7-i

CHAPTER 7. ENERGY USE ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 ENERGY USE DATA FOR MISCELLANEOUS REFRIGERATION 

PRODUCTS..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1 Cooled Cabinets .................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1.1 Vapor Compression Cooled 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 Refrigerators (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 CONSUMPTION BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL ........................... 7-12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 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, estimated annual 

energy use, and ratio relative to 2014 standard.................................................. 7-11

Table 7.3.1 Cooled Cabinets: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency 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 ................ 7-15
7-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) refrigerators................................................... 7-9
7-1

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 consumer 

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 is 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 chapter 5 reports energy use derived from the DOE test 

procedure. This test procedure 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 

operating 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 these

limited data and compared 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 REFRIGERATION 

PRODUCTS

7.2.1 Cooled Cabinets

DOE obtained data from online surveys

1 on the capacities and cooling 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 energy 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 interior 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 10.9 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 field3 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 conditions. 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 the 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 0.46 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 which are based on the CEC test procedure) by 

dividing the reported energy use by 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 CEC4

and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)5 as well as manufacturers’ websites. Dividing 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 average 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 10.9 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 factorb

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 cooled 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 gathered energy use data for 35 

thermoelectric cooled cabinets from manufacturer and/or retailer websites. (Technical data, No. 

18) Taken together, these products had rated capacities from 0.6 to 4.9 cubic feet, with average 

annual energy use ranging from 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

Where:

UEC = unit energy consumption in kWh/yr, and

V = cooled cabinet interior volume in cu. ft.

(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 prevalence (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 the 

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 from online surveys,1 DOE estimated the saturation of cooled cabinets in 

U.S. households. From these data, DOE estimated that 15 percent of cooled cabinets were CC-1

and 85 percent were CC-2. It used these 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 these

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 these 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 * 0.65
7-8

Table 7.2.3 Cooled cabinet efficiency distribution market shares

Efficiency 

level

% of CECequivalent energy 

use

CC-1: Vapor 

Compression Cooled 

Cabinets

CC-2*: Thermoelectric 

Cooled Cabinets

All CC: Average 

Cooled Cabinets

EL0 267% 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% (CECequivalent) 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 (MaxTech) 32% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

* The CC-2 product category is referred to as Thermoelectric Cooled Cabinets in the following tables. The costefficiency 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 survey1 to evaluate the prevalence of noncompressor refrigerators (NCR-1 = thermoelectric cooling and NCR-2 = absorption cooling). 

Because much 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, estimating the expected energy use of 

such products, if they were to be used in the field at this operating condition, is complicated by 

their inability to maintain fresh food compartment temperatures. Nonetheless, DOE used the 90 

°F test results to perform a linear 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 estimated that the average annual energy 

consumption of thermoelectric products in field use is 672 kWh, which 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 homes. 

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 to 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, the unit was not able to maintain a 39  ̊F compartment 

temperature in the 90  ̊F condition. Nonetheless, DOE estimated that the average annual energy 

consumption of such a product in field use is 569 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 distribution 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% and 95% of the 672 kWh/yr baseline, respectively). This resulted in an 

average efficiency of 99.5% and an average annual energy consumption of 669 kWh/yr.

y = 140.27x + 433.41

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Annual 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 for ice 

makers 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. For the portable units, 

DOE’s proposed test procedure required the use of a 50 percent usage factor to account for the 

expectation that these units 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. (For the portable ice maker, this estimate applies only during times when 

the unit is plugged in.)

Table 7.2.4 Ice 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 89 3 672 5 411

2 256 4 1075 6 552

Average 173 Average 874 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 automatic 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-sized

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 

compact hybrid all-refrigerator with manual defrost (Product Class H-11A). The remaining two 

hybrid products were standard-sized built-in hybrid upright freezers with automatic defrost 

(Product Class H-9I-BI). Based on available data for these nine hybrid products, 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 516 kWh, based on the information provided for one unit by a manufacturer 

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 441 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. 19, 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 chapter 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 baseline 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 8.02AV + 228.5 336 516 154%

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 15.7 9.86AV + 344.9 500 413 83%

* 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 CONSUMPTION 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 chapter 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 the 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, DOE 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 Cooled Cabinets: Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency 

level

CC: Cooled Cabinet

(2.0 cu. ft.)

% of CECequivalent 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% 79
7-14

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 

baseline 

energy use kWh/yr

% of 

baseline 

energy use kWh/yr

% of 

baseline 

energy use 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% 411 70% 753

EL7 35% 89 65% 699

EL8 63% 672

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 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency 

level

H-3A-BI: StandardSize, Built-In Hybrid 

All-Refrigerator

with Automatic 

Defrost

(13.4 cu. ft.)

H-11A:

Compact Hybrid 

All-Refrigerator

with Manual Defrost

(4.5 cu. ft.)

H-13A:

Compact Hybrid 

All-Refrigerator

with Automatic 

Defrost

(5.7 cu. ft.)

H-9I-BI:

Standard-Size, BuiltIn Hybrid Upright 

Freezer with 

Automatic Defrost

(15.7 cu. ft.)*

% of 2014 

refrigerator 

standard

energy use

kWh/y

r

% of 2014 

refrigerator 

standard

energy use kWh/yr

% of 2014 

refrigerator 

standard

energy use kWh/yr

% of 2014 

refrigerator 

standard

energy use kWh/yr

EL0 160% 538 160% 407 160% 499 100%

(Baseline) 500

EL1 130% 437 130% 331 130% 405 95% 475

EL2 100% 336 100% 254 100% 312 90% 450

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

EL4 85% 282 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. Residential 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 Laboratory, Report number LBNL-6115E, February. 

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5cq425kt (accessed 16 September 2013).

4 California Energy Commission, 2013. Appliance Efficiency Database. Available online 

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)