After a regulatory action has been completed, Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to 

identify the substantive changes between the draft submitted to Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review and the action subsequently announced, and to identify 

those changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. The document below 

provides more information.
[6450-01-P]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003]

RIN: 1904-AC19

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes 

energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment, including commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE). EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of 

energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent energy conservation standards for 

some classes of commercial refrigeration equipment. It has determined that the amended energy 

conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and 

are technologically feasible and economically justified. 

120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DATES: The effective date of this rule is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Compliance with the amended standards 

established for commercial refrigeration equipment in today’s final rule is required on

[COMPLIANCE DATE].

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov 

index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is 

exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket web page can be found at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003.The regulations.gov 

web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

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

Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202 287-1692. E-mail: 

commercial_refrigeration_equipment@EE.Doe.Gov

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. 

Email: Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures and Normalization Metrics

1. Test Procedures

2. Normalization Metrics

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

A. General Rulemaking Issues

1. Trial Standard Levels

2. Proposed Standard Levels

3. Rulemaking Timeline

4. Normalization Metrics

5. Conformance with Executive Orders and Departmental Policies

6. Offset Factors

B. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes

a. Equipment Subcategories

b. Floral Equipment

2. Technology Assessment

a. Technologies Applicable to All Equipment

b. Technologies Relevant only to Equipment with Doors

c. Technologies Applicable Only to Equipment without Doors

C. Screening Analysis

D. Engineering Analysis

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis

a. Representative Unit Selection

b. Baseline Models

2. Design Options

a. Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

b. Condenser Fans

c. Evaporator Fans

d. Design Options Impacting Equipment Form Factor

e. Vacuum Insulated Panels (VIPs)

f. Variable-Speed Fan Motors

g. Improved Transparent Door Designs

h. High-Performance Coil Designs

i. Higher-Efficiency Fan Blades

j. ECM Fan Motors

k. Lighting Occupancy Sensors and Controls

l. Night Curtains

3. Refrigerants

4. Cost Assessment Methodology

420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
a. Teardown Analysis

b. Cost Model

c. Manufacturer Production Cost

d. Cost-Efficiency Relationship

e. Manufacturer Markup

f. Shipping Costs

g. Manufacturer Interviews

5. Energy Consumption Model

a. Release of Engineering Model for Review

b. Anti-Sweat Heater Power

c. Coil Performance Modeling

d. Compressor Performance Modeling

e. Insulation Modeling

f. Lighting Performance

g. Transparent Door Performance

h. Validation of Engineering Results

E. Markups Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Costs

3. Maintenance and Repair Costs

4. Annual Energy Consumption

5. Energy Prices

6. Energy Price Projections

7. Equipment Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

9. Compliance Date of Standards

10. Base-Case Efficiency Distributions

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. Shipments

1. Impact of Standards on Shipments

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

1. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios

3. Discussion of Comments

a. Volume Purchasing of Components

520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
b. Refrigerants

c. Redesign Issues

d. LED Material Costs

e. GRIM

f. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

g. Certification Costs

h. Small Manufacturers

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

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

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation Process and Criteria

2. Trial Standard Level Equations

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Customer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits

c. Employment Impacts

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Summary of National Economic Impact

8. Other Factors

C. Conclusions

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), 

Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.

2

 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for 

certain products, such as commercial refrigeration equipment, shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1. 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)

and 6316(e)(1)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, 

DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. The amended standards, which consist of maximum daily energy consumption 

(MDEC) values as a function of either refrigerated volume or total display area (TDA), are 

shown in Table I.1. These amended standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and 

manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after [INSERT DATE].

Table I.1. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

(Compliance Required Starting [INSERT DATE])

Equipment Class* Standard Level**, † Equipment 

Class* Standard Level**, †

VCTVOP.RC.LM

0.4964 x TDA 

+ 2.614.07 VOP.RC.I

2.79 x TDA + 

8.7

VOP.RC.ML

0.632.2 x TDA 

+ 4.076.85 SVO.RC.L

2.2 x TDA + 

6.85

SVO.RCVOP.SC.M

0.621.69 x 

TDA + 3.184.71 SVO.RC.I

2.79 x TDA + 

8.7

HZOVCT.RC.LM

0.5515 x TDA 

+ 6.881.95 HZO.RC.I

0.7 x TDA + 

8.74

HZOVCT.RC.ML

0.3549 x TDA 

+ 2.8861 VOP.SC.L

4.25 x TDA + 

11.82

VCT.RCSC.M

0.151 x TDA + 

1.95V + 0.86 VOP.SC.I

5.4 x TDA + 

15.02

VOP.RCVCT.SC.L

2.20.29 x TDA 

+ 6.85V + 2.95 SVO.SC.L

4.26 x TDA + 

11.5251

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
VCT.SC.ISOC.RC.M

0.4462 x TDA 

+ 0.113.29 SVO.SC.I

5.41 x TDA + 

14.63

VOPVCS.SC.M

1.690.05 x 

TDA + 4.71V + 1.36 HZO.SC.I

2.42 x TDA + 9

SVOVCS.SC.ML

1.70.22 x TDA 

+ 4.59V + 1.38 SOC.RC.L

0.93 x TDA + 

0.22

HZOVCS.SC.LI

1.90.34 x TDA 

+ 7.08V + 0.88 SOC.RC.I

1.09 x TDA + 

0.26

HZO.SCSVO.RC.M

0.7266 x TDA 

+ 5.553.18 SOC.SC.I

1.53 x TDA + 

0.36

HCTSVO.SC.IM

0.561.7 x TDA 

+ 0.434.59 VCT.RC.I

0.5758 x 

TDA + 3.05

SOC.RC.MVCT.SC.I

0.6244 x TDA 

+ 3.290.11 HCT.RC.M

0.16 x TDA + 

0.13

VCSSOC.SC.IM

0.3552 x V + 

0.88TDA + 1 HCT.RC.L

0.34 x TDA + 

0.26

VCT.SCHZO.RC.M

0.135 x V + 

0.81TDA + 2.88 HCT.RC.I

0.4 x TDA + 

0.31

VCT.SCHZO.RC.L

0.2955 x V + 

2.95TDA + 6.88 VCS.RC.M

0.1 x V + 

0.26

VCSHZO.SC.M

0.0572 x V + 

1.TDA + 5.55 VCS.RC.L

0.2221 x V + 

0.54

VCSHZO.SC.L

0.221.9 x V + 

1.38TDA + 7.08 VCS.RC.I

0.25 x V + 

0.63

HCT.SC.M

0.06 x V + 

0.3537 HCS.SC.I

0.3534 x V + 

0.88

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
HCT.SC.L

0.08 x V + 

1.223 HCS.RC.M

0.1 x V + 

0.26

HCSHCT.SC.MI

0.0556 x 

VTDA + 0.9143 HCS.RC.L

0.2221 x V + 

0.54

HCS.SC.LM

0.0605 x V + 

1.120.91 HCS.RC.I

0.25 x V + 

0.63

PDHCS.SC.ML

0.1106 x V + 

0.811.12 SOC.SC.L

1.1 x TDA + 

2.1

SOCPD.SC.M

0.5211 x TDA + 1V + 

0.81

* 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 closed with transparent doors, VCS = vertical 

closed with solid doors, HCT = horizontal closed with transparent doors, HCS = horizontal 

closed with solid doors, SOC = service over counter, or PD = pull-down); (2) an operating 

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

code (M = medium temperature (38±2 °F), L = low temperature (0±2 °F), or I = ice-cream 

temperature (-15±2 °F)). For example, “VOP.RC.M” refers to the “vertical open, remote 

condensing, medium temperature” equipment class. See discussion in chapter 3 of the final 

rule technical support document (TSD) for a more detailed explanation of the equipment 

class terminology.

** “TDA” is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200-2010, appendix D.

† “V” is the volume of the case, as measured in American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) / Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF-1-2004.

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of today’s standards on 

customers of commercial refrigeration equipment, as measured by the average life-cycle cost 

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J1]: Changed requested by OIRA; ...

1020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
(LCC) savings3 and the median payback period (PBP).

4 The average LCC savings are positive 

for all equipment classes for which customers are impacted by the amended standards.

Table I.2 Impacts of Today’s Standards on Customers of Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment

Equipment Class* Average LCC Savings

2012$

Median PBP

Years

VOP.RC.M 482922 5.7.2

VOP.RC.L 53 6.1

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

VCT.RC.M 542 2.1

VCT.RC.L 93526 6.32.7

VCT.SC.M 209226 5.73

VCT.SC.L 50015,001 1.1

VCT.SC.I 18 7.2

VCS.SC.M 365363 1.04

VCS.SC.L 507 2.5

VCS.SC.I 111113 45.0

SVO.RC.M 48564 9.96.2

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

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

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

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

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

HZO.SC.M 55 6.9

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

HCT.SC.M 91101 6.5.8

HCT.SC.L 286293 2.75

HCT.SC.I ---- ----

HCS.SC.M 15 5.5

HCS.SC.L 64 2.5

PD.SC.M 165 5.6

3 Life-cycle cost of commercial refrigeration equipment is the cost to customers of owning and operating the 

equipment over the entire life of the equipment. Life-cycle cost savings are the reductions in the life-cycle costs due 

to amended energy conservation standards when compared to the life-cycle costs of the equipment in the absence of 

amended energy conservation standards.

Payback period refers to the amount of time (in years) it takes customers to recover the increased installed cost of 

equipment associated with new or amended standards through savings in operating costs. Further discussion can be 

found in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted Table

Comment [J2]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

1120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
* Values have been shown only for primary equipment classes, which are equipment classes that have 

significant volume of shipments and, therefore, were directly analyzed. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, 

Engineering Analysis, for a detailed discussion of primary and secondary equipment classes. 

* For equipment classes VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, SOC. RC.M, SOC. SC.M, HZO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L, 

HZO.SC.L, and HCT.SC.I, no efficiency levels above the baseline were found to be economically 

justifiable. Therefore, the standard levels contained in today’s notice for these equipment classes are the 

same as those set in the 2009 final rule. As a result, LCC savings and PBP values for these equipment 

classes are not relevant. 

Note: Equipment lifetimes are between 10 and 15 years for all equipment classes.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the 

industry from the base year (2013) through the end of the analysis period (2046). Using a real 

discount rate of 10.0 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is $2,572.9660.0 million in 2012$.5 Under today’s standards, DOE 

expects the industry net present value to decrease by 6.63.53 percent to 2.86.60 percent. Total 

industry conversion costs are expected to total $277.7184.0 million. Additionally, based on 

DOE’s interviews with the manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE does not 

expect any plant closings or significant loss of domestic employment.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s standards would save a significant amount of 

energy. The lifetime savings for commercial refrigeration equipment purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2017–2046) amount to

5 All monetary values in this notice are expressed in 2012 dollars.

Comment [J3]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J4]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J5]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J6]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J7]: Change requested by OIRA.

1220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
3.022.89 quadrillion British thermal units (quads). The annualized energy savings (0.1110 quads) 

are equivalent to 0.65 percent of total U.S. commercial primary energy consumption in 2014.

6

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of today’s 

standards for commercial refrigeration equipment ranges from $4.1293 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $10.5611.74 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate).

7 This NPV expresses the 

estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs 

for products purchased in 2016–2047.

In addition, today’s standards are expected to have significant environmental benefits. 

The energy savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of 

approximately 148142 million metric tons (Mt)8 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 796762 thousand tons 

of methane, 217207 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 9994 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and 0.2625 tons of mercury (Hg).9 Through 2030, the estimated energy savings would result in 

cumulative emissions reductions of 5048 Mt of CO2.

The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of 

CO2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal 

6 Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO

2013) data. 7 All present value results reflect discounted to beginning of 2014. 8 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 9 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the AEO 2013 Reference case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 

2012.

Comment [J8]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J9]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J10]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J11]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J12]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J13]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J14]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J15]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J16]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J17]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J18]: Change requested by OIRA.

1320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
interagency process.10 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. Using 

discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates that the net present 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions is between $1.0 billion and $14.20 billion. DOE 

also estimates that the net present monetary value of the NOX emissions reductions is $3233

million at a 7-percent discount rate, and $106104 million at a 3-percent discount rate.11

Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from 

today’s standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.

10 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 

2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 11 DOE is investigating the valuation of avoided Hg and SO2 emissions.

Comment [J19]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J20]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J21]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font color: Black

1420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
Table I.3 Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Amended Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment Energy Conservation Standards*

Category Present Value

Billion 2012$

Discount 

Rate

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 7.3070 7%

16.3963 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t 

case)** 1.01 5%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t 

case)** 4.6155 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t 

case)** 7.3420 2.5%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t 

case)** 14.2405 3%

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,591/ton

)**

0.03 7%

0.1110 3%

Total Benefits†

11.9512.28 7%

21.1128 3%

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs 3.182.77 7%

5.834.89 3%

Net Benefits

Including CO2 and NOX

† Reduction Monetized 

Value

8.779.51 7%

15.29816.40 3%

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with commercial refrigeration equipment shipped in 

2017−2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the equipment purchased in 

2017−2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the 

amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for this final rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the 

updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% 

discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 

3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the 

average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-

percent discount rate.

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J22]: Change requested by OIRA; 

applies to all rows.

1520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
The benefits and costs of today’s standards, for equipment sold in 2017−2046, can also 

be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) 

the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operating the product (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment 

purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV, plus (2) the 

annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.12

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions 

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

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

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

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

use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the 

lifetime of commercial refrigeration equipment shipped in 2017–2046. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 

2100.

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

First, DOE calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting the NPV of total customer costs and 

savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits, using discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in

Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2017

through 2046) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE 

calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized 

values were determined is a steady stream of payments.

1620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today’s standards are shown in Table I.4.

The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along 

with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the amended 

standards in today’s rule is $314256 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $721710 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $257246 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $3.1401 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $667704 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the average SCC series, the cost of the standards in today’s rule is $325264 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $914900 million per year in reduced 

operating costs, $257246 million in CO2 reductions, and $5.8964 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $852888 million per year.

Comment [J23]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J24]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J25]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J26]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J27]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J28]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J29]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J30]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J31]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J32]: Change requested by OIRA.

1720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Table I.4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment*

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

million 2012$/year

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 721710 697688 756744

3% 914900 877865 963947

CO2 Reduction at ($11.8/t case)** 5% 7673 7673 7673

CO2 Reduction at ($39.7/t case)** 3% 257246 257246 257246

CO2 Reduction at ($61.2/t case)** 2.5% 377361 377361 377361

CO2 Reduction at ($117.0/t case)** 3% 794760 794760 794760

NOX Reduction at ($2,591/ton)**

7% 3.1401 3.1401 3.1401

3% 5.8964 5.8964 5.8964

Total Benefits†

7% plus CO2 range

800786 to 

1,518474

776764 to 

1,494451

835820 to 

1,553508

7% 981960 958937 1,017994

3% plus CO2 range

996978 to 

1,714666

959943 to 

1,677631

1,045026 to 

1,763713

3% 1,177152 1,140117 1,227200

Costs

Incremental ProductEquipment

Costs

7% 314256 308250 321261

3% 325264 317258 333271

Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range

486530 to 

1,204218

469513 to 

1,187201

514559 to 

1,233246

7% 667704 650687 696733

3% plus CO2 range

671714 to 

1,389402

642685 to 

1,360373

712755 to 

1,430442

3% 852888 823859 894929

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with commercial refrigeration equipment shipped 

in 2017 - 2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 

2017 - 2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the 

amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the final rule. The primary, low, and high 

estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2013 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, 

respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price 

trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, 

and a high decline rate for projected product price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The method used to derive 

projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J33]: Change requested by OIRA; 

applies to all rows.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

1820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the 

updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% 

discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 

3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the 

average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average 

SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 range,” the operating 

cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of 

CO2 values.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation 

of the amended standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer 

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

some users of this equipment). DOE has concluded that the standards in today’s final rule 

represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible 

and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o), 6316(e))

II. Introduction 

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

rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of 

amended standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.

A. Authority

Title III, Part C of EPCA, Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by 

Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for 

1920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes 

the commercial refrigeration equipment that is the focus of this notice.13,14 EPCA prescribes 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–

(4)), and directs DOE to conduct rulemakings to establish new and amended standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)–(6)) (DOE notes that under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m) and 6316(e)(1) the agency must periodically review its already established 

energy conservation standards for covered equipment. Under this requirement, the next review 

that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final 

rule establishing or amending a standard for covered equipment.)

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered equipment generally 

consists of four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For commercial 

refrigeration equipment, DOE is responsible for the entirety of this program. Subject to certain 

criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each type or class of covered 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE 

test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the 

applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations 

to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b), 

13 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1. 14 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

2020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
6295(s), and 6316(e)(1)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether 

that equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. The DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment currently appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart C.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for 

covered equipment. As indicated above, any amended standard for covered equipment must be 

designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) Furthermore, 

DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1)) DOE also may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 

equipment, including commercial refrigeration equipment, if no test procedure has been 

established for the product; or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B) and 6316(e)(1)) 

In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)) DOE 

must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by 

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

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

equipment subject to the standard;

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

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

2120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely 

to result from the imposition of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to 

result directly from the imposition of the standard;

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

result from the imposition of the standard;

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

Attorney General (Attorney General), that is likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) and 6316(e)(1))

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

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

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

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(e)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an 

amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the 

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

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

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

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(e)(1))

2220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is 

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

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

three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as 

a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1)) Section III.D.2 presents additional discussion about the 

rebuttable presumption payback period.

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(e)(1) specify requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered equipment that has two or more 

subcategories that may justify different standard levels. DOE must specify a different standard 

level than that which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any group of 

covered products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products 

within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 

equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related 

feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(e)(1)) In determining whether a 

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

consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(e)(1))

2320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) and 

6316(e))

B. Background

1. Current Standards

The current energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment were 

established by two different legislative actions and one DOE final rule. EPCA, as amended by 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), established standards for self-contained 

commercial refrigerators and freezer with solid or transparent doors, self-contained commercial 

refrigerator-freezers with solid doors, and self-contained commercial refrigerators designed for 

pull-down applications. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)) On January 9, 2009, DOE published a final 

rule (January 2009 final rule) prescribing standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. 74 

FR at 1092. Specifically, this final rule completed the first standards rulemaking for commercial 

refrigeration equipment by establishing standards for equipment types specified in 42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(5), and for which EPCA did not prescribe standards in 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3). These 

types consisted of commercial ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 

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

commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers. More 

recently, the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 

112-210 (December 18, 2012), amended section 342(c) of EPCA to establish a new standard for 

2420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
self-contained service over counter medium temperature commercial refrigerators (this class is 

known as SOC.SC.M per DOE’s equipment class nomenclature). (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)) As a 

result, DOE’s current energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment 

include the following: standards established by EPCA for commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2010; standards established in the January 2009 final rule for 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2012; and standards 

established by AEMTCA for SOC.SC.M equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2012. 

Table II.1 and Table II.2 present DOE’s current energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment set by EPCA and the January 2009 final rule, respectively. 

The AEMTCA standard for SOC.SC.M equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2012 is 

prescribed as 0.6 × TDA + 1.0. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4))

Table II.1 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards Prescribed by EPCA –

Compliance Required Beginning on January 1, 2010

Category

Maximum Daily Energy 

Consumption

kWh/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 doors 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

* kilowatt-hours per day

** Where “V” means the chilled or frozen compartment volume in cubic feet as defined in 

the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Standard HRF-1-1979. 10 CFR 431.66.

† Where “AV” means that adjusted volume in cubic feet measured in accordance with the 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Standard HRF-1-1979. 10 CFR 431.66. 

2520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Table II.2 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards Established in the January 

2009 Final Rule – Compliance Required Beginning on January 1, 2012

Equipment Class* Standard Level **

kWh/day

VOP.RC.M 0.82 × TDA + 4.07

SVO.RC.M 0.83 × TDA + 3.18

HZO.RC.M 0.35 × TDA + 2.88

VOP.RC.L 2.27 × TDA + 6.85

HZO.RC.L 0.57 × TDA + 6.88

VCT.RC.M 0.22 × TDA + 1.95

VCT.RC.L 0.56 × TDA + 2.61

SOC.RC.M 0.51 × TDA + 0.11

VOP.SC.M 1.74 × TDA + 4.71

SVO.SC.M 1.73 × TDA + 4.59

HZO.SC.M 0.77 × TDA + 5.55

HZO.SC.L 1.92 × TDA + 7.08

VCT.SC.I 0.67 × TDA + 3.29

VCS.SC.I 0.38 × V + 0.88

HCT.SC.I 0.56 × TDA + 0.43

SVO.RC.L 2.27 × TDA + 6.85

VOP.RC.I 2.89 × TDA + 8.7

SVO.RC.I 2.89 × TDA + 8.7

HZO.RC.I 0.72 × TDA + 8.74

VCT.RC.I 0.66 × TDA + 3.05

HCT.RC.M 0.16 × TDA + 0.13

HCT.RC.L 0.34 × TDA + 0.26

HCT.RC.I 0.4 × TDA + 0.31

VCS.RC.M 0.11 × V + 0.26

VCS.RC.L 0.23 × V + 0.54

VCS.RC.I 0.27 × V + 0.63

HCS.RC.M 0.11 × V + 0.26

HCS.RC.L 0.23 × V + 0.54

HCS.RC.I 0.27 × V + 0.63

SOC.RC.L 1.08 × TDA + 0.22

SOC.RC.I 1.26 × TDA + 0.26

VOP.SC.L 4.37 × TDA + 11.82

VOP.SC.I 5.55 × TDA + 15.02

SVO.SC.L 4.34 × TDA + 11.51

SVO.SC.I 5.52 × TDA + 14.63

HZO.SC.I 2.44 × TDA + 9.

SOC.SC.I 1.76 × TDA + 0.36

HCS.SC.I 0.38 × V + 0.88

* 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 closed with 

transparent doors, VCS = vertical closed with solid doors, HCT = horizontal closed with transparent doors, HCS = 

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

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

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

remote condensing, medium temperature” equipment class.

** TDA is the total display area of the case, as measured in ANSI/Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 

Standard 1200-2006, appendix D. V is the volume of the case, as measured in AHAM Standard HRF-1-2004.

Formatted Table

2620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In December 2012, AEMTCA amended EPCA by establishing new standards for 

SOC.SC.M equipment with a compliance date of January 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)) The 

SOC.SC.M equipment had previously been classified under the category self-contained 

commercial refrigerators with transparent doors, for which standards were established by 

EPACT 2005. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)) The standard established by AEMTCA for SOC.SC.M 

equipment reduces the stringency of the standard applicable to this equipment.

AEMTCA also directs DOE to determine, within three years of enactment of the new 

SOC.SC.M standard, whether this standard should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(B)(i)) If 

DOE determines that the standard should be amended, then DOE must issue a final rule 

establishing an amended standard within this same three-year period. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(4)(B)(ii))

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, prescribes energy conservation standards for certain 

self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment designed for holding temperatures15 (i.e., 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with transparent and solid doors 

designed for holding temperature applications) and self-contained commercial refrigerators with 

transparent doors designed for pull-down temperature applications.16 Compliance with these 

15 EPCA defines the term “holding temperature application” as a use of commercial refrigeration equipment other 

than a pull-down temperature application, except a blast chiller or freezer. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)) 16 EPCA defines the term “pull-down temperature application” as a commercial refrigerator with doors that, when 

fully loaded with 12 ounce beverage cans at 90 °F, can cool those beverages to an average stable temperature of 38 

°F in 12 hours or less. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)) 

2720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
standards was required as of January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)−(3)) DOE published a 

technical amendment final rule on October 18, 2005 codifying these standards into subpart C of 

part 431 under title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 70 FR at 60407. 

In addition, EPCA requires DOE to set standards for additional commercial refrigeration 

equipment that is not covered by 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)−(3), namely commercial 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)(5)) DOE published a final rule establishing these standards on January 9, 2009 

(74 FR 1092), and manufacturers must comply with these standards starting on January 1, 2012. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(5)(A)) 

EPCA requires DOE to conduct a subsequent rulemaking to determine whether to amend 

the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(c), which includes both the standards prescribed 

by EPACT 2005 and those prescribed by DOE in the January 2009 final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)) If DOE decides as part of this ongoing rulemaking to amend the current standards, 

DOE must publish a final rule establishing any such amended standards by January 1, 2013. Id.

To satisfy this requirement, DOE initiated the current rulemaking on April 30, 2010 by 

publishing on its website its “Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment.” (The Framework document is available at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_framework_04-30-

2820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
10.pdf.) DOE also published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the 

Framework document, as well as a public meeting to discuss the document. The notice also 

solicited comment on the matters raised in the document. 75 FR 24824 (May 6, 2010). The 

Framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated 

using to evaluate energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, and 

identified various issues to be resolved in the rulemaking.

DOE held the Framework public meeting on May 18, 2010, at which it: (1) presented the 

contents of the Framework document; (2) described the analyses it planned to conduct during the 

rulemaking; (3) sought comments from interested parties on these subjects; and (4) in general, 

sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the rulemaking. 

Major issues discussed at the public meeting included: (1) the scope of coverage for the 

rulemaking; (2) potential updates to the test procedure and appropriate test metrics (being 

addressed in a concurrent rulemaking); (3) manufacturer and market information, including 

distribution channels; (4) equipment classes, baseline units,17 and design options to improve 

efficiency; (5) life-cycle costs to customer, including installation, maintenance, and repair costs; 

and (6) any customer subgroups DOE should consider. At the meeting and during the comment 

period on the Framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and 

resolve issues pertaining to commercial refrigeration equipment relevant to this rulemaking. 

These are discussed in subsequent sections of this notice.

17 Baseline units consist of units possessing features and levels of efficiency consistent with the least-efficient 

equipment currently available and widely sold on the market. 

2920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses to help 

review energy conservation standards for this equipment. This process culminated in DOE’s 

notice of a public meeting to discuss and receive comments regarding the tools and methods 

DOE used in performing its preliminary analysis, as well as the analyses results. 76 FR 17573 

(March 30, 2011) (the March 2011 notice). DOE also invited written comments on these subjects 

and announced the availability on its website of a preliminary analysis technical support 

document (preliminary analysis TSD). Id. (The preliminary analysis TSD is available at: 

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003-0030.) 

The preliminary analysis TSD provided an overview of DOE’s review of the standards 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, discussed the comments DOE received in response to 

the Framework document, and addressed issues including the scope of coverage of the 

rulemaking. The document also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and 

continues to use) in considering amended standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, 

including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships between 

the various analyses that are part of this rulemaking. Additionally, the preliminary analysis TSD 

presented in detail each analysis that DOE had performed for this equipment up to that point, 

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

follows:

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

identified existing and potential new equipment classes for commercial refrigeration 

3020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
equipment, characterized the markets for this equipment, and reviewed techniques 

and approaches for improving its efficiency;

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

commercial refrigeration equipment, and weighed these options against DOE’s four 

prescribed screening criteria;

• An engineering analysis estimated the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) associated 

with more energy efficient commercial refrigeration equipment; 

• An energy use analysis estimated the annual energy use of commercial refrigeration 

equipment;

• A markups analysis converted estimated MSPs derived from the engineering analysis 

to customer purchase prices;

• A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, for individual customers, the discounted savings 

in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, compared to any increase in installed costs likely to result directly from 

the imposition of a given standard;

• A payback period analysis estimated the amount of time it would take customers to 

recover the higher purchase price of more energy efficient equipment through lower 

operating costs;

• A shipments analysis estimated shipments of commercial refrigeration equipment 

over the time period examined in the analysis; 

3120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
• A national impact analysis (NIA) assessed the national energy savings (NES), and the 

national NPV of total customer costs and savings, expected to result from specific, 

potential energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment; and

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

the potential effects on manufacturers of amended efficiency standards. 

The public meeting announced in the March 2011 notice took place on April 19, 2011 

(April 2011 preliminary analysis public meeting). At the April 2011 preliminary analysis public 

meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the 

preliminary analysis TSD. Interested parties provided comments on the following issues: (1) 

equipment classes; (2) technology options; (3) energy modeling; (4) installation, maintenance, 

and repair costs; (5) markups and distributions chains; (6) commercial refrigeration equipment 

shipments; and (7) test procedures. 

On September 11, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in this 

proceeding (September 2013 NOPR). 78 FR 55890. In the September 2013 NOPR, DOE 

addressed, in detail, the comments received in earlier stages of rulemaking, and proposed 

amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. In conjunction 

with the September 2013 NOPR, DOE also published on its website the complete technical 

support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which incorporated the analyses DOE conducted 

and technical documentation for each analysis. Also published on DOE’s website were the 

engineering analysis spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, and the national impact analysis 

3220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
standard spreadsheet. These materials are available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/27

The standards which DOE proposed for commercial refrigeration equipment at the NOPR stage 

of this rulemaking are shown in Table II.3. They are provided solely for background 

informational purposes and differ from the amended standards set forth in this final rule. 

Table II.3 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment (for compliance in 2017)

Equipment 

Class*

Proposed Standard 

Level**, †

Equipment 

Class*

Proposed Standard 

Level**

VCT.RC.L 0.43 × TDA + 2.03 VOP.RC.I 2.68 × TDA + 8.08

VOP.RC.M 0.61 × TDA + 3.03 SVO.RC.L 2.11 × TDA + 6.36

SVO.RC.M 0.63 × TDA + 2.41 SVO.RC.I 2.68 × TDA + 8.08

HZO.RC.L 0.57 × TDA + 6.88 HZO.RC.I 0.72 × TDA + 8.74

HZO.RC.M 0.35 × TDA + 2.88 VOP.SC.L 3.79 × TDA + 10.26

VCT.RC.M 0.08 × TDA + 0.72 VOP.SC.I 4.81 × TDA + 13.03

VOP.RC.L 2.11 × TDA + 6.36 SVO.SC.L 3.77 × TDA + 10.01

SOC.RC.M 0.39 × TDA + 0.08 SVO.SC.I 4.79 × TDA + 12.72

VOP.SC.M 1.51 × TDA + 4.09 HZO.SC.I 2.44 × TDA + 9.0

SVO.SC.M 1.5 × TDA + 3.99 SOC.RC.L 0.83 × TDA + 0.18

HZO.SC.L 1.92 × TDA + 7.08 SOC.RC.I 0.97 × TDA + 0.21

HZO.SC.M 0.75 × TDA + 5.44 SOC.SC.I 1.35 × TDA + 0.29

HCT.SC.I 0.49 × TDA + 0.37 VCT.RC.I 0.51 × TDA + 2.37

VCT.SC.I 0.52 × TDA + 2.56 HCT.RC.M 0.14 × TDA + 0.11

VCS.SC.I 0.35 × V + 0.81 HCT.RC.L 0.3 × TDA + 0.23

VCT.SC.M 0.04 × V + 1.07 HCT.RC.I 0.35 × TDA + 0.27

VCT.SC.L 0.22 × V + 1.21 VCS.RC.M 0.1 × V + 0.24

VCS.SC.M 0.03 × V + 0.53 VCS.RC.L 0.21 × V + 0.5

VCS.SC.L 0.13 × V + 0.43 VCS.RC.I 0.25 × V + 0.58

HCT.SC.M 0.02 × V + 0.51 HCS.SC.I 0.35 × V + 0.81

HCT.SC.L 0.11 × V + 0.6 HCS.RC.M 0.1 × V + 0.24

HCS.SC.M 0.02 × V + 0.37 HCS.RC.L 0.21 × V + 0.5

HCS.SC.L 0.12 × V + 0.42 HCS.RC.I 0.25 × V + 0.58

PD.SC.M 0.03 × V + 0.83 SOC.SC.L 0.67 × TDA + 1.12

SOC.SC.M 0.32 × TDA + 0.53

* 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 closed with transparent doors, VCS = vertical closed with solid doors, HCT = horizontal closed with 

transparent doors, HCS = horizontal closed with solid doors, SOC = service over counter, or PD = pulldown); (2) an operating mode code (RC = remote condensing or SC = self-contained); and (3) a rating 

temperature code (M = medium temperature (38±2 °F), L = low temperature (0±2 °F), or I = ice-cream 

temperature (-15±2 °F)). For example, “VOP.RC.M” refers to the “vertical open, remote condensing, 

Formatted: Highlight

3320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
medium temperature” equipment class. See discussion in chapter 3 of the final rule technical support 

document (TSD) for a more detailed explanation of the equipment class terminology.

** “TDA” is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200-2010, appendix D. “V” is the volume of the case, as measured 

in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

Standard HRF-1-2004.

In the September 2013 NOPR, DOE identified seven issues on which it was particularly 

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

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

smaller equipment, extension of standards developed for the 25 primary classes to the remaining 

24 secondary classes, standards for hybrid cases and wedges, and standard levels. 78 FR 55987

(September 11, 2013) After the publication of the September 2013 NOPR, DOE received written 

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

October 3, 2013, to hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule.

These comments are addressed in today’s notice.

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures and Normalization Metrics

1. Test Procedures

On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in which it adopted American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) / Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-

2006, “Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets,” as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 71 FR at 71340, 71369–70. ANSI/ARI 

Standard 1200-2006 requires performance tests to be conducted according to the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72-

3420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
2005, “Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.” The standard also contains 

rating temperature specifications of 38 °F (+/-2 °F) for commercial refrigerators and refrigerator 

compartments, 0 °F (+/-2 °F) for commercial freezers and freezer compartments, and -5 °F (+/-2 

°F) for commercial ice-cream freezers. During the 2006 test procedure rulemaking, DOE 

determined that testing at a -15 °F (±2 °F) rating temperature was more representative of the 

actual energy consumption of commercial freezers specifically designed for ice-cream 

application. 71 FR at 71357 (December 8, 2006). Therefore, in the test procedure final rule, DOE 

adopted a -15 °F (±2 °F) rating temperature for commercial ice-cream freezers, rather than the -5 

°F (±2 °F) prescribed in the ANSI/ARI Standard 1200-2006. 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 

determining compartment volumes for this equipment. 71 FR at 71369–70 (December 8, 2006). 

On February 21, 2012, DOE published a test procedure final rule (2012 test procedure 

final rule) in which it adopted several amendments to the DOE test procedure. This included an 

amendment to incorporate by reference ANSI/ Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200-2010, “Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,” as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 77 FR 

10292, 10314 (February 21, 2012). The 2012 test procedure final rule also included an 

amendment to incorporate by reference the updated ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, 

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

Freezers,” for determining compartment volumes for this equipment. 

3520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In addition, the 2012 test procedure final rule included several amendments designed to 

address certain energy efficiency features that were not accounted for by the previous DOE test 

procedure, including provisions for measuring the impact of night curtains18 and lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled controls. 77 FR at 10296–98 (February 21, 2012). In the 2012 

test procedure final rule, DOE also adopted amendments to allow testing of commercial 

refrigeration equipment at temperatures other than one of the three rating temperatures 

previously specified in the test procedure. Specifically, the 2012 test procedure final rule allows 

testing of commercial refrigeration equipment at its lowest application product temperature, for 

equipment that cannot be tested at the prescribed rating temperature. The 2012 test procedure 

final rule also allows manufacturers to test and certify equipment at the more-stringent 

temperatures and ambient conditions required by NSF for food safety testing.19 77 FR at 10305 

(February 21, 2012).

The test procedure amendments established in the 2012 test procedure final rule are 

required to be used in conjunction with the amended standards promulgated in this energy 

conservation standards final rule. As such, use of the amended test procedure to show 

compliance with DOE energy conservation standards or make representations with respect to 

energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment is required on the compliance date of 

18 Night curtains are devices made of an insulating material, typically insulated aluminum fabric, designed to be 

pulled down over the open front of the case to decrease infiltration and heat transfer into the case when the 

merchandizing establishment is closed. 

19 The NSF was founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation, and is now referred to simply as NSF.

3620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
the revised energy conservation standards established by today’s notice. 77 FR at 10308 

(February 21, 2012).

DOE has initiated a test procedure rulemaking for commercial refrigeration equipment to

revise and reorganize its test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment in order to 

clarify certain terms, procedures, and compliance dates. A NOPR for this rulemaking was 

published on October 28, 2013. 78 FR 64206 (October 28. 2013). In the NOPR, DOE addressed:

• Several inquiries received from interested parties regarding the applicability of 

DOE’s test procedure and current Federal energy conservation standards;

• The definitions of certain terms pertinent to commercial refrigeration equipment;

• The proper configuration and use of certain components and features of 

commercial refrigeration equipment when testing according to the DOE test 

procedure;

• The proper application of certain test procedure provisions;

• The compliance date of certain provisions specified in the DOE test procedure 

final rule published on February 21, 2012; and

• A number of test procedure clarifications which arose as a result of the negotiated 

rulemaking process for certification of commercial heating, ventilation, air 

conditioning, refrigeration, and water heating equipment.

DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on December 5, 2013, to hear oral 

comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule.

3720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
2. Normalization Metrics

Both the January 2009 final rule and EPACT 2005 contain energy conservation standards 

for respective covered types of commercial refrigeration equipment, expressed in the form of 

equations developed as a function of unit size. This use of normalization metrics allows for a 

single standard-level equation developed for an equipment class to apply to a broad range of 

equipment sizes offered within that class by manufacturers. In the aforementioned commercial 

refrigeration equipment standards, the two normalization metrics used are refrigerated 

compartment volume, as determined using AHAM HRF-1-2004, and TDA, as determined using 

ANSI/ARI 1200-2006. In particular, the EPACT 2005 standards utilize volume as the 

normalization metric for all equipment types, with the exception of refrigerator-freezers with 

solid doors, for which the standard specifies adjusted volume. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)) The 

January 2009 final rule, meanwhile, utilizes TDA as the normalization metric for all equipment 

with display capacity while specifying volume as the metric for solid-door (VCS and HCS) 

equipment. 74 FR at 1093 (January. 9, 2009). 

At the May 2010 Framework public meeting, interested parties raised several questions 

regarding the potential normalization metrics that could be used in amended standards. DOE also 

received stakeholder feedback pertaining to this issue following the publication of the 

Framework document. In the preliminary analysis, DOE suggested that it would consider 

retaining the normalization metrics in this rulemaking for the respective classes to which they 

were applied in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)) and the January 2009 final rule. 74 FR at 1093 

3820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
(January 9, 2009). In chapter 2 of the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE presented its rationale for 

the continued use of TDA for equipment with display areas addressed in the January 2009 final 

rule and the continued use of volume as the metric for solid-door remote condensing equipment 

and ice-cream freezers, as well as for the equipment covered by EPACT 2005 standards. DOE 

maintained this stance in the NOPR notice and TSD. DOE did not receive any significant

information or data while conducting the final rule analyses that would alter this position, and 

thus DOE includes continued use of the existing normalization metrics in today’s notice. 

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

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

information that the Department has gathered on all current technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for 

consideration, in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of these options for improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is used by the relevant 

industry or if a working prototype has been developed. Technologies incorporated in 

commercially available equipment or in working prototypes will be considered technologically 

feasible. 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) Although DOE considers 

technologies that are proprietary, it will not consider efficiency levels that can only be reached 

3920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
through the use of proprietary technologies (i.e., a unique pathway), which could allow a single 

manufacturer to monopolize the market.

Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, it 

further evaluates each of these design options in light of the following additional screening 

criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product 

utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv) Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD discusses the results of the 

screening analyses for commercial refrigeration equipment. Specifically, it presents the designs 

DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the bases for the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE adopts (or does not adopt) an amended or new energy conservation standard 

for a type or class of covered equipment such as commercial refrigeration equipment, it

determines the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible for 

such equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6316(e)(1)) Accordingly, DOE determined the 

maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for 

commercial refrigeration equipment in the engineering analysis using the design parameters that

passed the screening analysis.

4020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
As indicated previously, whether efficiency levels exist or can be achieved in commonly 

used equipment is not relevant to whether they are considered max-tech levels. DOE considers 

technologies to be technologically feasible if they are incorporated in any currently available 

equipment or working prototypes. Hence, a max-tech level results from the combination of 

design options predicted to result in the highest efficiency level possible for an equipment class, 

with such design options consisting of technologies already incorporated in commercial 

equipment or working prototypes. DOE notes that it reevaluated the efficiency levels, including 

the max-tech levels, when it updated its results for this final rule. See chapter 5 of the TSD for 

the results of the analyses and a list of technologies included in max-tech equipment. Table III.1

shows the max-tech levels determined in the engineering analysis for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 

Table III.1 “Max-Tech” Levels for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Primary Classes

Equipment 

Class

“Max-Tech” Level

kWh/day

VCT.RC.L 33.044

VOP.RC.M 35.652

SVO.RC.M 27.702

HZO.RC.L 31.078

HZO.RC.M 14.15

VCT.RC.M 10.988

VOP.RC.L 100.006

SOC.RC.M 21.560

VOP.SC.M 29.714

SVO.SC.M 25.400

HZO.SC.L 29.922

HZO.SC.M 13.748

HCT.SC.I 2.327

VCT.SC.I 18.106

VCS.SC.I 16.042

VCT.SC.M 5.148

VCT.SC.L 16.048

VCS.SC.M 3.028

VCS.SC.L 11.130

HCT.SC.M 0.614

HCT.SC.L 1.315

4120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
HCS.SC.M 0.981

HCS.SC.L 0.713

PD.SC.M 3.405

SOC.SC.M 26.119

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that are the subjects of 

this rulemaking purchased during a 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with 

amended standards (2017–2046).20 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 

purchased in the 30-year period.21 DOE used the NIA model to estimate the NES for equipment 

purchased over the period 2017–2046. The model forecasts total energy use over the analysis 

period for each representative equipment class at efficiency levels set by each of the considered 

TSLs. DOE then compares the energy use at each TSL to the base-case energy use to obtain the 

NES. The NIA model is described in section IV.H of this notice and in chapter 10 of the final 

rule TSD.

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards 

for the equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described 

in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports 

20 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. 21 In the past, DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of 

compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured 

over the entire lifetime of products purchased during the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation 

of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis.

4220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
national energy savings in terms of the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit 

the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the 

model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO).

DOE also has begun to estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 

2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes 

the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents 

a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE’s evaluation of FFC 

savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) report on FFC 

measurement approaches for DOE’s Appliance Standards Program.22 The NAS report discusses 

that FFC was primarily intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple 

fuels may be used by a particular product. In the case of this rulemaking pertaining to 

commercial refrigeration equipment, only a single fuel—electricity—is consumed by the 

equipment. DOE’s approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the 

energy types used by covered equipment. Although the addition of FFC energy savings in the 

rulemakings is consistent with the recommendations, the methodology for estimating FFC does 

not project how fuel markets would respond to this particular standard rulemaking. The FFC 

methodology simply estimates how much additional energy, and in turn how many tons of 

emissions, may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not consumed by the equipment covered 

22 “Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance 

Energy- Efficiency Standards,’’ (Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and included five recommendations. 

A copy of the study can be downloaded at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670.

4320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
in this rulemaking. It is also important to note that inclusion of FFC savings does not affect 

DOE’s choice of proposed standards. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 

49701 (August 17, 2012). The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus 

presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more 

information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2.

2. Significance of Savings

EPCA prohibits DOE from adopting a standard that would not result in significant 

additional energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B),(v) and 6316(e)(1)) While the term 

“significant” is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 

indicated that Congress intended significant energy savings to be savings that were not 

“genuinely trivial.”

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As discussed in section III.D.1, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)) The following sections generally discuss how DOE is 

addressing each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. For further details and the results of 

DOE’s analyses pertaining to economic justification, see sections III.C and V of today’s notice.

4420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers

In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard 

on manufacturers, DOE first determines its quantitative impacts using an annual cash flow 

approach. This includes both a short-term assessment (based on the cost and capital requirements 

associated with new or amended standards during the period between the announcement of a 

regulation and the compliance date of the regulation) and a long-term assessment (based on the 

costs and marginal impacts over the 30-year analysis period). The impacts analyzed include 

INPV (which values the industry based on expected future cash flows), cash flows by year, 

changes in revenue and income, and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE 

analyzes and reports the potential impacts on different types of manufacturers, paying particular 

attention to impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of new or 

amended standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well 

as the potential for new or amended standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of other DOE regulations and 

non-DOE regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual customers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and 

the PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the 

following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present 

value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the 

4520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a national standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 

average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the price of the covered product 

that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 

6316(e)(1)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including the cost of its 

installation) and the operating costs (including energy and maintenance and repair costs) 

discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. To account for uncertainty and variability in 

specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, 

with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 

purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with amended standards.

The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to a base-case scenario, which reflects likely trends in the absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an 

LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level.

4620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
c. Energy Savings

While significant conservation of energy is a statutory requirement for imposing an 

energy conservation standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to 

result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6316(e)(1)) DOE uses NIA 

spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected savings. For the results of DOE’s 

analyses related to the potential energy savings, see section I.A.3 of this notice and chapter 10 of 

the final rule TSD.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment

In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design options and the impact of 

potential standard levels, DOE seeks to develop standards that would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the equipment under consideration. DOE has determined that none of the TSLs 

presented in today’s final rule would reduce the utility or performance of the equipment 

considered in the rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(e)(1)) During the 

screening analysis, DOE eliminated from consideration any technology that would adversely 

impact customer utility. For the results of DOE’s analyses related to the potential impact of 

amended standards on equipment utility and performance, see section IV.C of this notice and 

chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.

4720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

setting new or amended standards for covered equipment. Consistent with its obligations under 

EPCA, DOE sought the views of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOE asked 

DOJ to provide a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from the amended standards, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of 

such impact. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii).

To assist DOJ in making such a determination, DOE provided DOJ with copies of both 

the NOPR and NOPR TSD for review. DOJ subsequently determined that the amended standards 

are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

Another factor that DOE must consider in determining whether a new or amended 

standard is economically justified is the need for national energy and water conservation. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(e)(1)) The energy savings from new or amended standards 

are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the 

reliability of the Nation’s electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate 

how new or amended standards may affect the Nation’s needed power generation capacity. 

4820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Energy savings from amended standards for commercial refrigeration equipment are also 

likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

GHGs associated with energy production (i.e., from power plants). For a discussion of the results 

of the analyses relating to the potential environmental benefits of the amended standards, see 

sections IV.K, IV.L and V.B.6 of this notice. DOE reports the expected environmental effects 

from the amended standards, as well as from each TSL it considered for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, in the emissions analysis contained in chapter 13 of the final rule TSD. 

DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. 

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary, in determining whether a new or amended standard is 

economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(e)(1)) There were no other factors considered for today’s 

final rule.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1), EPCA provides for a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the 

additional cost to the customer of equipment that meets the new or amended standard level is less 

than three times the value of the first-year energy (and, as applicable, water) savings resulting 

from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

4920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
analyses generate values that calculate the PBP for customers of potential new and amended 

energy conservation standards. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP 

contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts a full 

economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the customer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1). The results of 

these analyses serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential 

standard level definitively (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.12 of this notice and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

A. General Rulemaking Issues

During the October 2013 NOPR public meeting, and in subsequent written comments, 

stakeholders provided input regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, including the 

trial standard levels and proposed standard levels presented, the rulemaking timeline, the metrics 

used to normalize equipment size, and other subjects. These issues are discussed in this section.

1. Trial Standard Levels

In his comment, Mr. R. Kopp (Kopp) suggested that using continuous energy-efficiency 

cost-curves as opposed to discrete TSLs would provide a more accurate analysis. Further, he 

suggested that instead of setting a single TSL standard, DOE should adopt pathways to improve 

efficiency. (Kopp, No. 60 at p. 5)

5020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In its engineering analysis, DOE utilized a design-option approach, in which it began by 

modeling baseline units and then modeled increasingly efficient designs up to max-tech by 

adding design options one at a time in order of ascending payback period. This methodology 

reflects the options available to manufacturers in increasing the efficiency of their equipment, 

which consist of piecewise design improvements corresponding to the design options modeled in 

the engineering analysis. Therefore, the efficiency levels generated from the engineering analysis 

and carried through the downstream analyses to the development of TSLs correspond to specific 

packages of technologies and design features which could be developed and built by 

manufacturers. Since the stepwise increments along the cost-efficiency curve represent tangible 

efficiency improvements attainable through the implementation of design options, DOE asserts 

that a smooth cost-efficiency curve would not be realistic, as the areas on the curve between the 

current efficiency levels would not correspond to any design that exists. Therefore, DOE has 

retained the approach used in the NOPR in developing this final rule. 

2. Proposed Standard Levels

Traulsen, Structural Concepts Corp. (Structural Concepts), National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association (NRECA), and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) asserted that TSL4, 

the level proposed in the NOPR, was not economically viable, noting that the marginal efficiency 

increase over TSL 3 did not justify the increased costs of compliance. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 

5120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
16;23 Structural Concepts, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 337; NRECA, No. 88 at p. 2;

EEI, No. 89 at p. 4) Traulsen opined that any TSL with a payback period longer than 3 years was 

not feasible for most manufacturers. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 21) Further, NRECA and EEI urged 

DOE to select TSL 3 instead of TSL 4. However, the joint comments from the American Council 

for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), and Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) (hereafter referred to as the “Joint Comment”) supported 

DOE’s proposal to adopt TSL 4, noting that it represented maximum energy savings with a 

positive NPV. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 1) 

Several manufacturers expressed an expected inability to meet the proposed standard 

levels, even with the best available technology. At the October public meeting, Zero Zone Inc. 

(Zero Zone) noted that there had been no significant technological advancements since the 

previous rulemaking which would make an amended standard feasible. (Zero Zone, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 62) Structural Concepts raised a similar concern, noting that 

despite using the most efficient technology currently available, its minimum attainable daily 

energy consumption was 30-40% above the proposed standard level. (Structural Concepts, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 133) Royal Vendors Inc. (Royal Vendors), in its written 

comment, noted that even with the most efficient currently-available technology, the maximum 

23 In the comment citation format used in this document, the citation first presents the name of the commenter, 

followed by the number on the docket corresponding to the document in which the comment is contained, followed 

by a reference to the page in that document on which the comment can be found. 

5220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
possible efficiency gain was 10% over the levels contained in the ENERGY STAR24 Version 3 

specification. However, the Joint Comment opined that most of these concerns were limited to 

pull-down equipment, and that if the standard for that class were revised, there would be no need 

to revise standards for other classes. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 2) Additionally, manufacturers 

opined that the percentage reduction in energy consumption between the existing standard and 

the proposed rule was not achievable. Hussmann Corp. (Hussmann), True Manufacturing Co., 

Inc. (True), and Hoshizaki America, Inc. (Hoshizaki) all commented that the efficiency 

improvements in excess of 60%, as proposed for SC equipment and the VCT.RC.M class, were 

neither economically feasible nor technologically possible. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 10) (True, 

No. 76 at p. 1) (Hoshizaki, No. 84 at p. 1) 

Hoshizaki noted in its written comment that a large majority of currently ENERGY 

STAR-certified equipment would fail to meet the proposed standard. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 at p. 1) 

During the public meeting, Structural Concepts pointed out the relationship between the 

proposed standard and the ENERGY STAR Version 3.0 requirement, opining that it was 

impractical for a standard to be more stringent than the ENERGY STAR requirement. (Structural 

Concepts, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 305) The Joint Comment, however, noted that 

according to the ENERGY STAR-qualified products list, there already are products in five major 

self-contained equipment classes that meet or exceed the proposed standard. Further, the Joint 

Comment drew comparison to the 2009 final rule for residential refrigerators, noting that 

24 ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE that establishes a voluntary 

rating, certification, and labeling program for highly energy efficient consumer products and commercial equipment. Information 

on the program is available at: www.energystar.gov.

5320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
proceeding to be a precedent in which units on the market were not reaching the maximum 

technically feasible efficiency level modeled, since no product was using all the design options 

considered in DOE’s analysis. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 3) Additionally, joint comments 

from the California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) noted that all equipment currently 

listed in the CEC product database for the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.M, and HZO.RC.M 

classes already met the proposed standard. (CA IOUs, No. 63 at p. 1)

Stakeholders noted that, in the proposed rule, the expected efficiency improvement over 

existing standards was more stringent for some equipment classes than for others. Lennox

International Inc. (Lennox) urged DOE to set standards for VCT classes which had the same 

percentage reduction from existing standard levels as open-case classes, and suggested that 

stricter VCT standards would encourage consumers to switch from closed to open equipment.

(Lennox, No. 73 at p. 4) Structural Concepts opined that the proposed change in MDEC for SOC 

equipment was too drastic, further noting that for SOC and VCS equipment classes, it is

counterintuitive for DOE to propose a greater relationship between size and daily energy 

consumption for remote condensing units than for self-contained units, since SC units are 

inherently less efficient. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 3) Coca-Cola, Inc. (Coca-Cola) 

commented that the TSL 4 standard was more stringent for PD.SC.M units than for VCT.SC.M, 

and that this was counterintuitive. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 100) The 

CA IOUs pointed out in its written comment that the current standards for PD.SC.M were set 

through a negotiated process, whereas the standards for other classes were modeled. (CA IOUs, 

No. 63 at p. 6) China commented that while DOE proposed stricter standards for the VCT.RC.M 

5420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
class since the 2009 final rule, DOE was not suggesting amended standards for the HZO class. 

(China, No. 92 at p. 3)

Another concern amongst manufacturers and consumers was the belief that the proposed 

standard levels were based on technology that was currently not available, but rather which DOE 

projected would be available at the time of required compliance with the proposed rule. 

Continental opined that it was impractical to develop standards based on currently unavailable 

technologies. (Continental, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 96) Coca-Cola commented 

that since the proposed standards were based on technology which was not yet available, the 

proposed standards, specifically TSL4 for VCT.SC.M units, were not technologically feasible. 

(Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 74) True expressed agreement with CocaCola, stating that the proposed efficiency levels were beyond the level of what industry can meet 

at the current time. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 307) Lennox commented that 

the proposed standards for VCT units were unattainable with currently known technology and 

were not economically justified. Lennox further commented that under the proposed rule, only a 

very limited number of compliant VCT products would be produced and sold. (Lennox, No. 73 

at p. 2) The North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) noted 

that none of its member manufacturers were able to identify current technology options or 

prototype designs which met the proposed standard levels, and that using assumptions beyond 

what was available in the current market landscape would also improperly quantify the impact of 

the proposed rule on manufacturer costs. (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 3) 

5520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Additionally, during the October public meeting Coca-Cola and True commented that 

food safety was of prime importance in the design of their equipment, and should take 

precedence over energy savings. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 86) (True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 350) National Restaurant Association (NRA) noted that 

the proposed standards had the potential to reduce cooling ability and recovery time for 

equipment subject to constant opening and closing, and that this reduced performance could 

compromise food safety. (NRA, No. 90 at p. 3) Similarly, NAFEM also noted that the 

implementation of the proposed standards would have potential negative effects on food safety

for end-users. (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 5)

DOE understands the concerns voiced by stakeholders regarding their future ability to 

meet standard levels as proposed in the NOPR. Between the NOPR and final rule stages, DOE 

revised and updated its analysis based on stakeholders comments received at the NOPR public 

meeting and in written comments. These updates included improvements to the modeling of 

equipment geometries, design specifications, and design option performance and costs so as to 

provide a more accurate model of baseline and higher-efficiency designs across the classes 

analyzed. After applying these updates, DOE amended its TSLs and standard level equations 

accordingly. With respect to the comments from Zero Zone, Structural Concepts, and Royal 

Vendors regarding the ability of technologies needed to meet the proposed standard level, DOE 

analyzed the available technologies in its market and technology assessment and screening 

analyses, and incorporated appropriate and available technology options in the modeling 

performed as part of its engineering analysis. Therefore, DOE believes that the technologies and 

5620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
designs included in the analysis accurately reflect what is available to industry for improving

equipment efficiency. 

In response to the Joint Comment, DOE notes that it evaluated equipment performance 

independently for each equipment class and thus did not revise standards for any one class solely 

based upon factors affecting another class. DOE believes that the updates and improvements to 

the modeling applied between the NOPR and final rule stages of this rulemaking have resulted in 

standard levels presented in today’s final rule which address the concerns voiced by stakeholders 

after publication of the NOPR. 

In response to stakeholder comments comparing the proposed standard levels to 

ENERGY STAR levels, DOE cautions against direct comparisons between its standards and 

those set forth by ENERGY STAR due to the different natures of the programs and how the two 

different sets of standard levels are set. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program which derives 

its standard levels from market data based on the performance of certain models of equipment 

currently available for purchase. ENERGY STAR also does not model performance or include 

consumer economics in its standard-setting process. DOE sets its standards as applicable to all 

covered equipment and develops them through specific analyses of equipment performance and 

modeling of economic impacts and other downstream effects. Due to the different goals and 

methodologies of these two programs, a direct comparison may not be entirely relevant. 

5720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
However, during the final rule stage, for relevant equipment classes25, DOE did compare its 

engineering results to available ENERGY STAR data as a means of checking the modeled 

performance levels against empirical test data. With respect to the comparison by the California 

IOUs of performance of open cases to certified values from the CEC directory, DOE also 

cautions that this directory is not exhaustive. For example, a search of the directory shows that,

for some equipment classes, only equipment from a single manufacturer is included. Therefore, 

while directory data is helpful in providing a check on DOE’s results, DOE has performed

independent modeling and analysis to derive its standard levels.

With respect to the concerns about the relative perceived stringencies of proposed 

standards for different classes, in the NOPR analyses, DOE examined each equipment class 

independently based on standard geometries and feature sets for representative units within the 

classes. DOE then conducted the engineering simulations and downstream economic analyses 

separately for each primary class examined. The results presented at the NOPR stage represent 

the suggested performance and cost values for each class based on the best available information 

at the time of that analysis. Therefore, DOE cautions against comparative examination of the 

relative stringencies of the various standard levels, as each was calculated independently and the 

performance and economic benefits of individual design options vary specific to each class. DOE 

also agrees with the California IOUs that previous standard levels should not necessarily be used 

as a check on current analytical results because the origins of those standards are not completely 

25 ENERGY STAR only maintains standard levels applying to equipment classes VCS.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, 

VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, HCS.SC.M, HCS.SC.L, HCT.SC.M, and HCT.SC.L. Thus, these were the only classes for 

which a comparison between the DOE and ENERGY STAR levels could be made. 

5820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
transparent, meaning that a direct comparison may be inappropriate due to differences between 

the methodologies used to set those standards and those used by DOE in the current rulemaking. 

At the final rule stage, DOE continued to examine each class independently based on the merits 

of the available efficiency-improving features, and has set amended standards for each class 

based on the results of those analyses. 

In response to the assertions that DOE’s standard levels were not based upon currently 

available technologies, but rather were dependent upon future potential technological 

developments, DOE maintains that all technology options and equipment configurations 

included in its NOPR reflect technologies currently in use in commercial refrigeration equipment 

or related equipment types. DOE has observed these design options and features used in current 

manufacturer models offered for sale. The specific inputs which it used to model these design 

options, such as compressor efficiency improvements over the market baseline, glass door Ufactor, or heat exchanger UA, were provided to the public for comment in the NOPR TSD and 

engineering analysis spreadsheet, and DOE has updated those inputs according to stakeholder 

feedback and other information available during the final rule stage. 

DOE understands the concerns voiced by Coca-Cola, True, NAFEM, and NRA regarding 

food safety. DOE realizes that food safety is of the utmost importance to the industry, and is in 

fact a definitional aspect of the design of equipment for food storage temperatures. In its 

5920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
screening analysis, DOE is compelled by sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule26 to 

eliminate from consideration any technology that presents unacceptable problems with respect to 

a specific set of criteria, including impacts on equipment utility. Therefore, DOE removed from 

consideration technologies and design options which could result in such adverse impacts. 

Additionally, in its engineering analysis, DOE modeled medium-temperature equipment as 

having an average product temperature of 38°F, consistent with the rating temperature specified 

in the DOE test procedure and below the 41°F requirement of the NSF 727 food safety rating 

procedure. Thus, the daily energy consumption values produced in the engineering analysis 

reflect a level of equipment performance which ensures preservation of the ability to maintain

food safety temperatures. 

3. Rulemaking Timeline

Some stakeholders felt that in light of the large number of analytical changes that could 

be required between the NOPR and final rule, DOE should extend the target date for publication 

of the final rule. Traulsen requested that DOE slow the rulemaking process down due to the 

aggressiveness of the final rule date. (Traulsen, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 347) 

Hillphoenix and Lennox also expressed the same concern, noting that a February 2014 deadline

for publication of the final rule allowed insufficient time for the reevaluation of DOE’s 

engineering analysis. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 3) (Lennox, No. 73 at p. 2) In contrast, the New 

York State Attorney General (NYSAG) commented that the delay in amending these efficiency 

26 Appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430, “Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New 

or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” is known as “The Process Rule.” 

27 This refers to the NSF/ANSI 7 procedure used to test equipment performance for food safety. 

6020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
standards not only violated Congressional mandates, but has also prolonged the time that 

inefficient products stay in the market. NYSAG further commented that these delays have led to 

avoidable pollution and waste of resources. (NYSAG, No. 92 at p. 1)

While DOE appreciates the input from commenters requesting that the timeline for this 

rulemaking be extended, none of the commenters has provided any details or specifics with 

regard to what specifically they believe would require extra time. In reviewing its analyses to 

date, the inputs received at the NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written comment, DOE 

believes that the time allotted is sufficient in order to allow for full and proper analysis required 

in order to develop the final rule. In fact, DOE conducted an efficient and thorough effort to 

promulgate the final rule within the constraints of the time allotted. With regard to NYSAG’s 

comment, DOE notes that it has moved as efficiently as possible while conducting the thorough 

analysis required to set appropriate standards.

4. Normalization Metrics

Following publication of the NOPR, DOE received comment on the normalization 

metrics used to scale allowable daily energy consumption under the standard levels as a function 

of equipment size. Depending on the design and intended application of each equipment class, 

DOE proposed energy standard levels using either total display area or volume as a metric. 

Structural Concepts commented that DOE’s metrics for the VCT and HCT families were 

inconsistent, since some proposed standards for classes within the families were based on total 

display area (TDA) while others were based on volume, NAFEM stated that industry participants 

6120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
use volume, rather than linear feet, to estimate total market size. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at 

p. 3) (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 6)

DOE understands that the selection of appropriate measures of case size is important to 

the standards-setting process across all covered equipment classes. For the self-contained 

equipment with doors for which standards were set in the EPACT 2005 legislation, volume was 

identified in the statute as the normalization metric. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)) For the equipment 

covered by the 2009 final rule, DOE selected the metrics of volume for equipment with solid 

doors and TDA for display-type equipment. Because radiation and conduction through doors are 

the primary heat transfer pathways for CRE equipment with transparent doors, DOE concluded 

that TDA is the metric that best quantifies this effect. Likewise, for equipment without doors, the 

majority of heat load occurs due to warm air infiltration, and DOE determined that TDA would 

also be the most appropriate metric for capturing these effects. DOE also stated its conclusion

that for these equipment types, where the function is to display merchandise for sale, TDA best 

quantifies the ability of a piece of equipment to perform that function. On the other hand, 

equipment with solid doors is designed for storage, and volume was determined to be the most 

appropriate metric for quantifying the storage capacity of the unit. 72 FR 41177-78 (July 26, 

2007). 

DOE does not believe, based on its discussions with manufacturers and comments 

solicited over the course of this rulemaking that the fundamental concepts underlying the choices 

of TDA or volume as the normalization metric for any given class of equipment have changed. 

6220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In line with the reasons stated above, DOE is retaining the current normalization metrics for the 

respective equipment classes, consisting of both the metrics set forth in the 2009 final rule and 

those prescribed by the EPACT 2005 standards for self-contained equipment with doors.

In response to the comment from NAFEM regarding the usage of linear feet, DOE wishes 

to clarify that it did not use linear feet of equipment as a measure of equipment size in its 

engineering analysis, nor as a metric when estimating total market size in its shipments analysis. 

Rather, DOE utilized linear feet as a normalization metric in the national impacts and other 

downstream analyses when accounting for the aggregate costs and benefits of today’s final rule. 

DOE believes that the units used in making representations of equipment market size are 

accurate, and DOE did not modify them for the final rule analysis. 

5. Conformance with Executive Orders and Departmental Policies

At the NOPR public meeting, and in a subsequent written comment, Traulsen opined that 

the proposed rule violates Executive Order 12866. Specifically, Traulsen stated that the rule 

failed to identify the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency 

action, since the industry had actively embraced voluntary efficiency goals and standards. 

(Traulsen, No. 65 at p.16) In accordance with sectionSection 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, 

in requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where 

applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, 

as well as to assess the significance of that problem. In section VI.A of today’s notice (and also 

in the NOPR), DOE has identified the problems that it has addressed by amending energy 

Comment [J34]: Change requested by OIRA.

6320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, including the failures. For 

certain segments of private markets or public institutionsthe companies that warrant new agency 

action. DOE further notes that “failure” ispurchase commercial refrigeration equipment, such as 

small grocers, these problems may include a technical termlack of consumer information and

does not necessarily imply that/or information processing capability about energy efficiency 

opportunities in the CRE industry is at fault. For examplecommercial refrigeration equipment 

market. In addition, the market for commercial refrigeration equipment is affected by electricity 

prices that do not reflect all of the social and environmental costs associated with electricity use. 

When such externalities are not included in the decisions made by market actors, this is 

considered a market failure by economists.

Traulsen asserted that the proposed rule was in violation of Executive Order 13563 and 

the Information Quality Act since the assumptions in DOE’s analysis did not use the best 

available techniques to quantify the benefits of the rule. (Traulsen, No. 65 at pp.16-17) DOE 

believes that the analysis described in today’s notice is based on the best available techniques 

that were suited to the data available to analyze commercial refrigeration equipment. Further, 

Traulsen did not point to any specific techniques in its comment that would have been superior to 

those employed by DOE

NAFEM expressed concern that the proposed rule was in violation of Executive Orders

because it had a disproportionate negative impact on small businesses, failed to consider nonregulatory alternatives, and since DOE had made no contact with end-users in order to 

Comment [J35]: Change requested by OIRA.

6420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
understand impact on users. (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 14) Traulsen stated that DOE should consider 

supplementing regulatory action with other forms of non-regulatory alternatives, such as 

expanded collaboration with ENERGY STAR, rebates, and incentive programs. (Traulsen, No. 

65 at p. 15)

As discussed in section V.B.1.b of this notice, DOE believes that today’s rule would not 

have a disproportionate negative impact on small businesses. DOE did consider non-regulatory 

alternatives to amended standards, as described in detail in chapter 17 of the final rule TSD. 

Finally, DOE requested comment from the public and held public meetings that were attended by 

representatives of end-users of commercial refrigeration equipment (e.g., ACCA, Coca-Cola, and 

NAFEM).

NAFEM also opined that the proposed rule violated the Secretarial Policy Statement of 

Scientific Integrity, since the analysis was not independently peer-reviewed by qualified experts, 

underlying assumptions were not clearly explained, and since DOE failed to accurately 

contextualize uncertainties pertaining to non-regulatory alternatives. (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 14)

The Secretary’s March 23, 2012 “Secretarial Policy Statement of Scientific Integrity”28

sets forth a policy for DOE employees and states, in relevant part, that “DOE will ensure that 

data and research used to support policy decisions are of high scientific and technical objectivity. 

Scientific and technical objectivity will be supported through independent peer review by 

28 https://www.directives.doe.gov/references/secretarial_policy_statement_on_scientific_integrity/view

6520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
qualified experts, where feasible and appropriate, and consistent with law.” With respect to 

DOE’s analysis underlying this final rule, DOE has solicited and thoroughly considered 

comment and data from expert CRE manufacturers throughout the rulemaking process. DOE 

does not believe that any additional expert review of its analysis is either necessary or 

appropriate.

Further, the assumptions used in DOE’s analysis are described in detail in the NOPR 

TSD and in the final rule TSD. DOE is not aware of the uncertainties pertaining to nonregulatory alternatives mentioned only in a general sense by NAFEM.

6. Offset Factors

In presenting the NOPR standard levels, DOE adopted and modified the offset factors 

from the 2009 final rule and EPACT 2005 standard levels to define the energy consumption of a 

unit at zero volume or TDA, thus setting the y-intercepts of the linear standard level equations 

proposed at levels intended to represent “end effects” inherent in all equipment. Some 

stakeholders expressed disagreement with DOE’s modeling of offset factors. Hillphoenix 

commented that offset factors were designed to account for factors which remained constant over 

a range of equipment sizes. Hillphoenix further commented that such factors as conduction end 

effects typically do not vary with size. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 2) Traulsen commented that 

DOE’s modeled offset factors were not empirically determined. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 19) The 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) commented that it was impossible 

for stakeholders to compare the offset factors within the current rulemaking with the previous 

rulemaking’s values. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 14)

6620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In developing offset factors for the NOPR, DOE scaled existing offset factors from the 

EPACT 2005 and 2009 final rule standard levels based on the percentage reduction in energy use 

modeled at the representative unit size. This allowed the NOPR standard level equations to 

reflect energy allowances which proposed a standard percentage reduction in allowable 

consumption across all equipment sizes. While DOE agrees with Traulsen that the offset factors 

were not empirically determined, the factors were based upon scaling proportional to modeled 

equipment performance and applied to the existing offset factors which have been wellestablished and vetted through development of and compliance with the existing standards 

containing them.

In response to the comment from Hillphoenix, DOE agrees that there are certain fixed 

effects which will be encountered by any piece of equipment, such as a minimum amount of 

conduction, or energy consumption attributable to the presence of a minimum of a single fan 

motor, for example. For the final rule, and in response to the concern of stakeholders, DOE 

adjusted its offset factors to account for these constant effects. In equipment for which DOE 

developed offset factors for use in standard level equations in its 2009 final rule, DOE retained 

the same offset factors in the development of the trial standard levels presented in today’s notice.

DOE believes that the retention of these factors accurately reflects the presence of fixed endeffect behavior in this equipment, which remains independent of the design options elsewise 

implemented in the equipment. For the equipment for which standard levels were set by EPACT 

2005, DOE had no background information as to how those offset factors were developed. 

Therefore, in developing trial standard levels for today’s final rule, DOE adjusted those offset 

6720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
factors based on available data from directories of certified product performance. For more 

information on the development of offset factors, please see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

B. Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops 

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

the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity 

includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly available 

information (e.g., manufacturer specification sheets, industry publications) and data submitted by 

manufacturers, trade associations, and other stakeholders. The subjects addressed in the market 

and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) quantities and types of equipment 

sold and offered for sale; (2) retail market trends; (3) equipment covered by the rulemaking; (4) 

equipment classes; (5) manufacturers; (6) regulatory requirements and non-regulatory programs 

(such as rebate programs and tax credits); and (7) technologies that could improve the energy 

efficiency of the equipment under examination. DOE researched manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment and made a particular effort to identify and characterize small business 

manufacturers. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment.

1. Equipment Classes

In evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides 

covered equipment into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance6820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
related feature that justifies a different standard for equipment having such a feature. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) and 6316(e)(1)) In deciding whether a feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider factors such as the utility of the feature to users. DOE normally establishes different 

energy conservation standards for different equipment classes based on these criteria.

Commercial refrigeration equipment can be divided into various equipment classes 

categorized by specific physical and design characteristics. These characteristics impact 

equipment efficiency, determine the kind of merchandise that the equipment can be used to 

display, and affect how the customer can access that merchandise. Key physical and design 

characteristics of commercial refrigeration equipment are the operating temperature, the presence 

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

solid), the angle of the door or air curtain29 (horizontal, semivertical, or vertical), and the type of 

condensing unit (remote condensing or self-contained). The following list shows the key 

characteristics of commercial refrigeration equipment that DOE developed as part of the January 

2009 final rule (74 FR at 1099–1100 (January 9, 2009)), and used during this rulemaking: 

1. Operating Temperature 

• Medium temperature (38 °F, refrigerators) 

• Low temperature (0 °F, freezers) 

• Ice-cream temperature (-15 °F, ice-cream freezers) 

29 An air curtain is a continuously moving stream of air, driven by fans, which exits on one side of the opening in an 

open refrigerated case and re-enters on the other side via an intake grille. The function of the air curtain is to cover 

the opening in the case with this sheet of air, which minimizes the infiltration of warmer ambient air into the 

refrigerated space. 

6920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
2. Door Type 

• Equipment with transparent doors 

• Equipment with solid doors 

• Equipment without doors 

3. Orientation (air-curtain or door angle) 

• Horizontal 

• Semivertical 

• Vertical 

4. Type of Condensing Unit 

• Remote condensing 

• Self-contained 

Additionally, because EPCA specifically sets a separate standard for refrigerators with a 

self-contained condensing unit designed for pull-down temperature applications and transparent 

doors, DOE has created a separate equipment class for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(3)) 

DOE included this equipment in the form of a separate family with a single class (PD.SC.M). A 

total of 49 equipment classes were created, and these are listed in chapter 3 of the TSD using the 

nomenclature developed in the January 2009 final rule. 74 FR at 1100 (January 9, 2009).

During the October 2013 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written comments, a 

number of stakeholders addressed issues related to proposed equipment classes and the inclusion 

of certain types of equipment in the analysis. These topics are discussed in this section. 

7020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
a. Equipment Subcategories

In their written comments, Continental, NAFEM, True and Traulsen all expressed 

concern that the equipment classes defined by DOE in the proposed rule did not sufficiently 

encompass various sub-classifications, especially with regard to pass-through and reach-in cases.

(Continental, No. 87 at p. 1) (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 7) (True, No. 76 at p. 3) (Traulsen, No. 65 at 

p. 16) Further, Traulsen and True pointed out that a multitude of custom-built and niche 

equipment exists, which would require further analysis in order to determine a viable standard.

(Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 20) (True, No. 76 at p. 1)

In response to the concerns of interested parties, DOE believes that its existing equipment 

class structure is sufficient to account for the majority of variation in type and combination of 

equipment geometry, condensing unit configuration, and operating temperature. DOE provides 

allowances in its standards to account for the energy needs of different equipment sizes through 

its use of standard level equations constructed in the form of linear equations varying with 

equipment size (as measured by volume or TDA) and through its use of offset factors to 

represent energy end-effects. DOE also accommodates variation in operating temperature outside

of its three rating temperatures through the use of a lowest application product temperature 

provision in its test procedure. 77 FR at 10305 (February 21, 2012)

7120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
b. Floral Equipment

In the context of niche equipment classes, the Society of American Florists (SAF) noted 

that the floral industry uses purpose-designed refrigeration equipment, including sliding door 

floral display coolers (self-contained), open air access floral display coolers (reach-in), 

countertop floral display coolers and long door floral display coolers (swinging or sliding doors, 

top-mounted or remote condensing unit). SAF further added that most of these units are custombuilt, since floral cooling systems are balanced to keep humidity high, and that special lowvelocity coils are utilized to blow air through the unit while maintaining temperature and high 

humidity levels – features not available in stock equipment. (SAF, No. 74 at p. 3)

DOE believes that its division of covered equipment into numerous classes is sufficiently 

broad to capture the level of differentiation present within the commercial refrigeration 

equipment market. The equipment types described in the comment from SAF would fall into a 

number of existing equipment classes for which DOE has conducted analyses in this rulemaking. 

Additionally, DOE has recognized the temperature issues which may be present in floral cases, 

and has accommodated those different operating temperatures by developing and implementing a 

provision in its test procedure allowing equipment which cannot reach the specified DOE rating 

temperature to be tested at its lowest application product temperature. 77 FR at 10305 (February

21, 2012)

2. Technology Assessment

As part of the market and technology assessment performed for the final rule analysis,

DOE developed a comprehensive list of technologies that would be expected to improve the 

7220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment. Chapter 3 of the TSD contains a 

detailed description of each technology that DOE identified. Although DOE identified a 

complete list of technologies that improve efficiency, DOE only considered in its analysis 

technologies that would impact the efficiency rating of equipment as tested under the DOE test 

procedure. Therefore, DOE excluded several technologies from the analysis during the 

technology assessment because they do not improve the rated efficiency of equipment as 

measured under the specified test procedure. Technologies that DOE determined impact the rated 

efficiency were carried through to the screening analysis and are discussed in section IV.C.

a. Technologies Applicable to All Equipment 

In the NOPR analysis market and technology assessment, DOE listed the following 

technologies that would be expected to improve the efficiency of all equipment: higher 

efficiency lighting, higher efficiency lighting ballasts, remote lighting ballast location, higher 

efficiency expansion valves, higher efficiency evaporator fan motors, variable-speed evaporator 

fan motors and evaporator fan motor controllers, higher efficiency evaporator fan blades, 

increased evaporator surface area, low-pressure differential evaporators, increased case 

insulation or improvements, defrost mechanisms, defrost cycle controls, vacuum insulated 

panels, and occupancy sensors for lighting controls. These technologies are discussed in depth in 

chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. Not all of these technologies were considered in the engineering 

analysis; some were screened out or removed from consideration on technical grounds. After the 

publication of the NOPR analysis, DOE received numerous stakeholder comments regarding 

these technologies, discussed below.

7320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Low Pressure Differential Evaporators

Traulsen commented that low pressure differential evaporators would require larger 

spaces between fins and tubes, which could in turn reduce overall efficiency by allowing frost 

build-up. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 7) Low-pressure differential evaporators reduce energy 

consumption by reducing the power of evaporator fan motors, often by increasing the air gap 

between fins. However, as noted in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, in space-constrained equipment 

such as commercial refrigeration equipment, this reduction usually comes from a decrease in 

evaporator coil surface area, which generally requires a lower saturated evaporator temperature 

(SET) to achieve the same discharge air temperature and cooling potential. This, in turn, results 

in a reduction in compressor efficiency. Therefore, DOE agrees with Traulsen that low pressure 

differential evaporators are not a viable option for consideration in this rulemaking and did not 

consider them as a design option.

Defrost Mechanisms

Traulsen commented that in order for DOE to advocate for improved defrost sensors, new 

designs would need to be implemented, and that the compliance date suggested in the NOPR 

would not allow for the levels of research and development (R&D) necessary to achieve this

improvement. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 8) DOE wishes to clarify that it did not consider advanced 

defrost sensors as a design option within the analyses conducted at the NOPR or final rule stages 

of this rulemaking. Much equipment currently manufactured already uses partial defrost cycle 

control in the form of cycle temperature-termination control. However, defrost cycle initiation is 

7420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
still scheduled at regular intervals. Full defrost cycle control would involve a method of 

detecting frost buildup and initiating defrost. This could be accomplished using an optical sensor 

or through use of a sensor to detect the temperature differential across the evaporator coil. 

However, DOE understands that both of these methods are currently unreliable due to fouling of 

the coil with dust and other surface contaminants, which becomes more of an issue as cases age. 

Because of these issues, DOE agrees with Traulsen’s concerns and did not consider defrost cycle 

control as a design option at the NOPR or final rule stages. Instead, the defrost lengths modeled 

in the engineering analysis were based on defrost times gathered through review of manufacturer 

literature, manufacturer interviews, and data collected through laboratory testing of equipment 

currently available on the market.

Light Emitting Diode Lighting

After publication of the NOPR, Traulsen commented that DOE's assertion of consumer 

enthusiasm towards LEDs lacked basis in reality. Further, Traulsen commented that any weight 

given to this assertion in the calculations was null. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 4) During its analysis, 

DOE considered design options based on their availability on the market and on the screening 

criteria set forth by the Process Rule. In considering LED lighting as a design option, DOE did 

so after researching existing product offerings on the market and conferring with manufacturers 

in confidential interviews. DOE did not factor “consumer enthusiasm” into its decision to include 

LED lighting as asserted by Traulsen, but instead considered this design option based on the 

information available from the current equipment market and the technology’s ability to reduce 

the measured energy consumption of covered equipment.

7520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
b. Technologies Relevant only to Equipment with Doors

In chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD, DOE mentioned three technologies that could apply only 

to doored equipment: anti-fog films, anti-sweat heater controllers, and high performance doors. 

Not all of these technologies were considered in the NOPR engineering analysis, as some were 

screened out or removed from consideration on technical grounds. The following sections 

discuss stakeholder comments regarding these technologies.

Anti-fog Films

Traulsen commented that while DOE called for the use of advanced hydrophobic 

materials in the form of anti-fog films to prevent condensation build-up, there were concerns 

with regard to the NSF certification of this feature. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 11) DOE wishes to 

clarify that, while it included anti-fog films for consideration in the NOPR market and 

technology assessment, it did not include them as a design option in the engineering analysis. For 

a full discussion of why DOE did not consider anti-fog films, please see chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. DOE agrees with Traulsen’s concerns, amongst others, and continued to exclude this 

technology from it analysis at the final rule stage. 

Anti-Sweat Heater Controllers

In its statements at the NOPR public meeting, the California IOUs urged DOE to 

consider anti-sweat heater controllers as a design option due to their large savings potential. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 19) However, in its written comment, Traulsen 

7620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
pointed out that these may be impractical, since sensor technologies had high failure rates in 

kitchen environments. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 11)

DOE addressed consideration of this technology in chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. Antisweat heater controllers modulate the operation of anti-sweat heaters by reducing heater power 

when humidity is low, and operate most effectively when a constant ambient dew point cannot 

be maintained. However, in the context of the DOE test procedure, anti-sweat heater controllers 

solely serve to keep the power to the anti-sweat heaters at the levels necessary for the test 

conditions. These fixed conditions of 75°F and 55 percent relative humidity are the conditions 

that ASHRAE has determined to be generally representative of commercial refrigeration 

equipment operating environments and which DOE has adopted in its test procedure. While antisweat heater controllers could modulate the anti-sweat power to a further extent in the field so as 

to account for more or less extreme ambient conditions, a system equipped with anti-sweat 

heater controllers will not likely exhibit significantly different performance at test procedure 

conditions than a unit with anti-sweat heaters tuned for constant 75/55 conditions. Because they 

would have no impact on measured energy consumption under the DOE test procedure, DOE did 

not consider anti-sweat heater controllers in the engineering analysis.

c. Technologies Applicable Only to Equipment without Doors

In chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD, DOE mentioned two technologies, air-curtain design and 

night curtains, that potentially could be used to improve the efficiency of commercial 

refrigeration equipment without doors. Air curtain design was not considered in the NOPR

7720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
engineering analysis, as it was screened out and removed from consideration because, according 

to the information available to DOE, advanced air curtain designs are still in research and 

development stages and are not yet available for use in the manufacture of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. The following sections address stakeholder comments regarding 

technologies applicable to equipment without doors. 

Air-Curtain Design

In its written comment, Traulsen expressed concern over the use of advanced air curtain 

designs. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 11) DOE agrees with Traulsen that advanced air curtain designs 

are not currently a feasible option for use in commercial refrigeration equipment. Sections 4(a) 

and 5(b) of the Process Rule specifically set “practicability to manufacture, install, and service” 

as a criterion that should be satisfied for technology to be considered as a design option. In 

chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD, DOE explained that advanced air curtain designs are only in the 

research stage and, therefore, that it would be impracticable to manufacture, install, and service 

this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time an amended

standard would become effective. For that reason, DOE screened out improved air curtains as a 

design option for improving the energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment.

C. Screening Analysis

DOE uses four screening criteria to determine which design options are suitable for 

further consideration in a standards rulemaking. Namely, design options will be removed from 

consideration if they are not technologically feasible; are not practicable to manufacture, install,

7820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
or service; have adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; or have adverse 

impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections (4)(a)(4) and 

(5)(b).

In comments received after the NOPR publication, Traulsen commented that, while DOE 

screened out certain technology options due to impacts on end-users, it was unclear why the 

same technology option was screened out for some equipment classes but not others. (Traulsen, 

No. 65 at p. 2)

During the screening analysis, DOE considered sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process 

Rule, which provide guidance in determining whether to eliminate from consideration any 

technology that presents unacceptable problems with respect to certain criteria. These criteria 

include technological feasibility, practicability to manufacture, install, and service, impacts on 

equipment utility or equipment availability, and adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE 

determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, meet any of the criteria set forth

in section 5(b) of the Process Rule, it will be eliminated from consideration. This screening 

process is applied to each candidate technology being considered, and is applicable across all 

equipment classes. Therefore, in response to the comment from Traulsen, DOE does not believe 

that it screened out any particular technology options for some classes but not others.

Based on all available information, DOE has concluded that: (1) all of the efficiency 

levels discussed in today’s notice are technologically feasible; (2) equipment at these efficiency 

7920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
levels could be manufactured, installed, and serviced on a scale needed to serve the relevant 

markets; (3) these efficiency levels would not force manufacturers to use technologies that would 

adversely affect product utility or availability; and (4) these efficiency levels would not 

adversely affect consumer health or safety. Thus, the efficiency levels that DOE analyzed and 

discusses in this notice are all achievable through technology options that were “screened in” 

during the screening analysis.

D. Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis determines the manufacturing costs of achieving increased 

efficiency or decreased energy consumption. DOE historically has used the following three 

methodologies to generate the manufacturing costs needed for its engineering analyses: (1) the 

design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model 

design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides 

the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the 

particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 

engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for 

achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and 

material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular 

efficiency levels. 

As discussed in the Framework document, preliminary analysis, and NOPR analysis, 

DOE conducted the engineering analyses for this rulemaking using a design-option approach for 

8020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
commercial refrigeration equipment. The decision to use this approach was made due to several 

factors, including the wide variety of equipment analyzed, the lack of numerous levels of 

equipment efficiency currently available in the market, and the prevalence of relatively easily 

implementable energy-saving technologies applicable to this equipment. More specifically, DOE 

identified design options for analysis, used a combination of industry research and teardownbased cost modeling to determine manufacturing costs, and employed numerical modeling to 

determine the energy consumption for each combination of design options used to increase 

equipment efficiency. DOE selected a set of 25 high-shipment classes, referred to as “primary” 

classes, to analyze directly in the engineering analysis. Additional details of the engineering 

analysis are available in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis

a. Representative Unit Selection

In performing its engineering analysis, DOE selected representative units for each 

primary equipment class to serve as analysis points in the development of cost-efficiency curves. 

In selecting these units, DOE researched the offerings of major manufacturers to select models 

that were generally representative of the typical offerings produced within the given equipment 

class. Unit sizes, configurations, and features were based on high-shipment-volume designs 

prevalent in the market. Using this data, a set of specifications was developed defining a 

representative unit for each primary equipment class. These specifications include geometric 

dimensions, quantities of components (such as fans), operating temperatures, and other case 

features that are necessary to calculate energy consumption. Modifications to the units modeled 

8120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
were made as needed to ensure that those units were representative of typical models from 

industry, rather than a specific unit offered by one manufacturer. This process created a 

representative unit for each equipment class with typical characteristics for physical parameters 

(e.g., volume, TDA), and minimum performance of energy-consuming components (e.g., fans, 

lighting).

b. Baseline Models

DOE created a set of baseline design specifications for each equipment class analyzed 

directly in the engineering model. Each set of representative baseline unit specifications, when 

combined with the lowest technological level of each design option applicable to the given 

equipment class, defines the energy consumption and cost of the lowest efficiency equipment 

analyzed for that class. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD sets forth the specifications that DOE 

chose for each equipment class and discusses baseline models in greater detail.

One complexity involved in developing an engineering baseline was due to the variety of 

designs and technology options that manufacturers could utilize in order to meet the recentlyimplemented standards arising from EPACT 2005 and the 2009 final rule. Through its analyses, 

DOE determined that manufacturers were utilizing a wide variety of design paths in order to 

meet the necessary performance level. Therefore, in order to develop its engineering results for 

the current rule, DOE retained the engineering baseline and associated technologies used in its 

January 2009 final rule engineering analysis and expanded them to accommodate the new 

equipment classes covered by the standards initially established by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

8220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
6313(c)(2)–(3)) DOE then added technologies to this baseline to develop its cost-efficiency 

curves, and ordered the technology options from lowest to highest payback period. The result 

was a set of cost-efficiency curves reflecting what DOE believes to be the most cost-effective 

means of meeting the existing standards, as well as that of attaining the higher levels of 

performance reflected in today’s rule. 

As a result, some of the engineering results represent levels of unit performance that are 

below the standard levels for equipment currently on the market and subject to DOE’s existing 

standards. (10 CFR 431.66). However, in its LCC and other downstream analyses, DOE 

accounted for this fact by utilizing a standards baseline as the minimum efficiency level 

examined, thereby truncating the engineering design option levels so that the lowest efficiency 

point analyzed corresponded to the current standard level with which that particular model of 

equipment would have to comply. The exact procedure is described in section IV.F and 

additional details are provided in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

After publication of the NOPR and the NOPR public meeting, DOE received a number of 

comments from interested parties regarding its establishment of baseline models, and the features 

and design specifications included in those baseline models. The subsequent sections contain 

those comments and DOE’s responses. 

8320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Composition of Baseline

Southern Store Fixtures Inc. (Southern Store Fixtures), AHRI, Hussmann and Structural 

Concepts expressed concern that, by keeping the baseline consistent between the previous rule 

and the proposed rule, DOE had failed to account for the efficiency improvement brought about 

by the previous standard, thereby overestimating the potential for energy savings. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 2) (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 2) (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 9) (Structural 

Concepts, No. 85 at p. 1) Additionally, AHRI noted that although the current rulemaking retains 

the baseline specifications and some related technologies from the previous rulemaking, there are 

differences in the baseline energy consumption across the two rulemakings. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 

4) 

The Joint Comment pointed out that, for some equipment classes, many ENERGY 

STAR-qualified products were rated as being less efficient than the modeled baseline. Further, 

the Joint Comment urged DOE to re-evaluate the baseline levels for equipment classes for which 

the current standards were established by EPACT 2005. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 5)

In response to the comments raised by interested parties regarding the modeled 

equipment baseline, DOE points out that there is currently no prescriptive requirement that 

commercial refrigeration equipment use any specific combination of features to meet the existing 

EPACT 2005 or 2009 final rule standard levels. For this reason, and in order to ensure a proper 

ordering of the implementation of efficiency-improving technologies in its engineering analysis, 

DOE started with an engineering baseline which was, in many cases, below the performance 

8420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
level mandated by the current standards. DOE then modeled equipment with increasingly higher 

levels of performance by implementing the applicable design options in order of ascending 

payback period. The result of this was a modeled configuration reflecting, based on the 

information available to DOE, the most cost-effective way to build a model which complies with 

the existing standards. Then, DOE continued to add the remaining design options until it reached 

the max-tech level. It was these additional efficiency levels above the performance level required 

by the existing standard that were considered as offering incremental efficiency improvements 

beyond the level required at the time of the analysis. 

Energy savings and downstream impacts (such as life-cycle cost and national net present 

value results) were calculated based on a base case efficiency distribution in which minimumefficiency products available today are assumed to comply with existing standards. Therefore the 

modeled design options up to the level of performance required by existing standards did not 

have any impact on the energy or cost savings attributed to the amended standards prescribed

today, but rather, served only to align the engineering cost-efficiency curve with the technologies 

which present the shortest-payback options for reducing energy consumption. As a result, DOE 

believes that the assertion of some stakeholders that its methodology overstates the energy 

savings attributable to today’s rule is inaccurate. 

With regard to the specific technology modeling that was discussed by AHRI, DOE 

updated modeling of some baseline design options and components from the 2009 final rule to 

the current rulemaking to ensure the most accurate possible depiction of components currently 

8520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
available on the market. In the final rule stage, DOE revisited these design option parameters 

based on stakeholder comments and further revised them where appropriate so as to ensure a 

greater degree of accuracy in the engineering model inputs. Therefore, DOE understands that 

there may be adjustments to the numerical outputs of the modeling of baseline units between 

rulemakings and rulemaking stages.

In response to the issue raised in the Joint Comment, DOE wishes to point out that the 

ENERGY STAR-qualified directory30 is, by design, not necessarily an exhaustive source of 

information for all models available on the market. However, DOE has adjusted its modeling of 

baseline units in the final rule stage of the analysis and, in conducting comparisons between its 

engineering results and market data such as the ENERGY STAR directory, has found agreement 

between the performance results obtained from its engineering analysis and the data points 

contained in the ENERGY STAR directory. 

Condensate Pan Heaters

In their written comments, manufacturers provided input on the modeling of condensate 

pan heaters in baseline and higher-performance units. Traulsen noted that closed door 

refrigerators were modeled in the NOPR engineering analysis as not requiring electric 

condensate pan heaters, while freezers were modeled as using this component, even though 

refrigerators face the same physical limitations as freezers. Further, Traulsen commented that 

DOE should consider the power required to bring condensate pan heaters to operating 

30 Available http://www.energystar.gov/certified-products/certified-products

8620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
temperature and the idle power consumption of empty condensate pans when reviewing energy 

conservation strategies. Further, Traulsen expressed the belief that electric condensate pan 

heaters are an important feature which cannot be ignored. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 1) Similarly, 

Hussmann also commented that in self-contained medium-temperature units, manufacturers are 

required to use condensate evaporator pans, the lack of which would reduce utility to end-users.

(Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 7)

In response to the comments provided by Traulsen and Hussmann, DOE revisited its 

engineering analysis and added condensate pan heaters for medium-temperature vertical closeddoor cases to its analytical model. Additionally, in response to Traulsen’s suggestion, DOE 

added a factor of an additional 10% pan energy consumption to its modeling of condensate pan 

energy use in order to account for the energy needed to bring the pan up to temperature. 

However, DOE did not add further energy in its engineering simulation to account for idle 

consumption of empty condensate pans, as DOE understands that most condensate pan heaters 

use float switches or other sensor devices to activate the pan heater only when the water level is 

sufficiently high to require it, minimizing operation of heaters with empty pans.

Defrost

In its written comment, Traulsen provided additional information to assist in DOE’s 

modeling of defrost systems. Traulsen commented that while the DOE model assumed that all 

VCT.SC.M and VCS.SC.M units employ off-cycle defrost systems, this is not true in real-life 

applications. Traulsen further commented that, for most refrigerator models, it uses an electric 

8720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
defrost element. Traulsen further noted that if electric defrost were included, all theoretical 

models would fail to meet the proposed standard. Additionally, Traulsen commented that DOE’s 

model seems to ignore desired features such as hot-gas defrost and electric defrost systems, even 

though they are widely available in the market. 

Traulsen commented that defrost cycles tend to terminate when the evaporator coil 

reaches a predetermined temperature, but the time period required for melting all accumulated 

frost varies with the mass of the evaporator coil and surrounding components. Further, Traulsen 

noted that the DOE spreadsheet appears not to account for these accommodations, and fails to 

account for increased defrost length when using enhanced evaporator coils, which have a 50% 

higher mass than the baseline coil designs. Traulsen commented that, in the DOE NOPR 

engineering model, defrost heater wattage only varied in proportion to the length of the cabinet, 

and not with the cabinet height or volume. Furthermore, Traulsen noted that the heater wattage 

calculated for full-height closed door cabinets appear to be too high. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 11) 

Structural Concepts commented that the multipliers used to model defrost cycles should differ 

between open and closed type cases. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 3)

After the NOPR public meeting and upon receipt of comments, DOE researched defrost 

mechanisms applied in medium-temperature applications. Specifically, DOE investigated this 

subject through review of manufacturer literature such as manuals and replacement parts 

catalogs, as well as through testing and teardown of selected units. The results of this 

investigation contradicted Traulsen’s assertion that electric defrost is commonly used in 

8820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
medium-temperature units, as DOE did not find evidence of this. Additionally, examination of 

public certification databases such as the ENERGY STAR directory showed equipment 

performance levels inconsistent with the use of substantial amounts of electric defrost. Therefore,

DOE did not find sufficient evidence to warrant adding the modeling of electric defrost to its 

engineering analysis. With respect to the discussion of hot gas defrost, DOE understands that this 

feature is currently used by some manufacturers in the market, but did not explicitly model it due 

to concerns raised through comments and in manufacturer interviews regarding reliability issues 

with this feature. 

In response to the comments from Traulsen and Structural Concepts regarding defrost 

cycle lengths, DOE based its modeling of defrost cycles for various equipment classes based on a 

number of sources, including manufacturer literature, manufacturer interviews, and testing of 

equipment currently on the market. Thus DOE agrees that the defrost length values should vary 

by equipment class, and has modeled them as such in its engineering analysis. With respect to 

Traulsen’s comment on additional defrost power being needed for larger evaporator coils, DOE 

constrained the size of the evaporator coils modeled in the final rule analysis, thus mitigating

concern over this issue. Additionally, in the final rule engineering analysis, for vertical freezers, 

DOE adjusted the modeled defrost heater wattages based on inputs from Traulsen’s comment 

and other sources. DOE believes that these changes better reflects the actuality of defrost 

mechanisms utilized in these equipment classes.

8920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Lighting Configurations

Hillphoenix commented that the number of shelves, and therefore shelf lights, varies 

greatly for SVO cases depending on the height of the case. Hillphoenix further commented that 

there exist ”extreme configuration differences” among cases within the same class. (Hillphoenix, 

No. 71 at p. 4)

In developing its engineering analysis for this rulemaking, DOE collected data on 

common designs within the industry. This information included specifications on lighting 

configurations and formed the basis for the representative units modeled within the engineering 

analysis. Based on input collected over the course of the current rulemaking and in the 

development of the 2009 final rule, DOE believes that its design specifications, including 

lighting configurations, are accurate and representative of the various covered classes, including 

SVO cases. Additionally, DOE notes that for SVO cases, the allowable energy consumption 

under the existing and amended standards is a function of TDA. Cases with greater height, such 

as those suggested by Hillphoenix, would have a greater measured total display area and thus 

would be allowed a proportionally larger amount of energy. Therefore, DOE believes that its 

existing analytical methodology accounts for the concerns raised by Hillphoenix. 

Infiltration Loads

Manufacturers opined that DOE’s modeling of air infiltration caused by door openings 

could be improved. Continental Refrigerator (Continental), Hussmann, and Traulsen all 

commented that air exchange during door openings significantly affects system energy 

9020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
consumption. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 3) (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 10) (Continental, No. 87 at p. 

2) Specifically, True commented that door openings and the resultant air exchange could account 

for between 15% and 25% of a unit’s energy consumption. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

62 at p. 151) 

Traulsen commented that the energy consumption formulas for closed door models fail to 

account for gasket losses (heat gain or added load), and that it was concerned with the use of the 

air infiltration load models applied, especially with respect to closed door units, since real world 

conditions can vary from those experienced during the ASHRAE test procedure. (Traulsen, No. 

65 at p. 10) Moreover, Continental noted that the percentage of air that is exchanged varies 

greatly with the configuration and type of cabinet. Continental further commented that the DOE 

model did not provide sufficient explanation of how air infiltration loads were calculated for 

different cabinet types. (Continental, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 123) Structural 

Concepts commented that the multipliers used to model infiltration should differ between open 

and closed type cases. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 3) ACEEE commented that tracer gas

analysis, a well-established technology, could be used to analyze the actual air exchange that 

occurs during door openings. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 154)

DOE understands the significance of air infiltration and is aware of its impact on the 

modeled energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment. In response to these 

comments, DOE reviewed its modeled infiltrated air mass values between the NOPR and final 

rule stages of the rulemaking. Specifically, DOE adjusted the values for a variety of classes to 

9120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
better align with new information presented in stakeholder comments and other sources. This 

included adjustments to account for the impacts of the respective air densities at the three DOE 

rating temperatures, and scaling to better simulate the impacts of case geometry. For full details 

on the infiltration levels modeled, please refer to chapter 5 and appendix 5A of the final rule 

TSD. 

With respect to the comment from True regarding the percentage of case heat load 

attributable to infiltration, DOE’s engineering model provides a specific breakdown of the 

constituent components of the case heat loads modeled in its simulation. A review of the DOE 

engineering model shows the contribution of infiltration to case heat load for closed-door units to 

be in line with the figures provided by True. In response to the comment from Traulsen, DOE 

believes that gasket losses are accounted for in its infiltrated air mass values. These values were 

derived from manufacturer literature based upon test performance under ASHRAE conditions, 

and thus would encapsulate all phenomena, including gasket losses, encountered by the unit 

which contribute to the infiltration load during operation. The engineering model simulates 

performance under the DOE test procedure, and thus changes which may be encountered in the 

field such as those noted by Traulsen are not specifically relevant to the calculated daily energy 

consumption values used for standards setting purposes. Therefore, DOE does not see a need to 

change its methodology to account for this attribute. 

DOE agrees with Continental and Structural Concepts that wide variation in infiltration is 

observed among different equipment classes, particularly between open and closed cases. DOE 

9220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
believes that its updated air infiltration values better account for differences that exist in 

infiltration loads among cases of different configurations, geometries, sizes, and operating 

temperatures. 

With respect to the comment from ACEEE, DOE understands that tracer gas analysis 

could be used in a controlled laboratory environment to possibly determine infiltration rates into 

commercial refrigeration equipment. However, within the scope, time frame, and resources of 

this rulemaking process, DOE did not pursue that method to further investigate infiltration 

effects. Instead, DOE continued to base its approach on infiltration load values calculated from 

manufacturer literature, and adjusted those values based upon comments received after 

publication of the NOPR. DOE believes that this is an accurate approach, consistent with 

methodologies employed in other past and current rulemakings, which is substantiated by the 

best available data as of the time of this analysis. 

2. Design Options

After conducting the screening analysis and removing from consideration technologies 

that did not warrant inclusion on technical grounds, DOE included the remaining technologies as 

design options in the energy consumption model for its engineering analysis: 

• higher efficiency lighting and occupancy sensors for VOP, SVO, and SOC equipment 

families (horizontal fixtures); 

• higher efficiency lighting and occupancy sensors for VCT and PD equipment families 

(vertical fixtures); 

9320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
• improved evaporator coil design; 

• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors;

• improved case insulation; 

• improved doors for VCT equipment family, low temperature and ice-cream 

temperature (hinged); 

• improved doors for VCT and PD equipment families, medium temperature (hinged); 

• improved doors for HCT equipment family, low temperature and ice-cream 

temperature (sliding); 

• improved doors for HCT equipment family, medium temperature (sliding); 

• improved doors for SOC equipment family, medium temperature (sliding); 

• improved condenser coil design (for self-contained equipment only); 

• higher efficiency condenser fan motors (for self-contained equipment only); 

• higher efficiency compressors (for self-contained equipment only); and 

• night curtains (equipment without doors only). 

After publication of the NOPR, DOE received a number of comments on its choice and 

implementation of certain design options within the engineering analysis. The following sections 

address these stakeholder comments. 

a. Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Traulsen commented that markets have already trended towards electronic (solid-state) 

ballasts to modulate power provided by T8 lights. Traulsen raised concern that DOE analysis 

9420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
might therefore be unfairly overstating savings from the adoption of TSL4 by including 

electronic ballasts as a design option in its analysis. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 4)

DOE understands that electronic ballasts are ubiquitous in the commercial refrigeration 

equipment market within cases that use fluorescent lighting and agrees with the comment 

presented by Traulsen. In its NOPR engineering analysis, DOE modeled the baseline design 

option in cases with lighting as comprised of T8 fluorescent fixtures with electronic ballasts. At 

improved levels of efficiency, DOE implemented super-T8 fluorescent lighting, LED lighting, 

and LED lighting with occupancy sensors. DOE did not model magnetic ballasts within its 

NOPR engineering analysis. Given the comments received at the NOPR stage, DOE retained this 

stance in its final rule engineering analysis. 

With regard to Traulsen’s assertion that DOE might be overstating savings, DOE wishes 

to clarify that energy savings and downstream impacts (such as life-cycle cost and national net 

present value results) were calculated using a base case efficiency distribution in which

minimum-efficiency products available today are assumed to comply with existing standards. 

Therefore, the modeled design options up to the level of performance required by existing 

standards did not have any impact on the energy or cost savings attributed to the amended 

standards set forth today, but rather, served only to align the engineering cost-efficiency curve 

with the technologies which present the shortest-payback options for reducing energy 

consumption.

9520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
b. Condenser Fans

Southern Store Fixtures and AHRI commented that the modeling of electronically 

commutated motors (ECMs) in condenser fan applications was redundant, since they believe 

that all equipment in compliance with the 2009 final rule are already using ECMs. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 4) (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 7)

DOE understands that manufacturers may currently be choosing to utilize ECM fan 

motors as part of their designs on the market. However, the 2009 final rule and EPACT 2005 

standards do not include prescriptive requirements, so DOE is unable to assume that 

manufacturers have all used any one single design path in order to achieve the necessary 

performance levels. Instead, DOE started its analysis with an engineering baseline representing 

designs less sophisticated than needed to meet the current standard levels, and added all available 

design options, including some previously considered in the 2009 final rule, until reaching the 

max tech efficiency level. This method allowed DOE to order all design options in the most costeffective manner. However, only those modeled efficiency levels having performance above the 

level required by existing standards were considered as contributing to the energy and cost 

savings attributable to this rule. For a further explanation of this methodology, please see section 

IV.D.1.b, “Baseline Models.”

c. Evaporator Fans

Southern Store Fixtures and AHRI commented that the modeling of ECM fan motors in 

evaporators was redundant, since they believe that all equipment in compliance with the 2009 

9620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
final rule is already using ECMs. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 4) (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 7) 

Continental commented that shutting off the fans during door-opening could cause the 

evaporator coil to freeze up, and thus that this should not be considered as an option.

(Continental, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 153)

DOE understands that many manufacturers may currently be choosing to utilize ECM fan 

motors as part of their designs on the market at this time. However, the 2009 final rule and 

EPACT 2005 standards do not include prescriptive requirements, so DOE was unable to assume 

that manufacturers all chose any one single design path in order to achieve the necessary 

performance levels. Instead, DOE started with a simpler engineering baseline representing 

equipment performance at a lower level than that permitted by current standards, and added all 

design options, including some previously considered in the 2009 final rule, until reaching the 

max tech level. This method allowed DOE to order all design options in the most cost-effective 

manner. However, only those modeled efficiency levels performance above the level required by 

existing standards were considered as contributing to the energy and cost savings attributable to 

this rule. For a further explanation of this methodology, please see section IV.D.1.b, “Baseline 

Models.”

DOE agrees with the concerns of Continental regarding turning off evaporator fans, and 

did not model evaporator fan controls as a design option in this rulemaking due to a number of 

issues including the integrity of the air curtain on open cases and food safety issues due to lack of 

9720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
air circulation arising from stopping the evaporator fans. For a full discussion of this issue, 

please see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

d. Design Options Impacting Equipment Form Factor

Some manufacturers and consumer groups urged DOE to screen out any design options 

which would even marginally affect the geometry of a model, either by increasing its total 

footprint or reducing the cooled internal space. Specifically, these comments referred to DOE’s 

consideration of added insulation thickness as a design option. True commented that it was 

impractical to increase the total footprint of equipment since almost all commercial kitchen 

equipment has a fixed footprint and replacement units must fit into the same space as old units.

(True, No. 76 at p. 1) Continental commented that a 1⁄2” increase in insulation of walls could 

have a significant impact on end-users and manufacturers, since equipment is often designed for 

very specific footprints and layouts. Continental further commented that while an inch less inside 

space or an inch larger cabinet may seem insignificant, it may be important to end-users.

(Continental, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 103) Traulsen, too, noted that both internal 

capacity and footprint of a unit were its key selling points. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 7) Hoshizaki, 

True, AHRI, NAFEM, SAF, Continental, Structural Concepts and Hillphoenix all opined that 

increasing the case insulation requirement by even 1⁄2”, would lead to a significant increase in 

footprint, or decrease in internal volume – both of which would detrimentally affect consumer 

utility, since many commercial environments have very limited floor space. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 

at p. 2) (True, No. 76 at p. 3) (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 6) (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 5) (SAF, No. 74 at p. 

6) (Continental, No. 87 at p. 3) (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 3)

9820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE understands stakeholder concerns over unit form factor, and discussed these 

concerns thoroughly in its manufacturer interviews conducted at the NOPR stage of the 

rulemaking. At that time, manufacturers agreed that the addition of 1⁄2” of insulation above the 

baseline thicknesses modeled (1.5”, 2”, and 2.5” for refrigerators, freezers, and ice cream 

freezers, respectively) was feasible, albeit at the expense of equipment redesign and replacement 

of foaming fixtures. DOE incorporated cost figures for these factors into the engineering and 

manufacturer impact analyses so as to account for the costs of additional foam as a design 

option. With respect to the concerns over additional foam thickness having an impact on the 

usefulness of the product to consumers, DOE notes that in its teardown analyses it encountered a 

number of models currently on the market utilizing the increased foam wall thicknesses which it 

modeled. Since manufacturers are already employing these wall thicknesses in currentlyavailable models, DOE believes that this serves as a proof of concept and that the resulting 

changes to form factor would be of minimal impact to end users. DOE also would like to remind 

stakeholders that it is not setting prescriptive standards, and should manufacturers value some 

features over others, they are free to use different design paths in order to attain the performance 

levels required by today’s rule. 

e. Vacuum Insulated Panels (VIPs)

True, Structural Concepts, and Traulsen commented that the use of VIPs is very costprohibitive and can reduce the structural strength of the unit. Additionally, Traulsen 

recommended further discussion on the use of vacuum insulated panels, specifically on the 

9920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
structural integrity and associated trade-offs of this technology. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 10) (True, 

No. 76 at p. 3) (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) 

DOE considered vacuum insulated panels as a design option in its engineering analysis 

because they have the potential to improve equipment efficiency, are available on the market 

today, are currently used in refrigeration equipment, and pass the screening criteria set forth in 

sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule. However, DOE understands that there is a high 

level of cost required to implement this design option, including redesign costs, and sought to 

reflect that fact through appropriate cost values obtained from manufacturer interviews and other 

sources and included in its analyses. As a result, vacuum insulated panels appear only in maxtech designs for each equipment class, and are not included in any of the modeled configurations 

selected in setting the standard levels put forth in today’s notice.

f. Variable-Speed Fan Motors

Traulsen commented that while DOE suggested varying condenser and evaporator fan 

speeds to improve performance, Traulsen equipment is used in applications in which food safety 

concerns make this option infeasible. Traulsen further commented that NSF issues related to 

food safety and sanitation must be a primary consideration over energy savings. (Traulsen, No. 

65 at p. 5) However, ebm-papst, Inc.(ebm-papst) noted that variable speed condenser fans have 

successfully been deployed in the European market. (ebm-papst, No. 70 at p. 3)

10020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE agrees with Traulsen’s concerns over food safety issues arising from possible 

implementation of evaporator fan control schemes. DOE noted in chapter 5 of its NOPR TSD 

that the effectiveness of the air curtain in equipment without doors is very sensitive to changes in 

airflow, and fan motor controllers could disrupt the air curtain. The potential of disturbance to 

the air curtain, which could lead to higher infiltration loads, does not warrant the use of 

evaporator fan motor controllers in equipment without doors, even if there were some reduction 

in fan energy use. With respect to equipment with doors, DOE, in its discussions with 

manufacturers, found that there are concerns in industry about the implementation of variablespeed fan technology due to the need to meet food safety and maximum temperature 

requirements. Varying the fan speed would reduce the movement of air within the case, 

potentially leading to the development of “hot spots” in some areas of the case, where 

temperatures could exceed the desired value. This finding aligns with the concerns raised by 

Traulsen. Some industry representatives also stated during interviews that the use of such 

controllers could have unintended consequences, in which fans would be inadvertently run at full 

power to attempt to overcome a frosted or dirty coil, resulting in wasted energy. Due to the 

uncertainties that exist with respect to these technologies, DOE did not consider variable-speed 

evaporator fan motors or evaporator fan motor controllers as a design option in its NOPR or final 

rule analyses.

In response to the comment from ebm-papst, DOE points out that it discussed condenser 

fan controls in chapter 4 of its NOPR TSD. Because testing under the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

72 test procedure is conducted at a constant ambient temperature, there is little opportunity to 

10120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
account for the adaptive technology of varying condenser fan motor speed to reduce daily energy 

consumption of a given model. Moreover, DOE understands that condenser fan motor controllers 

function best when paired with a variable-speed modulating compressor, a technology that DOE 

understands to be only in the early stages of implementation in this industry. Therefore, DOE did 

not consider variable-speed condenser fan motors or condenser fan motor controllers as design 

options in its engineering analysis.

g. Improved Transparent Door Designs

In the NOPR, DOE modeled triple pane, low-e coated glass in the configuration of an 

advanced design option for vertical medium-temperature cases with transparent doors. 

Hussmann commented that low-e coatings have an inherent tint to them, which reduces the 

visibility of merchandise through a triple-paned, low-e coated glass door. (Hussmann, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 99) SAF, AHRI and NRA also expressed concern over product 

visibility associated with this technology. (SAF, No. 74 at p. 6) (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 6) (NRA, 

No. 90 at p. 5) Traulsen, NAFEM, Continental, Royal Vendors, and True noted that triple-pane 

glass doors are much heavier than double-paned doors, and increase the risk of the unit tipping 

over, especially when it is near empty. Additionally, True pointed out that triple-paned glass led 

to reduced thermo-break in hinge areas, reduction in internal volume of sliding doors, failure to 

clear the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 471 tip-test,

31 door opening difficulties due to added 

mass and easier breakage. Traulsen also noted that an enhanced door would require design 

31 UL standard 471, “Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” is a safety standard applicable to this equipment. Part 

of this procedure includes a test of the ability of the unit to avoid tipping over under certain conditions. This is the 

“tip test” referenced by the commenter. 

10220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
changes including heavier hinges, and a complete redesign of sliding doors with applications in 

narrow aisles. (Continental, No. 87 at p. 3) (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 7) (True, No. 76 at p. 2)

(Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 10)

Additionally, AHRI commented that, for HCT equipment, the NOPR TSD considered 

two extra panes of glass for high-performance doors that were used in low and ice-cream 

temperatures, whereas only a single extra pane of glass was used for medium temperature highperformance doors. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 7)

The CA IOUs disagreed with the comments from many manufacturers and trade 

associations, and in a written comment opined that triple-pane, low-e transparent doors were 

feasible in medium temperature applications and were already found in existing equipment. (CA 

IOUs, No. 63 at p. 6) The Joint Comment suggested that if the use of triple-pane, low-e doors 

were to reduce product visibility, then increased lighting levels may be more energy-efficient 

than reverting to double-pane glass. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 4)

DOE understands the concern of manufacturers and other interested parties regarding the 

applicability and appropriateness of triple-pane, low-e doors in medium temperature equipment. 

The range of concerns suggests that manufacturers may encounter significant issues of redesign, 

recertification, consumer choice, and possible loss of some functionality were this feature to be 

implemented across all medium-temperature glass-door units. Therefore, in its final rule 

10320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
modeling of glass doors, DOE restricted its high-performance design to consider only two panes 

of glass for medium-temperature cases. 

In response to AHRI’s comments regarding HCT doors, DOE asserts that HCT doors as 

modeled in its engineering analysis for the NOPR featured the same number of panes of glass in 

both low/ice cream and medium temperature designs. For these equipment types, the baseline 

door featured a single pane of glass, while the high-performance door featured a second pane of 

glass. These designs are consistent with what DOE has observed on the market and in the design 

of similar equipment. Therefore, DOE retained these designs, with respect to the number of 

panes of glass modeled, in its final rule engineering analysis.

DOE agrees with the CA IOUs that some equipment currently on the market for mediumtemperature applications does feature triple-pane, low-e glass doors. However, this is not a 

standard design and DOE understands the concerns of manufacturers in applying this feature to 

the entirety of their product lines. Due to concerns over applicability and implementation of 

triple-pane, low-e doors in all medium-temperature products, DOE retained a double-pane design 

in its final rule engineering analysis simulation of improved glass door performance. However, 

DOE wishes to point out again that it is not setting prescriptive design requirements, and thus 

manufacturers are free to use only those designs and technologies they see fit in order to attain 

the level of performance specified in today’s final rule. 

10420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
h. High-Performance Coil Designs

In order to model improved performance, DOE considered the use of improved 

evaporator and condenser coils as design options. However, many manufacturers felt that while 

these design options provided theoretical efficiency gain, there are several practical issues which 

mitigated these gains in the field. Heatcraft commented that the phrase ”improved evaporator 

coil design” was a very generic term, and that coils that can be designed for high efficiency in a 

laboratory environment may not serve the purpose of the equipment functionally in the field.

(Heatcraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 77) Danfoss, Traulsen, Southern Store 

Fixtures, Royal Vendors and True commented that higher fin density for evaporators and 

condensers would lead to frequent clogging and freezing, which could not only cause an increase 

in energy use, but also cause the unit to not maintain temperature levels required for safe storage 

of food. (Danfoss, No. 61 at p. 4) (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 6) (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 

3) (Royal, No. 68 at p. 1) (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 67)

At the NOPR stage, DOE modeled an improved evaporator coil with a larger number of 

tube passes than the baseline design; however, Traulsen commented that if an evaporator with a 

larger number of tube passes is selected, there is an increased risk of refrigerant pressure drop 

through the coils. Traulsen further commented that, with multiple tubing circuits, this drop could 

be so substantial that the refrigerant could fail to make its way back to the compressor. (Traulsen, 

No. 65 at p. 6)

10520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE also modeled rifled evaporator tubes to improve coil performance in its NOPR 

analyses. Southern Store Fixtures commented that the use of rifled tubing for evaporator coils 

may have no significant improvement in coil performance for commercial refrigeration systems.

(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 3) AHRI commented that rifling of evaporator coil tubes is 

common in the industry, but that in practical applications, lower evaporation temperatures and 

lower flow rates result in no significant efficiency improvement attributable to internally 

enhanced tubing. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 3) Continental commented that rifled tubing for evaporator 

coils causes turbulence in refrigerant flow, leading to slugging and stress concentrations, which 

lead to increased maintenance costs and failure possibilities. (Continental, No. 87 at p. 2)

Another concern amongst manufacturers was the effect of incorporating larger evaporator 

and condenser coils into a unit. AHRI noted that there had been drastic reductions in the overall 

width and depth of the modeled evaporator coils since the last rulemaking. Further, AHRI noted 

that while DOE relied on its contractors for details on coil construction, it did not provide any 

references to studies that justify changes in coil dimensions. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 5) Traulsen 

commented that larger coils would require equipment redesign, resulting in possible 

obsolescence of smaller lines and custom applications. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 6) Hillphoenix 

commented that the use of taller coils would decrease the amount of product that could be put in 

the case, or would move the product further away from consumers, and that this would be 

unacceptable to retailers. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 4) Hussmann commented that increasing 

evaporator and condenser coil dimensions would involve engineering costs associated with 

redesigning parts of the case that interface with the coil. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 2) Structural 

10620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Concepts commented that changing the overall height of heat exchangers would require that 

either the display capacity to be reduced, or the overall height of a unit be increased, which 

would impact utility negatively. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) Continental commented 

that in under-counter and worktop units, limited space is available for a condensing unit, and 

increasing the size of the condenser coil is not practical. (Continental, No. 87 at p 2)

In response to the comment from Heatcraft regarding DOE’s reference to “improved 

evaporator coil design,” DOE points to chapter 5 of its TSD, where it specifically outlines the 

geometries and features included in this coil design. With respect to the concerns of Heatcraft, 

Danfoss, Traulsen, Southern Store Fixtures, Royal Vendors, and True that coil designs must 

remain functional in the field, DOE only considered features which were proven through field 

use in current coil designs. In a review of the coil designs at the final rule stage, DOE removed 

from consideration designs featuring increased fin pitch, and instead retained the modeled fin 

pitches at levels seen in teardown units. DOE believes that this action addresses the concerns of 

these stakeholders over the issues of clogging and freezing that could be encountered with 

higher-fin-pitch coils. 

When modeling coil configurations at baseline and improved levels of efficiency, DOE 

evaluated the overall performance of the coils within the context of specific refrigeration systems 

in which they would be used. This included numerical simulation of coil performance accounting 

for pressure drops. DOE excluded from consideration coil designs which proved impractical, or 

which had negative energy impacts. Therefore, DOE believes Traulsen’s concern regarding 

10720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
pressure drops over larger numbers of tube passes to be unsubstantiated. Additionally, DOE reevaluated its coil designs at the final rule stage based on stakeholder comments and additional 

data from teardowns, incorporating many of the concerns expressed in these comments during 

coil modeling at the final rule stage. 

Based on stakeholder comments including those of Southern Store Fixtures, AHRI, and 

Continental, DOE removed consideration of coil tube rifling from its analysis of improved heat 

exchanger performance at the final rule stage of this rulemaking. DOE believes that this action 

addresses the concerns voiced by stakeholders over the inapplicability of rifled tubing to some 

commercial refrigeration designs and issues with reduced refrigerant flow, slugging, and other 

negative effects. 

During the final rule stage, DOE revised its modeling of evaporator and condenser coils 

based on new information gained through stakeholder comments and additional teardowns. In 

this analysis, it addressed the concerns expressed by manufacturers and other parties regarding 

the size constraints imposed upon heat exchangers in commercial refrigeration applications. With 

respect to the comments from AHRI, DOE notes that it did re-evaluate its coil designs from the 

2009 rulemaking to produce designs that better approximate the configurations and performance 

attributes of coils found in the market. In response to the concerns of Hillphoenix, Hussmann, 

Structural Concepts, and Continental, during its final rule engineering modeling, DOE kept the 

size of modeled evaporator coils constant based on geometries seen in teardown units, and 

instead modified only features which could improve coil performance without growing the 

10820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
footprint of the coil. When modeling condenser coils, DOE allowed for a modest inclusion of an 

additional coil row in the direction of airflow. This was consistent with advanced designs seen in 

production units today, and DOE believes that this added coil size would not be sufficient to 

cause major impacts on unit form factor. 

i. Higher-Efficiency Fan Blades

Traulsen commented that DOE modeling of higher efficiency fan blades did include 

specific details pertaining to the implementation of this design option, including energy savings, 

method of cost modeling, and other attributes. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 5) ebm-papst commented 

that fan selection should be based on airflow at the operating point and should not be limited to 

axial and tangential fans. (ebm-papst, No. 70 at p. 3) 

In response to Traulsen’s comment, DOE wishes to clarify that DOE did not consider

higher-efficiency fan blades as a design option within its NOPR or final rule engineering 

analyses. Most commercial refrigeration equipment currently uses stamped sheet metal or plastic 

axial fan blades. DOE was not able to identify any axial fan blade technology that is significantly 

more efficient than what is currently used, but did identify tangential fan blades as an alternative 

fan blade technology that might improve efficiency. However, tangential fan blades in small 

sizes are themselves less efficient at moving air, and thus require greater motor shaft power. 

Because of these competing effects, DOE did not consider tangential fan blades as a design 

option in its analyses. Additionally, with regard to ebm-papst’s comment, DOE did not encounter 

any other fan blade technologies aside from axial and tangential fans which were available for 

10920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
application in commercial refrigeration equipment. Consistent with the comment from ebmpapst, DOE modeled fan motor and blade combinations so as to provide needed airflow across 

the heat exchangers consistent with what is used in designs currently available on the market. 

j. ECM Fan Motors

ebm-papst, in its written comment, noted that a variety of fans with electronically 

commutated (EC) motors (ECMs) were available on the market which provided wire-to-air 

efficiency of 65-70%. ebm-papst further commented that EC motors are compact and easily 

integrated into all levels of refrigeration systems. Also, ebm-papst commented that EC fans 

compatible with alternative refrigerants are now available on the market. (ebm-papst, No. 70 at 

p. 4)

DOE agrees with ebm-papst regarding the performance and availability of ECM fan 

motors for commercial refrigeration applications. In its preliminary and NOPR analyses, DOE 

considered EC motors as a design option for evaporator and condenser fan applications in all 

equipment classes where such fans were present. Additionally, DOE modeled an overall 

efficiency of 66% for EC motors, which is consistent with the figure provided by ebm-papst. 

DOE retained this modeling of EC motors in the final rule analyses.

k. Lighting Occupancy Sensors and Controls

In its analysis, DOE considered lighting occupancy sensors as a design option with the 

potential to reduce unit energy consumption. However, Traulsen commented that the study of 

11020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
occupancy sensors which DOE cited did not account for different traffic patterns, and only 

covered 30 days of data collection with LEDs at full power and 60 days with LEDs dimmed. 

Traulsen expressed concern that this analysis used insufficient data to support the savings 

assumed by TSL4. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 12) Hillphoenix commented that the occupancy sensor 

credit for VOP.RC.L was higher than for all other classes. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 7) 

Some manufacturers questioned the need for occupancy sensors. AHRI commented that 

since manual night curtains are modeled, it could be assumed that when the curtains are 

deployed, the CRE lighting systems can also be manually turned off during periods of inactivity.

(AHRI, No. 75 at p. 4) Structural Concepts commented that requiring occupancy sensors on 

cases that will be going to twenty-four hour stores would be a cost-burden with no associated 

energy savings. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) However, the Joint Comment suggested that 

the use of lighting sensors could further reduce the energy consumption of max-tech options for 

self-contained vertical closed transparent door units. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 4)

DOE based its modeling of lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled controls on the 

provisions of the DOE test procedure as amended by the 2012 final rule. 77 FR at 10292

(February 21, 2012). These provisions allow for cases featuring these technologies to be tested 

with the lights turned off for a fixed period of time. DOE applied these provisions specifically 

across all classes in which occupancy sensors and scheduled controls were considered as a 

design option. Therefore, DOE believes Traulsen’s assertions regarding DOE’s modeled savings 

levels to be incorrect, as DOE did not model savings potential based on field studies, but rather 

11120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
on the specific provisions of the DOE test procedure. In response to the comment from 

Hillphoenix, DOE wishes to clarify that occupancy sensors were not given an absolute credit in 

the form of a kWh/day reduction, but instead were modeled as they are treated under the DOE 

test procedure, where they are given an allowance for lighting off time. This modified lighting 

run time was incorporated into DOE’s engineering analysis model for cases including lighting 

occupancy sensors, and the model was run for the particular case configuration being examined. 

Therefore, due to differences in case geometries, features, and design options, DOE cautions 

against direct comparisons of the absolute merits of specific technologies across different 

equipment classes, as such comparisons may be misleading. 

With respect to the comment from AHRI, DOE does not consider a manual light switch 

to be a lighting controller under the provisions of its test procedure, since this device does not 

have the inherent ability to reduce energy consumption and since the method of test included in 

the procedure requires that all lighting be activated during the test. In its 2012 test procedure 

final rule, DOE added a provision specifically to allow for the testing of units including 

occupancy sensors and scheduled controls, but this does not include manual light switches. 77 

FR at 10292 (February 21, 2012). Therefore, DOE maintains that a manual light switch is not a 

lighting control and shall not be treated as such during the conduct of the DOE test procedure. 

In response to the concerns of Structural Concepts, occupancy sensors have the potential 

to operate at all times, , turning off lighting to save energy during periods of inactivity, then 

reactivating the lights when shoppers are present. DOE understands that, even in 24-hour stores,

11220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
there are periods when a high density of shoppers may not be present, and thus when lighting 

occupancy sensors would present the potential to save energy. DOE agrees with the Joint 

Comment that lighting occupancy sensors offer the potential to reduce the energy consumption 

of equipment in classes to which they are applicable, including the particular class noted in the 

comment. Therefore, DOE retained its modeling of this design option in its final rule engineering 

analysis. 

l. Night Curtains

DOE analyzed night curtains as a design option with the potential to reduce equipment 

energy consumption. However, Southern Store Fixtures commented that, while DOE modeled a 

reduction in heat load when night curtains were employed, there was no cost analysis presented 

to justify this option. Furthermore, Southern Store Fixtures referred to a Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E) report which asserted that night curtains were not cost effective due to poor 

economics, and a study funded by the California Energy Commission which reported a minimum 

6.63 year and maximum 21.56 year payback period on night curtains. (Southern Store Fixtures, 

No. 67 at p. 6) Structural Concepts commented that night curtains should be excluded from the 

analysis since they were deemed by DOE as not ”required.” Structural Concepts further 

commented that twenty-four-hour stores would not be able to use night curtains. (Structural 

Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2)

Regarding the types of night curtains that were modeled by DOE, AHRI commented that 

DOE did not explore automatic night curtains and Southern Store Fixtures commented that there 

11320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
were no night curtains currently available that are suited for curved display cases. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 5) (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 3)

In response to the comment from Southern Store Fixtures on cost analysis, DOE wishes 

to clarify that it did include a cost analysis of night curtains in its engineering analysis. Costs per 

foot of night curtain were included in DOE’s engineering spreadsheet model as released to the 

public, and served as the basis of DOE’s placement of night curtains in the engineering costefficiency curves, as design options were ordered from lowest to highest calculated payback 

period. Regarding the mention of the PG&E report as presented to CEC, DOE understands that 

that report focused largely on time-variant economic factors such as the savings at peak-load 

conditions, rather than the overall life cycle cost savings and payback periods calculated by 

DOE. Therefore, due to a different focus and methodology, that organization may have reached a 

different conclusion than that attained by DOE. DOE plans to retain its analytical methodology 

as used across a variety of rulemaking efforts and believes that that methodology is appropriate 

and soundly evaluates the economic and energy savings benefits of design options including 

night curtains.

With respect to the comments from Structural Concepts, DOE agrees that use of night 

curtains is not required since DOE is setting a performance standard based on daily energy 

consumption under the DOE test procedure, rather than a prescriptive standard mandating the use 

of specific features. However, DOE is charged with exploring all avenues of reducing measured 

energy consumption, and the ability of the DOE test procedure to quantify savings attributed to 

11420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
night curtains justifies DOE’s inclusion of this technology in its analysis. In addition, DOE notes 

that night curtains may be used in 24-hour stores during periods of low customer traffic, and that 

consideration of this feature in equipment offered for sale would provide store operators with the 

availability of an additional mechanism for attaining energy savings. 

DOE agrees with AHRI that it did not explore automatic night curtains, as it did not find 

a readily available automatic night curtain technology that was applicable to the relevant case 

designs, including vertical and semivertical open cases. With respect to the comment from 

Southern Store Fixtures on case geometries, DOE believes that night curtains are available that 

apply to the vast majority of open case designs. Further, DOE is not setting a prescriptive 

standard; night curtains are one design option, but not required under the amended standard. 

3. Refrigerants

For the preliminary and NOPR analyses, DOE considered two refrigerants, 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) R-134a and R-404a, because these are the industry-standard choices 

for use in the vast majority of commercial refrigeration equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

This selection was consistent with the modeling performed in the January 2009 final rule, which 

was based on industry research and stakeholder feedback at that time. After the publication of the 

NOPR, DOE received a number of comments on potential future issues relating to refrigerants 

for this equipment.

11520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
ACEEE commented that the DOE had not taken into consideration the use of propane 

and other hydrocarbon refrigerants, which are in use internationally and are now allowed in 

limited quantities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACEEE further 

commented that it has manufacturer statements to show that these refrigerants considerably 

improve equipment efficiency. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 40) Danfoss 

commented that Montreal Protocol32 amendments requiring the phasing out of HFCs would 

likely come into effect before this standard’s compliance date. Additionally, Danfoss commented 

that this action would make DOE's ”refrigerant neutral” stance flawed, and that DOE must 

consider the increased uncertainty and regulatory burden from the use of low-global warming 

potential (GWP) refrigerants in its analysis. (Danfoss, No. 61 at p. 2) Coca-Cola, too, opined that 

by not directly analyzing alternative refrigerants, DOE was showing a bias towards HFCs.

(Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 121) The CA IOUs commented that 

alternative refrigerants are being used both internationally and in the United States. The CA 

IOUs further commented that, given the potential for EPA regulations on HFC usage, DOE 

should be prepared to adopt the levels of performance included in its proposed standards to 

reflect the performance abilities of other refrigerants. (CA IOUs, No. 63 at p. 8) 

AHRI commented that the potential for changes in Federal refrigerant policy over the 

next few years will require the industry to use refrigerants with low GWP, putting into question 

the applicability of the proposed standard over extended time periods. AHRI further stated that 

32 The Montreal Protocol is an international agreement, first signed in 1987, in which signatories pledged to phase 

out the production and use of ozone depleting substances. 

11620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
there was a possibility of refrigerant switching having adverse impacts on equipment 

performance. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 10) True commented that the refrigerants modeled in the 

analysis, R404 and R134a, are both currently being reviewed by the EPA Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program33 for possible removal from commercial refrigeration 

applications. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 123) Lennox, too, noted that nonHFC refrigerants might become a growing part of the CRE market in the foreseeable future.

(Lennox, No. 73 at p. 5) Additionally, Hillphoenix commented that manufacturers are being 

pushed towards low GWP refrigerants which will have an impact on coil and evaporator designs, 

as well as efficiency curves for compressors. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 2)

ACEEE asserted that the market already has begun to move away from HFC refrigerants.

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 185) Coca-Cola commented that it was seeking 

to stop using HFCs and switch over to R744, R290 and R600A, not only to improve energy 

efficiency, but also to make the units environmentally benign. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 62 at p. 88) Further, Coca-Cola commented that it is already purchasing a large 

number (28% in the United States) of R744 cabinets, and aim to be using only R744 within three 

years. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 128) Continental commented that 

refrigerants such as propane and CO2 have been approved by EPA and are actively being 

evaluated and tested in products. Continental further commented that alternative refrigerants 

have the potential to affect the performance of equipment. (Continental, No. 87 at p. 1) AHRI 

33 EPA SNAP is the U.S. government regulatory program responsible for maintaining the list of alternatives to 

ozone depleting substances allowed for use within specific applications, including refrigeration, in the United States.

11720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
also commented that a change in refrigerant policy would impact refrigerants which are used as 

blowing agents for foams, possibly resulting in lower insulation performance values. (AHRI, No. 

75 at p. 10) Providing an additional view, the Joint Comment noted that the use of propane as a 

refrigerant could improve efficiency of units by 7-11%. Additionally, the Joint Comment pointed 

out that while DOE did not model non-HFC refrigerants, manufacturers have the option of using 

more efficient refrigerants. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 4)

Specifically, many stakeholders wished for DOE to consider propane (R290) as a viable 

alternative refrigerant. Danfoss commented that the inclusion of natural refrigerants in the 

analysis was a critical issue, since, unlike higher-efficiency compressors, the technology is 

already available. Danfoss urged DOE to consider propane, isobutane and carbon dioxide as 

viable refrigerants. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 126) ACEEE commented 

that DOE’s decision to screen out propane refrigerant as a design option had seriously impacted 

the downstream analyses. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 127) However, both 

Structural Concepts and True noted that they could consider propane as a refrigerant for some,

but not all, of their products, since the 150 gram SNAP limit restricted total compressor capacity.

(Structural Concepts, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 127) (True, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 62 at p. 127)

In its written comment, however, Traulsen commented that, while alternative refrigerants 

were discussed in the public meeting, DOE should remain technology neutral with regard to 

those refrigerants at this time, since there was a risk of conflict with other programs such as EPA 

11820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
SNAP and UL, and since the costs to switch over to alternative refrigerants is high. (Traulsen, 

No. 65 at p. 18)

While DOE appreciates the input from stakeholders at the public meeting and in 

subsequent written comment, DOE does not believe that there is sufficient specific, actionable 

data presented at this juncture to warrant a change in its analysis and assumptions regarding the 

refrigerants used in commercial refrigeration applications. As of now, there is inadequate 

publicly-available data on the design, construction, and operation of equipment featuring 

alternative refrigerants to facilitate the level of analysis of equipment performance which would 

be needed for standard-setting purposes. DOE is aware that many low-GWP refrigerants are 

being introduced to the market, and wishes to ensure that this rule is consistent with the phasedown of HFCs proposed by the United States under the Montreal Protocol. DOE continues to 

welcome comments on experience within the industry with the use of low-GWP alternative 

refrigerants. Moreover, there are currently no mandatory initiatives such as refrigerant phaseouts driving a change to alternative refrigerants. Absent such action, DOE will continue to 

analyze the most commonly-used, industry-standard refrigerants in its analysis. 

DOE wishes to clarify that it will continue to consider CRE models meeting the 

definition of commercial refrigeration equipment to be part of their applicable covered 

equipment class, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes 

that its design is subjected to undue hardship by regulations, the manufacturer may petition 

DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the 

Comment [J36]: Change requested by OIRA.

11920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 

U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant 

such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that 

meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens. 

4. Cost Assessment Methodology

During the preliminary analysis, DOE developed costs for the core case structure of the 

representative units it modeled, based on cost estimates performed in the analysis for the January 

2009 final rule. For more information, see chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD, pp. 5-3 to 

5-8. DOE also developed costs for the design option levels implemented, based on publicly 

available information and price quotes provided during manufacturer interviews. These costs 

were combined in the engineering cost model based on the specifications of a given modeled unit 

in order to yield manufacturer production cost (MPC) estimates for each representative unit at 

each configuration modeled. At the preliminary analysis rulemaking stage, DOE’s component 

cost estimates were based on data developed from manufacturer interviews, estimates from the 

January 2009 final rule, and publicly available cost information. During the NOPR analysis, 

DOE augmented this information with data from physical teardowns of commercial refrigeration 

equipment currently on the market. 

During the development of the engineering analysis for the NOPR, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers to gain insight into the commercial refrigeration industry, and to request feedback 

on the engineering analysis methodology, data, and assumptions that DOE used. Based on the 

12020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
information gathered from these interviews, along with the information obtained through a 

teardown analysis and public comments, DOE refined the engineering cost model. Next, DOE 

derived manufacturer markups using publicly available commercial refrigeration industry 

financial data, in conjunction with manufacturer feedback. The markups were used to convert the 

MPCs into MSPs. These results were used as the basis for the downstream calculations at the 

NOPR stage of the rulemaking.

At the NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written comments, DOE received further 

input from stakeholders regarding the methodologies and inputs used in DOE’s cost assessment. 

DOE incorporated this input in updating its modeling at the final rule stage. Further discussion of 

the comments received and the analytical methodology used is presented in the following 

subsections. For additional detail, see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

a. Teardown Analysis

In the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE expressed its intent to update its core case cost 

estimates, which were at that time developed based on estimates from the January 2009 final 

rule, through performing physical teardowns of selected units. These core case costs consist of 

the costs to manufacture the structural members, insulation, shelving, wiring, etc., but not the 

costs associated with the components that could directly affect energy consumption, which were 

considered collectively as design options and served as one of many inputs to the engineering 

cost model. DOE first selected representative units for physical teardown based on available 

offerings from the catalogs of major manufacturers. DOE selected units that had sizes and 

12120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
feature sets similar to those of the representative units modeled in the engineering analytical 

model. DOE selected units for teardown representing each of the equipment families, with the 

exception of the HZO family34. The units were then disassembled into their base components, 

and DOE estimated the materials, processes, and labor required for the manufacture of each 

individual component. This process is referred to as a “physical teardown.” Using the data 

gathered from the physical teardowns, DOE characterized each component according to its 

weight, dimensions, material, quantity, and the manufacturing processes used to fabricate and 

assemble it. These component data were then entered into a spreadsheet and organized by system 

and subsystem levels to produce a comprehensive bill of materials (BOM) for each unit analyzed 

through the physical teardown process. 

The physical teardowns allowed DOE to identify the technologies, designs, and 

manufacturing techniques that manufacturers incorporated into the equipment that DOE 

analyzed. The result of each teardown was a structured BOM, incorporating all materials, 

components, and fasteners, classified as either raw materials or purchased parts and assemblies, 

and characterizing the materials and components by weight, manufacturing processes used, 

dimensions, material, and quantity. The BOMs from the teardown analysis were then modified,

and the results used as one of the inputs to the cost model to calculate the MPC for each 

representative unit modeled. The MPCs resulting from the teardowns were then used to develop 

an industry average MPC for each equipment class analyzed. 

34 The reason why no HZO units were torn down was that the HZO family is the least complex of the equipment 

classes with respect to its construction. DOE felt that there was no additional data which could be gained from 

teardown of this equipment which would not have already been captured by the teardowns of other units. 

12220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
At the final rule stage of the rulemaking, in response to comments regarding the 

technologies incorporated into commercial refrigeration equipment at various levels of 

performance, DOE procured additional models of equipment on the market and performed 

further teardown assessment of the construction and componentry featured in these models. The 

data from these supplemental teardowns, coupled with known performance of the purchased 

units from independent testing or ENERGY STAR certification, allowed DOE to compare the 

performance of models currently on the market to the results of modeling of the same equipment 

configurations using its engineering simulation. This comparison provided a validation check on 

the results of the simulations. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for more details on the 

teardown analysis.

b. Cost Model

The cost model for this rulemaking was divided into two parts. The first of these was a 

standalone core case cost model, based on physical teardowns, that was used for developing the 

core case costs for the 25 directly analyzed equipment classes. This cost model is a spreadsheet 

that converts the materials and components in the BOMs from the teardowns units into MPC 

dollar values based on the price of materials, average labor rates associated with manufacturing 

and assembling, and the cost of overhead and depreciation, as determined based on manufacturer 

interviews and DOE expertise. To convert the information in the BOMs to dollar values, DOE 

collected information on labor rates, tooling costs, raw material prices, and other factors. For 

purchased parts, the cost model estimates the purchase price based on volume-variable price 

12320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
quotations and detailed discussions with manufacturers and component suppliers. For fabricated 

parts, the prices of raw metal materials (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are estimated based on 5-year 

averages calculated from cost estimates obtained from sources including the American Metal 

Market and manufacturer interviews. The cost of transforming the intermediate materials into 

finished parts is estimated based on current industry pricing. 

The function of the cost model described above is solely to convert the results of the 

physical teardown analysis into core case costs. To achieve this, components immaterial to the 

core case cost (lighting, compressors, fans, etc.) were removed from the BOMs, leaving the cost 

model to generate values for the core case costs for each of the teardown points. Then, these 

teardown-based core case BOMs were used to develop a “parameterized” computational cost 

model, which allows a user to virtually manipulate case parameters such as height, length, 

insulation thickness, and number of doors by inputting different numerical values for these 

features to produce new cost estimates. For example, a user could start with the teardown data 

for a two-door case and expand the model of the case computationally to produce a cost estimate 

for a three-door case by changing the parameter representing the number of doors, which would 

in turn cause the model to scale other geometric and cost parameters defining the overall size of 

the case. This parameterized model, coupled with the design specifications chosen for each 

representative unit modeled in the engineering analysis, was used to develop core case MPC cost 

estimates for each of the 25 directly analyzed representative units. These values served as one of 

several inputs to the engineering cost model. 

12420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
The engineering analytical model, as implemented by DOE in a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet, also incorporated the engineering cost model, the second cost modeling tool used in 

this analysis. In the engineering cost model, core case costs developed based on physical 

teardowns were one input, and costs of the additional components required for a complete piece 

of equipment (those components treated as design options) were another input. The two inputs 

were added together to arrive at an overall MPC value for each equipment class. Based on the 

configuration of the system at a given design option level, the appropriate design option costs 

were added to the core case cost to reflect the cost of the entire system. Costs for design options 

were calculated based on price quotes from publicly available sources and discussions with 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD describes 

DOE’s cost model and definitions, assumptions, data sources, and estimates. 

c. Manufacturer Production Cost

Once the cost estimates for all the components of each representative unit, including the 

core case cost and design option costs, were finalized, DOE totaled the costs in the engineering 

cost model to calculate the MPC. DOE estimated the MPC at each efficiency level considered for 

each directly analyzed equipment class, from the baseline through the max-tech. After 

incorporating all of the assumptions into the cost model, DOE calculated the percentages 

attributable to each element of total production cost (i.e., materials, labor, depreciation, and 

overhead). DOE used these production cost percentages in the MIA (see section IV.J). At the 

NOPR stage of the rulemaking, DOE revised the cost model assumptions used for the 

preliminary analysis based on teardown analysis, updated pricing, and additional manufacturer 

12520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
feedback, which resulted in refined MPCs and production cost percentages. DOE once again 

updated the analysis at the final rule stage based on input from the NOPR public meeting and 

subsequent written comments. DOE calculated the average equipment cost percentages by 

equipment class. Chapter 5 of the TSD presents DOE’s estimates of the MPCs for this 

rulemaking, along with the different percentages attributable to each element of the production 

costs that comprise the total MPC.

d. Cost-Efficiency Relationship

The result of the engineering analysis is a cost-efficiency relationship. DOE created a 

separate relationship for each input capacity associated with each commercial refrigeration 

equipment class examined for this rule. DOE also created 25 cost-efficiency curves, representing 

the cost-efficiency relationship for each commercial refrigeration equipment class. 

To develop cost-efficiency relationships for commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE 

examined the cost differential to move from one design option to the next for manufacturers. 

DOE used the results of teardowns to develop core case costs for the equipment classes modeled, 

and added those results to costs for design options developed from publicly available pricing 

information and manufacturer interviews. Additional details on how DOE developed the costefficiency relationships and related results are available in the chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD also presents these cost-efficiency curves in the form of energy 

efficiency versus MPC. After the publication of the NOPR analysis, several stakeholders 

provided input and feedback regarding DOE’s cost modeling methodology and costs used for 

12620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
specific components and design options. Specifically, DOE received comments regarding core 

case costs, LED cost specifications, component sourcing and cost information, and coil costs.

The following sections address these stakeholder comments and concerns.

Core Case Costs

Traulsen commented that DOE’s assumption of core costs not changing for more 

efficient design option levels is flawed. Traulsen further pointed out that costs for shelving, 

wiring, air curtain grills, trim, etc. do change in all cases when internal or external product 

footprint is altered. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 15)

DOE understands that changes to design requiring adjustment to a unit’s form factor 

would have an impact on the cost of production of the unit, and would result in the manufacturer 

incurring redesign costs. Of the design options considered, most would not have a significant 

impact in these areas, as they consist largely of component swaps or bolt-on component 

additions. However, for the design options which would affect unit format, DOE considered 

incremental materials costs and redesign costs, as well as capital expenditures, in its engineering 

and MIA analyses. Therefore, DOE believes that it has sufficiently addressed the concerns raised 

by Traulsen.

Light-Emitting Diode Cost Specifications

Several stakeholders expressed reservations over DOE’s use of LED price projections, 

opining that DOE had likely underestimated the price of LEDs. Traulsen commented that 

12720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
according to DOE’s Solid State Lighting Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP), there is a 

breakthrough in LED performance required in 2015 that would decrease the life-cycle energy of 

LED lamps. Traulsen asserted that these projections were based on the assumption of continued 

governmental R&D support, and that there is evidence of declining R&D support for LEDs. 

Traulsen further commented that this lack of certainty made some assumptions in DOE analysis 

questionable. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 3) Hussmann noted that, typically, LED fixtures cost twice 

as much as T8 fluorescent ballasts. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 2) Structural Concepts commented 

that the prices of LED fixtures would likely be 37-40% higher than DOE predictions for 2017.

(Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) Similarly, Hillphoenix commented that DOE had modeled a 

zero cost for drivers and that current LED prices are on the order of three times that estimated in 

the model. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 1) Traulsen noted that for VCT.SC systems, the added cost 

of using LED systems was greater than $120 per unit. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 3) True commented 

that it was unlikely for LED prices to continue to drop. (True, No. 76 at p. 1) Hillphoenix 

commented that LED lighting for the VCT.RC.M and VCT.RC.L classes had experienced an 

83% reduction in cost from the previous rulemaking to the current rulemaking analysis.

(Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 7) Conversely, the Joint Comment concurred with DOE’s analysis, 

noting that the incorporation of LED price projections significantly improved the analysis by 

reflecting a realistic estimate of LED costs. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 5)

12820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In its NOPR analysis, DOE incorporated price projections from its Solid-State Lighting 

Program35 into its MPC values for the primary equipment classes. The price projections for LED 

case lighting were developed from projections developed for the DOE Solid-State Lighting 

Program 2012 report, Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination 

Applications (“the energy savings report”).

36 In the appendix to this report, price projections 

from 2010 to 2030 were provided in ($/klm) for LED lamps and LED luminaires. DOE analyzed 

the models used in the Solid-State Lighting Program work and determined that the LED 

luminaire projection would serve as an appropriate proxy for a cost projection to apply to 

refrigerated case LEDs. The price projections presented in the Solid-State Lighting Program’s 

energy savings report are based on the DOE’s 2011 Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP). The 

MYPP is developed based on input from manufacturers, researchers, and other industry experts. 

Table IV.1 shows the normalized LED price deflators used in the final rule analysis.

Table IV.1 LED price deflators used in the final rule analysis

Year Normalized 

to 2013

Normalized 

to 2017 Year Normalized to 2013

Normalized 

to 2017

2010 2.998 5.652 2021 0.361 0.681

2011 1.799 3.392 2022 0.335 0.631

2012 1.285 2.423 2023 0.312 0.588

2013 1.000 1.885 2024 0.292 0.550

2014 0.819 1.543 2025 0.274 0.517

2015 0.693 1.306 2026 0.259 0.488

2016 0.601 1.133 2027 0.245 0.462

2017 0.530 1.000 2028 0.232 0.438

35 The DOE Solid-State Lighting Program is a program within DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable 

Energy. More information on the program is available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ 36 Navigant Consulting, Inc., Energy Savings Potential for Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination 

Applications. 2012. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy - Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Building Technologies Office, Washington, D.C.

12920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
2018 0.475 0.895 2029 0.221 0.417

2019 0.430 0.810 2030 0.211 0.398

2020 0.393 0.740 2031-

2046* 0.211 0.398

During the NOPR stage, DOE incorporated the price projection trends from the energy 

savings report into its engineering analysis by using the data to develop a curve of decreasing 

LED prices normalized to a base year. That base year corresponded to the year when LED price 

data was collected for the NOPR analyses of this rulemaking from catalogs, manufacturer 

interviews, and other sources. DOE started with this commercial refrigeration equipment-specific 

LED cost data and then applied the anticipated trend from the energy savings report to forecast 

the projected cost of LED fixtures for commercial refrigeration equipment at the time of required 

compliance with the proposed rule (2017). These 2017 cost figures were incorporated into the 

engineering analysis as comprising the LED cost portions of the MPCs for the primary 

equipment classes.

The LCC analysis (section IV.F) was carried out with the engineering numbers that 

account for the 2017 prices of LED luminaires. The reduction in price of LED luminaires from 

2018 through 2030 was taken into account in the NIA (section IV.H). The cost reductions were 

calculated for each year from 2018 through 2030 and subtracted from the equipment costs in the 

NIA. The reduction in lighting maintenance costs37 due to reduction in LED prices for 

37 Discussion related to lighting maintenance costs for commercial refrigeration equipment can be found in section 

IV.F.2, and a more detailed explanation can be found in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

13020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
equipment installed in 2018 to 2030 were also calculated and appropriately deducted from the 

lighting maintenance costs.

While DOE understands the concerns of manufacturers over projections of LED prices in 

the future, DOE made the decision to incorporate these projections based on stakeholder input, 

past market trends, and DOE research within the lighting field, which includes regular 

interaction with manufacturers and suppliers of LED lighting technologies. With respect to the 

comments from Traulsen, DOE does not see any specific hurdles in the market that indicate that 

levels predicted in the MYPP will fail to be realized. DOE appreciates the comments from 

Hussmann, Structural Concepts, Hillphoenix, Traulsen, and True regarding present and future 

LED prices. However, based on past market trends and the current research supporting the 

MYPP, DOE continued to utilize these LED price projections in the modeling underlying today’s 

final rule. As a point of clarification to the comment presented by Hillphoenix, DOE wishes to 

mention that the modeled costs include all components of the LED fixture, including drivers, 

emitters, housing, and wiring. DOE agrees with the assertion of the Joint Comment that 

incorporation of LED price projections allow the analysis to better depict market conditions 

which will be encountered by manufacturers at the time of their compliance with the amended 

standard set forth in today’s rule. 

13120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Component Sourcing and Cost Information

In its written comment following publication of the NOPR, Hoshizaki commented that 

the engineering cost analysis was unrealistic and incomplete since specific parts suppliers, part 

numbers, and parts costs were not listed. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 at p. 1)

In developing its engineering cost model, DOE gathered a wide variety of input 

information, including component and material costs, to serve as the basis for this model. Much 

of this information was collected under nondisclosure agreement by DOE’s contractors, or from 

sources which are not publicly available. Therefore, in order to protect the sensitive nature of this 

information, DOE is unable to disclose the information in its notice or technical support 

document. However, in developing its engineering performance and cost models, DOE ensured 

that the components and features being modeled did not present any intellectual property issues 

with respect to sourcing or implementation. That is, DOE ensured that the features modeled were 

consistent with designs and components available on the open market to the entire range of CRE 

manufacturers.

Coil Costs

Some manufacturers opined that DOE had underestimated the cost of manufacturing 

improved evaporator and condenser coils. Southern Store Fixtures commented that using smaller 

tubes in a fixed size evaporator was found through their internal studies to allow for only 8% 

performance improvement, while incurring a 290% cost increase. Southern Store Fixtures noted 

that making changes to a condensing unit would make the cost 80% higher than the standard 

13220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
catalog price. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 67 at p. 3) AHRI commented that DOE had 

underestimated the added costs associated with the implementation of higher efficiency 

evaporator coils. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 5) Traulsen, too, commented that DOE estimated values of 

the cost to manufacture improved coils was much lower than a cost figure provided to it by the 

largest provider of CRE coils in the US. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 6) Hillphoenix concurred with 

DOE on the modeled price of condenser coils, but noted that evaporator coils cost nearly three to 

four times as much as condenser coils. Hillphoenix qualified this assertion by pointing out that 

the necessary customization, as well as the increased assembly cost (labor) of a lower fin density 

and longer width coil, contributed to the increased price of the evaporator coil. (Hillphoenix, No. 

71 at p. 1)

In response to the comment from Southern Store Fixtures, DOE did not consider smallerdiameter tubes in its evaporator coil designs as modeled in the final rule engineering analysis. 

Additionally, DOE modeled the components of the condensing unit – coil, fans, compressor, and 

cost to assemble – independently, rather than modeling the cost of a single prepackaged 

assembly. DOE believes that this modeling accurately reflects the costs incurred by 

manufacturers when producing the condensing units of self-contained equipment. 

Regarding the concerns of AHRI, Traulsen and Hillphoenix on the modeled costs of 

condenser and evaporator coils, DOE revisited this modeling for the final rule. DOE based its 

modeling of coil costs on information gathered from teardowns of coils present in units currently 

available on the market, and then used these inputs in conjunction with an internal cost model to 

13320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
develop costs to manufacture for these components. These costs factor in the prices of raw 

materials, the costs of processing, forming, and assembly operations, and other key costs integral 

to the development of the components. DOE updated its coil costs for the final rule taking into 

account the design changes to the form factors of its modeled coils and the information provided 

in stakeholder comments regarding the relative costs of different coil types. DOE is confident in 

its use of this methodology, which has been implemented and vetted through use in a number of 

other past and ongoing rulemaking analyses. For further information regarding coil modeling, 

please see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

e. Manufacturer Markup

To account for manufacturers’ non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a 

non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the full MPC. The resulting MSP is 

the price at which the manufacturer can recover all production and non-production costs and earn 

a profit. To meet new or amended energy conservation standards, manufacturers often introduce 

design changes to their product lines that result in increased MPCs. Depending on the 

competitive environment for this equipment, some or all of the increased production costs may 

be passed from manufacturers to retailers and eventually to customers in the form of higher 

purchase prices. The MSP should be high enough to recover the full cost of the equipment (i.e., 

full production and non-production costs) and yield a profit. The manufacturer markup has an 

important bearing on profitability. A high markup under a standards scenario suggests 

manufacturers can readily pass along the increased variable costs and some of the capital and 

equipment conversion costs (one-time expenditures) to customers. A low markup suggests that 

13420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
manufacturers will not be able to recover as much of the necessary investment in plant and 

equipment.

To calculate the manufacturer markups, DOE used 10-K reports submitted to the SEC by 

the six publicly owned commercial refrigeration equipment companies in the United States. 

(SEC 10-K reports can be found using the search database available at 

www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm.) The financial figures necessary for calculating 

the manufacturer markup are net sales, costs of sales, and gross profit. DOE averaged the 

financial figures spanning the years from 2004 to 201038 to calculate the markups. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment, to calculate the average gross profit margin for the periods 

analyzed for each firm, DOE summed the gross profit earned during all of the aforementioned 

years and then divided the result by the sum of the net sales for those years. DOE presented the 

calculated markups to manufacturers during the manufacturer interviews for the NOPR (see 

section IV.D.4.g). DOE considered manufacturer feedback to supplement the calculated markup, 

and refined the markup to better reflect the commercial refrigeration market. DOE developed the 

manufacturer markup by weighting the feedback from manufacturers on a market share basis 

because manufacturers with larger market shares more significantly affect the market average. 

DOE used a constant markup to reflect the MSPs of both the baseline equipment and higher 

efficiency equipment. DOE used this approach because amended standards may transform highefficiency equipment, which currently is considered to be premium equipment, into baseline 

38 Typically, DOE uses the data for the 5 years preceding the year of analysis. However, in this case additional data 

were available up to 2004. Hence, data from 2004 to 2010 were used for these calculations.

13520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
equipment. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for more details about the manufacturer markup 

calculation.

f. Shipping Costs

The final component of the MSP after the MPC and manufacturer markup is the shipping 

cost associated with moving the equipment from the factory to the first point on the distribution 

chain. During interviews, manufacturers stated that the specific party (manufacturer or buyer) 

that incurs that cost for a given shipment may vary based on the terms of the sale, the type of 

account, the manufacturer’s own business practices, and other factors. However, for consistency, 

DOE includes shipping costs as a component of MSP. In calculating the shipping costs for use in 

its analysis, DOE first gathered estimates of the cost to ship a full trailer of manufactured 

equipment an average distance in the United States, generally representative of the distance from 

a typical manufacturing facility to the first point on the distribution chain. DOE then used 

representative unit sizes to calculate a volume for each unit. Along with the dimensions of a 

shipping trailer and a loading factor to account for inefficiencies in packing, DOE used this cost 

and volume information to develop an average shipping cost for each equipment class directly 

analyzed. 

g. Manufacturer Interviews

Throughout the rulemaking process, DOE has sought and continues to seek feedback and 

insight from interested parties that would improve the information used in its analyses. DOE 

interviewed manufacturers as a part of the NOPR MIA (see section IV.J). During the interviews,

13620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE sought feedback on all aspects of its analyses for commercial refrigeration equipment. For 

the engineering analysis, DOE discussed the analytical assumptions and estimates, cost model, 

and cost-efficiency curves with manufacturers. DOE considered all of the information learned 

from manufacturers when refining the cost model and assumptions. However, DOE incorporated 

equipment and manufacturing process figures into the analysis as averages to avoid disclosing 

sensitive information about individual manufacturers’ equipment or manufacturing processes. 

The results of the manufacturer interview process conducted before the release of the NOPR 

were augmented with additional information provided in written comments after the NOPR and 

at the NOPR public meeting. More details about the manufacturer interviews are contained in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

5. Energy Consumption Model

The energy consumption model is the second key analytical model used in constructing 

cost-efficiency curves. This model estimates the daily energy consumption, calculated using the 

DOE test procedure, of commercial refrigeration equipment in kilowatt-hours at various 

performance levels using a design-option approach. In this methodology, a unit is initially 

modeled at a baseline level of performance, and higher-efficiency technologies, referred to as 

design options, are then implemented and modeled to produce incrementally more-efficient 

equipment designs. The model is specific to the types of equipment covered under this 

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

13720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
equipment classes. DOE developed the energy consumption model as a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet.39

For a given equipment class, the model estimates the daily energy consumption for the 

baseline, as well as the energy consumption of subsequent levels of performance above the 

baseline. The model calculates each performance level separately. For the baseline level, a 

corresponding cost is calculated using the cost model, which is described in section IV.D.4.b. 

For each level above the baseline, the changes in system cost due to the implementation of 

various design options are used to recalculate the cost. Collectively, the data from the energy 

consumption model are paired with the cost model data to produce points on cost-efficiency 

curves corresponding to specific equipment configurations. After the publication of the NOPR 

analysis, DOE received numerous stakeholder comments regarding the methodology and results 

of the energy consumption model. 

a. Release of Engineering Model for Review

At the NOPR public meeting, Zero Zone and ACEEE urged DOE to make its engineering 

spreadsheet model publicly available. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 70)

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 125) DOE agreed with Zero Zone and ACEEE 

and released the engineering spreadsheet model for public review shortly after the NOPR public 

meeting. Stakeholder review of the model served as the basis for many of the specific comments 

and suggestions discussed in today’s notice and incorporated into DOE’s final rule analysis. 

39 Available http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/27

13820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
b. Anti-Sweat Heater Power

Some stakeholders opined that the DOE model did not fully consider some equipment 

classes and components which used anti-sweat heat. Traulsen noted that, due to gasket and 

breaker strip inefficiencies, VCS.SC.L and VCS.SC.M equipment will require some auxiliary 

heat around door perimeters to prevent condensation, even at ambient conditions of 75F and 55% 

RH. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 11) Hussmann noted that no-heat doors for VCT.RC.M were not 

suitable in high-humidity conditions, since they could lead to condensation on the doors and the 

risk of water dripping onto the floor. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 9) AHRI commented that there 

was no clear justification provided for why certain doors were modeled with anti-sweat heat 

power and others were modeled without it, further pointing out, that anti-sweat heat is not 

limited only to doors, but often also applies to frames and mullions too. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 8)

DOE appreciates the input from commenters regarding the use of anti-sweat heat and has 

updated its engineering model for the final rule stage to better reflect the needs of different 

equipment classes in this respect. In response to the comment from Traulsen and based on 

additional investigational teardowns performed at the final rule stage, DOE added anti-sweat 

heater power to some solid-door classes in order to account for inefficiencies in gasketing which 

could otherwise result in condensation or frost issues. The magnitude of the power of these 

heaters was developed based on figures included in stakeholder comments applicable to classes 

VCS.SC.M and VCS.SC.L, as well as from measurements taken during teardown analysis 

performed at the final rule stage.

13920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
During manufacturer interviews and in investigations of the current offerings of 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers and door suppliers, DOE encountered a 

number of “energy-free” transparent door designs for medium-temperature applications. This 

served as the basis for the modeling of some doors without anti-sweat heat in the NOPR analysis,

as referenced by AHRI and Hussmann. However, in response to the concerns of stakeholders 

over an assumption of zero energy doors being too strict for field applications, DOE added a 

modest amount of anti-sweat heat to its modeling of transparent doors for medium-temperature 

applications in the final rule engineering analysis. DOE believes that this modeled design 

provides energy savings benefits over standard designs while maintaining the ability to utilize 

some anti-sweat heat to prevent condensation issues during use. 

In response to the concerns of AHRI, DOE wishes to clarify that for transparent door 

classes, the modeled “door” anti-sweat heat includes all anti-sweat heat on the face of the unit, 

including frame, mullion, and glass heat. This anti-sweat heat is included with the modeling of 

the door because generally, the display case manufacturer purchases the doors and frames as a 

single item, inclusive of the anti-sweat heaters, which is then installed in an opening in the case 

body. For cases with solid doors, as well as open cases, the perimeter, gasket, mullion, and/or

face heater power is included under the category of “non-door anti-sweat power” in the design 

specifications tab of the engineering analysis spreadsheet model. Therefore, while the needed 

power may be accounted for differently among the different classes, the appropriate heater types 

are modeled for each class. DOE believes that its efforts in updating anti-sweat heater powers 

14020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
modeled in the engineering analysis for the final rule sufficiently and directly address the 

concerns voiced by stakeholders at the NOPR stage. 

c. Coil Performance Modeling

Stakeholders offered feedback to DOE on how the simulation of coil performance could 

be improved to better reflect the performance of evaporator and condenser coils in the field. 

Traulsen commented that while DOE states that evaporators can be designed to have a discharge 

air temperature that is a minimum of 10 degrees F colder than the product temperature, the 

baseline model in the analysis shows a product-to-refrigerant temperature difference of 11 

degrees F. Traulsen further sought clarification on where the improvement in evaporator 

performance could be attained since the temperature differential at the baseline was already low.

(Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 5) Hussmann commented that the gap between discharge air temperature 

and saturated evaporator temperature was unrealistically low for certain equipment classes.

(Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 10)

Hillphoenix and AHRI noted that, conventionally, coil UA40 is calculated using log-mean 

temperature difference (LMTD) and inlet temperature. Further, Hillphoenix commented that the 

use of what it perceived to be incorrect formulae had led to over-estimation of UA for 

condensers and evaporators, and that different methods were used to calculate UA for condensers 

than were used for evaporators. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 5) (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 5). 

40 Coil UA is a lumped parameter describing the heat transfer capability of a heat exchanger, accounting for the 

thermal transmittance (U) and surface area (A) of the specific heat exchanger design. 

14120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
AHRI commented that since both the previous and current rulemakings included rifled 

tubing and increased fin pitch, the total prototype energy consumption should have been the 

same across rulemakings. Further, AHRI commented that the prototype condenser coil scenario 

is not fully representative of all condensers for SC equipment. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 8)

In response to the concerns of Traulsen and Hussmann, DOE re-evaluated its parameters 

for modeling of coil temperature performance. Specifically, it adjusted the temperature 

differential between product temperature and saturated evaporator temperature to be 15 °F for 

certain classes under the baseline configuration. DOE believes that this is a more accurate 

representation of evaporator performance based on the feedback that it has received from 

comments and data from testing and equipment literature. The result is that the temperature 

differential at the baseline and high-performance level is higher, reflecting the adjustments to this 

parameter suggested by stakeholders. 

In the engineering model, evaporator coil UA is calculated as a function of case heat load 

and a log mean temperature difference based on the saturated evaporator temperature, discharge 

air temperature, and return air temperature. This is the same methodology that was used in the 

2009 final rule engineering analysis, which underwent rigorous examination by stakeholders. 

Therefore, DOE believes that Hillphoenix and AHRI are misinterpreting DOE’s methodology 

when discussing evaporator performance. Additionally, with respect to the comment that 

different formulae were applied to the modeling of evaporators and condensers, DOE agrees with 

14220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
this fact, but does not believe that this is an incorrect methodology. The modeling of the 

evaporator reflects the fact that chilled case air is being recirculated, whereas modeling of the 

condenser reflects the fact that the condenser is rejecting heat to an ambient environment which 

functions as an effectively infinite thermal sink. Therefore, DOE believes that these different

performance environments warrant different modeling, and maintains its methodology for 

conducting this modeling in the final rule. 

With regard to the concern of AHRI over disparities between the coil performance levels 

modeled in the 2009 final rule and the current rulemaking, DOE performed new analysis for the 

current rulemaking based on teardowns and simulation conducted at the NOPR stage. At the 

final rule stage, based on further input from stakeholder comments, DOE again updated this 

performance and cost modeling. Therefore, due to the fact that the analysis was conducted anew 

at each of these stages and is not directly related to the analysis conducted for the 2009 final rule, 

DOE believes that the differences in modeled performance are reasonable and reflect 

improvements to DOE’s understanding of baseline and high-performance coil designs. 

In reference to AHRI’s mention of the applicability of DOE’s condenser coil design to a 

variety of commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE modeled a baseline coil based upon 

geometries and features measured from teardowns of representative models for sale on the 

market today, and then implemented further design improvements based on the inputs of outside 

subject matter experts and within the guidance provided by stakeholder comments and feedback. 

The engineering model then expands the cost and capacity of the modeled coil to adjust to the 

14320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
needs of different equipment sizes being simulated. Thus, DOE believes that the modeled coil 

design accurately reflects the real-world needs of condenser heat exchangers for this equipment. 

d. Compressor Performance Modeling

Manufacturers and consumers expressed concern over DOE’s assumptions regarding the 

advances in compressor technology anticipated before the compliance date. Danfoss, Traulsen, 

AHRI, True, Structural Concepts, Continental, NAFEM and Hoshizaki commented that if a 10% 

compressor efficiency improvement were possible for a 5% cost increase, then it is most likely 

that manufacturers would have already adopted this technology. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 12)

(AHRI, No. 75 at p. 9) (True, No. 76 at p. 2) (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) (Continental, 

No. 87 at p. 2) (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 3) (Hoshizaki, No. 84 at p. 2) Further, Danfoss stated that,

at most, a 1-2% increase in efficiency could be gained for a 5% cost increase. (Danfoss, No. 61 

at p. 2)

DOE appreciates the specific and detailed input which it received from manufacturers 

and suppliers regarding its previous assumptions of potential improvements in compressor 

efficiency and the corresponding costs to attain these performance increases. In light of these 

comments, DOE updated its performance and cost modeling of compressors for the final rule 

analysis. Specifically, DOE implemented the suggestion of Danfoss, a major supplier, which 

stated that a 2% increase in performance over today’s standard offerings, with a corresponding 

cost increase of 5%, is attainable. DOE believes that these parameters better reflect the options 

available to manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment.

14420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
e. Insulation Modeling

Some stakeholders felt that DOE’s analytical model of case insulation had failed to 

sufficiently capture its effect on manufacturing processes and field performance. Continental and 

Structural Concepts commented that the actual R-value of urethane foam insulation is 

significantly lower than the value modeled. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 2) (Continental, 

No. 87 at p. 3) AHRI and True suggested that an R-Value of 6 per inch was more realistic for 

insulation than the currently modeled 8 per inch. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 5) (True, No. 76 at p. 3) 

Concurrently, NAFEM commented that 1.25 inches of added insulation would actually be 

required to meet the level of insulating performance included in the proposed standard.

(NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 5) True commented that there was a loss of insulation value over time 

using urethane insulation and plastic liners. (True, No. 76 at p. 3)

Traulsen commented that the DOE assumption that increased insulation would not affect 

cabinet structure was incorrect. Traulsen further noted that some aspects of cabinet geometry and 

features where the highest level of heat leakage occur appear to be beyond the scope of DOE's 

model. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 7) Continental, too, commented that cabinet geometry would lead 

to low in-place insulation values, requiring much thicker insulation in some areas than others, to 

achieve the proposed standards. (Continental, No. 87 at p. 3)

14520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Traulsen commented that since the 2009 rule noted that a 1/2" insulation increase was not 

viable for some classes, and since no significant changes in technology have occurred, DOE 

should exclude this design option from a proposed standard level. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 8) 

In response to the comments from Structural Concepts, Continental, AHRI, True, and 

NAFEM, DOE believes that an R-value of 8 per inch is accurate for foamed-in-place 

polyurethane insulation as used in commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE has corroborated 

this value in past and ongoing rulemakings against product literature, supplier and academic 

studies, and discussions in manufacturer interviews. Therefore DOE believes that this is an 

accurate value and has maintained it for the modeling of foam performance in its final rule 

engineering analysis. With regard to the comment from True on changes in insulative value of 

foam over time, DOE notes that certification of equipment is conducted at or shortly after the 

time of manufacture, and thus equipment in that state is modeled in DOE’s engineering analysis. 

DOE did not model the performance of equipment at points long after the time of manufacture. 

DOE based its modeling of case heat loads on measured geometries as seen in units 

purchased and torn down over the course of the rulemaking, as well as on product literature for 

designs currently on the market. DOE notes that these geometries in some cases included the 

level of increased foam thicknesses modeled as a design option, meaning that manufacturers 

were already including these increases and accounting for their effects. Thus, since proof of 

concept is already being presented in today’s equipment market, DOE does not believe that there 

are inaccuracies in its levels of modeled foam thickness. In response to the comment from 

14620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Traulsen, DOE believes that its model sufficiently accounts for the thermal effects of conduction, 

infiltration, and other heat loads incident upon the refrigerated case. With respect to 

Continental’s concerns, DOE has examined a wide variety of case designs on the market, but 

generally has not encountered instances in which low in-place insulation thicknesses have been 

observed. In most instances that DOE has examined, manufacturers have maintained a standard 

thickness throughout the body of the case. Therefore, DOE believes that its insulation modeling 

is accurate and consistent with designs currently produced by the industry. 

DOE conducted its current analysis based on the latest available information regarding 

equipment designs, cost and performance of design options and components, and downstream 

factors such as electricity price forecasts. This information was updated entirely from the 2009 

rule. Therefore, in response to Traulsen’s comment that DOE should not consider a design option 

in this analysis just because it was not included in the analytical levels corresponding to 

standards set for some classes in 2009, DOE cautions that a direct comparison between the two 

rulemakings may not be accurate. Changes in prices, market factors, and other inputs since 2009 

mean that outcomes between the two analyses could be different. Therefore, DOE has conducted 

the current analysis in isolation based on the best currently available data, and has set the 

standard levels included in today’s rule using the results of that analysis. 

f. Lighting Performance

Several manufacturers opined that DOE had modeled LED performance too aggressively. 

Southern Store Fixtures commented that even with more directional light from LED systems, 

14720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
higher wattage LEDs with higher number of diodes than those modeled by DOE would be 

required to provide illumination comparable to a fluorescent system. (Southern Store Fixtures, 

No. 67 at p. 2) Traulsen, in agreement with other commenters, noted that LEDs require more 

watts per lumen than high efficiency T8 lighting which uses reflectors. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 3) 

Continental commented that, while LEDs are significantly more directional than fluorescent 

lights, the efficacy modeled by DOE was overestimated. (Continental, No. 87 at p. 2) More 

specifically, AHRI commented that although LEDs are directional, the DOE assumption that the 

output of 4-ft & 5-ft LEDs is only 29% of that associated with T8 lighting is flawed, since the 

directional nature of LEDs cannot fully compensate for such a large differential. (AHRI, No. 75 

at p. 3) Additionally, True commented that due to the varied nature of illumination needs across 

products, many models require higher wattages if LEDs are used. (True, No. 76 at p. 1) AHRI 

added that reducing the light output into cases through use of LEDs would affect consumer 

utility. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 4) Traulsen commented that CRE applications, especially those 

requiring low temperature settings, could experience degradation in LED color quality and 

shorter lifespans. Traulsen further commented that the variety of displayed packaging or product 

types may need special light colors, and that one size fits all approach to LED lighting could lead 

to loss of utility. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 4) 

Providing an additional viewpoint, the CA IOUs commented that the assumed level of 

efficacy for LED technology (54 lumens per watt) was very conservative. The CA IOUs further 

noted that using the DesignLights Consortium online database, the current simple average for all 

14820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
vertical refrigerated case lighting was 59 lumens per watt, with the average for products added in 

2013 being 66 lumens per watt. (CA IOUs, No. 63 at p. 7)

AHRI commented that comparisons between T8, super T8, and LED lighting systems as 

modeled in the previous and current rulemakings suggest that no significant improvements have 

been made in lighting since the last rulemaking cycle. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 2)

With regard to specific equipment classes, Hillphoenix commented that the savings from 

SVO.RC.M due to LED lighting was the same as for VOP.RC.M even though the semi-vertical 

cases would have fewer shelf lights than the vertical open cases. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 6) 

Further, AHRI commented that in the case of VCT.RC.M and VCT.RC.L equipment, the LED 

lighting design option provides about an 80-83% increased energy consumption reduction for the 

current rulemaking as compared to the previous rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 9) 

DOE agrees with the comments from Southern Store Fixtures, Continental, and Traulsen 

that, in absolute terms, LED lighting produces fewer output lumens per watt than T8 fluorescent 

lighting. However, DOE understands that due to the directionality of LED lighting, a much 

greater percentage of the lighting is incident upon the product, rather than being diffused into the 

cabinet. With respect to the concerns of AHRI and Continental that this directionality is still not 

sufficient to compensate for the levels of lighting modeled in the engineering analysis, DOE 

asserts that it based its modeling directly on the specific configurations of equipment being 

shipped on the market at the time of the analysis. When selecting LED lighting specifications to 

14920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
model, DOE performed research through manufacturer literature and catalogs, studies of lighting 

manufacturer product literature, and physical teardowns of existing units on the market. 

Developed based on this data, DOE believes that its lighting specifications reflect the current 

needs of customers and designs produced by manufacturers to satisfy those needs. 

In addition, based on new information provided by stakeholder comments at the final rule 

stage, DOE has increased the modeled lumen output of its LED fixtures by roughly 20% across 

all classes. DOE believes that this added modeled light output serves to address the concerns 

presented by stakeholders in their comments. Additionally, DOE understands that manufacturers 

have concerns over the applicability of LED lighting to the wide variety of models merchandised 

within commercial refrigeration equipment. During its manufacturer interviews, DOE 

specifically addressed this subject, speaking to manufacturers of a broad range of equipment

about their use of LEDs. Generally, manufacturers stated that LED technology has advanced 

sufficiently that issues with color matching and product color illumination are no longer as 

significant as in the past. DOE’s research into current manufacturer designs aligns with this

finding, as manufacturers are using LED lighting in all applicable equipment families. With 

respect to concerns over LED lifetimes, based on its discussions with manufacturers, DOE does 

understand that there still remain variations in quality and durability of LED products based on 

the chosen supplier, but that LED reliability has improved significantly to its current state. 

Additionally, DOE has accounted for the need for replacement of LED lighting fixtures as part of 

the maintenance costs analyzed in its life-cycle cost and payback period analysis. 

15020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
After receiving the comment from the CA IOUs regarding standard efficacies of LED 

fixtures produced today, DOE researched the referenced DesignLights Consortium online 

database and found that the listed data agreed with the performance levels stated in the comment 

from the CA IOUs. In response to this new data, DOE updated its efficacy figures for the 

modeled LED fixtures in line with those levels depicted for models currently on the market per 

the database. This resulted in an approximate 20% increase in modeled lumen output for all LED 

fixtures modeled. DOE believes that this adjustment allows its LED modeling to better reflect 

the level of technology currently available on the market, while simultaneously addressing 

concerns from manufacturers and other stakeholder about low levels of product illumination 

using LED lighting.

DOE agrees with AHRI that no major new lighting technologies have come onto the 

market since the conduct of the 2009 rulemaking; that is, that the options currently available to 

manufacturers consist largely of T8 fluorescent and LED lighting. Therefore, in building up 

engineering cost-efficiency curves depicting the price and performance of equipment from 

baseline to max-tech levels, DOE included these technologies in the baseline and higherefficiency scenarios and implemented energy-saving lighting features alongside other design 

options in order of ascending payback period. With respect to AHRI’s assertion of significant 

new improvements to lighting technologies since the modeling for the 2009 final rule was 

performed, DOE points out that it updated the prices and performance levels of the various 

lighting technologies to reflect new information since the 2009 rulemaking, and reordered its 

design options and cost-efficiency curves correspondingly. 

15120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In response to the comments from AHRI and Hillphoenix comparing the perceived 

relative efficacies of specific design options in the engineering analysis to the incremental 

performance changes associated with them in the 2009 rule, DOE cautions against making such 

comparisons since many other factors were not held constant. Updates to the baseline 

configuration, improved pricing and performance modeling, inclusion of new design options, and 

updated design option ordering all mean that the modeled order of implementation of design 

options, and the effects of those design options being implemented, has in many instances 

changed since the 2009 final rule analysis. Therefore, a direct comparison would be inaccurate 

and unfair. Similarly, DOE cautions against direct comparisons of specific incremental results 

across different equipment classes. Engineering results for each equipment class were calculated 

independently based upon the best available data on equipment configuration, design option 

performance, and costs. Therefore, the results of each class should be examined independently, 

and there was no interrelation to other classes built into the model. 

g. Transparent Door Performance

Stakeholders expressed concern over the modeled improvements in transparent door 

performance between the current and previous rulemaking analyses. AHRI commented that there 

was a decrease of over 60% in the U-factors for transparent doors between the previous final rule 

and the current NOPR, even though both results were arrived at using the Lawrence Berkeley 

15220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
National Laboratory (LBNL) WINDOW41 software. Further, AHRI noted that the U-factor 

associated with high-performance doors for VCT.M equipment in 2009 did not even meet the 

level of performance suggested by the U-factor that is listed in the current TSD for standard 

doors. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 9) Similarly, Hussmann commented that the U-factors and anti-sweat 

heat values for transparent doors in various classes were significantly lower than in the 2009 

final rule, and that base cases in the current NOPR analysis did not meet the definition of highperformance from the previous analysis. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 2) Hillphoenix commented that 

the U-factor and heater power varied for identical classes from the previous rulemaking to the 

current. (Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 7) AHRI commented that for HCT.M equipment, while the 

overall U-Factor specified for standard doors seems appropriate, the U-factor for highperformance doors seems very low. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 10)

In response to the stakeholder concerns regarding the modeled performance of 

transparent doors, DOE revisited its modeling of this feature as part of its final rule engineering 

analysis. In doing so, it incorporated comments and suggestions from stakeholders received 

during the NOPR public meeting and in written comments after the publication of the NOPR 

regarding design attributes such as the number of panes of glass modeled, the use of low-e 

coatings, and appropriate levels of anti-sweat heat. DOE also gathered additional information 

through physical inspection and teardown of several additional glass-door models procured 

during the final rule stage. Based on these inputs, DOE modeled the various types of glass doors 

41 This software is an industry-accepted, publicly-available software tool used to model the performance of various 

fenestration components such as windows. More information is available at 

http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/window.html

15320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
using the latest version of the LBL WINDOW software to develop new, more accurate wholedoor U-factors. In response to the comments on alignment of the previous and current baseline 

door designs, DOE did in some cases, where appropriate, retain the U-factors and anti-sweat 

powers used at the baseline in the 2009 final rule. However, in other instances where DOE found 

evidence that the market baseline and features included in standard door offerings had evolved 

since that time, DOE sought to include in its baseline designs features which reflect the current 

offerings of major door manufacturers. For full details on the modeled performance attributes of 

transparent doors, please see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

h. Validation of Engineering Results

DOE’s engineering results as presented in the NOPR were based on the results of 

analytical modeling. Several stakeholders, however, felt that the analysis was purely theoretical 

and did not account for factors affecting field performance. Hoshizaki commented that DOE's 

engineering analysis considers a theoretical base case with no experimental or physical data to 

support the model. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 at p. 1) Traulsen commented that the MDEC targets were 

evaluated by using a theoretical prototype based on market trends and assumptions, and 

contrasted that with DOE’s statement in the NOPR TSD that design options comprising the 

maximum technologically feasible level must have been physically demonstrated. Further, 

Traulsen noted that the engineering analysis was only an academic exercise based on computer 

simulations rather than physical results. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 2)

15420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Hoshizaki, ACEEE and Lennox urged DOE to perform validation testing and physically 

demonstrate the achievement of the proposed efficiency improvement levels. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 

at p. 2) (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 351) (Lennox, No. 73 at p. 2) 

Similarly, NAFEM noted that the modeled maximum-technology designs were not backed by 

tests or prototypes. (NAFEM, No. 93 at p. 3) The CA IOUs strongly urged DOE to calibrate and 

validate its model with test and prototype data, asserting that while many of the assumptions 

made by DOE might hold true in theory, they may not be physically possible to realize. (CA 

IOUs, No. 63 at p. 6)

Traulsen commented that the success of the 2009 final rule standard could have been 

reviewed using voluntary databases containing empirical data of commonly-produced units. 

Traulsen further commented that DOE should base its future MDEC targets on data regarding 

best practices and technologies available in the market, as indicated by these databases.

(Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 2)

The Joint Comment noted that DOE utilized a theoretical engineering model approach for 

the 2011 residential refrigerators final rule. 76 FR 57516 (Sept. 15, 2011) Further, the Joint 

Comment noted that the 2011 residential refrigeration model’s max-tech levels were 59% more 

efficient than the existing standard, even though the most efficient model available at the time 

was only 27% more efficient. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at p. 2)

15520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE agrees that its results are based on analytical modeling, but disagrees with the 

assertions from Hoshizaki and Traulsen that the simulation and modeling were purely theoretical 

in nature. DOE based its analysis on a model which was developed for the 2009 final rule and 

updated to accommodate the needs of this current rulemaking. Inputs to the model included data 

from tangible sources such as manufacturer literature, manufacturer interviews, production 

facility tours, reverse engineering and teardown of existing products on the market, and tests of 

commercial refrigeration equipment and components. DOE maintains its assertion, contrary to 

Traulsen’s comment, that all design options modeled have been physically demonstrated in the 

commercial refrigeration market or in comparable products. 

In agreement with the Joint Comment, DOE points to the 2011 residential refrigerators 

final rule, the 2009 commercial refrigeration equipment final rule, and the 2009 refrigerated 

beverage vending machine final rule as examples of cases where analytical tools and simulation 

have been used to develop effective energy efficiency standards. 76 FR 57516 (Sept. 15, 2011); 

74 FR 1092 (Jan. 9, 2009); 74 FR 44914 (Aug. 31, 2009) Additionally, DOE notes that it 

recently issued a rule, strongly supported by industry, which will allow manufacturers to use 

alternative energy determination methods (AEDMs), which are non-testing methodologies and 

analytical tools, to certify the performance of their equipment. 78 FR 79579 (December 31, 

2013)

In response to the comments from Traulsen, Hoshizaki, ACEEE, the CA IOUs, Lennox, 

and NAFEM that DOE perform validation testing to confirm the veracity of its model, at the 

15620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
final rule stage DOE procured a number of commercial refrigeration units currently on the 

market, including high-performance units featuring advanced designs. It gathered physical test 

data on each unit from certification directories and, in some cases, from independent laboratory 

tests conducted by DOE on the units. DOE then performed physical teardowns and inspection of 

the units to quantify the features and design attributes included in each model. Then, DOE used 

this empirically-determined data as inputs into its engineering model, allowing the model to 

simulate these specific manufacturer models as closely as possible. The results showed good 

alignment between the model outputs and the physical test results across a range of equipment 

classes and efficiencies, validating the abilities of the model. For further information on this 

validation exercise, please see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

With regard to the suggestion from Traulsen that DOE reference existing equipment 

performance databases, at the final rule stage of this rulemaking, DOE utilized information from 

the ENERGY STAR42 and California Energy Commission43 appliance databases as a point of 

comparison to its engineering analysis results. This allowed DOE to compare its analytical 

results to existing directories of certified data and ensure that the results fell within a reasonable 

range of performance values. However, DOE notes that neither of these databases is necessarily 

comprehensive and exhaustive of all models offered for sale in the United States, and that market 

data only capture those designs which are currently being built, not all of those which may be 

feasible. For these reasons, while DOE compared its results against those databases as a check, it 

42 http://www.energystar.gov/certified-products/certified-products 43 http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx

15720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
continued to use a design option approach and simulation as the basis for developing its 

engineering analysis results, rather than developing standard levels solely from existing market 

data.

E. Markups Analysis

DOE applies multipliers called “markups” to the MSP to calculate the customer purchase 

price of the analyzed equipment. These markups are in addition to the manufacturer markup 

(discussed in section IV.D.4.e) and are intended to reflect the cost and profit margins associated 

with the distribution and sales of the equipment. DOE identified three major distribution 

channels for commercial refrigeration equipment, and markup values were calculated for each 

distribution channel based on industry financial data. The overall markup values were then 

calculated by weighted-averaging the individual markups with market share values of the 

distribution channels. 

In estimating markups for CRE and other products, DOE develops separate markups for 

the cost of baseline equipment and the incremental cost of higher-efficiency equipment. 

Incremental markups are applied as multipliers only to the MSP increments of higher-efficiency 

equipment compared to baseline, and not to the entire MSP. 

Traulsen stated that, in its experience, the initial markup on equipment will be consistent 

with production costs, and that the incremental markups will increase with higher levels of 

product efficiency due to product differentiation. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 18) DOE agrees that 

15820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
manufacturer markups are often larger on higher-efficiency equipment due to product 

differentiation strategies. However, DOE’s approach considers a situation in which products at 

any given efficiency level may be the baseline products under new or amended standards (i.e., 

they just meet the standard). In that situation, a typical markup would apply. DOE uses average 

values for manufacturer markups.

Traulsen also stated that it did not believe that wholesalers differentiate markups based 

on the technologies inherently present in this equipment and that, in its experience, 

wholesalers/resellers will use traditional markup rates regardless of equipment’s energy 

efficiency. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 18)

DOE’s approach for wholesaler markups does not imply that wholesalers differentiate 

markups based on the technologies inherently present in the equipment. It assumes that the 

average markup declines as the wholesalers’ cost of goods sold increases due to the higher cost 

of more-efficient equipment. If the markup remains constant while the cost of goods sold 

increases, as Traulsen’s comment suggests, the wholesalers’ profits would also increase. While 

this might happen in the short run, DOE believes that the wholesale market is sufficiently 

competitive such that there would be pressure on margins. DOE recognizes that attempting to 

capture the market response to changing cost conditions is difficult. However, DOE’s approach 

is consistent with the mainstream understanding of firm behavior in competitive markets.

See chapter 6 of the final rule TSD for more details on DOE’s markups analysis. 

15920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducts LCC analysis to evaluate the economic impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards on individual commercial customers—that is, buyers of the 

equipment. LCC is defined as the total customer cost over the life of the equipment, and consists 

of purchase price, installation costs, and operating costs (maintenance, repair, and energy costs). 

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

lifetime of the piece of equipment. PBP is defined as the estimated amount of time it takes 

customers to recover the higher installed costs of more-efficient equipment through savings in 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the increase in installed costs by the 

average savings in annual operating costs.

As part of the engineering analysis, design option levels were ordered based on 

increasing efficiency (i.e., decreasing energy consumption) and increasing MSP. For the LCC 

analysis, DOE chose a maximum of eight levels, henceforth referred to as “efficiency levels,” 

from the list of engineering design option levels. For equipment classes for which fewer than 

eight design option levels were defined in the engineering analysis, all design option levels were 

used. However, for equipment classes where more than eight design option levels were defined, 

DOE selected specific levels to analyze in the following manner:

1. The lowest and highest energy consumption levels provided in the engineering 

analysis were preserved.

2. If the difference in reported energy consumptions and reported manufacturer price 

between sequential levels was minimal, only the higher efficiency level was selected. 

16020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
3. If the energy consumption savings benefit between efficiency levels relative to the 

increased cost was very similar across multiple sequential levels, an intermediate 

level was not selected as an efficiency level.

The first efficiency level (Level 0) in each equipment class is the least efficient and the 

least expensive equipment configuration in that class. The higher efficiency levels (Level 1 and 

higher) exhibit progressive increases in efficiency and cost from Level 0. The highest efficiency 

level in each equipment class corresponds to the max-tech level. Each higher efficiency level 

represents a potential new standard level. 

The installed cost of equipment to a customer is the sum of the equipment purchase price 

and installation costs. The purchase price includes MPC, to which a manufacturer markup and 

outbound freight cost are applied to obtain the MSP. This value is calculated as part of the 

engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the final rule TSD). DOE then applies additional markups to 

the equipment to account for the markups associated with the distribution channels for the 

particular type of equipment (chapter 6 of the final rule TSD). Installation costs were varied by 

state, depending on the prevailing labor rates. 

Operating costs for commercial refrigeration equipment are the sum of maintenance 

costs, repair costs, and energy costs. These costs are incurred over the life of the equipment and 

therefore are discounted to the base year (2017, which is the compliance date of any amended 

standards that are established as part of this rulemaking). 

16120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
The sum of the installed cost and the operating cost, discounted to reflect the present 

value, is termed the life-cycle cost or LCC. Generally, customers incur higher installed costs 

when they purchase higher efficiency equipment, and these cost increments will be partially or 

wholly offset by savings in the operating costs over the lifetime of the equipment. LCC savings 

are calculated for each efficiency level of each equipment class.

The PBP of higher efficiency equipment is obtained by dividing the increase in the 

installed cost by the decrease in annual operating cost. In addition to energy costs (calculated 

using the electricity price forecast for the first year), the annual operating cost includes 

annualized maintenance and repair costs. PBP is calculated for each efficiency level of each 

equipment class.

Apart from MSP, installation costs, and maintenance and repair costs, other important 

inputs for the LCC analysis are markups and sales tax, equipment energy consumption, 

electricity prices and future price trends, expected equipment lifetime, and discount rates.

Many inputs for the LCC analysis are estimated from the best available data in the 

market, and in some cases the inputs are generally accepted values within the industry. In 

general, each input value has a range of values associated with it. While single representative 

values for each input may yield an output that is the most probable value for that output, such an 

analysis does not provide the general range of values that can be attributed to a particular output 

16220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
value. Therefore, DOE carried out the LCC analysis in the form of Monte Carlo simulations,44 in 

which certain inputs were expressed as a range of values and probability distributions to account 

for the ranges of values that may be typically associated with the respective input values. The 

results, or outputs, of the LCC analysis are presented in the form of mean and median LCC 

savings; percentages of customers experiencing net savings, net cost and no impact in LCC; and 

median PBP. For each equipment class, 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were carried out. The 

simulations were conducted using Microsoft Excel and Crystal Ball, a commercially available 

Excel add-in used to carry out Monte Carlo simulations.

LCC savings and PBP are calculated by comparing the installed costs and LCC values of 

standards-case scenarios against those of base-case scenarios. The base-case scenario is the 

scenario in which equipment is assumed to be purchased by customers in the absence of the 

amended energy conservation standards. Standards-case scenarios are scenarios in which 

equipment is assumed to be purchased by customers after the amended energy conservation 

standards, determined as part of the current rulemaking, go into effect. The number of standardscase scenarios for an equipment class is equal to one less than the total number of efficiency 

levels in that equipment class, since each efficiency level above Efficiency Level 0 represents a 

potential amended standard. Usually, the equipment available in the market will have a 

44 Monte Carlo simulation is, generally, a computerized mathematical technique that allows for computation of the 

outputs from a mathematical model based on multiple simulations using different input values. The input values are 

varied based on the uncertainties inherent to those inputs. The combination of the input values of different inputs is 

carried out in a random fashion to simulate the different probable input combinations. The outputs of the Monte 

Carlo simulations reflect the various outputs that are possible due to the variations in the inputs.

16320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
distribution of efficiencies. Therefore, for both base-case and standards-case scenarios, in the 

LCC analysis, DOE assumed a distribution of efficiencies in the market (see section IV.F.10).

Recognizing that each building that uses commercial refrigeration equipment is unique, 

DOE analyzed variability in the LCC and PBP results by performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations for seven types of businesses: (1) supermarkets; (2) wholesaler/multi-line retail 

stores, such as “big-box stores,” “warehouses,” and “supercenters”; (3) convenience and small 

specialty stores, such as meat markets and wine, beer, and liquor stores; (4) convenience stores 

associated with gasoline stations; (5) full-service restaurants; (6) limited service restaurants; and 

(7) other foodservice businesses, such as caterers and cafeterias. Different types of businesses 

face different energy prices and also exhibit differing discount rates that they apply to purchase 

decisions.

Expected equipment lifetime is another input whose value varies over a range. Therefore, 

DOE assumed a distribution of equipment lifetimes that are defined by Weibull survival 

functions.45

Another important factor influencing the LCC analysis is the State in which the 

commercial refrigeration equipment is installed. Inputs that vary based on this factor include 

energy prices and sales tax. At the national level, the spreadsheets explicitly modeled variability 

45 A Weibull survival function is a continuous probability distribution function that is used to approximate the 

distribution of equipment lifetimes of commercial refrigeration equipment. 

16420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
in the inputs for electricity price and markups, using probability distributions based on the 

relative shipments of units to different States and business types.

Detailed descriptions of the methodology used for the LCC analysis, along with a 

discussion of inputs and results, are presented in chapter 8 and appendices 8A and 8B of the final 

rule TSD.

1. Equipment Cost

To calculate customer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the 

engineering analysis by the distribution channel markups, described in section IV.D.5. DOE 

applied baseline markups to baseline MSPs, and incremental markups to the MSP increments 

associated with higher efficiency levels.

DOE developed an equipment price trend for CRE based on the inflation-adjusted index 

of the producer price index (PPI) for air conditioning, refrigeration, and forced air heating from 

1978 to 2012.

46 A linear regression of the inflation-adjusted PPI shows a slight downward trend 

(see appendix 10D of the final rule TSD). To project a future trend, DOE extrapolated the 

historic trend using the regression results. For the LCC and PBP analysis, this default trend was 

applied between the present and the first year of compliance with amended standards, 2017.

46 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index Industry Data, Series: PCU3334153334153

16520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
2. Installation Costs

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts 

needed to install the equipment. The installation costs may vary from one equipment class to 

another, but they do not vary with efficiency levels within an equipment class. DOE retained the 

nationally representative installation cost values from the January 2009 final rule and simply 

escalated the values from 2007$ to 2012$, resulting in installation costs of $2,299 for all remote 

condensing equipment and $862 for all self-contained equipment.

Hussmann opined that as equipment becomes more expensive, it will also become more 

difficult to install, which will result in higher installation labor costs. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 5) 

DOE has found no evidence to support the notion that higher-efficiency (and more expensive) 

commercial refrigeration equipment lead to an increase in installations costs. The installation 

costs derived for the NOPR and final rule are based on a detailed list of installation and 

commissioning procedures, which DOE believes to be representative of current industry practice. 

These installation and commissioning details can be found in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.

NAFEM asserted that DOE failed to take into account the ramifications of the proposed 

standard on a variety of end-uses, such as restaurants, grocery stores, and convenience stores. For 

these end-users floor space is limited, and increasing efficiency may increase the equipment size 

to store the same amount of goods. NAFEM suggests that increasing the thickness of foam 

insulation would decrease storage and display capacity of equipment and will likely result in a 

limitation of the products offered for sale by these users. (NAFEM, No. 93 at pp. 3-4)

16620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
As described in detail in section IV.D.2.d of toady’s rule, DOE, in its teardown analyses, 

encountered a number of models currently on the market utilizing the increased foam wall 

thicknesses which it modeled. Since manufacturers are already employing these wall thicknesses 

in currently-available models, DOE believes that this serves as a proof of concept and that the 

resulting changes to form factor would be of minimal impact to end users. DOE also would like 

to remind stakeholders that it is not setting prescriptive standards, and should manufacturers 

value some features over others, they are free to use different design paths in order to attain the 

performance levels required by today’s rule.

3. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. DOE 

split the maintenance costs into regular maintenance costs and lighting maintenance costs. 

Regular maintenance activities, which include cleaning evaporator and condenser coils, drain 

pans, fans, and intake screens; inspecting door gaskets and seals; lubricating hinges; and 

checking starter panel, control, and defrost system operation, were considered to be equivalent 

for equipment at all efficiency levels. Lighting maintenance costs are the costs incurred to 

replace display case lighting at regular intervals in a preventative fashion. Because lights and 

lighting configuration change with efficiency levels, lighting maintenance costs vary with 

efficiency levels. As stated in chapter 5 of the TSD, for efficiency levels that incorporate LED 

lights as a design option, the expected reduction in LED costs beyond 2017 was taken into 

account when calculating the lighting maintenance costs.

16720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Repair cost is the cost to the customer of replacing or repairing failed components. DOE 

calculated repair costs based on the typical failure rate of refrigeration system components, 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) cost of the components, and an assumed markup value 

to account for labor cost. 

Several stakeholders stated that DOE’s estimated repair and maintenance costs were too 

low. The National Restaurant Association commented that, in general, maintenance costs would 

be much higher. (NRA, No. 90 at p. 3) Hussmann asserted that the condensate evaporator pan, 

which is often present in self-contained equipment, must be periodically cleaned and serviced, 

which increases the maintenance costs for such equipment, and that self-contained equipment 

that utilizes enhanced condenser coils needs to be cleaned more frequently due to the greater 

density of fins on the condenser. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 4) Hussmann further commented that 

equipment using ECM has higher repair costs. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 5) True commented that 

fluorescent lamps in low temperature applications fail more commonly, so there is a substantial 

increase in the cost of lighting for freezers compared to refrigerators. LEDs do not have this 

problem. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 186) Continental commented that 

smaller refrigeration systems have higher maintenance costs due to tighter tolerances. 

(Continental, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 186)

DOE requested information from stakeholders regarding maintenance and repair costs 

specifically related to any of the design options used for this rulemaking. DOE believes its 

16820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
maintenance costs per linear foot are consistent with current industry practices and are sufficient 

to account for the additional time required to clean closely placed condenser coils and other 

considerations related to tight space. DOE does not believe that any design option used in the 

higher efficiency equipment considered in this rulemaking would lead to higher costs for regular 

maintenance activities. Therefore, DOE retained its approach of using the same costs for regular 

maintenance for all efficiency levels. However, repair costs have been modeled to be 

proportional to the OEM cost of the components and, consequently, are higher for higher 

efficiency equipment.

4. Annual Energy Consumption

Typical annual energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment at each 

considered efficiency level is obtained from the engineering analysis results (see chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD). 

5. Energy Prices

DOE calculated state average commercial electricity prices using the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA’s) “Database of Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue 

Data.”47 DOE calculated an average national commercial price by (1) estimating an average 

commercial price for each utility company by dividing the commercial revenues by commercial 

sales; and (2) weighting each utility by the number of commercial customers it served by state.

47 U.S. Energy Information Administration. EIA-826 Sales and Revenue Spreadsheets. (Last accessed May 16, 

2012). www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia826.html

16920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
6. Energy Price Projections

To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE extrapolated the average state electricity 

prices described above using the forecast of annual average commercial electricity prices 

developed in the Reference Case from AEO2013.

48 AEO2013 forecasted prices through 2040. 

To estimate the price trends after 2040, DOE assumed the same average annual rate of change in 

prices as from 2031 to 2040.

7. Equipment Lifetime

DOE defines lifetime as the age at which a commercial refrigeration equipment unit is 

retired from service. DOE based expected equipment lifetime on discussions with industry 

experts, and concluded that a typical lifetime of 10 years is appropriate for most commercial 

refrigeration equipment in large grocery/multi-line stores and restaurants. Industry experts 

believe that operators of small food retail stores, on the other hand, tend to use CRE longer. In 

the NOPR, DOE used 15 years as the average equipment lifetime for remote condensing 

equipment in small food retail stores. DOE reflects the uncertainty of equipment lifetimes in the 

LCC analysis for both equipment markets as probability distributions, as discussed in section 

8.2.3.5 of the final rule TSD.

48 The spreadsheet tool that DOE used to conduct the LCC and PBP analyses allows users to select price forecasts 

from either AEO’s High Economic Growth or Low Economic Growth Cases. Users can thereby estimate the 

sensitivity of the LCC and PBP results to different energy price forecasts.

17020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
Several commenters responded on the subject of equipment lifetimes. NAFEM asserted 

that DOE had overestimated the lifetime of commercial refrigeration equipment, and suggested

that DOE reach out to end-users and manufacturers for a more accurate estimate. (NAFEM, No. 

93 at p. 7) Traulsen commented that commercial refrigeration equipment is too diverse to be 

lumped into categories of different lifetimes, as the lifetime of a unit depends on how it is used 

by a customer in each environment. Traulsen added that without including the time spent in the 

used equipment market, the estimate of equipment life is too low. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 21) The 

National Restaurant Association also commented that DOE’s assumption of a 10 to 15 year 

lifetime is too low. (NRA, No. 90 at p. 3) Hussmann and Hoshizaki both commented that DOE’s 

equipment lifetime estimates are reasonable at 10 and 15 years. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 7)

(Hoshizaki, No. 84 at p. 1)

DOE recognizes that the lifetime of commercial refrigeration equipment is dependent on 

customer type and usage environment. In the NOPR, DOE used an average lifetime of 15 years 

for remote condensing equipment for small retail stores, and 10 years for all other business types. 

These lifetimes are the averages of distributions with a maximum lifetime of 20 and 15 years,

respectively, for remote condensing equipment for small retail stores, and all other business 

types. DOE received comments indicating that the lifetimes for small businesses aside from 

small retail were too low in the NOPR, and that equipment used in small businesses of other 

types were likely to have increased lifetimes as well. DOE agrees with these statements, and 

adopted figures for the average and maximum lifetime of 15 and 20 years, respectively, for

equipment operated by small businesses of all types. The equipment lifetimes for all other 

17120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
business types remains unchanged from the NOPR with an average and maximum lifetime of 10 

and 15 years, respectively. Equipment lifetimes are described in detail in chapter 8 of the TSD.

8. Discount Rates

In calculating the LCC, DOE applies discount rates to estimate the present value of future 

operating costs to the customers of commercial refrigeration equipment.49 DOE derived the 

discount rates for the commercial refrigeration equipment analysis by estimating the average cost 

of capital for a large number of companies similar to those that could purchase commercial 

refrigeration equipment. This resulted in a distribution of potential customer discount rates from 

which DOE sampled in the LCC analysis. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to 

fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the company of 

equity and debt financing. 

DOE estimated the cost of equity financing by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model 

(CAPM).50 The CAPM assumes that the cost of equity is proportional to the amount of 

systematic risk associated with a company. 

Mercatus Center, George Mason University (Mercatus) commented that the CAPM 

includes the risk associated with a firm’s failure, but it does not estimate the risk associated with 

49 The LCC analysis estimates the economic impact on the individual customer from that customer’s own economic 

perspective in the year of purchase and therefore needs to reflect that individual’s own perceived cost of capital. By 

way of contrast DOE’s analysis of national impact requires a societal discount rate. These rates used in that analysis 

are 7 percent and 3 percent, as required by OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. 50 Harris, R.S. Applying the Capital Asset Pricing Model. UVA-F-1456. Available at SSRN: 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=909893.

17220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
any individual item used in by the firm, nor does it estimate the failure risk associated with a 

particular site of operation. (Mercatus, No. 72 at p. 3)

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, and the CAPM is among the most widely 

used models to estimate the cost of equity financing. The types of risk mentioned by Mercatus 

may exist, but the cost of equity financing tends to be high when a company faces a large degree 

of systematic risk, and it tends to be low when the company faces a small degree of systematic 

risk. DOE’s approach estimates this risk for the set of companies that could purchase commercial 

refrigeration equipment. See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for further discussion.

9. Compliance Date of Standards

EPCA requires that any amended standards established in this rulemaking must apply to 

equipment that is manufactured on or after 3 years after the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register unless DOE determines, by rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, in which case DOE 

may extend the compliance date for that standard by an additional 2 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)(C)) Based on these criteria, DOE assumed that the most likely compliance date for 

standards set by this rulemaking would be in 2017. Therefore, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP 

for commercial refrigeration equipment under the assumption that compliant equipment would 

be purchased in 2017.

17320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Continental and Lennox commented that an extension of compliance dates of the 

amended standards may not be required so long as the standards are based on whatever 

technology was currently available. (Continental, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 334;

Lennox, No. 73 at p. 2) Traulsen noted that, should the compliance date be extended by a further 

three years, then it was possible, albeit unlikely, that the proposed standards could be realized. 

(Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 24) Providing a contrary view, the Joint Comment asserted that a three 

year compliance time period appeared feasible for the proposed standard. In addition, the Joint 

Comment pointed out that the initial statutory deadline for the final rule was January 2013. (Joint 

Comment, No. 91 at p. 13) Earthjustice noted that if the compliance date were extended, this 

may have an impact on how alternative refrigerants feature in the next round of analysis.

(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 334)

In response to the inputs of stakeholders during the NOPR public meeting and in written 

comment, DOE believes that a compliance date three years after issuance of the final rule is 

reasonable and appropriate. A three-year period is the standard length of time given between 

final rule issuance and required compliance, with exceptions generally being made only in 

circumstances specifically warranting them. Additionally, the commercial refrigeration industry 

and related industries have proven in the past that a three-year period is adequate to produce 

equipment meeting updated standards. Therefore, DOE is not including an extension of the 

period to comply with standards in today’s final rule notice. 

17420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In their written and verbal comments after publication of the NOPR, stakeholders noted 

that in ascertaining the compliance date for the CRE standards rule, DOE should take into 

account other, currently open rulemakings, which could affect or be affected by the proposed 

rule. True commented that the new timeline for this rulemaking, alongside the recent negotiated 

settlements regarding the certification of commercial equipment, could lead to a situation where 

the new standards could be enforced, but not the certification requirement. (True, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 62 at p. 28) Traulsen requested that DOE refrain from issuing new CRE 

standards until the CRE test procedure is finalized. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 16) The final rule for 

the CRE test procedure was issued prior to today’s rule for CRE standards. Therefore, DOE sees 

no conflict between the issuance of the two rules. 

Additionally, Structural Concepts commented that in order to have a product line ready 

by 2017, the design phase would need to start at least three years prior, and therefore new 

standards should only be based on existing technologies. (Structural Concepts, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 62 at p. 72)

DOE agrees with Structural Concepts that existing technologies should be the basis of its 

engineering analysis, and has considered only currently-available technologies in that analysis. 

Additionally, the three-year compliance period required by EPCA in most circumstances is 

consistent with the required length of design time suggested by Structural Concepts.

17520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
10. Base-Case Efficiency Distributions

To accurately estimate the share of affected customers who would likely be impacted by 

a standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considers the projected 

distribution of efficiencies of equipment that customers purchase under the base case (that is, the 

case without new or amended energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of 

equipment efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution.

In the NOPR, DOE’s methodology to estimate market shares of each efficiency level 

within each equipment class is a cost-based method consistent with the approaches that were 

used in the EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)51 and in the Canadian Integrated 

Modeling System (CIMS)52,53 for estimating efficiency choices within each equipment class. 

At the NOPR public meeting, True stated that 62 percent of the commercial refrigeration 

equipment sold in the United States is certified under ENERGY STAR. (True, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 62 at p. 302) 

For today’s final rule, DOE revised its approach for determining the base case efficiency 

distribution to better account for market data from the ENERGY STAR program. DOE’s 

51 U.S. Energy Information Administration. National Energy Modeling System Commercial Model (2004 Version). 

2004. Washington, DC.

52 The CIMS Model was originally known as the Canadian Integrated Modeling System, but as the model is now 

being applied to other countries, the acronym is now used as its proper name. 53 Energy Research Group / M.K. Jaccard & Associates. Integration of GHG Emission Reduction Options using 

CIMS. 2000. Vancouver, B.C. 

www.emrg.sfu.ca/media/publications/Reports%20for%20Natural%20Resources%20Canada/Rollup.pdf

17620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
understanding of the CRE market is that consumers of commercial refrigeration equipment fall 

into two categories: those that purchase equipment at the lowest available first cost (also lowest 

efficiency) and those that purchase equipment at a somewhat higher first cost with higher 

efficiency. Thus, for the final rule DOE developed a base case efficiency distribution consisting 

of two categories: purchases at the baseline and purchases at higher efficiency. 

For equipment classes that are covered by ENERGY STAR,

54 DOE assumed that 

baseline equipment accounts for all products that are not ENERGY STAR certified. The 

ENERGY STAR share is divided between the ENERGY STAR 2.1 level and the more recent 

ENERGY STAR 3.0 level, which will become effective in October 2014. For CRE classes that 

are not covered by ENERGY STAR, DOE estimated the share of equipment at the baseline 

based on the output from the customer choice model for commercial refrigeration used for EIA’s 

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013).

55 For the higher efficiency equipment, DOE included 

all efficiency levels for which the retail price is not more than 10 percent above the baseline 

price, and divided the equipment between the baseline and the higher-efficiency market. Table 

IV.2 shows the shipment-weighted market shares by efficiency level in the base-case scenario. 

The method for developing the base-case efficiency distribution is explained in detail in chapter 

8 of the final rule TSD.

54 These classes consist of VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, VCS.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, HCT.SC.M, HCT.SC.L, HCS.SC.M., 

and HCS.SC.L

55 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2013. 2013. Washington, DC. DOE/EIA0383(2013).

17720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
Table IV.2 Market Shares by Efficiency Level, Base Case in 2017

Equipment 

Class

Base-case Efficiency Distribution (%)

Base EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 EL 6 EL 7

VOP.RC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

VOP.RC.L 60 20 20 0 0 0 0 0

VOP.SC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

VCT.RC.M 60 14 13 13 0 0 0 0

VCT.RC.L 60 20 20 0 0 0 0 0

VCT.SC.M 90 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

VCT.SC.L 90 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

VCT.SC.I 60 8 8 8 8 8 0 0

VCS.SC.M 60 0 30 0 0 0 10 0

VCS.SC.L 60 30 0 0 10 0 0 0

VCS.SC.I 60 8 8 8 8 8 0 0

SVO.RC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

SVO.SC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

SOC.RC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

SOC.SC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

HZO.RC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

HZO.RC.L 60 20 20 0 0 0 0 0

HZO.SC.M 60 20 20 0 0 0 0 0

HZO.SC.L 60 20 20 0 0 0 0 0

HCT.SC.M 60 0 0 40 0 0 0 0

HCT.SC.L 60 0 0 30 0 0 0 10

HCT.SC.I 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

HCS.SC.M 90 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

HCS.SC.L 90 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

PD.SC.M 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

Payback period is the amount of time it takes the customer to recover the higher purchase 

cost of more energy efficient equipment as a result of lower operating costs. Numerically, the 

PBP is the ratio of the increase in purchase cost to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. 

This type of calculation is known as a “simple” PBP because it does not take into account 

changes in operating cost over time or the time value of money; that is, the calculation is done at 

17820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
an effective discount rate of zero percent. PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs greater than the life 

of the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost of the more-efficient equipment is 

not recovered in reduced operating costs over the life of the equipment.

The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost to the customer of the 

equipment for each efficiency level and the average annual operating expenditures for each 

efficiency level in the first year. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, 

except that electricity price trends and discount rates are not used. 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

Sections 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 345(e)(1)(A) of EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 

42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)(A)), establish a rebuttable presumption applicable to commercial 

refrigeration equipment. The rebuttable presumption states that a new or amended standard is 

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

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

three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as 

a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. This rebuttable 

presumption test is an alternative way of establishing economic justification.

To evaluate the rebuttable presumption, DOE estimated the additional cost of purchasing 

more-efficient, standards-compliant equipment, and compared this cost to the value of the energy 

saved during the first year of operation of the equipment. DOE interprets that the increased cost 

17920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
of purchasing standards-compliant equipment includes the cost of installing the equipment for 

use by the purchaser. DOE calculated the rebuttable presumption PBP, or the ratio of the value of 

the increased installed price above the baseline efficiency level to the first year’s energy cost 

savings. When the rebuttable presumption PBP is less than 3 years, the rebuttable presumption is 

satisfied; when the rebuttable presumption PBP is equal to or more than 3 years, the rebuttable 

presumption is not satisfied. Note that this PBP calculation does not include other components of

the annual operating cost of the equipment (i.e., maintenance costs and repair costs).

While DOE examined the rebuttable presumption, it also considered whether the standard 

levels considered are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of these levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis served 

as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level 

definitively (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 

economic justification).

G. Shipments

Complete historical shipments data for commercial refrigeration equipment could not be 

obtained from any one single source. Therefore, for the NOPR DOE used data from multiple 

sources to estimate historical shipments. The major sources were 2005 shipments data provided 

by ARI as part of its comments submitted in response to the January 2009 final rule Framework 

document, ARI 2005 Report (Docket No. EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126, ARI, No. 7, Exhibit B at 

18020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
p. 1); Commercial Refrigeration Equipment to 2014 by Freedonia Group, Inc.56; 2008, and 2012

Size and Shape of Industry by the North American Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers;

57, 58 and Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

Refrigeration prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for DOE.59

Historical linear feet of shipped units is the figure used to depict the annual amount of 

commercial refrigeration equipment capacity shipped, and is an alternative way to express 

shipments data. DOE determined the linear feet shipped for any given year by multiplying each 

unit shipped by its associated average length, and then summing all the linear footage values. 

Chapter 9 of the final rule TSD presents the representative equipment class lengths used for the 

conversion of per-unit shipments to linear footage within each equipment class.

DOE divided historical annual shipments into new and replacement categories by 

building type. First, equipment types were identified by the type of business they generally serve. 

For example, vertical open cases with remote condensing units are associated with large grocers 

and multi-line retail stores. When there was no strong association between the building type and 

equipment class, equipment was distributed across broader building types. Second, a ratio of new 

versus replacement equipment was developed based on commercial floor space estimates. Using 

56 Freedonia Group, Inc. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment to 2014. 2010. Cleveland, OH. Study 2261. 

www.freedoniagroup.com/Commercial-Refrigeration-Equipment.html 57 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 2008 Size and Shape of Industry. 2008. Chicago, 

IL.

58 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 20012 Size and Shape of Industry. 2012. 

Chicago, IL.

59 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration. 2009. 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

18120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
the expected useful life of commercial refrigeration equipment and commercial floor space 

stock, additions, and retirements, ratios were developed of new versus replacement stock. Using 

these and related factors (e.g., the division of foodservice into the three building types—limited 

service restaurants, full-service restaurants, and other), DOE distributed commercial refrigeration 

equipment shipments among building types and new versus replacement shipments.

DOE then estimated the annual linear footage shipped for each of the 25 primary 

equipment classes used to represent the commercial refrigeration equipment market. The 

fractions shown in Table IV.3 were held constant over the analysis period.

Table IV.3 Percent of Shipped Linear Feet of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Equipment Class

Percentage of Linear 

Feet Shipped*

VOP.RC.M 10.3%

VOP.RC.L 0.5%

VOP.SC.M 1.3%

VCT.RC.M 0.8%

VCT.RC.L 10.7%

VCT.SC.M 4.8%

VCT.SC.L 0.2%

VCT.SC.I 0.3%

VCS.SC.M 25.4%

VCS.SC.L 15.0%

VCS.SC.I 0.1%

SVO.RC.M 8.2%

SVO.SC.M 1.1%

SOC.RC.M 2.1%

SOC.SC.M 0.2%

HZO.RC.M 1.3%

HZO.RC.L 4.0%

HZO.SC.M 0.1%

HZO.SC.L 0.2%

HCT.SC.M 0.1%

HCT.SC.L 0.4%

HCT.SC.I 0.4%

18220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
HCS.SC.M 4.4%

HCS.SC.L 0.6%

PD.SC.M 7.6%

* The percentages in this column do not sum to 100 

percent because shipments of secondary equipment 

classes and certain other equipment classes that were 

not analyzed in this rulemaking were not included.

The amount of new and existing commercial floor space is the main driver for future 

commercial refrigeration equipment shipments. The model divides commercial floor space into 

new construction floor space and existing floor space. 

DOE projected square footage of new construction as a driver of CRE demand to scale 

annual new commercial refrigeration equipment shipments. DOE took the projected floor space 

construction after the year 2009 from the NEMS projection underlying AEO 2013. The new 

construction growth rates over the last 10 years of the AEO 2013 forecast (2031 through 2040) 

were used to extend the AEO forecast out until 2046 to develop the full 30-year forecast needed 

for the NIA.

True stated during the NOPR public meeting that DOE’s shipments estimates for the 

VCT.SC.M equipment class were 20 to 30 percent of actual shipments. (True, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 62 at pp. 240-242) This statement was supported by Coca-Cola, which asserted 

that it alone purchased 180,000 linear feet of VCT.SC.M equipment domestically compared to 

the 155,000 linear feet of VCT.SC.M equipment presented in the NOPR. (Coca-Cola, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 242) True followed up its public meeting statements with 

written comment stating that its estimate of the self-contained market was four to six times larger 

18320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
than what was stated in the proposed rule. (True, No. 76 at p. 1) Traulsen suggested that DOE 

use newer data, such as those in the NAFEM 2012 ”Size and Shape of the Industry” study to 

improve the accuracy of its shipments analysis. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 15)

Although neither True nor Coca-Cola provided DOE with shipments data to support their 

assertions, the magnitude of the discrepancy in shipments identified by these comments led DOE 

to revise its shipments estimates for the final rule. DOE reviewed three sources of data in 

developing the revision. First, DOE reviewed the most recent data published by the EPA’s

ENERGY STAR Program.60 These EPA data include both an estimate of total units shipped, and 

an estimate of the fraction that are ENERGY STAR compliant, from 2003 to 2012. The 

ENERGY STAR estimates of total unit shipments show somewhat slow growth from 2003 to 

2010, and a significant increase between 2010 and 2011, with shipments increasing by a factor of 

two. Second, DOE reviewed the most recent North American Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers Size and Shape of the Industry61 report published in 2012. This report provides

industry total estimates of sales in dollar values. These data show an increase of approximately 

60 percent in sales of the relevant covered equipment between 2008 and 2011. Third, DOE 

reviewed equipment saturation estimates calculated from data in the Energy Information 

Agency’s (EIA) Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) for 1999 and 

2003. The CBECS surveys include a count of the number of refrigerated cases in a building, 

60 Energy Star. Unit Shipment and Sales Data Archives. Available at: 

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=partners.unit_shipment_data_archives (Last accessed 12/5/2013). 61 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 2012 Size and Shape of Industry. 2012. 

Chicago, IL.

18420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
which was be converted to a saturation value that represents the average number of cases per 

building. These data indicate a growth in saturation between 1999 and 2003, particularly for 

closed refrigeration cases. The existence of a trend in equipment saturations was not accounted 

for in the NOPR analyses. Taken together, all three data sources support the claims made by 

stakeholders that DOE’s shipments published in the NOPR were substantially underestimated. 

For the final rule, DOE modified the shipments analysis to include a trend in equipment 

saturations between 2003 and 2012. The trend was calculated by (1) smoothing the growth in 

shipments in the ENERGY STAR data to a constant annual growth rate, (2) correcting to account 

for the growth in total new and existing commercial floor space, and (3) applying the resulting 

trend in saturations for the years 2004 to 2012. Before 2003 and after 2012 equipment saturations 

are held constant. The net result is a doubling of equipment saturations between 2003 and 2012, 

with corresponding increases in the shipments estimates, which are generally consistent in 

magnitude with stakeholder comments. These corrections were applied uniformly to all 

equipment types and applications, and thus do not affect the distribution of equipment by 

building type or by equipment class.

Detailed description of the procedure to calculate future shipments is presented in chapter 

9 of the final rule TSD. 

18520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
1. Impact of Standards on Shipments

Several stakeholders stated that customer purchase behavior would change in response to 

an increase in equipment prices due to more stringent standards. At the NOPR public meeting,

Hussmann commented that it had noticed a shift from the open VOP.RC.M to the closed 

VCT.RC.M equipment class, possibly due to energy savings being valued by customers 

(primarily supermarkets). (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at pp. 236 -37) 

However, Hussmann noted that the shift could be reversed if closed equipment diminished in its 

utility as a merchandising platform. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 237) 

Hillphoenix and Danfoss stated that if standards require the use of triple-pane coated glass, 

reduction in visibility will result in users shifting back to less-efficient open cases. (Danfoss, No. 

61 at p. 4; Hillphoenix, No. 71 at p. 2) Hussmann noted that it had not observed a reversal of the 

trend toward closed units in response to previous efficiency standards. (Hussmann, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 235)

DOE recognizes that increased cost for closed equipment meeting the amended standards 

in today’s final rule has the potential to influence a shift from more efficient closed equipment to 

open equipment. However, DOE did not have sufficient information on customer behavior to 

model the degree of such equipment switching as part of the NIA. Further, DOE has concluded 

that the amended standards in today’s final rule will not diminish the utility of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, and they do not require triple-pane coated glass.

18620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Several stakeholders commented that, in response to a possible price increase due to 

standards, CRE customers may prolong the life of existing equipment through refurbishment. 

Danfoss asserted that a 15 to 20 percent increase in prices will reduce demand for new units and 

increase sales of used of refurbished units. (Danfoss, No. 61 at p. 3) NAFEM commented that 

any standard where the payback on new equipment is longer than 2 years will likely steer users 

into the refurbished market. (NAFEM, No. 93 at pp. 7 - 8) Traulsen commented that the impact 

of refurbishing equipment was not fully represented by DOE, especially in the small business 

environment where customers are likely to hold onto equipment longer. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 

19) Hussmann stated that due to price increases resulting from higher efficiency, the 

refurbishment of old equipment will reduce the market for new equipment. (Hussmann, No. 77 at 

p. 5) 

DOE acknowledges that increases in price due to amended standards could lead to more

refurbishing of equipment (or purchase of used equipment), which would have the effect of 

deferring the shipment of new equipment for a period of time. DOE did not have enough 

information on CRE customer behavior to explicitly model the extent of refurbishing at each 

TSL. However, DOE believes that the extent of refurbishing would not be so significant as to 

change the ranking of the TSLs considered for today’s rule.

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

The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV of total customer costs and savings that would 

be expected as a result of amended energy conservation standards. The NES and NPV are 

18720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
analyzed at specific efficiency levels for each equipment class of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. DOE calculates the NES and NPV based on projections of annual equipment 

shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the LCC 

analysis. For the final rule analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, operating cost savings, 

equipment costs, and NPV of customer benefits over the lifetime of equipment sold from 2017

through 2046. 

DOE evaluated the impacts of the amended standards by comparing base-case projections 

with standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize energy use and customer 

costs for each equipment class in the absence of any amended energy conservation standards. 

DOE compares these projections with projections characterizing the market for each equipment 

class if DOE were to adopt an amended standard at specific energy efficiency levels for that 

equipment class. 

DOE uses a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the 

national customer costs and savings from each TSL. The final rule TSD and other documentation 

that DOE provides during the rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them, and 

interested parties can review DOE’s analyses by interacting with these spreadsheets. The NIA 

spreadsheet model uses average values as inputs (as opposed to probability distributions of key 

input parameters from a set of possible values).

18820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
For the final rule analysis, the NIA used projections of energy prices and commercial 

building starts from the AEO2013 Reference Case. In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios that 

used inputs from the AEO2013 Low Economic Growth and High Economic Growth Cases. 

These cases have lower and higher energy price trends, respectively, compared to the Reference 

Case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in appendix 10D of the final rule TSD.

A detailed description of the procedure to calculate NES and NPV, and inputs for this 

analysis are provided in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. 

1. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

The method for estimating the market share distribution of efficiency levels is presented 

in section IV.F.10, and a detailed description can be found in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

As discussed in section IV.F.10 of today’s rule, DOE revised the distribution of 

equipment efficiencies in the base case to better account for data from ENERGY STAR. For 

equipment covered by ENERGY STAR, for the NIA DOE estimated that the market will move 

over time to adopt higher efficiency ENERGY STAR rated equipment. DOE estimated that for

equipment not covered by ENERGY STAR, there is limited market demand for higher efficiency

equipment, and the base case efficiency distribution would not change over time. 

To estimate market behavior in the standards cases, DOE uses a “roll-up” scenario. 

Under the roll-up scenario, DOE assumes that equipment efficiencies in the base case that do not 

18920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
meet the standard level under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level, and 

equipment efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would be unaffected.

To project trends in standards-case efficiency after the initial shift in the compliance year, 

DOE used the same assumptions as in the base case for equipment covered or not covered by 

ENERGY STAR.

The estimated efficiency trends in the base case and standards cases are further described 

in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.

2. National Energy Savings

For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the NES for each potential standard 

level by multiplying the stock of equipment affected by the energy conservation standards by the 

estimated per-unit annual energy savings. DOE typically considers the impact of a rebound effect 

in its calculation of NES for a given product. A rebound effect occurs when users operate higher 

efficiency equipment more frequently and/or for longer durations, thus offsetting estimated 

energy savings. DOE did not incorporate a rebound factor for commercial refrigeration 

equipment because it is operated 24 hours a day, and therefore there is no potential for a rebound 

effect.

Major inputs to the calculation of NES are annual unit energy consumption, shipments, 

equipment stock, a site-to-primary energy conversion factor, and a full fuel cycle factor.

19020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
The annual unit energy consumption is the site energy consumed by a commercial 

refrigeration unit in a given year. Because the equipment classes analyzed represent equipment 

sold across a range of sizes, DOE’s “unit” in the NES is actually expressed as a linear foot of 

equipment in an equipment class, and not an individual unit of commercial refrigeration 

equipment of a specific size. DOE determined annual forecasted shipment-weighted average 

equipment efficiencies that, in turn, enabled determination of shipment-weighted annual energy 

consumption values.

The NES spreadsheet model keeps track of the total linear footage of commercial 

refrigeration units shipped each year. The commercial refrigeration equipment stock in a given 

year is the total linear footage of commercial refrigeration equipment shipped from earlier years 

that is still in use in that year, based on the equipment lifetime. 

To estimate the national energy savings expected from energy conservation standards, 

DOE uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy consumption (energy use at the location 

where the appliance is operated) into primary or source energy consumption (the energy required 

to deliver the site energy). For today’s final rule, DOE used conversion factors based on AEO 

2013. For electricity, the conversion factors vary over time because of projected changes in 

generation sources (i.e., the types of power plants projected to provide electricity to the country). 

Because the AEO does not provide energy forecasts beyond 2040, DOE used conversion factors 

that remain constant at the 2040 values throughout the rest of the forecast.

19120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. In response to 

the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Science, 

DOE announced its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and 

greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011) 

While DOE stated in that notice that it intended to use the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated 

Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model to conduct the analysis, it also 

said it would review alternative methods, including the use of NEMS. After evaluating both 

models and the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in the Federal Register in which DOE explained its determination that NEMS 

is a more appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 

FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

The approach used for today’s final rule, and the FFC multipliers that were applied, are 

described in appendix 10D of the final rule TSD. NES results are presented in both primary 

energy and FFC savings in section V.B.3.a.

3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit

The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by 

customers of the commercial refrigeration equipment are: (1) total annual installed cost; (2) total 

19220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
annual savings in operating costs; and (3) a discount factor. DOE calculated net national 

customer savings for each year as the difference between the base-case scenario and standardscase scenarios in terms of installation and operating costs. DOE calculated operating cost savings 

over the life of each piece of equipment shipped in the forecast period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1, DOE developed an equipment price trend for commercial 

refrigeration equipment based on the inflation-adjusted index of the PPI for air conditioning, 

refrigeration, and forced air heating from 1978 to 2012. A linear regression of the inflationadjusted PPI shows a slight downward trend (see appendix 10D of the final rule TSD). To 

project a future trend over the analysis period, DOE extrapolated the historic trend using the 

regression results.

DOE multiplied monetary values in future years by the discount factor to determine the 

present value of costs and savings. DOE estimated national impacts using both a 3-percent and a 

7-percent real discount rate as the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. 

economy. These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB 

Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and 

Costs,” therein. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns on real estate and small business 

capital, including corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the opportunity 

cost of capital in the private sector because recent OMB analysis has found the average rate of 

19320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
return on capital to be near this rate. In addition, DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of amended standards on private consumption. This rate represents the rate at 

which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value. It can be approximated 

by the real rate of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus 

annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has averaged about 3 percent on a 

pre-tax basis for the last 30 years. DOE defined the present year as 2014 for the analysis. 

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on commercial customers, 

DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., subgroups) of customers, such as different 

types of businesses that may be disproportionately affected. Small businesses typically face 

higher cost of capital. In general, the higher the cost of capital, the more likely it is that an entity 

would be disadvantaged by a requirement to purchase higher efficiency equipment. Based on 

data from the 2007 U.S. Economic Census and size standards set by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA), DOE determined that a majority of small grocery and convenience stores 

and restaurants fall under the definition of small businesses. 

Comparing the small grocery and convenience store category to the convenience store with 

gas station category, both face the same cost of capital, but convenience stores with gas stations 

generally incur lower electricity prices, which would tend to render higher-efficiency equipment 

not cost-effective. To examine a “worst case” situation, convenience stores with gas stations 

were chosen for the subgroup analysis. Limited -service restaurants and full-service restaurants 

19420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
have similar electricity price and discount rates. DOE chose to study full-service restaurants for 

the subgroup analysis because a higher percentage of full-service restaurants tend to be operated 

by independent small businesses, as compared to limited -service (fast-food) restaurants. DOE 

believes that these two subgroups are broadly representative of small businesses that use CRE.

DOE estimated the impact on the identified customer subgroups using the LCC 

spreadsheet model. The input for business type was fixed to the identified subgroup, which 

ensured that the discount rates and electricity prices associated with only that subgroup were 

selected in the Monte Carlo simulations. The discount rate was further increased by applying the 

small firm premium to the WACC. In addition, DOE assumed that the subgroups do not have 

access to national purchasing accounts and, consequently, face a higher distribution channel 

markup. Apart from these changes, all other inputs for the subgroup analysis are the same as 

those in the LCC analysis. Details of the data used for the subgroup analysis and results are 

presented in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.

The Society of American Florists stated that the percent of refrigerated product sold at 

retail by florists is higher than in other retail industries and that they would be particularly 

sensitive to an increase in equipment price. (SAF, No. 74 at p. 3) SAF suggested that DOE 

should conduct analyses for floriculture growers, wholesalers, and retail florists to determine the 

impact of amended standards on these end-users. (SAF, No. 74 at p. 7) 

19520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
While the subgroups considered by DOE do not exactly correspond to florist-related

businesses, DOE believes that the impacts experienced by the selected subgroups are indicative

of the impacts that would be experienced by florist-related businesses. Thus, the analyses 

suggested by SAF are not warranted.

The National Restaurant Association suggested that DOE re-analyze the small business 

subgroups based on more accurate costs and equipment lifetime assumptions. (NRA, No. 90 at p. 

2) DOE has used the best available data to estimate equipment costs and lifetime for the 

considered subgroups, so there would be no basis for re-analysis.

Mercatus stated that 26 percent of restaurants fail in their first year and by year three the 

rate of failure is just over 60 percent; therefore, it is not rational for these types of customers to 

purchase more efficient equipment before realizing a net benefit. (Mercatus, No. 72 at p. 3) DOE 

acknowledges that some CRE units may outlive the particular business that purchased them new, 

but the customer that purchases the used equipment would see the energy cost benefits of higherefficiency equipment.

Several parties stated that higher equipment costs will induce small businesses to 

purchase used or refurbished equipment. The National Restaurant Association commented that 

an equipment cost increase of 15 to 20 percent will force small restaurants to purchase used or 

refurbished equipment. (NRA, No. 90 at p. 3) The Air Conditioning Contractors of America

(ACCA) commented that small consumers would elect to extend the life of existing equipment 

19620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
rather than purchase new more expensive equipment. (ACCA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 

at pp. 343 - 44) True commented that individually owned restaurants would elect to purchase 

used equipment due to lower first cost instead of purchasing new, more efficient equipment. 

(True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 208) Traulsen opined that smaller entities are 

more likely to keep existing equipment longer, and will be negatively affected by the proposed 

standard. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 19) Hoshizaki commented that the proposed standards will 

increase costs and deter small business owners from buying new equipment. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 

at p. 1)

DOE acknowledges that some small businesses may respond to amended CRE standards 

by purchasing used or refurbished equipment. However, as discussed in section V.B.1.b, DOE 

did not have sufficient information to evaluate the likely extent of this response. The consumer 

subgroup results (shown in section V.B.1.b of this notice) indicate that in nearly all cases the 

considered small business subgroups see higher average LCC savings and lower median payback 

periods when compared to all CRE customers. These results suggest that most small businesses 

would find it beneficial to purchase new commercial refrigeration equipment that meets today’s 

standards.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

DOE performed a MIA to estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment and to understand the impact 

of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative

19720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model with inputs specific to this 

rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data on the industry cost structure, product costs, 

shipments, and assumptions about markups and conversion expenditures. The key output is the 

INPV. Different sets of markup scenarios will produce different results. The qualitative part of 

the MIA addresses factors such as equipment characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of 

manufacturers, and important market and product trends. The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the MIA, 

DOE prepared a profile of the commercial refrigeration equipment industry that includes a topdown cost analysis of manufacturers used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM 

(e.g., sales general and administration (SG&A) expenses; research and development (R&D) 

expenses; and tax rates). DOE used public sources of information, including company SEC 10-K 

filings, corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, and Hoover’s 

reports.

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared an industry cash-flow analysis to quantify the 

impacts of an amended energy conservation standard. In general, more-stringent energy 

conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) by creating a 

need for increased investment; (2) by raising production costs per unit; and (3) by altering

revenue due to higher per-unit prices and possible changes in sales volumes. 

19820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed interviews with a 

representative cross-section of manufacturers. During these interviews, DOE discussed 

engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in 

the GRIM and to identify key issues or concerns. 

Additionally, in Phase 3, DOE evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by amended standards, or that may not be accurately represented by 

the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash-flow analysis. For example, 

small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely 

differs from the industry average could be more negatively affected. 

DOE identified one subgroup, small manufacturers, for separate impact analyses. DOE 

applied the small business size standards published by the SBA to determine whether a company 

is considered a small business. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 

53533, 53544 (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. To be categorized as a small 

business under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 333415, “AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing,” a commercial refrigeration manufacturer and its affiliates may 

employ a maximum of 750 employees. The 750-employee threshold includes all employees in a 

business’s parent company and any other subsidiaries. Based on this classification, DOE 

identified at least 32 commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers that qualify as small 

19920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
businesses. The commercial refrigeration equipment small manufacturer subgroup is discussed in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD and in section I.A.1 of this notice.

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in the commercial refrigeration equipment 

industry cash flow due to amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM analysis uses a standard, annual cash-flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs, and models changes in costs, 

investments, and manufacturer margins that would result from new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash 

flows, beginning with the base year of the analysis, 2013 in this case, and continuing to 2046. 

DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this 

period. For commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, DOE used a real discount rate of 

10 percent. DOE’s discount rate estimate was derived from industry financials and then modified 

according to feedback during manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares

changes in INPV between a base case and various TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in 

INPV between the base case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the amended

standard on manufacturers. As discussed previously, DOE collected the information on the 

critical GRIM inputs from a number of sources, including publicly available data and interviews 

with a number of manufacturers (described in the next section). The GRIM results are shown in 

20020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
section V.B.2.a. Additional details about the GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the final rule 

TSD.

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs

Manufacturer Production Costs

Manufacturing a higher efficiency product is typically more expensive than 

manufacturing a baseline product due to the use of more complex components, which are more 

costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs of the analyzed products can affect 

the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry, making these product cost data key 

GRIM inputs for DOE’s analysis.

In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs for each considered efficiency level calculated in the 

engineering analysis, as described in section IV.B and further detailed in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. In addition, DOE used information from its teardown analysis, described in section 

IV.D.4.a, to disaggregate the MPCs into material, labor, and overhead costs. To calculate the 

MPCs for equipment above the baseline, DOE added incremental material, labor, overhead costs 

from the engineering cost-efficiency curves to the baseline MPCs. These cost breakdowns and 

equipment markups were validated with manufacturers during manufacturer interviews.

Base-Case Shipments Forecast

The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment forecasts and 

the distribution of these values by efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

20120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the 

NIA’s annual shipment forecasts derived from the shipments analysis from 2013, the base year, 

to 2046, the end of the analysis period. See chapter 9 of the final rule TSD for additional details.

Product and Capital Conversion Costs

Amended energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to incur conversion 

costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. For the MIA, DOE 

classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply 

with a new or amended energy conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such 

that new product designs can be fabricated and assembled. 

To evaluate the level of capital conversion expenditures manufacturers would likely incur 

to comply with amended energy conservation standards, DOE used manufacturer interviews to 

gather data on the level of capital investment required at each efficiency level. DOE validated 

manufacturer comments through estimates of capital expenditure requirements derived from the 

product teardown analysis and engineering model described in section IV.D.4. Further 

adjustments were made to capital conversion costs based on feedback in the NOPR written 

comments. The key driver of capital conversion costs was new production equipment associated 

with improving cabinet insulation.

20220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE assessed the product conversion costs at each level by integrating data from 

quantitative and qualitative sources. DOE considered feedback regarding the potential costs of 

each efficiency level from multiple manufacturers to determine conversion costs such as R&D 

expenditures and certification costs. Manufacturer data were aggregated to better reflect the 

industry as a whole and to protect confidential information. For the final rule, adjustments were 

made to product conversion costs based on feedback in the NOPR written comments submitted 

following the NOPR. Key drivers of product conversion costs included the re-design effort 

associated with modifying cabinets to incorporate improved cabinet insulation, along with the 

product and food safety certification costs associated with redesigning key equipment 

components.

In general, DOE assumes that all conversion-related investments occur between the year 

of publication of the final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with an

amended standard. The investment figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2.a of 

this notice. For additional information on the estimated product conversion and capital 

conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios

Markup Scenarios

As discussed above, MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 

material, and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production costs (i.e., SG&A, 

20320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied 

markups to the MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis and then added in the cost of 

shipping. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields different sets of impacts on 

manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case markup scenarios to represent 

the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 

following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: (1) a preservation of 

gross margin percentage markup scenario; and (2) a preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. These scenarios lead to different markups values that, when applied to the inputted 

MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE applied a single 

uniform “gross margin percentage” markup across all efficiency levels. As production costs 

increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the absolute dollar markup will increase as 

well. Based on publicly available financial information for manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment and comments from manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed the nonproduction cost markup—which includes SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest, and profit—

to be 1.42. Because this markup scenario assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain 

their gross margin percentage markups as production costs increase in response to an amended 

energy conservation standard, the scenario represents a high bound to industry profitability under 

an amended energy conservation standard.

20420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturer markups are set so that 

operating profit 1 year after the compliance date of the amended energy conservation standard is 

the same as in the base case. Under this scenario, as the cost of production and the cost of sales 

go up, manufacturers are generally required to reduce their markups to a level that maintains 

base-case operating profit. The implicit assumption behind this markup scenario is that the 

industry can only maintain its operating profit in absolute dollars after compliance with the 

amended standard is required. Therefore, operating margin in percentage terms is squeezed 

(reduced) between the base case and standards case. DOE adjusted the manufacturer markups in 

the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the 

standards case in the year after the compliance date of the amended standards as in the base case. 

This markup scenario represents a low bound to industry profitability under an amended energy 

conservation standard.

3. Discussion of Comments

During the NOPR public meeting, interested parties commented on the assumptions and 

results of the analyses as described in the TSD. Oral and written comments addressed several 

topics, including volume purchasing of components, refrigerants, redesign issues, LED material 

costs, the GRIM, foaming fixtures, cumulative regulatory burden, certification costs, and issues 

specific to small manufacturers.

20520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
a. Volume Purchasing of Components

Traulsen commented that the prices of high-efficiency condenser fan motors were higher 

than DOE stated, and that this would place a cost burden on small manufacturers who could not 

receive a purchase volume discount. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 4) DOE recognizes that small 

manufacturers face pricing disadvantages for key components in both the base case and the 

standards case. This issue is incorporated into the discussion of Regulatory Flexibility in section 

VI.B.2 of this final rule.

b. Refrigerants

True commented that there was the potential for a substantial cost increase to 

manufacturers in the very near future due to the phasing out of HFCs. True further commented 

that new refrigerants may have an incremental cost of 5-10 times over what is currently being 

paid for refrigerants. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 62 at p. 279) The use of alternative 

refrigerants by manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment would not arise as a direct 

result of this rule, and thus was not considered in this analysis. Furthermore, there is no 

requirement mandating the use of alternative refrigerants at this time. DOE does not include the 

impacts of pending legislation or unfinalized regulations in its analyses, as any impact would be 

speculative.

c. Redesign Issues

Several manufacturers pointed out that high capital costs were required by the proposed 

standards. Traulsen asserted that up to 95% of all equipment would need to be redesigned as a 

20620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
result of the proposed standard. (Traulsen, No. 62 at p. 315) True added that the cost of 

redesigning and retooling entire product lines, and including the costs of new refrigerants, would

be cost prohibitive. (True, No. 62 at p. 341) With regard to the specific cost of replacing foaming 

fixtures, True commented that new fixtures could cost several hundred thousand dollars, and 

modifying fixtures in order to manufacture thicker foam panels could cost $40,000-$50,000 per 

fixture, while Southern Store Fixtures noted that it would have to change over 3,000 molds and 

1,000 foaming fixtures for its entire product line, and that it would cost much more than the 

assumed $2,500,000. (True, No. 62 at p. 340)(SSF, No. 67 at p. 3) 

With regard to capital costs, True commented that switching from double-pane to triple 

pane glass would require new tooling and molds for manufacturing, costing up to $300,000 per 

door model produced, and that if the interior volume of a unit were to change due to thicker 

foam, all shelving systems and weld fixtures would need to be redesigned. (True, No. 76 at p. 3) 

Furthermore, Traulsen commented that changing fixture depth would cause a change in 

production time per unit, and that this cost had not been reflected in the DOE analysis. (Traulsen, 

No. 65 at p. 9) Similarly, Hussmann commented that there was a substantial engineering cost 

associated with re-engineering case components in order to incorporate increased foam 

thickness. Specifically, Hussmann noted that in order to maintain outside dimensions of a case 

and increase insulation thickness, manufacturers would be required to redesign and retool every 

component based on the case’s internal dimensions. (Hussmann, No. 77 at p. 2) Hoshizaki, also 

expressed the same concern, adding that that DOE underestimated the cost associated with 

increasing foam thickness by 1/2”, since this increase would require engineering, testing, tooling, 

20720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
production line changeover, down-time, packaging changes, and certification. (Hoshizaki, No. 84 

at p. 2) 

DOE estimated the conversion costs associated with increases in foam thickness based on 

direct input from the industry in interviews, as well as through analysis of production equipment 

that is part of the engineering cost model. DOE’s analysis included capital conversion costs, 

including as tooling costs and production line upgrades, and product conversion costs, including 

redesign efforts, testing costs, industry certifications, and marketing changes. Differences in 

packing and shipping costs were also accounted for in the shipping cost component of the 

engineering analysis.

In its NOPR analysis, DOE recognized the need for new foaming fixtures to 

accommodate thicker panels. However, for the final rule analysis, DOE revised its estimate of 

fixture investment for the entire CRE industry upward to $210 million.

At the NOPR stage, the MIA analysis did not associate a conversion cost with changes in 

display door designs based on DOE’s understanding that the vast majority of CRE manufacturers 

consider display doors to be purchased parts. Furthermore, in the final rule engineering analysis, 

DOE does not consider triple-pane display doors as a design option in its analysis. However, for 

the final rule, DOE updated its manufacturer impact analysis to account for the conversion costs

associated with changes in door design and specification, such as moving from single-pane to 

double-pane for horizontal cases with transparent doors.

20820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
d. LED Material Costs

Structural Concepts commented that the implementation of LEDs would cost over 

$500,000 annually in material costs alone. (Structural Concepts, No. 85 at p. 3) DOE agrees with 

Structural Concepts that some design options, such as LED lighting, require larger upfront 

investments in component inventory by manufacturers. DOE accounts for investment in more 

expensive components and greater amounts of raw materials as increases in working capital. 

Increases in working capital decrease free cash flow and are reflected in industry net present 

value (INPV), which DOE considers as a key input when selecting a standard level.

e. GRIM

AHRI asserted that the GRIM model should account for periodic revisions to energy 

standards and potential changes in refrigerant policy when estimating the INPV. (AHRI, No. 75 

at p. 11) Additionally, AHRI commented that, since the GRIM predicts INPV across an extended 

period, the model should have accounted for impacts on manufacturers due to periodic revisions 

of energy conservation standards and potential changes to refrigerant policy, and that the INPV 

range at TSL4 was grossly underestimated since there will likely be up to five revisions to CRE 

standards by 2046. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 13) However, DOE does not take unfinalized regulation 

into account in its analysis. Any forecast of amendments to the standard level in the future and 

the potential costs of those changes would be purely speculative and, therefore, outside the scope 

of analysis. 

20920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
f. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

Traulsen commented that the cost burden to manufacturers of complying with both the 

2009 and 2017 rules, which overlap, is unmanageable. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 22) Lennox also 

stated that the proposed standards would place significant cumulative regulatory burden on 

manufacturers. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p. 9) 

DOE defines cumulative regulatory burden (CRB) as regulations that go into effect 

within 3 years of the effective date of the standard under consideration. As a result, the 2009 

amended standard is not one of the regulations listed in the CRB analysis in section V.B.2.e of 

this notice. However, the market changes and equipment price impacts that resulted from the 

2009 standard are incorporated into DOE’s analyses.

g. Certification Costs

AHRI commented that the implementation of higher efficiency compressors should 

include costs associated with safety certification (UL, etc.), compliance with NSF Standards, and 

recertification due to the induced change in the equipment performance. (AHRI, No. 75 at p. 13)

In its NOPR and final rule analyses, DOE accounted for the UL and NSF certification costs 

associated with compressor changes. While UL and NSF certification costs can vary by 

manufacturers, DOE used an industry average combined cost of $8,000 per model for those 

certifications in its final rule analysis.

21020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
h. Small Manufacturers

In its written comment, Traulsen expressed the opinion that the proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and was therefore in 

violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In particular, Traulsen drew attention to page 55983, 

column 2 of the Federal Register NOPR notice, which stated that DOE could not certify that the 

proposed standards would not have a significant impact on a significant number of small 

businesses. (Traulsen, No. 65 at p.16) The George Washington University (GWU) also asserted 

in its comment that the proposed rule affected small businesses – both manufacturers and 

consumers – since it did not maintain flexibility and freedom of choice. (GWU, No. 66 at p. 11)

To better understand the potential impact of the final rule on small businesses, DOE provides an 

assessment of the impacts on small manufacturers in section VI.B.

K. Emissions Analysis

In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector emissions of 

CO2, NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and Hg from amended energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. In addition, DOE estimates emissions impacts in production 

activities (extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the energy inputs to power 

plants. These are referred to as “upstream” emissions. Together, these emissions account for the 

full-fuel-cycle (FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (August

18, 2011)) 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012), the FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions of 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

21120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions factors for CO2 and 

most of the other gases derived from data in AEO 2013, supplemented by data from other 

sources. DOE developed separate emissions factors for power sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. The method that DOE used to derive emissions factors is described in chapter 13 of 

the final rule TSD.

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions reduction in tons and also in terms of units 

of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq by multiplying the physical 

units by the gas’ global warming potential (GWP) over a 100 year time horizon. Based on the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,62 DOE used 

GWP values of 25 for CH4 and 298 for N2O.

EIA prepares the Annual Energy Outlook using the National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS). Each annual version of NEMS incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2013 generally represents current legislation and environmental 

regulations, including recent government actions, for which implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2012.

62 Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn,G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents 

and in Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, Editors. 2007. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. p. 212.

21220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to nationwide 

and regional emissions cap-and-trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual 

emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) and 

the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States and D.C. were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. CAIR was remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but it remained in 

effect.63 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In 2011, EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.64 The court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. 

The AEO 2013 emissions factors used for today’s final rule assume that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040.

The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of tradable emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing EPA 

regulations, any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the adoption of a new or amended efficiency standard could be used to allow

offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, DOE 

recognized that there was uncertainty about the effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

63 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008).

64 See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 

81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182).

Comment [J37]: Change requested by OIRA.

21320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
covered by the existing cap-and-trade system, but it concluded that negligible reductions in 

power sector SO2 emissions would occur as a result of standards.

Beginning around 2015, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a result of the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012). In the final 

MATS rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also established a standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as 

an alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as a result of the control 

technologies installed on coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for 

acid gas. AEO2013 assumes that, in order to continue operating, coal plants must have either flue 

gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed by 2015. Both technologies, which 

are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions when electricity demand decreases (e.g., as a result of 

energy efficiency standards). Emissions will be far below the cap that would be established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity 

demand would be needed or used to allow offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated 

EGU. Therefore, DOE believes that energy efficiency standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 

2015 and beyond.

CAIR established a cap on NOx emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. Energy conservation standards are expected to have little effect on NOx emissions in 

21420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
those States covered by CAIR because excess NOx emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand could be used to allow offsetting increases in NOx emissions. However, 

standards would be expected to reduce NOx emissions in the States not affected by the caps, so 

DOE estimated NOx emissions reductions from the standards considered in today’s final rule for 

these States.

The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions 

caps and, as such, DOE’s energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions factors based on AEO2013, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

As part of the development of the standards in this final rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOx that are expected to 

result from each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 

calculation of the NPV of customer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to 

result over the lifetime of equipment shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This section 

summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each of these emissions and presents the 

values considered in this final rule.

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the SCC that was developed 

by a Federal interagency process. The basis for these values is summarized below, and a more 

21520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the 

final rule TSD.

1. Social Cost of Carbon

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental 

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) 

changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood 

risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages in the 

United States resulting from a unit change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent permitted by 

law, “assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The purpose of the 

SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or 

“marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions.. The estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of 

climate impacts.

Comment [J38]: Change requested by OIRA.

21620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical experts 

from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 

objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic literatures. In this way, key 

uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking process.

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide 

emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A report from the National Research 

Council65 points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) future emissions of GHGs, (2) the effects of past and future emissions on 

the climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological 

environment, and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As 

a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise 

serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional. 

65 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. 

2009. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

21720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be useful 

in estimating the social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can 

be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions. For such policies,The agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by 

multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values appropriate for that year. The 

net present value of the benefits can then be calculated by multiplying each of these future 

benefits by an appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach 

assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are constant for small departures 

from the baseline emissions path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small relative to cumulative global CO2 emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question 

of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced emissions. This 

concern is not applicable to this notice, however.

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating these 

estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on 

society improves over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the 

issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency 

process.

Comment [J39]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J40]: Change requested by OIRA.

21820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

Economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of values to estimate 

the benefits associated with reducing CO2 emissions. The model year 2011 Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy final rule, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a “domestic” 

SCC value of $2 per metric ton of CO2 and a “global” SCC value of $33 per metric ton of CO2

for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year. DOT 

also included a sensitivity analysis at $80 per metric ton of CO2.

66 A 2008 regulation proposed 

by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per metric ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of $0-$14 for sensitivity analysis), also increasing at 2.4 

percent per year.67,68 A regulation for packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps finalized by DOE in 2008 used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per metric ton 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (October 7, 2008) In 

addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Under the Clean Air Act identified what it described as “very preliminary” SCC 

estimates subject to revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s global mean values were $68 

66 See Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 (March 

30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fueleconomy). 67 See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 

(May 2, 2008) (Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) 68 See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 

(May 2, 2008) (Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy).

Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 4 +

Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at:

0.5"

21920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
and $40 per metric ton CO2 for discount rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, 

respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of how 

best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration sought to develop a 

transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify 

avoided climate change damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group did not 

undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates from the existing literature 

to use as interim values until a more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome 

of the preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five interim values: global 

SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These 

interim values represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. government to 

develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

After the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a regular 

basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specially, the group considered public comments and

further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three 

integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and 

PAGE models. These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used 

Comment [J41]: Change requested by OIRA.

22020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Each model 

was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in emissions result 

in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three models, while respecting the different approaches to 

quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of input parameters for these models: climate sensitivity, 

socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In addition, the interagency 

group used a range of scenarios for the socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ 

best estimates and judgments.

The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. 

Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the three IAMs, at discount rates of 2.5, 

3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount rate, was included to represent higher than expected impacts 

from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in real 

terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 

22120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects,69

although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table IV.4 presents the values in the 2010 interagency group report,70 which is reproduced in 

appendix 14A of the DOE final rule TSD.

Table IV.4 Annual SCC Values from 2010 Interagency Report, 2010–2050 (2007 dollars 

per metric ton)

Year

Discount Rate

5% 3% 2.5% 3%

Average Average Average 95th

percentile

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2

The SCC values used for today’s notice were generated using the most recent versions of 

the three integrated assessment models that have been published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.71 Table IV.5 shows the updated sets of SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 2010 

to 2050. The full set of annual SCC estimates between 2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 

14B of the DOE final rule TSD. The central value that emerges is the average SCC across 

69 It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There 

is no a priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of net global damages over time. 70 Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, February 2010. 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf. 71 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 

2013.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf 

22220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
models at the 3 percent discount rate. However, for purposes of capturing the uncertainties 

involved in regulatory impact analysis, the interagency group emphasizes the importance of 

including all four sets of SCC values.

Table IV.5 Annual SCC Values from 2013 Interagency Report, 2010–2050 (2007 dollars 

per metric ton)

Year

Discount Rate

5% 3% 2.5% 3%

Average Average Average 95th

percentile

2010 11 32 51 89

2015 11 37 57 109

2020 12 43 64 128

2025 14 47 69 143

2030 16 52 75 159

2035 19 56 80 175

2040 21 61 86 191

2045 24 66 92 206

2050 26 71 97 220

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that current 

SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will evolve with 

improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 

existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The 2009 National Research Council report 

mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of producing quantified 

estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing 

efforts to model these effects. There are a number of concerns and problemsanalytic challenges

that should beare being addressed by the research community, including research programs 

housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the interagency process to estimate the 

SCC. The interagency group intends to periodically review and reconsider those estimates to 

Comment [J42]: Change requested by OIRA.

22320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling.

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO2

emissions, DOE used the values from the 2013 interagency report adjusted to 2012$ using the 

GDP price deflator. For each of the four sets of SCC values, the values for emissions in 2015 

were $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 2012$). DOE 

derived values after 2050 using the relevant growth rates for the 2040-2050 period in the 

interagency update.

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SCC value 

for that year in each of the four cases. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 

values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific discount rate that 

had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

In responding to the NOPR, many commenters questioned the scientific and economic 

basis of the SCC values. These commenters made extensive comments about: the alleged lack of 

economic theory underlying the models; the sufficiency of the models for policy-making; 

potential flaws in the models’ inputs and assumptions (including the discount rates and climate 

sensitivity chosen); whether there had been adequate peer review of the three models; whether 

22420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
there had been adequate peer review of the interagency TSD supporting the 2013 SCC values;72

whether the SCC estimates comply with OMB’s “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review”73 and DOE’s own guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility and integrity of information disseminated by DOE; and why DOE is considering global 

benefits of carbon dioxide emission reductions rather than solely domestic benefits. (See AHRI, 

No. 75; Joint Comment from America’s Natural Gas Alliance, the American Chemistry Council, 

the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Home Builders, the National 

Association of Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, and the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce (ANGA et al/Chamber of Commerce), No. 79; Cato Institute (Cato), No. 69; EEI, 

No. 89; GWU, No. 66; Mercatus, No. 72; NRECA, No. 88; Traulsen, No. 65. Several other 

parties expressed support for the derivation and application of the SCC values. (Joint Comment 

from the Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for Policy Integrity, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, No. 83; ASAP, No. 91; Kopp, No. 60)

In November 2013, OMB announced minor technical corrections to the 2013 SCC 

values and a new opportunity for public comment on the revised TSD underlying the SCC 

estimates.In response to the comments on the SCC values, DOE acknowledges the limitations in 

the SCC estimates, which are discussed in detail in the 2010 interagency group report. 

Specifically, uncertainties in the assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, as well as other 

model inputs such as economic growth and emissions trajectories, are discussed and the reasons 

72 Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf 73 Available at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/pdfs/OMB_Peer_Review_Bulletin_m05-03.pdf

Comment [J43]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J44]: Change requested by OIRA.

22520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
for the specific input assumptions chosen are explained. Regarding discount rates, there is not 

consensus in the scientific or economics literature regarding the appropriate discount rate to use 

for intergenerational time horizons. The SCC estimates thus use a reasonable range of discount 

rates, from 2.5% to 5%, in order to show the effects that different discount rate assumptions have 

on the estimated values. More information about the choice of discount rates can be found in the 

2010 interagency group report starting on page 17. 

Regarding peer review of the models, the three integrated assessment models used to 

estimate the SCC are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last 

assessment of the IPCC. In addition, new versions of the models that were used in 2013 to 

estimate revised SCC values were published in the peer-reviewed literature (see appendix 14B of 

the DOE final rule TSD for discussion).

DOE believes that the SCC estimates comply with OMB’s Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review and DOE’s own guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, 

objectivity, utility and integrity of information disseminated by DOE.74

As to why DOE is considering global benefits of carbon dioxide emission reductions 

rather than solely domestic benefits, a global measure of SCC because of the distinctive nature 

of the climate change problem, which is highly unusual in at least two respects. First, it involves 

a global externality: emissions of most greenhouse gases contribute to damages around the world 

74 https://www.directives.doe.gov/references/secretarial_policy_statement_on_scientific_integrity/view

22620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
even when they are emitted in the United States. Second, climate change presents a problem that 

the United States alone cannot solve. The issue of global versus domestic measures of the SCC is 

further discussed in appendix 14A of the DOE final rule TSD.

 

 See 78 FR 70586. Comments regarding the underlying science and economic basis of 

the SCC estimates resulting from the interagency process should be directed to that process. 

AHRI stated that DOE calculates the present value of the costs of standards to consumers and 

manufacturers over a 30-year period, but the SCC values reflect the present value of future 

climate related impacts well beyond 2100. AHRI stated that DOE’s comparison of 30 years of 

cost to hundreds of years of presumed future benefits is inconsistent and improper. (AHRI, No. 

84 at p. 12)

For the analysis of national impacts of the proposed standards, DOE considered the 

lifetime impacts of equipment shipped in a 30-year period. With respect to energy and energy 

cost savings, impacts continue past 30 years until all of the equipment shipped in the 30-year 

period is retired. With respect to the valuation of CO2 emissions reductions, DOE considers the 

avoided emissions over the SCC estimates developed by the same period as interagency working 

group are meant to represent the energy savings. CO2 emissions have on average a very long 

residence time in the atmosphere. Thus, emissions in the period considered by DOE would 

contribute to global climate change over a very long time period, with associated social costs. 

The SCC for any given year represents the full discounted present value, in that year and 

Formatted: No underline

Comment [J45]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

22720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
expressed in constant dollars, (using an appropriate range of a lengthy streamdiscount rates) of 

future costs estimated to result from emissionemissions reductions occurring in a given year. 

DOE is thus comparing the costs of a ton achieving the emissions reductions in each year of 

CO2. It is worth pointing out that because of discounting, the analysis, with the presentcarbon 

reduction value of costs in the distant future is very small. DOE’s accounting of energy cost 

savings and the value of avoided CO2 emissions reductions in those same years. Neither the 

costs nor the benefits of emissions reductions outside the analytic time frame are included in the 

analysis.

 In November 2013, OMB announced a new opportunity for public comment on the 

interagency technical support document underlying the revised SCC estimates. See 78 FR 

70586. is consistent: both consider the complete impacts associatedThe comment period for the 

OMB announcement closed on February 26, 2014. OMB is currently reviewing comments and 

considering whether further revisions to the 2013 SCC estimates are warranted. DOE stands 

ready to work with products shipped in the 30-year period.OMB and the other members of the 

interagency working group on further review and revision of the SCC estimates as appropriate.

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOx emissions from the 

potential standards it considered. As noted above, DOE has taken into account how new or 

amended energy conservation standards would reduce NOx emissions in those 22 States not 

Formatted: No underline

Comment [J46]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: First line: 0",

Line spacing: single

22820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
affected by emissions caps. DOE estimated the monetized value of NOx emissions reductions 

resulting from each of the TSLs considered for today’s final rule based on estimates found in the 

relevant scientific literature. Estimates of monetary value for reducing NOx from stationary 

sources range from $468 to $4,809 per ton (2012$).75 DOE calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of $2,639 per short ton (in 2012$), and real discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg emissions in energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. It has not included monetization in the current analysis.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

The utility impact analysis estimates several important effects on the utility industry of 

the adoption of new or amended standards. For this analysis, DOE used the National Energy 

Modeling System - Building Technologies (NEMS-BT)

76 model to generate forecasts of 

electricity consumption, electricity generation by plant type, and electric generating capacity by 

plant type, that would result from each considered TSL. DOE obtained the energy savings inputs 

associated with efficiency improvements to considered products from the NIA. DOE conducts 

the utility impact analysis as a scenario that departs from the latest AEO Reference Case. In the 

75 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on 

State, Local, and Tribal Entities, Washington, DC. 76 The EIA allows the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the 

model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers to the 

model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, 

DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.

22920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
analysis for today’s rule, the estimated impacts of standards are the differences between values 

forecasted by NEMS-BT and the values in the AEO2013 Reference Case. For more details on 

the utility impact analysis, see chapter 15 of the final rule TSD.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

Employment impacts are one of the factors that DOE considers in selecting an efficiency 

standard. Employment impacts include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts 

are any changes that affect employment of commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, 

their suppliers, and related service firms. Indirect impacts are those changes in employment in 

the larger economy which occur because of the shift in expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of more-efficient commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Direct employment impacts are analyzed as part of the MIA. Indirect impacts are assessed as part 

of the employment impact analysis.

Indirect employment impacts from amended commercial refrigeration equipment 

standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the 

manufacturing sector being regulated, as a consequence of (1) reduced spending by end users on 

electricity; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased 

spending on the purchase price of new commercial refrigeration equipment; and (4) the effects of 

those three factors throughout the Nation’s economy. DOE expects the net monetary savings 

from amended standards to stimulate other forms of economic activity. DOE also expects these 

shifts in spending and economic activity to affect the demand for labor.

23020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
In developing this analysis for today’s standard, DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy, called ImSET (Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies), developed by DOE’s Building Technologies Program. ImSET is 

an economic analysis model that characterizes the interconnections among 188 sectors of the 

economy as national input/output structural matrices, using data from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s 1997 Benchmark U.S. input/output table.77 The ImSET model estimates changes in 

employment, industry output, and wage income in the overall U.S. economy resulting from 

changes in expenditures in various sectors of the economy. DOE estimated changes in 

expenditures using the NIA model. ImSET then estimated the net national indirect employment 

impacts that amended commercial refrigeration equipment efficiency standards could have on 

employment by sector.

For more details on the employment impact analysis and its results, see chapter 16 of the 

TSD.

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation Process and Criteria

Based on the results of the LCC analysis and NIA, DOE selected five TSLs above the 

baseline level for each equipment class for the final rule. TSL 5 was selected at the max-tech 

77 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Benchmark Input-Output Accounts. 1997. U.S. 

Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.

23120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
level for all equipment classes. TSL 4 was chosen so as to group the efficiency levels with the 

highest energy savings combined with a positive customer NPV at a 7-percent discount rate. TSL 

3 was chosen to provide intermediate efficiency levels that fill the gap between the highest 

energy savings combined with a positive customer NPV at a 7-percent discount rate (TSL 4), and 

the highest customer NPV at a 7-percent discount rate (TSL 2). TSL 2TSL 3 was chosen to 

represent the group of efficiency levels with the highest customer NPV at a 7-percent discount 

rate. . TSL 2 and TSL 1 were chosen to provide intermediate efficiency levels that fill the gap 

between the baseline efficiency levels and TSL 3. 

For the HCT.SC.I, HZO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L equipment classes, there is only one 

efficiency level above baseline. For the HZO.SC.L equipment class, there are no efficiency

levels above baseline, because there was only one analytical design analyzed engineering 

analysis compliant with the 2009 final rule. While TSL 5 was associated with the max-tech level 

for HCT.SC.I, HZO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L equipment classes, TSLs 1 through 4 did not have 

corresponding efficiency levels that satisfied the TSL formulation criteria. Therefore, the 

baseline efficiency level was assigned to TSL 1 through TSL 4 for each of these equipment 

classes. Table V.1 shows the mapping between TSLs and efficiency levels.

Table V.1 Mapping Between TSLs and Efficiency Levels

Equipment 

Class

Intermediate 

Level

Intermediate 

LevelMax 

NPV*

Max 

NPV*Interm

ediate Level

Max NES 

NPV* > 0-

† Max-tech

TSL TSL TSL TSL TSL 

Comment [J47]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J48]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

23220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
1

2345

VOP.RC.M

Base

Baseline

EL 

1Baseline

EL 

21 EL 3 EL 4

VOP.

RC.L

Base

Baseline

EL 

1Baseline EL 1 EL 2 EL 3

VOP.

SC.M

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline EL 1 EL 2

VCT.

RC.M

Base

Baseline

EL 

1Baseline EL 1 EL 3 EL 4

VCT.

RC.L EL 1 EL 21

EL 

32 EL 3 EL 4

VCT.

SC.M

EL 

21

EL 

32

EL 

43 EL 5 EL 7

VCT.

SC.L EL 1

EL 

23 EL 5 EL 7 EL 7

VCT.

SC.I EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 3 EL 4

VCS.

SC.M EL 1 EL 32

EL 

34

EL 

46 EL 7

VCS.

SC.L EL 1

EL 

23 EL 5 EL 6 EL 7

VCS.

SC.I EL 1 EL EL EL 4 EL 5

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

23320140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
32 34

SVO.

RC.M EL 1

EL 

21

EL 

21 EL 3 EL 4

SVO.

SC.M

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline EL 1 EL 3

SOC.

RC.M

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline EL 1 EL 4

SOC.

SC.M

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline EL 2 EL 4

HZO.

RC.M

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline EL 1

HZO.

RC.L

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline EL 1

HZO.

SC.M

Base

Baseline EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3

HZO.

SC.L

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

Base

Baseline

HCT.

SC.M

EL 

12

EL 

53

EL 

54 EL 6 EL 7

HCT.

SC.L EL 2 EL 43 EL 54 EL 6 EL 7

HCT.

SC.I Base Base Base Base EL 1

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

23420140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline

HCS.

SC.M EL 1

EL 

32 EL 3 EL 4 EL 6

HCS.

SC.L EL 1 EL 32 EL 3 EL 5 EL 6

PD.S

C.M EL 1

EL 

32 EL 3 EL 4 EL 7

*NPV is estimated at a 7 percent discount rate

2. Trial Standard Level Equations

Because of the equipment size variation within each equipment class and the use of daily 

energy consumption as the efficiency metric, DOE developed a methodology to express 

efficiency standards in terms of a normalizing metric. DOE used two normalizing metrics that 

were each used for certain equipment classes: (1) volume (V), and (2) total display area (TDA). 

The use of these two normalization metrics allows for the development of a standard in the form 

of a linear equation that can be used to represent the entire range of equipment sizes within a 

given equipment class. 

DOE retained the respective normalization metric (TDA or volume) previously used in 

the EPACT 2005, AEMTCA, or January 2009 final rule standard for each covered equipment 

class. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)); 74 FR at 1093 (January 9, 2009). Additionally, for its January 

2009 final rule, DOE developed offset factors as a method to adjust the energy efficiency 

requirements for smaller equipment in each equipment class analyzed. These offset factors, 

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Comment [J49]: Change requested by OIRA; 

applies to multiple rows.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

23520140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
which form the y-intercept on a plot of each standard level equation (representing a limit case of 

zero volume or zero TDA), accounted for certain components of the refrigeration load (such as 

conduction end effects) that remain constant even when equipment sizes vary. These constant 

loads affect smaller cases disproportionately. The offset factors were intended to approximate 

these constant loads and provide a fixed end point in an equation that describes the relationship 

between energy consumption and the corresponding normalization metric. 74 FR at 1,118–19 

(January 9, 2009). The standard level equations prescribed by EPACT 2005 also contained 

similar fixed parts not multiplied by the volume metric and which correspond to these offset 

factors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)) In this final rule, DOE retained the January 2009 final rule offset 

factors at all TSLs, and updated those included in the EPACT 2005 standards to reflect sizebased trends in energy consumption for each equipment class. See chapter 5 of the TSD for 

further details and discussion of offset factors. 

For the equipment classes covered under this rulemaking, the standards equation at each 

TSL is presented in the form of MDEC (in kilowatt-hours per day), normalized by a volume (V) 

or TDA metric, with an offset factor added to that value. These equations take the form:

MDEC = A x TDA + B (for equipment using TDA as a normalizing metric)

or

MDEC = A x V + B (for equipment using volume as a normalizing metric)

23620140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
The standards equations may be used to prescribe the MDEC for equipment of different 

sizes within the same equipment class. Chapter 9 of the final rule TSD explains the methodology 

used for selecting TSLs and developing the coefficients shown in Table V.3.

Table V.2 CDEC Values by TSL for Representative Units Analyzed in the Engineering 

Analysis for Each Primary Equipment Class

Equipment Class

CDEC Values by TSL

kWh/day

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 46.84 46.8438.02 38.0237.76 36.101 35.65

VOP.RC.L 105.606 104.94105.6 104.94 101.70 100.01

VOP.SC.M 30.01 30.01 30.01 29.91 29.71

VCT.RC.M 13.65 11.8013.65 11.808 11.49 10.99

VCT.RC.L 35.34 35.34.78 34.5078 34.50 33.04

VCT.SC.M 5.996.83 5.6499 5.5964 5.45 5.15

VCT.SC.L 27.46 18.4323 17.16 16.05 16.05

VCT.SC.I 19.52 19.52 19.52 18.95 18.11

VCS.SC.M 5.29 3.844.03 3.8469 3.6945 3.03

VCS.SC.L 13.94 13.2012.94 12.19 12.08 11.13

VCS.SC.I 18.70 17.8318.01 17.8343 17.43 16.04

SVO.RC.M 29.45 28.1529.45 28.1529.45 28.0201 27.70

SVO.SC.M 26.32 26.32 26.32 25.65 25.404

SOC.RC.M 22.74 22.74 22.74 22.31 21.56

SOC.SC.M 27.72 27.72 27.72 26.61 26.12

HZO.RC.M 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.15

HZO.RC.L 32.36 32.36 32.36 32.36 31.08

HZO.SC.M 14.66 14.16 14.16 14.02 13.75

HZO.SC.L 29.92 29.92 29.92 29.92 29.92

HCT.SC.M 1.7562 0.8899 0.8890 0.79 0.61

HCT.SC.L 2.15 1.922.03 1.8892 1.73 1.32

HCT.SC.I 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 2.33

HCS.SC.M 1.42 1.2836 1.28 1.26 0.98

HCS.SC.L 1.78 1.5367 1.53 1.29 0.71

PD.SC.M 4.73 3.7890 3.78 3.75 3.41

SOC.SC.M 27.72 27.72 27.72 26.61 26.12

Table V.3 Equations Representing the Standards at Each TSL for All Primary Equipment 

Classes

Equipment 

Class

Trial Standard Levels for Primary Equipment Classes Analyzed

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Comment [J50]: Change requested by OIRA; ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

23720140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
VCT.RC.L 0.56 x TDA + 

2.61

0.5 x TDA + 

2.61

0.49 x TDA + 

2.61

0.49 x TDA + 

2.61

0.49 x TDA + 

2.61

0.47 x TDA + 

2.61

VOP.RC.M

0.82 x TDA + 

4.07

0.8 x TDA + 

4.07

0.648 x TDA 

+ 4.07

0.6364 x 

TDA + 4.07

0.6 x TDA + 

4.07

0.59 x TDA + 

4.07

SVO.RC.M 0.83 x TDA + 

3.18

0.66 x TDA + 

3.18

0.62 x TDA + 

3.18

0.62 x TDA + 

3.18

0.62 x TDA + 

3.18

0.61 x TDA + 

3.18

HZO.RC.L 0.57 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.53 x TDA + 

6.88

HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.34 x TDA + 

2.88

VCT.RC.M 0.22 x TDA + 

1.95

0.18 x TDA + 

1.95

0.15 x TDA + 

1.95

0.15 x TDA + 

1.95

0.15 x TDA + 

1.95

0.14 x TDA + 

1.95

VOP.RC.L

2.27 x TDA + 

6.85

2.21 x TDA + 

6.85

2.221 x TDA 

+ 6.85

2.2 x TDA + 

6.85

2.12 x TDA + 

6.85

2.09 x TDA + 

6.85

SOC.RC.M 0.51 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.42 x TDA + 

0.11

VOP.SC.M

1.74 x TDA + 

4.71

1.69 x TDA + 

4.71

1.69 x TDA + 

4.71

1.69 x TDA + 

4.71

1.69 x TDA + 

4.71

1.67 x TDA + 

4.71

SVO.SCVC

T.RC.M

1.730.22 x 

TDA + 

4.591.95

1.70.18 x 

TDA + 

4.591.95

1.70.18 x 

TDA + 

4.591.95

1.70.15 x 

TDA + 

4.591.95

1.650.15 x 

TDA + 

4.591.95

1.630.14 x 

TDA + 

4.591.95

VCT.RC.L

0.56 x TDA + 

2.61

0.5 x TDA + 

2.61

0.5 x TDA + 

2.61

0.49 x TDA + 

2.61

0.49 x TDA + 

2.61

0.47 x TDA + 

2.61

VCT.SC.M

0.12 x V + 

3.34

0.1 x V + 

2.05

0.1 x V + 

1.21

0.1 x V + 

0.86

0.1 x V + 

0.68

0.1 x V + 

0.38

VCT.SC.L

0.75 x V + 

4.1

0.48 x V + 

4.1

0.29 x V + 

4.1

0.29 x V + 

2.95

0.29 x V + 

1.84

0.29 x V + 

1.84

HZOVCT.S

C.LI

1.920.67 x 

TDA + 

7.083.29

1.90.62 x 

TDA + 

7.083.29

1.90.62 x 

TDA + 

7.083.29

1.90.62 x 

TDA + 

7.083.29

1.90.6 x TDA 

+ 7.083.29

1.90.57 x 

TDA + 

7.083.29

VCS.SC.M

0.1 x V + 

2.04

0.07 x V + 

2.04

0.05 x V + 

1.69

0.05 x V + 

1.36

0.05 x V + 

1.11

0.05 x V + 

0.7

VCS.SC.L

0.4 x V + 

1.38

0.26 x V + 

1.38

0.24 x V + 

1.38

0.22 x V + 

1.38

0.22 x V + 

1.38

0.2 x V + 

1.38

VCS.SC.I

0.38 x V + 

0.88

0.37 x V + 

0.88

0.36 x V + 

0.88

0.34 x V + 

0.88

0.34 x V + 

0.88

0.32 x V + 

0.88

SVO.RC.M

0.83 x TDA + 

3.18

0.66 x TDA + 

3.18

0.66 x TDA + 

3.18

0.66 x TDA + 

3.18

0.62 x TDA + 

3.18

0.61 x TDA + 

3.18

SVO.SC.M

1.73 x TDA + 

4.59

1.7 x TDA + 

4.59

1.7 x TDA + 

4.59

1.7 x TDA + 

4.59

1.65 x TDA + 

4.59

1.63 x TDA + 

4.59

SOC.RC.M

0.51 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0.42 x TDA + 

0.11

SOC.SC.M

0.6 x TDA + 10.52 x TDA + 10.52 x TDA + 10.52 x TDA + 10.5 x TDA + 10.49 x TDA + 1

HZO.RC.M

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0.34 x TDA + 

2.88

HZO.RC.L

0.57 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

0.53 x TDA + 

6.88

HZO.SC.M

0.77 x TDA + 

5.55

0.76 x TDA + 

5.55

0.72 x TDA + 

5.55

0.72 x TDA + 

5.55

0.71 x TDA + 

5.55

0.68 x TDA + 

5.55

HZO.SC.L

1.92 x TDA + 

7.08

1.9 x TDA + 

7.08

1.9 x TDA + 

7.08

1.9 x TDA + 

7.08

1.9 x TDA + 

7.08

1.9 x TDA + 

7.08

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

23820140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
HCT.SC.M

0.12 x V + 

3.34

0.06 x V + 

1.09

0.06 x V + 

0.46

0.06 x V + 

0.37

0.06 x V + 

0.27

0.06 x V + 

0.09

HCT.SC.L

0.75 x V + 

4.1

0.08 x V + 

1.47

0.08 x V + 

1.35

0.08 x V + 

1.23

0.08 x V + 

1.05

0.08 x V + 

0.63

HCT.SC.I

0.56 x TDA + 

0.43

0.56 x TDA + 

0.43

0.56 x TDA + 

0.43

0.56 x TDA + 

0.43

0.56 x TDA + 

0.43

0.4 x TDA + 

0.43

VCT.SC.I 0.67 x TDA + 

3.29

0.62 x TDA + 

3.29

0.62 x TDA + 

3.29

0.62 x TDA + 

3.29

0.6 x TDA + 

3.29

0.57 x TDA + 

3.29

VCSHCS.S

C.IM

0.381 x V + 

0.882.04

0.3705 x V + 

0.881.05

0.3505 x V + 

0.8898

0.3505 x V + 

0.8891

0.3405 x V + 

0.8889

0.3202 x V + 

0.8881

VCT.SC.M 0.12 x V + 

3.34

0.1 x V + 

1.21

0.1 x V + 

0.86

0.1 x V + 

0.81

0.1 x V + 

0.68

0.1 x V + 

0.38

VCT.SC.L 0.75 x V + 

4.1

0.48 x V + 

4.1

0.29 x V + 

4.1

0.29 x V + 

2.95

0.29 x V + 

1.84

0.29 x V + 

1.84

VCS.SC.M 0.1 x V + 

2.04

0.07 x V + 

2.04

0.05 x V + 

1.5

0.05 x V + 

1.5

0.05 x V + 

1.36

0.05 x V + 

0.7

VCS.SC.L 0.4 x V + 

1.38

0.26 x V + 

1.38

0.24 x V + 

1.38

0.22 x V + 

1.38

0.22 x V + 

1.38

0.2 x V + 

1.38

HCT.SC.M 0.12 x V + 

3.34

0.06 x V + 

1.22

0.06 x V + 

0.35

0.06 x V + 

0.35

0.06 x V + 

0.27

0.06 x V + 

0.09

HCT.SC.L 0.75 x V + 

4.1

0.08 x V + 

1.47

0.08 x V + 

1.23

0.08 x V + 

1.2

0.08 x V + 

1.05

0.08 x V + 

0.63

HCS.SC.M 0.1 x V + 

2.04

0.05 x V + 

1.05

0.05 x V + 

0.91

0.05 x V + 

0.91

0.05 x V + 

0.89

0.02 x V + 

0.81

HCS.SC.L

0.4 x V + 

1.38

0.06 x V + 

1.38

0.06 x V + 

1.1226

0.06 x V + 

1.12

0.06 x V + 

0.89

0.06 x V + 

0.31

PD.SC.M

0.126 x V + 

3.51

0.11 x V + 

1.76

0.11 x V + 

0.8193

0.11 x V + 

0.81

0.11 x V + 

0.78

0.11 x V + 

0.44

SOC.SC.M 0.6 x TDA + 

1

0.52 x TDA + 

1

0.52 x TDA + 

1

0.52 x TDA + 

1

0.5 x TDA + 

1

0.49 x TDA + 

1

In addition to the 25 primary equipment classes analyzed, DOE evaluated existing and 

potential amended standards for 24 secondary equipment classes of commercial refrigeration 

equipment covered in this rulemaking that were not directly analyzed in the engineering analysis. 

DOE’s approach to evaluating standards for these secondary equipment classes involves 

extension multipliers developed using the engineering results for the primary equipment classes 

analyzed and a set of matched-pair analyses performed during the January 2009 final rule 

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

23920140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
analysis.78 In addition, DOE believes that standards for certain primary equipment classes can be 

directly applied to similar secondary equipment classes. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD 

discusses the development of the extension multipliers. 

Using the extension multiplier approach, DOE developed an additional set of TSLs and 

associated equations for the secondary equipment classes, as shown in Table V.4. The TSLs 

shown in Table V.4 do not necessarily satisfy the criteria spelled out in section V.A. DOE is 

presenting the standards equations developed for each TSL for all 47 equipment classes to allow 

interested parties to better observe the ramifications of each TSL across the range of equipment 

sizes on the market. 

Table V.4 Equations Representing the Standards at Each TSL for All Secondary 

Equipment Classes

Equipment 

Class

Trial Standard Levels for Secondary Equipment Classes Analyzed

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 

8.7

2.81 x 

TDA + 8.7

2.798

1 x TDA + 8.7

2.79 x 

TDA + 8.7

2.7 x 

TDA + 8.7

2.65 x 

TDA + 8.7

SVO.RC.L 2.27 x TDA + 

6.85

2.21 x 

TDA + 6.85

2.221

x TDA + 6.85

2.2 x 

TDA + 6.85

2.12 x 

TDA + 6.85

2.09 x 

TDA + 6.85

SVO.RC.I 2.89 x TDA + 

8.7

2.81 x 

TDA + 8.7

2.798

1 x TDA + 8.7

2.79 x 

TDA + 8.7

2.7 x 

TDA + 8.7

2.65 x 

TDA + 8.7

HZO.RC.I 0.72 x TDA + 

8.74

0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.67 x 

78 The matched-pair analyses compared calculated energy consumption levels for pieces of equipment with similar 

designs but one major construction or operational difference; for example, vertical open remote condensing cases 

operating at medium and low temperatures. The relationships between these sets of units were used to determine the 

effect of the design or operational difference on applicable equipment. For more information, please see chapter 5 of 

the 2009 final rule TSD, which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD0126-0058. 

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J51]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

24020140401_CRE Compare Document.docx

 
TDA + 8.74 TDA + 8.74 TDA + 8.74 TDA + 8.74 TDA + 8.74

VOP.SC.L 4.37 x TDA + 

11.82

4.25 x 

TDA + 11.82

4.25 x 

TDA + 11.82

4.25 x 

TDA + 11.82

4.24 x 

TDA + 11.82

4.2 x 

TDA + 11.82

VOP.SC.I 5.55 x TDA + 

15.02

5.4 x 

TDA + 15.02

5.4 x 

TDA + 15.02

5.4 x 

TDA + 15.02

5.38 x 

TDA + 15.02

5.34 x 

TDA + 15.02

SVO.SC.L

4.34 x TDA + 

11.5251

4.26 x 

TDA + 

11.5251

4.26 x 

TDA + 

11.5251

4.26 x 

TDA + 

11.5251

4.13 x 

TDA + 

11.5251

4.08 x 

TDA + 

11.5251

SVO.SC.I 5.52 x TDA + 

14.63

5.41 x 

TDA + 14.63

5.41 x 

TDA + 14.63

5.41 x 

TDA + 14.63

5.24 x 

TDA + 14.63

5.18 x 

TDA + 14.63

HZO.SC.I 2.44 x TDA + 

9

2.42 x 

TDA + 9

2.42 x 

TDA + 9

2.42 x 

TDA + 9

2.42 x 

TDA + 9

2.42 x 

TDA + 9

SOC.RC.L 1.08 x TDA + 

0.22

0.93 x 

TDA + 0.22

0.93 x 

TDA + 0.22

0.93 x 

TDA + 0.22

0.91 x 

TDA + 0.22

0.88 x 

TDA + 0.22

SOC.RC.I 1.26 x TDA + 

0.26

1.09 x 

TDA + 0.26

1.09 x 

TDA + 0.26

1.09 x 

TDA + 0.26

1.07 x 

TDA + 0.26

1.03 x 

TDA + 0.26

SOC.SC.I 1.76 x TDA + 

0.36

1.53 x 

TDA + 0.36

1.53 x 

TDA + 0.36

1.53 x 

TDA + 0.36

1.5 x 

TDA + 0.36

1.45 x 

TDA + 0.36

VCT.RC.I

0.66 x TDA + 

3.05

0.59 x 

TDA + 3.05

0.585

9 x TDA + 

3.05

0.575

8 x TDA + 

3.05

0.57 x 

TDA + 3.05

0.55 x 

TDA + 3.05

HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 

0.13

0.16 x 

TDA + 0.13

0.16 x 

TDA + 0.13

0.16 x 

TDA + 0.13

0.16 x 

TDA + 0.13

0.12 x 

TDA + 0.13

HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 

0.26

0.34 x 

TDA + 0.26

0.34 x 

TDA + 0.26

0.34 x 

TDA + 0.26

0.34 x 

TDA + 0.26

0.24 x 

TDA + 0.26

HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 

0.31

0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.28 x 

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J52]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J53]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

24120140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
TDA + 0.31 TDA + 0.31 TDA + 0.31 TDA + 0.31 TDA + 0.31

VCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 

0.26

0.11 x 

V + 0.26

0.1 x 

V + 0.26

0.1 x 

V + 0.26

0.1 x 

V + 0.26

0.09 x 

V + 0.26

VCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 

0.54

0.23 x 

V + 0.54

0.22 x 

V + 0.54

0.222

1 x V + 0.54

0.21 x 

V + 0.54

0.19 x 

V + 0.54

VCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 

0.63

0.27 x 

V + 0.63

0.25 x 

V + 0.63

0.25 x 

V + 0.63

0.25 x 

V + 0.63

0.23 x 

V + 0.63

HCS.SC.I 0.38 x V + 

0.88

0.37 x 

V + 0.88

0.353

6 x V + 0.88

0.353

4 x V + 0.88

0.34 x 

V + 0.88

0.32 x 

V + 0.88

HCS.RC.M 0.11 x V + 

0.26

0.11 x 

V + 0.26

0.1 x 

V + 0.26

0.1 x 

V + 0.26

0.1 x 

V + 0.26

0.09 x 

V + 0.26

HCS.RC.L 0.23 x V + 

0.54

0.23 x 

V + 0.54

0.22 x 

V + 0.54

0.222

1 x V + 0.54

0.21 x 

V + 0.54

0.19 x 

V + 0.54

HCS.RC.I 0.27 x V + 

0.63

0.27 x 

V + 0.63

0.25 x 

V + 0.63

0.25 x 

V + 0.63

0.25 x 

V + 0.63

0.23 x 

V + 0.63

SOC.SC.L* 0.75 x V + 

4.10

1.1 x 

TDA + 2.1

1.1 x 

TDA + 2.1

1.1 x 

TDA + 2.1

1.05 x 

TDA + 2.1

1.03 x 

TDA + 2.1

* Equipment class SOC.SC.L was inadvertently grouped under the category self-contained commercial freezers with transparent doors in the 

standards prescribed by EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)) The baseline expression is thus given by the expression 0.75 

× V + 4.10, which is the current standard for SOC.SC.L equipment. A similar anomaly (of inadvertent classification under a different equipment 

category) for SOC.SC.M equipment was corrected by the standard established by AEMTCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)) However, no such corrective 

action has been prescribed for standards for SOC.SC.L equipment. In establishing a new standard for SOC.SC.M equipment, AEMTCA also 

changed the normalization metric from volume (V) to total display area (TDA). Accordingly, DOE is promulgating amended standards for 

SOC.SC.M equipment with TDA as the normalization metric (see Table V.3), DOE derives the standard for secondary equipment classes based 

on the standard of a primary equipment that has similar characteristics as the secondary equipment class under consideration (see chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD for details). For the equipment class SOC.SC.L, the standard was derived from the standard level selected for equipment class 

SOC.SC.M. Since the standard for SOC.SC.M is in terms of TDA, the standard for SOC.SC.L equipment has also been specified in terms of 

TDA. Therefore, while the baseline expression has been shown with V as the normalization metric, the expressions for TSLs 1 through 5 have 

been shown in terms of TDA. This change of normalization metric for equipment class SOC.SC.L is consistent with the legislative intent, evident 

in AEMTCA, for equipment class SOC.SC.M.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J54]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J55]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J56]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Centered

24220140401_CRE Compare Document.docx
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Customers affected by new or amended standards usually incur higher purchase 

prices and lower operating costs. DOE evaluates these impacts on individual customers 

by calculating the LCC and the PBP associated with the TSLs. The results of the LCC 

analysis for each TSL were obtained by comparing the installed and operating costs of 

the equipment in the base-case scenario (scenario with no amended energy conservation 

standards) against the standards-case scenarios at each TSL. The energy consumption 

values for both the base-case and standards-case scenarios were calculated based on the 

DOE test procedure conditions specified in the 2012 test procedure final rule. 77 FR 

10292, 10318-21 (February 21, 2012) The DOE test procedure adopted an industryaccepted test method and has been widely accepted as a reasonably accurate 

representation of the conditions to which a vast majority of the equipment covered in this 

rulemaking is subjected during actual use. As described in section IV.F, the LCC analysis 

was carried out in the form of Monte Carlo simulations. Consequently, the results are 

distributed over a range of values, as opposed to a single deterministic value. DOE 

presents the mean or median values, as appropriate, calculated from the distributions of 

results.

Table V.5 through Table V.29 show key results of the LCC and PBP analysis for 

each equipment class. Each table presents the mean LCC, mean LCC savings, median 

Formatted: Justified, Don't keep lines

together

243
PBP, and distribution of customer impacts in the form of percentages of customers who 

experience net cost, no impact, or net benefit.

All of the equipment classes, except for VCT.SC.L, have negative LCC savings 

values at TSL 5. Negative average LCC savings imply that, on average, customers 

experience an increase in LCC as a consequence of buying equipment associated with 

that particular TSL. 

The mean LCC savings associated with TSL 4 vary by equipment class, and are 

negative for some equipment classes with significant market shares. The mean LCC 

savings at all lower TSL levels are positive. A comparison of LCC savings between TSL 

3 and TSL 2, across all equipment classes, shows that the LCC savings associated with 

TSL 2 are either greater than or equal to the LCC savings associated with TSL 3.The 

mean LCC savings at today’s standard, TSL 3, are all positive. (LCC savings are equal in 

cases in which both TSLs are associated with the same efficiency level.)

Generally, customers who currently buy equipment in the base case scenario at or 

above the level of performance specified by the TSL under consideration would be 

unaffected if the amended standard were to be set at that TSL. Customers who buy 

equipment below the level of the TSL under consideration would be affected if the 

amended standard were to be set at that TSL. Among these affected customers, some may 

benefit (lower LCC) and some may incur net cost (higher LCC). DOE’s results indicate 

that only a small percentage of customers may benefit from an amended standard that is 

Comment [J57]: Change requested by OIRA.

244
set at TSL 5. At TSL 4, the percentage of customers who experience net benefits or no 

impacts ranges from 0 to 92 percent. At TSL 3, a larger percentage of customers 

experience net benefits or no impacts as compared to TSL 4. At TSLs 1 and 2, almost all 

customers experience either net benefits or no impacts.

For all of the equipment classes, except VCT.SC.L, the median PBPs for TSL 5 

are greater than the average lifetime of the equipment, indicating that a majority of 

customers may not be able to recover the higher equipment installed costs through 

savings in operating costs during the life of the equipment. The median PBP values for 

TSL 4 range from 1.4 years to 63.1 years. The median PBP values at TSL 3 are all below 

the average lifetime of a majority of the commercial refrigeration equipment under 

consideration is 10 to 15 years. Therefore, PBP results for TSL 3 indicate that, in 

general, the majority of customers will be able to recover the increased purchase costs 

associated with equipment that is compliant with TSL 3 through operating cost savings 

within the lifetime of the equipment.

Table V.5 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VOP.RC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 17,095 10,527 2,376 30,748 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 13,87717,095 10,52711,

988 2,099376 29,82630,748 922--- 40% 41100% 550% 5.7---

3 13,781877 11,98812,

080 2,096099 29,887826 482922 464% 041% 5455% 5.7.2

4 13,177 12,786 2,071 30,374 -5 64% 0% 36% 9.9

5 13,013 15,901 2,202 34,572 -4,203 100% 0% 0% 34.1

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Comment [J58]: Change requested by OIRA.

245
Table V.6 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VOP.RC.L Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 38,544 11,699 4,445 49,574 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 38,301544 11,79969

9 4,427445 49,521574 53--- 70% 40100% 530% 5.7---

3 38,301 11,799 4,427 49,521 53 7% 40% 53% 5.7

4 37,117 12,631 4,353 49,707 -148 59% 20% 21% 7.2

5 36,502 17,725 4,534 56,289 -6,701 100% 0% 0% 9.9

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.7 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VOP.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 10,953 6,365 1,340 20,337 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 10,953 6,365 1,340 20,337 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 10,953 6,365 1,340 20,337 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 10,917 6,432 1,339 20,391 -54 60% 40% 0% 5.7

5 10,846 7,483 1,368 21,742 -1,384 100% 0% 0% 7.2

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.8 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.RC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 4,981 12,951 1,263 23,996 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 4,307981 13,10212,

951 1,185263 23,454996 542--- 0% 40100% 600% 2.1---

3 4,307 13,102 1,185 23,454 542 0% 40% 60% 2.1

4 4,192 13,384 1,193 23,803 41 36% 13% 51% 6.6

5 4,011 17,093 1,341 28,775 -4,937 100% 0% 0% 364.7

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.9 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.RC.L Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

Comment [J59]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J60]: Change requested by OIRA.

246
1 12,898 14,411 2,081 32,705 647 0% 40% 60% 1.8

2 12,694898 14,508411 2,066081 32,66570

5 526647 40% 2040% 7660% 2.71.8

3 12,593694 14,809508 2,070066 32,99666

5 93526 434% 020% 5776% 6.32.7

4 12,593 14,809 2,070 32,996 93 43% 0% 57% 6.3

5 12,061 19,567 2,232 39,125 -6,036 100% 0% 0% 194.7

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.10 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 2,184491 5,336184 452490 9,80010,

025 214-10 171% 10% 8918% 23.4.8

2 2,057184 5,401336 442452 9,767800 226214 31% 010% 9789% 5.34.8

3 2,039057 5,417401 443442 9,784767 209226 73% 0% 9397% 5.73

4 1,991 5,487 440 9,830 163 17% 0% 83% 7.0

5 1,879 6,831 478 11,534 -1,541 100% 0% 0% 96.2

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.11 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.SC.L Equipment Class

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 10,022 6,498 1,270 19,135 2,503 0% 10% 90% 0.5

2 6,727654 6,799822 970964 16,4333

97 5,2004,709 0% 100% 90100% 0.8

3 6,262 7,003 917 16,105 5,001 0% 0% 100% 1.1

4 5,857 8,909 948 18,294 2,812 11% 0% 89% 4.7

5 5,857 8,909 948 18,294 2,812 11% 0% 89% 4.7

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.12 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCT.SC.I Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 7,124 7,305 1,015 17,384 18 10% 40% 50% 7.2

2 7,124 7,305 1,015 17,384 18 10% 40% 50% 7.2

3 7,124 7,305 1,015 17,384 18 10% 40% 50% 7.2

4 6,916 7,509 1,003 17,468 -68 65% 24% 11% 16.2

5 6,609 9,780 1,057 20,242 -2,834 84% 16% 0% 663.6

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Comment [J61]: Change requested by OIRA; 2nd

and 3rd rows.

Comment [J62]: Change requested by OIRA; top 

three rows.

Comment [J63]: Change requested by OIRA.

247
Table V.13 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCS.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 1,929 3,572 368 6,378 223 0% 40% 60% 0.5

2 1,401469 3,625601 321326 6,065083 365518 10% 1040% 8960% 1.0.6

3 1,401346 3,625651 321318 6,065067 365363 17% 10% 8983% 1.04

4 1,346258 3,651734 318314 6,067125 363305 725% 10% 8365% 1.42.6

5 1,105 5,062 365 7,828 -1,428 100% 0% 0% 48.0

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.14 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCS.SC.L Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 5,088 4,007 702 9,374 588 0% 40% 60% 0.6

2 4,817722 4,060083 679672 9,253215 513550 0% 10% 90% 1.13

3 4,448 4,216 653 9,201 507 7% 0% 93% 2.5

4 4,410 4,238 651 9,213 495 9% 0% 91% 2.7

5 4,062 5,988 703 11,349 -1,640 100% 0% 0% 31.8

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.15 Summary LCC and PBP Results for VCS.SC.I Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 6,824 4,349 895 11,195 41 0% 40% 60% 2.6

2 6,509574 4,444420 871876 11,109117 111114 30% 2432% 7368% 4.03.6

3 6,509361 4,444515 871861 11,109096 111113 39% 2417% 7375% 45.0

4 6,361 4,515 861 11,096 113 9% 17% 75% 5.0

5 5,855 6,839 927 13,909 -2,710 92% 8% 0% 183.7

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.16 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SVO.RC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost No Impact NetBenefit

Comment [J64]: Change requested by OIRA; 2nd

through 4th row.

Comment [J65]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J66]: Change requested by OIRA; 

second and third rows.

248
1 10,748 10,304 1,694 24,841 564 7% 40% 54% 6.2

2 10,276748 10,797304 1,672694 25,13424,

841 48564 637% 040% 3754% 9.96.2

3 10,276748 10,797304 1,672694 25,13424,

841 48564 637% 040% 3754% 9.96.2

4 10,226 10,875 1,670 25,201 -19 67% 0% 33% 10.4

5 10,111 12,867 1,752 27,873 -2,691 100% 0% 0% 29.9

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.17 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SVO.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 9,608 4,980 1,150 16,733 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 9,608 4,980 1,150 16,733 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 9,608 4,980 1,150 16,733 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 9,361 5,157 1,132 16,728 6 32% 40% 27% 10.9

5 9,271 5,897 1,151 17,648 -917 100% 0% 0% 151.6

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.18 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SOC.RC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 8,300 13,971 1,679 28,172 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 8,300 13,971 1,679 28,172 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 8,300 13,971 1,679 28,172 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 8,144 14,144 1,674 28,301 -128 60% 40% 0% 38.0

5 7,869 15,879 1,729 30,492 -2,268 100% 0% 0% 114.1

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.19 Summary LCC and PBP Results for SOC.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 10,119 13,965 1,821 27,861 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 10,119 13,965 1,821 27,861 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 10,119 13,965 1,821 27,861 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 9,711 14,332 1,808 28,128 -209 100% 0% 1% 28.7

5 9,533 15,880 1,868 30,123 -2,204 100% 0% 0% 25.3

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Comment [J67]: Change requested by OIRA; 

second and third rows.

249
Table V.20 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.RC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 5,282 8,290 1,036 16,958 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 5,282 8,290 1,036 16,958 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 5,282 8,290 1,036 16,958 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 5,282 8,290 1,036 16,958 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

5 5,165 9,921 1,103 19,137 -2,180 60% 40% 0% ---

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.21 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.RC.L Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 11,812 8,504 1,673 22,548 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 11,812 8,504 1,673 22,548 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 11,812 8,504 1,673 22,548 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 11,812 8,504 1,673 22,548 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

5 11,344 11,822 1,787 26,795 -4,249 60% 40% 0% 288.9

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.22 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 5,351 2,605 629 9,022 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 5,168 2,698 615 8,967 55 5% 40% 54% 6.9

3 5,168 2,698 615 8,967 55 5% 40% 54% 6.9

4 5,118 2,763 613 9,013 -4 50% 21% 29% 11.8

5 5,018 3,689 636 10,163 -1,154 100% 0% 0% 194.7

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.23 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HZO.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 10,922 5,008 1,265 17,894 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 10,922 5,008 1,265 17,894 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

250
3 10,922 5,008 1,265 17,894 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 10,922 5,008 1,265 17,894 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

5 10,922 5,008 1,265 17,894 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.24 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HCT.SC.M Equipment Class

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 637590 2,090101 144140 3,607577 3666 0% 40% 60% 1.82.5

2 321360 2,219198 121122 3,485478 91165 320% 040% 6860% 6.54.7

3 321327 2,219213 121120 3,485476 91101 3220

% 0% 6880% 6.5.8

4 289 2,279 120 3,534 43 45% 0% 55% 9.2

5 224 2,807 131 4,175 -599 100% 0% 0% 46.6

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.25 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HCT.SC.L Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 785 2,297 190 3,882 428 0% 41% 59% 1.8

2 701742 2,330312 185187 3,870876 293435 100% 1041% 8059% 2.50

3 687701 2,339330 184185 3,877870 286293 2010

% 10% 7180% 2.75

4 632 2,399 182 3,915 248 29% 10% 61% 3.6

5 480 3,120 200 4,775 -613 87% 10% 3% 19.5

**Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.26 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HCT.SC.I Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 1,141 2,490 240 4,348 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

2 1,141 2,490 240 4,348 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

3 1,141 2,490 240 4,348 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

4 1,141 2,490 240 4,348 --- 0% 100% 0% ---

5 849 3,553 264 5,587 -1,240 61% 39% 0% 23.8

* Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Comment [J68]: Change requested by OIRA; top 

three rows.

Comment [J69]: Change requested by OIRA; 2nd

and 3rd rows.

251
Table V.27 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HCS.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 518 1,986 146 3,100 12 0% 9% 91% 2.9

2 466495 2,0081,993 143145 3,097095 1517 101% 9% 8090% 5.53.7

3 466 2,008 143 3,097 15 10% 9% 80% 5.5

4 461 2,014 144 3,107 5 42% 9% 48% 7.5

5 358 2,488 157 3,679 -568 91% 9% 0% 680.6

* Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.28 Summary LCC and PBP Results for HCS.SC.L Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience**

Net

Cost No Impact NetBenefit

1 650 2,006 160 3,224 31 0% 10% 90% 1.4

2 558609 2,028013 153156 3,191205 6450 0% 10% 90% 2.51.7

3 558 2,028 153 3,191 64 0% 10% 90% 2.5

4 472 2,093 148 3,222 33 20% 10% 70% 6.2

5 260 2,663 156 3,845 -590 90% 10% 0% 68.9

* Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table V.29 Summary LCC and PBP Results for PD.SC.M Equipment Class*

TSL

Annual 

Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers

2012$ Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Median 

Payback 

Period 

years

Installed

Cost

Discounted

Operating

Cost

LCC

Affected

Customers’

Average

Savings

2012$

% of Customers that 

Experience*

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net

Benefit

1 1,726 3,502 342 6,732 8 28% 39% 33% 9.3

2 1,381422 3,677654 308310 6,572574 165163 53% 0% 9597% 5.63

3 1,381 3,677 308 6,572 165 5% 0% 95% 5.6

4

1,36

9

3,

691

3

08

6

,587

150

%

0

% 2%

6

.0

5 1,243 4,808 340 7,989 -1,252 100% 0% 0% 102.2

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Comment [J70]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J71]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font: 9 pt

Comment [J72]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

252
b. Customer Subgroup Analysis

As described in section IV.I, DOE estimated the impact of potential amended 

efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment on two representative 

customer subgroups: full-service restaurants and convenience stores with gas stations. 

The results for full-service restaurants are presented only for the self-contained 

equipment classes because full-service restaurants that are small businesses generally do 

not use remote condensing equipment. Table V.30 presents the comparison of mean LCC 

savings for the subgroup with the values for all CRE customers. For all TSLs in all 

equipment classes save one, the LCC savings for this subgroup are higher (or less 

negative) than the national average values. This can be attributed to the longer average 

lifetimes of CRE used by small business customers, and higher electricity prices in the 

case of full service restaurants. 

Table V.31 compares median PBPs for full-service restaurants with the values for 

all CRE customers. The PBP values are lower for the small business subgroup in all cases

save one, which is consistent with the decrease in LCC savings. 

Table V.30 Comparison of Mean LCC Savings for the Full-service Restaurants 

Subgroup with the Savings for All CRE Customers

Equipment 

Class Category

Mean LCC Savings

2012$*

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.SC.M

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- -56.7$(57)

-

1508.4$(1,

508)

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- -$(54.2)

-

1383.8$(1,

384)

Comment [J73]: Change requested by OIRA; all 

rows of both tables.

253
VCT.SC.M

Small Business 298.9$0 330.2$299 316.2$330 $280.4

-

1391.3$(1,

391)

All Business Types 214.2$(10

) 226.4$214 209.2$226 162.6$163

-

1541.4$(1,

541)

VCT.SC.L

Small Business 3073.4$3,

073

6472.4$5,

868

6254.1$6,

254

4162.6$4,

163

4162.6$4,

163

All Business Types 2503.0$2,

503

5199.9$4,

709

$5,00150

01.3

2812.0$2,

812

2812.0$2,

812

VCT.SC.I

Small Business 33.5$34 33.5$34 33.5$34 -$(12.5)

-

2705.7$(2,

706)

All Business Types $18.0 $18.0 $18.0 -67.6$(68)

-

2834.1$(2,

834)

VCS.SC.M

Small Business 374.9$375 632.2$870 632.2$652 652.2$632

-

1031.$(1,0

31)

All Business Types $223.1 365.0$518 365.0$363 362.6$305

-

1428.5$(1,

428)

VCS.SC.L

Small Business $979.5 891.8$971 998.8$999 1000.0$1,

000

-

935.6$(93

6)

All Business Types 587.7$588 513.2$550 $507.3 494.9$495

-

1640.3$(1,

640)

VCS.SC.I

Small Business $81.5 264.9$257 264.9$321 320.5$321

-

2241.$(2,2

41)

All Business Types $41.4 110.5$114 110.5$113 $113.0

-

2709.8$(2,

710)

SVOSOC.S

C.M

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 52.6$(74)

-

871.0$(1,9

52)

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 5.5$(209)

-

916.7$(2,2

04)

HZOSVO.S

C.M

Small Business 0.0--- 91.7--- 91.7--- 32.9$53

-

1096.9$(8

71)

All Business Types 0.0--- 55.5--- 55.5--- -4.3$6

-

1153.8$(9

17)

HZO.SC.LM

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0$92 0.0$92 0.0$33 0.0$(1,097

)

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0$55 0.0$55 0.0$(4) 0.0$(1,154

)

HCTHZO.S

C.ML

Small Business 43.1--- 128.0--- 128.0--- 84.7--- -546.1---

All Business Types 35.9--- 91.2--- 91.2--- 42.7--- -598.5---

HCT.SC.LM Small Business 686.8$81 487.5$216 483.9$137 467.5$85 -

318.9$(54

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

254
6)

All Business Types 428.3$66 292.8$165 285.7$101 247.8$43

-

612.6$(59

9)

HCT.SC.IL

Small Business 0.0$687 0.0$707 0.0$487 0.0$468

-

1080.8$(3

19)

All Business Types 0.0$428 0.0$435 0.0$293 0.0$248

-

1239.6$(6

13)

HCSHCT.S

C.MI

Small Business 23.5--- 47.8--- 47.8--- 38.3---

-

476.6$(1,0

81)

All Business Types 11.5--- 14.6--- 14.6--- 4.8---

-

568.0$(1,2

40)

HCS.SC.LM

Small Business 55.4$23 127.1$38 127.1$48 133.4$38

-

380.9$(47

7)

All Business Types 31.4$12 64.2$17 64.2$15 33.0$5

-

589.6$(56

8)

PDHCS.SC.

ML

Small Business 32.0$55 279.8$91 279.8$127 268.0$133

-

1081.1$(3

81)

All Business Types 7.5$31 164.7$50 164.7$64 150.2$33

-

1252.0$(5

90)

Table V.31 Comparison of Median Payback Periods for the Full-service Restaurants 

Subgroup with the Values for All CRE Customers

Equipment 

Class Category

Mean LCC Savings

2012$*

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

VOP.RC.M Small Business 0.0 5.0 6.2 8.1 21.9

All Business Types 0.0 5.7 7.2 9.9 34.1

VOP.RC.L Small Business 0.0 5.2 5.2 9.0 168.5

All Business Types 0.0 6.1 6.1 11.3 310.0

VOP.SC.M Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 54.1 541.3

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 63.1 593.2

VCT.RC.M Small Business 0.0 1.8 1.8 5.3 239.9

All Business Types 0.0 2.1 2.1 6.6 364.7

VCT.RC.L Small Business 1.5 2.3 5.3 5.3 138.2

All Business Types 1.8 2.7 6.3 6.3 194.7

VCT.SC.M Small Business 4.112.9 4.51 4.85 5.9 64.8

All Business Types 23.4.8 5.34.8 5.73 7.0 96.2

VCT.SC.L Small Business 0.4 0.7 0.9 4.0 4.0

All Business Types 0.5 0.8 1.1 4.7 4.7

VCT.SC.I Small Business 5.8 5.8 5.8 12.4 310.0

All Business Types 7.2 7.2 7.2 16.2 663.6

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

255
VCS.SC.M Small Business 0.4 0.95 0.91.2 2.1.2 22.4

All Business Types 0.5 1.0.6 1.04 1.42.6 48.0

VCS.SC.L Small Business 0.5 0.91.1 2.0 2.2 19.2

All Business Types 0.6 1.13 2.5 2.7 31.8

VCS.SC.I Small Business 2.1 3.2.9 3.29 3.9 91.7

All Business Types 2.6 4.03.6 45.0 5.0 183.7

SOC.SC.M Small Business --- --- --- 15.5 221.7

All Business Types --- --- --- 28.7 25.3

SVO.RCSC.

M

Small Business 4.9--- 7.3--- 7.3--- 7.68.9 124.318.4

All Business Types --- --- --- 10.9 151.6

HZO.SC.M Small Business --- 5.7 5.7 9.5 166.7

All Business Types 6.2--- 96.9 96.9 10.411.8 194.729.9

HZO.SC.L Small Business --- --- --- --- ---

All Business Types --- --- --- --- ---

HCT.SC.M Small Business 2.1 4.0 4.7 7.5 33.9

All Business Types 2.5 4.7 5.8 9.2 46.6

SVOHCT.SC

.ML

Small Business 0.01.5 0.01.6 02.0 82.9 14.0124.3

All Business Types 0.01.8 02.0 0.02.5 10.93.6 19.5151.6

SOC.RC.MH

CT.SC.I

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- ---19.5 406.2176.

3

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 38.0--- 114.123.8

HZO.RCHCS

.SC.M

Small Business 0.02.3 0.02.9 0.04.2 0.05.4 2199136.

0

All Business Types 0.02.9 0.03.7 0.05.5 0.07.5 ---680.6

HZO.RCHCS

.SC.L

Small Business 0.01.1 0.01.4 0.02.1 0.04.7 46.827.9

All Business Types 0.01.4 0.01.7 0.02.5 0.06.2 28868.9

HZOPD.SC.

M

Small Business 0.06.9 4.5.7 54.7 9.5.0 63.3166.7

All Business Types 0.09.3 6.95.3 5.6.9 11.86.0 194.7102.

2

Table V.32 presents the comparison of mean LCC savings for convenience stores 

with gasoline stations with the national average values at each TSL. This comparison 

shows higher (or less negative) LCC savings for the subgroups in nearly all instances. 

Table V.33 presents the comparison of median PBPs for convenience stores with 

gasoline stations with national median values at each TSL. This comparison shows lower

PBP for the subgroup in nearly all cases.

Formatted: Left, Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: 0.25", Decimal

aligned + Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Left, Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: 0.25", Decimal

aligned + Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0",

Line spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.25"

+ 0.5" + 0.75"

256
Table V.32 Comparison of Mean LCC Savings for Convenience Stores with 

Gasoline Stations with Savings for All CRE Customers

Equipment 

Class Category

Mean LCC Savings*

2012$*$

TSL1TS

L 1

TSL2TS

L 2

TSL3TS

L 3

TSL4TS

L 4

TSL5TS

L 5

VOP.RC.M

Small Business

0.0--- 1334.1--- 732.9$1,

334

298.9$29

9

-

4003.5$(4

,003)

All Business Types

0.0--- 922.0--- 482.1$92

2 -4.8$(5)

-

4202.5$(4

,203)

VOP.RC.L

Small Business

0.0--- 82.3--- $82.3 $2.3

-

6702.8$(6

,703)

All Business Types

0.0--- 53.5--- $53.5

-

147.6$(1

48)

-

6700.$(6,

701)

VOP.SC.M

Small Business

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- -

61.8$(62)

-

1484.6$(1

,485)

All Business Types

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- -$(54.2)

-

1383.8$(1

,384)

VCT.RC.M

Small Business

0.0--- 636.4--- $636.4 134.9$13

5

-

4544.0$(4

,544)

All Business Types

0.0--- 541.5--- 541.5$54

2 40.9$41

-

4936.7$(4

,937)

VCT.RC.L

Small Business

$751.3 634.3$75

1

213.4$63

4 $213.4

-

5485.7$(5

,486)

All Business Types

646.7$64

7

526.5$64

7 92.6$526 92.6$93

-

6036.5$(6

,036)

VCT.SC.M

Small Business

214.1$(8) 228.5$21

4

212.6$22

9

168.6$16

9

-

1479.$(1,

479)

All Business Types

214.2$(1

0)

226.4$21

4

209.2$22

6

162.6$16

3

-

1541.4$(1

,541)

VCT.SC.L

Small Business

2489.3$2

,489

5188.1$4

,699

4988.1$4

,988

2877.9$2

,878

2877.9$2,

878

All Business Types

2503.0$2

,503

5199.9$4

,709

5001.3$5

,001

2812.0$2

,812

2812.0$2,

812

VCT.SC.I

Small Business

$19.4 $19.4 $19.4 -$(59.0)

-

2732.$(2,

732)

All Business Types

$18.0 $18.0 $18.0 -

67.6$(68)

-

2834.1$(2

,834)

VCS.SC.M Small Business

298.9$29

9

501.1$69

6

501.1$51

1

511.1$47

6

-

1157.4$(1

Formatted: Centered

Formatted Table

Formatted: Don't keep with next

Formatted: Font: Italic, No underline

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Font: Italic, No underline

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Don't keep with next

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

257
,157)

All Business Types

$223.1 365.0$51 8

365.0$36 3362.6$30 5

-

1428.5$(1

,428)

VCS.SC.L

Small Business

$785.2 706.1$76 5$763.4$758.5

-

1190.4$(1

,190)

All Business Types

587.7$58 8513.2$55 0

$507.3 494.9$49 5

-

1640.3$(1

,640)

VCS.SC.I

Small Business

$62.3 192.1$18 9

192.1$22 4

$224.2

-

2354.4$(2

,354)

All Business Types

$41.4 110.5$11 4

110.5$11 3

$113.0

-

2709.8$(2

,710)

SVO.RC.M

Small Business

$966.4 393.6$96 6

393.6$96 6

$340.1

-

2147.7$(2

,148)

All Business Types

563.7$56 4 48.1$564 48.1$564-

18.5$(19)

-

2691.4$(2

,691)

SVO.SC.M

Small Business

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---$5.1

-

890.9$(89

1)

All Business Types

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 5.5$6

-

916.7$(91

7)

SOC.RC.M

Small Business

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0----$(93.5)

-

2058.5$(2

,058)

All Business Types

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0----$(128.0)

-

2267.8$(2

,268)

HZO.RC.M*

*

Small Business

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---

-

2014.8$(2

,015)

All Business Types

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---

-

2179.5$(2

,180)

HZO.RC.L*

*

Small Business

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---

-

3879.6$(3

,880)

All Business Types

0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---

-

4248.6$(4

,249)

HZO.SC.M

Small Business

0.0--- 54.9$55 $5554.9-2.5$(3)

-

1113.7$(1

,114)

All Business Types

0.0---$55.5$55.5-$(4.3)

-

1153.8$(1

,154)

HZO.SC.L* *

Small Business --- --- --- --- ---

All Business Types --- --- --- --- ---

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Tab

stops: Not at 0.25"+ 0.5"+ 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered, Don't keep with next

Formatted ...

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted ...

258
HCT.SC.M

Small Business $62 $151 $92 $35 $(591)

All Business Types $66 $165 $101 $43 $(599)

HCT.SC.L

Small Business $535 $548 $374 $343 $(451)

All Business Types $428 $435 $293 $248 $(613)

HCT.SC.I

Small Business --- --- --- --- $(1,106)

All Business Types --- --- --- --- $(1,240)

HCS.SC.M

Small Business $18 $28 $32 $23 $(498)

All Business Types $12 $17 $15 $5 $(568)

HCS.SC.L

Small Business $44 $71 $97 $87 $(453)

All Business Types $31 $50 $64 $33 $(590)

PD.SC.M

Small Business $14 $186 $190 $177 $(1,159)

All Business Types $8 $163 $165 $150 $(1,252)

Table V.33 Comparison of Median Payback Periods for Convenience Stores with 

Gasoline Stations with Values for All CRE Customers

Equipm

ent 

Class

Category

Mean LCC SavingsMedian Payback Period

years2012$*

TSL1 TSL2 TSL 

3TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

VOP.RC.

M

Small Business 0.0--- 5.5--- 6.85.5 9.0 25.1

All Business Types 0.0--- 5.7--- 5.7.2 9.9 34.1

VOP.RC.

L

Small Business 0.0--- 5.8--- 5.8 10.2 195.3

All Business Types 0.0--- 6.1--- 6.1 11.3 310.0

VOP.SC.

M

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 69.5 513.9

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 63.1 593.2

VCT.RC.

M

Small Business 0.0--- 1.9--- 1.9 5.8 308.8

All Business Types 0.0--- 2.1--- 2.1 6.6 364.7

VCT.RC.

L

Small Business 1.7 2.51.7 2.5.7 5.7 171.0

All Business Types 1.8 2.71.8 6.32.7 6.3 194.7

VCT.SC.

M

Small Business 4.518.2 4.5.0 5.30 6.5 82.7

All Business Types 23.4.8 5.34.8 5.73 7.0 96.2

VCT.SC.

L

Small Business 0.4 0.78 1.0 4.4 4.4

All Business Types 0.5 0.8 1.1 4.7 4.7

VCT.SC.

I

Small Business 6.6 6.6 6.6 14.3 531.1

All Business Types 7.2 7.2 7.2 16.2 663.6

VCS.SC.

M

Small Business 0.5 1.0.6 1.03 12.3 26.4

All Business Types 0.5 1.0.6 1.04 1.42.6 48.0

Comment [J74]: Change requested by OIRA; all 

rows.

Formatted Table

Formatted: No underline

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt,

Bold, Underline

Comment [J75]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Centered

Formatted Table

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

259
VCS.SC.

L

Small Business 0.5 1.02 2.2 2.4 22.2

All Business Types 0.6 1.13 2.5 2.7 31.8

VCS.SC.

I

Small Business 2.3 3.52 4.3.5 4.3 118.4

All Business Types 2.6 4.03.6 45.0 5.0 183.7

SVO.RC.

M

Small Business 5.4 8.15.4 8.15.4 8.4 20.7

All Business Types 6.2 9.96.2 9.96.2 10.4 29.9

SVO.SC.

M

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 10.0 150.5

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 10.9 151.6

SOC.RC.

M

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 23.2 656.6

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 38.0 114.1

SOC.SC.

M

Small Business --- --- --- 18.2 265.4

All Business Types --- --- --- 28.7 25.3

HZO.RC

.M

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0---

HZO.RC

.L

Small Business 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 59.8

All Business Types 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 0.0--- 288.9

HZO.SC.

M

Small Business 0.0--- 6.4 6.4 10.8 174.0

All Business Types 0.0--- 6.9 6.9 11.8 194.7

HZO.SC.

L

Small Business --- --- --- --- ---

All Business Types --- --- --- --- ---

HCT.SC.

M

Small Business 2.3 4.4 5.4 8.5 40.5

All Business Types 2.5 4.7 5.8 9.2 46.6

HCT.SC.

L

Small Business 1.7 1.8 2.3 3.3 15.6

All Business Types 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.6 19.5

HCT.SC.

I

Small Business --- --- --- --- 208.9

All Business Types --- --- --- --- 23.8

HCS.SC.

M

Small Business 2.6 3.3 4.7 6.2 151.6

All Business Types 2.9 3.7 5.5 7.5 680.6

HCS.SC.

L

Small Business 1.3 1.6 2.3 5.3 33.7

All Business Types 1.4 1.7 2.5 6.2 68.9

PD.SC.

M

Small Business 8.0 4.9 5.2 5.6 78.9

All Business Types 9.3 5.3 5.6 6.0 102.2

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

As discussed in section IV.F.12, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that a 

given standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that 

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0",

Line spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.25"

+ 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted Table

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line

spacing: single, Tab stops: Not at 0.19" +

0.25" + 0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted: Centered

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J76]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

260
meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis 

that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the customer, manufacturer, 

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

6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate definitively 

the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). Therefore, if the 

rebuttable presumption is not met, DOE may justify its standard on another basis. 

Table V.5 shows the rebuttable payback periods analysis for each equipment 

class. 

Table V.34 Summary of Results for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs: 

Rebuttable Median Payback Period

Median Payback Period 

years

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M --- 5.1--- 6.25.1 7.6 17.3

VOP.RC.L --- 4.6--- 4.6 7.3 36.2

VOP.SC.M --- --- --- 21.2 127.9

VCT.RC.M --- 2.5--- 2.5 6.8 56.3

VCT.RC.L 2.2 3.02.2 6.63.0 6.6 43.0

VCT.SC.M 54.4 5.54 5.65 6.5 28.1

VCT.SC.L 0.5 0.8 1.1 4.2 4.2

VCT.SC.I 5.0 5.0 5.0 9.5 48.7

VCS.SC.M 0.4 0.96 0.91.2 2.1.2 16.5

VCS.SC.L 0.5 1.02 2.1 2.3 13.6

VCS.SC.I 2.3 3.20 3.28 3.8 28.7

SVO.RC.M 5.4 7.65.4 7.65.4 7.8 16.5

SVO.SC.M --- --- --- 8.1 35.9

SOC.RC.M --- --- --- 12.4 54.3

SOC.SC.M --- --- --- 10.2 39.8

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

261
HZO.RC.M --- --- --- --- 156.3

HZO.RC.L --- --- --- --- 79.5

HZO.SC.M --- 5.6 5.6 8.1 42.9

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

HCT.SC.M 1.72.2 4.60 4.64 6.6 20.9

HCT.SC.L 1.7 2.21.8 2.32 3.0 11.4

HCT.SC.I --- --- --- --- 40.8

HCS.SC.M 2.5 4.02.9 4.0 4.5 30.5

HCS.SC.L 1.3 2.21.6 2.2 4.5 16.7

PD.SC.M 4.9 5.54 5.5 5.7 26.7

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment. The following 

section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD explains the analysis in further detail.

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

The following tables depict the financial impacts (represented by changes in 

INPV) of amended energy standards on manufacturers as well as the conversion costs 

that DOE estimates manufacturers would incur for all equipment classes at each TSL. To 

evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the commercial refrigeration industry, DOE 

modeled two different scenarios using different assumptions for markups that correspond 

to the range of anticipated market responses to amended standards. 

To assess the lower (less severe) end of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled a preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario, in which a uniform 

“gross margin percentage” markup was applied across all potential efficiency levels. In 

this scenario, DOE assumed that a manufacturer’s absolute dollar markup would increase 

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Comment [J77]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

262
as production costs increase in the amended standards case. Manufacturers have indicated 

that it is optimistic to assume that they would be able to maintain the same gross margin 

percentage markup as their production costs increase in response to an amended 

efficiency standard, particularly at higher TSLs. To assess the higher (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to earn the same 

operating margin in absolute dollars in the amended standards case as in the base case. 

Table V.35 and Table V.36 show the potential INPV impacts for commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers at each TSL: Table V.35 reflects the lower bound 

of impacts and Table V.36 represents the upper bound.

Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry values at each TSL. In the following discussion, the INPV results

refer to the difference in industry value between the base case and each potential 

amended standards case that results from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base 

year 2013 through 2046, the end of the analysis period. To provide perspective on the 

short-run cash flow impact, DOE includes in the discussion of the results below a 

comparison of free cash flow between the base case and the standards case at each TSL in 

the year before amended standards take effect.

Table V.35 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment – Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario*

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2012$ 

Millions

2,572.9

660.0

2,564.56

50.1 

2,559651

.3

2,502.05

66.1 

2,442.74

70.6 

2,443475

.6

Change in INPV 2012$ - (8.49.9) (13.58.7) (7093.9) (130.118 (129.318

Comment [J78]: Change requested by OIRA; 

applies to multiple rows.

263
Millions 9.4) 4.4)

(%) - (0.3337) (0.5333) (2.753.5

3)

(5.067.1

2)

(5.026.9

3)

Product Conversion 

Costs

2012$ 

Millions - 22.220.6 49.532.1 93.6125.9 

180.1194

.2 

282.1295

.0

Capital Conversion 

Costs

2012$ 

Millions - 3.5 14.73.6 6858.1 97.5160.7 499.7

Total Conversion 

Costs

2012$ 

Millions - 25.824.1 64. 235.6 161.7184.0 

277.7354

.9 

794.7781

.8 

* Values in parentheses are negative values.

Table V.36 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment – Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario*

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2012$ 

Millions

2,572.9

660.0

2,543.4

636.1 

2,489.4

617.1 

2,402.9

495.0 

2,306.933

9.1 

1,382.3515

.2 

Change in INPV

2012$ 

Millions - (29.423.9)

(83.542.

9)

(170165

.0)

(265320.9

)

(1,190.514

4.8)

(%) - (1.140.9

0)

(3.241.6

1) (6.6120) (10.3412.07)

(46.2743.0

4)

Product Conversion 

Costs

2012$ 

Millions - 22.220.6 

49.532.

1 

93.6125

.9 

180.1194.

2 295.0282.1 

Capital Conversion 

Costs

2012$ 

Millions - 3.5 14.73.6 6858.1 97.5160.7 499.7

Total Conversion 

Costs

2012$ 

Millions - 25.824.1 

64. 

235.6 

161.718

4.0 

277.7354.

9 794.7781.8 

* Values in parentheses are negative values.

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers to range from -$29.423.9 million to -$8.49.9 million, or a 

change in INPV of -1.140 percent to -0.3337 percent. At this potential standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 4.5216 percent to 

$187.3192.1 million, compared to the base-case value of $196.2200.4 million in the year 

before the compliance date (2016).

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 are relatively minor because DOE manufacturer 

production costs do not increase significant. The average unit price for the industry 

(calculated by dividing industry revenue by industry unit shipments) increases 1.20.8% 

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

Comment [J79]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J80]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J81]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J82]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J83]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J84]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J85]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J86]: Change requested by OIRA.

264
from $2774.97 $2,892.72 to $2809.11 $2,916.55 in the standards year. Few capital 

conversion costs are expected because DOE anticipates that manufacturers would be able 

to make simple component swaps to meet the efficiency levels for each equipment class 

at this TSL. However, product conversion costs are required for industry certifications to 

incorporate the new components into existing designs. Industry conversion costs total 

$25.824.1 million.

Under the preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario, impacts on 

manufacturers are marginally negative because while manufacturers can maintain their 

gross margin percentages, they also incur conversion costs that offset the higher profits 

that they gain from increasing their selling prices to accommodate higher production 

costs. However, the effects of these conversion costs are more apparent in the 

preservation of operating profit markup scenario because manufacturers earn the same 

operating profit at TSL 1 as they do in the base case. In general, manufacturers stated that 

the preservation of operating profit scenario is a more likely representation of the 

industry than the preservation of operating profit scenario, especially as MPCs increase.

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers to range from -$83.542.9 million to -$13.58.7 million, or a 

change in INPV of -3.241.61 percent to -0.5333 percent. At this potential standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 11.646.04 percent to 

$173188.3 million, compared to the base-case value of $196.2200.4 million in the year 

before the compliance date (2016).

Comment [J87]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J88]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J89]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J90]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J91]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J92]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J93]: Change requested by OIRA.

265
Although DOE continues to expect mild INPV impacts on the industry at TSL 2, 

product conversion costs do increase. Nearly 4020% of product in the industry would

require some level of component redesign, such as changes in evaporator coil, condenser 

coil, or compressor selection, that would necessitate UL or NSF certification changes. 

These industry certification investments push total industry conversion costs to $64.235.4

million.

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers to range from -$170165.0 million to -$7093.9 million, or a 

change in INPV of -6.6120 percent to -2.753.53 percent. At this potential standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 31.2633.64 percent to 

$134.9133.0 million, compared to the base-case value of $196.2200.4 million in the year 

before the compliance date (2016).

At TSL 3, the expected design options do not dramatically alter manufacturer per 

unit production costs. Average unit costs increase by 5.74.1% to $2,9323,011.93 while 

industry shipments remain steady. However, DOE expects higher conversion costs at 

TSL 3 due to the possible need for improved insulation for high-volume products, such as 

VCS.SC.L, which accounts for approximately 18.3 percent of total shipments, and 

VCT.RC.L, which accounts for approximately 54.1 percent. In total, DOE expects 45 of 

the 24 equipment classes to require improved insulation due to higher standards. The 

need for improved insulation necessitates redesign efforts for the cabinet as well as 

Comment [J94]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J95]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J96]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J97]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J98]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J99]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J100]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J101]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J102]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J103]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J104]: Change requested by OIRA.

266
interior components. Furthermore, thicker insulation requires investment in new 

production tooling. Total industry conversion costs reach $161.8184.0 million.

At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers range from -$265320.9 million to -$130.1189.4 million, or a 

change in INPV of -10.3412.7 percent to -5.067.12 percent. At this potential standard 

level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 52.4667.84

percent to $93.364.4 million, compared to the base-case value of $196.2200.4 million in 

the year before the compliance date (2016).

The drop in INPV at TSL 4 is driven by conversion costs. Industry average MPCs 

increaseunit price increases 7.86% and industry shipments are modeled to remain steady. 

However, the need for new tooling to accommodate additional foam insulation in 1416 of 

the 25 analyzed equipment classes pushes up industry conversion costs. The redesign 

effort, coupled with industry certification costs, push product conversion costs up to 

$180.1194.2 million. Total industry conversion costs are expected to reach $277.7354.9

million.

At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers to range from -$190.51,144.85 million to -$129.3184.4 million, 

or a change in INPV of -46.2743.04 percent to -5.026.93 percent. At this potential 

standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 

Comment [J105]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J106]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J107]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J108]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J109]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J110]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J111]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J112]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J113]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J114]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J115]: Change requested by OIRA.

267
163.88158.32 percent to -$125.3116.9 million, compared to the base-case value of 

$196.2200.4 million in the year before the compliance date (2016).

A substantial increase in conversion costs are expected at TSL 5 due to the 

possible need for VIP technology. VIPs are not currently used by any commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers and the production of VIPs would require 

processes different from those used to produce standard foam panels. High R&D 

investments would be necessary to integrate the technology into CRE cases. Based on 

industry feedback, DOE estimated the R&D investment to be 1-2 times the industry’s 

typical annual R&D expenditure and the capital conversion cost to be more than double 

the cost of all current fixtures in use. Total industry conversion costs total $794.7781.8

million.

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

To quantitatively assess the impacts of amended energy conservation standards on 

employment, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and 

number of employees in the base case and at each TSL from 2013 through 2046. DOE 

used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the engineering analysis, the commercial 

refrigeration equipment shipments forecast, and interviews with manufacturers to 

determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and 

domestic employment levels. Labor expenditures related to manufacturing of the product 

are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption 

Comment [J116]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J117]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J118]: Change requested by OIRA.

268
that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor expenditures in each year 

are calculated by multiplying the MPCs by the labor percentage of MPCs. 

The total labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic 

production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures by the annual 

payment per production worker (production worker hours times the labor rate found in 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 ASM). The estimates of production workers in this 

section cover workers, including line supervisors who are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling a product within the OEM facility. Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production operations, such as materials handling tasks using 

forklifts, are also included as production labor. DOE’s estimates only account for 

production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by this rulemaking.

Table V.37 Potential Changes in the Number of Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment Production Workers in 2017

Trial Standard Level*

Base Case 1 2 3 4 5

Total Number of Domestic 

Production Workers in 2017 

(assuming no changes in 

production locations)

7,740779 7,740779 7,740779 7,740779 7,741780 8,217220 

Range of Potential Changes 

in Domestic Production 

Workers in 2017**

- (7,740779

0) to 0

(7,740) to 

0

(7,740779

) to 0

(7,74077

9) to 1

(7,74077

9) to 

477441

*Numbers in parentheses are negative numbers.

**DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts, where the lower range represents the scenario in 

which all domestic manufacturers move production to other countries.

The employment impacts shown in Table V.37 represent the potential production 

employment changes that could result following the compliance date of an amended 

energy conservation standard. The upper end of the results in the table estimates the 

Comment [J119]: Change requested by OIRA; 

both rows.

269
maximum increase in the number of production workers after the implementation of new 

energy conservation standards and it assumes that manufacturers would continue to 

produce the same scope of covered products within the United States. The lower end of 

the range indicates the total number of U.S. production workers in the industry who could 

lose their jobs if all existing production were moved outside of the United States. Though 

manufacturers stated in interviews that shifts in production to foreign countries are 

unlikely, the industry did not provide enough information for DOE fully quantify what 

percentage of the industry would move production at each evaluated standard level. 

The majority of design options analyzed in the engineering analysis require 

manufacturers to purchase more-efficient components from suppliers. These components 

do not require significant additional labor to assemble. A key component of a commercial 

refrigeration equipment unit that requires fabrication labor by the commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturer is the shell of the unit, which needs to be formed 

and foamed in. Although this activity may require new production equipment if thicker 

insulation is needed to meet higher efficiency levels, the process of building the foamedin-place cases would essentially remain the same, and therefore require no additional 

labor costs. As a result, labor needs are not expected to increase as the amended energy 

conservation standard increases from baseline to TSL 4.

At TSL 5, the introduction of vacuum insulation panels may lead to greater labor 

requirements. In general, the production and handling of VIPs will require more labor 

than the production of standard refrigerated cases. This is due to the delicate nature of 

270
VIPs and the additional labor necessary to embed them into a display case. The additional 

labor and handling associated with these panels account for the increase in labor at the 

max-tech trial standard level. 

DOE notes that the employment impacts discussed here are independent of the 

employment impacts to the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in the 

Employment Impact Analysis, chapter 16 of the TSD.

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

According to the majority of commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers 

interviewed, amended energy conservation standards will not significantly affect 

manufacturers’ production capacities. Any necessary redesign ofAn amended energy 

conservation standard for commercial refrigeration equipment would not change the

fundamental assembly of the equipment, but manufacturers do anticipate potential for 

changes to tooling and fixtures. The most significant of these would come as a result of 

any redesigns performed to accommodate additional foam insulation thickness. However, 

most of the design options being evaluated are already available on the market as product 

options. Thus, DOE believes manufacturers would be able to maintain manufacturing 

capacity levels and continue to meet market demand under amended energy conservation 

standards.

Comment [J120]: Change requested by OIRA.

271
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

Small manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from the industry average could be 

affected disproportionately. As discussed in section IV.J, using average cost assumptions 

to develop an industry cash-flow estimate is inadequate to assess differential impacts 

among manufacturer subgroups. 

For commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE identified and evaluated the impact 

of amended energy conservation standards on one subgroup: small manufacturers. The 

SBA defines a “small business” as having 750 employees or less for NAICS 333415, 

“Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial 

Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.” Based on this definition, DOE identified 32 

manufacturers in the commercial refrigeration equipment industry that are small 

businesses.

For a discussion of the impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup, see the 

regulatory flexibility analysis in section VI.B of this notice and chapter 12 of the final 

rule TSD. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of recent or impending regulations may have serious consequences 

for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the 

272
impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 

to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets 

with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE 

conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency.

For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE looks at other regulations 

that could affect CRE manufacturers that will take effect approximately three years 

before or after the 2017 compliance date of amended energy conservation standards for 

these products. In interviews, manufacturers cited Federal regulations on certification, on 

walk-in cooler and freezer equipment, and from ENERGY STAR as contributing to their 

cumulative regulatory burden. The compliance years and expected industry conversion 

costs are listed below:

Walk-in Cooler and Freezer Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking

Nine commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers also produce walk-ins, 

and therefore they must comply with two rulemakings that follow similar timelines. 

These manufacturers will incur conversion costs for both types of products at around the 

same time, which could be a significant strain on resources. In the 2013 NOPR for walkins, the proposed standard was estimated to require conversion costs of $71 million (in 

2012$) to be incurred by the industry ahead of the 2017 compliance date. 78 FR55781. 

273
However, the analysis is not final and these figures are subject to change in the 

forthcoming final rule for walk-in coolers and freezers. DOE discusses these and other 

requirements, and includes the full details of the cumulative regulatory burden, in chapter 

12 of the final rule TSD.

Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Rule

Many manufacturers have expressed concerns about the Certification, 

Compliance, and Enforcement (CC&E) March 2011 final rule, which allows DOE to 

enforce the energy and water conservation standards for covered products and equipment, 

and provides for more accurate, comprehensive information about the energy and water 

use characteristics of products sold in the United States. The rule revises former 

certification regulations so that the Department has the information it needs to ensure that 

regulated products sold in the United States comply with the law. According to the rule, 

manufacturers of covered consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment 

must certify on an annual basis, by means of a compliance statement and a certification 

report, that each of their basic models meets its applicable energy conservation, water 

conservation, and/or design standard before it is distributed within the United States. For 

purposes of certification testing, the determination that a basic model complies with the 

applicable conservation standard must be based on sampling procedures, which currently 

require that a minimum of two units of a basic model must be tested in order to certify 

that the model is compliant (unless the product-specific regulations specify otherwise). 76 

FR 12422 (March 7, 2011).

274
However, DOE recognizes that sampling requirements can create burden for 

certain commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers who build one-of-a kind 

customized units and have a large number offo basic models. Therefore, DOE conducted

a rulemaking to expand AEDM coverage and issued a final rule on December 31, 2013. 

(78 FR 79579.) An AEDM is a computer modeling or mathematical tool that predicts the 

performance of non-tested basic models. In the final rule, DOE is allowing CRE 

manufacturers to rate their basic models using AEDMs, reducing the need for sample 

units and reducing burden on manufacturers. More information can be found at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/implement_cert_and_enforc

e.html. DOE discusses these and other requirements, and includes the full details of the 

cumulative regulatory burden, in chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

EPA’s ENERGY STAR

Some stakeholders have also expressed concern regarding potential conflicts with 

other certification programs, in particular EPA’s ENERGY STAR requirements. 

However, DOE notes that certain standards, such as ENERGY STAR, are voluntary for 

manufacturers. As such, they are not part of DOE’s consideration of cumulative 

regulatory burden.

DOE discusses these and other non-Federal regulations in chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD.

275
3. National Impact Analysis

a. Energy Savings

DOE estimated the NES by calculating the difference in annual energy 

consumption for the base-case scenario and standards-case scenario at each TSL for each 

equipment class and summing up the annual energy savings over the lifetime of all 

equipment purchased in 2017-2046. 

Table V.38 presents the primary NES (taking into account losses in the generation 

and transmission of electricity) for all equipment classes and the sum total of NES for 

each TSL, and Table V.39 presents estimated FFC energy savings for each considered 

TSL. The total FFC NES progressively increases from 1.245195 quads at TSL 1 to 4.207

quads at TSL 5. 

Table V.38 Cumulative National Primary Energy Savings for Equipment Purchased 

in 2017–2046

Equipment Class quads

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.403000 0.424403 0.550 0.584

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.001000 0.001 0.011 0.017

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.007

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.006000 0.000006 0.008 0.010

VCT.RC.L 0.096 0.130096 0.150130 0.150 0.259

VCT.SC.M 0.060010 0.093060 0.097093 0.110 0.139

VCT.SC.L 0.018 0.040041 0.045 0.050 0.050

VCT.SC.I 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.008

VCS.SC.M 0.309 0.747687 0.794 0.794870 1.080

VCS.SC.L 0.450 0.582631 0.808 0.839 1.121

VCS.SC.I 0.000 0.002001 0.002 0.002 0.005

SVO.RC.M 0.229 0.308229 0.308229 0.316 0.335

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.016

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.016

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

276
HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

HCT.SC.L 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.016

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005

HCS.SC.M 0.004 0.013008 0.013 0.013 0.030

HCS.SC.L 0.001 0.003002 0.003 0.005 0.010

PD.SC.M 0.046 0.301271 0.310301 0.310 0.403

Total 1.225176 2.644041 2.970844 3.194270 4.140

Table V.39 Cumulative National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings for Equipment 

Purchased in 2017–2046

Equipment Class quads

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.410000 0.430410 0.559 0.593

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.001000 0.001 0.011 0.018

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.007

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.006000 0.000006 0.008 0.010

VCT.RC.L 0.098 0.132098 0.153132 0.153 0.263

VCT.SC.M 0.061010 0.094061 0.099094 0.112 0.141

VCT.SC.L 0.018 0.041042 0.046 0.050 0.050

VCT.SC.I 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.008

VCS.SC.M 0.314 0.759699 0.807 0.807884 1.097

VCS.SC.L 0.458 0.592641 0.821 0.852 1.139

VCS.SC.I 0.000 0.002001 0.002 0.002 0.005

SVO.RC.M 0.233 0.312233 0.312233 0.321 0.340

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.016

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.016

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000 0.002001 0.002001 0.002 0.002

HCT.SC.L 0.011 0.012 0.013012 0.013 0.016

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005

HCS.SC.M 0.004 0.013008 0.013 0.014 0.030

HCS.SC.L 0.001 0.003002 0.003 0.005 0.010

PD.SC.M 0.047 0.306275 0.315306 0.315 0.410

Total 1.245195 2.687074 3.0182.889 3.245323 4.207

Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results, including separate 

schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits 

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J121]: Change requested by OIRA; ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

277
and costs. Circular A-4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using nine rather than 30 years of product shipments. The choice of a 

9-year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 

standards.79 The review timeframe established in EPCA generally does not overlap with

the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles or other factors specific to commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Thus, this information is presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical methodology. The primary 

and full-fuel cycle NES results based on a 9-year analysis period are presented in Table 

V.40 and Table V.41, respectively. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products 

purchased in 2017–2025.

79 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every 6 years (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), 6316(e)), 

and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance 

is required, except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date 

of the previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4), 6316(e)).While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year 

compliance period sums to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year 

period, and that the 3 year compliance date may be extended to 5 years. A 9-year analysis period may not 

be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that, for some 

consumer products, the period following establishment of a new or amended standard before which 

compliance is required is 5 years rather than 3 years.

278

 
Table V.40 Cumulative National Primary Energy Savings for 9-year Analysis 

Period (Equipment Purchased in 2017–2025)

Equipment

Class

quads

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.099000 0.104099 0.134 0.143

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.004

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.002000 0.002 0.002 0.003

VCT.RC.L 0.024 0.032024 0.037032 0.037 0.063

VCT.SC.M 0.017003 0.025017 0.026025 0.029 0.036

VCT.SC.L 0.005 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.013

VCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

VCS.SC.M 0.075 0.185168 0.185198 0.198219 0.270

VCS.SC.L 0.110 0.142156 0.202 0.209 0.278

VCS.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000001 0.001 0.001

SVO.RC.M 0.056 0.075056 0.075056 0.077 0.082

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

HCT.SC.L 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

HCS.SC.M 0.001 0.003002 0.003 0.004 0.008

HCS.SC.L 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003

PD.SC.M 0.011 0.074066 0.074 0.076 0.099

Total 0.302289 0.652504 0.724707 0.793814 1.027

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

279
Table V.41 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for 9-year Analysis 

Period (Equipment Purchased in 2017–2025)

Equipment 

Class

quads

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.100000 0.105100 0.137 0.145

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.004

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.002000 0.002 0.002 0.003

VCT.RC.L 0.024 0.032024 0.037032 0.037 0.064

VCT.SC.M 0.017003 0.025017 0.026025 0.029 0.037

VCT.SC.L 0.005 0.011012 0.013 0.014 0.014

VCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

VCS.SC.M 0.077 0.188171 0.188201 0.201222 0.275

VCS.SC.L 0.112 0.145158 0.205 0.213 0.283

VCS.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000001 0.001 0.001

SVO.RC.M 0.057 0.076057 0.076057 0.079 0.083

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

HCT.SC.L 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

HCS.SC.M 0.001 0.004002 0.004 0.004 0.008

HCS.SC.L 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003

PD.SC.M 0.011 0.075067 0.075 0.077 0.100

Total 0.308294 0.663513 0.736719 0.806828 1.045

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the Nation of the net savings for CRE

customers that would result from potential standards at each TSL. In accordance with 

OMB guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E, September 17, 

2003), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. 

Table V.42 and Table V.43 show the customer NPV results for each of the TSLs 

DOE considered for commercial refrigeration equipment at 7-percent and 3-percent 

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

280
discount rates, respectively. The impacts cover the expected lifetime of equipment 

purchased in 2017–2046. 

The NPV results at a 7-percent discount rate are negative for all equipment 

classes at TSL 5 except for the VCT.SC.L equipment class. Efficiency levels for TSL 4 

were chosen to correspond to the highest efficiency level with a near positive NPV at a 7-

percent discount rate for each equipment class. The criterion for TSL 23 was to select 

efficiency levels with the highest NPV at a 7-percent discount rate. Consequently, the 

total NPV is highest for TSL 23. TSL 32 shows the second highest total NPV at a 7-

percent discount rate. TSL 1 has a total NPV lower than TSL 42.

Table V.42 Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits at a 7-percent 

Discount Rate

Equipment 

Class

billion 2012$ *

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.532000 0.491570 0.160171 -2.749941

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.001000 0.001 -0.003004 -0.225240

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.009 -0.349374

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.012000 0.000013 -0.003 -0.253271

VCT.RC.L 0.198212 0.219212 -0.005234 -0.005 -4.134423

VCT.SC.M -0.036006 0.054039 0.040058 -0.003 -1.431531

VCT.SC.L 0.055059 0.109118 0.115123 0.038040 0.038040

VCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.004 -0.132141

VCS.SC.M 0.706756 1.705748 1.709829 1.709659 -6.374820

VCS.SC.L 1.088164 1.323502 1.476579 1.449550 -4.385692

VCS.SC.I 0.001 0.002 0.002003 0.002003 -0.047050

SVO.RC.M 0.272291 0.112291 0.112291 0.076081 -1.396493

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.003 -0.201215

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.011 -0.320342

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.003 -0.030032

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.115123

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.686734

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.023025

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000001 0.001002 0.001002 0.000 -0.013014

HCT.SC.L 0.022024 0.023024 0.023025 0.021022 -0.028030

Comment [J125]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J126]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J127]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J128]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

281
HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.071076

HCS.SC.M 0.008 0.012 0.012 0.006007 -0.319342

HCS.SC.L 0.003 0.006005 0.006 0.004 -0.044047

PD.SC.M 0.007 0.171183 0.136183 0.136146 -3.248475

Total 2.396519 4.283139 4.121928 3.558637 -26.53228.390

* A value of $0.000 means NES values are less than 0.001 billion 2012$.

Table V.43 Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits at a 3-percent 

Discount Rate

Equipment 

Class

billion 2012$ *

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 1.4560.000 1.391500 0.856882 -4.752894

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.003000 0.003004 0.003 -0.421433

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.015016 -0.663683

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.028000 0.000029 0.001 -0.481496

VCT.RC.L 0.467481 0.535481 0.121551 0.121125 -7.7748.007

VCT.SC.M -0.115006 0.179119 0.154185 0.083086 -2.633712

VCT.SC.L 0.120124 0.242252 0.257265 0.113116 0.113116

VCT.SC.I 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.004005 -0.247254

VCS.SC.M 1.608656 3.911838 3.9554.074 3.955825 -11.487832

VCS.SC.L 2.477551 3.043333 3.520626 3.487592 -7.596824

VCS.SC.I 0.001 0.005 0.005007 0.006007 -0.087090

SVO.RC.M 0.767790 0.525790 0.525790 0.462476 -2.372443

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 -0.371383

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.018 -0.607625

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.004 -0.057058

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.221227

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.311350

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 -0.043044

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.001002 0.004 0.004 0.002 -0.023024

HCT.SC.L 0.053054 0.055056 0.055057 0.051053 -0.038039

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.133137

HCS.SC.M 0.018019 0.032029 0.032033 0.022 -0.576594

HCS.SC.L 0.006 0.014010 0.014 0.011012 -0.074076

PD.SC.M 0.045046 0.584577 0.522602 0.522537 -5.9126.090

Total 5.681727 10.6209.497 10.56211.742 9.658698 -47.76649.199

* A value of $0.000 means NES values are less than 0.001 billion 2012$. Values in parentheses 

are negative values.

The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analysis period are 

presented in Table V.44 and Table V.45. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

equipment purchased in 2017–2025. As mentioned previously, this information is 

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J129]: Change requested by OIRA; ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

282
presented for informational purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision criteria.

Table V.44 Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits at a 7-percent 

Discount Rate for 9-year Analysis Period (Equipment Purchased in 2017–2025)

Equipment 

Class

billion 2012$ *

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.221000 0.200237 0.034036 -1.359454

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002 -0.108116

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.004005 -0.168179

VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.006000 0.006 -0.001002 -0.122130

VCT.RC.L 0.092099 0.100099 -0.008107 -0.008009 -1.9902.130

VCT.SC.M -0.019004 0.025020 0.018027 -0.003 -0.688736

VCT.SC.L 0.027029 0.055059 0.057061 0.020021 0.020021

VCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002 -0.064068

VCS.SC.M 0.319342 0.773792 0.773827 0.773732 -3.119338

VCS.SC.L 0.493528 0.598681 0.663709 0.648693 -2.160311

VCS.SC.I 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.023024

SVO.RC.M 0.111118 0.029118 0.029118 0.011012 -0.694742

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002 -0.097104

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.005006 -0.154165

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 -0.014015

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.055059

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.330353

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.011012

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 -0.006007

HCT.SC.L 0.010011 0.010011 0.010011 0.009010 -0.017018

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.034037

HCS.SC.M 0.004 0.005006 0.005006 0.002003 -0.170182

HCS.SC.L 0.001 0.003002 0.003 0.002 -0.024025

PD.SC.M 0.000 0.072079 0.072077 0.055059 -1.570680

Total 1.077129 1.899869 1.8312.191 1.525536 -12.95613.863

*A value of $0.000 means NES values are less than 0.001 billion 2012$. Values in parentheses are negative values.

Table V.45 Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits at a 3-percent 

Discount Rate for 9-year Analysis period (Equipment Purchased in 2017–2025)

Equipment 

Class

billion 2012$ *

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M 0.000 0.433000 0.408446 0.202208 -1.761814

VOP.RC.L 0.000 0.001000 0.001 -0.001 -0.149154

VOP.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.006 -0.233240

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

283
VCT.RC.M 0.000 0.009000 0.009010 0.000 -0.169174

VCT.RC.L 0.155160 0.174160 0.027179 0.027 -2.747829

VCT.SC.M -0.043004 0.060044 0.051062 0.024025 -0.929957

VCT.SC.L 0.044045 0.088092 0.093096 0.042043 0.042043

VCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002 -0.087090

VCS.SC.M 0.517533 1.265239 1.265314 1.276204 -4.170295

VCS.SC.L 0.800824 0.9791.078 1.126160 1.110143 -2.801885

VCS.SC.I 0.000 0.002001 0.002 0.002 -0.031032

SVO.RC.M 0.224231 0.128231 0.128231 0.105108 -0.888914

SVO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.132136

SOC.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.007 -0.214221

SOC.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002 -0.020021

HZO.RC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.077080

HZO.RC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.461475

HZO.SC.M 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.015016

HZO.SC.L 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

HCT.SC.M 0.000001 0.001 0.001 0.000 -0.008009

HCT.SC.L 0.017 0.018 0.017018 0.016 -0.019020

HCT.SC.I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.047049

HCS.SC.M 0.007 0.011010 0.011 0.006007 -0.230237

HCS.SC.L 0.002 0.005004 0.005 0.004 -0.031

PD.SC.M 0.009 0.177178 0.177182 0.154158 -2.108171

Total 1.819826 3.352056 3.321719 2.951929 -17.286805

* A value of $0.000 means NES values are less than 0.001 billion 2012$. Values in parentheses are negative values.

c. Employment Impacts

In addition to the direct impacts on manufacturing employment discussed in 

section V.B.2, DOE develops general estimates of the indirect employment impacts of 

amended standards on the economy. As discussed above, DOE expects energy amended 

conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment to reduce energy bills for 

commercial customers, and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. DOE also realizes that these shifts in spending and economic activity 

by commercial refrigeration equipment owners could affect the demand for labor. Thus, 

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 amended standards. These impacts may affect a 

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

284
variety of businesses not directly involved in the decision to make, operate, or pay the 

utility bills for commercial refrigeration equipment. To estimate these indirect economic 

effects, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy using U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and BLS data (as described in section 

IV.J of this notice; see chapter 16 of the final rule TSD for more details).

Customers who purchase more-efficient equipment pay lower amounts towards 

utility bills, which results in job losses in the electric utilities sector. However, in the

input/output model, the dollars saved on utility bills are re-invested in economic sectors 

that create more jobs than are lost in the electric utilities sector. Thus, the amended 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment are likely to 

slightly increase the net demand for labor in the economy. As shown in chapter 16 of the 

final rule TSD, DOE estimates that net indirect employment impacts from commercial 

refrigeration equipment amended standards are very small relative to the national 

economy. However, the net increase in jobs might be offset by other, unanticipated 

effects on employment. Neither the BLS data nor the input/output model used by DOE 

includes the quality of jobs. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

In performing the engineering analysis, DOE considers design options that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of the individual classes of equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(e)(1)) As presented in the screening analysis (chapter 4 of 

the final rule TSD), DOE eliminates from consideration any design options that reduce 

285
the utility of the equipment. For today’s final rule, DOE concluded that none of the 

efficiency levels considered for commercial refrigeration equipment reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result 

from standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney 

General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed rule and simultaneously published proposed rule, 

together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making a 

determination for CRE standards, DOE provided the Department of Justice (DOJ) with 

copies of the NOPR and the TSD for review. DOE received no adverse comments from 

DOJ regarding the proposal.

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

An improvement in the energy efficiency of the equipment subject to today’s final 

rule is likely to improve the security of the Nation’s energy system by reducing overall 

demand for energy. Reduced electricity demand may also improve the reliability of the 

electricity system. Reductions in national electric generating capacity estimated for each 

considered TSL are reported in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. 

286
Energy savings from amended standards for commercial refrigeration equipment 

could also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and GHGs associated with electricity production. Table V.46 provides DOE’s 

estimate of cumulative emissions reductions projected to result from the TSLs considered 

in this rule. The table includes both power sector emissions and upstream emissions. 

DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the final rule

TSD.

287
Table V.46 Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment TSLs for Equipment Purchased in 2017–2046

TSL

1 2 3 4 5

Power Sector Emissions

 CO2 (million metric tons)

54.957.3

123.595.

4

138.913

3.0

149.315

2.9 193.6

 SO2 (thousand tons)

88.584.9

190.914

7.4

214.620

5.5

230.723

6.3 299.1

 NOX (thousand tons) -

12.011.4

-

25.819.9

-

29.328.1

-

31.432.3 -40.7

 Hg (tons) 0.110 0.217 0.324 0.328 0.435

 N2O (thousand tons) 1.43 2.3.0 3.42 3.67 4.7

 CH4 (thousand tons) 8.07.7 1713.3 19.418.6 20.921.4 27.1

Upstream Emissions

 CO2 (million metric tons) 3.87 8.36.4 8.9.3 10.02 13.0

 SO2 (thousand tons) 0.8 1.84 2.01.9 2.12 2.8

 NOX (thousand tons)

52.750.6 11387.8

127.812

2.4

137.414

0.7 178.2

 Hg (tons) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

 N2O (thousand tons) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

 CH4 (thousand tons) 320307.

2

690.953

3.3

776743.

1

834854.

6 1081.9

Total Emissions

 CO2 (million metric tons)

61.158.6

131.810

1.7

148.214

1.9

159.316

3.2 206.5

 SO2 (thousand tons)

89.385.7

192.714

8.8

216.620

7.4

232.923

8.5 301.9

 NOX (thousand tons)

40.839.2 88.067.9 98.594.3

106.010

8.4 137.4

 Hg (tons) 0.110 0.218 0.325 0.328 0.436

 N2O (thousand tons) 1.4 3.12.4 3.53 3.78 4.8

 CH4 (thousand tons) 328.331

4.9

708.254

6.6

795.576

1.7

855.587

5.9 1109.0

As part of the analysis for this final rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOx that were estimated for each of the 

TSLs considered. As discussed in section IV.L, for CO2, DOE used values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. The interagency group selected four sets of SCC 

values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets are based on the average SCC from three 

integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. 

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Comment [J133]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

288
The fourth set, which represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models 

at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from 

temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The four SCC values 

for CO2 emissions reductions in 2015, expressed in 2012$, are $11.8/ton, $39.7/ton, 

$61.2/ton, and $117/ton. The values for later years are higher due to increasing 

emissions-related costs as the magnitude of projected climate change increases.

Table V.47 presents the global value of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. 

DOE calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global 

values, and these results are presented in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD.

Table V.47 Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Potential 

Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

TSL

SCC Scenario

5% discount 

rate, 

average

3% discount 

rate, 

average

2.5% 

discount rate, 

average

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile

million 2012$

Power Sector Emissions

1 389.8392 1,785.51762 2,837.42787 5,509.45438

2 841.0682 3,851.83063 6,121.14844 11,885.29452

3 946.4952 4,332.74274 6,884.96758 13,368.413187

4 1,017.51095 4,658.64916 7,402.77773 14,374.015167

5 1,318.91385 6,038.86220 9,595.99836 18,632.519192

Upstream Emissions

1 24.825 116.4115 185.7183 359.9356

2 53.643 251.0200 400.6317 776.4617

3 60.361 278282.1 450.2442 872.5861

4 64.870 303.3320 484.1508 938.3990

5 84.088 393.2405 627.5643 1,216.31253

Total Emissions

1 414.7417 1,901.91877 3,023.12970 5,869.35794

2 894.6725 4,102.83263 6,521.75161 12,661.710070

3 1,006.61012 4,614.84552 7,335.07200 14,240.914047

4 1,082.31164 4,961.95236 7,886.88281 15,312.316157

5 1,402.91473 6,432.06625 10,223.510479 19,848.820444

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

Formatted Table

Comment [J134]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

289
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution 

of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value 

placed in this final rule on reducing CO2 emissions is subject to change. DOE, together 

with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review 

will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this final 

rule and other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this particular issue, DOE has included in this final rule the 

most recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency review process.

DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic 

benefits associated with NOx emission reductions anticipated to result from amended 

commercial refrigeration equipment standards. Table V.48 presents the present value of 

cumulative NOx emissions reductions for each TSL calculated using the average dollarper-ton values and 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

290
Table V.48 Present Value of NOx Emissions Reduction for Potential Standards for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

TSL 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

million 2012$

Power Sector Emissions

1 -25.83 -18.69

2 -55.744.4 -40.133.2

3 -63.262.4 -45.546.6

4 -6771.9 -48.853.7

5 -88.090.6 -63.367.7

Upstream Emissions

1 69.668.7 31.832.6

2 150.1119.4 6856.7

3 168.8166.5 7779.3

4 181191.5 83.191.2

5 235.3242.4 107.8115.3

Total Emissions

1 43.84 13.37

2 94.475.0 2823.6

3 105.6104.1 31.932.6

4 113.7119.6 34.337.4

5 147.3151.8 44.547.6

7. Summary of National Economic Impact

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emission reductions can be 

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the customer savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this final rule. Table V.49 presents the NPV values that result from adding 

the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and NOX

emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of customer savings calculated 

for each TSL, at both a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. The CO2 values used in 

the table correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2 emission reductions 

discussed above.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Comment [J135]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

291
Table V.49 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs: Net Present Value of 

Consumer Savings Combined with Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from 

CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions

TSL

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with Value of Emissions Based on:

SCC Value of 

$11.8/metric ton 

CO2*and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

SCC Value of 

$39.7/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

SCC Value of 

$61.2/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

SCC Value of 

$117/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

billion 2012$

1 6.12 7.6 8.7 11.6

2 11.610.3 1412.8 17.214.7 23.419.6

3 11.712.9 15.316.4 1819.0 2425.9

4 10.911.0 14.715.1 17.718.1 25.126.0

5 -46.247.6 -41.242.4 -37.438.6 -27.828.6

TSL

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with Value of Emissions Based on:

SCC Value of 

$11.8/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

SCC Value of 

$39.7/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

SCC Value of 

$61.2/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

SCC Value of 

$117/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOx

billion 2012$

1 2.83.0 4.34 5.45 8.3

2 5.24.9 87.4 10.89.3 17.014.2

3 5.26.0 8.89.5 11.512.2 18.419.0

4 4.78 8.69 11.512.0 19.818.9

5 -25.126.9 -20.121.7 -16.317.9 -6.67.9

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. The present values have been 

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. 

Although adding the value of customer savings to the values of emission 

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur 

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J136]: Change requested by OIRA; ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J137]: Change requested by OIRA; ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

292
value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and the SCC are performed with 

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

cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2017–2046. The SCC 

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

resulting from the emission of one metric ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100.

8. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary, in determining whether a standard is economically 

justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(e)(1)) DOE has not considered other factors in 

development of the standards in this final rule.

C. Conclusions

Any new or amended energy conservation standard for any type (or class) of 

covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) In determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)) The new or 

amended standard must also result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(e)(1))

293
For today’s rulemaking, DOE considered the impacts of potential standards at 

each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine 

whether that level met the evaluation criteria. If the max-tech level was not justified, 

DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation 

until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.

To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables 

in this section summarize the quantitative analytical results for each TSL, based on the 

assumptions and methodology discussed herein. The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section IV.A.1. In addition to the quantitative results presented in 

the tables below, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic 

justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may 

be disproportionately affected by a national standard, and impacts on employment. 

Section IV.I presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for the considered subgroups. 

DOE discusses the impacts on employment in CRE manufacturing in section IV.J and 

discusses the indirect employment impacts in section IV.N.

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment

Table V.50 through Table V.53 summarizes the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for CRE.

Formatted: Highlight

294
Table V.50 Summary of Results for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs: 

National Impacts*

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL5

Cumulative National Energy Savings 2017 through 2060 

quads

1.225176 2.644041 2.970844 3.194270 4.140

With full-fuel cycle 1.195 2.074 2.889 3.323 4.207

Cumulative NPV of Customer Benefits

2012$ billion

3% discount rate 5.68173 10.6209.50 10.56211.74 9.65870 

(47.76649.20

)

7% discount rate 2.39652 4.28314 4.12193 3.55864 

(26.53228.39

)

Industry Impacts

Change in Industry 

NPV (2012$ million)

(29.423.9) to 

(8.49.9)

(83.542.9) to 

(13.58.7)

(170165.0) to 

(7093.9)

(265320.9) to 

(130.1189.4)

(1,190.5144.8

) to 

(129.3184.4)

Change in Industry 

NPV (%)

(1.140.90) to 

(0.3337)

(3.241.61) to 

(0.5333)

(6.6120) to 

(2.753.53)

(10.3412.07) 

to (5.067.12)

(46.2743.04) 

to (5.026.93)

Cumulative Emissions Reductions**

CO2 (Mt) 61.158.6 131.8101.7 148.2141.9 159.3163.2 206.5

SO2 (kt) 89.385.7 192.7148.8 216.6207.4 232.9238.5 301.9

NOx (kt) 40.839.2 88.067.9 98.594.3 106.0108.4 137.4

Hg (t) 0.110 0.218 0.325 0.328 0.436

N2O (kt) 1.4 3.12.4 3.53 3.78 4.8

N2O (kt CO2eq) 426.0408.8 919.1709.4 988.1,032.0

1,109.91136.

2 1,4381438.8

CH4 (kt) 328.3314.9 708.2546.6 795.5761.7 855.5875.9 1,1091109.0

CH4 (kt CO2eq) 8,206.57872.

6

17,704.2136

65.9

19,887.7190

43.5

21,38721898

.5

27,72427724

.7

Monetary Value of Cumulative Emissions Reductions

2012$ million†

CO2

415417 to 

5,8695794

895725 to 

12,66210070

1,0071012 to 

14,24114047

1,0821164 to 

15,31216157

1,4031473 to 

19,84920444

NOX – 3% discount 

rate 43.84 94.475.0 105.6104.1 113.7119.6 147.3151.8

NOx – 7% discount 

rate 13.37 2823.6 31.932.6 34.337.4 44.547.6

** “Mt” stands for million metric tons; “kt” stands for kilotons; “t” stands for tons. CO2eq is the quantity of 

CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP).

† Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted Table ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Formatted ...

Comment [J138]: Change requested by OIRA; ...

295
Table V.51 Summary of Results for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs: 

Mean LCC Savings

Mean LCC Savings* 

2012$

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

VOP.RC.M ---- 922--- 482922 -5 -4,203

VOP.RC.L ---- 53--- 53 -148 -6,701

VOP.SC.M ---- ---- ---- -54 -1,384

VCT.RC.M ---- 542--- 542 41 -4,937

VCT.RC.L 647 526647 93526 93 -6,036

VCT.SC.M 214-10 226214 209226 163 -1,541

VCT.SC.L 2,503 5,2004,709 5,001 2,812 2,812

VCT.SC.I 18 18 18 -68 -2,834

VCS.SC.M 223 365518 365363 363305 -1,428

VCS.SC.L 588 513550 507 495 -1,640

VCS.SC.I 41 111114 111113 113 -2,710

SVO.RC.M 564 48564 48564 -19 -2,691

SVO.SC.M ---- ---- ---- 6 -917

SOC.RC.M ---- ---- ---- -128 -2,268

SOC.SC.M ---- ---- ---- -209 -2,204

HZO.RC.M ---- ---- ---- ---- -2,180

HZO.RC.L ---- ---- ---- ---- -4,249

HZO.SC.M ---- 55 55 -4 -1,154

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

HCT.SC.M 3666 91165 91101 43 -599

HCT.SC.L 428 293435 286293 248 -613

HCT.SC.I ---- ---- ---- ---- -1,240

HCS.SC.M 12 1517 15 5 -568

HCS.SC.L 31 6450 64 33 -590

PD.SC.M 8 165163 165 150 -1,252

* “NA” means “not applicable,” because for equipment classes HZO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L, and HZO.SC.L, TSLs 1 through 4 are 

associated with the baseline efficiency level.

Formatted Table

Comment [J139]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

296
Table V.52 Summary of Results for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs: 

Median Payback Period

Median Payback Period 

years

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL5

VOP.RC.M --- 5.7--- 5.7.2 9.9 34.1

VOP.RC.L --- 6.1--- 6.1 11.3 310.0

VOP.SC.M --- --- --- 63.1 593.2

VCT.RC.M --- 2.1--- 2.1 6.6 364.7

VCT.RC.L 1.8 2.71.8 6.32.7 6.3 194.7

VCT.SC.M 23.4.8 5.34.8 5.73 7.0 96.2

VCT.SC.L 0.5 0.8 1.1 4.7 4.7

VCT.SC.I 7.2 7.2 7.2 16.2 663.6

VCS.SC.M 0.5 1.0.6 1.04 1.42.6 48.0

VCS.SC.L 0.6 1.13 2.5 2.7 31.8

VCS.SC.I 2.6 4.03.6 45.0 5.0 183.7

SVO.RC.M 6.2 9.96.2 9.96.2 10.4 29.9

SVO.SC.M --- --- --- 10.9 151.6

SOC.RC.M --- --- --- 38.0 114.1

SOC.SC.M --- --- --- 28.7 25.3

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

HZO.RC.L --- --- --- --- 288.9

HZO.SC.M --- 6.9 6.9 11.8 194.7

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

HCT.SC.M 1.82.5 6.54.7 6.5.8 9.2 46.6

HCT.SC.L 1.8 2.50 2.75 3.6 19.5

HCT.SC.I --- --- --- --- 23.8

HCS.SC.M 2.9 5.53.7 5.5 7.5 680.6

HCS.SC.L 1.4 2.51.7 2.5 6.2 68.9

PD.SC.M 9.3 5.63 5.6 6.0 102.2

* “NA” means “not applicable,” because for equipment classes HZO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L, and HZO.SC.L, TSLs 1 through 4 are 

associated with the baseline efficiency level.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Comment [J140]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

297
Table V.53 Summary of Results for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment TSLs: 

Distribution of Customer LCC Impacts

Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3* TSL 4* TSL 5*

VOP.RC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 40 464 64 100

No Impact (%) 100 41100 041 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 550 5455 36 0

VOP.RC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 70 7 59 100

No Impact (%) 100 40100 40 20 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 530 53 21 0

VOP.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 60 100

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 40 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 0 0

VCT.RC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 36 100

No Impact (%) 100 40100 40 13 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 600 60 51 0

VCT.RC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 40 434 43 100

No Impact (%) 40 2040 020 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 60 7660 5776 57 0

VCT.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 171 31 73 17 100

No Impact (%) 10 010 0 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 8918 9789 9397 83 0

VCT.SC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 11 11

No Impact (%) 10 100 0 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 90 90100 100 89 89

VCT.SC.I

Net Cost (%) 10 10 10 65 84

No Impact (%) 40 40 40 24 16

Net Benefit (%) 50 50 50 11 0

VCS.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 10 17 725 100

No Impact (%) 40 1040 10 10 0

Net Benefit (%) 60 8960 8983 8365 0

VCS.SC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 0 7 9 100

No Impact (%) 40 10 0 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 60 90 93 91 0

VCS.SC.I

Net Cost (%) 0 30 39 9 92

No Impact (%) 40 2432 2417 17 8

Net Benefit (%) 60 7368 7375 75 0

SVO.RC.M

Net Cost (%) 7 637 637 67 100

No Impact (%) 40 040 040 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 54 3754 3754 33 0

SVO.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 32 100

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

298
No Impact (%) 100 100 100 40 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 27 0

SOC.RC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 60 100

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 40 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 0 0

SOC.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 100 100

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 1 0

HZO.RC.M**

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 60

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 100 40

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 0 0

HZO.RC.L**

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 60

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 100 40

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 0 0

HZO.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 5 5 50 100

No Impact (%) 100 40 40 21 0

Net Benefit (%) 0 54 54 29 0

HZO.SC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 0

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 100 100

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 0 0

HCT.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 320 3220 45 100

No Impact (%) 40 040 0 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 60 6860 6880 55 0

HCT.SC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 100 2010 29 87

No Impact (%) 41 1041 10 10 10

Net Benefit (%) 59 8059 7180 61 3

HCT.SC.I

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 61

No Impact (%) 100 100 100 100 39

Net Benefit (%) 0 0 0 0 0

HCS.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 0 101 10 42 91

No Impact (%) 9 9 9 9 9

Net Benefit (%) 91 8090 80 48 0

HCS.SC.L

Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 20 90

No Impact (%) 10 10 10 10 10

Net Benefit (%) 90 90 90 70 0

PD.SC.M

Net Cost (%) 28 53 5 8 100

No Impact (%) 39 0 0 0 0

Net Benefit (%) 33 9597 95 92 0

*Values have been rounded to the nearest integer. Therefore, some of the percentages may not add up to 100..

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Comment [J141]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

299
TSL 5 corresponds to the max-tech level for all the equipment classes and offers 

the potential for the highest cumulative energy savings. The estimated energy savings 

from TSL 5 is 4.21 quads, an amount DOE deems significant. TSL 5 shows a net 

negative NPV for customers with estimated increased costs valued at $26.5328.39 billion 

at a 7-percent discount rate. Estimated emissions reductions are 206.5 Mt of CO2, 137.4 

kt of NOx, 301.9 kt of SO2, and 0.36 tons of Hg. The CO2 emissions have a value of $1.5

billion to $20.4 billion to $19.8 billion and the NOx emissions have a value of $44.547.6

million at a 7-percent discount rate. 

For TSL 5 the mean LCC savings for all equipment classes, except for VCT.SC.L

are negative, implying an increase in LCC. The median PBP is longer than the lifetime of 

the equipment for nearly all/most equipment classes. The share of customers that would 

experience a net benefit (positive LCC savings) is very low in nearly all equipment 

classes.

At TSL 5, manufacturers may expect diminished profitability due to large 

increases in product costs, capital investments in equipment and tooling, and 

expenditures related to engineering and testing. The projected change in INPV ranges 

from a decrease of $1,190.5144.8 million to a decrease of $129.3184.4 million based on 

DOE’s manufacturer markup scenarios. The upper bound of -$129.3184.4 million is 

considered an optimistic scenario for manufacturers because it assumes manufacturers 

can fully pass on substantial increases in equipment costs to their customers. DOE 

recognizes the risk of large negative impacts on industry if manufacturers’ expectations 

Comment [J142]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J143]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Black

Comment [J144]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J145]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J146]: Change requested by OIRA.

300
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. TSL 5 could reduce commercial 

refrigeration equipment INPV by up to 46.2743.04 percent if impacts reach the lower 

bound of the range.

After carefully considering the analyses results and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 5, DOE finds that the benefits to the Nation from TSL 5, in the form of 

energy savings and emissions reductions, are outweighed by the burdens, in the form of a 

large decrease in customer NPV, negative LCC savings and very long PBPs for nearly all 

equipment classes, and a decrease in manufacturer INPV. DOE concludes that the 

burdens of TSL 5 outweigh the benefits and, therefore, does not find TSL 5 to be 

economically justifiable. 

TSL 4 corresponds to the highest efficiency level, in each equipment class, with a 

near positive NPV at a 7-percent discount rate. The estimated energy savings from TSL 4 

is 3.2532 quads, an amount DOE deems significant. TSL 4 shows a net negative positive

NPV for customers with estimated increased costsbenefit of at $3.5664 billion at a 7-

percent discount rate. Estimated emissions reductions are 159.3163.2 Mt of CO2, 

106.0108.4 kt of NOx, 232.9238.5 kt of SO2, and 0.28 tons of Hg. The CO2 emissions 

have a value of $1.2 billion to $16.1 billion to $15.3 billion and the NOx emissions have a 

value of $34.337.4 million at a 7-percent discount rate.

Comment [J147]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J148]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J149]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J150]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J151]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J152]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J153]: Change requested by OIRA.

301
At TSL 4, the mean LCC savings among equipment classes affected by standards 

range from −$209 for HCS.SC.M to $2,812 for VOP.RC.M.80 The median PBP ranges 

from 1.42.6 years to 63.1 years. The share of customers that would experience a net 

benefit (positive LCC savings) ranges from 0 percent to 91 percent.

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $265320.9

million to a decrease of $130.1189.4 million. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are 

realized. If the lower bound of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 

could result in a net loss of 10.3412.07 percent in INPV for commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers.

After carefully considering the analyses results and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, DOE finds that the benefits to the Nation from TSL 4, in the form of 

energy savings and emissions reductions, an increase in customer NPV, and positive 

mean LCC savings for many equipment classes, are outweighed by the burdens, in the 

form of negative mean LCC savings for many equipment classes (including several 

classes with a significant share of total shipments), long PBPs for some equipment 

classes, the fact that over half of customers would experience a net cost (negative LCC 

savings) in many equipment classes, and a decrease in manufacturer INPV. DOE 

80 For equipment classes HZO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L, and HZO.SC.L, and HCT.SC.I TSL 4 is associated with 

the baseline level because these equipment classes have only one efficiency level above baseline and each 

of those higher efficiency levels yields a negative NPV. Therefore, there are no efficiency levels that satisfy 

the criteria used for selection of TSLs 1 through 4.

Comment [J154]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J155]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J156]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J157]: Change requested by OIRA.

302

 
concludes that the burdens of TSL 4 outweigh the benefits and, therefore, does not find 

TSL 4 to be economically justifiable. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 3. The estimated energy savings from TSL 3 is 

3.022.89 quads, an amount DOE deems significant. TSL 3 shows a positive NPV for 

customers valued at $4.1293 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. Estimated emissions 

reductions are 148.2.0141.9 Mt of CO2, 98.594.3 kt of NOx, 216.6207.4 kt of SO2, and 

0.2625 tons of Hg. The CO2 emissions have a value of $1.010 billion to $14.20 billion 

and the NOx emissions have a value of $31.932.6 million at a 7-percent discount rate.

At TSL 3, the mean LCC savings for affected equipment classes range from 

$1518 to $5,001.

81 The median PBP ranges from 1.1 years to 9.97.2 years. The share of 

customers that would experience a net benefit (positive LCC savings) is over 50 percent 

for all affected equipment classes.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $170165.0

million to a decrease of $7093.9 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the lower bound of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result 

in a net loss of 6.6120 percent in INPV for commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturers.

81 Equipment classes VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, SOC.RC.M, SOC.SC.M, HZO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L, 

HZO.SC.L, and HCT.SC.I at TSL 3 are associated with the baseline level.

Comment [J158]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J159]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J160]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J161]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J162]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J163]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J164]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J165]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J166]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J167]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J168]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J169]: Change requested by OIRA.

303

 
After careful consideration of the analyses results and, weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 3, DOE finds that the benefits to the Nation from TSL 3, in the form of 

energy savings and emissions reductions, an increase in customer NPV, positive mean 

LCC savings for all affected equipment classes, PBPs that are less than seven years for 

most of the affected equipment classes, and the fact that over half of customers would 

experience a net benefit in nearly all affected equipment classes, outweigh the burdens, in 

the form of a decrease in manufacturer INPV. The Secretary concludes that TSL 3 will 

offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified and will result in the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, 

DOE today is adopting standards at TSL 3 for commercial refrigeration equipment. The 

amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, which

consist of maximum daily energy consumption (MDEC) values as a function of either 

refrigerated volume or total display area (TDA), are shown in Table V.54.

304
Table V.54 Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment (Compliance Required Starting [INSERT DATE])

Equipment 

Class*

Standard Level**, † Equipment 

Class*

Standard Level**, †

VCT.RC.L 0.49 x TDA + 2.61 VOP.RC.I 2.79 x TDA + 8.7

VOP.RC.M 0.63 x TDA + 4.07 SVO.RC.L 2.2 x TDA + 6.85

SVO.RC.M 0.62 x TDA + 3.18 SVO.RC.I 2.79 x TDA + 8.7

HZO.RC.L 0.55 x TDA + 6.88 HZO.RC.I 0.7 x TDA + 8.74

HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 2.88 VOP.SC.L 4.25 x TDA + 11.82

VCT.RC.M 0.15 x TDA + 1.95 VOP.SC.I 5.4 x TDA + 15.02

VOP.RC.L 2.2 x TDA + 6.85 SVO.SC.L 4.26 x TDA + 11.52

SOC.RC.M 0.44 x TDA + 0.11 SVO.SC.I 5.41 x TDA + 14.63

VOP.SC.M 1.69 x TDA + 4.71 HZO.SC.I 2.42 x TDA + 9

SVO.SC.M 1.7 x TDA + 4.59 SOC.RC.L 0.93 x TDA + 0.22

HZO.SC.L 1.9 x TDA + 7.08 SOC.RC.I 1.09 x TDA + 0.26

HZO.SC.M 0.72 x TDA + 5.55 SOC.SC.I 1.53 x TDA + 0.36

HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 0.43 VCT.RC.I 0.57 x TDA + 3.05

VCT.SC.I 0.62 x TDA + 3.29 HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 0.13

VCS.SC.I 0.35 x V + 0.88 HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 0.26

VCT.SC.M 0.1 x V + 0.81 HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 0.31

VCT.SC.L 0.29 x V + 2.95 VCS.RC.M 0.1 x V + 0.26

VCS.SC.M 0.05 x V + 1.5 VCS.RC.L 0.22 x V + 0.54

VCS.SC.L 0.22 x V + 1.38 VCS.RC.I 0.25 x V + 0.63

HCT.SC.M 0.06 x V + 0.35 HCS.SC.I 0.35 x V + 0.88

HCT.SC.L 0.08 x V + 1.2 HCS.RC.M 0.1 x V + 0.26

HCS.SC.M 0.05 x V + 0.91 HCS.RC.L 0.22 x V + 0.54

HCS.SC.L 0.06 x V + 1.12 HCS.RC.I 0.25 x V + 0.63

PD.SC.M 0.11 x V + 0.81 SOC.SC.L 1.1 x TDA + 2.1

SOC.SC.M 0.52 x TDA + 1

* 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 closed with transparent 

doors, VCS = vertical closed with solid doors, HCT = horizontal closed with 

transparent doors, HCS = horizontal closed with solid doors, SOC = service over 

counter, or PD = pull-down); (2) an operating mode code (RC = remote condensing or 

SC = self-contained); and (3) a rating temperature code (M = medium temperature 

(38±2 °F), L = low temperature (0±2 °F), or I = ice-cream temperature (-15±2 °F)). For 

example, “VOP.RC.M” refers to the “vertical open, remote condensing, medium 

temperature” equipment class. See discussion in chapter 3 of the final rule technical 

support document (TSD) for a more detailed explanation of the equipment class 

terminology.

** “TDA” is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200-2010, appendix D.

† “V” is the volume of the case, as measured in American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) / Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF-1-

2004.

305
2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

The benefits and costs of today’s standards, for equipment sold in 2017-2046, can 

also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the 

sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operating the 

product (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), plus (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of 

emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.82

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table V.55. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-

percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount 

rate, the cost of the standards in today’s rule is $314256 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the benefits are $721710 million per year in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $257246 million in CO2 reductions, and $3.1401 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $667704 million per year. Using a 3-

percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the cost of the 

standards in today’s rule is $325264 million per year in increased equipment costs, while 

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

values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven 

percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of 

discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period (2017 through 2046) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual 

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

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

payments.

Comment [J170]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J171]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J172]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J173]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J174]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J175]: Change requested by OIRA.

306

 
the benefits are $914900 million per year in reduced operating costs, $257246 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $5.8964 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $852888 million per year.

Table V.55 Annualized Benefits and Costs of New and Amended Standards for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

million 2012$/year

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 721710 697688 756744

3% 914900 877865 963947

CO2 Reduction at ($11.8/t case)** 5% 7673 7673 7673

CO2 Reduction at ($39.7/t case)** 3% 257246 257246 257246

CO2 Reduction at ($61.2/t case)** 2.5% 377361 377361 377361

CO2 Reduction at ($117.0/t case)** 3% 794760 794760 794760

NOX Reduction at ($2,591/ton)**

7% 3.1401 3.1401 3.1401

3% 5.8964 5.8964 5.8964

Total Benefits†

7% plus CO2 range

800786 to 

1,518474

776764 to 

1,494451

835820 to 

1,553508

7% 981960 958937 1,017994

3% plus CO2 range

996978 to 

1,714666

959943 to 

1,677631

1,045026 to 

1,763713

3% 1,177152 1,140117 1,227200

Costs

Incremental Equipment Costs

7% 314256 308250 321261

3% 325264 317258 333271

Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range

486530 to 

1,204218

469513 to 

1,187201

514559 to 

1,233246

7% 667704 650687 696733

3% plus CO2 range

671714 to 

1,389402

642685 to 

1,360373

712755 to 

1,430442

3% 852888 823859 894929

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with commercial refrigeration equipment 

shipped in 2017 - 2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the 

Comment [J176]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J177]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J178]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J179]: Change requested by OIRA.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black

Comment [J180]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

307
products purchased in 2017 - 2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs 

incurred by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for 

the final rule. The primary, low, and high estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2013

Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs 

reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate 

for projected product price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected 

product price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are 

explained in section IV.H.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios 

of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 

3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an 

escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to 

average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

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

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends 

to address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public 

institutions that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s standards address are as follows: 

(1) There isFor certain segments of the companies that purchase commercial 

refrigeration equipment, such as small grocers, there may be a lack of consumer 

information and/or information processing capability about energy efficiency 

opportunities in the commercial refrigeration equipment market.

Comment [J181]: Change requested by OIRA.

308
(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better 

information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering 

information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of 

commercial refrigeration equipment that are not captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. DOE attempts to quantify some of the 

external benefits through use of Social Cost of Carbon values. 

 In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is an 

“economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires that DOE prepare a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this 

rule. DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and has included these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the 

technical support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued 

on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, January 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 

Comment [J182]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J183]: Change requested by OIRA.

309
required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that 

regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, 

such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can 

be made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the 

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s final rule is consistent 

with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

310
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an 

final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 

67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures 

and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website 

(http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).

For manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as 

“small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business 

size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 

53533, 53544 (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size standards 

are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333415, “AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial 

311
Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or 

less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. Based on this 

threshold, DOE present the following FRFA analysis:

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 

During its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s research involved industry trade association 

membership directories (including AHRI), public databases (e.g., AHRI Directory,83 the 

SBA Database84), individual company websites, and market research tools (e.g., Dunn 

and Bradstreet reports85 and Hoovers reports

86) to create a list of companies that 

manufacture or sell products covered by this rulemaking. DOE also asked stakeholders 

and industry representatives if they were aware of any other small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and at DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly available 

data and contacted select companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small business manufacturer of covered commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products covered 

by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign 

owned. 

83 "AHRI Certification Directory." AHRI Certification Directory. AHRI. (Available at: 

https://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx) (Last accessed October 10, 2011) . See 

www.ahridirectory.org/ahriDirectory/pages/home.aspx. 84 “Dynamic Small Business Search.” SBA. (Available at: See 

http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm) (Last accessed October 12, 2011).. 85 "D&B | Business Information | Get Credit Reports | 888 480-6007.". Dun & Bradstreet (Available at: 

www.dnb.com) (Last accessed October 10, 2011). See www.dnb.com/. 86 “Hoovers | Company Information | Industry Information | Lists.” D&B (2013) (Available at: See 

http://www.hoovers.com/) (Last accessed December 12, 2012).. 

312

 
DOE identified 54 companies selling commercial refrigeration equipment in the 

United States. Nine of the companies are foreign-owned firms. Of the remaining 45 

companies, about 70 percent (32 companies) are small domestic manufacturers. DOE 

contacted eight domestic commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers for 

interviews and all eight companies accepted. Of these eight companies, four were small 

businesses.

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements 

The 32 identified domestic manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment 

that qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard account for approximately 

26 percent of commercial refrigeration equipment shipments.87 While some small 

businesses have significant market share (e.g., Continental has a 4-percent market share 

for foodservice commercial refrigeration87), the majority of small businesses have less 

than a 1-percent market share. These smaller firms often specialize in designing custom 

products and servicing niche markets. 

At the amended level, the average small manufacturer is expected to face capital 

conversion costs that are nearly five times typical annual capital expenditures, and 

product conversion costs that are roughly double the typical annual R&D spending, as 

shown in Table VI.1. At the amended level, the conversion costs are driven by the 

incorporation of thicker insulation into case designs. The thicker case designs necessitate 

the purchase of new jigs for production. Manufacturers estimate of the cost of modifying 

8732nd Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry. Appliance Magazine. September 2009. 66(7).

313

 
an existing jig at approximately $50,000. Manufacturer estimates of the cost of a new jig 

ranged from $100,000 to $300,000, depending on the jig size and design. In addition to 

the cost of jigs, changes in case thickness may require product redesign due to changes in 

the interior volume of the equipment. All shelving and internally fitted components 

would need to be redesigned to fit the revised cabinet’s interior dimensions. Furthermore, 

changes in insulation and in refrigeration components could necessitate new industry 

certifications.

The proposed standard could cause small manufacturers to be at a disadvantage 

relative to large manufacturers. The capital conversion costs represent a smaller 

percentage of annual capital expenditures for large manufacturers than for small 

manufacturers. The capital conversion costs are 5449 percent of annual capital 

expenditures for an average large manufacturer, while capital conversion costs are 

496278 percent of annual capital expenditures for an average small manufacturer. Small 

manufacturers may have greater difficulty obtaining credit, or may obtain less favorable 

terms than larger competitors when financing the equipment necessary to meet the 

amended standard.

Manufacturers indicated that many design options evaluated in the engineering 

analysis (e.g., higher efficiency lighting, motors, and compressors) would force them to 

purchase more expensive components. Due to smaller purchasing volumes, small 

manufacturers typically pay higher prices for components, while their large competitors 

receive volume discounts. At the amended standard, small businesses will likely have 

Comment [J184]: Change requested by OIRA.

Comment [J185]: Change requested by OIRA.

314
greater increases in component costs than large businesses and will thus be at a pricing 

disadvantage

To estimate how small manufacturers would be impacted, DOE used the market 

share of small manufacturers to estimate the annual revenue, earnings before interest and 

tax (EBIT), R&D expense, and capital expenditures for a typical small manufacturer. 

DOE then compared these costs to the required capital and product conversion costs at 

each TSL for both an average small manufacturer (Table VI.1) and an average large 

manufacturer (Table VI.2). The conversion costs in these tables are presented relative to 

annual financial metrics for the purposes of comparing impacts of small versus large 

manufacturers. In practice, these conversion costs will likely be spread out over a period 

of multiple years. TSL 3 represents the level adopted in today’s final rule:

Table VI.1 Comparison of an Average Small Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturer’s Conversion Costs to Annual Expenses, Revenue, and Profit

TSL

Capital Conversion 

Cost as a Percentage 

of Annual Capital 

Expenditures

Product 

Conversion Cost as 

a Percentage of 

Annual R&D 

Expense

Total Conversion 

Cost as a 

Percentage of 

Annual Revenue

Total Conversion 

Cost as a Percentage 

of Annual EBIT

TSL 1 2620% 21345% 41% 4513%

TSL 2 10720% 11471% 42% 4718%

TSL 3 496330% 215278% 1411% 159129%

TSL 4 711913% 414428% 2226% 246296%

TSL 5 36412838% 677622% 8770% 998792%

Table VI.2 Comparison of an Average Large Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturer’s Conversion Costs to Annual Expenses, Revenue, and Profit

TSL

Capital Conversion 

Cost as a Percentage 

of Annual Capital 

Expenditures

Product 

Conversion Cost as 

a Percentage of

Annual R&D 

Expense

Total Conversion 

Cost as a 

Percentage of 

Annual Revenue

Total Conversion 

Cost as a Percentage 

of Annual EBIT

TSL 1 3% 5149% 1% 10%

TSL 2 123% 11449% 21% 2410%

Formatted Table

Comment [J186]: Change requested by OMB; 

all rows.

Formatted Table

315
TSL 3 5446% 21549% 52% 5220%

TSL 4 78128% 41449% 83% 9440%

TSL 5 398% 67749% 199% 220104%

Small firms would likely be at a disadvantage relative to larger firms in meeting 

the amended energy conservation standard for commercial refrigeration equipment. The 

small businesses face disadvantages in terms of access to capital, the cost of re-tooling 

production lines and investing in redesigns, and pricing for key components. As a result, 

DOE could not certify that the amended standards would not have a significant impact on 

a significant number of small businesses.

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the rule being adopted today.

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion above analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from 

DOE’s amended standards. In addition to the other TSLs being considered, the 

rulemaking TSD includes a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). For commercial 

refrigeration equipment, the RIA discusses the following policy alternatives: (1) no 

change in standard; (2) consumer rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; and (4) manufacturer 

tax credits; (5) voluntary energy efficiency targets; and (6) bulk government purchases. 

While these alternatives may mitigate to some varying extent the economic impacts on 

small entities compared to the standards, DOE determined that the energy savings of 

these alternatives are significantly smaller than those that would be expected to result 

Comment [J187]: Change requested by OIRA; 

all rows.

316
from adoption of the amended standard levels. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt 

any of these alternatives and is adopting the standards set forth in this rulemaking. (See 

chapter 17 of the final rule TSD for further detail on the policy alternatives DOE 

considered.)

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, including any amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 

commercial refrigeration equipment. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for 

the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 

317
information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has 

determined that the rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 

10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits 

within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX 

determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE’s CX determination 

for this rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive 

Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting 

any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully 

assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have 

an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials 

318
in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. 

EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 

conservation for the products that are the subject of today’s final rule. States can petition 

DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 

promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996). Section 

3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, 

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; 

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under 

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 

319
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, 

to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive 

Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 

1531). For an amended regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 

sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),

(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant 

intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy statement is

also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

320
DOE has concluded that this final rule would likely require expenditures of $100 

million or more on the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in 

research and development and in capital expenditures by commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency commercial refrigeration equipment, starting at the compliance date for 

the applicable standard.

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the final rule. 

2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a 

private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the notice of final rulemaking and 

the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for this final rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider 

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 

321
42 U.S.C. 6295(d), (f), and (o), 6313(e), and 6316(a), today’s final rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment that are designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to 

be both technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the 

alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” chapter 

17 of the TSD for today’s final rule.

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

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment 

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 

1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of 

322
information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February

22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE 

has reviewed today’s final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and 

that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 

use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy 

action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 

any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be 

implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth energy 

conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, is not a significant 

energy action because the amended standards are not likely to have a significant adverse 

323
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the final rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information 

related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality 

and credibility of the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine 

will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or 

private sector decisions. 70 FR 2667.

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews 

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, 

324
and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The 

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 

has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of 

this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that 

the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Incorporated by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on

________________________________

David T. Danielson

Assistant Secretary

325
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

326
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of chapter II, 

subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below: 

PART 431 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.

2. Section 431.62 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a definition for “service 

over counter,” to read as follows:

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers.

* * * * *

Service over counter means equipment that has sliding or hinged doors in the 

back intended for use by sales personnel, with glass or other transparent material in the 

front for displaying merchandise, and that has a height not greater than 66 inches and is 

intended to serve as a counter for transactions between sales personnel and customers...

“Service over the counter, self-contained, medium temperature commercial 

refrigerator,””, also defined in this section, is one specific equipment class within the 

service over counter equipment family. 

* * * * *

327
3. Section 431.66 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; 

c. Revising paragraph (c);

d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and

c. Adding paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 431.66 Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

(a) * * *

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (d) of this section, the term “TDA” means the 

total display area (ft2

) of the case, as defined in ARI Standard 1200-2006, appendix D 

(incorporated by reference, see §431.63). For the purpose of paragraph (e) of this section, 

the term “TDA” means the total display area (ft2

) of the case, as defined in AHRI 

Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, appendix D (incorporated by reference, see §431.63). 

(b) Each commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a selfcontained condensing unit designed for holding temperature applications manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2010 and before [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall have a daily energy 

consumption (in kilowatt-hours per day) that does not exceed the following: 

* * * * *

(c) Each commercial refrigerator with a self-contained condensing unit designed 

for pull-down temperature applications and transparent doors manufactured on or after 

328
January 1, 2010 and before [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall have a daily energy 

consumption (in kilowatt-hours per day) of not more than 0.126V + 3.51.

(d) Each commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a selfcontained condensing unit and without doors; commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer with a remote condensing unit; and commercial ice-cream freezer 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2012 and before [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall have a 

daily energy consumption (in kilowatt-hours per day) that does not exceed the levels 

specified: 

* * * * *

(e) Each commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a selfcontained condensing unit designed for holding temperature applications and with solid 

or transparent doors; commercial refrigerator with a self-contained condensing unit 

designed for pull-down temperature applications and with transparent doors; commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained condensing unit and 

without doors; commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a remote 

condensing unit; and commercial ice-cream freezer manufactured on or after [INSERT 

DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], shall have a daily energy consumption (in kilowatt-hours per day) that 

does not exceed the levels specified:

(1) For equipment other than hybrid equipment, refrigerator/freezers, or wedge 

cases:

329
Equipment 

Category

Condensing 

Unit 

Configuration

Equipment 

Family

Rating 

Temp.

°F

Operating 

Temp.

°F

Equipment 

Class 

Designation*

Maximum 

Daily Energy 

Consumption

kWh/day

Remote 

Condensing 

Commercial 

Refrigerators and 

Commercial 

Freezers

Remote (RC) 

Vertical 

Open (VOP)

38 (M) ≥32 VOP.RC.M 0.64 x TDA + 

4.07

0 (L) <32 VOP.RC.L 2.2 x TDA + 

6.85

Semivertical 

Open (SVO)

38 (M) ≥32 SVO.RC.M 0.66 x TDA + 

3.18

0 (L) <32 SVO.RC.L 2.2 x TDA + 

6.85

Horizontal 

Open (HZO)

38 (M) ≥32 HZO.RC.M 0.35 x TDA + 

2.88

0 (L) <32 HZO.RC.L 0.55 x TDA + 

6.88

Vertical 

Closed 

Transparent 

(VCT)

38 (M) ≥32 VCT.RC.M 0.15 x TDA + 

1.95

0 (L) <32 VCT.RC.L 0.49 x TDA + 

2.61

Horizontal 

Closed 

Transparent 

(HCT)

38 (M) ≥32 HCT.RC.M 0.16 x TDA + 

0.13

0 (L) <32 HCT.RC.L 0.34 x TDA + 

0.26

Vertical 

Closed Solid 

(VCS)

38 (M) ≥32 VCS.RC.M 0.1 x V + 0.26

0 (L) <32 VCS.RC.L 0.21 x V + 

0.54

Horizontal 

Closed Solid 

(HCS)

38 (M) ≥32 HCS.RC.M 0.1 x V + 0.26

0 (L) <32 HCS.RC.L 0.21 x V + 

0.54

Service 

Over 

Counter 

(SOC)

38 (M) ≥32 SOC.RC.M 0.44 x TDA + 

0.11

0 (L) <32 SOC.RC.L 0.93 x TDA + 

0.22

Self-Contained 

Commercial 

Refrigerators and 

Commercial 

Freezers Without 

Doors

Self-Contained 

(SC). Vertical 

Open (VOP)

38 (M) ≥32 VOP.SC.M 1.69 x TDA + 

4.71

0 (L) <32 VOP.SC.L 4.25 x TDA + 

11.82

Semivertical 

Open (SVO)

38 (M) ≥32 SVO.SC.M 1.7 x TDA + 

4.59

0 (L) <32 SVO.SC.L 4.26 x TDA + 

11.51

Horizontal 

Open (HZO) 38 (M) ≥32 HZO.SC.M 0.72 x TDA + 5.55

Formatted: Font color: Black

330
0 (L) <32 HZO.SC.L 1.9 x TDA + 

7.08

Self-Contained 

Commercial 

Refrigerators and 

Commercial 

Freezers With 

Doors

Self-Contained 

(SC). Vertical 

Closed 

Transparent 

(VCT)

38 (M) ≥32 VCT.SC.M 0.1 x V + 0.86

0 (L) <32 VCT.SC.L 0.29 x V + 

2.95

Vertical 

Closed Solid 

(VCS)

38 (M) ≥32 VCS.SC.M 0.05 x V + 

1.36

<32 VCS.SC.L 0.22 x V + 

1.38

Horizontal 

Closed 

Transparent 

(HCT)

38 (M) ≥32 HCT.SC.M 0.06 x V + 

0.37

0 (L) <32 HCT.SC.L 0.08 x V + 

1.23

Horizontal 

Closed Solid 

(HCS)

≥32 HCS.SC.M 0.05 x V + 

0.91

0 (L) <32 HCS.SC.L 0.06 x V + 

1.12

Service 

Over 

Counter 

(SOC)

≥32 SOC.SC.M 0.52 x TDA + 

1

0 (L) <32 SOC.SC.L 1.1 x TDA + 

2.1

Self-Contained 

Commercial 

Refrigerators 

with Transparent 

Doors for PullDown 

Temperature 

Applications

Self-Contained 

(SC).

Pull-Down 

(PD) 38 (M) ≥32 PD.SC.M 0.11 x V + 

0.81

Commercial IceCream Freezers.

Remote (RC) Vertical 

Open (VOP)

-15 (I) ≤-5**

VOP.RC.I 2.79 x TDA + 

8.7

Semivertical 

Open (SVO) SVO.RC.I 2.79 x TDA + 

8.7

Horizontal 

Open (HZO) HZO.RC.I 0.7 x TDA + 8.74

Vertical 

Closed 

Transparent 

(VCT)

VCT.RC.I 0.58 x TDA + 

3.05

Horizontal 

Closed 

Transparent 

(HCT)

HCT.RC.I 0.4 x TDA + 

0.31

Formatted: Font color: Black

331
Vertical 

Closed Solid 

(VCS)

VCS.RC.I 0.25 x V + 

0.63

Horizontal 

Closed Solid 

(HCS)

HCS.RC.I 0.25 x V + 

0.63

Service 

Over 

Counter 

(SOC)

SOC.RC.I 1.09 x TDA + 

0.26

Self-Contained 

(SC).

Vertical 

Open (VOP) VOP.SC.I 5.4 x TDA + 15.02

Semivertical 

Open 

(SVO).

SVO.SC.I 5.41 x TDA + 

14.63

Horizontal 

Open 

(HZO).

HZO.SC.I 2.42 x TDA + 

9

Vertical 

Closed 

Transparent 

(VCT).

VCT.SC.I 0.62 x TDA + 

3.29

Horizontal 

Closed 

Transparent 

(HCT).

HCT.SC.I 0.56 x TDA + 

0.43

Vertical 

Closed Solid 

(VCS).

VCS.SC.I 0.34 x V + 

0.88

Horizontal 

Closed Solid 

(HCS).

HCS.SC.I 0.34 x V + 

0.88

Service 

Over 

Counter 

(SOC)

SOC.SC.I 1.53 x TDA + 

0.36

* The meaning of the letters in this column is indicated in the columns to the left.

** Ice-cream freezer is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as a commercial freezer that is designed to operate at or 

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

dispensing of ice cream.

(2) For commercial refrigeration equipment with two or more compartments (i.e.,

hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid 

refrigerator-freezers), the maximum daily energy consumption for each model shall be 

the sum of the MDEC values for all of its compartments. For each compartment, measure 

the TDA or volume of that compartment, and determine the appropriate equipment class 

Comment [J188]: Change requested by OIRA; 

multiple rows.

332
based on that compartment’s equipment family, condensing unit configuration, and 

designed operating temperature. The MDEC limit for each compartment shall be the 

calculated value obtained by entering that compartment’s TDA or volume into the 

standard equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section for that compartment’s equipment 

class. Measure the CDEC or TDEC for the entire case as described in §431.66(d)(2)(i) 

through (iii), except that where measurements and calculations reference ARI Standard 

1200-2006 (incorporated by reference, see §431.63), AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 

(incorporated by reference, see §431.63) shall be used. 

(3) For remote condensing and self-contained wedge cases, measure the CDEC or 

TDEC according to the AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 test procedure (incorporated by 

reference, see §431.63). For wedge cases in equipment classes for which a volume metric 

is used, the MDEC shall be the amount derived from the appropriate standards equation 

in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. For wedge cases of equipment classes for which a 

TDA metric is used, the MDEC for each model shall be the amount derived by 

incorporating into the standards equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section for the 

equipment class a value for the TDA that is the product of:

(i) The vertical height of the air curtain (or glass in a transparent door) and 

(ii) The largest overall width of the case, when viewed from the front.

333