Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers; Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers, and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers Without Doors; and Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers, and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers, 50072-50137 [E8-19063]
Download as PDF
50072
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE–2006–STD–0126]
RIN 1904–AB59
Energy Conservation Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers; SelfContained Commercial Refrigerators,
Commercial Freezers, and Commercial
Refrigerator-Freezers Without Doors;
and Remote Condensing Commercial
Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers,
and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and notice of public meeting.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act prescribes energy
conservation standards for certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
and requires the Department of Energy
(DOE) to administer an energy
conservation program for this
equipment. In this notice, DOE is
proposing new energy conservation
standards for commercial ice-cream
freezers; self-contained commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
commercial refrigerator-freezers without
doors; and remote condensing
commercial refrigerators, commercial
freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers. DOE is also announcing a
public meeting on its proposed
standards.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting
on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Washington, DC.
DOE must receive requests to speak at
the public meeting no later than 4 p.m.,
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 DOE must
receive a signed original and an
electronic copy of statements to be given
at the public meeting no later than 4
p.m., Tuesday, September 16, 2008.
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and
after the public meeting, but no later
than October 24, 2008. See Section VII,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR for
details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please
note that foreign nationals visiting DOE
Headquarters are subject to advance
security screening procedures, requiring
a 30-day advance notice. If you are a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
foreign national and wish to participate
in the public meeting, please inform
DOE as soon as possible by contacting
Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945
so that the necessary procedures can be
completed.
Any comments submitted must
identify the NOPR for commercial
refrigeration equipment, and provide
docket number EE–2006–STD–0126
and/or RIN number 1904–AB59.
Comments may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: commercialrefrigeration.
rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include docket
number EE–2006–STD–0126 and/or RIN
1904–AB59 in the subject line of the
message.
• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please
submit one signed original paper copy.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 950
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,
Washington, DC 20024. Please submit
one signed original paper copy.
For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see Section VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’
of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, visit the U.S.
Department of Energy, Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program,
950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the
above telephone number for additional
information regarding visiting the
Resource Room.
Please Note: DOE’s Freedom of Information
Reading Room (Room 1E–190 at the Forrestal
Building) no longer houses rulemaking
materials.
Mr.
Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)
586–2192, Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC–72, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, (202) 586–9507,
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Overview
B. Authority
C. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Commercial Customers
b. Life-Cycle Costs
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Definitions Related to Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment
a. Air Curtain Angle Definition
b. Door Angle Definition
2. Equipment Classes
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Equipment Classes Analyzed
3. Analytical Models
a. Cost Model
b. Energy Consumption Model
c. Design Options
4. Baseline Models
5. Engineering Analysis Results
C. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
D. Energy Use Characterization
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
1. Manufacturer Selling Price
2. Increase in Selling Price
3. Markups
4. Installation Costs
5. Energy Consumption
6. Electricity Prices
7. Electricity Price Trends
8. Repair Costs
9. Maintenance Costs
10. Lifetime
11. Discount Rate
12. Payback Period
F. Shipments Analysis
G. National Impact Analysis
1. Base Case and Standards Case
Forecasted Efficiencies
2. Annual Energy Consumption, Total
Installed Cost, Maintenance Cost, and
Repair Costs
3. Escalation of Electricity Prices
4. Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion
H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
a. Phase 1, Industry Profile
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
b. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis
c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
Analysis
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Key Issues
4. Government Regulatory Impact Model
Key Inputs and Scenarios
a. Base Case Shipments Forecast
b. Standards Case Shipments Forecast
c. Markup Scenarios
d. Equipment and Capital Conversion Costs
J. Utility Impact Analysis
K. Employment Impact Analysis
L. Environmental Assessment
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
1. Miscellaneous Equipment
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Commercial
Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
c. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
c. Impacts on Employment
d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
e. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Amount and Significance of Energy
Savings
b. Net Present Value
c. Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
C. Proposed Standard
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act/Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to
Speak
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (EPCA), specifies that
50073
any new or amended energy
conservation standard the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes
for the equipment covered by this notice
shall be designed to ‘‘achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency * * * which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1))
Furthermore, the new or amended
standard must ‘‘result in significant
conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(e)(1)) In
accordance with these and other
statutory criteria discussed in this
notice, DOE proposes to adopt new
energy conservation standards for
commercial ice-cream freezers; selfcontained commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers, and commercial
refrigerator-freezers without doors; and
remote condensing commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
commercial refrigerator-freezers.1 The
proposed standards, shown in Table I–
1, would apply to all commercial
refrigeration equipment manufactured
on or after January 1, 2012, and offered
for sale in the United States. 42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(4)(A).
TABLE I–1—PROPOSED STANDARD LEVELS
Equipment class 2
Proposed standard level * **
Equipment class
VOP.RC.M .....................................
SVO.RC.M .....................................
HZO.RC.M .....................................
VOP.RC.L ......................................
HZO.RC.L ......................................
VCT.RC.M .....................................
VCT.RC.L ......................................
SOC.RC.M .....................................
VOP.SC.M .....................................
SVO.SC.M .....................................
HZO.SC.M .....................................
HZO.SC.L ......................................
VCT.SC.I .......................................
VCS.SC.I .......................................
HCT.SC.I .......................................
SVO.RC.L ......................................
VOP.RC.I .......................................
SVO.RC.I .......................................
HZO.RC.I .......................................
0.82 × TDA + 4.07 ........................
0.83 × TDA + 3.18 ........................
0.35 × TDA + 2.88 ........................
2.28 × TDA + 6.85 ........................
0.57 × TDA + 6.88 ........................
0.25 × TDA + 1.95 ........................
0.6 × TDA + 2.61 ..........................
0.51 × TDA + 0.11 ........................
1.74 × TDA + 4.71 ........................
1.73 × TDA + 4.59 ........................
0.77 × TDA + 5.55 ........................
1.92 × TDA + 7.08 ........................
0.73 × TDA + 3.29 ........................
0.38 × V + 0.88 .............................
0.56 × TDA + 0.43 ........................
2.28 × TDA + 6.85 ........................
2.9 × TDA + 8.7 ............................
2.9 × TDA + 8.7 ............................
0.72 × TDA + 8.74 ........................
VCT.RC.I ......................................
HCT.RC.M ....................................
HCT.RC.L .....................................
HCT.RC.I ......................................
VCS.RC.M ....................................
VCS.RC.L .....................................
VCS.RC.I ......................................
HCS.RC.M ....................................
HCS.RC.L .....................................
HCS.RC.I ......................................
SOC.RC.L .....................................
SOC.RC.I ......................................
VOP.SC.L .....................................
VOP.SC.I ......................................
SVO.SC.L .....................................
SVO.SC.I ......................................
HZO.SC.I ......................................
SOC.SC.I ......................................
HCS.SC.I ......................................
Proposed standard level
0.71 × TDA + 3.05
0.16 × TDA + 0.13
0.34 × TDA + 0.26
0.4 × TDA + 0.31
0.11 × V + 0.26
0.23 × V + 0.54
0.27 × V + 0.63
0.11 × V + 0.26
0.23 × V + 0.54
0.27 × V + 0.63
1.08 × TDA + 0.22
1.26 × TDA + 0.26
4.37 × TDA + 11.82
5.55 × TDA + 15.02
4.34 × TDA + 11.51
5.52 × TDA + 14.63
2.44 × TDA + 9
1.76 × TDA + 0.36
0.38 × V + 0.88
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
* ‘‘TDA’’ is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200–2006, Appendix D.
** ‘‘V’’ is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200–2006, Appendix C.
1 These types of equipment are referred to
collectively hereafter as ‘‘commercial refrigeration
equipment.’’
2 For this rulemaking, equipment class
designations consist of a combination (in sequential
order separated by periods) of: (1) an equipment
family code (VOP = vertical open, SVO =
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
semivertical open, HZO = horizontal open, VCT =
vertical transparent doors, VCS = vertical solid
doors, HCT = horizontal transparent doors, HCS =
horizontal solid doors, or SOC = service over
counter); (2) an operating mode code (RC = remote
condensing or SC = self-contained); and ( 3) a rating
temperature code (M = medium temperature (38 °F),
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
L = low temperature (0 °F), or I = ice-cream
temperature (¥15 °F)). For example, ‘‘VOP.RC.M’’
refers to the ‘‘vertical open, remote condensing,
medium temperature’’ equipment class. See
discussion below and chapter 3 of the TSD, market
and technology assessment, for a more detailed
explanation of the equipment class terminology.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50074
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DOE’s analyses indicate that the
proposed energy conservation
standards, trial standard level (TSL) 4
(see Section V.A for a detailed
description of TSLs), would save a
significant amount of energy—an
estimated 0.83 quadrillion British
thermal units (Btu), or quads, of
cumulative energy over 30 years (2012–
2042). The economic impacts on
commercial consumers (i.e., the average
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings) are
positive for all equipment classes.
The cumulative national net present
value (NPV) of the proposed standards
at TSL 4 from 2012 to 2042 ranges from
$1.1 billion (at a seven percent discount
rate) to $3.24 billion (at a three percent
discount rate), in 2007$. This is the
estimated total value of future operating
cost savings minus the estimated
increased equipment costs, discounted
to 2007$. The benefits and costs of the
standard can also be expressed in terms
of annualized 2007$ values over the
forecast period 2012 through 2062.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for the
annualized cost analysis, the cost of the
standard is estimated to be $109 million
per year in increased equipment and
installation costs while the annualized
benefits are expected to be $214 million
per year in reduced equipment
operating costs. Using a 3 percent
discount rate, the annualized cost of the
standard is expected to be $92 million
per year while the annualized benefits
of today’s standard are expected to be
$234 million per year. See Section V.B.3
for additional details. If DOE adopts the
proposed standards, it expects
manufacturers will lose 8 to 35 percent
of the industry net present value (INPV),
which is approximately $40 to $180
million.
DOE estimates that the proposed
standards will have environmental
benefits leading to reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions (i.e.,
cumulative (undiscounted) emission
reductions) of 44 million tons (Mt) of
carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2012 to
2042.3 Most of the energy saved is
electricity. In addition, DOE expects the
energy savings from the proposed
standards to eliminate the need for
approximately 640 megawatts (MW) of
generating capacity by 2042. These
results reflect DOE’s use of energy price
projections from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA)’s
3 Additionally,
the standards would result in 17
thousand tons (kt) of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions reductions or generate a similar amount
of NOX emissions allowance credits in areas where
such emissions are subject to regulatory or
voluntary emissions caps.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO
2007).4
DOE proposes that TSL 4 represents
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE
proposes that the benefits to the Nation
of TSL 4 (energy savings, commercial
consumer average LCC savings, national
NPV increase, and emission reductions)
outweigh the costs (loss of manufacturer
INPV) and is therefore proposing TSL 4
as the energy conservation standards for
commercial refrigeration equipment in
this NOPR. TSL 4 is technologically
feasible because the technologies
required to achieve these levels already
exist.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes that TSL
5 is not economically justified because,
under the current circumstances, DOE
believes that the benefits to the Nation
of TSL 5 (energy savings, commercial
consumer average LCC savings, and
emission reductions) do not outweigh
the costs (national NPV decrease and
loss of manufacturer INPV). DOE’s
analyses indicate that TSL 5 would save
a greater amount of energy than TSL 4—
an estimated 1.21 quadrillion quads of
cumulative energy over 30 years (2012–
2042). At TSL 5, while the economic
impacts on commercial consumers (i.e.,
LCC savings and NPV) are still positive
for the majority of equipment classes,
the impacts on commercial customers
for five classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M,
SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M)
are negative. The life-cycle cost savings
are negative for three classes and NPV
results for each of these five classes are
negative.
The cumulative NPV at TSL 5, from
2012 to 2042, ranges from ¥$200
million (at a seven percent discount
rate) to $1.16 billion (at a three percent
discount rate), in 2007$. Using a 7
percent discount rate, the annualized
cost of the standard is estimated to be
$285 million per year in increased
equipment and installation costs while
the annualized benefits are expected to
be $266 million per year in reduced
equipment operating costs. Using a 3
percent discount rate, the annualized
cost of the standard is expected to be
$241 million per year while the
annualized benefits are expected to be
4 DOE intends to use EIA’s AEO 2008 to generate
the results for the final rule. The AEO2008 Early
Release contains reference case energy price
forecasts which show higher commercial electricity
prices at the national level compared with the AEO
2007 on a real (inflation adjusted) basis. If these
early release energy prices remain unchanged in the
final release, then incorporation of the AEO 2008
forecasts would likely result in reduced payback
periods and greater life-cycle cost savings and
greater national net present value for the proposed
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$292 million per year. See Section V.B.3
for additional details. At TSL 5, DOE
expects manufacturers will lose 3 to 56
percent of the industry net present value
INPV, which is approximately $18 to
$285 million.
DOE based its estimates of the
economic impacts referenced above on
current costs for energy improving
technologies used in commercial
refrigeration equipment. A key
technology for energy savings benefits
in most commercial refrigeration
equipment is the use of solid state
lighting (i.e., light emitting diodes or
LEDs). At current LED prices, the lifecycle cost savings at TSL 5 are
substantially lower than TSL 3 and TSL
4 for several equipment classes. For
example, the average per unit LCC
savings for the VOP.RC.M equipment
class is $1,551 at TSL 3, but this number
falls by $1,785 to ¥$234 when moving
to TSL 5. When accounting for the
projected volume of sales for these
equipment classes in 2012, the net effect
of moving from TSL 3 to TSL 5 is a
decrease in LCC savings of $130 million
per year. To achieve the same or greater
LCC savings at TSL 5 as other efficiency
levels (e.g., TSL 3 or 4), for all
equipment classes, average LED costs
would need to decrease by almost 45
percent.
While considerable information is
available that suggests LED costs are
likely to decline more than assumed in
DOE’s analysis, DOE believes it must
have a higher degree of confidence of
further cost reductions than assumed in
today’s proposed rule. In this NOPR,
DOE projected future LED costs based
on DOE’s Multi-Year Program Plan,5
which are consistent with historical
LED price reductions between 2000 and
2007. The Multi-Year Program Plan
projects that LED chip costs will
continue to decrease at a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of
approximately ¥27 percent between
2007 and 2012, which represents a price
reduction of 80 percent over that time
period. Since LED chips are only a
portion of the total LED system (other
components include power supply and
the LED fixture), the 80 percent
reduction in chip costs contributes to an
estimated decrease in total LED system
cost of approximately 50 percent by
2012, assuming the costs of the power
supply and LED fixtures do not change
significantly. Such a decrease in cost
5 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting
Research and Development, Multi-Year Program
Plan FY’09–FY’14. This document was prepared
under the direction of a Technical Committee from
the Next Generation Lighting Initiative Alliance
(NGLIA). Information about the NGLIA and its
members is available at https://www.nglia.org.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
would be sufficient for TSL 5 to achieve
LCC savings equal to or greater than
other TSLs.
DOE examined whether the projected
LED costs presented in the Multi-Year
Program Plan and used in this NOPR are
consistent with publicly available
empirical historical cost data. DOE
reviewed available price data for the
LED market and found that between
2000 and 2007, white-light LEDs had a
CAGR ranging from approximately ¥18
to ¥31 percent. DOE’s LED cost
projection (i.e., ¥27 percent CAGR)
falls within the range of CAGRs
observed. DOE expanded its
examination by comparing this
projected trend to the red-light LED
market, which is a related technology,
with cost information spanning
approximately three decades (i.e., 1973
to 2005). DOE found that the CAGR of
red-light LED costs was ¥22 percent
over this longer time span. The trend in
red-light LED costs derived from
empirical data over this longer time
period is of a similar magnitude to
DOE’s projected costs for white-light
LEDs. Due to the technological
similarities between red-light LEDs and
white-light LEDs, DOE believes that the
historical cost reductions for red-light
LEDs are indicative of future cost
reductions for white-light LEDs.
Furthermore, the white-light LED
market is undergoing a massive
expansion and growth phase, with
significant investment, new products
and innovative applications for LED
technology, including illumination of
commercial refrigeration equipment.
See Section V.C of this NOPR and
Appendix B of the technical support
document (TSD) for more detail on the
cost projection and DOE’s validation of
those estimates. DOE seeks comment on
the extent to which these price trends
are indicative of what can be expected
for commercial refrigeration equipment
LED lighting from 2007 to 2012 and the
extent to which the cost reduction
observed for red-light LEDs is relevant
to DOE’s cost projections for white-light
LEDs. DOE also seeks comment on the
extent to which stakeholders expect
projected LED cost reductions would
occur, the timing of the projected LED
cost reductions, and the certainty of the
projected LED cost reductions. Finally,
considering the rapid development of
LED technology and the steady
reductions in cost, DOE seeks comment
on the extent to which manufacturers
would adopt LED technology into the
design of commercial refrigeration
equipment in the absence of standards.
DOE also performed sensitivity
analyses of the effect of projected cost
reductions in LED lighting systems on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
LCC and NPV. Incorporation of DOE
LED lighting system cost projections of
a 50 percent decline by 2012 shift the
calculated NPV, for 2012–2042, from
¥$200 million to a positive $1.62
billion at a seven percent discount rate,
for TSL 5. See Section V.C of this NOPR
or Chapter 8 of the TSD for additional
details.
TSL 5 is estimated to have
environmental benefits leading to
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
of 63 Mt of CO2 from 2012 to 2042.
Additionally, TSL 5 would result in 23
kt of NOX emissions reductions or
generate a similar amount of NOX
emissions allowance credits in areas
where such emissions are subject to
emissions caps. Most of the energy
saved is electricity. In addition, DOE
expects the energy savings from the
proposed standards to eliminate the
need for approximately 930 MW of
generating capacity by 2042.
Although DOE has tentatively rejected
TSL 5 because, under the current
circumstances, it tentatively found that
the benefits to the Nation do not
outweigh the costs, and therefore does
not consider TSL 5 economically
justified, DOE expects that LED costs
will decline substantially over the next
4–5 years and could have a dramatic
effect on the economic impacts
described above. Therefore, DOE
requests data or information that could
provide a greater level of confidence
that the projected LED cost reductions
will occur and DOE will assess that data
in determining whether to further
consider TSL 5 in its final rule analysis.
II. Introduction
A. Overview
DOE proposes to set energy
conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment at the levels
shown in Table I–1. The proposed
standards would apply to equipment
manufactured on or after January 1,
2012, and offered for sale in the United
States. DOE has tentatively found that
the standards would save a significant
amount of energy (see Section III.C.2)
and result in a cleaner environment. In
the 30-year period after the new
standard becomes effective, the Nation
would tentatively save 0.83 quads of
primary energy. These energy savings
also would tentatively result in
significantly reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases
associated with electricity production,
by avoiding the emission of 44 Mt of
CO2 and 17 kt of NOX. In addition, DOE
expects the standard to prevent the
construction of the new power plants
that would be necessary to produce
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50075
approximately 640 MW by 2042. In
total, DOE tentatively estimates the net
present value to the Nation of this
standard to be $1.1 billion from 2012 to
2042 in 2007$.
Commercial customers would see
benefits from the proposed standards.
Although DOE expects the price of the
higher efficiency commercial
refrigeration equipment to be
approximately 11 percent higher than
the average price of this equipment
today, weighted by shipments across
equipment classes, the energy efficiency
gains would result in lower energy
costs, saving customers about 26 percent
per year on their energy bills. Based on
DOE’s LCC analysis, DOE tentatively
estimates that the mean payback period
for the higher efficiency commercial
refrigeration equipment would be
between a low of 1.4 to a high of 6.1
years. In addition, when the net results
of these price increases and energy cost
savings are summed over the lifetime of
the higher efficiency equipment,
customers could save approximately
$690 to $3800, depending on equipment
class, compared to their expenditures on
today’s baseline commercial
refrigeration equipment.
B. Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles. Part A–1 of Title III (42
U.S.C. 6311–6317) establishes a similar
program for certain types of commercial
and industrial equipment.6 The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub.
L. 109–58, included an amendment to
Part A–1 requiring that DOE prescribe
energy conservation standards for the
commercial refrigeration equipment that
is the subject of this rulemaking.
(EPACT 2005, Section 136(c); 42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(4)(A)) Hence, DOE publishes
today’s notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) pursuant to Part A–1, which
provides definitions, test procedures,
labeling provisions, energy conservation
standards, and the authority to require
information and reports from
manufacturers. The test procedures for
commercial refrigeration equipment
appear at Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sections 431.63 and
431.64.
EPCA provides criteria for prescribing
new or amended standards for covered
equipment. As indicated above, any
6 This part was originally titled Part C, however,
it was renamed Part A–1 after Part B of Title III was
repealed by EPACT 2005.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50076
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
new or amended standard for
commercial refrigeration equipment
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified.7 (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) But
EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any
standard that would not result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard for certain equipment if no test
procedure has been established for that
equipment, or if DOE determines by rule
that the standard is not technologically
feasible or economically justified, and
that such standard will not result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1)) EPCA
also provides that, in deciding whether
a standard is economically justified,
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens after receiving comments on
the proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)) To the
greatest extent practicable, DOE must
consider the following seven factors:
(I) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to
the standard;
(II) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered equipment in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the equipment that are
likely to result from the imposition of
the standard;
(III) The total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly
from the imposition of the standard;
(IV) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment
likely to result from the imposition of
the standard;
(V) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the imposition of the
standard;
(VI) The need for national energy
conservation; and
(VII) Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant.
Id.
Furthermore, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
7 This notice concerns types of ‘‘covered
equipment’’ as that term is defined in EPCA, (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) in Part A–1, Certain Industrial
Equipment. Therefore, when DOE quotes from,
paraphrases or describes general provisions in Part
A, for instance, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), it substitutes the
term ‘‘equipment’’ for ‘‘product’’ when the latter
term appears in those provisions. (See 42 U.S.C.
6316 (a)(3))
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of the evidence that
the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States of
any equipment type (or class) with
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) and
6316(e)(1)) In addition, there is a
rebuttable presumption that a standard
level is economically justified if the
Secretary finds that ‘‘the additional cost
to the consumer of purchasing
equipment complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the energy
* * * savings during the first year that
the consumer will receive as a result of
the standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure * * *.’’ (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1))
The rebuttable presumption test is an
alternative path to establishing
economic justification.
Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA addresses
the situation where DOE sets a standard
for a type or class of covered equipment
that has two or more groups of covered
equipment. DOE must specify a
different standard level than that which
applies generally to such equipment
‘‘for any group of covered equipment
which have the same function or
intended use, if * * * equipment
within such group—(A) consume a
different kind of energy from that
consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class); or (B) have
a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other equipment within
such type (or class) do not have and
such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard’’ than applies or will apply to
the other equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1) and 6316(e)(1)) In
determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different
standard for a group of equipment, DOE
must ‘‘consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a
feature’’ and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Any rule prescribing such
a standard must include an explanation
of the basis on which a higher or lower
level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2) and 6316(e)(1))
Finally, Federal energy conservation
requirements for commercial equipment
generally supersede State laws or
regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards for such equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a)–(b)) For the commercial
refrigeration equipment covered by this
rulemaking, Federal energy
conservation requirements will
supersede all such State laws or
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
regulations beginning on the date of
publication of the Federal standards,
except that any state or local standard
issued before that time will be
superseded only when the Federal
standards take effect. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(3)) Furthermore, DOE can grant
waivers of preemption to any State laws
or regulations that are superseded in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions of Section 327(d) of the
Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(e)(3))
C. Background
1. Current Standards
There are no national energy
conservation standards for the
commercial refrigeration equipment
covered by this rulemaking. EPACT
2005 did amend EPCA to establish
energy conservation standards that will
apply to certain other types of
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers when manufactured
on or after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(2)–(3)) Those standards are not
at issue in this rulemaking.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
On August 8, 2005, Section 136(c) of
EPACT 2005 amended EPCA, in part to
direct DOE to issue energy conservation
standards for the equipment covered by
this rulemaking, which standards would
apply to equipment manufactured on or
after January 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(4)(A)) Section 136(a)(3) of
EPACT 2005 also amended EPCA, by
adding definitions for terms relevant to
this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)) In
defining the term ‘‘commercial
refrigerator, freezer, and refrigeratorfreezer,’’ EPCA states that this
refrigeration equipment is connected to
either a self-contained condensing unit
or to a remote condensing unit. 42
U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vii). Subsequently,
EPCA defines the terms ‘‘remote
condensing unit’’ and ‘‘self-contained
condensing unit.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(E)–
(F). These are the two condenser
configurations of equipment covered by
this rulemaking.
On December 19, 2006, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007) was signed into law by the
President. This legislation affected some
of the products for which DOE had
rulemakings underway. However, it did
not create any additional requirements
for commercial refrigeration equipment.
As an initial step to comply with
EPCA’s mandate to issue standards for
commercial refrigeration equipment,
and to commence this rulemaking, on
April 25, 2006, DOE published notice of
a public meeting and of the availability
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of its Framework Document for this
rulemaking. 71 FR 23876. The
Framework Document described the
procedural and analytical approaches
that DOE anticipated using to evaluate
energy conservation standards for
commercial refrigeration equipment,
and identified various issues to be
resolved in conducting the rulemaking.
DOE held a public meeting on May 16,
2006 to present the contents of the
Framework Document, describe the
analyses it planned to conduct during
the rulemaking, obtain public comment
on these subjects, and inform and
facilitate interested persons’
involvement in the rulemaking. DOE
also gave interested persons an
opportunity, after the public meeting, to
submit written statements in response to
the Framework Document. DOE
received five statements.
On July 26, 2007, DOE published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANOPR) concerning energy
conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment. 72 FR 41161. In
the ANOPR, DOE described and sought
comment on its proposed equipment
classes for this rulemaking, and on the
analytical framework, models, and tools
(e.g., LCC and national energy savings
(NES) spreadsheets) that DOE used to
analyze the impacts of energy
conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment. In conjunction
with the ANOPR, DOE also published
on its Web site the complete ANOPR
TSD. The TSD included the results of
DOE’s preliminary (1) engineering
analysis, (2) markups analysis to
determine equipment price, (3) energy
use characterization, (4) LCC and
payback period (PBP) analyses, (5) NES
and national impact analyses (NIA), and
(6) manufacturer impact analysis (MIA).
In the ANOPR, DOE requested comment
on these results, and on a range of other
issues. These issues included
equipment classes, definitions for aircurtain angle and door angle, case
lighting operating hours, operation and
maintenance practices, equipment
lifetime, LCC baseline levels, NIA base
case, base case and standards case
forecasts, differential impact of new
standards on future shipments, selection
of standard levels for post-ANOPR
analysis, the equation that expresses the
energy conservation standards, and the
nature of standards for commercial
refrigerator-freezers.
DOE held a public meeting in
Washington, DC on August 23, 2007, to
present the methodology and results of
the ANOPR analyses, and to solicit both
oral and written comments from the
interested persons who attended. Public
comment focused on DOE’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
assumptions, approach, and equipment
class breakdown, and are addressed in
detail in this NOPR.
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
On December 8, 2006, DOE published
a final rule in which it adopted
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard
1200–2006, Performance Rating of
Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, as
the DOE test procedure for this
equipment. 71 FR 71340, 71369–70; 10
CFR 431.63–431.64. ANSI/ARI Standard
1200–2006 contains rating temperature
specifications of 38 °F (±2 °F) for
commercial refrigerators and refrigerator
compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) for
commercial freezers and freezer
compartments, and ¥5 °F (±2 °F) for
commercial ice-cream freezers. The
standard also requires performance tests
to be conducted according to the
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72–2005,
Method of Testing Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers. In this final
rule, DOE also adopted a ¥15 °F (±2 °F)
rating temperature for commercial icecream freezers. 71 FR 71370. In
addition, DOE adopted ANSI/
Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF–
1–2004, Energy, Performance and
Capacity of Household Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, for
determining compartment volumes for
this equipment. 71 FR 71369–70.
50077
install, or service; (b) that will have
adverse impacts on equipment utility or
availability; or (c) for which there are
health or safety concerns that cannot be
resolved. Chapter 4 of the TSD
accompanying this notice contains a
description of the screening analysis for
this rulemaking.
In the ANOPR, DOE eliminated five of
the technologies considered in the
market and technology assessment: (1)
Air-curtain design, (2) thermoacoustic
refrigeration, (3) magnetic refrigeration,
(4) electro-hydrodynamic heat
exchangers, and (5) copper rotor motors.
Because all five of these technologies
are in the research stage, DOE believes
that they would not be practicable to
manufacture, install and service on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the effective date
of the standard. In addition, because
these technologies are in the research
stage, DOE cannot assess whether they
would have any adverse impacts on
utility to significant subgroups of
consumers, result in the unavailability
of any types of equipment, or present
any significant adverse impacts on
health or safety. Therefore, DOE did not
consider these technologies as design
options for improving the energy
efficiency of commercial refrigeration
equipment. DOE believes that all the
efficiency levels discussed in today’s
notice are technologically feasible
because there is equipment either in the
market or in working prototypes at all
of the efficiency levels analyzed. See
Chapter 4 of the TSD for further
discussion of the screening analysis.
B. Technological Feasibility
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
1. General
DOE considers design options
technologically feasible if industry
already uses these options or if research
has progressed to the development of a
working prototype. ‘‘Technologies
incorporated in commercially available
equipment or in working prototypes
will be considered technologically
feasible.’’ 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C,
Appendix A, Section 4(a)(4)(i).
In each standards rulemaking, DOE
conducts a screening analysis, which it
bases on information it has gathered
regarding all current technology options
and prototype designs. In consultation
with interested parties, DOE develops a
list of design options for consideration
in the rulemaking. All technologically
feasible design options are candidates in
this initial assessment. Early in the
process, DOE eliminates from
consideration any design option (a) that
is not practicable to manufacture,
In deciding whether to adopt a new
standard for a type or class of
commercial refrigeration equipment,
DOE must ‘‘determine the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency or
maximum reduction in energy use that
is technologically feasible’’ for such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and
6316(e)(1)) If such standard is not
designed to achieve such efficiency or
use, the Secretary shall state the reasons
such is the case in the proposed rule. Id.
For this rulemaking, DOE determined
that the values in Table III–1 represent
the energy use levels that would achieve
the maximum reductions in energy use
that are technologically feasible at this
time for commercial refrigeration
equipment. DOE identified these ‘‘maxtech’’ levels for the equipment classes
analyzed as part of the engineering
analysis (Chapter 5 of the TSD). For
each equipment class, DOE applied the
most efficient design options available
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50078
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
for energy-consuming components.
These levels are set forth in TSL 5.
TABLE III–1—‘‘MAX-TECH’’ ENERGY USE LEVELS
Equipment class
‘‘Max-Tech’’ level
kilowatt hours per day
(kWh/day)
Equipment class
VOP.RC.M .....................................
SVO.RC.M .....................................
HZO.RC.M .....................................
VOP.RC.L ......................................
HZO.RC.L ......................................
VCT.RC.M .....................................
VCT.RC.L ......................................
SOC.RC.M .....................................
VOP.SC.M .....................................
SVO.SC.M .....................................
HZO.SC.M .....................................
HZO.SC.L ......................................
VCT.SC.I .......................................
VCS.SC.I .......................................
HCT.SC.I .......................................
SVO.RC.L ......................................
VOP.RC.I .......................................
SVO.RC.I .......................................
HZO.RC.I .......................................
0.68 × TDA + 4.07 ........................
0.69 × TDA + 3.18 ........................
0.35 × TDA + 2.88 ........................
2.28 × TDA + 6.85 ........................
0.57 × TDA + 6.88 ........................
0.25 × TDA + 1.95 ........................
0.6 × TDA + 2.61 ..........................
0.39 × TDA + 0.11 ........................
1.57 × TDA + 4.71 ........................
1.58 × TDA + 4.59 ........................
0.77 × TDA + 5.55 ........................
1.92 × TDA + 7.08 ........................
0.73 × TDA + 3.29 ........................
0.38 × V + 0.88 .............................
0.56 × TDA + 0.43 ........................
2.28 × TDA + 6.85 ........................
2.9 × TDA + 8.7 ............................
2.9 × TDA + 8.7 ............................
0.72 × TDA + 8.74 ........................
VCT.RC.I ......................................
HCT.RC.M ....................................
HCT.RC.L .....................................
HCT.RC.I ......................................
VCS.RC.M ....................................
VCS.RC.L .....................................
VCS.RC.I ......................................
HCS.RC.M ....................................
HCS.RC.L .....................................
HCS.RC.I ......................................
SOC.RC.L .....................................
SOC.RC.I ......................................
VOP.SC.L .....................................
VOP.SC.I ......................................
SVO.SC.L .....................................
SVO.SC.I ......................................
HZO.SC.I ......................................
SOC.SC.I ......................................
HCS.SC.I ......................................
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
DOE used the NES spreadsheet to
estimate energy savings. The
spreadsheet forecasts energy savings
over the period of analysis for TSLs
relative to the base case. DOE quantified
the energy savings attributable to an
energy conservation standard as the
difference in energy consumption
between the trial standards case and the
base case. The base case represents the
forecast of energy consumption in the
absence of new mandatory efficiency
standards. The NES spreadsheet model
is described in Section IV.G of this
notice and in Chapter 11 of the TSD
accompanying this notice.
The NES spreadsheet model
calculates the energy savings in site
energy or kilowatt hours (kWh). Site
energy is the energy directly consumed
at building sites by commercial
refrigeration equipment. DOE expresses
national energy savings in terms of the
source energy savings, which are the
energy savings used to generate and
transmit the energy consumed at the
site. Chapter 11 of the TSD contains a
table of factors used to convert kWh to
Btu. DOE derives these conversion
factors, which change with time, from
DOE’s EIA’s AEO2007.
2. Significance of Savings
For commercial refrigeration
equipment, EPCA prohibits DOE from
adopting a standard that would not
result in significant additional energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
6316(e)(1)) While the term ‘‘significant’’
is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court
of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d
1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated
that Congress intended significant
energy savings in this context to be
savings that were not ‘‘genuinely
trivial.’’ The estimated energy savings
for all of the trial standard levels
considered in this rulemaking are
nontrivial, and therefore DOE considers
them significant within the meaning of
Section 325 of the Act.
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted earlier, EPCA provides
seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. The following sections discuss
how DOE has addressed each factor thus
far in this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1))
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Commercial Customers
DOE uses an annual cash-flow
approach in determining the
quantitative impacts of a new or
amended standard on manufacturers.
This includes both a short-term
assessment based on the cost and capital
requirements between the
announcement of a regulation and when
the regulation comes into effect, and a
long-term assessment. Impacts analyzed
include INPV, cash flows by year, and
changes in revenue and income. Next,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘Max-Tech’’ level
kilowatt hours per day
(kWh/day)
0.71 × TDA + 3.05
0.16 × TDA + 0.13
0.34 × TDA + 0.26
0.4 × TDA + 0.31
0.11 × V + 0.26
0.23 × V + 0.54
0.27 × V + 0.63
0.11 × V + 0.26
0.23 × V + 0.54
0.27 × V + 0.63
0.83 × TDA + 0.22
0.97 × TDA + 0.26
3.95 × TDA + 11.82
5.02 × TDA + 15.02
3.98 × TDA + 11.51
5.06 × TDA + 14.63
2.44 × TDA + 9
1.35 × TDA + 0.36
0.38 × V + 0.88
DOE analyzes and reports the impacts
on different types of manufacturers,
with particular attention to impacts on
small manufacturers. DOE then
considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment,
manufacturing capacity, plant closures,
and loss of capital investment. Finally,
DOE takes into account the cumulative
impact of regulations on manufacturers.
For commercial consumers, measures
of economic impact are generally the
changes in installed cost and annual
operating costs, i.e., the LCC. Chapter 6
of the TSD presents the LCC of the
equipment at each TSL. The LCC is one
of the seven factors to be considered in
determining the economic justification
for a new or amended standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and
6316(e)(1)) It is discussed in the
paragraphs that follow.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price, including the installation and
operating expense (i.e., operating
energy, maintenance, and repair
expenditures) discounted over the
lifetime of the equipment. To determine
the purchase price including
installation, DOE estimated the markups
that distributors and contractors add to
the manufacturer selling price (MSP);
DOE also estimated installation costs
from an analysis of commercial
refrigeration equipment installation
costs for each equipment class. DOE
determined that preventative
maintenance costs do not depend on
efficiency but that repair costs increase
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
with efficiency and that the cost of
replacement lighting fixtures (‘‘lighting
maintenance’’) increased with higher
efficiency. See Sections IV.E.8 and
IV.E.9 for more detail. In estimating
operating energy costs, DOE used
average effective commercial electricity
prices at the State level from the EIA
publication, State Energy Consumption,
Price, and Expenditure Estimates. DOE
modified the 2006 average commercial
electricity prices to reflect the average
electricity prices for each of the four
types of businesses examined in this
analysis. The LCC analysis compares the
LCCs of equipment designed to meet
possible energy conservation standards
with the LCCs of equipment likely to be
installed in the absence of standards.
The LCC analysis also identifies a range
of energy price forecasts for the
electricity prices used in the economic
analyses and provides results showing
the sensitivity of the LCC results to
these price forecasts.
Recognizing that each commercial
building that uses commercial
refrigeration equipment is unique, DOE
analyzed variability and uncertainty by
performing the LCC and PBP
calculations for two prototype
commercial buildings (i.e., stores) and
four types of businesses (two types of
businesses for each prototype store).
The first store prototype is a large
grocery store, which encompasses
supermarkets and wholesaler/retailer
multi-line stores such as big-box stores,
warehouse stores, and supercenters. The
second prototype is a small store, which
encompasses convenience stores and
small specialty stores such as meat
markets; wine, beer, and liquor stores;
and convenience stores associated with
gasoline stations. Various types of
commercial refrigeration equipment can
serve a given type of store’s refrigeration
needs. DOE gives the LCC savings as a
distribution, with a mean value and a
range. DOE developed average discount
rates for each of four business types
analyzed, ranging from 5.1 to 8.4
percent for the calculations, and
assumed that the customer purchases
the equipment in 2012. Chapter 8 of the
TSD contains the details of the LCC
calculations.
c. Energy Savings
While significant energy conservation
is a separate statutory requirement for
imposing an energy conservation
standard, EPCA requires DOE, in
determining the economic justification
of such a standard, to consider the total
projected energy savings that are
expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)
and 6316(e)(1)) DOE used the NES
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
spreadsheet results in its consideration
of total projected savings. Section IV.G.1
of this notice discusses the savings
figures.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Equipment
In establishing equipment classes,
evaluating design options, and assessing
the impact of potential standard levels,
DOE tried to avoid having new
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment lessen the utility or
performance of the equipment under
consideration in this rulemaking. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and
6316(e)(1)) None of the proposed trial
standard levels considered in this
rulemaking involve changes in
equipment design or unusual
installation requirements that would
reduce the utility or performance of the
equipment. See Chapter 4 and Chapter
16 of the TSD for more detail.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any
lessening of competition likely to result
from standards. It directs the Attorney
General to determine in writing the
impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from
imposition of a proposed standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (ii); and
6316(e)(1)) DOE has transmitted a
written request to the Attorney General
soliciting a written determination on
this issue.
f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
The non-monetary benefits of the
proposed standard are likely to be
reflected in improvements to the
security and reliability of the Nation’s
energy system. Reductions in the overall
demand for energy will reduce the
Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of
energy and increase reliability of the
Nation’s electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to
show the reduction in installed
generation capacity. Reduced power
demand (including peak power
demand) generally improves the
security and reliability of the energy
system.
The proposed standard also is likely
to result in improvements to the
environment. In quantifying these
improvements, DOE has defined a range
of primary energy conversion factors
and associated emission reductions
based on the generation that energy
conservation standards displaced. DOE
reports the environmental effects from
each trial standard level for this
equipment in the environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50079
assessment in the TSD. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(e)(1))
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy,
in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, to consider any
other factors the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)
and 6316(e)(1)) Under this provision,
DOE considered LCC impacts on
identifiable groups of customers, such
as customers of different business types,
who may be disproportionately affected
by any national energy conservation
standard level. In particular, DOE
examined the LCC impact on
independent small grocery/convenience
store businesses where both higher
discount rates and lack of access to
national account equipment purchases
might disproportionately affect those
business types when compared to the
overall commercial refrigeration
equipment market.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
Another criterion for determining
whether a standard level is
economically justified is the following
rebuttable presumption test:
If the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing
equipment complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than
three times the value of the energy * * *
savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the applicable
test procedure, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that such standard level is
economically justified. A determination by
the Secretary that such criterion is not met
shall not be taken into consideration in the
Secretary’s determination of whether a
standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1))
If the initial price of equipment
increases due to a conservation
standard, and the consumer would
recover the increase in energy savings in
less than three years through reduced
energy costs resulting from the standard,
then DOE presumes that such standard
is economically justified. This
presumption of economic justification
can be rebutted upon a proper showing.
The rebuttable presumption payback
calculation is discussed in Sections
III.D.2 and V.B.1.b of this NOPR.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Comments
DOE used two spreadsheet tools to
determine the impact of energy
conservation standards on the Nation.
The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs
and payback periods of potential new
energy conservation standards. The
second provides shipments forecasts
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50080
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
and then calculates national energy
savings and net present value impacts of
potential new energy conservation
standards. DOE also assessed
manufacturer impacts, largely through
use of the Government Regulatory
Impact Model (GRIM).
Additionally, DOE estimated the
impacts of energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment on utilities and the
environment. DOE used a version of
EIA’s National Energy Modeling System
(NEMS) for the utility and
environmental analyses. The NEMS
model simulates the energy economy of
the United States and has been
developed over several years by the EIA
primarily for the purpose of preparing
the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The
NEMS produces a widely known
baseline forecast for the Nation through
2025 that is available on the DOE Web
site. The version of NEMS used for
efficiency standards analysis is called
NEMS–BT,8 and is based on the
AEO2007 version with minor
modifications. The NEMS offers a
sophisticated picture of the effect of
standards, since its scope allows it to
measure the interactions between the
various energy supply and demand
sectors and the economy as a whole.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
When beginning an energy
conservation standards rulemaking,
DOE develops information that provides
an overall picture of the market for the
equipment concerned, including the
purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, and market characteristics.
This activity includes both quantitative
and qualitative assessments based
primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in
the market and technology assessment
for this rulemaking (Chapter 3 of the
TSD) include equipment classes,
manufacturers, quantities, and types of
equipment sold and offered for sale,
retail market trends, and regulatory and
non-regulatory programs.
8 The EIA approves use of the name NEMS to
describe only an AEO version of the model without
any modification to code or data. Because the
present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various
policy scenarios that deviate from AEO
assumptions, the name NEMS–BT refers to the
model used here. For more information on NEMS,
refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An
Overview 1998. DOE/EIA–0581 (98), February,
1998. BT is DOE’s Building Technologies Program.
NEMS–BT was formerly called NEMS–BRS.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
1. Definitions Related to Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment
a. Air Curtain Angle Definition
For equipment without doors, an air
curtain divides the refrigerated
compartment from the ambient space.
DOE stated in the ANOPR that the
orientation of the air curtain affects the
energy consumption of both remote
condensing and self-contained
equipment, and that equipment without
doors can be broadly categorized by the
angle of the air curtain. DOE considered
defining the air-curtain angle as ‘‘the
angle between a vertical line and the
line formed by the points at the center
of the discharge air grille and the center
of the return air grille, when viewed in
cross-section.’’ DOE presented this
definition in the ANOPR, 72 FR 41173,
and for discussion at the ANOPR public
meeting, and requested feedback.
ARI and Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
recommended that DOE slightly modify
its definition of air-curtain angle to ‘‘the
angle formed between a vertical line and
the line formed by the points at the
inside edge of the discharge air opening
and the inside edge of the return air
opening, when viewed in crosssection.’’ For equipment without doors
and without a discharge air grille or
discharge air honeycomb, the air curtain
should be defined as ‘‘the angle between
a vertical line extended down from the
highest point on the manufacturer’s
recommended load limit line and the
same load limit line.’’ (ARI, No. 18 at p.
2 and EEI, No. 15 at p. 2) DOE
recognizes that these proposed
definitions are consistent with industryapproved standards and is therefore
including the suggested modifications to
the definition for air-curtain angle in
today’s proposed rule.
b. Door Angle Definition
For equipment with doors, DOE stated
in the ANOPR that the orientation of the
doors affects the energy consumption,
and that equipment with doors can be
broadly categorized by the angle of the
door. DOE considered defining door
angle as ‘‘the angle between a vertical
line and the line formed by the plane of
the door, when viewed in crosssection.’’ 72 FR 41174. DOE also
presented this definition for discussion
at the ANOPR public meeting and
requested feedback.
While stakeholders agreed with DOE’s
proposed definition of door angle flat
doors, it was not clear how DOE would
define the door angle for curved doors
such as those found on service over-thecounter cases. True stated that curved
door angle should be defined by forming
a plane between ‘‘the end plane and the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
end peak in-section.’’ (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 59) Southern
California Edison (SCE) suggested
defining door angle for curved doors in
the way air-curtain angle is defined, by
the angle formed between the vertical
and a line drawn between the top and
bottom edges. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 59) DOE is
proposing its original definition of door
angle for cases with flat doors. For cases
with curved doors, DOE is not clear
what True’s intent was in defining door
angle, and no clarification was made in
True’s written comments. DOE believes
the approach suggested by SCE is
appropriate because it accounts for the
complex geometry of curved doors
while still remaining consistent with the
existing definition for air-curtain angle.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to define
door angle as ‘‘the angle formed
between a vertical line and the straight
line drawn by connecting the top and
bottom points where the display area
glass joins the cabinet, when the
equipment is viewed in cross-section.’’
2. Equipment Classes
When establishing energy
conservation standards, DOE generally
divides covered equipment into
equipment classes by the type of energy
used, capacity, or other performancerelated features that affect efficiency.
Different energy conservation standards
may apply to different equipment
classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and
6316(e)(1))
Commercial refrigerators, commercial
freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers can be divided into various
equipment classes categorized largely by
physical characteristics that affect
energy efficiency. Some of these
characteristics delineate the categories
of equipment covered by this
rulemaking.9 Most affect the
merchandise that the equipment can be
used to display, and how the customer
can access that merchandise. Key
physical characteristics that affect
energy efficiency are the operating
temperature, the presence or absence of
doors (i.e., closed cases or open cases),
the type of doors used (i.e., transparent
9 ‘‘Commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers,
and commercial refrigerator-freezers’’ is a type of
covered commercial equipment. For purposes of
discussion only in this proceeding, DOE uses the
term ‘‘categories’’ to designate groupings of
‘‘commercial refrigeration equipment.’’ The
categories of equipment are: Self-contained
commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors;
remote condensing commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers; and commercial ice-cream freezers. DOE
will analyze specific equipment classes that fall
within these general categories and set appropriate
standards.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
or solid), the angle of the door or aircurtain (i.e., horizontal, semivertical, or
vertical) and the type of condensing unit
(i.e., remote or self-contained). As
discussed in the ANOPR, 72 FR 41173–
77, and below, DOE has developed
equipment classes in this rulemaking by
(1) dividing commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers, and commercial
refrigerator-freezers into equipment
families, (2) subdividing these families
based on condensing unit configurations
and rating temperature designations,
and (3) identifying the resulting classes
that are within each of the three
equipment categories covered by this
rulemaking.
DOE divided covered equipment into
eight equipment families, which are
50081
shown in Table IV–1. Following the
ANOPR, DOE did not receive any
comments that it believes warranted
changes to the eight equipment families
proposed in the ANOPR and therefore,
the eight families are unchanged. The
two issues related to equipment family
designations are discussed below.
TABLE IV–1—EQUIPMENT FAMILY DESIGNATIONS
Equipment family
Description
Vertical Open (VOP) ...........................................
Semivertical Open (SVO) ....................................
Horizontal Open (HZO) .......................................
Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT) .....................
Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT) ................
Vertical Closed Solid (VCS) ................................
Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS) ............................
Service Over Counter (SOC) ..............................
Equipment without doors and an air-curtain ≥ 0° and < 10° from the vertical.
Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle ≥ 10° and < 80° from the vertical.
Equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle ≥ 80° from the vertical.
Equipment with hinged or sliding transparent doors and a door angle < 45°.
Equipment with hinged or sliding transparent doors and a door angle ≥ 45°.
Equipment with hinged or sliding solid (opaque) doors and a door angle < 45°.
Equipment with hinged or sliding solid (opaque) doors and a door angle ≥ 45°.
Equipment with sliding or hinged doors intended for use by sales personnel and fixed or
hinged glass for displaying merchandise.
Within each of the eight equipment
families is equipment that has one of the
two condensing unit configurations,
which are shown in Table IV–2. Because
these are the only two condensing unit
configurations used in commercial
refrigeration equipment, and since DOE
did not receive any comments on these
configurations following the ANOPR,
DOE did not make any changes.
TABLE IV–2—CONDENSING UNIT CONFIGURATION
Condensing unit configuration
Description
Remote Condensing (RC) ..............
Condensing unit 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.
Condensing unit 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.
Self-Contained (SC) ........................
DOE is also organizing equipment
classes based on the three operating
temperature ranges shown in Table IV–
3. Based on the temperature at which
the equipment is designed to operate, it
will fall into one of these operating
temperature ranges. This is identified as
Issue 3 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in Section VII.E of this
NOPR.
Each temperature range coincides
with a rating temperature used in the
test procedure final rule for the different
equipment types. 10 CFR 431.64.
Following the ANOPR, DOE did not
receive any comments regarding the
rating temperature designations
proposed in the ANOPR, and therefore
DOE did not make any changes to the
rating temperature designations.
TABLE IV–3—RATING TEMPERATURE DESIGNATIONS
Rating
temperature
(°F)
Operating
temperature (°F)
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
≥ 32 (M) ......................................................................................
< 32 and > ¥5 (L) ......................................................................
≤ ¥5 (I) .......................................................................................
In the ANOPR, DOE responded to
several comments and presented a
discussion (Section II.A.2) of the aircurtain angle ranges used to delineate
vertical, semivertical, and horizontal
equipment families without doors (VOP,
SVO, and HZO). 72 FR 41173–74. In
comments received following the
Framework document publication, some
stakeholders felt that the air-curtain
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
38
0
¥15
Description
Medium temperature (refrigerators).
Low temperature (freezers).
Ice-cream temperature (ice-cream freezers).
angle ranges used in the data provided
by ARI might encourage manufacturers
to redesign equipment to take advantage
of less stringent standards. Specifically,
the stakeholders were concerned that
manufacturers of VOP.RC.M equipment
(a high-volume equipment class) would
make slight alterations in their designs
that would shift the equipment to the
SVO.RC.M equipment class. If this shift
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occurred for a large number of models,
and if standards for SVO.RC.M
equipment were significantly less
stringent than standards for VOP.RC.M
equipment, a significant amount of
energy savings would be avoided. In
other words, energy savings will be less
than if that equipment was not modified
and remained under the vertical
classification. DOE responded to these
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50082
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
comments in the ANOPR, concurring
with stakeholders’ concerns, and
requesting any relevant data or feedback
regarding the ranges of air-curtain angle
proposed in the ANOPR. No further
comments were received on this issue
following the ANOPR. DOE is proposing
standards for the SVO.RC.M equipment
class that are virtually equivalent to
standards for the VOP.RC.M equipment
class (see the proposed rule language of
this NOPR). As a result, DOE believes
that the proposed standards eliminate
motivation for market shifts between
these equipment classes. However, to
assure that no changes to the air-curtain
ranges for the VOP, SVO, and HZO
equipment families are warranted, DOE
seeks comment on the possibility of
market shifts between equipment
classes based on the proposed
standards.
As discussed in the ANOPR, 72 FR
41174 and during the ANOPR public
meeting, DOE stated that it was
considering defining two equipment
families each for equipment with solid
and transparent doors, based on door
angles of 0° to 45° (vertical) and 45° to
90° (horizontal). EEI stated that DOE
should consider revising its definition
of door angle, because it is unclear
whether a door angle of 45° to be
vertical or horizontal. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 58) DOE agrees
with EEI that its previous designation
did not specify what equipment family
a unit with a 45° door angle would fall
under. Therefore, DOE has tentatively
decided that it will designate vertical
equipment with transparent or solid
doors as ‘‘equipment with hinged or
sliding doors and a door angle less than
45°,’’ and horizontal equipment with
transparent or solid doors as
‘‘equipment with hinged or sliding
doors and a door angle greater than or
equal to 45°.’’
DOE is considering 38 of the 48
equipment classes shown in Table IV–
4.10 The equipment classes are
organized by equipment family,
compressor operating mode, and rating
temperature. The right-hand column in
Table IV–4 with the heading
‘‘Equipment Class Designation’’
identifies each of the 48 equipment
classes with a particular set of letters.
The first three letters for each class
represent its equipment family. The
next two letters represent the
condensing unit configuration. The last
letter represents the rating temperature.
Table IV–1 through Table IV–3 set forth
the meaning of the equipment class
lettering designations.
TABLE IV–4—COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Equipment family
Condensing unit configuration
Operating temperature (°F)
Vertical Open .................................
Remote .........................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
Self-Contained ..............................
Semivertical Open ..........................
Remote .........................................
Self-Contained ..............................
Horizontal Open .............................
Remote .........................................
Self-Contained ..............................
Vertical Closed Transparent ..........
Remote .........................................
Self-Contained ..............................
Horizontal Closed Transparent ......
Remote .........................................
Self-Contained ..............................
Vertical Closed Solid .....................
Remote .........................................
Self-Contained ..............................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Horizontal Closed Solid .................
Remote .........................................
Self-Contained ..............................
10 Table IV–4 identifies 48 classes of commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial
refrigerator-freezers. Of the 48 classes, 10 classes are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
identified by asterisks. EPCA has already
established energy conservation standards for these
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Equipment class designation
VOP.RC.M
VOP.RC.L
VOP.RC.I
VOP.SC.M
VOP.SC.L
VOP.SC.I
SVO.RC.M
SVO.RC.L
SVO.RC.I
SVO.SC.M
SVO.SC.L
SVO.SC.I
HZO.RC.M
HZO.RC.L
HZO.RC.I
HZO.SC.M
HZO.SC.L
HZO.SC.I
VCT.RC.M
VCT.RC.L
VCT.RC.I
VCT.SC.M*
VCT.SC.L*
VCT.SC.I
HCT.RC.M
HCT.RC.L
HCT.RC.I
HCT.SC.M*
HCT.SC.L*
HCT.SC.I
VCS.RC.M
VCS.RC.L
VCS.RC.I
VCS.SC.M*
VCS.SC.L*
VCS.SC.I
HCS.RC.M
HCS.RC.L
HCS.RC.I
HCS.SC.M*
HCS.SC.L*
HCS.SC.I
10 classes, (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)) which are not
covered under this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
50083
TABLE IV–4—COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued
Equipment family
Condensing unit configuration
Operating temperature (°F)
Service Over Counter ....................
Remote .........................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
≥ 32 ...............................................
< 32 and > ¥5 .............................
≤ ¥5 .............................................
Self-Contained ..............................
Equipment class designation
SOC.RC.M
SOC.RC.L
SOC.RC.I
SOC.SC.M*
SOC.SC.L*
SOC.SC.I
* These equipment classes are covered by standards established in EPCA and are not covered under this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–
(3))
EPCA contains standards for selfcontained commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers and commercial
refrigerator-freezers with doors (42
U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)); this equipment is
not included in this rulemaking.
Equipment classes already covered by
EPCA, and therefore not included in
this rulemaking, are indicated with
asterisks in Table IV–4. DOE has based
the designations of these possible
equipment classes on the classification
methodology presented in Table IV–1
through Table IV–3.
Table IV–5 presents the equipment
classes covered under this rulemaking,
organized by the three equipment
categories.
TABLE IV–5—COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CLASSES BY CATEGORY
Equipment category
Condensing unit
configuration
Equipment family
Operating temperature (°F)
Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers,
and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers.
Remote .................
Vertical Open .......................................
≥ 32 ......................
< 32 and > ¥5 .....
VOP.RC.M
VOP.RC.L
Semivertical Open ...............................
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
≥ 32
< 32
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
......................
and > ¥5 .....
SVO.RC.M
SVO.RC.L
HZO.RC.M
HZO.RC.L
VCT.RC.M
VCT.RC.L
HCT.RC.M
HCT.RC.L
VCS.RC.M
VCS.RC.L
HCS.RC.M
HCS.RC.L
SOC.RC.M
SOC.RC.L
VOP.SC.M
VOP.SC.L
≥ 32 ......................
< 32 and > ¥5 .....
≥ 32 ......................
< 32 and > ¥5 .....
≤ ¥5 .....................
SVO.SC.M
SVO.SC.L
HZO.SC.M
HZO.SC.L
VOP.RC.I
SVO.RC.I
HZO.RC.I
VCT.RC.I
HCT.RC.I
VCS.RC.I
HCS.RC.I
SOC.RC.I
VOP.SC.I
SVO.SC.I
HZO.SC.I
VCT.SC.I
HCT.SC.I
VCS.SC.I
HCS.SC.I
SOC.SC.I
Horizontal Open ..................................
Vertical Closed Transparent ................
Horizontal Closed Transparent ...........
Vertical Closed Solid ...........................
Horizontal Closed Solid .......................
Service Over Counter ..........................
Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers, and
Commercial
Refrigerator-Freezers
without Doors.
Self-Contained ......
Vertical Open .......................................
Semivertical Open ...............................
Horizontal Open ..................................
Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers .........
Remote .................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Self-Contained ......
B. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis develops
cost-efficiency relationships to show the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Vertical Open .......................................
Semivertical Open ...............................
Horizontal Open ..................................
Vertical Closed Transparent ................
Horizontal Closed Transparent ...........
Vertical Closed Solid ...........................
Horizontal Closed Solid .......................
Service Over Counter ..........................
Vertical Open .......................................
Semivertical Open ...............................
Horizontal Open ..................................
Vertical Closed Transparent ................
Horizontal Closed Transparent ...........
Vertical Closed Solid ...........................
Horizontal Closed Solid .......................
Service Over Counter ..........................
manufacturing costs of achieving
increased efficiency. DOE has identified
the following three methodologies to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Equipment class
designation
generate the manufacturing costs
needed for the engineering analysis: (1)
The design option approach, which
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50084
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
provides the incremental costs of adding
design options to a baseline model that
will improve its efficiency; (2) the
efficiency-level approach, which
provides the relative costs of achieving
increases in energy efficiency levels
without regard to the particular design
options used to achieve such increases;
and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse
engineering) approach, which provides
‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost
assessments for achieving various levels
of increased efficiency based on detailed
cost data for parts and material, labor,
shipping/packaging, and investment for
models that operate at particular
efficiency levels.
1. Approach
In the ANOPR engineering analysis,
the primary methodology was an
efficiency-level approach,
supplemented by a design option
approach. DOE analyzed only the 15
equipment classes with shipment
volumes greater than 100 per year. The
basis of the approach was four industrysupplied cost-efficiency curves for the
four equipment classes shipped most
frequently (i.e., VCT.RC.L, VOP.RC.M,
SVO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L). See Section
0 for shipment data. DOE developed
these classes using an efficiency-level
approach. DOE supplemented these
industry-supplied curves with 15 curves
it developed using a design option
approach. Four of DOE’s curves were
intended only for comparison with the
industry-supplied curves, as verification
of the industry data. The other 11 curves
formed the basis of analysis for the other
11 analyzed equipment classes. The
ANOPR provides more details on this
approach. 72 FR 41180.
During the ANOPR public meeting
and subsequent comment period,
stakeholders raised concerns over using
industry-supplied data as the basis of
the engineering analysis. ARI stated that
the intent was to use the industry curves
only to validate DOE’s design option
analysis, not to use them directly in the
analysis. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 91) The American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy
(ACEEE) stated that rulemakings have
always used industry curves when they
were available. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 91) ARI stated
that the industry data represents an
average and covers the range of
available equipment, but not all
manufacturers’ equipment would span
the whole range. ARI also stated that as
few as three manufacturers submitted
data for some of the cost-efficiency
curves, while in the best cases there
were up to seven. ARI explained that
three manufacturers might not represent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
the entire industry. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at pp. 94–95)
Hussmann stated that it doesn’t know,
for example, how many shelf lights
other manufacturers included in the
data they submitted to ARI, and therein
lies some of the danger of using an
industry average. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 95) Regarding
the HZO.RC.L equipment class, EEI
stated that DOE’s data does not appear
to have the same range as ARI’s data.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 93) Copeland also questioned
whether the cost-efficiency curves from
industry made sense [because they did
not appear to be ordered in terms of
increasing payback]. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 149) ACEEE
noted that the analytically derived price
points for several equipment classes are
significantly higher than the industrysupplied data at high efficiency, and
suggested that DOE reexamine this data.
(ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2) ARI stated that
DOE’s design option approach appears
to be technically sound, and that the
ARI cost-efficiency curves are only
available for a limited number of
equipment classes. For consistency, ARI
recommended that DOE base its analysis
solely on DOE’s analytically derived
curves. (ARI, No. 18 at p. 6)
As mentioned above, DOE used the
four cost-efficiency curves 11 provided
by ARI as the basis for its ANOPR
engineering analysis. DOE was not
aware of ARI’s intent that they be used
only to validate DOE’s own analysis, or
of ARI’s concerns that the data may
have been insufficient for some classes.
DOE agrees with stakeholders that using
the analytically derived curves (a design
option approach) for all equipment
classes would be more consistent and
provide more transparency. Although
the efficiency-level and design option
approaches have been used together in
other rulemakings, DOE recognizes the
challenges in using the industrysupplied data as the primary
engineering analysis approach in this
rulemaking. The ARI data cannot be
disaggregated for public review, since
doing so would disclose sensitive
manufacturer information. This
prevents a rigorous investigation of any
discrepancies or irregularities in data
submitted by the manufacturers. At the
ANOPR public meeting, Hussmann
mentioned lighting levels as one
example of a design feature that could
cause discrepancies among data from
11 These four curves applied to the following four
equipment classes: VCT.RC.L, VOP.RC.M,
SVO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L. These represent the
equipment classes with the highest shipment
volumes.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
different manufacturers. In the design
option approach, data on design features
that affect performance (such as
lighting) are available for interested
persons to review and comment on,
along with other assumptions and
calculations. The aggregation of
industry data seems to have resulted in
cost-efficiency curves that lack the
marked cost increases at higher levels of
efficiency that are typical of the costefficiency relationship. The industrysupplied curves tended to be ‘‘flatter’’
than those developed by DOE, and in
some cases appear to have efficiency
levels that were not in order of
increasing payback, as noted by
Copeland. DOE believes the flatness of
the industry curves may account for
some of the discrepancies in pricing
between the industry-supplied and
analytically derived data, as noted by
ACEEE.
The extent of the industry-supplied
data was also cause for concern. ARI’s
statement that not all manufacturers’
equipment would span the whole range
of efficiency levels is consistent with
EEI’s concern that the data derived
using DOE’s design option approach did
not span the same range as the industry
data. Because of overlapping ranges of
efficiency of manufacturers’ data, the
overall cost-efficiency data reported by
ARI spans a range that in some cases is
greater than the range covered by DOE’s
design option data. DOE realizes this
could raise a concern that its analysis is
incomplete, for example by neglecting
design options that could account for
additional increases in efficiency, and
thus an increase in the span of
efficiencies covered. However, based on
the comments received, DOE believes
the extra range in the ARI data is instead
largely due to inconsistencies in the
manufacturer data submitted to ARI,
such as lighting levels. A smaller
portion of the extra range may also be
attributable to subtle aspects of design
and manufacturing (e.g., airflow and aircurtain design) that have an
insignificant impact on performance
and that cannot be modeled accurately
in the design option approach. DOE
appreciates the feedback from ARI that
the design option approach appears
sound, and believes that the design
option data is more accurate in
depicting the cost-efficiency
relationship for commercial
refrigeration equipment.
For the NOPR engineering analysis,
DOE analyzed the same 15 equipment
classes as in the ANOPR analysis, but
used only a design option approach.
That approach is identical to the one
used in the ANOPR, involving
consultation with outside experts,
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
review of publicly available cost and
performance information, and modeling
of equipment cost and energy
consumption, but DOE applied it to all
15 equipment classes analyzed. The
industry-supplied data developed using
an efficiency-level approach is used
only as a check on DOE’s data. DOE
believes this approach is more reliable,
and affords the public full transparency
of assumptions and results and the
ability to perform independent analyses
for verification. See Chapter 5 of the
TSD for more detail.
2. Equipment Classes Analyzed
For the NOPR, DOE did not make any
changes to the equipment classes
directly analyzed in the ANOPR
engineering analysis. Because of the
large number of equipment classes in
this rulemaking, DOE did not directly
analyze all equipment classes using the
design option approach. DOE
50085
maintained the same equipment class
prioritization used in the ANOPR.
Equipment classes with more than 100
units shipped per year (‘‘primary’’
classes), as well as the VOP.RC.L 12
equipment class, were directly
analyzed. Table IV–6 lists these
equipment classes, which represent
approximately 98 percent of the
shipments of commercial refrigeration
equipment reported by ARI.
TABLE IV–6—EQUIPMENT CLASSES DIRECTLY ANALYZED IN THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Equipment class
VOP.RC.M ...............
VOP.RC.L ................
SVO.RC.M ...............
HZO.RC.M ...............
HZO.RC.L ................
VCT.RC.M ...............
VCT.RC.L ................
SOC.RC.M ...............
VOP.SC.M ...............
SVO.SC.M ...............
HZO.SC.M ...............
HZO.SC.L ................
VCT.SC.I ..................
VCS.SC.I .................
HCT.SC.I .................
Description
Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Vertical Freezer without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
Semi-Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Horizontal Refrigerator without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Horizontal Freezer without Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
Vertical Refrigerator with Transparent Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Vertical Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Remote Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
Service Over Counter Refrigerator with a Remote Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Semi-Vertical Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Horizontal Refrigerator without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Horizontal Freezer without Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
Vertical Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream Temperature.
Vertical Ice-Cream Freezer with Solid Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream Temperature.
Horizontal Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit, Ice-Cream Temperature.
Development of the cost model
involved the disassembly of a selfcontained refrigerator with transparent
doors, an analysis of the materials and
manufacturing processes, and the
development of a parametric
spreadsheet model flexible enough to
cover all equipment classes. The
manufacturing cost model estimated
MPC and reported it in aggregated form
to maintain confidentiality of sensitive
cost data. DOE obtained input from
stakeholders on the MPC estimates and
assumptions to confirm accuracy. The
cost model was used for 7 of the 15
examined equipment classes and the
results were extended to 6 of the
remaining examined equipment classes.
The cost of the remaining two
equipment classes was estimated using
available manufacturer list price (MLP)
information discounted to MPC. Details
of the cost model are provided in
chapter 5 of the TSD.
Following the ANOPR, no comments
were received regarding DOE’s cost
model, and therefore no significant
changes were made to the methodology
used in the NOPR analysis. One change
was made to the manufacturer markup
assumption, which is discussed below.
One key element of DOE’s cost model
concerned features and structural
elements common in commercial
refrigeration equipment, but that would
not affect the energy use of the
equipment. Development of this part of
the cost model involved disassembling
a self-contained refrigerator with
transparent doors, analyzing the
materials and manufacturing processes,
and developing a parametric
spreadsheet model flexible enough to
cover all equipment classes. The other
key part of the cost model estimated the
costs of particular features or design
options that would affect the energy use
of the equipment. DOE obtained input
from stakeholders on the MPC estimates
and assumptions to confirm their
accuracy. DOE used the cost model for
7 of the 15 examined equipment classes
and extended the results to 6 of the
remaining examined equipment classes.
DOE estimated the cost of the remaining
two equipment classes using available
manufacturer list price (MLP)
information reduced to MPC. Chapter 5
of the TSD provides details of the cost
model.
A manufacturer markup is applied to
the MPC estimates to arrive at the MSP.
This is the price of equipment sold at
which the manufacturer can recover
both production and non-production
costs and can earn a profit. DOE
calculated the manufacturer markup as
the market share weighted average value
for the industry. For the ANOPR, DOE
developed this manufacturer markup by
examining several major commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers’
gross margin information from annual
reports and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) 10–K reports. The
manufacturers DOE analyzed account
for approximately 80 percent of the
market, and each company is a
subsidiary of a more diversified parent
company that manufactures equipment
other than commercial refrigeration
equipment. Because the 10–K reports do
12 The VOP.RC.L equipment class was reported as
having zero shipments in the ARI shipment data,
but was included in the analysis based on
recommendations from manufacturers. During
interviews conducted for the NOPR, manufacturers
reported to DOE their individual shipment numbers
for the VOP.RC.L class. Regardless of the actual
shipment volume, DOE believes there are
significantly more than 100 annual shipments of the
VOP.RC.L equipment class.
3. Analytical Models
In the design option approach, DOE
used models to develop estimates of
cost and energy consumption for each
equipment class at each efficiency level.
DOE used a cost model to estimate the
manufacturer production cost (MPC) in
dollars, and an energy consumption
model to estimate the daily energy
consumption in kWh for each of the 15
primary equipment classes analyzed.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
a. Cost Model
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50086
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
not provide gross margin information at
the subsidiary level, the estimated
markups represent the average markups
that the parent company applies over its
entire range of equipment offerings and
does not necessarily represent the
manufacturer markup of the subsidiary.
The ANOPR analysis indicated that
the average manufacturer markup is
1.39. However, DOE adjusted the
markups to be more representative of
the industry following discussions with
manufacturers during the MIA
interviews (Chapter 13). An aggregation
of the MIA interview responses gives a
market share weighted average
manufacturer markup value of 1.32. For
the NOPR, DOE used this revised
manufacturer markup with the MPC
values from the engineering analysis to
arrive at the MSP values used in the
GRIM.
As explained in the ANOPR, DOE
received industry-supplied curves from
ARI in the form of daily energy
consumption versus MLP, both
normalized by total display area (TDA).
Since DOE developed its analytically
derived curves in the form of calculated
daily energy consumption (CDEC)
versus MSP, it was necessary for DOE to
estimate an industry list price markup
so that it could make comparisons
between the two sets of curves. The
industry list price markup is a markup
to the selling price that provides the list
price. To make comparisons between
the analytically derived and industrysupplied cost-efficiency curves, DOE
discounted the industry data with the
list price markup and normalized the
analytically derived curves by TDA.
Manufacturers typically offer a
discount from the MLP, which depends
on factors such as the relationship with
the customer and the volume and type
of equipment being purchased. For the
estimate of list price markup, DOE
relied on information gathered on selfcontained commercial refrigeration
equipment, since list price information
is readily available and typically
published by manufacturers of this
equipment. A review of the data shows
that the list price markup is typically
2.0 (i.e., manufacturers will typically
sell their equipment for 50 percent off
the published list price). DOE further
verified the estimate by obtaining list
price quotes from several remote
condensing equipment manufacturers.
During manufacturer interviews, some
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers agreed with the 2.0
markup estimate, while others stated the
estimate was somewhat high. Although
the list price markup can vary
significantly by manufacturer and by
customer, DOE believes the estimated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
list price markup of 2.0 is representative
of the industry. DOE applied this
markup to all equipment classes.
DOE did not receive any additional
comments or information indicating that
revision of the cost model used in the
ANOPR analysis is warranted. Therefore
DOE has adhered to that model in the
NOPR analysis.
b. Energy Consumption Model
The energy consumption model
estimates the daily energy consumption
of commercial refrigeration equipment
at various performance levels using a
design options approach. The model is
specific to the categories of equipment
covered under this rulemaking, but is
sufficiently generalized to model the
energy consumption of all covered
equipment classes. For a given
equipment class, the model estimates
the daily energy consumption for the
baseline and the energy consumption of
several levels of performance above the
baseline. The model is used to calculate
each performance level separately.
In developing the energy
consumption model, DOE made general
assumptions about the analysis
methodology and specific numerical
assumptions regarding load components
and design options. DOE based its
energy consumption estimates on new
equipment tested in a controlledenvironment chamber in accordance
with ANSI/ARI Standard 1200–2006,
the DOE test procedure for commercial
refrigeration equipment, which
references the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
72–2005 test method.13 Once Federal
standards for this equipment become
operative, manufacturers will be
required to test units with this test
method, which specifies a certain
ambient temperature, humidity, light
level, and other requirements. This test
method, however, contains no
specification as to the operating hours of
the display case lighting, and DOE’s
energy consumption model considers
the operating hours to be 24 hours per
day (i.e., that lights are on
continuously). This assumption is
consistent with the lighting operating
time assumption used in the energy use
characterization (see Section IV.D).
Chapter 5 of the TSD discusses further
the assumptions used in the energy
consumption model.
The energy consumption model
calculates CDEC as having two major
components: Compressor energy
consumption and component energy
consumption (expressed as kWh/day).
Component energy consumption is the
13 The test procedures are found at 10 CFR
431.64.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sum of the direct electrical energy
consumption of fan motors, lighting,
defrost and drain heaters, anti-sweat
heaters, and pan heaters. Compressor
energy consumption is calculated from
the total refrigeration load (expressed in
Btu/h) and one of two compressor
models: One version for remote
condensing equipment and one for selfcontained equipment. The total
refrigeration load is a sum of the
component load and the non-electric
load. The component load is the sum of
the heat emitted by evaporator fan
motors, lighting, defrost and drain
heaters, and anti-sweat heaters inside
and adjacent to the refrigerated space
(condenser fan motors and pan heaters
are outside of the refrigerated space and
do not contribute to the component heat
load). The non-electric load is the sum
of the heat contributed by radiation
through glass and openings, heat
conducted through walls and doors, and
sensible and latent loads from warm,
moist air infiltration through openings.
Chapter 5 of the TSD discusses
component energy consumption,
compressor energy consumption, and
load models.
DOE made one change to the
methodology of calculating the radiation
load for cases without doors (VOP, SVO,
and HZO equipment families). In the
ANOPR analysis, the view factor 14 from
the interior of the case to the walls of
the test chamber was estimated as 0.025.
This value was kept as a constant for all
cases and sizes in the ANOPR analysis,
but it is clear this value should change
somewhat as the geometry and the
overall size of the case changes. For the
NOPR, DOE calculated the view factor
separately for each equipment class
depending on the geometry specific to
the baseline design specifications of that
class. The view factor from the case to
the room is calculated as the ratio of
TDA (i.e., the area of the plane
separating the case from the room) to
the test chamber wall surface area.
Stakeholders raised questions
regarding DOE’s method of calculating
the infiltration load 15 for commercial
refrigeration equipment. Carrier asserted
that DOE’s method of using defrost
water to model infiltration has
limitations. Carrier pointed out that as
the case is run at higher suction
temperatures, the coil has a tendency to
run as a wet coil and does not retain
much of the moisture on its exterior.
Typically on manufacturer specification
sheets, defrost meltwater is only the
14 A view factor is the proportion of all radiation
that leaves one surface and strikes another.
15 The mass of warm ambient store air that
displaces the cold air inside of the case.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
water that comes out during a defrost
period, and Carrier noted that there may
be additional water that would come off
the coil between defrost periods. Carrier
believes DOE may be underestimating
the infiltration load using information
from the specification sheets, and
estimated that the infiltration load is
typically around 75 percent of total
cooling water. Carrier questioned
whether or not DOE compared its
estimates with the calculated infiltration
loads. (Public Meeting Transcript, No.
13.5 at p. 83) Hussmann stated that
when it publishes data for defrost
meltwater, it does so for the sole
purpose of sizing sewer lines and not for
estimating the infiltration load. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 85)
In the ANOPR analysis, DOE
calculated infiltration load using
empirical defrost meltwater data
obtained from manufacturers’ detailed
specification sheets. DOE assumed that
defrost meltwater could be correlated
with infiltration load, given certain
known parameters such as ambient
relative humidity. This methodology
was calibrated with detailed
refrigeration load data obtained from
Southern California Edison for several
large-volume equipment classes. DOE
agrees with the assessment made by
stakeholders and has altered its
methodology accordingly. In the NOPR
engineering design specifications,
defrost meltwater (in pounds per hour,
lbs/hr) is replaced with infiltrated air
(also in lbs/hr) for all equipment classes.
DOE estimated infiltrated air by using
manufacturers’ detailed specification
sheets, recognizing that infiltration load
is the only load component that cannot
be directly calculated. Using physical
parameters about each case, the other
load components (internal load,
conduction load, radiation load) are
calculated. DOE subtracted these load
components from the listed total
refrigeration load, and it is assumed that
the remaining load is due to infiltration.
Chapter 5 of the TSD provides more
details of the change to this
methodology.
At the public meeting, stakeholders
expressed concern over the refrigerants
DOE used in the analysis. EEI asked if
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants
were already assumed to be in use in the
baseline. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 97) ARI stated that most
of the data it provided to DOE was
based on such refrigerants and no
changes are expected in that regard.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 97) In its analysis, DOE assumed that
HFC refrigerants are already fully in use
for commercial refrigeration equipment.
For all remote condensing equipment,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
in accordance with the DOE test
procedure in ANSI/ARI Standard 1200–
2006, DOE assumes the use of a
compressor using an HFC refrigerant
(i.e., R–404A). Likewise, all of the
compressors DOE used in modeling selfcontained equipment use either R–404A
or R–134A, another HFC refrigerant.
c. Design Options
In the market and technology
assessment for the ANOPR, DOE
defined an initial list of technologies
that have the potential to reduce the
energy consumption of commercial
refrigeration equipment. In the
screening analysis for the ANOPR, DOE
screened out some of these technologies
based on four screening criteria:
Technological feasibility; practicability
to manufacture, install and service;
impacts on equipment utility or
availability; and impacts on health or
safety. 72 FR 41179–80. The remaining
technologies became inputs to the
ANOPR engineering analysis as design
options. However, for reasons described
in the ANOPR, DOE did not incorporate
all of these technologies as design
options in the energy consumption
model. 72 FR 41182–83. Stakeholders
commented that some of these
technologies should be included in the
NOPR engineering analysis, and
recommended additional design options
DOE should consider. Comments
pertaining to each suggested technology
and DOE’s response are provided below.
As a general comment about design
options, ACEEE stated that some design
options that were screened out should
be considered for further analysis and
that prevalence in the marketplace is
not necessarily a good reason to screen
out a design option. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 62) DOE
screened out five technologies in the
ANOPR screening analysis. These are
air-curtain design, thermoacoustic
refrigeration, magnetic refrigeration,
electro-hydrodynamic heat exchangers,
and copper rotor motors. All five of
these design options were screened out
because they are in the research stage
and would not be practical to
manufacture, install, and service. Since
the publication of the ANOPR, DOE is
not aware of any significant changes to
the status of these technologies, and has
not included them in the NOPR
analysis.
ACEEE recommended that variablespeed compressors be included in the
analysis. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2) EEI
also suggested that DOE consider the
use of variable-speed drives for
compressors. (EEI, No. 15 at p. 2)
Variable-speed compressors could
potentially improve the efficiency of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50087
commercial refrigeration equipment
classes that are self-contained units
without doors and self-contained icecream freezers. Variable-speed
compressors can reduce energy
consumption under real-world
conditions by matching cooling capacity
to the refrigeration load, which can
change due to variations in ambient
conditions and product loading. This
load matching allows for a more
constant temperature inside the case,
eliminating the large fluctuations in
temperature that are typical of singlespeed compressors. The stability in
temperature allows manufacturers to
design equipment with higher
evaporator temperatures, improving
compressor efficiency. However, the
energy-saving benefit of variable-speed
compressors is not clear under ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, because it
is a steady-state test for commercial
refrigeration equipment. Further, DOE is
not aware of any test data showing the
energy savings benefit of variable speed
compressors in the types of equipment
covered in this rule. Certain test data
does exist for walk-ins and residential
refrigerators, but DOE does not believe
that this data can be used to predict the
performance of variable-speed
compressors in commercial refrigeration
equipment. Therefore, DOE did not
include variable-speed compressors as a
design option in its engineering
analysis.
ACEEE recommended that variablespeed evaporator fans be included in the
analysis. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2) San
Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE)
also recommended that DOE include in
its analysis the energy savings, costeffectiveness, and feasibility of such
fans for enclosed refrigeration
equipment served by remote
refrigeration compressors. (SDGE, No.
22 at p. 2) SCE recommended that DOE
consider the cost-effectiveness of
variable-speed evaporator fans for this
equipment. SCE asserted that variablespeed fan control was a very effective
and cost-effective means of increasing
refrigerated warehouse efficiency and
should be applicable to commercial
refrigeration equipment as well. SCE
stated that this reduces the energy
consumption of the fan and the amount
of load that the refrigerant must reject.
SCE also noted that its work in support
of California building and appliance
standards showed variable-speed
controls on evaporator fans had
approximately one-year simple
paybacks in both refrigerated
warehouses and small walk-in coolers.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 69 and SCE, No. 19 at p. 3) EEI also
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50088
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
suggested that DOE consider the use of
variable-speed drives for evaporator fans
and compressors. (EEI, No. 15 at p. 2)
Variable-speed evaporator fans can
operate at speeds that match changing
conditions in the case. DOE recognizes
that the use of these fans provides some
opportunity for energy savings, because
the buildup and removal of frost creates
differing pressure drops across the
evaporator coil. Theoretically, less fan
power is required when the coil is free
of frost. Additionally, when an
evaporator fan operates at variable
speeds, the coil would operate at a more
stable temperature during the period of
frost build-up. However, the
effectiveness of the air curtain in
equipment without doors is very
sensitive to changes in airflow, so fan
motor controllers would likely disrupt
air curtains. DOE believes the likely
disturbance to the air curtain, which
would lead to higher infiltration loads
and higher overall energy consumption,
would negate the use of evaporator fan
motor controllers in equipment without
doors, even if there were some
reduction in fan energy use. In addition,
the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2005
test method is a steady-state test for
commercial refrigeration equipment, so
similar to variable-speed compressors,
the energy-saving benefit of variablespeed fans is not clear. Therefore, DOE
did not include variable-speed fans as a
design option in its engineering
analysis.
ACEEE recommended that remote
ballast location be included in the
analysis. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2)
Fluorescent lamp ballasts generate heat,
and their relocation outside the
refrigerated space can reduce energy
consumption by lessening the
refrigeration load on the compressor.
However, for the majority of commercial
refrigeration equipment currently
manufactured, ballasts are already
located in electrical trays outside of the
refrigerated space, in either the base or
top of the equipment. The notable
exceptions are the equipment classes in
the VCT equipment family, where
ballasts are most often located on the
interior of each door mullion. Most
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers purchase doors for VCT
units that are preassembled with the
entire lighting system in place rather
than configured for separate ballasts.
DOE believes that most commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
choose these kinds of doors because it
would be labor intensive and time
consuming to relocate these ballasts at
the factory, and because of the
additional cost and labor of wiring
separate ballasts. Manufacturers have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
indicated that the potential energy
savings are also small, since modern
electronic ballasts are very efficient and
typically contribute only a few watts
(W) each to the refrigeration load.
Because (1) lamp ballasts are already
located externally on most equipment;
(2) most units that have internally
located lamp ballasts use preassembled
lighting systems; and (3) potential
energy savings are small, DOE did not
consider remote relocation of ballasts as
a design option in its engineering
analysis.
ACEEE recommended that improved
insulation be included in the analysis.
(ACEEE, No. 15 at p. 2) Potential
improvements to insulation material
used in commercial refrigeration
equipment cabinets include better
polyurethane foams and vacuum panels.
In consultation with insulation material
manufacturers, DOE determined that
there are no significant differences in
‘‘grades’’ of insulation material, so
equipment manufacturers are already
using the best commercially available
foam materials in their equipment.
Vacuum panels are an alternative form
of insulation; however, they may
degrade in performance in time as small
leaks develop. Based on knowledge of
typical manufacturing practices, DOE
also believes it would be impractical to
use vacuum panels to construct
commercial refrigeration equipment,
because they cannot be penetrated by
fasteners, and do not provide the
rigidity of ‘‘foamed-in-place’’
polyurethane insulation panels. Thicker
insulation is another possible option,
but could be problematic because it
would likely result in either a reduced
volume for the refrigerated space or an
increase in the overall size of the
equipment cabinet. Reducing the
volume of the refrigerated space could
affect the utility of the equipment, and
because the outer dimensions of
commercial refrigeration equipment are
often limited (e.g., by interior
dimensions of shipping containers), it is
often not practical to increase the
overall size of the cabinet. For all these
reasons, DOE did not consider
insulation thickness increases or
improvements as a design option in its
ANOPR engineering analysis.
However, DOE did add increases in
insulation thickness as a design option
in the NOPR engineering analysis,
because it now believes this is a costeffective option in several equipment
types, most notably self-contained icecream freezers with doors. DOE
understands that in equipment classes
where conduction makes up a
significant portion of the total
refrigeration load, a modest increase in
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
insulation thickness can lead to small,
but significant energy savings. In
relatively large units, which make up
the largest portion of the shipments of
commercial refrigeration equipment,
even if such added insulation results in
reduction of the refrigerated volume,
any such reduction would not be
substantial. DOE does not foresee any
impact on the availability of this type of
equipment from the use of increased
insulation that would trigger EPCA’s
prohibition at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and
6316(e)(1). As to smaller units, DOE
assumes that their outer dimensions are
less constrained than the dimensions of
larger units, and that therefore
manufacturers could accommodate a
small increase in insulation thickness,
and maintain the amount of refrigerated
volume, by making a small increase in
the overall size of the cabinet.
Therefore, in the NOPR, DOE modeled
a 1⁄2-inch increase in insulation
thickness for all equipment classes.
When implemented as a design option,
this increase in thickness was added to
the baseline value of insulation
thickness and DOE recalculated the
conduction load. DOE based the cost of
increasing the insulation thickness on a
sunk cost per unit, considering foam
fixture engineering and tooling costs,
production line lifetime, and number of
fixtures and units produced. Chapter 5
of the TSD provides details of the
assumptions DOE used to calculate the
additional cost of insulation thickness
increases.
ACEEE recommended that DOE
include defrost cycle control in the
analysis. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2) Defrost
cycle control can reduce energy
consumption by reducing the frequency
and duration of defrost periods. The
majority of equipment currently
manufactured already uses partial
defrost cycle control in the form of cycle
termination control. However, defrost
cycle initiation is still scheduled at
regular intervals. Full defrost cycle
control would involve detecting frost
buildup and initiating defrost. As
described in the market and technology
assessment (Chapter 3 of the TSD), this
could be accomplished through an
optical sensor or by sensing the
temperature differential across the
evaporator coil. However, both methods
are unreliable due to problems with
fouling of the coil from dust and other
surface contaminants. This becomes
more of an issue as the display case
ages. Because of these issues, DOE did
not consider defrost cycle control as a
design option in its engineering
analysis.
SCE asserted that doors should be
considered a design option for open
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
units, and that open units without doors
should be held to energy consumption
standards at levels warranted for units
with doors. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 44) SCE advocates, in
essence, that manufacture of new, open
commercial refrigeration equipment be
discontinued and replaced by
manufacture of equipment with doors. It
stated that this would be a cost-effective
way of saving substantial amounts of
energy. (SCE, No. 19 at p. 2) Although
SCE did not state it explicitly, DOE
understands that its main argument for
advocating that doors be considered for
open cases is that doors should be
regarded as a design option and not a
feature, such that there are not separate
equipment classes for equipment with
and without doors.
DOE acknowledges SCE’s position.
Substantial, cost-effective energy
savings might well result from standards
that would, in effect, require the
manufacture of commercial refrigeration
equipment with doors instead of
without. DOE has not considered such
standards in this proceeding, however,
nor has it studied their potential energy
savings or economic justification
(including the extent of their impact on
product utility), because it believes
EPCA precludes their adoption. First,
DOE believes that, for commercial
refrigeration equipment, the existence or
lack of doors (i.e., whether the case is
open or closed) does affect the utility of
the equipment to its owner and user,
and therefore is a ‘‘feature’’ as that term
is used in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and
6316(e)(1). Because a standard based on
combining open and closed equipment
classes would result in the
unavailability of open cases, as
described above, such a standard would
violate EPCA’s prohibition against any
standard that would ‘‘result in the
unavailability’’ of equipment with
‘‘features * * * that are substantially
the same’’ as those currently available in
the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)
and 6316(e)(1)) Second, EPCA
prescribes energy conservation
standards for self-contained equipment
with doors, and mandates that DOE
issue standard levels for ‘‘self-contained
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers without doors.’’ (42
U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(4)) The latter
equipment is one of the subjects of this
rulemaking. Hence, the plain language
of EPCA covers standards for
commercial refrigeration equipment
with and without doors. DOE must
follow this legislative mandate. For
these reasons, DOE did not consider
doors as a design option for open
equipment in its engineering analysis.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
The design options DOE considered in
the NOPR engineering analysis are:
• Higher efficiency lighting and
ballasts for the VOP, SVO, HZO, and
SOC equipment families (horizontal
fixtures);
• Higher efficiency lighting and
ballasts for the VCT equipment family
(vertical fixtures);
• Higher efficiency evaporator fan
motors;
• Increased evaporator surface area;
• Increased insulation thickness;
• Improved doors for the VCT
equipment family, low temperature;
• Improved doors for the VCT
equipment family, medium temperature;
• Improved doors for the HCT
equipment family, ice-cream
temperature;
• Improved doors for the SOC
equipment family, medium temperature;
• Higher efficiency condenser fan
motors (for self-contained equipment
only);
• Increased condenser surface area
(for self-contained equipment only); and
• Higher efficiency compressors (for
self-contained equipment only).16
At the public meeting and during the
comment period, stakeholders raised
concerns about some of the design
option data DOE used in its analysis and
about DOE’s depiction of some of the
design options. Several stakeholders
were concerned with the lighting design
option data. Zero Zone stated that DOE’s
estimate of the incremental increase in
cost for light emitting diode (LED)
lighting was too low. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 89) ARI
seemed to agree with Zero Zone’s
assessment, stating that DOE appears to
have significantly underestimated the
incremental cost for LED lighting by
about 50 percent.
DOE revised its cost assumption for
LED lighting used in the VOP, SVO,
HZO, and SOC equipment families
(horizontal four-foot fixtures) and the
VCT equipment family (vertical 5-foot
fixtures). For the ANOPR, DOE based
LED lighting costs on an LED retrofit
case study, but DOE revised some of its
assumptions for the NOPR based on
conversations with manufacturers of
LED chips and LED fixtures.
Specifically, DOE revised its
assumptions on the relative weight of
the costs of LED chips, power supplies,
and the balance of fixtures (which
includes labor). These changes cause the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
cost (i.e., the cost to commercial
16 Improvements to the condensing unit are not
considered for remote condensing equipment, since
the test procedure and standard apply only to the
cabinet and not the condensing unit.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50089
refrigeration equipment manufacturers)
of LED fixtures to increase for both
horizontal and vertical fixtures. DOE
believes the cost estimates for LED
fixtures are now more accurate and are
consistent with the costs commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
would experience in today’s market at
mass-production volumes. Further
discussion of the assumptions used to
calculate LED fixture costs are provided
in Chapter 5 of the TSD.
Although DOE found that current LED
costs are higher than originally
estimated in the ANOPR analysis,
through a closer examination of cost
data for currently available LEDs, DOE
recognizes that LED technology has
historically exceeded DOE’s efficiency
and cost targets. In this NOPR, DOE
conducted a sensitivity study that
analyzed future LED costs based on
DOE’s Multi-Year Program Plan,17
which are consistent with historical
LED price reductions between 2000 and
2007 (see Appendix B of the TSD). The
Multi-Year Program Plan projects that
LED chip costs will continue to decrease
at a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of approximately ¥27 percent
between 2007 and 2012, which
represents a price reduction of 80
percent over that time period. Also in
agreement, EIA’s NEMS uses a
technology characterization for LED
light sources, which show that LED chip
costs are expected to decline by
approximately 71 percent for the same
time period. Since LED chips are only
a portion of the total LED system (other
components include power supply and
the LED fixture), the 80 percent
reduction in chip costs contributes to an
estimated decrease in total LED system
cost of approximately 50 percent by
2012, assuming the costs of the power
supply and LED fixtures do not change
significantly.
DOE examined whether the projected
LED costs presented in the Multi-Year
Program Plan and used in this NOPR are
consistent with publicly available
empirical historical cost data. DOE
reviewed available price data for the
LED market and found that between
2000 and 2007, white-light LEDs had a
CAGR ranging from approximately ¥18
to ¥31 percent. DOE’s LED cost
projection (i.e., ¥27 percent CAGR)
falls within the range of CAGRs
observed.
17 U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting
Research and Development, Multi-Year Program
Plan FY’09–FY’14. This document was prepared
under the direction of a Technical Committee from
the Next Generation Lighting Initiative Alliance
(NGLIA). Information about the NGLIA and its
members is available at https://www.nglia.org.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50090
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DOE expanded its examination by
comparing this projected trend to the
red-light LED market, which is a related
technology, with price information
spanning approximately three decades
(i.e., 1973 to 2005). DOE found that the
CAGR of red-light LED costs was ¥22
percent over this longer time span. The
trend in red-light LED costs derived
from empirical data over this longer
time period is of a similar magnitude to
DOE’s projected costs for white-light
LEDs. Due to the technological
similarities between red-light LEDs and
white-light LEDs, DOE believes that the
historical cost reductions for red-light
LEDs are indicative of future cost
reductions for white-light LEDs.
Furthermore, the white-light LED
market is undergoing a massive
expansion and growth phase, with
significant investment, new products
and innovative applications for LED
technology, including illumination of
commercial refrigeration equipment.
See Section V.C of this NOPR and
Appendix B of the TSD for more detail
on the cost projection and DOE’s
validation of those estimates. DOE seeks
comment on the extent to which these
price trends are indicative of what can
be expected for commercial refrigeration
equipment LED lighting from 2007 to
2012 and the extent to which the cost
reduction observed for red-light LEDs is
relevant to DOE’s cost projections for
white-light LEDs. Also, in order to
consider that LED costs are to decline
more than assumed in this analysis,
DOE will need more information than
currently available on the extent,
timing, and certainty of such further
price reductions. Finally, DOE seeks
comment on the extent to which
manufacturers would adopt LED
technology into the design of
commercial refrigeration equipment in
the absence of standards considering the
rapid development of LED technology
and the steady reductions in cost. See
Section VII.E.1 for details.
The design option data for doors on
VCT equipment were another area of
concern for stakeholders. Zero Zone
stated that the incremental increase in
cost for high-efficiency doors
(particularly cooler doors) seemed too
high. (Public Meeting Transcript, No.
13.5 at p. 89) ACEEE also indicated that
DOE’s costs for high-efficiency doors are
too high. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2) ARI
stated that it does not believe that the
door used in DOE’s analysis (one that
uses no energy) is available in the
market today. According to ARI, highefficiency door models currently in the
market have no heat in the door, but the
frame installed in the case uses at least
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
40 W per door. ARI also stated that this
option is not available to manufacturers
in all applications because it is not
intended for stores that operate outside
a condition of 75 °F dry bulb and 55
percent relative humidity, which
requires higher wattage anti-condensate
heaters in the doors/frames. (ARI, No.
18 at p. 6) Zero Zone made similar
comments, stating that building
humidity could be an issue in the use
and functionality of higher efficiency
doors without heaters. Zero Zone also
recommended that DOE revise its
analysis and use 40 W per door for the
high-efficiency medium temperature
frame, and that high-efficiency doors
should be dropped from the analysis
because they can result in condensate
and water on the floor, such that they
are not safe to use in a number of stores.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 119 and Zero Zone, No. 17 at p. 2)
DOE did not revise its costs for doors
on VCT equipment. After reviewing the
information collected for the ANOPR
analysis, DOE concluded that its
preliminary cost estimates were
reasonable. Notwithstanding the
stakeholder observations just set forth,
none of them provided any specific
additional data that would warrant
revision of DOE’s cost assessments, and
DOE is not aware of such data.
However, DOE revised the values for the
anti-sweat heater power for glass doors
for VCT.RC.L and VCT.RC.I equipment
in the NOPR engineering analysis.
Based on discussion with manufacturers
and data from manufacturer
specification sheets, the anti-sweat
heater power for both the baseline and
high-efficiency doors was increased
(from 160 W to 200 W for baseline doors
and from 60 W to 110 W for highefficiency doors). DOE also revised the
anti-sweat heater power for glass doors
for VCT.RC.M equipment in the NOPR
engineering analysis based on
comments and data received from
manufacturer specification sheets. DOE
increased the anti-sweat heater power
for both the baseline doors (from 60 W
to 100 W) and high-efficiency doors
(from 0 W to 50 W). See Chapter 5 of
the TSD for more detail.
Regarding the compressor design
options, Emerson noted that possible
efficiency improvements for
compressors in self-contained units may
be too optimistic. True believes that
because the test procedure is not steadystate (due to door openings), variablespeed compressors may be an effective
design option. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 75) However,
True also noted that few variable-speed
compressors are available in the
appropriate power range, but that their
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
development is continuing. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 76)
Emerson also believes that highefficiency compressors may not be
readily available and that it may be
particularly hard to find compressors
capable of this level of increased
efficiency for low temperature
equipment. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 65) For the NOPR, DOE
revised the assumptions it used to
estimate the changes in cost and
efficiency for high-efficiency, singlespeed compressors. Based on
discussions with manufacturers and
other experts, DOE concluded that the
assumptions used in the ANOPR
analysis (a 10 percent increase in cost
results in a 20 percent reduction in
energy use) overstated the actual
efficiency gains that are possible for
today’s compressors. Therefore, DOE
now assumes that a five percent
increase in cost would result in a 10
percent reduction in compressor energy
use. Per-dollar efficiency gains are
equivalent with these new assumptions,
but the overall magnitude of power
reduction and the cost premium are
reduced. This change affects only the
self-contained equipment classes
analyzed in the engineering analysis.
Additionally, in the NOPR analysis,
DOE revised the capacity values used to
select self-contained compressors in the
energy consumption model. DOE’s
energy consumption model selects the
most appropriate compressor by
comparing each compressor’s capacity
to the total refrigeration load in the case
multiplied by the compressor oversize
factor. Because compressor capacity is
dependent on the conditions the
compressor is tested at (compressor
manufacturers provide capacity data
over a range of conditions), it is
important to select the compressor
capacity based on the same conditions
used to calculate total refrigeration load.
For the ANOPR analysis, DOE listed
capacity at standard ASHRAE rating
conditions. However, the standard
rating conditions used in the ASHRAE
540–2004 standard differ from the
operating conditions used in the model,
and each set of conditions results in
different capacity values.18 Because the
standard conditions and modeled
18 ASHRAE Standard 540–2004 lists standard
rating conditions for hermetic refrigeration
compressors. For medium-temperature equipment,
compressors are rated at 20 °F suction dewpoint,
120 °F discharge dewpoint, 40 °F return gas, and
0 °F subcooling. For low-temperature equipment,
compressors are rated at ¥10 °F suction dewpoint,
120 °F discharge dewpoint, 40 °F return gas, and
0 °F subcooling. For ice-cream-temperature
equipment, compressors are rated at ¥25 °F suction
dewpoint, 105 °F discharge dewpoint, 40 °F return
gas, and 0 °F subcooling.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
conditions differed, the model typically
overestimated the capacity of the
selected compressors. To compensate,
DOE adjusted the compressor oversize
factor to an unrealistic level (typically 1)
in order for the ANOPR model to select
the correct compressor. For the NOPR,
DOE used capacities based on the same
conditions used to calculate total
refrigeration load and revised the
oversize factor (typically 1.4 in the
NOPR model) for all self-contained
equipment classes to maintain the
selection of the correct compressor size.
See Chapter 5 of the TSD for more
detail.
In the analysis for the ANOPR, the
calculation of LED energy use assumed
that the LED lighting fixtures at the ends
of VCT cases were identical to those
between doors. With fluorescent
fixtures, manufacturers install the same
lamp regardless of whether it is at the
end of the case (attached to an end
mullion) or between doors (attached to
an interior mullion). This causes excess
light at the ends of the case. The light
output of a single lamp between two
doors is directed in both directions (i.e.,
behind two doors), whereas lamps at the
ends direct light only on the contents
behind the end door. LED fixtures are
inherently scalable, so manufacturers
can install an LED fixture in the end
mullion that uses fewer LEDs than
fixtures in interior mullions. In the
NOPR analysis, the calculation assumes
single-row LED fixtures are used in the
end mullions and that these fixtures use
roughly 75 percent of the energy of
double-row fixtures in interior mullions.
See Chapter 5 of the TSD for more
detail.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
4. Baseline Models
As mentioned above, the engineering
analysis estimates the incremental costs
for equipment with efficiency levels
above the baseline in each equipment
class. DOE was not able to identify a
voluntary or industry standard that
provided a minimum baseline efficiency
requirement for commercial
refrigeration equipment. Therefore, it
was necessary for DOE to determine
baseline specifications for each
equipment class to define the energy
consumption and cost of the typical,
baseline equipment. These
specifications include dimensions,
number of components, temperatures,
nominal power ratings, and other case
features that affect energy consumption,
as well as a basic case cost (the cost of
a piece of equipment not including the
major efficiency-related components
such as lights, fan motors, and
evaporator coils).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
DOE established baseline
specifications for each equipment class
modeled in the engineering analysis by
reviewing available manufacturer data,
selecting several representative units
from available manufacturer data, and
then aggregating the physical
characteristics of the selected units.
This process created a unit
representative of commercial
refrigeration equipment currently being
offered for sale in each equipment class,
with average characteristics for physical
parameters (e.g., volume, TDA), and
minimum performance of energyconsuming components (e.g., fans,
lighting). DOE used the cost model to
develop the basic case cost for each
equipment class. See Appendix B of the
TSD for these specifications.
Zero Zone expressed concern over
DOE’s method for calculating the
internal case volume. Zero Zone
suggested that DOE update its analysis
to use ARI Standard 1200 for calculating
the internal volume of a case. This
standard calculates internal volume
using the internal height and depth of
the case from the inside of the door to
the rear wall or rear duct. This is
typically how the industry calculates
internal volume. (Zero Zone, No. 17 at
p. 1)
In its engineering analysis, DOE
followed the methodology in ANSI/ARI
Standard 1200–2006 when calculating
the refrigerated volume parameter used
in the baseline design specifications.
DOE used the internal height and depth
of the case from inside of the door to the
rear wall. No subtractions were made for
shelving or other protrusions within the
case interior envelope.
At the public meeting, Zero Zone
expressed concern over the lighting
technology for the baseline models in
each equipment class. Zero Zone stated
that T12 lighting is no longer used in
closed cases, and that T8 lighting is now
the baseline for those cases. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 88)
Further, Zero Zone reiterated in writing
that the baseline lighting for cases with
a vertical transparent door should be T8.
(Zero Zone, No. 17 at p. 3) DOE has
changed the baseline specifications and
is now using T8 lighting in the analysis
of baseline models.
Stakeholders raised concerns over the
accuracy of some of the data used for
the baseline models. Zero Zone stated
that the TDA for VCT.RC.L and
VCT.RC.M cases may be incorrect, and
that the sum of the TDA for each door
did not equal the TDA of the entire case
for these two equipment classes. (Zero
Zone, No. 17 at p. 3)
In the NOPR analysis, DOE made
several revisions to the baseline
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50091
specifications. Appendix B of the TSD
shows changes to baseline design
specifications relative to the ANOPR
analysis. DOE revised the TDA for
VCT.RC.L and VCT.RC.M equipment so
that the sum of the display area of the
doors matches the TDA of the case. The
baseline models used in the NOPR
analysis are more representative of
actual equipment than those DOE used
in the ANOPR analysis, but in some
situations, the changes to baseline
characteristics affected the baseline
energy consumption significantly
compared to the ANOPR. Four
equipment classes (HZO.RC.M,
HZO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, and VCS.SC.I)
had changes that resulted in a
significant increase in the baseline
energy consumption, and one
equipment class (SOC.RC.M) had
changes that resulted in a decrease in
the baseline energy consumption. See
Appendix B of the TSD for more detail.
For the ANOPR analysis, DOE
calculated a baseline energy usage of
0.16 kWh/ft2 for the HZO.RC.M
equipment class. During manufacturer
interviews, some manufacturers stated
that this seemed unreasonably low. DOE
reviewed the data it presented in the
ANOPR TSD, as to the energy
consumption of equipment on the
market and realized that its figure for
baseline energy usage for HZO.RC.M
cases was well below the amounts
indicated by the market data. DOE
identified problems with the ANOPR
design specifications for the HZO.RC.M
equipment class, namely a lack of
electric defrost and a mismatch between
the size of the case (TDA) and the
amount of infiltration load. For the
NOPR analysis, DOE revised its baseline
design specifications for this equipment
to include electric defrost based on
discussions with manufacturers during
the MIA interviews and a review of
market data. Although electric defrost is
not always required on HZO.RC.M
cases, about two-thirds of such
equipment on the market use electric
defrost. Based on manufacturer
interviews, DOE understands there are
lower infiltration loads (on a per-TDA
basis) in horizontal open cases because
of the natural ‘‘well’’ of cold air that
tends to sit inside the case. In contrast,
for a vertical or semivertical open case,
the cold air tends to spill out of the
opening under the influence of gravity.
With a lower infiltration load for a given
TDA, there is less heat available to melt
frost from the evaporator coil using offcycle defrost. Thus, most HZO.RC.M
case designs necessitate the use of
electric resistance heating for defrost.
DOE also revised the specifications for
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50092
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
the HZO.RC.M equipment class to
include a higher infiltration load (in
accordance with the updated infiltration
methodology), and updated dimensions.
In the ANOPR analysis, DOE used
defrost meltwater to estimate the
infiltration load. In accordance with the
updated infiltration methodology, DOE
used refrigeration load data to calculate
the baseline infiltration load, which was
higher than the load estimated using
meltwater data in the ANOPR analysis
(Chapter 5 for details). DOE also revised
the dimensions of the HZO.RC.M class
to reflect a somewhat smaller case size
that was more representative of cases
currently on the market. This change
involved reducing the TDA, volume,
wall area, and case interior surface area,
all of which DOE matched to the
infiltration load and other case
components. See Appendix B of the
TSD for more detail.
For the HZO.SC.M and HZO.SC.L
equipment classes, DOE made changes
similar to those described in the
preceding paragraph. These two
equipment classes are in the same
equipment family as the HZO.RC.M
equipment class, so they share
similarities to that class (e.g., having the
same cabinet). Because of a lack of
detailed data for the HZO.SC.M and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
HZO.SC.L equipment classes, DOE
based its baseline specifications on the
HZO.RC.M equipment class, making
reasonable adjustments for design
features specific to self-contained
equipment. In particular, self-contained
equipment has a lower compressor
energy efficiency ratio (EER), and an
added drain pan heater to evaporate
defrost meltwater. Similar to the
HZO.RC.M class, the change in
infiltration load calculation led to a
higher infiltration load for the
HZO.SC.M class. DOE also added
electric defrost to the HZO.SC.M class
and increased the anti-sweat heater
load. For the HZO.SC.L class, electric
defrost was already included, since it is
necessary for low-temperature
equipment. However, DOE revised the
infiltration load in accordance with the
change in methodology and increased
the anti-sweat heater load. See
Appendix B of the TSD for more detail.
Discussions during the manufacturer
interviews revealed that in the ANOPR
analysis, the baseline energy usage for
the VCS.SC.I equipment class was
unrealistically low. Therefore, in the
NOPR analysis, DOE made revisions
that increased energy usage in the
baseline equipment for this class. DOE
was unable to verify the accuracy of the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
baseline specifications in the ANOPR
analysis, because of a lack of publicly
available performance data for this
class. For the NOPR, DOE revised its
baseline assumptions to reflect a twodoor case instead of the three-door
model analyzed in the ANOPR. DOE
believes this change more accurately
reflects the current market for VCS.SC.I
cases and is more in line with the
electric defrost power level. DOE
increased infiltration load somewhat
relative to the ANOPR specifications
and added anti-sweat power. See
Appendix B of the TSD for more detail.
5. Engineering Analysis Results
The results of the engineering analysis
are reported as cost-efficiency data (or
‘‘curves’’) in the form of CDEC (in kWh)
versus MSP (in dollars), both
normalized by TDA (or volume for the
VCS.SC.I equipment class). DOE created
15 cost-efficiency curves in the
engineering analysis.
Table IV–7 presents data for these
curves. See Chapter 5 of the TSD for
additional detail on the engineering
analysis and comparisons of DOE’s
analytically derived curves to industrysupplied curves. See Appendix B of the
TSD for complete cost-efficiency results.
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
C. Markups to Determine Equipment
Price
This section explains how DOE
developed the distribution channel
markups it used (Chapter 6 of the TSD).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
DOE used these markups, along with
sales taxes, installation costs, and the
MSPs developed in the engineering
analysis, to arrive at the final installed
equipment prices for baseline and
higher efficiency commercial
refrigeration equipment. As explained
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in the ANOPR, 72 FR 41184, and as
shown in Table IV–8, DOE defined three
distribution channels for commercial
refrigeration equipment to describe how
the equipment passes from the
manufacturer to the customer.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
EP25AU08.000
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
50093
50094
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV–8—DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKET SHARES FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
[In percent]
Channel 1
Channel 2
Channel 3
Manufacturer
Manufacturer,
wholesaler
Manufacturer,
wholesaler,
contractor
Customer
Customer
Customer
Remote Condensing Equipment ..................................................................................................
Self-Contained Equipment ...........................................................................................................
For the ANOPR analysis, DOE
estimated shares of 86 percent, 7
percent, and 7 percent for the
manufacturer, manufacturer/wholesaler,
and manufacturer/wholesaler/contractor
channels, respectively, for all
commercial refrigeration equipment,
based on market estimates from
consultants. At the ANOPR public
meeting, ARI and Carrier commented
that the breakdown should be changed
to 70 percent, 15 percent, and 15
percent among the three channels,
respectively, for remote condensing
equipment and 30 percent, 35 percent,
and 35 percent, respectively, for selfcontained equipment. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 122; ARI, No.
18 at p. 7) No other alternative estimates
were provided of shipments through
these distribution channels. Therefore,
in the NOPR, DOE decided to modify
the breakdown and it recalculated the
overall markups using the same
70
30
15
35
15
35
procedure described in the ANOPR (72
FR 41184), but based upon the industry
comments from ARI and Carrier. The
new overall baseline and incremental
markups for sales to supermarkets
within each distribution channel are
shown in Table IV–9, Table IV–10,
Table IV–11, and Table IV–12,
respectively. Chapter 6 of the TSD
provides additional details on markups.
TABLE IV–9—BASELINE MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR SELF-CONTAINED EQUIPMENT
IN SUPERMARKETS
Wholesaler
Distributor(s) Markup .......................................................................................
Sales Tax .........................................................................................................
Overall Markup ................................................................................................
Mechanical
contractor
(includes
wholesaler)
1.436
1.068
1.533
2.182
1.068
2.330
National account (manufacturer-direct)
Overall
1.218
1.068
1.300
1.631
1.068
1.742
TABLE IV–10—BASELINE MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR REMOTE CONDENSING
EQUIPMENT IN SUPERMARKETS
Wholesaler
Distributor(s) Markup .......................................................................................
Sales Tax .........................................................................................................
Overall Markup ................................................................................................
Mechanical
contractor
(includes
wholesaler)
1.436
1.068
1.533
2.182
1.068
2.330
National account (manufacturer-direct)
Overall
1.218
1.068
1.300
1.395
1.068
1.490
TABLE IV–11—INCREMENTAL MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR SELF-CONTAINED
EQUIPMENT IN SUPERMARKETS
Wholesaler
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Distributor(s) Markup .......................................................................................
Sales Tax .........................................................................................................
Overall Markup ................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Mechanical
contractor
(includes
wholesaler)
1.107
1.068
1.182
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
1.362
1.068
1.454
25AUP2
National account (manufacturer-direct)
1.054
1.068
1.125
Overall
1.180
1.068
1.260
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
50095
TABLE IV–12—INCREMENTAL MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX FOR REMOTE CONDENSING
EQUIPMENT IN SUPERMARKETS
Wholesaler
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Distributor(s) Markup .......................................................................................
Sales Tax .........................................................................................................
Overall Markup ................................................................................................
D. Energy Use Characterization
The energy use characterization
estimates the annual energy
consumption of commercial
refrigeration equipment systems
(including the remote condensing
units). This estimate is used in the
subsequent LCC and PBP analyses
(Chapter 8 of the TSD) and NIA (Chapter
11 of the TSD). DOE estimated the
energy consumption of the 15
equipment classes analyzed in the
engineering analysis (Chapter 5 of the
TSD) using the relevant test procedure.
DOE then validated these energy
consumption estimates with annual
whole-building simulation modeling of
selected equipment classes and
efficiency levels. One of the key
assumptions in both the engineering
analysis and the whole-building
simulation in the ANOPR analysis was
that the display case lighting operated
24 hours per day. DOE conducted a
limited sensitivity analysis to explore
how variation in display case lighting
operating hours affected the energy
savings. The sensitivity analysis showed
that energy savings fell as lighting
operating hours were reduced for all
equipment classes that used display
case lighting. The magnitude of this
effect depended on the equipment class.
At the ANOPR public meeting, SCE
stated that it was studying display case
lighting and will gladly share results of
the study with DOE as soon as the study
is done. (Public Meeting Transcript, No.
13.5 at p. 117) Hussman stated that with
today’s low-temperature cabinets, store
owners won’t turn those lights off
because they may not come back on
when they are so cold. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 118) Hill
Phoenix stated that turning off
fluorescent lights at night can lead to
maintenance issues because of moisture
infiltration, so it is typical to leave the
lights on all night. LEDs don’t have that
problem. They agreed that 24-hour
lighting is not a bad assumption. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 118)
Another manufacturer, Zero Zone, also
agreed that 24 hours is a valid
assumption for case lighting operating
hours. (Zero Zone, No. 17 at p. 4) ARI
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
1.107
1.068
1.182
recommended that the DOE analysis be
based on 24 hours-per-day operation as
this represents the worst-case scenario
and many stores are open for 24 hours.
(ARI, No. 18 at p. 4) Based on these
comments, DOE decided to leave the
assumption of display case lighting
operating hours of 24 hours per day
unchanged for the NOPR analysis.
Additional detail on the energy use
characterization can be found in
Chapter 7 of the TSD.
DOE also requested comments on
other operational factors that might be
encountered in the field that would
differ from that found in the relevant
test procedure, the relative frequency of
these factors, and how it could account
for them in its energy analysis. DOE
received a comment from the Chinese
delegation to the World Trade
Organization stating that it should
consider all kinds of on-site factors in
operation and maintenance practices of
the commercial refrigerating equipment
when evaluating the optional standard
class of the equipment. (China, No. 20
at pp. 3–4) No specifics on what these
factors might be or how to take them
into account were provided, however.
Chapter 7 of the TSD provides
additional detail on the energy use
characterization.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
In response to the requirements of
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, DOE
conducted LCC and PBP analyses to
evaluate the economic impacts of
possible new commercial refrigeration
equipment standards on individual
customers. This section describes the
LCC and PBP analyses and the
spreadsheet model DOE used for
analyzing the economic impacts of
possible standards on individual
commercial customers. Details of the
spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs
to the LCC and PBP analyses, are in TSD
Chapter 8. DOE conducted the LCC and
PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model
developed in Microsoft Excel for
Windows 2003.
The LCC is the total cost for a unit of
commercial refrigeration equipment,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Mechanical
contractor
(includes
wholesaler)
1.362
1.068
1.454
National account (manufacturer-direct)
1.054
1.068
1.125
Overall
1.108
1.068
1.183
over the life of the equipment, including
purchase and installation expense and
operating costs (energy expenditures
and maintenance). To compute the LCC,
DOE summed the installed price of the
equipment and its lifetime operating
costs discounted to the time of
purchase. The PBP is the change in
purchase expense due to a given energy
conservation standard divided by the
change in first-year operating cost that
results from the standard. DOE
expresses PBP in years. Otherwise
stated, the payback period is the number
of years it would take for the customer
to recover the increased costs of a
higher-efficiency product through
energy savings. DOE measures the
changes in LCC and in PBP associated
with a given energy use standard level
relative to a base case forecast of
equipment energy use. The base case
forecast reflects the market in the
absence of mandatory energy
conservation standards.
The data inputs to the PBP calculation
are the purchase expense (otherwise
known as the total installed customer
cost or first cost) and the annual
operating costs for each selected design.
The inputs to the equipment purchase
expense were the equipment price and
the installation cost, with appropriate
markups. The inputs to the operating
costs were the annual energy
consumption, the electricity price, and
the repair and maintenance costs. The
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as
the LCC analysis but, since it is a simple
payback, the operating cost is for the
year the standard takes effect, assumed
to be 2012. For each efficiency level
analyzed, the LCC analysis required
input data for the total installed cost of
the equipment, the operating cost, and
the discount rate.
Table IV–13 summarizes the inputs
and key assumptions used to calculate
the customer economic impacts of
various energy consumption levels.
Equipment price, installation cost, and
baseline and standard design selection
affect the installed cost of the
equipment. Annual energy use,
electricity costs, electricity price trends,
and repair and maintenance costs affect
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50096
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the operating cost. The effective date of
the standard, the discount rate, and the
lifetime of equipment affect the
calculation of the present value of
annual operating cost savings from a
proposed standard. Table IV–13 also
shows how DOE modified these inputs
and key assumptions for the NOPR,
relative to the ANOPR.
TABLE IV–13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES
Input
Description
Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price.
Standard-Level Manufacturer
Selling Price Increases.
Price charged by manufacturer to either a wholesaler or
large customer for baseline equipment.
Incremental change in manufacturer selling price for
equipment at each of the higher efficiency standard
levels.
Associated with converting the manufacturer selling
price to a customer price (Chapter 6 of TSD).
Cost to the customer of installing the equipment. This
includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. The total installed cost equals the
customer equipment price plus the installation price.
Site energy use associated with the use of commercial
refrigeration equipment, which includes only the use
of electricity by the equipment itself.
Average commercial electricity price ($/kWh) in each
State and for four classes of commercial customers,
as determined from EIA data for 2003$ converted to
2006$.
Used the AEO2006 reference case to forecast future
electricity prices.
Labor and material costs associated with maintaining
the commercial refrigeration equipment (e.g., cleaning heat exchanger coils, checking refrigerant charge
levels, lamp replacement).
Labor and material costs associated with repairing or
replacing components that have failed. Based on a
fixed percentage of baseline equipment costs.
Age at which the commercial refrigeration equipment is
retired from service (estimated to be 10 years).
Rate at which future costs are discounted to establish
their present value to commercial refrigeration equipment users.
A rebound effect was not taken into account in the LCC
analysis.
Markups and Sales Tax .......
Installation Price ...................
Equipment Energy Consumption.
Electricity Prices ...................
Electricity Price Trends ........
Maintenance Costs ..............
Repair Costs ........................
Equipment Lifetime ..............
Discount Rate ......................
Rebound Effect ....................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
The following sections contain brief
discussions of the methods underlying
each input and key assumption in the
LCC analysis. Where appropriate, DOE
also summarizes comments on these
inputs and assumptions and explains
how it took these comments into
consideration.
1. Manufacturer Selling Price
The baseline MSP is the price charged
by manufacturers to either a wholesaler/
distributor or very large customer for
equipment meeting existing energy use
(or baseline) levels. The MSP includes
a markup that converts the MPC to MSP.
DOE obtained the baseline MSPs
through industry-supplied efficiencylevel data supplemented with a design
option analysis. Refer to Chapter 5 of
the TSD for details.
DOE developed MSPs for equipment
classes consisting of eight possible
equipment families, two possible
condensing unit configurations (remote
condensing and self-contained), and
three possible operating temperature
ranges. Not all covered equipment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Changes for NOPR
Data reflects updated engineering analysis.
Data reflects updated engineering analysis.
Markups updated based on revised distribution channel
shipment estimates.
Installation prices for remote condensing and self-contained equipment revised based on ANOPR comments.
Data reflects updated engineering analysis for each efficiency level.
Electricity prices updated to 2007$ using Electricity EIA
Monthly Electricity Database for base commercial
electricity prices; and AEO2007 to convert 2006
prices to 2007 prices.
Used the AEO2007 reference case to forecast future
electricity prices.
No change in methodology. Lamp replacement costs
reflect updated engineering analysis costs and are in
2007$.
Repair costs in NOPR reflect estimates of individual
component life and cost to replace. Repair costs increase with increasing component costs.
Average equipment life for small grocery and convenience stores adjusted to 15 years.
Updated to 2007 version of the Damodaran website
with very little change to discount rates.
No change.
classes have significant actual
shipments (Chapter 3 of the TSD). DOE
carried out the LCC and PBP analyses
on the 15 primary equipment classes
identified earlier. DOE estimated the
MSP for each primary equipment class
between the baseline efficiency level
and for four to seven additional moreefficient levels. Refer to Chapter 5 of the
TSD for details.
DOE was not able to identify data on
relative shipments for equipment
classes by efficiency level, and DOE did
not find equivalent data in the literature
or studies. DOE designated the
equipment with the highest energy use
as Level 1, and selected this as the
baseline equipment.
In the ANOPR analysis, DOE
requested feedback on whether the
Level 1 baseline is valid for the LCC
analysis, and if not, what changes
should be made to provide a more
realistic baseline level. DOE also asked
whether a distribution of efficiencies
should be used to establish the baseline
for the LCC analysis. 72 FR 41193,
41208. DOE received comments on the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
engineering analysis and the use of the
analytically derived curves versus the
industry-supplied curves. DOE modified
the engineering analysis, which resulted
in a modified Level 1 baseline. See
Section IV.B for details.
ARI stated that it would try to provide
energy efficiency distribution data to
DOE, but was unable to provide that
data in time for the NOPR. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 143)
EEI stated that Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) end use studies might
provide some data that could be used to
establish distributions. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 141) ACEEE
suggested that DOE check with the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
for possible energy efficiency
distribution data. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 142) However,
ARI agreed with DOE’s approach to use
the Level 1 data established in the
engineering analysis as the appropriate
baseline for DOE’s LCC analysis. DOE
was able to explore some of the data
available with the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance; however, the
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
available data generally provides only
frequency of use of specific design
features and not energy use. Based on
this, DOE chose to continue to use the
Level 1 energy efficiency level as the
baseline efficiency level for the LCC
analysis. See Chapter 8 of the TSD.
2. Increase in Selling Price
The standard level MSP increase is
the change in MSP associated with
producing equipment at lower energy
consumption levels associated with
higher standards. DOE developed MSP
increases associated with decreasing
equipment energy consumption (or
higher efficiency) levels through a
combination of energy consumption
level and design-option analyses. See
Chapter 5 of the TSD for details. DOE
developed MSP increases as a function
of equipment energy consumption for
each of the 15 equipment classes.
Although the engineering analysis
produced up to 11 energy consumption
levels, depending on equipment class,
the LCC and PBP analyses used only up
to eight selected energy consumption
levels.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
3. Markups
As discussed earlier, overall markups
are based on one of three distribution
channels and the calculation of baseline
and incremental markups. The
distribution channels defined in the
ANOPR were also used for the NOPR
analysis, but DOE modified the relative
fractions of shipments through each
distribution channel based on
stakeholder input. See Section IV.C,
Markups to Determine Equipment Price,
for details.
commented that the installation costs
seem low, and that it tracks installation
costs and would provide installation
cost data to DOE. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 133)
Separately, Zero Zone provided
installation costs of $2,000 and $750,
respectively, for remote condensing and
self-contained equipment. DOE has
decided to use these cost data in the
NOPR analysis. Zero Zone also stated
that a high-efficiency case installation
isn’t going to cost significantly more
than a standard case unless there are
more controls to tune and adjust. SCE
stated that if the installation cost doesn’t
change with the equipment efficiency,
then it doesn’t affect the relative lifecycle cost. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 117)
The total installed cost is the sum of
the equipment price and the installation
cost. DOE derived the customer
equipment price for any given standard
level by multiplying the baseline MSP
by the baseline markup and adding to it
the product of the incremental MSP and
the incremental markup. Because MSPs,
markups, and the sales tax can take on
a variety of values depending on
location, the resulting total installed
cost for a particular standard level will
not be a single-point value, but a
distribution of values. See Chapter 8 of
the TSD.
5. Energy Consumption
The electricity consumed by the
commercial refrigeration equipment was
based on the engineering analysis
estimates as described previously in
Section IV.B. No change was made to
the ANOPR methodology.
4. Installation Costs
In the ANOPR, DOE derived
installation costs for commercial
refrigeration equipment from data
provided in RS Means Mechanical Cost
Data.19 RS Means provides estimates on
the person-hours required to install
commercial refrigeration equipment and
the labor rates associated with the type
of crew required to install the
equipment. DOE developed separate
installation costs for self-contained and
remote condensing equipment. DOE
considered the installation costs to be
fixed, independent of the cost or
efficiency of the equipment. Although
the LCC spreadsheet allows for
alternative scenarios, DOE did not find
a basis for changing its basic premise for
the ANOPR analysis.
DOE received comments on the RS
Means installation costs. Zero Zone
Electricity prices are necessary to
convert the electric energy savings into
energy cost savings. Because of the wide
variation in electricity consumption
patterns, wholesale costs, and retail
rates across the country, it is important
to consider regional differences in
electricity prices. DOE used average
commercial electricity prices at the
State level from the EIA Monthly
Electricity Database.20 The 2006 prices
were then converted to 2007$ using
AEO2007.
Different kinds of businesses typically
use electricity in different amounts at
different times of the day, week, and
year, and therefore face different
effective prices. To make this
adjustment, DOE used the 2003
Commercial Building Energy
19 RS Means Company, Inc. 2005. Mechanical
Cost Data 28th Annual Edition. Kingston,
Massachusetts.
20 EIA form 826. Annual 1991 through 2006, JanFeb 2007. https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/
page/data.html. Accessed May 29, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
6. Electricity Prices
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50097
Consumption Survey (CBECS) data to
identify the average prices the four
kinds of businesses in this analysis paid
compared with the average prices all
commercial customers paid. The ratios
of prices paid by the four types of
businesses to the national average
commercial prices seen in the 2003
CBECS were used as multiplying factors
to increase or decrease the average
commercial 2006 price data previously
developed. Once the electricity prices
for the four types of businesses were
adjusted, the resulting prices were used
in the analysis.
To obtain a weighted-average national
electricity price, the prices paid by each
business in each State was weighted by
the estimated sales of frozen and
refrigerated food products, which also
serves as the distribution of commercial
refrigeration equipment units in each
State, to each prototype building. The
State/business type weights are the
probabilities that a given commercial
refrigeration equipment unit shipped
will be operated with a given electricity
price. For evaluation purposes, the
prices and weights can be depicted as a
cumulative probability distribution. The
effective electricity prices range from
approximately 5 cents per kWh to
approximately 22 cents per kWh.
During the ANOPR public meeting,
EEI concurred with the DOE analysis
that shows grocery stores and food
markets having lower electric prices
than typical commercial facilities. (EEI,
No. 15 at p. 3) DOE continued to use the
same approach to develop electric
prices for the NOPR analysis; however,
DOE updated electric costs to 2007$.
The section below describes the
development and use of State-average
electricity prices by building type;
Chapter 8 of the TSD provides more
detail.
7. Electricity Price Trends
The electricity price trend provides
the relative change in electricity prices
for future years to 2030. Estimating
future electricity prices is difficult,
especially considering that many States
are attempting to restructure the
electricity supply industry. DOE applied
the AEO2007 reference case as the
default scenario and extrapolated the
trend in values from 2020 to 2030 of the
forecast to establish prices in 2030 to
2042. This method of extrapolation is in
line with methods the EIA uses to
forecast fuel prices for the Federal
Energy Management Program (FEMP).
DOE provided a sensitivity analysis of
the life-cycle cost savings and PBP
results to future electricity price
scenarios using both the AEO2007 highgrowth and low-growth forecasts in
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50098
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Chapter 8 of the TSD. ACEEE suggested
that the NOPR economic analysis be
recalculated using AEO2008 price
forecasts. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2)
However, the AEO2008 was not
available when DOE was completing the
NOPR analysis. DOE used the most
recent AEO forecast available
(AEO2007) when it performed the LCC
analysis for the NOPR.
8. Repair Costs
The equipment repair cost is the cost
to the customer of replacing or repairing
components in commercial refrigeration
equipment that have failed. For the
ANOPR analysis, DOE calculated the
annualized repair cost for baseline
efficiency equipment using the
following expression:
RC = k × EQP/LIFE
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Where
RC = repair cost in dollars
k = fraction of equipment price (estimated
to be 0.5)
EQP = baseline equipment price in dollars,
and
LIFE = average lifetime of the equipment in
years (estimated to be 10 years for large
grocery and multi-line retail chains and
15 years for small grocery and
convenience stores)
DOE placed replacement of lighting
components (lamps and ballasts) under
maintenance expenses since the typical
lamp life is known and commonly
considered a maintenance item by
customers of commercial refrigeration
equipment.
Because data were not available for
how repair costs vary with equipment
efficiency, DOE held repair costs
constant as the default scenario for the
ANOPR LCC and PBP analyses. DOE
received several comments on the use of
constant repair costs for higher
efficiency equipment. Carrier stated that
while it had no data to support this,
higher efficiency design options—like
adding controls—could cost more to
repair, and it encouraged DOE to find
more accurate repair costs that would
correlate with more sophisticated
controls. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 135) Carrier felt that
making repair costs proportional was
better than making them flat. ARI stated
that the assumption that repair costs are
constant and do not vary with
equipment efficiency is incorrect. (ARI,
No. 18 at p. 7) Industry experience
indicates that higher efficiency
equipment is more expensive to repair
because it uses more sophisticated and
more expensive components. If actual
cost data are not available, ARI
recommended that DOE assume the
repair cost to increase as a function of
equipment cost. True stated that many
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
routine maintenance items are affected
by higher efficiency fan motors and
lighting systems. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 136) Hill
Phoenix stated that higher maintenance
costs would be incurred with almost
any new technology. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 136) However,
True Manufacturing also stated that no
data exists as to whether components
such as energy efficient motors would
have the same lifetime or costs as
existing components. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 138) ACEEE
stated that it would caution against a
straight ratio of repair cost to initial
purchase cost; for controls this might be
appropriate, but it shouldn’t affect
repair costs for heat exchangers. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 137)
ACEEE suggested that any measures
requiring increased repair costs be
treated on a measure-by-measure basis.
(ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 3)
To address comments on repair costs,
DOE contacted users and manufacturers
of commercial refrigeration equipment
to determine typical repair frequency for
components used in commercial
refrigeration equipment. Based on this
review, DOE estimated replacement
frequencies for five key components that
appear to represent the most common
repairs, and for which higher efficiency
and more costly components were used
in the engineering analysis for higher
efficiency commercial refrigeration
equipment. DOE then annualized the
expected costs for these components at
each efficiency level and added these
component costs to the baseline repair
cost estimates. This resulted in repair
costs that increase with higher
efficiency equipment. Refer to Chapter 8
of the TSD for details.
9. Maintenance Costs
DOE estimated the annualized
maintenance costs for commercial
refrigeration equipment from data in RS
Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair
Cost Data.21 RS Means provides
estimates on the person-hours, labor
rates, and materials required to maintain
commercial refrigeration equipment on
a semi-annual basis. DOE used a single
figure of $160/year (2007$) for
preventive maintenance for all classes of
commercial refrigeration equipment
based on data from RS Means. Because
data were not available to indicate
whether, and if so, how, maintenance
costs vary with equipment efficiency,
DOE held preventive maintenance costs
constant even as equipment efficiency
21 RS Means Company, Inc. 2006. Means
Costworks 2006: Facility Maintenance & Repair
Cost Data. Kingston, Massachusetts.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increased. Lamp replacement and other
lighting maintenance activities are
required maintenance for commercial
refrigeration equipment, which DOE
considered to be separate from
preventive maintenance, and were not
itemized in the preventive maintenance
activities described by RS Means.
Different commercial refrigeration
equipment classes have different
numbers of lamps (and ballasts), and
many of the efficiency options DOE
considered in the engineering analysis
involved changes to the lighting
configuration (lamp, ballast, or use of
LED lighting systems). Because the
lighting configurations can vary by
energy consumption level, DOE
estimated the relative maintenance costs
for lighting for each case type for which
a design-option analysis was performed.
DOE estimated the frequency of failure
and replacement of individual lighting
components, estimated the cost of
replacement in the field, and developed
an annualized maintenance cost based
on the sum of the total lighting
maintenance costs (in 2007$) over the
estimated life of the equipment divided
by the estimated life of the equipment.
DOE based costs for fluorescent lamp
and ballast replacements on a review of
the OEM costs used in the engineering
analysis, RS Means estimates, cost data
from Grainger, Inc., and previous
studies. DOE estimated the costs of field
replacement using labor cost hours from
RS Means Electrical Cost Data 22 for
typical lamp or ballast replacement for
other lighting fixtures using a 150percent multiplier on OEM costs for
lamps and ballasts (provided in the
engineering analysis spreadsheets) to
reflect retail pricing. See Chapter 8 of
the TSD for details.
Fluorescent lamp and ballast
technology is mature, so DOE made no
change in inflation-adjusted costs for
these components. However, because of
rapid technological improvement, costs
for LED lamps are declining. DOE
estimated the cost for field replacement
of LED lighting fixtures (believed to
occur approximately 6 years after the
effective date of the standard, or 2018)
at 140 percent of the OEM cost of LED
lighting fixtures (2007 MPC cost in
2007$), plus installation. This estimate
includes installation labor and all retail
markups for replacement fixtures. This
estimate of replacement LED costs was
based on 2007 OEM prices for LED
fixtures, but with additional contractor
markups for replacement fixtures
similar to that used for fluorescent light
ballasts and lamps (150 percent of OEM
22 RS Means Company, Inc. 2005. 2005 RS Means
Electrical Cost Data. Kingston, Massachusetts.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
costs). In addition, because of the rapid
development of LED technology and the
projected OEM cost reductions for LED
systems, DOE performed an LCC
sensitivity analysis that examined the
impact of reducing the cost of the LED
replacement fixtures in 2018 by 50
percent of the cost used in the base
analysis.23 DOE recognizes that both life
and cost estimates for LED replacement
are projections and seeks comment on
how it can best estimate the price for
replacement LED fixture costs in the
LCC analysis. This is identified as Issue
1 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment’’ in Section VII.E of this
NOPR. Chapter 8 of the TSD provides
details on the development of
maintenance costs.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
10. Lifetime
DOE defines lifetime as the age when
a commercial refrigeration equipment
unit is retired from service. In its
ANOPR analysis, DOE based equipment
lifetime on discussions with industry
experts and other stakeholders, as well
as a review of estimates in the subject
literature. DOE concluded that a typical
lifetime of 10 years is appropriate for
commercial refrigeration equipment. In
commenting on the ANOPR analysis,
ARI stated that, on average, equipment
lifetime is approximately 10 years. ARI
noted, however, that properly installed
and maintained equipment typically has
a useful life longer than end-use
customers retain it due to retail store
customer business models and
competitive demands to upgrade and
remodel stores. (ARI, No. 18 at p. 5)
Zero Zone stated that door cases may be
changed in store remodels every 10
years at larger chains, but small
independent chains will use cases for 20
years. (Zero Zone, No. 17 at p. 4) True
stated that most self-contained
equipment has a life expectancy of 7 to
12 years, although it regularly services
equipment that is 25 years old. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 98)
For the NOPR analysis, DOE used an
average life of 10 years for large grocery
and multi-line retailers, but modified
the lifetime in the LCC analysis to use
a longer average 15-year life for the
small grocery and convenience store
business types, consistent with
stakeholder comments and equipment
life estimates from industry experts
regarding smaller stores and
independent grocers and chains. See
Chapter 3 of the TSD for more detail.
23 DOE anticipates a reduction in installed cost of
LED systems over time. The projected reduction in
price for LED systems is provided and discussed in
Sections V.C and IV.B.3.c of this NOPR and
Appendix B of the TSD.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Commercial refrigeration equipment
units are typically replaced when stores
are renovated, which is before the units
would have physically worn out.
Therefore, there is a used equipment
market for commercial refrigeration
equipment. Due to the difficulty of
incorporating used equipment into
grocery store display case line-ups, the
salvage value to the original purchaser
is very low. Therefore, the ANOPR LCC
analysis did not take the used
equipment market into account. This
methodology was also maintained in the
NOPR LCC analysis.
11. Discount Rate
The discount rate is the rate at which
future expenditures are discounted to
establish their present value. DOE
derived the discount rates for the LCC
analysis by estimating the cost of capital
for companies that purchase commercial
refrigeration equipment. The cost of
capital is commonly used to estimate
the present value of cash flows to be
derived from a typical company project
or investment. Most companies use both
debt and equity capital to fund
investments, so their cost of capital is
the weighted average of the cost to the
company of equity and debt financing.
DOE estimated the cost of equity
financing by using the Capital Asset
Pricing Model (CAPM). The CAPM,
among the most widely used models to
estimate the cost of equity financing,
considers the cost of equity to be
proportional to the amount of
systematic risk associated with a
company. The cost of equity financing
tends to be high when a company faces
a large degree of systematic risk, and it
tends to be low when the company faces
a small degree of systematic risk.
To estimate the weighted average cost
of capital (WACC) (including the
weighted average cost of debt and equity
financing) of commercial refrigeration
equipment purchasers, DOE used a
sample of companies involved in
grocery and multi-line retailing drawn
from a database of 7,319 U.S. companies
on the Damodaran Online website. The
WACC approach taken to determine
discount rates takes into account the
current tax status of the individual firms
on an overall corporate basis. DOE did
not evaluate the marginal effects of
increased costs (and thus depreciation
due to higher cost equipment on the
overall tax status).
DOE used a sample of 17 companies
to represent the purchasers of
commercial refrigeration equipment. For
each company in the sample, DOE
derived the cost of debt, percent debt
financing, and systematic company risk
from information provided by
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50099
Damodaran Online. DOE estimated the
cost of debt financing from the longterm Government bond rate (4.39
percent) and the standard deviation of
the stock price. The cost of capital for
small, independent grocers;
convenience store franchisees; gasoline
station owner-operators; and others with
more limited access to capital is more
difficult to determine. Individual creditworthiness varies considerably, and
some franchisees have access to the
financial resources of the franchising
corporation. However, personal contacts
with a sample of commercial bankers
yielded an estimate for the small
operator weighted cost of capital of
about 200 to 300 basis points (2 percent
to 3 percent) above the rates for large
grocery chains. A central value equal to
the weighted average of large grocery
chains, plus 250 basis points (2.5
percent), was used for small operators.
Deducting expected inflation from the
cost of capital provides the estimates of
the real discount rate by ownership
category. The average after-tax discount
rate, weighted by the percentage shares
of total purchases of commercial
refrigeration equipment, is 5.87 percent
for large grocery stores, 5.11 percent for
multi-line retailers, and 8.37 percent for
convenience stores and convenience
stores associated with gasoline stations.
DOE received no comments on the
discount rates developed in the ANOPR
but took advantage of the availability of
2007 financial data to update the
discount rate assumptions in the NOPR.
See Chapter 8 of the TSD.
12. Payback Period
The PBP is the amount of time it takes
the customer to recover the
incrementally higher purchase cost of
more energy efficient equipment as a
result of lower operating costs.
Numerically, the PBP is the ratio of the
increase in purchase cost (i.e., from a
less efficient design to a more efficient
design) to the decrease in annual
operating expenditures. This type of
calculation is known as a ‘‘simple’’ PBP,
because it does not take into account
changes in operating cost over time or
the time value of money, that is, the
calculation is done at an effective
discount rate of zero percent.
The equation for PBP is:
PBP = DIC/DOC
Where
PBP = payback period in years,
DIC = difference in the total installed cost
between the more efficient standard level
equipment (energy consumption levels 2,
3, etc.) and the baseline (energy
consumption level 1) equipment, and
DOC = difference in annual operating costs.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50100
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
The data inputs to the PBP analysis
are the total installed cost of the
equipment to the customer for each
energy consumption level and the
annual (first-year) operating costs for
each energy consumption level. The
inputs to the total installed cost are the
equipment price and the installation
cost. The inputs to the operating costs
are the annual energy cost, the annual
repair cost, and the annual maintenance
cost. The PBP uses the same inputs as
the LCC analysis, except that electricity
price trends and discount rates are not
required. Since the PBP is a ‘‘simple’’
(undiscounted) payback, the required
electricity cost is only for the year in
which a new energy conservation
standard is to take effect—in this case,
2012. The electricity price used in the
PBP calculation of electricity cost was
the price projected for 2012, expressed
in 2007$, but not discounted to 2007.
Discount rates are not used in the PBP
calculation.
PBP is one of the economic indicators
that DOE uses when assessing economic
impact to a customer. PBP does not take
into account the time value of money
explicitly (e.g., through a discount
factor), the life of the efficiency
measure, or changing fuel costs over
time. In addition, because PBP takes
into account the cumulative energy and
first-cost impact of a set of efficiency
measures, it can be sensitive to the
baseline level assumed. In addition,
what is deemed an acceptable payback
period can vary. By contrast, when
examining LCC savings by efficiency
levels, there is generally a maximum
LCC savings point (minimum LCC
efficiency level) indicative of maximum
economic benefit to the customer. The
selection of the baseline efficiency level
does not affect the identification of the
minimum LCC efficiency level, although
a baseline efficiency is used when
calculating net LCC savings or costs.
DOE considers both LCC and PBP as
related to the seven factors discussed in
Section II.B to determine whether a
standard is economically justified and
whether the benefits of an energy
conservation standard will exceed its
burdens to the greatest extent
practicable. However, because LCC uses
an explicit discount rate, takes into
account changing energy prices, and
does not require selection of a baseline
efficiency level, it is considered by DOE
to be a better indicator of the likely
economic impacts on consumers.
F. Shipments Analysis
One of the more important
components of any estimate of the
future impact of a standard is
equipment shipments. DOE developed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
forecasts of shipments for the base case
and standards cases and includes those
forecasts in the NES spreadsheet. The
shipments portion of the spreadsheet
forecasts shipments of commercial
refrigeration equipment from 2012 to
2042. DOE developed shipments
forecasts for the 15 primary equipment
classes by accounting for the shipments
to replace the existing stock of
commercial refrigeration equipment,
commercial refrigeration shipments into
new commercial floor spaces, and old
equipment removed through
demolitions. Chapter 10 of the TSD
provides additional details on the
shipments forecasts.
The results of the shipments analysis
are driven primarily by historical
shipments data for the 15 equipment
classes of commercial refrigeration
equipment, DOE estimates of average
equipment life, relative shipment
estimates to each of the four business
types, the existing total floor space in
food sales buildings, and the anticipated
growth in food sales floor space
estimated in EIA’s NEMS. The model
estimates that, in each year, the existing
stock of commercial refrigeration
equipment either ages by one year or is
worn out and replaced. In addition, new
equipment can be shipped into new
commercial floor space, and old
equipment can be removed through
demolitions. DOE chose to preserve the
capability to analyze all efficiency levels
analyzed in the LCC in the NIA.
The shipments analysis is a
description of commercial refrigeration
equipment stock flows as a function of
year and age. While there are 15
equipment classes, the shipment
analysis treats each category of
equipment independently such that
future shipments in any one class are
unaffected by shipments in any other
equipment classes and the relative
fraction of shipments in each product
class compared to all commercial
refrigeration equipment shipments is
assumed to be constant over time. DOE
recognizes that a retailer of refrigerated
or frozen food can choose to use
different classes of commercial
refrigeration equipment to sell the same
food product as long as the equipment
is in the required temperature range (i.e.
refrigerator, freezer, or ice-cream
temperature range). The decision to
adopt one equipment class over another
within the same temperature range will
depend on first costs, operating costs,
and the perceived ability to
merchandise product. In addition,
relative sales refrigerated versus frozen
foods could change in the future.
However, DOE had no information with
which to develop and calibrate a
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shipments model incorporating these
factors.
DOE formulated the equations used in
the analysis as updates of the
distribution of stock in any given year,
as a function of age, to the following
year using the following steps:
1. DOE first converted the equipment
units to linear feet of display space
cooled by those units by taking the
national statistics on sales of equipment
and calculating equipment capacity per
linear foot of retail grocery building
display space.
2. DOE used this calculation of
existing stock, and the average age of the
equipment, as a basis for calculating
replacement sales.
3. DOE subtracted replacement sales
from historical total sales statistics to
calculate new sales of commercial
refrigeration equipment.
4. DOE forecasted new sales as a
function of new construction of retail
food sales space.
5. DOE recorded sales of new and
replacement equipment by the year
sold, and depreciated each annual
vintage over the estimated life of the
equipment.
6. DOE allocated sales in each year to
the 15 equipment classes in proportion
to their relative historical sales.
In response to DOE’s presentation of
the ANOPR shipment analysis, the
public made two primary comments.
True stated that while food sales
buildings are probably representative of
remote condensing equipment, as much
as 25 percent of the self-contained
market goes into unusual conditions,
but that the majority does end up in
some sort of food-sales type application.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 165) However, in a follow-up
conversation, True agreed that for selfcontained equipment without doors,
which is the majority of the selfcontained equipment covered in this
rulemaking, the amount of equipment
not shipped to food sales buildings
represents a very small fraction of the
total market. DOE concluded that it was
therefore unnecessary to include other
business types or building categories for
the analysis of self-contained equipment
to be valid and representative.
Other stakeholders commented on the
assumption of zero shipments in the
ANOPR for the VOP.RC.L equipment
class based on the submitted ARI
shipment data. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 164) ARI, in
turn, stated that zero values in its data
submittal to DOE may represent an
equipment class where only one or two
manufacturers have shipments. These
data were excluded to maintain
confidentiality. (Public Meeting
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50101
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 52) To address
these issues, DOE estimated the
shipments for the VOP.RC.L equipment
class at five percent of the similarly
designed VOP.RC.M equipment class
based on information provided in
manufacturer interviews.
Finally, DOE received comments on
the impact of the used equipment
market on shipments in the presence of
new equipment standards. True stated
that DOE should consider how long
existing low-efficiency equipment will
be in service. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 98) As you
drive the cost higher, the life expectancy
of existing equipment increases. ACEEE
countered, however, that the issue of
used equipment has come up in other
rulemakings. Customers may use
existing equipment longer, but the
average was only one or two years more,
which has a small impact on the energy
savings projected through 2042. It may
be more of a factor in the manufacturer
impact analysis, because that could
affect sales in at least the first year.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 102)
True stated that the used equipment
market is often ignored. As you drive
costs of capital up, you drive the need
for low-end users to buy used
equipment and that the higher the cost
per unit, the more the used equipment
market thrives. True stated that this is
very significant in the restaurant
industry, where studies suggest that 90
percent of all new non-chain restaurants
fail within the first year. Most of these
businesses are buying used equipment.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 202–207) EEI suggested that, if
possible, DOE should investigate the use
of used versus new equipment in
restaurants, and make sure that new
standards do not increase the purchase
of older, less efficient equipment. (EEI,
No. 15 at p. 2)
Follow-up conversations with True
lead DOE to believe that it is
unnecessary to take the restaurant
business type into account since it is not
a large market for the equipment
covered under this rulemaking. DOE
determined that it would not try to
account for life extension in the NIA.
While DOE recognizes that there may be
some initial life extension for existing
markets for some customers, no data are
available to forecast the frequency and
amount of life extension that might
occur within the industry. DOE agrees
with ACEEE that this would result in a
relatively small impact on energy
savings and, given that it would also
reduce expenditures for new equipment,
would have an even smaller impact on
calculated NPV. For the NOPR analysis,
DOE did not assume an initial decrease
in sales and life extension for
commercial refrigeration equipment
covered in this rulemaking.
Table IV–14 shows the results of the
shipments analysis for the 15
commercial refrigeration equipment
classes for the base case (baseline
efficiency level or Level 1). As
equipment purchase price increases
with higher efficiency levels, a drop in
shipments can be expected relative to
the base case. However, as annual
energy consumption is reduced, there is
potentially a countering effect of
increased equipment sales due to more
frequent installations and use of
commercial refrigeration equipment by
retailers (a potential rebound effect).
Although there is a provision in the
spreadsheet for a change in projected
shipments in response to efficiency
level increases (or energy consumption
level decreases), DOE has no
information with which to calibrate
such a relationship. No such data was
provided in comments on the ANOPR
analysis. Therefore, for the NOPR
analysis, DOE assumed that the overall
shipments do not change in response to
the changing TSLs. Additional details
on the shipments analysis can be found
in Chapter 10 of the TSD.
TABLE IV–14—FORECASTED SHIPMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT, 2012–2042, (BASE CASE)
Thousands of linear feet shipped by year and equipment class
Equipment class
2012
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
VOP.RC.M ...............................
VOP.RC.L ................................
VOP.SC.M ................................
VCT.RC.M ................................
VCT.RC.L .................................
VCT.SC.I ..................................
VCS.SC.I ..................................
SVO.RC.M ...............................
SVO.SC.M ................................
SOC.RC.M ...............................
HZO.RC.M ...............................
HZO.RC.L ................................
HZO.SC.M ................................
HZO.SC.L .................................
HCT.SC.I ..................................
2015
451
23
30
32
448
11
3
344
45
87
53
166
4
8
36
G. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses future NES and the
national economic impacts of different
efficiency levels. The analysis measures
economic impacts using the NPV metric
(i.e., future amounts discounted to the
present) of total commercial customer
costs and savings expected to result
from new standards at specific
efficiency levels.
To make the analysis more accessible
and transparent to the public, DOE used
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
2020
436
22
29
31
433
11
3
332
44
84
51
161
4
8
35
451
23
30
32
448
11
3
344
45
87
53
166
4
8
36
2025
464
23
31
33
461
11
3
354
47
89
54
171
4
8
37
2030
497
25
33
35
494
12
3
379
50
96
58
183
4
9
39
an Excel spreadsheet model to calculate
the energy savings and the national
economic costs and savings from new
standards. Excel is the most widely used
spreadsheet calculation tool in the
United States and there is general
familiarity with its basic features. Thus,
DOE’s use of Excel as the basis for the
spreadsheet models provides interested
persons with access to the models
within a familiar context. In addition,
the TSD and other documentation that
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2035
2040
531
27
36
38
527
13
3
405
53
102
62
196
5
10
42
582
29
39
42
578
14
4
444
59
112
68
214
5
10
46
2042
604
30
41
43
600
15
4
460
61
116
71
222
5
11
48
Cumulative
15,270
763
1,027
1,091
15,167
374
93
11,647
1,537
2,936
1,790
5,627
132
274
1,214
DOE provides during the rulemaking
help explain the models and how to use
them, and interested persons can review
DOE’s analyses by changing various
input quantities within the spreadsheet.
Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES
spreadsheet does not use distributions
for inputs or outputs. DOE examined
sensitivities by applying different
scenarios. DOE used the NES
spreadsheet to perform calculations of
national energy savings and NPV using
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50102
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the LCC
analysis and estimates of national
shipments for each of the 15 primary
commercial refrigeration equipment
classes. DOE forecasted the energy
savings, energy cost savings, equipment
costs, and NPV of benefits for all
primary commercial refrigeration
equipment classes from 2012 through
2062. The forecasts provided annual
and cumulative values for all four
output parameters.
DOE calculated the NES by
subtracting energy use under a
standards scenario from energy use in a
base case (no new standards) scenario.
Energy use is reduced when a unit of
commercial refrigeration equipment in
the base case efficiency distribution is
replaced by a more efficient piece of
equipment. Energy savings for each
equipment class are the same national
average values as calculated in the LCC
and payback period spreadsheet.
However, these results are normalized
on a per-unit-length basis by equipment
class and applied to the total annual
estimated shipments in terms of line-up
length of all equipment with the class.
Table IV–15 shows key inputs to the
NIA. Chapter 11 of the TSD provides
additional information about the NES
spreadsheet.
TABLE IV–15—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE INPUTS
Input data
Description
Changes for NOPR
Shipments ............................
Annual shipments from shipments model (Chapter 10,
Shipments Analysis).
Effective Date of Standard ...
Base Case Efficiencies ........
2012 ................................................................................
Distribution of base case shipments by efficiency level
Standards Case Efficiencies
Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each
standards case. Standards case annual market
shares by efficiency level remain constant over time
for the base case and each standards case.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy consumption level, which are established in the
engineering analysis (Chapter 5 of the TSD). Converted to a per linear foot basis.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy consumption level (Chapter 8 of the TSD). Converted to a per linear foot basis.
Annual weighted-average values are constant with energy consumption level (Chapter 8 of the TSD). Converted to a per linear foot basis.
Annual weighted-average value equals $156 (Chapter 8
of the TSD), plus lighting maintenance cost. Converted to a per linear foot basis.
EIA AEO2006 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation for
beyond 2030 (Chapter 8 of the TSD).
Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/
EIA’s NEMS* program (a time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and
distribution losses).
3 and 7 percent real ........................................................
Future costs are discounted to year 2007 ......................
A rebound effect (due to changes in shipments resulting from standards) was not considered in the NIA.
Shipments model modified to use a distribution of
equipment lifetimes based on a 10-year average life
in large grocery and multi-line retail, and a 15-year
average life in small grocery and convenience stores.
Estimates for shipments for the VOP.RC.L equipment
class were added and are provided.
No change.
No change in methodology to derive base case shipments by efficiency level.
No change in methodology to derive shipments by efficiency level in each standards case.
Annual Energy Consumption
per Linear Foot.
Total Installed Cost per Linear Foot.
Repair Cost per Linear Foot
Maintenance Cost per Linear
Foot.
Escalation of Electricity
Prices.
Electricity Site-to-Source
Conversion.
Discount Rate ......................
Present Year ........................
Rebound Effect ....................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
1. Base Case and Standards Case
Forecasted Efficiencies
A key component of DOE’s estimates
of NES and NPV are the energy
efficiencies for shipped equipment that
it forecasts over time for the base case
(without new standards) and for each
standards case. The forecasted
efficiencies represent the distribution of
energy efficiency of the equipment
under consideration that is shipped over
the forecast period (i.e., from the
assumed effective date of a new
standard to 30 years after the standard
becomes effective).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
No change in methodology. Energy consumption estimates reflect updates to NOPR engineering analysis.
No change in methodology. Installed costs reflect updates to NOPR LCC.
No change in methodology. Repair costs reflected updates to NOPR LCC.
No change in methodology, but annual weighted-average value updated to $160 in 2007$.
EIA AEO2007 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation for
beyond 2030 (Chapter 8 of the TSD).
Conversion factor varies yearly and is generated by
EIA’s NEMS model. Includes the impact of electric
generation, transmission, and distribution losses.
No change.
Future costs are discounted to year 2008.
No change.
The annual per-unit energy
consumption is the site energy
consumed by a commercial refrigeration
equipment unit per year. The annual
energy consumption is directly tied to
the efficiency of the unit. Thus,
knowing the efficiency of a commercial
refrigeration equipment unit determines
the corresponding annual energy
consumption. DOE determined annual
forecasted market shares by efficiency
level that, in turn, enabled
determination of shipment-weighted
annual energy consumption values.
Because no data were available on
market shares broken down by
efficiency level, DOE determined market
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shares by efficiency level for
commercial refrigeration based on its
own analysis. DOE first converted 2005
shipment information by equipment
class into market shares by equipment
class, and then adapted a cost-based
method similar to that used in the
NEMS to estimate market shares for
each equipment class by efficiency
level. This cost-based method relied on
cost data developed in the engineering
and life-cycle cost analyses, as well as
economic purchase criteria data taken
directly from NEMS. From those market
shares and projections of shipments by
equipment class, DOE developed the
future efficiency scenarios for a base
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
case (i.e., without new standards) and
for various standards cases (i.e., with
new standards). DOE did not have data
to calibrate this approach to actual
market shipments by efficiency level.
DOE requested comment on this
approach to generating market shares by
efficiency level in the ANOPR.
Commenting on the distribution of
market efficiency, ARI stated that
experience with other equipment tells
us that the majority of the shipments are
usually at the lower end of the curve of
the highest efficiency. ARI was
surprised that DOE had only 25 percent
or 30 percent of the shipments at that
efficiency level. They also cautioned
DOE that the industry-supplied curves
are cost curves and do not mean that
such equipment is on the market today.
As Section IV.E, Life-Cycle Cost,
discusses, ARI offered to try to provide
data on the distribution of efficiencies
in current equipment but was not able
to do so. (Public Meeting Transcript, No.
13.5 at p. 143) Other stakeholders, such
as EEI and ACEEE, suggested possible
avenues that DOE could examine but
did not have data DOE could use to
establish a distribution of efficiencies.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 141–142; p. 173) Because of the lack
of data on market shipments by
efficiency level, DOE chose to continue
to use the ANOPR approach to estimate
shipments by efficiency level.
DOE developed base case efficiency
forecasts based on the estimated market
shares by equipment class and
efficiency level. Because there are no
historical data to indicate how
equipment efficiencies or relative
equipment class preferences have
changed over time, DOE predicted that
forecasted market shares would remain
frozen at the 2012 efficiency level until
the end of the forecast period (30 years
after the effective date, 2042). DOE
requested comments on this
assumption.
Copeland commented that since DOE
plans to update the forecast in five
years, no one can really figure out what
that distribution of efficiency in the
future looks like. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 175) EEI
suggested DOE make further contacts
with national accounts that use
commercial refrigeration equipment. No
suggestions for improving this
assumption were received. For the
NOPR, DOE continued to use the
assumption of flat market shares by
efficiency level for the forecast period.
For its determination of standards
case forecasted efficiencies, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
market shares by efficiency level for
2012, the year that standards become
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
effective. Information available to DOE
suggests that equipment shipments with
efficiencies in the base case that did not
meet the standard level under
consideration would roll up to meet the
new standard level, and that all
equipment efficiencies in the base case
that were above the standard level
under consideration would not be
affected. Emerson commented that a
standard brings some compression in
the distribution of efficiencies. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 175)
However, ARI stated the roll-up
scenario best represents what is likely to
happen when energy conservation
standards take effect. (ARI, No. 18 at p.
5) DOE continued to use the roll-up
scenario for the NOPR analysis.
Finally, DOE recognizes that baseline
efficiency trends can change if
equipment costs are different than those
projected. For example, if LED prices
drop more than assumed in the
engineering analysis, consumer demand
for equipment with LEDs could change.
DOE seeks comment on whether
shipments of equipment with LEDs
would change if LED costs drop and if
so, the extent and timing of such
shipment changes. See Section VII.E.1.
2. Annual Energy Consumption, Total
Installed Cost, Maintenance Cost, and
Repair Costs
The difference in shipments by
equipment efficiency level between the
base and standards cases was the basis
for determining the reduction in perunit annual energy consumption that
could result from new standards. The
commercial refrigeration equipment
stock in a given year is the total linear
footage of commercial refrigeration
equipment shipped from earlier years
that survive in the given year. The NES
spreadsheet model keeps track of the
total linear footage of commercial
refrigeration equipment units shipped
each year and estimates the total
commercial refrigeration equipment
stock for each year. The annual energy
consumption by efficiency level for each
equipment category comes from the LCC
analysis and is converted to a per-linearfoot basis by dividing by the length of
the specific equipment analyzed in the
engineering analysis. Similarly, the total
installed cost, maintenance cost, and
repair costs for each efficiency level for
each equipment class analyzed in the
LCC are converted to a per linear foot
basis. Using the total estimated
shipments and total estimated stock by
equipment category and efficiency level,
DOE calculates the annual energy
consumption for the commercial
refrigeration equipment stock in each
year, the maintenance and repair costs
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50103
associated with the equipment stock,
and the total installed costs associated
with new shipments in each year based
on the standards scenario and
associated distribution of shipments by
efficiency level.
3. Escalation of Electricity Prices
DOE uses the most recent AEO
reference case to forecast energy prices
for standard rulemakings. For the
ANOPR, DOE used the AEO2006
reference case forecasts to estimate
future electricity prices. ACEEE
commented that it would like DOE to
use the AEO2008 forecasts for the NOPR
analysis. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2)
However, this forecast was not available
when DOE completed the NOPR
analysis. DOE used the AEO2007
reference case forecasts for future
electricity prices, extended out to the
end of the analysis period. DOE
extrapolated the trend in values from
2020 to 2030 of the forecast to establish
prices for the remainder of the analysis
period. DOE intends to update its
analysis for the final rule to reflect the
AEO 2008 electricity price forecasts
when final versions of these price
forecasts are available. An AEO Revised
Early Release for the AEO 2008
reference case only has indicated that
the reference case electricity prices are
higher in real (inflation adjusted) terms
and if this holds true in the final release
it would generally result in more
favorable economics for higher
efficiency standard levels (i.e. shorter
payback periods, greater life-cycle cost
savings, and greater national net present
value).
4. Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion
The site-to-source conversion factor is
a multiplier used for converting site
energy consumption, expressed in kWh,
into primary or source energy
consumption, expressed in quadrillion
Btu (quads). The site-to-source
conversion factor accounts for losses in
electricity generation, transmission, and
distribution. For the ANOPR, DOE used
site-to-source conversion factors based
on U.S. average values for the
commercial sector, calculated from
AEO2006, Table A5. The average
conversion factors vary over time, due
to projected changes in electricity
generation sources (i.e., the power plant
types projected to provide electricity to
the country). For the NOPR, DOE
developed marginal site-source
conversion factors that relate the
national electrical energy savings at the
point of use to the fuel savings at the
power plant. These factors use the
NEMS model and the examination of
the corresponding energy savings from
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50104
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
standards scenarios considered in DOE’s
utility analysis (Chapter 14 of the TSD).
The conversion factors vary over time,
due to projected changes in electricity
generation sources (i.e., the power plant
types projected to provide electricity to
the country) and power plant dispatch
scenarios. Average U.S. conversion
factors were used in the ANOPR
because the utility analysis which is
used to determine marginal conversion
factors appropriate to efficiency
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment occurs in the NOPR stage of
DOE’s analysis.
To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the
net impact each year as the difference
between total operating cost savings
(including electricity, repair, and
maintenance cost savings) and increases
in total installed costs (including MSP,
sales taxes, distribution channel
markups, and installation cost). DOE
calculated the NPV of each TSL over the
life of the equipment using three steps.
First, DOE determined the difference
between the equipment costs under the
TSL and the base case to calculate the
net equipment cost increase resulting
from the TSL. Second, DOE determined
the difference between the base case
operating costs and the TSL operating
costs to calculate the net operating cost
savings from the TSL. Third, DOE
determined the difference between the
net operating cost savings and the net
equipment cost increase to calculate the
net savings (or expense) for each year.
DOE then discounted the annual net
savings (or expenses) for commercial
refrigeration equipment purchased on or
after 2012 to 2008, and summed the
discounted values to determine the NPV
of a TSL. An NPV greater than zero
shows net savings (i.e., the TSL would
reduce overall customer expenditures
relative to the base case in present value
terms). An NPV less than zero indicates
that the TSL would result in a net
increase in customer expenditures in
present value terms.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of
new or amended standards on
commercial customers, DOE evaluates
the impact on identifiable groups (i.e.,
sub-groups) of customers, such as
different types of businesses that may be
disproportionately affected by a
National standard level. For this
rulemaking, DOE identified
independent small grocery and
convenience stores as a commercial
refrigeration equipment customer subgroup that could be disproportionately
affected, and examined the impact of
proposed standards on this group.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
DOE determined the impact on this
commercial refrigeration equipment
customer sub-group using the LCC
spreadsheet model. DOE conducted the
LCC and PBP analyses for commercial
refrigeration equipment customers. The
standard LCC and PBP analyses
(described in Section IV.E) includes
various types of businesses that use
commercial refrigeration equipment.
The LCC spreadsheet model allows for
the identification of one or more subgroups of businesses, which can then be
analyzed by sampling only each such
sub-group. The results of DOE’s LCC
sub-group analysis are summarized in
Section V.B.1.c and described in detail
in Chapter 12 of the TSD.
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impact of energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of commercial
refrigeration equipment, and to assess
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 GRIM, an
industry-cash-flow model customized
for this rulemaking. The GRIM inputs
are information regarding 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 (INPV). The
model estimates the financial impact of
energy conservation standards by
comparing changes in INPV between the
base case and the various trial standard
levels. 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 sub-groups of manufacturers.
Chapter 13 of the TSD outlines the
complete MIA.
DOE conducted the MIA for
commercial refrigeration equipment in
three phases. Phase 1, Industry Profile,
consisted of preparing an industry
characterization, including data on
market share, sales volumes and trends,
pricing, employment, and financial
structure. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow
Analysis, focused on the industry as a
whole. In this phase, DOE used the
GRIM to prepare an industry cash-flow
analysis. Using publicly available
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information developed in Phase 1, DOE
adapted the GRIM’s generic structure to
perform an analysis of commercial
refrigeration equipment energy
conservation standards. In Phase 3, SubGroup Impact Analysis, DOE conducted
interviews with manufacturers
representing the majority of domestic
commercial refrigeration equipment
sales. This group included large and
small manufacturers, providing a
representative cross-section of the
industry. During these interviews, DOE
discussed engineering, manufacturing,
procurement, and financial topics
specific to each company and obtained
each manufacturer’s view of the
industry. The interviews provided
valuable information DOE used to
evaluate the impacts of an energy
conservation standard on manufacturer
cash flows, manufacturing capacities,
and employment levels. For more detail
on the manufacturer impact analysis,
refer to Chapter 13 of the TSD.
a. Phase 1, Industry Profile
In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared
a profile of the commercial refrigeration
equipment industry based on the market
and technology assessment prepared for
this rulemaking. Before initiating the
detailed impact studies, DOE collected
information on the present and past
structure and market characteristics of
the commercial refrigeration equipment
industry. The information DOE
collected at that time included market
share, equipment shipments, markups,
and cost structure for various
manufacturers. The industry profile
includes further detail on equipment
characteristics, estimated manufacturer
market shares, the financial situation of
manufacturers, trends in the number of
firms, the market, and equipment
characteristics of the commercial
refrigeration equipment industry.
The industry profile included a topdown cost analysis of commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
that DOE used to derive cost and
preliminary financial inputs for the
GRIM (e.g., revenues; material, labor,
overhead, and depreciation expenses;
selling, general, and administrative
expenses (SG&A); and research and
development (R&D) expenses). DOE also
used public sources of information to
further calibrate its initial
characterization of the industry,
including U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) 10–K reports,
Standard & Poor’s (S&P) stock reports,
and corporate annual reports.
b. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis
Phase 2 of the MIA focused on the
financial impacts of energy conservation
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
standards on the industry. Higher
energy conservation standards can affect
a manufacturer’s cash flow in three
distinct ways, resulting in: (1) A need
for increased investment; (2) higher
production costs per unit; and (3)
altered revenue by virtue of higher perunit prices and changes in sales values.
To quantify these impacts in Phase 2 of
the MIA, DOE used the GRIM to perform
a cash-flow analysis of commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers.
In performing these analyses, DOE used
the financial values derived during
Phase 1 and the shipment scenarios
used in the NES analyses.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis
Using average cost assumptions to
develop an industry-cash-flow estimate
is not adequate for assessing differential
impacts among sub-groups of
manufacturers. For example, small
manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost structure that largely
differs from the industry average could
be more negatively affected. DOE used
the results of the industry
characterization analysis (in Phase 1) to
group manufacturers that exhibit similar
characteristics.
During the interview process, DOE
discussed the potential sub-groups and
sub-group members it identified for the
analysis. DOE encouraged the
manufacturers to recommend subgroups or characteristics that are
appropriate for the sub-group analysis.
DOE identified small commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
as a potential manufacturing sub-group.
DOE found that small business
manufacturers generally have the same
concerns as large manufacturers
regarding energy conservation
standards. In addition, DOE found no
significant differences in the R&D
emphasis or marketing strategies
between small business manufacturers
and large manufacturers. Therefore, for
the equipment classes comprised
primarily of small business
manufacturers, DOE believes the GRIM
analysis, which models each equipment
class separately, is representative of the
small business manufacturers affected
by standards.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
Analysis
As mentioned above, DOE uses the
GRIM to quantify changes in cash flow
that result in a higher or lower industry
value. The GRIM analysis uses a
standard annual cash-flow analysis that
incorporates manufacturer prices,
manufacturing costs, shipments, and
industry financial information. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
GRIM models changes in costs,
distribution of shipments, investments,
and associated margins that would
result from new regulatory conditions
(in this case, standard levels). The GRIM
spreadsheet uses a number of inputs to
arrive at a series of annual cash flows,
beginning with the base year of the
analysis, 2007, and continuing to 2042.
DOE calculated INPVs by summing the
stream of annual discounted cash flows
during this period.
DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash
flows using standard accounting
principles and compare changes in
INPV between a base case and different
TSLs (the standards cases). Essentially,
the difference in INPV between the base
case and a standards case represents the
financial impact of the energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers. DOE collected this
information from a number of sources,
including publicly available data and
interviews with manufacturers (Chapter
13 of the TSD).
3. Manufacturer Interviews
As part of the MIA, DOE discussed
potential impacts of energy conservation
standards with manufacturers
responsible for a majority of commercial
refrigeration equipment sales. The
manufacturers interviewed manufacture
close to 90 percent of the commercial
refrigeration equipment on the market.
These interviews were in addition to
those DOE conducted as part of the
engineering analysis. The interviews
provided valuable information that DOE
used to evaluate the impacts of energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers’ cash flows,
manufacturing capacities, and
employment levels.
a. Key Issues
Manufacturers identified the
following key issues for DOE to consider
in developing energy conservation
standards:
• Meeting Standards. Manufacturers
expressed concern that they would have
difficulty meeting certain efficiency
levels for certain equipment classes.
First, some manufacturers stated that
they could not meet or would have
extreme difficulty meeting any of the
possible efficiency levels presented
during interviews for self-contained
equipment (e.g., horizontal open units).
One manufacturer stated that due to the
small number of parts in the selfcontained equipment, efficiency
improvements are constrained to these
parts and are therefore limited. The
same manufacturer stated that it already
implements the most efficient options
on the market that are available within
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50105
its price range. For some manufacturers,
self-contained equipment represents
only a small portion of their business.
These manufacturers make more remote
condensing equipment and simply
convert the design into self-contained
units. Second, some manufacturers
stated that they could not meet
efficiency levels 3 and 4 for mediumtemperature equipment (e.g., SOC.RC.M,
VCT.RC.M, VOP.RC.M), and that they
would need advances in technology to
achieve these levels by 2012. One
manufacturer stated that it does not
manufacture any equipment in the
VOP.RC.M equipment class that meets
DOE’s baseline level.
• Customer Needs. Manufacturers are
concerned that increased equipment
efficiency will come at the expense of
equipment functionality, utility, and
customizability. The commercial
refrigeration equipment industry is
focused on customers’ need to sell
products, and customers place a higher
priority on marketing and displaying
their goods than they do on energy
efficiency. Customers demand high
levels of customization to differentiate
themselves from other retail stores.
They do not want to lose any
functionality or utility in their
equipment, such as display area, that
affects their ability to sell products.
Often, the desire of customers for easy
product access requires equipment that
is less energy efficient. They also do not
want to lose any flexibility in design
choices, such as lighting options. For
example, some customers specify
certain lighting configurations (e.g.,
color rendering, color temperature, light
distribution) to maximize the sale of
products such as fresh meat, produce, or
dairy. Manufacturers believe that setting
standards at the maximum level will
affect their customers’ ability to
merchandise products by limiting the
flexibility to choose from among
different designs, which they expect
would commoditize the industry and
lead to reduced profit margins. Having
some allowance in the efficiency
thresholds would allow tradeoffs in
design selection that would ease the
reconciliation of energy savings with the
ability to sell products.
• Customer Awareness.
Manufacturers expressed concern that
their retail customers are not
sufficiently aware of pending energy
conservation standards and the impacts
these standards may have on their
purchasing decisions. The supermarket
industry is a low-margin industry,
which places much emphasis on lowfirst-cost equipment. Manufacturers
believe that many customers may not be
able to handle an increase in equipment
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50106
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
price effectively since they operate with
a fixed budget, or a fixed amount of
capital available for purchasing
commercial refrigeration equipment.
Manufacturers stated that customers
with a fixed capital budget would tend
to extend refurbishment periods and cut
back on equipment growth to deal with
the increase in price of higher efficiency
equipment, which manufacturers say
will reduce annual sales of commercial
refrigeration equipment. Manufacturers
expect that smaller stores and even
small regional chains will feel
significant financial pressure when
faced with the increase in prices. Single
family-owned stores and local stores in
large cities may have no capital budget
with which to replace existing cases
with cases that are 30 percent to 50
percent higher in price. Manufacturers
stated that a reduction in sales would
lead to employee layoffs since labor is
proportional to units sold, not
equipment price. Manufacturers also
stated that customers have usually been
unwilling to adopt energy efficiency
improvements unless there is a 12month payback period or less.
• Equipment Classes. Manufacturers
expressed concern regarding how
equipment they manufacture would be
categorized in DOE’s equipment classes.
Manufacturers stated that certain pieces
of low-volume equipment they
manufacture do not easily fit into DOE’s
equipment classes, and other pieces of
equipment are excluded from coverage.
For example, custom pieces of
equipment, especially hybrid or
combination units, do not easily fall
within the DOE equipment classes since
they could be classified in more than
one category. A self-contained case with
a service over counter upper portion
and an open lower portion could be
classified as a self-contained service
over counter unit as well as a selfcontained open unit. Another example
is wedges—transition pieces placed at
the corners of a case lineup. These do
not have a reasonable TDA and
therefore do not have meaningful energy
consumption levels when normalized to
TDA. Some manufacturers stated that
low-volume equipment that cannot meet
energy conservation standards may be
discontinued because the cost to
increase the efficiency will not be worth
the benefit gained. Manufacturers also
expressed concern regarding secondary
coolant systems, which may provide a
loophole. Manufacturers estimate that
secondary coolant systems represent
about 10 percent of the market currently
and consume about five percent more
energy than their direct expansion
equivalent. Some manufacturers stated
that customers might purchase these
lower efficiency secondary coolant
systems instead of the direct expansion
equipment that are subject to standards.
This concerns manufacturers since it
would defeat the purpose of regulatory
action.
• Component Manufacturers.
Manufacturers expressed concern that
they have little control over the options
available and the price they pay for
components used to manufacture
commercial refrigeration equipment.
Commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers purchase many of the
components needed to build the
equipment and therefore rely heavily on
component manufacturers to deliver
parts, such as doors, motors, fans, and
lights. However, commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
state that higher efficiency components
may not be readily available to meet
standards. For example, the highefficiency compressors needed for selfcontained equipment to meet energy
conservation standards may not be
readily available. Manufacturers said
that the compressors they purchase for
commercial refrigeration are left over
from the white goods (home appliances)
industry since that industry has a much
higher sales volume compared to
commercial refrigeration equipment.
Also, manufacturers stated that
component suppliers set their own
pricing, and manufacturers have no
control over this. Manufacturers are
concerned about what prices they
would have to pay for higher efficiency
components in the future.
4. Government Regulatory Impact Model
Key Inputs and Scenarios
a. Base Case Shipments Forecast
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total unit shipment
forecasts and the distribution of these
values by efficiency level. Changes in
the efficiency mix at each standard level
are a key driver of manufacturer
finances. For this analysis, the GRIM
used the NES shipments forecasts from
2007 to 2042. Total shipments
forecasted by the NES for the base case
in 2012 are shown in Table IV–16 and
further discussed in this section of
today’s Notice.
TABLE IV–16—TOTAL NES-FORECASTED SHIPMENTS IN 2012 (NUMBER OF UNITS)
Equipment class
VOP.RC.M ......................
VOP.RC.L .......................
VOP.SC.M ......................
VCT.RC.M ......................
VCT.RC.L .......................
VCT.SC.I .........................
VCS.SC.I ........................
SVO.RC.M ......................
SVO.SC.M ......................
SOC.RC.M ......................
HZO.RC.M ......................
HZO.RC.L .......................
HZO.SC.M ......................
HZO.SC.L .......................
HCT.SC.I ........................
Total industry
shipments
37,607
1,880
7,585
2,533
35,184
2,571
637
28,685
11,357
7,231
4,408
13,859
976
2,024
10,487
In the shipments analysis, DOE also
estimated the distribution of efficiencies
in the base case for commercial
refrigeration equipment (Chapter 10 of
the TSD). Table IV–17 shows one
example of the distribution of
efficiencies in the base case for the
VOP.RC.M equipment class. The
distribution of efficiencies in the base
case for other equipment classes are
shown in Chapter 10 of the TSD.
TABLE IV–17—GRIM DISTRIBUTION OF SHIPMENTS IN THE BASE CASE FOR VOP.RC.M
Baseline
1.09
TSL 1
0.98
TSL 2
0.95
TSL 3
0.89
TSL 4 *
0.89
TSL 5
0.76
Distribution of Shipments (%) ..................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
TSL
(CDEC/TDA—kWh/day/ft2)
17.6
36.3
16.6
14.0
14.0
15.6
* For VOP.RC.M, TSL 4 is set at the same efficiency level as TSL 3. Therefore, the shipment distribution is the same for both of these TSLs.
b. Standards Case Shipments Forecast
For each standards case, DOE
assumed that shipments at efficiencies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
below the projected standard levels
were most likely to roll up to those
efficiency levels in response to an
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
energy conservation standard. This
scenario assumes that demand for highefficiency equipment is a function of its
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
price without regard to the standard
level. See Chapter 12 of the TSD for
additional details.
c. Markup Scenarios
To understand how baseline and more
efficient equipment are differentiated,
DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs
and information gathered by
manufacturers. To estimate the
manufacturer price of the equipment
sold, DOE applied markups to the
production costs. For the analysis, DOE
considered different markup scenarios,
based on manufacturer input, for
commercial refrigeration equipment.
Scenarios were used to bound the range
of expected equipment prices following
new energy conservation standards. For
each equipment class, DOE used the
markup scenarios that best
characterized the prevailing markup
conditions and described the range of
market responses manufacturers expect
as a result of new energy conservation
standards. DOE learned from interviews
with manufacturers that the majority of
manufacturers only offer one equipment
line. A single equipment line means that
there is no markup used to differentiate
baseline equipment from premium
equipment.
After discussions with manufacturers,
DOE believes its adoption of standards
for commercial refrigeration equipment
would likely result in one of two
distinct markup scenarios: Preservationof-gross-margin-percentage or
preservation-of-operating-profit. Under
the preservation-of-gross-marginpercentage scenario, DOE applied a
single uniform gross margin percentage
markup across all efficiency levels. As
production cost increases with
efficiency, this scenario implies that the
absolute dollar markup will increase.
DOE assumed the non-production cost
markup—which includes SG&A
expenses, R&D expenses, interest, and
profit—to be 1.32. Manufacturers
believe it is optimistic to assume that as
their production costs increase in
response to an efficiency standard, they
would be able to maintain the same
gross margin percentage markup.
Therefore, DOE assumes that this
scenario represents a high bound to
industry profitability under an energy
conservation standard.
Gross margin is defined as revenues
less cost of goods sold. The implicit
assumption behind this markup
scenario is that the industry can
maintain its gross margin from the
baseline (in absolute dollars) after the
standard. The industry would do so by
passing through its increased
production costs to customers without
passing through its increased R&D and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
selling, general, and administrative
expenses so the gross profit per unit is
the same in absolute dollars. DOE
implemented this scenario in the GRIM
by setting the production cost markups
for each TSL to yield approximately the
same gross margin in the standards
cases in the year standard are effective
(2012) as is yielded in the base case.
d. Equipment and Capital Conversion
Costs
New efficiency standards typically
cause manufacturers to incur one-time
conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and equipment
designs into compliance with the new
regulation. For the purpose of the MIA,
DOE classified these one-time
conversion costs into three major
groups. Capital conversion expenditures
are one-time investments in property,
plant, and equipment to adapt or change
existing production facilities so that
new equipment designs can be
fabricated and assembled under the new
regulation. Equipment conversion
expenditures are one-time investments
in research, development, testing, and
marketing focused on creating
equipment designs that comply with the
new efficiency standard. Stranded assets
are equipment or tooling that become
obsolete as a result of new regulation.
During the MIA interviews, DOE
asked manufacturers for their estimates
of the conversion costs they would
incur due to new energy conservation
standards. DOE then used the costs
provided by each manufacturer and
their respective market shares to
develop estimates for the conversion
costs of the entire industry at varying
TSLs. Chapter 13 of the TSD
summarizes these estimates.
J. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates
the effects of reduced energy
consumption due to improved
equipment efficiency on the utility
industry. This utility analysis consists
of a comparison between forecast results
for a case comparable to the AEO2007
reference case and forecasts for policy
cases incorporating each of the
commercial refrigeration equipment
TSLs.
DOE analyzed the effects of proposed
standards on electric utility industry
generation capacity and fuel
consumption using a variant of the
EIA’s NEMS. NEMS, which is available
on the DOE website, is a large, multisector, partial-equilibrium model of the
U.S. energy sector. EIA uses NEMS to
produce its AEO, a widely recognized
baseline energy forecast for the United
States. DOE used a variant known as
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50107
NEMS–BT. The NEMS–BT is run
similarly to the AEO2007 NEMS, except
that commercial refrigeration equipment
energy usage is reduced by the amount
of energy (by fuel type) saved due to the
TSLs. DOE obtained the inputs of
national energy savings from the NES
spreadsheet model. For the final rule,
DOE intends to report utility analysis
results using a version of NEMS–BT
based on the AEO2008 NEMS.
DOE conducted the utility analysis as
policy deviations from the AEO2007,
applying the same basic set of
assumptions. In the utility analysis,
DOE reported the changes in installed
capacity and generation by fuel type
that result for each TSL, as well as
changes in end-use electricity sales.
Chapter 14 of the TSD provides details
of the utility analysis methods and
results.
K. Employment Impact Analysis
Employment impact is one of the
factors that DOE considers in selecting
a standard. Employment impacts
include direct and indirect impacts.
Direct employment impacts are any
changes in the number of employees for
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers, their suppliers, and
related service firms. Indirect impacts
are those changes of employment in the
larger economy that occur due to the
shift in expenditures and capital
investment caused by the purchase and
operation of more efficient commercial
refrigeration equipment. The MIA in
this rulemaking addresses only the
direct employment impacts on
manufacturers of commercial
refrigeration equipment. Chapter 15 of
the TSD describes other, primarily
indirect, employment impacts.
Indirect employment impacts from
commercial refrigeration equipment
standards consist of the net jobs created
or eliminated in the national economy,
other than in the manufacturing sector
being regulated, as a consequence of (1)
reduced spending by end users on
electricity (offset to some degree by the
increased spending on maintenance and
repair); (2) reduced spending on new
energy supply by the utility industry; (3)
increased spending on the purchase
price of new commercial refrigeration
equipment; and (4) the effects of those
three factors throughout the economy.
DOE expects the net monetary savings
from standards to be redirected to other
forms of economic activity. DOE also
expects these shifts in spending and
economic activity to affect the demand
for labor.
In developing this proposed rule, DOE
estimated indirect national employment
impacts using an input/output model of
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50108
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
the U.S. economy, called ImSET (Impact
of Sector Energy Technologies),
developed by DOE’s Building
Technologies Program. ImSET is a
personal-computer-based, economicanalysis model that characterizes the
interconnections among 188 sectors of
the economy as national input/output
structural matrices, using data from the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s 1997
Benchmark U.S. input-output table. The
ImSET model estimates changes in
employment, industry output, and wage
income in the overall U.S. economy
resulting from changes in expenditures
in various sectors of the economy. DOE
estimated changes in expenditures using
the NES spreadsheet. ImSET then
estimated the net national indirect
employment impacts of potential
commercial refrigeration equipment
efficiency standards on employment by
sector. In comments on the ANOPR,
Zero Zone asked if DOE was going to
contact second tier suppliers (e.g., door
suppliers, fluorescent lighting suppliers,
shaded pole motor suppliers) regarding
employment impacts. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at pp. 230–231) ARI
noted that this had been done in the
central air conditioning rulemaking.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 231)
DOE stated that the ImSET tool would
not be able to address this in detail, but
that it has been done within the MIA for
other equipment. In the public meeting,
DOE commented that there would be
impacts from standards, but the
effective date is different from the
issuance date partly to allow time for
adjustments in manufacturing.
The ImSET input/output model
suggests that the proposed commercial
refrigeration equipment efficiency
standards could increase the net
demand for labor in the economy and
the gains would most likely be very
small relative to total national
employment. DOE therefore concludes
that the proposed commercial
refrigeration equipment standards are
only likely to produce employment
benefits that are sufficient to fully offset
any adverse impacts on employment in
the commercial refrigeration equipment
industry. For more details on the
employment impact analysis, see
Chapter 15 of the TSD.
L. Environmental Assessment
DOE has prepared a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA)
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act and the requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and
6316(e)(1)(A), to determine the
environmental impacts of the proposed
standards. Specifically, DOE estimated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
the reduction in power plant emissions
of CO2, NOX, and mercury (Hg) using
the NEMS–BT computer model.
However, the Environmental
Assessment (Chapter 16 of the TSD)
does not include the estimated
reduction in power plant emissions of
SO2 because, DOE has determined that
due to the presence of national caps on
SO2 emissions as addressed below, any
such reduction resulting from an energy
conservation standard would not affect
the overall level of SO2 emissions in the
United States.
The NEMS–BT is run similarly to the
AEO2007 NEMS, except that
commercial refrigeration equipment
energy use is reduced by the amount of
energy saved (by fuel type) due to the
TSLs. DOE obtained the inputs of
national energy savings from the NES
spreadsheet model. For the
environmental analysis, the output is
the forecasted physical emissions. The
net benefit of the standard is the
difference between emissions estimated
by NEMS–BT and the AEO2007
Reference Case. The NEMS–BT tracks
CO2 emissions using a detailed module
that provides results with broad
coverage of all sectors and inclusion of
interactive effects. For the final rule,
DOE intends to revise the emissions
analysis using the AEO2008 NEMS
model using the process outlined above.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 set an emissions cap on SO2 for all
power generation. The attainment of
this target, however, is flexible among
generators and is enforced through the
use of emissions allowances and
tradable permits. As a result, accurate
simulation of SO2 trading tends to imply
that the effect of energy conservation
standards on physical emissions will be
near zero because emissions will always
be at, or near, the ceiling. Thus, it is
unlikely that there will be an SO2
environmental benefit from electricity
savings as long as there is enforcement
of the emissions ceilings.
Although there may not be an actual
reduction in SO2 emissions from
electricity savings, there still may be an
economic benefit from reduced demand
for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity
savings decrease the generation of SO2
emissions from power production,
which can decrease the need to
purchase or generate SO2 emissions
allowance credits, and decrease the
costs of complying with regulatory caps
on emissions.
Like SO2, future emissions of NOX
and Hg would have been subject to
emissions caps under the Clean Air
Interstate Act and Clean Air Mercury
Rule. As discussed later, these rules
have been vacated by a Federal court.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE calculated a forecast of reductions
for these emissions under an uncapped
scenario. DOE assumes that the
uncapped emissions reduction estimate
would have corresponded generally to
the generation of emissions allowance
credits under an emissions cap scenario.
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE selected between four and eight
energy consumption levels for each
commercial refrigeration equipment
class in the LCC analysis. Based on the
results of the LCC analysis, DOE
selected five trial standard levels above
the baseline level for each equipment
class for the NOPR stage of the
rulemaking. The range of TSLs selected
includes the most energy efficient
combination of design options with a
positive NPV at the seven percent
discount rate, and the combination of
design options with the minimum LCC.
Additionally, TSLs were selected that
filled large gaps between the baseline
and the level with the minimum LCC.
Because of the size variation within
each equipment class and the use of
daily energy consumption as the
efficiency metric, DOE presented a
methodology to express efficiency
standards in terms of a normalizing
metric. This allows for a single energy
conservation standard to be used for a
broad range of equipment sizes within
a given equipment class. DOE proposed
the use of TDA as the normalizing
metric for equipment with display
capability. For equipment classes
without display capability (e.g.,
equipment with solid doors), DOE
proposed the use of internal volume as
the normalizing metric. See Chapter 9 of
the TSD for more detail.
True commented that all selfcontained units (including any open
units) should be tested using volume as
a normalizing factor to provide a
straight comparison between open and
closed-door self-contained units. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at pp. 202–
207) DOE understands the usefulness of
comparing self-contained equipment
with and without doors on the basis of
volume. However, the self-contained
equipment covered in this rulemaking is
frequently installed in supermarkets and
convenience stores, where its primary
purpose is to display and merchandise
food. The most common application of
remote condensing equipment is also in
supermarkets and convenience stores.
Therefore, DOE believes that, with
respect to the purpose of equipment, the
self-contained equipment covered in
this rulemaking is more similar to
remote condensing equipment than
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
other self-contained equipment (i.e.,
equipment with doors). DOE discussed
this issue with manufacturers, and
determined that TDA is the most
appropriate normalization metric for the
self-contained equipment covered in
this rulemaking, since that is the metric
used for remote condensing equipment.
DOE expressed the ANOPR efficiency
levels in terms of a normalized energy
consumption using these normalization
factors. DOE proposed equations for
final standards that would have
maximum energy consumption for
equipment whose display area is
directly proportional to TDA. DOE also
suggested that for equipment
normalized to volume, it might be
necessary to develop equations that use
offset factors to account for a potential
non-linear variation of energy
consumption with volume. At the
ANOPR public meeting and during the
comment period, stakeholders
expressed concerns about the size of
equipment DOE analyzed as the
representative model for each
equipment class. Zero Zone stated that
its analysis indicates that using a twodoor case as the baseline (for the
VCT.RC.L class) is more reasonable
because of the end effects in those cases.
Zero Zone reported a 10 percent
increase in energy consumption per
door for a two-door case with the same
design features as a five-door case. A
two-door case consumes more energy
per door than a five-door case because
of the lighting and end effects. Zero
Zone noted that if the standard is based
on a five-door case, it will penalize any
smaller cabinet, and could eliminate
smaller cases from production due to
their size. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 87) At the public meeting,
Zero Zone stated that it would give
some thought to what should be used
for a representative model—a two-door
case, or some combination of two-door
and five-door cases. Zero Zone also
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
noted that not all manufacturers make
all case sizes. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 88) Later, in
a written comment, Zero Zone
recommended that DOE base its analysis
on the smaller case models instead of
the larger case models to avoid
accidentally outlawing smaller cases.
(Zero Zone, No. 17 at p. 3) ARI
commented that it generally agrees with
the approach proposed by DOE for
characterizing energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment, and offered to work with
DOE in developing appropriate offset
factors. (ARI, No. 18 at p. 6)
For the NOPR, DOE developed offset
factors as a way to adjust the energy
efficiency requirements for smallersized equipment in each equipment
class analyzed. These offset factors
account for certain components of the
refrigeration load (such as the
conduction end effects) that remain
constant even when equipment sizes
vary. These constant loads affect smaller
cases disproportionately. The offset
factors are intended to approximate
these constant loads and provide a fixed
end point, corresponding to a zero TDA
or zero volume case, in an equation that
describes the relationship between
energy consumption and the
corresponding TDA or volume metric.
See Chapter 5 of the TSD for further
details on the development of these
offset factors for each equipment class.
This is identified as Issue 4 under
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’
in Section VII.E of this NOPR.
DOE preserved the general
methodology and themes it used for the
selection of efficiency levels in the
ANOPR in establishing specific
efficiency levels for equipment classes.
These levels are based on the results of
the updated LCC analysis and make up
the TSLs used in the NOPR. Table V–
1 shows the TSL levels DOE selected for
energy use for the equipment classes
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50109
analyzed. TSL 5 is the max-tech level
for each equipment class. TSL 4 is the
maximum efficiency level with a
positive NPV at the seven percent
discount rate, except for VOP.RC.M,
where the minimal difference in energy
efficiency between the minimum lifecycle cost level as determined by the
LCC analysis and the maximum
efficiency level with positive NPV
prompted DOE to select the minimum
life-cycle cost level in preference to the
maximum level with positive NPV. TSL
4 is a combination of the efficiency
levels selected for TSL 3 and TSL 5. For
a given equipment class, the efficiency
levels selected for TSL 4 are either
equivalent to that of TSL 3 or that of
TSL 5. TSL 3 is the efficiency level that
provides the minimum life-cycle cost as
determined by the LCC analysis. TSL 2
and TSL 1 represent lower efficiency
levels that fill in the gap between the
current baseline and the levels
determined to have the minimum LCC.
Table V–2 shows the same TSL levels
in terms of proposed equations that
establish a maximum daily energy
consumption (MEC) limit through a
linear equation of the form:
MEC = A × TDA + B (for equipment
using TDA as a normalizing metric)
or
MEC = A × V + B (for equipment using
volume as a normalizing metric)
Coefficients A and B are uniquely
derived for each equipment class based
on the calculated offset factor B (see
Chapter 5 of the TSD for offset factors)
and the equation slope A, which would
be used to describe the efficiency
requirements for equipment of different
sizes within the same equipment class.
Chapter 9 of the TSD explains the
methodology DOE used for selecting
trial standard levels and developing the
coefficients shown in Table V–2.
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
In addition to the 15 primary
equipment classes analyzed, DOE
intends to establish standards for the
remaining 23 secondary equipment
classes of commercial refrigeration
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
equipment covered in this rulemaking
that were not directly analyzed in the
engineering analysis due to low annual
shipments (less than 100 units per year).
DOE’s approach involves extension
multipliers developed using both the 15
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
primary equipment classes analyzed
and a set of focused matched-pair
analyses. In addition, DOE believes that
standards for certain primary equipment
classes can be directly applied to other
similar secondary equipment classes.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
EP25AU08.002
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
EP25AU08.001
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50110
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
50111
of presenting these levels in this section
is to provide interested persons with the
range of efficiency standards that DOE
is considering for these secondary
equipment classes. This is identified as
Issue 5 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in Section VII.E of this
NOPR.
Transcript, No. 13.5 at pp. 28–33) ARI
stated that DOE should not require all
equipment to be tested at these three
rating temperatures alone. Doing so may
require manufacturers to produce
equipment that is less efficient solely for
the purpose of meeting a specific rating
condition, thus defeating the intent of
the regulation. (ARI, No. 18 at p. 4) Hill
Phoenix and True stated that the
equipment they manufacture that is
unable to meet these rating temperatures
is only one percent to two percent of
their shipments. Hill Phoenix added
that, if possible, it would prefer to avoid
the excessive paperwork of applying for
waivers for equipment that cannot meet
the three rating temperatures in the test
procedure. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 13.5 at p. 33)
Zero Zone recommended developing
regulations that apply to the special
circumstances of the rating temperature
(Zero Zone, No. 17 at p. 2) and that DOE
should consider developing additional
rating temperatures. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 28) ACEEE
suggested that DOE develop a method to
interpolate the standard based on the
In the ANOPR, DOE proposed as part
of its commercial refrigeration
equipment test procedure that all
equipment be tested at one of three
rating temperatures: 38 °F for
refrigerators, 0 °F for freezers, and ¥15
°F for ice-cream freezers. Zero Zone,
Hill Phoenix, Carrier/Tyler
Refrigeration, and True expressed
concern because they produce
equipment that is not designed to
operate at these designated rating
temperatures. (Public Meeting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
EP25AU08.003
V–3 shows this additional set of
corresponding TSL levels. The levels
shown in Table V–3 do not necessarily
reflect the minimum life-cycle cost or
max-tech efficiency levels for these
equipment classes, and do not reflect
TSLs that DOE has analyzed in its
impact analyses. The primary purpose
1. Miscellaneous Equipment
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Chapter 5 of the TSD discusses the
development of the extension
multipliers and the set of focused
matched-pair analyses.
Using this approach, DOE developed
an additional set of TSLs for these
secondary equipment classes that
corresponds to each of the equations
shown in Table V–2 at each TSL. Table
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50112
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
standards at the three official rating
temperatures. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 2)
ARI recommended that any equipment
specifically designed to hold
temperatures higher than the rating
temperature should be tested at its
application temperature, but must still
meet the energy standard for its
respective equipment class. (ARI, No. 18
at p. 4)
The DOE test procedure for
commercial refrigeration equipment
specifies three rating temperatures, 38
°F, 0 °F, and ¥15 °F, that are required
to be used in the testing of this
equipment, each applied to designated
equipment classes. 71 FR 71357. Since
all of this equipment must be tested at
one of these three rating temperatures,
any manufacturer that is unable to test
such equipment at its designated rating
temperature, must request a test
procedure waiver from DOE pursuant to
the provisions described in 10 CFR
431.401. If the equipment is unable to
meet the maximum daily energy
consumption (MDEC) limit for its
designated equipment class, a
manufacturer can petition DOE’s Office
of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for
exception relief from the energy
conservation standard pursuant to
OHA’s authority under section 504 of
the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7194), as implemented at subpart B of
10 CFR part 1003. OHA grants such
relief on a case-by-case basis if it
determines that a manufacturer has
demonstrated that meeting the standard
would cause hardship, inequity, or
unfair distributions of burdens. DOE
believes that the majority of equipment
covered by this rulemaking can be
tested using the three specified rating
temperatures (38 °F, 0 °F and ¥15 °F)
provided in the test procedure.
Certain types of equipment meet the
definition of ‘‘commercial refrigeration
equipment’’ (Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT
2005), but do not fall directly into any
of the 38 equipment classes defined in
the market and technology assessment.
One of these types is hybrid cases,
where two or more compartments are in
different equipment families and are
contained in one cabinet. Another is
refrigerator-freezers, which have two
compartments in the same equipment
family but with different operating
temperatures. Hybrid refrigeratorfreezers, where two or more
compartments are in different
equipment families and have different
operating temperatures, may also exist.
Another is wedge cases, which form
miter transitions (a corner section
between two refrigerated display
merchandisers) between standard
display case lineups. DOE is proposing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
language that will allow manufacturers
to determine appropriate standard levels
for these types of equipment.
An example of a pure hybrid case
(one with two or more compartments in
different equipment families and at the
same temperature) is a unit with one
open and one closed mediumtemperature compartment, such as those
seen in coffee shops that merchandise
baked goods and beverages. These
hybrid cases may be either selfcontained or remote condensing, and
may be cooled by one or more
condensing units. They may also have
one evaporator cooling both
compartments or one evaporator feeding
each compartment separately.
An example of a refrigerator-freezer is
a unit with doors where one
compartment operates at medium
temperature and one compartment
operates at low temperature. Remote
condensing commercial refrigeratorfreezers (with and without doors) and
self-contained commercial refrigeratorfreezers without doors may operate in
one of two ways. First, they may operate
as separate chilled and frozen
compartments with evaporators fed by
two sets of refrigerant lines or two
compressors. Second, they may operate
as separate chilled and frozen
compartments fed by one set of lowtemperature refrigerant lines (with
evaporator pressure regulator (EPR)
valves or similar devices used to raise
the evaporator pressure) or one
compressor.
An example of a hybrid refrigeratorfreezer is a unit with one open
compartment at medium temperature
and one closed compartment at low
temperature. As with pure hybrid cases,
these cases may be either self-contained
or remote condensing, and may be
cooled by one or more condensing units.
In the case of remote condensing
equipment, they may operate as separate
chilled and frozen compartments with
evaporators fed by two sets of refrigerant
lines or two compressors. Or they may
operate as separate chilled and frozen
compartments fed by one set of lowtemperature refrigerant lines (with EPR
valves or similar devices used to raise
the evaporator pressure of one
compartment) or one compressor.
During the ANOPR public meeting,
stakeholders commented on how to
handle these types of cases. True
suggested that for self-contained
refrigerator-freezer equipment, DOE
should use a weighted average of the
minimum standard requirements for the
freezer and refrigerator. This is the
present standard used in California and
Canada, and [EPACT] 2005 for selfcontained equipment with doors: 1.63
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
times freezer volume plus the
refrigerated volume gives you a number
[adjusted volume]. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 215) Copeland
followed up on the True comment on
refrigerator-freezers, suggesting that a
refrigerator-freezer standard for remote
cases should be simple, and that they
should be treated as if they have two
separate compressors. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 13.5 at p. 215) Zero
Zone stated that a manufacturer could
build equipment with one or two
separate suction lines. If it is built with
one, measure the suction pressure for
that one and base the EER on that
suction pressure, without concern for
what is happening upstream of the case.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 13.5 at
p. 215)
DOE has reviewed the comments and
is proposing the following language for
requiring manufacturers to meet
standards for hybrid cases, refrigeratorfreezers, and hybrid refrigerator/
freezers:
• For commercial refrigeration
equipment with two or more
compartments (hybrid refrigerators,
hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigeratorfreezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator/
freezers), the MDEC for each model
shall be the sum of the MDEC values for
all of its compartments. For each
compartment, measure the TDA or
volume of that compartment, and
determine the appropriate equipment
class based on that compartment’s
equipment family, condensing unit
configuration, and designed operating
temperature. The MDEC limit for each
compartment shall be the calculated
value obtained by entering that
compartment’s TDA or volume into the
standard equation in subsection (d)(1)
for that compartment’s equipment class.
Measure the calculated daily energy
consumption (CDEC) or total daily
energy consumption (TDEC) for the
entire case as follows:
Æ For remote condensing commercial
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers,
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and nonhybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two
or more independent condensing units
each separately cool only one
compartment, measure the total
refrigeration load of each compartment
separately according to the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure. Calculate compressor energy
consumption (CEC) for each
compartment using Table 1 in ANSI/
ARI Standard 1200–2006 using the
saturated evaporator temperature for
that compartment. The calculated daily
energy consumption (CDEC) for the
entire case shall be the sum of the CEC
for each compartment, fan energy
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
consumption (FEC), lighting energy
consumption (LEC), anti-condensate
energy consumption (AEC), defrost
energy consumption (DEC), and
condensate evaporator pan energy
consumption (PEC) (as measured in
ANSI/ARI Standard 1200–2006).
Æ For remote condensing commercial
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers,
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and nonhybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two
or more compartments are cooled
collectively by one condensing unit,
measure the total refrigeration load of
the entire case according to the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure. Calculate a weighted
saturated evaporator temperature for the
entire case by (i) multiplying the
saturated evaporator temperature of
each compartment by the volume of that
compartment (as measured in ANSI/ARI
Standard 1200–2006), (ii) summing the
resulting values for all compartments,
and (iii) dividing the resulting total by
the total volume of all compartments.
Calculate the CEC for the entire case
using Table 1 in ANSI/ARI Standard
1200–2006, using the total refrigeration
load and the weighted average saturated
evaporator temperature. The CDEC for
the entire case shall be the sum of the
CEC, FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, and PEC.
Æ For self-contained commercial
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers,
50113
would decrease and purchase price
would increase. DOE analyzed the net
effect by calculating the LCC. Inputs
used for calculating the LCC include
total installed costs (i.e., equipment
price plus installation costs), annual
energy savings, average electricity costs
by customer, energy price trends, repair
costs, maintenance costs, equipment
lifetime, and discount rates.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses
provided five outputs for each TSL that
are reported in Table V–4 through Table
V–18. The first three outputs are the
proportion of commercial refrigeration
equipment purchases where the
purchase of a standard-compliant piece
of equipment would create a net LCC
increase, no impact, or a net LCC
savings for the customer. DOE used the
estimated distribution of shipments by
efficiency level for each equipment class
to determine the affected customers.
The fourth output is the average net LCC
savings from standard-compliant
equipment. The fifth output is the
average PBP for the customer
investment in standard-compliant
equipment. The payback period is the
number of years it would take for the
customer to recover through energy
savings the increased costs of higher
efficiency equipment compared with the
purchase of baseline efficiency
equipment.
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and nonhybrid refrigerator-freezers, measure the
total daily energy consumption (TDEC)
for the entire case according to the
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure.
• For remote-condensing and selfcontained wedge cases, measure the
CDEC or TDEC according to the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure. The MDEC for each model
shall be the amount derived by
incorporating into the standards
equation in subsection (d)(1) for the
appropriate equipment class a value for
the TDA that is the product of (1) the
vertical height of the air-curtain (or glass
in a transparent door) and (2) the largest
overall width of the case, when viewed
from the front. This is identified as Issue
6 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment’’ in Section VII.E of this
NOPR.
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Commercial
Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
To evaluate the economic impact of
the TSLs on customers, DOE conducted
an LCC analysis for each level. More
efficient commercial refrigeration
equipment would affect customers in
two ways: Annual operating expense
TABLE V–4—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
3
4
5
0
65
35
1,201
0.9
0
47
53
1,143
1.5
0
30
70
1,551
2.2
0
30
70
1,551
2.2
63
2
34
¥234
9.7
TABLE V–5—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.RC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
3
4
5
0
68
32
3,132
0.8
0
52
48
4,005
1.2
0
22
78
4,089
1.3
0
8
92
3,364
3.0
0
8
92
3,364
3.0
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V–6—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
2
0
65
35
758
Sfmt 4702
3
4
0
32
68
1,065
0
17
83
1,342
0
17
83
1,342
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
5
19
3
78
703
50114
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–6—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VOP.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS—Continued
Trial standard level
1
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0.8
3
1.8
4
5
2.7
2.7
5.9
TABLE V–7—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCT.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
79
21
286
0.9
3
0
57
43
581
1.4
4
0
25
75
1,107
4.6
5
19
7
74
867
6.1
19
7
74
867
6.1
TABLE V–8—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCT.RC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
60
40
676
1.2
3
4
5
0
40
60
3,594
2.6
0
28
72
3,662
2.6
0
8
92
3,546
3.7
0
8
92
3,546
3.7
TABLE V–9—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCT.SC.I EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
3
4
5
0
52
48
2,305
1.1
0
37
63
3,806
1.7
0
15
85
3,841
2.4
0
7
93
3,818
2.5
0
7
93
3,818
2.5
TABLE V–10—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VCS.SC.I EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
76
24
640
0.4
3
4
5
0
49
51
1,191
0.6
0
11
89
1,565
1.4
0
11
89
1,565
1.4
0
11
89
1,565
1.4
TABLE V–11—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SVO.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
2
3
4
5
0
24
76
1,106
2.1
62
4
34
¥170
9.7
0
62
38
810
0.8
0
42
58
782
1.5
0
24
76
1,106
2.1
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
50115
TABLE V–12—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SVO.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
67
33
527
0.7
3
0
34
66
756
1.6
4
0
19
81
988
2.6
5
0
19
81
988
2.6
17
4
79
516
5.9
TABLE V–13—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SOC.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
83
17
363
0.6
3
0
66
34
759
0.9
4
0
32
68
819
1.9
5
0
32
68
819
1.9
71
5
24
¥673
12.6
TABLE V–14—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.RC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
80
20
376
0.6
3
0
60
40
792
0.9
4
0
39
61
942
1.4
5
0
19
81
917
1.8
0
19
81
917
1.8
TABLE V–15—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.RC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
59
41
593
1.1
3
0
39
61
927
1.5
4
0
19
81
971
1.8
5
0
19
81
971
1.8
0
19
81
971
1.8
TABLE V–16—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.SC.M EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
2
0
73
27
312
0.4
3
0
45
55
551
1.1
4
0
21
79
759
2.0
5
0
10
90
721
2.5
0
10
90
721
2.5
TABLE V–17—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HZO.SC.L EQUIPMENT CLASS
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Trial standard level
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
2
0
73
27
610
0.4
Sfmt 4702
3
4
5
0
45
55
1,094
0.9
0
21
79
1,585
1.6
0
10
90
1,559
1.9
0
10
90
1,559
1.9
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50116
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–18—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HCT.SC.I EQUIPMENT CLASS
Trial standard level
1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) .........................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ........................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ..................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .......................................................
For three equipment classes
(VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC.M, and SOC.RC.M)
TSL 5 resulted in a negative LCC
savings compared with the purchase of
baseline equipment. For all other
equipment classes, TSL 5 showed
positive LCC savings. DOE noted that
for equipment classes with lighting, the
inclusion of LED lighting at TSL 5 had
a significant impact on the calculated
LCC savings. For equipment classes
without lighting (i.e., VCS.SC.I,
HZO.RC.L, HZO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L,
HCT.SC.I), the LCC savings at TSL 5 was
either identical to that of TSL 3, or less
(between $17 and $38 over the life of
the equipment). However, for
equipment classes with lighting the
difference in the LCC calculated
between TSL 3 and TSL 5 varied from
$23 for VCT.SC.I to $1785 for
VOP.RC.M. When compared to TSL 3,
the estimated reduction in LCC savings
for TSL 5 was most pronounced for the
three medium temperature equipment
classes identified above as having
negative LCC compared to the baseline
(VOP.RC.M, SOC.RC.M, and
SVO.RC.M), varying between $1276 and
$1785 dollars. For three additional
equipment classes (VOP.RC.L,
SVO.SC.M, and VOP.SC.M), when
compared to TSL 3, the difference in
LCC was greater than $500. DOE noted
that these are all medium temperature
cases with the exception of VOP.RC.L,
which is a small sales volume unit,
similar in design to a medium
temperature VOP.RC.M case.
The inclusion of LED lighting systems
result in an incremental increase in
installed price. It also increases
annualized lighting maintenance cost,
since LED lights were assumed to be
replaced after 50,000 hours or 5.7 years
of steady operation. DOE performed two
sensitivity analyses of the effect of
projected cost reductions in LED
lighting systems on LCC. These analyses
involved five equipment classes:
VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M,
SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M. In the first
sensitivity analysis, DOE determined
the reduction in LED fixture cost,
applied to the installed price in 2012,
that would be necessary to reduce the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
2
0
64
36
192
0.7
3
0
46
54
692
1.5
average LCC for TSL 5 to a level
equivalent to the LCC savings at TSL 3,
the maximum LCC level. DOE
determined that for these five
equipment classes, a LED cost reduction
ranging from 37 percent to 44 percent,
depending on equipment class, would
provide an LCC at TSL 5 equivalent to
that at TSL 3.
In the second sensitivity analysis,
DOE presumed that the cost for
replacement LED fixtures in 2018 would
be reduced by 50 percent of the cost
assumed in the base LCC analysis, and
then calculated the reduction in LED
fixture cost necessary by 2012 to reduce
the average LCC for TSL 5 to a level that
provided equivalent LCC savings as TSL
3. DOE determined that for these five
equipment classes an LED cost
reduction ranging from 29 percent to 40
percent, depending on equipment class,
would provide a LCC at TSL 5
equivalent to that at TSL 3.
Based on these analyses, DOE
concluded that a reduction in LED
fixture costs of approximately 45
percent would be sufficient to result in
the maximum LCC savings for all five
equipment classes at TSL 5. DOE
estimated that this reduction in LED
fixture costs would also increase LCC
savings for all other equipment classes
with installed lighting at TSL 5. DOE
estimates that for all equipment classes
to achieve their maximum LCC savings
at TSL 5, LED fixture costs must
decrease by at least 45 percent. DOE
concluded that a reduction in LED costs
of less than 45 percent could result in
only certain commercial refrigeration
equipment classes achieving their
maximum LCC savings at TSL 5.
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed above, EPCA provides a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the increased purchase cost
for the equipment that meets the
standard is less than three times the
value of the first year energy savings
resulting from the standard. DOE
calculated a rebuttable presumption
payback period for each TSL to
determine if DOE could presume that a
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4
0
30
70
710
1.6
5
0
14
86
693
2.1
0
14
86
693
2.1
standard at that level is economically
justified. Rather than using distributions
for input values, DOE used discrete
values and, as required by EPCA, based
the calculation on the DOE commercial
refrigeration equipment test procedure
assumptions. As a result, DOE
calculated a single rebuttable
presumption payback value for each
standard level, and not a distribution of
payback periods.
To evaluate the rebuttable
presumption, DOE estimated the
additional customer price of a more
efficient, standard-compliant unit using
the average customer markup, and
compared this cost to the value of the
energy saved during the first year of
operation of the equipment as
determined by ANSI/ARI Standard
1200–2006. DOE interprets that the
increased cost of purchasing a standardcompliant unit includes the cost of
installing the equipment for use by the
purchaser. DOE calculated the
rebuttable presumption PBP, or the ratio
of the value of the increased installed
price above the baseline efficiency level
to the first year’s energy cost savings.
When this PBP is less than three years,
the rebuttable presumption is satisfied;
when this PBP is equal to or more than
three years, the rebuttable presumption
is not satisfied.
Rebuttable presumption PBPs were
calculated based on single-point
national average values for installed
costs and energy prices appropriate to
commercial refrigeration equipment.
Equipment prices are based on a
shipment-weighted average distribution
markup for remote condensing
equipment or self-contained equipment,
as applied to the MSP for each
equipment class. The installed cost is
based on the national average
equipment price and the national
average installation cost for remote
condensing or self-contained equipment
as appropriate. Average first-year energy
costs were calculated as the product of
the annual energy consumption used in
the LCC and the shipment-weighted
national-average electricity price, which
was calculated using the shipment
weights for the four business types
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
using commercial refrigeration
equipment.
The equation for the rebuttable PBP
is:
PBP = DIC/DEC
Where
PBP = payback period in years,
DIC = difference in the total installed cost
between the more efficient standard level
equipment (energy consumption levels 2,
3, etc.) and the baseline (energy
consumption level 1) equipment, and
DEC = difference in annual energy costs.
PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs
greater than the life of the equipment
means that the increased total installed
cost of the more efficient equipment is
not recovered in reduced operating costs
for the more efficient equipment. The
rebuttable presumption PBPs differ from
the other PBPs calculated in the LCC
analysis (see Section IV.E.12 of this
NOPR) because they do not include
maintenance or repair costs and they are
based on single point values instead of
distributions for installation costs or
energy costs. The baseline efficiency
level for the rebuttable presumption
calculation is the baseline established in
the engineering analysis.
Table V–19 shows the nationally
averaged rebuttable presumption
paybacks calculated for all equipment
classes and efficiency levels. The
highest efficiency level with a rebuttable
presumption payback of less than three
years is also shown in Table V–19 for
each equipment class. For eight
equipment classes, the rebuttable
presumption criteria were satisfied at all
50117
TSLs. At TSL 4, the rebuttable
presumption criteria are satisfied for 13
equipment classes. At TSL 3, the
rebuttable presumption criteria are
satisfied for 14 equipment classes. At
TSL 2, the rebuttable presumption
criteria were satisfied for all equipment
classes. However, while DOE has
examined the rebuttable presumption
PBPs, DOE has not determined
economic justification for any of the
standard levels analyzed based on the
ANOPR rebuttable presumption
analysis. The economic justification for
each TSL for each equipment class will
take into account the more detailed
analysis of the economic impacts of
increased efficiency pursuant to Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)).
TABLE V–19—REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL AND EQUIPMENT CLASS
Rebuttable presumption payback period (years)
Highest TSL with
PBP < 3 Years
Equipment type
Level 1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
VOP.RC.M .................
VOP.RC.L ..................
VOP.SC.M .................
VCT.RC.M .................
VCT.RC.L ..................
VCT.SC.I ....................
VCS.SC.I ...................
SVO.RC.M .................
SVO.SC.M .................
SOC.RC.M .................
HZO.RC.M .................
HZO.RC.L ..................
HZO.SC.M .................
HZO.SC.L ..................
HCT.SC.I ...................
Level 2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.2
2.4
1.6
0.6
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.0
0.8
1.4
c. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
Using the LCC spreadsheet model,
DOE estimated the impact of the TSLs
on the following customer sub-group:
small businesses. For the retail food
sales business, the Small Business
Association (SBA) defines as small
businesses supermarkets and other
grocery stores and convenience stores
with less than $25 million in total
annual sales. For specialty stores (e.g.,
meat markets, bakeries, fish and seafood
markets), this limit is set at less than
$6.5 million in annual sales. According
to the Food Marketing Institute, the
average supermarket had sales of
approximately $15 million in 2006, so a
small business could be represented by
one to two average-size supermarkets or
a chain of smaller grocery or
convenience stores. The Food Marketing
Institute defines independent stores as a
retailer with one to ten stores, so most
small supermarkets or grocery
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Level 3
Level 4
1.7
1.2
2.3
4.1
2.4
2.2
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.5
2.3
5.4
3.3
2.3
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.7
2.0
businesses as defined by SBA would be
classified as independent grocery stores
by the industry. A somewhat larger
chain of convenience stores could still
be classified as a small business.
DOE estimated the LCC and PBP for
small food sales businesses defined by
SBA by presuming that most small
business customers could be
represented by the analysis performed
for small grocery and convenience store
owners. DOE assumed, however, that
the smaller, independent grocery and
convenience store chains may not have
access to national accounts, but would
instead purchase equipment primarily
through distributors and grocery
wholesalers. DOE modified the
distribution channels for remote
condensing and self-contained
equipment to these small businesses as
follows:
• For remote condensing equipment,
15 percent of the sales were assumed to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Level 5
5.9
2.5
4.5
5.4
3.3
2.3
1.3
5.9
4.5
7.1
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.7
2.0
4
5
4
2
3
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
pass through a manufacturer-todistributor-to-contractor-to-customer
channel, and 85 percent were assumed
to be purchased through a
manufacturer-to-distributor-to-customer
channel.
• For self-contained equipment, 35
percent of sales were assumed to pass
through a manufacturer-to-distributorto-contractor-to-customer channel, and
65 percent were assumed to be
purchased through a manufacturer-todistributor-to-customer channel.
In both cases, the distribution chain
markups were calculated accordingly.
Table V–20 shows the mean LCC
savings from proposed energy
conservation standards for the small
business sub-group, and Table V–21
shows the mean payback period (in
years) for this sub-group. More detailed
discussion on the LCC sub-group
analysis and results can be found in
Chapter 12 of the TSD.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50118
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–20—MEAN LIFE-CYCLE COST SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY LCC
SUB-GROUP (SMALL BUSINESS) (2007$) *
Equipment class
TSL 1
VOP.RC.M ...........................................................................
VOP.RC.L ............................................................................
VOP.SC.M ............................................................................
VCT.RC.M ............................................................................
VCT.RC.L .............................................................................
VCT.SC.I ..............................................................................
VCS.SC.I ..............................................................................
SVO.RC.M ...........................................................................
SVO.SC.M ............................................................................
SOC.RC.M ...........................................................................
HZO.RC.M ...........................................................................
HZO.RC.L ............................................................................
HZO.SC.M ............................................................................
HZO.SC.L .............................................................................
HCT.SC.I ..............................................................................
TSL 2
1,536
3,995
968
366
876
2,957
805
1,036
669
461
476
766
393
766
244
TSL 3
1,524
5,158
1,413
757
4,842
4,981
1,511
1,044
994
973
1,013
1,206
708
1,394
898
TSL 4
2,096
5,301
1,840
1,689
4,941
5,155
2,031
1,492
1,346
1,107
1,221
1,274
1,005
2,069
925
TSL 5
2,096
4,688
1,840
1,625
5,042
5,151
2,031
1,492
1,346
1,107
1,202
1,274
974
2,052
919
564
4,688
1,308
1,625
5,042
5,151
2,031
400
953
(175)
1,202
1,274
974
2,052
919
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative savings.
TABLE V–21—MEAN PAYBACK PERIOD FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY LCC SUB-GROUP
(SMALL BUSINESS) (YEARS)
Equipment class
TSL 1
VOP.RC.M ...........................................................................
VOP.RC.L ............................................................................
VOP.SC.M ............................................................................
VCT.RC.M ............................................................................
VCT.RC.L .............................................................................
VCT.SC.I ..............................................................................
VCS.SC.I ..............................................................................
SVO.RC.M ...........................................................................
SVO.SC.M ............................................................................
SOC.RC.M ...........................................................................
HZO.RC.M ...........................................................................
HZO.RC.L ............................................................................
HZO.SC.M ............................................................................
HZO.SC.L .............................................................................
HCT.SC.I ..............................................................................
For commercial refrigeration
equipment, the LCC and PBP impacts
for small businesses are similar to those
of all customers as a whole. While the
discount rate for small grocery stores is
higher than that for commercial
refrigeration equipment customers as a
whole and equipment prices are higher
due to the higher markups, these small
business customers appear to retain
commercial refrigeration equipment
over longer periods, and generally,
smaller stores tend to pay higher
TSL 2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.6
TSL 3
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.3
2.4
1.6
0.6
1.3
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.8
1.3
electrical prices. The average LCC
savings for the small business sub-group
is slightly higher than that calculated for
the average commercial refrigeration
equipment customer, and the average
PBP is slightly shorter than the national
average. DOE tentatively concluded that
the small food sales businesses as
defined by SBA will not experience
economic impacts significantly different
or more negative than those impacts on
food sales businesses as a whole.
TSL 4
2.0
1.2
2.4
4.2
2.4
2.1
1.3
1.9
2.3
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.4
TSL 5
2.0
2.7
2.4
5.6
3.4
2.2
1.3
1.9
2.3
1.7
1.6
1.7
2.3
1.7
1.9
8.5
2.7
5.2
5.6
3.4
2.2
1.3
8.5
5.2
10.8
1.6
1.7
2.3
1.7
1.9
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the impact of amended energy
conservation standards on commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
(Chapter 13 of the TSD).
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
Table V–22 and Table V–23 show the
MIA results for each TSL using both
markup scenarios described above for
commercial refrigeration equipment.24
TABLE V–22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY UNDER
THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO
Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario with a rollup shipment scenario
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Efficiency level
Units
Base case
1
INPV .................
2007$ Millions
510
24 The MIA estimates the impacts on commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers of
equipment in the entire range of equipment classes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
2
3
4
5
510
517
493
471
493
(i.e., the MIA results in Table V–22 and Table V–
23 take into consideration the impacts on
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manufacturers of equipment from all equipment
classes).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
50119
TABLE V–22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY UNDER
THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO—Continued
Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario with a rollup shipment scenario
Efficiency level
Units
Base case
1
Change in INPV
Energy Conservation
Standards
Equipment
Conversion
Expenses.
Energy Conservation
Standards
Capital Investments.
Total Investment
Required.
2
(0)
0.00%
0.5
3
5
(17)
¥3.30%
20.6
6
1.22%
2.8
4
(40)
¥7.76%
40.4
(18)
¥3.49%
51.6
2007$ Millions
(%) ...................
2007$ Millions
........................
........................
........................
2007$ Millions
........................
0.8
5.0
36.3
71.2
90.8
2007$ Millions
........................
1.3
7.8
57.0
111.6
142.4
TABLE V–23—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY UNDER
THE PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO
Preservation of operating profit markup scenario with a rollup shipment scenario
Efficiency level
Units
Base case
1
INPV .................
Change in INPV
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Energy Conservation
Standards
Equipment
Conversion
Expenses.
Energy Conservation
Standards
Capital Investments.
Total Investment
Required.
3
4
5
2007$ Millions
2007$ Millions
(%) ...................
2007$ Millions
510
........................
........................
........................
447
(63)
¥12.34%
0.5
423
(88)
¥17.16%
2.8
382
(129)
¥25.20%
20.6
330
(180)
¥35.32%
40.4
226
(285)
¥55.77%
51.6
2007$ Millions
........................
0.8
5.0
36.3
71.2
90.8
2007$ Millions
........................
1.3
7.8
57.0
111.6
142.4
At TSL 1, the impact on INPV and
cash flow varies greatly depending on
the manufacturers and their ability to
pass on MPC increases to the customer.
DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at
TSL 1 to range from approximately no
impact to ¥$63 million, which is a
change in INPV of zero percent to
¥12.34 percent. At this level, the
industry cash flow is $50.9 million,
which is nearly the same as the base
case value of $51.4 million in the year
leading up to the standards. Since DOE
estimates that more than 80 percent of
the equipment being sold is already at
or above this level, manufacturers that
currently meet TSL 1 will not have to
make additional modifications to their
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
equipment lines to conform to the
energy conservation standards. DOE
expects the lower end of the impacts to
be reached, because manufacturers will
be able to fully recover the increase in
manufacturer production cost from
customers. Therefore, DOE expects that
industry revenues and costs will not be
significantly negatively affected at TSL
1.
At TSL 2, the impact on INPV and
cash flow continues to vary depending
on the manufacturers and their ability to
pass on MPC increases to the customer.
DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at
TSL 2 to range from approximately $6
million to ¥$88 million, which is a
change in INPV of 1.22 percent to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
¥17.16 percent. At this level, the
industry cash flow decreases by
approximately 6 percent, to $48.2
million, compared to the base case value
of $51.4 million in the year leading up
to the standards. DOE estimates that
roughly 45 percent of the equipment
being sold is already at or above this
level. The required higher level of
efficiency will cause some manufactures
to modify their equipment lines to
conform to the energy conservation
standards. DOE does not expect
industry revenues and costs to be
affected significantly as long as
manufacturers fully recover the increase
in manufacturer production cost from
customers. The positive INPV value is
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50120
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
explained by the assumption that MSP
increases due to higher costs of the
equipment, so that manufacturers fully
recover and even surpass the
investments needed to achieve this
level.
At TSL 3, DOE estimated the impacts
in INPV to range from approximately
¥$17 million to ¥$129 million, which
is a change in INPV of ¥3.3 percent to
¥25.2 percent. At this level, the
industry cash flow decreases by
approximately 45.5 percent, to $28
million, compared to the base case value
of $51.4 million in the year leading up
to the standards. Based on information
submitted by industry, the majority of
manufacturers would require a complete
redesign of their equipment, and
therefore DOE expects that commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
will have some difficulty fully passing
on larger MPC increases to customers.
Manufacturers expect that the actual
impacts will be closer to the higher end
of the range of impacts (i.e., a drop of
25.2 percent in INPV).
At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts
on INPV to range from ¥$40 million to
¥$180 million, which is a change in
INPV of approximately ¥7.76 percent to
¥35.32 percent. At this level, the
industry cash flow decreases by
approximately 88.4 percent to $5.5
million, compared to the base case value
of $51.4 million in the year leading up
to the standards. TSL 4 was created as
a combination of TSL 3 (minimum LCC)
and TSL 5 (max-tech). Manufacturers
were not directly asked about this
combination TSL during interviews.
However, DOE estimated the range of
impacts at TSL 4 based on the expected
impacts manufacturers reported for TSL
3 and TSL 5. Since manufacturers
expect that the actual impacts will be
closer to the higher range of impacts at
TSL 3 and TSL 5, DOE expects that the
actual impacts for TSL 4 will also be at
the higher range (i.e., a drop of 35.32
percent in INPV).
At TSL 5 (max-tech), DOE estimated
the impacts in INPV to range from ¥$18
million to ¥$285 million, which is a
change in INPV of approximately ¥3.49
percent to ¥55.77 percent. At this level,
the industry cash flow decreases by
approximately 114 percent to ¥$7.2
million, compared to the base case value
of $51.4 million in the year leading up
to the standards. At higher TSLs,
manufacturers have more difficulty fully
passing on larger MPC increases to
customers, and therefore manufacturers
expect that the actual impacts will be
closer to the higher end of the range of
impacts (i.e., a drop of 55.77 percent in
INPV). Currently, there is only one
model being manufactured at these
efficiency levels for most equipment
classes, and some equipment classes
have no equipment at these levels. At
TSL 5, DOE recognizes that there is a
risk of very large negative impacts if
manufacturers’ expectations are
accurate about reduced profit margins.
During the interviews, manufacturers
expressed great concern at the
possibility of requiring an entire
equipment line to be manufactured at
the max-tech levels.
b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on
manufacturers, the combined effects of
several impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden.
In addition to the energy conservation
regulations on commercial refrigeration
equipment, several other Federal
regulations and pending regulations
apply to commercial refrigeration
equipment and other equipment
produced by the same manufacturers or
parent companies. DOE recognizes that
each regulation can significantly affect
manufacturers’ financial operations.
Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can quickly strain
manufacturers’ profits and possibly
cause an exit from the market. An
example of these additional regulations
is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)-mandated phaseout of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and
the potential residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps Federal
energy conservation standard. Table V–
24 provides the timetables for these
mandatory or potential regulations. DOE
believes that the cumulative burden of
the HCFC phaseout is minimal because
much of the commercial refrigeration
equipment industry has already
initiated the transition to HFC
refrigerants. As shown in Section IV.B.3
above, ARI stated that the data it
provided to DOE was based on HFC
refrigerants, and DOE therefore used
HFC refrigerants in its analysis. DOE is
aware of the industry’s transition to
HFC refrigerants, but requests comment
on any cumulative regulatory burdens
from the combined effects of impending
regulations that may affect
manufacturers.
TABLE V–24—FEDERAL REGULATION TIMETABLES
Regulation
Key affected appliance
Potential DOE energy conservation standards ........................
Potential DOE energy conservation standards ........................
EPA phaseout of HCFC refrigerant on new equipment ...........
Central air conditioners and heat pumps (residential) .............
Room air conditioners ..............................................................
Room and residential central air conditioners, and commercial air conditioners.
Commercial refrigeration equipment ........................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
EPA phaseout of HCFC blowing agents on new equipment ...
Production of foam insulation uses a
blowing agent. The EPA strategy for
meeting U.S. obligations under the
Montreal Protocol requires the United
States to phase out the production and
use of HCFC blowing agents. HCFC–22
and HCFC–142b will be phased out on
January 1, 2010. This affects equipment
manufacturing in the United States after
this date and causes manufacturers to
switch to other blowing agents with no
ozone depletion potential.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
DOE recognizes that some parent
companies of commercial refrigeration
equipment manufacturers could also be
affected by the potential energy
conservation standards for central air
conditioners and heat pumps and for
room air conditioners. Additional
investments necessary to meet these
potential standards could have
significant impacts on manufacturers of
commercial refrigeration equipment.
DOE seeks comment on the magnitude
of impacts for cumulative regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Effective date
06/2011.
06/2011
01/2010
01/2010.
burden on manufacturers for potential
energy conservation standards for
central air conditioners and heat pumps
and for room air conditioners.
c. Impacts on Employment
DOE used the GRIM to assess the
impacts of energy conservation
standards on commercial refrigeration
equipment employment. DOE used
statistical data from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2006 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers, the results of the
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
engineering analysis, and interviews
with manufacturers to estimate the
inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and
employment levels.
Currently the vast majority of
commercial refrigeration equipment is
manufactured in the U.S. Based on the
GRIM results and interviews with
manufacturers, DOE expects that there
would be positive direct employment
impacts among domestic commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
for TSL 1 through TSL 5. This
conclusion ignores the possible
relocation of domestic jobs to lowerlabor-cost countries which may occur
independently of new standards or may
be influenced by the level of
investments required by new standards.
Because the labor impacts in the GRIM
do not take relocation into account, the
labor impacts would be different if
manufacturers chose to relocate to lower
cost countries. Manufactures stated that,
although there are no current plans to
relocate production facilities, at higher
TSLs there would be increased pressure
to cut costs, which could result in
relocation. Chapter 13 of the TSD
further discusses the employment
impacts and exhibits the actual changes
in employment levels by TSL.
The conclusions in this section are
independent of any conclusions
regarding employment impacts from the
broader U.S. economy estimated in the
Employment Impact Analysis. These
impacts are documented in Chapter 15
of this TSD.
d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
According to the majority of
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers, new energy conservation
standards will not significantly affect
manufacturers’ production capacity.
Any necessary redesign of commercial
refrigeration equipment will not change
the fundamental assembly of the
equipment. However, manufacturers
anticipate some minor changes to
tooling. Thus, DOE believes
manufacturers will be able to maintain
manufacturing capacity levels and
continue to meet market demand under
new energy conservation standards.
e. Impacts on Sub-Groups of
Manufacturers
As discussed above, using average
cost assumptions to develop an industry
cash-flow estimate is not adequate for
assessing differential impacts among
sub-groups of manufacturers. Small
manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost structure that differs
largely from the industry average could
be affected differently. DOE used the
results of the industry characterization
to group manufacturers exhibiting
similar characteristics.
DOE evaluated the impact of new
energy conservation standards on small
businesses, as defined by the SBA for
the commercial refrigeration equipment
industry, as manufacturing enterprises
with 750 or fewer employees. DOE
shared the interview guides with small
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers and tailored specific
50121
questions for them. During DOE’s
interviews, small manufacturers
suggested that the impacts of standards
on them would not differ from impacts
on larger companies within the industry
(Chapter 13 of the TSD).
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Amount and Significance of Energy
Savings
To estimate the energy savings
through 2042 due to new energy
conservation standards, DOE compared
the energy consumption of commercial
refrigeration equipment under the base
case to energy consumption of
commercial refrigeration equipment
under a new standard. The energy
consumption calculated in the NIA is
source energy, taking into account
energy losses in the generation and
transmission of electricity as discussed
in Section IV.J.
DOE tentatively determined the
amount of energy savings at each of the
5 TSLs being considered for the 15
primary equipment class analyzed and
aggregated the results. Table V–25
shows the forecasted aggregate national
energy savings for all 15 equipment
classes at each TSL. The table also
shows the magnitude of the estimated
energy savings if the savings are
discounted at seven percent and three
percent. Each TSL considered in this
rulemaking would result in significant
energy savings, and the amount of
savings increases with higher energy
conservation standards (Chapter 11 of
the TSD).
TABLE V–25—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
(ENERGY SAVINGS FOR UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042)
Primary national energy savings (quads)
(sum of all equipment classes)
Trial standard level
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
1
2
3
4
5
Undiscounted
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
DOE reports both undiscounted and
discounted values of energy savings.
Each TSL analyzed results in additional
energy savings, ranging from an
estimated 0.141 quads to 1.208 quads
for TSLs 1 through 5 (undiscounted).
b. Net Present Value
The net present value analysis is a
measure of the cumulative benefit or
cost of standards to the Nation. In
accordance with the Office of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Management and Budget (OMB)’s
guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB
Circular A–4, Section E, September 17,
2003), DOE calculated an estimated
NPV using both a seven percent and a
three percent real discount rate. The
seven percent rate is an estimate of the
average before-tax rate of return to
private capital in the U.S. economy, and
reflects the returns to real estate and
small business capital as well as
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.141
0.545
0.715
0.832
1.208
3%
Discounted
0.073
0.284
0.372
0.433
0.630
7%
Discounted
0.034
0.132
0.173
0.201
0.292
corporate capital. DOE used this
discount rate to approximate the
opportunity cost of capital in the private
sector, since recent OMB analysis has
found the average rate of return to
capital to be near this rate. In addition,
DOE used the three percent rate to
capture the potential effects of standards
on private consumption (e.g., through
higher prices for equipment and
purchase of reduced amounts of energy).
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50122
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
This rate represents the rate at which
society discounts future consumption
flows to their present value. This rate
can be approximated by the real rate of
return on long-term Government debt
(e.g., the yield on Treasury notes minus
the annual rate of change in the
Consumer Price Index), which has
averaged about three percent on a pretax basis for the last 30 years.
Table V–27 shows the estimated
cumulative NPV for commercial
refrigeration equipment resulting from
the sum of the NPV calculated for each
of the 15 primary equipment classes
analyzed. Table V–27 assumes the
AEO2007 reference case forecast for
electricity prices. At a seven percent
discount rate, TSL 1–4 show positive
cumulative NPVs. The highest NPV is
provided by TSL 3 at $1.20 billion. TSL
4 provided $1.10 billion, close to that of
TSL 3. TSL 5 showed a negative NPV at
¥$200 million, the result of negative
NPV observed in five equipment classes
(VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M,
SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M). DOE
determined through a sensitivity
analysis that a 50 percent reduction in
LED fixture costs, applied to equipment
sold during the analysis period starting
in 2012, would yield a NPV of $1.62
billion for TSL 5.25
At a three percent discount rate, all
TSLs showed a positive NPV, with the
highest NPV provided at TSL 3 (i.e.,
$3.25 billion). TSL 4 provided a near
equivalent NPV at $3.24 billion. TSL 5
provided a NPV of $1.16 billion dollars.
Three equipment classes (VOP.RC.M,
SVO.RC.M, and SOC.RC.M) were
estimated to have negative NPVs at a
three percent discount rate at TSL 5.
DOE determined through a sensitivity
analysis that a 50 percent reduction in
LED fixture costs, applied to all
equipment sold during the analysis
period starting in 2012, would result in
the greatest NPV at TSL 5 with $4.76
billion.
DOE also determined that a six
percent reduction in LED system costs
by 2012 would be sufficient to provide
a positive NPV at TSL 5 in aggregate
across all equipment classes at a seven
percent discount rate. DOE recognizes
that the aggregate six percent reduction
in LED system costs could be attained
by 2012 because of the rapid
development of LED technology. In
addition, DOE expects that a 50 percent
reduction in LED system costs is
possible in 2012, given the projections
discussed previously, and considers a
50 percent reduction likely to occur by
2018 as examined in the LCC LED
replacement cost sensitivity analysis.
Table V–26 shows the estimated NPV
results at TSL 5, for projected LED
system cost reductions of six percent
and 50 percent.
TABLE V–26—SUMMARY OF NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS WITH LED SYSTEM COST SENSITIVITY*
TSL 5
NPV (2007$ billion):
7% Discount Rate .........................................................................................................................
3% Discount Rate .........................................................................................................................
(0.20)
1.16
TSL 5 Including 6% LED
system cost
reduction
TSL 5 Including 50% LED
system cost
reduction
0.03
1.62
1.62
4.76
* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
In addition to the reference case, DOE
examined the NPV under the AEO2007
high-growth and low-growth electricity
price forecasts. The results of this
examination can be found in Chapter 11
of the TSD.
TABLE V–27—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT—
AEO2007 REFERENCE CASE
NPV* (billion 2007$)
7% discount
rate
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
3% discount
rate
0.33
0.98
1.20
1.10
(0.20)
0.82
2.59
3.25
3.24
1.16
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV, i.e., a net cost.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
c. Impacts on Employment
DOE develops general estimates of the
indirect employment impacts of
proposed standards on the economy. As
discussed above, DOE expects energy
conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment to reduce
energy bills for commercial customers,
and the resulting net savings to be
redirected to other forms of economic
25 DOE anticipates a reduction in installed cost of
LED systems over time. The projected reduction in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
activity. DOE also realizes that these
shifts in spending and economic activity
could affect the demand for labor. To
estimate these effects, DOE used an
input/output model of the U.S. economy
using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
data (as described in Section IV.K; see
Chapter 15 of the TSD for details).
This input/output model suggests the
proposed commercial refrigeration
equipment energy conservation
standards are likely to slightly increase
the net demand for labor in the
economy. Neither the BLS data nor the
input/output model used by DOE
includes the quality or wage level of the
jobs. As shown in Table V–28, DOE
estimates that net indirect employment
impacts from a proposed commercial
refrigeration equipment standard are
likely to be very small. The net increase
in jobs is so small that it would be
price for LED systems is provided and discussed in
Sections V.C and IV.B.3.c of this NOPR and
Appendix B of the TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50123
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
imperceptible in national labor statistics
and might be offset by other,
unanticipated effects on employment.
TABLE V–28—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT, JOBS IN 2042
Net national change in jobs
Trial standard level
2012
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................................
Maximum Job Impact ......................................................................................................
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Equipment
In performing the engineering
analysis, DOE considered design
options that would not lessen the utility
or performance of the individual classes
of equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(e)(1)) As
presented in the screening analysis
(Chapter 4 of the TSD), DOE did not
consider design options that reduce the
utility of the equipment. Because no
design options were considered that
reduce utility, DOE tentatively
concluded that none of the efficiency
levels proposed for commercial
refrigeration equipment reduce the
utility or performance of the equipment.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any
lessening of competition that is likely to
result from standards. It directs the
Attorney General to determine in
writing the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
2022
0
¥6
¥15
¥94
¥315
¥315
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(e)(1)) To
assist the Attorney General in making
such a determination, DOE has provided
the Department of Justice (DOJ) with
copies of this Notice and the TSD for
review. During MIA interviews,
domestic manufacturers indicated that
foreign manufacturers have entered the
commercial refrigeration equipment
market over the past several years.
Manufacturers also stated that while
there has been significant consolidation
with supermarket chains, little or no
consolidation has occurred among
commercial refrigeration manufacturers
in recent years. DOE believes that these
trends will continue to happen in this
market regardless of the proposed
standard level chosen.
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve
Energy
An improvement in the energy
efficiency of commercial refrigeration
equipment is likely to improve the
security of the Nation’s energy system
by reducing overall demand for energy,
and thus reduce the Nation’s reliance on
foreign sources of energy. Reduced
324
1,270
1,680
2,204
3,317
3,317
2032
448
1,744
2,312
3,047
4,607
4,607
2042
505
1,970
2,606
3,434
5,187
5,187
demand may also improve the reliability
of the electricity system, particularly
during peak-load periods. As a measure
of this reduced demand, DOE expects
the proposed standards (TSL 4) to
prevent the need for the construction of
new power plants totaling
approximately 643 MW of electricity
generation capacity in 2042.
Enhanced energy efficiency also
produces environmental benefits. The
expected energy savings from higher
commercial refrigeration equipment
standards will reduce the emissions of
air pollutants and greenhouse gases
associated with energy production and
fossil fuel usage. Table V–29 shows
estimated cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg
emissions reductions for all the
commercial refrigeration equipment
classes over the forecast period. The
expected energy savings from
commercial refrigeration equipment
standards will reduce the emissions of
greenhouse gases associated with energy
production, and it may reduce the cost
of maintaining nationwide emissions
standards and constraints.
TABLE V–29—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
(cumulative reductions for equipment, 2012 to 2042)
Trial Standard Levels
TSL 1
Emissions Reductions.
CO2 (Mt) ...................................................................................................
NOX (kt) ...................................................................................................
Hg (t) ........................................................................................................
TSL 2
7.37
2.74
0.09
TSL 3
28.47
10.58
0.36
37.37
13.88
0.47
TSL 4
43.50
16.16
0.54
TSL 5
63.17
23.47
0.80
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Mt = million metric tons.
kt = thousand tons.
t = tons.
The estimated cumulative CO2, NOX,
and Hg emission reductions for the
proposed standard are 43.5 Mt, 16.16 kt,
and 0.54 t, respectively, for all 15
equipment classes over the period from
2012 to 2042. However, TSL 5 provides
the greatest reduction of emissions of all
the TSLs considered. In the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
environmental assessment (Chapter 16
of the TSD), DOE reports estimated
annual changes in CO2, NOX, and Hg
emissions attributable to each TSL. As
discussed in Section IV.L, DOE does not
report SO2 emissions reduction from
power plants because reductions from
an energy conservation standard would
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not affect the overall level of SO2
emissions in the United States due to
the emissions caps for SO2.
The NEMS–BT modeling assumed
that NOX would be subject to the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) issued by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50124
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
on March 10, 2005.26 70 FR 25162 (May
12, 2005). On July 11, 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued
its decision in North Carolina v.
Environmental Protection Agency,27 in
which the court vacated the CAIR. If left
in place, the CAIR would have
permanently capped emissions of NOX
in 28 eastern States and the District of
Columbia. As with the SO2 emissions
cap, a cap on NOX emissions would
have meant that equipment energy
conservation standards are not likely to
have a physical effect on NOX emissions
in States covered by the CAIR caps.
While the caps would have meant that
physical emissions reductions in those
States would not have resulted from the
energy conservation standards we are
proposing today, the standards might
have produced an environmentalrelated economic impact in the form of
lower prices for emissions allowance
credits, if large enough. DOE notes that
the estimated total reduction in NOX
emissions, including projected
emissions or corresponding allowance
credits in States covered by the CAIR
cap was between 0.004 and 0.034
percent of the nationwide NOX
emissions as a whole, percentages that
DOE estimated were too small to affect
allowance prices for NOX under the
CAIR.
Even though the D.C. Circuit vacated
the CAIR, DOE notes that the D.C.
Circuit left intact EPA’s 1998 NOX SIP
Call rule, which capped seasonal
(summer) NOX emissions from electric
generating units and other sources in 23
jurisdictions and gave those
jurisdictions the option to participate in
a cap and trade program for those
emissions. See 63 Fed. Reg. 57356,
57359 (Oct. 27, 1998).28 Accordingly,
26 See
https://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/.
No. 05–1244, 2008 WL 2698180 at *1
(D.C. Cir. July 11, 2008).
28 In the NO SIP Call rule, EPA found that
X
sources in the District of Columbia and 22
‘‘upwind’’ states (States) were emitting NOX (an
ozone precursor) at levels that significantly
contributed to ‘‘downwind’’ states not attaining the
ozone NAAQS or at levels that interfered with
states in attainment maintaining the ozone NAAQS.
In an effort to ensure that ‘‘downwind’’ states attain
or continue to attain the ozone NAAQS, EPA
established a region-wide cap for NOX emissions
from certain large combustion sources and set a
NOX emissions budget for each State. Unlike the
cap that CAIR would have established, the NOX SIP
Call Rule’s cap only constrains seasonal (summer
time) emissions. In order to comply with the NOX
SIP Call Rule, States could elect to participate in the
NOX Budget Trading Program. Under the NOX
Budget Trading Program, each emission source is
required to have one allowance for each ton of NOX
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
27 Case
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
DOE is considering whether changes are
needed to its plan for addressing the
issue of NOX reduction. DOE invites
public comment on how the agency
should address this issue, including
how it might value NOX emissions for
States now that the CAIR has been
vacated.29
With regard to mercury emissions,
DOE is able to report an estimate of the
physical quantity changes in mercury
emissions associated with an energy
conservation standard. Based on the
NEMS–BT modeling, Hg emissions
show a slight decrease in the period
from 2012 to 2042. These changes in Hg
emissions, as shown in Table V–29, are
extremely small with a range of between
0.02 and 0.14 percent of national base
case emissions depending on TSL.
The NEMS–BT model assumed that
mercury emissions would be subject to
EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule 30
(CAMR), which would have
permanently capped emissions of
mercury for new and existing coal-fired
plants in all States by 2010. Similar to
SO2 and NOX, DOE assumed that under
such a system, energy conservation
standards would result in no physical
effect on these emissions, but might
result in an environmental-related
economic benefit in the form of a lower
price for emissions allowance credits, if
large enough. DOE estimated that the
change in Hg emissions from standards
would not be large enough to influence
allowance prices under CAMR.
On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit
issued its decision in New Jersey v.
Environmental Protection Agency,31 in
which the Court, among other actions,
vacated the CAMR referenced above.
Accordingly, DOE is considering
whether changes are needed to its plan
for addressing the issue of mercury
emissions in light of the D.C. Circuit’s
decision. DOE invites public comment
emitted during the ozone season. States have
flexibility in how they allocate allowances through
their State Implementation Plans but States must
remain within the EPA-established budget.
Emission sources are allowed to buy, sell and bank
NOX allowances as appropriate. It should be noted
that, on April 16, 2008, EPA determined that
Georgia is no longer subject to the NOX SIP Call
rule.
29 In anticipation of CAIR replacing the NO SIP
X
Call Rule, many States adopted sunset provisions
for their plans implementing the NOX SIP Call Rule.
The impact of the NOX SIP Call Rule on NOX
emissions will depend, in part, on whether these
implementation plans are reinstated.
30 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005).
31 No. 05–1097, 2008 WL 341338, at *1 (D.C. Cir.
Feb. 8, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on addressing mercury emissions in this
rulemaking.
DOE is considering taking into
account a monetary benefit of CO2
emission reductions associated with this
rulemaking. During the preparation of
its most recent review of the state of
climate science, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
identified various estimates of the
present value of reducing carbondioxide emissions by one ton over the
life that these emissions would remain
in the atmosphere. The estimates
reviewed by the IPCC spanned a range
of values. In the absence of a consensus
on any single estimate of the monetary
value of CO2 emissions, DOE used an
estimate identified by the study cited in
Summary for Policymakers prepared by
Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fourth
Assessment Report to estimate the
potential monetary value of the CO2
reductions likely to result from the
standards under consideration in this
rulemaking.
The estimated year-by-year reductions
in CO2 emissions were converted into
monetary values ranging from the $0
and $14 per ton. These monetary
estimates were based on an assumption
of no benefit to an average benefit value
reported by the IPCC and the values
include a range of discount factors used
in their development.32 Based on DOE’s
consideration of the IPCC report, DOE
escalated the average benefit value per
ton in real 2007$ at 2.4 percent per year.
The resulting estimates of the potential
range of benefits associated with the
reduction of CO2 emissions are reflected
in Table V–30.
32 According to the IPCC, the mean social cost of
carbon (SCC) reported in studies published in peerreviewed journals was US$43 per ton of carbon.
This translates into about $12 per ton of carbon
dioxide. The social costs estimated represented the
discounted present value of increasing (or
decreasing) current emissions of carbon dioxide (or
an equivalent greenhouse gas) by one ton. The
literature review (Tol 2005) from which this mean
was derived did not report the year in which these
dollars are denominated. However, since the
underlying studies spanned several years on either
side of 2000, the estimate is often treated as year
2000 dollars. Updating that estimate to 2007 dollars
yields a SCC of $14 per ton of carbon dioxide. Tol
concluded that when only peer-reviewed studies
published in recognized journals are considered,
‘‘* * * climate change impacts may be very
uncertain but is unlikely that the marginal damage
costs of carbon dioxide emissions exceed $50 per
tonne carbon [about $14 per metric ton of CO2 or
about $12.66 per short ton][emphasis added].’’ He
also concluded that the costs may be substantially
lower than $50 per tonne of C. Tol’s survey showed
that 10 percent of the SCC estimates were actually
negative, so that a lower bound of zero is not
unreasonable.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50125
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–30—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER CONSIDERED
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS
Estimated total
CO2 (Mt) emission
reductions
TSL
1
2
3
4
5
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
7.37
28.47
37.37
43.50
63.17
Value of estimated CO2
emission reductions based on
IPCC range (million $) at 7%
discount rate
Value of estimated CO2
emission reductions based on
IPCC range (million $) at 3%
Discount Rate
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
to
to
to
to
43 ..............
166 ............
218 ............
253 ............
368 ............
to
to
to
to
to
93
361
473
551
800
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
DOE relied on the average of the IPCC
reported estimate as an upper bound on
the benefits resulting from reducing
each metric ton of U.S. CO2 emissions.
It is important to note that estimate of
the $14 per ton of CO2 represents an
average value of worldwide impacts
from potential climate impacts caused
by CO2 emissions, and is not confined
to impacts likely to occur within the
U.S. In contrast, most of the other
estimates of costs and benefits of
increasing the efficiency of commercial
refrigeration equipment discussed in
this proposal include only the economic
values of impacts that would be
experienced in the U.S. Consequently,
as DOE considers a monetary value for
CO2 emission reductions, the value
might be restricted to a representation of
those cost/benefits likely to be
experienced in the United States.
Currently, there are no estimated values
for the U.S. benefits likely to result from
CO2 emission reductions. However,
DOE expects that, if such values were
developed, DOE would use those U.S.
benefit values, and not world benefit
values, in its analysis. DOE further
expects that, if such values were
developed, they would be lower than
comparable global values. DOE invites
public comment on the above
discussion of CO2.
DOE also investigated the potential
monetary impact resulting from the
impact of today’s efficiency standards
on SO2, NOX, and mercury (Hg)
emissions. As previously stated, DOE’s
analysis assumed the presence of
nationwide emission caps on SO2 and
caps on NOX emissions in the 28 states
covered by the CAIR caps. In the
presence of emission caps, DOE
concluded that no physical reductions
in total sector emissions would occur,
however DOE’s estimates for reduction
of these emissions could correspond to
incremental changes in the prices of
emissions allowances in cap-and-trade
emissions markets rather than to
physical emissions reductions. For SO2,
the changes in annual emissions from
today’s rule would be less than 0.03
percent of the annual SO2 allowances, a
change that DOE estimated is too small
to influence allowance prices. Similarly,
for NOX, in the 28 CAIR states, the
emissions savings from today’s rule
would be less than 0.018 percent of NOX
allowances, also a change that DOE also
estimated is too small to influence
allowance prices.
In DOE’s analysis, for 22 non-CAIR
states, emissions of NOX from electricity
generation were not controlled by a
regulatory cap. By 2012, DOE projected
that the NOX emissions in the non-CAIR
states would be about 25 percent of the
national total.33 Mercury emissions are
also not controlled by a regulatory cap.
For these two emissions, DOE estimated
the national monetized benefits of
emissions reductions from today’s rule
based on environmental damage
estimates from the literature. Non-CAIR
emissions would not be controlled by an
emissions cap so those emissions would
actually be reduced by the PTAC-PTHP
energy savings. Available estimates
suggest a very wide range of monetary
values for NOX emissions, ranging from
$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX
from stationary sources, measured in
2001 dollars 34 or a range of $432 per ton
to $4,441 per ton in 2007 dollars. The
basic science linking mercury emissions
from power plants to impacts on
humans is considered highly uncertain.
However, DOE located two estimates of
the environmental damages of mercury
based on two estimates of the adverse
impact of childhood exposure to methyl
mercury on IQ for American children,
and subsequent loss of lifetime
economic productivity resulting from
these IQ losses. The high end estimate
is based on an estimate of the current
aggregate cost of the loss of IQ that
results from exposure of American
children of U.S. power plant origin of
$1.3 billion per year in year 2000$,
which works out to $32.6 million per
ton emitted per year (2007$).35 The lowend estimate was $664,000 per ton
emitted in 2004$ or $729,000 per ton in
2007$), which DOE derived from a
published evaluation of mercury control
using different methods and
assumptions from the first study, but
also based on the present value of the
lifetime earnings of children exposed.36
The resulting estimates of the potential
range of the present value benefits
associated with the reduction of NOX in
the 22 non-CAIR states and national
reductions in Hg emissions are reflected
in Table V.31 and Table V.32
33 U.S. NO emissions have been trending
X
downward steadily since 1995, falling from 31.5
million tons in 1995 to 15.2 million in 2006 (EIA
2007). Although non-CAIR states’ emissions have
also fallen, the emissions in the CAIR states have
fallen more rapidly; thus, the CAIR states’
percentage of the total has also fallen from 87.4%
in 1997 to 80.9% in 2006. For purposes of this
analysis, DOE assumed that the CAIR states,
percentage of emissions continues to decline until
it reaches 75 percent in 2012. Seventy-five percent
of emissions reductions are allocated to the CAIR
states thereafter. Consequently non-CAIR state
emissions would be about 25% of the total.
[Reference: EIA (Energy Information
Administration). 2007. Estimated Emissions for U.S.
Electric Power Industry by State, 1990–2006. State
Historical Tables for 2006. Released: October 26,
2007. Next Update: October 2008 https://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
emission_state.xls].
34 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and
Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Office
of Management and Budget Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC.
35 Trasande, L., et al., ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to
Drive Policy that Protects Children’’ 1076 ANN.
N.Y. ACAD. SCI. 911 (2006).
36 Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, Designing
Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation
of Mercury Emissions, Regulatory Analysis 05–01.
AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies,
Washington, DC, 31 pp., 2004. A version of this
paper was published in the Journal of Regulatory
Economics in 2006. The estimate was derived by
back-calculating the annual benefits per ton from
the net present value of benefits reported in the
study.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50126
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.31—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF MONETARY SAVINGS FROM REDUCTIONS OF HG (NATION) AND NOX (NONCAIR STATES) BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL AT A 7% DISCOUNT RATE
Estimated cumulative NOX
(kt) emission
reductions *
Standard size TSL
1
2
3
4
5
Value of estimated NOX
emission
reductions
(million 2007$)
2.74
10.58
13.88
16.16
23.47
Estimated
cumulative
Hg (tons)
emission
reductions*
$0.1–$0.6
0.2–2.3
0.3–3.0
0.3–3.5
0.5–5.1
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
0.09
0.36
0.47
0.54
0.80
Value of estimated Hg
emission
reductions
(million 2007$)
$0.0–$0.1
0.0–0.5
0.0–0.6
0.0–0.7
0.0–1.0
* Values in Table V.31 may not appear to sum to the cumulative values in Table V–29 due to rounding.
TABLE V.32—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF MONETARY SAVINGS FROM REDUCTIONS OF HG (NATION) AND NOX (NONCAIR STATES) BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL AT A 3% DISCOUNT RATE
Estimated cumulative NOX
(kt) emission
reductions *
Standard size TSL
1
2
3
4
5
Value of estimated NOX
emission
reductions
(million 2007$)
Estimated cumulative Hg
(tons)
emission
reductions
Value of estimated Hg
emission
reductions
(million 2007$)
2.74
10.58
13.88
16.16
23.47
$0.1–$1.5
0.5–5.6
0.7–7.4
0.8–8.6
1.2–12.5
0.09
0.36
0.47
0.54
0.80
$0.0–$1.0
0.1–3.9
0.1–5.1
0.1–5.9
0.2–8.6
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
* Values in Table V.32 may not appear to sum to the cumulative values in Table V–29 due to rounding.
As discussed above, with the D.C.
Circuit vacating the CAIR, DOE is
considering how it should address the
issue of NOX reduction and
corresponding monetary valuation. DOE
invites public comment on how the
agency should address this issue,
including how to value NOX emissions
for States in the absence of the CAIR.
7. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy,
in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, to consider any
other factors that the Secretary deems to
be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(e)(1))
Under this provision, DOE considered
LCC impacts on identifiable groups of
customers, such as customers of
different business types, who may be
disproportionately affected by any
national energy conservation standard
level. DOE also considered the
reduction in generated capacity that
could result from the imposition of any
national energy conservation standard
level.
C. Proposed Standard
EPCA specifies that any new or
amended energy conservation standard
for any type (or class) of covered
equipment shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) In
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, the Secretary
must determine whether the benefits of
the standard exceed its burdens. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1))
The new or amended standard must
‘‘result in significant conservation of
energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
6316(e)(1))
DOE considered the impacts of
standards at each of five trial standard
levels, beginning with the most efficient
level (TSL 5) and worked down to a
level where DOE determined the
benefits of potential standards
outweighed the burdens of potential
standards. To aid the reader as DOE
discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, Table V–33 presents a
summary of quantitative analysis results
for each TSL based on the assumptions
and methodology discussed above. This
table presents the results or, in some
cases, a range of results, for each TSL.
The range of values reported in this
table for industry impacts represents the
results for the different markup
scenarios that DOE used to estimate
manufacturer impacts.
TABLE V–33—SUMMARY OF RESULTS BASED UPON THE AEO2007 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY PRICE FORECAST*
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
TSL 1
Primary Energy Saved (quads) ...........................................
7% Discount Rate ................................................................
3% Discount Rate ................................................................
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ..............................
NPV (2007$ billion):
7% Discount Rate .........................................................
3% Discount Rate .........................................................
Industry Impacts:
Industry NPV (2007$ million) ........................................
Industry NPV (% Change) ............................................
Cumulative Emissions Impacts: †
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
0.141
0.034
0.073
0.109
0.545
0.132
0.284
0.421
0.715
0.173
0.372
0.552
0.832
0.201
0.433
0.643
1.208
0.292
0.603
0.934
0.33
0.82
0.98
2.59
1.20
3.25
1.10
3.24
(0.20)
1.16
0–(63)
0–(12)
6–(88)
1–(17)
(17)–(129)
(3)–(25)
(40)–(180)
(8)–(35)
(18)–(285)
(3)–(56)
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
50127
TABLE V–33—SUMMARY OF RESULTS BASED UPON THE AEO2007 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY PRICE FORECAST*—
Continued
TSL 1
CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................
NOX (kt) ........................................................................
Hg (t) .............................................................................
Life-Cycle Cost:
Net Savings (%) ............................................................
Net Increase (%) ...........................................................
No Change (%) .............................................................
Mean LCC Savings (2007$) .........................................
Mean PBP (yrs) ............................................................
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
7.37
2.74
0.09
28.47
10.58
0.36
37.37
13.88
0.47
43.50
16.16
0.54
63.17
23.47
0.80
17–48
0
52–83
192–3132
0.4–1.2
34–68
0
32–66
551–4005
0.6–2.6
61–89
0
11–39
710–4089
1.3–4.6
68–93
0–19
7–32
693–3818
1.4–6.1
24–93
0–71
2–19
(673)–3818
1.4–12.6
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** Change in installed generation capacity by the year 2042 based on AEO2007 Reference Case.
† CO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as
2
X
well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps.
First, DOE considered TSL 5, the most
efficient level for all equipment classes.
TSL 5 would likely save an estimated
1.208 quads of energy through 2042, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Discounted at seven percent, the
projected energy savings through 2042
would be 0.292 quads. For the Nation as
a whole, DOE projects that TSL 5 would
result in a net decrease of $200 million
in NPV, using a discount rate of seven
percent. Five equipment classes
(VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M,
SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M) show
negative NPV at TSL 5. The emissions
reductions at TSL 5 are 63.17 Mt of CO2
and up to 23.47 kt of NOX. DOE also
estimates that under TSL 5, total
generating capacity in 2042 will
decrease compared to the base case by
0.934 gigawatts (GW).
At TSL 5, DOE projects that the
average commercial refrigeration
equipment customer will experience a
reduction in LCC compared to the
baseline for 12 of the 15 equipment
classes analyzed, while three equipment
classes (VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC.M,
SOC.RC.M) experienced an increase in
LCC. These three equipment classes are
among the five identified above that
DOE showed had negative NPV. The
two additional classes, SVO.SC.M and
VOP.SC.M, had positive LCC savings at
TSL 5, but at substantially reduced
values compared to those shown at TSL
4 or TSL 3. LCC savings for all 15
equipment classes vary from negative
(¥$673) to positive $3,818. At TSL 5,
DOE estimates the fraction of customers
experiencing LCC increases will vary
between 0 and 71 percent depending on
equipment class. The mean payback
period for the average commercial
refrigeration equipment customer at TSL
5 compared to the baseline level is
projected to be between 1.4 and 12.6
years, depending on equipment class.
At higher TSLs, manufacturers have a
more difficult time fully passing on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
larger increases in MPC to customers,
and therefore manufacturers expect the
higher end of the range of impacts to be
reached at TSL 5 (i.e., a drop of 55.77
percent in INPV). At TSL 5, there is the
risk of very large negative impacts on
the industry if manufacturers’ profit
margins are reduced. Manufacturers
expressed great concern at the
possibility of having to manufacture an
entire equipment line at the max-tech
levels, because customers put a much
higher priority on marketing and
displaying their goods than they do on
energy efficiency. For this reason,
manufacturers fear that they will be
unable to recover the additional cost
incurred from producing the most
efficient equipment possible. See
Section IV.I for additional manufacturer
concerns.
After carefully considering the
analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens of TSL 5, DOE tentatively
concludes that the estimated benefits of
energy savings and related benefits
would not outweigh the potential $200
million net economic cost to the Nation
(at the seven percent discount rate), as
well as the economic burden on
consumers and the potential negative
impact on manufacturers through
reduction in INPV.
As discussed above, DOE proposes to
reject TSL 5 because DOE finds that the
benefits to the Nation of TSL 5 (energy
savings, commercial consumer average
LCC savings, and emission reductions)
do not outweigh the costs (national NPV
decrease and loss of manufacturer
INPV), and, therefore, DOE proposes
that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
This proposal reflects DOE’s tentative
conclusion that there remains too much
uncertainty regarding the timing and
extent of anticipated reductions in LED
costs to justify standards at the TSL 5
level. While considerable information is
available that suggests LED costs are
likely to decline more than assumed in
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE’s analysis (see discussion in
sections IV.B.3.c, V.B.1.a, and V.B.3.b),
DOE believes that it must have a higher
degree of confidence that the timing and
extent of such further cost reductions
will warrant higher standards before it
imposes such requirements. DOE is
soliciting public comments on these and
other issues, and will reconsider this
tentative conclusion during the
development of its final rule. (See
Section VII.E.1.)
As mentioned above, if LED system
costs achieve the 50 percent reduction
projection by 2012, the estimated NPV
at TSL 5 would be a positive $1.62
billion at a seven percent discount rate
and $4.76 billion at the three percent
discount rate, and is likely to result in
a net benefit. DOE requests comment on
whether the benefits of TSL 5 would
outweigh the burdens of TSL 5,
considering the potential impacts of
future LED cost projections. This is
identified as Issue 7 under ‘‘Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in Section
VII.E of this NOPR. DOE also seeks
comment on the extent to which
stakeholders expect projected LED cost
reductions would occur, the timing of
the projected LED cost reductions, and
the certainty of the projected LED cost
reductions. Also, considering the rapid
development of LED technology and the
steady reductions in cost, DOE seeks
comment on the extent to which
manufacturers would adopt LED
technology into the design of
commercial refrigeration equipment in
the absence of standards.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which
provides for all equipment classes the
maximum efficiency levels that the
analysis showed to have positive NPV to
the Nation. TSL 4 would likely save an
estimated 0.832 quads of energy through
2042, an amount DOE considers
significant. Discounted at seven percent,
the projected energy savings through
2042 would be 0.201 quads. For the
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50128
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Nation as a whole, DOE projects that
TSL 4 would result in a net increase of
$1.10 billion in NPV, using a discount
rate of seven percent. The estimated
emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 43.50
Mt of CO2 and up to 16.16 kt of NOX.
Total generating capacity in 2042 is
estimated to decrease compared to the
base case by 0.643 GW under TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the
average commercial refrigeration
equipment customer will experience a
reduction in LCC compared to the
baseline for all 15 equipment classes
analyzed, ranging from $693 to $3,818
depending on equipment class. The
mean payback period for the average
commercial refrigeration equipment
customer at TSL 4 is projected to be
between 1.4 and 6.1 years compared to
the purchase of baseline equipment.
As is the case with TSL 5, DOE
believes the majority of manufacturers
would need to completely redesign most
equipment offered for sale, and
therefore DOE expects that commercial
refrigeration manufacturers will have
some difficulty fully passing on larger
MPC increases to customers. Similar to
TSL 5, manufacturers expect the higher
end of the range of impacts to be
reached at TSL 4 (i.e., a drop of 35.3
percent in INPV). However, compared to
the baseline, all 15 equipment classes
showed significant positive life-cycle
cost savings on a national average basis
and few customers experienced an
increase in LCC with a standard at TSL
4 compared with purchasing baseline
equipment. The payback periods
calculated for all equipment classes
were lower than the life of the
equipment.
After carefully considering the
analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens of TSL 4, DOE proposes that
TSL 4 represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified and that the
estimated benefits to the Nation
outweigh the costs. DOE proposes that
TSL 4 is technologically feasible
because the technologies required to
achieve these levels are already in
existence. Therefore, DOE is proposing
TSL 4 as the energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment in this NOPR.
However, for the reasons discussed
above, DOE also requests comments on
whether it should adopt TSL 5 for all or
some of the equipment classes.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
DOE has determined that today’s
regulatory action is an ‘‘economically
significant’’ action under Section 3(f)(1)
of Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review.’’ 58 FR 51735
(October 4, 1993). The Executive Order
requires that each agency identify in
writing the specific market failure or
other specific problem that it intends to
address that warrants new agency
action, as well as assess the significance
of that problem to determine whether
any new regulation is warranted.
Executive Order 12866, § 1(b)(1).
In the ANOPR for this rulemaking,
DOE requested feedback and data on a
number of issues related to Executive
Order 12866 and the existence of a
market failure in the commercial
refrigeration equipment industry. This
request included (1) Data on, and
suggestions for testing the existence and
extent of, potential market failures to
complete an assessment in the proposed
rule of the significance of any failures;
(2) data on the efficiency levels of
existing commercial refrigeration
equipment in use by store type; (3)
comment on the Federal ENERGYSTAR
program and its penetration into the
commercial refrigeration equipment
market as a resource on the availability
and benefits of energy efficient
refrigeration units; (4) data on owneroccupied buildings versus leased/nonowner occupied buildings for given
store types and their associated use of
high-efficiency equipment; and (5)
comment on the weight that should be
given to these factors in DOE’s
determination of the maximum
efficiency level at which the total
benefits are likely to exceed the total
burdens resulting from a DOE standard.
Following publication of the ANOPR
and subsequent public comment period,
DOE did not receive any feedback
related to these requests.
Much of the industry segment that
uses commercial refrigeration
equipment tends to be large grocery
stores, multi-line retailers, small grocery
stores, or convenience stores. DOE
believes that these owners may lack
corporate direction on energy policy.
The transaction costs for these owners
to research, purchase, and install
optimum efficiency equipment options
are too high to make such action
commonplace. DOE believes that there
is a lack of information about energy
efficiency opportunities in the
commercial refrigeration equipment
market available to these owners. Unlike
residential heating and air conditioning
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equipment, commercial refrigeration
equipment is not included in energy
labeling programs such as the Federal
Trade Commission’s energy labeling
program. Furthermore, the energy use of
this equipment depends on usage.
Information is not readily available for
the owners to make a decision on
whether improving the energy efficiency
of commercial refrigeration equipment
is cost-effective. DOE seeks data on the
efficiency levels of existing commercial
refrigeration equipment in use by
owners, electricity price, and equipment
class. Being part of the food
merchandising industry, energy
efficiency and energy cost savings are
not the primary drivers of the business,
as is selling food products to shoppers.
This may incur transaction costs, thus
preventing access to capital to finance
energy efficiency investment.
Today’s action also required a
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and,
under the Executive Order, was subject
to review by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the
OMB. DOE presented to OIRA for
review the draft proposed rule and other
documents prepared for this
rulemaking, including the RIA, and has
included these documents in the
rulemaking record. They are available
for public review in the Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program,
950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The RIA is contained in the TSD
prepared for the rulemaking. The RIA
consists of (1) a statement of the
problem addressed by this regulation
and the mandate for Government action;
(2) a description and analysis of the
feasible policy alternatives to this
regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison
of the impacts of the alternatives; and
(4) the national economic impacts of the
proposed standard.
The RIA calculates the effects of
feasible policy alternatives to
commercial refrigeration equipment
standards and provides a quantitative
comparison of the impacts of the
alternatives. DOE evaluated the
alternatives in terms of their ability to
achieve significant energy savings at
reasonable cost, and compared it to the
effectiveness of the proposed rule. DOE
analyzed these alternatives using a
series of regulatory scenarios as input to
the NES/shipments model for
commercial refrigeration equipment,
which DOE modified to provide inputs
for these voluntary measures.
DOE identified the following major
policy alternatives for achieving
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• Commercial customer tax credits.
DOE evaluated each alternative’s
ability to achieve significant energy
savings at reasonable cost (Table VI–1),
increased commercial refrigeration
equipment energy efficiency:
• No new regulatory action.
• Commercial customer rebates.
50129
and compared it to the effectiveness of
the proposed rule.
TABLE VI–1—NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARDS
Net present value**
(billion 2007$)
savings*
Energy
(quads)
Policy alternatives
No New Regulatory Action ....................................................................................................
Commercial Customer Rebates ............................................................................................
Commercial Customer Tax Credits† ......................................................................................
Today’s Standards at TSL 4 ..................................................................................................
7%
discount rate
0
0.099
0.084
0.832
0
0.139
0.178
1.10
3%
discount rate
0
0.315
0.381
3.24
* Energy
savings are in source quads.
present value is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. DOE determined the net present value from 2012 to 2062
in billions of 2007$.
† These are example values for TSL 3.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
** Net
The net present value amounts shown
in Table VI–1 refer to the NPV for
commercial customers. The following
paragraphs discuss each policy
alternative listed in Table VI–1. (See
Chapter 17 of the TSD, Regulatory
Impact Analysis, for further details.)
No new regulatory action. The case in
which no regulatory action is taken for
commercial refrigeration equipment
constitutes the base case (or No Action)
scenario. By definition, no new
regulatory action yields zero energy
savings and a net present value of zero
dollars.
Commercial Customer Rebates. DOE
modeled the impact of the customer
rebate policy by determining the
increased customer participation rate
due to the rebates (i.e., the percent
increase in customers purchasing highefficiency equipment). DOE modeled a
national rebate program after existing
utility rebate programs that provide
incentives for incorporating highefficiency technologies into commercial
refrigeration equipment. The reduction
in retail cost of the higher efficiency
cases was calculated and the
methodology developed for the NIA
used to assess relative shipments by
efficiency level was used to assess
relative shipments by efficiency level
under the rebate scenario. DOE applied
the resulting increase in market share of
efficient units to the NES spreadsheet
model to estimate the resulting NES and
NPV for the rebate scenario with respect
to the base case.
Commercial Customer Tax Credits.
DOE assumed a commercial or
industrial customer Federal tax credit
patterned after the tax credits created in
EPACT 2005. EPACT 2005 provided tax
credits to customers who purchase and
install specific products such as energy
efficient windows, insulation, doors,
roofs, and heating and cooling
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
equipment. DOE presumed the presence
of a certification or other program that
could be used to identify high-efficiency
commercial refrigeration equipment by
energy consumption, and assumed TSL
3 as a likely candidate level for a tax
credit incentive, given that it was the
minimum LCC level. DOE then
reviewed the incremental customer
price increase to reach TSL 3 from the
baseline for all 15 equipment classes.
For 12 of the equipment classes, the
incremental cost was between 6.1 and
21.3 percent. For three equipment
classes (SOC.RC.M, HZO.RC.M,
HZO.RC.L), the incremental cost was
less than five percent. In its tax credit
analysis, DOE assumed a flat tax credit
equal to five percent of the customer
price for equipment sold at TSL 3 or
higher for each primary equipment
class, with the exception of SOC.RC.M,
HZO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L. DOE
assumed a 100 percent application rate
for the tax credit from commercial
refrigeration equipment customers and
reduced the retail equipment price by
five percent for TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL
5 for the 12 equipment classes. The
reductions in retail cost of commercial
refrigeration equipment at these levels
was calculated and the methodology
developed for the NIA used to assess
relative shipments by efficiency level
under the tax credit scenario. DOE
applied the resulting increase in market
share of efficient units to the NES
spreadsheet model to estimate the
resulting NES and NPV for the tax credit
scenario with respect to the base case.
To see results for tax credits for
equipment meeting or exceeding TSL 5,
see the Regulatory Impact Analysis of
the TSD.
Performance Standards. Each of the
non-regulatory alternatives must be
gauged against the performance
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards DOE is proposing in this
proposed rule. DOE also considered, but
did not analyze, the potential of bulk
Government purchases and early
replacement incentive programs as
alternatives to the proposed standards.
In the case of bulk Government
purchases, commercial refrigeration
equipment is a very small part of the
total market and the volume of highefficiency equipment purchases that the
Federal Government might make would
have very limited impact on improving
the overall market efficiency of
commercial refrigeration equipment. In
the case of replacement incentives,
several policy options exist to promote
early replacement, including a direct
national program of customer
incentives, incentives paid to utilities to
promote an early replacement program,
market promotions through equipment
manufacturers, and replacement of
Federally owned equipment. Previous
analysis by DOE of methods to promote
early replacement for other covered
equipment have suggested that the
energy savings realized through a onetime early replacement of existing stock
equipment has not resulted in energy
savings commensurate to the cost to run
and administer the program. As a
consequence, DOE did not analyze this
option in detail.
As Table VI–1 indicates, none of the
alternatives DOE examined would save
as much energy as today’s proposed
rule. Also, several of the alternatives
would require new enabling legislation,
since authority to carry out those
alternatives does not exist. The tax
credit scenario would also require the
development of a database of
commercial refrigeration equipment that
would meet or exceed the TSL 3
efficiency level in order to determine
compliance with the tax credit.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
50130
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of General
Counsel’s Web site, https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
Small businesses, as defined by the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
for the commercial refrigeration
equipment manufacturing industry, are
manufacturing enterprises with 750
employees or fewer. DOE used the small
business size standards published on
January 31, 1996, as amended by the
SBA to determine whether any small
entities would be required to comply
with the rule. 61 FR 3286 and codified
at 13 CFR Part 121. The size standards
are listed by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code and
industry description. Commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturing
is classified under NAICS 333415.
Prior to issuing this notice of
proposed rulemaking, DOE interviewed
two small businesses affected by the
rulemaking. DOE also obtained
information about small business
impacts while interviewing
manufacturers that exceed the small
business size threshold of 750
employees.
DOE reviewed ARI’s listing of its
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturer members and surveyed
the industry to develop a list of all
domestic manufacturers. DOE also
asked stakeholders and ARI
representatives within the industry if
they were aware of any other small
business manufacturers. DOE then
examined publicly available data and
contacted manufacturers, when needed,
to determine if they meet the SBA’s
definition of a small manufacturing
facility and if their manufacturing
facilities are located within the United
States. Based on this analysis, DOE
identified nine small manufacturers of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
commercial refrigeration equipment.
DOE conducted on-site interviews with
two small manufacturers who agreed to
be interviewed to determine if there are
differential impacts on these companies
that may result from new energy
conservation standards.
DOE found that, in general, small
manufacturers have the same concerns
as large manufacturers regarding new
energy conservation standards. DOE
summarized the key issues for
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers in Section IV.I.3.a of
today’s notice. Both manufacturers
echoed the same concerns regarding
new energy conservation standards as
the larger manufacturers, including
investments needed to meet standards,
meeting customer needs, equipment
sales, and coverage of niche equipment.
Specifically, DOE found no significant
differences in the R&D emphasis or
marketing strategies between small
business manufacturers and large
manufacturers. Therefore, for the
equipment classes manufactured
primarily by the small businesses, DOE
believes the GRIM analysis, which
models each equipment class separately,
is representative of the small businesses
affected by standards. The qualitative
and quantitative GRIM results are
summarized in Section V.B.2 of today’s
notice.
DOE reviewed the standard levels
considered in today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. Based on this review,
DOE has prepared an IRFA for this
rulemaking. The IRFA describes
potential impacts on small businesses
associated with commercial
refrigeration equipment design and
manufacturing.
The potential impacts on commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
are discussed in the following sections.
DOE has transmitted a copy of this IRFA
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review.
1. Reasons for the Proposed Rule
Part A–1 of Title III of EPCA
addresses the energy efficiency of
certain types of commercial and
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317) EPACT 2005, Pub. L. 109–58,
included an amendment to Part A–1
requiring that DOE prescribe energy
conservation standards for the
commercial refrigeration equipment that
is the subject of this rulemaking.
(EPACT 2005, Section 136(c); 42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(4)(A)) Hence, DOE is proposing
in today’s notice, energy conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards for commercial ice-cream
freezers; self-contained commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
commercial refrigerator-freezers without
doors; and remote condensing
commercial refrigerators, commercial
freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
EPCA provides that any new or
amended standard for commercial
refrigeration equipment must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) But EPCA
precludes DOE from adopting any
standard that would not result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard for certain equipment if no test
procedure has been established for that
equipment, or if DOE determines by rule
that the standard is not technologically
feasible or economically justified, and
that such standard will not result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1)) EPCA
also provides that, in deciding whether
a standard is economically justified,
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens after receiving comments on
the proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)) To
determine whether economic
justification exists, DOE reviews
comments received and conducts
analysis to determine whether the
economic benefits of the proposed
standard exceed the burdens to the
greatest extent practicable, taking into
consideration seven factors set forth in
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) and 6316(e)(1)
(see Section II.B of this preamble).
EPCA also states that the Secretary
may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the standard is likely to
result in the unavailability in the United
States of any equipment type (or class)
with 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) and 6316(e)(1)) Further
information concerning the background
of this rulemaking is provided in
Chapter 1 of the TSD.
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
DOE reviewed ARI’s listing of
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturer members and surveyed
the industry to develop a list of every
manufacturer. DOE also asked
stakeholders and ARI representatives
within the industry if they were aware
of any other small business
manufacturers. DOE then looked at
publicly available data and contacted
manufacturers, where needed, to
determine if they meet the SBA’s
definition of a small business
manufacturing facility and have their
manufacturing facilities located within
the U.S. Based on this analysis, DOE
estimates that there are nine small
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers. See Chapter 13 of the
TSD for further discussion about the
methodology used in DOE’s
manufacturer impact analysis and its
analysis of small-business impacts.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
Potential impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses, come from
impacts associated with commercial
refrigeration equipment design and
manufacturing. The margins and/or
market share of manufacturers,
including small businesses, in the
commercial refrigeration equipment
industry could be negatively impacted
in the long term by the standard levels
under consideration in this notice of
proposed rulemaking, specifically TSL
4. The level of research and
development needed to meet energy
conservation standards increases with
more stringent energy conservation
standards. DOE expects that small
manufacturers will have more difficulty
funding the required research and
development necessary to meet energy
conservation standards than larger
manufacturers. Therefore, at proposed
TSL 4, as opposed to lower TSLs, small
manufacturers would have less
flexibility in choosing a design path.
However, as discussed under subsection
6 (Significant alternatives to the rule)
below, DOE expects that the differential
impact on small commercial
refrigeration equipment manufacturers
(versus large businesses) would be
smaller in moving from proposed TSL 1
to proposed TSL 2 than it would be in
moving from proposed TSL 4 to
proposed TSL 5. The rationale for DOE’s
expectation is best discussed in a
comparative context and is therefore
elaborated upon in subsection 6
(Significant alternatives to the rule). As
discussed in the introduction to this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
IRFA, DOE expects that the differential
impact associated with commercial
refrigeration equipment design and
manufacturing on small businesses
would be negligible.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule being considered
today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The primary alternatives to the
proposed rule considered by DOE are
the other TSLs besides the one being
considered today, proposed TSL 4. In
addition to the other TSLs considered,
the TSD associated with this proposed
rule includes a report referred to in
Section VI.A in the preamble as the
regulatory impact analysis (RIAdiscussed earlier in this report and in
detail in the TSD). This report discusses
the following policy alternatives: (1) No
new regulatory action, (2) commercial
customer rebates, and (3) commercial
customer tax credits. The energy savings
of these regulatory alternatives are one
to two orders of magnitude smaller than
those expected from the standard levels
under consideration. The range of
economic impacts of these regulatory
alternatives is an order of magnitude
smaller than the range of impacts
expected from the standard levels under
consideration.
The commercial refrigeration
equipment industry is highly
customized. Customers demand high
levels of customization from
commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers to differentiate
themselves from other retail stores.
They do not want to lose any
functionality or utility in their
equipment, such as display area,
because this affects their ability to
merchandise products. Often, the
customer’s desire for easy consumer
access requires equipment that is less
energy efficient. They also do not want
to lose any flexibility in design choices,
such as lighting options. All
manufacturers, including small
businesses, would have to develop
designs to enable compliance to higher
TSLs. Product redesign costs tend to be
fixed and do not scale with sales
volume. Thus, small manufacturers
would be at a relative disadvantage at
higher TSLs because research and
development efforts would be on the
same scale as those for larger
companies, but these expenses would be
recouped over smaller sales volumes.
At proposed TSL 5, the max-tech
level, manufacturers stated their
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50131
concerns over the ability to be able to
produce equipment by the future
effective date of the standard. At
proposed TSL 5, DOE estimates that the
majority of manufacturers would be
negatively impacted. Based on
manufacturer interviews, some
manufacturers stated that they could not
meet proposed TSL 5 for mediumtemperature equipment, and that they
would need technological innovation to
achieve these levels by 2012.
Manufacturers believe that setting
standards at the maximum level will
affect their customers’ ability to
merchandise products by limiting the
flexibility in choosing design options.
For example, at TSL 5 specifically, the
use of LED lighting technology may be
necessary to meet the proposed levels
for many equipment classes.
Manufacturers expect that having
limited choices in design options would
commoditize the industry and reduce
profit margins. This concern was echoed
by all manufacturers, not just small
business manufacturers.
For the proposed standard, TSL 4, and
for alternative TSLs, TSL 1 through 3,
DOE expects that impacts to small
manufacturers would be less than the
impacts described above for TSL 5. At
lower TSLs, the differential impacts to
small manufacturers are diminished
because research and development
efforts are less at lower TSLs. Chapter
12 of the TSD contains additional
information about the impact of this
rulemaking on manufacturers. As
mentioned above, the other policy
alternatives (no new regulatory action,
commercial customer rebates, and
commercial customer tax credits) are
described in Section VI.A of the
preamble and in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis, Chapter 17 of the TSD. Since
the impacts of these policy alternatives
are lower than the impacts described
above for TSL 5, DOE expects that the
impacts to small manufacturers would
also be less than the impacts described
above for the proposed standard levels.
DOE requests comment on the impacts
to small business manufacturers for
these and any other possible alternatives
to the proposed rule. DOE will consider
any comments received regarding
impacts to small business manufacturers
for all the alternatives identified,
including those in the RIA, for the Final
Rule.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
This rulemaking will impose no new
information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, OMB
clearance is not required under the
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50132
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
DOE is preparing an environmental
assessment of the impacts of the
proposed rule. DOE is preparing an
environmental assessment of the
impacts of the proposed rule. The
assessment will include an examination
of the potential effects of emission
reductions likely to result from the rule
in the context of global climate change
as well as other types of environmental
impacts. DOE anticipates completing a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) before publishing the final rule
on commercial refrigeration equipment,
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts
1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR Part
1021).
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications. On March
14, 2000, DOE published a statement of
policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined today’s
proposed rule and has determined that
it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment
that is the subject of today’s proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and
6316(b)(2(D)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996)
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in Section 3(a) and Section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this
proposed rule meets the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
DOE reviewed this regulatory action
under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
(UMRA), which requires each Federal
agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local and
Tribal governments and the private
sector. Today’s final rule may impose
expenditures of $100 million or more on
the private sector. It does not contain a
Federal intergovernmental mandate.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an
agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other
statement or analysis that accompanies
the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The
content requirements of section 202(b)
of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the
economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and
Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
the notice of final rulemaking and the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of
the TSD for this final rule respond to
those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the
Department is obligated to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written
statement under section 202 is required.
DOE is required to select from those
alternatives the most cost-effective and
least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule
unless DOE publishes an explanation
for doing otherwise or the selection of
such an alternative is inconsistent with
law. As required by sections 325(o),
345(a) and 342(c)(4)(A) of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o), 6316(a) and
6313(c)(4)(A)), today’s proposed rule
would establish energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment that are designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE has determined to
be both technologically feasible and
economically justified. A full discussion
of the alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact
Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s
final rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for
agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
OMB. The OMB’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22,
2002), and DOE’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7,
2002). DOE has reviewed today’s Notice
under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the OIRA, OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
significant energy action is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s regulatory action would not
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy
and, therefore, is not a significant
energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, the OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review (Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that
certain scientific information shall be
peer reviewed by qualified specialists
before it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information.’’ The
Bulletin defines ‘‘influential scientific
information’’ as ‘‘scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine
will have, or does have, a clear and
substantial impact on important public
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70
FR 2667 (January 14, 2005).
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal, in-progress peer
reviews of the energy conservation
standards development process and
analyses and has prepared a Peer
Review Report pertaining to the energy
conservation standards rulemaking
analyses. The Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/ peer_review.html.
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the
public meeting are provided in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the
beginning of this document. Anyone
who wants to attend the public meeting
must notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586–2945. As explained in the
ADDRESSES section, foreign nationals
visiting DOE headquarters are subject to
advance security screening procedures.
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To
Speak
Any person who has an interest in
today’s Notice, or who is a
representative of a group or class of
persons that has an interest in these
issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation. Please handdeliver requests to speak to the address
shown under the heading ‘‘Hand
Delivery/Courier’’ in the ADDRESSES
section of this NOPR, between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Also, requests
may be sent by mail to the address
shown under the heading ‘‘Postal Mail’’
in the ADDRESSES section of this NOPR,
or by e-mail to
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Persons requesting to speak should
briefly describe the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and provide
a telephone number for contact. DOE
asks persons selected to be heard to
submit a copy of their statements at
least two weeks before the public
meeting, either in person, by postal
mail, or by e-mail as described in the
preceding paragraph. Please include an
electronic copy of your statement on a
computer diskette or compact disk
when delivery is by postal mail or in
person. Electronic copies must be in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable
Document Format (PDF), or text
(American Standard Code for
Information Interchange (ASCII)) file
format. At its discretion, DOE may
permit any person who cannot supply
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50133
an advance copy of his or her statement
to participate, if that person has made
alternative arrangements with the
Building Technologies Program. In such
situations, the request to give an oral
presentation should ask for alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the public meeting and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and
Section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306)
A court reporter will be present to
record and transcribe the proceedings.
DOE reserves the right to schedule the
order of presentations and to establish
the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. After the public
meeting, interested parties may submit
further comments about the
proceedings, and any other aspect of the
rulemaking, until the end of the
comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted
in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments
received before the public meeting,
allow time for presentations by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a
prepared general statement (within time
limits determined by DOE) before
discussion of a particular topic. DOE
will permit other participants to
comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly and
comment on statements made by others.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to the public
meeting. The official conducting the
public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for proper conduct of the public
meeting.
DOE will make the entire record of
this proposed rulemaking, including the
transcript from the public meeting,
available for inspection at the U.S.
Department of Energy, Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program,
950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
50134
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Any person may purchase a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding all aspects of this
NOPR before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided at
the beginning of this notice of proposed
rulemaking. Please submit comments,
data, and information electronically to
the following e-mail address:
commercialrefrigeration.rulemaking@ee.
doe.gov. Submit electronic comments in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or
ASCII file format and avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption. Comments in electronic
format should be identified by the
docket number EE–2006–STD–0126
and/or RIN 1904–AB59, and whenever
possible carry the electronic signature of
the author. Absent an electronic
signature, comments submitted
electronically must be followed and
authenticated by submitting a signed
original paper document. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Under 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit two copies: One copy of the
document including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one
copy of the document with the
information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by, or available from,
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE is particularly interested in
receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
1. LED Price Projections
TSL 5 has an estimated ¥$200
million burden on the Nation. DOE
recognizes that anticipated reductions
in LED lighting costs by the effective
date of the rule could shift the NPV, at
the seven percent discount rate, for TSL
5 from a negative NPV (¥$200 million)
to a positive NPV. DOE calculated that
a reduction in LED system cost of six
percent would be sufficient to ensure a
slightly positive aggregate NPV at TSL 5,
at the seven percent discount rate, when
compared with the base case. DOE fully
expects that the aggregate six percent
reduction in LED system costs could be
attained and even exceeded by 2012
because of the rapid development of
LED technology. Furthermore, if LED
system costs achieve the 50 percent
reduction projection, the NPV at a seven
percent discount rate for TSL 5 would
be substantially positive. DOE requests
data or information on projected LED
cost reductions and basis for such
projections. DOE also seeks comment on
its consideration of projected LED
prices. DOE also seeks comment on the
extent to which stakeholders expect
projected LED cost reductions would
occur, the timing of the projected LED
cost reductions, and the certainty of the
projected LED cost reductions. Also,
considering the rapid development of
LED technology and the steady
reductions in cost, DOE seeks comment
on the extent to which manufacturers
would adopt LED technology into the
design of commercial refrigeration
equipment in the absence of standards.
DOE recognizes that LED system
replacement costs assumed in its LCC
analysis would also be affected by
projected LED cost reductions and seeks
comment on how it can best predict the
cost for LED fixture replacements in the
LCC analysis. (See Section V.C of this
NOPR for further details.)
2. Base Case Efficiency
DOE recognizes that baseline
efficiency trends can change if
equipment costs are different than those
projected. For example, if LED prices
drop more than assumed in the
engineering analysis, consumer demand
for LED-equipped equipment could
change. DOE seeks comment on whether
shipments of LED-equipped equipment
would change if LED costs drop and if
so, the extent and timing of such
shipment changes. See Section IV.G.1.
3. Operating Temperature Ranges
One factor in determining which
equipment class a commercial
refrigeration equipment unit belongs to
is its designed operating temperature.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE is organizing equipment classes
based on three operating temperature
ranges. Medium temperature equipment
operates at or above 32 °F, low
temperature equipment operates at
temperatures below 32 °F and greater
than 5 °F, and ice-cream temperature
equipment operates at or below ¥15 °F.
DOE seeks comment on the
temperatures selected to categorize
equipment classes. (See Section IV.A.2
of this NOPR for further details.)
4. Offset Factors
For the NOPR, DOE developed offset
factors as a way to adjust the energy
efficiency requirements for smallersized equipment in each equipment
class analyzed. These offset factors
account for certain components of the
refrigeration load (such as the
conduction end effects) that remain
constant even when equipment sizes
vary. These constant loads affect smaller
cases disproportionately. The offset
factors are intended to approximate
these constant loads and provide a fixed
end point, corresponding to a zero TDA
or zero volume case, in an equation that
describes the relationship between
energy consumption and the
corresponding TDA or volume metric.
DOE seeks comment on the use of offset
factors and the methodology used to
calculate them. (See Section V.A of this
NOPR and Chapter 5 of the TSD for
further details.)
5. Extension of Standards
DOE developed an extension
approach to applying the standards
developed for these 15 primary
equipment classes to the remaining 23
secondary classes. This approach
involves extension multipliers
developed using both the 15 primary
equipment classes analyzed and a set of
focused matched-pair analyses. DOE
believes that standards for certain
primary equipment classes can be
directly applied to other similar
secondary equipment classes. DOE
seeks comment on its approach to
extending the results of the engineering
analysis to the 23 secondary equipment
classes. (See Section V.A of this NOPR
and Chapter 5 of the TSD for further
details.)
6. Standards for Hybrid Cases and
Wedges
There are certain types of equipment
that meet the definition of commercial
refrigeration equipment (Section
136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005), but do not
fall easily into any of the 38 equipment
classes defined in the market and
technology assessment. One of these
types is hybrid cases, where two or
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
more compartments are in different
equipment families and contained in
one cabinet. Another is refrigeratorfreezers, which have two compartments
in the same equipment family but with
different operating temperatures. There
may also exist hybrid refrigeratorfreezers, where two or more
compartments are in different
equipment families and have different
operating temperatures. Another is
wedge cases, which form miter
transitions between standard display
case lineups. DOE seeks comment on
proposed language that will allow
manufacturers to determine appropriate
standard levels for these types of
equipment. (See Section 0 of this NOPR
for further details.)
7. Standard Levels
If, based on comment, DOE were to
revise the LED system costs as described
above (section V.C) the economic
impacts of TSL 5 would change. DOE
seeks comments on its consideration of
TSL 5 and whether the benefits would
outweigh the burdens.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this proposed rule.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12,
2008.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, Chapter II of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 431 is
proposed to be amended to read as set
forth below.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Section 431.62 of subpart C is
amended by adding in alphabetical
order new definitions for ‘‘air-curtain
angle,’’ ‘‘commercial hybrid refrigerator,
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer,’’ ‘‘door
angle,’’ ‘‘horizontal closed,’’ horizontal
open’’, ‘‘semivertical open,’’ ‘‘vertical
closed,’’ ‘‘vertical open,’’ and ‘‘wedge
case’’ to read as follows:
§ 431.62 Definitions concerning
commercial refrigerators, freezers and
refrigerator-freezers.
Air-curtain angle means:
(1) For equipment without doors and
without a discharge air grille or
discharge air honeycomb, the angle
between a vertical line extended down
from the highest point on the
manufacturer’s recommended load limit
line and the load limit line itself, when
the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and
(2) For all other equipment without
doors, the angle formed between a
vertical line and the straight line drawn
by connecting the point at the inside
edge of the discharge air opening with
the point at inside edge of the return air
opening, when the equipment is viewed
in cross-section.
*
*
*
*
*
Commercial hybrid refrigerator,
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means a
commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer that has two or more
chilled and/or frozen compartments that
are (1) in two or more different
equipment families, (2) contained in one
cabinet and (3) sold as a single unit.
*
*
*
*
*
Door angle means:
(1) For equipment with flat doors, the
angle between a vertical line and the
line formed by the plane of the door,
when the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and
(2) For equipment with curved doors,
the angle formed between a vertical line
and the straight line drawn by
connecting the top and bottom points
where the display area glass joins the
cabinet, when the equipment is viewed
in cross-section.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50135
Horizontal Closed means equipment
with hinged or sliding doors and a door
angle greater than or equal to 45°.
Horizontal Open means equipment
without doors and an air-curtain angle
greater than or equal to 80° from the
vertical.
*
*
*
*
*
Semivertical Open means equipment
without doors and an air-curtain angle
greater than or equal to 10° and less
than 80° from the vertical.
*
*
*
*
*
Vertical Closed means equipment
with hinged or sliding doors and a door
angle less than 45°.
Vertical Open means equipment
without doors and an air-curtain angle
greater than or equal to 0° and less than
10° from the vertical.
Wedge case means a commercial
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer that forms the transition between
two regularly-shaped display cases.
3. Section 431.66 of subpart C is
amended by adding new paragraphs
(a)(3) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 431.66 Energy conservation standards
and their effective dates.
(a) * * *
(3) The term ‘‘TDA’’ means the total
display area (ft2) as defined in the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute
Standard 1200–2006.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Each commercial refrigerator,
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a
self-contained condensing unit and
without doors; commercial refrigerator,
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer with a
remote condensing unit; and
commercial ice-cream freezer,
manufactured on or after January 1,
2012, shall have a daily energy
consumption (in kilowatt hours per day)
that does not exceed the levels
specified:
(1) For equipment other than hybrid
equipment, refrigerator-freezers or
wedge cases:
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
(2) For commercial refrigeration
equipment with two or more
compartments (hybrid refrigerators,
hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigeratorfreezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator
freezers), the maximum daily energy
consumption (MDEC) for each model
shall be the sum of the MDEC values for
all of its compartments. For each
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
compartment, measure the TDA or
volume of that compartment, and
determine the appropriate equipment
class based on that compartment’s
equipment family, condensing unit
configuration, and designed operating
temperature. The MDEC value for each
compartment shall be the amount
derived by entering that compartment’s
TDA or volume into the standard
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equation in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section for that compartment’s
equipment class. Measure the calculated
daily energy consumption (CDEC) or
total daily energy consumption (TDEC)
for the entire case:
(i) For remote condensing commercial
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers,
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and nonhybrid refrigerator-freezers, where two
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
EP25AU08.004
50136
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
or more independent condensing units
each separately cool only one
compartment, measure the total
refrigeration load of each compartment
separately according to the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure. Calculate compressor energy
consumption (CEC) for each
compartment using Table 1 in ANSI/
ARI Standard 1200–2006 using the
evaporator temperature for that
compartment. The calculated daily
energy consumption (CDEC) for the
entire case shall be the sum of the CEC
for each compartment, fan energy
consumption (FEC), lighting energy
consumption (LEC), anti-condensate
energy consumption (AEC), defrost
energy consumption (DEC), and
condensate evaporator pan energy
consumption (PEC) (as measured in
ANSI/ARI Standard 1200–2006).
(ii) For remote condensing
commercial hybrid refrigerators, hybrid
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Aug 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers,
and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers,
where two or more compartments are
cooled collectively by one condensing
unit, measure the total refrigeration load
of the entire case according to the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure. Calculated a weighted
saturated evaporator temperature for the
entire case by (A) multiplying the
saturated evaporator temperature of
each compartment by the volume of that
compartment (as measured in ANSI/ARI
Standard 1200–2006), (B) summing the
resulting values for all compartments,
and (C) dividing the resulting total by
the total volume of all compartments.
Calculate the CEC for the entire case
using Table 1 in ANSI/ARI Standard
1200–2006, using the total refrigeration
load and the weighted average saturated
evaporator temperature. The CDEC for
the entire case shall be the sum of the
CEC, FEC, LEC, AEC, DEC, and PEC.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50137
(iii) For self-contained commercial
hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers,
hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and nonhybrid refrigerator-freezers, measure the
total daily energy consumption (TDEC)
for the entire case according to the
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure.
(3) For remote-condensing and selfcontained wedge cases, measure the
CDEC or TDEC according to the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 test
procedure. The MDEC for each model
shall be the amount derived by
incorporating into the standards
equation in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section for the appropriate equipment
class a value for the TDA that is the
product of (i) the vertical height of the
air-curtain (or glass in a transparent
door) and (ii) the largest overall width
of the case, when viewed from the front.
[FR Doc. E8–19063 Filed 8–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25AUP2.SGM
25AUP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 165 (Monday, August 25, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50072-50137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19063]
[[Page 50071]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 165 / Monday, August 25, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 50072]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0126]
RIN 1904-AB59
Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Ice-Cream
Freezers; Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers,
and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers Without Doors; and Remote
Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers, and
Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act prescribes energy
conservation standards for certain commercial and industrial equipment,
and requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to administer an energy
conservation program for this equipment. In this notice, DOE is
proposing new energy conservation standards for commercial ice-cream
freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers,
and commercial refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote
condensing commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and
commercial refrigerator-freezers. DOE is also announcing a public
meeting on its proposed standards.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, September 23, 2008,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Washington, DC. DOE must receive requests to
speak at the public meeting no later than 4 p.m., Tuesday, September 9,
2008 DOE must receive a signed original and an electronic copy of
statements to be given at the public meeting no later than 4 p.m.,
Tuesday, September 16, 2008.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public
meeting, but no later than October 24, 2008. See Section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' of this NOPR for details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please note that foreign nationals visiting
DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures,
requiring a 30-day advance notice. If you are a foreign national and
wish to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as
possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 so that the
necessary procedures can be completed.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for commercial
refrigeration equipment, and provide docket number EE-2006-STD-0126
and/or RIN number 1904-AB59. Comments may be submitted using any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: commercialrefrigeration.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov.
Include docket number EE-2006-STD-0126 and/or RIN 1904-AB59 in the
subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th
Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed original paper
copy.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see Section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th
Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda
Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information
regarding visiting the Resource Room.
Please Note: DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (Room 1E-
190 at the Forrestal Building) no longer houses rulemaking
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-2192,
Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Overview
B. Authority
C. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers
b. Life-Cycle Costs
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Definitions Related to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
a. Air Curtain Angle Definition
b. Door Angle Definition
2. Equipment Classes
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Equipment Classes Analyzed
3. Analytical Models
a. Cost Model
b. Energy Consumption Model
c. Design Options
4. Baseline Models
5. Engineering Analysis Results
C. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
D. Energy Use Characterization
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Manufacturer Selling Price
2. Increase in Selling Price
3. Markups
4. Installation Costs
5. Energy Consumption
6. Electricity Prices
7. Electricity Price Trends
8. Repair Costs
9. Maintenance Costs
10. Lifetime
11. Discount Rate
12. Payback Period
F. Shipments Analysis
G. National Impact Analysis
1. Base Case and Standards Case Forecasted Efficiencies
2. Annual Energy Consumption, Total Installed Cost, Maintenance
Cost, and Repair Costs
3. Escalation of Electricity Prices
4. Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion
H. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
a. Phase 1, Industry Profile
[[Page 50073]]
b. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis
c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model Analysis
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Key Issues
4. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs and Scenarios
a. Base Case Shipments Forecast
b. Standards Case Shipments Forecast
c. Markup Scenarios
d. Equipment and Capital Conversion Costs
J. Utility Impact Analysis
K. Employment Impact Analysis
L. Environmental Assessment
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
1. Miscellaneous Equipment
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
c. Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
c. Impacts on Employment
d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
e. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Amount and Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value
c. Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
C. Proposed Standard
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),
specifies that any new or amended energy conservation standard the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for the equipment covered by this
notice shall be designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency * * * which the Secretary determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and
6316(e)(1)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must ``result in
significant conservation of energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
6316(e)(1)) In accordance with these and other statutory criteria
discussed in this notice, DOE proposes to adopt new energy conservation
standards for commercial ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-
freezers without doors; and remote condensing commercial refrigerators,
commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-freezers.\1\ The
proposed standards, shown in Table I-1, would apply to all commercial
refrigeration equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2012, and
offered for sale in the United States. 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These types of equipment are referred to collectively
hereafter as ``commercial refrigeration equipment.''
\2\ For this rulemaking, equipment class designations consist of
a combination (in sequential order separated by periods) of: (1) an
equipment family code (VOP = vertical open, SVO = semivertical open,
HZO = horizontal open, VCT = vertical transparent doors, VCS =
vertical solid doors, HCT = horizontal transparent doors, HCS =
horizontal solid doors, or SOC = service over counter); (2) an
operating mode code (RC = remote condensing or SC = self-contained);
and ( 3) a rating temperature code (M = medium temperature (38
[deg]F), L = low temperature (0 [deg]F), or I = ice-cream
temperature (-15 [deg]F)). For example, ``VOP.RC.M'' refers to the
``vertical open, remote condensing, medium temperature'' equipment
class. See discussion below and chapter 3 of the TSD, market and
technology assessment, for a more detailed explanation of the
equipment class terminology.
Table I-1--Proposed Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed standard level
Equipment class \2\ * ** Equipment class Proposed standard level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP.RC.M............................. 0.82 x TDA + 4.07...... VCT.RC.I............... 0.71 x TDA + 3.05
SVO.RC.M............................. 0.83 x TDA + 3.18...... HCT.RC.M............... 0.16 x TDA + 0.13
HZO.RC.M............................. 0.35 x TDA + 2.88...... HCT.RC.L............... 0.34 x TDA + 0.26
VOP.RC.L............................. 2.28 x TDA + 6.85...... HCT.RC.I............... 0.4 x TDA + 0.31
HZO.RC.L............................. 0.57 x TDA + 6.88...... VCS.RC.M............... 0.11 x V + 0.26
VCT.RC.M............................. 0.25 x TDA + 1.95...... VCS.RC.L............... 0.23 x V + 0.54
VCT.RC.L............................. 0.6 x TDA + 2.61....... VCS.RC.I............... 0.27 x V + 0.63
SOC.RC.M............................. 0.51 x TDA + 0.11...... HCS.RC.M............... 0.11 x V + 0.26
VOP.SC.M............................. 1.74 x TDA + 4.71...... HCS.RC.L............... 0.23 x V + 0.54
SVO.SC.M............................. 1.73 x TDA + 4.59...... HCS.RC.I............... 0.27 x V + 0.63
HZO.SC.M............................. 0.77 x TDA + 5.55...... SOC.RC.L............... 1.08 x TDA + 0.22
HZO.SC.L............................. 1.92 x TDA + 7.08...... SOC.RC.I............... 1.26 x TDA + 0.26
VCT.SC.I............................. 0.73 x TDA + 3.29...... VOP.SC.L............... 4.37 x TDA + 11.82
VCS.SC.I............................. 0.38 x V + 0.88........ VOP.SC.I............... 5.55 x TDA + 15.02
HCT.SC.I............................. 0.56 x TDA + 0.43...... SVO.SC.L............... 4.34 x TDA + 11.51
SVO.RC.L............................. 2.28 x TDA + 6.85...... SVO.SC.I............... 5.52 x TDA + 14.63
VOP.RC.I............................. 2.9 x TDA + 8.7........ HZO.SC.I............... 2.44 x TDA + 9
SVO.RC.I............................. 2.9 x TDA + 8.7........ SOC.SC.I............... 1.76 x TDA + 0.36
HZO.RC.I............................. 0.72 x TDA + 8.74...... HCS.SC.I............... 0.38 x V + 0.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``TDA'' is the total display area of the case, as measured in the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
(ARI) Standard 1200-2006, Appendix D.
** ``V'' is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006, Appendix C.
[[Page 50074]]
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards, trial standard level (TSL) 4 (see Section V.A for a detailed
description of TSLs), would save a significant amount of energy--an
estimated 0.83 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), or quads, of
cumulative energy over 30 years (2012-2042). The economic impacts on
commercial consumers (i.e., the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings)
are positive for all equipment classes.
The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of the proposed
standards at TSL 4 from 2012 to 2042 ranges from $1.1 billion (at a
seven percent discount rate) to $3.24 billion (at a three percent
discount rate), in 2007$. This is the estimated total value of future
operating cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs,
discounted to 2007$. The benefits and costs of the standard can also be
expressed in terms of annualized 2007$ values over the forecast period
2012 through 2062. Using a 7 percent discount rate for the annualized
cost analysis, the cost of the standard is estimated to be $109 million
per year in increased equipment and installation costs while the
annualized benefits are expected to be $214 million per year in reduced
equipment operating costs. Using a 3 percent discount rate, the
annualized cost of the standard is expected to be $92 million per year
while the annualized benefits of today's standard are expected to be
$234 million per year. See Section V.B.3 for additional details. If DOE
adopts the proposed standards, it expects manufacturers will lose 8 to
35 percent of the industry net present value (INPV), which is
approximately $40 to $180 million.
DOE estimates that the proposed standards will have environmental
benefits leading to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (i.e.,
cumulative (undiscounted) emission reductions) of 44 million tons (Mt)
of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2012 to 2042.\3\ Most of the
energy saved is electricity. In addition, DOE expects the energy
savings from the proposed standards to eliminate the need for
approximately 640 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity by 2042. These
results reflect DOE's use of energy price projections from the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s Annual Energy Outlook 2007
(AEO 2007).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Additionally, the standards would result in 17 thousand tons
(kt) of nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions reductions or
generate a similar amount of NOX emissions allowance
credits in areas where such emissions are subject to regulatory or
voluntary emissions caps.
\4\ DOE intends to use EIA's AEO 2008 to generate the results
for the final rule. The AEO2008 Early Release contains reference
case energy price forecasts which show higher commercial electricity
prices at the national level compared with the AEO 2007 on a real
(inflation adjusted) basis. If these early release energy prices
remain unchanged in the final release, then incorporation of the AEO
2008 forecasts would likely result in reduced payback periods and
greater life-cycle cost savings and greater national net present
value for the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE proposes that TSL 4 represents the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified. DOE proposes that the benefits to the Nation of TSL 4
(energy savings, commercial consumer average LCC savings, national NPV
increase, and emission reductions) outweigh the costs (loss of
manufacturer INPV) and is therefore proposing TSL 4 as the energy
conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment in this
NOPR. TSL 4 is technologically feasible because the technologies
required to achieve these levels already exist.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes that TSL 5 is not economically justified
because, under the current circumstances, DOE believes that the
benefits to the Nation of TSL 5 (energy savings, commercial consumer
average LCC savings, and emission reductions) do not outweigh the costs
(national NPV decrease and loss of manufacturer INPV). DOE's analyses
indicate that TSL 5 would save a greater amount of energy than TSL 4--
an estimated 1.21 quadrillion quads of cumulative energy over 30 years
(2012-2042). At TSL 5, while the economic impacts on commercial
consumers (i.e., LCC savings and NPV) are still positive for the
majority of equipment classes, the impacts on commercial customers for
five classes (VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M) are
negative. The life-cycle cost savings are negative for three classes
and NPV results for each of these five classes are negative.
The cumulative NPV at TSL 5, from 2012 to 2042, ranges from -$200
million (at a seven percent discount rate) to $1.16 billion (at a three
percent discount rate), in 2007$. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the
annualized cost of the standard is estimated to be $285 million per
year in increased equipment and installation costs while the annualized
benefits are expected to be $266 million per year in reduced equipment
operating costs. Using a 3 percent discount rate, the annualized cost
of the standard is expected to be $241 million per year while the
annualized benefits are expected to be $292 million per year. See
Section V.B.3 for additional details. At TSL 5, DOE expects
manufacturers will lose 3 to 56 percent of the industry net present
value INPV, which is approximately $18 to $285 million.
DOE based its estimates of the economic impacts referenced above on
current costs for energy improving technologies used in commercial
refrigeration equipment. A key technology for energy savings benefits
in most commercial refrigeration equipment is the use of solid state
lighting (i.e., light emitting diodes or LEDs). At current LED prices,
the life-cycle cost savings at TSL 5 are substantially lower than TSL 3
and TSL 4 for several equipment classes. For example, the average per
unit LCC savings for the VOP.RC.M equipment class is $1,551 at TSL 3,
but this number falls by $1,785 to -$234 when moving to TSL 5. When
accounting for the projected volume of sales for these equipment
classes in 2012, the net effect of moving from TSL 3 to TSL 5 is a
decrease in LCC savings of $130 million per year. To achieve the same
or greater LCC savings at TSL 5 as other efficiency levels (e.g., TSL 3
or 4), for all equipment classes, average LED costs would need to
decrease by almost 45 percent.
While considerable information is available that suggests LED costs
are likely to decline more than assumed in DOE's analysis, DOE believes
it must have a higher degree of confidence of further cost reductions
than assumed in today's proposed rule. In this NOPR, DOE projected
future LED costs based on DOE's Multi-Year Program Plan,\5\ which are
consistent with historical LED price reductions between 2000 and 2007.
The Multi-Year Program Plan projects that LED chip costs will continue
to decrease at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately -
27 percent between 2007 and 2012, which represents a price reduction of
80 percent over that time period. Since LED chips are only a portion of
the total LED system (other components include power supply and the LED
fixture), the 80 percent reduction in chip costs contributes to an
estimated decrease in total LED system cost of approximately 50 percent
by 2012, assuming the costs of the power supply and LED fixtures do not
change significantly. Such a decrease in cost
[[Page 50075]]
would be sufficient for TSL 5 to achieve LCC savings equal to or
greater than other TSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of Energy, Solid-State Lighting Research and
Development, Multi-Year Program Plan FY'09-FY'14. This document was
prepared under the direction of a Technical Committee from the Next
Generation Lighting Initiative Alliance (NGLIA). Information about
the NGLIA and its members is available at https://www.nglia.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE examined whether the projected LED costs presented in the
Multi-Year Program Plan and used in this NOPR are consistent with
publicly available empirical historical cost data. DOE reviewed
available price data for the LED market and found that between 2000 and
2007, white-light LEDs had a CAGR ranging from approximately -18 to -31
percent. DOE's LED cost projection (i.e., -27 percent CAGR) falls
within the range of CAGRs observed. DOE expanded its examination by
comparing this projected trend to the red-light LED market, which is a
related technology, with cost information spanning approximately three
decades (i.e., 1973 to 2005). DOE found that the CAGR of red-light LED
costs was -22 percent over this longer time span. The trend in red-
light LED costs derived from empirical data over this longer time
period is of a similar magnitude to DOE's projected costs for white-
light LEDs. Due to the technological similarities between red-light
LEDs and white-light LEDs, DOE believes that the historical cost
reductions for red-light LEDs are indicative of future cost reductions
for white-light LEDs. Furthermore, the white-light LED market is
undergoing a massive expansion and growth phase, with significant
investment, new products and innovative applications for LED
technology, including illumination of commercial refrigeration
equipment. See Section V.C of this NOPR and Appendix B of the technical
support document (TSD) for more detail on the cost projection and DOE's
validation of those estimates. DOE seeks comment on the extent to which
these price trends are indicative of what can be expected for
commercial refrigeration equipment LED lighting from 2007 to 2012 and
the extent to which the cost reduction observed for red-light LEDs is
relevant to DOE's cost projections for white-light LEDs. DOE also seeks
comment on the extent to which stakeholders expect projected LED cost
reductions would occur, the timing of the projected LED cost
reductions, and the certainty of the projected LED cost reductions.
Finally, considering the rapid development of LED technology and the
steady reductions in cost, DOE seeks comment on the extent to which
manufacturers would adopt LED technology into the design of commercial
refrigeration equipment in the absence of standards.
DOE also performed sensitivity analyses of the effect of projected
cost reductions in LED lighting systems on LCC and NPV. Incorporation
of DOE LED lighting system cost projections of a 50 percent decline by
2012 shift the calculated NPV, for 2012-2042, from -$200 million to a
positive $1.62 billion at a seven percent discount rate, for TSL 5. See
Section V.C of this NOPR or Chapter 8 of the TSD for additional
details.
TSL 5 is estimated to have environmental benefits leading to
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 63 Mt of CO2 from
2012 to 2042. Additionally, TSL 5 would result in 23 kt of
NOX emissions reductions or generate a similar amount of
NOX emissions allowance credits in areas where such
emissions are subject to emissions caps. Most of the energy saved is
electricity. In addition, DOE expects the energy savings from the
proposed standards to eliminate the need for approximately 930 MW of
generating capacity by 2042.
Although DOE has tentatively rejected TSL 5 because, under the
current circumstances, it tentatively found that the benefits to the
Nation do not outweigh the costs, and therefore does not consider TSL 5
economically justified, DOE expects that LED costs will decline
substantially over the next 4-5 years and could have a dramatic effect
on the economic impacts described above. Therefore, DOE requests data
or information that could provide a greater level of confidence that
the projected LED cost reductions will occur and DOE will assess that
data in determining whether to further consider TSL 5 in its final rule
analysis.
II. Introduction
A. Overview
DOE proposes to set energy conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment at the levels shown in Table I-1. The proposed
standards would apply to equipment manufactured on or after January 1,
2012, and offered for sale in the United States. DOE has tentatively
found that the standards would save a significant amount of energy (see
Section III.C.2) and result in a cleaner environment. In the 30-year
period after the new standard becomes effective, the Nation would
tentatively save 0.83 quads of primary energy. These energy savings
also would tentatively result in significantly reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity production,
by avoiding the emission of 44 Mt of CO2 and 17 kt of
NOX. In addition, DOE expects the standard to prevent the
construction of the new power plants that would be necessary to produce
approximately 640 MW by 2042. In total, DOE tentatively estimates the
net present value to the Nation of this standard to be $1.1 billion
from 2012 to 2042 in 2007$.
Commercial customers would see benefits from the proposed
standards. Although DOE expects the price of the higher efficiency
commercial refrigeration equipment to be approximately 11 percent
higher than the average price of this equipment today, weighted by
shipments across equipment classes, the energy efficiency gains would
result in lower energy costs, saving customers about 26 percent per
year on their energy bills. Based on DOE's LCC analysis, DOE
tentatively estimates that the mean payback period for the higher
efficiency commercial refrigeration equipment would be between a low of
1.4 to a high of 6.1 years. In addition, when the net results of these
price increases and energy cost savings are summed over the lifetime of
the higher efficiency equipment, customers could save approximately
$690 to $3800, depending on equipment class, compared to their
expenditures on today's baseline commercial refrigeration equipment.
B. Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles. Part A-1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317)
establishes a similar program for certain types of commercial and
industrial equipment.\6\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005),
Pub. L. 109-58, included an amendment to Part A-1 requiring that DOE
prescribe energy conservation standards for the commercial
refrigeration equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking. (EPACT
2005, Section 136(c); 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)) Hence, DOE publishes
today's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) pursuant to Part A-1,
which provides definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions,
energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers. The test procedures for commercial
refrigeration equipment appear at Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Sections 431.63 and 431.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This part was originally titled Part C, however, it was
renamed Part A-1 after Part B of Title III was repealed by EPACT
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for
covered equipment. As indicated above, any
[[Page 50076]]
new or amended standard for commercial refrigeration equipment must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified.\7\ (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) But EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any
standard that would not result in significant conservation of energy.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard for certain equipment if no test procedure has been
established for that equipment, or if DOE determines by rule that the
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified, and
that such standard will not result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(e)(1)) EPCA also provides that,
in deciding whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens after
receiving comments on the proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1)) To the greatest extent practicable,
DOE must consider the following seven factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This notice concerns types of ``covered equipment'' as that
term is defined in EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) in Part A-1, Certain
Industrial Equipment. Therefore, when DOE quotes from, paraphrases
or describes general provisions in Part A, for instance, 42 U.S.C.
6295(o), it substitutes the term ``equipment'' for ``product'' when
the latter term appears in those provisions. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316
(a)(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
(II) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses
for the equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
(III) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the imposition of the standard;
(IV) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
(V) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(VI) The need for national energy conservation; and
(VII) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
Id.
Furthermore, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States of any equipment type (or class)
with 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) and
6316(e)(1)) In addition, there is a rebuttable presumption that a
standard level is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
``the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy * * * savings during the first year that
the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated
under the applicable test procedure * * *.'' (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(e)(1)) The rebuttable presumption test is
an alternative path to establishing economic justification.
Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA addresses the situation where DOE sets a
standard for a type or class of covered equipment that has two or more
groups of covered equipment. DOE must specify a different standard
level than that which applies generally to such equipment ``for any
group of covered equipment which have the same function or intended
use, if * * * equipment within such group--(A) consume a different kind
of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other equipment within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard'' than applies or
will apply to the other equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and
6316(e)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must
``consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature'' and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which a
higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and
6316(e)(1))
Finally, Federal energy conservation requirements for commercial
equipment generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning
energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards for such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)-(b)) For the commercial refrigeration
equipment covered by this rulemaking, Federal energy conservation
requirements will supersede all such State laws or regulations
beginning on the date of publication of the Federal standards, except
that any state or local standard issued before that time will be
superseded only when the Federal standards take effect. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(3)) Furthermore, DOE can grant waivers of preemption to any
State laws or regulations that are superseded in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions of Section 327(d) of the Act. (42
U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(e)(3))
C. Background
1. Current Standards
There are no national energy conservation standards for the
commercial refrigeration equipment covered by this rulemaking. EPACT
2005 did amend EPCA to establish energy conservation standards that
will apply to certain other types of commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers when manufactured on or after
January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(3)) Those standards are not at
issue in this rulemaking.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment
On August 8, 2005, Section 136(c) of EPACT 2005 amended EPCA, in
part to direct DOE to issue energy conservation standards for the
equipment covered by this rulemaking, which standards would apply to
equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(4)(A)) Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005 also amended EPCA, by
adding definitions for terms relevant to this equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6311(9)) In defining the term ``commercial refrigerator, freezer, and
refrigerator-freezer,'' EPCA states that this refrigeration equipment
is connected to either a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote
condensing unit. 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vii). Subsequently, EPCA defines
the terms ``remote condensing unit'' and ``self-contained condensing
unit.'' 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(E)-(F). These are the two condenser
configurations of equipment covered by this rulemaking.
On December 19, 2006, the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA 2007) was signed into law by the President. This legislation
affected some of the products for which DOE had rulemakings underway.
However, it did not create any additional requirements for commercial
refrigeration equipment.
As an initial step to comply with EPCA's mandate to issue standards
for commercial refrigeration equipment, and to commence this
rulemaking, on April 25, 2006, DOE published notice of a public meeting
and of the availability
[[Page 50077]]
of its Framework Document for this rulemaking. 71 FR 23876. The
Framework Document described the procedural and analytical approaches
that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards
for commercial refrigeration equipment, and identified various issues
to be resolved in conducting the rulemaking. DOE held a public meeting
on May 16, 2006 to present the contents of the Framework Document,
describe the analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking,
obtain public comment on these subjects, and inform and facilitate
interested persons' involvement in the rulemaking. DOE also gave
interested persons an opportunity, after the public meeting, to submit
written statements in response to the Framework Document. DOE received
five statements.
On July 26, 2007, DOE published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANOPR) concerning energy conservation standards for
commercial refrigeration equipment. 72 FR 41161. In the ANOPR, DOE
described and sought comment on its proposed equipment classes for this
rulemaking, and on the analytical framework, models, and tools (e.g.,
LCC and national energy savings (NES) spreadsheets) that DOE used to
analyze the impacts of energy conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment. In conjunction with the ANOPR, DOE also
published on its Web site the complete ANOPR TSD. The TSD included the
results of DOE's preliminary (1) engineering analysis, (2) markups
analysis to determine equipment price, (3) energy use characterization,
(4) LCC and payback period (PBP) analyses, (5) NES and national impact
analyses (NIA), and (6) manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). In the
ANOPR, DOE requested comment on these results, and on a range of other
issues. These issues included equipment classes, definitions for air-
curtain angle and door angle, case lighting operating hours, operation
and maintenance practices, equipment lifetime, LCC baseline levels, NIA
base case, base case and standards case forecasts, differential impact
of new standards on future shipments, selection of standard levels for
post-ANOPR analysis, the equation that expresses the energy
conservation standards, and the nature of standards for commercial
refrigerator-freezers.
DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC on August 23, 2007, to
present the methodology and results of the ANOPR analyses, and to
solicit both oral and written comments from the interested persons who
attended. Public comment focused on DOE's assumptions, approach, and
equipment class breakdown, and are addressed in detail in this NOPR.
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in which it adopted
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006, Performance Rating of
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, as
the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 71 FR 71340, 71369-70; 10
CFR 431.63-431.64. ANSI/ARI Standard 1200-2006 contains rating
temperature specifications of 38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for
commercial refrigerators and refrigerator compartments, 0 [deg]F
(2 [deg]F) for commercial freezers and freezer
compartments, and -5 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for commercial ice-
cream freezers. The standard also requires performance tests to be
conducted according to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72-2005, Method of
Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. In this final rule, DOE
also adopted a -15 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) rating temperature for
commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR 71370. In addition, DOE adopted
ANSI/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF-1-
2004, Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, for determining compartment volumes
for this equipment. 71 FR 71369-70.
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
DOE considers design options technologically feasible if industry
already uses these options or if research has progressed to the
development of a working prototype. ``Technologies incorporated in
commercially available equipment or in working prototypes will be
considered technologically feasible.'' 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C,
Appendix A, Section 4(a)(4)(i).
In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis,
which it bases on information it has gathered regarding all current
technology options and prototype designs. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE develops a list of design options for
consideration in the rulemaking. All technologically feasible design
options are candidates in this initial assessment. Early in the
process, DOE eliminates from consideration any design option (a) that
is not practicable to manufacture, install, or service; (b) that will
have adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability; or (c) for
which there are health or safety concerns that cannot be resolved.
Chapter 4 of the TSD accompanying this notice contains a description of
the screening analysis for this rulemaking.
In the ANOPR, DOE eliminated five of the technologies considered in
the market and technology assessment: (1) Air-curtain design, (2)
thermoacoustic refrigeration, (3) magnetic refrigeration, (4) electro-
hydrodynamic heat exchangers, and (5) copper rotor motors. Because all
five of these technologies are in the research stage, DOE believes that
they would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service on
the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
effective date of the standard. In addition, because these technologies
are in the research stage, DOE cannot assess whether they would have
any adverse impacts on utility to significant subgroups of consumers,
result in the unavailability of any types of equipment, or present any
significant adverse impacts on health or safety. Therefore, DOE did not
consider these technologies as design options for improving the energy
efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE believes that all
the efficiency levels discussed in today's notice are technologically
feasible because there is equipment either in the market or in working
prototypes at all of the efficiency levels analyzed. See Chapter 4 of
the TSD for further discussion of the screening analysis.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
In deciding whether to adopt a new standard for a type or class of
commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE must ``determine the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use
that is technologically feasible'' for such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1) and 6316(e)(1)) If such standard is not designed to achieve
such efficiency or use, the Secretary shall state the reasons such is
the case in the proposed rule. Id. For this rulemaking, DOE determined
that the values in Table III-1 represent the energy use levels that
would achieve the maximum reductions in energy use that are
technologically feasible at this time for commercial refrigeration
equipment. DOE identified these ``max-tech'' levels for the equipment
classes analyzed as part of the engineering analysis (Chapter 5 of the
TSD). For each equipment class, DOE applied the most efficient design
options available
[[Page 50078]]
for energy-consuming components. These levels are set forth in TSL 5.
Table III-1--``Max-Tech'' Energy Use Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Max-Tech'' level ``Max-Tech'' level
Equipment class kilowatt hours per day Equipment class kilowatt hours per day
(kWh/day) (kWh/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP.RC.M............................. 0.68 x TDA + 4.07...... VCT.RC.I............... 0.71 x TDA + 3.05
SVO.RC.M............................. 0.69 x TDA + 3.18...... HCT.RC.M............... 0.16 x TDA + 0.13
HZO.RC.M............................. 0.35 x TDA + 2.88...... HCT.RC.L............... 0.34 x TDA + 0.26
VOP.RC.L............................. 2.28 x TDA + 6.85...... HCT.RC.I............... 0.4 x TDA + 0.31
HZO.RC.L............................. 0.57 x TDA + 6.88...... VCS.RC.M............... 0.11 x V + 0.26
VCT.RC.M............................. 0.25 x TDA + 1.95...... VCS.RC.L............... 0.23 x V + 0.54
VCT.RC.L............................. 0.6 x TDA + 2.61....... VCS.RC.I............... 0.27 x V + 0.63
SOC.RC.M............................. 0.39 x TDA + 0.11...... HCS.RC.M............... 0.11 x V + 0.26
VOP.SC.M............................. 1.57 x TDA + 4.71...... HCS.RC.L............... 0.23 x V + 0.54
SVO.SC.M............................. 1.58 x TDA + 4.59...... HCS.RC.I............... 0.27 x V + 0.63
HZO.SC.M............................. 0.77 x TDA + 5.55...... SOC.RC.L............... 0.83 x TDA + 0.22
HZO.SC.L............................. 1.92 x TDA + 7.08...... SOC.RC.I............... 0.97 x TDA + 0.26
VCT.SC.I............................. 0.73 x TDA + 3.29...... VOP.SC.L............... 3.95 x TDA + 11.82
VCS.SC.I............................. 0.38 x V + 0.88........ VOP.SC.I............... 5.02 x TDA + 15.02
HCT.SC.I............................. 0.56 x TDA + 0.43...... SVO.SC.L............... 3.98 x TDA + 11.51
SVO.RC.L............................. 2.28 x TDA + 6.85...... SVO.SC.I............... 5.06 x TDA + 14.63
VOP.RC.I............................. 2.9 x TDA + 8.7........ HZO.SC.I............... 2.44 x TDA + 9
SVO.RC.I............................. 2.9 x TDA + 8.7........ SOC.SC.I............... 1.35 x TDA + 0.36
HZO.RC.I............................. 0.72 x TDA + 8.74...... HCS.SC.I............... 0.38 x V + 0.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
DOE used the NES spreadsheet to estimate energy savings. The
spreadsheet forecasts energy savings over the period of analysis for
TSLs relative to the base case. DOE quantified the energy savings
attributable to an energy conservation standard as the difference in
energy consumption between the trial standards case and the base case.
The base case represents the forecast of energy consumption in the
absence of new mandatory efficiency standards. The NES spreadsheet
model is described in Section IV.G of this notice and in Chapter 11 of
the TSD accompanying this notice.
The NES spreadsheet model calculates the energy savings in site
energy or kilowatt hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy directly
consumed at building sites by commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE
expresses national energy savings in terms of the source energy
savings, which are the energy savings used to generate and transmit the
energy consumed at the site. Chapter 11 of the TSD contains a table of
factors used to convert kWh to Btu. DOE derives these conversion
factors, which change with time, from DOE's EIA's AEO2007.
2. Significance of Savings
For commercial refrigeration equipment, EPCA prohibits DOE from
adopting a standard that would not result in significant additional
energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(e)(1)) While the term
``significant'' is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals,
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373
(D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended significant energy
savings in this context to be savings that were not ``genuinely
trivial.'' The estimated energy savings for all of the trial standard
levels considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, and therefore DOE
considers them significant within the meaning of Section 325 of the
Act.
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically
justified. The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each
factor thus far in this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and
6316(e)(1))
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers
DOE uses an annual cash-flow approach in determining the
quantitative impacts of a new or amended standard on manufacturers.
This includes both a short-term assessment based on the cost and
capital requirements between the announcement of a regulation and when
the regulation comes into effect, and a long-term assessment. Impacts
analyzed include INPV, cash flows by year, and changes in revenue and
income. Next, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types
of manufacturers, with particular attention to impacts on small
manufacturers. DOE then considers the impact of standards on domestic
manufacturer employment, manufacturing capacity, plant closures, and
loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account the
cumulative impact of regulations on manufacturers.
For commercial consumers, measures of economic impact are generally
the changes in installed cost and annual operating costs, i.e., the
LCC. Chapter 6 of the TSD presents the LCC of the equipment at each
TSL. The LCC is one of the seven factors to be considered in
determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(e)(1)) It is discussed in the
paragraphs that follow.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price, including the
installation and operating expense (i.e., operating energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment. To determine the purchase price including installation,
DOE estimated the markups that distributors and contractors add to the
manufacturer selling price (MSP); DOE also estimated installation costs
from an analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment installation
costs for each equipment class. DOE determined that preventative
maintenance costs do not depend on efficiency but that repair costs
increase
[[Page 50079]]
with efficiency and that the cost of replacement lighting fixtures
(``lighting maintenance'') increased with higher efficiency. See
Sections IV.E.8 and IV.E.9 for more detail. In estimating operating
energy costs, DOE used average effective commercial electricity prices
at the State level from the EIA publication, State Energy Consumption,
Price, and Expenditure Estimates. DOE modified the 2006 average
commercial electricity prices to reflect the average electricity prices
for each of the four types of businesses examined in this analysis. The
LCC analysis compares the LCCs of equipment designed to meet possible
energy conservation standards with the LCCs of equipment likely to be
installed in the absence of standards. The LCC analysis also identifies
a range of energy price forecasts for the electricity prices used in
the economic analyses and provides results showing the sensitivity of
the LCC results to these price forecasts.
Recognizing that each commercial building that uses commercial
refrigeration equipment is unique, DOE analyzed variability and
uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations for two
prototype commercial buildings (i.e., stores) and four types of
businesses (two types of businesses for each prototype store). The
first store prototype is a large grocery store, which encompasses
supermarkets and wholesaler/retailer multi-line stores such as big-box
stores, warehouse stores, and supercenters. The second prototype is a
small store, which encompasses convenience stores and small specialty
stores such as meat markets; wine, beer, and liquor stores; and
convenience stores associated with gasoline stations. Various types of
commercial refrigeration equipment can serve a given type of store's
refrigeration needs. DOE gives the LCC savings as a distribution, with
a mean value and a range. DOE developed average discount rates for each
of four business types analyzed, ranging from 5.1 to 8.4 percent for
the calculations, and assumed that the customer purchases the equipment
in 2012. Chapter 8 of the TSD contains the details of the LCC
calculations.
c. Energy Savings
While significant energy conservation is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of such a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and
6316(e)(1)) DOE used the NES spreadsheet results in its consideration
of total projected savings. Section IV.G.1 of this notice discusses the
savings figures.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
In establishing equipment classes, evaluating design options, and
assessing the impact of potential standard levels, DOE tried to avoid
having new standards for commercial refrigeration equipment lessen the
utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this
rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(e)(1)) None of the
proposed trial standard levels considered in this rulemaking involve
changes in equipment design or unusual installation requirements that
would reduce the utility or performance of the equipment. See Chapter 4
and Chapter 16 of the TSD for more detail.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition likely to
result from standards. It directs the Attorney General to determine in
writing the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from imposition of a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (ii); and 6316(e)(1)) DOE has transmitted a
written request to the Attorney General soliciting a written
determination on this issue.
f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
The non-monetary benefits of the proposed standard are likely to be
reflected in improvements to the security and reliability of the
Nation's energy system. Reductions in the overall demand for energy
will reduce the Nation's reliance on foreign sources of energy and
increase reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a
utility impact analysis to show the reduction in installed generation
capacity. Reduced power demand (including peak power demand) generally
improves the security and reliability of the energy system.
The proposed standard also is likely to result in improvements to
the environment. In quantifying these improvements, DOE has defined a
range of primary energy conversion factors and associated emission
reductions based on the generation that energy conservation standards
displaced. DOE reports the environmental effects from each trial
standard level for this equipment in the environmental assessment in
the TSD. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(e)(1))
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and
6316(e)(1)) Under this provision, DOE considered LCC impacts on
identifiable groups of customers, such as customers of different
business types, who may be disproportionately affected by any national
energy conservation standard level. In particular, DOE examined the LCC
impact on independent small grocery/convenience store businesses where
both higher discount rates and lack of access to national account
equipment purchases might disproportionately affect those business
types when compared to the overall commercial refrigeration equipment
market.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
Another criterion for determining whether a standard level is
economically justified is the following rebuttable presumption test:
If the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer
of purchasing equipment complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy
* * * savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such
standard level is economically justified. A determination by the
Secretary that such criterion is not met shall not be taken into
consideration in the Secretary's determination of whether a standard
is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and
6316(e)(1))
If the initial price of equipment increases due to a conservation
standard, and the consumer would recover the increase in energy savings
in less than three years through reduced energy costs resulting from
the standard, then DOE presumes that such standard is economically
justified. This presumption of economic justification can be rebutted
upon a proper showing. The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in Sections III.D.2 and V.B.1.b of this NOPR.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments
DOE used two spreadsheet tools to determine the impact of energy
conservation standards on the Nation. The first spreadsheet calculates
LCCs and payback periods of potential new energy conservation
standards. The second provides shipments forecasts
[[Page 50080]]
and then calculates national energy savings and net present value
impacts of potential new energy conservation standards. DOE also
assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).
Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment on utilities and the
environment. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling
System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS
model simulates the energy economy of the United States and has been
developed over several years by the EIA primarily for the purpose of
preparing the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The NEMS produces a widely
known baseline forecast for the Nation through 2025 that is available
on the DOE Web site. The version of NEMS used for efficiency standards
analysis is called NEMS-BT,\8\ and is based on the AEO2007 version with
minor modifications. The NEMS offers a sophisticated picture of the
effect of standards, since its scope allows it to measure the
interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and
the economy as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an
AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data.
Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications
and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from
AEO assumptions, the name NEMS-BT refers to the model used here. For
more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling
System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581 (98), February, 1998. BT is
DOE's Building Technologies Program. NEMS-BT was formerly called
NEMS-BRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Market and Technology Assessment
When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for
the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes
both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on
publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market
and technology assessment for this rulemaking (Chapter 3 of the TSD)
include equipment classes, manufacturers, quantities, and types of
equipment sold and offered for sale, retail market trends, and
regulatory and non-regulatory programs.
1. Definitions Related to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
a. Air Curtain Angle Definition
For equipment without doors, an air curtain divides the
refrigerated compartment from the ambient space. DOE stated in the
ANOPR that the orientation of the air curtain affects the energy
consumption of both remote condensing and self-contained equipment, and
that equipment without doors can be broadly categorized by the angle of
the air curtain. DOE considered defining the air-curtain angle as ``the
angle between a vertical line and the line formed by the points at the
center of the discharge air grille and the center of the return air
grille, when viewed in cross-section.'' DOE presented this definition
in the ANOPR, 72 FR 41173, and for discussion at the ANOPR public
meeting, and requested feedback.
ARI and Edison Electric Institute (EEI) recommended that DOE
slightly modify its definition of air-curtain angle to ``the angle
formed between a vertical line and the line formed by the points at the
inside edge of the discharge air opening and the inside edge of the
return air opening, when viewed in cross-section.'' For equipment
without doors and without a discharge air grille or discharge air
honeycomb, the air curtain should be defined as ``the angle between a
vertical line extended down from the highest point on the
manufacturer's recommended load limit line and the same load limit
line.'' (ARI, No. 18 at p. 2 and EEI, No. 15 at p. 2) DOE recognizes
that these proposed definitions are consistent with industry-approved
standards and is therefore including the suggested modifications to the
definition for air-curtain angle in today's proposed rule.
b. Door Angle Definition
For equipment with doors, DOE stated in the ANOPR that the
orientation of the doors affects the energy consumption, and that
equipment with doors can be broadly categorized by the angle of the
door. DOE considered defining door angle as ``the angle between a
vertical line and the line formed by the plane