2-i

CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED 

PARTIES, AND DOE RESPONSES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.1.1 Overview................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 General Rulemaking Issues..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2.1 Scope of Coverage ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2.2 Off Mode and Standby Mode ................................................................ 2-10

2.1.2.3 Equipment Design Issues....................................................................... 2-10

2.1.2.4 Prescriptive Standards............................................................................ 2-11

2.1.2.5 Third-Party Ratings................................................................................ 2-11

2.2 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT......................................................... 2-12

2.2.1 Equipment Classes................................................................................................ 2-12

2.2.1.1 Blast Chillers.......................................................................................... 2-14

2.2.1.2 Hybrid Doors ......................................................................................... 2-15

2.2.1.3 New Equipment Classes ........................................................................ 2-15

2.2.1.4 Under-Counter Equipment..................................................................... 2-16

2.2.1.5 Service Over Counter Equipment .......................................................... 2-17

2.2.1.6 Open Versus Closed Display Cases....................................................... 2-19

2.2.2 Technology Assessment........................................................................................ 2-23

2.3 SCREENING ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 2-25

2.4 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 2-26

2.4.1 Analysis Approach................................................................................................ 2-27

2.4.1.1 Verification with Test Data.................................................................... 2-27

2.4.1.2 Background Data ................................................................................... 2-27

2.4.1.3 Performance Simulation......................................................................... 2-27

2.4.1.4 Proprietary Designs................................................................................ 2-28

2.4.1.5 Insulation Performance .......................................................................... 2-28

2.4.2 Normalization Metrics.......................................................................................... 2-29

2.4.3 Refrigerants........................................................................................................... 2-31

2.5 MARKUPS TO DETERMINE EQUIPMENT PRICE .................................................... 2-31

2.5.1 Distribution Channels for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment........................ 2-32

2.5.2 Methodology for Markups Analysis..................................................................... 2-33

2.5.3 Shipping Costs...................................................................................................... 2-33

2.6 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 2-34

2.7 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES ..................................... 2-36

2.7.1 Equipment Lifetimes............................................................................................. 2-36

2.7.2 New Markets......................................................................................................... 2-38

2.7.3 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs......................................................... 2-38

2.8 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 2-40

2.9 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................. 2-42

2.10 PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................ 2-43

2.10.1 Industry Cash-Flow Analysis................................................................................ 2-43
2-ii

2.10.2 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis......................................................................... 2-44

2.10.3 Competitive Impacts Assessment ......................................................................... 2-45

2.10.4 Cumulative Regulatory Burden ............................................................................ 2-45

2.10.5 Preliminary Results for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis ................................. 2-46

2.11 LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS ............................................................. 2-47

2.12 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 2-47

2.13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 2-48

2.13.1 Carbon Dioxide..................................................................................................... 2-48

2.13.2 Sulfur Dioxide....................................................................................................... 2-48

2.13.3 Nitrogen Oxides.................................................................................................... 2-49

2.13.4 Mercury................................................................................................................. 2-49

2.13.5 Particulate Matter.................................................................................................. 2-49

2.14 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS .................................... 2-50

2.14.1 Environmental Impact of Refrigerant Leakage..................................................... 2-51

2.15 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS.......................................................................... 2-53

2.16 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 2-53

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2.1 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Classes Established in the 2009 Final Rule... 2-

13

Table 2.2.2 Proposed Classes for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment for which Standards 

Were Prescribed by EPCA......................................................................................................... 2-14
2-1

CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM 

INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DOE RESPONSES

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

2.1.1 Overview

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is required to publish 

performance-based standards for commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE) that achieve the 

maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(5); 6316(e)(1)) This chapter describes the analytical framework that 

DOE is using to evaluate new energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. The chapter sets forth the methodology, analytical tools, and relationships among the 

various analyses that are part of this rulemaking. The analyses performed as part of the 

accompanying notice and reported in this preliminary technical support document (TSD) are 

described in section ES.2 of the executive summary.

DOE proposed this analytical framework in the rulemaking framework document for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE announced the availability of the framework 

document in a notice of public meeting and availability of a framework document. 75 FR 24824 

(May 6, 2010). DOE presented the analytical approach to interested parties during a public 

meeting held on May 18, 2010. The framework document is available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_framework_04

-30-10.pdf 

Subsequent to the publication of the framework document and at the public meeting, 

DOE received numerous comments from interested parties regarding DOE’s analytical approach. 

This chapter summarizes the key comments and describes DOE’s responses. In this chapter, 

DOE also summarizes any significant changes made to the analytical approach described in the 

framework document and incorporated into its preliminary analyses. In the executive summary 

of the preliminary TSD, DOE also identifies a number of issues for which DOE seeks public 

comment. DOE explains each of those issues in the relevant analysis sections below.

2.1.2 General Rulemaking Issues

This section summarizes comments that are not specific to any of the rulemaking 

analyses and presents DOE’s responses to these comments.

2.1.2.1 Scope of Coverage

During the Framework public meeting and in the associated comment period, DOE 

received a number of comments from interested parties regarding the scope of coverage of this 

rulemaking. 

The scope of coverage for the commercial refrigeration equipment rulemakings is derived 

from the amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) in the Energy Policy 
2-2

Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. L. No. 109-58. These amendments prescribe energy 

conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with selfcontained condensing units designed for holding temperature applications, as well as for 

commercial refrigerators with transparent doors and self-contained condensing units designed for 

pull-down temperature applications. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)−(3)) The EPACT 2005 amendments 

to EPCA also mandate that DOE set standards for the following additional categories of 

commercial refrigeration equipment: ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote condensing commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE published a 

final rule establishing these standards on January 9, 2009. 74 FR 1091 (Jan. 9, 2009).

a

 

EPCA also directs DOE to conduct a second rulemaking to determine whether to amend 

the standards for commercial refrigeration established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(c), which include

both those prescribed in EPCA and the January 2009 final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(5)) If DOE 

determines to amend the standards, DOE must publish a final rule establishing such amended 

standards by January 1, 2013. Id. DOE began this process with the publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of a public meeting and availability of the framework document on May 6, 

2010.

The following subsections present the interested parties’ comments and DOE responses 

regarding the scope of coverage issues.

Revision of 2009 Standards

During the Framework public meeting, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) stated that in the consensus agreement that served as the basis for the EPACT 

2005 amendments, the parties involved did not originally intend for DOE to revise the standards 

for equipment covered by the 2009 final rule ahead of the effective date for those standards. 

(AHRI, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 23−24b) Moreover, AHRI stated that it was not the intent of Congress 

to require DOE to initiate a rulemaking applying to equipment for which previous standards have 

not yet become effective. AHRI expressed its belief that the January 1, 2013 deadline was 

directed at equipment covered by the EPACT 2005 standard levels. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 2) 

Furthermore, AHRI stated that it believes DOE has the statutory authority to decide whether to 

engage in a full rulemaking for all of the equipment discussed, and that it does not believe that 

DOE must perform a full analysis to determine whether to amend standards. AHRI urged DOE 

to focus this rulemaking solely on self-contained units with doors. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 2) 

Zero Zone agreed with AHRI’s concern about setting new standards so shortly after the 2009 

 a EPCA also authorizes DOE to issue standards for other types of commercial refrigeration equipment. 42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(4)(B). DOE has not yet established standards for commercial refrigeration equipment other than those 

prescribed in EPCA and the January 2009 final rule. b In the following discussion, comments will be presented along with a notation in the form “AHRI, No. 1.2.006 at 

pp. 23−24,” which identifies a written comment DOE received and included in the docket of this rulemaking. DOE 

refers to comments based on when the comment was submitted in the rulemaking process. Section 1.1.XXX refers 

to Federal Register documents, section 1.2.XXX refers public meeting support documents, and 1.3.XXX refers to 

comments submitted by interested parties. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) by AHRI, (2) in 

document number 6 in the public meeting support materials, and (3) appearing on pages 23 and 24.
2-3

standards become effective, and, in its written comment, asked DOE to delay the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for as long as possible to lessen burden on manufacturers. (Zero 

Zone, No. 1.3.007 at p. 1) Hoshizaki agreed with the rulemaking schedule that DOE presented. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 1)

The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA require DOE to conduct a rulemaking to 

determine whether to amend the standards for commercial refrigeration equipment established 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(c). These include both the standards prescribed by EPACT 2005 and the 

standards set by DOE in the January 2009 final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(5)) If it determines to 

amend the standards, DOE must publish a final rule establishing such amended standards by 

January 1, 2013. Id. In response to Zero Zone’s comments concerning burden imposed by 

standards, DOE will consider manufacturer impacts in the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), 

as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 6316(e)(1).

Custom Units

During the Framework public meeting, discussion arose regarding “custom” units with 

low production volumes. Traulsen stated that there is a large range of such equipment designed 

around specific customer needs, and that it should be captured within the scope of this 

rulemaking. (Traulsen, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 84−85) The American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE) responded that perhaps units with extremely low production volumes should 

be exempted from standards. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 85) However, Traulsen further 

cautioned that there could be instances where a unit is originally designed for a single customer, 

but then could be expanded to higher production volumes, so DOE would have to be careful 

were it to provide exemptions such as that suggested by ACEEE. (Traulsen, No. 1.2.006 at p. 86) 

The Northwest Joint Commentc stated that the definition of a “custom unit” needs to be resolved 

early in the rulemaking process. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 2)

DOE maintains that equipment that falls under the statutory definition of a commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer could be considered for coverage in this rulemaking, 

regardless of the number of units produced of that model. EPCA provides definitions for this 

equipment at 42 U.S.C. 6311(9). As stated previously, EPCA also set standards for certain 

product classes of this equipment, mandated that DOE set standards for other product classes 

(standards that were established in the January 2009 final rule), and authorized DOE to issue 

standards for other types of commercial refrigeration equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)) EPCA does 

not provide an exemption from coverage due to low production volumes of “custom” equipment. 

Instead, it provides specific exemptions in the case of equipment designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)) DOE intends to 

cover the commercial refrigeration equipment within the scope of this rule without allowances 

for low-shipments or custom units. 

 c “Northwest Joint Comment” refers here to comment 1.3.003, submitted by Adjuvant Consulting on behalf of the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 
2-4

Coverage of Remote Condensing Units

Several interested parties submitted comments in which they suggested that DOE 

regulate remotely located condensers to which display cases are attached. Earthjustice urged 

DOE to revisit its previous interpretation that it does not have the authority to regulate remote 

condensers (Earthjustice, No. 1.2.006 at p. 95), while California Codes and Standards stated that 

it would like to see separate, repeatable ratings for remote condensers sold separately. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 17) California Codes and Standards also suggested that 

DOE develop an energy efficiency ratio standard and controls requirement for unitary 

condensing units attached to remote systems that would apply to all condensing units, regardless 

of the equipment they serve. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 2) It added that 

this measurement should include the results of both full and part-load tests and that DOE should 

conduct a parametric analysis to determine appropriate size breakpoints for classifying this 

equipment. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 7) 

Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asserted that DOE 

misconstrued EPCA’s definitions in its previous decision not to cover remote condensing units. 

According to these interested parties, DOE made an error in not differentiating between 

“refrigerated” and “refrigeration” equipment, and coverage should include all parts of the 

“refrigeration” equipment. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at pp. 4−5) The comment also stated that 

the definitions of this equipment apply to equipment that “operates” at a given temperature, and 

that, since remote condensing equipment cannot functionally operate without the remote 

condenser, that piece of the system must be covered as well. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 5) 

Finally, these interested parties noted that, in the past, DOE had distinguished between different 

types of products and equipment based, in part, on whether those items can operate independent 

of other components. They stated that, in the water heater rule, DOE excluded coverage of “addon” heat pump water heaters by drawing a distinction between the add-on heat pump water 

heater, and the electric water heater storage tank with which is paired, the latter of which is fully 

functional when it leaves the factory. 75 FR 20126 (April 16, 2010).These parties also referenced

split-system air conditioners, which consist of two subsystems that “do not work independently 

until paired together in the field.” Earthjustice and NRDC asserted that remote condensing 

commercial refrigeration equipment also consists of two subsystems that cannot work until 

paired during installation. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 5)

There are several technical factors that make coverage of remote condensing units 

impractical as part of the current commercial refrigeration equipment rulemaking. The first is 

that remote condensing units, which are used in larger applications such as grocery stores, often 

serve several types of equipment currently regulated by DOE or for which DOE is developing 

standards, including display cases and walk-in coolers and freezers. Classification in a single rule 

with one of these types of equipment could lead to inconsistencies with regard to standards for 

other equipment. Another issue is that there are currently no standardized test procedures of 

which DOE is aware for the testing of remote condensing units and compressor racks. Because 

remote compressor racks can serve such a wide variety of equipment, development of such test 

procedures would require significant input from a number of entities, including manufacturers of 

compressors, coils, and the equipment that compressor racks serve, such as commercial 
2-5

refrigeration equipment and walk-in coolers and freezers. Due to these complexities, remote 

condensing units are best addressed in a separate proceeding. As a result, DOE may consider 

whether to set standards for remote condensing units through a separate rulemaking. 

Liquid-Cooled Condensing Units

ACEEE stated that liquid-cooled condensing units could become more prevalent within 

commercial refrigeration equipment in the future and asked for clarification of their coverage 

under this rulemaking. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 44−45) Similarly, California Codes and 

Standards requested clarification from DOE regarding whether units with a self-contained 

compressor and a water-cooled condensing unit served by a remote fluid cooler would be 

considered covered equipment and, if so, the category to which this equipment would belong. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 4)

In its definition of “commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer,” EPCA 

states that such a piece of equipment “is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a 

remote condensing unit.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vii)) EPCA defines “remote condensing unit” to 

mean “a factory-made assembly of refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a 

specific refrigerant that is remotely located from the refrigerated equipment and consists of one 

or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory 

supplied accessories.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(E)) EPCA defines “self-contained condensing unit” to 

mean “a factory-made assembly of refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a 

specific refrigerant that is an integral part of the refrigerated equipment and consists of one or 

more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory 

supplied accessories.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(F))

Beyond these definitions, EPCA makes no further specification regarding how that 

remote or self-contained condensing unit must operate. Neither of the above definitions contains 

any language that would preclude condensing units cooled by a liquid from being covered under 

those definitions. DOE reviewed the current test procedures for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and found that these test procedures contain provisions that allow the testing of 

equipment connected to a liquid-cooled condensing unit. As a result, DOE believes that such 

equipment falls under the scope of this current rulemaking. 

New Equipment Designs 

Southern Store Fixtures asked whether a new piece of equipment that did not fit in an 

existing equipment class would be exempted from standards, or whether manufacturers would 

not be allowed to produce it. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 88) The Northwest Joint 

Comment suggested that equipment classes will require further exploration, and that overcounter and under-counter equipment, as well as hybrid units, may constitute separate classes. 

(Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 2) 

DOE believes that the equipment mentioned by these commenters is likely to fit into one 

of, or a combination of, the existing equipment classes. The definition of “commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” is very broad and sufficient to accommodate the 
2-6

spectrum of equipment available on the market. As part of the 2009 advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANOPR), when DOE initially developed the equipment class nomenclature used in 

that rulemaking, DOE did so based upon a suggested equipment class structure provided by the 

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). 72 FR 41173 (July 26, 2007). The result was

a comprehensive listing that DOE presented to interested parties during the 2009 rulemaking 

process before adopting it in the final rule. In the 2009 final rule, DOE published a methodology 

for determining energy standards for hybrid units containing elements or compartments from 

more than one equipment class. 74 FR 1122 (Jan. 9, 2009). Service over counter (SOC)

equipment already composes its own equipment family, while under-counter equipment 

generally falls into one of the existing self-contained equipment classes. As a result, while the 

current standards apply only to those product classes, or combinations of product classes, set 

forth in EPCA or the January 2009 final rule, DOE does not see the need to modify or expand its 

equipment class conventions at this time. Should new equipment come onto the market that does 

not fall into these product classes, or combinations of product classes, DOE will consider 

amending the energy conservation standards to include such equipment in a future rulemaking. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m); 6316(e)(1)) 

Chef Bases and Preparation Tables

True Manufacturing commented on a specific type of equipment, stating that chef bases 

and food preparation tables are currently not covered, have not been discussed by the 

Department, and would be difficult to regulate. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 91) DOE believes that

food preparation tables and chef bases do not meet the EPCA definition of “commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer.” This definition states that such equipment 

“displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials horizontally, semi vertically, or 

vertically.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(iv)) Since preparation tables and chef bases are not designed 

for the display or storage of merchandise, but rather for short-term use during food preparation, 

DOE believes that they do not meet this definition and hence they are not covered under this 

rulemaking. 

Wine Coolers

California Codes and Standards asked for clarification on the distinction between 

“unitary” and “built-up” wine coolers with regard to which units are covered under California 

and Federal standards, recommending that the scope of this rulemaking be limited to wine 

coolers with remote condensing units. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 13)

Wine coolers, both self-contained and remote condensing, that are marketed by 

manufacturers for commercial use will be considered for coverage under this rulemaking. In this 

preliminary analysis, DOE is not considering a separate equipment class for commercial wine 

coolers.

Secondary Coolant Applications

Numerous interested parties offered comments regarding secondary coolant applications.

Earthjustice encouraged DOE to revisit its conclusion regarding the exclusion of secondary 
2-7

coolant applications (Earthjustice, No. 1.2.006 at p. 46) Zero Zone stated that failure to cover 

secondary coolant applications within the scope of this rulemaking would allow the sale of 

secondary coolant systems that are less efficient than comparable remote condensing systems. 

(Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 202) Earthjustice and NRDC asserted that they believe DOE’s 

interpretation that secondary coolant systems are not covered because they are not directly 

connected to a remote condensing unit ignores the plain language of the statute. These interested 

parties expressed their belief that secondary coolant systems are no less “connected” than directexpansion systems. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at pp. 5−6) California Codes and Standards 

requested that DOE make a clear determination as to whether this equipment is covered and, if it 

is not, regarding the ability of States to regulate it without Federal preemption. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 4) The Northwest Joint Comment stated that there may be 

justification for considering secondary coolant systems as a design option rather than a separate 

class. It urged DOE to take this approach if such systems indeed compose a nontrivial market 

share. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4) 

Section 340(9)(A)(vii) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vii), added by EPACT 2005, 

section 136(a)(3)) states that the terms “commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigeratorfreezer” refer to equipment that is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote 

condensing unit. DOE determined in the 2009 final rule that coverage of secondary coolant 

systems was not warranted due to their small market share and the lack of a test procedure that

covered secondary coolant systems. 74 FR 1105 (Jan. 9, 2009). Based on the comments received 

during the ANOPR and NOPR stages of the 2009 rulemaking, the market share of secondary 

coolant systems was estimated to be between 5 and 10 percent. DOE does not believe that there 

have been significant changes in the market penetration of secondary coolant systems since the 

2009 rulemaking. For this rulemaking, DOE is currently not considering coverage of secondary 

coolant applications, but seeks further data on market share and any other information on these 

applications. 

In reference to the question from California Codes and Standards regarding Federal 

preemption of State standards, EPCA states that:

Section 6297 of this title shall apply to commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers for which standards are established under section 6313(c)(4) 

of this title to the same extent and in the same manner as the provisions apply 

under part A of this subchapter on the date of publication of the final rule by the 

Secretary, except that any State or local standard issued before the date of 

publication of the final rule by the Secretary shall not be preempted until the 

standards take effect.

(42 U.S.C. 6136(e)(3)(A))

Section 6297 states in relevant part that no State regulation concerning the energy 

efficiency or energy use of a covered product shall be effective with respect to such covered 

product unless certain narrow exceptions apply. (42 U.S.C. 6297(b),(c)) 
2-8

DOE does not believe that treatment of secondary coolant applications as a design option 

would be appropriate. The incorporation of a technology as a design option requires that it meet 

the four screening criteria, and that its effects be quantifiable. A secondary coolant system 

requires a different system for distribution of the secondary coolant to the display cases than 

direct expansion systems. It would not be feasible in most cases to replace an individual display 

case that uses direct expansion of a refrigerant with one that uses a secondary coolant refrigerant 

system. A change to a secondary coolant requires a major change to the coolant distribution 

system in the store. Therefore, DOE has concluded for this preliminary analysis that secondary 

coolant applications do not meet the four screening criteria, because they would not be 

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and would have adverse impacts on equipment 

utility or availability. 

Concerning the lack of a test procedure capable of testing secondary coolant equipment,

True mentioned that the 2009 final rule set standards for equipment types excluded by AHRI 

1200, so that exclusion under the test procedure should not serve as a sole reason for not 

covering equipment. True also added that secondary coolant systems can be tested under 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 72,

provided that the coolant used either does not change phase or completely changes phase as part 

of the cycle. (True, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 40−41) California Codes and Standards expressed the 

opinion that restrictions in AHRI 1200 should not prevent the regulation of this equipment, and 

that it does not believe that the statute precludes DOE from regulating secondary coolant 

applications. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at pp. 3−4) 

The absence of an industry test procedure also weighs in favor of not regulating 

secondary coolant equipment at this time. According to information provided to DOE, both 

ASHRAE and AHRI are currently undertaking efforts to develop test procedures specifically 

capable of quantifying the performance of secondary coolant refrigeration systems. However, it 

is DOE’s understanding that these test procedures are applicable to secondary coolant systems in 

which either the secondary coolant does not change phase or the entire refrigerant changes phase. 

There are some secondary coolant systems, namely those using carbon dioxide (CO2), that

involve only a part of the refrigerant changing phase, which cannot be accurately tested using the 

revised industry test procedures. DOE believes that it is best to work with industry in formulating

new test procedures that will allow testing of secondary coolant systems. DOE intends to follow 

the progress of these organizations in developing such test procedures.

Several of the interested parties also provided comments regarding the size of the 

secondary coolant market, which DOE determined to be small at the time of the 2009 

rulemaking. California Codes and Standards stated that although secondary coolant applications 

currently represent a small portion of the market, that portion will increase due to concerns over 

greenhouse gas emissions in the form of refrigerant leakage. (California Codes and Standards, 

No. 1.3.005 at p. 4) The Northwest Joint Comment stated that up to 10 percent of the market may 

be composed of these units, and that DOE should analyze these units as a basis for making a 

decision. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 2) NRDC provided another figure, stating 

that secondary coolant systems have a roughly 4 percent market share in supermarkets and 

grocery stores. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 2) NRDC also stated that cost and efficiency premiums 

for secondary coolant systems have dropped in recent years. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 2) True 
2-9

commented that Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) rules have recently allowed CO2

secondary coolant applications and that such systems are currently in use in the United States. 

(True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 185)

In the ANOPR for the 2009 rulemaking, interested parties submitted comments 

estimating the size of the secondary coolant market as being roughly 5 percent of the overall 

commercial refrigeration equipment market. 72 FR 41171 (July 26, 2007). At the NOPR stage of 

that rulemaking, manufacturers commenting to DOE suggested that these systems composed 

roughly 10 percent of the overall CRE market. 73 FR 50106 (Aug. 25, 2008). At that time, there 

was also speculation regarding the prevalence and market penetration of these systems in coming 

years, with some interested parties suggesting that these systems would become more common 

and comprise a greater market share in the next few years after that rulemaking. However, the 

estimates that DOE received in the May 2010 Framework public meeting are in line with the 

estimates from the 2009 rulemaking. These estimates have been corroborated by input from 

manufacturers during the preliminary MIA interviews, in which manufacturers stated that their 

secondary coolant system shipments fall into the 5−10 percent range estimated in the 2009 

rulemaking. Consequently, DOE does not believe that there have been significant changes in the 

secondary coolant equipment market that would require DOE to reexamine coverage of 

secondary coolant equipment in this rulemaking. DOE requests more data from interested parties 

regarding the market share of secondary coolant equipment to evaluate any change in the 

prevalence of this equipment that may have occurred since the publication of the 2009 final rule. 

Other interested parties expressed the opinion that secondary coolant applications should 

not be considered covered equipment under this rulemaking. In its written comment, Hoshizaki 

stated that secondary coolant applications are not relevant to energy efficiency standards. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 1) Southern Store Fixtures mentioned that secondary coolant 

systems utilizing glycol are less efficient than direct-expansion systems and that discussion of a 

standard for these systems would in itself go against DOE’s goal of reducing energy 

consumption. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 48) In response, California Codes and 

Standards stated that, while brine-based secondary coolant systems are less efficient than directexpansion systems, CO2-based systems are actually more efficient than direct expansion. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 49) 

At the NOPR stage of the 2009 rulemaking, DOE received information from the industry 

expressing that secondary coolant systems generally consume about 5 percent more energy than 

analogous direct-expansion systems. 73 FR 50106 (Aug. 25, 2008). However, this information 

did not specify a working medium or specific type of secondary coolant system. In interviews 

conducted as part of the preliminary analysis for this rulemaking, several manufacturers stated 

that they believed that, overall, secondary coolant systems have energy consumption 

characteristics roughly equal to those of direct-expansion systems. In light of the differing 

stances presented by interested parties on the performance of different types of secondary 

coolant systems, DOE welcomes feedback and data from interested parties regarding this subject. 

In summary, available information does not indicate that major changes have occurred in 

secondary coolant system performance or market share. Therefore, in keeping with its decision 
2-10

in the previous commercial refrigeration equipment rulemaking, DOE does not intend to include 

secondary coolant applications under the scope of coverage of this rulemaking. 

2.1.2.2 Off Mode and Standby Mode

During the public meeting, the subject of off mode and standby mode energy 

consumption was raised as a topic for comment by interested parties. True stated that all 

commercial refrigeration equipment is designed to run continuously, thus making these modes of 

operation irrelevant to this equipment. In its written comment, AHRI agreed that neither of these 

modes of operation apply to commercial refrigeration equipment, and added that it believes that 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140) applies 

only to consumer products and not commercial equipment, and thus that it feels off mode and 

standby mode energy consumption are outside the scope of this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 

at p. 2) Zero Zone echoed this stance, stating that these modes of operation are not applicable 

and that DOE should not develop test standards for these modes for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. (Zero Zone, No. 1.3.007 at p. 1) Hoshizaki also agreed regarding the inapplicability 

of standby and off modes to commercial refrigeration equipment. (Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 

1)

DOE agrees with the interested parties who stated that the off mode and standby 

operating modes do not apply to commercial refrigeration equipment. Since commercial 

refrigeration equipment is, by definition, designed and built for storing or displaying refrigerated 

or frozen merchandise, this equipment must then operate continuously at the required 

temperature to preserve the product and maintain food safety. This operation is independent of 

whether the equipment is in use by consumers, as in a retail application, or employees, as in a 

foodservice application. As a result, DOE does not intend to consider off mode and standby 

modes of operation as part of the analyses for this rulemaking.

2.1.2.3 Equipment Design Issues

Several interested parties provided comments and questions regarding equipment design. 

Kysor/Warren stated that equipment designs and sales are driven by customer needs and urged 

DOE not to eliminate any equipment classes for which there is continued demand. 

(Kysor/Warren, No. 1.2.006 at p. 49) In response, DOE notes that DOE may not prescribe a

standard if the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of 

performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 

are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) DOE must also establish separate equipment classes with 

different energy conservation standards based on the type of energy consumed, or based on 

capacity or other performance-related feature that justifies a different standard after 

consideration of such factors as utility to the consumer. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q); 42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1)) Therefore, DOE will consider the impacts on the availability and utility of equipment 

features when developing equipment classes and performing its analyses for this rulemaking.

Hoshizaki expressed concern that a tightening of efficiency standards may result in food 

safety issues if manufacturers are forced to cut corners to meet those standards. (Hoshizaki, No. 

1.3.006 at p. 1) It is DOE’s understanding that equipment intended for use in foodservice, food 
2-11

storage, or food retailing will continue to have to meet food safety standards independent from 

DOE’s energy conservation standards. These could include certification by Underwriters 

Laboratories, Inc. (UL) and NSF, for example. In the 2009 final rule, DOE addressed the issue of 

NSF certification, expressing its understanding that manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 

equipment were required to test to NSF 7 to measure product temperature for food safety 

requirements. 74 FR 1128 (Jan. 9, 2009). In developing energy conservation standards, DOE

uses screening criteria for technology options that would exclude from consideration those 

options that would negatively impact health and safety. DOE must also, as stated above, consider 

utility to the consumer in establishing equipment classes and standards applicable to those 

classes.

2.1.2.4 Prescriptive Standards

Earthjustice suggested that, if a test procedure cannot accommodate end-user-dependent 

technologies, DOE could use prescriptive standards to require those technologies. (Earthjustice, 

No. 1.2.006 at p. 66) California Codes and Standards stated that the CRE rulemaking should 

evaluate whether to require motion-activated lighting controls. (California Codes and Standards, 

No. 1.3.005 at p. 11) 

EPCA defines the term “energy conservation standard” as a performance standard 

that prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy 

use for a product or a design requirement for a product. (42 U.S.C. 6311(18)) Therefore, 

unless other provisions of EPCA or other applicable law specifies otherwise, DOE must

use either a performance standard or design (prescriptive) requirements. In the case of 

commercial refrigeration equipment, all of the equipment that is the subject of this 

rulemaking is currently covered either by a statutorily mandated performance standard or 

by a performance standard set by DOE in the 2009 final rule. DOE is currently 

considering amendments to these performance standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and is therefore not considering design requirements at this time. 

2.1.2.5 Third-Party Ratings

DOE received a comment from California Codes and Standards during the public 

meeting stating that the organization would like to see DOE utilize a third-party rating program 

for commercial refrigeration equipment. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 16) 

ACEEE added that, in light of growing international competition, third-party ratings can be 

useful in keeping the competitive landscape fair, and that the goal should be to make the rating 

process as simple as possible while meeting the need of the program. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 

203) The Northwest Joint Comment stated that it supports third-party testing and certification, 

adding that there are a number of such programs currently in existence that would fill this need. 

(Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 3) AHRI stated that it runs a third-party 

certification program for this equipment. (AHRI, No. 1.2.006 at p. 204) Master-Bilt agreed that 

third-party ratings are useful in uncovering unfair manufacturing processes, but suggested that a 

spot-check methodology for compliance testing would be a better approach. (Master-Bilt, No. 

1.2.006 at pp. 203−204) True suggested a different methodology, similar to one currently used 

by NSF, where a product listed can be questioned by a competing manufacturer, who will then 

pay the initial cost of testing the equipment in question. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 204) 
2-12

EPCA requires DOE, in determining compliance with the standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment prescribed in EPCA, to require manufacturers to certify that their 

equipment meets the applicable standard through use of an independent, nationally recognized 

testing or certification program. DOE is also required, to the maximum extent practicable, to 

encourage the establishment of at least two independent testing and certification programs. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(5)) DOE may also consider the use of such testing or certification programs for 

other types of commercial refrigeration equipment, such as the equipment for which standards 

were established in the January 2009 final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b),(e)) Issues pertaining to 

third-party ratings, certification programs, compliance, and other related topics are currently 

being addressed by an ongoing DOE rulemaking on Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement 

for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BTCE-0014, RIN 1904-AC23). This rulemaking, for which a NOPR was published on September 

16, 2010 (75 FR 56796), addresses certification, compliance, and enforcement for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, in addition to other types of products and equipment. DOE welcomes 

comments from interested parties and invites interested parties to participate in this rulemaking 

effort. 

2.2 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

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

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

of the equipment, market characteristics, and industry structure. This activity consists of both 

quantitative and qualitative efforts based primarily on publicly available information. The market 

assessment examined manufacturers, trade associations, and the quantities and types of 

equipment sold and offered for sale.

DOE reviewed relevant literature and interviewed manufacturers to develop an overall 

picture of the commercial refrigeration equipment industry in the United States. Industry 

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

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

product type and capacity; (3) product information; and (4) industry trends. 

Subsequent sections of this chapter describe the comments DOE received in response to 

its review of the commercial refrigeration equipment market for the framework document. The 

analysis developed as part of the market and technology assessment is described in chapter 3 of 

the preliminary TSD.

2.2.1 Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered 

equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used and by capacity or other 

performance-related features that affect efficiency. A standard must specify a different level of 

energy efficiency or energy use for product classes that consume a different type of energy, or 

for product classes based on capacity or other performance-related features where the feature 

justifies a different standard after consideration of such factors as utility to the consumer. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q))
2-13

In the framework document, DOE listed the following equipment classes that it was 

considering in regards to commercial refrigeration equipment.

Table 2.2.1 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Classes Established in the 2009 Final 

Rule

Equipment Category Condensing 

Unit 

Configuration

Equipment Family Operating 

Temperature 

°F

Equipment 

Class 

Designation

Remote Condensing Commercial 

Refrigerators, Commercial 

Freezers, and Commercial 

Refrigerator-Freezers*

Remote Vertical Open ≥ 32 VOP.RC.M

< 32 VOP.RC.L

Semivertical Open ≥ 32 SVO.RC.M

< 32 SVO.RC.L

Horizontal Open ≥ 32 HZO.RC.M

< 32 HZO.RC.L

Vertical Closed Transparent ≥ 32 VCT.RC.M

< 32 VCT.RC.L

Horizontal Closed Transparent ≥ 32 HCT.RC.M

< 32 HCT.RC.L

Vertical Closed Solid ≥ 32 VCS.RC.M

< 32 VCS.RC.L

Horizontal Closed Solid ≥ 32 HCS.RC.M

< 32 HCS.RC.L

Service Over Counter ≥ 32 SOC.RC.M

< 32 SOC.RC.L

Self-Contained Commercial 

Refrigerators, Commercial 

Freezers, and Commercial 

Refrigerator-Freezers* without 

Doors

Self-Contained Vertical Open ≥ 32 VOP.SC.M

< 32 VOP.SC.L

Semivertical Open ≥ 32 SVO.SC.M

< 32 SVO.SC.L

Horizontal Open ≥ 32 HZO.SC.M

< 32 HZO.SC.L

Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers Remote Vertical Open ≤ -5 VOP.RC.I

Semivertical Open SVO.RC.I

Horizontal Open HZO.RC.I

Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.RC.I

Horizontal Closed Transparent HCT.RC.I

Vertical Closed Solid VCS.RC.I

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.RC.I

Service Over Counter SOC.RC.I

Self-Contained Vertical Open VOP.SC.I

Semivertical Open SVO.SC.I

Horizontal Open HZO.SC.I

Vertical Closed Transparent VCT.SC.I

Horizontal Closed Transparent HCT.SC.I

Vertical Closed Solid VCS.SC.I

Horizontal Closed Solid HCS.SC.I

Service Over Counter SOC.SC.I

* While DOE did not establish separate equipment classes for refrigerator-freezers in the 2009 final rule, DOE did provide a 

methodology for applying standards to commercial refrigerator-freezers in the rule. Please see 10 CFR 431.66.
2-14

Table 2.2.2 Proposed Classes for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment for which 

Standards Were Prescribed by EPCA

Equipment Category Condensing 

Unit 

Configuration

Equipment Family Operating 

Temperature 

°F

Equipment 

Class 

Designation

Commercial Refrigerators, 

Commercial Freezers, and 

Commercial RefrigeratorFreezers With Doors

Self-Contained Vertical Closed Transparent ≥ 32 VCT.SC.M

< 32 VCT.SC.L

Horizontal Closed Transparent ≥ 32 HCT.SC.M

< 32 HCT.SC.L

Vertical Closed Solid ≥ 32 VCS.SC.M

< 32 VCS.SC.L

Horizontal Closed Solid ≥ 32 HCS.SC.M

< 32 HCS.SC.L

Service Over Counter ≥ 32 SOC.SC.M

< 32 SOC.SC.L

Commercial Refrigerators with 

Transparent Doors for PullDown Temperature 

Applications

Self-Contained Pull-Down ≥ 32 PD.SC.M

DOE plans to use the above classes, as listed in Table 2.2.1 and Table 2.2.2, as the basis 

for equipment analysis in this rulemaking. DOE received input from interested parties on the 

component definitions and equipment classes that DOE included in the framework document, as 

discussed below. 

2.2.1.1 Blast Chillers

Traulsen suggested during the public meeting that DOE should ensure that pull-down 

equipment is defined in a manner such that the standards for such equipment do not inadvertently 

apply to blast chillers designed to pull hot foods down to safe storage temperatures. (Traulsen, 

No. 1.2.006 at p. 80) California Codes and Standards added that California exemptions for blast 

chillers are based on the British thermal unit (Btu) rating of the coil per square foot of space. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 85)

EPCA states that “The term ‘pull-down temperature application’ means a commercial 

refrigerator with doors that, when fully loaded with 12 ounce beverage cans at 90 degrees F, can 

cool those beverages to an average stable temperature of 38 degrees F in 12 hours or less.” (42 

U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)) This definition constrains the scope of standards for pull-down equipment to 

be applicable only to this specific application, the cooling of canned beverages to 38 °F. These 

types of equipment are often referred to in the industry as “beverage merchandisers.” Due to its 

specificity, the statutory definition precludes coverage of blast chillers by standards set for pulldown temperature applications. While DOE has the authority to set standards for other types of 

commercial refrigeration equipment (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(B)), it is not currently considering 

standards for equipment other than that for which EPCA prescribed standards or for which DOE 

prescribed standards in the January 2009 rule. 
2-15

2.2.1.2 Hybrid Doors

Zero Zone commented at the public meeting that ASHRAE is developing a test standard 

for hybrid doors, where any door that is more than 50 percent glass (by surface area) will be 

considered transparent. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p.50) ACEEE responded that perhaps the 

ASHRAE group addressing this topic could consider an area-weighted thermal conductivity 

value based on the solid and transparent door areas. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 55)

DOE is aware that ASHRAE is currently working on a standardized definition and 

categorization for hybrid doors. DOE understands that the proposed ASHRAE categorization 

defines a glass door as a door with greater than or equal to 50 percent glass area and would be 

the cutoff for whether a door is treated as transparent or solid. DOE will consider adopting the 

proposed categorization of transparent or solid door as this rulemaking proceeds and welcomes 

further comment from interested parties regarding this topic. 

2.2.1.3 New Equipment Classes

Numerous comments were received regarding the topic of potential new equipment 

classes. True stated that wine coolers operate at two storage temperatures, both of which are 

higher than food safety temperatures. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p.82) ACEEE suggested that it would 

agree with the idea of classifying equipment such as candy and floral cases separately because it 

would be inappropriate to test them at food safety temperatures (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at 

pp.81−82) Structural Concepts commented on a unit it manufactures, a semi-open case with 

sliding glass doors, for which it believes a clear classification category does not exist. (Structural 

Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 83−84) Structural Concepts also recommended that DOE create an 

SOC.SC.M equipment class (Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 90), and AHRI agreed, 

adding that DOE should establish an SOC.SC.L class as well. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 3) The 

Northwest Joint Comment added that there will likely be new equipment classes established in 

this rulemaking and stated that DOE should not exclude from the market and technology 

assessment manufacturers that produce equipment that does not fit into any of the current 

classes. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at pp. 3−4)

DOE understands that commercial refrigeration equipment spans a wide variety of 

equipment types, and that some equipment may not be easily categorized. However, DOE also 

believes that all of the equipment currently available on the market fits within the existing 

equipment families and classes presented in the framework document, or combinations thereof.

DOE needs additional information to ascertain the product class of the specific equipment 

brought up by Structural Concepts. During this rulemaking, DOE will continue to assess the 

equipment classes, and, should certain equipment not fit with the existing classification 

methodology, DOE will examine the treatment of such equipment at that time.

Wine, candy, and floral cases, while operating at higher temperatures than those 

recommended for safe food storage, are not inherently unique equipment types; rather, in most 

cases they are traditional units that operate at a higher temperature compared to units intended 

for food storage and retailing. In the 2009 rulemaking ANOPR, DOE addressed the issue of 

higher-temperature units such as wine coolers and determined that they did not warrant a 
2-16

separate equipment class or rating temperature because they comprised a small share of the 

market. 72 FR 41162 (July 26, 2007). At that time, DOE stated that manufacturers of such 

equipment could seek waivers from the test procedure if the equipment could not be tested at one 

of the designated rating temperatures. 72 FR 41169 (July 26, 2007). 

The issue of equipment that operates at higher product temperatures is being addressed 

further in the concurrent test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0034). The 

CRE test procedure NOPR, published November 24, 2010, proposed that commercial 

refrigerators that cannot operate at the prescribed 38 °F integrated average product temperature 

would be rated at the “lowest application product temperature.” The lowest application product 

temperature would be defined as the lowest temperature setting that can be maintained for the 

duration of the test. In this case, the integrated average product temperature achieved during the 

test should be recorded. Equipment tested at the lowest application product temperature will still 

be required to comply with the standard for its respective equipment class. 75 FR 71596, 71605

(Nov. 24, 2010).

2.2.1.4 Under-Counter Equipment

Several interested parties provided comments on small under-counter units. Traulsen 

stated that DOE should give close scrutiny to small under-counter units going forward, as there 

may have been assumptions made as part of the EPACT 2005 standard that may need to be reexamined. (Traulsen, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 56−57) Zero Zone, however, stated that small undercounter equipment was originally considered in the California Energy Commission (CEC)

standards and that there is little reason why this equipment should not be able to comply with the 

EPACT 2005 standards. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 54) True countered that, during the 

development of the EPACT 2005 standards, the data on small under-counter units were sparse. 

(True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 58) Hoshizaki added in its written comment that DOE should review 

standards for under-counter single freezers and dual-temperature reach-ins that are unable to 

meet the current standards, and that standards should be expanded to allow for realistic energy 

consumption levels for these units. (Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 1)

In response to these interested parties’ concerns, DOE notes that, as part of the analyses 

for the 2009 final rule, DOE developed a set of “offset factors” to adjust for end effects that may 

have a disproportionate effect on smaller equipment. DOE plans to review the 2009 offset 

factors, as well as the factors currently included in the EPACT 2005 standard equations, and to 

update them, if necessary, in light of the results of the ongoing analyses. However, DOE notes

that under-counter units do not constitute a separate equipment class at this time and instead fall 

into the appropriate equipment classes for self-contained equipment with doors. This would 

include the under-counter single freezers and dual-temperature reach-ins mentioned by 

Hoshizaki. Regarding the comments by Traulsen, True, and Hoshizaki concerning EPACT 2005 

standards, these standards were set via legislative action, and DOE is prohibited from 

establishing a standard that allows for a decrease in energy efficiency or an increase in energy 

use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1); 6316(e)(1)(A))
2-17

2.2.1.5 Service Over Counter Equipment

Several interested parties commented on issues specific to service over counter 

equipment, specifically, self-contained service over counter equipment operating at medium 

temperature (SOC.SC.M equipment class). In reference to this equipment, True stated that the 

compliance issue previously raised by some manufacturers about these units was because many 

have front panels that flip up for cleaning purposes to meet NSF requirements. True also stated 

that some older units with fixed fronts can meet the EPACT 2005 standard. (True, No. 1.2.006 at 

pp. 54−55) AHRI added that it has proposed a legislative solution to the service over counter 

issue as part of a current energy bill and that it would be recommending a separate class for 

service over counter units going forward. (AHRI, No. 1.2.006 at p. 56) 

Standards prescribed in EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, for self-contained 

refrigerators and freezers with doors are based on the CEC Appliance Efficiency Regulations 

published in April 2005. (CEC-400-2005-012, section 1605.3) The CEC regulations set 

standards for “reach-in cabinets, pass-through cabinets, and roll-in or roll-through cabinets.” 

However, EPCA does not outline such equipment subsets beyond defining the terms 

“commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” and “self-contained condensing unit,” 

among other definitions related to this equipment. These EPCA definitions resulted in the 

application of these standards to all self-contained refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, including SOC.SC.M.

In December 2009, DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) responded to an 

application for exception relief from a manufacturer of service over counter equipment. This 

manufacturer argued that it was entitled to relief because its service over counter units could not 

meet the EPACT 2005 standards for self-contained equipment with doors. OHA responded that 

DOE did not have jurisdiction to consider such exceptions for equipment covered by the 

statutorily-mandated standards. (Case no. TEE-0066, Dec. 29, 2009)

In response to the concerns manufacturers expressed in comments at the framework 

public meeting and in written comments, DOE compared the standards set for service over 

counter units in the 2009 final rule with the EPACT 2005 standards for self-contained 

commercial refrigerators with transparent doors, which include self-contained service over 

counter units. While DOE did not examine SOC.SC.M units in the 2009 final rule, it did develop 

a set of extension multipliers that allowed standard levels developed directly in the engineering 

analysis to be extended to secondary classes with similar features. (For a full discussion of the 

extension multiplier approach, please see chapter 5 of the 2009 final rule TSD.) These 

multipliers included a multiplier of 1.40 between remote condensing and self-contained 

equipment with doors, which would allow the 2009 final rule standard for SOC.RC.M equipment 

to be extended to the SOC.SC.M equipment class for purposes of comparison. To compare the 

various standard levels for SOC equipment, DOE plotted the EPACT 2005 standard for selfcontained medium temperature equipment with doors, the 2009 SOC.RC.M final rule standard 

level, and a theoretical level for SOC.SC.M based upon extension of the 2009 final rule 

SOC.RC.M level using the remote condensing to self-contained extension multiplier. Figure 

2.2.1 shows a plot of the three data sets.
2-18

Figure 2.2.1 Comparison of Standard Levels for SOC.SC.M Equipment 

The 2009 DOE standards for SOC.RC.M were expressed in terms of the total display area 

(TDA) of the unit. Because the EPACT 2005 standard is expressed in terms of volume of the 

refrigerator, DOE converted the volume to TDA using the ratio of the values of TDA and 

refrigerated volume of the representative SOC.RC.M unit analyzed directly in the 2009 final 

rule. The dotted line represents the total daily energy consumption (TDEC), in terms of TDA, 

allowed by the EPCA standard for self-contained commercial refrigerators with transparent 

doors. The dashed line in Figure 2.2.1 shows the maximum allowed TDEC for SOC.RC.M units. 

Finally, the solid line represents a hypothetical SOC.SC.M level developed by applying the 

remote condensing to self-contained multiplier of 1.40 to the 2009 SOC.RC.M standard level. 

Figure 2.2.1 shows that SOC.SC.M standards prescribed by EPCA allow for much less TDEC 

than the SOC.RC.M standards prescribed by 2009 DOE final rule. This is in contrast to the 

general findings of the 2009 final rule analyses that, within an equipment family (e.g., SOC, 

VOP, HZO), remote condensing equipment consumes less energy than similarly sized selfcontained equipment. 

DOE understands the concerns of the interested parties regarding SOC.SC.M equipment 

standards. However, DOE cannot, without explicit statutory authority, exempt equipment from

the standards prescribed by Congress. Should any applicable legislative actions occur during the 

course of this rulemaking, DOE will respond to those changes accordingly. During the 

preliminary analysis for this rulemaking, DOE found that the EPACT 2005 standards for 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

20 30 40 50 60 70

Total Daily Energy Consumption 

(kWh/Day)

TDA (ft2)

2009 Final Rule 

SOC.RC.M Standard

EPACT 2005 Standard

2009 RC to SC Using 

Ext. Mult.
2-19

SOC.SC.M cannot be achieved at even the max-tech level in the engineering analysis. Therefore, 

DOE excluded SOC.SC.M equipment from further analysis as part of this rulemaking to date. 

2.2.1.6 Open Versus Closed Display Cases

Numerous interested parties presented opinions regarding open display cases during the 

Framework public meeting and comment period. California Codes and Standards mentioned that 

open freezers generally consume up to four times as much energy as comparable cases with 

doors. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 5) California Codes and Standards also 

stated that, while energy usage of medium-temperature open cases is less than that of lowtemperature open cases, there are roughly 40 times as many of them and that, as a result, setting 

a standard for open medium-temperature cases equal to that of vertical closed transparent (VCT) 

medium-temperature cases could result in a large energy savings. The comment recommended 

that DOE review the ASHRAE and SuperValu studies regarding open medium-temperature 

cases and then consider eliminating all open cases, regardless of temperature. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 6) Similarly, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP) commented that open cases make up almost 50 percent of display cases, according to an 

ASHRAE study, and consume approximately 1.2 times as much energy as doored cases. ASAP 

believes that these data point to a large energy savings potential for this class of equipment. 

(ASAP, No. 1.3.010 at p. 2) Zero Zone stated that open cases use two to three times as much 

energy as doored cases. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 36) 

Regarding the treatment of open display cases under this rulemaking, California Codes 

and Standards suggested that DOE consider merging equipment classes for open and closed low 

temperature vertical cases, or at least setting the same energy targets for the two classes. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 16) ASAP stated that they believe DOE is not 

required to maintain separate product classes for equipment with and without doors, and that 

eliminating this separation would create significant energy savings. ASAP urged DOE to 

consolidate this equipment into a single class. (ASAP, No. 1.3.010 at p. 1) Additionally, 

Earthjustice and NRDC commented that the failure of Congress to codify standards for open 

equipment in EPACT 2005 did not imply an intent for such equipment to be subject to weaker 

standards. Instead, EPACT 2005 simply listed the equipment for which DOE must develop 

standards. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at pp. 3−4) Earthjustice and NRDC added that the EPACT 

2005 standards were a codified version of a consensus agreement and thus cannot be used to 

infer any intent of Congress. They also stated that EPCA does not make any statements 

obligating DOE to maintain statutorily created equipment classes. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 

4) California Codes and Standards stated that multi-zone heating and cooling systems could 

serve as an example of a product that has been phased out due to low efficiency and questioned 

whether DOE should do the same with open low-temperature vertical display cases. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 31) ACEEE added that, in the context of this discussion, 

a precedent for phasing out a product class exists in the form of the expiration of the through-thewall class for central air-conditioners. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 34) California Codes and 

Standards suggested that DOE (1) conduct an end-user survey regarding the utility of freezers 

with and without class doors; (2) identify the sales volumes of vertical open low-temperature and 

ice cream cases; and (3) evaluate and publish the nationwide energy impact of a regulation that 

would set equal standards for open freezers and freezers with doors. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 8) 
2-20

Earthjustice and NRDC presented a legal argument regarding their position on open 

cases. Earthjustice and NRDC stated that EPCA only mandates multiple product classes when 

the failure to do so would eliminate truly unique product attributes from the market. Moreover, 

these interested parties stated that the consumers of this equipment are retailers, to whom impact 

would be judged based on any change in sales, and that, unless the presence of doors on a display 

case results in a drop in sales, there is no loss of features if a standard level were sufficiently 

stringent to be met only by equipment with doors. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 2) These 

interested parties asserted that even if open access to displayed goods is a unique feature, EPCA 

does not require a separate class for equipment without doors. Moreover, they argued that if 

accessing the refrigerated space directly is a feature, then accessing it via opening a door is a 

feature that is “substantially the same,” and therefore they could be grouped together under a 

single standard. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at pp. 2−3) The interested parties asserted that the 

“substantially the same” clause in EPCA shows that Congress did not intend for the 

unavailability of any single feature to serve as a barrier to the imposition of standards. Instead, 

they argued that EPCA only bars standards that would have a substantial impact on utility. 

(Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 3) They cited DOE’s commercial clothes washer rulemaking, in 

which they asserted that DOE declined to establish a separate class for top-loading washers due 

to utility differences, as a precedent for the combination of equipment with similar utility and 

features. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 3) 

This subject was reviewed at the NOPR stage of the 2009 rulemaking, when Southern 

California Edison asked that DOE consider doors as a design option for open cases. 73 FR 50088

(Aug. 25, 2008). This comment is substantively the same as comments referenced above, as it 

would effectively consolidate the two case types into a single class. In the 2009 rulemaking, 

while DOE did acknowledge that substantial energy savings could be realized by the implicit 

elimination of open cases, DOE determined that it was explicitly precluded by EPCA from 

taking such action. EPCA states that:

The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard under this section if 

the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result 

in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and 

volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United 

States at the time of the Secretary's finding. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(e)(1))

DOE is also required to prescribe different standards for product classes that have a 

capacity or other performance-related feature that justifies the establishment of a different 

standard. In making a determination whether the feature justifies a different standard, DOE is 

required to consider such factors as the utility to the consumer. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

In the 2009 rulemaking NOPR, DOE stated that 42 U.S.C. 6294(o)(4) required DOE to

retain separate classes for open and closed cases, stating that consolidation of the two would 
2-21

“result in the unavailability” of features uniquely offered by open cases. 73 FR 50089 (Aug. 25, 

2008). Moreover, DOE noted that EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for selfcontained equipment with doors, and mandates that DOE develop standards for self-contained 

equipment without doors. Id.; 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(4). As a result, DOE treated open cases and 

cases with doors as separate categories of equipment in the 2009 final rule. DOE also believes 

that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1) require DOE to establish separate product 

classes and consider different standards for those classes because of the distinct utility offered by 

open cases, as discussed below. As a result, DOE is considering separate product classes for 

open cases and cases with doors in this preliminary analysis. 

Numerous parties commented regarding the utility aspect of open cases, specifically with 

regard to sales. Earthjustice suggested that data should be gathered from the retail market 

regarding the utility impacts on end-users of the presence of doors on cases. (Earthjustice, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 35) Zero Zone responded that ASHRAE Research Project 1402 could show that 

there is no productivity drop between open and doored vertical cases. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at 

p. 36) ASAP also cited this study, stating that ASHRAE Research Project 1402 found qualitative 

improvements in customer impressions of supermarket environments due to the installation of 

cases with doors. If the installation of doored cases does not hinder sales, ASAP stated, then 

there would be no distinct “feature” of open cases justifying a separate equipment class. ASAP 

also added that the study indicates that cases with doors reduce variations in temperature, 

possibly reducing some food safety issues. (ASAP, No. 1.3.10 at p. 1) NEEA agreed with ASAP 

and Zero Zone, citing ASHRAE 1402 and a Swedish case study suggesting that cases with doors 

provide an equal or improved set of customer attributes. Earthjustice and NRDC also agreed, 

referencing ASHRAE 1402 and the Swedish study. (Earthjustice, No. 1.3.004 at p. 2) True, 

however, cautioned that the ASHRAE research regarding utility was incomplete and that it was 

not possible to definitively state the impact of doors on productivity. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 37) 

In further discussion on open case utility, California Codes and Standards stated that the 

primary utility of an open case is that the customer does not have to prop a door open, and that 

open cases do not have reflections when viewed obliquely. However, California Codes and 

Standards also stated that open freezer cases have negative attributes, including the release of 

low-temperature air into the surroundings, the buildup of frost on product, and less stable 

operating temperatures, which results in freeze/thaw cycles and lower product quality. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at pp. 5−6) California Codes and Standards also 

requested that DOE make a determination regarding the utility screening criterion. In its view,

this screening criterion would preserve inefficient equipment classes, which California Codes 

and Standards wants eliminated. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 8) 

Earthjustice and NRDC also commented that DOE’s inclusion of strip curtains in the framework 

document serves as an admission that such barriers to access to goods have no adverse impact on 

utility because strip curtains, like doors, require action by the shopper in order to access the 

product. 

In response to the interested party input regarding the utility of open cases, DOE 

reviewed the ASHRAE 1402 study after it was published.1 While the study shows no difference 

in sales between open and closed cases, the data were collected only within the context of one 

specific controlled scenario. As a result, DOE does not believe that the data presented by this 
2-22

study demonstrate that open cases do not provide a distinct utility. While one equipment type 

may exhibit enhanced performance under a given set of conditions or in terms of a specific 

metric, such as sales volume, that fact does not address the restriction DOE faces with respect to 

setting standards that may result in the unavailability of distinct features or characteristics. Open 

cases provide unique features both to customers of grocery stores, in the form of unobstructed 

view of and access to product, and to stores themselves, in the form of simplified stocking, 

cleaning, and maintenance of cases. By definition, the two case types have markedly different 

performance characteristics. With respect to Earthjustice and NRDC’s assertion that the impact 

of standards would be judged based of the effect on sales, DOE notes that it considers sales 

impacts as evidence of one form of customer utility. DOE also considers the other forms of 

customer utility referenced above. While setting standards that, in essence, require closable doors 

on all cases would increase the level of energy efficiency of this equipment, it would decrease 

the utility derived from the other features.

With respect to the comment on the utility screening criterion, DOE eliminates 

technologies that have an adverse impact on equipment utility or availability from further 

consideration in its analyses. DOE believes that this criterion of its screening analysis is 

consistent with the EPCA provisions cited above regarding the creation of separate product 

classes and energy conservation standards based on capacity or other performance-related 

features and the prohibition on eliminating generally available performance characteristics. The 

requirement that standards do not result in the unavailability of performance characteristics and 

features does not speak to the efficiency of a type of equipment, only to the continued 

availability of existing “performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities and volumes.” 

Therefore, the evaluation of this criterion takes place independently of the evaluation of other 

effects, such as those on energy use. 

In response to the comment by Earthjustice and NRDC about strip curtains, DOE did list 

strip curtains in the framework document as a technology for discussion and evaluation. DOE 

has learned that strip curtains are not a manufacturer-installed technology in this equipment but

an aftermarket accessory that owners may choose to install. Thus, since they are not applicable at 

the point of manufacture, DOE does not intend to further consider strip curtains in this 

rulemaking. 

In summary, DOE understands that the issue of open versus closed display cases is of 

interest to a number of interested parties in this rulemaking. DOE determined in the previous 

rulemaking that open cases present distinct, unique features to the consumer and end-user, and 

that DOE is prevented from setting standards that would make those features unavailable. As a 

result, DOE plans to evaluate energy consumption of both open and closed cases. The energy 

consumption of individual units at the baseline and at increased levels of performance will be 

analyzed and modeled as part of the engineering analysis, and the overall energy consumption 

and energy savings potential of this equipment will be studied as part of the energy use analysis. 

DOE welcomes additional data and information on this issue and will consider such information 

in developing the standards levels for the NOPR. 
2-23

2.2.2 Technology Assessment 

As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE developed a list of technologies 

to consider for improving the efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment. Chapter 3 of the 

preliminary TSD includes the detailed list of all technology options DOE identified for further 

consideration in this rulemaking.

During the Framework public meeting, DOE requested comment regarding the 

technology options that it had listed in the framework document. California Codes and Standards 

supported evaluating all of these options (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 7), 

while the Northwest Joint Comment stated that DOE should not screen out any technologies 

based on the inability of the test procedure to quantify their effects, but should instead modify 

the test procedure. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4) The Northwest Joint 

Comment also added that the list of technology options is likely to grow once the equipment 

classes have been finalized. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4) 

Throughout this rulemaking and the related test procedure rulemaking, DOE will 

investigate new technologies that may apply to this equipment and, should they prove to be 

relevant, include them within the scope of its analysis. 

As noted above, DOE is considering modifications to the test procedure to accommodate 

additional technologies and has proposed provisions to quantify the performance of those 

options. 75 FR 71596 (Nov. 24, 2010). Specific proposed changes include provisions for 

measuring the energy impacts of lighting occupancy sensors and controls, and night curtains. 

Other technologies, such as higher efficiency expansion valves, condenser fan motor controllers, 

and anti-sweat heater controllers, are technologies that reduce energy consumption at part-load 

conditions. DOE believes that explicit testing for these energy efficiency technologies that 

reduce energy consumption at part-load is not justified at this time because it would significantly 

increase the testing burden. The energy savings and cost effectiveness of these technologies will 

also vary considerably based on climate zone and application. While the increased cost of 

independent testing of part-load technologies is not justified, DOE believes that the energy 

saving potential of these technologies is already captured to some degree in the current test 

procedure. For more discussion on the treatment of energy efficiency technologies in the test 

procedure, please refer to the CRE test procedure rulemaking documents, available at 

http://www2.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrigeration_equipmen

t.html. 

Interested parties also provided comment regarding the general applicability and impacts 

of considering certain technology options. ACEEE believed it was inappropriate to screen out 

technologies that are commercially available globally, even if they are not in common usage in 

the United States. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 104) Structural Concepts stated that some of the 

technology options presented as applicable to all equipment would only show a reasonable return 

on investment in remote condensing equipment. It urged DOE to consider cost-to-benefit ratios 

for these technologies. (Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 96) Southern Store Fixtures added 

that testing methods should be developed and performed prior to the development of standards to 

quantify the actual energy savings potential of various technologies. (Southern Store Fixtures, 
2-24

No. 1.2.006 at pp. 98−99) Southern Store Fixtures also stated that many of the technology 

options were dependent on changes in ambient conditions to be effective and that these 

technologies would be more applicable to remote condensing units than self-contained units. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 97) Similarly, Zero Zone expressed concern that DOE 

may not take into consideration the adverse impacts of low-energy technologies, such as lowenergy doors that may sweat under conditions different from the test conditions. Zero Zone 

added that demand defrost also has risks and that DOE must focus on the primary and secondary 

functions of design features. (Zero Zone, No. 1.3.007 at pp. 1−2)

In response to the above interested party comments, DOE intends to consider 

technologies that are commercially available or available as working prototypes for use in 

commercial refrigeration equipment and that meet the four screening criteria. Test methods will 

be reviewed and potentially amended as necessary as part of the simultaneously ongoing DOE 

rulemaking on commercial refrigeration equipment test procedures, and modeling of unit 

performance will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the test procedure (Docket 

No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0034). Ambient conditions for testing and performance analysis will 

also be addressed within the test procedure rulemaking, and DOE welcomes comment on these 

subjects as inputs to that process. Regarding differentiation in the performance of some 

technologies between remote condensing and self-contained units, the existing equipment class 

structure provides for separate classes for each type at each operating temperature and within 

each family. During its analysis, DOE intends to model and analyze equipment by class; thus,

any differences in the performance of a given technology between remote condensing and selfcontained equipment will be quantified in these analyses to the extent possible. Finally, in 

response to the concern expressed by Zero Zone, DOE plans to gather data from manufacturers 

regarding the details of implementing specific technologies, and will use this data to guide its 

analysis. 

Interested parties also commented on aspects of specific technologies. ACEEE stated that 

in previous rulemakings DOE had screened out modulating compressors that only show their 

benefits at part-load, and requested that DOE consider them for this rulemaking. (ACEEE, No. 

1.2.006 at pp. 95−96) It added that any oversized refrigeration system would benefit from 

modulating compressor and fan capabilities and that it would be illogical for DOE not to 

consider them. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 102) California Codes and Standards also suggested 

that DOE consider variable speed cycling controls for evaporator fan motors, especially in 

conjunction with electronically commutated motors (ECMs). (California Codes and Standards, 

No. 1.2.006 at pp. 99−100) Additionally, California Codes and Standards commented that lightemitting diode (LED) lighting technologies and lighting controls should be implemented to 

substantially reduce case energy consumption. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at 

p. 15) It also added that motion controls or occupancy sensors should be included in the list of 

technology options. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 99) Southern Store 

Fixtures mentioned floating head pressure control as a possible option, stating that it has been in 

use for 25 to 30 years and is well understood. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 

134−135) NRDC added that it agreed with DOE’s inclusion of anti-fog films for doors in its 

framework document, stating that reducing or eliminating the need for anti-sweat heaters will 

significantly improve the efficiency of the system. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 5) 
2-25

Modulating compressors and variable-speed motors allow for a unit to adapt its 

performance to variable ambient conditions, thereby potentially reducing the annual energy 

consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment. Similarly, floating head pressure allows 

condenser performance to adapt to changes in ambient conditions. It is DOE’s understanding 

that, although ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 is a steady-state test, some variation in refrigeration 

load is experienced in display cases with doors as part of the door opening requirement included 

in that test. When the doors are opened, the refrigeration load increases because warm ambient 

air has entered the case. If the equipment being tested has more efficient operation at variable 

refrigeration load, the case will use less energy overall. In this way, the effects of variable or 

part-load features are already captured to some degree in the current test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment with doors. Similarly, if the test procedure is altered to 

capture decreased energy consumption as a result of night curtain use, the efficacy of many partload technologies in open cases will also be captured. In response to the suggestions by 

California Codes and Standards, LED lighting and motion controls are being considered by DOE 

in its analysis for classes to which these technologies are applicable. 

California Codes and Standards provided specific comment regarding the use of liquid 

suction heat exchangers, urging DOE to consider them as a technology option in this rulemaking. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 15) Later, California Codes and Standards 

added that these devices are applicable to remote rack systems as well as self-contained units. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 100) The Northwest Joint Comment provided 

a similar statement. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.004 at p. 4) In its written comment, 

California Codes and Standards provided more specificity, stating that liquid-suction heat 

exchangers (LSHXs) are well-suited to remote commercial refrigeration equipment, but that 

requirements would likely be better addressed within a building code. As a result, California 

Codes and Standards requested that DOE determine if an energy code requirement on LSHXs for 

remote equipment would be preempted by this standard. (California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 7) DOE had included liquid suction heat exchangers in the list of technologies 

presented in the framework document, and will address the issue of LSHXs as a technology 

option in the market and technology assessment and screening analysis. 

2.3 SCREENING ANALYSIS

The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies identified in the 

technology assessment to determine which options to consider further in the engineering 

analysis. As stated above, DOE considers those technologies for which energy impacts can be 

measured using the DOE test procedure, and DOE proposed test procedure amendments to 

measure the impacts of additional technologies in a separate rulemaking. DOE also removes

technologies that do not change or affect the energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. In the screening analysis, DOE then examines whether the remaining technologies 

(1) are technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have 

an adverse impact on product utility or availability; and (4) have adverse impacts on health and 

safety. DOE reviewed the list of technologies according to these criteria in consultation with 

industry, technical experts, and other interested parties. In the engineering analysis, DOE further 

considers the energy-saving technologies that it did not eliminate in the screening analysis. 

Chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD, the screening analysis, contains details about DOE’s 

screening criteria.
2-26

Zero Zone stated that, as part of the screening analysis, the reliability of a given 

technology being considered should be another criterion that must be met. (Zero Zone, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 105) During the screening analysis, the Department considers four factors when 

considering technologies as part of the standards setting process. DOE must determine whether 

to eliminate from consideration any technology that presents unacceptable problems with respect 

to (1) technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) impacts 

on equipment utility or equipment availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety. 

While reliability is not specifically mentioned as one of these factors, it is likely that a 

technology that reduces the reliability of a piece of equipment would present a problem with 

respect to practicability to install and service, or would result in an impact on equipment utility. 

As a result, DOE believes that the concern expressed by Zero Zone is already adequately 

captured within the four existing screening criteria. In addition, in considering standards for 

commercial equipment, DOE is prohibited from establishing a standard that is likely to result in 

the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as 

those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1))

2.4 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

The engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD) establishes the relationship 

between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and the efficiency for each piece of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit 

calculations in terms of individual customers, manufacturers, and the nation. Chapter 5 discusses 

the equipment classes analyzed, representative baseline units, incremental efficiency levels, 

methodology used to develop manufacturing production costs, cost-efficiency curves, impact of 

efficiency improvements on the equipment, and methodology used to extend the analysis to lowshipment-volume equipment classes.

In the engineering analysis, DOE evaluates a range of equipment efficiency levels and 

associated manufacturing costs. The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the incremental 

manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) that would result from increasing efficiency levels above the 

baseline model in each equipment class. The engineering analysis considers technologies not 

eliminated in the screening analysis. The life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis uses the cost-efficiency 

relationships developed in the engineering analysis.

DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three methodologies: (1) 

the design-option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design 

options to a baseline model; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which calculates the relative costs 

of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels without regard to design options used to 

achieve such increases; and/or (3) the reverse-engineering or cost-assessment approach, which 

involves a “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill of materials 

derived from tear-downs of the equipment being analyzed.

In the framework document, DOE stated its intention to use a design-option approach for 

the engineering analysis, as it was the methodology employed in the 2009 final rule analyses and 

was found to be the approach most appropriate for the equipment and technologies on the market
2-27

because this equipment is designed and marketed based on the inclusion of specific features and 

components, rather than being sold as possessing a certain, standardized efficiency rating. In a 

design-option approach, analysis is performed in terms of incremental increases in efficiency due 

to the implementation of selected design options. For each equipment class, the engineering 

analysis estimates MPCs for each successive design option. Hence, in the framework document, 

DOE requested industry cost data and shipment data.

2.4.1 Analysis Approach

2.4.1.1 Verification with Test Data

Structural Concepts suggested that, because this rulemaking will take place before the 

effective date of the existing standards, DOE should collect empirical test data on this equipment 

to validate calculations used in the analyses. (Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 205) During 

the analyses for this rulemaking, DOE intends to validate its analytical results by conducting

independent testing of certain equipment pursuant to the Department’s proposed test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment. (See 75 FR 51596, Nov. 24, 2010). Additionally, DOE’s 

manufacturer impact analysis interviews will provide another means to validate DOE’s results 

and methodology, as well as an opportunity for manufacturers to provide feedback. DOE would 

also welcome any data from manufacturers from their own equipment testing programs and from 

other interested parties on this subject. 

2.4.1.2 Background Data

Southern Store Fixtures suggested that DOE contact end-users regarding the impact of 

new technologies on the operation of their equipment. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 

76) Likewise, California Codes and Standards stated that an understanding of patterns of use of 

commercial refrigeration equipment supported by a large sample of survey data will be essential 

in determining the cost effectiveness of many of the technologies available. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at pp. 1−2)

Most of the technology options in this rulemaking are not expected to impact customer 

choices, other than the increased cost considerations. However, night curtains and occupancy 

sensors may be subject to customer preferences. DOE will survey customers and end-users to 

understand their concerns and attempt to factor these concerns into the current rulemaking. DOE 

would welcome any information from manufacturers, end-users, or other interested parties 

regarding patterns of use, impacts of specific new technologies on equipment operation, or other 

issues pertaining to the operation and use of commercial refrigeration equipment. 

2.4.1.3 Performance Simulation

AHRI stated that the energy efficiency benefits of incorporating design options are not 

simply additive, and that assessment of combined benefits will require rigorous total-system 

simulations. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 4) As part of the engineering analysis for this rulemaking, 

DOE intends to model system performance using a full-system heat transfer and energy 

consumption simulation similar to that used in the 2009 rulemaking engineering analysis. The 

model calculates energy consumption in two major subsections (expressed as kilowatt-hours per 
2-28

day): compressor energy consumption and component energy consumption. Component energy 

consumption is the sum of electrical energy directly consumed by each fan motor, lamp, defrost 

and drain heater, anti-sweat heater, and pan heater. Compressor energy consumption is 

calculated from the total heat load (expressed as Btu/h) and one of two compressor models: one 

version for remote condensing equipment, and one for self-contained equipment. The total heat 

load is a sum of the component load and the non-electric load. The component load is a sum of 

the heat emitted by evaporator fan motors, lighting, defrost heaters, drain heaters, and anti-sweat 

heaters inside and adjacent to the refrigerated space (condenser fan motors and pan heaters are 

outside the refrigerated space and do not contribute to the component heat load). The nonelectric load is the sum of the heat contributed by radiation through glass and openings, heat 

conducted through walls and doors, and warm air infiltration through openings that must be 

removed from the case. The model will account, to the extent possible, for interactive effects 

between system components.

2.4.1.4 Proprietary Designs

AHRI stated that proprietary designs should not be evaluated as part of this rulemaking. 

(AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 4)

In past rulemakings, DOE has always considered proprietary designs only in cases where 

they do not constitute the only possible path to a given level of equipment performance or 

efficiency. An example of this can be found in the 2009 final rule for refrigerated beverage 

vending machines, in which DOE did not screen out proprietary designs or technologies, but 

instead incorporated them into the analysis because it believed that alternate pathways existed to 

achieving the efficiency levels associated with those technologies. 74 FR 44925, (Aug. 31, 

2009). Consistent with its practice in previous rulemakings, DOE intends to consider proprietary 

designs so long as they do not present the sole method for achieving a given level of 

performance. 

2.4.1.5 Insulation Performance

NanoPore Insulation, LLC, a manufacturer of vacuum-insulated panels for use in 

refrigerated cases, stated that DOE should not assume that the energy performance of an 

appliance will remain constant over its entire lifetime, and that fiberglass-based vacuum 

insulated panels can in fact lose much of their initial insulation capacity in a matter of a few 

months. (NanoPore, No. 1.3.011 at p. 1) NanoPore suggested that DOE revise the test protocol to 

include a lifetime performance test to evaluate the long-term efficiency of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, such as by artificially aging units at high temperatures. (NanoPore, No. 

1.3.011 at p. 1) 

As part of the preliminary analysis, the Department is considering vacuum insulated 

panels as a design option applicable to commercial refrigeration equipment. However, DOE has 

not made any distinction between different types of vacuum insulated panels, nor has it moved to 

consider the long-term performance of panels manufactured with different methodologies. DOE 

is not aware of any industry-accepted test procedures for determining the long-term performance 

of vacuum insulated panels, nor has it received any additional comments from manufacturers 
2-29

regarding this issue. Therefore, at this time, DOE does not intend to distinguish between types of 

vacuum insulated panels in its analyses. 

2.4.2 Normalization Metrics

Numerous interested parties commented and provided suggestions regarding the 

measures used in quantifying case size for energy consumption purposes. The Northwest Joint 

Comment stated that the quality of the engineering analysis will come as a result of two major 

factors: equipment classes and metrics. The comment added that efficiency standards and 

normalization metrics are not well-established, especially for open cases, where the TDA metric 

neglects shelf depth and provides an incentive to give a high ratio of TDA to volume or capacity, 

leading to less efficient equipment (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at pp. 2−5) The 

Northwest Joint Comment suggested that DOE consider an “aspect” ratio, such as TDA to 

volume, or the use of an offset factor that provides an allowance for display area and then scales 

with volume. Since display units, especially open cases, are the largest relative consumers of 

energy, the metric must discourage the impacts of the properties that make them consume the 

most energy (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 5) Southern Store Fixtures agreed, 

stating that a TDA metric alone does not accommodate different case depths, as cases with the 

same TDA are held to the same standard regardless of depth. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 117) True agreed that case depth needs to be addressed (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 

118), and Zero Zone stated that TDA works well, but that a combination of shelf depth and TDA 

would be even more descriptive. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 119) Structural Concepts added 

that open cases may need a third metric, case height, in addition to TDA and depth, in order to 

quantify air curtain performance. (Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 120) True also stated 

that different customers have different needs, and that the relative importance of display area 

versus volume and solid versus transparent doors will be application-driven. (True, No. 1.2.006 

at pp. 120−121) AHRI asked that DOE use a TDA metric for SOC equipment classes. (AHRI, 

No. 1.3.008 at p. 4)

California Codes and Standards recommended that DOE perform an analysis to 

determine whether the current normalization method results in a close match to the energy 

consumption of equipment containing cost-effective measures for reduced energy consumption. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 8) It added that DOE should work with 

manufacturers to see if niche equipment that meets the required prescriptive measures could

comply with standards in light of an improved normalization metric. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 3) The submission suggested that DOE evaluate energy savings 

potential from a reformatted standards level equation that better fits the energy consumption of 

differently sized equipment with varying aspect ratios of opaque to display area. The commenter 

added that if a significant energy savings results from this evaluation, the standards level 

equations should be changed to account for this situation. (California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 9) In its view, an improved normalization metric could make a standard level a 

function of solid opaque area, glass area, and open area. (California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 9) A class that might face a lower standard in light of an improved metric would be 

VCT.SC.L, which currently uses a volume metric. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 

at p. 5) Finally, California Codes and Standards stated that normalization metrics should be 

reviewed for all equipment classes and that DOE should also review end effects for smaller 
2-30

equipment in unison with improved normalization metrics, as there may exist synergies that 

would be overlooked were the two examined separately. (California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 9) 

DOE understands that the selection of appropriate measures of case size is important to 

the standards-setting process across all covered equipment classes. For the self-contained 

equipment with doors for which standards were set in the EPACT 2005 legislation, volume was 

used in the statute as the normalization metric. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)) For the equipment covered 

by the 2009 final rule, DOE selected the metrics of volume for equipment with solid doors and 

total display area for display-type equipment. During the Framework public meeting for that 

rulemaking, DOE asked interested parties for input as to what metrics would be most appropriate 

for use with the covered equipment, and numerous interested parties commented. The 

commenters expressed positions similar to those in the above comments, with various interested 

parties advocating TDA, refrigerated volume, case length, and combinations of these as preferred 

metrics. 

In the 2009 rulemaking ANOPR, DOE determined that for equipment with transparent 

doors, radiation and conduction through doors were the primary heat transfer pathways. DOE 

concluded that TDA would be the metric that best quantifies this effect. Likewise, for equipment 

without doors, the majority of heat load occurs due to warm air infiltration, and DOE determined 

that TDA would also be the most appropriate metric for capturing these effects. DOE also stated 

its belief that for these equipment types, where the function is to display merchandise for sale, 

TDA best quantifies the ability of a piece of equipment to perform that function. On the other 

hand, equipment with solid doors is designed for storage, and volume was determined to be the 

most appropriate metric for quantifying the storage capacity of the unit. 72 FR 41177−78 (July 

26, 2007). DOE presented these choices of metric in the 2009 rulemaking ANOPR and, after 

considering comments received and other information, retained the normalization metrics 

through publication of the final rule. 

DOE understands the concerns expressed by Northwest Joint Comment that the TDA 

metric for display cases encourages manufacturers to increase the relative display area of the 

equipment, which allows for higher energy consumption compared to equipment with the same 

refrigerated volume but smaller TDA. However, for most display cases covered by the 2009 final 

rule, DOE believes that there are limited opportunities for manufacturers to increase the TDA for 

a given refrigerated volume. For example, VCT.RC.M and VCT.RC.L cases are typically 8 to 12 

feet long and several feet deep. Since the front of these cases is almost entirely glass 

(transparent), the only additional opportunity for increasing the TDA is to make the side walls 

transparent, which is a relatively modest increase in TDA. Replacing the solid (opaque) side 

walls with glass incurs a penalty in the form of higher production costs. Hence, the modest gain 

in energy allowance due to increased TDA may in part be offset by the increase in production 

costs.

On the other hand, self-contained equipment with transparent doors is smaller in length 

(usually 2 to 4 feet), and the relative increase in TDA would be substantially higher if the side 

walls were transparent. For such display cases, the TDA metric would in fact present an 

opportunity for manufacturers to increase the allowance of total energy consumption by 
2-31

increasing the TDA. This is one reason why, for self-contained equipment with transparent 

doors, refrigerated volume would be a better choice compared to TDA. 

In the case of SOC equipment, the TDA to refrigerated volume ratio is very high 

compared to other display cases; that is, the opaque area is small compared to the transparent 

area. Therefore, there is little incentive for manufacturers to disproportionately increase the TDA 

to obtain a higher energy consumption allowance.

In line with the reasons stated above, DOE is considering retention of the current 

normalization metrics for the respective equipment classes, consisting of both the metrics set 

forth in the 2009 final rule and those prescribed by the EPCA standards for self-contained 

equipment with doors. 

2.4.3 Refrigerants

The Natural Resources Defense Council provided comment regarding potential 

regulatory changes pertaining to refrigerants. In its written comment, NRDC stated that DOE 

must investigate alternative refrigerants for medium-temperature use, and suggested CO2 for 

these applications, adding that CO2-based refrigeration systems have been installed in numerous 

applications in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Europe. Moreover, NRDC 

added, DOE should, absent Presidential or legislative action, consider the long-term phase-out of 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to be inevitable. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at pp. 5−6) 

As part of the engineering analysis, DOE will consider the current state of the industry, 

and will base its analysis on the use of refrigerants currently utilized by the majority of the 

commercial refrigeration industry. In the 2009 final rule, DOE considered the effects of HFC 

refrigerants by using HFC refrigerants in all of its analyses. For remote condensing equipment, 

the compressor efficiency values used in the analyses were based on ARI 1200, which used an 

HFC-based compressor rack with R-404a refrigerant. Likewise, for self-contained equipment, 

DOE’s analysis used R-134a and R-404a, both HFC-based refrigerants. In the 2009 final rule 

Federal Register notice discussion of maintenance costs, DOE explicitly stated that it would not 

predict or account for potential future changes in the cost of refrigerants. 74 FR 1108 (Jan. 9, 

2009). Because such predictions are speculative, barring any final legislative or other regulatory 

action during this rulemaking, DOE will not make any assumptions regarding future regulation 

of specific refrigerants or the potential effects of such regulations. 

2.5 MARKUPS TO DETERMINE EQUIPMENT PRICE

DOE used manufacturer-to-customer markups to convert the MSP estimated in the 

engineering analysis to customer prices, which then were used in the LCC and payback period 

(PBP) analysis, and national impact analysis (NIA). DOE calculates markups for baseline 

equipment (baseline markups) based on the markups at each step in each distribution channel to 

obtain the customer purchase price for the baseline equipment sold through each channel. DOE 

calculates the incremental markups based on the assumption that some of the costs scale with the 

cost increments for higher efficiency levels and the rest remain constant. Detailed explanation for 

the calculation of baseline and incremental markups is presented in chapter 6. 
2-32

2.5.1 Distribution Channels for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

DOE identified three major distribution channels through which commercial refrigeration 

equipment is purchased by the end-user: (1) manufacturer to end-user (direct channel); (2) 

manufacturer to wholesale distributor to end-user (wholesaler channel); and (3) manufacturer to 

distributor to mechanical contractor to end-user (contractor channel). In 2009 rulemaking, DOE 

used distribution channel share data provided by interested parties. For remote condensing 

equipment, 70 percent share was attributed to direct channel, 15 percent to wholesaler channel,

and 15 percent to contractor channel. In the case of self-contained equipment, 30 percent was 

attributed to direct channel, 35 percent to wholesaler channel, and 35 percent to contractor 

channel.

Interested parties presented various opinions on DOE’s assumption regarding distribution 

channels. ACEEE agreed with the data presented, stating that the market channels presented by 

DOE fit with their experience. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 143) Other parties provided 

recommendations and data. Hoshizaki stated that it felt the makeup of distribution to be 70 

percent 2-channel, 25 percent 1-channel, and 5 percent direct, and suggested that DOE check 

with the North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) and AHRI 

for current market trends. (Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 1) Traulsen suggested that the 

Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association (FEDA) could represent a distribution 

perspective, but mentioned that this association deals mostly with large chain accounts. 

(Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 6) 

Interested parties also provided input regarding recent market trends. True stated that 

sales are skewed toward national accounts because distributors are doing less business, and fewer 

new restaurants are being built. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 141) Southern Store Fixtures stated that 

a reduction of the throughput of dealers and distributors is occurring to the point that they are 

asked to build equipment with components supplied by the customer and are compensated only 

for their labor. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 142) Continental stated that large parts 

of traditional distribution channels are not seen as cost effective and are being permanently

eliminated. Continental offered to check with NAFEM for verification and data on this subject. 

(Continental, No. 1.2.006 at p. 145) The Northwest Joint Comment stated that manufacturers 

have mentioned that there are many changes occurring in their markets, many of which are 

lowering margins. These include consolidation in the grocery industry and a trend toward 

national accounts and point-of-sale equipment, where lower margins are incurred. The Northwest 

Joint Comment suggested that manufacturers could provide data to quantify this for the analysis. 

(Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 6) True added that the growth in the use of pointof-sales beverage cases has been a trend over the past 5−7 years. (True, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 

142−143)

As part of the markups analysis, DOE reviewed available sources of information to 

allocate the appropriate percentages to each distribution channel. DOE determined that NAFEM 

(in its last three reports) and FEDA do not track information on distribution channel shares. 

Some information could be obtained from Foodservice Equipment & Supplies (FES) magazine 

with regard to the shares of the distribution channels. This data applies to all foodservice 

equipment sales and may be different for refrigeration equipment, which has an 8 percent share 
2-33

of the total foodservice equipment sales. Refrigerators and freezers used in the foodservice 

industry are primarily self-contained equipment such as reach-in refrigerators and freezers, chest 

freezers, milk coolers, and ice-cream storage and dipping cabinets. The FES magazine data does 

not seem to support the statement that the sales are skewed toward the direct manufacturer-toend-user distribution channel. On the contrary, only 17 percent of sales are attributed to the 

direct distribution channel, which is much lower than the 30 percent used in 2009 rulemaking.2

Because of the lack of comprehensive data to support distribution channels significantly different 

than those used for the 2009 rulemaking, DOE has retained those estimates with modifications 

from the FES magazine data for the self-contained product classes. DOE requests interested 

parties to provide additional data concerning the share of each distribution channel in different 

equipment categories.

2.5.2 Methodology for Markups Analysis

Markups are different for different distribution channels, with the direct channel having 

the smallest markup and the contractor channel having the largest. DOE calculated one average 

markup value for each level in each distribution channel.

AHRI stated in its written comment that attempting to build prices up from estimates of 

manufacturer costs and supply chain markups leads to compounding of errors, and that costefficiency curves should be validated against actual retail prices. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 4)

DOE estimates the MPC as part of the engineering analysis, with the manufacturer 

markup determined from industry-wide financial data. The methodology for estimating the 

production costs is discussed in chapter 5, the engineering analysis. The methodologies used in 

determining both the manufacturer markup and the MPC are similar to those used in the 2009 

final rule, as well as many other past and ongoing DOE rulemakings, with these methodologies 

having been vetted by numerous interested parties. Therefore, DOE believes that its markups are 

based on the best available data on markup values. 

DOE estimates the markups for distributors based on Heating, Air-conditioning & 

Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) profit data and markups for mechanical 

contractors from U.S. Census Bureau data for plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning (PHAC) 

industry. DOE attempted to verify the estimated costs and markups against retail sale prices for 

certain individual commercial refrigeration units. This exercise yielded a large range of markup 

values, 0.88 to 2.88, over the MSP. Retail markups for individual units are, in general, a function 

of many factors, including general economic environment and outlook, manufacturer brand 

name, newer versions of the same product introduced into the market by the manufacturers, and 

availability of cheaper or more technologically advanced alternatives in the market. On the other 

hand, markup values estimated from the profit data of distributors provide an average markup 

value for all commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE intends to continue using the current 

sources of data for markup analysis and seeks additional data from potential new sources. 

2.5.3 Shipping Costs

The Northwest Joint Comment stated that there is a growing trend in some markets, 

especially highly consolidated markets, toward including shipping costs in equipment price, and 
2-34

that DOE will need to be careful regarding where it places these costs in its analysis. (Northwest 

Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 6)

DOE estimates the equipment cost in the engineering analysis by calculating the cost to 

build the equipment from its components. This value, termed manufacturer production cost

(MPC), does not include the shipping costs of the finished product. DOE includes the shipping 

costs in the MSP, which is obtained by applying a markup to the MPC. The LCC and PBP 

analyses take into account only those costs that vary with increasing equipment efficiency. Costs 

that are constant over all the efficiency levels do not impact analysis results. Shipping costs are 

generally determined by the size of a unit, and the design options being accounted for in this 

rulemaking do not result in notable changes in equipment size. Hence, DOE assumes that the 

shipping costs for higher-efficiency equipment will not be different from the shipping costs for 

the baseline equipment. Therefore, shipping costs do not have an effect on the LCC-PBP analysis 

and NIA.

2.6 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS 

For the 2009 rulemaking, DOE conducted an energy use analysis for display cases 

connected to remote condensing units in supermarkets using the whole building simulation tool 

DOE 2.2R. Simulations were used to study the effect of different climates on the equipment

energy consumption and impact of improved equipment efficiency on the building heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) energy consumption. In both cases, the impacts were 

found to be insignificant. For the final rule, DOE used the daily energy consumption values 

calculated from the engineering analysis for the LCC-PBP and national impact analyses, without 

any adjustments for HVAC impacts. 

DOE received the following comments in response to a plan for the energy use 

characterization for commercial refrigeration equipment outlined in the framework document. 

Several interested parties suggested potential sources of data to aid in the energy use 

analysis. Zero Zone stated that the University of Colorado has a research project in place 

studying the interdependency of CRE and HVAC loads. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 128) True 

suggested that ASHRAE 189.1 may be a good source of data. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 134) 

California Codes and Standards recommended that DOE review the DOE-2.12R refrigeration 

simulation tool, and consult the SCE Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center as well as the PG&E 

Food Service Technology Center regarding past research and possible future coordination. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 11) California Codes and Standards also 

stated that many grocery chains have studied the effects of lighting controls, and suggested that 

DOE supplement its own findings with this end-user research. (California Codes and Standards, 

No. 1.3.005 at p. 11)

The Northwest Joint Comment included several points addressing the energy use 

analysis. First, it stated that DOE will need to significantly upgrade the energy use analysis from 

that used in the 2009 final rule because there are a number of new classes, especially selfcontained equipment, that have a much larger impact on HVAC loads. Moreover, ambient 

relative humidity will affect the refrigeration system performance much more than with remote 

condensing units, and the model will need to reflect this. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 
2-35

at p. 5) Secondly, the Northwest Joint Comment commented that potential test procedure 

changes to accommodate new technologies will require modeling of those technologies in this 

analysis, and that such modeling may need to be based upon test data. (Northwest Joint 

Comment, No. 1.3.003 at pp. 5−6) Finally, it stated that the division of market share among 

remote condensing, self-contained, and secondary-loop equipment will complicate this analysis, 

as each type will have to be appropriately modeled. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 

6)

Kysor/Warren stated that commercial refrigeration equipment has a large impact on 

HVAC loads and that, similarly, the temperature and relative humidity of the store has a large 

impact on the energy use of the refrigeration equipment. (Kysor/Warren, No. 1.2.006 at p. 126) 

Adding to this, ACEEE commented that commercial refrigeration equipment will have a larger 

impact on HVAC loads in convenience stores, where there are predominantly self-contained 

units. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 128)

California Codes and Standards commented on night curtains, stating that the addition of 

this technology would result in a significant whole-building energy use impact. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 12)

DOE conducted a brief evaluation of the effect of efficiency improvement in selfcontained commercial refrigeration equipment on the building HVAC loads by simulating a selfcontained freezer in restaurant buildings. DOE found the effect on building heating and cooling 

loads to be negligible. During the NOPR stage of the current rulemaking, DOE intends to 

conduct a similar evaluation to study the effect of night curtains on the building HVAC loads. 

DOE will take into account all potential sources of information in conducting the energy use 

analysis. 

California Codes and Standards commented regarding the lighting controls. First, it stated 

that, unlike fluorescent lighting, LED lighting does not degrade due to being turned off and on, 

making LED better suited to lighting controls. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 

11) Moreover, it commented that 24-hour per day lighting operation should be the base case for a 

comparison of the savings of motion-activated LED lighting, for which DOE should develop 

estimates of the amount of time during which there is motion around a case. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at pp. 11−12) Finally, California Codes and Standards added that the 

greatest benefit from lighting controls may come in stores that operate 24-hours per day but have

periods of low activity. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 12)

LED lighting and occupancy sensors (motion-activated lighting controls) have been 

included in the list of design options. DOE intends to use 24-hour lighting operation as the base 

case to calculate energy savings from lighting controls because this is considered to be the 

standard mode of operation in cases not equipped with lighting controls or occupancy sensors.

California Codes and Standards stated that if DOE considers putting transparent doors on 

open vertical display cases, the potential energy savings interaction effect would be significant, 

and that this could be validated using DOE-2.12R or another building energy model. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 12)
2-36

For the reasons given in section 2.2.1.5, DOE will not consider transparent doors as a 

design option for open display cases. Therefore, DOE did not carry out energy use analysis 

comparing the impact of transparent doors on open display cases as suggested by California 

Codes and Standards. 

2.7 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

The effects of amended standards on individual customers usually include a reduction in 

operating cost and an increase in purchase cost, which together determine the economic impact 

of standards on individual customers. This chapter describes the following two metrics that DOE 

used in the analysis to measure this impact:

• Life-cycle cost is the total customer cost of an appliance or equipment, generally over the 

life of the appliance or equipment, including purchase and operating costs. The latter 

consist of maintenance, repair, and energy costs. Future operating costs are discounted to 

the time of purchase and summed over the lifetime of the appliance or equipment.

• Payback period measures the amount of time it takes customers to recover the assumed 

higher purchase price of a more energy-efficient piece of equipment through reduced 

operating costs.

New or amended energy conservation standards typically affect equipment operating 

expenses and purchase prices. DOE evaluated the LCC to analyze the net economic effect of 

amended commercial refrigeration equipment standards on customers. Inputs to the LCC 

calculation include the installed customer cost of the equipment (customer purchase price plus 

installation costs and sales tax), and operating expenses (repair, maintenance and energy costs), 

equipment lifetimes, and discount rates.

The LCC and PBP model was developed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets combined 

with Crystal Ball, a commercially available add-in for modeling uncertainty. The LCC and PBP 

analysis is carried out using Monte Carlo simulations in which key inputs are treated as 

probability distributions rather than single-point values. By this approach, DOE takes into 

account the uncertainty and variability of certain inputs. Another distinct advantage of this 

approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of customers achieving LCC savings or 

attaining certain PBP values, in addition to identifying the mean and median LCC savings and 

PBP for each efficiency level.

DOE received a number of comments from interested parties on the LCC and PBP 

analysis methods and proposed sources of data.

2.7.1 Equipment Lifetimes

Equipment lifetimes are important inputs for determining the LCC savings. The savings 

in LCC of higher-efficiency equipment accrue over the lifetime of the equipment in the form of 

energy cost savings. For the 2009 CRE rulemaking, DOE used equipment lifetime values of 10 

years for large food retail stores and 15 years for small stores.
2-37

Interested parties provided a variety of comments in response to DOE’s request for input 

on equipment lifetimes in the framework document. Zero Zone stated that a 10-year lifetime for 

large retailers and a 15-year lifetime for other customers would be sound estimates. (Zero Zone, 

No. 1.2.006 at p. 160) AHRI agreed, stating that it believes the average equipment lifetime to be 

approximately 10 years. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 6) True added that efforts to increase 

efficiency are leading to less oversizing of refrigeration systems, causing equipment to run more 

continuously and thus shortening equipment lifetimes. (True, No. 1.2.006 as pp. 162−163)

Other interested parties expressed alternative views on the issue of equipment lifetime. 

California Codes and Standards commented that reducing the equipment lifetime for grocery 

stores and multi-line retailers to 10 years may underestimate the value of the equipment and 

savings extended across multiple owners, and suggested that DOE interview end-users regarding 

the frequency of display case renovation and replacement, as well as regarding what is done with 

retired display cases. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 12) The Northwest Joint 

Comment stated that DOE’s current equipment lifetime assumptions are too simplistic and that 

the impact of the used equipment market will require a differentiation between “period of first 

ownership and equipment lifetime.” The comment added that, while DOE’s assumed averages 

may be close considering the broad distribution of actual lifetimes, data will be required to 

ground the analysis in reality. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 6) The Northwest 

Joint Comment also cautioned DOE not to make any assumptions regarding possible shortening 

of equipment lifetimes due to increased loads and competition. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 

1.3.003 at p. 7)

Statements by some interested parties regarding the resale of used equipment led to 

discussion about the used equipment market. The Northwest Joint Comment stated that 

equipment is owned up to seven times before being scrapped, and suggested a distribution of 

lifetimes rather than assuming a single lifetime value. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.2.006 at 

p. 161) True observed that customers with lower budgets do not buy new equipment, that a 

restaurant refrigerator has an average of seven owners, and that higher costs of new equipment 

extend the life of older, less efficient equipment. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 153) AHRI stated that 

DOE needs to analyze the growing market for used equipment, which has likely expanded in 

recent years in light of the economic downturn. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 3) The Northwest Joint 

Comment agreed, stating that there is little data regarding the used CRE market, and that if used 

equipment is a large and/or growing part of the market, data will be needed for this analysis. 

(Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 6) For sources of this information, True suggested 

that DOE check with the National Restaurant Association, and stated that there also exist several 

dealers’ associations that deal in new and used equipment. (True, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 172−173) 

ACEEE agreed, stating that there is a subclass of brokers that deal in used equipment for 

restaurants and other sectors, and that such a perspective might be useful. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 

at p. 172) Zero Zone stated that high-efficiency glass doors save energy through measures that 

include decreased anti-sweat protection, which has caused issues in some store applications and 

geographic areas, and could potentially lead to end-users retaining their existing equipment for a 

longer period. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 167)

In the 2009 rulemaking, grocery store display cases formed the major share of equipment 

classes. This equipment tends to be used by grocery stores for 10 to 15 years and generally is 
2-38

replaced for cosmetic reasons during store renovations. DOE believes that the salvage value of 

such equipment is not significant. Therefore, for 2009 final rule, DOE assumed the period of first 

ownership as the equipment lifetime for supermarket and grocery store display cases.

The current rulemaking includes a larger proportion of self-contained equipment that is 

typically used in markets other than grocery stores, such as restaurants, cafeterias, and 

convenience stores. Many of these operators tend to purchase used equipment. Therefore, period 

of first ownership is not a good estimate of the equipment lifetime. Chapter 3, Market and 

Technology Assessment, provides a list of references that estimate the typical equipment lifetime 

values for self-contained equipment to be in the range of 7 to 12 years.3,4 Therefore, irrespective 

of the number of times the equipment changes ownership, DOE intends to use an average 

lifetime value of 10 years for self-contained equipment. DOE will consider any information 

concerning ways to make the analyses more realistic in terms of the impact of used markets on 

product life, continuity of product usage, or other relevant impacts.

The equipment lifetime values of 10 years and 15 years, mentioned above, are assumed 

average values. To account for the comments from the interested parties, DOE used a 

distribution of equipment lifetimes with average values of 10 years and 15 years, as applicable. 

DOE encourages interested parties to comment on this approach. 

2.7.2 New Markets

In its written statement, the Northwest Joint Comment addressed the subject of new 

markets that may need to be recognized as part of the LCC analysis. It cautioned that this LCC 

analysis would be more complex than past analyses due to the wider range of markets associated 

with the newly covered equipment, each with its own financial characteristics and each requiring 

a distinct analysis. As an example of such a market, the Northwest Joint Comment stated that it 

believes the government and quasi-governmental institution sector is large enough to warrant its 

inclusion in the range of discount rates used in the analysis. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 

1.3.003 at p. 6)

A major share of self-contained equipment is generally used in smaller establishments 

that do not employ remote compressor racks. For the current rulemaking, DOE has included 

additional markets not examined explicitly in the previous rulemaking. These are fast food and 

full service restaurants and other foodservice establishments (e.g., cafeterias, caterers, and 

others). Based on the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau data, food sales from “cafeterias, grill buffets 

and buffets” constitute less than 2 percent of the total sales revenue of all “food services and 

drinking places.”5 Therefore, DOE determined that the government and quasi-governmental 

institution sector forms a small portion of the foodservice sector and does not merit separate 

analysis. This sector was subsumed within the “other foodservice establishments” category.

2.7.3 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs

Installation costs are the labor and material costs to customers for installing the 

equipment. Maintenance costs are the labor and material costs for preventative maintenance and 

lighting maintenance. The repair costs are the costs to the equipment owner for replacing or 

repairing equipment components that have failed. During the public meeting and in subsequent 
2-39

written comments, numerous interested parties expressed a variety of views regarding 

installation, maintenance, and repair costs and the variation of those costs with equipment 

efficiency.

Southern Store Fixtures stated that manufacturers are under pressure from customers to 

reduce labor costs associated with their equipment, and that this activity cost should be 

considered in the rulemaking. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 206) Southern Store 

Fixtures also added that, as equipment gets more complex and incorporates features such as 

electronic controls, installation and maintenance costs increase accordingly. (Southern Store 

Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 156−157) Zero Zone agreed, suggesting that installation and 

maintenance costs may increase 10 to 20 percent due to the incorporation of advanced 

technologies such as electronic controls. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 156) Zero Zone further 

clarified this suggestion, stating that automatic controls such as electronic expansion valves and 

anti-sweat heater controls result in increased setup, warranty, and maintenance costs, while 

passive devices such as ECMs do not incur these costs beyond the inherently higher cost of the 

feature. (Zero Zone, No. 1.3.007 at p. 2) California Codes and Standards also expressed that 

electronic controls may increase maintenance costs and suggested that DOE review its findings 

on this topic from the refrigerated beverage vending machine rulemaking. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 12) AHRI agreed, further stating that it would be incorrect to assume 

that installation, maintenance, and repair costs would not change for more efficient equipment. 

AHRI continued that DOE cannot assume that the price to service the refrigeration system will 

remain constant with time and efficiency, and that larger coils needed for higher efficiencies will 

require more refrigerant to charge. Finally, AHRI suggested that DOE survey parts distributors 

to find price differences between permanent split capacitor motors and ECMs, and between twostage and single-stage compressors. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 5)

Other interested parties expressed a differing opinion on this topic. The Northwest Joint 

Comment stated that, in the absence of a final list of technology options, it is unwilling to agree 

that installation, maintenance, and repair costs will certainly rise with increased efficiency, 

further stating that even the lowest efficiency equipment has become much more complex in 

recent years. The comment stated that any party claiming that these costs will rise with increased 

efficiency should provide data to substantiate such claims. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 

1.3.003 at p. 6) Regarding specific technologies, California Codes and Standards commented that 

LSHXs would reduce the chance of liquid refrigerant entering the compressor, thus reducing 

compressor maintenance costs on average, and that a larger condenser or evaporator would not 

be expected to impact maintenance costs significantly, especially during the reduced lifetimes 

DOE is applying to grocery stores. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p.12)

A majority of the technology options under consideration for this rulemaking are similar 

to those considered in the 2009 rulemaking. In the 2009 final rule, installation costs were 

assumed to be constant for all remote condensing and self-contained equipment, with selfcontained equipment installation costs assumed to be much lower than those of remote 

condensing equipment. Given the current list of technology options, and based on discussions 

with manufacturers, DOE does not believe that there is any basis to assume that higher efficiency 

equipment would incur any additional installation costs than the baseline equipment. DOE 
2-40

encourages interested parties to provide specific information in order for DOE to reconsider such 

an approach. 

DOE splits maintenance costs into regular preventative maintenance costs and lighting 

maintenance costs. Typically, manufacturers prescribe routine annual or bi-annual preventative 

maintenance procedures for commercial refrigeration equipment. These preventative 

maintenance procedures are similar for similar types of equipment and do not vary with 

increased efficiency levels. Lighting maintenance costs are incurred by end-users in order to 

replace failed display case lights. DOE assumes lifetime values of 2 years for fluorescent lights 

and 5.7 years for LED lights. Cost of replacement is a direct function of the original equipment 

manufacturer cost. This approach typically yields an increase in lighting maintenance costs for 

higher efficiency lighting. Therefore, the overall maintenance cost varies only with lighting 

maintenance cost and is not affected by other technology options. In addition to the above 

comments, DOE requests information from manufacturers and other interested parties to present 

maintenance cost information specific to the listed technology options in order to facilitate fair 

estimation of maintenance costs for each efficiency level.

DOE calculates repair costs as a direct function of the cost of the components to the 

original refrigeration equipment manufacturer. DOE applied a markup value to the original 

equipment manufacturer cost to arrive at an approximate cost to repair or replace a particular 

component. Assumed failure rates of different components are presented in chapter 8. This 

approach typically results in an increased repair costs for higher efficiency equipment because 

the original equipment manufacturer cost for higher efficiency components is larger than the cost 

of the components in the baseline equipment. This approach is similar to the one used in 2009 

final rule. 

DOE encourages interested parties to comment on the methodology for estimating 

installation, maintenance, and repair costs. The engineering analysis presents a list of technology 

options under consideration for this rulemaking. DOE requests information specific to these and 

any other technology options. Based on the information received from interested parties, DOE 

would consider revising the above proposed approach to installation, maintenance, and repair 

costs.

2.8 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

The shipments analysis is used to estimate future equipment shipments as well as the 

current stock of commercial refrigeration equipment. It provides crucial input for estimating the 

national energy savings (NES), net present value (NPV), and the manufacturer impact analysis.

A number of interested parties provided comments that could help guide the shipments 

analysis. The Northwest Joint Comment stated that the shipments analysis will be difficult to 

conduct without a better understanding of equipment lifetimes and markets, and that DOE will 

need to have a good understanding of current market trends in order to use new construction data 

to estimate stocks and shipments. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at pp. 7−8) The 

Northwest Joint Comment also expressed a desire for DOE to obtain several years’ worth of 

shipments data in order to gain a better understanding of shipment patterns and stocks, and stated 

that NAFEM should be added to the list of data sources for shipments data. (Northwest Joint 
2-41

Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 7) Southern Store Fixtures stated that there was a trend in equipment 

sales toward more open-type display cases, both self-contained and remote, going into 

convenience stores. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 161−162) True added that endusers who rent their buildings tend to use self-contained units. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 164)

For the 2009 final rule, AHRI provided 2005 shipments data based on input from its 

members. While these shipments did not constitute a complete representation of the commercial 

refrigeration equipment market at that time, DOE believed this data was the best available and 

used the AHRI data as representative for the commercial refrigeration equipment industry for the 

2009 final rule.

For the current rulemaking, DOE augmented the 2005 shipments data provided by AHRI 

with data from reports published by NAFEM and Freedonia Group Incorporated. While NAFEM 

provided shipments estimates by equipment category used in foodservice industry, Freedonia 

reports provide shipments data for both the foodservice and food retail industries. Freedonia 

reports also present the total commercial refrigeration market trend over the past few years. 

Chapter 9 of preliminary analysis TSD provides further details about shipments analysis.

During the Framework public meeting, DOE requested interested parties to provide 

shipments data, but did not receive any new data. DOE encourages interested parties to comment 

on the proposed approach (chapter 9) and provide additional information to improve the 

shipments analysis.

NRDC stated that projecting growth within a category will not be simple because

equipment owners will have different options, ranging from replacing all equipment to procuring 

phased-out refrigerants through recyclers. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 6) NRDC further suggested 

that DOE evaluate the cost of replacement R-22 for owners wishing to maintain their current 

equipment, and that DOE should also review the likelihood of some installations modifying their 

equipment to permit the use of non-hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants. NRDC also 

suggested that DOE include estimates of new units to replace existing systems, which will switch 

to HFC alternatives or secondary coolant systems, and use this data to review the total equivalent 

warming impact (TEWI) of the forecast sales. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at pp. 6−7)

DOE calculates current equipment stock and future shipments based on the historical 

shipments data and forecasted new construction data. DOE presumes that virtually all 

replacement equipment for existing HCFC equipment will be HFC equipment, but that these 

replacements will happen over time invariably on a schedule that corresponds with the 

equipment lifetime. While there may be some early replacements due to phasing out of HCFC 

refrigerants, DOE has no ability to weigh the two competing scenarios of replacement versus 

repair or retrofitting. Therefore, DOE did not factor the effect of the phasing out of HCFC 

refrigerants into the shipments analysis.

DOE is not covering secondary coolant equipment in this rulemaking for reasons stated 

in section 2.1.2.1. DOE’s response to the TEWI of refrigerant leakages is presented in section 

2.13.7. 
2-42

2.9 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE quantifies national impacts of energy conservation standards using two metrics: (1) 

NES, and (2) NPV of future savings. The NES values, expressed in quads (quadrillion Btu), are 

the cumulative energy savings as a result of the new standards over the 30-year time frame of 

DOE’s analysis, 2016–2045. The NPV of future savings is also calculated over the 30 years and 

is expressed in dollars discounted to the present year, 2010$. 

Inputs for NES calculations are: (1) annual unit energy consumption; (2) shipments; (3) 

equipment stock; and (4) site-to-source conversion factor. Inputs for determining NPV are: (1) 

total annual installed cost; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; (3) a discount factor; (4) 

present value of costs; and (5) present value of savings. For preliminary analysis, DOE 

calculated net savings each year as the difference between the base case (scenario in the absence 

of the proposed standards) and each efficiency level within each equipment class. DOE 

calculated savings over the life of each product, accounting for differences in annual energy 

rates. DOE calculated NPV as the difference between the present value of operating cost savings 

and the present value of total installed costs. 

As directed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOE used 3-percent and 

7-percent real discount rates for its NPV analysis. DOE also discounted non-monetary indicators, 

such as physical units of measure, for presentation in the TSD.

Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD provides additional details on the national impact 

analysis.

The Northwest Joint Comment stated that the NIA will need special care in light of the 

current economic climate, and that volatility in shipments, energy prices, and energy demand 

could result in a broad range of potential outcomes from the analysis. (Northwest Joint 

Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 8)

DOE will account for variations in the electricity prices in the form of regional variation 

in electricity prices and price forecasts, as well as examine differing forecasts for electricity 

prices based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) economic growth scenarios. The 

impacts of the current economic climate are factored into the analysis in two ways. First, the 

shipments analysis is based on a lowered estimate of historical 2009 total shipments (lowered 

vis-à-vis estimates based on pre-recession shipments). Second, DOE uses the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) projections of growth in commercial building stocks to estimate 

future CRE shipments. The NEMS building stock projections included a significant downturn in 

2009 through 2011, and show new building additions not returning to pre-recession levels until 

nearly 2020.6

DOE notes that the major impact of the economic climate is on the purchase of new units 

for installation in new buildings. DOE recognizes that in a weak economic climate some owners 

may postpone replacement of existing units, which would result in longer service life of 

equipment and a reduction in shipments of replacement units. DOE has no data, however, with 

which to calibrate such a relationship or to use such a relationship in the context of future 

forecasts. For this reason, DOE assumes that for the purposes of the shipments analysis and NIA, 
2-43

purchases to replace existing units are less a function of the economic climate than of the age of 

the existing units. Following publication of the preliminary analysis, DOE will provide interested 

parties with opportunities to comment on and provide information related to this topic. 

2.10 PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE performed a preliminary MIA to estimate the financial impact of higher energy 

conservation standards on commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers and to calculate 

the impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA relies on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry-cash-flow model customized for the commercial 

refrigeration industry. The GRIM inputs are information on the industry cost structure, 

shipments, and revenues. This includes information from many of the analyses described above, 

such as manufacturing costs and prices from the engineering analysis and shipments forecasts. 

The key GRIM output is the industry net present value. Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) 

will produce different results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses factors such as 

equipment characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, and market and equipment trends, 

and includes assessment of the impacts of standards on manufacturer subgroups. Chapter 12 of 

the preliminary TSD describes the complete preliminary MIA.

DOE conducts each MIA in three phases and will further tailor the analytical framework 

for each MIA based on comments from interested parties. In Phase I, DOE creates an industry 

profile to characterize the industry and identify important issues that require consideration. In 

Phase II, DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and interview questionnaire to guide 

subsequent discussions. In Phase III, DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of 

standards quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE assesses industry and subgroup cash flow and 

NPV using the GRIM. DOE then assesses impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, 

employment, and regulatory burden based on manufacturer interview feedback and discussions. 

DOE gathered preliminary MIA information during the preliminary manufacturer 

interviews conducted for the engineering analysis. See chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD for a 

summary of manufacturers’ concerns regarding the impacts of new energy conservation 

standards for this rulemaking.

As part of the NOPR, DOE will seek comments from manufacturers about their potential 

loss of market share, changes in the efficiency distribution within each industry, and the total 

reduction in equipment shipments at each new energy conservation standard level. DOE will 

then estimate the impacts on the industry quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE seeks further 

comment from interested parties about the impact of new standards on domestic manufacturers. 

The following is an overview of the information DOE will collect and the analysis it will 

conduct during the preliminary MIA (chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD). 

2.10.1 Industry Cash-Flow Analysis

The industry cash-flow analysis relies primarily on the GRIM. DOE uses the GRIM to 

analyze the financial impacts of more stringent energy conservation standards on the industry 
2-44

that produces the equipment covered by the standard. The GRIM analysis uses many factors to 

determine annual cash flows from a new standard: annual expected revenues; manufacturer 

costs, including cost of goods sold, depreciation, research and development, selling, general, and 

administrative expenses; taxes; and conversion capital expenditures. DOE compares the results 

against base-case projections that involve no new standards. The financial impact of new 

standards is then the difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows. Other 

performance metrics such as return on invested capital are available from the GRIM. For more 

information on the industry cash-flow analysis, refer to chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD.

2.10.2 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis 

Industry cost estimates are not adequate to assess differential impacts among subgroups 

of manufacturers. For example, small and niche manufacturers, or manufacturers whose cost 

structure differs significantly from the industry average, could be more negatively affected by the 

imposition of standards. Therefore, DOE typically uses the results of the industry 

characterization to group manufacturers exhibiting similar characteristics.

DOE outlined the process it uses to establish manufacturer subgroups in the framework 

document and sought comment from interested parties on any potential subgroups within the 

industry. 

During the public meeting, Southern Store Fixtures stated that compressor manufacturers 

are a subgroup of which DOE should be aware when performing the manufacturer impact 

analysis. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 183) In a written comment, AHRI agreed, 

suggesting that DOE assess impacts of a rule on different types of component suppliers, 

including manufacturers of compressors, motors, and valves. AHRI also suggested that DOE 

analyze impacts on dealers, distributors, and contractors. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 6)

Energy conservation rulemakings can significantly impact the design options of an 

industry. The redesign of products between the effective date and the compliance date of a 

rulemaking can result in substantial fluctuation in demand for key components. DOE analyzes 

the potential for capacity constraints, including those from supply chain bottlenecks, in its 

manufacturer impact analysis. DOE seeks additional comment on the key components that are 

likely to have sharp changes in demand as a result of amended standards. DOE’s manufacturer 

impact analysis for commercial refrigeration equipment, however, focuses on the impact to 

manufacturers and not the impact on dealers, distributors, and contractors. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1)(A))

During the manufacturer interview process conducted as part of the NOPR, DOE will 

discuss the potential subgroups and subgroup members it has identified for the analysis. DOE 

will encourage manufacturers to recommend subgroups or characteristics appropriate for the 

subgroup analysis. DOE will also attempt to contact component suppliers, dealers, distributors, 

and contractors during the manufacturer interview process conducted for the NOPR to seek 

information for inputs to the MIA. For more detail on the manufacturer subgroup analysis, see 

chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD. 
2-45

2.10.3 Competitive Impacts Assessment

DOE must consider whether a new standard is likely to reduce industry competition, and 

the Attorney General must determine the impacts, if any, of reduced competition. DOE will 

attempt to gather and report firm-specific financial information and impacts. The competitive 

impacts assessment will focus on assessing the impacts on smaller manufacturers. DOE will base 

this assessment on manufacturing cost data and information collected from interviews with 

manufacturers. The interviews will focus on gathering information to help assess asymmetrical 

cost increases to some manufacturers, increased proportion of fixed costs potentially increasing 

business risks, and potential barriers to market entry (e.g., proprietary technologies). The NOPR 

will be submitted to the Attorney General for a review of the impacts of standards on 

competition. The Attorney General’s comments on the proposed rule will be considered in 

preparing the final rule.

2.10.4 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

DOE recognizes and seeks to mitigate the overlapping effects on manufacturers of new or 

revised DOE standards and other regulatory actions affecting the same equipment. DOE will 

analyze and consider the impact on manufacturers of multiple, product-specific regulatory 

actions. DOE outlined the cumulative regulatory burden process in the framework document and 

sought comment on any additional regulations facing the commercial refrigeration industry. 

DOE received several comments from interested parties regarding cumulative regulatory burden 

at the Framework public meeting and in written comments.

ACEEE suggested that DOE account for possible variability within the regulatory 

landscape by performing scenario analyses addressing bundled impacts of potential regulatory 

changes. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 184−185) DOE does not intend to analyze the impacts of

pending legislation or regulations that have not yet been promulgated. However, DOE 

incorporates the potential impacts of multiple regulations in the cumulative regulatory burden 

section of the MIA. DOE will work with manufacturers to understand the regulatory landscape 

during manufacturer impact interviews.

Regarding regulatory burden, AHRI stated that there is pending legislation that, if passed, 

will reduce the amount of HFC refrigerants available to the industry, thus creating a significant 

impact on refrigerant costs. AHRI further urged DOE to consider the impacts of various climate 

change bills being considered, which could lead to curtailment of HFC availability as soon as 

2012 or as late as 2019. Finally, AHRI stated that higher efficiency equipment requires more 

refrigerant to charge, and that proposed HFC regulation could lead to dramatic increases in 

refrigerant prices and a possible shortage of sufficient refrigerants to meet the requirements of a 

new standard. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 5)

DOE uses HFC refrigerants as the basis for its analyses. While pending climate change 

legislation might result in a phase-out or production caps for HFC refrigerants over the course of 

this rulemaking, any analysis of potential impacts before such legislation is enacted would be 

speculative. At this time, DOE requests data or information on projected HFC cost increases and 

the basis for such projections. DOE also seeks comment on the extent to which interested parties 
2-46

expect projected HFC costs to increase, the timing of these increases, and the certainty of the 

increases.

AHRI stated that California is working on new Title 24 regulations that will most likely 

establish new prescriptive requirements for this equipment, and that several states have enacted 

their own climate change legislation to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (AHRI, No. 

1.3.008 at p. 6)

Because of the speculative nature of pending legislation, DOE does not analyze the 

potential impacts of pending legislation; however, the Department seeks comment on any 

existing state legislation that is likely to have significant impact on manufacturers, elaboration of 

the changes in business that result from state legislation, and quantitative estimates of the 

conversion and compliance costs. In its analysis of the cumulative regulatory burden for CRE 

manufacturers, DOE includes the commercial refrigeration equipment energy conservation 

standard that was adopted in 2009 and that will go into effect in January 1, 2012. (10 CFR Part 

431, Jan. 9, 2009) 

2.10.5 Preliminary Results for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis

As part of the preliminary MIA, DOE discussed potential impacts of new energy 

conservation standards with manufacturers responsible for a majority of commercial refrigeration 

equipment sales. These discussions occurred during the interviews DOE conducted for the 

engineering analysis. The interviews provided valuable information that DOE used to evaluate 

the impacts of new energy conservation standards on manufacturers’ cash flows, manufacturing 

capacities, and employment levels. DOE discusses its findings from the preliminary MIA 

interviews in the executive summary and in chapter 13 of the preliminary TSD. During the 

Framework public meeting and comment period, DOE also received comments regarding general 

manufacturer impacts of amended energy conservation standards.

Several manufacturers commented regarding the burden of added testing costs. MasterBilt expressed concern regarding the burden of having to test hundreds of equipment models in 

different configurations. (Master-Bilt, No. 1.2.006 at p. 200) True also stated its concern 

regarding the growing cost of testing, largely due to the third-party certification requirement for 

programs such as ENERGY STAR, as well as for international sales. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 

201) Zero Zone echoed this sentiment, stating that equipment testing is a significant burden on 

the company. (Zero Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 202)

DOE acknowledges that the cost of testing can be a significant burden. As part of the 

manufacturer impact analysis, DOE will investigate testing costs as a component of product 

conversion costs associated with this energy conservation standard.

Hoshizaki stated that DOE should not amend energy efficiency standards for the EPACT 

2005 equipment since the current (EPACT 2005) standards went into effect January 1, 2010. 

Hoshizaki believes that this would place a significant burden on manufacturers who have just 

finished working to meet the EPACT 2005 standards, and suggested that the revision of these 

standards be delayed by 3 years. (Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 2)
2-47

DOE acknowledges the potential for successive regulation to create a cumulative burden 

that can negatively impact an industry. DOE encourages manufacturers to share information on 

the conversion costs of current EPACT 2005 standards on industry. This information will be 

incorporated into DOE’s manufacturer impact analysis and investigation of cumulative 

regulatory burden. 

2.11 LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

The LCC subgroup analysis evaluates economic impacts on selected customer subgroups 

that might be adversely affected by a change in the national energy conservation standards for 

the considered equipment. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of customers in part 

by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular customers.

DOE will use the LCC spreadsheet model to evaluate impacts on customer subgroups. 

DOE can analyze the LCC for any subgroup by applying the LCC spreadsheet model to only that 

subgroup. DOE is particularly sensitive to increases in the customer price and LCC of the 

considered equipment, wishing to avoid a negative economic impact on any identified customer 

subgroup. 

The Northwest Joint Comment agreed with DOE that the increased scope of this 

rulemaking as compared to the 2009 final rule will require analysis of additional consumer 

subgroups, such as independent restaurant owners, coffee shops and delis, and schools. 

(Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 8)

DOE will review the available information with respect to the identified customer 

subgroups. DOE will consider investigating the impacts on independent grocery stores, small 

convenience stores, and independent foodservice establishments as consumer subgroups in its 

LCC subgroup analysis. 

2.12 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

The utility impact analysis includes an analysis of the effect of new energy conservation 

standards on the electric and the gas utility industries. For this analysis, DOE adapted the 

National Energy Modeling System, a large multi-sectoral, partial-equilibrium model of the U.S. 

energy sector that the EIA developed throughout the past decade primarily for preparing EIA’s 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). In previous rulemakings, a variant of NEMS (currently termed 

NEMS-BT, BT referring to DOE’s Building Technologies program) was developed to address 

the specific impacts of an energy conservation standard. 

Available in the public domain, NEMS produces a widely recognized baseline energy 

forecast for the United States through 2030. The typical NEMS outputs include forecasts of 

electricity sales, prices, and electric generating capacity. The energy savings impacts from 

amended energy conservation standards are modeled using NEMS-BT to generate forecasts that 

deviate from the AEO reference case. 
2-48

During the Framework public meeting, the Northwest Joint Comment urged DOE to 

examine and analyze the dampening effect that energy conservation standards have on electricity 

prices. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 179−181)

Inclusion of the dampening effect of standards on electricity prices is an issue that affects 

all equipment standards rulemakings. In the absence of an appropriate methodology for 

measuring such effects, DOE will not take the dampening effect into consideration for this 

rulemaking, but will continue to consider the development of an appropriate methodology.

2.13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a), DOE intends to prepare an environmental assessment 

of the impacts of amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. The primary environmental effects of these standards would be reduced power plant 

emissions resulting from reduced consumption of electricity. DOE will assess these 

environmental effects by using NEMS-BT to provide key inputs to its analysis. The portion of 

the environmental assessment that will be produced by NEMS-BT considers CO2, nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg). The environmental assessment also considers impacts on sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions and discusses particulate matter (PM) emissions. After a brief 

discussion of general methodology, this section will address each of the relevant emissions. The

following section, section 2.14, explains how DOE plans to monetize the benefits associated with 

emissions reductions.

2.13.1 Carbon Dioxide

In the absence of any Federal emissions control regulation of power plant emissions of 

CO2, a DOE standard is likely to result in reductions of these emissions. The CO2 emission 

reductions likely to result from a standard will be estimated using NEMS-BT and national energy 

savings estimates drawn from the NIA spreadsheet model. The net benefit of the standard is the 

difference between emissions estimated by NEMS-BT at each standard level considered and the 

AEO Reference Case. NEMS-BT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed module that provides 

results with broad coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects.

2.13.2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO2 emissions from affected EGUs are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap 

and trading programs, and DOE has preliminarily determined that these programs create 

uncertainty about the potential standards’ impact on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous states and the 

District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states and D.C. are also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. Although CAIR has been remanded to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

(D.C. Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remains in effect 

temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earlier opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule proposal, a 
2-49

replacement for CAIR, which would limit emissions from EGUs in 32 states, potentially through 

the interstate trading of allowances, among other options. 75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010). 

The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among electric generating units 

(EGUs) and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, and under the Transport Rule if it is finalized, any excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the imposition of an 

efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. However, if the standard resulted in a permanent increase in the quantity of 

unused emissions allowances, there would be an overall reduction in SO2 emissions from the 

standards. While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of efficiency 

standards on SO2 emissions covered by the existing cap and trade system, the NEMS-BT 

modeling system that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that no 

physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2. 

2.13.3 Nitrogen Oxides

A cap on NOx emissions, affecting electric generating units in the CAIR region, would 

mean that the standards for commercial refrigeration equipment may have little or no physical 

effect on NOx emissions in the 28 eastern states and the D.C. covered by CAIR or any states 

covered by the proposed Transport Rule if the Transport Rule if finalized. The standards would, 

however, reduce NOx emissions in those 22 states not affected by the CAIR. As a result, DOE 

plans to use NEMS-BT to estimate the emissions reductions from possible standards in the states 

where emissions are not capped.

2.13.4 Mercury

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOx, future emissions of Hg would have been subject to 

emissions caps. In May 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). 70 FR 28606 

(May 18, 2005). CAMR would have permanently capped emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired power plants in all states by 2010. However, on February 8, 2008, the D.C. 

Circuit issued a decision in New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which it vacated 

CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA has decided to develop emissions standards for 

power plants under the Clean Air Act (Section 112), consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion 

on CAMR. See http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/certpetition_withdrawal.pdf. Pending 

EPA’s forthcoming revisions to the rule, DOE is excluding CAMR from its environmental 

assessment. In the absence of CAMR, a DOE standard would likely reduce Hg emissions and 

DOE plans to use NEMS-BT to estimate these emission reductions. However, DOE continues to 

review the impact of rules that reduce energy consumption on Hg emissions, and may revise its 

assessment of Hg emission reductions in future rulemakings.

2.13.5 Particulate Matter

DOE acknowledges that PM exposure can impact human health. Power plant emissions 

can have either direct or indirect impacts on PM. A portion of the pollutants emitted by a power 

plant, called direct, or primary PM emissions, are in the form of particulates as they leave the 

smoke stack. However, the great majority of PM emissions associated with power plants are in 
2-50

the form of secondary sulfates, which are produced a significant distance away from power 

plants by complex atmospheric chemical reactions that often involve the gaseous (nonparticulate) emissions of power plants, mainly SO2 and NOx. The quantity of the secondary 

sulfates produced is determined by a very complex set of factors including the atmospheric 

quantities of SO2 and NOx, and other atmospheric constituents and conditions. Because these 

highly complex chemical reactions produce PM comprised of different constituents from 

different sources, EPA does not distinguish direct PM emissions from power plants from the 

secondary sulfate particulates in its ambient air quality requirements, PM monitoring of ambient 

air quality, or PM emissions inventories. For these reasons, it is not currently possible to 

determine how the amended standard impacts either direct or indirect PM emissions. Therefore, 

DOE is not planning to assess the impact of these standards on PM emissions. Further, as 

described previously, it is uncertain whether efficiency standards will result in a net decrease in 

power plant emissions of SO2, which are now largely regulated by cap and trade systems.

2.14 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS

DOE plans to consider the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and other pollutants that are expected to result from each of the standard levels 

considered.

In order to estimate the monetary value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions of 

CO2, DOE plans to use the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values developed and/or 

agreed to by an interagency process. The SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the 

incremental damage resulting from GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, net agricultural 

productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from sea level rise, and changes in 

ecosystem services. Any effort to quantify and to monetize the harms associated with climate 

change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics. But with full regard for the 

limits of both quantification and monetization, the SCC can be used to provide estimates of the 

social benefits of reductions in GHG emissions. 

At the time of this notice, the most recent interagency estimates of the potential global 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2009$, were $4.9, $22.1, 

$36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton avoided. For emission reductions that occur in later years, these 

values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range 

of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate 

domestic effects, although DOE will give preference to consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

will discount the values in each of the four cases using the discount rates that had been used to 

obtain the SCC values in each case.

DOE recognizes that scientific and economic knowledge continues to evolve rapidly as to 

the contribution of CO2 and other GHG to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy. Thus, these values are subject to change.

DOE also intends to estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOx emissions 

resulting from the standard levels it considers. For NOx emissions, available estimates suggest a 
2-51

very wide range of monetary values for NOx emissions, ranging from $447 to $4,591 per ton in 

2009$).7 In accordance with OMB guidance, DOE will conduct two calculations of the monetary 

benefits derived using each of the economic values used for NOx, one using a real discount rate 

of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 7 percent.d

DOE does not plan to monetize estimates of Hg in this rulemaking. DOE is aware of 

multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance 

regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg 

in its rulemakings.

DOE received a number of comments on the monetization of pollutants. In its written 

comments to DOE, AHRI made several statements regarding its position on DOE’s monetization 

of emissions reductions. AHRI stated that, while reduction of CO2 emissions is an important 

factor to consider, DOE has no statutory responsibility to establish a monetary value for such 

reduction, and that DOE should not allow evaluation of environmental impacts to negate core 

analyses such as payback and life-cycle cost. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at pp. 6−7) Moreover, AHRI 

added, since there is not currently a cap-and-trade program in place in the United States, nor is 

there consensus on a single value for CO2 emissions, it would be an arbitrary decision for DOE 

to rely on existing valuations. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 7) Finally, AHRI suggested that, if DOE 

is going to estimate the value of CO2 emissions reductions, it must also consider the additional 

CO2 emissions produced in the manufacture of more efficient units. (AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 7) 

NRDC supported the use of monetization of emissions reductions. In addition, NRDC 

commented that because indirect CO2 emissions may only represent part of a system’s TEWI,

monetization calculations should be used that encourage reductions in TEWI, including those 

due to reductions in refrigerant leakage. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 7)

As described above, DOE uses a procedure provided by an interagency working group 

for the monetization of CO2 emissions and continues to modify this procedure as guidance 

changes. Monetization of refrigerant leaks is currently not part of the interagency guidance. 

Evaluation of environmental impacts is an independent analysis and does not influence the lifecycle cost and payback period analyses. DOE’s environmental impact analysis is standard for all 

DOE rulemakings and may change in the future as the interagency guidance evolves.

2.14.1 Environmental Impact of Refrigerant Leakage

During the Framework public meeting, interested parties commented on refrigerant 

leakage, namely from supermarket refrigeration systems. California Codes and Standards stated 

that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on standards to address leakage, that 

typical leakage rates are around 18 percent annually, and that the refrigerants involved typically 

have a global warming potential (GWP) of around 2,000, making this a significant climate 

change issue. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 42) In a later written comment, 

California Codes and Standards clarified that CARB is pursuing regulation of refrigerants with a 

GWP greater than 150, and suggested that DOE coordinate with CARB and EPA to develop a 

standard that supports GHG reduction through improved efficiency and reduced leakage. 

 d OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
2-52

Moreover, it was stated that DOE should determine that this standard not preempt any state 

standard seeking to reduce GHG emissions. (California Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 at p. 

10) Southern Store Fixtures questioned the previous statement regarding leakage rates, stating 

that new supermarket refrigeration systems have much less leakage than the previously cited 18 

percent figure (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 48) The Northwest Joint Comment 

stated that, regardless, it is becoming clear that manufacturers will soon have to address issues of 

leakage, and thus any outside regulatory changes regarding refrigerants are unlikely to have a 

major impact on this equipment. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 1.3.003 at p. 5) NRDC stated 

that DOE should evaluate whether or not to recommend to Congress that incentives or penalties 

based on TEWI be enacted into law. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 7)

Interested parties also briefly commented on leakage from secondary coolant systems. 

Kysor/Warren asked if CO2 from a secondary coolant system that leaks or is vented to the 

atmosphere is quantified as a GHG emission. (Kysor/Warren, No. 1.2.006 at p. 184) ACEEE 

responded that the CO2 contribution from secondary coolant systems is insignificant (ACEEE, 

No. 1.2.006 at pp. 185−186), and the Northwest Joint Comment agreed, stating that CO2

emissions due to secondary coolant applications are net zero. (Northwest Joint Comment, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 186)

NRDC commented that refrigerant leakage emissions are of comparable importance to 

energy-related emissions, and should be addressed as a matter of policy by DOE standards. 

NRDC further stated that secondary coolant systems have leakage rates of only 3−5 percent 

annually, as opposed to 15−30 percent for DX systems, and require about 89 percent less 

refrigerant than DX systems. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at pp. 2−3) To account for this, NRDC 

suggested that DOE consider the TEWI as a means of comparing the effects of refrigerant 

leakage to those of the energy consumption of a unit, and that DOE should evaluate and 

monetize TEWI, then set slightly looser energy efficiency standards for lower-TEWI systems if 

warranted by analysis. (NRDC, No. 1.3.012 at p. 4)

DOE’s approach to the environmental impact assessment currently includes evaluation of 

CO2, SO2, NOx, and Hg emissions. For DOE rulemakings, the current interagency guidance 

referenced above does not discuss the monetization of refrigerant leaks. DOE will adapt its 

approach to future changes in the interagency guidance, and encourages interested parties to 

provide their input on the interagency guidance and contribute to its evolution.

As stated in section 2.1.2.1, DOE does not intend to analyze secondary coolant systems 

as part of this rulemaking and, hence, the environmental impacts of CO2 emissions from these 

systems, if any, would not be considered in the rulemaking.

DOE is required to set energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. These standards do not directly regulate GHG emissions, 

though the preemption of any state standards would be governed by the applicable preemption 

provisions of EPCA. DOE encourages interested parties, including CARB and other 

environmental agencies, to comment on DOE’s analysis of efficiency levels if they believe that 

the efficiency levels would, in conjunction with the regulations being considered by CARB, 
2-53

result in the inability of certain equipment types to continue to be sold after the compliance date 

of any final standards.

2.15 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

employment impacts are changes in the number of employees at plants that produce covered 

equipment and at the affiliated distribution and service companies. DOE evaluated direct 

employment impacts in the manufacturer impact analysis. Indirect employment impacts may 

result from customers shifting expenditures between goods (the substitution effect) and from 

changes in income and overall expenditure levels (the income effect). DOE will use PNNL’s 

Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET) model to investigate the combined direct and 

indirect employment impacts. The ImSET model, which was developed for DOE’s Office of 

Planning, Budget, and Analysis, estimates the employment and income effects energy-saving 

technologies produce in buildings, industry, and transportation. Compared with simple economic 

multiplier approaches, ImSET allows for more complete analysis of the economic impacts of 

energy conservation investments.

2.16 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). The 

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

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

the energy efficiency or reduce the energy consumption of the equipment covered under this 

rulemaking. 

NRDC stated that DOE should review the EPA GreenChill programs for store 

certification and potentially enact standards to lower refrigerant leakage rates. (NRDC, No. 

1.3.012 at p. 7) The EPA GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership program works with 

food retailers to encourage them to reduce the refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on 

the ozone layer and climate change. However, DOE is required, as stated above, to establish 

standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. Therefore, the standards’ impact on refrigerant leakage is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

At the Framework public meeting, True stated that DOE should research rebate programs 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, such as a recent Hydro-Quebec program that provided 

large rebates for replacement units under the condition that old equipment be scrapped to 

guarantee energy savings. (True, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 187−189) ACEEE stated that, in 

coordination with AHRI, it had introduced legislation for incentives to remove 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) chillers from the marketplace. (ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 190) 

Hoshizaki commented that schools and non-profits should be considered for rebates to help them 

obtain energy-efficient equipment. (Hoshizaki, No. 1.3.006 at p. 1)
2-54

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

interested parties can substantially improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption. For 

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

will also consider information presented by interested parties on the impacts that existing 

initiatives might have in the future.
2-55

References

 

1 . American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Comparison of 

Vertical Display Cases: Energy and Productivity Impacts of Glass Doors Versus Open 

Display Cases. 2009. Atlanta, GA. RP-1402. 

<http://rp.ashrae.biz/researchproject.php?rp_id=580>

2. Carbonara, M. 2010 Foodservice Industry Forecast: Achieving Stability. Foodservice 

Equipment and Supplies. September 1, 2009. (Last accessed December 2010.) 

<http://www.fesmag.com/index.php/research/industry-forecast >

3. Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

Refrigeration, Final Report. 2009. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. 

<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/commercial_refrig_repor

t_10-09.pdf> 

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization/United 

Nations Environment Programme. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2001. (Last accessed June 26, 2007.) 

<http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/3_Industry.pdf>. The June 26, 2007 

material from this website is available in Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0126. For more 

information, contact Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945.

5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2007 Economic Census, Sector 72: EC0772A1: Accommodation and 

Food Services. (Last accessed December 10, 2010.)

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-

ds_name=EC0772A1&-_lang=en>

6. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 

2010. Washington. D.C. DOE/EIA-0383(2010).

7. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2006 

Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded 

Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. 2007. Washington, D.C.