2-i

CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM 

INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESPONSES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 Rulemaking Schedule............................................................................... 2-3

2.3 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT........................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Definitions................................................................................................ 2-5

2.3.2 Scope of Coverage ................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.3 Product Classes ...................................................................................... 2-21

2.3.4 Market Assessment ................................................................................ 2-23

2.3.5 Technology Assessment......................................................................... 2-23

2.3.6 Test Procedures...................................................................................... 2-24

2.4 SCREENING ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 2-29

2.5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 2-30

2.6 MARKUPS TO DETERMINE PRODUCT PRICE...................................................... 2-32

2.7 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 2-33

2.8 LIFE CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES................................... 2-34

2.8.1 Retail Prices............................................................................................ 2-35

2.8.2 Energy Prices.......................................................................................... 2-35

2.8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs.......................................... 2-35

2.8.4 Product Lifetime..................................................................................... 2-36

2.8.5 Discount Rates........................................................................................ 2-36

2.8.6 Distribution of Product Efficiency in the Base Case.............................. 2-36

2.9 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 2-37

2.10 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 2-38

2.10.1 National Energy Savings Analysis....................................................... 2-38

2.10.2 Net Present Value Analysis.................................................................. 2-39

2.11 CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 2-40

2.12 PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................... 2-40

2.13 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 2-41

2.14 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS ................................. 2-43

2.15 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................... 2-44

2.16 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................... 2-45

2.17 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 2-45
2-1

CHAPTER 2.ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM 

INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESPONSES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291, et. seq.), 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prescribe energy conservation standards for 

covered products that achieve the maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) This chapter 

describes the general analytical framework that DOE is using to evaluate and develop energy 

conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. Included in this chapter are 

descriptions of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships among the various 

analyses that are part of DOE’s approach.

The analyses performed as part of the preliminary analysis stage and reported in this 

preliminary technical support document (TSD) are listed below.

• A market and technology assessment to characterize the markets for miscellaneous 

refrigeration products and the applicable existing technology options, including prototype 

designs.

• A screening analysis to review each technology option to decide whether it is 

technologically feasible; is practical to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely 

affect product utility or product availability; or would have adverse effects on health and 

safety.

• An engineering analysis to develop cost-efficiency relationships, which indicate the 

manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency.

• A markups analysis to develop distribution channel markups that relate the manufacturer 

production cost (MPC) to the cost to the consumer.

• An analysis of the annual energy use of the considered products.

• A life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis to calculate, at the consumer 

level, the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average lifetime of the 

covered products, compared to any increase in purchase and installation cost.

• A shipments analysis to forecast shipments of miscellaneous refrigeration products, 

which are then used to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy, net present 

value (NPV), and future manufacturer cash flows.
2-2

• A national impact analysis (NIA) to assess aggregate impacts at the national level of 

potential energy conservation standards for the considered products, as measured by the 

NPV of total consumer economic impacts and the national energy savings (NES).

• A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) to assess the potential impacts of 

energy conservation standards on manufacturers’ capital conversion expenditures, 

marketing costs, shipments, and research and development costs.

In the subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), DOE will present the 

tentative results of the above analyses, incorporating any revisions to the analyses based on 

comments and new information received. DOE will also present results of the following 

additional analyses in the NOPR:

• A consumer subgroup analysis to evaluate variations in consumer characteristics that 

might cause a standard to affect particular consumer subpopulations, such as low-income 

households, differently than the overall population.

• An MIA to estimate the financial impact of standards on manufacturers and to calculate 

impacts on competition, employment, and manufacturing capacity.

• A utility impact analysis to estimate selected effects of considered standards on the

electric power sector.

• An employment impact analysis to assess the aggregate impacts of considered standards 

on national employment.

• An emissions analysis to estimate the effects of considered standards on emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury (Hg).

• A regulatory impact analysis to examine major alternatives to proposed amended energy 

conservation standards that may achieve substantially the same regulatory goal at a lower 

cost.

2.2 BACKGROUND

DOE developed this analytical framework and documented its initial findings in the 

Rulemaking Framework Document for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products 

(the Framework Document). DOE announced the availability of the Framework Document in a 

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of a Framework Document published in the Federal 

Register on February 13, 2012. 77 FR 7547. DOE presented the analytical approach to interested 

parties during a public meeting on February 22, 2012. The Framework Document is available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/wc_misc_refr_framework_02_

06_12.pdf.
2-3

In response to the publication of the Framework Document and the associated public 

meeting, DOE received comments from interested parties regarding its analytical approach. In 

this chapter (chapter 2) of the preliminary TSD, DOE: (1) summarizes the key comments 

received from interested parties and describes DOE’s responses to those comments; (2) 

summarizes any significant changes made in its analysis approach since publishing the 

Framework Document; and (3) explains in further detail each of the issues, identified in the

executive summary, for which DOE seeks public comment.

Before the publication of the Framework Document, DOE published a coverage 

determination proposal (“the November 2011 Coverage Proposal”). 76 FR 69147 (November 8, 

2011). In that document, DOE preliminarily determined that residential refrigeration products 

that do not incorporate compressors qualify as covered products as defined by EPCA.

After the publication of the Framework Document, DOE published a second proposed 

coverage determination (“the October 2013 Coverage Proposal”). 78 FR 65223 (October 31, 

2013). This proposed determination, if finalized, would expand the scope of the November 2011 

Coverage Proposal by explicitly adding as covered products several additional types of 

refrigeration products., including hybrid (or combination) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (i.e., products that include warm compartments such as wine storage compartments in 

products that otherwise perform the functions of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers);

cooled cabinets (i.e., products including wine chillers that are composed entirely of warm 

compartments); refrigeration products that do not use vapor compression refrigeration systems 

(i.e., products that do not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the 

cabinet assembly); and ice makers. Under this proposal, DOE would cover all of these products 

under a single new aggregate product coverage category, distinct from the current compressorbased refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers explicitly addressed by EPCA. It 

supplements the November 2011 Coverage Proposal, which did not include vapor-compression 

products. Collectively, the products at issue would be defined as “miscellaneous refrigeration 

products.”

Simultaneously, DOE is proposing new test procedures to address the miscellaneous 

refrigeration products that DOE is weighing for coverage in the October 2013 Coverage 

Proposal. The test procedure NOPR for that rulemaking (“the Test Procedure NOPR”) would 

also define the specific product types comprising the miscellaneous refrigeration products 

product type. These definitions are introduced in Chapter 1 and discussed further in Chapter 3 of 

this TSD. The miscellaneous refrigeration product testing provisions proposed by DOE are also 

summarized in Chapter 3 of this TSD.

2.2.1 Rulemaking Schedule

In the Framework Document, DOE stated that it would consider accelerating the timeline 

of an energy conservation standard rulemaking for miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE 

provided two options to accelerate the schedule: (1) stakeholders would negotiate appropriate 
2-4

efficiency levels for the standard leading to a direct final rule and (2) DOE would bypass 

publication of a preliminary analysis and proceed directly to a NOPR. DOE estimated that these 

options to accelerate the timeline could save 6 to 8 months in the rulemaking process. 

While the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) commented that they 

were open to negotiations with other stakeholders about appropriate efficiency levels for the 

standard, AHAM urged DOE to publish a preliminary analysis, because it provides an 

opportunity for stakeholders to offer feedback to DOE early in the process. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 

7) The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) also stated that it is helpful to have 

information from DOE’s preliminary analysis to support negotiations between stakeholders. 

(ASAP, No. 15 at p. 65) Moreover, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and the 

Northwest Power Conservation Council (NPCC), referred to from here forward as NEEA, et al., 

suggested that due to the lack of data currently available to DOE, as indicated in the Framework 

Document, an accelerated schedule would not be feasible. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 5)

U-Line highlighted the impact that an accelerated timeline would have on manufacturers. 

U-Line was concerned that DOE and stakeholders would not have time to properly develop 

product definitions, test procedures, and standards, especially as the Framework Document did 

not finalize the scope of coverage. Additionally, U-Line was concerned that an accelerated 

timeline would put small manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage, as they do not have the same 

resources as larger manufacturers to cope with DOE requests for comments and data. (U-Line, 

No. 14 at pp. 3-4)

Considering that miscellaneous refrigeration products have not been previously regulated, 

DOE agrees with interested parties that a preliminary analysis TSD should be published. This 

will provide DOE with the ability to further investigate the products and provide interested 

parties with additional opportunities to comment. Therefore, DOE conducted a preliminary 

analysis and is publishing this preliminary TSD.

2.3 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

When DOE begins an energy conservation standards rulemaking, it develops information 

that provides an overall picture of the market for the products considered, including the nature of 

the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics for the products. This activity 

consists of both quantitative and qualitative efforts based primarily on publicly available 

information. The subjects addressed in the market assessment for miscellaneous refrigeration 

products included manufacturers, trade associations, and the quantities and types of products sold 

and offered for sale. DOE included both large and small, and both foreign and domestic 

refrigeration product manufacturers in its product search. DOE examined publicly available data 

from AHAM, which is the key trade association for this product category. DOE also reviewed 

shipment projections based on a study that collected information using online surveys of 

appliance owners.1 Finally, DOE reviewed the energy conservation standards, voluntary 
2-5

efficiency programs, and efficiency incentives of utilities, individual states, and other 

organizations. Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD provides additional details on the market and 

technology assessment.

DOE also reviewed relevant literature and interviewed manufacturers to help develop an 

overall picture of the miscellaneous refrigeration product market in the United States. Industry 

publications, trade journals, government agencies, and trade organizations provided the bulk of 

the information, including (1) manufacturers and their market shares; (2) shipments by product 

type; (3) detailed product information; and (4) industry trends. The analysis developed as part of 

the market and technology assessment is described in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD.

2.3.1 Definitions

In the Framework Document, DOE proposed to define an electric wine chiller as “a 

cabinet (a) designed for the refrigerated storage of beverages, non-perishable food products, 

and/or any other items, (b) not designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures below 

39 °F (3.9 °C), and (c) having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current 

electric energy input only.” While EPCA does not define the term “refrigerator,” the proposed 

wine chiller definition is consistent with the current electric refrigerator definition (see 10 CFR 

430.2) except for the temperature designation and the fact that refrigerators may also contain a 

freezer compartment. Thus, DOE also proposed to modify the definition for the term

“refrigerator” in 10 CFR 430.2, which currently refers to the definition for “electric refrigerator,”

to “an electric refrigerator or an electric wine chiller.” Further, DOE proposed to modify the 

definition of compact refrigerators to exclude wine chillers so as not to create an additional 

compact wine chiller category given that the majority of wine chillers have total refrigerated 

volume less than 7.5 ft3

, the threshold for compact refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. 

Industry stakeholders agreed with the wine chiller definition initially considered by DOE. 

However, both AHAM and GE suggested that DOE extend this definition to “beverage centers,” 

which serve a similar purpose to wine chillers, and rename the category for products with 

temperatures above 39 °F to something other than wine chillers. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 3; GE, No. 

15 at pp. 25-26; AHAM, No. 15 at p. 2) AHAM and Sanyo also recommended that part (a) of the 

wine chiller definition be removed, finding it unnecessary to specify what types of products can 

be stored in the unit. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 3; Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 1) With this modified definition, 

Sanyo stated that using the term “wine chiller” for all covered products would be acceptable and 

supported an approach to establish a new energy conservation standard based on the current 

statutory coverage laid out in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). (Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 1)

Efficiency advocates also commented on DOE’s proposed definition of wine chillers. 

NEEA and NPCC agreed with DOE’s definition and added that DOE should use the term 

“beverage coolers” instead of “wine chillers” to describe refrigeration products with storage 

temperatures above 39 °F. EarthJustice cautioned DOE to write definitions pertaining to wine 
2-6

chillers more broadly to ensure maximum inclusion of different product types for coverage. (EJ, 

No. 15 at pp. 28-29)

DOE agrees with stakeholders’ suggestions that an alternative name be used for the

“wine chiller” product type to ensure its applicability to all products that cannot reach storage 

temperatures below 39 °F, not just those that are designed to store wine or other beverages. 

Hence, DOE proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR to use the term “cooled cabinet” to denote 

all such products, including wine chillers, that are not designed to maintain refrigerator storage 

temperatures. The Test Procedure NOPR proposed the following definition for “cooled cabinet”: 

Cooled cabinet means a cabinet that has a source of refrigeration requiring electric energy 

input only and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either (a) no lower 

than 39 °F (3.9 °C), or (b) in a range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least 

as high as 60 °F (15.6 °C).

DOE notes that this definition would extend coverage to products that provide 

refrigerated storage at temperatures warmer than the range that is typical for wine chillers.a DOE 

also notes that the proposed “cooled cabinet” definition would not be limited to products that can 

only use alternating current power input, which addresses the possibility that such products may 

be cooled using thermoelectric refrigeration systems that can be powered by direct as well as 

alternating current power. Consequently, the definition should be sufficiently broad to ensure 

maximum coverage of different products.

DOE also notes that the Test Procedure NOPR proposed to reassign the current definition 

for “electric refrigerator” to the term “refrigerator” and eliminate the term “electric refrigerator” 

from 10 CFR 430.2, with a parallel proposal for the “electric refrigerator-freezer” and 

“refrigerator-freezer” definitions. DOE proposed these changes to eliminate redundant terms, and 

to simplify the regulations. Unless otherwise noted, where DOE uses the term “refrigerator” or 

“refrigerator-freezer” in this document, these terms will have the same meaning as the terms 

“electric refrigerator” or “electric refrigerator-freezer,” respectively, as currently found in 10 

CFR 430.2. 

2.3.2 Scope of Coverage

As stated in the Framework Document, there are currently no DOE energy conservation 

standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. Although cooled cabinets (including wine 

chillers) that use a conventional compressor/condenser system could have been considered to fall 

into the category described in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1), they are not covered by energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, largely because of their inability to

 a Wine chillers operate with storage temperatures above 40  ̊F and generally near 55  ̊F (see 75 FR 59470, 59486 

(September 27, 2010)).
2-7

reach storage temperatures colder than the 39 °F limit specified in DOE’s current regulatory 

definition for “electric refrigerator.” (10 CFR part 430.2) 

The other products addressed in this TSD do not fall into the category described in 42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(1). However, EPCA authorizes DOE to classify additional types of consumer 

products as covered products if they satisfy certain prerequisites, as listed in 42 U.S.C. 

6292(b)(1). As described further in section 2.3.2.9, based on DOE’s currently available data, the 

regulation of these miscellaneous refrigeration products would, in DOE’s tentative view, be

consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1), which states that the Secretary of 

Energy may classify a type of consumer product as a covered product if: (1) coverage of the 

product is necessary or appropriate for carrying out the purposes of EPCA, and (2) the average 

annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh per year. 

Should DOE determine that these criteria are satisfied, DOE would have the authority to extend 

coverage over these products and to develop energy conservation standards for them. 

2.3.2.1 Vapor-Compression Wine Chillers

The Framework Document stated that there are currently no DOE energy conservation 

standards for vapor-compression wine chillers, although DOE is aware that both the California 

Energy Commission (CEC) and Natural Resources Canada have established energy conservation 

standards for these products.

In response to the Framework Document, U-Line stated that both Canada and California 

have established standards for these products and that, due to the combined size of these markets, 

they effectively set the standards for the U.S. market. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 1)

In response to both the Framework Document and the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, 

the California IOUs, Graven, and a joint comment submitted by EarthJustice, ASAP, and the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), collectively referred to as the Joint Advocates 

Comment (JAC), stated that DOE should not establish coverage for wine chillers if it cannot also 

establish energy conservation standards for them; otherwise, DOE would pre-empt California 

standards for wine chillers without replacing them with new standards. (CAIOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; 

Graven, No. 6 at p. 1;JAC, No. 11 at p. 1; JAC, No. 17 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that Canada and California have established standards for wine 

chillers and that these standards effectively set a standard for the North American vaporcompression wine chiller market; however, given the significant additional potential for costeffective energy savings associated with non-compressor products, as well as potentially higher 

efficiency for vapor-compression products, it is DOE’s view at this time that the regulation of 

these products would satisfy the relevant statutory criteria. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l).
2-8

2.3.2.2 Thermoelectric and Vapor Absorption Products

As described further in Chapter 3 of this TSD, thermoelectric refrigeration products are a 

widely available alternative to the vapor-compression systems used in most refrigeration 

products. 

Thermoelectric technology is primarily used in products that do not maintain very low 

compartment temperatures, although some thermoelectric refrigeration products can maintain 

storage temperature below 39 °F in room-temperature conditions (i.e., near 70 °F). The coverage 

provision of EPCA related to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would not apply to 

thermoelectric products because they do not employ compressor or condenser systems. The same 

coverage limitations apply to absorption refrigeration products, which do not have integral 

compressors. Thermoelectric and absorption refrigeration technologies are used in available 

products marketed either as wine chillers, which are generally configured with wine racks and 

glass doors, or as refrigerators, which are generally configured with shelves and solid doors.

Efficiency advocates expressed their belief that DOE should establish both coverage and 

new energy conservation standards for thermoelectric products. NEEA and NPCC commented 

that, because thermoelectric products are less efficient and less expensive than compressor-based 

products, and because their market is growing, they are ideal candidates for energy conservation 

standards. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 3) In the joint comment, efficiency advocates advised DOE 

to cover thermoelectric compact refrigerators – not just thermoelectric wine chillers – in order to 

prevent a market shift from vapor compression to thermoelectric technology. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 

4; ASAP, No. 15 at p. 44) The California IOUs (CAIOUs) also expressed concern that, if the 

energy efficiency standards do not cover the different wine chiller refrigeration technologies, 

consumers would be encouraged to purchase less-efficient, less-expensive thermoelectric wine 

chillers. (CAIOUs, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) An individual commented that covering vapor 

compression wine chillers but not thermoelectric wine chillers would be contrary to the 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), which require that the potential reduction of 

competition must be considered when proposing new regulations. The coverage of only vaporcompression units would give manufacturers of thermoelectric units an unfair advantage. 

(Graven, No. 6 at p. 1)

Some interested parties, while agreeing that thermoelectric products should be included 

in the current rulemaking, added that the differences in design and operation between 

thermoelectric and vapor compression products suggest that each refrigeration type will need its 

own set of test procedures and methods of evaluation. U-Line commented that DOE should 

conduct a rulemaking for thermoelectric products separate from that for vapor-compression 

products. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 2)

Conversely, AHAM commented that DOE should not pursue coverage or set energy 

conservation standards for thermoelectric wine chillers and indicated its view that these products 

are not covered under California regulations. AHAM claimed that the California test procedure 

does not provide a procedure to test thermoelectric products because it evaluates "compressor 
2-9

cycles," whereas thermoelectric products do not have compressor cycles. AHAM cited further 

support of its position that thermoelectric wine chillers should not be covered by indicating that 

the Canadian test procedure, which is similar to the California test procedure, specifically 

mentions that thermoelectric units are not included. (AHAM, No. 9 at pp. 2-3)

In response to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, AHAM commented that it is not 

feasible for manufacturers to evade EPCA coverage by switching from vapor compression to 

thermoelectric or absorption refrigeration. Moreover, AHAM commented that thermoelectric 

refrigeration products cannot be made in the same sizes that consumers demand for vaporcompression products and that many thermoelectric products cannot reach wine storage 

temperatures, let alone safe food storage temperatures. AHAM added that absorption-based 

technologies use flammable gas and are therefore undesirable among consumers. AHAM 

concluded that these factors indicate that it is not necessary for DOE to establish coverage for 

non-compressor refrigeration products. (AHAM, No. 15 at p. 4)

DOE agrees with the efficiency advocates that it should pursue coverage and energy 

conservation standards for thermoelectric refrigeration products, including thermoelectric 

refrigerators, particularly because they are less expensive and less efficient than vaporcompression alternatives. Consequently, DOE has proposed to cover thermoelectric and 

absorption products, referred to in aggregate as “non-compressor refrigeration products,” in its 

October 2013 Coverage Proposal. 78 FR 65228 (Oct. 31, 2013). DOE also agrees that covering 

both vapor-compression and thermoelectric wine chillers would prevent the potential reduction 

of competition for manufacturers of thermoelectric wine chillers. 

While thermoelectric and vapor-compression cooled cabinet products differ in design and 

operation, DOE does not believe that these technologies provide significant utility differences to 

the consumer. Therefore, DOE may propose covering both thermoelectric and vaporcompression cooled cabinets in the same product class, meaning that they would be subject to the 

same standards and considered in the same rulemaking. Nonetheless, in response to U-Line, 

although DOE may cover thermoelectric and vapor-compression cooled cabinets in the same 

product class, it separately analyzed the markets and designs of these product types, as described 

further in its market and technology assessment (Chapter 3 of this TSD) and engineering analysis 

(Chapter 5 of this TSD). 

DOE acknowledges that current products designed using thermoelectric refrigeration 

technology are unable to maintain storage temperatures that are safe for food storage in the highusage conditions typical for refrigerators, as discussed in the Test Procedure NOPR. This 

limitation makes it unlikely that manufacturers would switch refrigeration technologies in order 

to avoid EPCA coverage unless improved thermoelectric technology cooling becomes available. 

DOE also acknowledges that the ammonia used in absorption refrigeration products is

flammable. Nonetheless, DOE’s market analysis indicates that non-compressor products 

comprise a majority of the cooled cabinet market, indicating that establishing coverage for such 

products could result in significant energy savings.
2-10

Regarding AHAM’s claim that the California wine chiller test procedure is not applicable 

to non-compressor products because of its reliance on evaluating compressor cycles, DOE will 

not comment on those State-created regulations. However, DOE has proposed test methods for

thermoelectric and absorption units in its Test Procedure NOPR, which proposes distinct ambient 

temperature requirements and usage adjustment factors for non-compressor and vaporcompression units. It also proposes to treat the term “compressor cycles” as meaning

“refrigeration system cycles” when testing non-compressor refrigeration products. 

2.3.2.3 Hybrid Refrigeration Products

DOE is aware of products featuring different combinations of fresh food, freezer, and 

“wine storage” compartments. In guidance issued February 2011 (“February 2011 Guidance”),2

DOE published guidelines on how to test refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers featuring a wine 

storage compartment. The guidance stated that these hybrid products must be tested as 

refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers using the applicable test procedures. Depending on the 

design details of the additional wine storage compartment, this compartment would typically be 

tested as a fresh food compartment, even if it could not attain fresh food compartment 

temperatures. In contrast, the guidance also indicated that adding a wine storage compartment to 

a product that is otherwise a freezer would change its status if the compartment comprises a 

majority of the product’s total storage volume, as the product would no longer meet the 

regulatory definition of a freezer. In the February 2011 Guidance, DOE acknowledged the 

potential disparity in treatment of these different product configurations and indicated its plans to 

address hybrid products in a future rulemaking. Citing this disparity in the Framework 

Document, DOE requested comment on how to address products that combine fresh food and/or 

freezer compartments with wine storage compartments, the types and configurations of such 

products, and whether separate hybrid product categories should be established based on a 

threshold size or percent of total volume for wine storage compartments in such products. DOE 

also requested comment on whether test procedure revisions would be necessary to address such 

products, as well as whether it should develop separate definitions and energy conservation 

standards for them.

In the Joint Advocates Comment, as well as in separate comments from NEEA and 

NPCC, efficiency advocates stated that all hybrid products should be included in the 

miscellaneous refrigeration products rulemaking. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 3; NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 

3; ASAP, No. 15 at p. 37) Separately, ASAP remarked that standards for hybrid products should 

be similar in stringency to standards for other refrigeration products, after taking into account 

their differences in energy use. (ASAP, No. 15 at p. 33) Furthermore, NEEA and NPCC stated 

that supplemental definitions and adjustments to the refrigerator test procedure will be necessary 

to include these products, such as specifying different compartment temperatures or including 

adjustments to address their typical door opening frequency, in order to cover the variety of 

products on the market both currently and in the future. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 3) 
2-11

Writing in response to both the Framework Document and the October 2013 Coverage 

Proposal, AHAM agreed with efficiency advocates that all hybrid products including 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers with a wine storage compartment should be 

addressed within the current rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 5; AHAM, No. 15 at pp. 2-3) 

AHAM commented that the February 2011 Guidance regarding hybrid products was inequitable 

and unfair, because clear test procedures for hybrid products do not yet exist. (AHAM, No. 15 at 

pp. 31-32) U-Line commented that, due to the high number of potential variations of hybrid 

products that exist, attempts at further regulatory guidance on these products may increase rather 

than decrease confusion on product test procedures. Therefore, U-Line suggested that, if DOE 

proposes definitions addressing hybrid products, these definitions should clearly cover all 

combination/hybrid products in order to prevent the possibility that some products may 

inadvertently be exempt from coverage. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 3) U-Line also supported 

developing separate product definitions and test procedures for hybrid products where the 

products are used for different functions or where differences in technology and design require 

the use of different test procedures but did not provide any specific examples that would 

necessitate such differentiation. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 3) While not commenting on whether 

hybrid products should be covered under the current rulemaking, Sanyo emphasized that more 

analysis and review was necessary to determine appropriate standards and test procedures for 

hybrid products. (Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 1)

DOE agrees with stakeholders that all refrigeration products with a storage compartment

that does not operate below 39 °F, such as a wine storage compartment, should be covered and 

subject to energy conservation standards. In the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, DOE 

proposed to extend coverage to all products containing compartments designed for storage at 

temperatures warmer than 39 °F and that otherwise perform the functions of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, or freezers. 78 FR 65227. Subsequently, in the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposed definitions for hybrid refrigeration products that were intended to clarify that at least 

half, but not all, of the refrigerated volume of such products would consist of a cellar 

compartment or multiple cellar compartments. The NOPR proposed defining these 

compartments as compartments not capable of storage temperatures lower than 39 °F.b DOE 

proposed test procedures for these hybrid products and is developing energy conservation 

standards for them as part of this effort. The Test Procedure NOPR also proposed to treat vaporcompression refrigeration products that do not meet one of the “hybrid” definitions, but that 

nevertheless combine warm compartments with fresh food and/or freezer compartments, as 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers as currently defined in 10 CFR 430.2. 

(Consequently, these products would be subject to the applicable standards in 10 CFR 

430.32(a)). DOE proposed these definitions to clarify the status of products representing all of 

the potential combinations of freezer, fresh food, and cellar compartments, as shown in Table 

3.1; consequently, no refrigeration products with cellar compartments would be exempt from 

coverage.

 b DOE’s proposal also allows a small crossover in temperature below 39  ̊F, down to 37  ̊F, provided the 

compartment’s temperature range extends at least up to 60  ̊F.
2-12

Table 3.1: Product Definitions Applicable to Different Compartment Combinations

Compartment Types

Freezer 

(“long 

term”)

Freezer 

(“short 

term”)

Freezer 

(“ice 

only”)

Fresh 

Food

< 50% 

Cellar

≥ 50% 

Cellar

Product Types

Currently Covered Product Combinations

All-Refrigerator



 

Refrigerator other than an AllRefrigerator

 

Refrigerator-Freezer  

Freezer 

Proposed Additional Covered Product Combinations

Cooled Cabinet 

Hybrid All-Refrigerator

 

  

Hybrid Refrigerator other 

than a Hybrid AllRefrigerator

  

Hybrid Refrigerator-Freezer   

Hybrid Freezer  

Currently Covered Product Combinations Whose Status Would be Clarified by the 

Test Procedure Rulemaking 

All-Refrigerator

 

  

Refrigerator other than an AllRefrigerator

  

Refrigerator-Freezer   

Freezer  

The last four product types in Table 3.1 represent refrigeration products with cellar 

compartments that comprise less than half of their total refrigerated volume. Should DOE revise 

its definitions for these products, these last four product categories would be subject to the 

applicable standards already detailed in 10 CFR 430.32(a). Conversely, coverage of cooled 

cabinets and hybrid refrigeration products would not begin until DOE publishes a final coverage 

determination. 

DOE agrees with NEEA, et al., and U-Line that it is necessary to develop separate test 

procedures for hybrid refrigeration products that address their various configurations and 

fundamental differences from conventional refrigeration products. Consequently, DOE is 

proposing to address issues specific to hybrid refrigeration products, including, for example, the 
2-13

setpoint temperature of the cellar compartment (which DOE proposes as 55 °F), energy use 

calculations, and calculation of adjusted volume as part of its test procedure proposal. Similarly, 

DOE has analyzed whether energy conservation standards would be appropriate for hybrid 

refrigeration products, as discussed in chapter 5 of this TSD.

2.3.2.4 Refrigeration Products Using Either Alternating Current or Direct 

Current Input

In the Framework Document, DOE requested information about whether refrigeration 

products with the ability to operate on either alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC) are 

sold in significant quantities for stationary applications (e.g., homes). Because EPCA’s coverage 

of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is currently limited to those units that can 

operate on alternating current (AC) electricity, products that operate solely on DC electricity or 

fuels other than electricity, such as natural gas or propane, would need to be covered as a 

separate product type. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) Furthermore, coverage for any new category of 

products cannot extend to products designed solely for use in recreational vehicles (RVs) or 

other mobile equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(a).

NEEA and NPCC commented that the market for DC-powered products is limited and 

focuses on RV and off-grid applications, for which there are already significant incentives for 

efficient design. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 4) Thus, in their view, DOE may want to exclude 

these products from coverage. True Manufacturing (True) stated that because thermoelectric 

products run internally on DC power, they may be able to sidestep the AC-input requirement in 

EPCA by moving the AC/DC conversion outside the product, for example, by powering the 

product with an external battery recharged by a battery charger. (True, No. 15 at p. 21-22) This 

comment suggests that extending coverage to thermoelectric products but limiting the scope of 

coverage to those products that operate on AC power may encourage manufacturers to use 

external AC/DC conversion or similar approaches to exclude their products from coverage.

To address the issue raised by True, DOE’s Test Procedure NOPR is not restricted to 

those products that can operate on AC power input. DOE acknowledges that many refrigeration 

products that are designed to operate solely on DC power are designed exclusively for mobile 

applications and therefore cannot be covered under EPCA. However, although DOE is not aware 

of any current products powered only by DC electricity that are not designed exclusively for 

mobile applications, DOE notes that such products could exist or be introduced in the future.

Further, refrigeration products that are capable of operating on either DC or AC power would not 

likely be designed exclusively for use in mobile applications. Therefore, DOE maintains that 

coverage of products that can operate on DC power is consistent with EPCA, provided they are 

not designed exclusively for mobile applications. This is the same coverage approach proposed 

in the October 2013 Coverage Proposal and Test Procedure NOPR and the approach DOE may

adopt when developing standards for these products. See 78 FR 65223. 
2-14

2.3.2.5 Coverage of Residential and Commercial Wine Chillers in the Same 

Product Category

In the Framework Document, DOE sought comment on design features and performance 

characteristics that could distinguish wine chillers used in commercial applications from those 

used in residential applications. DOE suggested that both commercial and residential wine 

chillers could be covered under the same coverage authority, especially if products were 

manufactured on the same product lines or if DOE could identify that commercial wine chillers 

are often distributed for personal or individual use. 

The California Investor-Owned Utilities suggested that DOE should include commercial 

wine chillers in the then ongoing rulemaking for commercial refrigeration equipment rather than 

the current rulemaking for miscellaneous refrigeration products. (CAIOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Manufacturers indicated that commercial and residential wine chillers are different products and 

should not be regulated under the same standards. (GE, No. 15 at p. 57; True, No. 15 at pp. 54-

56) True noted that commercial wine chillers are designed for scenarios involving frequent door 

openings during peak usage times that require rapid temperature pull-down to keep wine 

products cool enough during the limited period in which the wine remains in the wine chiller. As 

a result, commercial wine chillers have a much larger compressor capacity and are louder 

compared to residential units. Additionally, the high air flow required for rapid temperature pulldown can dry out corks, making the units unacceptable for long-term wine storage. (True, No. 15 

at p. 54-56) True added that these factors weighed against consumer use of commercial wine 

chillers for residential wine storage, and indicated that the penetration of commercial wine 

chillers in residential markets is very small. (True, No. 15 at pp. 54-56) According to True, the 

test procedure currently used for commercial wine chillers, ASHRAE 72, calls for eight hours of 

testing during which doors are opened every ten minutes. This frequency of door-opening would 

result in temperatures that are unacceptably low for a residential product. (True, No. 15 at p. 57) 

Based on this information, DOE tentatively concluded that commercial wine chillers have 

characteristics distinguishing them from residential wine chillers and are unlikely to be

distributed for personal or individual use. Therefore, DOE does not intend to establish standards 

for such equipment in this rulemaking.

2.3.2.6 Near-Freezers

Under the current definition of a freezer, products that are sold as freezers and store food 

below 32 °F but not down to 0 °F would not be covered under the existing energy conservation

standards applicable to freezers because of the temperature range prescribed in that definition. In 

the Framework Document, DOE suggested one solution to this potential gap in standards 

coverage might be to modify the freezer definition to apply to products that cannot meet the 0 °F 

standardized temperature.
2-15

DOE also indicated that it might consider modifying the freezer test procedure to allow 

testing of such products with a modified standardized temperature. Such changes would 

potentially allow coverage and regulation of near-freezers using the existing energy conservation 

standards without requiring the development of separate product classes. Alternatively, DOE 

could also consider the further step of establishing separate product classes for such products 

with their own energy conservation standards.

The joint efficiency advocates urged DOE to address this possible loophole by covering

near-freezers. (JAC, No. 17 at pp. 1-2) NEEA and NPCC commented that there are a number of 

products that can maintain temperatures between 0 °F and 32 °F but did not provide examples or 

shipment estimates. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 3) NEEA and NPCC also suggested that DOE 

modify its definitions for refrigerators and freezers to extend to near-freezers. (NEEA, et al., No. 

10 at p. 2) The joint efficiency advocates suggested that near-freezers could be covered under a 

new product category rather than freezers as currently defined, acknowledging that products in 

this class are most likely a small portion of the market. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 2) True identified 

specific commercial products that would fall into the near-freezer category such as ice storage 

products that operate between 22 °F and 30 °F and products for beer storage, which can cool to 

27–28 °F. (True, No. 15 at p. 50) Conversely, GE commented that all of its freezer products can 

reach 0 °F. (GE, No. 15 at p. 47)

After carefully considering these comments, DOE has determined that the products 

identified by True fall under the category of commercial refrigeration equipment, for which 

Congress has already established a separate regulatory framework for DOE to follow. 

Additionally, DOE has not found evidence that any near-freezer consumer products exist. Thus, 

at this time, DOE is declining to address such products as part of this particular effort.

2.3.2.7 Ice Makers

In the Framework Document, DOE also discussed extending coverage to ice makers not 

currently covered by DOE’s standards for automatic commercial icemakers, which would apply 

to products typically used in residential settings. In the Framework Document, DOE requested 

comment on the annual sales of such ice makers, on any current test procedures for them, and 

any available data on the typical energy use of such products in a residential setting. 

In response to the Framework Document, efficiency advocates asserted that ice makers 

are gaining popularity, and experience with commercial ice makers suggests that there may be 

significant potential for savings in residential applications. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 4) No supporting 

evidence of this trend, however, was provided. NEEA and NPCC, as well as the joint 

commenters, urged DOE to cover ice makers and establish energy conservation standards for 

these products if DOE is able to confirm the potential for savings. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 4; NEEA, 

et al., No. 10 at p. 4) NEEA and NPCC also recommended that DOE establish separate test 

procedures for ice makers, basing them on the test procedures for commercial ice makers but 

putting more emphasis on the efficiency of the storage bin because ice production may be 
2-16

considerably lower in residential settings than in commercial settings. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 

4)

By contrast, manufacturers commented that ice makers should not be included in the 

scope of the current rulemaking. Whirlpool indicated that it was the intent of Congress that 

EPCA not regulate ice makers and further indicated that sales of these products are low enough 

that regulating them would have no significant impact on energy consumption. (Whirlpool, No. 

15 at p. 51) True commented that existing regulations for ice makers do not state whether they 

apply to residential or commercial applications but instead apply to products with harvest 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per day. (True, No. 15 at p. 52) GE also stated 

that California regulates ice makers with a harvest capacity greater than 50 pounds, showing that 

such products exist and are regulated, but noted that no regulations exist for products that 

produce less than 50 pounds of ice per day. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 52) In response to the October 

2013 Coverage Proposal, Hoshizaki commented that ice makers are luxury items and differ from 

commercial ice makers in that they hold small amounts of ice and do not make more than 50 

pounds of ice per day. Hoshizaki added that, because there is no known procedure for testing ice 

maker energy consumption, DOE should first establish a test procedure for ice makers before 

developing energy conservation standards, because there would be insufficient data to determine 

their energy consumption without a test procedure. (Hoshizaki, No. 16 at p. 1)

Regarding DOE’s October 2013 Coverage Proposal, which used a market study1 to 

derive an ice maker lifetime estimate of approximately 1.7 years, see 78 FR 65228, Hoshizaki 

commented that this short estimated lifetime is another factor to consider when determining the 

necessity of covering ice makers. (Hoshizaki, No. 16 at p. 1)

DOE used this market study to estimate a national stock of 1.7 million non-portable ice 

makers. 78 FR 65228. Whirlpool commented that it estimates the annual market for non-portable 

ice makers to be 73,000 units with a lifetime of 7 years, yielding a national stock estimate of 

511,000 non-portable ice makers. (Whirlpool, No. 18 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that its 

estimate of ice maker stock is uncertain, ranging from 0.6 to 2.7 million non-portable ice makers. 

The low end of this range is close to Whirlpool’s estimate. DOE also acknowledges that it used a 

substantially smaller lifetime estimate of 1.7 years, and would consider revising this estimate if it 

receives data that substantiates Whirlpool’s lifetime estimate of 7 years or another estimate that 

can be substantiated by data.

Finally, Hoshizaki also commented that it would be impossible to improve the efficiency 

of its ice makers using any parts currently available on the market and that any efficiency 

improvements would necessitate a total redesign, which would be expensive and potentially 

unproductive. (Hoshizaki, No. 16 at p. 1)

AHAM commented that DOE should not regulate products with low production volumes 

and/or which use small amounts of energy annually because the potential energy savings will not 

outweigh the burden associated with regulating those products. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 1, 2) 
2-17

Specifically, AHAM noted that ice makers represent insignificant potential for energy savings. 

(AHAM, No. 9 at pp. 6-7; AHAM, No. 15 at p. 44) 

In response to Whirlpool’s comment, DOE notes that ice makers were not originally 

covered under EPCA as consumer products; however, as described further in Sections 2.3.2 and 

2.3.2.9, EPCA grants DOE the authority to extend coverage to products that meet the criteria laid 

out in the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). DOE has tentatively determined that, in aggregate, 

ice makers and the other miscellaneous refrigeration products covered in this rulemaking meet 

these criteria and DOE is taking an approach that would include ice makers as part of this current 

effort examining the application of potential energy conservation standards for these products.

Additionally, assuming that the general assertion of the efficiency advocates is accurate –

that ice makers are becoming more popular – DOE does not anticipate that the energy use of 

these products is likely to decrease in the absence of the promulgation of minimum standards for 

energy efficiency. As explained in the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, DOE estimates that the 

national stock of ice makers (including portable ice makers) is between 2 and 8.7 million, 

corresponding to a national energy consumption of 0.5 to 4 billion kWh, and that sales of these 

units are between 1.2 to 3.2 million per year. 78 FR 65227-65228. These numbers suggest that 

regulating the energy efficiency of these products is likely to yield significant savings in energy 

use, even if such products have a relatively short lifetime, as suggested by the survey results 

published in the October 2013 Coverage Proposal. In its simultaneous test procedure rulemaking, 

DOE has proposed a test procedure for ice makers that would require setup similar to that 

required by the DOE test procedure for commercial ice makers but would measure energy use 

associated with ice storage as well as icemaking energy, as recommended by NEEA, et al.

DOE notes that it currently regulates the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice 

makers for commercial or industrial use. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(ii). Conversely, ice makers 

would be consumer products as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) and would not be covered by the 

existing regulations for automatic commercial ice makers, even if their harvest rate is above 50 

pounds per day.

DOE also notes that it has observed a range of ice maker efficiencies among products 

available on the market, indicating that efficiency improvements for such products are feasible

and justifiable. Further details can be found in chapter 5 of this TSD.

2.3.2.8 Other Refrigeration Products

In the Framework Document, DOE also requested comment on the nature and availability 

of refrigeration products, other than ice makers, that are not currently regulated under existing 

standards. 

The joint efficiency advocates commented that, overall, the October 2013 Coverage 

Proposal revealed a large potential for energy savings for refrigeration products that are not 
2-18

currently covered by standards and encouraged DOE to establish test procedures and standards 

for these products. (JAC, No. 17 at p. 1)

AHAM commented that DOE should not regulate products with low production volumes 

and/or which use small amounts of energy annually because the potential energy savings will not 

outweigh the burden associated with regulating those products. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 1, 2) 

Specifically, AHAM noted that products using DC electricity and other miscellaneous 

refrigeration products represent insignificant potential for energy savings. (AHAM, No. 9 at pp. 

6-7; AHAM, No. 15 at p. 44) 

U-Line stated that there are no additional refrigeration products that should be regulated 

with energy conservation standards and commented that products that require different test 

procedures should be regulated using separate product classes. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 3) However, 

other interested parties suggested that DOE should extend coverage to refrigeration products 

with external compressors or condensers. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at pp. 2-3; JAC, No. 11 at pp. 2-

3) EarthJustice specifically requested that products with removable, compressor-based, selfcontained cooling units that mount on top of refrigeration cabinets should be considered, and the 

joint efficiency advocates added in response to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal that such 

products may use significantly more energy than comparable conventional refrigeration 

products. (EJ, No. 15 at p. 38, JAC, No. 17 at pp. 1-2) GE claimed that existing coverage 

authority should already extend to products with removable cooling systems, pointing out that, 

although the statute indicates that the compressor and condenser must be an integral part of the 

cabinet assembly, it does not indicate that they must be permanently attached. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 

38-39) True commented that refrigeration products of this type have been available in the 

commercial sector for a long time and can now be found in the residential sector. (True, No. 15 

at p. 41) While efficiency advocates noted that the market for such products is small, they urged

DOE to consider regulating them to prevent manufacturers from circumventing regulations. 

(JAC, No. 11 at pp. 2-3) True commented that wine cellars, which are walk-in cabinets that 

typically use remote refrigeration systems, are more common in residential applications and 

designed differently than commercial wine chillers. (True, No. 15 at pp. 56-57)

DOE notes that refrigeration products with remote condensers and/or compressors, as 

well as refrigeration products with detachable cooling systems, are extremely rare in the 

residential market – DOE is only aware of one such product, which suggests that it is unlikely 

that setting standards for these products would lead to significant energy savings. Therefore, 

DOE is not considering regulating these types of products at this time. However, DOE may 

consider including such products in its final coverage determination for miscellaneous 

refrigeration products.

As for True’s comments regarding wine cellars, DOE does not plan to develop energy 

conservation standards for these types of products in the context of this current effort.
2-19

2.3.2.9 Combined Coverage of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products in a Single 

Coverage Category

As discussed in section 2.3.2.1, some refrigeration products use thermoelectric or 

absorption refrigeration technology to cool their compartments. In the Framework Document, 

DOE presented two options to establish energy conservation standards for thermoelectric 

products. 

The first option was to establish standards and a test procedure for vapor compression 

wine chillers under DOE’s existing authority for refrigerators in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6292 (a)(1)) 

by modifying the definitions for “refrigerator” and/or “electric refrigerator.” DOE would then

establish a separate coverage category for thermoelectric products under the provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) (“Any other type of consumer product which the Secretary classifies as a 

covered product under subsection (b) of this section.”), which would require a determination that

such coverage is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA and that the annual 

per-household energy use of the product is likely to exceed 100 kWh. 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). 

The second option was to establish coverage for all miscellaneous refrigeration products, 

including vapor-compression, thermoelectric, and absorption-based products, under 42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(20). This would necessitate a similar determination that such coverage is necessary or 

appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA and that the annual per-household energy use of 

the product is likely to exceed 100 kWh. 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1).

In either case, EPCA specifies additional requirements to consider before DOE can

establish energy conservation standards for newly-covered products. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1), 

DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard for a newly-covered product if: (a) the

average per household energy use within the United States by the product exceeds 150 kWh for 

any 12-month period ending before the determination; (b) the aggregate household energy use 

within the United States by the product exceeded 4.2 billion kWh during the same 12-month 

period; (c) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is 

technologically feasible; and (d) the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 for the 

product is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and 

other persons to purchase products of that type which achieve the maximum energy efficiency 

which is technologically feasible and economically justified. 

In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on these options for establishing 

coverage and energy conservation standards for wine chillers.

Efficiency advocates cited the absence of any claims of DOE pre-emption of the 

California wine chiller standards as proof that the EPCA authority to cover refrigerators does not 

extend to wine chillers. Rather, efficiency advocates argued that wine chillers should instead be 

covered in their own product category. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 2)
2-20

The CAIOUs, along with NEEA and NPCC, further commented that DOE should 

thoroughly evaluate the number of wine chillers installed nationally, segregated by refrigeration 

technology and their energy use, to determine if the 4.2 billion kWh threshold for establishing 

energy conservation standards can be achieved. (CAIOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; NEEA, et al., No. 10 at 

p. 1) Efficiency advocates also believe that the most effective means to cover miscellaneous 

refrigeration products and to meet this threshold could be to combine the broad range of product 

types into a new product category with vapor compression wine chillers. (Graven, No. 6 at p. 1; 

JAC, No. 11 at p. 2; NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 2; EJ, No. 15 at pp. 19-20, 36) ASAP supported 

coverage of the broadest possible range of products, including those with remote compressors 

and condensers. (ASAP, No. 15 at p. 23)

U-Line commented that DOE may be using inaccurate, inflated values of unit energy 

consumption (UEC) in order to justify jurisdiction to issue a rule. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 2)

In the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, DOE proposed to select the second option 

described above and create a single coverage category for all miscellaneous refrigeration 

products not currently covered under EPCA as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, 

which includes wine chillers, all thermoelectric and absorption refrigeration products, hybrid 

refrigeration products, and ice makers. In this proposal, DOE provided evidence that such a 

decision would meet the coverage requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) as well as the 

requirements for establishing energy conservation standards, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295 (l)(1).

In response to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, AHAM commented that the 

proposed scope of coverage is too broad and that the only thing that the miscellaneous 

refrigeration products included in the coverage proposal have in common is that they are not

currently covered under EPCA. In AHAM’s opinion, this commonality is not sufficient to justify 

creating a single product category for products which, on their own, would be unlikely to meet 

EPCA’s threshold requirements or offer the opportunity for significant energy savings, due to 

their low volumes and energy use. However, AHAM did clarify that it fully supports coverage of 

wine chillers and hybrid products in this rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 15 at p. 2) Finally, in 

response to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, AHAM commented that DOE’s role is to 

establish coverage for products only if those products meet EPCA’s statutory requirements and 

that coverage is not designed to dictate shifts in technologies. In AHAM’s opinion, 

thermoelectric and absorption refrigeration products would never meet EPCA’s statutory 

requirements if they were not grouped into a larger product category. AHAM considers the 

creation of a single coverage category inappropriate because such a process does not consider 

inherent differences in design and functionality and could therefore cause products with specific 

consumer benefits to be pushed out of the market. (AHAM, No. 15 at p. 3)

Whirlpool commented in response to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal that it opposed 

the inclusion of ice makers in the scope of this rulemaking because they have significantly 

different functionality than the other miscellaneous refrigeration products, all of which provide 

food or beverage storage. Moreover, while the other products in this rulemaking can be tested in 
2-21

a way that measures the energy required to maintain a volume of space at a specific temperature, 

ice makers must be tested in a dramatically different way that measures the energy required to

produce a certain weight of ice. Whirlpool concluded that ice makers should be considered 

products independent of the scope of products addressed in this rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 18

at pp. 1-2)

In response to AHAM and Whirlpool, DOE tentatively concludes that the products under 

consideration are all similar in that they utilize refrigeration, have a similar insulated “box” 

construction, and that their function, at least in part, includes cool or cold storage.

Contrary to the claims of efficiency advocates, DOE maintains that the existing EPCA 

authority to cover refrigerators could be extended to vapor compression wine chillers by 

modifying the definition for refrigerator found in 10 CFR 430.2. However, as described in the 

Test Procedure NOPR, DOE chose instead to propose establishment of coverage for vapor 

compression wine chillers as part of a new product category. DOE proposed to cover all 

miscellaneous refrigeration products under a single new combined category, consistent with the 

recommendation of efficiency advocates. Such products would include vapor compression wine 

chillers, thermoelectric wine chillers, thermoelectric refrigerators, absorption refrigerators, 

hybrid refrigeration products, and ice makers. 

In the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, DOE evaluated whether these products, in 

aggregate, would meet the EPCA criteria as newly covered products. DOE tentatively concluded 

that the average annual per household energy use for miscellaneous refrigeration products 

exceeds the 100 kWh threshold set by EPCA. Moreover, DOE tentatively concluded that (a) the 

average annual per household energy use for miscellaneous refrigeration products exceeds 150 

kWh, and (b) the aggregate annual national energy use of these products, estimated as 9.9 billion 

kWh, exceeds 4.2 billion kWh, two thresholds set by EPCA for establishing energy conservation 

standards for newly-covered products. DOE’s development of these estimates is described in 

more detail in the October 2013 Coverage Proposal. 78 FR 65228 (Oct. 31, 2013). DOE notes 

that these energy use estimates differ slightly from the estimates presented in the Framework 

Document and welcomes data that might improve its understanding about the aggregate energy 

consumption of these products. DOE’s approach to its analysis as presented in the preliminary 

TSD is consistent with the conclusion, expressed in the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, that 

these products can be combined in a single coverage category. DOE will indicate its final 

decisions on the topic in a final coverage determination.

2.3.3 Product Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides 

covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, capacity, or other performancerelated features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservation standards are prescribed for

different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). 
2-22

In the Framework Document, DOE identified two potential product classes for wine 

chillers based on the existing CEC regulations: wine chillers with manual defrost and wine 

chillers with automatic defrost. DOE questioned whether wine chillers that employ manual 

defrost are still manufactured and sold. Additionally, DOE sought comment on solid-door 

products that would fit the definitions of wine chillers in order to determine their prevalence and 

whether the efficiency impact and consumer utility of a transparent door warranted a separate 

class. 

Most interested parties supported use of the CEC product classes. AHAM encouraged 

DOE to adopt the CEC standards, which have separate product classes for manual and automatic 

defrost wine chillers and do not differentiate based on door type. (AHAM, No. 9 at pp. 7-8; 

AHAM, No. 15 at p. 76) AHAM further commented that DOE should set efficiency levels that 

are technologically feasible for all door types, adding that products with transparent doors likely 

represent the majority of products on the market. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 8) As evidence that 

manual defrost products exist, GE commented that the CEC database lists five products as 

having manual defrost out of a total of 200, although this database does not reflect sales 

quantities of these products. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 76-77) In addition, GE noted that most wine 

chillers with automatic defrost do not employ active heating for defrost, due to their warm 

compartment temperatures and low compressor run times, and instead use off-cycle defrost. (GE, 

No. 15 at p. 78) Sanyo also commented that some wine chillers use heaters for defrost and/or the 

prevention of condensation (i.e., anti-sweat heaters). (Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 2) As an alternative to 

dividing product classes by defrost or door type, U-Line suggested that DOE create a single 

group of product classes for products that cannot achieve temperatures below 39 °F, rather than 

separate product classes for products used for different purposes (e.g., storage of wine versus

other beverages). (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 2)

DOE is aware that wine chillers with solid doors do exist, though such doors are typically 

sold as accessories and are rare. DOE also notes that the energy consumption of a wine chiller 

with a solid door should be significantly lower than that of an otherwise identical wine chiller 

with a glass door due to the low thermal resistivity of glass compared with an insulated solid 

door; therefore, any energy conservation standard that is feasible for units with glass doors 

should also be feasible for units with solid doors. Based upon the relatively small number of 

solid door wine chillers on the market, DOE believes that a separate standard for such products 

would be unlikely to result in significant energy savings and proposes not to differentiate wine 

chiller product classes based on door type.

DOE is also aware that the CEC database lists a small number of manual defrost wine 

chillers. However, DOE found that all but one of the manual defrost wine chillers in the CEC 

database are no longer for sale; additionally, it was not possible to confirm using publicly 

available information that the remaining unit did indeed use manual defrost. Moreover, as GE 

notes, the majority of automatic defrost wine chillers employ off-cycle defrost. This type of 

defrost consumes no extra energy and is equivalent to manual defrost with respect to energy 

consumption. DOE agrees with Sanyo that some wine chillers use active heat defrost and is 
2-23

aware of at least one such unit. Based on testing of this unit, as described further in Chapter 5 of 

this TSD, DOE tentatively determined that its active defrost feature accounted for approximately 

three percent of its total energy use, thus indicating that active defrost does represent an increase 

in energy use. However, because of the modest energy use impact and because available data 

suggest that active defrost units comprise a small portion of the wine chiller market, DOE is not 

differentiating among wine chiller product classes based on defrost type. Instead, DOE is 

considering establishing a single product class for products that cannot achieve temperatures 

below 39 °F.

As described further in the Test Procedure NOPR and Chapter 3 of this TSD, this single 

product class would comprise both vapor-compression and non-compressor cooled cabinets, 

because DOE has determined that non-compressor cooled cabinets provide the same consumer 

utility at a lower efficiency compared to vapor-compression cooled cabinets.

2.3.4 Market Assessment

As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE developed information that 

provides an overall picture of the market for the products considered, including the nature of the 

products, market characteristics, and industry structure. DOE collected quantitative and 

qualitative information, primarily from publicly available sources. Industry publications, trade 

journals, government agencies, and trade organizations provided the bulk of the information, 

including: (1) manufacturers and their market shares; (2) shipments by product type; (3) product 

information; and (4) industry trends. DOE also interviewed manufacturers. The analyses 

developed as part of the market assessment are described in chapter 3 of the TSD.

In the Framework Document, DOE outlined its plan to qualitatively and quantitatively 

characterize the structure of the miscellaneous refrigeration products industries and markets. 

DOE sought input that would contribute to the market assessment for the products considered in 

this rulemaking. However, DOE did not receive any comment on the market assessment.

2.3.5 Technology Assessment 

As part of the technology assessment, DOE developed a list of technologies to consider 

for improving the efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE then removed 

technologies that would not be likely to change or affect the energy efficiency of these products 

if DOE were to apply the same testing approach that it recently proposed. Chapter 3 of the TSD 

includes the detailed list of all technology options DOE identified for potential consideration in 

this rulemaking. DOE sought comment on the preliminary technology options identified in the 

Framework Document, such as improved insulation or compressor efficiency, and whether there 

were other technology options DOE should consider in its analysis.

Some interested parties provided comments on technology options for cabinet lighting. 

GE stated that if DOE adopts a test procedure that includes lighting energy use, such as in the 
2-24

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) test procedure, improved lighting technologies should be 

considered. (GE, No. 15 at p. 80) JAC commented that DOE should consider improved efficacy 

of lighting as a technology option, and True specifically suggested that LED lighting be 

considered. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 4; True, No. 15 at p. 79)

Other interested parties, such as the Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES), 

recommended that DOE consider alternative refrigerants as technology options. RSES believes 

alternative refrigerants, such as isobutane, propane, and so on, have better efficiency than HFC134a. (RSES, No. 15 at p. 27)

U-Line expressed concern that DOE may set standards based on technologies covered by 

a patent or trade secret or supplied by only one vendor. U-Line stated that this would have an 

adverse impact on small manufacturers with limited resources and may lead to unusually high 

cost increases that would not be supported by the market. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 4)

DOE’s proposed test procedure would not measure lighting energy use; therefore, DOE 

has not considered improved lighting efficiency as a technology option.

DOE agrees with RSES that some alternative refrigerants are more efficient than R-134a; 

therefore, it originally included isobutane as a technology option to consider. The EPA 

Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) allows the use of istobutane in refrigeration 

products, provided the refrigerant charge is no more than 57 grams per refrigeration circuit. 75 

FR 78832 (Dec. 20, 2011). DOE is also aware that the EPA has recently proposed allowing the 

use of propane in refrigeration products for residential applications. 79 FR 38811 (July 9, 2014). 

However, as described further in Chapter 4, DOE ultimately screened out this technology option 

because compressors for these alternative refrigerants are not currently available in the voltage 

and capacity range relevant to the products under consideration.

In response to U-Line’s comment, DOE will consider standards that are achievable. 

While a proprietary technology option may be one way to achieve a given level of efficiency that 

DOE is considering, so long as other means are available to achieve that level, DOE would not 

necessarily screen out that proprietary technology from its analysis when considering potential

standards to propose. However, DOE would consider the impact of any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the imposition of energy conservation standards; consequently, it 

cannot set standards based solely on technology options that are patented or in limited supply.

DOE, ultimately, did not consider any proprietary technologies in its analysis.

2.3.6 Test Procedures

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) details the DOE test procedures for refrigeration 

products. The test procedures for products manufactured starting in 2014 appear in Appendix A 

(for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers) and Appendix B (for freezers). 
2-25

In the Framework Document, DOE recognized that the current test procedures for 

refrigeration products do not account for products that do not meet the current definitions for 

electric refrigerators, electric refrigerator-freezers, or freezers. (See, for example, appendix A to 

subpart B of 10 CFR 430) In particular, the standardized compartment temperatures specified in 

the test procedures are significantly lower than those typical for wine chillers, beverage coolers, 

or beverage centers.

DOE identified the following key issues for consideration when developing test 

procedures for miscellaneous refrigeration products and requested comment on whether 

additional issues should be addressed in the DOE’s analysis: (1) establishing definitions for 

product categories and/or compartment types to clarify which products are subject to which test 

requirements; (2) establishing standardized compartment temperatures that are appropriate for 

each identified product category; (3) developing test procedures for products and compartments 

not designed to achieve fresh food storage temperatures; (4) potential consideration of test 

procedures for commercial wine chillers; (5) applying a usage adjustment factor of 0.85 to 

account for the fact that miscellaneous refrigeration products may have fewer door openings than 

household refrigerators or may not be plugged in at all times; and (6) potential consideration of 

additional test procedure requirements to address standby and/or off mode energy use.

In order to address many of the test procedure issues raised by DOE in the Framework 

Document, AHAM and Sanyo stated that DOE should adopt the CEC's test procedure for wine 

chillers. (AHAM, No. 9 at pp. 1-2, 7; Sanyo, No. 12 at pp. 1-2) Whirlpool agreed in its response 

to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal. (Whirlpool, No. 18 at p. 2) AHAM specifically noted 

that the existing California test procedure captures standby and off mode energy use, and no test 

procedure modifications would be required to comply with the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) requirements for standby/off modes (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 7; AHAM, No. 15 

at p. 69) NEAA and NPCC agreed that the test procedures should not require separate 

measurements and metrics for standby energy use. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 4) Alternatively, 

GE commented that Canada's test procedure for wine chillers has a provision that differs from 

the California test procedure in that units with a manual light switch must be tested twice: once 

with the light on and once with the light off. The results of these two tests are then averaged to 

yield the final energy test result. (GE, No. 15 at p. 67) GE and JAC agreed that the Canadian test 

procedure is probably more representative and should be adopted by DOE, as it might drive 

manufacturers to improve their designs to include an automatic light feature. (GE, No. 15 at p. 

67; JAC, No. 11 at p. 4)

Another potential test procedure issue identified by the CAIOUs was the use of multiple 

zones in wine chillers to allow for separate areas of temperature control. These zones address the 

market need for storage of different types of wines at different temperatures. The CAIOUs 

suggested two possible approaches for the test procedure: (a) setting each zone at a different 

temperature, or (b) setting compartment temperature controls at their lowest temperature, or in 

their maximum energy use position, as is done in the test procedure for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers for special compartments. (CAIOUs, No. 13 at p. 3) The CAIOUs also 
2-26

commented that there are some wine chiller products that have separate humidity controls, 

adding that any wine chiller test procedure should address the energy use associated with this 

feature. Such products may use compressor heat or evaporator fan airflow to re-evaporate 

condensed water vapor, running the compressor and/or fan as needed to control humidity. 

(CAIOUs, No. 13 at p. 3)

Manufacturers also had general comments on the potential standardized compartment

temperature for miscellaneous refrigeration products. Sanyo commented that while 55 °F is a 

reasonable target temperature for long-term storage of wine, ideal serving temperatures can be 

different: mid-60s °F for red wines and mid-40s °F for white wines, for example. (Sanyo, No. 12 

at p. 2) GE noted that testing for near-freezers could involve extrapolating the results of two tests 

to the standardized temperature of 0 °F, if the lowest measured compartment temperature is 

warmer than 0 °F. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 46-47) Further, GE commented that the definition for 

refrigerator-freezer indicates that the fresh food compartment includes storage space at a 

temperature above 8 °F, not just above 32 °F. For example, the icemaking compartment of a 

bottom-mount refrigerator with through-the-door ice service is considered to be part of the fresh 

food compartment, even though it is in the 20 °F range when storing ice. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 50-

51)

Regarding a suggested usage adjustment factor, GE and Sanyo commented that the 

expected frequency of door openings for wine chillers is similar to that of upright freezers, 

whose test procedure requires a 0.85 correction factor because the doors of upright freezers are

opened less frequently than refrigerator doors. (GE, No. 15 at pp. 66-67; Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 2) 

Although NEEA and NPCC agree that correction factors will likely be needed to ensure that the 

test procedure is consistent with the representative average use cycle of a product, they indicated 

that additional information must be collected before comments can be made recommending 

specific correction factors. (NEEA, et al., No. 10 at p. 4)

Interested parties also emphasized that test procedures should be tailored to the specific 

product. AHAM commented that there may have to be differences in test procedures for wine 

chillers and beverage centers, but did not provide specific recommendations. (AHAM, No. 9 at 

p. 3) Sanyo noted that there are no test procedures specifically tailored to hybrid products, 

because the existing test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers do not measure 

energy use in a way that is representative of these products. (Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 2) Further, 

AHAM and Sanyo stated that a clear definition for "compartment" should be developed, because 

there are different ways to achieve different temperature levels. Some hybrid wine storage 

products use heaters to maintain a wine compartment temperature above a minimum threshold, 

resulting in greater energy use than non-hybrids. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 5; Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 2)

True noted that the most recent test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment 

already addresses products that do not reach the standardized temperatures specified for other 

refrigeration equipment classes, such as the 38 °F storage temperature specified for commercial 

refrigerators. The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment does not distinguish 
2-27

between commercial wine chillers and similar products, such as equipment for flowers and 

chocolate; all such products are rated as though they are capable of operating at the standardized 

temperature, even though they are only required to be tested at the lowest internal temperatures 

that they can achieve. (True, No. 15 at p. 58-59) 

In response to the October 2013 Coverage Proposal, Whirlpool and Hoshizaki both 

commented that they were not aware of any existing test procedures for ice makers. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 16 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 18 at p. 2)

DOE agrees with stakeholders that the existing CEC test procedure for wine chillers 

addresses many of the critical issues that DOE considered in developing a test procedure 

proposal for such products. Although DOE acknowledges that the Canadian test procedure for 

wine chillers includes a provision for measuring light bulb energy use, survey data obtained by 

DOE indicates that testing with the lights off would be more representative of field use than 

testing with the lights on or using the average of the lights-on and lights-off tests followed in the 

Canadian test.

1 Moreover, the Canadian test procedure adds significant burden by requiring each 

product to be tested twice, once with the light switch on and once with it off. Therefore, the DOE 

proposal calls for only one test, with the light switch off, consistent with the CEC test procedure.

DOE is aware that many wine chillers have multiple zones with independent temperature 

controls. However, based on DOE’s review of available products, it is rare that such multi-zone 

wine chillers have different temperature ranges for each compartment; typically, each zone has 

an identical temperature range, thus giving the customer the freedom to decide where to store 

each type of wine. Based on the available information, DOE does not agree that testing wine 

chillers over a range of standardized compartment temperatures would improve the accuracy of 

predicting average field energy use sufficiently to justify the added complication of defining 

different cellar compartment types, since it is expected that the average compartment 

temperature used in the field will be near the 55 °F standardized temperature proposed for the 

test procedure. 

Moreover, although DOE is aware that wines are served at a wide variety of 

temperatures, it is important for DOE to select a single standardized temperature for specific 

compartment types to reduce test burden and complication. Therefore, as suggested by Sanyo, 

DOE proposed to use 55 °F, the temperature utilized by the CEC and Canadian test procedures, 

as the standardized temperature for all wine and beverage compartments, as well as all other 

compartments that are classified as “cooled cabinets,” based on the compartment temperatures 

described earlier in this chapter. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any products whose 

marketing indicates an ability to separately control humidity using the mechanisms described by 

the CAIOUs. DOE did not directly observe such mechanisms in any of the products that it 

reverse-engineered. 

DOE is aware that the CEC test procedure for wine chillers uses an adjustment factor of 

0.85 based upon an assumed door opening frequency similar to that of upright freezers. 

However, DOE is considering adopting an adjustment factor of 0.55 for vapor compression 
2-28

cooled cabinets, as explained in the Test Procedure NOPR, because DOE’s review of available 

information suggests that this is a more representative factor. For thermoelectric and absorption 

wine chillers, DOE proposed a 72 °F ambient temperature and using an adjustment factor equal 

to 1.2. As explained in the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE feels that these test conditions are 

necessary for non-compressor cooled cabinets to obtain a result that is representative of field 

energy use.

In the absence of specific recommendations regarding test procedure differences for wine 

chillers and beverage centers, DOE has not distinguished between these product types in its Test 

Procedure NOPR, as explained in Section 2.3.1. DOE notes, however, that beverage centers that 

achieve refrigerator temperatures, i.e., temperatures below 39 °F, would be classified and tested 

as refrigerators. As for the issues raised by Sanyo, the Test Procedure NOPR proposed specific 

test procedures to address hybrid products along with a means to evaluate compartments for the 

purpose of classifying a given product’s status. 

DOE is aware that products can feature many permutations of compartments that achieve

different temperature levels. However, because the term “compartment” is used in several 

different ways in the test procedure, rather than defining the term outright, DOE proposed adding 

to the test procedure a method for evaluating spaces within a cabinet and their temperature levels 

so that the product’s status (e.g., as a refrigerator or cooled cabinet) can be determined. Also, the 

Test Procedure NOPR proposed to establish a definition for “cellar compartment” based on a 

volume’s designed storage temperature range. With definitions for cellar compartment, fresh 

food compartments, and freezer compartments, test facilities would have clear guidance on how 

to define volumes within a cabinet based on designed temperature ranges.

DOE is also aware of products that use heaters to maintain wine compartment 

temperature above minimum thresholds. However, DOE did not propose to make specific 

provisions for products of this nature because it believed that the two setting test method would 

adequately account for operation that consumers would likely encounter. If heaters initiate 

during any portion of the proposed energy test, the test period would account for that added 

energy.

DOE agrees that there is currently no industry test procedure available for ice makers, 

although it is aware that some manufacturers use the automatic commercial ice maker test 

procedure to rate their residential products. Therefore, DOE proposed a test procedure for these 

products in the Test Procedure NOPR.

DOE agrees with True that the most recent version of the test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment (CRE) accounts for testing equipment that are not designed to hold 

temperatures as low as 38 °F, although the test procedure does not explicitly mention 

commercial wine chillers. 10 CFR 431.62. However, because DOE does not plan to consider 

commercial wine chillers in this rulemaking (as explained in section 2.3.2.5), DOE would not 

use its commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure for refrigeration products.
2-29

2.4 SCREENING ANALYSIS

The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies identified in the 

technology assessment to determine which ones to consider further and which to remove. DOE 

consulted with industry, technical experts, and other interested parties in developing a list of 

energy-saving technologies for the technology assessment. DOE then applied the screening 

criteria to determine which technologies were unsuitable for further consideration in this 

rulemaking. Chapter 4 of the TSD, the screening analysis, contains details about DOE’s 

screening criteria, found in Appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR Part 430 (the “Process Rule”).

As presented in further detail below, the screening analysis examines whether various 

technologies: (1) are technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service; (3) have an adverse impact on product utility or availability; and (4) have adverse 

impacts on health and safety. In the engineering analysis, DOE further considers the efficiencyenhancement technologies that it did not eliminate in the screening analysis.

1. Technological feasibility. DOE screens out technologies that are not incorporated in 

commercially available products or working prototypes. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If DOE determines that mass 

production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing 

of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market by the time of the compliance date of the standard, it will not consider that 

technology further.

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

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

consumer subgroups or results in the unavailability of any covered product type with 

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

that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the 

time, it will not consider that technology further.

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

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

further.

In the Framework Document, DOE presented a preliminary list of technology options 

that it proposed to consider and sought input on whether any of these technologies should be 

screened out based on the four screening criteria described previously. However, DOE did not 

receive any comment on the screening analysis.
2-30

2.5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

The engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the TSD) establishes the relationship between 

manufacturing production cost and efficiency for miscellaneous refrigeration products. This 

relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations in terms of individual consumers, 

manufacturers, and the Nation. Chapter 5 discusses the product classes analyzed, representative 

baseline units, incremental efficiency levels, methodology used to develop manufacturing 

production costs, cost-efficiency curves, impact of efficiency improvements on the considered 

products, and methodology used to extend the analysis to low-shipment-volume product classes. 

To determine the cost to consumers of miscellaneous refrigeration products at various efficiency 

levels, DOE estimated manufacturing costs, markups in the distribution chain, installation costs, 

and maintenance costs. Efficiency levels for products included in this rulemaking were 

calculated according to the proposed DOE test procedures.

In the engineering analysis pertaining to miscellaneous refrigeration products, DOE 

evaluated a range of product efficiency levels and associated manufacturing production costs

(MPCs), which it converted to manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) using information regarding 

typical markups. The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the incremental increase to selling 

prices that would result from increasing efficiency levels above the baseline level in each product 

class. The engineering analysis considers technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis. 

The LCC analysis uses the cost-efficiency relationships developed in the engineering analysis. In 

the Framework Document, DOE presented plans for its engineering analysis and sought input 

from stakeholders on whether the equations for maximum annual energy consumption from the 

California and Canadian regulations are appropriate to represent the performance of baseline 

wine chillers. DOE also requested feedback on the use of a design-option approach based on 

energy modeling and some energy testing to determine the relationship between manufacturer 

cost and annual energy consumption. Additionally, DOE sought comment on any proprietary 

designs of which it should be aware. As explained in the Framework Document, DOE will 

consider a proprietary design in subsequent analyses only if the technology does not represent a 

unique path to a given efficiency level. If the proprietary design is the only approach available to 

achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE will eliminate the efficiency level from further 

analysis. DOE will reject a standard level that can only be met with a single proprietary 

technology, because it could result in an anticompetitive market. This principle has been 

consistently applied in past DOE rulemakings. However, if a given energy efficiency level can 

be achieved by a number of design approaches, including a proprietary design, DOE will 

continue to examine that efficiency level, in spite of the proprietary nature of that one design.

In the Framework Document, DOE also noted that the maximum efficiency levels 

available in current products may not necessarily correspond to the max-tech levels. Maximumavailable-efficiency models may not incorporate all possible design options for increasing 

efficiency and, therefore, may not represent the true max-tech level. It is also possible that some 

of the design options that have met the screening criteria (i.e., passed the screening analysis) may 

not yet be commercially available and, therefore, would not be found in the most efficient
2-31

products currently available. Given this potential dichotomy between max-tech and available 

maximum efficiency levels, and DOE’s obligation to analyze max-tech levels, DOE sought 

stakeholder input to determine appropriate max-tech efficiency levels. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2)) 

It is not practicable for DOE to evaluate every product class or capacity range on the 

market, as the possible number of permutations is enormous. Instead, DOE proposed to evaluate 

several representative products in its reverse-engineering analysis that represent the majority of 

shipments and to then extrapolate the results to all products. DOE sought comment on what to 

consider when selecting representative products and how to extrapolate its analyses to the full 

range of available products.

Interested parties agreed with DOE’s approach to consider design options that may not be

available in today’s maximum efficiency products. Specifically, JAC and ASAP cited the 

refrigeration product rulemaking (76 FR 57516), in which DOE used energy modeling to 

establish maximum technology levels that were more efficient than the maximum available 

efficiency levels but remained within the constraints of technological feasibility. (JAC, No. 11 at 

p. 4; ASAP, No. 15 at p. 85) U-Line requested that DOE work with AHAM to develop 

representative cost-effectiveness data and to consider upper bounds in the incremental cost for 

achieving higher efficiency levels. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 4) U-Line also requested that DOE 

separately assess incremental costs to achieve higher efficiency for smaller manufacturers, 

because, unlike larger manufacturers with overseas production, these manufacturers pay higher 

costs for components. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 6)

Broadly, manufacturers and their representatives commented that DOE should adopt the 

existing energy conservation standards currently in place in California. (AHAM, No. 9 at pp. 1-

2, 8-10; Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 1; U-Line, No. 14 at p. 2) Sanyo also commented that DOE 

standards should be harmonized with Canadian standards in the long run. (Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 1)

DOE notes EPCA requires the adoption of standards that maximize energy efficiency and

are also technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 

(o)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(4)) Therefore, it cannot adopt either set of standards that California 

and Canada use without first analyzing the projected impacts that would follow. In doing so, 

DOE must identify the standard levels that would achieve the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency and be both technologically feasible and economically justified. As part of the 

engineering analysis, this means that high cost or poor cost-effectiveness are not considered 

when evaluating the technical feasibility of a given technology. See also 10 CFR Part 430, 

Subpart C, Appendix A (detailing DOE’s analytical process when evaluating potential energy 

efficiency standards). DOE comprehensively evaluates whether a given efficiency level is

economically justified as part of its separate economic analysis.

In response to U-Line’s suggestion that DOE work with AHAM, DOE encourages

AHAM and manufacturers to collaboratively develop cost-effectiveness data – such data would 

be considered by DOE in its analysis. DOE notes that it has already conducted interviews with 

several manufacturers. These interviews provided manufacturers with the opportunity to review 
2-32

initial cost-efficiency information. DOE considered their responses when developing its 

preliminary analysis. 

In response to U-Line’s comments about small manufacturers, generally the costefficiency relationship developed in the engineering analysis is more representative of largescale manufacturers due to its basis on industry averages. However, DOE also investigates the 

impact of energy conservation standards on small manufacturers in its MIA. DOE generally 

assesses the conversion cost associated with implementing standards for small manufacturers as 

part of a manufacturer subgroup analysis, compares this cost with those experienced by large 

manufacturers, and considers the differential impacts when selecting standard levels. To the 

extent that the higher costs of products sold by small manufacturers would cause efficiency 

standards to have a disproportionate impact on these manufacturers, DOE would consider this 

factor as part of the MIA. However, the cost-efficiency curves developed as part of the 

engineering analysis would be developed to be representative of the overall industry, since this 

more properly represents the impact on consumers.

As mentioned in section 2.3.2.2, refrigerators using refrigeration technologies other than 

vapor compression appear unable to maintain 39 °F storage temperatures when operating in the 

90 °F ambient conditions used for refrigerator testing. To address this issue, DOE may consider 

implementing an adjustment in the maximum allowable energy use as part of the energy 

conservation standard for such products. This adjustment would compensate for the fact that 

such products would effectively be rated at a condition that theoretically should require less 

energy use than operation at the standardized temperature. This standard adjustment factor, 

depicted in Equation 1, would adjust the maximum allowable energy use downward so that the 

standard’s stringency would increase as the product’s coldest temperature increases. 

Equation 1

Standard Adjustment Factor = (90 °F – TTest_Cold)/(90 °F – 39 °F)

Where: TTest_Cold indicates the fresh food compartment temperature achieved by a noncompressor refrigerator in the cold setting during an energy test. When a group of units of 

the same model are tested, e.g., for certification purposes, this value would be the average 

measured for the group.

DOE used this standard adjustment factor to develop its efficiency levels for noncompressor refrigerators, as described in chapter 5 of this TSD. DOE requests comment on this 

approach—see the TSD executive summary.

2.6 MARKUPS TO DETERMINE PRODUCT PRICE

DOE uses manufacturer-to-customer markups to convert the manufacturer selling price 

estimates from the engineering analysis to retail prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP 
2-33

analysis and the manufacturer impact analysis. Retail prices are necessary for the baseline 

efficiency level and all other efficiency levels under consideration. 

As part of the markups analysis, DOE identified relevant product distribution channels. In 

the Framework Document, DOE noted that the vast majority of appliances, including 

miscellaneous refrigeration products, are sold in a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution 

channel consisting of three parties: (1) the manufacturers producing the products; (2) retailers 

purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers; and (3) the 

consumers that purchase the products. 

One manufacturer expressed concern regarding DOE’s markups analysis. U-Line stated 

that the standard process DOE uses to calculate mark-ups would penalize smaller manufacturers, 

especially those whose distribution system includes a distributor before the retailer. (U-Line, No. 

14 at pp. 4-5) While DOE recognizes that distribution systems can vary between manufacturers, 

DOE found evidence that the vast majority of sold products use a distribution system in which 

the manufacturer sells directly to retailers. As a result, DOE has structured its analysis using this 

form of distribution system.

2.7 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the energy use determination is to establish the annual energy 

consumption of a given type of appliance and assess the energy-savings potential of different 

product efficiencies. DOE uses the annual energy consumption and energy-savings potential in 

the LCC and PBP analysis to establish the consumer operating savings of considered efficiency 

levels.

In the Framework Document, DOE sought comment on its proposed approach of 

estimating the annual energy consumption of miscellaneous refrigeration products based on a 

combination of sales data from the market research firm NPD Group, information from the CEC 

model database, and the CEC’s energy conservation standards equations for establishing 

maximum energy use. Additionally, DOE sought comment on the viability of using in situ field 

measurements of energy use as a proposed basis for characterizing the product’s energy 

consumption as well as information on potential data sources to aid in this characterization. 

AHAM strongly opposed DOE relying on in situ field measurements as a means to 

characterize energy use. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 8; AHAM, No. 15 at pp. 90-91) However, 

EarthJustice encouraged DOE to use in situ field measurements of energy use. (JAC, No. 11 at p. 

4) DOE seeks to estimate typical energy use of products in the field, and believes that in situ

field measurements of miscellaneous refrigeration products in actual use are an appropriate way 

to help estimate the energy use of these products. To this end, DOE used a small number of in 

situ field measurements to supplement laboratory tests for determining the typical energy use of 

these products.
2-34

Some interested parties were confused about the CEC’s method of calculating wine 

chiller energy use and requested clarification as to whether these calculations actually represent 

maximum energy use. (GE, No. 15 at p. 94; EJ, No. 15 at p. 92) U-Line suggested that DOE use 

a different method for the calculation by (1) specifying test methods for wine chillers and then 

(2) testing a broad sample of products. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 5) 

The CEC’s method of calculating wine chiller energy use is very similar to DOE’s test 

procedure for calculating refrigerator energy use, except that it requires a higher standardized 

temperature of 55 °F and the application of a 0.85 usage adjustment factor.3 This method is 

designed to approximate the energy consumption of a wine chiller as utilized in the field and is 

not necessarily representative of the maximum possible energy consumption of such units. 

However, the CEC’s wine chiller standard, like DOE’s standards for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, prescribes a maximum energy consumption level.

Although DOE was unable to test a broad sample of products, DOE performed laboratory 

testing and collected data from field measurements and manufacturer websites. These data 

allowed DOE to adjust the CEC energy use ratings to reflect field energy use for these products.

DOE also asked whether annual energy use is best characterized with a sensitivity 

analysis to determine how high and low estimates of energy use might impact the economic 

feasibility of any amended energy conservation standards.

EarthJustice worried that if DOE used a sensitivity analysis, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) may treat the least efficient estimate as the actual estimate of energy use in 

its analysis of the rule. (EJ, No. 15 at p. 96) DOE was able to collect sufficient energy use data to 

avoid the need to use a sensitivity analysis.

DOE also sought comment on the rebound effect, which is the portion of the energy 

savings resulting from more efficient equipment that may be lost due to consumers purchasing 

larger or more feature-laden equipment.

AHAM expressed doubt that the rebound effect exists for appliances. (AHAM, No. 9 at 

p. 8) DOE was unable to find any evidence to support the existence of a rebound effect for the 

type of appliance under consideration, so DOE has not included a rebound effect in its analysis. 

2.8 LIFE CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

New or amended energy conservation standards usually decrease a product’s operating 

expenses and increase its initial purchase price. DOE analyzes the net effect of new or amended 

standards on consumers by evaluating the LCC. To evaluate the net LCC, DOE uses the costefficiency relationship derived in the engineering analysis and the energy costs derived from the 

energy use analysis. Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost of a product to the 
2-35

consumer (consumer purchase price plus installation cost), operating expenses (energy expenses 

and maintenance and repair costs), the lifetime of the unit, and a discount rate.

Because the installed cost of a product typically increases while operating costs typically 

decrease under new standards, there is a point in time during the life of products having higherthan-baseline efficiency at which the net operating-cost savings (in dollars) since the time of 

purchase is equal to the incremental first cost of purchasing the product, after which the 

consumer will begin to accrue net cost savings from purchasing the product. The time required 

for products to reach this cost-equivalence point is known as the PBP.

Recognizing that several inputs to determining consumer LCC and PBP are either 

variable or uncertain, DOE uses Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions to model 

both the uncertainty and variability in inputs. DOE uses Microsoft Excel combined with Crystal 

Ball (a commercially available program) to develop LCC and PBP spreadsheet models that 

incorporate both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions.

DOE developed samples of individual households that use miscellaneous refrigeration 

products based on a study that surveyed appliance owners.1 By developing household samples, 

DOE was able to calculate the LCC and PBP for each household to account for the variability in 

energy consumption and electricity price associated with each household. DOE identified several 

other input values for estimating the LCC, including product retail prices, discount rates, and 

product lifetimes. DOE used probability distributions to characterize those input values. 

2.8.1 Retail Prices

As described in section 2.6, DOE used markups to convert the manufacturer selling 

prices estimated in the engineering analysis to consumer retail prices for the LCC and PBP 

analysis.

2.8.2 Energy Prices

DOE developed estimates of residential electricity prices for each State and the District 

of Columbia. DOE derived average energy prices from data that are published annually based on 

EIA Form 861.4 Those data include, for every utility that serves final consumers: annual 

electricity sales in kilowatt-hours; revenues from electricity sales; and number of customers in 

the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Using these data, DOE was able to assess the 

variability of energy prices at the regional level for miscellaneous refrigeration products as part 

of its preliminary analysis.

2.8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs

DOE considered any expected changes to maintenance, repair, and installation costs for 

the miscellaneous refrigeration products covered in this rulemaking. Typically, small incremental 
2-36

changes in product efficiency incur little or no changes in repair and maintenance costs over 

baseline products. There is a greater probability that equipment with efficiencies that are 

significantly higher than the baseline will incur increased repair and maintenance costs, as such 

equipment is more likely to incorporate technologies that are not widely available. 

AHAM stated that the installation costs are unlikely to vary depending on the efficiency 

of the product. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 9; AHAM, No. 15 at p. 101)

DOE agrees with AHAM that more efficient miscellaneous refrigeration products will 

not incur increased installation costs because the installation of these products is a relatively 

straight-forward process that requires plugging the product into AC mains and, with products 

such as the ice makers DOE is considering regulating, the connection of a water line – none of 

which is likely to change with the adoption of standards. Further, DOE did not find evidence of a 

change in repair or maintenance costs with a change in efficiency level. Therefore, DOE has not 

included different installation, maintenance, and repair costs for more efficient products.

2.8.4 Product Lifetime

In preparing the Framework Document, DOE was unable to identify sources to establish 

a generic wine chiller lifetime. True stated that the lifetime of wine chillers may be about 5 

years, and that consumers would be more likely to replace them rather than repair them due to 

their relatively low initial cost. (True, No. 15 at p. 102)

Since preparing the Framework Document, DOE acquired data from a study that 

surveyed wine chiller owners.1 From these data, DOE derived a wine chiller lifetime estimate of 

approximately 4.3 years, which is consistent with True’s estimate.

2.8.5 Discount Rates

DOE developed discount rates from estimates of the finance cost that applies to 

purchases of residential appliances. Following accepted principles of financial theory, the 

finance cost of raising funds to purchase such products can be interpreted as: (1) the financial 

cost of any debt incurred to purchase products, principally interest charges on debt; or (2) the 

opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase products, principally interest earnings on 

household equity. For this analysis, DOE developed a distribution of discount rates using data 

from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Financesc and other sources.

2.8.6 Distribution of Product Efficiency in the Base Case

To estimate accurately the percentage of consumers who would be affected by a standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis considered the projected 

 c Website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm
2-37

distribution of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case (the case 

without new energy efficiency standards). DOE relied on a combination of lab testing, field 

energy measurements, and manufacturer-reported energy use data to estimate the base-case 

efficiency distributions for each product class considered in the LCC and PBP analysis. Chapter 

8 of this preliminary TSD provides more detail about DOE’s approach to developing base case 

efficiency distributions. 

2.9 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Shipments forecasts are required for calculating the national impacts of standards (NES 

and NPV) and to calculate the future cash flows of manufacturers. DOE developed shipments 

forecasts by analyzing key market drivers for the particular products. In DOE’s shipments 

model, shipments of products are driven by new construction and stock replacements. 

In the Framework Document, DOE reviewed historical shipments data of cooled cabinets 

(specifically, wine chillers) from two sources: (1) data provided by AHAM as part of the 2011 

refrigerator standards rulemaking (76 FR 57516), and (2) sales data from the NPD Group. The 

AHAM shipments data are for the years 2005-2007. The NPD Group’s sales data are for the five 

years spanning 2007-2011, and, according to NPD, represent 30 percent to 45 percent of total 

industry sales. DOE sought additional historical shipments data from stakeholders as well as 

comment on which data source, AHAM or NPD, is more representative of historical shipments.

U-Line was concerned with DOE’s use of data from the NPD Group, which could lead to 

a significant overestimation of the wine chiller market size. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 5) Given ULine’s concerns, DOE derived an estimate of shipments from a study that surveyed cooled 

cabinet product owners, which provided both stock and lifetime estimates that allowed DOE to 

estimate average shipments).

1

DOE considers the impact that standards may have on shipments. U-Line claimed that the 

assumptions DOE uses to project changes in shipments due to new standards do not provide an 

accurate account of the rulemaking impacts. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 5) DOE recognizes that it is 

difficult to predict the impact of standards in the marketplace. In light of this difficulty, DOE 

performed a literature search and used a simple model of price elasticity based on the change in 

price due to a standard. 

True pointed out that wine chillers can be relatively inexpensive products and surmises 

that wine chiller sales will increase in the future. (True, No. 15 at p. 107) DOE agrees with this 

assessment and has estimated a constant rate of sales increase for future years.
2-38

2.10 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result from new or amended energy conservation standards at 

specific efficiency levels. DOE determined the NPV and NES for the standard levels considered 

for the miscellaneous refrigeration product classes analyzed. To make the analysis more 

accessible and transparent to all interested parties, DOE prepared a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet 

that uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs. To assess the effect of 

input uncertainty on NES and NPV results, DOE has developed its spreadsheet model to conduct 

sensitivity analyses by running scenarios on specific input variables. 

Analyzing the impacts of potential energy conservation standards for miscellaneous 

refrigeration products requires comparing projections of U.S. energy consumption both with and 

without standards. The forecasts include projections of annual appliance shipments, the annual 

energy consumption of new appliances, and the purchase price of new appliances.

A key component of DOE’s NIA is the energy efficiencies that are forecasted to occur

over time for the base case (without new standards) and each of the standards cases. The 

forecasted efficiencies represent the annual shipment-weighted energy efficiency of the products 

under consideration during the forecast period (i.e., from the assumed compliance date of a new 

standard to 30 years after compliance is required). 

DOE developed a distribution of efficiencies in the base case for 2021 (the assumed 

compliance date for new standards) for each miscellaneous refrigeration product class. Because 

no information was available to suggest a different trend, DOE assumed that the efficiency 

distribution in the base case would remain the same in future years. In each standards case, a 

“roll-up” scenario approach was applied to establish the efficiency distribution for 2021. Under 

the “roll-up” scenario, DOE assumed: (1) product efficiencies in the base case that do not meet 

the standard level under consideration would “roll-up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) 

product efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would not be affected.

2.10.1 National Energy Savings Analysis

The inputs for determining the national energy savings for each product analyzed are: (1) 

annual energy consumption per unit; (2) shipments; (3) product or equipment stock; (4) national 

energy consumption; and (5) site-to-source conversion factors. DOE calculated the national 

energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or 

age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). Vintage represents the age of the product.

DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the base 

case (without new efficiency standards) and for each higher efficiency standard. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption 

and savings to source (primary) energy using annual conversion factors derived from the most 
2-39

recent version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). Cumulative energy savings are 

the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.

DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. On August 18, 

2011, DOE published a final statement of policy in the Federal Register announcing 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. After evaluating 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 the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and 

its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). For this preliminary 

analysis, DOE calculated FFC energy savings for the considered energy efficiency levels.

2.10.2 Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining NPV are total annual installed cost, total annual savings in 

operating costs, and a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE 

determined the net savings for each year as the difference between the base case and each 

standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs.

DOE calculated savings over the lifetime of products shipped in the 30-year forecast period.

DOE calculated NPV as the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and 

the present value of total installed costs. DOE used a discount factor based on real discount rates 

of 3 and 7 percent to discount future costs and savings to present values.

For the NPV analysis, DOE calculates increases in total installed costs as the difference 

in total installed costs between the base case and standards case (i.e., once the standards take 

effect). Because the more-efficient products bought in the standards case usually cost more than 

products bought in the base case, cost increases appear as negative values in the NPV.

DOE expresses savings in operating costs as decreases associated with the lower energy 

consumption of products bought in the standards case compared to the base case. Total savings 

in operating costs are the product of savings per unit and the number of units of each vintage that 

survive in a given year.

DOE used the edition of EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2014) most recently 

available at the time of this analysis as the source of projections for future energy prices.

DOE estimates the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real 

discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by OMB to 

Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis. (OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 

2003), section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs”)
2-40

2.11 CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

A consumer subgroup comprises a subset of the population that might be affected 

disproportionately by new or amended energy conservation standards. The purpose of a 

subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of this disproportional impact. DOE will work with 

stakeholders to identify any subgroups for consideration. DOE will analyze the consumer 

subgroups in the NOPR stage of the analysis. In comparing potential impacts on the different 

consumer subgroups, DOE will evaluate variations in regional electricity prices, energy use 

profiles, and purchase prices that might affect the LCC of an energy conservation standard to 

certain consumer subgroups.

True pointed out that the subgroups assessed in most rulemakings—households with low 

income and households containing only senior citizens—might not apply to this product type. 

True also mentioned that senior citizens will most likely have countertop wine chillers instead of 

under-counter or built-in wine chillers. (True, No. 15 at pp. 99-100) DOE recognizes that the 

demographic and product characteristics can vary between subgroups. To ensure that subgroups 

include accurate product and demographic variation, DOE will perform subgroup analyses of 

households using demographic information from a survey of actual product owners.1

2.12 PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE performed a preliminary MIA to estimate the financial impact of higher energy 

conservation standards on manufacturers of miscellaneous refrigeration products and to calculate 

the impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA relies on the government 

regulatory impact model (GRIM), an industry-cash-flow model customized for these industries. 

For more detail on the MIA, see chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD.

U-Line commented that DOE's Framework Document presents cost information and 

other data that, while accurate for large manufacturers, may not be accurate for all 

manufacturers, citing the potential lessening of competition by implementing new standards and 

the potential loss of well-paying U.S. based manufacturing jobs due to the shuttering of small 

manufacturer facilities. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 2) U-Line urged DOE to consider that small 

manufacturers have a cost structure that consists of a two-tiered distribution system with 

component/part costs that are likely to be significantly higher than those of larger manufacturers. 

(U-Line, No. 14 at p. 6) 

When small business manufacturers are identified during the course of a given 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a separate MIA for this sub-group. Depending on the availability of 

information relating to financial metrics, cost structure, and distribution channels specific to the 

small business sub-group, a separate GRIM is created. This allows for the estimation of industry 

net present value (INPV), as well as employment impacts, under different trial standard levels 

(TSLs) for small businesses only. Additionally, unique or disproportionate impacts on 
2-41

competition and employment for small businesses as a result of the rulemaking are explored 

qualitatively, using the input from manufacturer interviews and other sources.

U-Line also advised DOE to consider the cost and initial burden associated with 

complying with current regulations as it works to create new energy efficiency standards for 

miscellaneous refrigeration products. (U-Line, No. 14 at p. 6) As part of the MIA, DOE 

considers cumulative regulatory burdens to manufacturers, including current energy conservation 

standards. Specifically, DOE considers all federal energy conservation standards affecting 

miscellaneous refrigeration and ice maker manufacturers that have taken or will take effect 3 

years before or after the compliance date of the amended energy conservation standards for these 

products. 

2.13 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

In the emissions analysis, DOE will estimate the reduction in power sector emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and mercury (Hg) from 

potential energy conservation standards for the considered products. In addition, DOE will 

estimate 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 FFC. In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011)), the FFC analysis includes impacts on 

emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducts the emissions analysis using emissions factors for CO2 and most 

of the other gases derived from data in the latest version of EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO). Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O are estimated using emissions intensity factors 

published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions 

Factors Hub.

d

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. Each annual version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. The text below refers to AEO 

2014, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 

2013.

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to nationwide 

and regional emissions cap and trading programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual 

emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia 

(D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States and D.C. were also limited under the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which created an allowance-based trading program that operates along 

 d http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/guidance/ghg-emissions.html
2-42

with the Title IV program in those States and D.C. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was 

remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit), but it remained in effect.e On July 6, 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.f The court ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. AEO 2014 assumes that CAIR remains a binding regulation through 2040.g

The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of 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 an efficiency standard could be used to permit 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 covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that no reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2 as a 

result of standards.

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a result of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS 

rule, EPA established a standard for HCl 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. AEO 2014 assumes 

that, in order to continue operating, coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry 

sorbent injection systems installed by 2016. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, 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 permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes that energy efficiency standards will 

reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond.

 e 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).

f See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

g On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. and remanded the case for 

further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Supreme Court held in part that EPA's 

methodology for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain states due to their impacts in other 

downwind states was based on a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision 

that provides statutory authority for Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). See EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, No 12-1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). Because DOE is using emissions factors based on 

AEO 2014, the analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The difference between CAIR 

and CSAPR is not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of SO2 emissions.
2-43

CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in eastern States and the District of Columbia. 

Energy conservation standards are expected to have little or no physical effect on these emissions 

in those States covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions.

However, standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the States not affected by the 

caps, so DOE estimates NOX emissions reductions from potential standards in the States where 

emissions are not capped.

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 mercury emissions.

DOE will estimate mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO 2014, 

which incorporates the MATS.

Power plants may emit particulates from the smoke stack, which are known as direct 

particulate matter (PM) emissions. NEMS does not account for direct PM emissions from power 

plants. DOE is investigating the possibility of using other methods to estimate reduction in PM 

emissions due to standards. The great majority of ambient PM associated with power plants is in 

the form of secondary sulfates and nitrates, which are produced at a significant distance from 

power plants by complex atmospheric chemical reactions that often involve the gaseous 

emissions of power plants, mainly SO2 and NOX. The monetary benefits that DOE estimates for 

reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions resulting from standards are in fact primarily related to the 

health benefits of reduced ambient PM.

2.14 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS

DOE plans to consider the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that are expected to accompany each of the standard levels 

considered.

To estimate the monetary value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions of CO2, 

DOE plans to use the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values developed and/or agreed 

to by an interagency process. The SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental 

damage resulting from GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, net agricultural 

productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from sea level rise, and changes in 

ecosystem services. Any effort to quantify and to monetize the harms associated with climate 

change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics. But with full regard for the 

limits of both quantification and monetization, the SCC can be used to provide estimates of the 

social benefits of reductions in GHG emissions. 

The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon released an update of its 

previous report in 2013.5 The most recent estimates of the SCC in 2015, expressed in 2012$, are 

$11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric ton of CO2 avoided. For emissions reductions that occur 

in later years, these values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group 

determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global 
2-44

SCC to calculate domestic effects, although DOE will give preference to consideration of the 

global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

DOE multiplies 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 discounts the values in each of the four cases using the discount rates that had been 

used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

DOE recognizes that scientific and economic knowledge continues to evolve rapidly as to 

the contribution of CO2 and other GHG to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy. Thus, these values are subject to change. 

DOE also estimates the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOX emissions resulting 

from the standard levels it considers. Estimates of monetary value for reducing NOX from 

stationary sources range from $468 to $4,809 per ton in 2012$.6 DOE calculates 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, in accordance with OMB guidance.7

DOE is evaluating an appropriate valuation of avoided SO2 and Hg emissions. Whether 

monetization of reduced Hg emissions will occur in this rulemaking is yet to be determined.

2.15 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

The adoption of energy conservation standards can affect employment both directly and 

indirectly. Direct employment impacts are changes in the number of employees at the plants that 

produce the covered products, along with affiliated distribution and service companies. DOE will 

evaluate direct employment impacts in the MIA. 

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 standards. DOE defines indirect employment impacts from standards as net jobs 

eliminated or created in the general economy as a result of increased spending driven by 

increased product prices and reduced spending on energy. 

The indirect employment impacts will be investigated in the employment impact analysis 

using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s “Impact of Sector Energy Technologies” 

(ImSET) model.h The ImSET model was developed for DOE’s Office of Planning, Budget, and 

Analysis to estimate the employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies in 

buildings, industry, and transportation. Compared with simple economic multiplier approaches, 

 h Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ‘‘ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies,’’ PNNL–15273. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2005).
2-45

ImSET allows for more complete and automated analysis of the economic impacts of energy 

conservation investments.

2.16 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

To estimate the impacts of potential energy conservation standards for miscellaneous 

refrigeration products on the electric utility industry, DOE will use a variant of the EIA’s NEMS 

called NEMS-BT.iNEMS is a large, multi-sectorial, partial-equilibrium model of the U.S. 

energy sector that EIA has developed over several years, primarily for the purpose of preparing 

the AEO. NEMS produces a widely recognized forecast for the United States through 2035 and is 

available to the public. 

The utility impact analysis is a comparison between the NEMS-BT model results for the 

base case and standard cases. Outputs of the utility impact analysis usually parallel results that 

appear in the latest AEO, with some additions. The utility impact analysis reports the changes in 

installed capacity and generation that result from each standard level by plant type. DOE will 

model the anticipated energy savings impacts from potential amended energy conservation 

standards using NEMS-BT to generate forecasts that deviate from the AEO Reference Case.

2.17 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

In the NOPR stage, DOE will prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that evaluates 

potential non-regulatory policy alternatives, comparing the costs and benefits of each to those of 

the proposed standards. DOE recognizes that non-regulatory policy alternatives can substantially 

affect energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption. DOE will base its assessment on the 

actual impacts of any such initiatives to date, but also will consider information presented by 

interested parties regarding the potential future impacts of current initiatives.

 i

EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an official version of the model without any modification to 

code or data. Because this analysis entails some minor code modifications and the model is run under various policy 

scenarios that are variations on EIA assumptions, DOE refers to the model by the name NEMS-BT. (“BT” refers to 

DOE’s Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis this work is performed.)
2-46

REFERENCES

 1 Greenblatt, J. B. et al., U.S. Residential Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon Mechanical 

Turk Surveys, 2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley, CA. LBNL-6537E.

2 “Guidance with Respect to Scope of Coverage for Hybrid (Wine Storage) Refrigeration Products” (Feb. 10, 2011) 

available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/refrigerator_definiti 

on_faq.pdf, p. 4).

3 California Energy Commission, 2010 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, December 2010. CEC-400-2010-012. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-400-2010-012/CEC-400-2010-012.PDF

4 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/detail-data.html. Accessed December 11, 2013. This material is available in 

Docket #EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043 at regulations.gov.

5 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.

6 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, 2006. Washington, DC.

7 OMB. Circular No. A-4, Regulatory Analysis. 2003. Washington, DC.