Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, 66710-66722 [2023-21190]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66710
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 88, No. 187
Thursday, September 28, 2023
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009]
RIN 1905–AD79
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Walk-In
Coolers and Freezers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability
regarding energy conservation
standards.
AGENCY:
On September 5, 2023, the
U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), in which DOE
proposed amended energy conservation
standards for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers. (‘‘September 2023 NOPR’’)
In this notification, DOE is summarizing
and addressing comments that were
considered but not discussed in the
September 2023 NOPR.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding the September 2023 NOPR as
supplemented by this notice of data
availability no later than November 6,
2023.
Meeting: DOE is holding a public
meeting regarding the September 2023
NOPR via webinar on Wednesday,
September 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. See section IV, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments
regarding the September 2023 NOPR as
supplemented by this notice of data
availability using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2017–BT–STD–0009, by any of the
following methods:
Email: WICF2017STD0009@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009 in the
subject line of the message.
Non-electronic submissions: Please
contact (202) 287–1445 for instructions
if an electronic copy cannot be
submitted.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0009. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section IV
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Troy Watson, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597–
6265. Email: matthew.schneider@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion
A. General
B. Market and Technology Assessment
C. Engineering Analysis
a. Display Doors
b. Refrigeration Systems
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Equipment Lifetime
E. Conclusion
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
IV. Public Participation
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,2
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) Such
equipment includes walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers 3 (hereafter referred to
as ‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’), the subject
of this notification.
The current energy conservation
standards for walk-ins are set forth in
DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.306.
Rather than establishing standards for
complete walk-in systems, DOE has
established standards for the principal
components that make up a walk-in (i.e.,
doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems). The current energy
conservation standards for walk-in
doors are in terms of maximum daily
energy consumption, which is measured
in kWh/day (see Table I.1). The current
energy conservation standards for walkin panels are in terms of R-value, which
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
3 Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are defined
as an enclosed storage space, including but not
limited to panels, doors, and refrigeration systems,
refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above,
and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be
walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of
less than 3,000 square feet; however, the terms do
not include products designed and marketed
exclusively for medical, scientific, or research
purposes. 10 CFR 431.302.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
is measured in h-ft2-°F/Btu (see Table
I.2). The current energy conservation
standards for refrigeration systems are
in terms of annual walk-in energy factor
66711
(‘‘AWEF’’), which is measured in Btu/
(W-h) (see Table I.3).
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZER DOORS
Equations for maximum daily
energy consumption
(kWh/day)
Equipment class
Display door, medium-temperature .......................................................................................................................
Display door, low-temperature ...............................................................................................................................
Passage door, medium-temperature .....................................................................................................................
Passage door, low-temperature ............................................................................................................................
Freight door, medium-temperature ........................................................................................................................
Freight door, low-temperature ...............................................................................................................................
0.04
0.15
0.05
0.14
0.04
0.12
×
×
×
×
×
×
Add
Add
And
And
And
And
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.41.
0.29.
1.7.
4.8.
1.9.
5.6.
Add or And = surface area of the display door or non-display door, respectively, expressed in ft2, as determined in appendix A to subpart R of
10 CFR part 431.
TABLE I.2—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZER PANELS
Minimum R-value
(h-ft2-°F/Btu)
Equipment class
Wall or ceiling panels, medium-temperature ...........................................................................................................................
Wall or ceiling panels, low-temperature ..................................................................................................................................
Floor panels, low-temperature .................................................................................................................................................
25
32
28
TABLE I.3—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZER
REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS
Minimum AWEF
(Btu/W-h)
Equipment class
Dedicated condensing system, medium-temperature, indoor ...............................................................................
Dedicated condensing system, medium-temperature, outdoor .............................................................................
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of <6,500 British thermal
units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’).
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of ≥6,500 Btu/h ...................
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, outdoor with a net capacity (qnet) of <6,500 Btu/h .................
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, outdoor with a net capacity (qnet) of ≥6,500 Btu/h .................
Unit cooler, medium-temperature ..........................................................................................................................
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of <15,500 Btu/h ................................................
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of ≥15,500 Btu/h ................................................
5.61.
7.60.
9.091 × 10¥5 × qnet + 1.81.
2.40.
6.522 × 10¥5 × qnet + 2.73.
3.15.
9.00.
1.575 × 10¥5 × qnet + 3.91.
4.15.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Where qnet is net capacity as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and certified in accordance with 10 CFR part 429.
To evaluate whether to propose
amendments to the energy conservation
standards for walk-ins, DOE issued a
request for information (‘‘RFI’’) in the
Federal Register on July 16, 2021 (‘‘July
2021 RFI’’). 86 FR 37687. In the July
2021 RFI, DOE sought data, information,
and comment pertaining to walk-ins. 86
FR 37687, 37689. DOE subsequently
announced the availability of the
preliminary analysis it had conducted
for the purpose of evaluating the need
for amending the current energy
conservation standards for walk-ins in
the Federal Register on June 30, 2022,
(‘‘June 2022 Preliminary Analysis’’). The
analysis was set forth in the
Department’s accompanying
preliminary technical support document
(‘‘TSD’’). The June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis summarized and addressed the
comments received in response to the
July 2021 RFI in chapter 2 of the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
held a public meeting via webinar to
discuss and receive comment on the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on July
22, 2022. The meeting covered the
analytical framework, models, and tools
that DOE used to evaluate potential
standards; the results of the preliminary
analyses performed by DOE; the
potential energy conservation standard
levels derived from those analyses; and
other relevant issues.
In a test procedure final rule
published May 4, 2023 (‘‘May 2023 TP
Final Rule’’), DOE amended the test
procedures for walk-in components.
DOE also established a new appendix,
appendix C1 to subpart R (‘‘appendix
C1’’), and a new energy metric, AWEF2,
for refrigeration systems. (See 88 FR
28780 and 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix C1.) Manufacturers would be
required to begin using appendix C1 as
of the compliance date of an energy
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
conservation standards promulgated as
a result of this rulemaking.
On September 5, 2023, DOE
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register,
regarding energy conservation standards
for walk-in coolers and freezers
(‘‘September 2023 NOPR’’). 88 FR
60746. Specifically, DOE proposed
amended standards for walk-in nondisplay doors and walk-in refrigeration
systems based on the amended or new
test procedures adopted in the May
2023 TP Final Rule. For refrigeration
systems, DOE proposed amended
standards in terms of the AWEF2 metric
based on appendix C1. The September
2023 NOPR summarized and addressed
comments received in response to the
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
66712
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
However, comments from one interested
party, listed in Table I.4 of this
document, were considered in
developing the September 2023 NOPR,
but were not summarized and discussed
in the NOPR.
TABLE I.4—JUNE 2022 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS WRITTEN COMMENTS OMITTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2023 NOPR
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern California Edison; (collectively referred to as the ‘‘California Investor-Owned Utilities’’).
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.4
DOE notes that it also received
comments in response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis in the form of
confidential business information from
two stakeholders, which have been
restricted on the public docket.5 To the
extent that these stakeholders provided
confidential information, DOE did not
address those comments directly due to
the confidential nature of the comments
received. However, DOE considered
these confidential comments in its
analysis presented in the September
2023 NOPR.
II. Discussion
This section summarizes the
comments received from the CA IOUs
and provides DOE’s responses that were
not addressed in the September 2023
NOPR. Separate subsections address
each component of DOE’s analyses on
which DOE has received comment from
the CA IOUs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. General
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
consider linear AWEF energy
conservation standards for refrigeration
systems that vary with capacity. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 3) The CA IOUs
stated that refrigeration efficiency
typically increases with system capacity
and pointed to the energy conservation
standards for Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment and Automatic Commercial
Ice Makers, which are dependent on
capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs further
provided examples supporting its
4 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE–2017–
BT–STD–0009, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
5 DOE received comments marked as confidential
business information from Anthony International
(see EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0040) and Lennox
International (see EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–
0036).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
CA IOUs ........
assertion that efficiency increases with
capacity for both dedicated condensing
units and unit coolers. Specifically, the
CA IOUs showed examples of standard
options offered for model lines of
medium- and low-temperature unit
coolers; these examples show a larger
capacity model line that is available
with several options that are not
available as standard features for the
smaller capacity model line, including
electronic expansion valves (‘‘EEVs’’),
evaporator fan control boards, variablespeed electronically commutated fan
motors (‘‘ECMs’’), and electronic
controller systems that offer on-cycle
evaporator fan controls and adaptive
defrost capability. (Id. at pp. 3–4) The
CA IOUs also included in its comment
examples of dedicated condensing
system model lines that showed higher
cooling efficiencies (in terms of energy
efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’)) for larger
capacity systems. (Id. at p. 4) The CA
IOUs also pointed to the baseline
AWEFs presented in the preliminary
analysis TSD, which increased with
capacity. (Id. at pp. 5–7)
In its analysis for the September 2023
NOPR, DOE evaluated the economics of
each efficiency level for each
representative unit, which indicated
that more stringent standards were
generally economically justified for
larger units. Therefore, DOE proposed
standards that varied with capacity for
many refrigeration system equipment
classes in the September 2023 NOPR. 88
FR 60746, 60748–60749. The proposed
standards are summarized in section I of
the September 2023 NOPR.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the equipment concerned,
including the purpose of the equipment,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the equipment. 88 FR 60746,
60760. This activity includes both
quantitative and qualitative
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comment
number in
the docket
43
Commenter
type
Utilities.
assessments, based primarily on
publicly available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and
equipment classes, (2) manufacturers
and industry structure, (3) existing
efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry
trends; and (6) technologies or design
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of walk-ins.
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE considered separate
technology options for whole walk-ins,
doors, and panels, and refrigeration
systems. 88 FR 60746, 60764–60765. In
the preliminary market analysis and
technology assessment, DOE identified
16 technology options that would be
expected to improve the efficiency of
refrigeration systems. DOE requested
comment on the technology options in
section ES.4.2 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response,
the CA IOUs suggested several
modifications to the technology options
analyzed by DOE in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 43
at p. 8)
In section 5.7.2.1 of chapter 5 of the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD,
DOE stated that at the time, it lacked
data on the performance of multiplecapacity and variable-capacity
compressors, but DOE intended to
collect more data to evaluate these
compressors as design options for the
NOPR analysis. In response to the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
commented that they support the
evaluation of variable-capacity
compressors as a design option. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8) The CA IOUs
recommended that DOE request full EER
curves of amperage versus capacity for
variable-capacity compressors from
manufacturers. (Id.) The CA IOUs also
recommended that DOE perform testing
to record the efficiency gains of
variable-capacity compressors and
evaluate the reduction in compressor
cycling and improved ability of the
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
compressor to match the system cooling
loads. (Id. at pp. 8–9)
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE analyzed variable-capacity
compressors for low- and mediumtemperature refrigeration systems and
assumed that the system was redesigned
to take advantage of the variablecapacity compressor. 88 FR 60746,
60776. However, DOE was unable to
obtain performance data from
manufacturers as recommended by the
CA IOUs, and therefore based the
variable-capacity design option
performance on its test data. Additional
details of the variable-capacity
compressor design option
implementation in the NOPR analysis
can be found in chapter 5 of the
accompanying TSD.6
In the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE analyzed floating head
pressure and floating head pressure
with an EEV as design options for
outdoor dedicated condensing units.
See section 5.7.2.7 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response
to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis,
the CA IOUs suggested that DOE
analyze EEVs as a technology option
separate from floating head pressure.
(Ca IOUs, No. 43 at p. 10) The CA IOUs
provided an example where the use of
an EEV rather than a thermostatic
expansion valve (‘‘TXV’’) saved energy
by reducing cycling losses where the
TXV ‘‘hunts’’ for the optimal opening
range. (Id.) Further, the CA IOUs
commented that EEVs allow for more
precise superheat control over TXVs,
which could improve energy efficiency.
(Id. at p. 10)
DOE notes that the tests conducted as
part of the test procedures in appendix
C1 are steady-state tests. Because of this,
DOE has tentatively concluded that a
test performed with a TXV would result
in the same measured efficiency as a test
of the same unit performed with an
EEV. DOE acknowledges that a unit
cooler installed with an EEV may be
able to achieve more capacity for a given
suction condition given that EEVs can
achieve less superheat than a TXV
would be able to. Considering feedback
received during manufacturer
interviews, DOE has tentatively
concluded that manufacturers would
not recommend a lower superheat value
for unit coolers installed with an EEV
rather than a TXV. Additionally, DOE
notes that Figure 8 presented in the CA
IOUs comment shows that at the steadystate operation that is the basis of test
procedures, systems equipped with
6 The NOPR TSD can be found in the docket at
regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD0009-0046.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
TXVs are no less efficient than systems
equipped with EEVs. As such DOE has
tentatively concluded that when
performing a valid refrigeration system
test according to the DOE test
procedure, replacing a TXV with an EEV
would not improve measured efficiency.
For this reason, DOE did not analyze
EEVs as a standalone technology in the
September 2023 NOPR analysis. See
section 5.7.2.7 of the September 2023
NOPR TSD for discussion of how DOE
considered head pressure control in the
analysis.
See chapter 3 of the September 2023
NOPR TSD for further discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
C. Engineering Analysis
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, the purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of each
component of walk-ins (e.g., doors,
panels, and refrigeration systems). 88 FR
60746, 60767. There are two elements to
consider in the engineering analysis; the
selection of efficiency levels to analyze
(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the
determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost
analysis’’). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency walkins, DOE considers technologies and
design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each walk-in component equipment
class, DOE estimates the baseline cost,
as well as the incremental cost for the
walk-in component at efficiency levels
above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of costefficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are used in
downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and
PBP analyses and the NIA).
In section ES4.4 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
requested comment on the efficiency
levels considered in the analysis.
Specifically, DOE sought feedback on
whether the efficiency levels beyond the
baseline are appropriate, including the
maximum technology efficiency level.
a. Display Doors
The CA IOUs commented that, based
on its evaluation, the ratings in DOE’s
Compliance Certification Management
System Database (‘‘CCD’’) for display
doors are conservative. The CA IOUs
asserted that the ratings in CCD for
display doors should not be used as the
basis for establishing an updated energy
conservation standard because their
analysis suggests the ratings are
conservative. Rather, the CA IOUs
encouraged DOE to independently
evaluate the performance of
representative display doors in its
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66713
analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 7–8,
21)
In response, DOE notes that it did not
analyze higher efficiency levels for
display doors solely using data from
CCD, but rather conducted testing on
doors with varying glass pack designs.
See sections 5.6.1 and 5.7.1.1 of the
NOPR TSD for further discussion on
DOE’s methodology for developing the
baseline and higher efficiency energy
consumption characteristics for the
representative units of display doors
analyzed.
b. Refrigeration Systems
The CA IOUs stated that the AWEF
levels in CCD are based on the base
model of a product line rather than the
models that utilize higher efficiency
design options. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p.
3) The CA IOUs also commented that
DOE’s performance modeling in the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
underestimated the efficiency benefits
of the design options currently available
in the market. (Id.) The CA IOUs
recommended that DOE validate the
results of the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis by conducting testing on
representative examples of walk-in
refrigeration systems. (Id.)
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE used a design-option
approach for dedicated condensing
units and single-packaged dedicated
systems. 88 FR 60746, 60768. DOE’s
performance modeling of each design
option for dedicated condensing units
and single-packaged dedicated systems
in the September 2023 NOPR analysis
was developed with manufacturer
feedback through confidential
manufacturer interviews. Additionally,
DOE notes that is has validated its
results of the September 2023 NOPR
analysis through its own walk-in
refrigeration system testing. See section
5.7.2 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD
for details of the refrigeration systems
engineering analysis.
Furthermore, DOE used both an
efficiency-level approach and design
option approach for its analysis of unit
coolers, depending on equipment class.
88 FR 60746, 60768. DOE’s performance
modeling of medium- and lowtemperature unit coolers in the
September 2023 NOPR analysis was
based on the capacities certified in the
CCD, fan power data from product
literature, and the default defrost energy
use from AHRI 1250–2020 7 adjusted
7 Appendix C1 references industry test standard
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) Standard 1250–2020, 2020
Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers
and Freezers (‘‘AHRI 1250–2020’’).
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
66714
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
such that the lowest calculated AWEFs
match the current energy conservation
standard. DOE notes that while most of
the unit coolers in the CCD are rated at
baseline, when AWEF is calculated
using the data as described, many units
appear to have efficiencies above
baseline. DOE has tentatively
determined that the results of these
analyses are representative of the units
and technologies currently available on
the market. Details of the unit cooler
engineering analysis are discussed in
section 5.8 of the September 2023 NOPR
TSD.
Refrigerants Analyzed
The CA IOUs commented that it
expects that the use of R–404A to
estimate the performance of CO2-based
unit coolers (which DOE did in the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis) would result
in a similar AWEF to that of an AWEF
that was based on performance data of
CO2. However, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE use CO2 data in
its analysis to avoid confusion. The CA
IOUs stated that DOE should use
available CO2-specific data, request
information from manufacturers, and
derive EER curves using software tools.
(CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14)
DOE acknowledges that there is some
performance data available for CO2 unitcoolers. However, the CCD and
manufacturer product literature have
more data available for unit coolers that
use R–404A. In response to the
preliminary analysis, as discussed in the
September 2023 NOPR, HTPG
supported the use of R–404A to analyze
medium- and low-temperature unit
coolers. 88 FR 60746, 60779.
Additionally, as the CA IOUs stated, the
performance results of unit coolers
using R–404A and CO2 are similar. DOE
has tentatively concluded that using R–
404A as the refrigerant for the analysis
of medium- and low-temperature unit
coolers is representative of the unit
cooler market. Therefore, as discussed
in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE used
R–404A as the refrigerant in its analysis
of medium- and low-temperature unit
coolers. 88 FR 60746, 60780. Further,
DOE notes that the EERs used to
calculate unit cooler AWEF and AWEF2
are prescribed by the suction conditions
and EER table of the DOE test procedure
at section 3.4.14 of appendix C1. As
such, DOE did not consider alternative
EER curves in the September 2023
NOPR analysis.
Representative Units
In section 2.2 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE stated
that it has not seen condensate heaters
on any of the single-packaged dedicated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
systems that it has tested. When making
this statement in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE was referring
to pan heaters. In response, the CA IOUs
commented that they are aware of three
manufacturers of packaged systems that
currently offer a condensate heater
element and showed examples of unit
coolers that offer drain line heaters as
standard features or options. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at pp. 12–14) Additionally, the
CA IOUs stated that in specific
applications (e.g., meat and dairy
coolers) medium-temperature coolers
typically use condensate heaters. (Id. at
p. 12) Therefore, the CA IOUs
recommended that AWEF should
include an allocation for condensate
heater energy use. (Id.)
DOE has not encountered drain line
heaters on any of the single-packaged
dedicated systems or unit coolers that it
has tested and DOE expects that drain
line heaters would typically be provided
as an optional feature and installed by
a contractor. In the September 2023
NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated what it
considers to be ‘‘representative units’’ in
the market; therefore, DOE did not
evaluate units with drain line heaters.
DOE has encountered lowtemperature unit coolers with pan
heaters. In the September 2023 NOPR
analysis, DOE based the lowtemperature unit cooler defrost power
on the default defrost power
calculations in AHRI 1250–2020. See
section C10.2 of AHRI 1250–2020 for
details. These calculated power values
are representative of the power draw of
the entire unit cooler during a defrost
cycle. Additionally, the default defrost
power calculations in AHRI 1250–2020
include a set of calculations for units
with hot gas coil defrost and an electric
resistive pan heater. See section C10.1.2
of AHRI 1250–2020. As such, DOE has
tentatively determined that the AHRI
1250–2020 default power calculations
include representative pan heater power
consumption and that an allocation for
condensate heater energy use is not
warranted at this time.
Baseline Efficiency
For each equipment class, DOE
generally selects a baseline model as a
reference point for each class, and
measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards
against the baseline. The baseline model
in each equipment class represents the
characteristics of equipment typical of
that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that
just meets current energy conservation
standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
common or least efficient unit on the
market.
The CA IOUs stated that when DOE
updates a test procedure for equipment
already included in the DOE regulatory
program, DOE typically performs a
cross-walk analysis to ensure energy
conservation standards set using the
new test procedure do not result in
backsliding. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs commented that the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD does not
appear to include a cross-walk analysis
(Id.) The CA IOUs stated that, therefore,
its comments regarding the baseline
efficiency assumed the analysis
presented in the preliminary TSD was
based on the current test procedure at
appendix C to subpart R of 10 CFR part
431. (Id. at pp. 2–3) Based on this
assumption, the CA IOUs encouraged
DOE to align the baseline efficiency
level of all refrigeration systems with
the current minimum energy
conservation standards and indicated
which representative units they
interpreted as having efficiency levels
below the current minimum energy
conservation standards. Id.
Current energy conservation
standards for walk-in refrigeration
systems are in terms of the AWEF
metric and the energy conservation
standards proposed in the September
2023 NOPR use the AWEF2 metric. The
primary difference between these two
metrics is that AWEF2 includes offcycle power consumption.8 As
discussed in the September 2023 NOPR,
DOE set baseline efficiency levels for
dedicated condensing units with energy
conservation standards at the current
minimum standard level using the
appendix C test procedure (see
appendix C to subpart R to 10 CFR 431).
88 FR 60746, 60778. For example, for a
medium-temperature, outdoor dedicated
condensing unit, DOE determined
which technology options would just
meet the current AWEF standard of 7.6
Btu/(W-h) using the appendix C test
procedure. Id. Once each representative
unit had its baseline design options set,
DOE conducted the remainder of the
efficiency analysis using the appendix
C1 test procedure to determine AWEF2
values for each efficiency level,
including the baseline. Id. DOE notes
that in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, refrigeration system efficiency
values were labeled as AWEF; however,
all efficiency values calculated in
accordance with the appendix C1 test
8 The complete discussion of the differences
between these metrics can be found in the May
2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. 88 FR 28780,
28810.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
procedure were AWEF2 values, as
defined in appendix C1. Id.
The representative units that DOE
modeled in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis were based on actual units that
are certified at the currently applicable
minimum energy conservation
standards (i.e., baseline AWEF) in CCD.
To account for the differences between
AWEF and AWEF2, DOE determined
representative off-cycle power values for
each representative unit analyzed in the
September 2023 NOPR using product
catalogs and feedback from
manufacturer interviews.
Additionally, in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE proposed more stringent
energy conservation standards for the
majority of refrigeration system
equipment classes. 88 FR 60746, 60748–
60749. The only equipment classes with
standards proposed at the equivalent
current baseline in terms of the new
AWEF2 metric are medium-temperature
indoor dedicated condensing systems
with a capacity of less than 8,000 Btu/
h and low-temperature indoor dedicated
condensing systems with a capacity of
9,000 Btu/h. See section IV.C.1.d of the
September 2023 NOPR for further
discussion of the analysis based on
AWEF2.
Design Options
66715
analyzed improved condenser coils as a
design option for dedicated condensing
system equipment classes. See section
5.7.2.2 of the Preliminary Analysis TSD
for details of this analysis. Based on
information gathered during previous
rulemakings and feedback received
during the preliminary analysis
manufacturer interviews, DOE
determined representative improved
midpoint condensing temperatures for
the representative units analyzed. DOE
published the following table to
summarize the baseline and improved
condensing midpoint temperatures.
In chapter 5 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
TABLE II.1—WALK-IN REFRIGERATION SYSTEM CONDENSER COIL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (‘‘TD’’) ASSUMPTIONS
Temperature of
air entering
the condenser
coil
(°F)
Equipment class
SPU.H.I ............................................................................
DC/SPU.M.I ......................................................................
DC/SPU.L.I .......................................................................
SPU.H.O ..........................................................................
DC/SPU.M.O ....................................................................
DC/SPU.L.O .....................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
In response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE should review
the baseline and improved condensing
midpoint assumptions used for hightemperature single-packaged dedicated
systems, as the temperature differences
and ambient air temperatures do not
sum to equal the corresponding
midpoint temperature. (CA IOUs, No. 43
at p. 16)
DOE acknowledges that the baseline
and improved temperature differences
for high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated condensing systems were
incorrectly printed in table 5.7.13 in the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
For high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated condensing systems, the table
should have listed the baseline
temperature difference as 25 °F and the
improved temperature difference as
20 °F. These misprints only occurred in
this table and the correct values were
used in conducting the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis. Similarly, as
discussed in section 5.7.2.2 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE did
not use the incorrect values in the
September 2023 NOPR analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
Baseline
midpoint
(°F)
90
90
90
95
95
95
115
115
110
120
120
115
In the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE analyzed head pressure
controls as a design option for outdoor
dedicated condensing system
equipment classes. See section 5.7.2.7 of
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD
for details. Head pressure controls allow
outdoor condensing units’ head
pressure to ‘‘float’’ down to a minimum
condensing pressure as the ambient air
temperature falls. This allows the
compressor to operate more efficiently
and therefore reduces the power
consumption of the system without
reducing the capacity. As discussed in
section 5.7.2.7 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
evaluated two design options pertaining
to head pressure control for the
representative units of outdoor
dedicated condensing units and outdoor
single-packaged dedicated systems
analyzed. These two design options
were floating head pressure and floating
head pressure with an EEV.9 DOE
9 Systems equipped with an EEV could operate
with an even lower head pressure because the
greater flexibility of the electronic controls allows
an EEV to have a wider range of orifice open area
without leading to unstable operation in warm
ambient conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Baseline
TD
(°F)
Improved
midpoint
(°F)
20
25
20
20
25
20
110
110
105
115
115
110
Improved
TD
(°F)
15
20
15
15
20
15
assumed fixed head pressure would be
the baseline design. Based on
information collected during previous
rulemakings, DOE determined the
minimum condensing pressure
associated with these design options.
DOE converted all minimum
condensing pressures to minimum
condenser dewpoint temperatures so
that the values would be refrigerant
agnostic. DOE assumed this minimum
dewpoint would apply at the lowest
ambient rating condition—35 °F. At the
intermediate rating temperature of 59 °F,
DOE estimated the head pressure for
fixed and floating systems when using
a TXV based on testing results. DOE did
not have testing results for a system
with an EEV, so DOE calculated the
degree to which the pressure would
‘‘float’’ down based on an assumption
that the condenser TD would scale with
the capacity. DOE used test results and
scaling to estimate a minimum
dewpoint offset at 59 °F. Minimum
condensing dewpoints at the 35 °F C test
point and at the 59 °F B test point are
summarized in Table II.2.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
66716
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS HEAD PRESSURE CONTROL DESIGN OPTIONS
Design option description
Minimum condensing
dewpoint at 35 °F
(°F)
Minimum condensing
dewpoint at 59 °F
(°F)
101.5
85
67
104.4
86.7
85.9
Fixed head pressure ........................................................................................................................
Floating head pressure ....................................................................................................................
Floating head pressure with an electronic expansion valve ...........................................................
In addition to the minimum
condensing dewpoints imposed by head
pressure control strategies, different
compressor types have different
minimum condensing dewpoints. The
minimum condensing dewpoint
temperatures for hermetic, semihermetic, scroll and rotary compressors
used in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis are listed in Table II.3.
TABLE II.3—MINIMUM CONDENSING DEWPOINT TEMPERATURES BY COMPRESSOR TYPE USED IN THE JUNE 2022
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Minimum condensing
dewpoint temperature
(°F)
Compressor type
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Hermetic ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Semi-hermetic ......................................................................................................................................................................
Scroll ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Rotary ..................................................................................................................................................................................
In response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
stated that its interpretation of the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis assumed that
the minimum condensing pressure is
reached only at the 35 °F ambient C test
condition. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14)
The CA IOUs commented that in its
experience, the minimum condensing
pressure is reached anytime the ambient
temperature plus the condenser
temperature difference is less than the
minimum condensing temperature and
that the minimum condensing pressure
is ‘‘fixed’’ (i.e., does not change with
lower ambient temperatures) and that
controls and valves function to maintain
that pressure. (Id. at pp. 14–15).
Based on test data and feedback
during manufacturer interviews, DOE
tentatively concluded that the minimum
condensing dewpoint temperature can
be reached at ambient temperatures
above 35 °F. DOE determined the
condensing dewpoints at the B (59 °F)
and C (35 °F) test points considering the
minimum condensing dewpoint
allowed by the floating head pressure
controls and compressor type of the
representative unit as well as the
minimum condensing temperature
necessary to achieve a sufficient
condenser temperature difference. The
details of this analysis can be found in
section 5.7.2.7 of the September 2023
NOPR TSD.
Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that
generally, fixed head pressure systems
have minimum condensing dewpoint
temperatures of 95 °F to 120 °F and that
adding floating head pressure controls
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
with TXVs to these systems allows
minimum condensing dewpoint
temperatures of 70 °F to 85 °F and
changing the TXVs for EEVs on systems
with floating head pressure controls
allows temperatures of 55 °F to 70 °F.
(CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14) The CA IOUs
stated that minimum condensing
dewpoint temperature for lowtemperature systems can be lower than
those for medium-temperature systems.
Id. DOE determined the minimum
condensing dewpoint temperature for
the September 2023 NOPR analysis
using feedback from confidential
manufacturer interviews. DOE
aggregated this feedback and tentatively
determined that 72 °F is a representative
minimum condensing dewpoint for the
walk-in industry as a whole. During
interviews, manufacturers indicated that
this was a standard design on all walkin condensing systems and that this
minimum condensing dewpoint
temperature could be achieved by
systems using TXVs, therefore DOE did
not consider an additional step down in
pressure associated with EEVs. Based on
testing results, DOE tentatively
determined that most dedicated
condensing systems would need this
floating head pressure design option to
achieve the current AWEF standards.
Feedback from the most recent round of
manufacturer interviews confirmed this.
As such DOE considered floating head
pressure controls as the baseline design
option for all dedicated condensing
system representative units in the
September 2023 NOPR analysis and did
not consider floating head pressure
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85
67
67
67
controls with an EEV as a design option.
See section 5.7.2.7 of the September
2023 NOPR TSD for details of this
analysis.
Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that
the minimum condensing dewpoints
allowed by the compressor operating
envelopes in DOE’s June 2022
Preliminary Analysis are too high and
provided examples of semi-hermetic
compressors with lower minimum
condensing dewpoints. (CA IOUs, No.
43 at p. 15)
Information obtained during previous
rulemakings and manufacturer feedback
received during the most recent
interviews indicated that the operating
envelope of hermetic reciprocating
compressors would limit the minimum
condensing dewpoint further. As such,
DOE set the minimum condensing
dewpoint for hermetic compressors at
85 °F. DOE acknowledges that the
published operating envelope of semihermetic, scroll, and rotary compressors
may allow for condensing dewpoints
lower than 72 °F. However,
manufacturers indicated that in spite of
the lower dewpoints published in
compressor literature, they and their
customers have concerns about the
potential system reliability issues. The
72 °F is representative of the lowest dew
point levels used for rating purposes by
manufacturers. In many cases this level
can be adjusted in the field, and it often
is set higher. As such, DOE did not
consider condensing dewpoints lower
than 72 °F in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis. The floating head pressure
design option is discussed in more
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
detail in section 5.7.2.7 of chapter 5 of
the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
use the minimum condensing midpoint
instead of the minimum condensing
dewpoint in its analysis when
discussing floating head pressure
control. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 15) As
discussed in section 5.5.3.1 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE used
the compressor model described in
section 6.4 of AHRI Standard 540–2004,
‘‘Performance Rating of Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors
and Compressor Units’’ to determine
compressor power consumption and
mass flow at each test condition. This
model requires condensing dewpoint,
rather than mid-point, as an input.
Therefore, DOE used condensing
dewpoint to characterize the floating
head pressure design option.
In the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE did not analyze on-cycle
evaporator fan control as a design
option because DOE had tentatively
determined that variable-capacity
compressors are a prerequisite for oncycle evaporator fan controls to be
effective. DOE did not analyze variablecapacity compressors as a design option
in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
because it had insufficient data at the
time to analyze them. See section
5.7.2.13 of the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis TSD.
In response, the CA IOUs agreed that
on-cycle evaporator fan controls are
most effective when paired with
variable-capacity compressors, but
referenced methods of fan control that
could provide efficiency benefits
without a multiple- or variable-capacity
compressor. Therefore, the CA IOUs
suggested that evaporator fan on-cycle
control should be evaluated as a design
option for single-packaged dedicated
systems without a multiple- or variablecapacity compressor. (CA IOUs, No. 43
at p. 9) The CA IOUs provided two
examples of how evaporator fan control
could result in energy savings: (1)
setting fan speed using refrigerant liquid
temperature change across the
expansion valve; and (2) setting fan
speed based on walk-in interior
temperature and refrigerant coil
temperature using an electronic
expansion valve (‘‘EEV’’) to control
superheat. Id. Further, the CA IOUs
commented that evaporator fans
included in a walk-in system are based
on ambient design conditions, which
may only occur a few days per year and
provided an example of a unit cooler
that has evaporator fans running below
full load for a majority of the time. (Id.
at pp. 9–10)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
DOE interprets the first fan control
method described in the CA IOUs
comment to be a reduction in fan power
when the liquid line solenoid closes,
indicating the compressor is cycling off.
DOE considered off-cycle fan control for
single-packaged dedicated systems in
the September 2023 NOPR analysis,
discussed in detail in section 5.7.2.8 of
the September 2023 NOPR TSD. Based
on the description of the second fan
control method described in the CA
IOUs comment, DOE has tentatively
determined that when operating in a test
chamber held at a constant temperature
(consistent with the test procedure
approach of testing with constant
evaporator inlet air condition or
constant condensing unit suction inlet
condition) such a control system would
not trigger any reduction in fan speed.
Therefore, when tested according to the
DOE test procedure in appendix C1 to
10 CFR part 431 subpart R (‘‘appendix
C1’’) a single-packaged dedicated
system equipped with this evaporator
fan control system would not have an
improved efficiency. In addition, DOE
notes that the figure provided as an
example in the CA IOUs’ comment
shows condenser fan run time, not
evaporator fan run time. DOE did
consider on-cycle condenser fan
controls in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60767.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
DOE analyzed permanent-split capacitor
(‘‘PSC’’) and ECM motors as design
options for improved condenser fan
motors, and did not analyze improved
evaporator fan motors as a design
option. See sections 5.7.2.4 and 5.7.2.11
of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
TSD. In response, the CA IOUs
commented that DOE should consider
permanent magnet AC (‘‘PMS’’) motors
as the maximum-technologicallyfeasible design option for unit cooler fan
motors and as a technology option for
condensing unit fan motors. The CA
IOUs cited examples of how PMS motor
efficiency compares with ECM
efficiency, specifically stating that PMS
motors can offer an average of 17–27
percent energy savings over ECMs for
unit cooler fan motors and 40 percent
savings over permanent-split capacitor
(‘‘PSC’’) motors that are mostly installed
in condensing units. The CA IOUs
stated that several utility and efficiency
organizations offer rebate programs to
upgrade ECMs with PMS motors.
However, the CA IOUs stated that PMS
motors are not available in new
equipment and that it was only aware of
one manufacturer offering PMS motors.
(CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 11–12)
EPCA governs permissible evaporator
and condenser fan motors in walk-ins
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66717
(42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(E) and (F)). For
condenser fan motors under 1
horsepower (‘‘HP’’), EPCA prescribes
the use of either ECMs, permanent split
capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) type motors, or 3phase motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(F))
DOE only analyzed one representative
unit with condenser fan motors equal to
or greater than 1 HP in the September
2023 NOPR analysis, which did not
include a permanent magnet AC motor.
Given that EPCA does not allow the use
of any other motor types for motors
under 1 horsepower, DOE did not
consider permanent magnet AC motors
as a design option for condenser fan
motors.
For evaporator fan motors under 1 HP,
EPCA prescribes the use of either ECMs
or 3-phase motors. (42 U.S.C.
6313(f)(1)(E)) DOE has adopted this
requirement in its regulations at 10 CFR
431.306(a)(5)(i)–(ii). DOE has
encountered commercially available
motor technologies that may perform
more efficiently than the ECMs already
required by the prescriptive standard.
However, consistent with the EPCA
requirements and existing regulations,
DOE did not include them in its
September 2023 NOPR analysis. See
section 5.7.2.11 of the September 2023
NOPR TSD. Additionally, DOE notes
that all evaporator fan powers are under
the 1 HP threshold for the representative
units analyzed at the proposed standard
levels in the September 2023 NOPR.
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
for walk-ins. The effect of new or
amended energy conservation standards
on individual consumers usually
involves a reduction in operating cost
and an increase in purchase cost. DOE
used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
66718
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case,
which reflects the estimated efficiency
distribution of walk-ins in the absence
of new or amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured
relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level
in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a
nationally representative set of
commercial consumers. As stated
previously, DOE developed household
samples from the 2018 Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(‘‘CBECS’’).10 For each sample, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
the walk-ins and the appropriate energy
price. By developing a representative
sample of commercial consumers, the
analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of walk-ins.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
product—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes—
and installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, product
lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE
created distributions of values for
product lifetime, discount rates, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to
calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate
uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations
randomly sample input values from the
probability distributions and walk-ins
user samples. The model calculated the
LCC for products at each efficiency level
per simulation run. The analytical
results include a distribution of 30,000
data points for refrigeration systems and
10,000 data points for envelope
components, showing the range of LCC
savings for a given efficiency level
relative to the no-new-standards case
efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation
for a given consumer, product efficiency
is chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC
calculation reveals that a consumer is
not impacted by the standard level. By
accounting for consumers who already
purchase more-efficient products, DOE
avoids overstating the potential benefits
from increasing product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for
consumers of walk-ins as if each were
to purchase a new product in the
expected year of required compliance
with new or amended standards.
Amended standards would apply to
walk-ins manufactured three years after
the date on which any new or amended
standard is published. (42 U.S.C.
6313(f)(5)(B)(i)) At this time, DOE
estimates publication of a final rule in
2024; therefore, for purposes of its
analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year
of compliance with any amended
standards for walk-ins.
Table II.4 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
subsections that follow provide further
discussion. Details of the spreadsheet
model, and of all the inputs to the LCC
and PBP analyses, are contained in
chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR
TSD and its appendices.
TABLE II.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2023 NOPR LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Product Cost .........................................
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs.
Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency
level.
The total annual energy use multiplied by the buildings containing WICF. Variability: Based on the
CBECS 2018.
Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2021. Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 9
divisions.
Based on AEO2023 price projections.
Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Average: between 9 and 12 years.
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the
considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve
Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
2027.
Installation Costs ..................................
Annual Energy Use ..............................
Energy Prices .......................................
Energy Price Trends ............................
Repair and Maintenance Costs ............
Product Lifetime ...................................
Discount Rates .....................................
Compliance Date ..................................
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in
chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1. Consumer Sample
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR DOE conducts its analysis in
support of a potential new minimum
efficiency standard at the National level.
This means that DOE must distribute its
sample of consumers of walk-in
equipment throughout the Nation to
capture variability of key inputs of
walk-ins operation. Specifically, for the
annual energy use estimate, DOE is
concerned about distributing the
population of walk-in installations
across different regions to capture
variability in equipment installation
saturations and electricity prices, which
will impact the operating cost of the
equipment. This distribution of
installations is referred to as the
‘‘consumer sample.’’
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE
revise the distribution of weights of
WICF equipment by sector. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at pp. 18–19)
As stated in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE used data supplied by
10 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
2018, 2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
66719
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
NOPR here in Table II.5 through Table
II.7.11 These weights show that
dedicated condensing systems are
evenly spread across all sectors, with
small business sectors limited to smaller
capacity equipment. Additionally,
AHRI and CBECS to estimate the
number of walk-in installations by
sector and Census Division. 88 FR
60746, 60792. The weights of each
representative unit by sector are
repeated from the September 2023
single-packaged dedicated condensing
systems are limited to the small
business sectors and concentrated in the
food service sector.
TABLE II.5—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS
[%]
Sector
Capacity
(kBtu/hr)
Equipment class
Cat.
DC.L.I ..................................
Size
Other ..............
Sales ..............
Service ...........
DC.L.O .................................
Other ..............
Sales ..............
Service ...........
DC.M.I .................................
Other ..............
Sales ..............
Service ...........
DC.M.O ................................
Other ..............
Sales ..............
Service ...........
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
3
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
9
23
1
4
3
5
7
7
0
1
1
1
2
* 12
*1
*2
*2
*3
*4
*3
*0
*1
*0
*1
*1
25
18
1
3
3
4
6
25
2
4
4
6
8
30
2
5
4
6
9
30
2
5
4
7
9
54
4
0
1
1
1
1
7
0
1
1
1
2
7
0
1
1
1
2
9
1
2
1
2
3
10
0
2
0
2
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
75
124
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
14
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
6
0
1
0
1
0
* For the September 2023 NOPR DOE did not consider the impacts of representative units DC.M.I and DC.M.O at the 3 kBtu/hr capacity (see
the Representative Units subsection of section IV.C.1.d of the September 2023 NOPR 88 FR 60746, 60780). However, these capacities persist
within the consumer sample as they are still distributed in commerce, and the impacts for the fraction of these equipment must be accounted for
when determining overall costs and benefits for DC.M.I and DC.M.O as equipment classes even if efficiency improvements are not being considered for these specific capacities.
TABLE II.6—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS
[%]
Sector
Capacity
(kBtu/hr)
Equipment class
Cat.
SP.H.I ...................................
Size
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
SP.H.ID ................................
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Service .................................
SP.H.O .................................
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
SP.H.OD ..............................
Other ....................................
11 A full breakdown of the consumer sample
showing the distribution of equipment by Census
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
2
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
6
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Division can be found in appendix 8E of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
78
0
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
66720
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.6—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS—Continued
[%]
Sector
Capacity
(kBtu/hr)
Equipment class
Cat.
Size
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
SP.L.I ...................................
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
SP.L.O .................................
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
SP.M.I ..................................
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
SP.M.O ................................
Other ....................................
Sales ....................................
Service .................................
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
2
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
...................................
....................................
0
0
0
0
22
0
9
0
19
0
41
0
3
0
7
0
15
0
3
0
6
0
14
0
1
0
2
0
3
6
7
9
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
0
4
0
9
0
18
0
9
0
21
0
45
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
0
0
0
0
78
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
0
10
0
22
0
46
0
12
0
26
0
56
54
75
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
14
1
3
2
3
5
8
0
1
1
2
2
7
0
1
1
2
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
1
2
2
10
1
2
2
2
TABLE II.7—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—UNIT COOLERS
[%]
Sector
Capacity
(kBtu/hr)
Equipment class
Cat.
UC.H.I * .........................
Size
Other ............................
Sales ............................
Service .........................
UC.H.ID ........................
Other ............................
Sales ............................
Service .........................
UC.L.I ............................
Other ............................
Sales ............................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Service .........................
UC.L.M ..........................
Other ............................
Sales ............................
Service .........................
UC.L.O ..........................
Other ............................
Sales ............................
Service .........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
3
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
18
1
3
3
4
6
2
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
1
1
1
Sfmt 4702
9
25
0
0
0
0
30
43
0
0
0
0
30
43
16
1
3
2
3
5
21
0
4
0
5
0
22
1
4
3
5
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
0
0
0
0
11
16
0
0
0
0
11
16
4
0
1
1
1
1
28
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
1
1
2
28SEP1
66721
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.7—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—UNIT COOLERS—Continued
[%]
Sector
Capacity
(kBtu/hr)
Equipment class
Cat.
UC.M.I ...........................
Size
Other ............................
Sales ............................
Service .........................
UC.M.M .........................
Other ............................
Sales ............................
Service .........................
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
Large
Small
3
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
9
2
10
1
2
1
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
25
7
27
2
5
4
6
9
29
0
5
0
6
0
54
2
8
1
1
1
2
2
19
0
3
0
4
0
75
2
7
0
1
1
1
2
8
0
1
1
2
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
1
2
2
* For unit coolers, the index I, O, and M indicate that the unit cooler is connected to an Indoor, Outdoor, or Multiplex condensing system.
2. Equipment Lifetime
When determining lifetimes, DOE
calculates a Weibull distribution of
potential lifetimes from average and
maximum lifetime for the different
types of equipment under consideration.
In response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
suggested alternative lifetime estimates
for walk-ins. As published data on
WICF lifetimes are unavailable, the CA
IOUs’ lifetime estimates were sourced
from technician interviews from a
mechanical engineering firm. The stated
lifetimes differ from those used by DOE
in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis,12
and September 2023 NOPR (88 FR
60746, 60798), and are shown in Table
II.8 for comparison. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at
pp. 17–18)
TABLE II.8—ESTIMATED WICF LIFETIMES
[Years]
DOE
Equipment category
Average
(years)
Panels ..............................................................................................................
Display Doors ..................................................................................................
Non-display Doors ...........................................................................................
Indoor Dedicated Condensing Systems ..........................................................
Outdoor Condensing Systems .........................................................................
Medium Temperature Unit Coolers .................................................................
Low Temperature Unit Coolers .......................................................................
Sigle-packaged Condensing Systems .............................................................
CA IOU
Maximum
(years)
12
12
8.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
Average
(years)
25
25
12
20
20
20
20
20
20
7
10
12
6
17
17
* 12
Maximum
(years)
25
15
15
15
15
20
15–20
* 15
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
* Indicates that an estimate was not available, however commenters indicated that lifetimes would be like indoor-dedicated condensing
systems.
The CA IOUs’ comment did not
indicate if their interviewees were
referencing lifetimes of walk-ins in the
National scope or only California. DOE
also notes that the very close average
and maximum lifetime values for
panels, indoor dedicated condensing
systems, and unit coolers (medium-, and
low-temperature) to be unlikely. DOE’s
lifetimes were initially determined in
response to comments for the June 2014
Final Rule (79 FR 32086). Other than the
information provided by the CA IOUs,
DOE received comment from AHRI in
response to the July 2021 RFI in support
of the existing lifetimes. (AHRI, No. 16
at p. 15) Given some of DOE’s questions
about the CA IOUs supplied lifetimes,
DOE tentatively determined to maintain
its use of the lifetimes from the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis in the
September 2023 NOPR. DOE welcomes
additional information on this topic in
response to the September 2023 NOPR.
12 See: June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Executive
Summary, p. ES–20, June 2022
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0009-0024.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
E. Conclusion
As discussed in the preceding
sections, DOE has considered the
comments provided by the CA IOUs in
response to the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis. This document provides
responses to the CA IOUs’ comments
that were not included in the September
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2023 NOPR, but does not change the
analysis or proposals presented in the
NOPR. DOE welcomes comment on the
information presented in the September
2023 NOPR, including the additional
comment summaries and responses
presented in this notification.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
DOE has concluded that the tentative
determinations made pursuant to the
various procedural requirements
applicable to the September 2023 NOPR
remain unchanged for this notification.
These tentative determinations are set
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
66722
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
forth in the September 2023 NOPR. 88
FR 60746, 60855–60861.
this proposed rule since it was
published in 2016.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
COMMISSION
IV. Public Participation
Please refer to section VII of the
September 2023 NOPR for information
regarding the public webinar,
submission of comments, and issues on
which DOE seeks comment. 88 FR
60746, 60861–60863. DOE additionally
welcomes comment on the information
presented in this notification.
DATES:
As of September 28, 2023, the
proposed rule published on April 13,
2016, at 81 FR 21775, is withdrawn.
18 CFR Part 401
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notification of data
availability regarding energy
conservation standards.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on September 21,
2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September
25, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023–21190 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1025
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2016–0006]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Rules of Practice for Adjudicative
Proceedings
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Consumer Product Safety
Commission is withdrawing its
proposed rule to update the
Commission’s Rules of Practice for
Adjudicative Proceedings because the
Commission has not taken any action on
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Sep 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Vice, Office of the General
Counsel, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301–
504–6996; dvice@cpsc.gov.
Under the
Administrative Procedure Act,
adjudications required by a statute to be
determined on the record after an
opportunity for an agency hearing are
subject to certain procedural
requirements. 5 U.S.C. 554. In 1980, the
Commission adopted Rules of Practice
for Adjudicative Proceedings (Rules) to
govern such Commission proceedings.
16 CFR part 1025.
On April 13, 2016, the Commission
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) to update the Rules. 81 FR 21775.
The Commission proposed to modernize
the Rules to reflect changes in civil and
administrative litigation and revisions
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Federal Rules of Evidence since
adoption of the Rules. The Commission
received four comments on the
proposed rule.
In November 2019, Commission staff
sent to the Commission a draft
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPR). The draft SNPR
proposed additional changes to the
Rules in light of comments received on
the NPR and the Commission’s
experience with adjudicative
proceedings since publication of the
NPR. The Commission did not take any
action on the draft SNPR.
Because the Commission has not
taken action on this proposed rule since
2016, the Commission is terminating
this proceeding.1 In the future, the
Commission may consider revisions to
the Rules in light of its experience with
agency adjudications and relevant
circumstances including changes to
rules for Federal judicial proceedings.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Elina Lingappa,
Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023–21165 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
1 On September 19, 2023, the Commission voted
4–0 to publish this termination of rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Rules of Practice and Procedure
Delaware River Basin
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
public hearing.
AGENCY:
The Commission proposes to
amend its Rules of Practice and
Procedure to: resolve ambiguities
around the automatic termination of
project approvals issued by the
Commission; make conforming
amendments to related provisions as
appropriate; update the Commission’s
Water Resources Program and Project
Review procedures to better conform
them to current practice; remove
references to the Federal Freedom of
Information Act that create confusion
about the regulations applicable to
requests for Commission public records;
and align pronouns with the
Commission’s policies regarding
diversity, inclusion, and belonging.
DATES:
Written comments: Written comments
will be accepted through 5 p.m. on
Thursday, November 30, 2023.
Public hearings: Public hearings will
be held remotely via Zoom on the
following dates at the noted times.
Details about accessing the hearings are
available on the Commission’s website,
www.drbc.gov.
1. November 13, 2023, 1:30 p.m. to no
later than 4 p.m.
2. November 13, 2023, 6:30 p.m. to no
later than 9 p.m.
ADDRESSES:
To submit written comments: Written
comments will be accepted until 5 p.m.
on Thursday, November 30, 2023
through the Commission’s online public
comment collection system at: https://
hearing.drbc.commentinput.com?id=
T95htQGAg. To request an exception
from use of the online system based on
lack of access to the internet, please
contact: Commission Secretary, DRBC,
P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628.
To register to speak at public
hearings: Although attendance at the
hearings is not limited and requires no
registration, those who wish to provide
oral comment at a hearing must register
in advance to do so. Registration will be
through Zoom. Links to the Zoom
registration for each of the public
hearing dates and times are posted at
www.drbc.gov. Online registration will
remain open until 5 p.m. on the day
prior to the hearing date or until all
available speaking slots have been
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66710-66722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21190]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66710]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]
RIN 1905-AD79
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability regarding energy conservation
standards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 5, 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), in which DOE
proposed amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers. (``September 2023 NOPR'') In this notification, DOE
is summarizing and addressing comments that were considered but not
discussed in the September 2023 NOPR.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
the September 2023 NOPR as supplemented by this notice of data
availability no later than November 6, 2023.
Meeting: DOE is holding a public meeting regarding the September
2023 NOPR via webinar on Wednesday, September 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m.
to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar
registration information, participant instructions and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments
regarding the September 2023 NOPR as supplemented by this notice of
data availability using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0009, by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EERE-
2017-BT-STD-0009 in the subject line of the message.
Non-electronic submissions: Please contact (202) 287-1445 for
instructions if an electronic copy cannot be submitted.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section IV of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Troy Watson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion
A. General
B. Market and Technology Assessment
C. Engineering Analysis
a. Display Doors
b. Refrigeration Systems
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Equipment Lifetime
E. Conclusion
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
IV. Public Participation
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers \3\
(hereafter referred to as ``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs''), the subject of
this notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\3\ Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are defined as an
enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors,
and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures,
respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can
be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than
3,000 square feet; however, the terms do not include products
designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or
research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current energy conservation standards for walk-ins are set
forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.306. Rather than establishing
standards for complete walk-in systems, DOE has established standards
for the principal components that make up a walk-in (i.e., doors,
panels, and refrigeration systems). The current energy conservation
standards for walk-in doors are in terms of maximum daily energy
consumption, which is measured in kWh/day (see Table I.1). The current
energy conservation standards for walk-in panels are in terms of R-
value, which
[[Page 66711]]
is measured in h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu (see Table I.2). The current energy
conservation standards for refrigeration systems are in terms of annual
walk-in energy factor (``AWEF''), which is measured in Btu/(W-h) (see
Table I.3).
Table I.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezer Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equations for maximum daily energy consumption (kWh/
Equipment class day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display door, medium-temperature....................... 0.04 x Add + 0.41.
Display door, low-temperature.......................... 0.15 x Add + 0.29.
Passage door, medium-temperature....................... 0.05 x And + 1.7.
Passage door, low-temperature.......................... 0.14 x And + 4.8.
Freight door, medium-temperature....................... 0.04 x And + 1.9.
Freight door, low-temperature.......................... 0.12 x And + 5.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add or And = surface area of the display door or non-display door, respectively, expressed in ft\2\, as
determined in appendix A to subpart R of 10 CFR part 431.
Table I.2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and
Walk-In Freezer Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum R-value (h-
Equipment class ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall or ceiling panels, medium-temperature........ 25
Wall or ceiling panels, low-temperature........... 32
Floor panels, low-temperature..................... 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.3--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezer Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Minimum AWEF (Btu/W-h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated condensing system, medium-temperature, indoor 5.61.
Dedicated condensing system, medium-temperature, 7.60.
outdoor.
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, indoor 9.091 x 10-\5\ x qnet + 1.81.
with a net capacity (qnet) of <6,500 British thermal
units per hour (``Btu/h'').
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, indoor 2.40.
with a net capacity (qnet) of >=6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, outdoor 6.522 x 10-\5\ x qnet + 2.73.
with a net capacity (qnet) of <6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, outdoor 3.15.
with a net capacity (qnet) of >=6,500 Btu/h.
Unit cooler, medium-temperature........................ 9.00.
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with a net 1.575 x 10-\5\ x qnet + 3.91.
capacity (qnet) of <15,500 Btu/h.
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with a net 4.15.
capacity (qnet) of >=15,500 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where qnet is net capacity as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and certified in accordance with 10
CFR part 429.
To evaluate whether to propose amendments to the energy
conservation standards for walk-ins, DOE issued a request for
information (``RFI'') in the Federal Register on July 16, 2021 (``July
2021 RFI''). 86 FR 37687. In the July 2021 RFI, DOE sought data,
information, and comment pertaining to walk-ins. 86 FR 37687, 37689.
DOE subsequently announced the availability of the preliminary analysis
it had conducted for the purpose of evaluating the need for amending
the current energy conservation standards for walk-ins in the Federal
Register on June 30, 2022, (``June 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). The
analysis was set forth in the Department's accompanying preliminary
technical support document (``TSD''). The June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis summarized and addressed the comments received in response to
the July 2021 RFI in chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
TSD. DOE held a public meeting via webinar to discuss and receive
comment on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on July 22, 2022. The
meeting covered the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE
used to evaluate potential standards; the results of the preliminary
analyses performed by DOE; the potential energy conservation standard
levels derived from those analyses; and other relevant issues.
In a test procedure final rule published May 4, 2023 (``May 2023 TP
Final Rule''), DOE amended the test procedures for walk-in components.
DOE also established a new appendix, appendix C1 to subpart R
(``appendix C1''), and a new energy metric, AWEF2, for refrigeration
systems. (See 88 FR 28780 and 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C1.)
Manufacturers would be required to begin using appendix C1 as of the
compliance date of an energy conservation standards promulgated as a
result of this rulemaking.
On September 5, 2023, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register, regarding energy conservation standards for
walk-in coolers and freezers (``September 2023 NOPR''). 88 FR 60746.
Specifically, DOE proposed amended standards for walk-in non-display
doors and walk-in refrigeration systems based on the amended or new
test procedures adopted in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. For
refrigeration systems, DOE proposed amended standards in terms of the
AWEF2 metric based on appendix C1. The September 2023 NOPR summarized
and addressed comments received in response to the
[[Page 66712]]
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. However, comments from one interested
party, listed in Table I.4 of this document, were considered in
developing the September 2023 NOPR, but were not summarized and
discussed in the NOPR.
Table I.4--June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments Omitted in the September 2023 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment number
Commenter(s) Abbreviation in the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CA IOUs.................... 43 Utilities.
Southern California Gas Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison; (collectively
referred to as the ``California
Investor-Owned Utilities'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0009, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that it also received comments in response to the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis in the form of confidential business
information from two stakeholders, which have been restricted on the
public docket.\5\ To the extent that these stakeholders provided
confidential information, DOE did not address those comments directly
due to the confidential nature of the comments received. However, DOE
considered these confidential comments in its analysis presented in the
September 2023 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE received comments marked as confidential business
information from Anthony International (see EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-
0040) and Lennox International (see EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
This section summarizes the comments received from the CA IOUs and
provides DOE's responses that were not addressed in the September 2023
NOPR. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses on
which DOE has received comment from the CA IOUs.
A. General
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider linear AWEF energy
conservation standards for refrigeration systems that vary with
capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 3) The CA IOUs stated that
refrigeration efficiency typically increases with system capacity and
pointed to the energy conservation standards for Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment and Automatic Commercial Ice Makers, which are
dependent on capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs further provided examples
supporting its assertion that efficiency increases with capacity for
both dedicated condensing units and unit coolers. Specifically, the CA
IOUs showed examples of standard options offered for model lines of
medium- and low-temperature unit coolers; these examples show a larger
capacity model line that is available with several options that are not
available as standard features for the smaller capacity model line,
including electronic expansion valves (``EEVs''), evaporator fan
control boards, variable-speed electronically commutated fan motors
(``ECMs''), and electronic controller systems that offer on-cycle
evaporator fan controls and adaptive defrost capability. (Id. at pp. 3-
4) The CA IOUs also included in its comment examples of dedicated
condensing system model lines that showed higher cooling efficiencies
(in terms of energy efficiency ratio (``EER'')) for larger capacity
systems. (Id. at p. 4) The CA IOUs also pointed to the baseline AWEFs
presented in the preliminary analysis TSD, which increased with
capacity. (Id. at pp. 5-7)
In its analysis for the September 2023 NOPR, DOE evaluated the
economics of each efficiency level for each representative unit, which
indicated that more stringent standards were generally economically
justified for larger units. Therefore, DOE proposed standards that
varied with capacity for many refrigeration system equipment classes in
the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 60746, 60748-60749. The proposed
standards are summarized in section I of the September 2023 NOPR.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE develops information
in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall
picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the
purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market
characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. 88 FR 60746,
60760. 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 include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking
and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3)
existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and
industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could
improve the energy efficiency of walk-ins.
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE considered separate
technology options for whole walk-ins, doors, and panels, and
refrigeration systems. 88 FR 60746, 60764-60765. In the preliminary
market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 16 technology
options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of
refrigeration systems. DOE requested comment on the technology options
in section ES.4.2 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In
response, the CA IOUs suggested several modifications to the technology
options analyzed by DOE in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8)
In section 5.7.2.1 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis TSD, DOE stated that at the time, it lacked data on the
performance of multiple-capacity and variable-capacity compressors, but
DOE intended to collect more data to evaluate these compressors as
design options for the NOPR analysis. In response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs commented that they support the
evaluation of variable-capacity compressors as a design option. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE request full EER
curves of amperage versus capacity for variable-capacity compressors
from manufacturers. (Id.) The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE perform
testing to record the efficiency gains of variable-capacity compressors
and evaluate the reduction in compressor cycling and improved ability
of the
[[Page 66713]]
compressor to match the system cooling loads. (Id. at pp. 8-9)
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE analyzed variable-
capacity compressors for low- and medium-temperature refrigeration
systems and assumed that the system was redesigned to take advantage of
the variable-capacity compressor. 88 FR 60746, 60776. However, DOE was
unable to obtain performance data from manufacturers as recommended by
the CA IOUs, and therefore based the variable-capacity design option
performance on its test data. Additional details of the variable-
capacity compressor design option implementation in the NOPR analysis
can be found in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NOPR TSD can be found in the docket at regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed floating head
pressure and floating head pressure with an EEV as design options for
outdoor dedicated condensing units. See section 5.7.2.7 of the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response to the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE analyze EEVs as a technology
option separate from floating head pressure. (Ca IOUs, No. 43 at p. 10)
The CA IOUs provided an example where the use of an EEV rather than a
thermostatic expansion valve (``TXV'') saved energy by reducing cycling
losses where the TXV ``hunts'' for the optimal opening range. (Id.)
Further, the CA IOUs commented that EEVs allow for more precise
superheat control over TXVs, which could improve energy efficiency.
(Id. at p. 10)
DOE notes that the tests conducted as part of the test procedures
in appendix C1 are steady-state tests. Because of this, DOE has
tentatively concluded that a test performed with a TXV would result in
the same measured efficiency as a test of the same unit performed with
an EEV. DOE acknowledges that a unit cooler installed with an EEV may
be able to achieve more capacity for a given suction condition given
that EEVs can achieve less superheat than a TXV would be able to.
Considering feedback received during manufacturer interviews, DOE has
tentatively concluded that manufacturers would not recommend a lower
superheat value for unit coolers installed with an EEV rather than a
TXV. Additionally, DOE notes that Figure 8 presented in the CA IOUs
comment shows that at the steady-state operation that is the basis of
test procedures, systems equipped with TXVs are no less efficient than
systems equipped with EEVs. As such DOE has tentatively concluded that
when performing a valid refrigeration system test according to the DOE
test procedure, replacing a TXV with an EEV would not improve measured
efficiency. For this reason, DOE did not analyze EEVs as a standalone
technology in the September 2023 NOPR analysis. See section 5.7.2.7 of
the September 2023 NOPR TSD for discussion of how DOE considered head
pressure control in the analysis.
See chapter 3 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD for further discussion
of the market and technology assessment.
C. Engineering Analysis
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, the purpose of the
engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the
efficiency and cost of each component of walk-ins (e.g., doors, panels,
and refrigeration systems). 88 FR 60746, 60767. There are two elements
to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency
levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and the
determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
walk-ins, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each walk-in component
equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the walk-in component at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
In section ES4.4 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
requested comment on the efficiency levels considered in the analysis.
Specifically, DOE sought feedback on whether the efficiency levels
beyond the baseline are appropriate, including the maximum technology
efficiency level.
a. Display Doors
The CA IOUs commented that, based on its evaluation, the ratings in
DOE's Compliance Certification Management System Database (``CCD'') for
display doors are conservative. The CA IOUs asserted that the ratings
in CCD for display doors should not be used as the basis for
establishing an updated energy conservation standard because their
analysis suggests the ratings are conservative. Rather, the CA IOUs
encouraged DOE to independently evaluate the performance of
representative display doors in its analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp.
7-8, 21)
In response, DOE notes that it did not analyze higher efficiency
levels for display doors solely using data from CCD, but rather
conducted testing on doors with varying glass pack designs. See
sections 5.6.1 and 5.7.1.1 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion on
DOE's methodology for developing the baseline and higher efficiency
energy consumption characteristics for the representative units of
display doors analyzed.
b. Refrigeration Systems
The CA IOUs stated that the AWEF levels in CCD are based on the
base model of a product line rather than the models that utilize higher
efficiency design options. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also
commented that DOE's performance modeling in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis underestimated the efficiency benefits of the design options
currently available in the market. (Id.) The CA IOUs recommended that
DOE validate the results of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis by
conducting testing on representative examples of walk-in refrigeration
systems. (Id.)
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE used a design-option
approach for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated
systems. 88 FR 60746, 60768. DOE's performance modeling of each design
option for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated
systems in the September 2023 NOPR analysis was developed with
manufacturer feedback through confidential manufacturer interviews.
Additionally, DOE notes that is has validated its results of the
September 2023 NOPR analysis through its own walk-in refrigeration
system testing. See section 5.7.2 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD for
details of the refrigeration systems engineering analysis.
Furthermore, DOE used both an efficiency-level approach and design
option approach for its analysis of unit coolers, depending on
equipment class. 88 FR 60746, 60768. DOE's performance modeling of
medium- and low-temperature unit coolers in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis was based on the capacities certified in the CCD, fan power
data from product literature, and the default defrost energy use from
AHRI 1250-2020 \7\ adjusted
[[Page 66714]]
such that the lowest calculated AWEFs match the current energy
conservation standard. DOE notes that while most of the unit coolers in
the CCD are rated at baseline, when AWEF is calculated using the data
as described, many units appear to have efficiencies above baseline.
DOE has tentatively determined that the results of these analyses are
representative of the units and technologies currently available on the
market. Details of the unit cooler engineering analysis are discussed
in section 5.8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Appendix C1 references industry test standard Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'')
Standard 1250-2020, 2020 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in
Coolers and Freezers (``AHRI 1250-2020'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants Analyzed
The CA IOUs commented that it expects that the use of R-404A to
estimate the performance of CO2-based unit coolers (which
DOE did in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis) would result in a
similar AWEF to that of an AWEF that was based on performance data of
CO2. However, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE use
CO2 data in its analysis to avoid confusion. The CA IOUs
stated that DOE should use available CO2-specific data,
request information from manufacturers, and derive EER curves using
software tools. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14)
DOE acknowledges that there is some performance data available for
CO2 unit-coolers. However, the CCD and manufacturer product
literature have more data available for unit coolers that use R-404A.
In response to the preliminary analysis, as discussed in the September
2023 NOPR, HTPG supported the use of R-404A to analyze medium- and low-
temperature unit coolers. 88 FR 60746, 60779. Additionally, as the CA
IOUs stated, the performance results of unit coolers using R-404A and
CO2 are similar. DOE has tentatively concluded that using R-
404A as the refrigerant for the analysis of medium- and low-temperature
unit coolers is representative of the unit cooler market. Therefore, as
discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE used R-404A as the
refrigerant in its analysis of medium- and low-temperature unit
coolers. 88 FR 60746, 60780. Further, DOE notes that the EERs used to
calculate unit cooler AWEF and AWEF2 are prescribed by the suction
conditions and EER table of the DOE test procedure at section 3.4.14 of
appendix C1. As such, DOE did not consider alternative EER curves in
the September 2023 NOPR analysis.
Representative Units
In section 2.2 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
stated that it has not seen condensate heaters on any of the single-
packaged dedicated systems that it has tested. When making this
statement in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE was referring to
pan heaters. In response, the CA IOUs commented that they are aware of
three manufacturers of packaged systems that currently offer a
condensate heater element and showed examples of unit coolers that
offer drain line heaters as standard features or options. (CA IOUs, No.
43 at pp. 12-14) Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that in specific
applications (e.g., meat and dairy coolers) medium-temperature coolers
typically use condensate heaters. (Id. at p. 12) Therefore, the CA IOUs
recommended that AWEF should include an allocation for condensate
heater energy use. (Id.)
DOE has not encountered drain line heaters on any of the single-
packaged dedicated systems or unit coolers that it has tested and DOE
expects that drain line heaters would typically be provided as an
optional feature and installed by a contractor. In the September 2023
NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated what it considers to be ``representative
units'' in the market; therefore, DOE did not evaluate units with drain
line heaters.
DOE has encountered low-temperature unit coolers with pan heaters.
In the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE based the low-temperature unit
cooler defrost power on the default defrost power calculations in AHRI
1250-2020. See section C10.2 of AHRI 1250-2020 for details. These
calculated power values are representative of the power draw of the
entire unit cooler during a defrost cycle. Additionally, the default
defrost power calculations in AHRI 1250-2020 include a set of
calculations for units with hot gas coil defrost and an electric
resistive pan heater. See section C10.1.2 of AHRI 1250-2020. As such,
DOE has tentatively determined that the AHRI 1250-2020 default power
calculations include representative pan heater power consumption and
that an allocation for condensate heater energy use is not warranted at
this time.
Baseline Efficiency
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics
of equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
The CA IOUs stated that when DOE updates a test procedure for
equipment already included in the DOE regulatory program, DOE typically
performs a cross-walk analysis to ensure energy conservation standards
set using the new test procedure do not result in backsliding. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1) The CA IOUs commented that the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD does not appear to include a cross-walk
analysis (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that, therefore, its comments
regarding the baseline efficiency assumed the analysis presented in the
preliminary TSD was based on the current test procedure at appendix C
to subpart R of 10 CFR part 431. (Id. at pp. 2-3) Based on this
assumption, the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to align the baseline efficiency
level of all refrigeration systems with the current minimum energy
conservation standards and indicated which representative units they
interpreted as having efficiency levels below the current minimum
energy conservation standards. Id.
Current energy conservation standards for walk-in refrigeration
systems are in terms of the AWEF metric and the energy conservation
standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR use the AWEF2 metric. The
primary difference between these two metrics is that AWEF2 includes
off-cycle power consumption.\8\ As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, DOE set baseline efficiency levels for dedicated condensing units
with energy conservation standards at the current minimum standard
level using the appendix C test procedure (see appendix C to subpart R
to 10 CFR 431). 88 FR 60746, 60778. For example, for a medium-
temperature, outdoor dedicated condensing unit, DOE determined which
technology options would just meet the current AWEF standard of 7.6
Btu/(W-h) using the appendix C test procedure. Id. Once each
representative unit had its baseline design options set, DOE conducted
the remainder of the efficiency analysis using the appendix C1 test
procedure to determine AWEF2 values for each efficiency level,
including the baseline. Id. DOE notes that in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, refrigeration system efficiency values were labeled as AWEF;
however, all efficiency values calculated in accordance with the
appendix C1 test
[[Page 66715]]
procedure were AWEF2 values, as defined in appendix C1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The complete discussion of the differences between these
metrics can be found in the May 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. 88
FR 28780, 28810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The representative units that DOE modeled in the September 2023
NOPR analysis were based on actual units that are certified at the
currently applicable minimum energy conservation standards (i.e.,
baseline AWEF) in CCD. To account for the differences between AWEF and
AWEF2, DOE determined representative off-cycle power values for each
representative unit analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR using product
catalogs and feedback from manufacturer interviews.
Additionally, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed more
stringent energy conservation standards for the majority of
refrigeration system equipment classes. 88 FR 60746, 60748-60749. The
only equipment classes with standards proposed at the equivalent
current baseline in terms of the new AWEF2 metric are medium-
temperature indoor dedicated condensing systems with a capacity of less
than 8,000 Btu/h and low-temperature indoor dedicated condensing
systems with a capacity of 9,000 Btu/h. See section IV.C.1.d of the
September 2023 NOPR for further discussion of the analysis based on
AWEF2.
Design Options
In chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
analyzed improved condenser coils as a design option for dedicated
condensing system equipment classes. See section 5.7.2.2 of the
Preliminary Analysis TSD for details of this analysis. Based on
information gathered during previous rulemakings and feedback received
during the preliminary analysis manufacturer interviews, DOE determined
representative improved midpoint condensing temperatures for the
representative units analyzed. DOE published the following table to
summarize the baseline and improved condensing midpoint temperatures.
Table II.1--Walk-In Refrigeration System Condenser Coil Temperature Difference (``TD'') Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of
air entering the Baseline Baseline TD Improved Improved TD
Equipment class condenser coil midpoint ([deg]F) midpoint ([deg]F)
([deg]F) ([deg]F) ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPU.H.I....................... 90 115 20 110 15
DC/SPU.M.I.................... 90 115 25 110 20
DC/SPU.L.I.................... 90 110 20 105 15
SPU.H.O....................... 95 120 20 115 15
DC/SPU.M.O.................... 95 120 25 115 20
DC/SPU.L.O.................... 95 115 20 110 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE should review the baseline and improved condensing
midpoint assumptions used for high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated systems, as the temperature differences and ambient air
temperatures do not sum to equal the corresponding midpoint
temperature. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 16)
DOE acknowledges that the baseline and improved temperature
differences for high-temperature single-packaged dedicated condensing
systems were incorrectly printed in table 5.7.13 in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD. For high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated condensing systems, the table should have listed the baseline
temperature difference as 25 [deg]F and the improved temperature
difference as 20 [deg]F. These misprints only occurred in this table
and the correct values were used in conducting the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis. Similarly, as discussed in section 5.7.2.2 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE did not use the incorrect values in the
September 2023 NOPR analysis.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed head pressure
controls as a design option for outdoor dedicated condensing system
equipment classes. See section 5.7.2.7 of the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis TSD for details. Head pressure controls allow outdoor
condensing units' head pressure to ``float'' down to a minimum
condensing pressure as the ambient air temperature falls. This allows
the compressor to operate more efficiently and therefore reduces the
power consumption of the system without reducing the capacity. As
discussed in section 5.7.2.7 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD,
DOE evaluated two design options pertaining to head pressure control
for the representative units of outdoor dedicated condensing units and
outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems analyzed. These two design
options were floating head pressure and floating head pressure with an
EEV.\9\ DOE assumed fixed head pressure would be the baseline design.
Based on information collected during previous rulemakings, DOE
determined the minimum condensing pressure associated with these design
options. DOE converted all minimum condensing pressures to minimum
condenser dewpoint temperatures so that the values would be refrigerant
agnostic. DOE assumed this minimum dewpoint would apply at the lowest
ambient rating condition--35 [deg]F. At the intermediate rating
temperature of 59 [deg]F, DOE estimated the head pressure for fixed and
floating systems when using a TXV based on testing results. DOE did not
have testing results for a system with an EEV, so DOE calculated the
degree to which the pressure would ``float'' down based on an
assumption that the condenser TD would scale with the capacity. DOE
used test results and scaling to estimate a minimum dewpoint offset at
59 [deg]F. Minimum condensing dewpoints at the 35 [deg]F C test point
and at the 59 [deg]F B test point are summarized in Table II.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Systems equipped with an EEV could operate with an even
lower head pressure because the greater flexibility of the
electronic controls allows an EEV to have a wider range of orifice
open area without leading to unstable operation in warm ambient
conditions.
[[Page 66716]]
Table II.2--Summary of Preliminary Analysis Head Pressure Control Design
Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum condensing Minimum condensing
Design option description dewpoint at 35 dewpoint at 59
[deg]F ([deg]F) [deg]F ([deg]F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed head pressure......... 101.5 104.4
Floating head pressure...... 85 86.7
Floating head pressure with 67 85.9
an electronic expansion
valve......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the minimum condensing dewpoints imposed by head
pressure control strategies, different compressor types have different
minimum condensing dewpoints. The minimum condensing dewpoint
temperatures for hermetic, semi-hermetic, scroll and rotary compressors
used in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis are listed in Table II.3.
Table II.3--Minimum Condensing Dewpoint Temperatures by Compressor Type
Used in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum condensing
Compressor type dewpoint temperature
([deg]F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermetic....................................... 85
Semi-hermetic.................................. 67
Scroll......................................... 67
Rotary......................................... 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
stated that its interpretation of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
assumed that the minimum condensing pressure is reached only at the 35
[deg]F ambient C test condition. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14) The CA IOUs
commented that in its experience, the minimum condensing pressure is
reached anytime the ambient temperature plus the condenser temperature
difference is less than the minimum condensing temperature and that the
minimum condensing pressure is ``fixed'' (i.e., does not change with
lower ambient temperatures) and that controls and valves function to
maintain that pressure. (Id. at pp. 14-15).
Based on test data and feedback during manufacturer interviews, DOE
tentatively concluded that the minimum condensing dewpoint temperature
can be reached at ambient temperatures above 35 [deg]F. DOE determined
the condensing dewpoints at the B (59 [deg]F) and C (35 [deg]F) test
points considering the minimum condensing dewpoint allowed by the
floating head pressure controls and compressor type of the
representative unit as well as the minimum condensing temperature
necessary to achieve a sufficient condenser temperature difference. The
details of this analysis can be found in section 5.7.2.7 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD.
Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that generally, fixed head
pressure systems have minimum condensing dewpoint temperatures of 95
[deg]F to 120 [deg]F and that adding floating head pressure controls
with TXVs to these systems allows minimum condensing dewpoint
temperatures of 70 [deg]F to 85 [deg]F and changing the TXVs for EEVs
on systems with floating head pressure controls allows temperatures of
55 [deg]F to 70 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14) The CA IOUs stated
that minimum condensing dewpoint temperature for low-temperature
systems can be lower than those for medium-temperature systems. Id. DOE
determined the minimum condensing dewpoint temperature for the
September 2023 NOPR analysis using feedback from confidential
manufacturer interviews. DOE aggregated this feedback and tentatively
determined that 72 [deg]F is a representative minimum condensing
dewpoint for the walk-in industry as a whole. During interviews,
manufacturers indicated that this was a standard design on all walk-in
condensing systems and that this minimum condensing dewpoint
temperature could be achieved by systems using TXVs, therefore DOE did
not consider an additional step down in pressure associated with EEVs.
Based on testing results, DOE tentatively determined that most
dedicated condensing systems would need this floating head pressure
design option to achieve the current AWEF standards. Feedback from the
most recent round of manufacturer interviews confirmed this. As such
DOE considered floating head pressure controls as the baseline design
option for all dedicated condensing system representative units in the
September 2023 NOPR analysis and did not consider floating head
pressure controls with an EEV as a design option. See section 5.7.2.7
of the September 2023 NOPR TSD for details of this analysis.
Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that the minimum condensing
dewpoints allowed by the compressor operating envelopes in DOE's June
2022 Preliminary Analysis are too high and provided examples of semi-
hermetic compressors with lower minimum condensing dewpoints. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at p. 15)
Information obtained during previous rulemakings and manufacturer
feedback received during the most recent interviews indicated that the
operating envelope of hermetic reciprocating compressors would limit
the minimum condensing dewpoint further. As such, DOE set the minimum
condensing dewpoint for hermetic compressors at 85 [deg]F. DOE
acknowledges that the published operating envelope of semi-hermetic,
scroll, and rotary compressors may allow for condensing dewpoints lower
than 72 [deg]F. However, manufacturers indicated that in spite of the
lower dewpoints published in compressor literature, they and their
customers have concerns about the potential system reliability issues.
The 72 [deg]F is representative of the lowest dew point levels used for
rating purposes by manufacturers. In many cases this level can be
adjusted in the field, and it often is set higher. As such, DOE did not
consider condensing dewpoints lower than 72 [deg]F in the September
2023 NOPR analysis. The floating head pressure design option is
discussed in more
[[Page 66717]]
detail in section 5.7.2.7 of chapter 5 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE use the minimum condensing
midpoint instead of the minimum condensing dewpoint in its analysis
when discussing floating head pressure control. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p.
15) As discussed in section 5.5.3.1 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE
used the compressor model described in section 6.4 of AHRI Standard
540-2004, ``Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Compressor Units'' to determine compressor power
consumption and mass flow at each test condition. This model requires
condensing dewpoint, rather than mid-point, as an input. Therefore, DOE
used condensing dewpoint to characterize the floating head pressure
design option.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not analyze on-cycle
evaporator fan control as a design option because DOE had tentatively
determined that variable-capacity compressors are a prerequisite for
on-cycle evaporator fan controls to be effective. DOE did not analyze
variable-capacity compressors as a design option in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis because it had insufficient data at the time to
analyze them. See section 5.7.2.13 of the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis TSD.
In response, the CA IOUs agreed that on-cycle evaporator fan
controls are most effective when paired with variable-capacity
compressors, but referenced methods of fan control that could provide
efficiency benefits without a multiple- or variable-capacity
compressor. Therefore, the CA IOUs suggested that evaporator fan on-
cycle control should be evaluated as a design option for single-
packaged dedicated systems without a multiple- or variable-capacity
compressor. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9) The CA IOUs provided two examples
of how evaporator fan control could result in energy savings: (1)
setting fan speed using refrigerant liquid temperature change across
the expansion valve; and (2) setting fan speed based on walk-in
interior temperature and refrigerant coil temperature using an
electronic expansion valve (``EEV'') to control superheat. Id. Further,
the CA IOUs commented that evaporator fans included in a walk-in system
are based on ambient design conditions, which may only occur a few days
per year and provided an example of a unit cooler that has evaporator
fans running below full load for a majority of the time. (Id. at pp. 9-
10)
DOE interprets the first fan control method described in the CA
IOUs comment to be a reduction in fan power when the liquid line
solenoid closes, indicating the compressor is cycling off. DOE
considered off-cycle fan control for single-packaged dedicated systems
in the September 2023 NOPR analysis, discussed in detail in section
5.7.2.8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. Based on the description of the
second fan control method described in the CA IOUs comment, DOE has
tentatively determined that when operating in a test chamber held at a
constant temperature (consistent with the test procedure approach of
testing with constant evaporator inlet air condition or constant
condensing unit suction inlet condition) such a control system would
not trigger any reduction in fan speed. Therefore, when tested
according to the DOE test procedure in appendix C1 to 10 CFR part 431
subpart R (``appendix C1'') a single-packaged dedicated system equipped
with this evaporator fan control system would not have an improved
efficiency. In addition, DOE notes that the figure provided as an
example in the CA IOUs' comment shows condenser fan run time, not
evaporator fan run time. DOE did consider on-cycle condenser fan
controls in the September 2023 NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60767.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis DOE analyzed permanent-split
capacitor (``PSC'') and ECM motors as design options for improved
condenser fan motors, and did not analyze improved evaporator fan
motors as a design option. See sections 5.7.2.4 and 5.7.2.11 of the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response, the CA IOUs commented
that DOE should consider permanent magnet AC (``PMS'') motors as the
maximum-technologically-feasible design option for unit cooler fan
motors and as a technology option for condensing unit fan motors. The
CA IOUs cited examples of how PMS motor efficiency compares with ECM
efficiency, specifically stating that PMS motors can offer an average
of 17-27 percent energy savings over ECMs for unit cooler fan motors
and 40 percent savings over permanent-split capacitor (``PSC'') motors
that are mostly installed in condensing units. The CA IOUs stated that
several utility and efficiency organizations offer rebate programs to
upgrade ECMs with PMS motors. However, the CA IOUs stated that PMS
motors are not available in new equipment and that it was only aware of
one manufacturer offering PMS motors. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 11-12)
EPCA governs permissible evaporator and condenser fan motors in
walk-ins (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(E) and (F)). For condenser fan motors
under 1 horsepower (``HP''), EPCA prescribes the use of either ECMs,
permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') type motors, or 3-phase motors. (42
U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(F)) DOE only analyzed one representative unit with
condenser fan motors equal to or greater than 1 HP in the September
2023 NOPR analysis, which did not include a permanent magnet AC motor.
Given that EPCA does not allow the use of any other motor types for
motors under 1 horsepower, DOE did not consider permanent magnet AC
motors as a design option for condenser fan motors.
For evaporator fan motors under 1 HP, EPCA prescribes the use of
either ECMs or 3-phase motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(E)) DOE has
adopted this requirement in its regulations at 10 CFR 431.306(a)(5)(i)-
(ii). DOE has encountered commercially available motor technologies
that may perform more efficiently than the ECMs already required by the
prescriptive standard. However, consistent with the EPCA requirements
and existing regulations, DOE did not include them in its September
2023 NOPR analysis. See section 5.7.2.11 of the September 2023 NOPR
TSD. Additionally, DOE notes that all evaporator fan powers are under
the 1 HP threshold for the representative units analyzed at the
proposed standard levels in the September 2023 NOPR.
D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards for walk-ins. The effect of new
or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers
usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in
purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer
impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower
[[Page 66718]]
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in
purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual
operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of walk-ins in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
commercial consumers. As stated previously, DOE developed household
samples from the 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(``CBECS'').\10\ For each sample, DOE determined the energy consumption
for the walk-ins and the appropriate energy price. By developing a
representative sample of commercial consumers, the analysis captured
the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with
the use of walk-ins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2018, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and walk-ins user samples. The model
calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level per simulation
run. The analytical results include a distribution of 30,000 data
points for refrigeration systems and 10,000 data points for envelope
components, showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency
level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In
performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given
consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of
the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals
that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting
for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of walk-ins as if each
were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required
compliance with new or amended standards. Amended standards would apply
to walk-ins manufactured three years after the date on which any new or
amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)(B)(i)) At this
time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2024; therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance
with any amended standards for walk-ins.
Table II.4 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the September 2023 NOPR TSD and its appendices.
Table II.4--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the September 2023 NOPR
LCC and PBP Analysis *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups and
sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price
scaling index to project product costs.
Installation Costs........... Baseline installation cost determined
with data from RS Means. Assumed no
change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use............ The total annual energy use multiplied by
the buildings containing WICF.
Variability: Based on the CBECS 2018.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861 data
for 2021. Variability: Regional energy
prices determined for 9 divisions.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO2023 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime............. Average: between 9 and 12 years.
Discount Rates............... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the considered
appliances, or might be affected
indirectly. Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date.............. 2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
table or in chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
1. Consumer Sample
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR DOE conducts its analysis
in support of a potential new minimum efficiency standard at the
National level. This means that DOE must distribute its sample of
consumers of walk-in equipment throughout the Nation to capture
variability of key inputs of walk-ins operation. Specifically, for the
annual energy use estimate, DOE is concerned about distributing the
population of walk-in installations across different regions to capture
variability in equipment installation saturations and electricity
prices, which will impact the operating cost of the equipment. This
distribution of installations is referred to as the ``consumer
sample.''
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE revise the distribution of weights
of WICF equipment by sector. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 18-19)
As stated in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE used data supplied by
[[Page 66719]]
AHRI and CBECS to estimate the number of walk-in installations by
sector and Census Division. 88 FR 60746, 60792. The weights of each
representative unit by sector are repeated from the September 2023 NOPR
here in Table II.5 through Table II.7.\11\ These weights show that
dedicated condensing systems are evenly spread across all sectors, with
small business sectors limited to smaller capacity equipment.
Additionally, single-packaged dedicated condensing systems are limited
to the small business sectors and concentrated in the food service
sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A full breakdown of the consumer sample showing the
distribution of equipment by Census Division can be found in
appendix 8E of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
Table II.5--Consumer Sample and Weights--Dedicated Condensing Units
[%]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Capacity (kBtu/hr)
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cat. Size 3 9 25 54 75 124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I.......................... Other................. Large................. 23 18 4 10 .......... ..........
Small................. 1 1 0 0 .......... ..........
Sales................. Large................. 4 3 1 2 .......... ..........
Small................. 3 3 1 0 .......... ..........
Service............... Large................. 5 4 1 2 .......... ..........
Small................. 7 6 1 0 .......... ..........
DC.L.O.......................... Other................. Large................. 7 25 7 5 14 ..........
Small................. 0 2 0 0 0 ..........
Sales................. Large................. 1 4 1 1 2 ..........
Small................. 1 4 1 0 0 ..........
Service............... Large................. 1 6 1 1 3 ..........
Small................. 2 8 2 0 0 ..........
DC.M.I.......................... Other................. Large................. * 12 30 7 4 0 ..........
Small................. * 1 2 0 0 0 ..........
Sales................. Large................. * 2 5 1 1 0 ..........
Small................. * 2 4 1 0 0 ..........
Service............... Large................. * 3 6 1 1 0 ..........
Small................. * 4 9 2 0 0 ..........
DC.M.O.......................... Other................. Large................. * 3 30 9 2 6 6
Small................. * 0 2 1 0 0 0
Sales................. Large................. * 1 5 2 0 1 1
Small................. * 0 4 1 0 0 0
Service............... Large................. * 1 7 2 0 1 1
Small................. * 1 9 3 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the September 2023 NOPR DOE did not consider the impacts of representative units DC.M.I and DC.M.O at the 3 kBtu/hr capacity (see the
Representative Units subsection of section IV.C.1.d of the September 2023 NOPR 88 FR 60746, 60780). However, these capacities persist within the
consumer sample as they are still distributed in commerce, and the impacts for the fraction of these equipment must be accounted for when determining
overall costs and benefits for DC.M.I and DC.M.O as equipment classes even if efficiency improvements are not being considered for these specific
capacities.
Table II.6--Consumer Sample and Weights--Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
[%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Capacity (kBtu/hr)
Equipment class ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cat. Size 2 6 7 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.H.I....................... Other........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Sales........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Service......... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 74 .......... 26 ..........
SP.H.ID...................... Other........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Sales........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Service......... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 74 .......... 26 ..........
SP.H.O....................... Other........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Sales........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Service......... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 22 .......... 78 ..........
SP.H.OD...................... Other........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
[[Page 66720]]
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Sales........... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Service......... Large.......... 0 .......... 0 ..........
Small.......... 22 .......... 78 ..........
SP.L.I....................... Other........... Large.......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.......... 9 4 .......... ..........
Sales........... Large.......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.......... 19 9 .......... ..........
Service......... Large.......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.......... 41 18 .......... ..........
SP.L.O....................... Other........... Large.......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.......... 3 9 .......... ..........
Sales........... Large.......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.......... 7 21 .......... ..........
Service......... Large.......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.......... 15 45 .......... ..........
SP.M.I....................... Other........... Large.......... 0 .......... .......... 0
Small.......... 3 .......... .......... 10
Sales........... Large.......... 0 .......... .......... 0
Small.......... 6 .......... .......... 22
Service......... Large.......... 0 .......... .......... 0
Small.......... 14 .......... .......... 46
SP.M.O....................... Other........... Large.......... 0 .......... .......... 0
Small.......... 1 .......... .......... 12
Sales........... Large.......... 0 .......... .......... 0
Small.......... 2 .......... .......... 26
Service......... Large.......... 0 .......... .......... 0
Small.......... 3 .......... .......... 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7--Consumer Sample and Weights--Unit Coolers
[%]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Capacity (kBtu/hr)
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cat. Size 3 9 25 54 75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC.H.I *.............................. Other.................... Large.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Sales.................... Large.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Service.................. Large.................... .......... 30 11 .......... ..........
Small.................... .......... 43 16 .......... ..........
UC.H.ID............................... Other.................... Large.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Sales.................... Large.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Small.................... .......... 0 0 .......... ..........
Service.................. Large.................... .......... 30 11 .......... ..........
Small.................... .......... 43 16 .......... ..........
UC.L.I................................ Other.................... Large.................... 18 16 4 14 0
Small.................... 1 1 0 1 0
Sales.................... Large.................... 3 3 1 3 0
Small.................... 3 2 1 2 0
Service.................. Large.................... 4 3 1 3 0
Small.................... 6 5 1 5 0
UC.L.M................................ Other.................... Large.................... 2 21 28 8 8
Small.................... 0 0 0 0 0
Sales.................... Large.................... 0 4 5 1 1
Small.................... 0 0 0 1 1
Service.................. Large.................... 0 5 6 2 2
Small.................... 1 0 0 2 2
UC.L.O................................ Other.................... Large.................... 6 22 7 7 10
Small.................... 0 1 0 0 1
Sales.................... Large.................... 1 4 1 1 2
Small.................... 1 3 1 1 2
Service.................. Large.................... 1 5 2 2 2
[[Page 66721]]
Small.................... 2 7 2 2 3
UC.M.I................................ Other.................... Large.................... 10 27 8 7 0
Small.................... 1 2 1 0 0
Sales.................... Large.................... 2 5 1 1 0
Small.................... 1 4 1 1 0
Service.................. Large.................... 2 6 2 1 0
Small.................... 3 9 2 2 0
UC.M.M................................ Other.................... Large.................... 2 29 19 8 8
Small.................... 0 0 0 0 0
Sales.................... Large.................... 0 5 3 1 1
Small.................... 0 0 0 1 1
Service.................. Large.................... 0 6 4 2 2
Small.................... 1 0 0 2 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For unit coolers, the index I, O, and M indicate that the unit cooler is connected to an Indoor, Outdoor, or Multiplex condensing system.
2. Equipment Lifetime
When determining lifetimes, DOE calculates a Weibull distribution
of potential lifetimes from average and maximum lifetime for the
different types of equipment under consideration. In response to the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs suggested alternative
lifetime estimates for walk-ins. As published data on WICF lifetimes
are unavailable, the CA IOUs' lifetime estimates were sourced from
technician interviews from a mechanical engineering firm. The stated
lifetimes differ from those used by DOE in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis,\12\ and September 2023 NOPR (88 FR 60746, 60798), and are
shown in Table II.8 for comparison. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 17-18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See: June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Executive Summary, p.
ES-20, June 2022 www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0024.
Table II.8--Estimated WICF Lifetimes
[Years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE CA IOU
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment category Average Maximum Average Maximum
(years) (years) (years) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panels.......................................... 12 25 20 25
Display Doors................................... 12 25 7 15
Non-display Doors............................... 8.5 12 10 15
Indoor Dedicated Condensing Systems............. 10.5 20 12 15
Outdoor Condensing Systems...................... 10.5 20 6 15
Medium Temperature Unit Coolers................. 10.5 20 17 20
Low Temperature Unit Coolers.................... 10.5 20 17 15-20
Sigle-packaged Condensing Systems............... 10.5 20 * 12 * 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates that an estimate was not available, however commenters indicated that lifetimes would be like indoor-
dedicated condensing systems.
The CA IOUs' comment did not indicate if their interviewees were
referencing lifetimes of walk-ins in the National scope or only
California. DOE also notes that the very close average and maximum
lifetime values for panels, indoor dedicated condensing systems, and
unit coolers (medium-, and low-temperature) to be unlikely. DOE's
lifetimes were initially determined in response to comments for the
June 2014 Final Rule (79 FR 32086). Other than the information provided
by the CA IOUs, DOE received comment from AHRI in response to the July
2021 RFI in support of the existing lifetimes. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 15)
Given some of DOE's questions about the CA IOUs supplied lifetimes, DOE
tentatively determined to maintain its use of the lifetimes from the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE welcomes
additional information on this topic in response to the September 2023
NOPR.
E. Conclusion
As discussed in the preceding sections, DOE has considered the
comments provided by the CA IOUs in response to the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis. This document provides responses to the CA IOUs'
comments that were not included in the September 2023 NOPR, but does
not change the analysis or proposals presented in the NOPR. DOE
welcomes comment on the information presented in the September 2023
NOPR, including the additional comment summaries and responses
presented in this notification.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
DOE has concluded that the tentative determinations made pursuant
to the various procedural requirements applicable to the September 2023
NOPR remain unchanged for this notification. These tentative
determinations are set
[[Page 66722]]
forth in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 60746, 60855-60861.
IV. Public Participation
Please refer to section VII of the September 2023 NOPR for
information regarding the public webinar, submission of comments, and
issues on which DOE seeks comment. 88 FR 60746, 60861-60863. DOE
additionally welcomes comment on the information presented in this
notification.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of data availability regarding energy conservation
standards.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
21, 2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21190 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
