CO 2 . (NRDC, No. 7 at p. 118) The Joint Comment ag reed, stating that th e analyses cannot be considered accurate descriptions of economic justification for st andard setting until a realistic
value for avoided CO 2 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 CO 2 in DOE’s analysis, st ating that projected market values are too uncertain. (Whirlpool, N o. 17 at p. 13) DOE has used updated estimate(s)
of the value of avoided CO 2 emissions in recent efficiency standards rulemakings. These estimates are summarized in the environmental assessment in the preliminary TSD.

EEI stated that the environmental assessm ent 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 DO E 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 applian ce production and delivery are not c onsidered a direct impact of standards, DOE does not plan to incl ude such emissions in its analysis.

For more detail on the environmental assess ment, refer to the environmental assessment report in the preliminary TSD.

2.13 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

The imposition of standards can affect employ ment both directly a nd indirectly. Direct employment impacts are changes, produced by ne w 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 inco me effect). DOE will utilize Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s impact of sector energy te chnologies (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 regul atory impact analysis (RIA) pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, which is subject to review under th e Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and B udget. The RIA addresse s the potential for nonregulatory approaches to supplan t or augment energy conservation standards in order to improve

2-31the energy efficiency or reduce the energy c onsumption of the products covered under this rulemaking.

DOE recognizes that voluntar y or other non-regulatory effo rts by manufacturers, utilities, and other interested parties can substantially affect energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption. DOE will base its assessment on the act ual 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 addre sses 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 pr oduct 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 de frost of this proposed product class appear to currently have a less stringent standard than refrigerator-fre ezers with top-mounted freezers— both of these product type s currently are part of product cl ass 3. The plot shows that ENERGY STAR models categorized under product class 3 have a distin ctly higher energy use than
ENERGY STAR models that fall unde r the proposed product class 3A.

2-32Table 2.15.1 Extrapolation of Standards for Standa rd-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 accountedfor 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-effi ciency 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 shipme nts 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 ENERGYSTAR database (see Figure 2.15.1). Hence, allrefrigerators are expected to achieve the same reduction in energy use with no reduc tion 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.

2-33Figure 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 cl ass 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, Elect rolux Home Products, Inc. , Office of Hearings and Appeal s, September 13, 2004, (Last accessed July 23, 2009.), www.oha .doe.gov/cases/ee/tee0012.pdf

2-34Table 2.15.3 Extrapolation of Standards for Co mpact Refrigerators, Re frigerator-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 clas s 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. Mi crofridge 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 combin ed 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

2-35REFERENCES

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/datab ase/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 Change s 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/d escriptions_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: Ener gy 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 En ergy Efficiency and Re newable Energy, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation St andards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Proposed Rule . Federal Register , 2009. 74(69): pp. 16920-16968.

2-36CHAPTER 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, Refrigerato r-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 Tes ting 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-Free zer, and Freezer Manufacturers

.................... 3-9
3.2.3.2 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Free zer, 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 Federa l 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 En ergy-Efficient Appliances

....................... 3-25
3.2.5.6 Rebates for Highly Ener gy-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-i3.2.6.1 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

.............................................................................................. 3-3 1
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-F reezer, and Freezer Manufacturers

........................... 3-10 Table 3.2.3 Standard-Size Refrigerator-F reezer Manufacturer Market Shares

....................... 3-12 Table 3.2.4 Compact Refrigerator Manufacturer Market Shares

............................................. 3-13 Table 3.2.5 Built-In Undercounter Refriger ator 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 Sta ndards 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-iiTable 3.2.12 Canadian Energy Standards for Added Refrigerator and Freezer Product
Classes

................................................................................................................... 3-20
Table 3.2.13 Canadian Standa rds for Wine Chillers

.................................................................. 3-20 Table 3.2.14 History of ENERGY STAR En ergy Use Criteria for Residential Refrigerators and Freezers

.................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3.2.15 Efficiency of Standard Refrig erators and Refrigerator-Freezers on the
Market Relative to Current Federal Standard

....................................................... 3-23 Table 3.2.16 Performance Requirement for Fe deral Purchases of Refrigerators and
Freezers

................................................................................................................. 3-24 Table 3.2.17 CEE Tier Levels Refrigerat ors and Refrigerator-Freezers

................................... 3-25
Table 3.2.19 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Ener gy-Efficient Appliances in EESA 2008

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

................... 3-26
Table 3.2.21 Market Shares of Standard Re frigerator-Freezer Product Classes

....................... 3-29
Table 3.2.22 Sales of ENERGY STAR La beled Refrigerator-Freezers

.................................... 3-30 Table 3.2.23 Standard Refrigerator Satura tion in U.S. Homes in 1987–2005 Period

............... 3-32 Table 3.2.24 Compact Refrigerator Satura tion 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 Manufacture r-Suggested Retail Prices (2007$)

........... 3-42
Table 3.2.31 Residential Refr igeration Products: Average Baseline Retail Price

..................... 3-43 Table 3.3.1 Technology Options for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-F reezers, 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 Ther mal 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

.......................................................................................... 3-5 4 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 So me of Embraco’s Variable-S peed Compressor Models

........... 3-59
Table 3.3.10 Efficiencies of LG’s Cu rrent Linear Compressor Models

.................................... 3-60

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.2.1 Annual Shipments of Refriger ators and Refrigerator-Freezers

......................... 3-27 Figure 3.2.2 Annual Shipments of Freezers

........................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3.2.3 Average Annual Electricity Us e of New Refrigerator-Freezers and
Freezers

.............................................................................................................. 3-30 Figure 3.2.4 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Reta il Price Distribution of Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)

................... 3-38 Figure 3.2.5 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Reta il Price Distribution of Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)

................... 3-39

3-iiiFigure 3.2.7 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Re tail 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 Refrigerat or-Freezer Components

.................................................. 3-45 Figure 3.3.3 Annual Energy Consumption for Re frigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers with Manual Defrost (Product Class #1)

........................................................... 3-72 Figure 3.3.4 Annual Energy Consumption fo r 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 Se rvice 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 Ic e Service (Product Class #4)

...................... 3-73 Figure 3.3.7 Annual Energy Consumption fo r Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers
with Automatic Defrost without TTD Ice Service (Product Class #5)

.............. 3-74 Figure 3.3.8 Annual Energy Consumption fo r Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers
with Automatic Defrost with TTD I ce Service (Product Class 5A)

.................. 3-74 Figure 3.3.9 Annual Energy Consumption for Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with
Automatic Defrost with TTD Ice Se rvice (Product Class #6)

........................... 3-75 Figure 3.3.10 Annual Energy Consumption fo r 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 fo r 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 fo r 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 Defr ost (Product Class #14)

...................................... 3-79 Figure 3.3.19 Annual Energy Consumption fo r Compact Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezers with Automatic Defr ost (Product Class #15)

...................................... 3-80 Figure 3.3.20 Annual Energy Consumption fo r Compact Upright Freezers with Manual Defrost (Product Class #16)

............................................................................... 3-80

3-ivFigure 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-vCHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides a profile of the resident ial 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 fi nancial 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 s ource of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input onl y. 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 compartmen t 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 compar tments 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 temper atures below 8 °F. which may be adjusted by the user to a temperature of 0 °F. or belo w. The source of refrigeration requires single phase, alternating current el ectric energy input only.

• Compact refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer means any refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer with total volume less than 7.75 ft 3 (220 L) and 36 inches (0.91 meters) or less in height.

• Freezer means a cabinet designed as a unit fo r the freezing and storage of food at temperatures of 0 °F or below, and having a source of refrigerat ion requiring single phase, alternating current el ectric energy input only.

3-13.1.1.2 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 configur ation makes them unsuitable for general storage of perishable
foods. 2 Because wines coolers maintain storage te mperature above 39 oF, they are exempted from existing refrigerator product classifica tions 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 cl asses. The product classes are based on the following characteristics: type of unit (refrigerat or, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer), size of the cabinet (standard or compact), type of defrost syst em (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 classe s for compact products (<220 L or <7.75 ft 3 ) because fewer opportunities are available for re ducing 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 natu ral 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 pr oduct classes. Two of these new product classes, currently called product class 5A, auto matic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezer with TTD ice service, and prod uct 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 Ca nada in order to maintain international consistency. The additional new product classes are all-refrigerator pr oducts which are proposed to be separated from their curr ent product classes which curren tly 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-fre ezers and somewhat less energy use for all3-2refrigerators. Hence, maintaining meaningful but fair energy standards requ ires the separation of all-refrigerators from th e other product types.

DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals grante d four exceptions for refrigerator-freezer products with bottom-mounted freezer and TTD i ce service, to Maytag Corporation (Maytag), LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), Samsung Electronics , and Electrolux Home Products. DOE granted Maytag its exception on August 11, 2005 (cas e 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 excepti on on December, 2008 (case number TEE-0056). Before these rulings, there was no appropriately-def ined category for this type of product, since the minimum standard for product class 5 (refri gerator-freezers with au tomatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without TTD ice service) was established to cover only products
without TTD ice-service at the time of its develo pment. 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 ener gy consumed by the fan used to cool the space used for ice production and storage.

DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals gr anted 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 Applia nce 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 woul d correspond to the minimu m efficiency standard
for automatic defrost chest freezers. The minimu m 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 pr oduct classes 1 and 2 are low and the energy conservation standards for these products are curre ntly 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, th ere is no obvious technical basis for this distinction. The key difference between these classes is that product class 12 includes only refr igerator-freezers with partial automatic defrost. These systems have a manual defrost evaporator for the freezer compartment (as do refrigerator-f reezers of product class 11), a nd they also include a second evaporator in the fresh food compartment whic h undergoes off-cycle defrost, a process which
involves no addition of ener gy to achieve defrost.

3-3Table 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 refrige rator-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-refrige rators—manual defrost

13A Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost

3.2.1.3 Bottom-Drawer Refrigerator-Freezers

Another product type that wa s 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

3-4freezers. (10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendices A1 and B1) DOE recently addressed issues pertaining to defrost systems, wine cooling re frigeration products, anti-sweat heaters, chest freezers with automatic defrost, and refrig erator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers incorporating through-the-door (TTD) features. Additional i ssues relevant to the test procedures include test result repeatabilit y, references to an older versio n of the ANSI-AHAM HRF-1 test standard, circumvention, convertible bottom- drawer refrigerator-freezers and other configurations with more than two compar tments, standby and off mode energy use, and international test procedure harmonization. The o ngoing 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 modi fy 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 opt ional. The first part measures energy use not including defrost events, and the second measur es the energy contribution associated with defrost. The measurement for this second part of th e test originally was sp ecified to start as the refrigerator-freezer initiates defrost during a comp ressor on cycle. The new test procedure allows for a delay between compressor shutdown and defros t 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 refr igerator-freezers that have sensors to detect ambient temperature and humidity, allowing the control system to adjust the wattage of anti-swea t heaters to provide on ly 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 rulema king 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 modi fied the definition of refrigerators to exclude wine storage products. However, DOE ha s 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 require s that Liebherr test or rate its combination wine storage-freezer products us ing a modified procedure proposed by Liebherr

3-5in which the wine storage compartment temperat ure 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 fo r compact refrigerators, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigat ed repeatability issues and published a report entitled “Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for Compact Refrigerators.” 9 In addition, NIST participated in a task for ce formed by AHAM to revise their AHAM HRF-1, Energy, Performance and Capacity of Househol d Refrigerators, Refr igerator-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 te st 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 instru ctions. 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 de termining 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 r ecent versions of AHAM HRF-1 is the use of controls or features in products that have the effect of circumve nting or frustrating the objective of the test procedure. Some refrigerator-freezermodels, for example, deactivate certain energyusing components during testing, re sulting in a rated performance th at is significantly different than actual field performance. EPCA requires that test procedures must be “reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy effici ency, energy use, water use . . ., or estimated annual operating cost of a covere d 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 feat ures that produce test results that are so unrepresentative of a produc t’s actual energy or water consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data . AHAM incorporated prov isions that address circumvention in its 2007 and 2008 test proce dure 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 AH AM HRF-1 in order to include by reference language which will more strongly bans circumven tion and to provide clarif ication regarding test

3-6sample set-up to help prevent inconsistencies in test results. DOE notes that in its updated ENERGY STAR requirements for refrigerato r-freezers in 2008, the ENERGY STAR program has included a provision to prohi bit models from meeting th e ENERGY STAR criteria through this type of circumvention scheme. 11

3.2.2.6 Bottom-Drawer Refrigerator-Freezer Models

As discussed above in secti on 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 wh ether 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 w ith the provisions of AHAM HRF-1-1979 as well as AHAM HRF-1-2008, which require c ontrol 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 issu e and solicits feedback regarding whether this requirement needs to be reinfor ced 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 intern ational 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 repr esenting key markets for these products. As a result, AHAM has incorporated compartmen t temperature change s into AHAM HRF-1-2008
which are consistent with the IE C standard. These changes include (1) standard test temperatures of 0 °F rather than 5 °F for the freezer compar tment of a refrigerator-freezer and 39 °F rather than 45 °F for the fresh food compartment, (2) sta ndard test temperature of 39 °F rather than 38 °F for an all-refrigerator, and (3) standard testtemperature 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 refr igerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer compartments and lower test energy use for all-re frigerators, thus necessitating adjustments to kilowatt-hour (kWh)-per-year values for all efficien cy levels for these products. As mentioned in section 3.2.1.2, DOE proposes to se parate all-refrigerators from product classes which currently combine all-refrigerators with ot her product types. It is argued that the new temperatures are more consistent with actual temperatures used by consumers use 12,13 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 en ergy 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 procedur es and energy conservation standards. Specifically,

3-7section 310 of EISA amends section 325 of EP CA (42 U.S.C. 6295) by adding the following definitions and other requirements pertai ning 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 standb y 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 a ll covered products shall be amended pursuant to section 323 to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consideration th e 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(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 fr eezers, the current test procedure captures standby and off mode energy use. All energy input for the test duration, incl uding 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 sta ndby and off modes and test procedures to incorporate them into the overall energy use is not required. Complications potentially arise for refrigerator features not menti oned by the test procedure that mi ght 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 reside ntial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, including their brand names and products sold in the United States (section 3.2.3.1), estimated market sh ares (section 3.2.3.2), industry mergers and acquisitions (section 3.2.3.3), and product distri bution channels (section 3.2.3.4). The section also discusses manufacturer trade groups (s ection 3.2.3.5) and manufact urers of compressors (section 3.2.3.6), as this is one of the most important componen ts of residential refrigeration products.

3.2.3.1 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Manufacturers

Table 3.2.2 lists refrigerat or, refrigerator-freezer, and fr eezer 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 produc ts to the U.S. Those sma ller manufacturers that produce ENERGY STAR-compliant products are listed di rectly after AHAM member manufacturers.

Table 3.2.2 also indicates the types of pr oducts 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 type s. Other types include: units with more than three doors, units for ‘compact k itchens’ other than compact refrig erators, refrigerated drawers,
and commercial-size units.

3-9Table 3.2.2 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer ManufacturersManufacturer NameAHAMMemberE*ProductsStd RefrigFreezerFreezerCom­pactBuilt-InCustomDoor/Inter.UnderCounterLuxury UnitooOther′′Aga Foodservice Group*Y---------Marvel Industries--YY-Y-YY (BI,SS,SI)YNorthland Corp.---Y--Y-Y (BI,SS,CDD,SI)-Bosch Home Appliances Corp.YYYY--Y-Y (CDD,SS)-Electrolux Home Products**YY---YYYY (CDD,SS,BI)-Frigidaire-YYY------Fisher & Paykel Appliances Inc.Y-Y-----Y (SS)-GE Appliances***YYYYY---Y (SS,SI)-Hotpoint-YYYY-----Monogram-YYY-Y--Y (BI,SS,SI)YHaier GroupYYY-Y---Y (CB,SS,SI)YLG ElectronicsYYY-----Y (TD,SI, SS)YLiebherrYYY--Y--Y(BI,SS)Miele Appliances IncYYYY-Y--Y (BI, SS)-Samsung Electronics AmericaYYY-------Sanyo North America Corp.YYYYY--Y-YSub-Zero Freezer CompanyYY-Y-YYYY (BI,CDD)YViking Range CorporationYY-Y-YY-Y (BI,CDD,SS)-W. C. Wood Co.†YYYYY----YVencold---Y------Whirlpool††YYY-------Amana Appliances-YYY----Y (SS)YMaytag-YYY----Y (SI,SS)-Estate Appliances--Y-------Magic Chef & Ewave--YYY-----Gladiator Garage Works-YY-------Ikea-YY-------Inglis Home Appliances-YY-------Jenn-Air-YY--YY-Y (SS,SI,PI,CDD,BI)-Kitchen Aid-YY--Y-YY (BI,SS,PI)YRoper Appliances--Y-------Absocold Corporation-YY-Y--Y-YAvanti Products†††-YYYY--Y-YCrosley Corporation-YYY----Y (SS)-Daewoo Electronics Co.-Y--Y-----Danby Products Inc.-YYYYY--Y (BI)-Diversified Refrigeration Inc.-Y------Y (SI)Y3-10Manufacturer NameAHAMMemberE*ProductsStd RefrigFreezerFreezerCom­pactBuilt-InCustomDoor/Inter.UnderCounterLuxury UnitooOther′′Equator Appliances-YYYY-----Galaxy Mfg. Company of C.N.Y.-YNANANANANANANANAGorenje USA, Inc.-YNANANANANANANANAJetson TV & Appliance Centers-YYYYY-YYYMicroFridge-Y--Y----YOrganizacion Mabe#-YY-Y-----Camco Inc.-YYYY---Y (SI,SS,PI)-Moffat-YY-------Petters Consumer Brands LLC-YNANANANANANANANASummit Appliances-YYYY--Y-YSun Frost-Y------Y (CD)YU-Line Corporation-Y-YY--Y-YUltra 8 International LLC-Y-------YACME Kitchenettes Corp.----Y-----Atlas Eléctrica##--NANANANANANANANABauer Appliances--YY----Y (SI,SS)YBroich Enterprises†††-YYY-----YDistinctive Appliances†††-Y---YY-Y(SI,SS,CDD)-Euroquip S.A.de C.V.---------YJade--Y-----Y(SS,SI)-Indesit Company###--Y----Y--Scottsman--Y-------Sunbeam^--Y-Y-----Thermador-YYY--Y-Y(SS,SI,CDD)WiniaMando Inc.---------KimchiKenmore^^-YYYY-----Mastercool^^--NANANANANANANANAUnited 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 one mfg.^^^Could be a distributor or brand name under another mfg.ooSS=Stainless Steel; BI=Built-In; CDD=Customized Designed Door; TD=TV in Door;SI=Size; CB=Convertible; PI=Price′′Units included: units with more than three doors, units for ‘compact kitchens’;refrigerated drawers; commercial-size units3-113.2.3.2 Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer , and Freezer Manufacturer Market

Shares

Appliance magazine provides market share data for the most signifi cant manufacturers ( i.e. , manufacturers with the greatest sales) for th e following four product t ypes: (1) standard-size refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, (2) co mpact refrigerators, (3) built-in/undercounter refrigerators, and (4) freezers. 14 Table 3.2.3 through Table 3.2.6 s how how market shares have changed over at least a ten-y ear period. Market shares am ong the largest manufacturers of standard-size refrigerator-freezers have remained relatively stable. Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool)’s 2006 acquisition of Maytag Corpora tion (Maytag) (discussed below) now gives Whirlpool the largest U.S. market share. Also, Haier America Tr ading, LLC (Haier), a relatively recent entrant to the market, captured th ree 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 s een a dramatic shift since 1993 (Table 3.2.4). SANYO North America Corporati on (Sanyo) had the largest mark et share by far in 1993, but now accounts for only seven per cent of the market. Haier now has the largest compact refrigerator market share, followed by the jo int venture between GE and Mexican appliance company Grupo P.I. Mabe S.A. (Mabe).

3-12Table 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 rema ined relatively stable over the past ten years (Table 3.2.5). The data show th at U-Line Corporation (U -Line) has the greatest
market share. Note that this market share dist ribution does not include fu ll-size built-in products.

Table 3.2.5 Built-In Undercounter Refrig erator 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 re frigerators and refrige rator-freezers is not publicly available. Key manufacturers in this product category include Sub-Zero, General Electric’s Monagram line, Whirlpool’s Kitchena id 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 compac t (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 th e market in 1995, now captures 13 percent of the
market.

3-13Table 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 ha d a continuous history of consolidation. Maytag acquired Jenn-Air Corporation (Jenn- Air) in 1982, Magic Chef, In c. (Magic Chef) in 1986, and Amana Appliances (Amana) in 2001. Whir lpool acquired the KitchenAid division of Hobart Corporation (KitchenAid) in 1986. Wh ite Consolidated Indus tries (WCI) acquired Frigidaire in 1979, and AB Electrolux ac quired WCI (including Frigidaire) in 1986.

Mergers and acquisitions have two purposes. Fi rst, they produce larg e corporations with the financial resources and stability to be succes sful in a competitive market. Second, mergers and acquisitions mean manufacturer s 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 ac quisitions are likely to continue.

On August 22, 2005, Whirlpool and Maytag ann ounced 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 initi ated an investigation into the effects of the merger, including potential lessening of compe tition or the creation of a monopoly. Opponents of the merger asserted that the combined companie s would control as much as 70 percent of the residential laundry market and as much as 50 pe rcent of the residentia l dishwasher market. 16 Whirlpool claimed that its large potential residential laundry ma rket share was skewed because the company produces washing machines for Se ars, which sells them under its Kenmore inhouse brand. Whirlpool further stat ed that it must periodically bi d with other manufacturers to keep the Kenmore contract a nd that Sears controls the pr icing of the Kenmore units. 17

In early January 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Ha rkin 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 pr oposed transaction is not likely to reduce competition substantially. The combination of str ong rival suppliers with the ability to expand sales significantly and large cost savings and other efficiencies th at Whirlpool appears likely to
achieve indicates that this transaction is not likely to harm consumer welfare.” 18

3-14The DOJ Antitrust Division focused its inve stigation on residen tial laundry, although it considered impacts across all products offered by the two companies. DOJ determined that the merger would not give Wh irlpool 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 Kenmor e, GE, and Frigidaire, are well established; (2) foreign manufacturers, incl uding LG and Samsung, are gaini ng market share; (3) existing
U.S. manufacturers are below production capacity; (4) the large home appliance retailers have alternatives available to resist price incr ease attempts; and (5) Whirlpool and Maytag substantiated large cost savings and ot her efficiencies to benefit consumers. 18

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

3.2.3.4 Distribution Channels

Most residential refrigerat ors and freezers move directly from manufacturers to retail
outlets. Table 3.2.7 identifies the types of retail stores through wh ich 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 othe r than retail outlets, e.g. , by multi-family home builders for installati on 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, c ontractors, 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 pe rcent 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-f reezers, and freezers. AHAM provid es services to its members including government relations; ce rtification 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 applianc es to provide uniform, repeat able procedures for measuring specific product characteristics and performance features.

3-153.2.3.6 Compressor Manufacturers and Market Shares

Because the compressor is a key energy-using component of refrigerators, it is important to determine which compressor manufacturers ar e supplying the U.S. refrigerator market. According to three sources, Embraco is the co mpressor manufacturer wi th the largest global market share, although several other manufacturers have signi ficant 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), Danf oss 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 regu latory programs mandating energy conservation standards for refrigerator/freezers. It covers U.S. Federal energy conser vation standards, State standards, standards in Canada and Mexico (w hich may impact the companies servicing the North American market), a nd international standards.

3.2.4.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards

The National Appliance Energy Conserva tion Act of 1987 (NAECA) (42 U.S.C. 6291– 6309) established efficiency standards for refrig erators and refrigerato r-freezers with a total refrigerated volume of less than 1104 L (39 ft 3 ) and for freezers with a total refrigerated volume of less than 850 L (30 ft 3 ). Compact refrigerators and freezers represent separate product classes and have a volume less than 220 L (7.75 ft 3 ) and a height of 0.91 meters ( 36 inches) or less. The minimum efficiency levels depend on product cla ss 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 adju stment 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 ft 3 volume), and 1.73 for freezers. Maximum annual energy use is expressed as kilo watt-hours (kWh) per year (yr)

3-16NAECA initially established energy conservati on 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 standa rds that became effective in July 2001. Refrigerator-freezers manufactured to meet the 2001 standard typically consume about 30 percent less energy than re quired 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 cla sses 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 re frigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezer and TTD ice service, and (2) automatic defros t chest freezers. These proposed product classes
are listed as 5A and 10A in Table 3.2.9.

3-17Table 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 refrigera tor-freezers with manual defrost. 13.5AV+299
0.48av+299 8.82AV+248.4
0.31av+248.4

2. Refrigerator-freezer—par tial 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-th e-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—p artial 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—au tomatic defrost with sidemounted freezer. 11.8AV+501*
0.42**+501* 7.60AV+501.0
0.27av+501.0 15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—au tomatic 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-th e-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 ft 3 ; 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.

3-18The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (P.L. 110-140), requires that DOE publish a final rule no later than Decembe r 31, 2010 to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for refrigerators, refrigerat or-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 Effi ciency 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 ft 3 ) (Table 3.2.11). 24 The standards for freezers with volume greater than 30 ft 3 are numerically identical to the federal standards for smaller freezers—the California standards simp ly 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 ft 3

.

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 ft 3 , which is 1.73 times freezer volume (in ft 3 ).

3.2.4.3 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards

Refrigerators and freezers are regulated produc ts in Canada under the Canadian Energy Efficiency Regulations. The re gulations 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 refri gerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The product classes and MAEC limits in the Canadian re gulations are the same as in the U.S. Federal
standards.

In November 2006, Canada added two new pr oduct types to its Regulations (Amendment 9) to harmonize with recent U.S. ruli ngs with respect to these products. 25 These product types are refrigerator-freezers with automatic defrost a nd with a bottom-mounted freezer with TTD ice
service and chest freezers with automatic defrost system. The maximum energy use regulations,

3-19listed 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 O ffice of Energy Efficiency (OEE) amended Canada's Energy Efficiency Regulations to a dd 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 maximu m 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 establishe s the maximum energy consumption limits for household refrigerators and freezers using hermetic motor-driven compressors, specifies the test methods for determining such energy consump tion and the total refrigerated volume, and provides energy consumption label requirement s. This standard applies to household refrigerators up to 1,104 c ubic decimeters (39 ft 3 ) and household freezers of up to 850 cubic decimeters (30 ft 3 ) 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 Standa rds Program (CLASP) database, all 15 original European Union (EU) member countries, plus 16 other countries outside North America, have mandatory energy effici ency standards for refrigerator-freezers. 28 The countries other than the original EU member c ountries are: Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, Chile, China, Chinese Taipei, Costa Rica, Hungary, In donesia, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Viet Nam.

3-20In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a Commission proposal for a directive on establishing a framework for setting eco-desi gn requirements (such as energy efficiency requirements) for all energy-using products in the reside ntial, tertiary (services), and industrial

sectors. 29 EU-wide rules for eco-design are intended to ensure th at disparities among national regulations do not become obstacles to intra-EU trade. The directive does not directly introduce binding requirements for specific products, but do es define conditions an d criteria for setting requirements regarding environmentally releva nt 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 thos e in the U.S. due to differences in test procedures. The developmen t of an international test procedure under the auspices of the International Electrotechnical Commission has international test procedure harmonization as a key objective. Establishmen t 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 standa rds, there are voluntary programs— e.g. , the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) and CEE—as well as other Federal a nd State policies that affect the efficiency of ne w refrigerators and freezers.

3.2.5.1 ENERGY STAR

Historical ENERGY STAR Requirements

ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program ad ministered 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.

3-21Table 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 ST AR-compliant full-si ze 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 requirem ents effective in 2008

The current ENERGY STAR criteria, drafte d with input from stakeholders and two rounds of public comments, went into eff ect on April 28, 2008. To support the change, ENERGY STAR released a market analysis 30 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 Apr il 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 changi ng the labeling criteria.

3-22Table 3.2.15 Efficiency of Standard Refrigerato rs 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, 2007 30

3.2.5.2 Federal Energy Management Program

DOE’s FEMP a works to reduce the cost and envi ronmental impact of the Federal government by advancing energy efficiency a nd water conservation, pr omoting the use of distributed and renewable energy, and improving util ity management decisions at Federal sites. FEMP helps Federal buyers id entify and purchase energy-efficient equipment, including residential refrigerators and freezers.

Federal agencies are required by the En ergy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005, P.L. 109­ 58) and Federal Acquisition Regulations (F AR) Subpart 23.2 to specify and buy ENERGY STAR-qualified products or, in categories wi th 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 fr eezer performance requirements for Federal purchases.

a For more information, please visit www.eere.energy.gov/femp.
3-23Table 3.2.16 Performance Requirement for Fe deral Purchases of Refrigerators and
Freezers

Product Class Total Volume* (ft 3 ) 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 pro cedure (10 CFR 430, Sub-Part B, Appendix E).

*** Possible Product Class numbers ba sed 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 le ss electricity than the Federal standard. These energy-efficient refrigerators re present the upper end of the ENER GY STAR efficiency levels. Effective January 1, 2007, CEE id entifies three tiers for “super-e fficient” refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Table 3.2.17 below provi des the specifications for the CEE.

3-24Table 3.2.17 CEE Tier Levels Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers Percent Energy Use below Federal Standard Efficiency level 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 w ith automatic defrost with no TTD ice features and 21.4 ft 3 adjusted volume, and (2) a side-mount refrigerator freezer with TTD features and 26.2 ft 3 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 ft 3 total volume, and 21.4 ft 3 adjusted volume. ** Auto defrost, TTD features, 21.7 ft 3 total volume, and 26.2 ft 3 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 cred its to manufacturers for the production of energy-efficient residential refrigerators. These credits were inte nded to help manufacturers meet the costs of producing appliances that exceed the Federal standards. The cred it 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 cred it (see Table 3.2.19).

3-25Table 3.2.19 Manufacturer Tax Credits for En ergy-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 defros t refrigerator-freezers with an internal volume of at
least 16.5 ft 3

.

3.2.5.6 Rebates for Highly Energy-Efficient Products

Electric utilities and other organizations promote the purch ase of highly energy-efficient refrigerators through consumer rebates. Typica lly, 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 incentiv es to retire old and inefficient appliances.

Many utilities also offer rebate s and disposal services for re cycling old units in order to encourage consumers to purchase new, more effici ent units and to ensure the safe disposal of
hazardous waste.

Table 3.2.20 Rebates Offered for Highly En ergy-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 Un specified (while supplies last)

* The table includes those programs listed as provid ing 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 Highl y 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 cr edits for premium-efficiency refrigerators. 36 The tax credit is based on the amount of energy saved a bove 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 magazine 37 and the AHAM Fact
Book

. 19 Appliance magazine breaks down refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer shipments into

3-26three groups: (1) standard-size unit s, (2) built-in units, and (3) co mpact 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-s ize shipments can be broken down into two broad groups: (1) top- and bottom-mount refrigerators and refrige rator-freezers, and (2)
side-mount units.

Figure 3.2.1 shows historical shipments of re frigerators 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 milli on 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 in clude 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 12Annual Shipments (millions)

Standard-Size
Compact1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Year

Figure 3.2.1 Annual Shipments of Refr igerators and Refrigerator-Freezers

3-270.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Annual Shipments (millions) Standard-Size
Compact1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Year

Figure 3.2.2 Annual Shipments of Freezers

For DOE’s 2005 technical analysis of am ended energy conservation standards for residential refrigerator-freezers , AHAM provided historical shipme nts 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-fre ezers. According to DOE’s 2005 t echnical analysis, these two product groupings account for over 99 percent of st andard-size refrigerato r-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 to wards bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers in the last few years, coinciding with reduction in market share of both side-mount and top-mount refrigerator-freezers.

3-28Table 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 ft 3 b comprise 81 percent of total top- and botto m-mount refrigerators, and (2) si de-mount refrigerator-freezers
with TTD ice service in the si ze category range of 21 to 30 ft 3 comprise 98 percent of total sidemount refrigerator-freezer shipments.

3.2.6.2 Historical Efficiencies

The average efficiency of new refrigerator s and freezers has increased greatly since the 1980s. Figure 3.2.3 below (which show s annual electricity consumpti on) indicates th e changes in efficiency resulting from the Federal standa rds that took effect in 1990, 1993, and 2001. Note that the average efficiency tre nds shown in the chart reflect ch anges in product size and features as well as changes in the effici ency within specific types of pr oducts. In particular, the growing market share of side-mount refrigerator-fre ezers placed upward pressure on the average annual electricity use of new refrigerator-freezers.

b Size category is based on ft 3 of total refrigerated volume (fresh food volume plus freezer volume).
3-290 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Annual 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 la beled refrigerator-fre ezers grew from 17 percent in 2001 to 33 pe rcent 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

3-303.2.6.3 Imports and Exports

The share of domestic shipments of refr igerators and freezers accounted for by imports grew significantly in the 1994-2004 pe riod. Refrigerator imports tota led nearly six million units in 2004. Over one-third of the imports came fr om 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 pe rcentage of homes with a given product. DOE used four primary sources of information on the saturation and ownership of refrig erators, 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 Informati on 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 us eful for forecasting future shipments to new housing.

The saturation of standard refrigerators ha s been close to 100 pe rcent for two decades (Table 3.2.23). The RECS data show that the shar e 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).

3-31Table 3.2.23 Standard Refrigerator Satura tion 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 refrigerat ors vary greatly (Table 3.2.24). The estimates for 2005 vary from a low of 3.7 percen t (RECS) to a high of 17.0 percent ( Appliance magazine). Comparatively, NFO’s estimate for 2001 is 5.6 percent.

3-32Table 3.2.24 Compact Refrigerator Saturati on 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 al so somewhat varied (Table 3.2.25). Appliance magazine reports that freezer saturation has ri sen from 40 percent in 1993 to 45 percent in 2005, but the NFO study reports that th e 2001 level (41 percent) was lo wer 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.

3-33Table 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 sa turation of freezers in the to tal population seen in Table 3.2.25.

3-34Table 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 pr ices for refrigerator-freezers and freezers in past Fact Books. Table 3.2.27 lists the pr ices for eight years spanning 1980–2002. The real price of refrigerator-freezers a nd freezers (expressed in 2008 $) declined during the 1980s and 1990s. However, in 2002, the prices of both types of products increase d 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 2002RefrigeratorFreezers 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 Oc tober 2005 provided the reta il price of the two largest product classes of refrigerator-freezer s: top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD features and side-mount refrigerat or-freezers with TTD features. 38 The analysis also established the retail price of products mee ting existing ENERGY STAR levels.

3-35Baseline Retail Prices

DOE determined the retail pr ice of baseline-efficiency t op-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD features and side-mount refrigerat or-freezers with TTD features from data purchased from NPD Group. The NPD Group datase t included information about the average price of more than 2000 refrigerator m odels 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 ba seline-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 ft 3 18-20 ft 3 21-22 ft 3
Top-Mount without TTD $329 $386 $457

21-23 ft 3 24-26 ft 3 27-30 ft 3

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 incr emental retail price estimates of ENERGY STAR products relative to ba seline products. At the time, EN ERGY STAR levels specified 15 percent lower energy consumption than the fe deral energy standard level. DOE used two approaches to estimate the retail prices: (1) the ap plication 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 be low summarizes the retail price increments associated with meeting ENERGY STAR relativ e 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 ft 3 side-mount refrigerator.

Table 3.2.29 Average Retail Price Increment of ENERGY STAR from 2005 DOE Report (2004$)
Product Type Approach 14-17 ft 3 18-20 ft 3 21-22 ft 3
Top-Mount without
TTD Markups $38 $35 $42

Retail Prices $28 $49 $63

Product Type Approach 21-23 ft 3 24-26 ft 3 27-30 ft 3

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), an d sales, and whether each model has an Energy Star rating. The data cost $25,000 to purchase.
3-363.2.8.3 2007 Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Prices

DOE collected retail price data for several re frigerator-freezer a nd freezer models from
five manufacturers’ Inte rnet web sites: General Electric, Wh irlpool, Frigidaire, Maytag, and LG Electronics. The price data refl ect manufacturer-suggested retail pr ices 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 meeti ng existing ENERGY STAR levels.

DOE collected data on 1,268 refrigerator-fr eezer and freezer models. The collected data set included information about the retail price and model number of refr igerator-freezers and freezers sold in 2007 in the U.S., coupled with information about the brand, attributes ( i.e. , color, stainless steel, built-in, Fren ch doors), and whether the prod uct met existing ENERGY STAR levels. DOE sorted the data into the following pr oduct types: (1) side-mount refrigerator-freezers consisting of 523 models, (2) top-mount refrig erator-freezers consisting of 340 models, (3) bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers consisting of 281 models, (4) chest fr eezers consisting of 46 models, and (5) upright freeze rs consisting of 54 models.

Figure 3.2.4 through Figure 3.2.8 present pr ice 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 Figur e 3.2.5 indicate that ENERGY STAR generally increases the price and that there is a wide r price variation for ENERGY STAR products. Also, both refrigerat or-freezer types e xhibit skewed price distributions, i.e. , more models are low-priced with re latively few high-priced models (as an example, fewer than 10 models were pr iced above $1,300 for top-mounts). The price
distributions for bottom-mount re frigerator-freezers, Figure 3.2.6 below, show that French-door configurations are more of a factor in contri buting 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 expensiv e. The price distributions for upright freezers
show that ENERGY STAR mode ls are generally more expens ive (Figure 3.2.7). For chest freezers, there are several models with and w ithout ENERGY STAR that are priced similarly, but there are no low-priced models that qualify for ENERGY STAR (Figure 3.2.8).

3-377000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 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 Reta il Price Distribution of Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)

3-381800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 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$)

2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 800 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$)

3-391500 1200 900 600 300 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 Re tail Price Distribution of Upright Freezers with and without ENERGY STAR (2007$)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 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 anal ysis, DOE confined the

3-40sample 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-m ount 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 performe d the regression analysis with two types of regression equations that it formulated to determin e 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’ equati on where price is a func tion of ENERGY STAR (the focus variable), product at tributes (stainless steel, built-i n, 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 ‘c onstant’ price (i.e., the price without any of the attributes under consideration, also referre d to as a baseline model) for each product type. The ‘coefficients ’ represent the price adder fo r a product with a specific attribute ( i.e. , ENERGY STAR, French doors for bottom-mo unt products, stainless steel cabinet, and brand). If the value is posit ive, 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-m ount refrigerator-freezers, the ‘coefficient’ for ENERGY STAR is $208. Therefore, the added reta il price of an ENERGY STAR side-mount refrigerator-freezer is $208, raising the baseli ne 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 th e proportion of the vari ation in the dependent variable (retail price) accounted for by the explanatory variables. d

DOE found that the incremen tal price effect of meeti ng ENERGY STAR levels is significant at a 95 percent confidence level fo r all product types with the exception of bottommount refrigerator-freezers. In the case of side-mount refrigerato r-freezers, qualifying for ENERGY STAR adds $208 to the price of the base line model, while for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers it adds $63. These price increments are significantly higher than those from DOE’s October 2005 technical report (s ee Table 3.2.29 above). Because th e 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 da ta), 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 EN ERGY STAR. Rather, the anal ysis 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 percen t confidence level. The French door attribute is significant and

d Unlike R squared, adjusted R squared allows for the degree s of freedom associated with the sums of the squares in its calculation. Therefore, even though the residual su m 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 g oodness-of-fit measure than R square.
3-41adds over $330 to the price of a baseline unit. This is consistent with th e price distributions of bottom-mount models presented in Figure 3.2.6 above.

The analysis suggests that st ainless steel plays a significant role in the price of sidemount, top-mount, and bottom-mount refrigerator-f reezers and upright freeze rs. The ‘coefficient’ of brand suggests an effect si milar to stainless steel. Bra nd 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 In cremental Price of EN ERGY STAR and other
Attributes based on 2007 Manufacturer- Suggested Retail Prices (2007$)

Product Type Constant (Baseline) Coefficients (Price Adder) Adj
R 2 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 sa les at many retail outlets in the United States, representing more than 50 percent of retail sale s nationwide. The data include model number, refrigerated volume, configuratio n of doors and ice-making, and whether the unit is an ENERGY STAR product. Based on these da ta DOE developed a sales-weighted price distribution for non-ENERGY STAR applianc es for seven of the 20 product classes. e Additional details about this price data are provided in Chap ter 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 refrigerat or-freezers), the retail prices in Table 3.2.31 are relatively close to th e manufacturer-suggested retail prices in Table 3.2.30.

e DOE assumed that prices for non-ENERGY STAR mode ls are a reasonable approximation of prices for the

baseline models.
3-42Table 3.2.31 Residential Refrigeration Pr oducts: 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 refri gerator-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 technol ogy 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 descript ions provide a basis for understanding the technologies used to improve product efficiency.

3.3.1.1 Product Operation

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, a nd freezers are household appliances designed for the refrigerated storage of food products. Definitions for these product types and their operating temperature ranges are disc ussed in section 3.2.1.

Figure 3.3.1 shows a schematic representation of a typical refrigeration circuit used in residential refrigeration products. As descri bed 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 th e evaporator and compresses it.
2. The resulting high-pressure, high-temperat ure 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 (p ressure-reducing) capillary tube to the evaporator, which is at low pressure.

3-434. The low-pressure, low-temper ature liquid in the evaporat or absorbs heat from its surroundings, evaporating to a gas, whic h 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 configura tion, the capillary tube is soldered to the suc tion 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-adiabati c capillary tubes are the most common type of metering device in refrig erator-freezers. The ot her type of metering device, an adiabatic capillary tube , is used in some refrigerati on products. In this configuration, the capillary tube does not exchange heat with th e 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.com 48 ) shows the components and layout of a typical top-mount refr igerator-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 du e 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, i ce maker, ice and water dispenser, and door seals and hinges.

3-44Source: RemodelGuide.com Figure 3.3.2 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Components

Automatic defrost

Almost all standard-size refrigerator-freezers are self-defrosting. Ma nual defrost is still used in chest freezers, some upright freezers, a nd in compact refrigerators and freezers. Selfdefrosting refrigerator-freezers and freezers automa tically melt frost that accumulates in the freezer compartment. The typical automatic defr ost system has three functional components: a defrost timer, a defrost heat er, 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 resi stance 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 pa n to prevent freeze of melted condensate and clogging of the drip pan drain.

3-45• As the frost and ice melt, the resulting water drips into a dr ip pan. The pan is connected
to a tube that drains the water into a shallo w pan at the bottom of th e 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 evapor ated 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, refrigerato r-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 cont rol device (usually a cap illary tube), and an evaporator.

• Compressor: The compressor compresses refrigerant, providing the energy input necessary to drive the cycle. In most residential refrig eration products, the compressor is
located at the bottom rear of the unit. In bui lt-in refrigerator-freezers the compressor is often located on top of the refrigerator be hind a grill or grate. The compressor runs whenever the refrigerator th ermostat calls for cooling.

• Condenser: The condenser is a heat exchanger lo cated 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 th e unit near the compressor. They can be
fabricated of steel tubes w ith 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 sh ell and provided with good thermal contact to the shell. This is the common configurati on 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 lo cated inside the unit. Similar to the condenser, there are three main c onfigurations 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 lo cated on the rear wall of the freezer

3-46compartment 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 a nd into both the freezer and fresh food compartments. Because the evaporator absorb s heat, it is very cold, thereby causing any water vapor in the air to freeze on it as frost. Most refrigerato r-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 a nd are configured either as a flat plate at the rear of the cabinet or a rectangular box. In the latter configurat ion, the interior of the box is the freezer compartment. While these evaporators generally use natural convection and do not use an evaporator fa n, some products with rear-mounted flat roll bond evaporators use fans for performa nce 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 us e natural convection heat transfer.

Temperature control

All refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers have a thermostat or electronic temperature control to maintain the proper temp erature. Thermostats are mechanical devices which interrupt the electricity c onnection to the compressor when the temperature is sufficiently low. Electronic control systems generally use ther mistors 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 fr eezers 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. Clos ing the door turns off the light. Refrigerators generally use standard applia nce 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• When the ice has frozen and reached a suffici ently 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 tu rns on a small heater beneath the tray. The heater warms the tray, to help release the ic e 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 c ubes drop below it. When the cubes have dropped,
the wire rotates back down. If the holding bin is full of ic e, the wire rotate far enough, which stops further production of ice. If th e sensing wire can rotate down fully, the ice maker refills with water and repeats the process.

Ice and water dispenser

Many standard-size refrigerato r-freezers have a through-the- door (TTD) ice and/or water dispenser. There are several different syst ems for delivering ice and water through the refrigerator door. What follows is an explanation of the common attr ibutes 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 bi n, 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 pres ses a lever on the front of the refrigerator that activates a
switch. The switch turns on an electric water valv e at the back of the refrigerator-freezer. Water flows through the valve into a tube, then flows into a re servoir located in the fresh food compartment in which the water is chille d. As new water enters the reservoir, the water that is displaced fl ows through a separate t ube 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 infiltr ation of warm ambient ai r into the cabinet. The seal is lined with a magnet wh ich helps to hold the door closed and create a tight seal. The magnetic portion of the gasket is a ligned 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 technol ogy options for improving the efficiency of residential refrigeration products. The technology options are categorized by their asso ciated component or system. Each technology option category and the options available for improving the component or system category are discussed below.

3-48Table 3.3.1 Technology Options for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

Insulation Expansion Valve

Improved resistivity of insula tion 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 moto r 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 ft 3 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 refri geration products use polyuretha ne (PU) foam insulation for both the cabinets and the doors. Through the 198 0s, 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 producti on 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, includi ng two hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HFC-134a and HFC-245fa, and cyclopentane, a hydrocarbon (HC). HFCs and HC s both have zero ODP. HCs have a much lower global warmi ng potential (GWP) than HFCs, but they are flammable. ARC, DOE, and EPA sponsored research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to determine the

3-49thermal conductivities of the three alternatives and of HCFC-141b. Based on thermal conductivity, ORNL identified HFC-245fa as the mo st 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 in dicated that the ther mal conductivity of HFC245fa foam insulation increases by a smaller perc entage than either HFC-134a or cyclopentane foams. Finally, despite the fact that HCs are us ed 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 curr ently using HFC-245fa blowing agent for PU foam insulation. However, refrigerators and free zers sold in the U.S. also are using HFC-134a, cyclopentane, and HCFC-141b blowing agent. Th e 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-ft 2- oF mW/m-K Btu-in/hr-ft 2 -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 th at 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 percen t in panels and in cabinets. 52

Increased Insulation Thickness

Based on DOE’s 1995 technical support documen t (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 compar tments tended to be near the higher end while walls of refrigerators and fresh food co mpartments 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 ov er 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, manufacturer s 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

3-50molding to accommodate thicker insulation. Increa sed 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 consid ered undesirable because it impacts consumer utility.

Vacuum-Insulated Panels

Vacuum-insulated panel (VIPs) technol ogy is based on the reduction in conductivity which occurs in a low vacuum, the same concept wh ich 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 colla psing 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 d ecrease the heat leakage and energy required to maintain the cabinet at low temperature. Diffe rent configurations ar e commercially available through advances in manufacturing technologies. As a result, VIPs are ava ilable 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. So me VIPs also include absorber to absorb gas whic h 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. Re search sponsored by the European Commission
has evaluated these core materials based on thei r cost and characteristics, including density and manufacturing time. Table 3.3.3 be low summarizes the VIP charac teristics manufactured with
the above core materials. 55 Each of the core materials has associated advantages and disadvantages that dictate their accepta bility for an appliance application.

Table 3.3.3 Comparison of Various VIP Core Materials Property Polystyrene Open-ce ll 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-ft 2 -oF ) 0.033 – 0.040 0.067 0.040 0.017

Manufacturing Time Fast Medium Medium Long Density ( kilogram ( kg)/cubic meter (m 3 )) 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 f iller encapsulated in a st ainless steel barrier. 56 Table
3.3.4 summarizes the center-of-panel thermal c onductivities 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.

3-51Table 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-ft 2 -oF ) 0.034 – 0.038 0.014 – 0.018 0.019 – 0.022

* For each filler, the reported thermal conductivities ar e a range of values from nine separate VIPs.

Source: Vineyard et al, 1998. 56

ORNL also determined the thermal performa nce of the VIPs it studied as part of a composite panel. The composite panel consis ted 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-ft 2 -oF/Btu, respectively. 56 The lower thermal conductivitie s 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 drama tically as the pressu re 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 a nd 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 aw arded 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 conductiv ity of 1.2 mW/m-K (0.008
Btu-in/hr-ft 2 -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 insu lation properties. GFPs are essentially hermetic plastic bags that can take on a variety of shapes and sizes. Insi de 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 characteristic s of different GFPs, based on their center-of3-52panel 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-ft 2 -oF mm inches oC oF mW/m-K Btu-in/hr-ft 2 -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: LBNL 61

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-ft 2 -oF (12.6 to 13.2 mW/m-K). ORNL also analy zed 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 therma l resistance was determined to be 18.2 hr-ft 2

­ oF/Btu. Finally, ORNL measured only a five-percen t reduction in overall thermal resistance over a three-year period, which was less than the reduc tion 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 technolo gy. A significant problem in using GFPs is their lack of structur al integrity in the resulting product.

3.3.2.2 Gasket and Door Design

A significant portion of the heat gain to re frigerators and freezers occurs around the edges of the doors and through the gaskets on the door edges. An analys is of thermal loads on an 18.6
ft 3 top-mount refrigerator-freezer revealed that ove r 28 percent of the tota l 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 load s through the walls and doors and other sources. If the ‘edge’ effect losses can be reduced, the efficiency of the re frigerator 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 discu ssed in the following section (section 3.11.2.3).

3-53Table 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 be tween improving the thermal-efficiency performance of the gasket and ensuring that the d oor 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 desi gned specifically to facilita te 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 de signs for improving the air tightness of door gaskets exist, a pparently no general criteria have been established to enable different designs to be classified.

An EPA report from 1992 describes theoreti cal modeling and experi mental research on gasket heat loads and concludes that replacing about half of e ither the metal door flange or cabinet flange with plastic can reduce the he at flow through the gasket region by 25 percent. 63 However, this study did not address the impact s 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 refri gerator-freezer annual energy consumption by one to three percent. 53 Due to the age of both the EPA a nd DOE research, it is uncertain how much further gaskets can be improved.

Double Door Gaskets

A double door gasket is an addi tional inner door seal gasket that is added to the gasket design. This further reduces heat leakage and in filtration into the refrigerator and freezer.

Based on information drawn from DOE’s 1995 TSD, manufacturer s did not introduce double door gaskets in the mid-1990s because of performance problems and cost. Ice can form between the gaskets, greatly reduc ing their effectiveness. In a ddition, the gaskets are visually unattractive and they increase th e difficulty of meeting safety regulations for minimum dooropening force.

3-54Improved Door Face Frame

As discussed above, cabinet heat load s 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 cab inet is also referred to as the ‘edge effect.’

Using a plastic cover on the internal flange can reduce the ‘edge e ffect’ 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 a pply foam in the doors. This technology option, which is applicable only to thos e product classes that include TTD ice service, utilizes improved design methods to reduce the he at load of TTD features.

Based on the DOE 1995 TSD, door-design impr ovements 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 standa rd-size refrigerator-freezers. In general, compact refrigerators, compact refrigerator-fre ezers, and compact freezers do not use anti-sweat heat. These heaters apply heat to external su rfaces near door gasket s, including the mullion region between the freezer and fresh food compar tments and along the perimeter of the cabinet.
If electric resistance heaters ar e 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 refr igerant 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 us ed to provide this heat, alth ough 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 heat ers can be significant. For the example illustrated in Table 3.3.6,
the contribution of the mullion anti -sweat heater represents 7.7 pe rcent 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 pr actices 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 e liminate moisture buildup. This approach is used extensively in residentia l refrigerator-freezers to reduce energy use—the technology is already part of all or nearly all standard-size re frigerator-freezers.

3-55Electric Heater Sizing

For those products using electric resistan ce anti-sweat heaters, unnecessarily highwattage heaters may be used. Therefore, ener gy use can be decreased by reducing the heater wattage. For those products that s till use electric resistance anti-s weat heaters, DOE is unaware to what extent the wattage of the heater is excessive.

Electric Heater Controls in cluding Variable Antisweat

For those products using electric resistance anti-sweat heaters, control schemes can be used to limit the amount of energy used. On e 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 testi ng 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 av erage of a test with the heater on and a test
with the heater off.

Another option is to contro l the anti-sweat heater base d on temperature and humidity
conditions. As discussed in se ction 3.2.2.2, DOE is considering incorporating into the test procedure for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezer s an adaptation of a test procedure for which a waiver was granted to GE. The waiver provide s 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-c onsuming component in a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer. Therefore, technol ogies that can advance compressor efficiency have a significant effect on overall product efficiency.

Residential refrigeration products use positiv e-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 re frigeration products over the years—reciprocating and rotary. However, predominantly reciprocatin g 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 st art/induction run (RSIR), capacitor start/induction run (CSIR), and resistance start/ capacitor run (RSCR). Of the thre e motor types, the RSIR motor
is the least efficient. As a resu lt 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 fr om as low as 125 Btu/hr (for compact refrigerators) to as high as 2,000 Btu/hr, although maximum ca pacities are more typically 950
Btu/hr for U.S. residential refri gerator-freezers. Two organizati ons have established conditions for rating the performance of refrigerator compressors: ASHR AE and Comité Européen des

3-56Constructeurs 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 te mperature leaving the condenser or any subcooling loop such as an anti-sweat heating loop. Because the CECO MAF liquid temperature is higher, compressor capacities and efficiencies under ASHRAE rati ng conditions are approximately 30 percent higher than for CECOMAF conditions. The actua l 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 e fficiencies 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 st udy 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 compressors 65 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 as sociation formed in 1958. It merged with EUROVENT
in 1996 to become EUROVENT/CECOMAF. Th is organization is now called EUROVENT.
3-57Table 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-WThe 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. Pe rformance based on the use of refrigerant R-134a.

More recent compressor performance data wa s 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 opera te with lower mass flow, thus boosting their effectiveness. However, careful consideration mu st 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 comp ressors, 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 ener gy savings of 15 percent as we ll as reduction of sound and

3-58vibration levels. 67 Simulation analyses conducted at the Univ ersity of Illinois demonstrated that steady-energy savings ranging from four to 14 pe rcent 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 comp ressors. The rated efficiencies of these variable-speed compressors are not nece ssarily higher than the best efficiencies of single-speed compressors--evaluatio n of the benefits of variab le-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 cond itions. Models utilize refrigerant R-134a.

Linear Compressors

Linear compressors employ a different desi gn than either recipr ocating or rotary compressors and are reportedly more efficient than either. These compressors use a linear rather than rotary motor, thus eliminating the cranksha ft 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 requ ires power electronics and a controller to assure proper piston throw. Most linear comp ressor designs use a free piston arrangement and can be controlled for a rang e of capacities through adjustment of piston displacement. Early work on the concept suggest ed 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 compre ssor 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 effici encies 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

3-59condensing temperatures of -14.8o F (-26oC) and 100.4oF (3 8oC), 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 ev aporating and condensing temperatures and with liquid and suction vapor conditions consistent with the ASHRAE test conditions, a high efficiency rotating-shaft reciprocating compresso r 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-tec hnology 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 Re ference’ 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 basi c evaporator designs dependi ng on the refrigeration product: standard-size refrigerator-freezers and upright freezers with automatic defrost typically use a forced-convection finned-tube design; compact refr igerators 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 whic h are integrated with the wire shelving. In the case of the finne d-tube designs used in standa rd-size refrigerator-freezers, design, modeling, and experimental st udies have been conducted to evaluate their heat transfer performance. 75, 76 Evaporator performance can be enha nced 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. Th ese measures are limited by the geometry of the refrigeration product. There is a tradeoff between increasing th e volume occupied by the heat exchanger and reducing the interi or volume of the refrigerator.

In its 1995 TSD, DOE considered increasing th e evaporator surface ar ea for most of the product classes analyzed; this re sulted 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

3-60technology 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 louve red 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 enhance d. 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 pot entially improve evaporator performance are microchannel heat exchangers, electrohydrodynami c enhancement, and the adoption of phasechange materials. In the case of microchannel he at exchangers, past research has demonstrated that the use of such heat exchangers in domes tic refrigerators can provi de system efficiencies comparable to current technologies while reducing refrigerant charge. 77 Electrohydrodynamic enhancement employs high-voltage fields to impr ove the heat exchange performance. However, safety issues involved in usi ng such high voltages in domestic appliances have not yet been resolved. In addition, no prototyp es are available to test a nd 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 tec hnologies 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 im proving 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 co mponent of the refrigeration system and is
located on the outside of the unit. As discussed in section 11.1.2, there ar e three basic condenser designs depending on the refrigera tion product: Standard-size refrig erator-freezers typically use a forced-convection finned-tube design; compact refr igerators and refrigerator-freezers generally
use a wire-and-tube “static” desi gn which uses natural convection cooling; and freezers typically
use a hot wall condenser that is in tegrated 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

3-61transfer performance. 79 Modeling studies have also been performed on hot-wall condensers. 80, 81 Condenser performance can be enhanced by in creasing 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 m easures can be limited by the geometry of the refrigeration product. There may be a tradeoff be tween increasing the volume occupied be by the heat exchanger and reducing the inte rior volume of the refrigerator.

In its 1995 TSD, DOE considered increasi ng the condenser surface area for many of the product classes analyzed; this re sulted 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 louve red 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 exch ange performance for some freezer and compact unit product classes; this result ed in approximately a two perc ent 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 enhance d. 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 condenser s, 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 us e 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 likel y not practical for most do mestic refrigeration products. 55

Forced-Convection Condenser

Most standard-size refrigerato r-freezers use forced-convection condensers. In contrast, most
standard-size freezers use hot wall condensers. The forced convec tion configuration can provide

3-62higher heat transfer effectiveness. However, space for housing a forced convection condenser
and its associated fan is not always available. The consider ation of conversion to forcedconvection condensers will depend on whether a pa rticular product class is designed in a way that allows housing of the condens er and fan in a suitable location.

3.3.2.7 Fan and Fan Motor

Fans are used to increase evaporator a nd condenser heat tran sfer. Because most refrigerator-freezers use forced-convection condenser s which rely on fans for air movement, fan and fan-motor technology options for the c ondenser are applicable. However, many manualdefrost refrigerators and freezers—specifically chest freezers and small, under-counter-type refrigerators—use static condenser s and/or natural convection eva porators and, as a result, do not
use fans and fan motors.

For those refrigeration products that do util ize fans, refrigerator manufacturers purchase
fans and fan motors from outside vendors. Ther efore, 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 desi gn. Evaporator fan blades are typically either 100mm or 110mm in diameter. B ecause the evaporator fan and fan motor are
located within the re frigerated cabinet and the electric energy input adds to the refrigeration load, more-efficient evaporator fan or evaporator fan motor designs cont ribute to efficiency improvements in two ways: (1) reducing the pow er 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 lie s 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 reporte dly provide better airflow dire ction and improved efficiency. Tests performed with the PAX fan have demons trated a reduction in fan-motor power of 23 percent and an overall re duction in refrigerator energy consum ption 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 inducti on designs, with efficien cies between 10 and 15 percent and power input of a bout 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 ne ar 65 percent efficiency.

3.3.2.8 Expansion Valve

The metering device in most household refr igerator-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

3-63to evaporate the residual liquid in the suction line and to warm the vapor to near-ambient temperature. The suction line he at 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 si de. Non-adiabatic capillary tubes are the most common type of metering device in refrigerator-f reezers. The other type of metering device, an adiabatic capillary tube, is used in some refr igeration products. In this configuration, the capillary tube does not exchange heat with the suction line and the refrige rant 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 elec tronic expansion valves may provide improved performance. The technology for this design op tion 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 ener gy 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. Cha nges 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 condens er to effectively isolate the evaporator from the condenser during the off-cy cle can be used to prevent any refrigerant migration. Research has demonstrated that so lenoid valves can yield substantial energy savings. 85 However, there are drawbacks to using so lenoid valves. First, refrigeration migration allows the system pressure to equalize, reducin g the required starting to rque of the compressor motor. A solenoid valve would increase the requi red starting torque of the compressor motor. Second, adding such a valve could nega tively 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 us e 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 eitherusing 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 manufac turers had already si gnificantly reduced
the electric heat for auto defrost in order to co mply with the energy efficiency standards that

3-64