CO2. (NRDC, No. 7 at p. 118) The Joint Comment agreed, stating that the analyses cannot be 

considered accurate descriptions of economic justification for standard setting until a realistic 

value for avoided CO2 emissions is included. It suggested that DOE utilize carbon values from 

EIA’s analysis of climate legislation proposed in Congress. (Joint Comment, No. 10 at p. 8) 

Whirlpool argued against using values for avoided CO2 in DOE’s analysis, stating that projected 

market values are too uncertain. (Whirlpool, No. 17 at p. 13) DOE has used updated estimate(s) 

of the value of avoided CO2 emissions in recent efficiency standards rulemakings. These 

estimates are summarized in the environmental assessment in the preliminary TSD. 

EEI stated that the environmental assessment should consider emissions created during 

equipment production and delivery, taking account of emissions where the appliances are 

produced. (EEI, No. 13 at p. 5) EPCA directs DOE to consider the projected amount of energy 

savings likely to result directly from imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) As 

emissions created during appliance production and delivery are not considered a direct impact of 

standards, DOE does not plan to include such emissions in its analysis. 

For more detail on the environmental assessment, refer to the environmental assessment 

report in the preliminary TSD. 

2.13 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The imposition of standards can affect employment both directly and indirectly. Direct 

employment impacts are changes, produced by new standards, in the number of employees at 

plants that produce the covered products and at the affiliated distribution and service companies. 

DOE evaluated direct employment impacts in the manufacturer impact analysis. Indirect 

employment impacts that occur because of the imposition of standards may result from 

consumers shifting expenditures between goods (the substitution effect) and from changes in 

income and overall expenditure levels (the income effect). DOE will utilize Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory’s impact of sector energy technologies (ImSET) model to investigate the 

combined direct and indirect employment impacts. The ImSET model, which was developed for 

DOE’s Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis, estimates the employment and income effects 

energy-saving technologies produced in buildings, industry, and transportation. In comparison 

with simple economic multiplier approaches, ImSET allows for more complete and automated 

analysis of the economic impacts of energy conservation investments. 

2.14 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

In the NOPR stage, DOE will prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, which 

is subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. The RIA addresses the potential for nonregulatory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards in order to improve 

2-31
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
the energy efficiency or reduce the energy consumption of the products covered under this 

rulemaking. 

DOE recognizes that voluntary or other non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities, 

and other interested parties can substantially affect energy efficiency or reduce energy 

consumption. DOE will base its assessment on the actual impacts of any such initiatives to date, 

but also will consider information presented by interested parties regarding the impacts existing 

initiatives might have in the future. 

2.15	 DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR LOW-VOLUME PRODUCT 

CLASSES 

DOE conducted rigorous analysis of seven key product classes which represent over 90 

percent of refrigeration product shipments. This section addresses the treatment of low-volume 

product classes. As presented in Table 2.15.1 through Table 2.15.3 below, DOE proposes to 

develop energy conservation standards for these product classes by extrapolating from the results 

for the seven key product classes. In this specific case of product class 3A, Figure 2.15.1 

illustrates that all-refrigerators with automatic defrost of this proposed product class appear to 

currently have a less stringent standard than refrigerator-freezers with top-mounted freezers— 

both of these product types currently are part of product class 3. The plot shows that ENERGY 

STAR models categorized under product class 3 have a distinctly higher energy use than 

ENERGY STAR models that fall under the proposed product class 3A. 

2-32
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.15.1 Extrapolation of Standards for Standard-Size Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers 

Product 

Class 

Proposed Approach to 

Development of Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Notes and Comments 

1 Reduction of standard if needed 

so that product class 1 energy 

use is no higher than energy use 

of product class 3. Otherwise 

no change. 

The product class 1 energy standard is currently roughly 

11% lower than the standard for product class 3. 

AHAM data show that product classes 1 and 2 accounted 

for 0.1% of shipments of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers in 2007. 

1A Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as 

for product class 1. 

As discussed in section 5.7.4 of the Engineering Analysis 

(chapter 5), the baseline-efficiency energy use under the 

proposed test procedure for product class 1A is less than 

the energy use for product class 1. The future energy 

standard for product class 1A would likewise be less. 

2 Combine this product class 

with product class 1. 

The energy standards for product classes 1 and 2 are 

currently identical, and shipments of these products are 

very low. 

3A Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as 

for product class 3. 

The baseline-efficiency energy use under the proposed test 

procedure for product class 3A is less than the energy use 

for product class 3. The future energy standard for product 

class 3A would likewise be less. The current product class 

3 standard is less stringent for all-refrigerators than for 

top-mount refrigerator-freezers, as indicated by the 

availability only of all-refrigerators of this product class 

with efficiency level higher than 20% in the ENERGY 

STAR database (see Figure 2.15.1). Hence, allrefrigerators are expected to achieve the same reduction in 

energy use with no reduction in cost-effectiveness. 

4 Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as 

for product class 7, with some 

consideration of adjustment of 

the slope of the energy/adjusted 

volume relationship. 

See section 5.4.2.3 of the Engineering Analysis (chapter 5) 

for a discussion of the investigation of the energy/adjusted 

volume slope. 

5A Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as 

for product class 5. 

6 Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as 

for product class 3. 

2-33
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Figure 2.15.1 Current Product Class 3 Products Listed in the ENERGY STAR Database 

Table 2.15.2 Extrapolation of Standards for Standard-Size Freezers 

Product 

Class 

Proposed Approach to Development of 

Energy Conservation Standards 

Notes and Comments 

8 Establish the standard with the same 

percentage adjustment as for product class 

10. 

Although product class 8 freezers are upright 

freezers, they have manual defrost, making 

them more similar to product class 10 

(primarily chest freezers with manual 

defrost) than product class 9 (upright freezers 

with automatic defrost). The current energy 

standard for product class 8 is also is much 

closer to that of product class 10 than 

product class 9. 

10A Establish the standard equal to the standard 

for product class 10 plus the automatic 

defrost differential of the energy standards 

for the two types of upright freezers (product 

class 9 and product class 8). 

This is the approach used in the exception 

granted to Electrolux when the company 

initially introduced an automatic defrost 

chest freezer.d 

d Decision and Order, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Office of Hearings and Appeals, September 13, 2004, (Last 

accessed July 23, 2009.), www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/tee0012.pdf 

2-34 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

Table 2.15.3 Extrapolation of Standards for Compact Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers 

Product 

Class 

Proposed Approach to 

Development of Energy 

Conservation Standards 

Notes and Comments 

11A Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as for 

product class 11. 

The baseline-efficiency energy use under the proposed 

test procedure for product class 11A is less than the 

energy use for product class 11. The future energy 

standard for product class 11A would likewise be less. 

12 Combine this product class with 

product class 11. 

Product class 12 currently has a different energy 

standard than product class 11 (it is 20 to 25% higher, 

depending on volume), while for standard-size 

products, the manual defrost and partial automatic 

defrost products have the same energy standard 

(product classes 1 and 2). The only product class 12 

products DOE is aware of have energy use about 30% 

below the standard (i.e. Microfridge MFR-3, Absocold 

ARD298C), suggesting that the product classes could 

be combined. 

13 Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as for 

product class 18. 

Large energy use reductions are not likely costeffective for these products because they have low 

production volume, hence the incremental cost 

relationship of compact freezers is more likely 

representative than that of product class 11. 

13A Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as for 

product class 13. 

Many existing product class 13 products are allrefrigerators with automatic defrost. The Energy Star 

database has no product class 13 products which are 

top-mount rather than all-refrigerator. As with product 

class 3 and 3A, it is expected that achieving efficiency 

improvement for product class 13A will be no less 

cost-effective than for product class 13. 

14 Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as for 

product class 13. 

These product classes combined account for only 0.1% 

of shipments of refrigeration products according to 

AHAM data. 

15 

16 Establish the standard with the 

same percentage adjustment as for 

product class 18. 

17 

2-35
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

1 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Microdata Files, 2005. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/pubuse05.html> 

2	 California Energy Commission, California Energy Commission Appliances Database, 

Appliances Database – Refrigeration. Sacramento, CA. 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/excel_based_files/Refrigeration/> 

(Last Accessed March 2009) 

3	 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy 

Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, April 2009. Washington, 

DC. Report #: SR-OIAF/2009-03. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html?featureclicked=1&> 

4	 Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and Average Rates Report – Summer 2008, 2008. For 

purchase at: 

http://www2.eei.org/products_and_services/descriptions_and_access/typ_bills_report.htm. 

5	 Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and Average Rates Report – Winter 2008, 2008. For 

purchase at: 

http://www2.eei.org/products_and_services/descriptions_and_access/typ_bill_winter_5.htm. 

6	 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Report: Analysis of Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Refrigerator-Freezers, October 2005. Washington, DC. 

<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/refrigerator_report_1.pdf> 

7	 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. 

Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EE-0064. 

8	 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” Sept. 17, 

2003. Washington, DC. p. 33. <www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html> 

9	 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” Sept. 17, 

2003. Washington, DC. p. 34. <www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html> 

10	 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy 

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent 

Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 2009. 74(69): 

pp. 16920-16968. 

2-36
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
CHAPTER 3: MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Product Definitions .......................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1.1 Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers........................................ 3-1 

3.1.1.2 Wine Coolers .................................................................................................3-2 

3.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 3-2 

3.2.1 Product Classes ................................................................................................................ 3-2 

3.2.1.1 Product Classes Listed in the CFR................................................................. 3-2 

3.2.1.2 Product Classes Modifications....................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.1.3 Bottom-Drawer Refrigerator-Freezers........................................................... 3-4 

3.2.2 Product Test Procedures .................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.2.1 New Defrost Systems..................................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.2.2 Control of Anti-Sweat Heaters....................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.2.3 Testing of Combination Wine Storage--Freezer Products............................. 3-5 

3.2.2.4 Repeatability Issues for Testing Compact Refrigerators ............................... 3-6 

3.2.2.5 Circumvention................................................................................................ 3-6 

3.2.2.6 Bottom-Drawer Refrigerator-Freezer Models ...............................................3-7 

3.2.2.7 Harmonizing with International Test Procedures .......................................... 3-7 

3.2.2.8 Standby and Off Modes ................................................................................. 3-7 

3.2.3 Manufacturer Information................................................................................................ 3-9 

3.2.3.1 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturers .................... 3-9 

3.2.3.2 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturer Market 

Shares .......................................................................................................... 3-12 

3.2.3.3 Mergers and Acquisitions ............................................................................ 3-14 

3.2.3.4 Distribution Channels .................................................................................. 3-15 

3.2.3.5 Manufacturer Trade Groups......................................................................... 3-15 

3.2.3.6 Compressor Manufacturers and Market Shares...........................................3-16 

3.2.4 Regulatory Programs ..................................................................................................... 3-16 

3.2.4.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards...................................................... 3-16 

3.2.4.2 State Energy Conservation Standards.......................................................... 3-19 

3.2.4.3 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards...................................................3-19 

3.2.4.4 Mexican Energy Conservation Standards.................................................... 3-20 

3.2.4.5 Efficiency Standards Outside North America.............................................. 3-20 

3.2.5 Voluntary and other Federal and State Programs .......................................................... 3-21 

3.2.5.1 ENERGY STAR .......................................................................................... 3-21 

3.2.5.2 Federal Energy Management Program ........................................................ 3-23 

3.2.5.3 Consortium for Energy Efficiency............................................................... 3-24 

3.2.5.4 ENERGY STAR, FEMP, CEE Summary.................................................... 3-25 

3.2.5.5 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances ....................... 3-25 

3.2.5.6 Rebates for Highly Energy-Efficient Products............................................ 3-26 

3.2.5.7 State Tax Incentives for Highly Energy-Efficient Products........................ 3-26 

3.2.6 Historical Shipments and Efficiencies........................................................................... 3-26 

3-i 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
3.2.6.1 Historical Shipments.................................................................................... 3-26 

3.2.6.2 Historical Efficiencies.................................................................................. 3-29 

3.2.6.3 Imports and Exports..................................................................................... 3-31 

3.2.7 Saturation in U.S. Homes .............................................................................................. 3-31 

3.2.8 Product Retail Prices...................................................................................................... 3-35 

3.2.8.1 Historical Retail Prices ................................................................................ 3-35 

3.2.8.2 Refrigerator-Freezer 2004 Retail Prices ...................................................... 3-35 

3.2.8.3 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Prices................................................ 3-37 

3.2.8.4 Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer 2008 Retail Prices...................................3-42 

3.3 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.................................................................................. 3-43 

3.3.1 Product Operation and Components .............................................................................. 3-43 

3.3.1.1 Product Operation ........................................................................................ 3-43 

3.3.1.2 Primary Components ................................................................................... 3-44 

3.3.2 Technology Options....................................................................................................... 3-48 

3.3.2.1 Insulation...................................................................................................... 3-49 

3.3.2.2 Gasket and Door Design .............................................................................. 3-53 

3.3.2.3 Anti-Sweat Heater........................................................................................ 3-55 

3.3.2.4 Compressor .................................................................................................. 3-56 

3.3.2.5 Evaporator.................................................................................................... 3-60 

3.3.2.6 Condenser ....................................................................................................3-61 

3.3.2.7 Fan and Fan Motor....................................................................................... 3-63 

3.3.2.8 Expansion Valve .......................................................................................... 3-63 

3.3.2.9 Cycling Losses.............................................................................................3-64 

3.3.2.10 Defrost System............................................................................................. 3-64 

3.3.2.11 Control System............................................................................................. 3-65 

3.3.2.12 Other Technologies...................................................................................... 3-66 

3.3.2.13 Alternative Refrigeration Cycles ................................................................. 3-67 

3.3.2.14 Alternative Refrigeration Systems............................................................... 3-70 

3.3.3 Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 3-70 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3.2.1 Product Classes for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers................. 3-4 

Table 3.2.2 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturers........................... 3-10 

Table 3.2.3 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Manufacturer Market Shares ....................... 3-12 

Table 3.2.4 Compact Refrigerator Manufacturer Market Shares............................................. 3-13 

Table 3.2.5 Built-In Undercounter Refrigerator Manufacturer Market Shares ....................... 3-13 

Table 3.2.6 Chest/Upright Freezer Manufacturer Market Shares............................................ 3-14 

Table 3.2.7 Major Appliance Sales by Channel....................................................................... 3-15 

Table 3.2.8 Compressor Manufacturers and World and U.S. Market Shares.......................... 3-16 

Table 3.2.9 Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers........................................................................................... 3-18 

Table 3.2.10 California Standards for Wine Chillers ................................................................ 3-19 

Table 3.2.11 California Standards for Freezers with Volume Greater than 30 cubic feet......... 3-19 

3-ii 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.12 Canadian Energy Standards for Added Refrigerator and Freezer Product 

Classes................................................................................................................... 3-20 

Table 3.2.13 Canadian Standards for Wine Chillers.................................................................. 3-20 

Table 3.2.14 History of ENERGY STAR Energy Use Criteria for Residential 

Refrigerators and Freezers .................................................................................... 3-22 

Table 3.2.15 Efficiency of Standard Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers on the 

Market Relative to Current Federal Standard ....................................................... 3-23 

Table 3.2.16 Performance Requirement for Federal Purchases of Refrigerators and 

Freezers................................................................................................................. 3-24 

Table 3.2.17 CEE Tier Levels Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers ................................... 3-25 

Table 3.2.19 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances in EESA 2008 ........ 3-26 

Table 3.2.20 Rebates Offered for Highly Energy-Efficient Refrigerators in 2006 ................... 3-26 

Table 3.2.21 Market Shares of Standard Refrigerator-Freezer Product Classes ....................... 3-29 

Table 3.2.22 Sales of ENERGY STAR Labeled Refrigerator-Freezers.................................... 3-30 

Table 3.2.23 Standard Refrigerator Saturation in U.S. Homes in 1987–2005 Period ............... 3-32 

Table 3.2.24 Compact Refrigerator Saturation in U.S. Homes in 1987–2005 Period............... 3-33 

Table 3.2.25 Freezer Saturation in U.S. Homes in 1987-2005 Period....................................... 3-34 

Table 3.2.26 Refrigerator and Freezer Saturation in New U.S. Homes..................................... 3-35 

Table 3.2.27 Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Average Retail Prices...................................... 3-35 

Table 3.2.28 Baseline Unit Retail Prices from 2005 DOE Report (2004$)............................... 3-36 

Table 3.2.30 Regression Analysis of the Incremental Price of ENERGY STAR and other 

Attributes based on 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Prices (2007$)........... 3-42 

Table 3.2.31 Residential Refrigeration Products: Average Baseline Retail Price..................... 3-43 

Table 3.3.1 Technology Options for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers ....... 3-49 

Table 3.3.2 Thermal Conductivity of Freshly-Sliced Foam Specimens at 75 oF (23.9 oC) ..... 3-50 

Table 3.3.3 Comparison of Various VIP Core Materials......................................................... 3-51 

Table 3.3.4 Center-of-Panel Thermal Conductivity of VIPs ................................................... 3-52 

Table 3.3.5 Comparison of Various Gas-Filled Panel Core Materials .................................... 3-53 

Table 3.3.6 Overall Cabinet Loads .......................................................................................... 3-54 

Table 3.3.7 Compressor Rating Conditions............................................................................. 3-57 

Table 3.3.8 Estimated 1998 Maximum Compressor Efficiencies ........................................... 3-58 

Table 3.3.9 Efficiencies of Some of Embraco’s Variable-Speed Compressor Models ........... 3-59 

Table 3.3.10 Efficiencies of LG’s Current Linear Compressor Models.................................... 3-60 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.2.1 Annual Shipments of Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers ......................... 3-27 

Figure 3.2.2 Annual Shipments of Freezers........................................................................... 3-28 

Figure 3.2.3 Average Annual Electricity Use of New Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers.............................................................................................................. 3-30 

Figure 3.2.4 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Side-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)................... 3-38 

Figure 3.2.5 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)................... 3-39 

3-iii 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Figure 3.2.7 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Upright 

Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)........................................ 3-40 

Figure 3.2.8 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Chest Freezers 

with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$) ...................................................... 3-40 

Figure 3.3.1 Refrigeration Circuit .......................................................................................... 3-44 

Figure 3.3.2 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Components.................................................. 3-45 

Figure 3.3.3 Annual Energy Consumption for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

with Manual Defrost (Product Class #1) ........................................................... 3-72 

Figure 3.3.4 Annual Energy Consumption for Refrigerator-Freezers with Partial 

Automatic Defrost (Product Class #2)............................................................... 3-72 

Figure 3.3.5 Annual Energy Consumption for Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with 

Automatic Defrost without TTD Ice Service and All-Refrigerators with 

Automatic Defrost (Product Class #3)............................................................... 3-73 

Figure 3.3.6 Annual Energy Consumption for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with 

Automatic Defrost without TTD Ice Service (Product Class #4)...................... 3-73 

Figure 3.3.7 Annual Energy Consumption for Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 

with Automatic Defrost without TTD Ice Service (Product Class #5).............. 3-74 

Figure 3.3.8 Annual Energy Consumption for Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 

with Automatic Defrost with TTD Ice Service (Product Class 5A) .................. 3-74 

Figure 3.3.9 Annual Energy Consumption for Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with 

Automatic Defrost with TTD Ice Service (Product Class #6) ........................... 3-75 

Figure 3.3.10 Annual Energy Consumption for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with 

Automatic Defrost with Through-the-Door Ice Service (Product Class #7) ..... 3-75 

Figure 3.3.11 Annual Energy Consumption for Upright Freezers with Manual Defrost 

(Product Class #8).............................................................................................. 3-76 

Figure 3.3.12 Annual Energy Consumption for Upright Freezers with Automatic Defrost 

(Product Class #9).............................................................................................. 3-76 

Figure 3.3.13 Annual Energy Consumption for Chest Freezers and all other Freezers 

except Compact Freezers (Product Class #10) .................................................. 3-77 

Figure 3.3.14 Annual Energy Consumption for Chest Freezers with Automatic Defrost 

(Product Class #10A)......................................................................................... 3-77 

Figure 3.3.15 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers with Manual Defrost (Product Class #11)........................................... 3-78 

Figure 3.3.16 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Refrigerator-Freezers with 

Partial Automatic Defrost (Product Class #12) ................................................. 3-78 

Figure 3.3.17 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Top-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers with Automatic Defrost and All-Refrigerators with Automatic 

Defrost (Product Class #13)............................................................................... 3-79 

Figure 3.3.18 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Side-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers with Automatic Defrost (Product Class #14) ...................................... 3-79 

Figure 3.3.19 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers with Automatic Defrost (Product Class #15) ...................................... 3-80 

Figure 3.3.20 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Upright Freezers with Manual 

Defrost (Product Class #16)............................................................................... 3-80 

3-iv 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Figure 3.3.21 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Upright Freezers with 

Automatic Defrost (Product Class #17)............................................................. 3-81 

Figure 3.3.22 Annual Energy Consumption for Compact Chest Freezers (Product Class 

#18) .................................................................................................................... 3-81 

3-v 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
CHAPTER 3.MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This report provides a profile of the residential refrigerator and freezer product industries 

in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed the preliminary market 

and technology assessment presented in this chapter primarily from publicly available 

information. This assessment identifies the major manufacturers and their product characteristics, 

which form the basis for the engineering and the life-cycle cost (LCC) analyses. Present and past 

industry structure and industry financial information help DOE in the process of conducting the 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

3.1.1 Product Definitions 

3.1.1.1 Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) establishes the product definitions for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers as follows:1 

•	 The term Refrigerator means an electric refrigerator and the term Refrigerator-freezer 

means an electric refrigerator-freezer. 

•	 Electric refrigerator means a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of food at 

temperatures above 32 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and below 39 °F, configured for general 

refrigerated food storage, and having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, 

alternating current electric energy input only. An electric refrigerator may include a 

compartment for freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 32 °F, but does not 

provide a separate low temperature compartment designed for the freezing and storage of 

food at temperatures below 8 °F. 

•	 Electric refrigerator-freezer means a cabinet which consists of two or more 

compartments with at least one of the compartments designed for the refrigerated storage 

of food at temperatures above 32 °F. and with at least one of the compartments designed 

for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8 °F. which may be adjusted 

by the user to a temperature of 0 °F. or below. The source of refrigeration requires single 

phase, alternating current electric energy input only. 

•	 Compact refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with total volume less than 7.75 ft3

 (220 L) and 36 inches 

(0.91 meters) or less in height. 

•	 Freezer means a cabinet designed as a unit for the freezing and storage of food at 

temperatures of 0 °F or below, and having a source of refrigeration requiring single 

phase, alternating current electric energy input only. 

3-1 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
3.1.1.2 Wine Coolers 

DOE amended the definition of “electric refrigerator”, effective December 19, 2001, to 

include a maximum temperature of the fresh food storage compartment, and to exclude certain 

appliances whose physical configuration makes them unsuitable for general storage of perishable 

foods.2

 Because wines coolers maintain storage temperature above 39 oF, they are exempted 

from existing refrigerator product classifications and are not required to meet minimum 

efficiency standards. 

3.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT 

3.2.1 Product Classes 

3.2.1.1 Product Classes Listed in the CFR 

The CFR establishes the product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers.3

 As per the CFR, there are 18 product classes. The product classes are based on the 

following characteristics: type of unit (refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer), size of the 

cabinet (standard or compact), type of defrost system (manual, partial, or automatic), presence or 

absence of through-the-door (TTD) ice service, and placement of the fresh food and freezer 

compartments for refrigerator-freezers. 

DOE established separate product classes for compact products (<220 L or <7.75 ft3) 

because fewer opportunities are available for reducing energy consumption in these products. 

Space is limited in compact units, so increasing the wall thickness is undesirable. Limited highefficiency compressor options are available in the capacity ranges appropriate for compact 

refrigerators. These units typically use natural convection evaporators and condensers and, 

therefore, cannot employ better fan motors as an energy-saving option. 

3.2.1.2 Product Classes Modifications 

Table 3.2.1 below shows six proposed new product classes. Two of these new product 

classes, currently called product class 5A, automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezer with TTD ice service, and product class 10A, chest freezers with automatic 

defrost, were identified in the framework document as product classes 19 and 20. DOE proposes 

to establish these two new product classes pursuant to its decision order to grant exemptions to 

standards for these specific product categories. DOE will adopt the product class designations for 

these products which have been adopted by Canada in order to maintain international 

consistency. The additional new product classes are all-refrigerator products which are proposed 

to be separated from their current product classes which currently include refrigerators with 

freezer compartments, refrigerator-freezers, and/or all-refrigerators. The proposed test procedure 

changes described in section 3.2.2.7 will result in significantly higher energy use for refrigerators 

with freezer compartments and refrigerator-freezers and somewhat less energy use for all3-2 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
refrigerators. Hence, maintaining meaningful but fair energy standards requires the separation of 

all-refrigerators from the other product types. 

DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals granted four exceptions for refrigerator-freezer 

products with bottom-mounted freezer and TTD ice service, to Maytag Corporation (Maytag), 

LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), Samsung Electronics, and Electrolux Home Products. DOE granted 

Maytag its exception on August 11, 2005 (case number TEE-0022), LG’s exception on 

November 9, 2005 (case number TEE-0025), Samsung’s exception on July 26, 2007 (case 

number TEE-0047) and Electrolux’s exception on December, 2008 (case number TEE-0056). 

Before these rulings, there was no appropriately-defined category for this type of product, since 

the minimum standard for product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers with automatic defrost with 

bottom-mounted freezer without TTD ice service) was established to cover only products 

without TTD ice-service at the time of its development. The actual energy consumption of this 

new product (i.e., with TTD ice-service) is higher than that of product class 5 due to the added 

heat loss through the door to the fresh-food space, the reduced temperatures of the space reserved 

in the fresh food compartment for ice storage, which is maintained at lower temperatures than the 

rest of the fresh food compartment, and the energy consumed by the fan used to cool the space 

used for ice production and storage. 

DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals granted an exception to Electrolux Home 

Products (Electrolux) for a specific brand of chest freezer with automatic defrost (case number 

TEE-0012). The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) filed a letter 

supporting this exemption and recommended that DOE use the direct final rule process to 

establish a new class of chest freezers that would correspond to the minimum efficiency standard 

for automatic defrost chest freezers. The minimum standard for product class 10 (chest freezers 

and all other freezers) was established to cover products without automatic defrost at the time of 

its development. The actual energy consumption of the new product (i.e., with automatic defrost) 

is higher than that of product class 10 due to the added energy consumption associated with the 

automatic defrost system. 

DOE is considering combining product classes 1 and 2 and also combining product 

classes 11 and 12. The shipment levels for product classes 1 and 2 are low and the energy 

conservation standards for these products are currently identical. The shipments for product class 

12 are also very low. Although the standard for product classes 12 is currently at a higher energy 

level than for product class 12, there is no obvious technical basis for this distinction. The key 

difference between these classes is that product class 12 includes only refrigerator-freezers with 

partial automatic defrost. These systems have a manual defrost evaporator for the freezer 

compartment (as do refrigerator-freezers of product class 11), and they also include a second 

evaporator in the fresh food compartment which undergoes off-cycle defrost, a process which 

involves no addition of energy to achieve defrost. 

3-3 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Table 3.2.1 Product Classes for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

No. Product Class 

Classes listed in the CFR 

1 Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost 

2 Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 

3 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service 

4 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service 

5 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service 

6 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service 

7 Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service 

8 Upright freezers with manual defrost 

9 Upright freezers with automatic defrost 

10 Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers 

11 Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost 

12 Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost 

13 Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 

14 Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer 

15 Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer 

16 Compact upright freezers with manual defrost 

17 Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost 

18 Compact chest freezers 

Product Classes Proposed to be Established During this Rulemaking 

1A All-refrigerators—manual defrost 

3A All-refrigerators—automatic defrost 

5A Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with TTD ice 

service 

10A Chest freezers with automatic defrost 

11A Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost 

13A Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost 

3.2.1.3 Bottom-Drawer Refrigerator-Freezers 

Another product type that was recently on the market is a convertible bottom-drawer 

refrigerator-freezer where the bottom drawer can be used as either a freezer or a fresh food 

section.4 This Haier product became active on the ENERGY STAR database in 2007 but is no 

longer for sale. It was classified as a side-mount refrigerator-freezer with TTD features (product 

class 7) by the ENERGY STAR program (discussed in section 3.7.1).5 

3.2.2 Product Test Procedures 

The CFR establishes the test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

3-4 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
freezers. (10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendices A1 and B1) DOE recently addressed issues 

pertaining to defrost systems, wine cooling refrigeration products, anti-sweat heaters, chest 

freezers with automatic defrost, and refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers 

incorporating through-the-door (TTD) features. Additional issues relevant to the test procedures 

include test result repeatability, references to an older version of the ANSI-AHAM HRF-1 test 

standard, circumvention, convertible bottom-drawer refrigerator-freezers and other 

configurations with more than two compartments, standby and off mode energy use, and 

international test procedure harmonization. The ongoing rulemaking to modify the test procedure 

addresses many of these issues. 

3.2.2.1 New Defrost Systems 

DOE published a direct final rule on March 7, 2003 which amended the test procedure for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers to modify the test period for “long-time” and adaptive 

automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers. 68 FR 10957. This revision became effective in May 

2003. The energy test for such refrigerators consists of two or three parts; the third part applies 

only to adaptive defrost refrigerators and is optional. The first part measures energy use not 

including defrost events, and the second measures the energy contribution associated with 

defrost. The measurement for this second part of the test originally was specified to start as the 

refrigerator-freezer initiates defrost during a compressor on cycle. The new test procedure allows 

for a delay between compressor shutdown and defrost initiation, allowing the evaporator to warm 

up somewhat before initiation of defrost, thus saving a portion of the defrost energy 

consumption. 

3.2.2.2 Control of Anti-Sweat Heaters 

DOE granted a test procedure waiver to General Electric Company (GE) for anti-sweat 

heaters with automatic controls. GE developed a new product line of refrigerator-freezers that 

have sensors to detect ambient temperature and humidity, allowing the control system to adjust 

the wattage of anti-sweat heaters to provide only enough heat to evaporate excess moisture. DOE 

awarded this waiver on February 27, 2008.6

 The waiver provides a method for determining the 

energy use of an adaptive anti-sweat heater. A similar waiver was granted to Whirlpool 

Corporation on May 5, 2009.7

 The ongoing test procedure rulemaking proposes a variable antisweat heater test procedure to address the GE waiver and the Whirlpool petition for waiver. 

3.2.2.3 Testing of Combination Wine Storage--Freezer Products 

As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, DOE has modified the definition of refrigerators to 

exclude wine storage products. However, DOE has not modified the definition of refrigeratorfreezers in a similar fashion to exclude products which combine a freezer compartment with a 

wine storage compartment. DOE granted a waiver to Liebherr Hausgeräte from the existing DOE 

test procedure for residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, for Liebherr’s 

combination wine storage-freezer line of appliances. According to the current definitions, these 

products are refrigerator-freezers. In granting the waiver, DOE requires that Liebherr test or rate 

its combination wine storage-freezer products using a modified procedure proposed by Liebherr 

3-5 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
in which the wine storage compartment temperature standardized temperature is 55 °F, and the 

freezer compartment standardized temperature is 5 °F. The wine storage compartment of units 

tested by this method must not be convertible to any other type of compartment, and must 

account for 50 percent or more of the total volume.8 DOE expects to propose revision of the 

definition of refrigerator-freezer to exclude these products in the ongoing refrigeration product 

test procedure rulemaking. The establishment of Wine Storage product categories and classes 

thereof is discussed in Chapter 2. 

3.2.2.4 Repeatability Issues for Testing Compact Refrigerators 

Because of inconsistencies in test results for compact refrigerators, the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigated repeatability issues and published a report 

entitled “Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for Compact Refrigerators.”9

 In 

addition, NIST participated in a task force formed by AHAM to revise their AHAM HRF-1, 

Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers test procedure, which is referenced by the DOE test procedure. The latest version of 

AHAM’s test procedure is now AHAM HRF-1-2008.10 The existing DOE test procedure still 

references an older version of the AHAM test procedure, AHAM HRF-1-1979. DOE plans to 

amend the test procedure to reference the most recent version of AHAM HRF-1. 

Recent versions of AHAM HRF-1 clarified that the distance between the rear wall of the 

test sample and the test room wall or simulated wall should be at the minimum distance 

recommended by the manufacturer’s installation instructions. This is one of the issues mentioned 

in the NIST report. In contrast, the 1979 version of HRF-1 specified that this distance be “in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.” The AHAM HRF-1-2008 addresses, among 

other issues, simplification of determining cabinet compartment internal volume, another of the 

issues discussed in the NIST report. 

3.2.2.5 Circumvention 

Another issue that has been addressed by recent versions of AHAM HRF-1 is the use of 

controls or features in products that have the effect of circumventing or frustrating the objective 

of the test procedure. Some refrigerator-freezer models, for example, deactivate certain energyusing components during testing, resulting in a rated performance that is significantly different 

than actual field performance. EPCA requires that test procedures must be “reasonably designed 

to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use . . ., or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 

use, as determined by the Secretary . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). This statutory requirement may 

be undermined if products are purposefully designed to use controls or features that produce test 

results that are so unrepresentative of a product’s actual energy or water consumption as to 

provide materially inaccurate comparative data. AHAM incorporated provisions that address 

circumvention in its 2007 and 2008 test procedure revisions. The ongoing DOE test procedure 

rulemaking proposes updating DOE’s test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers to reference the latest version of AHAM HRF-1 in order to include by reference 

language which will more strongly bans circumvention and to provide clarification regarding test 

3-6 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

sample set-up to help prevent inconsistencies in test results. DOE notes that in its updated 

ENERGY STAR requirements for refrigerator-freezers in 2008, the ENERGY STAR program 

has included a provision to prohibit models from meeting the ENERGY STAR criteria through 

this type of circumvention scheme.11 

3.2.2.6 Bottom-Drawer Refrigerator-Freezer Models 

As discussed above in section 3.3, convertible bottom-drawer refrigerator-freezer models, 

where the bottom drawer can be used as either a freezer or a fresh food section, have been 

produced, although it is unclear whether any such products are currently on the market. It 

appears that the bottom drawer of these product types were tested as a fresh food compartment 

rather than a freezer. This is inconsistent with the provisions of AHAM HRF-1-1979 as well as 

AHAM HRF-1-2008, which require control of compartments that are convertible between 

freezer and fresh food temperature to be tested in the highest energy use position. The ongoing 

DOE test procedure rulemaking addresses this issue and solicits feedback regarding whether this 

requirement needs to be reinforced in the DOE test procedure. 

3.2.2.7 Harmonizing with International Test Procedures 

Working Group 12 of Technical Committee 59 of the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) is developing IEC 62552, an international test procedure for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. One of the goals of this effort is to maximize harmonization 

among energy test procedures for countries representing key markets for these products. As a 

result, AHAM has incorporated compartment temperature changes into AHAM HRF-1-2008 

which are consistent with the IEC standard. These changes include (1) standard test temperatures 

of 0 °F rather than 5 °F for the freezer compartment of a refrigerator-freezer and 39 °F rather 

than 45 °F for the fresh food compartment, (2) standard test temperature of 39 °F rather than 38 

°F for an all-refrigerator, and (3) standard test temperature of 39 °F rather than 45 °F for the 

fresh food compartment of a refrigerator having a freezer compartment. DOE is also revising the 

DOE energy test procedure to adopt the modified temperatures. The change in temperatures will 

clearly result in higher test energy use for refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer 

compartments and lower test energy use for all-refrigerators, thus necessitating adjustments to 

kilowatt-hour (kWh)-per-year values for all efficiency levels for these products. As mentioned in 

section 3.2.1.2, DOE proposes to separate all-refrigerators from product classes which currently 

combine all-refrigerators with other product types. It is argued that the new temperatures are 

more consistent with actual temperatures used by consumers use12,13 and that energy use 

measured using the new temperatures will also be more representative of actual field energy use. 

Chapter 5 describes DOE determination of new energy vs. adjusted volume curves for baselineefficiency products based on the new test procedure. 

3.2.2.8 Standby and Off Modes 

EISA requires DOE to include consideration of standby mode and off mode energy consumption 

in future amendments to both its test procedures and energy conservation standards. Specifically, 

3-7 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

section 310 of EISA amends section 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 Secretary determines otherwise pursuant to 

subparagraph (B), in this subsection: 

(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 standby 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 the following user-oriented or protective 

functions: 

(aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other 

functions (including active mode) by remote switch 

(including remote control), 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 consideration the most current versions of Standards 

62301 and 62087 of the International Electrotechnical Commission, with such 

energy consumption integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy 

consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product, unless the 

Secretary determines that:— 

(i) the current test procedures for a covered product already fully account 

for and incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption 

of the covered product,; or 

(ii) such an integrated test procedure 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.— 

3-8 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (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 incorporate 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 feasible, the Secretary shall prescribe 

within the final rule a separate standard for standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, if justified under subsection (o). 

For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the current test procedure captures standby 

and off mode energy use. All energy input for the test duration, including during times of 

compressor off cycle is measured, for a test time period which is at least 3 hours long. Hence, 

under provision (gg)(2)(A)(i), establishing standby and off modes and test procedures to 

incorporate them into the overall energy use is not required. Complications potentially arise for 

refrigerator features not mentioned by the test procedure that might involve some standby energy 

use during normal consumer use, but that might be disconnected or otherwise turned off during 

energy testing (e.g., a computer integrated with the refrigerator). 

3.2.3 Manufacturer Information 

This section provides information on domestic manufacturers of residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, including their brand names and products sold in the United 

States (section 3.2.3.1), estimated market shares (section 3.2.3.2), industry mergers and 

acquisitions (section 3.2.3.3), and product distribution channels (section 3.2.3.4). The section 

also discusses manufacturer trade groups (section 3.2.3.5) and manufacturers of compressors 

(section 3.2.3.6), as this is one of the most important components of residential refrigeration 

products. 

3.2.3.1 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturers 

Table 3.2.2 lists refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer manufacturers selling 

products in the United States. The second column indicates whether the manufacturer is a 

member of AHAM, and the third column indicates whether the manufacturer produces products 

that are ENERGY STAR compliant. Manufacturers that are a member of AHAM are listed first 

in the table and generally have the largest U.S. market shares. There are also several smaller 

manufacturers supplying products to the U.S. Those smaller manufacturers that produce 

ENERGY STAR-compliant products are listed directly after AHAM member manufacturers. 

Table 3.2.2 also indicates the types of products that each manufacturer produces. Product 

types include: standard-size refrigerator-freezers, freezers, compact units, built-in units, custom 

units, undercounter units, luxury units, and other types. Other types include: units with more than 

three doors, units for ‘compact kitchens’ other than compact refrigerators, refrigerated drawers, 

and commercial-size units. 

3-9 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.2 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturers 

Manufacturer Name 

AHAM 

Member 

E* 

Products 

Std RefrigFreezer Freezer Com­ pact Built-In Custom Door/Inter. Under Counter 

Aga Foodservice Group* Y - - - - - - - 

 Marvel Industries - - Y Y - Y - Y 

Northland Corp. - - - Y - - Y - 

Bosch Home Appliances Corp. Y Y Y Y - - Y - 

Electrolux Home Products** Y Y - - - Y Y Y 

Frigidaire - Y Y Y - - - - 

Fisher & Paykel Appliances Inc. Y - Y - - - - - 

GE Appliances*** Y Y Y Y Y - - - 

Hotpoint - Y Y Y Y - - - 

 Monogram - Y Y Y - Y - - 

Haier Group Y Y Y - Y - - - 

LG Electronics Y Y Y - - - - - 

Liebherr Y Y Y - - Y - - 

Miele Appliances Inc Y Y Y Y - Y - - 

Samsung Electronics America Y Y Y - - - - - 

Sanyo North America Corp. Y Y Y Y Y - - Y Sub-Zero Freezer Company Y Y - Y - Y Y Y 

Viking Range Corporation Y Y - Y - Y Y - 

W. C. Wood Co. † Y Y Y Y Y - - - 

Vencold - - - Y - - - - 

Whirlpool†† Y Y Y - - - - - 

Amana Appliances - Y Y Y - - - - 

 Maytag - Y Y Y - - - - 

Estate Appliances - - Y - - - - - 

 Magic Chef & Ewave - - Y Y Y - - - 

Gladiator Garage Works - Y Y - - - - - 

Ikea - Y Y - - - - - 

Inglis Home Appliances - Y Y - - - - - 

 Jenn-Air - Y Y - - Y Y - 

Kitchen Aid - Y Y - - Y - Y 

 Roper Appliances - - Y - - - - - 

Absocold Corporation - Y Y - Y - - Y 

Avanti Products ††† - Y Y Y Y - - Y 

Crosley Corporation - Y Y Y - - - - 

Daewoo Electronics Co. - Y - - Y - - - 

Danby Products Inc. - Y Y Y Y Y - - 

Diversified Refrigeration Inc. - Y - - - - - - 

3-10 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Manufacturer Name 

AHAM 

Member 

E* 

Products 

Std RefrigFreezer Freezer Com­ pact Built-In Custom Door/Inter. Under Counter 

Equator Appliances - Y Y Y Y - - - 

Galaxy Mfg. Company of C.N.Y. - Y NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Gorenje USA, Inc. - Y NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Jetson TV & Appliance Centers - Y Y Y Y Y - Y 

MicroFridge - Y - - Y - - - 

Organizacion Mabe # - Y Y - Y - - - 

 Camco Inc. - Y Y Y Y - - - 

 Moffat - Y Y - - - - - 

Petters Consumer Brands LLC - Y NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Summit Appliances - Y Y Y Y - - Y 

Sun Frost - Y - - - - - - 

U-Line Corporation - Y - Y Y - - Y 

Ultra 8 International LLC - Y - - - - - - 

ACME Kitchenettes Corp. - - - - Y - - - 

Atlas Eléctrica## - - NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Bauer Appliances - - Y Y - - - - 

Broich Enterprises ††† - Y Y Y - - - - 

Distinctive Appliances ††† - Y - - - Y Y - 

Euroquip S.A.de C.V. - - - - - - - - Jade - - Y - - - - - Indesit Company### - - Y - - - - Y 

Scottsman - - Y - - - - - 

Sunbeam^ - - Y - Y - - - 

Thermador - Y Y Y - - Y - 

WiniaMando Inc. - - - - - - - - 

Kenmore^^ - Y Y Y Y - - - 

Mastercool^^ - - NA NA NA NA NA NA 

United Refrigeration Inc. ^^^ - - - Y - - - Y 

* Owns Marvel Industries and Northland Corp. ** Includes Frigidaire and White Westinghouse brands. *** Includes Hotpoint and Monogram brands. †	 Includes Vencold brand. †† Includes the following brands: Amana Appliances, Maytag, Estate Appliances, Magic Chef & Ewave, 

Gladiator Garage Works, Ikea, Inglis Home Appliances, Jenn-Air, Kitchen Aid, Roper Appliances. 

# 48 percent owned by GE. Includes Moffat brand. Owns Camco Inc. ## 20 percent owned by Electrolux. 

### Includes Aritson brand. ^ An affiliate of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC. 

^^ Brand names that are produced by more than o

^^^ Could be a distributor or brand name under ano

oo SS=Stainless Steel; BI=Built-In; CDD=Custom

SI=Size; CB=Convertible; PI=Price 

′′	 Units included: units with more than three door

refrigerated drawers; commercial-size units 

3-11 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.3.2	 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturer Market 

Shares 

Appliance magazine provides market share data for the most significant manufacturers 

(i.e., manufacturers with the greatest sales) for the following four product types: (1) standard-size 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, (2) compact refrigerators, (3) built-in/undercounter 

refrigerators, and (4) freezers.14 Table 3.2.3 through Table 3.2.6 show how market shares have 

changed over at least a ten-year period. Market shares among the largest manufacturers of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers have remained relatively stable. Whirlpool Corporation 

(Whirlpool)’s 2006 acquisition of Maytag Corporation (Maytag) (discussed below) now gives 

Whirlpool the largest U.S. market share. Also, Haier America Trading, LLC (Haier), a relatively 

recent entrant to the market, captured three percent of the market in 2006. 

Table 3.2.3 Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Manufacturer Market Shares 

Company 

Market Share 

2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 2000 1995 

GE 29% 29% 29% 29% 36% 34% 35% 

Electrolux 25% 25% 25% 25% 26% 21% 17% 

Whirlpool 25% 25% 25% 25% 23% 24% 27%

 Maytag 10% 10% 11% 11% 13% 14% 10%

 Goodman/Raytheon

 (Amana) 

NA 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 

Haier 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 

W.C. Wood 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Other 6% 7% 7% 8% 0% 2% 1% 

Source: Appliance magazine 

The market for compact refrigerators has seen a dramatic shift since 1993 (Table 3.2.4). 

SANYO North America Corporation (Sanyo) had the largest market share by far in 1993, but 

now accounts for only seven percent of the market. Haier now has the largest compact 

refrigerator market share, followed by the joint venture between GE and Mexican appliance 

company Grupo P.I. Mabe S.A. (Mabe). 

3-12 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2.4 Compact Refrigerator Manufacturer Market Shares 

Company 

Market Share 

2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 1997 1993 

Haier 22% 21% 20.1% 20% NA 15% 0% 

GE/Mabe 16% 16% 16.7% 17% NA 18% 17% 

Sanyo 7% 7% 7.3% 8% NA 58% 61% 

U-Line 5% 5% 4.8% 0% NA 0% 0% 

Danby 3% 3% 2.9% 3% NA 0% 0% 

Avanti 1% 2% 2.5% 0% NA 0% 0% 

Whirlpool/Consul 1% 2% 1.9% 0% NA 2% 2% 

Marvel 2% 2% 1.6% 0% NA 0% 0% 

Wanbao NA 0% 0% 0% NA 5% 12% 

Others 43% 42% 42.2% 52% NA 2% 8% 

Source: Appliance magazine 

The reported market for built-in undercounter units has remained relatively stable over 

the past ten years (Table 3.2.5). The data show that U-Line Corporation (U-Line) has the greatest 

market share. Note that this market share distribution does not include full-size built-in products. 

Table 3.2.5 Built-In Undercounter Refrigerator Manufacturer Market Shares 

Company 

Market Share 

2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 2000 1995* 

U-Line 69% 70% 69% 67% 65% 75% 58% 

Marvel 21% 21% 21% 22% 25% 14% 27% 

Sub-Zero 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 10% 12% 

Others 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 3% 

Source: Appliance magazine; * 1995 data includes compact refrigerators. 

Market share data for full-size built-in refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is not 

publicly available. Key manufacturers in this product category include Sub-Zero, General 

Electric’s Monagram line, Whirlpool’s Kitchenaid line, Viking, and Northland. Manufacturers 

providing imported products for this market include Liebherr, Bosch, and Miele. AHAM has 

recently begun collecting shipment data on built-in products. The percentage of overall 

shipments represented by built-in products has fluctuated between 2005 and 2007 between 1.6% 

and 2.2%. This includes both full-size and compact (undercounter) built-in products. This data 

was provided by AHAM as part of the pre-NOPR phase of this rulemaking. 

For chest and upright freezers, Electrolux has retained the largest market share for ten 

years (Table 3.2.6). Haier, which was not in the market in 1995, now captures 13 percent of the 

market. 

3-13 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Table 3.2.6 Chest/Upright Freezer Manufacturer Market Shares 

Company 

Market Share 

2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 2000 1995 

Electrolux 

(Frigidaire) 

66% 66% 67% 68% 68% 69% 67% 

W.C. Wood 20% 21% 21% 22% 21% 27% 30% 

Haier 13% 12% 11% 9% 9% 3% 0% 

Sanyo 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 

Whirlpool NA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 

Others NA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 

Source: Appliance magazine 

3.2.3.3 Mergers and Acquisitions 

The appliance manufacturing industry has had a continuous history of consolidation. 

Maytag acquired Jenn-Air Corporation (Jenn-Air) in 1982, Magic Chef, Inc. (Magic Chef) in 

1986, and Amana Appliances (Amana) in 2001. Whirlpool acquired the KitchenAid division of 

Hobart Corporation (KitchenAid) in 1986. White Consolidated Industries (WCI) acquired 

Frigidaire in 1979, and AB Electrolux acquired WCI (including Frigidaire) in 1986. 

Mergers and acquisitions have two purposes. First, they produce large corporations with 

the financial resources and stability to be successful in a competitive market. Second, mergers 

and acquisitions mean manufacturers can have a complete line of home appliances. This product 

diversification allows firms to offer a complete set of appliances to consumers, an important 

feature in the builder market. There is also increasing worldwide competition in the major 

appliance market, so mergers and acquisitions are likely to continue. 

On August 22, 2005, Whirlpool and Maytag announced plans to merge in a deal worth 

$2.7 billion.15 Maytag shareholders approved the merger on December 22, 2005. The U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division initiated an investigation into the effects of the 

merger, including potential lessening of competition or the creation of a monopoly. Opponents of 

the merger asserted that the combined companies would control as much as 70 percent of the 

residential laundry market and as much as 50 percent of the residential dishwasher market.16 

Whirlpool claimed that its large potential residential laundry market share was skewed because 

the company produces washing machines for Sears, which sells them under its Kenmore inhouse brand. Whirlpool further stated that it must periodically bid with other manufacturers to 

keep the Kenmore contract and that Sears controls the pricing of the Kenmore units.17 

In early January 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Harkin and U.S. Representative Leonard 

Boswell called on the DOJ to block the merger, claiming it would give Whirlpool an unfair 

advantage in the home appliance industry. On March 29, 2006, DOJ closed its investigation and 

approved the merger. DOJ stated that “the proposed transaction is not likely to reduce 

competition substantially. The combination of strong rival suppliers with the ability to expand 

sales significantly and large cost savings and other efficiencies that Whirlpool appears likely to 

achieve indicates that this transaction is not likely to harm consumer welfare.”18 

3-14 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

The DOJ Antitrust Division focused its investigation on residential laundry, although it 

considered impacts across all products offered by the two companies. DOJ determined that the 

merger would not give Whirlpool market power in the sale of its products and that any attempt to 

raise prices would likely be unsuccessful. To support this claim, DOJ provided reasons 

including: (1) other U.S. brands, including Kenmore, GE, and Frigidaire, are well established; 

(2) foreign manufacturers, including LG and Samsung, are gaining market share; (3) existing 

U.S. manufacturers are below production capacity; (4) the large home appliance retailers have 

alternatives available to resist price increase attempts; and (5) Whirlpool and Maytag 

substantiated large cost savings and other efficiencies to benefit consumers.18 

Whirlpool and Maytag completed the merger on March 31, 2006. 

3.2.3.4 Distribution Channels 

Most residential refrigerators and freezers move directly from manufacturers to retail 

outlets. Table 3.2.7 identifies the types of retail stores through which major appliances, including 

refrigerators and freezers, are sold based on data from AHAM 2005 Fact Book.

19 

Table 3.2.7 Major Appliance Sales by Channel 

Type of Store Percentage of Appliance Purchases 

Department Store (such as Sears or Kohls) 34.7% 

Appliance Store or Consumer Electronics Store 30.9% 

Home Improvement Store (such as Lowe’s or Home Depot) 23.8% 

Discount Store (such as Wal-Mart or K-Mart) 2.0% 

Membership Warehouse Club/Store (such as Sam’s or Costco) 1.8% 

Another type of store 6.8% 

Source: AHAM Fact Book 

A certain share of shipments is purchased through channels other than retail outlets, e.g., 

by multi-family home builders for installation in new homes. The Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency (CEE) estimates that 20 to 30 percent of home appliance sales are commercial sales, 

i.e., sales to single/multi-family builders, contractors, government, public housing, and multifamily property managers.20 Because single-family builders typically do not include refrigeratorfreezers as part of a home sale, the 20 to 30 percent estimate by CEE is probably too high for the 

refrigerator market. 

3.2.3.5 Manufacturer Trade Groups 

AHAM is the primary manufacturer trade group representing most manufactures of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. AHAM provides services to its members 

including government relations; certification programs for room air conditioners, dehumidifiers, 

and room air cleaners; an active communications program; and technical services and research. 

In addition, AHAM conducts other market and consumer research studies and publishes a 

biennial Major Appliance Fact Book. AHAM also develops and maintains technical test 

procedures for various appliances to provide uniform, repeatable procedures for measuring 

specific product characteristics and performance features. 

3-15 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.3.6 Compressor Manufacturers and Market Shares 

Because the compressor is a key energy-using component of refrigerators, it is important 

to determine which compressor manufacturers are supplying the U.S. refrigerator market. 

According to three sources, Embraco is the compressor manufacturer with the largest global 

market share, although several other manufacturers have significant global market share as 

well.21, 22 For the U.S. refrigerator market, based on data from Embraco, it has by far the largest 

market share.23 Besides Embraco, there are five other major compressor manufacturers supplying 

the world refrigerator and freezer market: Appliances Components Companies (ACC), 

Tecumseh Compressor Company (Tecumseh), Danfoss Compressors GmbH, Matsushita Electric 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Matsushita), and LG Electronics, Inc. (LG). Table 3.2.8 lists the compressor 

manufacturers and their estimated global and U.S. market shares. 

Table 3.2.8 Compressor Manufacturers and World and U.S. Market Shares 

Manufacturer 

World Market Share U.S. Market Share 

2005* Year not specified** 2006*** 2001† 

Embraco 19.5% ~23% 25% 56% 

ACC 15.0% ~20% NA NA 

Tecumseh 13.5% ~8% NA NA 

Matsushita 12.9% ~9% 18% NA 

LG 10.8% ~8% NA NA 

Danfoss 8.9% ~9% 15% <1% 

Others 19.4% ~23% NA NA 

Sources: *Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 2006; **Institute for Materials Science, Welding and 

Forming; ***Unable to cite source; †

Embraco, 2001. 

3.2.4	 Regulatory Programs 

The following section details current regulatory programs mandating energy conservation 

standards for refrigerator/freezers. It covers U.S. Federal energy conservation standards, State 

standards, standards in Canada and Mexico (which may impact the companies servicing the 

North American market), and international standards. 

3.2.4.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards 

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) established efficiency standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with a total 

refrigerated volume of less than 1104 L (39 ft3

) and for freezers with a total refrigerated volume 

of less than 850 L (30 ft3

). Compact refrigerators and freezers represent separate product classes 

and have a volume less than 220 L (7.75 ft3) and a height of 0.91 meters (36 inches) or less. The 

minimum efficiency levels depend on product class and adjusted volume. The adjusted volume is 

equal to the fresh food internal volume plus an adjustment factor which depends on the product 

type times the freezer internal volume. The adjustment factor is 1.63 for refrigerator-freezers, 

1.44 for refrigerators with freezer compartments, 1.00 for all-refrigerators (which may have a 

freezer compartment with less than 0.5 ft3 volume), and 1.73 for freezers. Maximum annual 

energy use is expressed as kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year (yr) 

3-16 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
NAECA initially established energy conservation standards for refrigerator-freezers that 

became effective in 1990. DOE amended NAECA with new standards that went into effect in 

1993, followed by the current amended standards that became effective in July 2001. 

Refrigerator-freezers manufactured to meet the 2001 standard typically consume about 30 

percent less energy than required under the 1993 efficiency regulations. The 1993 and 2001 

standards are summarized in Table 3.2.9 below. 

As discussed in section 3.2.1, there are two additional product classes that DOE proposes 

to establish due to exemptions it granted in recent years for products not adhering to existing 

product class definitions: (1) automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezer 

and TTD ice service, and (2) automatic defrost chest freezers. These proposed product classes 

are listed as 5A and 10A in Table 3.2.9. 

3-17 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.9 Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers 

Product Class 

Energy Standard Equations for 

Maximum Energy Use (kWh/yr) 

Effective 

January 1, 1993 

Effective 

July 1, 2001 

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost. 13.5AV+299 

0.48av+299 

8.82AV+248.4 

0.31av+248.4 

2. Refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost. 10.4AV+398 

0.37av+398 

8.82AV+248.4 

0.31av+248.4 

3. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice service and allrefrigerator—automatic defrost. 

16.0AV+355 

0.57av+355 

9.80AV+276.0 

0.35av+276.0 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice service. 

11.8AV+501 

0.42av+501 

4.91AV+507.5 

0.17av+507.5 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice service. 

16.5AV+367 

0.58av+367 

4.60AV+459.0 

0.16av+459.0 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

17.6AV+391 

0.62av+391 

10.20AV+356.0 

0.36av+356.0 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

16.3AV+527 

0.58av+527 

10.10AV+406.0 

0.36av+406.0 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost. 10.3AV+264 

0.36av+264 

7.55AV+258.3 

0.27av+258.3 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost. 14.9AV+391 

0.53av+391 

12.43AV+326.1 

0.44av+326.1 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers. 11.0AV+160 

0.39av+160 

9.88AV+143.7 

0.35av+143.7 

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost. 

13.5AV+299* 

0.48av+299* 

10.70AV+299.0 

0.38av+299.0 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost. 10.4AV+398* 

0.37av+398* 

7.00AV+398.0 

0.25av+398.0 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer and compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost. 16.0AV+355* 

0.57av+355* 

12.70AV+355.0 

0.45av+355.0 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer. 11.8AV+501* 

0.42**+501* 

7.60AV+501.0 

0.27av+501.0 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer. 16.5AV+367* 

0.58av+367* 

13.10AV+367.0 

0.46av+367.0 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost. 10.3AV+264* 

0.36av+264* 

9.78AV+250.8 

0.35av+250.8 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost. 14.9AV+391* 

0.53av+391* 

11.40AV+391.0 

0.40av+391.0 

18. Compact chest freezers. 11.0AV+160* 

0.39av+160* 

10.45AV+152.0 

0.37av+152.0 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service. NA 5.0AV+539.0 

0.18av+539.0 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost. NA 14.76AV+211.5 

0.52av+211.5 

AV:	 Adjusted Volume in ft3; av: Adjusted Volume in L 

* Applicable standards for compact refrigerator products manufactured before July 1, 2001. Compact refrigerator 

products are not separate product categories under the standards effective January 1, 1993. 

3-18 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (P.L. 110-140), requires that 

DOE publish a final rule no later than December 31, 2010 to determine whether to amend the 

standards in effect for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2014. 

3.2.4.2 State Energy Conservation Standards 

As part of its Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) has established standards for consumer refrigeration products that are not 

covered by Federal standards. CEC set standards for wine chillers (Table 3.2.10) and freezers 

that have a total refrigerated volume greater than 850 L (30 ft3) (Table 3.2.11).24 The standards 

for freezers with volume greater than 30 ft3 are numerically identical to the federal standards for 

smaller freezers—the California standards simply extend the federal standards beyond the 

federal size limitation. 

Table 3.2.10 California Standards for Wine Chillers 

Appliance Maximum Annual Energy Consumption 

(kWh) 

Wine chillers with manual defrost 13.7V + 267 

Wine chillers with automatic defrost 17.4V + 344 

V = volume in ft3

. 

Table 3.2.11 California Standards for Freezers with Volume Greater than 30 cubic feet 

Appliance 

Upright Freezers with manual defrost 

Maximum Annual Energy Consumption 

(kWh) 

7.55AV + 258.3 

Upright Freezers with automatic defrost 12.43AV + 326.1 

Chest Freezers 9.88AV + 143.7 

AV = adjusted total volume, expressed in ft3, which is 1.73 times freezer volume (in ft3). 

3.2.4.3 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards 

Refrigerators and freezers are regulated products in Canada under the Canadian Energy 

Efficiency Regulations. The regulations reference Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 

CAN/CSA-C300-00, Energy Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, for the testing procedure and for maximum annual energy 

consumption (MAEC) limits for residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

product classes and MAEC limits in the Canadian regulations are the same as in the U.S. Federal 

standards. 

In November 2006, Canada added two new product types to its Regulations (Amendment 

9) to harmonize with recent U.S. rulings with respect to these products.25 These product types are 

refrigerator-freezers with automatic defrost and with a bottom-mounted freezer with TTD ice 

service and chest freezers with automatic defrost system. The maximum energy use regulations, 

3-19 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

listed in Table 3.2.12 below, are identical to the energy standards that DOE’s Office of Hearings 

and Appeals assigned to these classes. 

Table 3.2.12 Canadian Energy Standards for Added Refrigerator and Freezer Product 

Classes 

Appliance Maximum Annual Energy Consumption 

(kWh) 

Product Class 5A: refrigerator-freezers with 

automatic defrost and with bottom-mounted 

freezers with TTD ice service 

0.18av+539 

Product Class 10A: chest freezers with 

automatic defrost system 

0.52av + 211.5 

av = adjusted volume in liters 

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)’s Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) amended 

Canada's Energy Efficiency Regulations to add energy performance standards for residential 

wine chillers (or wine coolers).26 The proposed standard includes a test procedure and minimum 

energy performance standard levels for wine chillers harmonized with those in effect in 

California. Table 3.2.13 below shows the maximum annual energy consumption limits (in kWh) 

for residential wine chillers. 

Table 3.2.13 Canadian Standards for Wine Chillers 

Appliance Maximum Annual Energy Consumption 

(kWh) 

Wine chillers with manual defrost 0.48av + 267 

Wine chillers with automatic defrost 0.61av + 344 

av = adjusted volume in L. 

3.2.4.4 Mexican Energy Conservation Standards 

The Mexican Official Standard establishes the maximum energy consumption limits for 

household refrigerators and freezers using hermetic motor-driven compressors, specifies the test 

methods for determining such energy consumption and the total refrigerated volume, and 

provides energy consumption label requirements. This standard applies to household 

refrigerators up to 1,104 cubic decimeters (39 ft3) and household freezers of up to 850 cubic 

decimeters (30 ft3

) using hermetic motor-driven compressors.27 The new standard levels (NOM015-ENER-2002) became effective in May 2003. 

3.2.4.5 Efficiency Standards Outside North America 

According to the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP) 

database, all 15 original European Union (EU) member countries, plus 16 other countries outside 

North America, have mandatory energy efficiency standards for refrigerator-freezers.28 The 

countries other than the original EU member countries are: Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, Chile, 

China, Chinese Taipei, Costa Rica, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, Philippines, 

Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Viet Nam. 

3-20 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a Commission proposal for a directive on 

establishing a framework for setting eco-design requirements (such as energy efficiency 

requirements) for all energy-using products in the residential, tertiary (services), and industrial 

sectors.29 EU-wide rules for eco-design are intended to ensure that disparities among national 

regulations do not become obstacles to intra-EU trade. The directive does not directly introduce 

binding requirements for specific products, but does define conditions and criteria for setting 

requirements regarding environmentally relevant product characteristics (such as energy 

consumption), and allows these requirements to be improved quickly and efficiently. The 

directive will be followed by implementing measures that will establish the eco-design 

requirements. 

It is difficult to compare the standards in other countries with those in the U.S. due to 

differences in test procedures. The development of an international test procedure under the 

auspices of the International Electrotechnical Commission has international test procedure 

harmonization as a key objective. Establishment of Standard IEC 62552, which is currently 

under development, should make it easier in future to compare international refrigeration product 

energy standard levels. 

3.2.5 Voluntary and other Federal and State Programs 

In addition to mandatory standards, there are voluntary programs—e.g., the Federal 

Energy Management Program (FEMP) and CEE—as well as other Federal and State policies that 

affect the efficiency of new refrigerators and freezers. 

3.2.5.1 ENERGY STAR 

Historical ENERGY STAR Requirements 

 ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. government to 

promote energy efficient consumer products. Table 3.2.14 below shows the history of ENERGY 

STAR energy use criteria for each of the three covered product categories. 

3-21 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.14 History of ENERGY STAR Energy Use Criteria for Residential Refrigerators 

and Freezers 

1997 2001 2003 2004 2008 

Initial Revision #1 Addition of Revision #2 Revision #3 

Criteria Freezers 

and 

Compacts 

Standard-size 

Refrigerators & 

RefrigeratorFreezers 

20% below 

1993 Federal 

Standard 

10% below 

2001 Federal 

Standard 

10% below 

2001 Federal 

Standard 

15% below 

2001 Federal 

Standard 

20% below 

2001 Federal 

Standard 

Standard-size 10% below 10% below 10% below 

Freezers -------- -------- 2001 Federal 2001 Federal 2001 Federal 

Standard Standard Standard 

Compact 20% below 20% below 20% below 

Refrigerators & -------- -------- 2001 Federal 2001 Federal 2001 Federal 

Freezers Standard Standard Standard 

As of 2006, the market share of ENERGY STAR-compliant full-size refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers was just under 30%.30 Within this category, approximately 20 percent of 

top- and bottom-mount and 50 percent of side-mount refrigerator-freezer units sold in the U.S. 

were ENERGY STAR compliant. Some States (i.e., Massachusetts, Michigan) have waived state 

sales tax for purchase of appliances that meet ENERGY STAR levels. 

New ENERGY STAR requirements effective in 2008 

The current ENERGY STAR criteria, drafted with input from stakeholders and two 

rounds of public comments, went into effect on April 28, 2008. To support the change, 

ENERGY STAR released a market analysis30 and a final report on proposed program 

requirements.31 Table 3.2.15 shows the number of models that met the current Federal standard 

for refrigerators and available models with efficiencies 15 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent 

higher than the Federal standard, as of April 2007 (prior to the 2008 revision). ENERGY STAR 

program staff deemed the number of models offered to consumers at the higher efficiencies to be 

sufficient to warrant changing the labeling criteria. 

3-22
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

Table 3.2.15 Efficiency of Standard Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers on the Market 

Relative to Current Federal Standard 

Efficiency Level Number of Available Models 

(prior to 2008 criteria revision) 

Percent of Available Models 

(prior to 2008 criteria revision) 

Current Federal Standard 

(effective July 2001) 2,524 100% 

2004 ENERGY STAR Criteria 

(15% better than Federal 

Standard) 

1,441 57% 

2008 ENERGY STAR Criteria 

(20% better than Federal 

Standard) 

121 4.8% 

25% better than Federal Standard 14 0.6% 

Source: ENERGY STAR, April 27, 200730 

3.2.5.2 Federal Energy Management Program 

 DOE’s FEMPa

 works to reduce the cost and environmental impact of the Federal 

government by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of 

distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at Federal sites. 

FEMP helps Federal buyers identify and purchase energy-efficient equipment, including 

residential refrigerators and freezers. 

Federal agencies are required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005, P.L. 109­

58) and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 23.2 to specify and buy ENERGY 

STAR-qualified products or, in categories with no ENERGY STAR label, FEMP-designated 

products which are among the highest 25 percent of equivalent products for energy efficiency. 

Table 3.2.16 below shows refrigerator and freezer performance requirements for Federal 

purchases. 

a

 For more information, please visit www.eere.energy.gov/femp. 

3-23 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.16 Performance Requirement for Federal Purchases of Refrigerators and 

Freezers 

Product Class 

Total Volume* 

(ft3

) 

Product Class 

Number(s)*** Annual Energy Use** 

Single–Door Manual Defrost <2.4 11 255 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Manual Defrost 2.5 to 4.4 11 275 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Manual Defrost 4.5 to 6.4 11 295 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Manual Defrost >6.5 1 or 11 315 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Automatic Defrost <2.4 13 305 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Automatic Defrost 2.5 to 4.4 13 325 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Automatic Defrost 4.5 to 6.4 13 345 kWh/year or less 

Single–Door Automatic Defrost >6.5 3 or 13 365 kWh/year or less 

Bottom–Mount Freezer <18.4 5, 5A, or 15 475 kWh/year or less 

Bottom–Mount Freezer 18.5 to 20.4 5 or 5A 485 kWh/year or less 

Bottom–Mount Freezer >20.4 5 or 5A 495 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer <10.4 3, 6, or 13 340 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 10.5 to 12.4 3 or 6 360 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 12.5 to 14.4 3 or 6 380 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 14.5 to 16.4 3 or 6 400 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 16.5 to 18.4 3 or 6 420 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 18.5 to 20.4 3 or 6 440 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 20.5 to 22.4 3 or 6 460 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer 22.5 to 24.4 3 or 6 480 kWh/year or less 

Top–Mount Freezer >24.5 3 or 6 500 kWh/year or less 

Side-mount Freezer <20.4 4, 7, or 14 560 kWh/year or less 

Side-mount Freezer 20.5 to 22.4 4 or 7 580 kWh/year or less 

Side-mount Freezer 22.5 to 24.4 4 or 7 600 kWh/year or less 

Side-mount Freezer >25.5 4 or 7 620 kWh/year or less 

* Total volume is the sum of the refrigerator and freezer volumes.
 

** Annual Energy Use is based on DOE test procedure (10 CFR 430, Sub-Part B, Appendix E). 

*** Possible Product Class numbers based on Product Class Descriptions 

3.2.5.3 Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) is a nonprofit corporation that promotes the 

manufacture and purchase of energy-efficient products and services. CEE promotes energyefficient refrigerators that use significantly less electricity than the Federal standard. These 

energy-efficient refrigerators represent the upper end of the ENERGY STAR efficiency levels. 

Effective January 1, 2007, CEE identifies three tiers for “super-efficient” refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. Table 3.2.17 below provides the specifications for the CEE. 

3-24 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.17 CEE Tier Levels Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

Efficiency level Percent Energy Use below Federal Standard 

Standard Refrigerators Compact Refrigerators 

CEE Tier 1 (Current 

ENERGY STAR) 20 20 

CEE Tier 2 25 25 

CEE Tier 3 30 30 

3.2.5.4 ENERGY STAR, FEMP, CEE Summary 

Table 3.2.18 below presents maximum unit energy consumption (UEC) values for the 

current Federal standard and the ENERGY STAR and CEE voluntary standards for (1) a topmount refrigerator-freezer with automatic defrost with no TTD ice features and 21.4 ft3

 adjusted 

volume, and (2) a side-mount refrigerator freezer with TTD features and 26.2 ft3 adjusted 

volume. 

Table 3.2.18 Annual Energy Consumption for Refrigerator-Freezers with Different 

Specifications 

Efficiency Level Top Mount* Side-Mount** 

2001 Federal Standard 486 671 

Former ENERGY STAR (15% below standard) 413 570 

CEE Tier 1, current ENERGY STAR (20% below standard) 389 537 

CEE Tier 2 (25% below standard) 364 503 

CEE Tier 3 (30% below standard) 340 469 

* Auto defrost, no TTD features, 18.2 ft3 total volume, and 21.4 ft3 adjusted volume. 

** Auto defrost, TTD features, 21.7 ft3 total volume, and 26.2 ft3

 adjusted volume. 

Source: DOE FY-2005 Priority Setting TSD; based on ENERGY STAR (2004),32 FEMP (2005)33 CEE (2004)34
 

3.2.5.5 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances 

EPACT 2005 provided tax credits to manufacturers for the production of energy-efficient 

residential refrigerators. These credits were intended to help manufacturers meet the costs of 

producing appliances that exceed the Federal standards. The credit program was modified by the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA 2008) and extended through 2010.35 The 

credit for residential refrigerators is a per-product credit (see Table 3.2.19). 

3-25
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.19 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances in EESA 2008 

Savings relative to 2001 Federal 

Standard Applicable Credit Amount Applicable Years 

20% to 22.9% $50 2008 

23% to 24.9% $75 2008, 2009 

25% to 29.9% $100 

30% or more $200 2008, 2009, 2010 

Notes: ‘Refrigerators’ refers to residential automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with an internal volume of at 

least 16.5 ft3

. 

3.2.5.6 Rebates for Highly Energy-Efficient Products 

Electric utilities and other organizations promote the purchase of highly energy-efficient 

refrigerators through consumer rebates. Typically, these programs offer rebates for products 

meeting existing ENERGY STAR efficiency levels. Table 3.2.20 below lists some rebates that 

were offered in 2006. Some utilities also offer incentives to retire old and inefficient appliances. 

Many utilities also offer rebates and disposal services for recycling old units in order to 

encourage consumers to purchase new, more efficient units and to ensure the safe disposal of 

hazardous waste. 

Table 3.2.20 Rebates Offered for Highly Energy-Efficient Refrigerators in 2006 

Utility/Organization* Rebate Level 

Efficiency Vermont $25 ( ENERGY STAR), $40 (CEE Tier 2 & 3) 

Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power $65 

PacifiCorp $20 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District $50 

San Diego Gas and Electric $50 

Southern California Edison Unspecified (while supplies last) 

* The table includes those programs listed as providing rebates for ENERGY STAR refrigerators in the 

publication “Residential Appliance Programs National Summary,” by CEE, September 2006. Additional programs 

may exist. 

3.2.5.7 State Tax Incentives for Highly Energy-Efficient Products 

According to the State Energy Efficiency Index compiled by the Alliance to Save Energy, 

Oregon is the only State that offers tax credits for premium-efficiency refrigerators.36 The tax 

credit is based on the amount of energy saved above models that meet the Federal standard. 

3.2.6 Historical Shipments and Efficiencies 

3.2.6.1 Historical Shipments 

Two public sources of information provide historical shipments data on residential 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers: Appliance magazine37 and the AHAM Fact 

Book.

19 Appliance magazine breaks down refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer shipments into 

3-26 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
three groups: (1) standard-size units, (2) built-in units, and (3) compact units. Both sources break 

down freezer shipments into chest and upright units. Unfortunately, neither source provides any 

further level of disaggregation. As discussed below, standard-size shipments can be broken down 

into two broad groups: (1) top- and bottom-mount refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and (2) 

side-mount units. 

Figure 3.2.1 shows historical shipments of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Figure 

3.2.2 shows historical shipments of freezers. In the past decade, annual shipments of standard 

refrigerator-freezers have grown from 8 million to 11 million, although shipments have dropped 

off significantly in 2007 and 2008 in response to poor economic conditions. Annual shipments of 

compact refrigerators grew from one million to roughly 3 million, but shipments dropped starting 

in 2006. Note that the data for refrigerators include products used in non-residential settings 

(e.g., hotels and offices), but the size of this market segment is unknown. 

Shipments of chest and upright freezers have grown less rapidly than those of standard 

refrigerator-freezers. These shipments rose from 1.5 million in 1997 to 2.5 million in 2002, but 

shipments dropped starting in 2005 and are now at 2 million annually. Shipments of compact 

freezers are roughly 0.5 million. 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

Annual Shipments (millions) 

Standard-Size 

Compact 

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008 

Year 

Figure 3.2.1 Annual Shipments of Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

3-27 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
0.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

Annual Shipments (millions) 

Standard-Size 

Compact 

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008 

Year 

Figure 3.2.2 Annual Shipments of Freezers 

For DOE’s 2005 technical analysis of amended energy conservation standards for 

residential refrigerator-freezers, AHAM provided historical shipments data for the time period 

1998–2004, broken down into three broad groups: (1) top- and bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers, (2) side-mount units, and (3) single-door units.38 Table 3.2.21 below shows market 

share data for only two of the above three groups—top- or bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers 

and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. According to DOE’s 2005 technical analysis, these two 

product groupings account for over 99 percent of standard-size refrigerator-freezer shipments. 

Data provided by AHAM as part of the pre-NOPR phase shows that in recent years single-door 

units accounted for 0.2% or less of shipments of standard-size refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. This data also shows a strong shift towards bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers in the 

last few years, coinciding with reduction in market share of both side-mount and top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers. 

3-28 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Table 3.2.21 Market Shares of Standard Refrigerator-Freezer Product Classes 

Year 

Top- Mount 

Refrigerator- Freezer 

(percent) 

Bottom- Mount 

Refrigerator- Freezer 

(percent) 

Side-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer 

(percent) 

1998 69.3 29.9 

1999 68.8 30.8 

2000 68.3 31.3 

2001 67.5 32.1 

2002 66.6 32.8 

2003 63.7 34.5 

2004 63.4 35.1 

2005 62.5 2.0 35.2 

2006 54.5 10.6 34.6 

2007 53.9 13.6 32.4 

Source: AHAM 

Based on data from The NPD Group for 2004,39 DOE estimated that (1) top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service in the size category range of 14 to 21 ft3 b comprise 

81 percent of total top- and bottom-mount refrigerators, and (2) side-mount refrigerator-freezers 

with TTD ice service in the size category range of 21 to 30 ft3 comprise 98 percent of total sidemount refrigerator-freezer shipments. 

3.2.6.2 Historical Efficiencies 

The average efficiency of new refrigerators and freezers has increased greatly since the 

1980s. Figure 3.2.3 below (which shows annual electricity consumption) indicates the changes in 

efficiency resulting from the Federal standards that took effect in 1990, 1993, and 2001. Note 

that the average efficiency trends shown in the chart reflect changes in product size and features 

as well as changes in the efficiency within specific types of products. In particular, the growing 

market share of side-mount refrigerator-freezers placed upward pressure on the average annual 

electricity use of new refrigerator-freezers. 

b

 Size category is based on ft3 of total refrigerated volume (fresh food volume plus freezer volume). 

3-29 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1800 

Annual Energy Use (kWh/year) 

Standard-Sized Refrigerator-Freezer 

Freezer 

1990 

Standards 

announced 

1993 

Standards 

2001 

Standards 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

Year 

Figure 3.2.3 Average Annual Electricity Use of New Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers 

Source: AHAM 

 ENERGY STAR sales data are an indicator of the demand for very energy-efficient 

products. The market share of ENERGY STAR labeled refrigerator-freezers grew from 17 

percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2004 (Table 3.2.22) and held steady in the low 30 percent range 

in the following two years.40 

Table 3.2.22 Sales of ENERGY STAR Labeled Refrigerator-Freezers 

Year Energy Star Criteria Percent of Total 

1998 20% below 1993 Standard 19% 

1999 24% 

2000 27% 

2001 10% below 2001 Standard 17% 

2002 20% 

2003 26% 

2004 15% below 2001 Standard 33% 

2005 33% 

2006 31% 

Source: ENERGY STAR 

3-30 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
3.2.6.3 Imports and Exports 

The share of domestic shipments of refrigerators and freezers accounted for by imports 

grew significantly in the 1994-2004 period. Refrigerator imports totaled nearly six million units 

in 2004. Over one-third of the imports came from Mexico. Freezer imports totaled around one 

million units in 2004.19 

Annual refrigerator exports—mostly to Canada—were in the 1.0 to 1.1 million units 

range in the 1994-2004 period, while annual freezer exports ranged between 200,000 and 

250,000 units. 19 

3.2.7 Saturation in U.S. Homes 

Saturation refers to the percentage of homes with a given product. DOE used four 

primary sources of information on the saturation and ownership of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers in U.S. homes: (1) a 2001 report prepared for AHAM by NFO Research, 

Inc.,41 (2) Appliance magazine, (3) the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),42,43,44 and (4) a 2005 AHAM report entitled Major 

Appliance Saturation & Marketing Factors Study.45 Only RECS provides market saturations for 

recently-built housing; this information is useful for forecasting future shipments to new 

housing. 

The saturation of standard refrigerators has been close to 100 percent for two decades 

(Table 3.2.23). The RECS data show that the share of households with two or more refrigerators 

grew from 13 percent in 1993 to 15 percent in 2001 and to 19 percent in 2005 (the current 

percentage with two or more is likely even higher). 

3-31
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2.23 Standard Refrigerator Saturation in U.S. Homes in 1987–2005 Period 

Year 

Refrigerators, Standard 

Appliance 

Magazine NFO 2001 

RECS 

All 1 unit 2 or more 

1987 99.9% 

1988 

1989 

1990 96.7% 

1991 

1992 99.0% 

1993 99.3% 98.6% 85.8% 12.8% 

1994 99.5% 

1995 99.7% 

1996 99.8% 93.9% 

1997 99.8% 98.9% 85.8% 13.2% 

1998 99.8% 

1999 99.8% 

2000 99.9% 

2001 99.0% 93.1% 99.3% 82.9% 14.6% 

2002 99.0% 

2003 99.0% 

2004 99.0% 

2005 99.0% 99.9% 77.7% 19.2% 

The data on saturation of compact refrigerators vary greatly (Table 3.2.24). The estimates 

for 2005 vary from a low of 3.7 percent (RECS) to a high of 17.0 percent (Appliance magazine). 

Comparatively, NFO’s estimate for 2001 is 5.6 percent. 

3-32
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2.24 Compact Refrigerator Saturation in U.S. Homes in 1987–2005 Period 

Year 

Refrigerators, Compact 

Appliance 

Magazine NFO 2001 

RECS 

All 1 unit 2 or more 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 7.4% 

1991 

1992 7.4% 

1993 8.7% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 

1994 9.2% 

1995 9.7% 

1996 11.2% 5.8% 

1997 12.1% 2.8% 2.8% 0.1% 

1998 12.6% 

1999 14.5% 

2000 16.0% 

2001 16.5% 5.6% 3.1% 3.0% 0.1% 

2002 16.5% 

2003 16.5% 

2004 17.0% 

2005 17.0% 3.7% 3.1% 0.6% 

The data on freezer saturation are also somewhat varied (Table 3.2.25). Appliance 

magazine reports that freezer saturation has risen from 40 percent in 1993 to 45 percent in 2005, 

but the NFO study reports that the 2001 level (41 percent) was lower than in 1990 (45 percent). 

RECS shows a much lower freezer saturation in 2001 (32 percent) than the other sources, and 

also shows a declining trend. 

3-33
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2.25 Freezer Saturation in U.S. Homes in 1987-2005 Period 

Year 

Freezers 

Appliance 

Magazine NFO 2001 

RECS 

All 1 unit 2 or more 

1987 40.7% 

1988 

1989 

1990 45.4% 

1991 

1992 38.2% 

1993 40.0% 34.5% 30.5% 4.0% 

1994 40.0% 

1995 41.2% 

1996 42.5% 42.4% 

1997 42.4% 33.2% 30.2% 2.9% 

1998 42.8% 

1999 42.9% 

2000 44.0% 

2001 47.0% 41.0% 32.0% 28.8% 3.2% 

2002 47.5% 

2003 47.5% 

2004 47.0% 

2005 45.0% 31.6% 29.0% 2.6% 

As shown in Table 3.2.26, RECS data indicate that in new housing (1) the saturation of 

freezers is lower, and (2) the share of households with two or more refrigerators is higher in 

recently-built homes than in the total population of homes. For freezers, this result is in 

accordance with the declining saturation of freezers in the total population seen in Table 3.2.25. 

3-34
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

Table 3.2.26 Refrigerator and Freezer Saturation in New U.S. Homes 

Year 

Standard Refrigerators Freezers 

New Homes* New Homes* 

All 1 unit 2 or more All 1 unit 2 or more 

1993 99.7% 90.4% 9.2% 30.3% 27.8% 2.5% 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 99.6% 85.8% 13.8% 35.9% 33.1% 2.6% 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 100% 82.5% 15.6% 28.4% 26.3% 2.1% 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 100% 75.0% 26.1% 27.2% 23.9% 3.3% 

Source: RECS surveys; * “New homes” refers to homes built in the 1988-1993 period for the 1993 RECS, the 

1992-1997 period for the 1997 RECS, and the 1996-2001 period for the 2001 RECS, and the 2001-2005 period for 

the 2005 RECS. 

3.2.8 Product Retail Prices 

3.2.8.1 Historical Retail Prices 

AHAM has reported average consumer retail prices for refrigerator-freezers and freezers 

in past Fact Books. Table 3.2.27 lists the prices for eight years spanning 1980–2002. The real 

price of refrigerator-freezers and freezers (expressed in 2008 $) declined during the 1980s and 

1990s. However, in 2002, the prices of both types of products increased relative to the year 1998. 

Table 3.2.27 Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Average Retail Prices 

Product Price 

Year 

1980 1985 1986 1991 1993 1994 1998 2002 

RefrigeratorFreezers 

nominal $ $598 $702 $684 $732 $692 $713 $657 $788 

2008 $ $1,563 $1,405 $1,344 $1,157 $1,031 $1,036 $868 $943 

Freezers nominal $ $426 $479 $449 $434 $334 $344 $315 $405 

2008 $ $1,113 $958 $882 $686 $498 $500 $416 $485 

Source: AHAM Fact Books. 

3.2.8.2 Refrigerator-Freezer 2004 Retail Prices 

DOE’s most recent technical analysis of amended energy conservation standards for 

residential refrigerator-freezers published in October 2005 provided the retail price of the two 

largest product classes of refrigerator-freezers: top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD 

features and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD features.38 The analysis also established 

the retail price of products meeting existing ENERGY STAR levels. 

3-35 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

Baseline Retail Prices 

DOE determined the retail price of baseline-efficiency top-mount refrigerator-freezers 

without TTD features and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD features from data 

purchased from NPD Group. The NPD Group dataset included information about the average 

price of more than 2000 refrigerator models sold in 2004 in the United States.c Table 3.2.28 

below summarizes the retail price data for three capacity sizes for each of the product types. The 

retail prices correspond to baseline-efficiency products, i.e., products that just meet the existing 

energy conservation standards. 

Table 3.2.28 Baseline Unit Retail Prices from 2005 DOE Report (2004$) 

Product Type 14-17 ft3 18-20 ft3 21-22 ft3 

Top-Mount without TTD $329 $386 $457 

 21-23 ft3

 24-26 ft3 27-30 ft3 

Side-Mount with TTD $702 $789 $926 

Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld – POS. 

Price of ENERGY STAR 

DOE’s October 2005 report also provided incremental retail price estimates of ENERGY 

STAR products relative to baseline products. At the time, ENERGY STAR levels specified 15 

percent lower energy consumption than the federal energy standard level. DOE used two 

approaches to estimate the retail prices: (1) the application of manufacturer and retailer markups 

to manufacturer costs, and (2) a retail price analysis of ENERGY STAR compliant products 

based on data from the NPD Group. Table 3.2.29 below summarizes the retail price increments 

associated with meeting ENERGY STAR relative to baseline models of several different 

capacity sizes. Note that the two approaches yield roughly the same average retail price 

increment of meeting ENERGY STAR with the exception of the 27–30 ft3

 side-mount 

refrigerator. 

Table 3.2.29 Average Retail Price Increment of ENERGY STAR from 2005 DOE Report 

(2004$) 

Product Type Approach 14-17 ft3 18-20 ft3 21-22 ft3 

Top-Mount without 

TTD 

Markups $38 $35 $42 

Retail Prices $28 $49 $63 

Product Type Approach 21-23 ft3

 24-26 ft3 27-30 ft3 

Side-Mount with TTD Markups $54 $35 $183 

Retail Prices $47 $66 $88 

Source: DOE, 2005. 

c

 The data also included information about the refrigerator brand, manufacturer, attributes (e.g., total refrigerated 

volume, number and type of shelves), and sales, and whether each model has an Energy Star rating. The data cost 

$25,000 to purchase. 

3-36 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

3.2.8.3 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Prices 

DOE collected retail price data for several refrigerator-freezer and freezer models from 

five manufacturers’ Internet web sites: General Electric, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, Maytag, and LG 

Electronics. The price data reflect manufacturer-suggested retail prices and, therefore, may not 

reflect actual sales prices. Even so, DOE conducted a statistical analysis of the data to determine 

the effect of certain attributes, including the impact of meeting existing ENERGY STAR levels. 

DOE collected data on 1,268 refrigerator-freezer and freezer models. The collected data 

set included information about the retail price and model number of refrigerator-freezers and 

freezers sold in 2007 in the U.S., coupled with information about the brand, attributes (i.e., color, 

stainless steel, built-in, French doors), and whether the product met existing ENERGY STAR 

levels. DOE sorted the data into the following product types: (1) side-mount refrigerator-freezers 

consisting of 523 models, (2) top-mount refrigerator-freezers consisting of 340 models, (3) 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers consisting of 281 models, (4) chest freezers consisting of 46 

models, and (5) upright freezers consisting of 54 models. 

Figure 3.2.4 through Figure 3.2.8 present price distributions for each product type, 

showing variation in price of products which do not meet ENERGY STAR criteria as well as 

variation in price for products with comply with ENERGY STAR. The price distributions of 

side-mount and top-mount refrigerator-freezers in Figure 3.2.4 and Figure 3.2.5 indicate that 

ENERGY STAR generally increases the price and that there is a wider price variation for 

ENERGY STAR products. Also, both refrigerator-freezer types exhibit skewed price 

distributions, i.e., more models are low-priced with relatively few high-priced models (as an 

example, fewer than 10 models were priced above $1,300 for top-mounts). The price 

distributions for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, Figure 3.2.6 below, show that French-door 

configurations are more of a factor in contributing to high price than ENERGY STAR efficiency 

levels. Most bottom-mount models already meet ENERGY STAR, and those models configured 

with French doors are distinctly more expensive. The price distributions for upright freezers 

show that ENERGY STAR models are generally more expensive (Figure 3.2.7). For chest 

freezers, there are several models with and without ENERGY STAR that are priced similarly, 

but there are no low-priced models that qualify for ENERGY STAR (Figure 3.2.8). 

3-37 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Retail Price per Unit ($) 

# of Models 

0 

1 

Estar 

Distribution of Side-Mount Refrigerator Models 

EStar 0 refers to Non-Energy Star models 1 refers to Energy Star models. 

Figure 3.2.4 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Side-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$) 

3-38
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Retail Price per Unit ($) 

# of Models 

0 

1 

EStar 

Distribution of Top-Mount Refrigerator Models 

EStar 0 refers to Non-Energy Star models and 1 refers to Energy Star models. 

Figure 3.2.5 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Top-Mount 

Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$) 

800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Retail Price per Unit ($) 

# of Models 

0 0 

0 1 

1 0 

1 1 

Star 

Energy 

Doors 

French 

Distribution of Bottom-Mount Refrigerator Models 

0 refers to a feature being absent and 1 refers to a feature being present. 

Figure 3.2.6 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of BottomMount Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$) 

3-39 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

300 600 900 1200 1500 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Retail Price per Unit ($) 

# of Models 

0 

1 

Star 

Energy 

Distribution of Upright Freezer Models 

0 refers to Non-Energy Star models and 1 refers to Energy Star models. 

Figure 3.2.7 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Upright 

Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$) 

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Retail Price per Unit ($) 

# of Models 

0 

1 

Star 

Energy 

Distribution of Chest Freezer Models 

0 refers to Non-Energy Star models and 1 refers to Energy Star models. 

Figure 3.2.8 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price Distribution of Chest 

Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$) 

DOE also performed regression analysis on each of the five product types to estimate the 

incremental price of the different attributes. For the regression analysis, DOE confined the 

3-40 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

sample to models with prices within two standard deviations of the mean value. DOE did this to 

remove outliers from the sample. Removing the outliers lowered the sample size to 92 to 95 

percent of the original size, depending on the product type. Specifically, the side-mount 

refrigerator-freezer sample was reduced from 523 to 502, the top-mount refrigerator-freezer 

sample was reduced from 340 to 321, the bottom-mount refrigerator-freezer sample was reduced 

from 281 to 272, the upright freezer sample was reduced from 54 to 53, and the chest freezer 

sample was reduced from 46 to 43. DOE performed the regression analysis with two types of 

regression equations that it formulated to determine the price increment due to each attribute: (1) 

a ‘basic’ equation where price is a function of only ENERGY STAR qualifying levels (the focus 

variable); and (2) a ‘complete variable’ equation where price is a function of ENERGY STAR 

(the focus variable), product attributes (stainless steel, built-in, French doors), and the brand. 

Table 3.2.30 presents the summary results of the regression analysis. The first column in 

the table indicates the product type and the second column presents the ‘constant’ price (i.e., the 

price without any of the attributes under consideration, also referred to as a baseline model) for 

each product type. The ‘coefficients’ represent the price adder for a product with a specific 

attribute (i.e., ENERGY STAR, French doors for bottom-mount products, stainless steel cabinet, 

and brand). If the value is positive, than the ‘coefficient’ for the attribute is added to the 

‘constant’ price. If the value is negative, than the ‘coefficient’ for the attribute is subtracted from 

the ‘constant’ price. For example, for side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the ‘coefficient’ for 

ENERGY STAR is $208. Therefore, the added retail price of an ENERGY STAR side-mount 

refrigerator-freezer is $208, raising the baseline price from $1128 to $1336. Also presented in 

Table 3.2.30 are the adjusted R-squared value and the number in the sample. In a multiple linear 

regression model, adjusted R square measures the proportion of the variation in the dependent 

variable (retail price) accounted for by the explanatory variables.d 

DOE found that the incremental price effect of meeting ENERGY STAR levels is 

significant at a 95 percent confidence level for all product types with the exception of bottommount refrigerator-freezers. In the case of side-mount refrigerator-freezers, qualifying for 

ENERGY STAR adds $208 to the price of the baseline model, while for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers it adds $63. These price increments are significantly higher than those from DOE’s 

October 2005 technical report (see Table 3.2.29 above). Because the analysis conducted for the 

2005 technical report was more rigorous (for example, DOE conducted the 2005 retail price 

analysis using sales-weighted point-of-sale data), the price increments for meeting ENERGY 

STAR based on the 2007 manufacturer suggested retail price data are likely not as accurate a 

price indication of meeting ENERGY STAR. Rather, the analysis based on the 2007 prices 

simply confirms that ENERGY STAR products are more expensive than baseline products. In 

the case of upright and chest freezers, the analysis shows that the price increase associated with 

meeting ENERGY STAR is $107 and $121, respectively. 

For bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, meeting ENERGY STAR levels is not a 

significant factor at a 95 percent confidence level. The French door attribute is significant and 

d

 Unlike R squared, adjusted R squared allows for the degrees of freedom associated with the sums of the squares in 

its calculation. Therefore, even though the residual sum of squares decreases or remains the same as new 

explanatory variables are added, the residual variance does not. For this reason, adjusted R square is generally 

considered to be a more accurate goodness-of-fit measure than R square. 

3-41 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

adds over $330 to the price of a baseline unit. This is consistent with the price distributions of 

bottom-mount models presented in Figure 3.2.6 above. 

The analysis suggests that stainless steel plays a significant role in the price of sidemount, top-mount, and bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers and upright freezers. The ‘coefficient’ 

of brand suggests an effect similar to stainless steel. Brand is significant for the three 

refrigerator-freezer product types but is not significant in the case of freezers. 

Table 3.2.30 Regression Analysis of the Incremental Price of ENERGY STAR and other 

Attributes based on 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Prices (2007$) 

Product 

Type 

Constant 

(Baseline) 

Coefficients (Price Adder) 

Adj 

R2 

Number 

in 

Sample 

Energy 

Star 

French 

Door 

Stainless 

Brand 

Frigidaire GE Whirlpool Maytag LG 

Mount 

Side­ $1128 $208 NA $156 -245 $375 -$231 -$252 $431 0.65 502 

TopMount 

BottomMount 

$660

$1285

 $63 

 -$31* 

NA 

$332 

$97 

$143 

-$54 

NA 

$80 

$283 

$28 

-$83 

$49 

$70 

NA 

-$212 

0.40 

0.58 

321 

272 

Upright 

Freezer $495 $107 NA $215 $56* $40* -$41* -$40* NA 0.35 53 

Chest 

Freezer $352 $121 NA NA $116* $116* -$100* -$99* NA 0.17 43 

* Although numerical values are provided, the regression analysis indicated that these attributes were not significant 

factors in determining the incremental product price at a 95 percent confidence interval. 

3.2.8.4 Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer 2008 Retail Prices 

To determine retail prices for the year 2008, DOE drew upon proprietary retail price data 

collected by The NPD Group.46 These data reflect prices and sales at many retail outlets in the 

United States, representing more than 50 percent of retail sales nationwide. The data include 

model number, refrigerated volume, configuration of doors and ice-making, and whether the unit 

is an ENERGY STAR product. Based on these data DOE developed a sales-weighted price 

distribution for non-ENERGY STAR appliances for seven of the 20 product classes.e Additional 

details about this price data are provided in Chapter 8 of this TSD. The average baseline retail 

prices before sales tax for each of the seven product classes are shown in Table 3.2.31. With the 

exception of product class 3 (top-mount refrigerator-freezers), the retail prices in Table 3.2.31 

are relatively close to the manufacturer-suggested retail prices in Table 3.2.30. 

e

 DOE assumed that prices for non-ENERGY STAR models are a reasonable approximation of prices for the 

baseline models. 

3-42 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Table 3.2.31 Residential Refrigeration Products: Average Baseline Retail Price 

Product Class Baseline Retail Price 

2008$ 

Product class 3: Top-mount refrigerator-freezer 1,005 

Product class 5: Bottom-mount refrigerator-freezer 1,313 

Product class 7: Side-by-side refrigerator-freezer with TTD* 1,333 

Product class 9: Upright freezer 469 

Product class 10: Chest freezer 483 

Product class 11: Compact refrigerator 151 

Product class 18: Compact freezer 193 

* Through-the-door ice service. 

3.3 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

This section provides a technology assessment for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Contained in this technology assessment are details about product operations and 

components (section 3.3.1), an examination of possible technological improvements for each 

product (section 3.3.2), and a characterization of the product efficiency levels currently 

commercially available (section 3.3.3). 

3.3.1 Product Operation and Components 

This section provides a brief description of the components and operation of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These descriptions provide a basis for understanding the 

technologies used to improve product efficiency. 

3.3.1.1 Product Operation 

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are household appliances designed for 

the refrigerated storage of food products. Definitions for these product types and their operating 

temperature ranges are discussed in section 3.2.1. 

Figure 3.3.1 shows a schematic representation of a typical refrigeration circuit used in 

residential refrigeration products. As described by the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Refrigeration Handbook,

47 the 

refrigeration process consists of the following steps: 

1.	 Electrical energy is supplied to a motor that drives a compressor, which draws cold, lowpressure refrigerant vapor for the evaporator and compresses it. 

2.	 The resulting high-pressure, high-temperature discharge gas then passes through the 

condenser, where it is cooled to saturation condition, condensed to a liquid, and possibly 

subcooled while heat is rejected to the ambient air. 

3.	 Liquid refrigerant passes through a metering (pressure-reducing) capillary tube to the 

evaporator, which is at low pressure. 

3-43 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
4. The low-pressure, low-temperature liquid in the evaporator absorbs heat from its 

surroundings, evaporating to a gas, which is again withdrawn by the compressor. 

Figure 3.3.1 Refrigeration Circuit 

In Figure 3.3.1 above, the metering or flow control device pictured is a non-adiabatic 

capillary tube. In this configuration, the capillary tube is soldered to the suction line to evaporate 

the residual liquid in the suction line and warm the vapor. This suction line heat exchanger (or 

the non-adiabatic capillary) increases the refrigeration capacity of the system by the amount of 

heat being transferred from the capillary to the suction side. Non-adiabatic capillary tubes are the 

most common type of metering device in refrigerator-freezers. The other type of metering 

device, an adiabatic capillary tube, is used in some refrigeration products. In this configuration, 

the capillary tube does not exchange heat with the suction line and the refrigerant expands from 

the high pressure to the low pressure adiabatically. 

3.3.1.2 Primary Components 

The illustration in Figure 3.3.2 (from RemodelGuide.com48) shows the components and 

layout of a typical top-mount refrigerator-freezer. The components and layout are similar in sidemount and bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers. Freezers also have a similar layout and 

components, but are slightly less complicated due to the fact that they have no fresh food 

compartment. The text that follows describes the following operations or components: automatic 

defrost, cooling, temperature control, lighting, ice maker, ice and water dispenser, and door seals 

and hinges. 

3-44 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 Source: RemodelGuide.com 

Figure 3.3.2 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Components 

Automatic defrost 

Almost all standard-size refrigerator-freezers are self-defrosting. Manual defrost is still 

used in chest freezers, some upright freezers, and in compact refrigerators and freezers. Selfdefrosting refrigerator-freezers and freezers automatically melt frost that accumulates in the 

freezer compartment. The typical automatic defrost system has three functional components: a 

defrost timer, a defrost heater, and a defrost thermostat. 

•	 Defrost timer: The timer is a clock that is energized with the compressor. The timer 

initiates defrost after a set interval of compressor operation, typically twelve hours. 

•	 Defrost heater: The defrost heater is an electric resistance heating element. It is located 

just beneath or on the side of the evaporator coil, which is concealed behind a panel in the 

freezer compartment. The heater melts any ice or frost that builds up. A heater is 

typically also energized in the drip pan to prevent freeze of melted condensate and 

clogging of the drip pan drain. 

3-45 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
•	 As the frost and ice melt, the resulting water drips into a drip pan. The pan is connected 

to a tube that drains the water into a shallow pan at the bottom of the refrigerator-freezer 

or freezer. The water is then evaporated by air which is drawn by a fan through the 

condenser and over the compressor shell. In some products which do not use forced 

convection condensers, particularly freezers, a special pan is mounted on top of the 

compressor shell and the water is evaporated using heat from the compressor. 

•	 Defrost thermostat: The process ends when the defrost thermostat mounted on the 

evaporator tubing senses that a sufficiently high temperature has been attained. 

Cooling 

All residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers work by removing heat 

from the air in the cabinet. They all have the key components shown in Figure 3.3.1: a 

compressor, a condenser, a metering or flow control device (usually a capillary tube), and an 

evaporator. 

•	 Compressor: The compressor compresses refrigerant, providing the energy input 

necessary to drive the cycle. In most residential refrigeration products, the compressor is 

located at the bottom rear of the unit. In built-in refrigerator-freezers the compressor is 

often located on top of the refrigerator behind a grill or grate. The compressor runs 

whenever the refrigerator thermostat calls for cooling. 

•	 Condenser: The condenser is a heat exchanger located on the outside of the unit. The 

three most prevalent condenser configurations are as follows: 

–	 Forced-convention condensers use fans to move air through them to provide cooling. 

These condensers are usually located under the unit near the compressor. They can be 

fabricated of steel tubes with steel wire fins or copper tubes with aluminum fins. 

–	 Natural convection “static” condensers which don’t use fans are mounted to the back 

of the unit. They generally have steel tubes and steel wire fins. 

–	 Hot wall condensers are integrated into the outer shell of the unit. A serpentine of 

tubing is attached to the inside of the shell and provided with good thermal contact to 

the shell. This is the common configuration in freezers and it is common in compact 

refrigerators. 

•	 Metering or Flow Control Device (Capillary Tube): The metering device in most 

household refrigerator-freezers is a capillary tube. As discussed above in section 3.3.1.1, 

there are two common types of capillary tubes—adiabatic and non-adiabatic, although 

non-adiabatic are the most common. The capillary tube controls the pressure and flow of 

the refrigerant as it enters the evaporator. 

•	 Evaporator: The evaporator is a heat exchanger located inside the unit. Similar to the 

condenser, there are three main configurations for evaporators: 

–	 Forced convection evaporators use fans to move air through them to provide cooling. 

They are constructed of aluminum tubes and aluminum fins or copper tubes and 

aluminum fins. They are generally located on the rear wall of the freezer 

3-46 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
compartment behind a panel. They can also be located in the mullion separating the 

freezer and fresh food compartments, as shown in Figure 3.3.2. The evaporator fan 

circulates air through the evaporator and into both the freezer and fresh food 

compartments. Because the evaporator absorbs heat, it is very cold, thereby causing 

any water vapor in the air to freeze on it as frost. Most refrigerator-freezers using this 

type of evaporator employ automatic defrost. 

–	 Roll bond evaporators fabricated from layers of aluminum sheet primarily use natural 

convection cooling. The refrigerant passages are formed into the evaporator walls. 

They are used in single-door refrigerators and are configured either as a flat plate at 

the rear of the cabinet or a rectangular box. In the latter configuration, the interior of 

the box is the freezer compartment. While these evaporators generally use natural 

convection and do not use an evaporator fan, some products with rear-mounted flat 

roll bond evaporators use fans for performance enhancement. Manual defrosting is 

required to defrost these evaporators. 

–	 Cold wall evaporators are integrated within the walls of the freezer. This 

configuration is used in nearly all chest freezers and in many upright freezers. The 

evaporator consists of tube serpentines attached to the insulation side of the cabinet 

interior liner. These evaporators use natural convection heat transfer. 

Temperature control 

All refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers have a thermostat or electronic 

temperature control to maintain the proper temperature. Thermostats are mechanical devices 

which interrupt the electricity connection to the compressor when the temperature is sufficiently 

low. Electronic control systems generally use thermistors as temperature sensors, using relays 

mounted on the circuit boards to activate the compressor and other components such as the 

evaporator and condenser fans. 

Lighting 

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers with internal lighting normally have only 

one functional lighting component—the switch—which is usually a white push-button mounted 

to be depressed by operation of the door. Closing the door turns off the light. Refrigerators 

generally use standard appliance incandescent light bulbs. 

Ice maker 

Many standard-size refrigerator-freezers come equipped with an ice maker, and nearly all 

are convertible to installation of an ice maker. The ice maker is a located within the freezer 

compartment. Ice maker systems have two basic functional components: the icemaker itself, and 

the water fill valve. The most common ice makers operate as follows: 

•	 The ice maker sends a signal to the water fill valve (normally located on the outside back 

of the refrigerator, near the bottom) to open and let water into the ice maker tray (or 

mold). Water fill control is usually by timed opening of the valve (usually 7-10 seconds). 

3-47 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
•	 When the ice has frozen and reached a sufficiently low temperature (10 to 15 °F), sensed 

with a thermostat located in thermal connection with the ice tray, the ice maker begins to 

harvest (eject) the cubes. 

•	 To harvest the cubes, the ice maker first turns on a small heater beneath the tray. The 

heater warms the tray, to help release the ice cubes. Then a sweep fork rotates and pushes 

the cubes up and out of the tray. 

•	 While the ice maker is dumping the cubes into a the ice storage bin, a metal wire similar 

to a coat hanger swings up to let the cubes drop below it. When the cubes have dropped, 

the wire rotates back down. If the holding bin is full of ice, the wire rotate far enough, 

which stops further production of ice. If the sensing wire can rotate down fully, the ice 

maker refills with water and repeats the process. 

Ice and water dispenser 

 Many standard-size refrigerator-freezers have a through-the-door (TTD) ice and/or water 

dispenser. There are several different systems for delivering ice and water through the 

refrigerator door. What follows is an explanation of the common attributes of all of the systems. 

•	 Ice dispenser: For a refrigerator-freezer to provide ice through the door, the ice maker 

first dumps the ice it produces into a large bin, as discussed above. To request ice at the 

door, the user presses a lever that activates a switch. The switch turns on a motor that 

rotates an auger which pushes ice out of the bin, through a chute to the user. Some 

dispensers also have blades which chop the ice to allow delivery of crushed ice. 

•	 Water dispenser: The water dispenser is activated much like the ice dispenser. To request 

water at the door, the user presses a lever on the front of the refrigerator that activates a 

switch. The switch turns on an electric water valve at the back of the refrigerator-freezer. 

Water flows through the valve into a tube, then flows into a reservoir located in the fresh 

food compartment in which the water is chilled. As new water enters the reservoir, the 

water that is displaced flows through a separate tube through the dispenser. 

Door Seals 

All refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer doors have a seal—a vinyl gasket 

attached to the door(s). The seal prevents infiltration of warm ambient air into the cabinet. The 

seal is lined with a magnet which helps to hold the door closed and create a tight seal. The 

magnetic portion of the gasket is aligned to face the steel extension of the cabinet’s external shell 

which wraps partially around the front face of the cabinet. Some gasket systems use opposing 

magnets on the cabinet side to improve door sealing force. 

3.3.2 Technology Options 

Table 3.3.1 lists the technology options for improving the efficiency of residential 

refrigeration products. The technology options are categorized by their associated component or 

system. Each technology option category and the options available for improving the component 

or system category are discussed below. 

3-48 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

Table 3.3.1 Technology Options for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

Insulation Expansion Valve 

Improved resistivity of insulation Improved expansion valves 

Increased insulation thickness Cycling Losses 

Vacuum-insulated panels Fluid control or solenoid valve 

 Gas-filled panels Defrost System 

Gasket and Door Design Reduced energy for automatic defrost 

Improved gaskets Adaptive defrost 

 Double door gaskets 

Improved door face frame Condenser hot gas 

Reduced heat load for TTD feature Control System 

Anti-Sweat Heater Temperature control 

Condenser hot gas Air-distribution control 

Electric heater sizing Other Technologies 

Electric heater controls Alternative refrigerants 

Compressor Component location 

Improved compressor efficiency

 Variable-speed compressors Alternative Refrigeration Cycles 

Linear compressors Lorenz-Meutzner cycle 

Evaporator Dual-loop system 

Increased surface area Two-stage system 

Improved heat exchange Control valve system 

Condenser Ejector refrigerator 

Increased surface area Tandem system 

Improved heat exchange Alternative Refrigeration Systems 

Force convection condenser Stirling cycle 

Fans and Fan Motor Thermoelectric 

Evaporator fan and fan motor improvements Thermoacoustic 

Condenser fan and fan motor improvements 

3.3.2.1 Insulation 

The primary thermal load on a refrigerator or freezer is the heat transfer through the walls 

and doors into the cabinet. In one study of an 18.6 ft3 top-mount refrigerator-freezer, the wall and 

door heat loads were estimated to account for almost 60 percent of the total thermal load.49 

Nearly all residential refrigeration products use polyurethane (PU) foam insulation for 

both the cabinets and the doors. Through the 1980s, CFC-11, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), was 

used as a blowing agent in almost all PU foam insulation. However, under the Montreal Protocol, 

all CFCs were banned from use by the mid 1990s due to their high ozone depletion potential 

(ODP). In the 1990s, most manufacturers adopted use of HCFC-141b, a 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), which has significantly less ODP. However, because HCFC141b has non-zero ODP, it was banned from production in the U.S. after January 1, 2003. In 

response to the phase-out of HCFC-141b, AHAM’s Appliance Research Consortium (ARC) 

investigated several alternatives, including two hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HFC-134a and 

HFC-245fa, and cyclopentane, a hydrocarbon (HC). HFCs and HCs both have zero ODP. HCs 

have a much lower global warming potential (GWP) than HFCs, but they are flammable. ARC, 

DOE, and EPA sponsored research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to determine the 

3-49 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

thermal conductivities of the three alternatives and of HCFC-141b. Based on thermal 

conductivity, ORNL identified HFC-245fa as the most attractive substance because it had the 

lowest energy penalty relative to HCFC-141b (see Table 3.3.2).50 In addition, accelerated 

lifetime performance tests conducted by ORNL indicated that the thermal conductivity of HFC245fa foam insulation increases by a smaller percentage than either HFC-134a or cyclopentane 

foams. Finally, despite the fact that HCs are used in Europe, flammability and volatile organic 

compound concerns led ARC to determine that HFCs were a more suitable replacement blowing 

agent.51 As a result, many manufacturers are currently using HFC-245fa blowing agent for PU 

foam insulation. However, refrigerators and freezers sold in the U.S. also are using HFC-134a, 

cyclopentane, and HCFC-141b blowing agent. The HCFC blowing agent is still allowed for 

refrigerators imported into the U.S. 

Table 3.3.2 Thermal Conductivity of Freshly-Sliced Foam Specimens at 75 oF (23.9 oC) 

Blowing Agent 

Slice Thickness 

0.4 inch (1.0 cm) 1.5 in (3.8 cm) 

Btu-in/hr-ft2-oF mW/m-K Btu-in/hr-ft2

-oF mW/m-K 

HCFC-141b 0.132 19.0 0.128 18.4 

HFC-245fa 0.138 19.9 0.132 19.0 

Cyclopentane 0.150 21.6 0.145 20.9 

HFC-134a 0.160 23.1 0.155 22.3 

Source: ORNL, 2003.50 

Improved Resistivity of Insulation 

Past research has investigated improving the resistivity of PU foam insulation through the 

use of additives in the foam. 

Research conducted in 1996 demonstrated that adding carbon black provides a means of 

improving the thermal insulation properties of PU foam. The research showed that PU foam 

systems using carbon black in conjunction with either HCFC-141b or cyclopentane was able to 

lower k-factors by six to nine percent in panels and in cabinets.52 

Increased Insulation Thickness 

Based on DOE’s 1995 technical support document (TSD) for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, the insulation thickness range for refrigerator-freezers in the mid-1990s 

was 1.5 to 2.75 inches (3.81 to 7.0 cm) in the doors and 1.5 to 3 inches (3.81 to 7.62 cm) in the 

cabinet walls. Walls of freezers and freezer compartments tended to be near the higher end while 

walls of refrigerators and fresh food compartments were nearer the lower end.53 

Also based on the DOE 1995 TSD, adding 0.5 to 1 inch (1.27 to 2.54 cm) more insulation 

increases the overall efficiency of the product. Energy reductions associated with these wall 

thickness increases range from a few percent to over 10 percent. Therefore, DOE considered the 

addition of more insulation as a technology option to improve efficiency. Although the 

technology to implement this change is readily available, manufacturers indicated during the 

rulemaking leading to the April 27, 1997 final rule establishing the current minimum efficiency 

levels that adding insulation would not be the first technology option they would choose to 

improve efficiency. Significant investments would be required in foaming systems, tooling, and 

3-50 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

molding to accommodate thicker insulation. Increased packaging and shipping costs must also be 

considered. Greater insulation thickness results in either decreased interior volumes, increased 

exterior dimensions, or some combination of both. Since kitchen dimensions and designed 

spaces for refrigerator-freezers are limited, there are restrictions on increasing the exterior size of 

the product. Reducing interior volume is considered undesirable because it impacts consumer 

utility. 

Vacuum-Insulated Panels 

Vacuum-insulated panel (VIPs) technology is based on the reduction in conductivity 

which occurs in a low vacuum, the same concept which is used to reduce heat leakage in thermos 

bottles. VIPs used in refrigeration products consist of a sealed package with a fill material which 

provides support to prevent the panel from collapsing and interferes with molecular mean free 

path as the intermolecular spacing increases at lower vacuum levels. VIPs can be foamed in 

place between the cabinet liner and wrapper to decrease the heat leakage and energy required to 

maintain the cabinet at low temperature. Different configurations are commercially available 

through advances in manufacturing technologies. As a result, VIPs are available in a variety of 

geometries (e.g., flat, curved, cylindrical) with added features (e.g., holes, cut-outs).54 Typical 

VIPs generally consist of a core material and an airtight envelope. Some VIPs also include 

absorber to absorb gas which leaks through the envelope. 

Several core materials have been used in the manufacture of VIPs including polystyrene, 

open-cell PU, silica powder, and glass fiber. Research sponsored by the European Commission 

has evaluated these core materials based on their cost and characteristics, including density and 

manufacturing time. Table 3.3.3 below summarizes the VIP characteristics manufactured with 

the above core materials.55 Each of the core materials has associated advantages and 

disadvantages that dictate their acceptability for an appliance application. 

Table 3.3.3 Comparison of Various VIP Core Materials 

Property Polystyrene Open-cell PU Silica Powder Glass Fiber 

Thermal Conductivity 

at 10 Pascals (Pa) abs. 

(0.1 millibar (mbar)) 

(mW/m-K) 4.8 – 5.8 9.7 5.8 2.4 

(Btu-in/hr-ft2

-oF) 0.033 – 0.040 0.067 0.040 0.017 

Manufacturing Time Fast Medium Medium Long 

Density (kilogram(kg)/cubic meter (m3

)) 80 – 144 64 192 128 

Drying Need No Yes Yes No 

Thermal Stability Low Medium Good Very Good 

Recyclability Yes Difficult Yes NA 

Cost Low Medium High Very High 

Source: European Commission, 2000.55 

ORNL also has evaluated the performance of three types of VIPs: a silica powder filler 

encapsulated in a polymer barrier film; a fibrous glass insulation filler encapsulated in a stainless 

steel barrier; and an undisclosed insulation filler encapsulated in a stainless steel barrier.56 Table 

3.3.4 summarizes the center-of-panel thermal conductivities of the panels. For the silica powder 

and glass fiber filled VIPs, the thermal conductivities in Table 3.3.4 are comparable to those in 

Table 3.3.3. 

3-51 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Table 3.3.4 Center-of-Panel Thermal Conductivity of VIPs 

Property Silica Powder Glass Fiber Unknown 

Thermal Conductivity* (mW/m-K) 5.2 – 5.4 2.0 – 2.6 2.7 – 3.1 

(Btu-in/hr-ft2

-oF) 0.034 – 0.038 0.014 – 0.018 0.019 – 0.022 

* For each filler, the reported thermal conductivities are a range of values from nine separate VIPs. 

Source: Vineyard et al, 1998.56 

ORNL also determined the thermal performance of the VIPs it studied as part of a 

composite panel. The composite panel consisted of a one-inch VIP surrounded by PU foam 

insulation to form a two-inch-thick panel. The PU foam insulation was blown with a variety of 

bowing agents, but, due to the age of the study (from the mid-1990s), ORNL considered neither 

HFC- nor HC-based blowing agents. For the three VIPs presented in Table 3.3.4, silica power, 

glass fiber, and unknown, the average composite panel thermal resistances were 21.5, 20.7, and 

20.9 hr-ft2-oF/Btu, respectively.56 The lower thermal conductivities reported in Table 3.3.4 for 

the glass fiber and unknown filled VIPs relative to the silica powder VIP were offset by the heat 

conduction through their stainless steel encapsulation material. 

Of significant concern for VIPs is their long-term thermal conductivity integrity. VIP 

thermal conductivity increases dramatically as the pressure within the VIP exceeds 100 Pa abs. 

(1 mbar). The pressure increase in the VIP over time is related to several factors, including: 

residual gases in the VIP after vacuum, degassing from the VIP core material, and gas diffusion 

through the envelope pores. Improved envelopes and absorbers have been developed to prevent 

pressure increases from occurring in VIPs. For example, for the three composite VIPs that it 

analyzed, ORNL measured only a five-percent reduction in overall thermal resistance over a 

three-year period. ORNL demonstrated that this reduction in thermal resistance was less than the 

corresponding reduction for a panel without any VIPs, i.e., panels consisting only of PU foam 

insulation.56 

Recent announcements regarding VIPs include the following. Matsushita’s VIP 

technology (trade name of “U-Vacua”) was awarded the Minister of Economy, Trade and 

Industry Prize at the 17th Energy Conservation Awards sponsored by the Energy Conservation 

Center of Japan in January, 2007.57 Matsushita claims that its VIP technology has achieved the 

world’s highest level of insulation efficiency with a thermal conductivity of 1.2 mW/m-K (0.008 

Btu-in/hr-ft2-oF) at 24 oC (75.2 oF).58 Electrolux announced in 2003 the use of VIP technology in 

a freezer that they claimed reduced energy use by 35 percent relative to PU foam insulation.59 

Va-Q-tek has recently introduced its va-Q-plus VIP technology.60 

Gas-Filled Panels 

Gas-filled panels (GFPs) use thin polymer films and low-conductivity gas to create a 

device with excellent thermal insulation properties. GFPs are essentially hermetic plastic bags 

that can take on a variety of shapes and sizes. Inside the outer barrier is a cellular structure called 

a baffle which is filled with the low-conductivity gas. 

Research conducted at LBNL in the mid-1990s has demonstrated the effectiveness of 

GFPs based on the use of different gases, including xenon and krypton. Table 3.3.5 below 

summarizes the thermal performance characteristics of different GFPs, based on their center-of3-52 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
panel and whole-panel performance.61 LBNL has also conducted research to demonstrate that 

GFPs, when used in refrigerator-freezers, can reduce energy consumption by approximately 

eight percent relative to PU foam insulation.62 

Table 3.3.5 Comparison of Various Gas-Filled Panel Core Materials 

Gas Fill 

Center of Panel 

Performance Whole Panel Performance 

Thermal Conductivity Panel Thickness Mean Temp. Thermal Conductivity 

mW/m-K Btu-in/hr-ft2

-oF mm inches oC oF mW/m-K Btu-in/hr-ft2-oF 

Xenon 7.4 0.051 24.1 0.95 6.8 44.2 7.4 0.051 

Krypton 11.6 0.080 25.2 0.99 11.9 53.4 10.77 0.074 

49.8 1.96 12.3 54.1 1.17 0.008 

Argon 19.9 0.138 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Air 28.1 0.195 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Source: LBNL61 

In addition, ORNL determined the thermal conductivity of an insulation panel containing 

radiation baffles within a polymer barrier film and filled with krypton gas at atmospheric 

pressure. The range of thermal conductivities of nine of these GFPs ranged from 0.088 to 0.092 

Btu-in/hr-ft2-oF (12.6 to 13.2 mW/m-K). ORNL also analyzed the GFPs as part of a composite 

assembly consisting of a one-inch panel surrounded by PU foam insulation to form a two-inchthick panel. The average composite panel thermal resistance was determined to be 18.2 hr-ft2

­

oF/Btu. Finally, ORNL measured only a five-percent reduction in overall thermal resistance over 

a three-year period, which was less than the reduction observed in a panel consisting only of PU 

foam insulation.56 

Although research has demonstrated that GFPs have better thermal performance than PU 

foam insulation, no known refrigeration products are using the technology. A significant problem 

in using GFPs is their lack of structural integrity in the resulting product. 

3.3.2.2 Gasket and Door Design 

A significant portion of the heat gain to refrigerators and freezers occurs around the edges 

of the doors and through the gaskets on the door edges. An analysis of thermal loads on an 18.6 

ft3 top-mount refrigerator-freezer revealed that over 28 percent of the total heat load into the 

cabinet came from ‘edge’ loads, i.e., loads due to heat transfer into the food compartments via 

paths around the perimeter of the cabinet aperture.49 Table 3.3.6 summarizes the various ‘edge’ 

loads as well as the heat loads through the walls and doors and other sources. If the ‘edge’ effect 

losses can be reduced, the efficiency of the refrigerator can be increased. This section only 

addresses the ‘edge’ effect loads from the wall and door flanges and the door gasket. Heat loads 

from the anti-sweat heaters are discussed in the following section (section 3.11.2.3). 

3-53 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.3.6 Overall Cabinet Loads 

Component Percent of Total 

‘Edge’ Effect Loads 28.5% 

Heat gain due to conduction along the wall steel flange 5.3% 

Heat input due to conduction along the door steel flange 7.1% 

Heat conduction directly through the door gasket or seal 2.7% 

Heat input due to conduction in the mullion region 1.7% 

Heat input due to mullion region anti-sweat heater 7.7% 

Heat input due to cabinet anti-sweat condenser tube 4.0% 

Wall and Door Loads 59.1% 

Miscellaneous Loads (heat inputs due to evap fan, defrost heaters, and compressor) 12.4% 

Source: Boughton et al, 1996.49 

Improved Gaskets 

Design of door gaskets is a balance between improving the thermal-efficiency 

performance of the gasket and ensuring that the door is not difficult to open. If the gasket magnet 

force is too strong, it becomes difficult to open the door. Based on a European Commission 

study, door handles have been designed specifically to facilitate door openings by providing 

leverage and relieving the pressure differential which can build up by freeing a small section of 

the gasket before the door is opened.55 Although materials and designs for improving the air 

tightness of door gaskets exist, apparently no general criteria have been established to enable 

different designs to be classified. 

An EPA report from 1992 describes theoretical modeling and experimental research on 

gasket heat loads and concludes that replacing about half of either the metal door flange or 

cabinet flange with plastic can reduce the heat flow through the gasket region by 25 percent.63 

However, this study did not address the impacts on the convection on the cabinet side of the 

gasket associated with different geometries of the “throat” region between the door dikes and the 

cabinet wedge or with different evaporator air flow rates. Based on DOE’s 1995 TSD, 

improvements in gasket design can reduce refrigerator-freezer annual energy consumption by 

one to three percent.53 Due to the age of both the EPA and DOE research, it is uncertain how 

much further gaskets can be improved. 

Double Door Gaskets 

A double door gasket is an additional inner door seal gasket that is added to the gasket 

design. This further reduces heat leakage and infiltration into the refrigerator and freezer. 

Based on information drawn from DOE’s 1995 TSD, manufacturers did not introduce 

double door gaskets in the mid-1990s because of performance problems and cost. Ice can form 

between the gaskets, greatly reducing their effectiveness. In addition, the gaskets are visually 

unattractive and they increase the difficulty of meeting safety regulations for minimum dooropening force. 

3-54
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
Improved Door Face Frame 

As discussed above, cabinet heat loads stem not only from conduction though the 

refrigerator walls but also from conduction along the external metal casing. The metal shell 

provides the structural integrity; however, its presence means that heat loads are transferred 

along the metal shell into the cabinet. This heat transfer into the cabinet is also referred to as the 

‘edge effect.’ 

Using a plastic cover on the internal flange can reduce the ‘edge effect’ heat losses by 

approximately 50 percent.49 It is expected that the use of low-conductivity plastics to reduce 

conduction losses in this area are already being employed in most current U.S. refrigeratorfreezer designs. 

Reduced Heat Load for TTD Feature 

Through-the-door features that provide ice and/or water service displace insulation in the 

door. These features can make it difficult to apply foam in the doors. This technology option, 

which is applicable only to those product classes that include TTD ice service, utilizes improved 

design methods to reduce the heat load of TTD features. 

Based on the DOE 1995 TSD, door-design improvements that reduce the heat load from 

TTD features can reduce refrigerator-freezer annual energy consumption from two to four 

percent.53 The TSD provided little explanation of the details of these design changes, citing only 

“foam insulation” and “improved design methods”. 

3.3.2.3 Anti-Sweat Heater 

Anti-sweat heaters are commonly used in standard-size refrigerator-freezers. In general, 

compact refrigerators, compact refrigerator-freezers, and compact freezers do not use anti-sweat 

heat. These heaters apply heat to external surfaces near door gaskets, including the mullion 

region between the freezer and fresh food compartments and along the perimeter of the cabinet. 

If electric resistance heaters are used for this purpose, the heaters contribute to energy 

consumption both with their wattage input and with the heat load they generate that enters the 

cabinet. Most modern refrigerator-freezers use refrigerant tubes inserted in the cabinets in close 

proximity to the regions requiring heat. Both hot discharge gas from the compressor and warm 

liquid leaving the condenser are used to provide this heat, although a majority of products use 

warm liquid. As reported above in section 3.11.2.2, the heat loads from both electric and 

refrigerant type anti-sweat heaters can be significant. For the example illustrated in Table 3.3.6, 

the contribution of the mullion anti-sweat heater represents 7.7 percent of the total cabinet heat 

load. However, the load associated with the anti-sweat heater of modern designs may be lower 

due to evolution of design practices to reduce such loads. 

Hot Gas or Warm Liquid 

The direct electricity consumption of the anti-sweat heaters can be eliminated by using a 

hot gas or warm liquid refrigerant loop to warm external surfaces to eliminate moisture buildup. 

This approach is used extensively in residential refrigerator-freezers to reduce energy use—the 

technology is already part of all or nearly all standard-size refrigerator-freezers. 

3-55 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Electric Heater Sizing 

For those products using electric resistance anti-sweat heaters, unnecessarily highwattage heaters may be used. Therefore, energy use can be decreased by reducing the heater 

wattage. For those products that still use electric resistance anti-sweat heaters, DOE is unaware 

to what extent the wattage of the heater is excessive. 

Electric Heater Controls including Variable Antisweat 

For those products using electric resistance anti-sweat heaters, control schemes can be 

used to limit the amount of energy used. One option, which is included on some current 

refrigerator-freezer models, is to use an on-off switch that allows the user to turn off the heater if 

“sweating” is not an issue. The DOE Energy test procedure calls for testing with the switch in the 

on position in order to measure annual energy use.64 However, DOE understands that most 

manufacturers measure annual energy use as an average of a test with the heater on and a test 

with the heater off. 

Another option is to control the anti-sweat heater based on temperature and humidity 

conditions. As discussed in section 3.2.2.2, DOE is considering incorporating into the test 

procedure for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers an adaptation of a test procedure for which a 

waiver was granted to GE. The waiver provides a method for calculating the annual energy use 

contribution of electric anti-sweat heaters which are controlled to operate only as much as 

needed to avoid moisture accumulation, based on the input of ambient temperature and/or 

humidity sensors.6 

3.3.2.4 Compressor 

The compressor is the primary energy-consuming component in a refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, or freezer. Therefore, technologies that can advance compressor efficiency 

have a significant effect on overall product efficiency. 

Residential refrigeration products use positive-displacement compressors in which the 

entire motor-compressor is hermetically sealed in the welded steel shell. Two types of 

compressors have been used in residential refrigeration products over the years—reciprocating 

and rotary. However, predominantly reciprocating compressors are now used in U.S. products. 

Almost all compressors are directly driven by two-pole squirrel-cage induction motors 

running at approximately 3,000 rpm on 60 Hz power. Three types of induction motors have been 

used in refrigerator compressors: resistance start/induction run (RSIR), capacitor start/induction 

run (CSIR), and resistance start/capacitor run (RSCR). Of the three motor types, the RSIR motor 

is the least efficient. As a result of the U.S. energy efficiency standards that took effect in 1993 

and 2001, the vast majority of compressor motors now use the RSCR type. 

Refrigerator compressor capacities range from as low as 125 Btu/hr (for compact 

refrigerators) to as high as 2,000 Btu/hr, although maximum capacities are more typically 950 

Btu/hr for U.S. residential refrigerator-freezers. Two organizations have established conditions 

for rating the performance of refrigerator compressors: ASHRAE and Comité Européen des 

3-56 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Constructeurs de Matériel Frigorifique (CECOMAF).f Table 3.3.7 below shows the rating 

conditions of these two organizations. The rating conditions are almost identical, except for the 

liquid temperature—this is the temperature leaving the condenser or any subcooling loop such as 

an anti-sweat heating loop. Because the CECOMAF liquid temperature is higher, compressor 

capacities and efficiencies under ASHRAE rating conditions are approximately 30 percent 

higher than for CECOMAF conditions. The actual operating conditions for compressors in 

residential refrigeration products under DOE energy test conditions can be significantly different 

than these rating conditions. Most notably, the condensing temperatures are generally 

significantly lower than 130  ̊F. 

Table 3.3.7 Compressor Rating Conditions 

Rating Condition ASHRAE CECOMAF 

Evaporator -10 oF (-23.3 oC) -10 oF (-23.3 oC) 

Condenser 130 oF (54.4 oC) 131 oF (55 oC) 

Ambient 90 oF (32.2oC) 89.6 oF (32 oC) 

Suction Gas 90 oF (32.2oC) 89.6 oF (32 oC) 

Liquid 90 oF (32.2 oC) 131 oF (55 oC) 

Compressor efficiency is also a function of refrigeration capacity. Based on data from 

DOE’s 1995 TSD, maximum expected compressor efficiencies for the year 1998 demonstrated 

that efficiency drops off with decreasing cooling capacity.53 The expected maximum compressor 

efficiencies for the year 1998 as reported in the 1995 TSD are shown below in Table 3.3.8 

below. A year 2000 European Commission study to support energy standards of domestic 

refrigeration appliances also noted the drop in efficiency as capacity drops.55 The reduced 

efficiency for lower-capacity compressors has been attributed to optimization of performance for 

higher-capacity compressors65 and to the higher importance of mechanical losses and losses 

associated with re-expansion of gases left in the clearance volume as the swept volume of the 

reciprocating piston decreases. 

f

 CECOMAF is a European appliance manufacturer trade association formed in 1958. It merged with EUROVENT 

in 1996 to become EUROVENT/CECOMAF. This organization is now called EUROVENT. 

3-57 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

Table 3.3.8 Estimated 1998 Maximum Compressor Efficiencies 

Product Class Served 

Capacity Range* Maximum Efficiency by 1998* 

W Btu/hr 

Coefficient of 

Performance 

(COP) 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Ratio (EER), 

Btu/hr-W 

The Five Standard RefrigeratorFreezers 220 to 278 750 to 950 1.64 5.60 

176 to 205 600 to 700 1.60 5.45 

Auto Defrost Upright Freezers 250 to 278 850 to 950 1.64 5.60 

Manual Defrost Upright Freezers 161 to 176 550 to 600 1.51 5.15 

Manual Defrost Chest Freezers 147 to 161 500 to 550 1.45 4.95 

Compacts 

117 400 1.38 4.70 

103 350 1.26 4.30 

59 200 1.04 3.55 

41 140 0.76 2.6 

Source: DOE, 1995 TSD. 

* Performance based on ASHRAE rating conditions. Performance based on the use of refrigerant R-134a. 

More recent compressor performance data was collected as part of the engineering 

analysis, and the results of this investigation is presented in Chapter 5. The highest efficiency 

single-speed compressors available for standard-size refrigerator-freezers have EER near 6.25 

Btu/hr-W. 

Improved Compressor Efficiency 

Conversion to high-efficiency compressors is fairly straightforward for manufacturers to 

implement as long as the appropriate compressors are available. As indicated above, maximum 

efficiencies for compressors that are utilized in the most common types of U.S. refrigeratorfreezers range to near 6.25 Btu/hr-W. 

Variable-Speed Compressors 

Variable-speed compressors allow efficiency improvement as compared to single-speed 

compressors since they can provide a better match of thermal loads during the vast majority of 

hours when the loads are low. Most of the time, the compressor would operate at low speed with 

a high percentage of on-time. This would lower energy consumption by reducing off-cycle losses 

and by allowing the heat exchangers to operate with lower mass flow, thus boosting their 

effectiveness. However, careful consideration must be given to how variable speed compressors 

are implemented, because increased fan run times could negate compressor energy savings. 

Electronics are used by variable-speed compressors to vary the speed. They use either inverterdriven induction motors or permanent magnet motors. Most U.S. residential refrigeration 

products do not currently use variable-speed compressors, but the use of these compressors is 

becoming more common. 

Various past studies have illustrated a range of energy savings achievable through use of 

variable speed compressors. Arthur D. Little reported savings of approximately 25 percent 

compared to single-speed motor systems in 1999.66 Research conducted by Tecumseh Products 

Company demonstrated that energy savings of 15 percent as well as reduction of sound and 

3-58 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
vibration levels.67 Simulation analyses conducted at the University of Illinois demonstrated that 

steady-energy savings ranging from four to 14 percent could be realized through the use of a 

two-speed compressor in concert with multiple-speed evaporator and condenser fans. The 

research also demonstrated that an additional 0.5 to four percent in energy consumption could be 

saved through the reduction of cycling frequency, i.e. the number of starts.68 

Embraco has developed its third generation variable-speed compressor that utilizes a 

permanent magnet motor controlled by a programmable electronic unit.69 Table 3.3.9 presents 

the rated performance of some of Embraco’s variable-speed compressors. The rated efficiencies 

of these variable-speed compressors are not necessarily higher than the best efficiencies of 

single-speed compressors--evaluation of the benefits of variable-speed compressors requires 

consideration of the system performance rather than just rated performance. 

Table 3.3.9 Efficiencies of Some of Embraco’s Variable-Speed Compressor Models 

Model 

Capacity Range* Efficiency* 

W Btu/hr COP EER 

VEGY6H (1600-4500 

revolutions per minute (rpm)) 98 – 281 676 – 959 Up to 1.78 Up to 6.07 

VEGY7H (1600-4500 rpm) 111 – 314 379 – 1071 Up to 1.81 Up to 6.18 

VEGY8C (1600-4000 rpm) 132 – 319 450 – 1088 Up to 1.79 Up to 6.11 

Source: Embraco, 2006. 

* Performance based on ASHRAE rating conditions. Models utilize refrigerant R-134a. 

Linear Compressors 

Linear compressors employ a different design than either reciprocating or rotary 

compressors and are reportedly more efficient than either. These compressors use a linear rather 

than rotary motor, thus eliminating the crankshaft and linkage which converts the rotary motion 

to the linear motion of the piston of a reciprocating compressor. Elimination of the mechanical 

linkage reduces friction and side-forces. The linear motor requires power electronics and a 

controller to assure proper piston throw. Most linear compressor designs use a free piston 

arrangement and can be controlled for a range of capacities through adjustment of piston 

displacement. Early work on the concept suggested that the compressors can operate without 

requiring oil, which could provide additional energy benefit by improving heat transfer in the 

evaporator. Refrigerator noise levels can also be reduced by utilizing linear compressors in the 

same way that this can be done with variable-speed compressors, by operating most of the time 

at low capacity.70 

An early version of the linear compressor design was developed by Sunpower for 

integration into refrigerators for the European market using isobutene (R-600a) as a refrigerant.71 

LG has developed a linear compressor for household refrigerators which does require use of oil. 

LG claims that its line of linear compressors is up to 20 percent more efficient than reciprocating 

designs.72 Table 3.3.10 presents the rated efficiencies of LG’s linear compressors.73 LG reports 

the efficiency of its linear compressors only at “LG Reference Conditions,” which are 

significantly different than the ASHRAE rating conditions. Under ASHRAE conditions, 

compressors are rated with evaporating and condensing temperatures of -10oF (-23.3oC) and 

130oF (54.4oC), respectively, while the “LG Reference Conditions” are based on evaporating and 

3-59 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
condensing temperatures of -14.8oF (-26oC) and 100.4oF (38oC), respectively. It is not clear what 

the liquid and suction vapor temperatures for the LG conditions are—these temperatures also 

impact capacity and power input. At the same evaporating and condensing temperatures and with 

liquid and suction vapor conditions consistent with the ASHRAE test conditions, a high 

efficiency rotating-shaft reciprocating compressor such as the Embraco EGX70HLC would have 

an operating EER of about 6.9 Btu/hr-W. Hence, the LG linear compressor may be about 9% 

more efficient than the best current-technology rotating-shaft reciprocating compressors. 

Table 3.3.10 Efficiencies of LG’s Current Linear Compressor Models 

Model 

Capacity Range* Efficiency* 

W Btu/hr COP EER 

DLF81LACT 310 1058 2.14 7.3 

FA81LACT 293 1000 2.20 7.5 

FA72LACT 276 941 2.20 7.5 

FA63LACT 241 823 2.20 7.5 

FA54LACT 207 706 2.20 7.5 

Source: LG, 2007. 

* Performance based on ‘LG Reference’ rating conditions. Models utilize refrigerant R-134a. 

In the trade press, LG has expressed willingness to license the linear compressor 

technology to competitors.74 However, because the LG design is proprietary, the widespread use 

of linear compressors is uncertain. 

3.3.2.5 Evaporator 

The evaporator is a key component of the refrigeration system. As discussed earlier in 

section 3.11.2, there are three basic evaporator designs depending on the refrigeration product: 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers and upright freezers with automatic defrost typically use a 

forced-convection finned-tube design; compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and smallsize standard refrigerator-freezers generally use a roll-bond design; and chest freezers and 

upright freezers with manual defrost typically use a coil design that is integrated within the walls 

of the unit. Some manual defrost freezers also use evaporators which are integrated with the wire 

shelving. In the case of the finned-tube designs used in standard-size refrigerator-freezers, 

design, modeling, and experimental studies have been conducted to evaluate their heat transfer 

performance.75, 76 Evaporator performance can be enhanced by increasing the heat exchanger 

surface area or improving the heat exchange performance. 

Increased Surface Area 

Increasing the heat exchanger surface area can be achieved by increasing the face area of 

the evaporator or adding more tube rows. These measures are limited by the geometry of the 

refrigeration product. There is a tradeoff between increasing the volume occupied by the heat 

exchanger and reducing the interior volume of the refrigerator. 

In its 1995 TSD, DOE considered increasing the evaporator surface area for most of the 

product classes analyzed; this resulted in an estimated one to two percent reduction in annual 

energy consumption.53 In the 1995 TSD, DOE based cost and efficiency improvements for this 

3-60 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
technology on estimates by manufacturers. No details were provided on how exactly the 

evaporator surface area was increased. Therefore, it is uncertain to what extent design efforts to 

increase the evaporator surface area have been employed in current U.S. refrigerator-freezer 

designs. 

Improved Heat Exchange 

Improving heat exchanger performance can be achieved through the use of enhanced fins 

and/or tubes. These types of fin and tube enhancements are common in air-conditioning 

applications where slit and louvered designs are used to enhance the fin surface and different 

types of internally-grooved surfaces are used to enhance the tubing. In its 1995 TSD, DOE 

considered enhancing the evaporator’s heat exchange performance for many of the product 

classes analyzed; this resulted in an estimated one to two percent reduction in annual energy 

consumption.53 In the 1995 TSD, DOE based cost and efficiency improvements for this 

technology on estimates by manufacturers. No details were provided on how exactly the 

evaporator heat exchange performance was enhanced. Therefore, it is uncertain to what extent 

design efforts to enhance the evaporator heat exchange performance have been employed in 

current U.S. refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer designs. 

Heat exchanger technologies that could potentially improve evaporator performance are 

microchannel heat exchangers, electrohydrodynamic enhancement, and the adoption of phasechange materials. In the case of microchannel heat exchangers, past research has demonstrated 

that the use of such heat exchangers in domestic refrigerators can provide system efficiencies 

comparable to current technologies while reducing refrigerant charge.77 Electrohydrodynamic 

enhancement employs high-voltage fields to improve the heat exchange performance. However, 

safety issues involved in using such high voltages in domestic appliances have not yet been 

resolved. In addition, no prototypes are available to test and evaluate this technology for 

domestic refrigerators and freezers. Finally, with regard to phase-change materials, Thomson (a 

French manufacturer) has integrated into its heat exchangers a phase-change material that 

enables higher average evaporation temperatures than conventional designs, thereby yielding 

energy savings.55 It is unclear for any of these technologies whether they will ever achieve 

widespread use in refrigerator-freezers. 

Research has also been conducted on the use of a ground-source heat exchanger as a 

means of rejecting heat from the cabinet and improving the efficiency of a refrigerator-freezer. 

Although the use of such a design reduced energy consumption considerably, it is likely not 

practical for most domestic refrigeration products.78 

3.3.2.6 Condenser 

The condenser, like the evaporator, is a key component of the refrigeration system and is 

located on the outside of the unit. As discussed in section 11.1.2, there are three basic condenser 

designs depending on the refrigeration product: Standard-size refrigerator-freezers typically use a 

forced-convection finned-tube design; compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers generally 

use a wire-and-tube “static” design which uses natural convection cooling; and freezers typically 

use a hot wall condenser that is integrated within the shell of the unit. In the case of the static 

condensers used in compact units, modeling studies have been conducted to evaluate their heat 

3-61 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
 

 

transfer performance.79 Modeling studies have also been performed on hot-wall condensers.80, 81 

Condenser performance can be enhanced by increasing the heat exchanger surface area or 

improving the heat exchange performance. 

Increased Surface Area 

Increasing the heat exchanger surface area can be achieved by increasing the face area of 

the condenser or adding more tube rows. These measures can be limited by the geometry of the 

refrigeration product. There may be a tradeoff between increasing the volume occupied be by the 

heat exchanger and reducing the interior volume of the refrigerator. 

In its 1995 TSD, DOE considered increasing the condenser surface area for many of the 

product classes analyzed; this resulted in an estimated one to two percent reduction in annual 

energy consumption.53 In the 1995 TSD, DOE based cost and efficiency improvements for this 

technology on estimates by manufacturers. No details were provided on how exactly the 

condenser surface area was increased. Therefore, it is uncertain to what extent design efforts to 

increase the condenser surface area have been employed in current U.S. refrigerator-freezer 

designs. 

Improved Heat Exchange 

Improving heat exchanger performance can be achieved through the use of enhanced fins 

and/or tubes. These types of fin and tube enhancements are common in air-conditioning 

applications where slit and louvered designs are used to enhance the fin surface and different 

types of internally grooved surfaces are used to enhance the tubing. In its 1995 TSD, DOE 

considered enhancing the condenser’s heat exchange performance for some freezer and compact 

unit product classes; this resulted in approximately a two percent estimated reduction in annual 

energy consumption.53 In the 1995 TSD, DOE based cost and efficiency improvements for this 

technology on estimates by manufacturers. No details were provided on how exactly the 

condenser heat exchange performance was enhanced. Therefore, it is uncertain to what extent 

design efforts to enhance the condenser heat exchange performance have been employed in 

current U.S. refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer designs. 

As with evaporators, other heat exchanger technologies could be employed to improve 

condenser performance. Microchannel heat exchangers, electrohydrodynamic enhancement, and 

the adoption of phase-change materials are all applicable to condensers, although phase-change 

materials have only been used in evaporators. It is unclear for any of these technologies whether 

they will ever achieve widespread use in refrigerator-freezers. 

The same research that investigated the use of ground-source heat exchangers as means 

of rejecting heat for the cabinet also examined its application for rejecting heat from the 

condenser. The technology was demonstrated to be effective at reducing the energy use of a 

refrigerator-freezer, but is likely not practical for most domestic refrigeration products.55 

Forced-Convection Condenser 

Most standard-size refrigerator-freezers use forced-convection condensers. In contrast, most 

standard-size freezers use hot wall condensers. The forced convection configuration can provide 

3-62 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
higher heat transfer effectiveness. However, space for housing a forced convection condenser 

and its associated fan is not always available. The consideration of conversion to forcedconvection condensers will depend on whether a particular product class is designed in a way 

that allows housing of the condenser and fan in a suitable location. 

3.3.2.7 Fan and Fan Motor 

Fans are used to increase evaporator and condenser heat transfer. Because most 

refrigerator-freezers use forced-convection condensers which rely on fans for air movement, fan 

and fan-motor technology options for the condenser are applicable. However, many manualdefrost refrigerators and freezers—specifically chest freezers and small, under-counter-type 

refrigerators—use static condensers and/or natural convection evaporators and, as a result, do not 

use fans and fan motors. 

For those refrigeration products that do utilize fans, refrigerator manufacturers purchase 

fans and fan motors from outside vendors. Therefore, conversion to more-efficient fan motors 

can be accomplished relatively easily when more-efficient fans and fan motors are available. 

Fan and Fan Motor Improvements 

Evaporator can condenser fans are typically of axial design. Evaporator fan blades are 

typically either 100mm or 110mm in diameter. Because the evaporator fan and fan motor are 

located within the refrigerated cabinet and the electric energy input adds to the refrigeration load, 

more-efficient evaporator fan or evaporator fan motor designs contribute to efficiency 

improvements in two ways: (1) reducing the power consumption of the fan motor and (2) 

reducing the power consumption of the compressor due to decreased heat losses into the cabinet 

from the fan motor. 

One source of inefficiency for axial fans lies in their tendency to throw air outward. The 

Pax GroupTM has developed a fan (PAX fan) that employs streamlined blades with patented 

geometrical shapes which reportedly provide better airflow direction and improved efficiency. 

Tests performed with the PAX fan have demonstrated a reduction in fan-motor power of 23 

percent and an overall reduction in refrigerator energy consumption of 3.9 percent relative to a 

refrigerator with a typical axial fan blade design.82 However, because the PAX fan is proprietary, 

the widespread use of the design is highly uncertain. 

Before the 1993 U.S. energy efficiency standards took effect, most evaporator and 

condenser fan motors were shaded pole induction designs, with efficiencies between 10 and 15 

percent and power input of about 15 Watts (W). Higher-efficiency motor designs include 

permanent split capacitor motors (PSC) induction motors with 20 to 30 percent efficiency, and 

brushless DC motors, with near 65 percent efficiency. 

3.3.2.8 Expansion Valve 

The metering device in most household refrigerator-freezers is a capillary tube. As 

discussed above in section 11.1.1, there are two common types of capillary tubes—adiabatic and 

non-adiabatic. In the non-adiabatic configuration, the capillary tube is soldered to the suction line 

3-63 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20
to evaporate the residual liquid in the suction line and to warm the vapor to near-ambient 

temperature. The suction line heat exchanger (or the non-adiabatic capillary) improves efficiency 

because it increases the refrigeration capacity of the system by the amount of heat being 

transferred from the capillary to the suction side. Non-adiabatic capillary tubes are the most 

common type of metering device in refrigerator-freezers. The other type of metering device, an 

adiabatic capillary tube, is used in some refrigeration products. In this configuration, the 

capillary tube does not exchange heat with the suction line and the refrigerant expands from the 

high pressure to the low pressure adiabatically. Research has been conducted to develop models 

to study the performance of both types of capillary tubes.83, 84 

Improved Expansion Valve 

Automatic, adjustable thermostatic or electronic expansion valves may provide improved 

performance. The technology for this design option is available; however, a modification in 

system design is required. DOE has not be able to identify any data demonstrating that improved 

expansion valves will save energy in domestic refrigerators. 

3.3.2.9 Cycling Losses 

Off-cycle refrigerant migration reduces a refrigeration product’s efficiency by 

transferring heat from outside the cabinet into the evaporator. Changes in refrigerator design that 

reduce this aspect of cycling losses can increase the unit’s efficiency. 

Fluid Control or Solenoid Valve 

A fluid control or solenoid valve installed after the condenser to effectively isolate the 

evaporator from the condenser during the off-cycle can be used to prevent any refrigerant 

migration. Research has demonstrated that solenoid valves can yield substantial energy 

savings.85 However, there are drawbacks to using solenoid valves. First, refrigeration migration 

allows the system pressure to equalize, reducing the required starting torque of the compressor 

motor. A solenoid valve would increase the required starting torque of the compressor motor. 

Second, adding such a valve could negatively affect system reliability. 

3.3.2.10 Defrost System 

Section 3.11.1.2 provides a description of typical automatic defrost systems for 

refrigerator-freezers. Most units use electric heaters to defrost the ice buildup on the evaporator 

located in the freezer section of a refrigerator-freezer. Energy use associated with defrost 

includes the energy input for the heater and also the refrigeration system energy used to remove 

the defrost heat from the cabinet. 

Reduced Energy for Automatic Defrost 

In some cases, the defrost heat supplied is more than required. Thus, energy savings can 

be achieved by reducing the defrost heat by either using a smaller heater, reducing the heater ontime, reducing the frequency of defrost, or a combination of these. 

In its 1995 TSD, DOE found that most manufacturers had already significantly reduced 

the electric heat for auto defrost in order to comply with the energy efficiency standards that 

3-64 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 20