Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program

February 6, 2012

1TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................................................. 2
1.1 The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program

....................................... 2
1.2 Scope of Coverage

............................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Coverage

................................................................................................................. 4
1.2.2 Product Definitions

............................................................................................... 12
1.2.3 Hybrid Products

.................................................................................................... 13
1.2.4 Refrigeration Products Using Eith er AC or DC Electricity

.................................. 16
1.2.5 Other Residential Refrig eration Products

............................................................. 17
1.2.6 Combined Coverage of Wine Chillers used in both Residential and Commercial Applications

.......................................................................................................... 18
1.2.7 Near-Freezers

........................................................................................................ 20
1.2.8 Test Procedures

..................................................................................................... 21
1.3 Overview of the Rulemaking Process

................................................................................ 25
1.3.1 Preliminary Analysis

............................................................................................. 26
1.3.2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

........................................................................... 28
1.3.3 Final Rule

.............................................................................................................. 28
1.3.4 Acceleration of Rulemaking Timeline

.................................................................. 29
2. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKING

..................................................... 29
3. MARKET AND TECHNOLO GY ASSESSMENT

......................................................... 31
3.1 Market Assessment

............................................................................................................ 31
3.2 Product Classes

.................................................................................................................. 31
3.3 Technology Assessment

..................................................................................................... 32
4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

............................................................................................... 34
5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

........................................................................................... 35
5.1 Engineering Analysis Overview

........................................................................................ 35
5.2 Baseline Models

............................................................................................................... .. 36
5.3 Approach for Determining the Cost-Efficiency Relationship

........................................... 37
5.4 Efficiency Levels

............................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Proprietary Designs

........................................................................................................... . 41
5.6 Outside Regulatory Changes Affec ting the Engineering Analysis

.................................... 42
6. MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PRICE DETERMINATION

........................................ 42
7. ENERGY USE DETERMINATION

................................................................................ 44
8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYB ACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

...................................... 46
8.1 Approach for Conducting the LCC and PBP Analysis

...................................................... 46
8.2 Electricity Prices

............................................................................................................ .... 48
8.3 Maintenance, Repair, an d Installation Costs

...................................................................... 49
8.4 Product Lifetimes

............................................................................................................. .. 49
8.5 Discount Rates

................................................................................................................ ... 50
9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

................................................................................................ 50 9.1 Base-Case Forecast

............................................................................................................ 51 9.2 Standards Impacts on Product Shipments

.......................................................................... 52
10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................................................................. 53
10.1 Inputs to NES and NPV Forecasts

..................................................................................... 53
10.2 National Energy Savings

.................................................................................................... 54

i10.3 Net Present Value

............................................................................................................. . 55
11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

............................................................. 55
12. MANUFACTURER IMPA CT ANALYSIS

..................................................................... 56
12.1 Sources of Information for the Ma nufacturer Impact Analysis

......................................... 56
12.2 Industry Cash Flow Analysis

............................................................................................. 57
12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

...................................................................................... 58
12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment

...................................................................................... 58
12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

......................................................................................... 59
13. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

...................................................................................... 60
14. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

.......................................................................... 60
15. EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

................................................................................................. 61
15.1 Carbon Dioxide

.................................................................................................................. 62
15.2 Sulfur Dioxide

.................................................................................................................... 62
15.3 Nitrogen Oxides

................................................................................................................. 62
15.4 Mercury

....................................................................................................................... ....... 63
15.5 Particulate Matter

............................................................................................................ ... 63
16. MONETIZING CARBON DIOXIDE AND OT HER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

...... 64
17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

........................................................................... 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Wine Chiller Sales-Weighted Average UEC Estimates 8 Table 1.2 Wine Chiller Shipments Estimates for 2009 8 Table 1.3 Wine Chiller NEC Estimates 9 Table 1.4 Product Definitions Applicable to Different Compartment Combinations in a Residential Refrigeration Product 14 Table 3.1 Residential Wine Chiller and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Product Classes 32 Table 3.2 Wine Chiller and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Product Technologies 34 Table 5.1 Wine Chiller California and Canadian Energy Conservation Standards and Proposed Baseline
Model Efficiencies 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Wine Chiller and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Product Standards Rulemaking Process 30 Figure 5.1 Wine Chiller Efficiency Data 40

iiLIST OF ACRONYMS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook
AHAM Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ANSI American National Standards Institute ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Re frigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers BT Building Technologies Program
Btu British thermal units CEC California Energy Commission CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO 2 carbon dioxide COP Coefficient of performance CSL candidate standard level DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOJ U.S. Department of Justice EER energy efficiency ratio EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIA Energy Information Administration EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 EPACT Energy Policy Act of 2005 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act
FR Federal Register GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model GWP global warming potential HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon HFC hydrofluorocarbon IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies kWh kilowatt-hour LCC life-cycle cost NAECA National Appliance Ener gy Conservation Act of 1987 NECPA National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 NEMS National Energy Modeling System NES national energy savings NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking NOx oxides of nitrogen NPV net present value NRCan Natural Resources Canada PBP payback period PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory R&D research and development RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey

iiiRoHS Reduction of Hazardous Substances directive SEC Securities and Exchange Commission SG&A selling, general, and administrative costs
SO 2 sulfur dioxide SWEF shipment-weighted efficiency
TBD to be determined TSD technical support document TSL trial standard level TTAF test temperature adjustment factor TTD through-the-door
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code

ivRulemaking Framework Document for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Applia nces and Commercial Equipment Standards Program, within the Office of Energy Effici ency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Building Technologies Program (BT), develops and promul gates test procedures and energy conservation standards for consumer appliances and comme rcial equipment. The process for developing standards involves analysis, public notice, and consultation with inte rested parties. Such parties, known as stakeholders, include manufacturers, consumers, energy conservation and environmental advocates, State and Federal agenci es, and any other groups or individuals with an interest in these standards and test procedures.

This framework document describes DOE’s anticipat ed procedural and anal ytical approaches for evaluating energy conservation standards for re sidential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

This document is also designed to inform stake holders of the process that DOE plans to follow when evaluating potential standards for residentia l wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products and to encourage and facilitate stakehol der input during that pr ocess. This document serves as the starting point for the potential development of standards and is not a definitive statement about any issue that this action will determine.

Section 1 provides an overview of the rulemaking process. Sections 2 through 17 discuss DOE’s projected analyses for fulfilling the statutory requirements and guidance for this potential standards rulemaking.

Information about this action will be maintained on the DOE website at:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/build ings/appliance_standards

.

DOE invites stakeholder comments on all aspe cts of the material presented in this document. This comment box and others highl ight issues on which DOE seeks comment and requests feedback from interested parties. DOE uses these comment boxes to ask specific questions about the approac hes that it proposes to follow for the analyses required for the standards rulemaking. Such request s for stakeholder feedback are numbered according to the secti on in which they appear.

1.1 The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPC A) of 1975, Pub. L. 94-163 (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 6291–6309), established an ener gy conservation program for major household appliances. The National Energy Conservati on Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619,

2amended EPCA to add Part C 1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. § 6311–6317), which established an energy conservation program for certain industrial equi pment. Additional amendments to EPCA gave DOE the authority to regulate the energy effici ency of several products , including residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, referred to as residentia l refrigeration products. The products that are the focus of this document ar e a subset of refrigerat ors and/or refrigeratorfreezers. The amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, established energy conser vation standards for resi dential refrigeration products, as well as requirements for determini ng whether these standa rds should be amended. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(b))

While EPCA does not define these products, it provide s certain criteria that these products must

meet. See 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1). Under this pr ovision, these products must operate using alternating current electricity, us e a compressor/condenser-based syst em that is integral with the cabinet assembly and be designed to be used with doors. EPCA also provides DOE with the authority to cover other products with energy co nservation standards so long as certain other
criteria are met. See 42 U.S.C. § 6292(b). As a result, those refrigeration products that fall outside of the prescribed criter ia detailed in 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a )(1) could be covered through the provisions laid out in 42 U.S.C. § 6292(b).

NAECA first established performance standards for residential refr igeration products, and further required that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, DOE published a final
rule in the Federal Register updating the performance standard s previously set by NAECA. Those standards became effective on January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. DOE updated the performance standards again on April 28, 1997. 62 FR 23102. The new standards became effective on July 1, 2001. By completing a seco nd standards rulemaking, DOE had fulfilled its legislative requirement to conduct the two cycl es of standards rulemakings required under
NAECA.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (December 19, 2007), required that DOE publish a final rule determining whether to amend the standards in effect for residential refrigeration produc ts starting in 2014. Consistent with this requirement, DOE published a final rule on September 15, 2011. 76 FR 57516. The new standards take effect on September 15, 2014.

As part of this recent rulemaking, DOE addre ssed the coverage of wine chillers. 75 FR 59470, 59486 (September 27, 2010). Wine chillers curren tly are not covered because they are not designed to be capable of achieving co mpartment temperatures below the 39  ̊ F limit specified in the definition for “electric refrigerator.” (see 10 CFR 430.2) DOE chose to treat wine chillers separately from refrigerators in part because of their different purpose and performance characteristics. As a result, DOE modified the definition for refrigerator s to ensure sufficient coverage over those products that were designe d to safely store food (i .e. refrigerators) and indicated that the covera ge of wine chillers would be consid ered by DOE under a separate, future rulemaking. Id. Today’s framework document begins th e process of examining the possible regulation of wine chillers, as well as other re sidential refrigeration products that are not yet

1 Part C has been redesignated Part A-1

3covered, but which fit the EPCA coverage requirements -- name ly, those products that are designed to be used with doors wh ich include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly, and which operate on a lternating current electr icity. (42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1)).

1.2 Scope of Coverage

1.2.1 Coverage
Currently, there are no energy conservation standard s for wine chillers a nd the other types of related refrigeration products that fall into the categories described in 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1). Wine chillers that use a conventional compresso r/condenser system are not covered by energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refriger ator-freezers, and freezers, largely because they are not designed to be capable of achieving compartment temperatures colder than the 39  ̊ F limit specified in the definition for electric refriger ator. As pointed out ear lier, DOE opted to not establish energy conservation standards for wi ne chillers during the 2010-2011 rulemaking and to address those products separately. See 75 FR 59470, 59486 (September 27, 2010). However, many of these products are consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1) and hence, DOE has authority to extend coverage to and develop energy cons ervation standards for them. 75 FR at 59486.

EPCA does not define the term “r efrigerator”. To address this gap, DOE previously defined the term to include an upper temperature limit. DOE took this action in its 2001 final rule. 66 FR 57845. This limit was specifically applied to clarif y that the energy conservation standards for refrigerators did not apply to wine chillers after manufacturers of these products submitted petitions for exemption. Id. at p. 57846.

DOE further modified the electric refrigerat or definition in 2010. 75 FR 78810 (December 16, 2010). This modification, which was based on recommendations suggested by stakeholders, established a more distinct delineation between products covered by the existing standards and products DOE intended to exclude from coverage at that time. Specifically, the definition makes clear that products that are not designed to achieve storage te mperatures below 39  ̊ F are excluded, thus avoiding uninten tional non-coverage of produc ts designed for storage temperatures below 39  ̊ F that may reach temperatures above 39  ̊ F at warm temperature settings. Wine chillers fall into the category of products that are not designed to achieve storage temperatures below 39  ̊ F, as do some other refrigeration products, such as some beverage
centers and coolers.

The current action is examining how to address and establish coverage consistent with EPCA requirements for all residential refrigeration products DOE does not currently regulate.

1.2.1.1 Potential Exclusion of Thermoe lectric and Absorption Units Because of the limitations Congress included in the coverage provision of EPCA related to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE cannot regulate thes e products using those energy conservation standards that have already been promulgated. See 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1) (denoting the criteria that resi dential refrigeration products must have, including a condenser and compressor integrated into the unit’s cabinetry). Because of these criteria, neither absorption nor

4thermoelectric products, would be covered because these products do not use a compressor and condenser system.

Notwithstanding these limitations, however, EPCA permits DOE to add products to its coverage if it first makes certain findings -- that coverage is necessary a nd appropriate for carrying out the purposes of EPCA and that the products are li kely to exceed an average annual energy use threshold per household of 100 kilowatt-hours. See 42 U.S.C. § 6292(b). Satisfying these elements is an initial prerequis ite in order to classify a product as covered. It is through the application of this provision that DOE is consid ering the coverage of these other miscellaneous residential refrigeration products.

Absorption-based refrigeration products work by using a heat source, powered either by electricity or fuel (e.g. natural ga s or propane), to provide the en ergy needed to drive the cooling system. Absorption refrigeration products use th e ammonia-water absorption cycle to cool the storage cabinet. These types of products have been produced for many decades. Electrically powered absorption refrigeration devices are used by the hotel industry for in-room refrigeration cabinets as they are much quieter than compresso r-based units, while gas or propane units are designed for use in mobile applications and remote locations that do not have access to electricity. However, due to thei r specific purpose and generally hi gher cost (generally at least twice the cost as compared with vapor compressi on units), DOE believes it is unlikely that they represent any significant market share in the residential refrigeration market.

In contrast, thermoelectric reside ntial refrigeration products are wi dely available. These types of products are powered by electric input and opera te using solid-state th ermoelectric cooling devices. Current thermoelectric cooling systems are generally less efficient than the vapor compression systems used in most residential refrigeration products (e.g., see Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Energy Conservation Rulemaking, Technical Support Document, Chapter 4, page 4-12, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/build ings/appliance_standards/pdfs /refrig_finalrule_tsd.pdf ) Thermoelectric technology is used mostly in products that do not maintain very low compartment temperatures, in particular wine chillers and “coolers” , although some “true” refrigerators (i.e. refrigerator s that are capable of achievi ng storage temperature below 39  ̊ F) use it as well. A number of thermoelect ric wine chillers have recently been introduced to the market.

1.2.1.2 Establishing Energy Conservation Standards for Thermoelectric Products DOE considered whether coverage and energy c onservation standards coul d be established for thermoelectric products, under the following options:

1. Initiate a rulemaking to establish standards a nd a test procedure for vapor compression wine chillers and miscellaneous residential refrig eration products under DOE’s existing authority for refrigerators in EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6292 (a)(1)) and initiate a separate rulemaking to establish coverage for thermoelectric produc ts under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(20) (“Any other type of consumer pr oduct which the Secretary classifies as a covered product under subsection (b ) of this section.”), or

52. Initiate a coverage rulemaking to establish coverage for all wine chillers and miscellaneous residential refrigeration produc ts, both vapor compression and thermoelectric, and possibly also absorption-based products, under 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(20).

As described above, many wine chillers and re lated refrigeration products that do not fit the current definition for “refrigera tor” do fit the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1), and DOE has authority to extend coverage to and de velop energy conservati on standards for them. Specifically, DOE would do this by modifying the de finitions for “refrigerator” and/or “electric refrigerator”. Once covered, these products are subject to energy conser vation standards, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 6295(b) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically 10 CFR 430.32(a), although DOE must determine whether new product classes must be established to address the products cove red through the potential coverage extension.

In contrast, establishing coverage for refrigeration products that do not fit the requirements of 42
U.S.C. § 6292 (a)(1) would necessitate a determin ation that such coverage is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA and the average annual en ergy use of the product is 100 kWh or greater. 42 U.S.C. § 6292(b)(1) Fu rther, additional requirements must be satisfied if DOE wishes to establish energy conservation standards for such products. 42 U.S.C. § 6295 (l)(1) These requirements include: (a) a mi nimum average annual per household energy use associated with the product of 150 kWh and (b ) an aggregate national annual energy use of 4.2 billion kWh. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(l)(1)(A, B))

DOE’s estimates of aggregate national en ergy use, described in section 1.2.1.3, do not convincingly show that requirement (b) would be satisfied by those refri geration products that cannot satisfy the design requirements of 42 U. S.C. § 6292(a)(1). While per household annual energy use is expected to be well above 150 kWh for these products 2 , it is not apparent based upon available shipment data for wine chillers that aggregate national energy use reaches the 4.2
billion kWh threshold. It is for this reason that DOE considered coverage option 2 listed above—in order to allow consideration of a larg er group of products when evaluating aggregate national energy use, thus increasing the possi bility of satisfying the requirement.

However, DOE tentatively concluded that optio n 2 above is not viable because refrigeration products with integral compressors and conde nsers (i.e. those produc ts that satisfy the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6292 (a)(1)) are already covered under EPCA. Accordingly, option 2 -- coverage under 42 U.S.C. §629 2(a)(20) -- does not apply..

1.2.1.3 Per-Unit and National Energy Use of Wine Chiller Products Not all information required to accurately esti mate the national energy use of wine chillers, especially thermoelectric products , is publicly available. Becaus e DOE is required by statute to determine the per-unit annual en ergy consumption (UEC) and the national energy consumption (NEC) of wine chillers in order to establish coverage for them, as well as to set energy efficiency

2 See, for example, information about the EdgeStar ther moelectric wine chiller model TWR215ESS, which indicates that this model uses 1.2 kWh per 24 hours, or 438 kWh per year ( http://www.edgestar.com/produc ts/winecooler/twr215ess.asp )

6standards, DOE developed preliminary UEC and NEC estimates of vapor compression and thermoelectric wine chillers.

Because of the limited available data regard ing absorption-based products, DOE could only develop a broad range of UECs for vapor compression and thermoelectric products. DOE based the UEC of vapor compression wine chiller pr oducts on California’s maximum energy use standards defined by the Calif ornia Energy Commission (CEC) 3 as well as sales data purchased from the NPD Group 4 , a marketing research firm. Each set of data provided DOE with insight into different aspects of these products. Th e CEC currently specifies a maximum allowable energy use for automatic- and manual-defrost wine chillers as a function of internal volume, which helped DOE in developing a picture of energy usage and internal volumes of those products that are already on the market. The NPD Group data, which covers 2007-2011 sales, also enabled DOE to deduce an internal vol ume for each listed model.. Therefore, DOE developed a range of vapor compression UECs for each model in the NPD database.

For thermoelectric products, DOE estimated a ra nge of UEC estimates based on assumed vapor compression (1.5 to 2.0 COP 5 ) and thermoelectric efficiencies (0.3 to 0.5 COP). Because web research indicated that most thermoelectric produc ts have capacities of 30 bottles and less, DOE based its UEC estimates on two capacity categories -- (1) less than and equal to 30 bottles and (2) greater than 30 bottles. For thermoelectric pr oducts, estimates were derived only for the 30 bottle and less capacity. The deri ved UECs for thermoelectric pr oducts ranged from 721 to 3938
kWh.

Due to the high estimate for the top-end of the estimated UEC range, DOE performed limited metering of four thermoelectric wine chille rs consisting of six- , 12-, 15-, and 28-bottle capacities. The loading of each wine chiller metered by DOE varied; the six- and 12-bottle units were metered at full capacity (i.e., loaded with the maximum number of bottles), the 15-bottle unit was metered with a load of 12 bottles, and the 28-bottle unit was metered while empty (i.e., loaded without any bottles). Even though the metering was conducted in a non-controlled ambient environment with room temperatures varying between 65 °F and 78 °F, DOE believed such metered estimates would provide a reasonable approximation of typical thermoelectric wine chiller energy use. The measured daily energy us e for the four units over the approximately onemonth time-period varied between 0.6 to 1.6 kWh per day, with the high va lue associated with the 28-bottle capacity wine chil ler. Assuming wine chillers are powered year-round, i.e., consumers do not unplug the units for extended pe riods of time, the daily energy consumption translates into UECs of 218 to 598 kWh per year.

Table 1.1 below summarizes the range of UEC estimates for vapor compression and thermoelectric wine chillers (sales-weighted va lues are also reported for vapor compression units). For vapor compression units, the UEC esti mates represent the values deduced from the CEC maximum energy use standards and the NPD data. For thermoelectric products, DOE

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 NPD Group, Inc. <http://www.npd.com/cor pServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html>

5 Coefficient of Performance, defined as the system’s refrigerating capacity (in Watts) divided by the system power input (in Watts).

7calibrated the derived UEC estimates to the metered data, which are significantly lower than the derived UEC estimates. Thus, DOE estimated a ra nge extending from 218 kWh (the low-end of the metered UEC range) to 1978 kWh, which is the high-end of the metered UEC range (598 kWh) multiplied by the ratio of the low-end de rived UEC to the low-end metered UEC (721 kWh divided by 218 kWh). Table 1.1 also reports th e average UEC for thermoelectric units from the metered UEC range. These estimates i ndicate that both vapor compression and thermoelectric products exceed both the minimum average annual per household energy use of 100 kWh 6 required to establish coverage and the 150 kWh 7 required for establishing energy conservation standards.

Table 1.1 Wine Chiller Sales-Weig hted Average UEC Estimates

Capacity Unit Energy Consumption Range (kWh/yr) Vapor Compression Thermoelectric

≤ 30 bottles 288 to 591 (348*) 218 to 1978 (408**)

> 30 bottles 301 to 591 (375*) NA

* Sales-weighted average. ** Average from metered UEC range.

To establish the NEC of vapor compression and thermoelectric products, historical household shipments are needed. Two sources were consider ed -- (1) data provided by AHAM as part of the residential refrigerator/freezer standards rulemaking 8 and (2) retail sales data from the NPD Group. In both cases, shipments were assumed to be entirely to the residential sector. The estimates from these sources, however, vary widely, with NPD estimates being as much as ten times greater than AHAM’s estimates. Table 1.2 below summarizes the shipments estimates for 2009. Because AHAM does not represent all wine ch iller manufacturers, and not all of AHAM’s members necessarily reported th eir sales data, DOE believes that the shipments estimates from the NPD Group are likely to have been based on more comprehensive data and, as a result, are likely to be more representative.

Table 1.2 Wine Chiller Shipments Estimates for 2009

Capacity Shipments

AHAM NPD Group

≤ 30 bottles 73,800 469,736 to 704,603

> 30 bottles 14,385 115,809 to 173,713

Total 88,185 585,544 to 878,317

Based on the above UEC and shipments estimates , DOE developed a simple stock accounting model to estimate the NEC of wine chiller prod ucts. A key factor to the model’s development was estimating historical shipments prior to 2005. DOE estimated that there were appreciable

6 42 U.S.C. § 6292(b)(1)(B)

7 42 U.S.C. § 6295(l)(1)(A)

8 “Aggregated Refrigera tor-Freezer Shipments and Effici ency Data for DOE Refrigerato r-Freezer Energy Efficiency Standards Rulemaking”, memorandum r eceived from AHAM, January 16, 2009.

8shipments dating back to 1990, but if wine ch illers have only recently become a desired consumer good, and/or parts of th e market, such as thermoelectric wine chillers, established high sales levels only recently, then such an estimate of historical shipments would lead to an overestimate of NEC. Table 1.3 below summari zes the range of NEC estimates for vapor compression and thermoelectric products. The NE C estimates are based on two assumptions: (1) thermoelectric products represent 80% of wine chiller sales for capacitie s of 30 bottles and less and (2) product lifetime is 12 years.

Table 1.3 Wine Chiller NEC Estimates

Capacity 2011 National Energy Consumption Range (billion kWh/yr)* AHAM Shipments NPD Group Shipments Vapor Compression Thermoelectric Vapor Compression Thermoelectric

≤ 30 bottles 0.04 to 0.08 (0.05**) 0.12 to 1.08 (0.22 † ) 0.28 to 0.87 (0.41**) 0.86 to 11.71 (1.93 † )

> 30 bottles 0.04 to 0.08 (0.05**) NA 0.49 to 1.44 (0.73**) NA

*Market Share of thermoelectric for capacities ≤ 30 bottles = 80%; Product lifetime = 12 years. ** NEC based on sales-weighted average UEC. For NPD Group shipments, NEC also based on average shipments.
† NEC based on average UEC value from metere d range. For NPD Group shipments, NEC also based on average shipments.

As evidenced from the above results, the NEC of thermoelectric products based on the shipments estimates from the NPD Group could potentially exceed the 4.2 billion kWh threshold required to pursue the establishment of standards. However, DOE recogni zes that there is uncertainty associated with the UEC and shipment estimate s for wine chillers, and has solicited comment and data on this matter in the proposed determina tion of coverage of non-compressor residential refrigeration products (proposed coverage determination). 76 FR 69147 (November 8, 2011).

Based on the currently available information, it is unclear whethe r the national aggregate energy use exceeds 4.2 billion kWh. As a result, while DOE may be authorized to establish coverage for these products under 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(20), DOE may not be authorized to set energy efficiency standards for them in light of the mi nimum energy consumption threshold that must be met. However, as described above, DOE may in stead pursue coverage of wine chillers and related products with vapor co mpression refrigeration technology under its existing authority -- for those products, DOE would have the authorit y to establish standard s for those products without having to satisfy the 4.2 billion kWh requi rement. These standards, however, would not apply to thermoelectric wine chillers, which cannot be immediately c overed under the existing statutory coverage set by Congress for residentia l refrigeration products because thermoelectric products do not use a compressor or condenser as provided in the statute. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1).

91.2.1.4 California Standard Treatmen t of Thermoelectric Units

DOE notes that the California wine chiller sta ndards, unlike the statut ory provision under which DOE must operate, do not make a distinction re garding the cooling technology used in the product. The California rule covers:

(a) Refrigerators, refrigerator -freezers, and freezers that ca n be operated by alternating current electricity, including but not limited to refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines, automatic commercial ice-makers, refrigerators with or without doors, freezers with or without doors, walk-in refrigera tors, walk-in freezers, and water dispensers, but excluding the following types:
1. consumer products with total refrigerated volume exceeding 39 ft 3 ; 2. commercial refrigerators, commercial refrig erator-freezers, and commercial freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 85 ft 3 ; except that walk-in refrigerators and walk-in freezers are not excluded.
3. blast chillers; and
4. automatic commercial ice makers with a harvest rate less than 50 lbs./24 hours and automatic commercial ice makers with a ha rvest rate greater th an 2500 lbs./24 hours.

(California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Di vision 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1601(a))

The California regulations also (a) explain that the defini tions for “refrigerator” and “refrigerator-freezer,” which do not include an upper temperature limit for the “refrigerator compartment,” include products th at store wine and (b) clarify that a “wine chiller” is a refrigerator designed for th e cooling and storage of wine. (Id., Section 1602)

The language of these regulations suggest that these standards, including the maximum energy use levels, apply to thermoelect ric wine coolers. However, in examining the CEC’s database, which contains a complete list of all produc ts certified by manufact urers as satisfying California’s energy conservation st andards, DOE has identified no thermoelectric units in that list. The absence of thermoelectric products in the CEC database suggests either that thermoelectric-based units do not meet Califor nia’s energy conservati on standards or that manufacturers are not aware that they are covered by these standards.

1.2.1.5 Establishing DOE Coverage for Thermoelectric Products The requirements for establishing coverage for ne w consumer products are less stringent than the requirements for establishing energy conser vation standards. EP CA indicates that:

The Secretary may classify a type of cons umer product as a covered product if he
determines that— (A) classifying products of such type as cove red products is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter, and (B) average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) per year.

(42 U.S.C. § 6293(b)(1))

10As indicated above, the average per-household en ergy use of thermoelectric wine chillers is higher than the 100 kWh coverage threshold. However, establishing DOE coverage of thermoelectric wine chillers would preempt Calif ornia’s standards for these products without establishing a national energy standard. Should DOE establish coverage over these products, it would be unclear whether this act alone w ould reduce national energy use because it would permit the sale in California of thermoelectri c wine chillers that do not meet any energy conservation standards -- a result that has the potential to impact the level of energy savings that may already have been achieved by the Califor nia standards. In order to establish energy conservation standards at the Fede ral level, thermoelectric wine chillers must have an average per-household annual energy use of at least 150 kWh and an national aggregate annual energy use exceeding 4.2 billion kWh.

1.2.1.6 Summary of Coverage Options The coverage options DOE considered for wi ne chillers and miscellaneous residential refrigeration products included the following:

1) Establish coverage and energy conservati on standards for vapor compression products under 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1) by modifying prod uct definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer to include these products, and either;

a. Establish coverage for thermoelectric products under 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(20) (and preempt current California standards for such products), or
b. Do not pursue coverage for thermoelectric units.

2) Establish coverage for wine chillers and related products under 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(20), irrespective of the coo ling technologies they use. This approach may preclude pursuit of energy conservation standards for any of thes e products because of the 4.2 billion kWh requirement.

As discussed in section 1.2.1.2, DOE considered the first option to be more appropriate in terms of the regulatory structure for covered products that is established by EPCA. With regard to thermoelectric units, as discussed in section 1.2.1.3, DOE has published a proposal for coverage of non-compressor residential refri geration products, which include s thermoelectric units. 76 FR 69147 (November 8, 2011). Therefore, DOE plans to consider coverage of these products (suboption a, above), subject to the comments and data received in res ponse to the proposal.

Although DOE has tentatively decided to pursue th e first option, it still seeks information and comments from stakeholders regarding the coverage of wine chillers. Some of these questions have also been asked in the coverage determ ination proposal. DOE may adjust its approach consistent with the input it receives from the public.

Item 1-1 DOE requests shipment information from stakeholders for wine chillers and related refrigeration products. Segregation of such data is desired if possible by type of refrigeration technology (thermoelectric, vapor-compressi on, absorption), product size, product class, and any other relevant characteristics

11Item 1-2 DOE requests energy use data for wine chillers and related refrigeration products that is not readily available in publ ic databases such as that of the CEC. DOE requests that the data identi fy model numbers or basic produ ct information (e.g. cabinet volume) and that the method of determining th e energy use be identified for such data, specifically to identify the test procedure used and/or to indicate that the data are estimates, field measurements, or determined by other methods. DOE requests that such data be segregated if possible according to re frigeration technology, pr oduct class, and/or product size.

Item 1-3 DOE requests comment on its options for establishing coverage and energy conservation standards for wine chillers.

1.2.2 Product Definitions
Existing definitions for the term “wine chiller” include the following:

AHAM HRF-1-2008 (section 3.4): “A cabinet designed and marketed exclusively for the cooling and storage of wine.”

CEC-400-2006-002-REV2, Section 1602: ““Wine chiller” means a refrigerator designed for the cooling and storage of wine.”

CSA 300-08, section 2: “a cabinet designed and marketed exclusiv ely for the cooling and storage of wine.”

Australia/New Zeala nd AS/NZS 4474.1:2007: Wine storage cabinet/compartment—An a ppliance or a compartment within an appliance which is specifically designed ex clusively for the storage and/or long term maturation of wine. Key characteristics of wine storage cabinets/compartment include constant temperature over time, sp ecific humidity characteristics and low vibration. They may be designed to have stratified temperature zones. Typical
characteristics include— (i) the capability of maintaining continuously a no minated temperature (typically 14°C to 16°C) at an ambient temperatur e either, above or below the nominated temperature usually with h eating as well as cooling; (ii) the capability of maintaining temperat ures within a variation over time of less than 0.5 K; (iii) control of the compartment humidity; and (iv) construction to reduce the transmission of vibration to the compartment, whether from the refrigerator compressor or from external source.

DOE is considering the following definition for electric wine chiller:

Electric wine chiller means a cabinet (a) designed for the refrigerated storage of beverages, non-perishable food products, and/ or any other items, (b) not designed to be

12capable of achieving storage temperatures below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and (c) having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alte rnating current electr ic energy input only.

This definition differs from the other definitions mentioned above since it (a) does not limit itself to wine storage usage, (b) is based on a sp ecific temperature range rather than marketing characteristics, and (c) is ot herwise more consistent with the existing DOE definition for refrigerator. DOE has already clarif ied that products marketed as wi ne chillers that are consistent with the definition for refrigerator, i.e. products that are designed for st orage temperatures below
39  ̊ F, are considered refrigerators under the DOE test procedures and standards. (See, e.g. 75 FR 78810, 78817 (December 16, 2010)).

Further, DOE seeks to establish coverage for pr oducts that are not marketed exclusively for the cooling and storage of wine but th at do not meet the definition for refrigerator (i.e. incapable of reaching temperatures below 39  ̊ F) or any other covered produc t type. Such products might include, but not be limited to, those that are marketed as “beverage coolers” or “beverage centers”. In the interests of consistency, a term other than “wine chiller” may be appropriate to refer to these products if they have co mpartment temperatures warmer than 39  ̊ F. DOE has not selected an alternative term, but requests commen t regarding whether an alternative should be used, and what an appropriate term might be.

DOE would also modify the defi nition for refrigerator as: “A refrigerator means an electric refrigerator or an electric wine chiller.”

Further, DOE would modify the definition of comp act refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer as follows to avoid establishing a separate compact cat egory of wine chiller, since the majority of residential wine chiller sales are of products within the compact size range.

Compact refrigerator/refrige rator-freezer/freezer m eans any refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer or freezer with total volume less than 7.75 cubic feet (220 liters)(rated volume as determined in Appendix A1 and B1 of subpart B of this part) and 36 inches (0.91 meters) or less in height that is no t an electric wine chiller.

Item 1-4 DOE requests comment on the suggested definition for wine chiller and the modified definitions for refrigerator and compact products.

Item 1-5 DOE requests comments from stakeholders regarding the selection of a term identifying the product category associated wi th wine chillers and related refrigeration products whose compartment temp eratures are warmer than 39  ̊ F—should they all just be called wine chillers? In addition, DOE s eeks comment on whether multiple product categories are necessary to address such products.

1.2.3 Hybrid Products
During the refrigerator energy conservation st andards and test procedure rulemakings, DOE became aware of products that combine wine storag e compartments with refrigerator (fresh food) compartments and/or freezer compartm ents. 75 FR 78810, 78816-78817 (December 16, 2010).

13DOE clarified in its December test procedure noti ce that its refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer definitions applied to products that included one or more wine storage compartments but excluded those products that combined a wine chiller with a freezer. Id . at 78817. DOE did not develop a test procedure to addr ess the wine storage compartments of products that are covered under the new refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer definitions. In early 2011, DOE provided guidance on how to test such products. (“Guidan ce with Respect to Scope of Coverage for Hybrid (Wine Storage) Refrigeratio n Products” (Feb. 10, 2011)) available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/resi dential/pdfs/refrigerator_definiti on_faq.pdf, p. 4). That guidance al so indicated that test procedure waivers may need to be obtained if a product cannot be tested under the current test pr ocedure. The guidance included a table showing a number of possible product c onfigurations having different types of compartments, which is re produced below as

Table 1.4 4.

Table 1.4 Product Definitions Applicable to Different Compartment Combinations in a Residential Refrigeration Product

Compartment Types
Freezer (“long term”) Freezer (“short term”) Freezer (“ice only”) Fresh
Food “Wine Storage”Product Types COVERED PRODUCT COMBINATIONS All-Refrigerator 
 
 
   Refrigerator other than an All-Refrigerator  
   Refrigerator-Freezer  
  

Freezer 

EXAMPLES OF CURRENTLY UNCOVERED PRODUCT COMBINATIONS Wine Storage only  Wine Storage with “long
term” freezer  

Wine Storage with “short
term” freezer  

Note: All-refrigerators with “ice-only” fr eezer compartments may have just one such compartment. DOE is not aware of the existence of such products with more than one “ice-only” freezer compartment and has not made a determina tion of the product type definition applicable
for such a combination.

The compartment types mentioned in the tabl e were defined in th e guidance document as follows:

14 Freezer (“long-term”): a freezer compartment capable of 0  ̊ F storage temperature. These compartments are typically found in refrigerator-freezers or freezers.

 Freezer (“short-term”): a freezer compartmen t larger than 0.5 cubic feet in volume capable of storage temperatures less than 32  ̊ F but normally not less than 8  ̊ F. These compartments are generally found in refr igerators other than all-refrigerators 9

.

 Freezer (“ice only”): a freezer co mpartment of 0.5 cubic feet capacity or less capable of storage temperatures less than 32  ̊ F but normally not less than 8  ̊ F. These compartments may be found in all-refrigerators.

 Fresh food compartment: a compartment capable of storage temperatures less than 39  ̊ F, generally not controllable to temperatures less than 32  ̊ F.

 “Wine storage” compartment: a co mpartment not capable of 39  ̊ F storage temperature that provides warmer temperatures than 39  ̊ F. Generally such compartments are designed for storage of wine.

Adding a “wine storage” compartment, regardless of size, to a product that is otherwise a refrigerator or a refrigerator-freezer, does not cha nge its status as a refrigerator or refrigeratorfreezer or affect its coverage. As described in the guidance, such products must be tested as refrigerators or refrigerator freezers, using th e applicable test procedures. Depending on the design details of the additional “wine storage” co mpartment, this compartment would be tested as a fresh food compartment, even if it cannot attain fresh food compartment temperatures. In contrast, the guidance indicated th at adding a wine storage compartm ent, regardless of size, to a product that is otherwise a freezer, does change its status and places it outside of coverage. This result is largely due to the specifics of the fr eezer definition and the technical operation of these products. 10

As indicated in the guidance, DOE recognized th e limitations of its guidance and indicated that the agency was considering a separate rulemaking to resolve some of these limitations. This document initiates the process of evaluating a possi ble rulemaking for wine chiller products that would include provisions related to hybrid products. To that end, th is document seeks input from
manufacturers and other interest ed parties regarding hybrid produc ts that combine wine storage compartments with fresh food and/or freezer compartments.

A possible framework for addressing the issues highlighted in this section could include the following changes to the applicable definitions and test procedures:

1) Setting a threshold size in cubic feet or as a percentage of total volume for a wine storage compartment at which a refrigerator, refrig erator-freezer, or freezer is no longer one of these products and becomes a “hybrid” product.

9 An all-refrigerator is a refrigerator that does not have a compartment for the freezing an d long-term storage of food below 32°F, but which may have a compartm ent not larger than 0.5 cubic foot in size for freezing and storage of ice. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 1.2)

10 In particular, the standardized temperature for a freezer is 0  ̊ F, while the standardized temperature for the fresh food compartment of a re frigerator-freezer is 45  ̊ F under current test procedures and 39  ̊ F under test procedures that manufacturers will need to use for compliance purposes in 2014. A wine storage compartment can be expected to approach a 45  ̊ F temperature during testing, but approaching 0  ̊ F would be extremely unlikely given the nature of the product.

152) Establishing definitions for hybrid products as necessary to address product types that represent or are expected to soon represent significant market share. 3) Developing test procedures for products with wine storage compartments smaller than the thresholds set in item (1) above for (a) set ting compartment temperatures during testing, (b) measuring wine storage compartment temp erature, (c) modifying the manner in which to calculate energy use based on temperatures of all compartments (which could include the wine storage compartment), (d) modify ing the adjusted volume calculation using a reduced (less than 1.0) volume adjustment factor for the wine storage compartment. 4) Applying either the current or September 2014 energy conservation standards to products that will remain classified as refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers. Because of the operation of these products, DOE anticipat es that such products will use less energy than products with the same volume that have no wine storage compartments. (Products with wine storage compartments should requ ire less energy to chil l their wine storage compartments because these compartments will operate at higher temperatures.) However, the maximum allowable energy use fo r the products would al so be lower, due to the reduced adjusted volume. 5) Developing test procedures and energy conservation standa rds for hybrid products falling out of the modified definitions for refriger ator, refrigerator-freeze r, and/or freezer.

Item 1-6 DOE requests general comments on its dr aft framework for addressing products that include fresh food and/or freezer compartments as well as wine storage compartments.

Item 1-7 DOE seeks information regarding the types and configurations of products that might need to be considered under such a framework, including examples showing product details and information on annual shipment s associated with such products.

Item 1-8 DOE seeks comment on whether there should be a threshold size or percent of total volume for wine storage compartments that would push a produc t out of the current definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer into hybrid product categories. If so, what should this thres hold be? What types of hybrid product categories should be established?

Item 1-9 DOE seeks comment on what kinds of test procedure revisions would be required to address these products, whether covered under the existing product categories or by new categories?

Item 1-10 DOE seeks comment on whether it should develop separate definitions and energy conservation standards for hybrid products.

1.2.4 Refrigeration Products Using Either AC or DC Electricity
DOE is aware of some refrigeration products that operate using pow er input other than alternating current (AC) electric ity -- e.g. direct current (DC) electricity. DOE’s ability to regulate these products, however, is somewhat li mited by the statutory framework laid out by EPCA. First, many of these products are used solely in mobile applications (such as boats or

16recreational vehicles). Under EPCA, unless a pro duct is designed solely for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment, that product is potentially subject to coverage under relevant
standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a). Second, the coverage established by EPCA with respect to refrigeration products is limited to those units th at can operate on alterna ting current electricity. (42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1)). The language of this provision suggests that so long as a residential refrigeration product can operate on AC power, it would be covere d under EPCA provided that it
does not fall under the exclusions delinea ted in 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1).

Item 1-11 DOE seeks information regarding whether refrigeration products which operate on either alternating current (AC) or direct cu rrent (DC) electricity are distributed to any significant extent in commerce for personal or consumer use in st ationary applications (e.g., in homes). What types of such products are sold, what are their annual shipment levels in the U.S., and what are th eir energy use characteristics?

Item 1-12 DOE seeks comment on the merits of devel oping test procedures, definitions, and energy conservation standards for refrig eration products which operate on either alternating current (AC) or dir ect current (DC) electricity.

1.2.5 Other Residential Refrigeration Products

Section 1.1 above discusses the possibility of extending cove rage and establishing energy conservation standards for all re sidential refrigeration products that DOE’s standards do not currently cover. While DOE presumes that wine chillers and other refrigeration products with storage temperatures warmer than those of refr igerators represent the key product category that fits this description, there may be other resident ial refrigeration products not yet considered. This section addresses the question of whether additional residential refrigeration products exist and the available framework for addressing these products. As part of this discussion, DOE seeks information regarding all such potential products, including relevant information to assist DOE in determining whether such products are subject to coverage and whether pursuit of coverage and energy conservation standa rds would be appropriate.

One such product category that DOE may consid er covering is residential ice makers. These devices consist of an insulate d cabinet, a refrigeration system, and an automatic icemaker. 11

Some of these devices use automatic icemakers identical to those installed in refrigeratorfreezers while others use automatic icemakers deri vative of commercial automatic ice makers, in which the water being frozen circulates over the evaporator mold surface while freezing, using a sump, pump, and water distributi on system. This latter arrangement allows dissolved gases and solids in the water to be carried to the sump ra ther than trapped in th e freezing ice—a portion of the sump water must be drained between freeze cy cles to remove the dissolved solids, thus, preventing them from coming out of solution in the form of scale coating on the icemaker

11 Note, in this discussion DOE is using the term “ice maker” to denote a product or equipment that includes a refrigeration system whose sole purpose is to make and possibly store ice. In contrast, the term “automatic icemaker” denotes a device or system that is installed within an ice maker or other refrigeration product and that does not include a complete refrigeration system but can make ice when provided with cooling from a refrigeration system.

17surfaces. (A typical icemaker found in a refri gerator-freezer freezes wate r held motionless in a mold.)

EPCA sets energy conservation standards for those automatic commercial ice makers with ice harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb/day. (42 U.S.C. § 6313(d)(1)) Residential ice maker products typically have ice productio n rates of up to 50 lb/day and, thus, are not subject to these
standards.

Item 1-13 DOE requests information regarding whether there are any residential refrigeration products not yet covered by en ergy conservation st andards, other than the wine chillers and related hybrid products not ed earlier, that DOE should regulate through energy conservation standards? Assuming such products exist, what are they (i.e. types), what are their annual shipment levels in the U.S., and what are their energy use characteristics?

Item 1-14 DOE seeks information regarding resident ial ice makers. Specifically, DOE seeks information regarding: (1) the annual sale s levels for such products in the U.S,; (2) whether test procedures exist to address the energy use of these products; (3) information regarding the typical annual energy use of such a product in a reside ntial usage setting; and (4) what information DOE should consider when determining whether to cover these products and what energy conservati on standard levels to set for them?

1.2.6 Combined Coverage of Wine Chillers us ed in both Residential and Commercial Applications
EPCA defines consumer product as follows:

The term “consumer product” means any article (other than an automobile, as defined in section 32901 (a)(3) of ti tle 49) of a type— (A) which in operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy or, with respect to showerheads, faucets, wate r closets, and urinals, water; and (B) which, to any significant extent, is di stributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals; without regard to whether such article of such type is in fa ct distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an individual, except that such term includes fluorescent lamp ballasts, general serv ice fluorescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps, showerheads, faucets, water closets, and ur inals distributed in commerce for personal or commercial use or consumption. (42 U.S.C. § 6291(1))

Likewise, EPCA distinguishes certain commercia l equipment categories by indicating that they are not consumer products. For example, one of the seven attributes of a co mmercial refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer is that it “is not a consumer produc t (as defined in section 6291 of this title)” (42 U.S.C. § 6311(9)(A)(i)) EPCA al so indicates more generally that equipment can be defined as covered by these commercial and indus trial categories if it is of a type that is, to

18any significant extent, distributed in commerce for industrial and commercial use. (42 U.S.C. § 6311(2)).

DOE is aware that wine chillers are used in both commercial and residential (consumer) applications. However, DOE is concerned th at market characteri zation of a product as “commercial” does not necessarily mean that such a product qua lifies as commercial equipment under EPCA. While DOE is aware of several attri butes that could distin guish commercial types of wine chillers from residential types, it has insufficient information to definitively conclude that wine chillers with uniquely commercial f eatures exist or what those uniquely commercial features would be. Furthermore, DOE does not have access to the necessary distribution chain information to definitively conclude that wi ne chillers with commer cial features are not distributed to any significan t extent for personal use.

DOE notes that the products that could potentia lly be considered under this residential wine chiller rulemaking would be those that (a) have a compressor and condenser unit in tegrated with the cabinet, (b) operate on alternating current elec tricity, and (c) are designed to be used with doors. These criteria are specified under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. § 6292(a)(1).

The ongoing Commercial Refriger ation Equipment (CRE) rulemaking has adopted an approach in which commercial wine chillers are categorized as one of the following two equipment classes established for CRE equipment -- “vertical clos ed transparent, medium temperature, selfcontained” and “vertical closed solid, medium temperature, self-contained” (VCT.SC.M and VCS.SC.M). 12 However, the rating temperature for such equipment is 38  ̊ F -- one degree less than the temperature specified for residential refr igerators and refrigerator-freezers for fresh food storage. Most commercial wine chillers rarely op erate at temperatures this low, with the design operating temperature generally ranging between 50  ̊ F and 60  ̊ F. 13 DOE has not pursued separate equipment classes for commercial wine chillers in the CRE rulemaking because their market share is less than 1% of commercial re frigeration equipment. The CRE Technical Support Document (TSD) presents 2005 AHRI shipment data that includes 264,000 shipments. 14 Hence, according to these industry-provided data, co mmercial wine chiller annual shipments are expected to be under 3,000.

Under 10 CFR 430.32(a), the energy c onservation standards are limite d to those refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with total volume no greater than 39 cubic feet and freezers with total volume no greater than 30 cubic feet. However, DOE may opt to alter this approach for residential wine chillers if it decides to establish energy conservation standards.

12 “Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD): En ergy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Commercial Refrigeration Equipment”, Market and Technology Assessment, Chapter 3 (CRE TSD Chapter 3), Table 3.2.4, page 3-16, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_sta ndards/commercial/pdfs/cre_pa_tsd_ch3_market.pdf

13 “Delfield Specification Line Self-Contained Solid Door Wine Cabinet Reach-In”, http://www.delfield.com/docs/uploaded/del/specsheet s/DSSSW.pdf ; “Traulsen Wine Cooler Models”, http://www.traulsen.com/uploadedFiles/ Traulsen/Products/Special_Applications/Wine%20Cooler%20Sales%20Flye r.pdf

14 CRE TSD Chapter 3, page 3-18.

19If necessary, DOE may also consider adjusting th e wine chiller definition to help distinguish between consumer and commercial applications.

Item 1-15 DOE seeks comment on what design and perf ormance characteristics distinguish wine chillers used in commercial applications from residential wine chillers. DOE also requests comment on whether any wine chille rs used in commercial applications are manufactured on the same product lines as resi dential wine chillers. Finally, DOE seeks information as to whether any commercial wi ne chillers are distributed in commerce for personal or consumer use. If any commercial wine chillers are in fact sold to individual consumers, DOE seeks details regarding the ma gnitude of those sales as a percentage of total sales of those products.

Item 1-16 DOE requests comment on whether comme rcial and residential wine chillers should be covered under the same test pro cedures and energy c onservation standards.

1.2.7 Near-Freezers
During the residential refrigera tion product test procedure rule making, Earthjustice raised the issue of products sold as freezers that do not m eet the standardized compartment temperature for freezers. 75 FR 78810, 78816 (December 16, 2010). Such products would not meet the regulatory definition for freezer -- “Freezer means a cabinet designed as a unit for the freezing and storage of food at temperatur es of 0 °F or below, and ha ving a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only.” 15 Hence, under this definition, products sold as freezers but are not de signed to store food at 0 °F or below would not be covered under the current defini tion and accompanying standards.

In order to prevent manufacturers from avoidi ng the standards by designing freezers with temperature ranges that hover just above 0  ̊ F, DOE may consider modifying the freezer definition. DOE notes that the test procedure in terim final rule specif ies that, starting in 2014,
freezers that are unable to meet the standardized te mperature with their controls set at the coldest setting fail the test and may not be rate d. 75 FR 78810, 78868 (December 16, 2010). Hence, the sale of such “near-freezers” could be banned by m odifying the freezer definition to ensure that it is not limited to products that cannot meet the 0  ̊ F standardized temperature.

Alternatively, DOE could consider modifying the fr eezer test procedure to allow testing of such products with a modified standardized temperatur e. Under that approach, DOE would consider using a modified volume adjustment factor fo r the tested product, which would allow for calculation of the adjusted volum e based on the warmer standardized temperature. This method would lower the calculated energy standard fo r such a product by accounting for the reduced energy requirements for these products. Such chan ges may allow coverage and sale of nearfreezers in a way that subjects them to the existing energy conservation standards without requiring the development of separa te product classes. DOE could al so consider the further step of establishing separate product classes for su ch products with their own energy conservation
standards.

15 10 CFR 430.2

20Item 1-17 DOE seeks information regarding the prevalence of “near-freezer” products. DOE also seeks input regarding the need to revise the current freezer definition and/or test procedures to address such products. Further, DOE seeks input on whether it should include these products under existing classes or create separate product classes and standards for these products. If so, DOE re quests comments regarding the nature of such needed revisions.

1.2.8 Test Procedures
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) descri bes the DOE test procedures for residential refrigeration products. 16 The test procedures for products manufactured starting in 2014 appear in 10 CFR 430.23, Appendix A (for re frigerators and refrigerator- freezers), and Appendix B (for freezers). However, these test procedures do not in clude provisions for testing products such as wine chillers that do not meet the current defini tion for electric refrigerato rs. In particular, the standardized compartment temperatures specified in the test procedures are significantly lower than those typical for wine chillers. The sta ndardized compartment temperatures provided in Appendix A are as follows:

 Fresh food compartments: 39  ̊ F (3.9  ̊ C)

 Freezer compartments of refrigerators: 15  ̊ F (-9.4  ̊ C)

 Freezer compartments of refrigerator-freezers: 0  ̊ F (-17.9  ̊ C) Appendix A, section 3.2

In contrast, wine storage temper atures are typically much higher. For example, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) have each a dopted a standardized compartment temperature of 55  ̊ F (12.8  ̊ C) for wine chiller testing. 17

There may also be other refriger ation products that do not meet th e current definition for electric refrigerator, such as beverage coolers or beverage centers. Thes e products currently are excluded from coverage under the standards for refrig erators if they are not designed for a 39  ̊ F storage temperature. Hence, the current test procedure fo r refrigerators is also inappropriate for these products.

Further, DOE was unable to find examples of industry, state, or in ternational standards specifying standardized temperatures for such pro ducts, other than wine chillers. Hence, there is no obvious alternative temperature other than 55  ̊ F that might be used for them during testing. However, many of the products identified as wine chillers on th e CEC list of certified

16 Title 10—Energy, Chapter II—Department of Energy, Part 430—Energy Conservation Program for Consumer

Products. Subpart B—Test Procedures: Section 23; Appendices A1 and B1 for products manufactured prior to January 1, 2014; and Appendices A and B for products manufactured on or after January 1, 2014.

17 AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, “Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances”, section 5.6.2;

“Appliance Efficiency Regulations”, CEC-400-2006-002-REV2, Section 1604(a)(1), Table A-1; “Energy Performance and capacity of household refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, fr eezers, and wine chillers”, C300-08, section 5.3.6.2.

21refrigeration products 18 are actually beverage centers or ot her beverage-oriented products other than wine chillers.

DOE believes that the key issues in developing test procedures for wine chillers and related residential refrigeration products are as follows:

 Establishing definitions for product categories and/or compartment types to clarify which products are subject to which test requirements. (See section 1.2.2 above.)

 Establishing standardized compartment temper atures that are appropr iate for the product categories.

 Testing for hybrid products . (See section 1.2.3 above.)

 Potential consideration of te st procedures for commercial wine chillers. See section 1.2.4 above.

 Applying a correction factor to determine the energy use of wine chillers and related products.

 Potential consideration of a dditional test procedure requirements to address standby and/or off mode energy use.

Item 1-18 DOE seeks comment regarding whether there are any other key issues, aside from the ones noted in this document, that DOE should consider when developing test procedures for wine chillers and related re frigeration products, and, if so, what these
issues are.

1.2.8.1 Compartment Definitions and Standa rdized Compartment Temperatures

In section 1.2.3 above, DOE discussed establishing a definition for “wine chiller” to mean products that are not capable of storage temperatures below 39  ̊ F (3.9  ̊ C). Also, in section 1.2.3, DOE discussed so-called “hyb rid” products that combine “wine storage” compartments with fresh food and/or freezer compartments. DOE an ticipates that a new rule to establish test procedures for such products may include th e addition of a definiti on for “wine storage” compartments and a standardized temperature fo r testing purposes. In establishing these test procedure details, DOE will consider the available test procedures that address wine chillers, e.g. AHAM HRF-1-2008, CSA C300-08, and CEC-400- 2006-002-REV2, which all prescribe a standardized compartment temperature of 55  ̊ F (12.8  ̊ C). 19 The Australia/New Zealand test procedures establish a similar requirement for a “cellar” compartment by prescribing a target temperature during energy testing of 12  ̊ C (53.6  ̊ F). 20

18 California Energy Commission Appliance Database, <http ://www.energy.ca.gov/applianc es/database/index.html>

19 AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, “Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances”, section 5.6.2; “Appliance Efficiency Regulations”, CEC-400-2006-002-REV2, Section 1604(a)(1), Table A-1; “Energy Performance and capacity of household refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, fr eezers, and wine chillers”, C300-08, section 5.3.6.2.

20 “Performance of household electrical appliances—Refrigerating appliances Part 1: Energy consumption and performance”, AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, secti on 3.7.1, table 3.5

22DOE recognizes that some products that are not refrigerators may cont rol for temperatures different than 55  ̊ F, especially if they are designed for specific purposes other than for the chilled storage of wine. Conversely, assuming that 55  ̊ F is a reasonable test temperature for all such compartments, referring to them all as “win e storage” compartments may not be appropriate since these compartments could be capable of safely storing items other than wine.

Item 1-19 DOE requests comment regardi ng a potential definition for compartments used in wine chillers and related refrigeration produc ts that are currentl y not covered under the existing refrigeration product definitions. What compartment types s hould be defined and what should their standardized temp eratures for energy testing be?

1.2.8.2 Correction Factor

The AHAM, CEC, and CSA test procedures for wine chillers apply a correction factor to the wine chiller energy use calculation to account for average product usage. 21 This factor, equal to
0.85 for all of these test procedures, reduces th e measured energy use by 15% to determine the daily energy consumption for a given temperature setting in order to account for the expectation that such products would have fewer door openings , on average, than a household refrigerator, may not be energized at all times, or other reasons that would reduce energy use. The DOE freezer test procedure applies a si milar factor to calculate annua l energy use, using a correction factor of 0.85 for upright freezers and 0.7 for ch est freezers. (10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix B1, section 5.2.1)

Item 1-20 DOE requests comments on whether a corr ection factor is appropriate for calculating wine chiller energy use, and if so, whether 0.85 is an appropriate value for the correction factor. DOE further requests in formation supporting th e selection of any recommended correction factor.

1.2.8.3 Standby and Off Modes

EPCA, as modified by EISA, requires DOE to consider standby mode and off mode energy consumption when amending both its test pro cedures and energy conservation standards. Specifically, section 310 of EISA amended sec tion 325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6295) by adding the following definitions and other requirements pertaining to standby and off mode energy use:

(gg) STANDBY MODE ENERGY USE. (1) DEFINITIONS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Unless the Secret ary determines otherwise pursuant to subparagraph (B), in this subsection:

21 AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, “Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances”, section 5.8.2.1; “Appliance Efficiency Regulations”, CEC-400-2006-002-REV2, Section 1604(a)(1), Table A-1; “Energy Performance and capacity of household refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, fr eezers, and wine chillers”, C300-08, section 6.3.1.2.

23(i) ACTIVE MODE.—The term "active mode" means the condition in which an energy-using product:— (I) is connected to a main power source; (II) has been activated; and (III) provides 1 or more main functions. (ii) OFF MODE.—The term "off mode" means the condition in which an energy-using product:— (I) is connected to a main power source; and (II) is not providing any sta ndby or active mode function. (iii) STANDBY MODE.—The term "standby mode" means the condition in which an energy-using product:— (I) is connected to a main power source; and (II) offers 1 or more of th e following user-oriented or protective functions: (aa) To facilitate the ac tivation or deactivation of other functions (includi ng active mode) by remote switch (including remote c ontrol), internal sensor,
or timer. (bb) Continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based
functions. (B) AMENDED DEFINITIONS.—The Secretary may, by rule, amend the definitions under subparagraph (A), taking into consideration the most current versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). (2) TEST PROCEDURES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Test procedures for all covered products shall be amended pursuant to section 323 to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consider ation the most curre nt versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the In ternational Electrotechnical Commission, with such energy consum ption integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product, unless the S ecretary determines that:— (i) the current test procedures fo r a covered product already fully account for and incorporate the st andby mode and off mode energy consumption of the covered product,; or (ii) such an integrated test proced ure is technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible.
* * * * * (3) INCORPORATION INTO STANDARD.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subp aragraph (B), based on the test procedures required under paragraph (2 ), any final rule establishing or revising a standard for a covered product, adopted after July 1, 2010, shall

24incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single amended or new standard, pursuant to subsection (o), if feasible. (B) SEPARATE STANDARDS.—If not f easible, the Secretary shall prescribe within the final rule a se parate standard for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if justified under subsection (o).

For wine chillers and miscellaneous refriger ation products, DOE expects that any modified version of the existing test procedures for re frigeration products that DOE would develop for these products would capture sta ndby and off mode energy use. A ll energy input for the test duration, including during compressor off cycles , would likely be captured under a modified version of the current procedur e for refrigeration products. He nce, under the standby/off-mode provision, a special procedure to capture standby and off mode energy consumption would be unnecessary if this appr oach were adopted.

Item 1-21 DOE requests input from stakeholders on its tentative conclusion that separate test procedures to address standby and off m odes are not required for wine chillers and related refrigeration products.

1.3 Overview of the Rulemaking Process

Under EPCA, any new or amended standards must achieve the maximum level of energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justifie d. In setting any new or amended standards, DOE must consider: (1) th e economic impact of the standard on the
manufacturers and consumers of the affected products; (2) the savi ngs in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product co mpared to any increases in the initial cost or maintenance expense; (3) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) any lesse ning of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the imposition of th e standard; (5) the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorn ey General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (6) th e need for national energy conser vation; and (7) other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) a nd 42 U.S.C. § 6313(d))

As discussed in further detail below, the sta ndards rulemaking process typically involves four steps for a given consumer product or commercia l/industrial equipment type : (1) the publication of a framework document in which DOE describe s the overall approach it is considering in developing potential energy conser vation standards for a particular product or equipment; (2) the publication of a preliminary analysis that focuses on the analytical methodology DOE is considering in setting potentia l standards; (3) the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR); and (4) the issuance of a final rule. At each of the first three steps, DOE holds a public meeting and actively solicits verbal and writt en comments from the public on a variety of relevant issues under consideration in developing potential standards.

DOE encourages interested parties to develop and submit joint recommendations and will carefully consider such recommendations in it s decision making. Preliminary analysis results could serve as the initial basi s for the development of these recommendations. DOE’s initial analyses suggest that standards for the products examined in this document would likely meet the

25necessary energy consumption thresholds requir ed under EPCA. The additional work that will be performed as part of DOE’s analyses will he lp determine whether standards for these products are likely to satisfy the stat utory prerequisites noted above.

A brief description of the next step s in DOE’s process follows below:

 Preliminary Analysis (section 1.3.1). The preliminary anal ysis is designed to publicly vet the models and tools that DOE intends to us e in the rulemaking and to facilitate public participation before the proposed rule stage. Using these models and tools, DOE performs preliminary analyses to assess candidate standa rd levels (CSLs), which span the range of efficiencies from baseline equipmen t to the most efficient technology.

 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (section 1.3.2). The NOPR presents a discussion of comments received in response to the prelim inary analysis, DOE’s analysis of the impacts of potential standards on consumer s, manufacturers, and the Nation, DOE’s weighting of these impacts, and any propos ed standard levels for public comment.

 Final Rule (section 1.3.3). The final rule presents a discussion of comments received in response to the NOPR, revised analysis, as appr opriate, of the impacts of any standards, DOE’s weighting of those impacts, and the st andard levels, if any, that DOE is adopting. The final rule also establishes the date by which manufacturers must comply with any
standards.

1.3.1 Preliminary Analysis

As part of its energy conservation standard s rulemaking activity, DOE typically identifies equipment technology options and makes a prelimin ary determination on whether to retain each option for detailed analysis or to eliminate it fr om further consideration. This process includes a market and technology assessment (section 3) and a screening analysis (section 4). DOE applies four screening criteria in th e screening analysis to determine which technology options to eliminate from further consideration: (1) tec hnological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety. Technologie s that pass through the screening analysis are evaluated, and referred to as technology or design options, in the engineering analysis.

DOE consults with interested parties and indepe ndent technical experts and researches industry literature to identify the key issues and design opti ons or efficiency levels that DOE will consider in the rulemaking. This framework document, along with the accompanying public meeting request for public comment, initiates DOE’s dial ogue with interested parties. This dialogue provides an opportunity for input into the struct ural and analytical approach planned for the subsequent energy conserva tion standards rulemaking.

At the start of the preliminary analysis, DOE c onsiders design options or efficiency levels for each product class. DOE uses these design options or efficiency levels to collect manufacturer cost data, historical shipment data, shipment-weighted average efficiency data, and preliminary manufacturer impact data ( e.g. , capital conversion e xpenditures, marketing costs, and research

26and development (R&D) costs). As part of the preliminary analysis, DOE also conducts other principal analyses, many of which are de scribed in this do cument, including:

1. Engineering analysis (section 5);
2. Consumer life-cycle cost (LCC) and payb ack period (PBP) analyses (section 8);
3. National impact analysis (NIA), which c onsiders national energy savings (NES) and consumer net present value (NPV) (section 10); and
4. Preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) (section 12). DOE will present the results of these analyses in the preliminar y analysis technical support document (TSD).

DOE selects candidate standard levels (CSLs) fr om the energy efficiency or energy use levels considered in the preliminary analysis. Discussion of various CSLs in th e preliminary analysis helps interested parties review the spreadsheet models that underpin the analyses. DOE uses comments from interested parties to refine th e models for the next stage of the rulemaking analyses. In addition to the efficiency level corresponding to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) design and the efficiency level corresponding to the minimum LCC point, DOE generally considers levels or design options that span the full range of technologically achievable efficiencies. The range of efficiency levels DOE typically analyzes includes the following:

 The baseline efficiency level typically repres ents products or equipment with the lowest energy efficiency on the market. For equi pment where minimum energy conservation standards already exist, the baseline efficien cy level is typically defined by the existing energy conservation standard.

 The level with the minimum LCC or greatest LCC savings.

 The highest energy efficiency level or lo west energy consumption level that is technologically feasible ( i.e. , max-tech).

 Levels that incorporate noteworthy technol ogies or fill large gaps between other efficiency levels being considered.

At the preliminary analysis stage, DOE uses anal ytical models and tools to assess the different product classes at each efficiency or energy use level analyzed. Ma ny of these analytical models and tools are in the form of spreadsheets, whic h are used to conduct the LCC and PBP analyses and to determine the NES and NP V of prospective standards.

DOE makes the spreadsheet tools an d results of the preliminary analysis available on its website
for review. 22 When it publishes the preliminary analys is, DOE also makes a preliminary TSD available, which contains the details of all the analyses performed to da te. After publication of

22 All materials associated with the rulemakings for wi ne chiller and miscellaneous refrigeration product test procedures and energy conservation standa rds are available on DOE’s website at: http://www1.eere. energy.gov/buildings/applian ce_standards/residential/refrigerato rs_freezers.html

27the preliminary analysis, DOE provides a public comment period and holds a public meeting to discuss these analyses.

1.3.2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In developing the NOPR, DOE considers all the comments it receives on the preliminary analysis, within the stated comment period. Th is process can result in revisions to the preliminary analysis, including th e engineering and LCC analyses. At this point, DOE conducts additional economic and environmental impact an alyses. These analyses, which are described throughout this document, generally include:

1. Consumer LCC subgroup anal ysis (section 11);
2. Complete MIA (section 12);
3. Utility impact analysis (section 13);
4. Employment impact analysis (section 14);
5. Environmental assessment (section 15); and
6. Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) (section 17).

DOE describes the methodology used and makes the results of all the anal yses available on its website for review. Based on comments from interest ed parties, further revi sions to the analysis may be made. This analytical process ends with the selection of proposed standard levels, if any, that DOE presents in the NOPR. DOE selects the pr oposed standard levels from the trial standard levels (TSLs) analyzed during the NOPR phase of the rulemaking. The NOPR is published in
the Federal Register document, which describes the eval uation and selection of any proposed standards levels, along with a di scussion of other TSLs consider ed but not selected and the reasons DOE did not select them.

For each product class, DOE identifies the max-t ech efficiency level. If DOE proposes a lower level, DOE explains the reasons for eliminati ng higher levels, beginning with the highest level considered. DOE presents the analytical result s in the NOPR and provides the details of the analysis in an accompanying TSD.

DOE considers many factors in selecting proposed standards. These fact ors are prescribed by EPCA and take into consideration the benef its, costs, and impacts of energy conservation
standards.

When DOE publishes the NOPR, it provides the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the NOPR and TSD to solicit feedback on the impact of any proposed standard levels on competition in the market of the products that are the subject of the rulemaking. DOJ reviews standard levels to help assess the impacts from any lessening of competition likely to result from the imposition of such standards. (42 U.S.C. § 62 95(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(i i)) Publication of the NOPR is followed by a public comment period that includes a public meeting.

1.3.3 Final Rule

After publication of the NOPR, DOE considers public comments it receives on the proposal and accompanying analyses. DOE reviews the engineer ing and economic impact analyses and any

28proposed standards based on these comments a nd consider modifications where necessary. Before any final rule is issued, DOE also considers DOJ’s comments on the NOPR relating to the impacts of any proposed standard levels on competition to determine whether changes to these standard levels are needed. DOE publishe s the DOJ comments and DOE’s response as part
of the final rule.

In any final rule, DOE would determine whether to amend the standards, and if such determination is positive, select the final sta ndard level based on the complete record of the standards rulemaking. The final rule would set any final standard levels and the compliance date, and would also explain the basis for the selectio n of any final standard levels. The final rule would be accompanied by a final TSD.

1.3.4 Acceleration of Rulemaking Timeline

DOE may consider accelerating the timeline of the potential rulemaking for an energy conservation standard for wine chillers and mi scellaneous refrigeration products. Two options exist to allow for an acceler ation of the timeline:

1. Stakeholders negotiate appropriate effici ency levels for the standard and DOE publishes a direct Final Rule. This opti on could save 7-21 months, depending on how early in the process an agreement is reached.

2. DOE bypasses publication of preliminary analysis documents and the preliminary analysis public meeting and proceeds directly to a NOPR. This option could save 6-8

months.

Item 1-22 DOE requests comments from stakeholde rs regarding the possible acceleration of the timeline to publish the final rule and potential implications.

2. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKING

The purpose of the analyses is to support DOE’s determination on whether to establish energy conservation standards for wine chillers and mi scellaneous refrigeration products. The analyses ensure that if standards are established, DOE selects standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technol ogically feasible and economically justified and will result in significant energy savings, as re quired by EPCA. Economic justification includes
the consideration of the factors set forth in EPCA (see section 1.3 of this framework document), which encompass the economic impacts on domes tic manufacturers and consumers, national benefits including enviro nmental impacts, issues of consum er utility, and impacts from any lessening of competition.

summarizes the analytical compone nts of the DOE standards-setting process. The analyses are presented in the center column. Each analysis has a set of ke y inputs, which are data and information required for the analysis. “Approaches ” are the methods that DOE will use to obtain key inputs, which may vary depe nding on the information in ques tion. Some key inputs exist in

29f public d a tabases. D O E will also collect info r mation fro m interested p arties or ot h ers with sp ecial knowled g e and deve l op informa t ion indepe n dently to su p port the ru l emaking. T h e results o f
each ana l ysis are ke y outputs, w h ich feed di r ectly into t h e rulemaki n g. Arrows i n dicate the f low
of infor m ation betw e en the vari o us analyses

. DOE ensu r es a consist e nt approac h to its anal y ses through o ut the rule m aking by c o nsidering e a ch analysis as a part of t he overall s tandar d -set t ing framewo rk.

Figure 2 .1 Flow Dia g ram o f Anal y ses f or the Win e Chiller a n d Miscella n eous Refri g e r ation Prod u ct Standa r ds Rulema k in g Proce s s

30 Approaches

0 Key I nput s 0 A na l yses 0 Ke y Outputs**~_ "** **o~ _1l** 

. 1IkI'Ii.t;:' t

...... /SiiUiiIii'>ii'O : ' Mmk e H lud T ec ll n o l OtJY 

### I**·~C"'n** •• • Ch...,._. 1ndu"'Y**·Hi" _al~.** 



## .... ......**~** 

# ...... 0 • T ""hnoIovr C\FO

.....

·_

.... '.0 "

........ Daa**·_R~ory** ",-. 0 

### .I A ssess lIl e u, I

0

0**~cs..n** TooohrooIogy C\FO

..... 

# .- isol_**~. .~**  

# _.

• :

0 S c • •• " i " U A

,, "lytl.**·Design~**
·ENoIono .,.t.e

.... -.,.ch

0 Design C\FOlons

· De.v> C\FO

.... -.,-. ·

...**'"""Dct~eo** ..

• EI'IlcMnoyIP....""..",.,. 0 I • Cost·ENoIonoy**~** ..... hIp

0 E lluill ee l i ll U A na lys i s

·

_ ...... 0 1 &>.roy u- !De

. 

### ,.. E n e l w U se 0 •• &>.ro.,.etto_y .0.

.... CJ;so>toution th_ .""""", &-gy u • • (uEC)**~W.**

· _C

..... u.o

... 

# -_
. Ma " tu l ,s f ot :R

... ,_.

. _.IiI PlIo.**~Ion_** PI o tlu c , P,l ce _.,..is D e , e ' lIll ll MIOI' 0 Llf e·Cycl-e Cos

. a n d ·u,, ·c-,oo,," Co

...**~-.** 

# :r Payt", c k P e ll o d

. P.-,t>.cl<_.

. ........ CT.:.. • Au <llys l s •

__ &

.... c"

... •



# -**~W. ~~IIO"**  

# F**.-~** 91__ • &>.roy

_.**co~.** : lA....

· _C"

... • A<CO<ft;ng-.,-. S IlI

, . m e ,, ' s • Rep'" Co

...

·8:OOk ca

.. _ F_a

.. A

,, <>Iy<o i " 0 • ,. .. _ &!efvy Sa

..... , .. '"

.... i o n "" ' "" .act ._**~'W>'" """"'~** 

.......... &01

........ : An<llysi s ·&-g

... PrioeF_a

... • SOtHo-Source f actono : I 

# l

· ......,Dct_ PlIo

.. PI e llm'"<11 ).' • eon

..... 1001 Coopltal &

..............

0 •**~** &npoo....-..

__ I

. -.- eon. Mallllf

... C IIH e , 

### ,,,,, ,,,(:1

: AIl .uvs l s**"'imlnaA .** 

·St

... ..-C

........... : R ev ' se P I e l imilH"" y : ·TriooI 91

__ ,---,.crSLs

0 Analys es 

## "" 0 0 0**~~.** 0**~!".~=:** Lir e .C )/'C l e Cos

. : S "b

. G ' o "l ) Analysi s I ' • Indu

.. .., C

.... "- 

### ·......,Dct

........ Prioe. : • _01'0<4> Ca.h·FI_ 

# ,_. : , • ow- &npIo....-..

__ ,



### . 

### ......,,..,. 

### ...... ""..-.

M

... IllIf

... C IIH e , 

### " "

, ,,,(:1 

### I-,**:.~.""'--.** ·OR.,._ I"l' 0 

### J '·c........-'_". 

# -"

•

.......**-._F~O** .. a · An alys i s

. ... ;00"1.00<1 F

__
0 00:.". """""

......... · ,.s .,n·BT • ,. .. _ ........,y Saw.g. Utility I mp a c , I- 

# ... 

# -.

Analysi s 

### ·lA. • · ,. ... _ ""'-lIy Saw.g. : ·,.

... __ eo

... 

# F ·ImSET .,. .. _ap..;ng 

# ,_. : Em i l l oy lll e n' 11Il1 "'ct : Analysi s : • ,. .. - """""....-.. Impact. :

. 

# """"'--

.. : ·,.s,U·BT • ,. ... _ ""'-lIy Saw.g. E "

.... ,' o lllll e ' ''

... ' A ssess m e n' I- :

. """"'

..... en

.........



## · ::n..:..-r:ory 0 0 0 R aU nl ill o ry I mp a c t 

## r : • ,. .. _ &!efvy Saw.g.



### ,.,... 

## ...... 

# _""""'.

: A n <llysl s 0

" ot k

... of P.opo

. ..... R'

......**,~ >u**  t II O PR)

: . aoop..n..-.. o. -"'nic. Roo

....... , • R

..... ...:! R.sult.

0**Ss""_~.** R ev i se A ll alys es :

FlnaiRu.DOE notes that section 1 above pertains to a range of product types, including wine chillers and miscellaneous residential refrig eration products that use any of three different refrigeration technologies (vapor compression, thermoelectric, and absorption) . The section also discusses hybrid products and commercial wi ne chillers. However, the discussion in the following sections is limited to residential vapor compression refrige ration products that are currently not covered under the definitions for refrigerat or, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer.

3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

The market and technology assessment provides information about the residential wine chiller and miscellaneous refrigeration products i ndustries and specifics about the performance attributes of these products. DOE uses th is assessment throughout the rulemaking. This assessment is particularly important at the outs et of the rulemaking to determine product classes and to identify potential design options or efficiency levels for each product class.

3.1 Market Assessment

DOE qualitatively and quantitatively characterizes the structure of the residential wine chiller and miscellaneous refrigeration products industries and markets. DOE’s market assessment
identifies and characterizes the manufacturers of this equipment, estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve the energy efficiency or reduce the energy consumption of products covered by this rulemaking, and explores the potential for tec hnological improvements in the de sign and manufacturing of such equipment.

The market assessment phase allows DOE to gather data that can help id entify important issues later in the potential rulemaking ( e.g. , potential small business impacts, competitive disruptions, and other factors that may arise from enacting standards). For example, DOE uses historical equipment shipments and prices as an indicator of future shipments and prices. Market structure data can be particularly useful for assessing competitive impacts as part of the manufacturer impact analysis. This phase also allows DOE to start updating design options by reviewing product literature, industry publi cations, and company websites.

Item 3-1 DOE requests information that would contri bute to the market assessment for the residential wine chillers and mi scellaneous refrigeration products that would be covered in this potential rulemaking. Examples of information sought in clude current product features and efficiencies, product-feature and efficiency trends, historical product shipments and prices).

3.2 Product Classes

For some product types, DOE develops separate product classes and formulates separate energy conservation standards for each class. The general criteria for separation into different classes include (1) type of energy used, (2) capacity, a nd (3) other performance-related features such as

31those that provide utility to the consumer, or ot hers deemed appropriate by the Secretary that would justify the establishment of a separate energy conservati on standard. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(q) and 6316(a))

DOE has identified two potential product classes for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products as shown in Table 3.1. Wh ile the CEC has established separate product classes for residential wine chille rs with manual and automatic defrost, only five of the 219 units listed in the CEC database are categorized as manual defrost products. Further inspection of these units revealed that four of these five e ither are listed as havi ng automatic defrost on the manufacturer’s website or pr oduct literature, or have been discontinued from production. DOE has not confirmed whether the single remaining product is a manual defrost product. Section 3.3 asks whether any wine chiller or related refrigeration products actually use manual defrost -- if no such products exist, DOE w ould likely eliminate that clas s from further consideration.

DOE also notes that a potential rulemaking may address products designed for wine storage and other products that do not fit th e current definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer. Some of these other products may not have transparent doors, which are common for most wine chillers. Depending on the prevalence of such solid-door products, the efficiency differences between solid and transparent doors , and the consumer utility associated with transparent doors, DOE may consider establis hing separate product classes for solid-door products.

Table 3.1 Residential Wine Chiller and Misc ellaneous Refrigeration Product Classes

No. Product Class

1 Residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products with manual defrost

2 Residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products with automatic
defrost

Item 3-2 DOE requests input from stakeholders on the proposed product classes. What other factors, if any, should DOE consider beyond those identified above as a basis for developing product classes? When answering, pl ease explain in detail and cite specific examples to the extent possible.

Item 3-3 DOE requests information on solid-door pr oducts that would fit the definitions anticipated for wine chillers including: the prevalence of such pr oducts, the efficiency differences, if any, with respect to transpar ent-door products versus those products with solid doors, and whether there is sufficient c onsumer utility associated with transparent doors to merit creating a separat e product class on this basis?

3.3 Technology Assessment

The technology assessment centers on understand ing how energy is used by the product or equipment and potential changes that would reduce energy consumption. DOE typically uses

32information about existing “technology options,” based on existing tech nologies and prototype designs and concepts, as input in identifying technologies that manufacturers of those products could use to attain higher energy efficiency levels. In consultati on with interested parties, DOE develops a list of technologies to consider in this analysis. Init ially, this list includes all those technologies considered to be technologically feasible and helps DOE determine the max-tech design, based on a review of efficiencies of available products and their features.

Table 3.2 below provides a preliminary list of technologies that DOE will consider. These include (a) technologies from the residential refrigeration product standards rulemaking, (b) additional technologies addressi ng efficiency improvements asso ciated with transparent-door refrigerators, (c) additional te chnologies described in recent trad e publications, rese arch reports, and manufacturer product offe rings. The technologies consider ed in DOE’s 2011 residential refrigeration product rulemaking are identified in the corresponding TSD. 23 Technologies not identified in that TSD include anti-fog films and improved thermal resistance glass and frames for transparent doors. DOE has specific questio ns related to specif ic technology options.

Item 3-4 DOE requests information on whether any wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products u tilize heating (electric or otherwis e) on glass surfaces or on door face frames to prevent condensation. If so, what types of products utilize such heating and what percentage of ship ments do they represent?

Item 3-5 DOE seeks clarification on whether any wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products u tilize defrost heating (i.e. automatic defrost methods other than by frost melting during the compressor off-cycle). If so, what types of products utilize defrost heating and what percentage of shipments do they represent? DOE also requests clarification on whether any wine chillers or miscellaneous refriger ation products utilize manual defrost—what types of products requ ire manual defrost and what percentage of shipments do they represent?

Item 3-6 DOE requests information regarding whethe r any wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products u tilize anti-sweat heating of any kind (electric resistance, refrigerant loop, etc.)?

23 “Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:

Refrigerators, Refri gerator-Freezers, and Fr eezers”, Market and Technology Assessment, Chapter 3 (RRP TSD Chapter 3), Table 3.3.1, page 3-46, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/re sidential/pdfs/refrig_nopr_tsd_2010-09-23.pdf

.

33Table 3.2 Wine Chiller and Miscellaneou s Refrigeration Product Technologies

Insulation Compressor 1. Improved resistivity of insulation 11. Improved compressor efficiency

2. Increased insulation thickness 12. Variable-speed compressors 3. Vacuum-insulated panels 13. Linear compressors

Gasket and Door Design Evaporator and Condenser 4. Improved gaskets 14. Increased surface area 5. Double door gaskets 15. Improved heat exchange 6. Improved door face frame 7. Anti-fog film Cycling Losses 8. Improved thermal resistance glass and
frames 16. Fluid control or solenoid valve

Anti-Sweat Heater Defrost System 9. Hot gas or Warm Liquid 17. Compressor cycling defrost

Fans and Fan Motor Other Technologies 10. Fan blade and fan motor improvements 18. Alternative refrigerants

Item 3-7 DOE seeks comment on whether any additi onal technologies in addition to the ones identified above should be considered for wine chille rs and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

The purpose of the screening analysis is to screen out design options that DOE will not consider in its potential energy conservation standard rulemaking for residentia l wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

As an initial matter, DOE develops a list of de sign options developed through its own research and in consultation with interest ed parties for consideration in the engineering analysis (section 5). Development of the list is based on the te chnologies shown in Table 3.2. The identified candidate design options encompa ss all those technologies that ma y be technologically feasible. Thereafter, DOE reviews each technology option c onsidering the following four criteria, as provided in sections 4(a)(4) and 5(b) of Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (see 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A) a nd tailored to the current rulemaking:

341. Technological feasibility. DOE does not further consider technologies that are not incorporated in commercially availabl e products or in wo rking prototypes.

2. Practicability to manufactu re, 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 th e scale necessary to serve the relevant market by the time of the effective date of th e standard, then it doe s not consider that technology further.

3. Adverse impacts on product or eq uipment utility or availability. If DOE determines that a technology will have a significant adverse im pact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumer s, or result in the unavailab ility of any covered product type with performance characteristics (includi ng reliability), features, size, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally av ailable in the United States at the time, it does not c onsider 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 does not consider that technology
further.

DOE fully documents the reasons for elimina ting any design options during the screening analysis and publishes this documentation for stak eholder review and comment as part of the preliminary analysis.

Item 4-1 Are there any technologies listed in Table 3.4 that DOE should not consider because of any of the four screening criteri a? If so, which screeni ng criteria apply to the cited technology or technologies?

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

After conducting the screening anal ysis described above, DOE perfor ms an engineering analysis based on the remaining design options that woul d improve product efficiency. The engineering analysis consists of estimating the energy consump tion and cost of products at various levels of increased efficiency. This section provides an overview of the engineering analysis (section 5.1), and discusses baseline units (section 5.2), DOE’s proposed approach for determining the costefficiency relationship (section 5.3 ), efficiency levels (section 5.4), proprietary designs (section 5.5), and cumulative regulatory burdens that might affect the engineering analysis (section 5.6).

5.1 Engineering Analysis Overview

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the relationshi p between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer cost

35associated with technological ch anges that increase the efficien cy of these products relative to
the baseline models.

DOE may request cost information from manufac turers for the incremental costs to achieve specified efficiency levels for the relevant pr oduct classes and represen tative product adjusted volumes.

DOE carries out energy modeling for products to supplement the manufacturer-supplied data. The energy modeling is carried out for a few important product classes. Initially, DOE carries out calibration of the model for baseline produc t designs and for releva nt higher-efficiency designs that can be identified. DOE takes design data for these units from reverse engineering work. DOE carries out energy modeling for prod uct designs incorporating energy-saving design options and groups of energy-savi ng design options to determine th e efficiency impact of these modified product designs.

DOE would carry out energy tes ting for a few selected models selected to provide a good representation of the market. DOE would conduct these tests accordi ng to the current energy test procedure used for wine chillers under existing regulations in Californi a and Canada (see the discussion of existing test proced ures in section 1.2.8) but may also consider any test procedure variant that may be appropriate for incorpora tion into DOE’s regulations. This testing would establish the actual energy use of the products and would provide addi tional data to support energy modeling work.

DOE uses reverse engineering to identify de sign options used in baseline and improved efficiency products and to provi de the basis for manufacturi ng cost analysis. The reverseengineering process consists of a detailed produc t disassembly, whereby (1 ) representative units are torn down; (2) all co mponents, processes, assembly, and manufacturing steps are noted in a process-based cost model; and (3 ) all manufacturing costs are cal culated. Representative units are chosen based on the range of effi ciencies, design options, and capacities.

The result is a “green-field” model 24 of the subject unit and the fa ctory in which it would be built. DOE can then aggregate these unit-specifi c factory requirements by market share, unit shipments, or any other method it wishes to use to derive industry-wide estimates.

5.2 Baseline Models

Once DOE establishes product classes, it selects a baseline model as a reference point for each product class subject to analysis against whic h it can measure changes resulting from energy conservation standards. The baseli ne model in each product class re presents the characteristics of common or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baselin e model would be a model that just meets current required en ergy conservation standards.

At a subsequent stage in its an alysis, DOE uses the baseline m odels to conduct the engineering analysis and the LCC and PBP analyses. To determine energy savings and changes in

24 A green-field model estimates the cost of a product as if it were built in a brand-new facility that had just broken

ground.

36manufacturer selling price, DOE compares each higher energy e fficiency product design against
the baseline model.

DOE does not currently regulate residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. Standards in California and Canada are expressed as maximum annual energy consumption as a function of the product’s adjusted volume or total volume. 25 The volume adjustment factor for wine chillers is equal to 1.0, 26 so the total and adjusted volumes are equal. Table 5.1 sets forth the current California and Canadian energy conservation standards for the two existing product classes.

Table 5.1 Wine Chiller California and Canadian Energy Conservation Standards and Proposed Baseline Model Efficiencies

Product Class Equations for Maximum Energy Use (kWh/yr)

Wine chillers with manual defrost. 13.7AV + 267
0.48 av + 267

Wine chillers with automatic defrost 17.4AV + 344
0.61 av + 344 AV, adjusted volume in cubic feet; av, adjusted volume in liters

Should DOE determine that additional product cl asses are merited, DOE would develop baseline efficiency levels for these product classes base d on information regarding their typical energy use characteristics and present these classes for public comment.

Item 5-1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the equations for maximum annual energy consumption of the California and Canadian regulations are appropriate to represent the performance of baseline wine chillers.

5.3 Approach for Determining the Cost-Efficiency Relationship

DOE would likely use a combined approach for de termining the cost-efficiency relationships for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. The combined approach would include energy modeling, limited energy testing, manufactu ring cost analysis supported by reverseengineering teardowns, and possi bly data collected from manu facturers through AHAM. While it is possible that efficiency-level analysis would be feasible, depe nding on the range of efficiency levels of current products, past experience ha s shown that manufacturi ng cost estimates for

25 “Appliance Efficiency Regulations”, CEC-400-2006-002-REV2, Section 1605.3(a)(1), Table A-4; Natural

Resources Canada, Office of Energy E fficiency, Refrigerators, Refrigerat or-Freezers and Wine Chillers, Energy Efficiency Regulations, http://oee.nrca n-rncan.gc.ca/regulations/product/re frigerators-freezers.cfm?attr=0

26 “Energy Performance and capacity of household refrigerators, re frigerator-freezers, freezers, and wine chillers”, C300-08, section 7.3.

37residential refrigeration pr oducts are too sensitive to factors not related to efficiency to correlate consistently with the rated efficiency levels.

Depending on the level of suppor t provided by AHAM and its memb ers, DOE may request cost information from manufacturers for the increm ental costs necessary to achieve specified efficiency levels for the relevant product cla sses and representative produc t adjusted volumes.

DOE would perform energy modeling on products re presenting the product classes identified in Table 5.1 and any other product class identified during the rulemaking. DOE would base its energy models on engineering design data provid ed by manufacturers and/or determined through reverse-engineering teardowns for both baseline and improved-energy product designs. This modeling would use a range of design options to reduce energy use and then compare the results of this design-option analysis with any in formation obtained from manufacturers through
AHAM.

DOE would perform energy testing for a few se lected models. DOE would conduct these tests according to the test procedure currently used by California and Canada. The results from these tests would establish actual energy use for the products. DOE would use additional instrumentation beyond that required for the test procedure to provide ad ditional data to support the energy modeling work. The additional data th at DOE would record include refrigeration circuit temperatures -- these temperatures are si gnificant because they help to calibrate energy models with actual prod uct performance.

DOE uses reverse engineering, as described a bove, to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design option combination. DOE conducts reverse engineering th rough physical teardowns and te sting on wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products at key effici ency levels to determine baseline manufacturing costs as well as incremental manufacturing cost s above the baseline. DOE proposes to perform reverse engineering on units rate d at the baseline level and impr oved energy consumption levels.

DOE sometimes supplements the reverse-engineering data with information from catalogs, websites, and trade publications to create a wider se t of units for its efficiency-cost analysis.

To support this analysis, DOE would likely seek incremental cost data from manufacturers through AHAM for each efficiency level defined fo r each product class. These data would be used to represent the shipment-weighted averag e, industry-wide incremental production cost associated with each level of efficiency im provement. DOE seeks input on whether AHAM and the industry are willing to suppor t such a data collection effo rt and on the format of the information that would be provided. DOE also s eeks input on whether any other stakeholders may have access to and are willing to provide in formation that is relevant to the analysis.

To be useful in the manufacturer impact analys is, manufacturer cost in formation should reflect the variability in baseline models, design strate gies, and cost structures that can exist among manufacturers. This information allows DOE to better understand the indust ry and its associated cost structure, and, thus, help s predict the most likely impact that new energy efficiency regulations would have. For example, the re verse-engineering met hodology allows DOE to

38estimate the green-field costs of building new facilit ies, yet the majority of plants in any given industry comprise a mix of assets in different stages of depreciation.

DOE attempts to qualify the cost-efficiency data that it generates through the reverse-engineering activities with industry-supplie d data and information arising from consultation with stakeholders or technical experts. Specifica lly, DOE supplements these cost data with information obtained through follow-up manufacturer interviews. Interviews with manufacturers not only help DOE refine its cap ital expenditure estimates, but also allow DOE to refine its depreciation projections and other financial parameters.

If DOE is unable to reconcile information collect ed during the manufacturer interviews with the generated or collected cost data, or with information contained in the market and technology assessment, it supplements the collected data th rough consultation with outside experts and/or further review of publicly available cost and performance information.

DOE estimates the contribution of the depreciation of convers ion capital expenditures to the incremental overhead. During the interviews, DOE gathers information about the capital expenditures that would be necessary to increase th e efficiency of the baseline models to various efficiency levels ( i.e. , conversion capital expenditures by e fficiency or ener gy-use level). DOE also requests information about the depreciati on method that manufactur ers use to expense the conversion capital.

Item 5-2 DOE requests feedback on the use of a design-option approach based on energy modeling and some energy testing as n eeded, possibly enhanced by data collection organized by AHAM or other parties to dete rmine the relationship between manufacturer cost and annual energy consumption. Particul arly, DOE is interested in whether this approach is appropriate for developing a cost/eff iciency relationship for use as the basis for standards-setting and if the industry, AHAM, or any other parties are prepared to provide cost-efficiency information to support the rulemaking. If the suggested approach is not appropriate, why is it not?

5.4 Efficiency Levels

For each of the product classes identified, DOE esta blishes potential efficiency levels and seeks to develop incremental cost data at each of these levels. DOE would conduct engineering, LCC, and PBP analyses on all repres entative product classes.

Figure 5.1 below shows energy use as a function of tota l volume for wine chillers listed in the
CEC database. 27 Only one manual defrost model is plotted, because the status of four of the five models in the database listed as having manual defrost has been changed (see the discussion in section 3.2 above). The data show that the maxi mum efficiency level of currently available automatic defrost products is 40% (i.e. energy use is 40% lower than the baseline) and that the maximum efficiency level of the single manual defrost product is 0%. DOE is considering the

27 California Energy Commission Appliance Database, <http://w ww.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/index.html>

39possibility that manual defrost wine chillers do not exist and may eliminate this product class.
See Item 3-5 above. Further, DOE believes that the hi ghest-efficiency automatic defrost products use off-cycle defrost, and thus do not consume any energy (i.e. using an electric heater) to achieve defrost. Hence, there is no reason that automatic defrost wine chillers should use more energy than manual defrost models. For this r eason, the energy use of such automatic defrost products with the highest level of efficiency avai lable should be representative also of the energy use attainable by manual defrost products, even though no actual manua l defrost units are commercially available at the co rresponding efficiency levels.

At a typical volume of 7 cubic feet (cu. Ft.), the manual defros t standard is 363 kWh/year. The automatic defrost standard is 466 kWh/year and a 40% reduction in energy use from this level is 280 kWh/year. Hence, applying these figures, the max tech level for manual defrost products would be 1 - 280/363 = 23% or better.

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

0 5 10 15 20 Automatic Defrost Manual Defrost

CEC Standard ‐ Automatic Defrost CEC Standard ‐ Manual Defrost



### Total Volume (cubic feet)

Figure 5.1 Wine Chiller Efficiency Data

DOE would expect to analyze improved efficiency levels for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products of up to 40% for automa tic defrost products and up to 25% for manual defrost products (if DOE confirms that manual defrost wine chillers exist). However, these expected maximum levels may change, based on the results of further inve stigation and analysis. DOE notes that the maximum efficiency levels av ailable in current products may not necessarily correspond to the max-tech levels. Maximum effici ency models may not incorporate all possible design options for increasing efficiency and, ther efore, may not achieve an annual energy use asUnitEnergyConsumption(UEC,kWh/year)

40low as the max-tech level. It is also possible th at 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 today’s avai lable maximum efficiency products. Given this potential dichotomy between max-tech and avai lable maximum efficiency levels, and DOE’s obligation to analyze max-tech levels, DOE would seek stak eholder input to determine appropriate max-tech efficiency levels. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(p)(2))

It is not practicable for DOE to evaluate ever y product class or capacity range on the market, as the possible number of permutations is enor mous. Instead, DOE would propose 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 seeks comment on what to consider when selecting representative products.

Item 5-3 DOE seeks input from stakeholders regardi ng the range of efficiency levels that should be examined as part of its analysis.

Item 5-4 DOE seeks comment on how to select representative products for detailed analysis and on how to extrapolate such analyses to the full range of wine chiller and miscellaneous residential refrigeration products.

5.5 Proprietary Designs

DOE considers in its engineering and econom ic analyses all design options that are commercially available or present in a worki ng prototype, including proprietary designs and technologies. However, DOE does not consider a pr oprietary design in the s ubsequent analyses if it is the only option for achieving a specific effici ency level. If the proprietary design is the only approach available to achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE rejects that efficiency level, as the analytical results would favor one manufacturer over others.

DOE is sensitive to manufacturer concerns regarding proprietary designs and will make provisions to maintain the confid entiality of any proprietary data submitted by manufacturers or discussed during manufacturer inte rviews. These data may be pr ovided under a c onfidentiality agreement with Navigant Consultin g, Inc. (NCI), the DOE contractor that is responsible for this part of the rulemaking analysis. As in other ru lemakings, NCI regularly works with confidential
data from manufacturers and ot her organizations, preparing ag gregated results for DOE’s analysis that do not divulge sensitive raw data, bu t that enable other stakeholders to review and comment on the aggregated dataset. Alternativel y, stakeholders may submit confidential data to DOE, indicating in writing which data should rema in confidential. To pr event public disclosure of the data due to actions taken by a third part y, such as a request submitted to DOE under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), stakeholde rs providing confidential information to DOE must submit their data according to the requirements described in 10 CFR 1004.11, which
addresses information that is ex empt from public disclosure u nder FOIA. This information will provide input to the manuf acturer impact analysis a nd other economic analyses.

41Item 5-5 Are there proprietary designs or technol ogies of which DOE should be aware for the products under consideration in this ru lemaking? If so, how should DOE acquire the cost data necessary for ev aluating these designs?

5.6 Outside Regulatory Changes Affe cting the Engineering Analysis

In conducting an engineering analysis, DOE accounts for the effects of regulatory changes outside DOE’s statutory energy conservation standards rulemaki ng process that can affect manufacturers of products addr essed by the rulemaking, some of which can also affect the energy efficiency or energy consumption of those products. For example, because of the mandatory phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (C FCs) in the mid-1990s, the industry had to eliminate its use of CFC-12 as a refrigerant and now uses HFC-134a (a hydrofluorocarbon). More recently (in 2003), the industry addresse d the mandatory phase- out of HCFC-141b (a hydrochlorofluorocarbon), which was used as a blowing agent for polyurethane foam insulation. As a result, insulation is now blown with non- HCFC alternatives, in cluding HFC-245fa, HFC134a, and cyclopentane. Both of the above ch anges occurred while the industry was making changes to address new standards; one set that became effective in 1993 and another set that became effective in 2001.

During the recent residential refrigeration product rulemaking, DOE raised for discussion possible issues associated with an expected m ovement away from HFC use, which would impact their use as both refrigerants a nd insulation blowing agents. Sin ce no regulations banning the use of HFCs currently exist, the cons ideration of such a ban as part of the analysis to set potential standards for regulated products would be speculative. 75 FR 59470, 59497 (September 27, 2010) These limitations apply to any rulemaking th at DOE may initiate for wine chillers and related refrigeration products.

DOE will attempt to identify this and all other cumu lative engineering issues that could affect the engineering analysis. The consideration of thes e issues is closely related to the cumulative regulatory burden assessment that DOE will carry out as part of the manufacturer impact analysis. Based on consideration of the comments that DOE receives on the engineering analysis that will accompany the upcoming preliminary analysis, DOE will make the necessary changes to the analysis and reflect those changes in the NOPR documentation.

Item 5-6 Are there outside regulatory issues that DOE should consider in its analysis of residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration pr oducts? If so, please identify what they are and how DOE should consider them for purposes of its analysis.

6. MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PR ICE DETERMINATION

Because DOE would need retail (consumer) pric e data in order to establish the baseline efficiency level and all other efficiency levels under consideration for us e in its lifecycle cost (LCC), payback period (PBP), and national impactanalyses, DOE typically uses manufacturerto-consumer markups to convert the manufacturer selling price estimates from the engineering analysis to consumer prices. The manufacturer-to- consumer markups are in addition to the mark42ups on production costs that DOE would use to estimate manufacturer selling price in the engineering analysis. To validat e these markups, DOE w ould collect data on existing prices in the market by either purchasing large datasets or do wnloading data from retail er Internet sites.

However, before it can develop markup information, DOE would first need to identify distribution channels ( i.e. , how the product is distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer). AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book (the latest available version) shows that over 93 percent of all appliances are distributed from the manufacturer directly to some type of retailer. Retailers
identified in AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book include home improvement st ores (such as Lowe’s or Home Depot), membership warehouse clubs/stores (such as Sam’s Club or Costco), department stores (such as Sears or Kohl’s), discount stores (such as Wal-Ma rt or Kmart), and appliance or consumer electronics stores. Because an overwhe lming majority of appliances are sold through retail stores, DOE would analyze wine chiller pr oduct sales based on the assumption that these appliances are sold in a manufacturer-to-cons umer distribution channel consisting of three parties: (1) the manufacturers pr oducing the products; (2 ) retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers; a nd (3) the consumers that purchase the products.

DOE would determine an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers engaged in appliance manufacturing whose combined pr oduct range includes wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE woul d determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic Census data from the U. S. Census Bureau as well as the annual SEC 10-K reports filed by publicly traded retailers.

In addition to developing the manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE would develop and include sales taxes to calculate applian ce retail prices. The Sales Tax Clearinghouse 28 is an Internet source that DOE would use to calculate applicable sales taxes.

DOE would also use collected reta il price data to validate the ove rall manufacturer-to-consumer markup. DOE has already purchased wine chille r sales data for the years 2007-2011 from NPD Group, Inc., which provides sales-we ighted retail price data for wi ne chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. As an alternative to purch asing retail price data, DOE may also rely on retailers’ Internet sites, alt hough the representativeness of any given price data point is unknown.

This analysis would generate retail prices for each possible efficiency level, assuming that each level represents a new minimum efficiency st andard. DOE would make this assumption to capture the effect that higher manufacturer produc tion volumes of more efficient products from the standard may have on retail price. Because DOE would expect to develop a range of price estimates, it may describe new reta il prices within a range of uncer tainty. If the range of retail prices for each product is larg e enough, DOE would develop retail price probability distributions to use as inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis to determine the impact of the uncertainty on the economic feasibility of amended energy conservation standards.

28 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc., State sales tax rates along with combined average city and county rates

.

Available at http://thestc.com/STrates.stm

.

43Item 6-1 DOE welcomes suggestions and comments concerning its proposed approach for developing estimates of future retail prices.

7. ENERGY USE DETERMINATION

The purpose of the energy use determination is to establish the annual energy consumption of the appliance and assess the energy-sa vings potential of different product efficiencies. DOE would use the annual energy consumption and energy-savi ngs potential in the LCC and PBP analysis to establish the consumer operating savings of pr oduct efficiency levels. This section describes possible methodologies for developing the annua l energy use of wine chillers in typical households.

Typically for household appliances, DOE relies on the Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey 29 (RECS) to estimate the a ppliance’s frequency of use or annual energy consumption. Fr om RECS, DOE can develop a household sample that utilizes the appliance. From the household sample, DOE can develop not only a re presentative average annual energy use of the appliance, but the vari ability in appliance energy use across the households that utilize the product. Unfortunately, RECS has not at tempted to obtain information on wine chillers. Therefore, DOE would need to rely on other sources of information to characterize wine chiller energy use.

As described previously in section 1.2.1.3, California’s maximu m energy use standards as a function of internal volume for auto- and manual de frost products could be combined with sales data from the NPD Group to estimate a range of annual energy use values for vapor-compression wine chillers. Because the tota l sales of each model in the NP D database are provided, this approach could yield an overall value for sales-weighted average energy consumption as well as a sales-weighted distribution of energy use values.

However, there are at least two shortcomings to the above approach: (1) only the maximum possible energy use of each model in the NPD data base can be defined, as opposed to its actual rated energy use, and (2) it is unknown as to whether the CEC test procedure provides a reasonable estimate of wine chiller annual energy use. To address the first issue, DOE could utilize the energy use of wine chiller models in CEC’s database as described in section 5.4 and depicted in Figure 5.2 to express the energy use of models in the NPD database with some level of statistical uncertainty. For a given internal volume, the uncerta inty could be based on model availability at specific energy use values. To address the second issue, DOE would attempt to collect data that can validate the energy use estimates based on the CEC test procedure. Currently, DOE has been unable to identify sour ces of wine chiller energy use information. Because of the apparent lack of energy use data, DOE may rely on in situ field measurements as a means to characterize wine chiller energy use.

29 Available at: http://www.eia.d oe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html

.

44If the above method of developi ng annual energy use estimates based on the combination of NPD sales data, CEC model data, and California’s efficiency sta ndards equations for establishing maximum energy use prove to be untenable, DOE may need to resort to characterizing wine chiller energy use 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.

Item 7-1 DOE seeks comments on the proposed approach of estimating the annual energy consumption of wine chillers based on a co mbination of NPD sales data, CEC model data, and California’s energy conservation standar ds equations for establishing maximum

energy use.

Item 7-2 DOE seeks input on potential data sources for establishing the annual energy consumption of wine chillers.

Item 7-3 DOE seeks comments on the viability of usi ng in situ field measurements of wine chiller energy use as a proposed basis for characterizing the product’s energy consumption.

Item 7-4 DOE seeks comments on whether annual energy use is best characterized with a sensitivity analysis to determ ine how high and low estimates of energy use might impact the economic feasibility of any amended energy conservation standards.

DOE would account for the rebound effect in its determination of annual energy consumption. The rebound effect occurs when a more efficient product is used more intensively because its increased efficiency mitigates the cost of the add itional use. This effect diminishes the expected energy savings from the efficiency improvement . In the case of more efficient domestic refrigeration equipment, limited research has been conducted to show that there is no rebound effect for home appliances (i.e. appliances not including space-condi tioning and water-heating equipment), although the consumer may choose to purchase larger models with more features, which would result in increased energy use. 30

Item 7-5 DOE seeks comments on the rebound effect a ssociated with more efficient wine chillers. In other words, DOE seeks input on what portion of the energy savings resulting from more efficient equipment may be lost due to consumers purchasing larger or more feature laden equipment.

30 L.A. Greening, D.L. Greene, and C. Difiglio. Energy e fficiency and consumption – th e rebound effect – a survey

, Energy Policy 28 (2000) 389—401. Available for purchase at www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

458. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

The effects of increased energy conservation st andards on a consumer of a product include a change in operating expense (u sually decreased) and a change in purchase price (usually increased). DOE normally analyzes the net eff ect on consumers by calculating the LCC and PBP using the engineering perf ormance data (as described in sec tion 5), the equipment retail prices (as described in section 6), and the energy consumption data (as described in section 7). Inputs to the LCC and PBP calculation would include the tota l installed cost to th e consumer (purchase price plus any installation cost) and operating cost (energy expenses and, if applicable, repair costs, and maintenance costs). Additional inpu ts to the LCC calculation would include energy price forecasts, the lifetime of the appliance or other defined period of analysis, and discount

rates.

8.1 Approach for Conducting the LCC and PBP Analysis

In the preliminary analysis stage of the wi ne chiller rulemaking, DOE would conduct the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertain ty and variability in the inputs using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. The Monte Carlo approach provides a significant advantage over less sophisticated approaches (e. g., an approach using typical or average values to characterize inputs) by identifying the percen tage of consumers benefiting and being burdened by a prospective standard.

DOE would develop an LCC and PBP model that incorporates both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions by using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially available add-in program). Each Monte Carlo simulation would consist of 10,000 LCC and PBP calculations. The model would perfo rm each calculation using input values that are sampled from probability distributions or char acterized with single point values. The analysis results would be a distribution of 10,000 data po ints showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given efficiency level relative to the baseline level.

With the exception of repair and maintenance cost s, DOE would use probability distributions to characterize the operating cost i nputs to the LCC and PBP analys is, including product lifetimes and consumer discount rates. As described previ ously in section 6, DOE would attempt to use an approach that relies on a combination of NPD sales data, CEC model data, and California’s energy conservation standards equations for ma ximum allowable energy use to establish the product’s annual energy consumption. If this appr oach is successful, wine chiller energy use would be characterized with sale s-weighted probability distribu tions. As described below, the LCC and PBP analysis would capture the regional variability in el ectricity prices. The methodology for developing maintenance and repair co sts is described in mo re detail below.

DOE would expect to use point va lues to characterize most of the total installed cost inputs, including the manufacturer mar kup and the retailer markup. DOE w ould expect that installation costs would be negligible. If the manufacturer cost estimate s developed in the engineering analysis are characterized with uncertainty or variability, DOE would use probability distributions to capture this uncertainty and va riability; otherwise, DOE would use single point

46values for this input as well. DOE would character ize sales taxes with prob ability distributions to capture their regional variability.

Another factor in identifying which consumers be nefit from or are burdened by a prospective standard is the distribution of product efficien cies currently being sold in the marketplace, referred to as market-share efficiency data. In the case of wine chillers, product efficiency is expressed as annual energy use. Assuming these data are available, DOE would characterize the current product mix with probability distributi ons. DOE would determine the LCC and PBP for a particular standard level based on the distribution of appliance efficiencies. For example, in performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simu lation for a given consumer, product efficiency will be chosen based on its probability. If the chos en product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation would reveal that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE would avoid overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. To enable DOE to use this methodology, DOE would ask stakeholders — presumably either AHAM or i ndividual manufacturers — to provide data on the current mix of product efficiencies, to account for those consumers already purchasing high efficiency products. Without such data, DOE coul d use the CEC model data described in section
5.4 to develop efficiency distribut ions based on model availability.

As discussed in section 7, DOE would take into account the rebound effect associated with more efficient wine chillers. The “take-back” in en ergy consumption associated with the rebound effect provides consumers with increased value ( e.g. , more refrigerator in ternal volume). The net impact on consumers is thus the sum of the ch ange in the cost of owning the refrigeration equipment ( i.e., life-cycle cost) and the in creased value for the enha nced product features or usage patterns. DOE believes that if it were able to monetize the increased value to consumers added by the rebound effect, this value would be si milar in value to the foregone energy savings. For this potential standards rulemaking, DOE estimates that this value would be equivalent to the monetary value of the energy savings that would have occurred w ithout the rebound effect. Therefore, the economic impacts on consumers with or without the rebound effect, as measured in the LCC analysis, would be the same.

DOE would conduct the LCC and PBP analysis only for the two representative product classes on which it plans to perform an engineering analys is ( see section 5.2). To identify the consumers who benefit from or are burdened by a prospec tive standard, DOE requests base-case efficiency
distributions or market-share effi ciency data from the industry.

During the NOPR stage, DOE may evaluate ad ditional parameters not included in the preliminary analysis based upon information pr ovided by stakeholders or which otherwise becomes available to the Department.

Based on the results of the LCC analysis, DOE w ould select CSLs for the preliminary analysis. The range of CSLs typically includes the effici ency level with the minimum LCC, the highest efficiency level that is technologically feasible , and other intermediate levels DOE has not yet
determined.

47The following sections discuss the methodologies DOE would use to develop several of the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis, including (1) electricity prices; (2) ma intenance, repair, and installation costs; (3) product life times; and (4) discount rates. The other inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis—namely, manufacturer costs (sec tion 5), markups for the determination of consumer retail prices (section 6), and a nnual energy consumption (section 7)—have been discussed previously.

DOE is also required to perform a PBP analysis to determine whether the three-year rebuttable presumption of economic justificat ion applies (in essence, whethe r the purchaser will recover the higher installed cost of more energy efficien t equipment through lowere d operating costs within three years). (42 U.S.C. § 6295( o)(2)(B)(iii)) To determine th e rebuttable-presumption PBP, DOE would determine the value of the first year’s energy savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance with DOE’s test procedure. Although DOE will examine the rebuttable-presumption criteria, it would dete rmine whether selected CSLs are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of increased efficiency pursuant to section 325(o)(2 )(B)(i) of EPCA. (42 U. S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

In preparing the NOPR, DOE woul d carefully review all of the comments it receives on the preliminary analysis LCC analysis, make any nece ssary revisions to the analysis, and evaluate additional parameters not included in the preliminary analysis, if necessary.

Item 8-1 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the proposed approach of using probability distributions and Monte Carlo simulati on to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis.

Item 8-2 DOE requests data from stakeholders to characterize the current mix of wine chiller efficiencies in the market.

8.2 Electricity Prices

DOE would develop estimates of average elect ricity prices using EIA data covering 13 geographic areas — the nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) treated separately. For Census divisions containing one of these large States, DOE would calculate the regional average values, leaving out data for the large State— for example, the Pacific region average will not include California, and the West South Central region average will not include Texas. DOE woul d develop a discrete probability distribution consisting of 13 regional electr icity prices based on the house hold population in each region. Therefore, DOE would be able to assess the variability of energy prices at the regional level for residential wine chillers.

To calculate electricity prices for residential consumers in eac h of the above geographic areas, DOE would use information provided by electric u tilities as summarized in the most recent EIA Form 861 data. 31 These data, which cover the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for every utility serving final customers, are publis hed annually and include annual electricity sales in kWh, revenues from electricity sales, and numbe r of consumers. The calculation of an average

31 Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.

48residential electricity price woul d proceed in two steps: (1) for each utility, estimate an average residential price by dividing the residential reve nues by residential sale s; and (2) calculate a regional average price, weighti ng each utility with customers in a region by the number of
residential consumers se rved in that region.

DOE would use projections of national average el ectricity prices to residential consumers to estimate future energy prices in its LCC analys is. DOE would use the most recently available
edition of EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) as the default source of projections for future energy prices.

Item 8-3 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the planned approach for estimating current and forecasted energy prices.

8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs

DOE would consider any expected changes to maintenance, repair , and installation costs for the wine chillers covered in this rulemaking. T ypically, small incremental 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 main tenance costs, since such equipment is more likely to incorporate technologies that are not widely available. DOE would rely on input from
manufacturers and other stakehol ders in developing appropriate repair and maintenance cost estimates, as necessary.

With regard to installation costs, unless the in creased efficiency levels considered for this rulemaking result in significantly larger or heavier products, DOE woul d expect that moreefficient wine chillers will not in cur increased installation costs.

Item 8-4 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the merits of its proposed analytical assumption that changes in maintenance, repair, and instal lation costs will be negligible for moreefficient residential wine chillers. If it is incorrect, DOE is interested in the reasons why this is so and in specific ways in which to correct this assumption.

8.4 Product Lifetimes

DOE has been unable to identify sources to estab lish an estimated generic wine chiller lifetime. Without data specific to wine chillers, DOE may need to rely on data specific to residential standard-sized and compact-sized refrigerat or-freezers and freezers. For standard-sized refrigerator-freezers and freezers, DOE has characterized survival functions with Weibull distributions that have mean lifetimes of 17.4 and 22.3 years, respectively. For compact refrigerators and freezers, DOE has developed surviv al functions that have mean lifetimes of 5.6 and 7.5 years, respectively. 32

32 U.S. DOE, Technical Support Document for Refrigerato rs, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers. September 2010.

< http://www1.eere.energy. gov/buildings/appliance_st andards/residential/refri gerators_freezers.html >

49DOE would use information from available l iterature sources as well as input from
manufacturers and other stakeholde rs to establish specific wine ch iller lifetimes or whether the above product lifetimes for standard-sized and co mpact-sized refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are also representative of wine chillers.

Item 8-5 DOE seeks stakeholder input on appropriate product lifetimes for wine chillers. Specifically, DOE seeks data sources for es tablishing product lifetimes and information regarding the merits of whether standar d-sized and compact-sized refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freez er lifetimes are representative of wine chillers.

8.5 Discount Rates

The calculation of consumer LCC requires the us e of an appropriate discount rate. DOE would
use the discount rate to determ ine the present value of lifetim e operating expenses. The discount rate used in the LCC analysis represents the rate from an individual consumer’s perspective. 33
For residential consumers of wine chillers, DOE would use the same approach that it relied on to develop discount rates for its recent standard s rulemakings for othe r residential products— i.e.

, deriving the discount rates from estimates of the in terest or “finance cost” to purchase residential products. The finance cost of rais ing funds to purchase these produc ts can be interpreted as (1) the financial cost of any debt incurred to purchas e products (principally interest charges on debt), or (2) the opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase produc ts (principally interest earnings on household equity). Household equity is represen ted by holdings in assets such as stocks and bonds, as well as the return on homeowner equity. Mu ch of the data requir ed for determining the cost of debt and equity comes from the Federal Reserve Board’s triennial Survey of Consumer
Finances

. 34

Item 8-6 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the pl anned approach for estimating discount rates for residential consumers.

Based on consideration of the comments receive d on the LCC and PBP analysis documented for the preliminary analysis, DOE would make the ne cessary changes to the analysis, and reflect those changes in the doc umentation of the NOPR.

9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Shipments forecasts are required to calculate th e national impacts of st andards (NES and NPV)
and to calculate the future cash flows of manufacturers. DOE w ould develop shipments forecasts based on an analysis of key market drivers for the particular products.

33 The consumer discount rate is in contrast to the discount rates used in the national impact analysis, which are

intended to represent the rate of return of capital in the U.S. economy as well as the societal rate of return on private consumption. Refer to section 10.3 for additional information.

34 Available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.

509.1 Base-Case Forecast

To evaluate the various impacts of standards, DOE would develop a base-case forecast against which to compare forecasts for higher efficiency levels. (Higher efficiency level forecasts are also referred to as standards-case forecasts.) DOE would design the base-case to depict what would be anticipated to happen to energy c onsumption and costs ove r time if DOE does not adopt energy conservation standards. In determining the base-case for each set of products, DOE would calibrate its forecasts against historical shipments. DOE w ould also consider the mix of efficiencies sold in the absence of new standard s and how that mix might change over time. As a result, DOE would need to collect data on histori cal product shipments and the market shares of the different efficiency levels offered in each product class. Based on detectable trends in the collected efficiency data, DOE would forecast base-case shipment-weighted efficiencies (SWEF). Forecasts of SWEFs are discussed in greater detail below in section 10.1.

As discussed previously in se ction 1.2.1.3, DOE has already review ed historical shipments data from two sources: (1) data provided by AHAM as pa rt of the residential refrigerator standards rulemaking and (2) sales data from the NPD Gro up. The AHAM shipments data are for the years 2005-2007. The NPD Group’s sales data are fo r the five years spanning 2007-2011, and, according to NPD, represent 30% to 45% of tota l industry sales. Unfort unately, the estimates from the two sources are extremely different with NPD estimates as much as ten times greater than AHAM’s estimates. Because AHAM does not represent all wine chiller manufacturers, and
not all of AHAM’s members neces sarily reported th eir sales data, DOE suspects that the shipments estimates from the NPD Group are more re presentative. Due to the limited availability of shipments data, DOE would be taking into co nsideration any other sources or data provided by stakeholders. Without such data, DOE would rely exclusively on the AHAM and NPD data to
construct scenarios of histor ical base-case shipments.

Because little is known regarding the adoption of wine chillers in existing and new households,
and the limited historical data do not provide observable trends that can be relied upon to forecast shipments trends into the future, DOE would likely forecast base-case shipments using a number of scenarios. These scenarios may range from constant shipments (based either on a historical average observed in either the AHAM or NPD datasets or the lowest and highest shipments seen in the historical data) to increa ses in shipments tied to overall economic growth as indicated by the gross dome stic product (GDP).

Item 9-1 DOE seeks historical shipments data fr om stakeholders. If such data are provided, DOE requests that market share data showing the percentage of product shipments for compressor/condenser-based and thermoelectric-based products be included.

Item 9-2 If stakeholders are unable to provide historical shipments data, DOE seeks comment on which data source is more represen tative of historical shipments, the AHAM shipments data or the NPD Group sales data and why.

51Item 9-3 DOE seeks input on the types of potential scenarios it should use to forecast basecase shipments and the reason(s) for the suggested scenario(s).

9.2 Standards Impacts on Product Shipments

DOE would develop a set of shipment forecasts fo r each set of efficiency levels analyzed. It would use these standards-case forecasts to ev aluate the impacts of standards on product shipments. DOE would derive standards-case forecas ts using the same data sets as it used for the base-case forecasts. However, because the standard s-case forecasts take into account the increase in purchase price and the decrease in operating costs caused by standards, forecasted shipments typically deviate from the base-case. Household income also factors into consumer purchase decisions. Therefore, the magnit ude of the difference between th e standards-case and base-case shipment forecasts depends on the estimated purchase price increase and the operating cost savings caused by the standard, relative to househ old income. Because the purchase price tends to have a larger impact than operating cost on appliance purchase decisions, standards-case forecasts typically show a drop in product shipments relative to the base-case.

DOE’s past standards analyses have attempted to quantify the sensitivity of shipments to increased purchase prices and ope rating cost savings as well as to changes in household income. For example, DOE has conducted literature reviews and analyses of historical appliance price and efficiency data to devel op sensitivities. Although DOE woul d attempt to develop purchase price and operating cost sensitiv ities for wine chillers since th e data required to develop these sensitivities are likely to be unavailable, DOE would also co nsider modeling standards-case shipments forecasts with scenarios ( i.e. , specified impacts to produc t shipments), if necessary.

Market-pull programs, such as consumer rebate programs that encourage the purchase of moreefficient products and manufacturer tax credits that encourage the produc tion of more-efficient products, also affect standards-case shipments for ecasts. To the extent that such programs exist, DOE would consider their impact on the for ecast of both base-case and standards-case shipments.

Item 9-4 As part of a possible preliminary ma nufacturer impact analysis, DOE seeks input from manufacturers on th e potential impact of new ener gy conservation standards on wine chiller shipments. DOE also seeks input from other stakeholders on the potential impact of standards on product shipments.

Item 9-5 DOE also requests input on any market-p ull programs that currently exist to promote the adoption of more-e fficient wine chillers.

5210. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Section 8 discusses methods for estimating the L CC savings and PBP for individual consumers. This section discusses DOE’s a ssessment of the aggregate imp acts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. Measures of im pact that DOE will report include the future NES
from candidate standards and the NPV of total consumer life-cycle costs.

10.1 Inputs to NES and NPV Forecasts

Analyzing impacts of Federal energy conservati on standards for wine chillers requires a comparison of projected U.S. energy consump tion with, and without, new or amended energy conservation standards. The forecasts contain pr ojections of annual appliance shipments (section 9), the purchase price of new appliances (secti on 6), and the annual energy consumption of new appliances (section 7).

A key component of DOE’s estimates of NES and NPV are the product energy efficiencies forecasted over time for the base-case (without ne w standards) and each of the standards cases. For wine chillers, the forecasted efficiencies represent the annual shipment-weighted annual energy consumption of the products under c onsideration over the forecast period ( i.e. , from the assumed compliance date of a new standard to 30 years after that date). Because key inputs to the calculation of the NES and NPV (annual energy c onsumption for the NES, and retail prices and annual operating costs for the NPV) depend on the es timated efficiencies, th ese efficiencies are very important to the analysis.

For past home appliance standards rulemakings, DOE relied on stakeholder input, particularly AHAM and appliance manufacturers, to develop base-case historical SWEF estimates. Although DOE hopes that AHAM and manufactur ers will provide similar hist orical SWEF data for wine chillers, because of the apparent lack of information for this product, DOE may need to rely on other sources to develop such data. One option might be for DOE to use CEC data and develop average historical efficiencies for each year that such data are available.

To develop SWEFs for the various standards cases, DOE hopes to develop market-share efficiency data ( i.e. , data on the distribution of product sh ipments by efficiency) for the wine chiller product classes DOE is currently considering. As discu ssed in section 8.1, these are the same market-share efficiency data (otherwise kn own as base-case efficien cy distributions) that DOE is requesting for the LCC and PBP analysis so DOE can accurately qua ntify the percent of
consumers that benefit from an increase in th e minimum energy conservation standard. Realizing that this information may not be available, DOE could use th e CEC model data described in section 5.4 to develop efficiency distri butions based on model availability.

The market-share efficiency data will allow DOE to estimate the efficiency impact that standards may have in the year manufacturers must begin to comply with them. For example, DOE has assumed a “roll-up” scenario for past standards rulemakings. 35 Under this scenario, DOE

35 For example, the residential central air conditioner standards rulemaking considered a “roll-up” scenario when

estimating the impact of standards. Refer to the Chapter 7 of the central air conditioner TSD for more details, which is available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_ standards/residential/ac_central_1000_r.html

.

53assumes (1) product efficiencies in the base- case that do not meet the standard level under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new st andard level; and (2) product efficiencies above the standard level under cons ideration would not be affect ed. Once DOE establishes the shipment-weighed efficiency for the assumed eff ective date of the standard, it could estimate future shipment-weighted efficienci es using the same rate of forecasted efficiency growth as in the base-case efficiency trend.

Item 10-1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data for wine chillers. DOE also seeks historical market share data showing the percentage of product shipments by efficiency level.

10.2 National Energy Savings

DOE intends to calculate national energy consump tion for each year beginning with the expected effective date of the standards. It will calcula te national energy consumption for the base-case and each standard level analyzed. DOE plans to perform this calculation through the use of a spreadsheet model that effectively multiplies annu al shipment forecasts by unit energy savings, accounting for the stock of applia nces affected by standards.

In response to comments by stakeholders who asked for a simple, transparent model, DOE has developed NES spreadsheet models for its standa rds rulemakings since 1996, to forecast energy savings and to demonstrate how the growth in efficiency can be accounted for over time. 36 Although these models are specific to each prod uct, DOE believes their general structure is applicable to the wine chiller market. DOE e xpects the NES spreadsheet model it develops for this rulemaking to provide a credible, stand-alone forecast of NES and NPV for residential wine
chillers.

As discussed in section 7, DOE intends to take into account the rebound e ffect associated with more efficient wine chillers. DOE will incorporat e the rebound effect utilized in the energy use analysis into its calculati on of national energy savings.

Based on consideration of the comments DOE may receive on the preliminary analysis, DOE will make any necessary changes to the analysis. It will reflect those changes in the documentation for the NOPR.

Item 10-2 DOE seeks input on its plan to develop NES spreadsheet models for estimating national impacts of amended energy cons ervation standards for wine chillers. For example, are spreadsheet models still th e preferred approach for estimating national impacts?

36 Several NES spreadsheet models from previous rulemakings, including the rulemaking for residential clothes

washers, can be found on DOE’s website at www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards

.

5410.3 Net Present Value

DOE calculates the national NPV of energy conser vation standards in conjunction with the NES. It calculates annual energy expenditures from annual energy consumption by incorporating forecasted energy prices, using the shipment and av erage energy efficiency forecasts described in section 9. DOE calculates annual equipment expe nditures by multiplying the price per unit by the number of forecasted shipments. The differe nce between a base-case and a standards-case scenario gives the national energy bill savings and increased equipment expenditures in dollars. The difference each year between energy bill savi ngs and increased equipment expenditures is the net savings (if positive) or net costs (if ne gative). DOE discounts thes e annual values to the present time and sums them to give a net presen t value. Consistent with guidelines set by the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB ), DOE will conduct two NPV calculations, one using a real discount rate of thr ee percent and another using a real discount ra te of seven percent (OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003). The di scount rates for the
determination of NPV are in contrast to the disc ount rates used in the LCC analysis (which are developed from a consumer’s perspective). The se ven percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private cap ital in the U.S. economy. The three percent real value represents the “societal rate of time pr eference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their pr esent value. Based on consideration of the comments received on the preliminary analysis, DOE will make any necessary changes to the analysis and the CSLs.

As noted above in section 10.2, DOE intends to ta ke into account the reb ound effect associated with more efficient wine chillers in its dete rmination of national energy savings. As discussed section 8, because the rebound effect provides co nsumers with increased value, DOE believes that if it were able to monetiz e the increased value to consumers added by the rebound effect, this value would be similar in value to th e foregone energy savings. For this standards rulemaking, DOE estimates that this value is e quivalent to the monetary value of the energy savings that would have occurred without the rebound effect. Therefore, the economic impacts on consumers with or without the rebound effect , as measured in the NPV, are the same.

11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SU BGROUP ANALYSIS

This section describes how DOE analyzes the co nsumer impact of any new standards by dividing consumers into subgroups and accounting for vari ations in key inputs to the LCC analysis. A consumer subgroup comprises a subset of the populat ion that is likely, for one reason or another, to be affected disproportionately by new or re vised energy conservation standards. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the exte nt of this disproportional impact. DOE will work with stakeholders early in the rulemaking pro cess to identify any subgroups for consideration. However, DOE will not analyze the consumer s ubgroups until the NOPR stage of the analysis.

In comparing potential impacts on the differe nt consumer subgroups, DOE will evaluate variations in regional el ectricity prices, energy use profiles, a nd purchase prices that might affect the LCC of an energy conservation standard to certain consumer subgroups. To the extent possible, DOE may obtain estimates of the variabil ity in each input variable and consider this

55variability in its calculation of consumer im pacts. DOE will discuss with stakeholders the variability in each input variable and likely sources of information.

Item 11-1 DOE requests input as to what, if any, consumer subgroups are appropriate in considering standards for wine chillers.

12. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE conducts its manufacturer impact analyses c onsistent with the Report to Congress, “Energy Conservation Standards Activities” (Jan. 31, 2006) (required report under Section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) (Standa rds Activities), available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ pdfs/congressional_report_013106.p
df

.

DOE had not previously repor ted any manufacturer impact analysis resu lts during the preliminary analysis phase; however, under the new format, DOE collects, evaluates, and reports preliminary information and data in the preliminary analysis. ( See Standards Activities, p. 54.) Such preliminary information includes the anticipated conve rsion capital expenditures by efficiency level and the corres ponding anticipated impacts on em ployment. DOE solicits further information during the preliminary analysis phase through the manuf acturer interviews conducted as part of that phase’s engineering anal ysis. A draft set of questions to be used for those interviews is contained in Appendix A.

DOE intends manufacturer impact analyses to help assess the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufactur ers of products subject to new or revised energy standards. In addition to financial impacts, a wide range of quantitative and qualitative effects may occur following adoption of a standard that may require changes to the manuf acturing practices for these products. DOE identifies these effects throu gh interviews with manufacturers, as well as other stakeholders and experts.

For the NOPR, DOE supplements the results of the preliminary MIA conducted as part of the preliminary analysis with more detailed an alyses, described in sections 12.1 through 12.5. Specifically, DOE carries out an industry-wide cash flow analysis using the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) , identifies and analyzes subg roups of manufacturers whose business varies significantly from the industr y as a whole, perform a competitive impacts assessment, and review the cumulativ e regulatory burden for the industry.

12.1 Sources of Information for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Many of the analyses described earlier provide important information that DOE uses as inputs for the manufacturer impact anal ysis. Such information includes financial parameters developed in the market assessment (section 3.1), manuf acturing costs and prices from the engineering analysis (section 5.3), retail pri ce forecasts (section 6), and ship ments forecasts (section 9). DOE supplements this information with informa tion gathered during ma nufacturer interviews.

56DOE conducts detailed interviews with manufacturer s to gain insight into the range of potential impacts of standards. The interv iew process plays a key role in the manufacturer impact analysis by providing an opportunity for directly affected parties to express th eir views on important issues. During the interviews, DOE solicits info rmation on the possible impacts of standards on manufacturing costs, equipment prices, sales, direct employmen t, capital assets, and industry competitiveness. Both qualitative and quantitativ e information are valuable in terms of this analysis. DOE schedules interviews well in ad vance to provide every opportunity for key individuals to be available to participate. In addition, DOE provides manufacturers with the questionnaire before the intervie ws to facilitate the gathering of the appropriate information. Although a written response to it s questionnaire is acceptable, DOE prefers an interactive interview process, because it helps clarify res ponses and provides the opportunity to identify
additional issues.

DOE asks interview participants to identify all confidential information provided in writing or orally, and DOE determines whether the inform ation submitted is entitled to confidential treatment. It considers information gathered, as appropriate, in the energy conservation standards decision-making process. However, DOE does not make confidential information available in the public record. DOE also asks pa rticipants to identify all information that they wish to have included in the public record but that they do not want to have associated with their interview that would identify that partic ular manufacturer; DOE incorporat es this information into the public record, but reports it without attribution.

DOE collates the completed interview questionnaires and prepares a summary of the major issues and outcomes. This summary becomes part of the TSD produced in a rulemaking.

12.2 Industry Cash Flow Analysis

The industry cash flow analysis relies primarily on the GRIM. DOE uses the GRIM to analyze the financial impacts of new or more stringen t energy conservation standards on the industries that produce the products covered by the standard.

The GRIM analysis uses a number of inputs—an nual expected revenue s; manufacturer costs such as costs of goods sold; se lling, general, and administrativ e costs; taxes; and capital expenditures (both ordinary capita l expenditures and those related to standards)—to determine a series of annual cash flows beginning from the announcement of the new standard and continuing for several years after its implement ation. DOE compares the results against basecase projections that involve no new standards. The financial impact of new standards is the difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows. Other performance metrics, such as return on invested capital, also are available from the GRIM.

DOE gathers the inputs needed for the GRIM from two primary sources: (1) the analyses conducted to this point; and (2 ) interviews with manufactur ers and other stakeholders. Information gathered from previous analyses in cludes financial parameters, manufacturing costs, price forecasts, and shipments forecasts. Intervie ws with manufacturers and other stakeholders are essential in supplementing this information.

5712.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

It is possible that the use of av erage industry cost values may not adequately assess differential impacts among subgroups of manuf acturers. DOE recognizes that smaller manufacturers, niche players, and manufacturer s exhibiting a cost structure that di ffers significantly from the industry average may be affected differently by the impos ition of standards. Ideally, DOE would consider the impact on every firm individually. In highly c oncentrated industries, this may be possible. In industries having numerous participants, however , DOE uses the results of the market and technology assessment to group manufacturer s into subgroups, as appropriate.

Small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturers, ar e enterprises with 1000 employees or fewer. Small business size standards are listed by No rth American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description. Househol d refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335222. A search of small businesses of this NAICS code listed in the
U.S. Small Business Association website indicate s that there may be thirteen small businesses that manufacture wine chillers and related produ cts that would potential ly be covered by this potential rulemaking. However, as this NAICS c ode covers all household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing, it is not cl ear how many of these manufact urers produce residential wine
chillers and other miscellaneous refrigeration products. As part of its subgroup analysis, DOE would identify small businesses that manufactur e these products and interview small businesses affected by the rulemaking to determine if there are differential impacts on these companies that may result from new energy conservation standards. DOE examines publicly available data and contacts manufacturers, when need ed, to determine if they meet the SBA’s definition of a small manufacturing facility a nd if their manufacturing facilities are located within the United States.

The detailed manufacturer subgroup impact analysis entails calculating cash flows separately for
each defined class of manufacturer.

Item 12-1 DOE seeks comment on the appropriate manufacturer subgroups, if any, for residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigerati on products that DOE should consider in a manufac turer subgroup analysis.

12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from an imposition of standards. (42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)( B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It further directs the Attorney General to determine in writing the impacts, if any, of any lessening of competition. (42
U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B )(ii) and 6316(a))

DOE makes a determined effort to gather and report firm-specific financial information and impacts, and it will then report the aggregated impact of the standard on manufacturers. The competitive impacts analysis focuses on assessin g the impacts to smaller, yet significant, manufacturers. DOE bases the assessment on manufacturing cost data and on information collected from interviews with manufacturers. These interviews focus on gathering information that will help in assessing asymmetrical cost increases to some manufacturers, increased

58proportion of fixed costs potentially increasing business risks, and potential barriers to market entry ( e.g. , proprietary technologies). DOE provides th e Attorney General with a copy of the NOPR for consideration in his/he r evaluation of the impact of standards on the lessening of competition.

12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

DOE is aware that other regula tions may apply to products whic h may be covered under this potential rulemaking, as well as to other produc ts made by the same manufacturers covered under this potential rulemaking. Multiple regulati ons may result in a significant, cumulative regulatory burden on these manufacturers. Accord ingly, DOE analyzes and seeks to mitigate the overlapping effects of amended DO E standards and other regulator y actions on manufacturers of residential refrigeration products. DOE is awar e that home appliance manufacturers and trade groups have issued public comments concerning the excessive regulation of the home appliance industry in comparison to others and will cons ider these concerns during the manufacturer impact analysis.

Regulations that could affect the industries affected by this poten tial rulemaking include:

• DOE standards for residentia l refrigeration products

 Manufacturers have previously gone through redesign cycles mandated by standa rds for residential refrigeration products enacted since 1990;

• Phaseout of HCFC blowing agents in 2003 —Manufacturers predominantly switched to HFC-245fa blowing agent when HCFC-141b wa s phased out in 2003. However, different manufacturers may have chosen alternative appr oaches and as a result may be in differing positions with regard to foam insulation conduc tivity levels achieved in their production
lines.

• Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive – The Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment was adopted in February 2003 by the European Union (EU) and became effective July 1,
2006. 37 RoHS identifies specific categories of products that can contain no more than threshold amounts of mercury, lead, cadmium , hexavalent chromium, and two fire retardants. Although this legislation does not cu rrently extend to residential refrigeration products in the U.S., domestic manufacturers selling to the EU market must produce RoHS-compliant appliances. These manufactur ers may choose to include the associated design changes across thei r entire product line.

• Legislation limiting us e of Greenhouse Gases – The possibility of legislation to limit the use of greenhouse gases was discussed as part of the recent refrigeration product rulemaking. 76 FR 57516 (Sept. 15, 2011). While no such legislation ha s been enacted, if such legislation is enacted prior to the e nd of this rulemaking, it will impose impacts on manufacturers, who will need to consider converting both refrigerants and foam insulation blowing agents to alternative subs tances that have less global warming impact. Such changes may require capital expenditures, but may also impact product design options.

37 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/waste/weee/index_en.htm.

59Item 12-2 What other regulations or pending regul ations should DOE consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory burden?

13. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

To estimate the impacts that energy conservation st andards for residential wine chillers and other miscellaneous residential refrig eration products would have on el ectric utility industries, DOE plans to use a variant of th e EIA’s National Energy Modeli ng System (NEMS), called NEMSBT. BT refers to DOE’s Bu ilding Technologies Program. NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral, partial-equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sect or that EIA has developed over several years, primarily for the purpose of preparing the AEO . NEMS produces a widely recognized reference case forecast for the United States through 2035 and is available in the public domain. 38

The utility impact analysis is a comparison be tween the NEMS-BT model results for the basecase and standards-cases. Outputs of the utility impact analysis usually parallel results that appear in the latest AEO , with some additions. Typical output s of the utility impact analysis include forecasts of electricity sales, price, and avoided cap acity. DOE plans to conduct the utility impact analysis as a scen ario departing from the latest AEO reference case. In other words, DOE will model the energy savings impacts from amended energy conservation standards using NEMS-BT to generate forecasts that deviate from the AEO reference case. 39

Item 13-1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on its plans to use NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact analysis. Examples of the type of input sought by DOE include, but are not limited to, whether the NEMS-BT model is appr opriate for assessing th e utility impacts of efficiency standards — and if not, what would be a more appropriate model to use?

14. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE estimates the impacts of standards on empl oyment for equipment ma nufacturers, relevant service industries, energy suppliers , and the economy in general. Th is analysis covers both direct and indirect employment impacts. Direct employment impacts woul d result if standards led to a

38 For more information on NEMS, please refer to th e U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful summary is National Energy	Modeling System:		An	Overview	2000

, DOE/EIA-0581(March 2000) and is ava ilable at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ft proot/forecasting/0581 2000.pdf . 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 refe rs to the model by the name NEMS-BT (“BT” refers to DOE’s Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis this work has been performed).

39 Several descriptions of NEMS-BT models from previous rulemakings, including residential furnaces and boilers,

can be found on DOE’s website at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standa rds/residential/pdfs/fb_fr_tsd/chapter_13.pdf

.

60change in the number of employees at manufacturi ng plants and related supp ly and service firms. DOE will evaluate direct employment impacts in the manufacturer impact analysis, as described
in section 12.

Indirect employment impacts are impacts on the national economy other than in the manufacturing sector being re gulated. Indirect impacts may result both from expenditures shifting among goods (the substitution effect) and ch anges in income that lead to a change in overall expenditure levels (the income effect). DOE defines indirect em ployment impacts from standards as net jobs eliminated or created in the general economy as a result of increased spending driven by the increased equipmen t prices and reduced spending on energy.

DOE will investigate the combined direct and indirect employment impacts in the employment impact analysis using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)’s “Impact of Sector Energy Technologies” (ImSET) model. PNNL de veloped ImSET for DOE’s Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis. The model estimates the em ployment and income effects of energy-saving technologies in buildings, indus try, and transportation. In comp arison with simple economic multiplier approaches, ImSET allows for more co mplete and automated analysis of the economic impacts of energy efficiency investments. Alt hough DOE intends to use ImSET for its analysis of employment impacts, it welcomes input on other tools and factors it might consider.

Item 14-1 DOE welcomes feedback on its planned approach for assessing national employment impacts, both direct and indirect, and it is interested in whether other tools or factors should be considered as part of its analysis. If ot her tools or factors should be considered, please identify them and explain why, and how, they should be integrated into DOE's analysis.

15. EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

In the emissions analysis, DOE will estimate the reduction in power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO
x ), and mercury (Hg) using the NEMS-BT computer model. In the emissions analysis, NEMS-BT is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that wine chiller and other miscella neous residential refrigeration product energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel type) due to each considered standard level. The inputs of national energy savings come from the NIA spreadsh eet model, while the output is the forecasted physical emissions. The net benefit of each consid ered standard level is the difference between the forecasted emissions estimated by NEMS-B T at that level and the AEO 2011 Reference
Case.

6115.1 Carbon Dioxide

In the absence of any Federal emissions contro l regulation of power plant emissions of CO2, a DOE standard is likely to result in reductions of these emissions. The CO2 emission reductions likely to result from a standard will be esti mated using NEMS-BT and national energy savings estimates drawn from the NIA spreadsheet mode l. The net benefit of the standard is the difference between emissions estimated by NEMS-B T at each standard leve l considered and the AEO Reference Case. NEMS-BT tracks CO2 emi ssions using a detailed module that provides results with broad coverage of all sector s and inclusion of interactive effects.

15.2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs, and DOE has preliminarily determined that these programs create uncertainty about the potential standards’ impact on SO2 emissions. 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 Colu mbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states and D.C. are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based trading program. Although CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circu it (D.C. Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA , 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remains in effect temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’ s earlier opinion in North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a replacement for CA IR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). (See http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule /). On December 30, 2011, however, the D.C. Circuit stayed the new rules while a panel of judges reviews them, and told EPA to continue enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer City Generation v. EPA , No. 11-1302, Order at *2 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011)).

The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable pe rmits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess
SO 2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the imposition of an efficiency standard could be us ed to permit offsetting increases in SO 2 emissions by any regulated EGU. However, if the standard resulted in a permanent increase in the quantity of unused emissions allowances, there w ould be an overall reduction in SO 2 emissions from the
standards. While there remains some uncertain ty about the ultimate effects of efficiency standards on SO 2 emissions covered by the existing cap and trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast emi ssions reductions currently indicates that no physical reductions in power sect or emissions would occur for SO 2

.

15.3 Nitrogen Oxides

Under CAIR, there is a cap on NOx emissions in 28 eastern states and the Di strict of Columbia. All these States and D.C. have elected to re duce their NOx emissions by participating in capand-trade programs for EGUs. Therefore, energy conservation standards for wine chillers and other miscellaneous residential refrigeration pro ducts may have little or no physical effect on

62these emissions in the 28 eastern states and the D.C. for the same reasons that they may have little or no physical effect on NOX emissions. DOE is using the NEMS-BT to estimate NOx emissions reductions from possible standards in the States where emissions are not capped.

15.4 Mercury

In the absence of caps, a DOE energy conserva tion standard could reduce Hg emissions and DOE plans to use NEMS-BT to estimate these emission reductions. On December 21, 2011,
EPA announced national emissions standards for hazardous air pollu tants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 40 The NESHAPs do not include a trading program and, as such, DOE ’s energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. For the emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE plans to estimate mercury emissions reductions using NEMS-BT based on AEO2011 , which does not incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE expects that future versio ns of the NEMS-BT model will reflect the implementation of the NESHAPs.

15.5 Particulate Matter

DOE acknowledges that particulate matter (PM) exposure can impact human health. Power plant emissions can have either direct or indirect impacts on PM. A portion of the pollutants emitted by a power plant are in the form of particulates as they leave the smoke stack. These are direct, or primary, PM emissions. However, the great majo rity of PM emissions associated with power plants are in the form of sec ondary sulfates, which are produce d at a significant distance from power plants by complex atmospheric chemical reactions that often involve the gaseous (nonparticulate) emissions of power plants, mainly SO 2 and NO
x . The quantity of the secondary sulfates produced is determined by a very co mplex set of factors in cluding the atmospheric quantities of SO 2 and NO
x , and other atmospheric constituents and conditions. Because these highly complex chemical reactions produce PM comprised of different constituents from different sources, EPA does not di stinguish direct PM emissions from power plants from the secondary sulfate particulates in its ambient ai r quality requirements, PM monitoring of ambient air quality, or PM emissions inventories. For these reasons, it is not currently possible to determine how the amended standard impacts either direct or indi rect PM emissions. Therefore, DOE is not planning to assess the impact of these standards on PM emissions. Further, as described previously, it is uncertain whether efficiency standards will result in a net decrease in power plant emissions of SO 2 , which are now largely regulate d by cap and trade systems.

Item 15-1 DOE seeks input on its plans to use NE MS-BT to analyze emissions associated with the products covered by this potential rulemaking.

40 http://epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111216MATSfinal.pdf.

6316. MONETIZING CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

DOE plans to consider the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO 2 and NO X that are expected to result fr om each of the standard levels
considered.

In order to estimate the moneta ry value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions of CO 2 , 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 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including, but not limited to, net agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, propert y damage from sea level rise, and changes in ecosystem services. Any effort to qua ntify 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 qua ntification and monetization, the SCC can be used to provide
estimates of the social benefits of reductions in GHG emissions.

At the time of this notice, the most recent interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emissions reducti ons that occur in late r years, these values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects, although DOE will give preferen ce to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO 2 emissions. To calculate a present value of the stream of m onetary values, DOE will discount 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 knowle dge continues to evolve rapidly as to the contribution of CO 2 and other GHG to changes in the futu re global climate and the potential resulting damages to the world economy. Thus , these values are subject to change.

DOE also intends to estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO X emissions resulting from the standard levels it considers. For NO
x emissions, available estima tes suggest a very wide range of monetary values for NO X emissions, ranging from $450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$. 41 In accordance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, DOE will conduct two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using each of the economic values used for
NO
x , one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 7 percent. 42

DOE does not plan to monetize estimates of Hg in this rulemaking. DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate rang e of values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance

41 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities , Washington, DC.

42 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).

64regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions be fore it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

In the NOPR stage of this rulemaking, DOE will prepare a regulatory impact analysis that will address the potential for non-regul atory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards to improve the efficiency of resident ial wine chillers on the market. DOE recognizes that voluntary or other non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities, and other interested parties can result in substantia l efficiency improvements. DOE intends to analyze the likely effects of non-regulatory initiatives on produc t energy use, consumer utility, and LCCs. DOE will attempt to base its assessment on the actual impacts of any such initiatives to date, but will also consider information presen ted regarding the impact s that any existing in itiative might have
in the future.

If DOE proposes energy conserva tion standards for wine chillers and the NOPR constitutes a significant regulatory action, DOE would prepare and submit to OMB for review the assessment of costs and benefits requir ed under section 6(a)(3) of Ex ecutive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

65APPENDIX A – DRAFT PRELIMINARY M ANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS QUESTIONAIRE

1 Issues

1.1 What are the key issues for your company regarding a possible future product rulemaking?

2 Shipment Projections

2.1 What is your company’s approximate market share?
2.2 Would you expect your market share to change once standards become effective? Does your outlook change with higher efficiency levels?
2.3 How would you expect shipments to change fo r the industry as a whole as a function of standards and why?
2.4 Looking at price/cost effects only, how woul d you expect shipments to change for a 5 percent, 10 percent, 25 per cent, or 50 percent manufact urer price/cost increase?

3 Conversion Costs

3.1 What level of capital expenditure and produc t conversion costs would you anticipate to make at higher standard levels? Please desc ribe what they are and provide your best estimate of their respective magnitudes.
3.2 How would the imposition of new energy conserva tion standards affect capacity utilization and manufacturing assets at your domestic production facilities? Would a new standard result in stranded capital assets? Would any f acilities be closed or downsized? Added or upgraded?
3.3 How might a new standard impact product innovation?

4 Product Mix and Profitability

4.1 How would your company’s product mix and mark eting strategy change with changes in the efficiency standard?
4.2 What distribution channels are used from the ma nufacturer to the retail outlet? What is the share of product going through each distribution channel?
4.3 Generally, how would new product standards affect your customer mix, distribution channels, and correspon ding profit margins?
4.4 How might a new standard affect the ENER GY STAR program, and consequently your
firm?

5 Market Shares and Industry Consolidation

5.1 In the absence of new standards, do you expect any industry consolidation?
5.2 How would new standards affect your ability to compete?
5.3 Could new standards disproportionately adva nce or harm the competitive positions of
some firms?

665.4 Are there concerns over intellectual property?
5.5 Could new standards result in disproportiona te economic or performance penalties for particular consumer/user subgroups?
5.6 Beyond price and energy efficien cy, could new standards result in products that will be
more or less desirable to consumers due to changes in product functionality, utility, or
other features?

6 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

6.1 Are there recent or impending regulations on your specific pr oduct or other products that impose a cumulative burden on the industry?
6.2 If so, what is the total expected impact of those other regulations?

67APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF ITEM S FOR STAKEHOLDER COMMENT

Summary of all items for stakeholder comme nt contained in the framework document.

Item 1-1 DOE requests shipment information from st akeholders for wine chillers and related refrigeration products. Segregation of such data is desired if possible by type of refrigeration technology (thermoelectric, vapor-compression, absorption), product size, product class, and any ot her relevant characteristics ........................................ 11 Item 1-2 DOE requests energy use data for wine ch illers and related refrigeration products that is not readily availabl e in public databases such as that of the CEC. DOE requests that the data identify model nu mbers or basic product information (e.g. cabinet volume) and that the method of determining the energy use be identified for such data, specifically to identify the test procedure used and/or to indicate that the data are estimates, field measurements, or determined by other methods. DOE requests that such data be segregated if possible according to refrigeration technology, product class, a nd/or product size. ......................................................... 12 Item 1-3 DOE requests comment on its options fo r establishing coverage and energy conservation standards for wine chillers. .................................................................. 12 Item 1-4 DOE requests comment on the suggested defi nition for wine chiller and the modified definitions for refrigerator and compact products..................................................... 13 Item 1-5 DOE requests comments from stakeholde rs regarding the se lection of a term identifying the product category associat ed with wine chillers and related refrigeration products whose compartment temperatures are warmer than 39  ̊ F— should they all just be called wine ch illers? In addition, DOE seeks comment on whether multiple product categories are necessary to address such products. .......... 13 Item 1-6 DOE requests general comments on its draft framework for addressing products that include fresh food and/or freezer compartments as well as wine storage compartments. ........................................................................................................... 16 Item 1-7 DOE seeks information regarding the type s and configurations of products that might need to be considered under such a framework, including examples showing product details and information on annual sh ipments associated with such products.
16 Item 1-8 DOE seeks comment on whether there should be a threshold size or percent of total volume for wine storage compartments that would push a product out of the current definitions for refrigerator, refrigerato r-freezer, or freezer into hybrid product categories. If so, what should this thre shold be? What types of hybrid product categories should be established? .............................................................................. 16 Item 1-9 DOE seeks comment on what kinds of test procedure revisions would be required to address these products, whether covered unde r the existing product categories or by new categories? ......................................................................................................... 16 Item 1-10 DOE seeks comment on whether it should develop separate definitions and energy conservation standards for hybrid products. .............................................................. 16 Item 1-11 DOE seeks information regarding whethe r refrigeration produ cts which operate on either alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC) el ectricity are distributed to any significant extent in commerce for pe rsonal or consumer use in stationary

68applications (e.g., in homes). What types of such products are sold, what are their annual shipment levels in the U.S., and wh at are their energy use characteristics? .. 17 Item 1-12 DOE seeks comment on the merits of developing test procedures, definitions, and energy conservation standards for refriger ation products which operate on either alternating current (AC) or dire ct current (DC) electricity. ...................................... 17 Item 1-13 DOE requests information regarding whethe r there are any resi dential refrigeration products not yet covered by energy conserva tion standards, other than the wine chillers and related hybrid products noted earlier, that DOE should regulate through energy conservation standards? Assuming such products exist, what are they (i.e. types), what are their annual shipment levels in the U.S ., and what are their energy use characteristics? .................................................................................................... 18 Item 1-14 DOE seeks information regarding resident ial ice makers. Specifically, DOE seeks information regarding: (1) the annual sales levels for such products in the U.S,; (2) whether test procedures exist to addre ss the energy use of these products; (3) information regarding the typical annual en ergy use of such a product in a residential usage setting; and (4) what information DOE should consider when determining whether to cover these products and what en ergy conservation sta ndard levels to set for them?.................................................................................................................... 18 Item 1-15 DOE seeks comment on what design and performance characteristics distinguish wine chillers used in commercial applica tions from residential wine chillers. DOE also requests comment on whether any wine chillers used in commercial applications are manufactured on the same product lines as residential wine chillers. Finally, DOE seeks information as to whether any co mmercial wine chillers are distributed in commerce for personal or consumer use. If any commercial wine chillers are in fact sold to individual consumers, DOE seeks details regarding the magnitude of those sales as a percentage of tota l sales of those products. ............................................... 20 Item 1-16 DOE requests comment on whether commercial and residential wine chillers should be covered under the same test procedur es and energy conservation standards. ...... 20 Item 1-17 DOE seeks information regarding the pr evalence of “near-fre ezer” products. DOE also seeks input regard ing the need to revise the current freezer definition and/or test procedures to address such products. Furt her, DOE seeks input on whether it should include these products under ex isting classes or cr eate separate pr oduct classes and standards for these products. If so, DOE requests comments regarding the nature of such needed revisions. ............................................................................................... 21 Item 1-18 DOE seeks comment regarding whether ther e are any other key issues, aside from the ones noted in this document, that DOE should consider when developing test procedures for wine chillers and related re frigeration products, and, if so, what these
issues are. ................................................................................................................... 22 Item 1-19 DOE requests comment regarding a potential definition for compartments used in wine chillers and related refrigeration pr oducts that are currently not covered under the existing refrigeration product definitions. What compartment types should be defined and what should their standardized temperatures for energy testing be? ..... 23 Item 1-20 DOE requests comments on whether a correct ion factor is appropr iate for calculating wine chiller energy use, and if so, whet her 0.85 is an appropriate value for the correction factor. DOE further requests in formation supporting the selection of any recommended correction factor. ................................................................................ 23

69Item 1-21 DOE requests input from stakeholders on its tentative conclusion that separate test procedures to address standby and off modes are not required for wine chillers and related refrigeration products. ................................................................................... 25 Item 1-22 DOE requests comments from stakeholders regarding the possible acceleration of the timeline to publish the final rule and potential implications. .................................... 29 Item 3-1 DOE requests information that would cont ribute to the market assessment for the residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products that would be covered in this potential rulemaking. Ex amples of information sought include current product features and efficiencies , product-feature and efficiency trends, historical product shipments and prices). .................................................................. 31 Item 3-2 DOE requests input from stakeholders on the proposed product classes. What other factors, if any, should DOE consider beyond those identified above as a basis for developing product classes? When answer ing, please explain in detail and cite specific examples to th e extent possible. ................................................................... 32 Item 3-3 DOE requests information on solid-door pr oducts that would fit the definitions anticipated for wine chillers including : the prevalence of such products, the efficiency differences, if any, with respect to transparent-door products versus those products with solid doors, and whether there is sufficient consumer utility associated with transparent doors to me rit creating a separate produc t class on this basis? ...... 32 Item 3-4 DOE requests information on whether a ny wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products utilize heating (electric or otherwis e) on glass surfaces or on door face frames to prevent condensation. If so, what types of products utilize such heating and what percentage of shipments do they represent? ................................. 33 Item 3-5 DOE seeks clarification on whether any wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products utilize defrost heati ng (i.e. automatic defrost me thods other than by frost melting during the compressor off-cycle). If s o, what types of products utilize defrost heating and what percentage of shipments do they represent? DOE also requests clarification on whether any wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products utilize manual defrost—what types of products require manual defrost and what percentage of shipments do they represent? .............................................................. 33 Item 3-6 DOE requests information regarding whethe r any wine chillers or miscellaneous refrigeration products utilize anti-sweat heating of any kind (electric resistance, refrigerant loop, etc.)? ............................................................................................... 33 Item 3-7 DOE seeks comment on whether any additi onal technologies in addition to the ones identified above should be considered for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. ............................................................................................... 34 Item 4-1 Are there any technologies listed in Table 3.2 that DOE should not consider because of any of the four screening criteria? If so, which screening criteria apply to the cited technology or technologies? ...................................................................................... 35 Item 5-1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the equations for maximum annual energy consumption of the California and Ca nadian regulations are appropriate to represent the perfor mance of baseline wine chillers. ................................................ 37 Item 5-2 DOE requests feedback on the use of a design-option approach based on energy modeling and some energy testing as need ed, possibly enhanced by data collection organized by AHAM or other parties to determine the relationship between
manufacturer cost and annual energy consumption. Particular ly, DOE is interested in

70whether this approach is appropriate for developing a cost/efficiency relationship for use as the basis for standards-setting and if the industry, AHAM, or any other parties are prepared to provide cost-efficiency in formation to support the rulemaking. If the suggested approach is not a ppropriate, why is it not? ............................................... 39 Item 5-3 DOE seeks input from stakeholders regard ing the range of efficiency levels that should be examined as part of its analysis. ............................................................... 41 Item 5-4 DOE seeks comment on how to select repr esentative products for detailed analysis and on how to extrapolate such analyses to the full range of wine chiller and
miscellaneous residential refrigeration products. ...................................................... 41 Item 5-5 Are there proprietary designs or technologies of which DOE should be aware for the products under consideration in this rulemaking? If so, how should DOE acquire the cost data necessary for evaluating these designs? ..................................................... 42 Item 5-6 Are there outside regulatory issues that DOE should cons ider in its analysis of residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products? If so, please identify what they are and how DOE s hould consider them for purposes of its analysis. ..................................................................................................................... 42 Item 6-1 DOE welcomes suggestions and comment s concerning its proposed approach for developing estimates of fu ture retail prices. .............................................................. 44 Item 7-1 DOE seeks comments on the proposed approach of estimating the annual energy consumption of wine chillers based on a co mbination of NPD sales data, CEC model data, and California’s energy conservation standards equations for establishing maximum energy use. ................................................................................................ 45 Item 7-2 DOE seeks input on potential data sour ces for establishing the annual energy consumption of wine chillers. ................................................................................... 45 Item 7-3 DOE seeks comments on the viability of usi ng in situ field measurements of wine chiller energy use as a proposed basi s for characterizing the product’s energy consumption. ............................................................................................................. 45 Item 7-4 DOE seeks comments on whether annual ener gy use is best characterized with a sensitivity analysis to determine how hi gh and low estimates of energy use might impact the economic feasibility of any am ended energy conservation standards. .... 45 Item 7-5 DOE seeks comments on the rebound effect associated with more efficient wine chillers. In other words, DOE seeks i nput on what portion of the energy savings resulting from more efficient equipment may be lost due to consumers purchasing larger or more featur e laden equipment. ................................................................... 45 Item 8-1 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the pr oposed approach of using probability distributions and Monte Carl o simulation to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis. ... 48 Item 8-2 DOE requests data from stakeholders to ch aracterize the current mix of wine chiller efficiencies in the market. ......................................................................................... 48 Item 8-3 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the pla nned approach for estimating current and forecasted energy prices. ........................................................................................... 49 Item 8-4 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the merits of its proposed analyt ical assumption that changes in maintenance, repair, and insta llation costs will be negligible for moreefficient residential wine chillers. If it is incorrect, DOE is interested in the reasons why this is so and in specific ways in which to correct this assumption. ................. 49 Item 8-5 DOE seeks stakeholder input on appropriate product lifetimes for wine chillers. Specifically, DOE seeks data sources for establishing product lifetimes and

71information regarding the merits of wh ether standard-sized and compact-sized refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer lifetimes are representative of wine
chillers.

..................................................................................................................... . 50 Item 8-6 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the planne d approach for estimating discount rates
for residential consumers.

.......................................................................................... 50 Item 9-1 DOE seeks historical shipments data from stakeholders. If such data are provided, DOE requests that market share data show ing the percentage of product shipments for compressor/condenser-based and thermo electric-based products be included.

... 51 Item 9-2 If stakeholders are unable to provide historical shipme nts data, DOE seeks comment on which data source is more representa tive of historical shipments, the AHAM shipments data or the NPD Group sales data and why.

............................................. 51 Item 9-3 DOE seeks input on the types of potential s cenarios it should use to forecast basecase shipments and the reason(s) for the suggested scenario(s).

............................... 52 Item 9-4 As part of a possible preliminary manuf acturer impact analysis, DOE seeks input from manufacturers on the potential impact of new energy conservation standards on wine chiller shipments. DOE also seek s input from other stakeholders on the potential impact of standard s on product shipments.

................................................ 52 Item 9-5 DOE also requests input on any market-pull programs that currently exist to promote the adoption of more-efficient wine chillers.

............................................................ 52 Item 10-1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data for wine chillers. DOE also seeks historical market share data showing the per centage of product shipments by efficiency level.

.......... 54 Item 10-2 DOE seeks input on its plan to develop NES spreadsheet models for estimating national impacts of amended energy conser vation standards for wine chillers. For example, are spreadsheet models still the preferred approach for estimating national impacts?

..................................................................................................................... 54 Item 11-1 DOE requests input as to what, if a ny, consumer subgroups are appropriate in considering standards for wine chillers.

.................................................................... 56 Item 12-1 DOE seeks comment on the appropriat e manufacturer subgroups, if any, for residential wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products that DOE should
consider in a manufactur er subgroup analysis.

......................................................... 58 Item 12-2 What other regulations or pending re gulations should DOE consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory burden?

......................................................... 60 Item 13-1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on its plans to use NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact analysis. Examples of the t ype of input sought by DOE include, but are not limited to, whether the NEMS-BT model is appropriate for assessing the utility impacts of efficiency standards — and if not, what would be a more appropriate
model to use?

............................................................................................................. 60 Item 14-1 DOE welcomes feedback on its planned a pproach for assessing national employment impacts, both direct and indir ect, and it is interested in wh ether other tools or factors should be considered as part of its analysis. If other tools or factors should be considered, please identify them and e xplain why, and how, they should be integrated into DOE's analysis.

................................................................................. 61 Item 15-1 DOE seeks input on its plans to use NEMS-B T to analyze emissions associated with the products covered by this potential rulemaking.

................................................... 63

72