7

- i CHAPTER 7

. ENERGY USE ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

- 1 7.2 ENERGY USE DATA FOR MISCELLANEOUS REFRIG ERATION PRODUCTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7

- 1 7.2.1 Cooled Cabinets

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7

- 1 7.2.1.1 Vapor Compression Cool ed Cabinets (CC

- 1)

................................ ........ 7

- 2 7.2.1.2 Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets (CC

- 2)

................................ ................ 7

- 4 7.2.1.3 Total Cooled Cabinets

................................ ................................ ............ 7

- 7 7.2.2 Non

- Compressor Re frigerators (NCR

- 1 and NCR

- 2)

................................ ........... 7

- 8 7.2.3 Ice Makers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

- 10 7.2.4 Hybrid Refrigeration Products

................................ ................................ ............ 7

- 10 7.3 ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUM PTION BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL

........................... 7

- 12

LIST OF TABLES

Ta ble 7.2.1 Vapor Compression Cooled Cabinets (CC

- 1): Distribution of interior volumes

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7

- 2 Table 7.2.2 Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets (CC

- 2): Distribution of interior volumes

........ 7

- 4 Table 7.2.3 Cooled cabinet efficiency distribution market shares

................................ .......... 7

- 8 Table 7.2.4 Ice maker energy use measurements

................................ ................................ .. 7

- 10 Table 7.2.5 Hybrid refrigeration product average adjusted volumes, es timated annual energy use, and ratio relative to 2014 standard

................................ .................. 7

- 11 Table 7.3.1 Cooled Cabinets: Average Annual Energy Use by Effic iency Level

................ 7

- 13 Table 7.3.2 Non

- Compression Refrigerators: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ . 7

- 14 Table 7.3.3 Ice Makers: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

......................... 7

- 14 Table 7.3.4 Hybrid Products: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................ 7

- 157

- ii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7.2.1 Vapor compression cooled cabinet (CC

- 1) efficiencies (relative to adjusted CEC standard)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7

- 3 Figure 7.2.2 Vapor compression cooled cabinet (CC

- 1) efficiency distribution market shares

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7

- 4 Figure 7.2.3 Thermoelectric cooled cabinet (CC

- 2) energy consumption versus interior volume

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7

- 6 Figure 7.2.4 Thermoelectric cooled cabinet (CC

- 2) efficiency distribution market shares

......... 7

- 7 Figure 7.2.5 Measured annual energy consumption of non

- compressor thermoelectric (NCR

- 1) and absorption (NCR

- 2) refrige rators

................................ ................... 7

- 97

- 1 CHAPTER 7. ENERGY USE ANALYSIS

7.1 INTRODUCTION
To perform the life

- cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) calculations described in chapter 8, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) determines the savings in operating cost that consumers would reap from more

- efficient products. DOE uses data on annual energy consumption, along with energy prices, to develop the most significant component of consume r operating cost. (Maintenance and repair costs are the other components.) This chapter describes how DOE determined the annual energy consumption of miscellaneous refrigeration products for the LCC and PBP analysis.

The goal of the energy use analysis i s to generate a range of energy use values that reflects actual product use in U.S. homes by new products at various efficiency levels. The engineering analysis described in c hapter 5 reports energy use derived from the DOE test procedure. This test proced ure produces standardized results that can be used to assess or compare the performance of products operating under specified conditions. Actual energy usage in the field often differs from that estimated by the test procedure because of variation in
opera ting conditions, the behavior of users, and other factors. In the case of miscellaneous refrigeration products

, very few data exist on field energy consumption . DOE has reviewed th e s e limited data and compare d them to DOE test results for the measured models , as well as values of energy use claimed by manufacturers, to arrive at best estimates of field energy use.

7.2 ENERGY USE DATA FOR MISCELLANEOUS RE FRIGERATION
PRODUCTS

7.2.1 Cooled Cabinets

DOE obtained data from online survey s 1 on the capacities and cool ing technologies of cooled cabinets . From this information, DOE was able to determine the distributions of cooled cabinet capacities for vapor compression (CC

- 1) and thermoelectric (CC

- 2) technologies. DOE was also able to estimate the distribution of ener gy use from a combination of laboratory test measurements, field measurements, and reported energy use from public databases and manufacturers’ websites

.7

- 2 7.2.1.1 Vapor Compression Cooled Cabinets (CC

- 1)
From online surveys, DOE determined the distribution of in terior volumes of vapor compression cooled cabinets (CC

- 1) . See Table 7.2.1

. DOE found the average interior volume to be 3.6 cu. ft.

Table 7.2.1 Vapor Compression Cooled Cabinets (CC

- 1 ) : Distribution of interior volumes

Number of wine bottles Average interior volume (cu. ft.) Fraction of total

1

- 11 bottles 0.7 16.2% 12

- 19 bottles 1. 9 12.3% 20

- 29 bottles 3.0 24.3% 30

- 39 bottles 4.2 28.5% 40

- 49 bottles 5.4 8.7% 50

- 59 bottles 6. 8 6.5% 60

- 89 bottles 9. 1 0.8%

90+ bottles 1 0.9 2.8% Total 100.0%

DOE conducted energy usage tests on eight vapor compression cooled cabinets with rated capacities of 1.7 to 17.3 cu. ft. (17 to 147 wine bottles ) . These products were tested using the test procedures prescribed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). 2 The measured energy consumption of these products ranged from 161 kWh to 480 kWh.

DOE compared the energy consumption of two vapor compression cooled cabinets measured in the field 3 with the maximum allowable energy use for products of their size, as required under the CEC standard for automatic defrost wine chillers (cooled cabinets) , and found that the field energy use was lower by approximately one

- half. DOE also conducted closed

- door testing of eight vapor compression cooled cabinets in typical room

- temperature conditions of 72  ̊F and found that the energy use for this condition was also on average about half (46 percent) of the energy use measured in 90  ̊F ambient conditio ns. This observation suggests that

, if the usage factor for vapor compression cooled cabinets (the factor applied to the actual energy use measured in a 90  ̊F closed

- door test to obtain a result representative of typical room conditions) did not consider t he impact of door openings, it should be 0.46 rather than the 0.85 factor used in the CEC test procedure. If consideration is given for some limited number of door openings, a usage factor equal to 0.55 may be appropriate ; this factor is consistent with an assumption that the energy use associated with door openings is equal to roughly one

- fifth of the closed

- door
energy use. a This assumption is consistent with online survey data

, which indicated that users opened the door of cooled cabinets once per day on average. 1

a Dividing 0.55 by 0.4 6 and subtracting 1.0 from the quotient results in a value roughly equal to one

- fifth.7

- 3 Based on limited field data and laboratory testing at different ambient temperature conditions, DOE believes the energy use estimates based on the current CEC test procedure for these products are high. As discussed previously , use of the 0.55 usage factor appears to be more appropriate than the 0.85 usage factor prescribed by the current CEC test. Hence, in order to estimate field energy use for cooled cabinets , DOE adjusted its energy test results and the reported energy use of cooled cabinets ( both of wh ich are based on the CEC test procedure) by dividing the reported energy use b y 0.85 and multiplying by 0.55, for a total adjustment factor of 0.65. This results in a range in adjusted energy consumption of products that DOE tested from 104 kWh to 312 kWh.

As discussed in chapter 3, DOE gathered data on the energy use of vapor compression cooled cabinets currently available in the marketplace by surveying databases from the CEC 4 and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 5 as well as manufacturers’ websites

. Div iding by the CEC standard for automatic defrost cooled cabinets adjusted by 0.65 as described previously

, DOE obtained a distribution of efficiencies across a wide range of interior volumes. See Figure 7.2

. 1

.

Figure 7.2

. 1 Vapor compression cooled cabinet ( CC

- 1 ) efficiencies (relative to adjusted CEC standard)7

- 4 Because the distribution of efficiencies appeared roughly independent of interior volume, DOE pooled all data regardless of interior volume to obtain an overall distribution of efficiencies relative to the adjusted CEC standard and used this information to determine efficiency market shares. See Figure 7.2

. 2

.

Figure 7.2

. 2 Vapor compression cooled cabinet (CC

- 1) efficiency distribution market shares

7.2.1.2 Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets (CC

- 2)
From online surveys, DOE determined the distribution of interior volumes of thermoelectric cooled cabinets (CC

- 2) . See Table 7.2.2

. DOE found the avera ge capacity to be 1.5 cu. ft.

Table 7.2.2 Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets ( CC

- 2 ) : Distribution of interior volumes

Number of wine bottles Average interior volume (cu. ft.) Fraction of total

1

- 11 bottles 0.7 48.6% 12

- 19 bottles 1. 9 36.9% 20

- 29 bottles 3.0 13.2% 30

- 39 bottles 4.2 0.8% 40

- 49 bottles 5.4 0.2% 50

- 59 bottles 6. 8 0.2% 60

- 89 bottles 9. 1 0.0%

90+ bottles 1 0.9 0.1% Total 100.0%7

- 5 DOE conducted laboratory testing of three thermoelectric cooled cabinets (DOE TE WC Data, No. 6). These products had rated capacities of 0.64 to 2.26 cu. ft. ( 6 to 28 wine bottles ) and were tested using the CEC test procedure. 2 The testing yielded measured energy usage for these products ranging from 413 kWh to 550 kWh. However, two of these three products were not able to maintain the 55  ̊F compartment temperature target for cooled cabinets in the required 90  ̊F test room temperature. When tested in a 72  ̊F room temperature and applying a 1.2 usage factor b to account for door openings, the measured energy use of the products ranged from 142 kWh to 664 kWh. For these tests, all three products were able to maintain the 55  ̊F compartment temperature target; however, the 28

- bottle product just barely maintained this temperature in its coldest setting.

DOE also acquired energy consumption data from six thermoelectric coo led cabinets measured under field conditions (two in residential homes and four in an office with an average ambient temperature of approximately 70 °F), 3 and gat hered energy use data for 35 thermoelectric cooled cabinets from manufacturer and/or retailer websites. (T echnical data , No. 18 ) Taken together, these products had rated capacities from 0.6 to 4.9 cubic feet, with average annual energy use ranging fr om 183 to 803 kWh.

Including the previously discussed laboratory test data for the three units, the thermoelectric cooled cabinet data represented 44 individual measurements. DOE developed a linear regression using all data weighted equally:

UEC = 82.67 • V + 222.6

W here :

UEC = unit energy consumption in kWh/yr

, and V = cooled cabinet interior volume in cu. f t

. (Note that products not providing an interior volume were converted from wine bottle capacity using a relationship developed from CEC data indicating 8.22 wine bottles per cubic foot.) The resulting regression is shown in Figure 7.2

. 3

.

b Similar to the analysis for vapor compression wine chillers discussed in section III. B

. 1 , this usage factor assumes that the energy use associated with door openings is one

- fifth of the closed

- door energy use.7

- 6 Figure 7.2

. 3 Thermoelectric cooled cabinet ( CC

- 2 ) energy consumption versus interior volume

Although the distribution of efficiencies did not appear as independent of interior volume

as it was for the vapor compression data, for interior volumes of most relevance to thermoelectric products (approximately 1.5 cu. ft.), the data appeared to be more uniformly distributed around the mean values. DOE weighted data according to interior volume prevale nce ( Table 7.2.2 ) to determine a distribution of efficiencies that was independent of interior volume, and normalized this distribution to the CEC standard for automatic defrost cooled cabinets at the average interior volume of thermoelectric products, adjusted by 0.65 as described previously

. DOE used t he resulting distribution of efficiencies to develop market shares organized by efficiency bins. Note that some efficiency bins are at higher energy consumption than the CEC standard. See Figure 7.2

. 4

.7

- 7 Figure 7.2

. 4 Thermoelectric cooled cabinet (CC

- 2) efficiency distribution market shares

7.2.1.3 Total Cooled Cabinets

Based on data f rom online surveys, 1 DOE estimated the saturation of cooled cabinets in U.S. households. From th e s e data, DOE estimated that 1 5 percent of cooled cabinets were CC

- 1 and 85 percent were CC

- 2. It used th e s e data

, together with data provided in the previous sections

, to estimate the average interior volume of cooled cabinets to be 1. 8 cu. ft. From th e s e data, DOE also estimated efficiency level average market shares for cooled cabinets

. Note that some efficiency levels (EL0 through EL3) correspond to higher energy consumption than the CEC standard (represented by EL4). DOE included t hese levels because the majority of thermoelectric cooled cabinets on the market fall into these high energy consumption levels. See Table 7.2.3

. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

80% 90% 100% 130% 160% 200% 267%Fraction of products

% of CEC standard * 0.657

- 8 Table 7.2.3 Cooled c abinet efficiency distribution market shares

Efficiency level % of CEC

equivalent energy

use CC

- 1: Vapor Compression Cooled Cabinets CC

- 2 * : Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets All CC: Average Cooled Cabinets

EL0 2 67 % 0.0% 7.1% 6.0%

EL1 200% 0.0% 12.8% 10.9%

EL2 160% 0.0% 26.6% 22.6%

EL3 130% 0.0% 22.1% 18.8%

EL4 100% ( CEC

equivalent ) 16.7% 19.6% 19.2%

EL5 90% 34.7% 4.7% 9.2%

EL6 80% 27.8% 7.1% 10.2%

EL7 70% 11.1% 0.0% 1.7%

EL8 60% 9.7% 0.0% 1.5%

EL9 50% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

EL10 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

EL11 (Max

Tech) 32% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

* The CC

- 2 product category is referred to as Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets in the following tables. The cost

efficiency curve for CC

- 2 uses thermoelectric cooling at baseline and vapor compression technology at efficiency levels 5 through 11. See chapter 5 for more information.

7.2.2 Non

- Compressor Refrigerators (NCR

- 1 and NCR

- 2)

DOE also used the results of this online survey 1 to evaluate the prevalence of non

compressor refrigerators (NCR

- 1 = thermoelectric cooling and NCR

- 2 = absorption cooling)

. Because m uch more limited energy use data were available for these products

, DOE used laboratory test measurements to estimate energy use ; see chapter 5

.

DOE tested seven thermoelectric refrigerators (NCR

- 1) , consisting of five distinct models, at ambient temperatures of both 72° F and 90  ̊F. None of these products were able to maintain a 39  ̊F compartment temperature in the 90  ̊F condition proposed by the 2014 Test Procedure NOPR

. Moreover, only two of the five models were able to attain 39 °F compartment temperatures in 72 °F ambient conditions. Consequently, e stimatin g the expected energy use of such products, if they were to be used in the field at this operating condition , is complicated by the ir inability to maintain fresh food compartment temperature s

. Nonetheless , DOE used the 90 °F test results to perform a linea r regression of energy consumption with compartment volume (using average values for those units with multiple measurements). Results are shown in Figure 7.2

. 5

.7

- 9 Figure 7.2

. 5 Measured annual energy consumption of non

- compressor thermoelectric (NCR

- 1 ) and absorption (NCR

- 2) refrigerators

DOE assumed an average storage volume of 1.7 cu. ft., which DOE found to be most representative of the size of non

- compressor refrigerators on the market (see chapter 5). Using this average volume and the above regression , DOE estimate d that the average annual energy consumption of thermoelectric products in field use is 6 72 kWh , whic h DOE used for its base case annual average energy consumption in subsequent analysis

. The online survey data that DOE acquired from the study discussed in the previous sections indicate that very few absorption

- based refrigerators (NCR

- 2) are used in ho mes. However, this technology is commonly used by the hotel industry. Information provided on manufacturer websites regarding absorption product energy use cited values between 207 and 730 kWh per year, but did not clarify which test procedures were used t o determine these values and did not indicate the operating temperature ranges of the advertised products. (Dometic Group , No. 23 ) However, DOE measured the energy use of a representative 1. 2 cu. ft. absorption refrigerator using closed

- door tests in both 72  ̊F and 90  ̊F ambient temperature conditions. Like the NCR

- 1 units discussed above, t he unit was not able to maintain a 39  ̊F compartment temperature in the 90  ̊F condition . Nonetheless, DOE estimate d that the average annu al energy consumption of such a product in field use is 5 69 kWh. Relative to the above regression for thermoelectric refrigerators at 1.2 cu. ft., this represents an efficiency of 95 percent of baseline energy consumption

.

To obtain an efficiency distrib ution for non

- compression refrigerators, DOE used the fractions of thermoelectric (NCR

- 1) and absorption cooling (NCR

- 2) refrigerators found in homes derived from the online survey: 90.5% NCR

- 1 and 9.5% NCR

- 2 and assigned each a relative efficiency (100% a nd 95% of the 672 kWh/yr baseline, respectively) . This resulted in an
average efficiency of 99.5% and an average annual energy consumption of 6 6 9 kWh/yr

. y = 140.27x + 433.41

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 0.5 1 1.5 2Annual energy consumption (kWh)

Internal volume (cu. ft.) Thermoelectric Absorption Linear (Thermoelectric)7

- 10 7.2.3 Ice Makers

No datasets were found with testing data on ice makers. DOE developed a test f or ice maker s in typical room temperature conditions and tested a total of six units : two were portable units, two were non

- portable, uncooled storage units, and two were non

- portable , cooled storage units

. The energy use of each tested ice maker is shown in Table 7.2.4 . F or the portable units, DOE ’s proposed test procedure required the use of a 50 percent usage factor to account for the expectation that the se unit s would not be plugged in for the entire year. All measurements incorporate energy use associated both with ice production (assumed to be 4 pounds of ice per day) and ice storage. (F or the portable ice maker, this estimate applies only during times when the unit is plugged in.)

Table 7.2.4 I ce maker energy use measurements Portable (IM

- P) Non

- portable, uncooled storage (IM

- U) Non

- portable, cooled storage (IM

- C)

Tested

unit Tested energy use (kWh/yr) Tested unit Tested energy use (kWh/yr) Tested unit Tested energy use (kWh/yr)

1 8 9 3 67 2 5 4 11

2 256 4 1075 6 552 Average 173 Average 87 4 Average 482

For the purpose of assigning baseline efficiency level distributions, DOE assumed for each ice maker product class that half of all products had an efficiency level equivalent to the lower energy consumption product (units 1, 3 and 5), and half had an efficiency level equivalent to the higher energy consumption product (units 2, 4 and 6).

7.2.4 Hybrid Refrigeration Products

DOE conducted an online manufacturer model search for refrigeration products combining cellar compartments with fresh food and/or freezer compartments and found a total of potentially 23 unique models, including 21 models combining cellar and fresh food compartments (one manual defrost unit and 20 automa tic defrost units) and two models combining cellar and freezer compartments

. Of these units, only nine had cellar compartment volumes that constituted at least 50% of the total interior volume of the product. Seven of these nine hybrid products were hybrid all

- refrigerators , and

, of these seven, two were standard

- size d built

- in hybrid all

- refrigerators with automatic defrost (Product Class H

- 3A

- BI ) , four were compact hybrid all

- refrigerators with automatic defrost (Product Class H

- 13A)

, and one was a compac t hybrid all

- refrigerator with manual defrost (Product Class H

- 11A)

. The remaining two hybrid product s were standard

- size d built

- in hybrid upright freezers with automatic defrost (Product Class H

- 9I

- BI ). Based on available data for the se nine hybrid produc ts , DOE determined that the average interior volume of Product Class H

- 3A

- BI was 13.4 cu

. ft

., of Product Class H

- 11A was 4.5 cu. ft., of Product Class H

- 13A was 5.7 cu. ft., and of Product Class H

- 9I

- BI was 12.6 cu

. ft

. (adjusted volume was 15.7 cu. ft.)

.7

- 11 DOE developed average annual energy consumption estimates for each hybrid product class based on very limited data. For Product Class H

- 3A

- BI
, DOE estimated annual energy consumption to be 5 16 kWh, based on the information provided for one unit by a man ufacturer website ( Sub

- Zero
, No. 18 , p. 1 ). For Product Class H

- 11A
, DOE estimated annual energy consumption to be 365 kWh, based on the information provided for one unit by a manufacturer website ( Vinotemp, No. 21 , p. 2 ). For Product Class H

- 13A, DOE estimated annual energy consumption to be 4 41 kWh

, based on the information provided for one unit by a NRCan website ( Natural Resources Canada , No. 20 ) and a second from the petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure of Sanyo E&E Corporation for a hybrid “ wine chiller/beverage center ” (77 FR 19654 (April 2, 2012)). For Product Class H

- 9I

- BI
, DOE estimated the upper limit to the annual energy consumption to be 413 kWh

, based on information provided for one unit by a manufacturer website. c ( Liebherr, No. 1 9 , p. 1)

.

Table 7.2.5 shows the annual energy consumption estimates along with the 2014 refrigerator

- freezer standards and the calculated ratio, which is used to assign base case efficiency level distributions in c hapter 8

. As with cooled cabinets, several of the hybrid product classes consume more energy on average than the reference standards; thus, additional efficiency levels above this baselin e were used to represent the distribution of products on the market. See Section 7.3

.

Table 7.2.5 Hybrid refrigeration product average adjusted volumes, estimated annual energy use, and ratio relative to 2014 standard Product

Class Adjusted volume ( AV) ( cu. ft.) * 2014 Standard Equation Maximum energy use of standard (kWh/yr) Estimated annual
energy use (kWh/yr) Ratio

H

- 3A

- BI 13.4 8 .0 2 A V + 2 28

. 5 33 6 5 16 1 5 4 %

H

- 11A 4.5 7.84AV + 219.1 254 365 143% H

- 13A 5.7 9.17AV + 259.3 312 441 142% H

- 9I

- BI 1 5.7 9.86 AV + 3 44

. 9 500 413 8 3 % * Adjusted volume (AV) is calculated for product classes H

- 3A

- BI, H

- 11A
, and H

- 13A as the sum of all interior compartment volumes. For product class H

- 9I

- BI, AV is calculated as the sum of the cooled cabinet compartment volume, plus 1.76 times the freezer compartment volume. (10 CFR 430 Subpart B, Appendix B)

c The manufacturer (Liebherr) did not provide an annual energy use estimate for the hybrid freezer model (WF 1061: 4.5 cu. ft. cellar compartment, 4.5 cu ft. freezer compartment). However, information on a unit of comparable volume (BF 1061: 5.5 cu. ft. fresh food compartment and 4.5 cu. ft. freezer compartment) was available with an annual energy use estimate of 413 kWh/yr. DOE used this value as an upper limit to the energy consumption of the hybrid freezer model.7

- 12 7.3 ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUM PTION BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL
This section reports the annual energy consumption calculated for miscellaneous refrigeration products at various efficiency levels using average adjusted volumes derived from online surveys

, manufacturer data , or a combination of both

.

As discussed in c hapter 5 , DOE analyzed specific efficiency levels for the considered product classes. Table 7.3.1 through Table 7.3.4 show the considered efficiency levels and corresponding average annual energy consumption for each representative product class. Note that for cooled cabinets and some hybrid product classes, efficiency levels above t he baseline energy use level were included to represent a portion of current market shares. For hybrid products, DOE used the same efficiency level spacings for H

- 3A

- BI, H

- 11A and H

- 13A and obtained the average energy use values shown in Table 7.2.5 using assumed market shares for two adjacent efficiency levels. For instance, for H

- 3A

- BI with an estimated annual energy use that is 154 percent of the 2014 standard, D OE assumed 80 percent market share in EL0 (160 percent of the 2014 standard) and 20 percent market share in EL1 (130 percent of the 2014 standard), yielding an average annual energy use of (0.8)

∙ (1.6) + (0.2) ∙(1.3) = 154 percent of the 2014 standard.7

- 13 Table 7.3.1 Cool ed Cabinets: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency level CC: Cooled Cabinet ( 2.0 cu. ft.)

% of CEC

equivalent energy

use kWh/yr

EL0 267% 660

EL1 200% 494

EL2 160% 395

EL3 130% 321

EL4 100% 247

EL5 90% 222

EL6 80% 198

EL7 70% 173

EL8 60% 148

EL9 50% 124

EL10 40% 99

EL11 32% 797

- 14 Table 7.3.2 Non

- Compression Refrigerators: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency level NCR: Non

- Compression Refrigerators (1. 7 cu. ft.)

% of baseline

energy use kWh/yr

EL0 100% 672

EL1 95% 638

EL2 90% 605

EL3 85% 571

EL4 80% 538

EL5 75% 504

EL6 70% 470

EL7 65% 437

EL8 64% 430

Table 7.3.3 Ice Makers: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency level IM

- P : Portable IM

- C : Non

- portable, cooled storage IM

- U: Non

- portable, uncooled storage

% of b aseline

e nergy u se kWh /yr % of b aseline

e nergy u se kWh /yr % of b aseline

e nergy u se kWh /yr

EL0 100% 256 100% 552 100% 1075

EL1 90% 230 95% 524 95% 1021

EL2 80% 205 90% 497 90% 968

EL3 70% 179 85% 469 85% 914

EL4 60% 154 80% 442 80% 860

EL5 50% 128 75% 414 75% 806

EL6 40% 102 74% 4 11 70% 753

EL7 35% 8 9 65% 699

EL8 63% 67 2

Note: blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels (i.e. higher than max tech.) for the specific classes.7

- 15 Table 7.3.4 Hybrid Products : Average An nual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency level H

- 3A

- BI : Standard

Size , Built

- In Hybrid All

- Refrigerator with Automatic Defrost (13.4 cu. ft.) H

- 1 1 A : Compact Hybrid All

- Refrigerator with Manual Defrost (4.5 cu. ft.) H

- 13 A : Compact Hybrid All

- Refrigerator with Automatic Defrost (5.7 cu. ft.) H

- 9I

- BI : Standard

- Size , Built

In Hybrid Upright Freezer with Automatic Defrost (15.7 cu. ft.)*

% of 2014 refrigerator

standard

e nergy u se kWh /y

r % of 2014 refrigerator

standard

e nergy u se kWh /yr % of 2014 refrigerator

standard

e nergy u se kWh /yr % of 2014 refrigerator

standard

e nergy u se kWh /yr

EL0 160% 538 160% 407 160% 499 100% (Baseline) 500

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

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

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

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

EL5 70% 178 70% 218

EL6 60% 153 60% 187

EL7 55% 140 55% 171
* Adjusted volume = cooled cabinet volume + 1.73 times freezer volume Note: blank cells represent non

- existent efficiency levels (i.e. higher than max tech.) for the specific classes.7

- 16 REFERENCES

1 Greenblatt, J. B., S. J. Young, H.

- C. Yang, T. Long, B. Beraki, S. Price, S. Pratt, H. Willem, L.

- B. Desroches, and S. M. Donovan (2013). U.S. Re sidential Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys , Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL

- 6537E, November 2013.

2 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CEC

- 400

- 2012

- 019

- CMF, Table A

- 1, p. 70.

3 Greenblatt, J. B., S. Pratt, H. Willem, E. Claybaugh, L.

- B. Desroches, B. Beraki, M. Nagaraju, S. K. Price and S. J. Young, 2013. Field data collection of miscellaneous electrical loads in Northern California: Initial results, Lawrence Berkeley National La boratory, Report number LBNL

- 6115E, February. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5cq425kt (accessed 16 September 2013).

4 California Energy Commission, 2013. Appliance Efficiency Database. Available on line http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx (accessed 10 December 2013)

5 NRCan, 2013. Energy Efficiency Ratings Search: Refrigerators and chillers. Available online http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml

- lmp/index.cfm?action=app.search

- recherche&appliance=REFRIGERATORS (accessed 10 December 2013)