Any effort to quantify and to 

monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics. But with full regard for the limits of both quantification and monetization, 

the SCC can be used to provide estimates of the social benefits of reductions in GHG emissions. 

 

At the time of this notice, these estimates are $5, $21, $35, and $65 per metric ton of CO2

(in 2007$). These values are then adjusted to 2009$ using the standard GDP deflator value for 

2008 and 2009. For emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these values 

grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of 

values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate 

domestic effects, although preference will be given to consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions.

 

DOE recognizes that scientific and economic knowledge continues to evolve rapidly as to 

the contribution of CO2 and other GHG to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy. Thus, these values are subject to change. 

DOE will investigate the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOx emissions from the 

standard levels. For NOX emissions, available estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values for NOX emissions, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary 

sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range of $442 to $4,540 per ton in 2008$). Refer to 

the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “2006 Report to Congress on the Costs 

and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities,” for additional information. 

DOE does not plan to monetize estimates of Hg in this rulemaking. DOE is aware of 

multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance 

regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg 

in its rulemakings. 

 

14 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 16-1 DOE invites comments on its approach to monetization of emissions. 

17.0 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

Pursuant to section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and 

Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), if DOE determines that amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigeration equipment would constitute a significant regulatory 

action, during the NOPR stage DOE will prepare and submit to OMB (1) an assessment of the 

costs and benefits of the proposed regulation, and (2) if the proposed rule is also significant 

under section 3(f)(1)of the E.O., a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) which is subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the OIRA at OMB. The RIA would address the potential for nonregulatory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards to improve the 

energy efficiency or reduce the energy consumption of the commercial refrigeration equipment 

covered under this rulemaking in the market.

DOE recognizes that voluntary or other non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities 

and other interested parties can result in substantial improvements to energy efficiency or 

reductions in energy consumption. DOE intends to consider the likely effects of non-regulatory 

initiatives on equipment energy use, consumer utility, and LCCs. DOE will base its assessment 

on the actual impacts of any such initiatives to date and will consider information presented 

regarding the impacts that any existing initiative might have in the future.

DOE is aware of the existence of non-regulatory programs that specifically target the 

commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking. Most of these programs are 

utility rebate programs that provide incentives for users to purchase equipment with specific 

design features or add certain defined components to improve efficiency of existing equipment. 

Some of the benefits of these features, such as occupancy sensors controls, are not captured in 

the current test procedure. A few classes of self-contained equipment are listed under a 

commercial refrigerator freezer Energy Star program where Energy Star rating is based on 

equipment performance ratings. DOE seeks comment regarding programs that should be 

examined as optional non-regulatory approaches

Item 17-1 DOE seeks comment regarding programs that should be examined as optional, 

non-regulatory approaches.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
APPENDIX A – LIST OF ITEMS FOR COMMENT

This appendix lists all the items for comment contained in this framework document and the 

page numbers on which those items can be found.

Item 1-1 DOE requests comment regarding the development of updated test procedures for the 

commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking. ...........................................9

Item 1-2 DOE seeks comment on the existence and/or prevalence of self-contained commercial 

refrigerators for pull-down temperature applications with doors other than transparent doors...15 

Item 1-3 DOE seeks comment on issues relating to the treatment of niche equipment under 

EPCA. ................................................................................................................................14

Item 3-1 DOE seeks information that would contribute to the market assessment (e.g., the 

manufacturers of this equipment in the United States and the equipment they sell, by equipment 

class). It is particularly important that DOE be aware of the major and small/niche 

manufacturers............................................................................................................................17

Item 3-2 DOE seeks information on annual shipments into the U.S. market from 1995 to 2010 

(both domestic and imports) by equipment class, and the corresponding shipment-weighted 

average efficiency of these shipments........................................................................................17

Item 3-3 DOE seeks information on the proportion(s) of equipment shipped annually that 

replaces existing equipment.......................................................................................................17

Item 3-4 DOE requests feedback on the proposed classes for the commercial refrigeration 

equipment covered under this rulemaking, and the criteria used in creating the classes..............20

Item 3-5 What technologies or designs, if any, should be added to or removed from the above 

list? If certain changes to the list are not applicable to all equipment classes, what equipment 

classes are affected? ..................................................................................................................22

Item 3-6 DOE seeks information on what particular components and features characterize the 

baseline model in each equipment class (e.g., materials, dimensions, insulation, refrigerant type, 

compressors, evaporators, condensers, expansion devices, fans, motors, air-curtains, anticondensate devices and controls, defrost mechanisms and controls, lighting, etc.). ....................22

Item 4-1 DOE welcomes comments on how the above four screening criteria might apply to 

any additional technology option(s) that an interested party recommends to DOE. ....................23

Item 5-1 Within each equipment class, for energy consumption levels below the baseline DOE 

seeks information on daily energy consumption and on incremental manufacturing costs and 

components (see Item 3-6) (e.g., differentiation in components from the baseline, material costs, 

labor costs, factory overhead costs (excluding depreciation), building conversion capital 

expenditures, tooling/equipment conversion capital expenditures, research and development 

(R&D) expenses, marketing expenses, etc.)...............................................................................24

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 5-2 DOE is also interested in receiving equipment test data (e.g., test procedure used, 

rating conditions, refrigerated volume, total display area, case length, voltage, integrated average 

product temperature, daily energy consumption, etc.). Test data representative of the baseline 

model in each equipment class is particularly important. ...........................................................24

Item 5-3 DOE requests feedback on the use of a design option approach to determine the 

relationship between manufacturer selling price and energy consumption for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. ............................................................................................................25

Item 5-4 DOE seeks comment on the markup approach proposed for developing estimates of 

manufacturer selling prices........................................................................................................25

Item 5-5 Are there proprietary designs that DOE should consider for any of the equipment 

under consideration by this rulemaking? If so, how should DOE acquire the cost data necessary 

for evaluating these designs?.....................................................................................................26

Item 5-6 DOE requests feedback on representative sizes. Are the representative sizes used for 

the 2009 final rule adequate, and should they be retained or modified? What representative sizes 

should DOE use for analysis of the equipment for which EPCA prescribed standards?..............26

Item 5-7 DOE requests feedback on the use of total display area as a normalization metric for 

all equipment with transparent doors. ........................................................................................27

Item 5-8 DOE requests feedback on the selection of a representative baseline for use in 

mapping between the existing volume metric and a total display area metric, as well as on the 

methodology needed to translate baseline energy use between the two metrics. .........................27

Item 5-9 DOE requests feedback regarding specific equipment classes which may need to be 

subdivided, or equipment categories which may need their own equipment classes, should 

revised normalization metrics be used in this rulemaking. .........................................................27

Item 5-10 DOE welcomes data from interested parties that could aid in accurately quantifying 

the impact of end effects on smaller equipment. ........................................................................28

Item 5-11 DOE welcomes data from interested parties that could aid in supplementing the 

matched pair analyses performed in developing extension multipliers for secondary equipment 

classes. ................................................................................................................................29

Item 5-12 Should DOE consider any alternatives to the HFCs mentioned for its analysis of 

commercial refrigeration equipment? ........................................................................................30

Item 5-13 Are there additional outside regulatory issues that DOE should consider in its 

engineering analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment?....................................................30

Item 6-1 DOE seeks data or data sources that could be used to characterize the energy use of 

commercial refrigeration equipment and how this may deviate from that estimated using the 

DOE test procedure...................................................................................................................31

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 6-2 DOE seeks data or data sources that could be used to characterize the operating hours 

assumptions that could be used to assess lighting energy for different lighting and lighting 

control technologies used in commercial refrigeration equipment..............................................31

Item 6-3 DOE seeks input on whether the impact of higher efficiency refrigeration equipment 

in self-contained equipment on the building space conditioning loads is significant enough to 

warrant taking them into account in the energy analysis If so, what methods could best be used to 

estimate the net energy consumption and load impacts of higher efficiency commercial 

refrigeration equipment in buildings using this equipment.........................................................31

Item 6-4 DOE seeks feedback on this approach to the energy use and end-use load 

characterization. ........................................................................................................................31

Item 7-1 DOE also requests information on the fraction of shipments expected for each 

distribution channel for the commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking; 

specifically, whether the distribution channels derived for food sales establishments adequately 

covers sales to food service establishments................................................................................33

Item 7-2 DOE requests feedback on its proposal to use incremental distribution channel 

markups for the LCC analysis. ..................................................................................................33

Item 7-3 DOE seeks comment on other sources of relevant data that could be used to 

characterize markups for the commercial refrigeration industry.................................................33

Item 7-4 DOE seeks comment on appropriate transportation and shipping costs to include in 

the analysis and whether those costs are likely to vary for higher efficiency equipment.............33

Item 8-1 DOE seeks comment on the proposed approaches for estimating current and 

forecasted energy prices. ...........................................................................................................35

Item 8-2 DOE seeks comment on the proposed approaches for estimating discount rates for 

consumers of the equipment covered under this rulemaking. .....................................................36

Item 8-3 Given the relatively narrow commercial application of most of the equipment covered 

under this rulemaking, which, if any, commercial sectors beyond grocery stores and restaurants 

should be considered in the evaluation of discount rates? In addition, are government purchases 

of this equipment large enough to require that they be included in the evaluation of discount 

rates? 36

Item 8-4 DOE seeks feedback on whether it is correct to assume that changes in preventative 

maintenance, repair, and installation costs will be negligible for equipment with lower energy 

consumption..............................................................................................................................37

Item 8-5 If it is not appropriate to assume that changes in maintenance, repair, or installation 

costs would be negligible for equipment with lower energy consumption, DOE seeks comment 

on appropriate methodologies for assessing how these costs would change for equipment with 

lower energy consumption. .......................................................................................................37

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001
Item 8-6 DOE seeks comment on appropriate equipment lifetimes for the classes of equipment 

covered in this rulemaking. .......................................................................................................37

Item 9-1 DOE seeks information on historical shipments of commercial refrigeration 

equipment for each equipment class covered under this rulemaking, as well as industry-trend 

data regarding relative growth in each equipment class..............................................................38

Item 9-2 DOE seeks information on representative saturation rates for each equipment class 

covered under this rulemaking, as well as industry-trend data regarding relative growth in each 

equipment class.........................................................................................................................38

Item 9-3 DOE requests input from manufacturers on the potential impact of new energy 

conservation standards on equipment shipments. Other interested parties are also welcome to 

provide input. DOE also requests input on any market-pull programs that currently exist to 

promote the adoption of more-efficient equipment. ...................................................................39

Item 10-1 DOE welcomes comments from interested parties on the NES spreadsheet models it 

plans to use for estimating national impacts of amended energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment..........................................................................................41

Item 11-1 DOE seeks input as to what customer subgroups DOE should consider in the present 

rulemaking. Examples of possible subgroups DOE could consider appropriate for commercial 

refrigeration equipment include small independent grocery stores and small convenience stores 

and independently owned restaurants........................................................................................42

Item 12-1 What procedures should DOE follow when scheduling interviews and requesting 

information?..............................................................................................................................43

Item 12-2 DOE seeks comment on the establishment of manufacturer subgroups for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. ............................................................................................................44

Item 12-3 What regulations or pending regulations should DOE consider in the analysis of 

cumulative regulatory burden? ..................................................................................................45

Item 13-1 DOE seeks input from interested parties on its proposed use of NEMS-BT to conduct 

the utility impact analysis..........................................................................................................45

Item 14-1 DOE requests feedback on this approach to assessing employment impacts. ............46

Item 15-1 DOE seeks input on its plans to use NEMS-BT to conduct the environmental impact 

analysis on the equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE is particularly interested in whether 

there are any other approaches to the environmental assessment that it should consider and the 

advantages and disadvantages for each approach.......................................................................48

Item 17-1 DOE seeks comment regarding programs that should be examined as optional, nonregulatory approaches. ..............................................................................................................50

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.001