1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

Energy Conservation Standards

Rulemaking for Miscellaneous

Consumer Refrigeration Products

Preliminary Analysis MeetingJanuary 9, 2015

Joseph Hage

Department of Building Techno

EERE‐2011‐BT‐SWineChillers‐200043@ee.doe.g
2

Welcome• Introductions (around the room)

• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules

– Speak one at a time.

– Say your name for the record – there will be a complete tra

this meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air‐time’.

– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar

conversations.

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks
3

Agenda

9:00 am – 9:30 am9:30 am – 9:40 am

9:40 am – 10:40 am

10:40 am – 11:20 am11:20 am – 11:50 am11:50 am – 12:05 am

12:05 am – 1:00 pm

1:00 pm – 1:30 pm1:30 pm – 2:00 pm

WelcomeOverviewMarket/Technology, Screening, & E

Markups, Energy Use, Life‐Cycle, & Shipments & National Impact AnalyManufacturer Impact AnalysisLunchNotice of Proposed Rulemaking AnNext Steps & Closing Remarks
4

Listening Via the Webcast• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live ov

Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stake

unable to attend the public meeting in person.

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in an

the slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written co

after the public meeting.
5

Purpose of the Public Meeting• Inform all interested parties and facilitate this rulema

process.

• Present DOE’s procedural and analytical approaches 

evaluate potential energy conservation standards (EC

Miscellaneous Consumer Refrigeration (MREF) Produ

• Discuss next steps.• Invite participants to provide summary comments or

statements and raise additional issues for discussion.
6

Issues for Discussion

Issues on which DOE seeks comment are listed in thepreliminary technical support document (TSD) executiv

summary, available at:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

BT‐STD‐0043‐0024The deadline for submitting comments is February 2, 2

11:59 PM ET.

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information concerning the Notice of Proposed Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary TechnicSupport Document. Issues that correspond to thosraised in DOE’s published material will be numberin accordance with that material. Whether invited ban issue box or not, comments are welcome on anpart of DOE’s analysis.
7

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening remarks 

statements at this time.
8

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
9

Overview: Regulatory HistoryThis is the first DOE rulemaking effort to consider ene

conservation standards for miscellaneous residentialrefrigeration products.

• EPCA currently covers refrigerators, refrigerator‐free

and freezers meeting the following criteria (42 U.S.C

6292(a)(1)):

• Operation using alternating current (AC) electricity only

• Design for use with a door.

• Inclusion of a compressor and condenser as integral par

cabinet assembly.

• Current regulatory definitions further limit energy

conservation standards (ECS) coverage to products t

designed to be capable of achieving storage tempera

below 39 °F.
10

Overview: Regulatory HistoryDOE proposed coverage of the products addressed in t

rulemaking with two coverage proposals.

• November 2011 Coverage Proposal (76 FR 69147):

Proposed coverage of refrigeration products that do 

incorporate compressors.

• October 2013 Coverage Proposal (78 FR 65223): Pro

coverage of the following products under a single neproduct category :

• Hybrid refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers

(combining warm compartments, such as wine storage

compartments, with fresh food and freezer compartme

• Cooled cabinets (such as wine chillers, composed entire

warm compartments)

• Refrigeration products that do not use vapor compressi

• Ice makers
11

Overview: Regulatory HistoryDOE published a Test Procedure NOPR for these produ

December 16th, 2014 (79 FR 74894):

• In the NOPR, DOE proposed product definitions for t

following:

• hybrid refrigeration products.

• cooled cabinets.• non‐compressor refrigeration products.

• ice makers.

• Specifically, DOE proposed to collectively define all s

products as “miscellaneous refrigeration products” (products), and proposed energy use metrics and test

methods for them.
12

Overview: Rulemaking Timeline

Pro

R

ECS Preliminary 

Analysis and TP NOPR

Public Meetings

January 8-9 2015

ECS Framework 

Document Public 

Meeting

February 22, 2012

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2
13

Overview

FrameworkDocument NOPR Final Rule Preliminary Analysis

Market and Technology Assessment

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination

ShipmentsAnalysis

Energy Use Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis
14

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
15

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-Cycle Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PMImA

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
16

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringMarket Assessment• Purpose

• Characterize the MREF product market and manufacture

• Determine scope of coverage.

• Determine appropriate product classes.

• Method

• Identify MREF manufacturers and their product offering

conducting a study of the MREF market.

• Use available shipment data to characterize market tren

• Develop appropriate product classes consistent with EPC

• A detailed description of methodology and results is

contained in Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD.
17

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringProduct Types• DOE is considering energy conservation standards fo

different MREF product categories:

• Cooled cabinets

• Hybrid refrigeration products

• Non‐compressor refrigerators

• Ice makers

• DOE proposed definitions for each of these products 

Test Procedure (TP) NOPR and is considering the poss

creating product classes within each category.
18

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

The test procedure NOPR proposed definitions forCooled Cabinets• Cooled Cabinet: A cabinet having a source of refrigeration

requiring electric energy input only and capable of

maintaining compartment temperatures either (a) no lower

than 39 °F or (b) in a range that extends no lower than 37  ̊F

but at least as high as 60  ̊F.

• Non‐Compressor Cooled Cabinet: A cooled cabinet that

has a source of refrigeration that does not include a

compressor and condenser unit.

• These products are marketed as wine chillers, wine coolers,

wine refrigerators, beverage coolers, and beverage centers.

• Distinct from refrigerators in that they cannot achieve safe

fresh food storage temperatures.

• The proposed definition would include products using DC

as well as AC power input.
19

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringDOE proposed a definition for non‐compressor refrige

• “

. . . a cabinet that has a source of refrigeration that 

include a compressor and condenser unit, requires eenergy input only, and is capable of maintaining com

temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F. . . .”

• Known non‐compressor refrigerator (NCR) products u

thermoelectric or absorption refrigeration.
20

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringDOE has not considered multiple cooled cabinet produ

classes in the preliminary analysis.

• DOE has not identified consumer utility differences t

would justify separate product classes for vapor‐comand non‐compressor (thermoelectric and absorption

cabinets.

• DOE is not considering separate classes based on def

because:

• Nearly all automatic‐defrost cooled cabinets use off‐cycle d

• DOE tested one example cooled cabinet that uses a resistan

for defrost, but defrost for this unit accounts for less than 2

total energy consumption.

Issue Box 1: Should DOE consider separate product classes for cooled cabinets? If so, what consumer utfeatures and energy use differences would justify the
21

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringDOE has not considered multiple non‐compressor refrproduct classes in the preliminary analysis.

• DOE has not identified consumer utility differences t

would justify separate product classes based on refritechnology (e.g., thermoelectric or absorption). Limishow that energy use characteristics of these technoalso similar.

• DOE has not identified NCR products that use resista

heaters for defrost or that have manual defrost.
22

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringAbsorption Refrigerators

• DOE’s collected data indicate that only 0.2% of home

absorption refrigerators.

• Two‐thirds of the absorption refrigerator stock is fou

hotels, although models designed for hotels generally to be indistinguishable from residential models.

• DOE has tentatively concluded that all absorption‐ba

refrigerators, including those used in hotels that are

otherwise indistinguishable in terms of utilities and ffrom those offered as residential models, are consum

products.
23

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators• DOE testing indicates that non‐compressor refrigerat

typically unable to achieve storage temperatures of 3

below using an ambient test condition of 90 °F.

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Issue Box 2: Do any non-compressor refrigerators exist that can maintain storage temperatures of 39 or below in ambient temperatures of 90 °F? If not, non-compressor technologies theoretically capabof maintaining these compartment temperatures?
24

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringDOE proposed separate definitions for different hybrid

refrigeration products, e.g., hybrid refrigerator, hybrid 

• Hybrid products include as at least half of their volume one o

compartments capable of achieving storage temperatures ei

lower than 39 °F or (b) in a range that extends no lower than 

at least as high as 60  ̊F (cellar compartments).

• The TP NOPR proposed definitions for:

• Hybrid all‐refrigerators

• Hybrid refrigerators

• Hybrid refrigerator‐freezers

• Hybrid freezers

• Hybrid non‐compressor refrigerators.

• A product with cellar compartments comprising

less than half of its refrigerated volume would not be

a “hybrid,” but would instead be a refrigerator,

refrigerator‐freezer, etc.
25

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

DOE is considering product classes for hybrid refrigerat

products that are consistent with those established in 

standards for refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and fr

• DOE performed the preliminary analysis using a class 

based on the following criteria for conventional produ

• Compact vs. Standard‐Size• Compartment types and orientation

• Freezer compartment temperature range

• Defrost type• Through‐the‐door ice service

• Built‐in configuration

• For hybrid products known to DOE, products would b

to a product class as if the “warm” compartment(s) wpresent.
26

DOE is aware of hybrid products available in four produ

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

ProductClass Product Description Defrost Type Ice Make

Standard‐sized products

H‐3A‐BI Built‐in hybrid all‐refrigerator Automatic None 

H‐9I‐BI Built‐in upright hybrid freezer with internal icemaker Automatic Interna

Compact products

H‐11A Compact hybrid all‐refrigerator with manual defrost Manual None 

H‐13A Compact hybrid all‐refrigerator with automatic defrost Automatic None 

Issue Box 3: Are there currently hybrid refrigeratproducts on the market for which there is no cleaselection of the appropriate class, based on classfor conventional refrigerators, refrigerator-freezerand freezers? Additionally, should DOE allow separate product classes for built-in hybrid refrigeration products?
27

Market/Technology, Screening, & EngineeringDOE proposed an ice maker definition.

• Ice Maker: A consumer product designed to automa

produce and harvest ice, but excluding any type that 

achieved certification under ANSI/NSF 12‐2012. Such 

may also include a means for storing ice, dispensing i

storing and dispensing ice.

• Refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, freezers, hybrid

refrigeration products, non‐compressor refrigerators

cooled cabinets would be excluded from the definitio

maker.
28

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

DOE is considering three product classes for IMs, distin

by their ice storage temperatures and water connectio

• Cooled‐Storage Ice Makers (IM‐C): IMs that maintain ice storag

temperatures below 32 °F.

• Typically produce crescent‐shaped ice, similar to the ice produc

automatic icemakers found in residential freezers and refrigera

• Uncooled‐Storage Ice Makers (IM‐U): IMs that do not maintain 

bin temperatures below 32 °F.

• Typically produce clear ice using a process similar to that used i

automatic commercial ice makers.

• Require a drain connection to remove the melt water that colle

• Portable Ice Makers (IM‐P): IMs that do not require connection 

household water supply for operation and are operable using on

on‐board reservoirs that must be manually supplied with water.

• Generally small, designed for countertop or portable use.

• Known products have uncooled storage.
29

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Technology Assessment

• Purpose

• Characterize technology status of current products.

• Develop a preliminary list of technology options that cou

the efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration products.

• Method

• DOE characterized products and identified technology op

• Literature review.

• Manufacturer brochures and specification sheets for comm

available equipment.

• Comments and input from stakeholders.

• Testing and reverse engineering.

• All technology options are described in Chapter 3 of t

preliminary TSD.
30

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Compressor

Improved compressorefficiency

Defrost

Off‐cycle defr

Variable‐speed compressor Reduced ener

Linear compressor Adaptive defr

Evaporator

Increased surface area Hot‐gas bypas

Enhanced heat exchanger

Other

Refrigeration

System

Options

Electronic tem

control

Forced‐convection evaporator Conversion to 

compression r

Con‐denser

Increased surface area Heat pipe

Enhanced heat exchanger TXV or EEV

Forced‐convection condenser Off‐cycle sole

Fan and Fan

Motor

Higher‐efficiency fan motorsHigher‐efficiency fan blades

DOE considered the following refrigeration system tecoptions in its preliminary analysis.
31

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Insulation

Improved resistivity of insulation

Increased insulation thicknessVacuum‐insulated panels

Gas‐filled panels

Gasket

Improved gaskets

Double‐door gasketsImproved door face frame

Doors

Improved resistivity of glass door

Solid door

Other Component location

DOE considered the following cabinet technology optiopreliminary analysis for miscellaneous refrigeration pro
32

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PrMaImAn

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
33

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Screening Analysis

• Purpose: Determine technology options considered i

engineering analysis by screening out options if they –

• Are not technologically feasible.

• Are not practicable to manufacture, install, and service.

• Have adverse impacts on product utility or availability to 

• Have adverse impacts on health or safety.

• The methodology and results are presented in detail i

4 of the Preliminary TSD.
34

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

The following technologies were screened out from thepreliminary analysis.

Linear compressors Improved insulation resistivit

Improved evaporator/condenser heatexchanger surfaces

Gas‐filled panels

High‐efficiency fan blades Gasket/face frame improvem

Improved expansion valve Component location

Fluid control or solenoid valve Switch from glass to solid doElectronic temperature control

Alternative Defrost (Off‐cycle,

adaptive, hot‐gas)
35

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Some design options were not considered for all produ

• For example, these technology options were not cons

the analysis for non‐compressor refrigerators.

• Improved glass door resistivity: Screened out for NCRs b

have solid doors rather than glass.

• Conversion to vapor‐compression refrigeration system: 

out for NCRs because conversion to vapor compression w

them in a different coverage category.
36

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PrMaImAn

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
37

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Engineering Analysis• Purpose

• Establish cost‐efficiency curves, the relationship between 

manufacturer selling price (MSP) and energy consumptio

with each efficiency level in each product class.

• Methods:

• Cooled Cabinets and Non‐Compressor Refrigerators: Co

efficiency‐level/design‐option/reverse‐engineering appro

• Ice Makers: Efficiency‐level approach.

• Hybrid Refrigeration Products: Consideration of the 201

Conservation Standards for conventional refrigeration pr

• The methodology and results are summarized in the f

slides and presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the PrelTSD.
38

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Manufacturer Markup

• Manufacturer Production Cost (MPC) is the cost of pr

the product.

• Manufacturer Selling Price (MSP) is the price at which 

manufacturer sells the product.

Manufacturer 

Production 

Cost (MPC)

Manufacturer

Markup =

Manufact

Selling P

(MSP

• Direct material• Direct labor• Factory overhead• Depreciation

• Sales & marketing• Research & development• Shipping (if paid by manufacturer)• Interest• Profit
39

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Manufacturer Markup

• DOE used the following manufacturer markups in its 

• Hybrids and vapor‐compression cooled cabinets: 1.26

• Non‐compressor cooled cabinets and refrigerators: 1.22

• Ice makers: 1.23

• DOE determined these markups as follows:

• DOE developed an average manufacturer markup for ea

class by examining the annual U.S. Security and Exchang

Commission (SEC) 10‐K reports covering the period betw

and 2012 filed by publicly owned manufacturing compan

in producing miscellaneous refrigeration products.
40

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Methodology: Cooled Cabinets and Non‐CompressorRefrigerators• Combined efficiency‐level/design‐option/reverse‐eng

approach

• Tests of products at different efficiency levels using the prop

procedure.

• Reverse engineering to identify design details and develop a 

material for manufacturing cost modeling.

• Energy analysis calibrated to test data and/or ratings to eva

efficiency improvements associated with groups of design o

• Manufacturing cost models and component cost data based 

information sources to calculate the incremental costs assoc

efficiency improvement.

• DOE developed one representative cost‐efficiency cur

NCRs and two for cooled cabinets (representing units 

and 6 ft3 volumes).
41

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

DOE’s analysis considered the following efficiency leve

cooled cabinets.

• The baseline efficiency, EL0, was defined by the least eff

on the market.

• EL 4 represents the CEC automatic‐defrost wine chiller s

multiplied by a factor of 0.65 to account for the differen

usage adjustment factors.

• DOE chose to compare other efficiency levels to EL4, since

manufacturers commented that this was the de‐facto stand

Efficiency Level Percent of CEC Eq. Energy Consumption

EL 0 267%

EL 1 200%

EL 2 160%

EL 3 130%

EL 4 (CEC Equivalent) 100%

EL 5 90%

EL 6 80%

EL 7 70%

EL 8 60%

EL 9 50%

EL 10 40%

EL 11 (Max‐Tech) 32%

Note: EL 0 throug

for the 2 ft3 analys

thermoelectric coo
42

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

The Cooled Cabinet Cost‐Efficiency Curves are shown b

% of CEC‐Eq Energy Use
43

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Requests for comment regarding cooled cabinet engine

analysis—lower size limit for vapor‐compression produ

• The limited availability of compressors with low capa

suggests that there may be a practical lower limit (in

refrigerated volume) for vapor‐compression cooled c

Issue Box 4: Are additional data available on whethvapor compression is infeasible for cooled cabinets below a physical size or bottle capacity threshold?
44

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Requests for comment regarding cooled cabinet engine

analysis—thermoelectric efficiency trend with size.

• DOE’s testing indicates that smaller volume thermoel

cooled cabinets have a higher efficiency potential.

Issue Box 5: Are additional data available on the relationship between volume and efficiency in thermoelectric refrigeration products?

Storage Volume (ft3) Tested Energy Consumption (kWh/year) % of CEC‐Eq Energy Use

0.64 142 62%1.08 439 187%2.26 663 267%
45

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Requests for comment regarding cooled cabinet engine

analysis—vacuum‐insulated panels• DOE based its modeling of vacuum‐insulated panel (V

performance on feedback received regarding VIP per

during the 2011 refrigeration product rulemaking.

• However, DOE notes that none of this manufacturer f

specifically addressed cooled cabinets; thus, this infomay not extend to compartments operated at 55 °F.

Issue Box 6: Are additional data available on the thermal performance for cellar compartments using vacuum-insulated panels?
46

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

DOE is considering applying a standard adjustment fac

address varying temperature performance for non‐com

refrigerators.• In DOE testing of NCRs, none were able to maintain a

temperature within 9  ̊F of the 39  ̊F standardized tem

• In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the m

energy use would be based on a product’s cold‐settin

ambient) because this would be most representative 

energy use.

• This standard adjustment factor would reduce the allo

energy use to compensate for the compartment temp

warmer than 39 °F under test conditions since less en

should be needed to maintain the warmer temperatu

• Standard Adjustment Factor = (90 °F – TTest_Cold)/(90 °F 
47

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators: Standard Adjustment F

Issue Box 7: Should DOE incorporate the describestandard adjustment factor into its energy conservation standards for non-compressor refrigerators? If not, how should DOE address the fact that such products likely cannot maintain 39 °storage temperatures in the proposed test conditions? Is the proposed adjustment factor appropriate? If not, what should this factor be? 
48

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators Engineering Analysis.

• DOE’s analysis is based on testing, reverse engineering, and mod

the ERA modeling tool.

• DOE considered design options including insulation, heat pipe co

module’s hot side, and vacuum‐insulated panels.

• DOE defined efficiency levels at 5‐percent increments between t

and the max‐tech efficiency levels.

Baseline + Max‐Available Insulation* Max‐Available Unit Max‐Available with Added Insulation* 

E

Efficiency

(% Baseline) 100% 82% 79% 67% 

Insulation

Thickness

1.25” on all

sides, 1” on

door

1.5” on all sides,

2.5” on door

1.5” on all sides,

2.5” on door

2” on all sides,

2.5” on door

2” 

Heat Pipe None None Present Present 

Vacuum‐

Insulated Panels None None None None

c

* Note: These configurations are modeled.
49

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators Results: Cost‐Efficiency 

100% 90% 80% 70% 60

Percent of Baseline
50

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

DOE used an efficiency‐level approach to develop the c

efficiency relationship for ice makers.• DOE tested two models for each of the three product 

• DOE calculated the incremental costs of the different 

without regard to the particular design options used t

the efficiency increases.

• DOE developed manufacturing cost models based on 

engineering to calculate the incremental costs associa

the design differences.

• DOE developed one cost‐efficiency curve for each of t

ice maker product classes (IM‐P, IM‐C, and IM‐U).

• DOE did not develop a max‐tech level that exceeded t

maximum‐efficiency unit tested for any of its propose

maker product classes.
51

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Ice Maker Efficiency Levels

• (IM‐Portable):

• (IM‐Cooled‐Storage):

Efficiency Level Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption

EL 0 (Baseline) 256 100%

EL 1 230 90%EL 2 205 80%EL 3 179 70%EL 4 154 60%EL 5 128 50%EL 6 102 40%

EL 7 (Max‐Available) 89 35%

Efficiency Level Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption

EL 0 (Baseline) 552 100%

EL 1 524 95%EL 2 497 90%EL 3 469 85%EL 4 442 80%EL 5 414 75%

EL 6 (Max‐Available) 411 74%
52

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Ice Makers Efficiency Levels

• (IM‐Uncooled‐Storage):

Efficiency Level Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Percent of Baseline Energy Consumption

EL 0 (Baseline) 1,075 100%

EL 1 1,021 95%EL 2 968 90%EL 3 914 85%EL 4 860 80%EL 5 806 75%EL 6 753 70%EL 7 699 65%

EL 8 (Max‐Available) 672 63%
53

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Ice Maker Cost‐Efficiency Curves

IM – PortableIM – Cooled Storage

IM – Uncooled Storage
54

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Methodology: Hybrid Refrigeration Products

• Hybrid refrigeration products and conventional refrige

products are functionally and physically similar, with t

exceptions that have important energy use implicatio

• At least one of the compartments in a hybrid product is a 

compartment, not designed to achieve storage temperat

39 °F  Hence, thermal load in this compartment would 

than the thermal load of a fresh food or freezer compartm

• Doors providing access to the cellar compartment(s) are 

of glass  Hence, thermal load associated with the glass 

be greater than the thermal load associated with solid do

• The usage profile of a hybrid product is expected to more 

resemble the usage profile of a wine chiller rather than t

refrigerator or refrigerator‐freezer  Hence, the TP NOPR 

0.85 usage adjustment factor to reduce measured energy 
55

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Methodology: Hybrid Refrigeration Products

• The TP NOPR also proposed a 0.69 volume adjustmen

for cellar compartments, which would cause a hybrid 

have a lower maximum allowable energy consumptiocompared to an equivalently‐sized refrigerator.

• However, the effect of this factor should be balanced 

combined effects of the factors listed on the previous 

• DOE also expects that hybrid refrigeration products a

conventional refrigeration products would have equiv

COPs, since they should have similar condensing andevaporating temperatures.

• Therefore, because of these similarities in function an

use, DOE considered whether to apply the 2014 ECS f

conventional refrigeration products to hybrid refrigeraproducts.
56

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Methodology: Hybrid Refrigeration Products• DOE considered refrigerators that are minimally comp

the 2014 standards and used energy modeling to eva

corresponding energy use of equivalently‐sized hybrid

refrigerators, considering variations in:

• Glass door types

• Solid vs. glass door configurations (i.e., one single glass d

glass doors, or dual doors: glass for the cellar compartmfor the fresh food compartment)

• Insulation thicknesses

• Cellar volume percentages
57

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Results: Hybrid Refrigeration Products

• Results indicate that existing hybrid products that use 

doors to cover their entire refrigerated volume may reeither the use of more efficient glass doors or a solid 

their fresh food compartment in order to meet the 20

standards.

• As can be seen in the table on the next slide, all categ

hybrid products will be able to meet the existing stan

refrigerators by adding technology and design options 

already available on the market.
58

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Cellar %Volume

Doors Additional Design Options Needed to meet the existing stan

refrigerator‐freezers.

50% Solid Cellar, Solid FF N/A

Glass Cellar, Solid FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass OR 2" Insulation + High‐Efficien

Compressor (EER = 5.80)

Glass Cellar, Glass FF 2" Insulation + Max Tech FF Glass + Mid Tech Cellar Glass + H

Efficiency Compressor (EER = 5.80)

75% Solid Cellar, Solid FF N/A

Glass Cellar, Solid FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass + High Efficiency Compressor O

Insulation + Max Tech Glass (EER = 5.80)

Glass Cellar, Glass FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass + High Efficiency Compressor O

Insulation + Max Tech Glass

• Standard size hybrid refrigeration products with solid doors requir

additional design options to meet the existing standards. 

• DOE’s analysis showed that units with glass doors could meet the 

standard with the following design options:

STANDARD SIZE HYBRIDS
59

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Cellar %Volume

Doors Additional Design Options Needed to meet the existing st

refrigerator‐freezers.

50% Solid Cellar, Solid FF N/A

Glass Cellar, Solid FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass OR Higher Efficiency Compr

3.2)

Glass Cellar, Glass FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass + Higher Efficiency Compress

OR 2" Insulation + Max Tech Glass

Single Solid Door N/A

Single Glass Door 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass + Higher Efficiency Compress

OR 2" Insulation + Max Tech Glass

75% Solid Cellar, Solid FF N/A

Glass Cellar, Solid FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass OR Mid Tech Glass + Higher 

Compressor (EER = 3.2)

Glass Cellar, Glass FF 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass OR Mid Tech Glass + Higher 

Compressor (EER = 3.2)

Single Solid Door N/A

Single Glass Door 2" Insulation + Mid Tech Glass

• DOE’s analysis showed that units with glass doors could meet the 

standard with the following design options:

COMPACT HYBRIDS
60

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

Issue Box 8: Are the 2014 RF standards appropriate hybrid refrigeration products? Are additional data available on whether hybrid refrigeration systems aable to meet the standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers?
61

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
62

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PMIA

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
63

Markups Analysis• Purpose

• Determine consumer prices under a standards scenario 

manufacturer selling price (MSP).

• Characterize product distribution channels and market s

• Method

• Manufacturer markups were developed in the engineeri

analysis.

• Retailer markups are based on the “Electronics and App

Stores” industry data from the U.S. Census 2007 Annual 

Trade Survey (ARTS).

Manufacturer Retailer Consum
64

Markups Analysis

Markup Types

• Baseline Markups

– Relate the MSP of product with baseline efficiency to 

consumer purchase price.

– Cover all of retailer’s expenses plus profit.

• Incremental Markups

– Relate the incremental change in MSP of products wit

efficiency to the increase in consumer purchase price

– Cover only the expenses that increase due to an incre

efficiency.
65

Markups Analysis

Overall Markups

Product Scenario Manufacturer Markup Retailer Markup Sales Tax Hybrids & Vapor‐Compression CCs

Baseline

1.26

1.36

1.071

Incremental 1.11 

NCRs & Non‐

Compressor CCs

Baseline

1.22

1.36 

Incremental 1.11 

Ice Makers

Baseline

1.23

1.36 

Incremental 1.11 
66

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life‐Cycle Cost andPaybackPeriod Analysis

Market &Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

MarkupsAnalysis

PMImA

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
67

Energy Use Analysis• Purpose

• Estimate distributions of annual site energy us

representative of consumers in U.S.

• Method

• Develop distributions of volumes and usage be

• Determine efficiency market distributions.

• Estimate energy use with laboratory testing, fi

monitoring and manufacturer data.
68

Energy Use Analysis

Cooled Cabinet Capacities

• DOE used the results of a study that used online surveys to 

capacities. (LBNL study)

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Percentage of current stock

Capacity (cu ft)

Vapor ComprThermoeletri

• Vapor compression mean capacity 3.6 cu ft.• Thermoelectric mean capacity 1.5 cu ft.Greenblatt et al., U.S. Residential Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon

Mechanical Turk Surveys, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL‐6537E, November

2013.
69

Energy Use Analysis

Cooled Cabinet Efficiency Market Shares

• DOE used CEC and NRCan databases, retailer and manufacture

laboratory and field tests, to determine efficiency market share

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

80% 90% 100% 130% 160% 200% 267%

Fraction of products

% of CEC‐Equivalent Energy Consumption

Thermoelectric

Many products 

than CEC stand

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fraction of products

% of CEC‐Equivalent Energy Consumption

Vapor Compres
70

Energy Use Analysis

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators

• DOE used 1.7 cu. ft. volume from engineering analysi

• DOE used laboratory testing to estimate energy use.

• Thermoelectric

• DOE estimated that all units are at baseline efficiency (E

• DOE estimated baseline energy consumption as 672 kW

• Absorption

• DOE estimated that all units are at 95% of baseline effici

• DOE estimated EL 1 energy consumption as 638 kWh pe
71

Energy Use Analysis

Issue Box 5: Are additional data available on the estimated annual field energy use of non-compress(thermoelectric and/or absorption cooling) cooled cabinets and refrigerators?

Request for comment
72

Energy Use Analysis

Ice Makers

• DOE used laboratory testing from its engineering ana

estimate energy use.

• DOE assumed an ice production rate of 4 lbs/day whe• DOE assumed IM‐C and IM‐U are in constant use, wh

are in use 50% of the time.

• DOE assumed 50% of market share at baseline (EL 0), 

of market share at max‐available EL.
73

Energy Use Analysis

Issue Box 6: Are additional data available on the energy consumption and market shares of ice makers?

Request for Comment

• DOE relied on its own testing of two

representative IMs per product class for the

estimated energy use of these products.
74

Energy Use Analysis

Hybrid Products

• DOE reviewed manufacturer websites to determine 

capacities and energy use of hybrid products.

• DOE identified four product classes.

Product

Class

Adjusted

volume (AV)

(cu. ft.)*

2014 Standard

Equation

Maximum energy use

of standard (kWh/yr)

Estimated annua

energy use

(kWh/yr)

H‐3A‐BI 13.4 8.02AV + 228.5 336 516 

H‐11A 4.5 7.84AV + 219.1 254 365 

H‐13A 5.7 9.17AV + 259.3 312 441 

H‐9I‐BI 15.7 9.86AV + 344.9 500 413 
75

Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP)

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PreMaImAn

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
76

Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP)• Purpose

• Provide an economic evaluation from the end‐user’s perspective.

• Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total purchaser cost over the life of a p

• Payback Period (PBP) is the time required to recover the increase

price of more energy‐efficient products through reduced operatin

• Method

• Use 10,000 sample purchasers.

• Determine total installed costs for each EL.

• Determine operating costs for first year and lifetime of product.

• Calculate PBP by dividing average increase in installed cost by ave

decrease in first‐year operating cost.

• Calculate LCC by adding installed cost and lifetime operating costs

• Calculate LCC savings by subtracting LCC of each EL from LCC of th

would be purchased in the absence of a new standard.
77

LCC and PBP• Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 purchasers.• DOE developed samples from respondents to the LB• DOE estimated proportions of purchases within CC a

classes:

• CC: 15% Vapor compression, 85% Thermoelectric

• NCR: 90.5% Thermoelectric, 9.5% Absorption

Purchaser Samples
78

LCC and PBP• Baseline purchase price estimated from LBNL study.

Installed Cost

Product Mean Baseline Retail

Price (2013$)

CC‐1 508CC‐2 224NCR‐1 150

NCR‐2 150

• Constant price trend used for baseline and incremen

• Estimate costs in 2021 based on costs in 2012.

• Sales tax determined by geographic location of purch• Installation costs estimated from LBNL study.

• Assumed that costs would not vary with efficiency level.

Product Mean Basel

Price (2

IM‐P 189IM‐C 102

IM‐U 965
79

LCC and PBP• Annual energy consumption ‐‐ from the energy use a• Electricity price estimated using data from EIA.

• Estimated price based on geographic location.

• Repair and maintenance costs estimated from the LB

• Assumed that costs would not vary with efficiency level.

• Discount rates

• Used to discount operating costs to year of purchase (i.e

• Used a distribution of debt and asset classes for purchas

appliances.

• e.g., stocks, mutual funds, savings accounts, bonds, loans

Operating Cost
80

Operating Cost

• Lifetime

• CCs and NCRs: DOE fit a survival probability function to t

current age distribution estimated from the LBNL study.

• Other products: DOE assumed the lifetimes would be th

similar refrigeration products.

• Estimated mean values:

• 4.3 years for CCs and NCRs.• 8.0 years for IMs.• 17 years for H‐3A‐BI hybrids.• 22 years for H‐9I‐BI hybrids.

• 5.6 years for H‐11A and H‐13A hybrids.

LCC and PBP
81

LCC and PBP• ELs that purchasers would purchase in absence of a stand

• Estimated from efficiency market shares in energy use an

Base‐Case Distribution of ELs
82

LCC and PBP

Sample Results for Cooled Cabinets

EL

% of CEC‐

equivalent

energy

use

Average Costs

(2013$) Si

Pa

Pe

(y

Installed Cost 

First Year’s

Operating

Cost

Lifetime

Operating

Cost

LCC

0 267 292 86 357 649 

1 200 318 65 269 587 

2 160 334 53 217 551 

3 130 346 43 177 524 

4 100 358 34 138 496 

5 90 365 30 125 490 

6 80 385 27 112 497 

7 70 407 24 99 506 

8 60 425 21 86 511 

9 50 443 18 73 516 

10 40 531 15 60 591 

11 32 615 12 49 664 
83

LCC and PBP

Sample Results for Cooled Cabinets

EL

% of CEC‐

equivalent

energy use

% of Consumers that

Experience a Net Cost

Average Life‐Cycle

Cost Savings

(2013$)

0 267 0 0

1 200 0 32 160 0 93 130 0 19

4 100 0 33

5 90 2 39

6 80 22 32

7 70 44 23

8 60 51 18

9 50 58 13

10 40 87 ‐6111 32 95 ‐135
84

LCC and PBP

Sample Distribution of Results for Cooled Cabin
85

Request for Comment

Issue Box 11: Are additional data available on the historical, current, and projected future stocks, shipments and lifetimes of cooled cabinets, noncompressor refrigerators, ice makers, and hybrid refrigeration products?
86

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
87

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PMImA

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
88

Shipments Analysis• Purpose

• Estimate current shipments for each product.

• Project future shipments.

• Estimate the impact of new standards on future sh

• Methodology

• DOE estimated 2012 shipments from the LBNL stud

• Shipment projections are disaggregated into

• New construction

• Replacements• Shipments to hotels (absorption refrigerators only)

• The impact of new standards on future shipments w

projected using price elasticity.
89

Shipments Analysis

Base Case Shipments Projection

• Depicts the situation where new standards are not ad

• Shipments in 2012 were derived by dividing estimate

by the mean estimated product lifetime.

• Shipment projections in new construction were deriv

multiplying new housing starts from AEO 2014 by hosaturations.

• DOE assumed that household saturations of MREF pr

would remain constant.

• Shipments for replacements account for the balance 

shipments.
90

Shipments Analysis

Base Case Shipments Projections: Saturation in U.S

Class Product description 

Cooled cabinets

CC

Vapor‐compression wine chiller 

Thermoelectric wine chiller Cooled cabinet subtotal 

Non‐compressor refrigerators

NCR

Thermoelectric refrigerator Absorption refrigerator Non‐compressor refrigerator subtotal 

Ice makers

IM‐P Portable ice maker 

IM‐C Cooled‐storage ice maker 

IM‐U Uncooled‐storage ice maker Hybrid products

H‐3A‐BI Built‐in standard‐sized hybrid all‐refrigerators with automatic defrost 

H‐9I‐BI Built‐in standard‐sized hybrid freezers with automatic defrost and an autom

ice maker 

H‐11A Compact hybrid all‐refrigerators with manual defrost 

H‐13A Compact hybrid all‐refrigerators with automatic defrost 
91

Shipments Analysis

Summary of Base Case Shipments

Product class Estimated 2012 Shipments Estimated 2

Shipmen

Cooled cabinets

CC 2,900,000 4,490,00

Non‐compressor refrigeratorsNCR 1,100,000 3,820,00Ice makersIM‐P 506,000 790,000IM‐C 59,000 91,000

IM‐U 169,000 260,000

Hybrid refrigeration productsH‐3A‐BI 130,000 200,000H‐9I‐BI 40,000 62,000H‐11A 50,000 78,000H‐13A 200,000 310,000
92

Shipments Analysis

Standards Impacts on Shipments

• Standards‐case projections use purchase price increa

operating cost savings to estimate shipments impact

• A price elasticity factor, derived from a literature rev

other household appliances, was used to determine 

shipments would decrease due to increased purchas

• DOE found cooled cabinets shipments would decrea

standards were introduced at EL 5 and higher.

• For all other products, DOE found no impact of new

standards on shipments.
93

Shipments Analysis

Request for Comment

Issue Box 12: Are additional data available on the historical, current, and projected future stocks, shipments, and lifetimes of cooled cabinets, noncompressor refrigerators, ice makers, and hybrid refrigeration products?
94

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PMImA

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
95

National Impact Analysis• Purpose

• Assess the national‐level impacts at each efficiency leve

measured by:

• National Energy Savings (NES) full‐fuel‐cycle results

• Net Present Value (NPV) of total consumer economic impa

• Methodology

• Use the shipments model to estimate the total stock of 

MREF product.

• Aggregate the costs and energy use per unit in each yea

• The difference between the base case and standards cas

year yields the NES and the NPV of consumer economic 

• Account for the time‐value of money through defined di

rates.
96

National Impact Analysis Process• NES and NPV calculated for MREF products shipped 

period from 2021 ‐ 2050 (30 years of shipments).

Shipments Model

National Energy Savings

NationalEconomicImpacts

LCC Analysis Results and Other Inputs

Nati

Energy 

(Qua

Nati

Net Prese

(2013 US 
97

National Energy Savings Flow Diagram
98

National Consumer Net Present Value Flow Dia
99

National Impact Analysis InputsInput DescriptionTotal Installed Cost Total installed cost from the LCC analysis.

Annual Energy Use Annual energy use from the LCC analysis.

Base‐CaseEfficiencies

Shipments‐weighted efficiencies determined for the effectiv

base‐case efficiency distribution from LCC analysis.

Standards‐Case

ForecastedEfficiencies

Roll‐up scenario assumed for determining shipment‐weighte

each standards case.

Energy Prices Average prices and forecasted energy prices from EIA AEO 2

(to 2040) and extrapolation to 2080.

Full Fuel Cycle Multipliers to convert site energy to full‐fuel cycle energy.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory AnalysiPresent Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2014.
100

National Impact Analysis

National Energy Savings Results

by Standard Level

(Quadrillion British thermal units [quads])

Efficiency

Level CC NCR IM‐P IM‐C IM‐U H‐3A‐BI H‐11A H

1 0.052 0.063 0.012 0.001 0.008 0.019 0.003 0

2 0.139 0.134 0.024 0.003 0.017 0.043 0.010 0

3 0.292 0.204 0.036 0.004 0.025 0.051 0.012 0

4 0.518 0.275 0.048 0.006 0.033 0.055 0.015 0

5 0.618 0.346 0.059 0.007 0.042 0.017 0

6 0.733 0.416 0.071 0.008 0.050 0.019 0

7 0.852 0.487 0.077 0.058 0.020 0

8 0.976 0.501 0.0629 1.102

10 1.19911 1.266
101

National Impact Analysis

Cumulative Net Present Value

by Standard Level, 3% Discount Rate

(Billions of 2013 Dollars)

Efficiency

Level CC NCR IM‐P IM‐C IM‐

1 0.278 0.470 0.082 0.009 0.0

2 0.743 0.997 0.163 0.018 0.1

3 1.559 1.525 0.245 0.027 0.1

4 2.762 1.779 0.327 0.036 0.2

5 3.278 2.125 0.408 0.044 0.2

6 3.026 2.649 0.490 0.045 0.3

7 2.629 2.891 0.533 0.3

8 2.485 2.759 0.4

9 2.337

10 ‐1.95311 ‐5.985

Note: DOE did not develop cost‐efficiency curves for hybrid refrigeration

products; hence, it could not calculate NPV results for these products.
102

National Impact Analysis

Cumulative Net Present Value

by Standard Level, 7% Discount Rate

(Billions of 2013 Dollars)

Efficiency

Level CC NCR IM‐P IM‐C IM

1 0.118 0.208 0.036 0.004 0.02 0.315 0.441 0.072 0.008 0.03 0.661 0.675 0.107 0.012 0.04 1.171 0.775 0.143 0.015 0.05 1.388 0.920 0.179 0.019 0.16 1.226 1.151 0.215 0.020 0.17 0.989 1.245 0.234 0.18 0.875 1.175 0.19 0.758

10 ‐1.367

11 ‐3.345

Note: DOE did not develop cost‐efficiency curves for hybrid refrigeration

products; hence, it could not calculate NPV results for these products.
103

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
104

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-Cycle Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

PMImA

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
105

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA): Overview

• Purpose:

• To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers;

• To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer subgrou

may be more severely affected than the industry as a whol

• To examine the impacts on direct employment, product co

manufacturing capacity, and cumulative regulatory burden

industry.

• Methodology:

• Analyze industry cash flow and industry net present value (

through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (

and

• Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, deve

subgroup analyses, and address qualitative issues.
106

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA): Overview

Phase 1:• DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and ident

important issues that require consideration.

Phase 2:• DOE prepares the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) as a 

for analyzing industry cash‐flow and prepares an interview questionna

guide subsequent discussions and collect key data.

Phase 3:• DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of amended 

both quantitatively (using the GRIM) and qualitatively, examining imp

competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatory bu

Industry profile

Develop preliminary GRIM

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrywide / subgroupanalyses

Assess direemploymencompetition& cumulativburden 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
107

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Key Issues Identified During the Preliminary MI

• Timing of new standards relative to the 2014 ECS for

refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers;

• Impacts of higher selling prices;• Impacts on consumer utility;

• Capital and product conversion costs; and

• Disproportionate impacts on small businesses.
108

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
109

NOPR Stage

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employme

Impact

Analysis

Consumer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

RevisePreliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalysis

National

Impact

Analysis
110

NOPR Analyses• LCC Subgroup Analysis

• Effects on various national consumer subgroups.

• Manufacturer Impact Analysis

• Continue work begun in the preliminary MIA.

• Emissions Analysis and Monetization of Emission Red

Benefits

• Effects on airborne pollutant emissions.

• Utility Impact Analysis

• Model effects on generation capacity of utilities using N

• Employment Impact Analysis

• Indirect effects on national employment.

• Regulatory Impact Analysis

• Potential for non‐regulatory approaches.
111

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering3 Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle, & Payback4 Shipments and National Impact Analysis5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analysis

7 Closing Remarks
112

Closing Remarks

Issue Box 13: General Comments on Analyses or AssumDuring each stage of the preliminary analysis, DOE madassumptions related to key parameters of the analytical on the premises that the assumed parameters reflect the conditions that miscellaneous refrigeration products expThese assumptions are described in the respective TSD DOE welcomes comments on these assumptions.
113

Closing Remarks

DOE welcomes any closing remarks from interested par
114

How to Submit Written CommentsIn all correspondence, please refer to the MREF rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Miscellaneo

Consumer Refrigeration Products

– Docket Number EERE‐2011‐BT‐STD‐0043

– Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AC51

Email: WineChillers‐2011‐STD‐0043@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Building Technologies Prog

Mailstop EE‐2J 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Sui

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585‐0121 Tel: 202 586‐2945

Comment period closes February 2, 2015, 11:59 PM 
115

Relevant Webpages• DOE Appliance Standards

• http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/standards‐and‐test‐pr

• Miscellaneous Consumer Refrigeration Products Ru

• http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_stan

emaking.aspx/ruleid/71
116

BACKUP SLIDES
117

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

The following table shows the design option groups for cooled cabinet analysis.• The first three levels represent tested units, while the f

represents a theoretical max‐tech efficiency level.

• For the tested units, efficiency levels are an average of 

measurements.

Baseline Unit:

~100% of Baseline

Medium‐Efficiency Unit:

75% of Baseline

Max‐Available Unit:

48% of Baseline

Max‐Tech 

32% 

Condenser Fan

Motor SPM SPM SPM 

Insulation

Thickness

1.75” on top and

rear, 1.5” on sides

and bottom

1.5” on top, sides, and

rear, 2” on bottom 2” on all sides 2” th

Vacuum‐

Insulated Panels None None None VIPs on 

su

Compressor EER 3.0 3.2 4.9 Var

Evaporator Coldwall Roll‐bond Roll‐bond with fan Force

Glass Door

Baseline (dual‐

pane, no low‐e

coating or inert gas

filling)

Baseline (dual‐pane, no

low‐e coating or inert gas

filling)

Medium‐tech (dual‐

pane, low‐e coating,

argon‐filled)

Max‐te

low‐e c
118

Market/Technology, Screening, & Engineering

The following table shows the design option groups for cooled cabinet analysis.• The first two levels represent tested units, while the re

three are based on the 6 ft3 curve.

Baseline

Thermoelectric Unit:

273% of Baseline

Baseline VC Unit:

87% of Baseline

Medium‐Efficiency

Unit: 75% of Baseline

Max‐Available Unit:

48% of Baseline

Condenser

Fan Motor N/A (Thermoelectric) N/A (Hotwall) SPM SPM 

Insulation

Thickness 2” on all sides

1” on sides, top,

and bottom, 1.25”

on rear

1.5” on top, sides, and

rear, 2” on bottom 2” on all sides 

Vacuum‐

Insulated

Panels

None None None None 

Compressor

EER N/A (Thermoelectric) 3.0 3.2 4.9 

Evaporator N/A (Thermoelectric) Roll‐bond Roll‐bond Roll‐bond with fan 

Glass Door

Baseline (dual‐pane, no

low‐e coating or inert

gas filling)

Baseline (dual‐

pane, no low‐e

coating or inert gas

filling)

Baseline (dual‐pane,

no low‐e coating or

inert gas filling)

Medium‐tech (dual‐

pane, low‐e coating,

argon‐filled)