Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, 18555-18578 [2024-05462]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18555
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 89, No. 51
Thursday, March 14, 2024
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 1904–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
and request for comment.
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 of data availability
(‘‘NODA’’), DOE is updating portions of
its analysis for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers based on information
DOE received in response to DOE’s
September 2023 NOPR. DOE requests
comments, data, and information
regarding the updated analysis.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this NODA
no later than April 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments 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:
(1) Email: WICF2017STD0009@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009 in the
subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III 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 III
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Non-Display Doors
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a. Maximum Daily Energy Consumption
Allowances for Non-Display Doors With
Certain Electrical Components
b. Adjustment of U-Factors and Resulting
Thermal Load
2. Dedicated Condensing Units and SinglePackaged Dedicated Systems
a. More Efficient Single Speed
Compressors
b. Off-Cycle Ancillary Power
c. Low GWP Refrigerant Transition
d. Miscellaneous Updates to the
Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet
3. Unit Coolers
a. Cost Assumptions at Max-Tech
Efficiency Levels
b. Unit Cooler Fan Power
c. Miscellaneous Updates to the Unit
Cooler Analysis
B. Trial Standard Levels
1. Refrigeration Systems
2. Non-Display Doors
C. Analytical Results
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
a. Application of the Low-GWP Refrigerant
Transition to Specific Regions
b. Results for Refrigeration Systems
c. Results for Non-Display Doors
2. National Impacts Analysis
a. Non-Display Doors
b. Significance of Energy Savings
c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
D. Updated Equations for Proposed
Standards
1. Energy Consumption Equations for NonDisplay Doors
2. AWEF2 Equations
III. Public Participation
IV. 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
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
Continued
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
18556
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
as ‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’), the subject
of this rulemaking.
DOE defines ‘‘walk-ins’’ 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. 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).
On September 5, 2023, DOE
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) 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. DOE did not propose to amend
the standard for walk-in panels or
display doors. For walk-in refrigeration
systems, DOE proposed amended
standards in terms of the newly adopted
annual walk-in energy factor 2
(‘‘AWEF2’’) metric.4 The technical
support document (‘‘TSD’’) that
presented the methodology and results
of the September 2023 NOPR analysis
(‘‘September 2023 NOPR TSD’’) is
available at www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-00090046. Additionally, on September 28,
2023, DOE published a notification of
data availability (‘‘September 2023
NODA’’) summarizing additional
comments received on the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 39008) that
were considered but not discussed in
the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR
66710.
On September 27, 2023, DOE held a
public webinar (‘‘September 2023
Public Webinar’’) in which it presented
an overview of the topics addressed in
the September 2023 NOPR, allowed
time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encouraged all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking.
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.
4 DOE adopted the AWEF2 metric in a test
procedure final rule published on May 4, 2023. 88
FR 28780.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
In response to the September 2023
NOPR, DOE received additional data
and information regarding walk-in nondisplay doors and refrigeration systems,
which is summarized in sections II.A
and II.D.2 of this document.
Upon consideration of the views
shared in the September 2023 Public
Webinar and public comments DOE
received in response to the September
2023 NOPR, this NODA presents
updated analysis for walk-in nondisplay doors and refrigeration systems.
DOE is requesting comments, data, and
information regarding the updated
analysis.
DOE notes that it is continuing to
consider all of the stakeholder
comments received in response to the
September 2023 NOPR and September
2023 Public Webinar in further
development of the rulemaking. As
discussed in the September 2023 NOPR,
based on consideration of all of the
public comments received, DOE may
adopt energy efficiency levels that are
either higher or lower than the proposed
standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed
standards in part.
II. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE details
its updated analysis for walk-in nondisplay doors and refrigeration systems.
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Non-Display Doors
a. Maximum Daily Energy Consumption
Allowances for Non-Display Doors With
Certain Electrical Components
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
assumed for its analysis that baseline
non-display doors had 3.5-inch-thick
insulation for coolers and 4-inch-thick
insulation for freezers, wood framing
materials, a viewing window, and antisweat heat around the perimeter of the
door leaf without controls. 88 FR 60746,
60769. DOE did not consider lighting or
other electrical components in its
baseline representative units for nondisplay doors. Id. As such, DOE only
considered design options relevant to
the design of the baseline representative
units, including: anti-sweat controls,
reduced anti-sweat heat, improvements
to the framing systems to make the
frame more thermally insulative, and
increased insulation thickness. Id. at 88
FR 60770.
Kolpak commented that while it
agrees with providing limits on door
components, it disagrees with the
overall formulas representing the
proposed energy conservation standards
for manual non-display doors. (Kolpak,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 1, 3) 5
Kolpak stated that its basic models are
fully compliant with DOE’s current
regulations, but that it believes the new
proposed maximum daily energy
consumption (‘‘MDEC’’) formulas are
impossibly stringent. (Kolpak, No. 66,
Attachment 1 at p. 1) Kolpak stated that
when considering all electricityconsuming devices that are installed on
its doors, including the anti-sweat
heater wire, door light, heated
ventilator, heated viewing window, and
thermometer/temperature alarms, the
proposed standards would not be able to
be met. (Id.) Kolpak provided
calculations of the daily energy
consumption of six different doors for
both cooler and freezer applications to
support their comment. (Kolpak, No. 66,
Attachment 2)
The test procedure for non-display
doors requires the direct and indirect
electrical energy consumption of
electrical components be calculated and
included in the determination of daily
energy consumption (‘‘DEC’’) using
rated power of electrical components
sited on the door and an assumed
percent time off (‘‘PTO’’) value. As
previously mentioned, in the September
2023 NOPR, DOE only considered one
electrical component (i.e., the anti-sweat
heat around the perimeter of the door
leaf) in its representative units of
manual non-display doors for the
engineering analysis. DOE also
considered motors in its representative
units of motorized non-display doors.
However, DOE understands that other
electricity-consuming devices could be
installed on a non-display door, which
are included in the calculation of DEC
per the test procedure. As indicated by
Kolpak in its comment, the current
MDEC standards allow for additional
electrical components such as heated
vents, heated viewing windows, lights,
and thermometer/temperature alarms to
be included and considered in the DEC
calculation. However, the basis of the
proposed energy conservation standards
only accounts for the energy
consumption from anti-sweat heat
around the perimeter of the door (and
motors for doors classified as motorized
non-display doors). As a result, DOE
understands that the proposed
standards as outlined in the September
2023 NOPR may be difficult to meet for
basic models of doors that have
5 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the relevant docket for
this rulemaking, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov. The references are arranged as
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number, attachment number (if there are multiple
attachments in a single comment submission), page
of that document).
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
additional electrical components
beyond what DOE considered in its
representative units.
Also in response to the September
2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door
commented that DOE’s method for
complying with the new standards
presume that all doors have certain
features (e.g., lights) that can be adjusted
to consume less energy, but that many
doors do not have these features; thus,
Senneca and Frank Door commented
that DOE cannot conclude that new
standards are technologically feasible by
pointing to methods for compliance
with the standards that are not available
for all classes, types, and sizes of doors.
(Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at p.
3) DOE notes that for the September
2023 NOPR analysis, DOE did not
consider lighting in its baseline
representative units, and therefore did
not consider any design options for
reducing lighting energy consumption
in the analysis. However, as indicated
by Senneca and Frank Door, DOE
recognizes that it cannot include all
other possible electrical components in
its baseline representative units and
cannot analyze reduced energy
consumption for other electrical
components because not all doors
contain these components.
In light of these comments, DOE is
considering equipment classes with
maximum daily energy consumption
allowances for non-display doors if
manufacturers offer basic models with
certain electricity-consuming devices as
discussed in the following sections.
This is similar to the approach used for
the energy conservation standards for
consumer refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. In a direct final
rule relating to energy conservation
standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers published on
January 17, 2024, DOE established
separate standards and separate product
classes for products with multiple doors
or specialty doors. The standards for
those product classes (i.e., any product
classes that implement special and
multi-door designs) include energy
allowances (i.e., specific increases in
maximum allowable energy use)
corresponding to the specific
performance-related features (i.e., doorin-door designs, transparent doors, and
multi-door designs). 89 FR 3026, 3028–
3029.
To develop the maximum daily
energy consumption allowances specific
for walk-in non-display doors with
certain electrical components, DOE
reviewed the data and calculations
submitted by Kolpak, as well as product
literature from hardware and instrument
manufacturers. In its comment, Kolpak
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
provided information regarding the
following components that are included
on its basic models of non-display
doors: anti-sweat heat on viewing
windows; lighting and mechanisms to
turn the lighting on or off (e.g., manual
toggle switches, door open timers,
occupancy sensors); heated ventilators
(also called heated pressure relief
vents); and temperature alarms. (Kolpak,
No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 1–2) Kolpak
provided information on model
numbers of electrical components, rated
wattage of those components, number of
electrical components on its doors, and
the calculation of the direct and indirect
electrical energy consumption for all
electrical components. (Kolpak, No. 66,
Attachment 2) Using the detail provided
by Kolpak, DOE also looked into the
hardware and instrument manufacturers
product offerings for electrical
components to better understand the
range of potential options for these
additional electrical components. Based
on this, DOE grouped the electrical
components into four categories:
lighting, anti-sweat heat for viewing
windows, digital temperature displays/
alarms, and heated pressure relief vents.
The underlying assumptions for each
category of electrical components are
described in the paragraphs that follow.
Lighting
For the lighting category, DOE
considered lighting, a night light, and a
pilot light located on a switch to
develop an appropriate DEC allowance
for doors that have lighting. Lighting
features provide valuable utility to
consumers, namely visibility within the
walk-in, particularly near the entrance
and exit of the walk-in and is commonly
controlled by a switch. Switches used
for turning the lights on and off often
have a pilot light so that the switch can
be located in the dark. Additionally, as
included in Kolpak’s comment and
calculations, a night light could also be
attached to the walk-in door. Based on
Kolpak’s provided data and a review of
product literature, DOE assumed
lighting would have rated power of 13
W, a switch with a pilot light would
have a rated power of 0.3 W, and a night
light would have a rated power of 1 W.
DOE also assumed that these
components would not be controlled by
some demand-based controls, and
therefore used the PTO values specified
for lighting and other electricityconsuming devices without controls,
timers, or auto-shut-off systems per
table A.2 of appendix A along with the
rated power to determine the direct
electrical energy consumption. DOE
assumed based on a review of product
literature and doors it has tested that the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18557
light and night light would be located
on the interior of the walk-in, and the
switch may be located either interior or
exterior to the walk-in. Therefore, all of
the three components associated with
lighting were conservatively assumed to
be sited on the internal face of the door
for the purposes of determining the
indirect electrical energy consumption.
See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3.
Based on these assumptions, DOE
calculated the MDEC allowances (i.e.,
the sum of the direct and indirect
electrical energy consumption) for doors
with lighting components which can be
found in Table II.1. DOE notes that the
lighting MDEC allowance would apply
to doors with a light that may also have
a night light and/or switch. Therefore, a
door does not need to be equipped with
all three components to use the
allowance (i.e., a door with a light and
a switch but no nightlight could use the
allowance specified in Table II.1).
Anti-Sweat Heater for Viewing Window
As previously mentioned, DOE
included windows in its representative
units of non-display doors. However,
DOE did not consider additional antisweat heat specific to the window. Antisweat heaters are a performance-related
feature used on viewing windows to
prevent (1) condensation from collecting
on the glass and (2) fogging of the glass.
Kolpak commented that it is standard
for medium-temperature non-display
doors with viewing windows to have an
anti-sweat heater wire around the frame
of the window and for low-temperature
non-display doors with viewing
windows to have an anti-sweat heater
wire and heated glass coating on the
outer pane of glass. Kolpak commented
that the widely used supplier used to
provide a 10 W/ft anti-sweat heater wire
without controls. Kolpak stated that it
uses a 5 W/ft heater wire with controls
in the frame of the viewport window.
Kolpak stated that it cannot find
additional means to reduce the energy
consumption of the anti-sweat heater
wire in the viewing window frame
further. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 1) Based
on Kolpak’s provided data and a review
of product literature, DOE assumed that
if anti-sweat heat is included around
and/or on viewing windows, that antisweat heat would have rated power of
34 W for medium-temperature (i.e.,
cooler) applications and 84 W for lowtemperature (i.e., freezer) applications.
DOE also assumed that these
components would be controlled by
some demand-based controls based on
the information provided by Kolpak,
and therefore DOE used the PTO values
specified for anti-sweat heat with
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18558
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
controls, timers, or auto-shut-off
systems per table A.2 of appendix A
along with the rated power to determine
the direct electrical energy
consumption. DOE assumed that for the
purposes of determining the indirect
electrical energy consumption of the
anti-sweat heater, 75-percent of the total
power is attributed to the interior and
25-percent of the total power is
attributed to the exterior of the walk-in,
consistent with the assumptions
outlined in the DOE test procedure. See
10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A,
sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. Based on
these assumptions, DOE calculated the
MDEC allowance (i.e., the sum of the
direct and indirect electrical energy
consumption) for doors with anti-sweat
heat on their viewing windows, which
can be found in Table II.1.
Digital Temperature Displays With or
Without Alarms
A digital temperature display
provides utility in that it allows for
users to easily monitor the temperature
of the walk-in. The digital temperature
display is connected to a thermocouple
that measures the temperature of the
walk-in and the interface on the exterior
of the walk-in displays the temperature
within the walk-in compartment. Based
on review of product literature and
Kolpak’s data, DOE has determined that
a digital temperature display could be
paired with alarms or be standalone
(i.e., without alarms). The alarms alert
kitchen staff or others if the refrigerated
goods within the walk-in compartment
are in conditions that are too warm or
too cold, which may spoil or ruin these
goods. Additionally, alarms can sound if
the walk-in door is left open for too
long. Kolpak commented that walk-ins
with multiple compartments that have
only one exterior door but have doors
on interior partitions that separate the
compartments often have two
temperature alarms on the exterior door
so that the alarms can be heard by those
outside of the walk-in. (Kolpak, No. 6,
Attachment 1 at p. 2) Kolpak stated that
the temperature alarm is typically rated
at 4 W and Kolpak is unable to source
a temperature alarm that has a lower
rated power. (Id.) Additionally, through
its review of hardware and instrument
manufacturers product offerings, DOE
identified that a panic or entrapment
alarm could be installed for use in the
event that a user is unable to exit the
walk-in. Based on Kolpak’s provided
data and a review of hardware
manufacturer product literature, DOE
assumed a digital temperature display
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
without alarms would have a rated
power of 2.4 W and a digital
temperature display with alarms would
have rated power of 4 W. In
consideration of Kolpak’s comment that
a walk-in comprised of two
compartments may require two
temperature displays with alarms to be
located on the exterior non-display
door, DOE assumed that a digital
temperature display with alarm(s)
would have a total rated power of 8 W
i.e., to reflect two digital temperature
displays with alarms at 4 W each; an
alternative approach could account for
the power multiplied by the number of
temperature displays with alarms
present in the walk-in). DOE assumed
based on a review of Kolpak’s data and
product literature that the digital
temperature display with or without
alarms would always be on, and as such
used the PTO specified for other
electricity-consuming devices without
controls, timers, or auto-shut-off
systems per table A.2 of appendix A
along with the rated power to determine
the direct electrical energy
consumption. The temperature display
and alarms would likely be sited on the
exterior of the walk-in door to be seen
and heard, however, components of the
display would be located interior to the
walk-in, such as the thermocouple.
Therefore, DOE conservatively assumed
these components would be sited on
both the internal and external face of the
door for the purposes of determining the
indirect electrical energy consumption.
See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3.
Based on these assumptions, DOE
calculated the MDEC allowances (i.e.,
the sum of the direct and indirect
electrical energy consumption) for doors
with a (1) digital temperature display
without an alarm or (2) digital
temperature display with alarms. These
calculated MDEC allowances can be
found in Table II.1. DOE assumed that
a door would either have one or the
other, but would not have both (1) a
digital temperature display without an
alarm or (2) digital temperature display
with alarms. As such, only one of these
MDEC allowances would apply based
on whether there is or is not an alarm
connected to the digital temperature
display.
exterior of the walk-in. Kolpak
commented that heated ventilators were
not considered in DOE’s analysis of
non-display doors. Kolpak stated that
some manufacturers put heated
ventilators on a non-door panel so that
they are not considered in the energy
consumption calculation of a door,
however, Kolpak places these devices
on the door, where its energy
consumption is captured in the daily
energy consumption calculation. Kolpak
commented that it uses the lowest
wattage heated ventilator available.
(Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 2) Kolpak’s data
indicates that a 4 W heated ventilator is
used on doors for both mediumtemperature and low-temperature
installations. DOE has tentatively
determined, however, that while
medium-temperature applications may
require a pressure relief vent, it may not
be necessary for the pressure relief vent
to be heated. Therefore, DOE did not
develop a MDEC allowance for mediumtemperature non-display doors.
Additionally, based on review of
hardware manufacturer product
literature and the recommendations for
pressure relief vents based on the size
of a walk-in, DOE has tentatively
determined that a heated pressure relief
vent for a freezer could require up to 23
W of heat to prevent freezing and
therefore provide sufficient airflow
between the walk-in compartment and
the exterior. DOE assumed based on a
review of Kolpak’s data and product
literature that the heater component of
the pressure relief vent would always be
on, and as such used the PTO specified
for other electricity-consuming devices
without controls, timers, or auto-shutoff systems per table A.2 of appendix A
along with the rated power to determine
the direct electrical energy
consumption. Because the heated vent
is located between both the exterior and
interior of the walk-in, it is considered
to be located interior to the walk-in for
the purposes of determining the indirect
electrical energy consumption. See 10
CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A,
sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. The MDEC
allowance for low-temperature doors
with heated pressure relief vents can be
found in Table II.1.
Heated Pressure Relief Vent
Heated ventilators, or heated pressure
relief vents, are performance-related
features that allow doors to open more
easily when there is a pressure
differential between the interior and the
Table II.1 presents the MDEC
allowances for lighting, anti-sweat heat
for viewing windows, digital
temperature displays/alarms, and
heated pressure relief vents, as
described in the previous sections.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Components Summary
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18559
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.1—MAXIMUM DAILY ENERGY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR EACH COMPONENT
Wattage of
component(s)
(W)
Device
Door light, night light, and/or switch ....................................................
Heated viewing window: Cooler Freezer ............................................
Heated viewing window—freezer ........................................................
Digital temperature without alarm .......................................................
Digital temperature display with alarm ................................................
Heated vent—freezer only ...................................................................
As discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, each of these electrical
components provide some consumer
utility when installed on a non-display
door. Additionally, having these
electrical components installed on the
door limits the number of electrical
connections that need to be wired when
installing a walk-in. Pursuant to EPCA,
DOE may establish separate standards
for a group of covered equipment (i.e.,
establish a separate equipment class) if
DOE determines that separate standards
are justified based on the type of energy
used or if DOE determines that the
equipment’s capacity or other
14.3
34
84
2.4
8
23
Controls
(Y/N)
No ..........
Yes .........
Yes ........
No ..........
No ..........
No ..........
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) DOE has
tentatively determined that that the
devices it has listed previously
constitute a performance-related feature
that justify a higher standard. DOE notes
that the information described
previously and in Table II.1 was used to
develop the MDEC allowances for basic
models of non-display doors that have
any number of these components.
However, DOE notes that for the
purposes of determining DEC in
accordance with the Federal test
procedure at appendix A, manufacturers
MDEC
allowance—
mediumtemperature
(kWh/day)
MDEC
allowance—
lowtemperature
(kWh/day)
0.33
0.25
........................
0.07
0.24
........................
0.40
........................
1.42
0.09
0.30
0.85
Location
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
....
....
....
....
....
....
must follow the instructions for
calculating both direct and indirect
electrical energy consumption of
components as described in appendix
A.
DOE reviewed non-public
manufacturer data submitted to DOE’s
Compliance Certification Management
System Database (‘‘CCD’’) to estimate
the percentage of the market that
includes these other electricity
consuming devices on non-display
doors. DOE’s estimates of shipments
containing electricity consuming
devices are shown in Table II.2.
TABLE II.2—PERCENTAGE OF NON-DISPLAY DOOR SHIPMENTS CONTAINING EACH ELECTRICITY CONSUMING DEVICE
Percent of shipments with component
Mediumtemperature,
manual
(%)
Component
Lighting ............................................................................................................
Viewing Window ASH ......................................................................................
All Other Electrical Components ......................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
DOE requests comment on the MDEC
allowances for the specified electricity
consuming devices. Additionally, DOE
requests comment on the assumed
wattages, presence or absence of
controls, and location that were
considered in the calculation of MDEC
allowances for the specified electricity
consuming devices.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) presented in section II.C of
this document account for the updates
discussed in this section.
b. Adjustment of U-Factors and
Resulting Thermal Load
The DOE test procedure requires that
the total non-display door energy is
calculated by summing (1) the total
daily energy consumption due to
thermal conduction load through the
door (i.e., the additional refrigeration
energy consumption to overcome
conduction through the door), (2) total
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
10
4
8
daily direct electrical energy
consumption (i.e., the energy consumed
by electrical components sited on the
door), and (3) the total daily indirect
electrical energy consumption (i.e., the
additional refrigeration energy
consumption due to thermal output into
the walk-in from electrical components
contained on the inside face of the
door). See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix A, section 6.3.4. The energy
consumption due to thermal conduction
load is based on an assumed
temperature difference between the
interior and exterior of the walk-in, an
assumed refrigeration system energy
efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’), and the Ufactor and size of the door.
Improvements to the design and/or
materials of the door and its frame could
result in a decreased thermal load.
At the proposed standard level in the
September 2023 NOPR, DOE assumed
that all manual-opening non-display
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Lowtemperature,
manual
(%)
6
1
8
Mediumtemperature,
motorized
(%)
22
4
28
Lowtemperature,
motorized
(%)
33
3
73
doors would need to implement antisweat heater controls, improved framing
systems, and reduced anti-sweat heat.
88 FR 60746, 60845. As discussed in the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE
determined U-factors for each
representative door size by scaling the
U-factors determined from tested nondisplay doors based on theoretical Ufactors. DOE also assumed each nondisplay door had a window sized at 2
ft2. Wood frames are the least efficient
framing material currently found on the
market and were selected as the baseline
framing material. High-density
polyurethane door frames are more
thermally insulative and were selected
as the improved framing material. See
section 5.7.1.3 of the September NOPR
TSD. In response to the September 2023
NOPR, Kolpak commented that it uses
low-density, high-insulation foam core
material in its frame, which has better
insulation than wood or high-density
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
18560
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
foam. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 2) Therefore,
DOE would expect that the thermal load
at the proposed level to be consistent
with or greater than the thermal load in
the Kolpak data.
In the data provided by Kolpak there
are U-factor test results for both
medium-temperature and lowtemperature non-display doors of
various sizes with and without a
window. (Kolpak, No. 66 Attachment 2)
For medium-temperature doors, DOE
found that the thermal conduction load
at the proposed energy conservation
standard level from the September 2023
NOPR is consistent with the thermal
conduction load calculated from the
data provided by Kolpak data. For lowtemperature doors, DOE found that the
thermal conduction load at the
proposed energy conservation standard
level from the September 2023 NOPR
was lower than the thermal conduction
load calculated from the data provided
by Kolpak data. To further evaluate
thermal conduction load for both
medium-temperature and lowtemperature non-display doors, DOE
further reviewed additional non-public
manufacturer data submitted to DOE’s
Compliance Certification Management
System Database (‘‘CCD’’).
Manufacturers are not currently
required to certify the U-factor or
thermal conduction load to the CCD;
however, they are required to certify the
rated power of each light, heater wire,
and/or other electricity consuming
device associated with each basic model
and whether such device(s) has a timer,
control system, or other demand-based
control reducing the device’s power
consumption. See 10 CFR
429.53(b)(4)(i). Using the certified data,
DOE back-calculated the thermal load
and ultimately U-factor for multiple
basic models of medium-temperature
and low-temperature non-display doors.
DOE verified these back-calculated Ufactors with its own test data. DOE
compared the thermal conduction load
by non-display door area (AND) of (1)
Kolpak’s data, (2) any back-calculated
data from the CCD that has been verified
with test data, (3) data received during
confidential manufacturer interviews,
and (4) test data, with the thermal load
by non-display door area for each
representative unit and efficiency level
with a different door construction
design (and thus different thermal
conduction load) from the September
2023 NOPR. DOE is posting a
supplementary file that contains
supplementary information to support
the analysis provided in this NODA
(referred to as the ‘‘NODA support
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
document’’).6 The updated thermal
conduction load for low-temperature
non-display doors is shown in Figure
4.1 of the NODA support document that
has been posted to the docket.
Additionally, the updated energy
consumption values for lowtemperature non-display doors that
reflect the U-factor and resulting
thermal load update can be found in
section 2 of the NODA support
document. Note that these energy
consumption values do not account for
any of the MDEC allowances.
For low-temperature applications,
DOE has tentatively determined that the
thermal conduction load by area for
low-temperature applications in the
proposed standard level from the
September 2023 NOPR is lower than
that calculated using the data DOE
evaluated for this NODA. Therefore,
DOE increased the U-factors for each
representative unit of low-temperature
non-display doors by 9-percent for this
NODA. DOE has tentatively determined
that this increase in U-factor would be
more representative of the lowtemperature non-display doors currently
on the market.
DOE requests comment on
representativeness of the adjustments
made to the U-factors for the lowtemperature non-display doors.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) presented in section II.C of
this document account for the updates
discussed in this section.
2. Dedicated Condensing Units and
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
a. More Efficient Single Speed
Compressors
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
analyzed higher-efficiency compressors
for dedicated condensing units and
single-packaged dedicated systems. The
higher-efficiency compressor design
options included both higher-efficiency
single-speed compressors and variablespeed compressors. For single-packaged
dedicated systems, DOE considered
both higher-efficiency single-speed
compressors and variable-speed
compressors in the September 2023
NOPR. However, DOE did not consider
higher-efficiency single-speed
compressors for dedicated condensing
units in the September 2023 NOPR. See
section 5.7.2.1 of the September 2023
NOPR TSD for further discussion.
In response to the September 2023
NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates
recommended that DOE analyze
improved single-speed compressor
6 The NODA support document can be found in
the docket at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0009.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
efficiency as a design option. (Efficiency
Advocates, No. 77 at p. 2) The
Efficiency Advocates stated that there is
a range of single-speed compressor
efficiencies available even when
selecting for a given compressor type,
capacity, input voltage, power supply,
and refrigerant. (Id. at p. 2)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
consider two single-speed compressor
efficiencies (i.e., CMP1 and CMP2) as
design options for dedicated condensing
units. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at pp. 8–9) The
CA IOUs stated that the compressor
manufacturers Copeland and Bitzer offer
two or three more compressor options
with different efficiencies at each size
and temperature application and that
therefore CMP1 and CMP2 are justified
as design options. (Id. at pp. 8–9)
In response to the comments received,
DOE reviewed publicly available
compressor performance data for both
medium-temperature and lowtemperature walk-in applications. DOE
specifically collected data for
compressors applicable to the range of
representative capacities analyzed for
dedicated condensing units in the
September 2023 NOPR.7 For this NODA
analysis, DOE only considered singlespeed compressors compatible with R–
448A that are rated at the DOE walk-in
test conditions and available for the
North American walk-in market.8 DOE
excluded from consideration any
compressors that may negatively impact
consumer utility—e.g., DOE did not
consider three-phase compressors when
there were options for both single- and
three-phase compressors at a given
capacity, as some buildings where walkins are installed may not have the
necessary three-phase power.
Additionally, as discussed in section
5.7.2.1 of the September 2023 NOPR
TSD, during interviews manufacturers
highlighted utility concerns related to
customer preference for specific
compressor types (e.g., scroll, semihermetic, etc.). Therefore, when
evaluating higher-efficiency singlespeed compressors for this NODA, DOE
selected the highest compressor
efficiency that would still allow for
consumer choice between scroll and
semi-hermetic compressors if both
compressor types were available at the
given representative capacity. DOE
notes that it cannot verify that the
7 These capacities are as follows: 9 kBtu/h, 25
kBtu/h, 54 kBtu/h, 75 kBtu/h, and 124 kBtu/h for
medium-temperature dedicated condensing units; 3
kBtu/h, 9 kBtu/h, 54 kBtu/h, 75 kBtu/h for lowtemperature dedicated condensing units.
8 For a discussion of DOE’s tentative conclusions
regarding the appropriateness of setting standards
based upon models operating with R–448A, see 88
FR 60746, 60771.
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
compressor data provided by the CA
IOUs and Efficiency Advocates in their
respective comments are representative
of compressors rated at DOE walk-in test
conditions. Additionally, the
compressors provided may impact
utility because there are both scroll and
semi-hermetic types. Therefore, DOE
did not evaluate the compressors
provided in the comments from the CA
IOUs and Efficiency Advocates.
However, using the criteria described
for reviewing publicly available
compressor data, DOE identified singlespeed compressors with capacities
roughly between 50 and 60 kBtu/h that
have higher efficiencies than the
compressor in that capacity range used
in the September 2023 NOPR analysis.
Compressors in this capacity range
could be used in the DC.M.O.054,
DC.M.I.054, and DC.M.O.124
representative units.9 DOE did not
identify any higher efficiency singlespeed compressors for low-temperature
applications at the representative
capacities analyzed based on the criteria
previously mentioned.
As such, DOE determined that a
higher-efficiency single-speed
compressor design option could be
applied to the following representative
units: DC.M.O.054, DC.M.I.054, and
DC.M.O.124. In this NODA, DOE
presents an updated analysis when
considering the additional compressor
design option for these three
representative units.
In its updated analysis, DOE added an
efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) which
corresponds to the higher-efficiency
single-speed compressor design option
for the three representative units
mentioned previously. The higherefficiency single-speed compressor has
an EER for walk-in refrigeration systems
of 7.62 Btu/(W-h), which is 5 percent
greater than the baseline compressor’s
EER of 7.25 Btu/(W-h).10 Similar to the
NOPR analysis, DOE ordered the design
options for each representative unit in
terms of decreasing cost-effectiveness
(manufacturer production cost
differential/AWEF2 differential). Table
3.1 of the NODA support document
describes the design option codes
9 DOE used two compressors with capacities
between 50 and 60 kBtu/h for the 124 kBtu/h
medium-temperature outdoor dedicated condensing
unit. DOE determined that this would be
representative for units of this capacity.
10 DOE determined compressor performance
using conditions representative of the A condition
test specified by the DOE test procedure for walkin refrigeration systems in appendix C1 to subpart
R of 10 CFR part 431. The test conditions used to
determine compressor performance were as follows:
a return gas temperature of 41 °F, an evaporator
dewpoint temperature of 23 °F, and a condenser
dewpoint temperature of 120 °F.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
related to the refrigeration system
representative units analyzed in this
NODA. The higher-efficiency singlespeed compressor was added at EL 1 for
the DC.M.I.054 representative unit and
at EL 3 for both DC.M.O.054 and
DC.M.O.124 representative units. As a
result, the design options that are used
at ELs after the higher-efficiency singlespeed compressor design option are
now associated with one EL higher than
in the September 2023 NOPR. For
example, in the September 2023 NOPR,
electronically commutated (‘‘EC’’)
condenser fan motors were
implemented at EL 1 for the DC.M.I.054
Because the higher-efficiency singlespeed compressor design option was
implemented at EL 1 in this NODA
analysis, the EC condenser fan motor
design option is implemented at EL 2
for this representative unit.
Section 3 of the NODA support
document shows the cost-efficiency
results from the September 2023 NOPR,
which were published in appendix 5A
of the September 2023 NOPR TSD,11
and the updated cost-efficiency results
with the additional compressor design
option EL. The tables show the AWEF2,
manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’),
and manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’)
plus shipping costs associated with each
EL. DOE notes that due to the
interaction between design options in
the engineering analysis, the
performance increase and/or
incremental MPC associated with design
options added after the higher-efficiency
single-speed compressor design option
differ from those presented in the NOPR
analysis.
DOE requests comment on the
updated cost-efficiency results for the
54 kBtu/h indoor and outdoor mediumtemperature dedicated condensing units
and 124 kBtu/h outdoor mediumtemperature dedicated condensing unit
presented in section 3 of the NODA
support document.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) presented in section II.C of
this document account for the updates
discussed in this section.
b. Off-Cycle Ancillary Power
Based on test data available at the
time, in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis DOE tentatively determined
that the only source of off-cycle power
for dedicated condensing units and
single-packaged dedicated systems
would be crankcase heater power. See
section 5.6.3.3 of the September 2023
11 DOE notes that in appendix 5A of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, the tables label the
efficiency values in terms of AWEF, however, they
are in terms of AWEF2 and should have been
labeled as such.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18561
NOPR TSD. DOE assumed that the offcycle crankcase heater power would be
the same for both medium-temperature
and low-temperature applications,
which DOE estimated using crankcase
heater wattage specifications from
compressor manufacturer product
literature.
In response to the September 2023
NOPR, AHRI and Hussmann
commented that there are potential
sources of off-cycle ancillary power that
DOE did not account for and should
consider, such as standard operating
controls, defrost time clocks, digital
controllers, and transformers. (AHRI,
No. 72 at p. 19; Hussmann, No. 75 at p.
9)
In response to these comments, DOE
analyzed additional test data and
compared the tested off-cycle power
values to the crankcase heater wattages
specified by compressor manufacturers.
DOE found that for mediumtemperature dedicated condensing
units, the assumed crankcase heater
wattage used in the NOPR analysis
matched both the tested off-cycle power
values and the compressor
manufacturer-specified wattages.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively
determined that the assumed crankcase
heater wattages used to analyze
medium-temperature dedicated
condensing units and single-packaged
dedicated systems in the NOPR analysis
are representative of the entire off-cycle
power of such units.
For low-temperature dedicated
condensing units, DOE found that the
off-cycle power test data was up to 5
Watts greater than the compressor
manufacturer-specified crankcase heater
wattages, indicating there may be
additional sources of off-cycle power
other than the crankcase heater.
Additionally for low-temperature units,
DOE found that the compressor
manufacturer-specified crankcase heater
wattages at a given capacity range were
slightly different than those specified
for medium-temperature units.
Therefore, for this NODA, DOE adjusted
the assumed crankcase heater wattages
for low-temperature dedicated
condensing units and single-packaged
dedicated systems, as shown in table
II.2 and table II.3. DOE also added 5
Watts of off-cycle ancillary power not
associated with crankcase heater power
for all low-temperature dedicated
condensing units and single-packaged
dedicated systems. Both changes can be
seen in the updated refrigeration
engineering analysis spreadsheet.12 As
12 The updated refrigeration systems engineering
sheet can be found in the docket for this rulemaking
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
Continued
14MRP1
18562
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
indicated by commenters, DOE suspects
that this additional 5 Watts of power is
attributed to timers and controls
associated with defrost cycles.
TABLE II.3—CRANKCASE HEATER POWER (W) FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS FROM SEPTEMBER
2023 NOPR
Refrigeration system capacity
Compressor type
<10,000 Btu/h
Hermetic ...................................................................................................
Scroll ........................................................................................................
Semi-Hermetic .........................................................................................
Rotary ......................................................................................................
≥10,000 and
<50,000 Btu/h
40
40
40
27
≥50,000–
<100,000 Btu/h
67
50
90
70
≥100,000–
<200,000 Btu/h
100
100
TABLE II.4—UPDATED CRANKCASE HEATER POWER (W) FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS FOR THIS
NODA
Refrigeration system capacity
Compressor type
<5,000 Btu/h
Hermetic ...................................................................................................
Scroll ........................................................................................................
Semi-Hermetic .........................................................................................
Rotary ......................................................................................................
40
40
40
27
≥20,000–
<50,000 Btu/h
70
50
73
70
≥50,000–
<200,000 Btu/h
100
100
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, the Environmental Protection
Agency (‘‘EPA’’) published a NOPR,
‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons:
Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection
(i) the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020’’, on
December 15, 2022, as a part of the
American Innovation and
Manufacturing (‘‘AIM’’) Act, which
outlined new refrigerant regulations
regarding acceptable global warming
potential (‘‘GWP’’) limits for various air
conditioning and refrigeration systems.
87 FR 76738. On October 24, 2023, EPA
finalized these proposals (‘‘October
2023 AIM Act Final Rule’’). 88 FR
73098. The October 2023 AIM Act Final
Rule established (effective January 1,
2026) a limit of 300 GWP for remote
condensing units in retail food
refrigeration systems and cold storage
warehouses with less than 200 lbs of
charge, which includes split-system
walk-in refrigeration systems covered
under the scope of the September 2023
NOPR. 88 FR 73098, 73209. In the
September 2023 NOPR, DOE analyzed
R–454A and R–455A refrigerants which
have GWPs less than 300 and tentatively
determined that R–454A would be the
most likely replacement refrigerant for
medium- and low-temperature walk-in
refrigeration systems once the
regulations finalized in the October
2023 AIM Act Final Rule take effect.
DOE also tentatively determined that R–
454A would have comparable
performance to the currently-used
refrigerant R–448A. 88 FR 60746, 60772.
As there was limited compressor
performance data available for R–454A
at the time, DOE used R–448A as the
basis for its engineering analysis for
medium- and low-temperature
dedicated condensing units and singlepackaged dedicated systems.13 Id. In the
September 2023 NOPR, DOE requested
performance data for walk-in
refrigeration systems using R–454A, R–
454C, and/or R–455A. DOE also sought
comment on its tentative determinations
that R–454A is the most likely
replacement for the current refrigerants
being used (i.e., R–448A and R–449A)
and that walk-in dedicated condensing
systems would not suffer a performance
penalty when switching from R–448A or
R–449A to R–454A. Id.
In response, AHRI, Lennox, and
Hussmann commented that R–454A is
comparable in performance to R–448A
but that it is not the most likely lowGWP replacement for WICFs because R–
454A has a GWP above 150. (AHRI, No.
72 at p. 10; Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 6–7;
Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 10) AHRI and
Lennox recommended that modeling
should instead be conducted using R–
454C and/or R–455A since California
and Washington state regulations
prohibit the use of a refrigerant with a
GWP greater than 150 for systems with
more than 50 lbs. of refrigerant charge.
(AHRI, No. 72 at p. 10; Lennox, No. 70
at pp. 6–7) Hussmann and NRAC
commented that there may be some
states with stricter regulations than the
EPA that may not allow refrigerants
above 150 GWP. (Hussmann, No. 75 at
p. 10; NRAC, No. 73 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that certain
localities already require, or may require
in the future, WICF refrigeration
systems to be designed for use with sub150 GWP refrigerants.14 Based on
analysis of low-GWP refrigerant
performance in walk-in refrigeration
systems conducted for the September
at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD0009.
13 DOE notes that a more efficient single-speed
compressor that used propane was analyzed as a
design option for some single-packaged dedicated
systems. A propane compressor was analyzed if the
charge limit for propane was sufficient to provide
the analyzed capacity and the propane compressor
resulted in increased efficiency.
14 California established (effective January 1,
2022) a limit of 150 GWP for retail food
refrigeration equipment and cold storage
warehouses with less than 50 lbs of charge.
Washington is expected to establish a limit of 150
GWP for retail food refrigeration equipment and
cold storage warehouses with less than 50 lbs of
charge.
DOE requests comment on the
updated crankcase heater wattages and
additional off-cycle ancillary power for
low-temperature dedicated condensing
units and single-packaged dedicated
systems.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) presented in section II.C of
this document account for the updates
discussed in this section.
c. Low GWP Refrigerant Transition
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
≥5,000–
<20,000 Btu/h
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2023 NOPR, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the highest performing
sub-150 GWP refrigerant appropriate for
use in split-system walk-in refrigeration
systems is R–454C. See section 5.6.3.1
of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. To
assess the potential impact of state level
sub-150 GWP requirements, DOE
reviewed the EERs of R–454C
compressors with capacities
representative of walk-in refrigeration
systems and compared these EERs to
those of the baseline compressors
analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR.
DOE determined the R–454C EERs at
operating conditions representative for
the A test conditions prescribed in the
DOE test procedure for walk-in
refrigeration systems, adjusting the
condensing dewpoint up 2 °F to account
for the higher refrigerant temperature
glide of R–454C as compared to R–448A
or R–454A.
DOE found that trends in the R–454C
compressor efficiencies generally
aligned with the compressor EERs used
in the September 2023 NOPR analysis,
except for the DC.M.O.025 and
DC.M.I.025 representative units. At this
25 kBtu/h capacity DOE found that the
available R–454C compressor had an
EER that is 4 percent less than that of
the compressor analyzed in the
September 2023 NOPR. Based on this,
DOE determined that using the R–454C
compressor analyzed could result in an
AWEF2 that is 2 percent lower for 25
kBtu/h medium-temperature dedicated
condensing units than a comparable
unit using an R–454A-compatible
compressor. As such, and in the absence
of more efficient compressors of the
same type compatible with R–454C,
DOE has tentatively determined that to
achieve the standard proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR (based on the
performance of R–448A), a mediumtemperature walk-in refrigeration
system using a sub-150 GWP refrigerant
may need to incorporate additional
design options beyond what DOE
presumed in the September 2023 NOPR.
To determine the cost of these
additional design options DOE
constructed the cost curves
corresponding to use of the R–454C
compressor (with roughly 2-percent
reduction of AWEF2 for each evaluated
design) and calculated additional cost to
attain the proposed AWEF2 by
interpolating along the cost-efficiency
curves. Based on this analysis DOE has
tentatively determined that additional
MSP required to achieve the proposed
AWEF2 for less-than-150 GWP
refrigerant would be $381 for 25 kBtu/
h medium temperature indoor dedicated
condensing units and $96 for 25 kBtu/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
h medium temperature outdoor
dedicated condensing units.
DOE requests comment on the
estimated additional MPC associated
with 25 kBtu/h medium temperature
indoor and outdoor dedicated
condensing units achieving the
proposed AWEF2 standard levels while
operating with a refrigerant with less
than 150 GWP.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) presented in section II.C
account for the cost adder presented in
this section, as described in section
II.C.1.a of this document.
d. Miscellaneous Updates to the
Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet
In response to the September 2023
NOPR, stakeholders commented that
there were several issues with
calculations in the refrigeration systems
engineering spreadsheet.15 AHRI and
Hussmann suggested several corrections
to the engineering spreadsheet. (AHRI,
No. 72 at pp. 17–19; Hussmann, No. 75
at pp. 7–9) DOE also identified several
issues not prompted by comments. DOE
discusses the corrections that it made in
this NODA in the following paragraphs.
To the extent that stakeholders made
comments on the engineering
spreadsheet and DOE has determined
that updates to the spreadsheet are not
necessary, DOE will address those
comments in a subsequent rulemaking.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that
row 77 for the condenser and row 86 for
the evaporator on the ‘Calculation’ tab
were calculating pressures at the
incorrect point of the refrigeration cycle,
claiming that all subsequent
calculations use the wrong pressures.
(AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 17–18; Hussmann,
No. 75 at pp. 7–8) DOE notes that the
calculations in question are used only
for determination of refrigerant glide to
adjust from midpoint to dewpoint. The
errors in these adjustments result in
roughly 0.1 °F difference in calculated
dew point temperature for the
condenser. They result in zero
difference in evaporator dew point
temperature for dedicated condensing
unit calculations (for which evaporator
dew point temperature is prescribed by
the test procedure) and roughly 0.03 °F
difference for single-packaged dedicated
systems calculations. These differences
make no significant impact on overall
results. Nevertheless, DOE has revised
the calculations for this NODA such that
the calculation will be based on a
quality of 0.5 for the condenser, which
15 The September 2023 NOPR refrigeration
systems engineering sheet can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD0009-0052.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18563
is representative of the condenser
midpoint, and a quality for the
evaporator somewhat greater than 0.5 to
account for the fact that evaporator
refrigerant inlet quality is non-zero.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that
in rows 165 and 233 of the
‘Calculations’ tab, which contain the
condenser half glide calculation for B
and C conditions, the formula is using
a temperature input rather than a
pressure input to calculate a
temperature output. (AHRI, No. 72 at
pp. 18–19; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 9).
This calculation results in
overestimation of the dew point by
roughly 0.5 °F, and a corresponding
slight overestimation of compressor
energy use. DOE has revised this
calculation for this NODA.
In the September 2023 NOPR, the cost
of additional spark-proofing electronic
components was not properly accounted
for due to an incorrect formula. In the
updated refrigeration system
engineering analysis spreadsheet, DOE
updated the compressor cost calculation
(which feeds into the MPC) to include
the additional costs for spark-proofing
electronic components for singlepackaged dedicated systems that use
propane as the refrigerant. As a result of
this change in MPC associated with
propane-compatible compressors, DOE
reordered the design options of the
SP.M.O.002 and SP.M.I.002
representative units such that the design
options are ordered from most costeffective AWEF2 improvements to the
least cost-effective AWEF2
improvements, where cost-effectiveness
is based on the ratio of AWEF2 increase
to MPC increase.
In the September 2023 NOPR, all the
high-temperature, 2 kBtu/h and 7 kBtu/
h, outdoor single-packaged dedicated
system representative units
implemented the variable-speed
condenser fan design option before the
electronically commutated motor design
option was implemented. However, an
electronically commutated motor is a
prerequisite for the variable-speed
condenser fan design option. In the
updated refrigeration system
engineering spreadsheet, DOE reordered
the variable-speed condenser fan and
electronically commutated motor design
options for these representative units.
DOE notes that reordering these design
options did not impact the results of the
proposed efficiency level as both design
options were included in the efficiency
level corresponding to the proposed
standard level.
Additionally, DOE updated the
calculation of the enthalpy exiting the
unit cooler that is used in the
calculation of the gross capacity for
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
18564
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
dedicated condensing units to be
consistent with the DOE test procedure.
See section C7.5.2 of American National
Standards Institute/Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
Standard 1250 (I–P), ‘‘2020 Standard for
Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers
and Freezers’’. The calculation for the
enthalpy exiting the unit cooler for
single-packaged dedicated systems was
consistent with the DOE test procedure
for the NOPR analysis and therefore,
DOE did not update it for singlepackaged dedicated systems for this
NODA.
Overall, the updates made to the
engineering analysis spreadsheet
resulted in a minimal change to the
cost-efficiency curves for each
representative unit. Comparing
efficiency levels with the same design
option combinations for each
representative unit between the
September 2023 NOPR and this NODA,
the AWEF2s generally increased or
decreased between 1- and 3-percent as
a result of the changes discussed
previously. Similarly, in this NODA,
design option order generally remained
as it was in the NOPR, and
manufacturer production costs did not
change from the NOPR for many
representative units. However, in some
cases, changes in representative unit
performance at the baseline required rebaselining to meet the current energy
conservation standards. This rebaselining resulted in slightly different
combinations of design options at the
baseline efficiency level for the
following representative units, which
also resulted in either more or fewer
design options above baseline
depending on whether the baseline
efficiency level needed fewer or more
design options at the baseline to meet
the current AWEF standards:
DC.M.O.009, DC.M.I.025, DC.L.O.075,
and SP.L.I.006. Additionally, some of
the changes to the engineering
spreadsheet impacted cost model inputs
(e.g., fan motor horsepower impacts the
cost of a fan motor); therefore, there are
slight changes to the manufacturer
production costs associated with some
representative units’ efficiency levels
even if the design option order has not
changed from the September 2023
NOPR analysis. This was the case for
the following representative units:
DC.M.O.009, DC.M.O.025, DC.M.O.054,
DC.M.O.075, DC.M.O.124, DC.M.I.009,
DC.M.I.025, DC.M.I.054, DC.M.I.075,
DC.L.O.003, DC.L.O.009, DC.L.O.025,
DC.L.O.054, DC.L.I.003, DC.L.I.009,
DC.L.I.025, DC.L.I.054, SP.L.O.002, and
SP.L.I.002.
See section 3 of the NODA support
document for updated cost-efficiency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
results. The analytical results (i.e., LCC,
PBP, and NIA) presented in section II.C
of this document account for the
updates discussed in this section.
3. Unit Coolers
a. Cost Assumptions at Max-Tech
Efficiency Levels
In the September 2023 NOPR, using
the Unit Cooler Performance Database 16
DOE developed linear cost-efficiency
correlations for each representative unit,
which DOE used to determine the MPC
increase from the baseline efficiency
level to the higher efficiency levels for
unit coolers. See section 5.8.6 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD. When
building the Unit Cooler Performance
Database, DOE did not consider that
adding additional rows to the unit
cooler heat exchanger would require an
increase in cabinet size when
determining the MPCs associated with
each efficiency level. DOE based this
assumption on manufacturers’ unit
cooler product catalogs, which included
unit cooler case dimensions.
In response, Lennox stated that
increasing 4-row unit cooler designs to
5- or 6-row designs is not cost-effective
because adding coil rows has
diminishing returns on improved
efficiency and would result in increased
coil face area and increased cabinet size.
(Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4) AHRI,
Hussmann, and Lennox commented that
current unit cooler coil and cabinet
designs are optimized around 4-row
designs and increasing efficiency would
be more costly than what DOE estimated
when considering packaging, freight,
materials, and scrap. (AHRI, No. 72 at
pp. 3–4, 9; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2,
12; Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4) 17
During the development of the
September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE
identified several manufacturers
producing unit coolers with heat
exchangers 5 or more rows deep.
However, DOE acknowledges the
concerns of AHRI, Lennox, and
Hussmann that some manufacturers
may not be currently producing unit
coolers with heat exchangers 5 rows
deep. As such, these manufacturers may
need to expand the cabinet size of their
4-row unit coolers to accommodate
larger heat exchangers (i.e., evaporator
coils with at least 5 rows). In response
to this feedback, DOE updated its
16 The Unit Cooler Performance Database can be
found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0009-0064.
17 DOE notes that it also received comments
indicating that the conversion costs for refrigeration
systems should be incorporated as an amortized
consideration in the MSP. DOE will consider and
address these stakeholder comments in a
subsequent rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
analysis for this NODA and assumed
that the unit cooler case would have to
be expanded to accommodate an
additional row at the maximum
technology (‘‘max-tech’’) efficiency level
for every unit cooler representative unit.
DOE estimated the additional MPC
using the same cost modeling processes
described in section 5.4 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD. The
additional MPC includes additional
material, scrap, and packaging
associated with the cabinet size
increase. DOE developed this additional
MPC for expanding unit cooler case size
for several representative units. The
average cost adder associated with the
cabinet size increase was $11 for the
representative capacities DOE analyzed.
Updated unit cooler cost efficiency
curves can be found in section 3 of the
NODA support document.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the increase in shipping cost would not
significantly affect the analysis and
therefore, did not include this in the
revised analysis in this NODA.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) for unit coolers presented in
section II.C of this document account for
the updates discussed in this section.
b. Unit Cooler Fan Power
As discussed in section 5.5.4.2 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE used
unit cooler fan powers from
manufacturer product catalogs to
construct the Unit Cooler Performance
Database. In general, DOE found that the
fan powers reported in product catalogs
were constant across unit cooler models
that only appeared to differ in the
number of rows in their heat
exchangers. Further, fan motor powers
per fan were the same across families of
unit coolers having the same general
geometry and fan diameter, where the
unit coolers differed only by overall unit
cooler length (and number of fans) and
number of tube rows in the evaporator.
As such, DOE assumed for the NOPR
analysis that unit cooler fan power
would not change when additional heat
exchanger rows were added.
Lennox stated that adding additional
rows would have diminishing
performance returns for several reasons
including that higher fan power is
needed to maintain airflow when
additional coil depth is added due to
the additional pressure drop imposed by
the added tube rows. (Lennox, No. 70 at
p. 4)
Increasing heat exchanger size by
adding a row could increase the internal
static pressure (‘‘ISP’’) that the unit
cooler fan would need to overcome and
would therefore require more fan power
to maintain the same airflow at a higher
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ISP. DOE notes that when unit cooler
airflow is reported in product catalogs
for models that only appear to differ in
number of heat exchanger rows, the
airflow generally decreases when an
additional heat exchanger row is added,
but (as previously noted) the fan power
listed stays constant. To quantify the
potential increase in fan power, DOE
estimated the increase in ISP associated
with adding additional heat exchanger
rows using CoilDesigner.18 For the
CoilDesigner model, DOE assumed heat
exchanger and fan characteristics based
on physical and catalog teardowns of
unit coolers and unit cooler airflow
based on manufacturer product catalogs.
DOE estimated a percentage fan power
increase using representative fan
performance curves, the reported air
flow, and unit cooler system pressure
drop before and after adding the coil
row, accounting for the additional ISP
estimated using CoilDesigner. Based on
this analysis, DOE has tentatively
determined that increasing the number
of heat exchanger rows from 2 to 3 or
3 to 4 would result in roughly a 6percent increase in unit cooler fan
power, and increasing heat exchanger
rows from 4 to 5 would result in roughly
a 4-percent unit cooler fan power
increase.
Although the fan power reported in
product catalogs does not appear to
change, as the number of heat exchanger
rows changes, it is likely, as indicated
by the analysis described above, that the
fan power is different for these models.
To evaluate the potential impact of this
variation on potential ranges of AWEF2,
DOE evaluated multiple scenarios
regarding fan power increase with the
Unit Cooler Performance Database
medium-temperature unit coolers. For
medium-temperature unit coolers,
AWEF2 depends only on the fan power
and capacity, and questions about
potential variation in the defrost energy
(a factor for low-temperature unit
coolers), would not apply. The initial
construction of the Unit Cooler
Performance Database, posted to the
rulemaking docket, was based on using
the literature fan power as reported (i.e.,
DOE did not consider any changes to
fan power based on number of rows).19
DOE further evaluated two alternative
approaches: (a) that the reported fan
power applies for unit coolers with the
least number of tube rows and therefore,
the actual fan power increases above the
levels reported in the literature with
18 CoilDesigner is a heat exchanger coil
simulation tool. CoilDesigner Version 4.8.20221.110
was used for this analysis.
19 The Unit Cooler Performance Database can be
found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0009-0064.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
additional tube rows; and (b) that the
reported fan power applies for the unit
coolers with the greatest number of tube
rows and therefore, the actual fan power
decreases below the levels reported in
the literature with fewer tube rows. For
each scenario, DOE adjusted the unit
cooler fan powers based on the ISP
difference determined by DOE’s Coil
Designer analysis. In all cases, the
calculated AWEF2 values include many
that are lower than the current baseline
level. However, the number of AWEF2
values that are lower than the current
baseline level is significantly lower for
approach (b) described previously. The
highest AWEF2 values are roughly the
same at 10.0 for the NOPR scenario (no
fan power differences within a family of
unit coolers) and scenario (b), and are
lower (close to 9.7) for scenario (a).
Given that the unit coolers evaluated are
all certified as compliant with DOE
standards, and the likelihood that the
reported motor power would apply for
the highest-power (motor design)
operating point, DOE concludes that
scenario (b) is the most likely. DOE
notes that for all three of the scenarios,
the Unit Cooler Performance Database
has AWEF2 values that are higher than
the max-tech AWEF2 values calculated
for the representative capacities. Thus,
DOE concludes that the max-tech
efficiency levels considered in the
NOPR were not overestimated due to
the potential increase in fan power as
additional tube rows are added within
the range considered. Therefore, DOE
did not adjust the unit cooler AWEF2
values proposed in the September 2023
NOPR based on the potential for
additional unit cooler rows to impose
additional ISP that could require
increased fan power. The results of the
three scenarios are shown in Figure 5.1
through Figure 5.3 of the NODA support
document that has been posted to the
docket.
c. Miscellaneous Updates to the Unit
Cooler Analysis
After the September 2023 NOPR was
published, DOE identified an issue in
the calculation of baseline net capacities
for high-temperature unit coolers in its
engineering analysis. DOE corrected this
issue for this NODA and as a result
baseline AWEF2 values are slightly less
than the AWEF2 values shown in the
NOPR. Additionally, since the AWEF2
values at efficiency levels above
baseline are dependent on the baseline
AWEF2 values for the high-temperature
unit cooler analysis, the AWEF2 values
at higher efficiency levels are less than
those AWEF2 values shown in the
NOPR. On average, the calculated
efficiencies of all high-temperature unit
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18565
cooler efficiency levels have decreased
by 2-percent from the NOPR values.
In addition, DOE found an issue in
the calculation of the max-tech MPC of
the UC.L.009 representative unit, which
resulted in a higher MPC. For this
NODA analysis, DOE addressed this
calculation issue, which results in an
MPC that is 4-percent lower than the
MPC presented in the September 2023
NOPR. When accounting for this change
and the MPC change associated with the
cabinet size increase cost adder
discussed in section II.A.3.a, the MPC
determined for this NODA is 2-percent
less than the MPC presented in the
NOPR for this representative unit.
See section 3 of the NODA support
document that has been posted to the
docket for the updated cost-efficiency
curves that includes these corrections.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP,
and NIA) presented in section II.C of
this document account for these
corrections.
B. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens of three trial standard levels
(‘‘TSLs’’) for the considered walk-in
doors, panels, and refrigeration systems
in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR
60746, 60785–60786.
DOE notes that the TSLs presented in
this NODA are tentative and for
evaluating the analytical changes
considered in the context of this NODA
and DOE may revise the number of, or
structure of, these TSLs in response to
comments in future analysis. DOE
further notes that the TSLs presented in
this NODA are within or close to the
range of values presented in the
September 2023 NOPR.
1. Refrigeration Systems
For this NODA, DOE is presenting
three TSLs to demonstrate the changes
discussed in sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 of
this document that pertain to
refrigeration systems. The efficiency
levels that correspond to these TSLs for
these equipment classes are shown in
Table II.5 through Table II.7.
TSL 3 in this NODA includes the
efficiency levels that use the
combination of design options for each
representative unit at the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
level. For this NODA, DOE notes a
correction here where in the NOPR, the
design option representing max-tech for
the DC.M.O.054 representative unit was
mapped to EL 7—when in fact it should
have been EL 8. With the added
efficiency level in this NODA, the maxtech efficiency level for the DC.M.O.054
representative unit is now EL 9 as
shown in Table II.5. TSL 1 represents
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18566
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the efficiency levels in this NODA that
yield AWEF2 values closest to those
AWEF2 values that align with TSL 2 in
the September 2023 NOPR, which is the
TSL that DOE proposed to adopt. TSL
2 in this NODA is an intermediate TSL
that is higher than TSL 1 but below the
max-tech level.
TABLE II.5—REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNIT MAPPING FOR TSL 3
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
2
3
6
7
9
2
3
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
25
54
75
124
..........
4
3
8
..........
..........
..........
9
Dedicated Condensing Units
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) ......................................................................................
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) .................................................................................
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) ...............................................................................
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) ..........................................................................
..........
..........
..........
..........
I
I
I
I
1
5
1
8
I
3
8
3
8
I
2
5
4
9
I
I
I
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) .....................................................................
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) ................................................................
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) .....................................................................................
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) ................................................................................
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) ......................................................................................
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) ..................................................................................
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) ...............................................................................
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) ..........................................................................
2
6
2
6
7
4
5
9
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
4
..........
..........
2
6
2
6
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
3
5
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
Unit Coolers
High Temperature (UC.H) ...................................................................................................
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) .................................................................................
Low Temperature (UC.L) ....................................................................................................
Medium Temperature (UC.M) .............................................................................................
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE II.6—REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNIT MAPPING FOR TSL 2
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
2
3
6
7
9
1
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
25
54
75
124
..........
3
2
3
..........
..........
..........
4
Dedicated Condensing Units
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) ......................................................................................
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) .................................................................................
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) ...............................................................................
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) ..........................................................................
..........
..........
..........
..........
I
I
I
I
0
4
0
3
I
2
7
2
3
I
1
4
3
4
I
I
I
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) .....................................................................
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) ................................................................
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) .....................................................................................
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) ................................................................................
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) ......................................................................................
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) ..................................................................................
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) ...............................................................................
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) ..........................................................................
2
6
2
5
4
2
3
8
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
2
..........
..........
2
6
2
5
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
3
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
Unit Coolers
High Temperature (UC.H) ...................................................................................................
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) .................................................................................
Low Temperature (UC.L) ....................................................................................................
Medium Temperature (UC.M) .............................................................................................
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE II.7—REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNIT MAPPING FOR TSL 1
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2
3
6
7
9
1
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
25
54
75
124
..........
2
2
2
..........
..........
..........
2
Dedicated Condensing Units
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) ......................................................................................
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) .................................................................................
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) ...............................................................................
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) ..........................................................................
..........
..........
..........
..........
I
I
I
I
I
0
4
0
2
I
2
7
2
2
I
1
4
2
2
I
I
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) .....................................................................
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) ................................................................
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
I
Sfmt 4702
2
5
1
I
..........
..........
..........
I
..........
..........
..........
I
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
2
6
2
I
..........
..........
..........
14MRP1
I
..........
..........
..........
I
..........
..........
..........
I
..........
..........
..........
I
..........
..........
..........
18567
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.7—REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNIT MAPPING FOR TSL 1—Continued
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
2
3
6
7
9
25
54
75
124
5
4
0
3
8
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
1
..........
..........
5
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
3
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
2
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) ................................................................................
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) ......................................................................................
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) ..................................................................................
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) ...............................................................................
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) ..........................................................................
Unit Coolers
High Temperature (UC.H) ...................................................................................................
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) .................................................................................
Low Temperature (UC.L) ....................................................................................................
Medium Temperature (UC.M) .............................................................................................
2. Non-Display Doors
For this NODA, DOE is presenting
three TSLs to demonstrate the changes
discussed in section II.A.1 of this
document that pertain to non-display
doors. The efficiency levels that
I
I
I
correspond to these TSLs for these
equipment classes are shown table II.8.
TSL 3 in this NODA includes the
efficiency levels that use the
combination of design options for each
representative unit at the max-tech
level. TSL 1 and TSL 2 are intermediate
I
I
I
I
I
I
TSLs between baseline and TSL 3. The
efficiency levels for each TSL are based
on the updated engineering analysis for
non-display doors, as discussed in
section II.A.1 of this document and as
shown in the NODA support document.
TABLE II.8—NON-DISPLAY DOORS EFFICIENCY LEVEL TO TSL MAPPING
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
Non-display Doors, Manual
Low Temperature (NM.L) ............................................................................................................
Medium Temperature (NM.M) .....................................................................................................
1
1
3
3
5
6
1
1
3
3
5
6
Non-display Doors, Motorized
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Low Temperature (NO.L) .............................................................................................................
Medium Temperature (NO.M) .....................................................................................................
C. Analytical Results
To quantify the impacts to consumers
and the Nation from the additional
analysis of the technologies described in
section II.A of this document, DOE ran
its life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis and national
impacts analysis (‘‘NIA’’) with the same
inputs as it used in the September 2023
NOPR, with the exception of the
changes described in sections II.A and
II.B of this document. DOE also
considered the potential impacts of the
updated analysis discussed in this
NODA on the manufacturer impact
analysis (‘‘MIA’’). As discussed in
chapter 12 of the September 2023 NOPR
TSD, DOE relies on several sources,
including the engineering analysis and
the shipments analysis, to obtain inputs
to quantify the potential impacts of
amended energy conservation standards
on the walk-in cooler and freezer
industry. Changes to MSPs and
shipments would affect industry
revenue, and, therefore, the MIA results.
However, considered in isolation, DOE
does not expect that the changes to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
engineering analysis or shipments
distribution detailed in this NODA
would substantively alter the industry
financial results (represented by change
in industry net present value) presented
in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE will
assess and incorporate the most up-todate data in any subsequent MIA
conducted for this rulemaking.
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
on walk-in coolers and freezers
consumers by looking at the effects that
potential amended standards at each
TSL would have on the LCC and PBP.
The detailed description of how DOE
calculates its LCC impacts can be found
in chapter 8 and associated appendices
of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
In general, higher-efficiency
equipment affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and
(2) annual operating costs decrease.
Inputs used for calculating the LCC and
PBP include total installed costs (i.e.,
product price plus installation costs),
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and operating costs (i.e., annual energy
use, energy prices, energy price trends,
repair costs, and maintenance costs).
The LCC calculation also uses product
lifetime and a discount rate. For this
NODA, DOE maintained the same
methods and modeling assumptions
discussed in chapter 8 of the September
2023 NOPR TSD with the exception of
the revised engineering analysis
discussed in section II.A of this
document and TSL composition
discussed in section II.B of this
document.
a. Application of the Low-GWP
Refrigerant Transition to Specific
Regions
As discussed in section II.A.2.c of this
document, the states of California and
Washington require the use of sub-150–
GWP refrigerants. In the September
2023 NOPR, DOE conducted its LCC
analysis at the geographic level of
Census regions, where the region
containing the states of California and
Washington is the Western Region
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18568
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(Region 4).20 To approximate any
additional costs associated with moving
to low-GWP refrigerants to consumers in
California and Washington DOE applied
the cost of the additional design options
determined in section II.A.2.c of this
document to the fraction of consumers
in Western Census Region based on
population.21 Theses weights and
design option cost are shown in table
II.9.
TABLE II.9—LOW-GWP REFRIGERANT COST ADDERS
Capacity
(kBtu/hr)
EC
DC.M.I ..............................................................................................................
3
3
9
9
25
25
54
54
75
75
3
3
9
9
25
25
54
54
75
75
124
124
DC.M.O ............................................................................................................
DOE seeks comment on its approach
to applying the transition to low-GWP
refrigerant to specific regions.
b. Results for Refrigeration Systems
Table II.10 through table II.14 show
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs for
each category of refrigeration system
equipment impacted in this NODA. In
Census region
the first of each pair of tables by
equipment category (dedicated
refrigeration systems, single-packaged
dedicated refrigeration systems, etc.),
the simple payback is measured relative
to the baseline equipment. In the second
table, impacts are measured relative to
the efficiency distribution in the nonew-standards case in the compliance
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cost adder
($)
0
0
0
0
381.20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95.94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
0.59
0.41
year. The savings refer only to
consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who
already purchase equipment with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are
not affected. Consumers for whom the
LCC increases at a given TSL experience
a net cost.
TABLE II.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS
Average costs (2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
First year’s
operation cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
LCC
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)
0
1
2
3
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
7,643 ..................................
7,771 ..................................
7,771 ..................................
10,891 ................................
2,486
2,435
2,435
2,331
22,151
21,844
21,844
22,956
29,793
29,615
29,615
33,847
0.0
3.2
3.2
inf
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
0.0
5.3
7.5
inf
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
0.0
3.0
3.3
10.5
10.5
10.5
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)
0
1
2
3
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
26,579
26,799
26,885
38,360
................................
................................
................................
................................
3,790
3,731
3,724
3,321
39,853
39,540
39,546
43,510
66,432
66,339
66,430
81,870
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)
0 ..........................................
1 ..........................................
2 ..........................................
3,783 ..................................
3,882 ..................................
3,921 ..................................
20 See: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/mapsdata/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
1,164
1,123
1,111
10,379
10,126
10,058
14,162
14,008
13,979
21 See: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/timeseries/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18569
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS—Continued
Average costs (2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
3 ..........................................
Lifetime
operating
cost
First year’s
operation cost
5,107 ..................................
1,037
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
LCC
10,214
15,320
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
64.4
10.5
0.0
0.4
2.9
18.7
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O)
0
1
2
3
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
5,757
5,761
5,884
8,470
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
1,661
1,648
1,607
1,297
15,136
15,041
14,799
14,004
20,892
20,802
20,683
22,474
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline equipment.
TABLE II.11—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS
% Consumers with
net cost
TSL
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
7
7
100
276
276
¥4,054
28
47
100
93
2
¥15,438
1
2
97
594
709
¥1,159
0
3
95
90
209
¥1,582
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE II.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS
Average costs (2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
I
First year’s
operation
cost
I
Lifetime
operating
cost
LCC
I
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
2,051
2,145
2,145
2,145
436
370
370
370
3,977
3,586
3,586
3,586
6,027
5,731
5,731
5,731
0.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
8,221
7,930
7,965
7,965
0.0
3.5
3.8
3.8
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
4,688
4,563
4,585
0.0
1.3
2.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
2,820
3,119
3,146
3,146
590
476
474
474
5,401
4,811
4,819
4,819
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)
0 ................................................................................................
1 ................................................................................................
2 ................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
1,978
2,006
2,035
Fmt 4702
255
230
226
Sfmt 4702
2,709
2,557
2,550
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18570
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS—Continued
Average costs (2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
3 ................................................................................................
2,035
First year’s
operation
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
226
LCC
2,550
4,585
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
2,857
2,948
2,948
1,764
357
319
319
62
3,829
3,629
3,629
2,033
6,686
6,577
6,577
3,797
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
3,755
3,947
3,947
3,947
732
665
665
665
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
6,963
6,621
6,621
6,621
10,718
10,568
10,568
10,568
I
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
2.5
0.0
3.1
3.1
inf
I
0.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
I
I
I
I
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
4,951
4,952
4,974
6,129
967
955
951
920
9,202
9,121
9,095
9,641
14,153
14,074
14,068
15,771
0.0
0.2
1.5
inf
I
I
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
4,002
4,177
4,177
5,042
713
674
674
666
6,958
6,800
6,800
7,307
10,959
10,977
10,977
12,349
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
4,795
4,857
4,857
5,806
667
636
636
632
7,023
6,846
6,846
7,436
11,818
11,703
11,703
13,242
0.0
7.8
7.8
inf
I
0.0
2.5
2.5
inf
I
I
I
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
equipment.
TABLE II.13—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED
SYSTEMS
% Consumers with
net cost
TSL
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
0
0
0
296
296
296
5
16
16
291
256
256
2
3
3
124
103
103
3
3
21
108
108
¥55
8
150
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18571
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.13—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED
SYSTEMS—Continued
TSL
% Consumers with
net cost
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
8
8
150
150
0
20
100
105
85
¥1,618
27
27
100
¥17
¥17
¥1,390
6
6
100
114
114
¥1,425
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE II.14—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR UNIT COOLERS
Average costs (2023$)
TSL
Installed cost
I
First year’s
operation
cost
I
Lifetime
operating
cost
LCC
I
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
Unit Coolers, High Temperature (UC.H)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
3,083
3,083
3,083
3,223
479
479
479
474
4,595
4,595
4,595
4,642
7,678
7,678
7,678
7,865
0.0
0.0
0.0
inf
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
6,111
5,859
5,859
5,859
9,271
9,071
9,071
9,071
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
34,322
32,772
32,772
32,772
36,980
35,690
35,690
35,690
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
13,649
13,373
13,373
13,373
16,118
15,942
15,942
15,942
0.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
Unit Coolers, High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
3,161
3,212
3,212
3,212
681
642
642
642
Unit Coolers, Low Temperature (UC.L)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
2,658
2,918
2,918
2,918
4,413
4,186
4,186
4,186
Unit Coolers, Medium Temperature (UC.M)
0
1
2
3
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
2,468
2,569
2,569
2,569
1,675
1,631
1,631
1,631
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
equipment.
TABLE II.15—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR UNIT COOLERS
TSL
% Consumers with
net cost
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Unit Coolers, High Temperature (UC.H)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18572
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.15—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR UNIT COOLERS—Continued
TSL
% Consumers with
net cost
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
100
¥187
0
0
0
201
201
201
10
10
10
1,290
1,290
1,290
23
23
23
176
176
176
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Unit Coolers, High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Unit Coolers, Low Temperature (UC.L)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Unit Coolers, Medium Temperature (UC.M)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
c. Results for Non-Display Doors
Table II.16 through table II.19 show
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs for
each non-display doors equipment class
impacted in this NODA. In the first of
each pair of tables by equipment class
(manual non-display doors, motorized
non-display doors), the simple payback
is measured relative to the baseline
equipment. In the second table, impacts
are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards
case in the compliance year. The
savings refer only to consumers who are
affected by a standard at a given TSL.
Those who already purchase equipment
with efficiency at or above a given TSL
are not affected. Consumers for whom
the LCC increases at a given TSL
experience a net cost.
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, to estimate the impacts of
improved efficiency on walk-in
envelope components (e.g., panels,
doors), DOE must first establish the
efficiencies and energy use of the
connected refrigeration equipment. 88
FR 60746, 60786. For the purposes of
this NODA, DOE has presented the
results for non-display doors based on
both the baseline and max-tech
refrigeration system to show the range of
potential impacts associated with each
analyzed TSL.
TABLE II.16—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS
Average costs
(2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
First year’s
operation
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
LCC
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
Non-display Doors, Manual, Low Temperature (NM.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
2,663
2,754
2,854
3,136
315
237
161
147
2,079
1,566
1,068
975
4,742
4,319
3,922
4,111
0.0
1.2
1.3
2.8
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
4,863
4,288
3,883
4,097
0.0
1.2
1.4
2.8
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
3,271
3,163
3,132
3,439
0.0
2.4
3.2
10.4
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
2,574
2,705
2,833
3,136
347
240
159
145
2,289
1,582
1,050
961
Non-display Doors, Manual, Medium Temperature (NM.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
2,766
2,827
2,900
3,229
PO 00000
Frm 00018
77
51
35
32
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
505
337
233
211
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18573
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.16—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS—Continued
Average costs
(2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
First year’s
operation
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
LCC
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
2,605
2,736
2,850
3,229
108
56
37
34
714
368
246
226
3,319
3,105
3,095
3,454
0.0
2.5
3.4
8.4
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline equipment.
TABLE II.17—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS
TSL
% Consumers with
net cost
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
1
1
5
607
1,049
847
1
1
5
575
980
766
3
8
69
233
263
¥91
4
9
78
214
224
¥135
Non-display Doors, Manual, Low Temperature (NM.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Non-display Doors, Manual, Medium Temperature (NM.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE II.18—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR MOTORIZED NON-DISPLAY DOORS
Average costs
(2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
First year’s
operation
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
LCC
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Low Temperature (NO.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
7,120
7,240
7,367
7,688
495
362
253
223
3,244
2,376
1,663
1,466
10,364
9,615
9,029
9,154
0.0
0.9
1.0
2.1
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
10,248
9,470
8,921
9,069
0.0
0.9
1.1
2.2
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
7,102
7,233
7,363
7,688
PO 00000
Frm 00019
480
341
237
210
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3,146
2,237
1,558
1,381
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18574
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.18—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR MOTORIZED NON-DISPLAY DOORS—Continued
Average costs
(2023$)
TSL
Installed
cost
First year’s
operation
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
Simple
payback
period
(yrs)
LCC
Average
lifetime
(yrs)
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Medium Temperature (NO.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
7,333
7,377
7,435
7,704
91
66
50
45
597
436
331
298
7,930
7,813
7,767
8,002
0.0
1.8
2.5
8.1
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8,051
7,727
7,679
8,037
0.0
1.9
2.6
6.4
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
7,059
7,190
7,307
7,704
151
81
56
50
992
536
373
333
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline equipment.
TABLE II.19—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS
TSL
% Consumers with
net cost
Average savings—
impacted
consumers
(2023$)
0
0
2
819
1,417
1,291
0
0
2
778
1,326
1,179
1
3
42
349
424
77
1
4
51
324
372
14
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Low Temperature (NO.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Medium Temperature (NO.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2. National Impacts Analysis
This section presents DOE’s estimates
of the changes in national energy
savings (‘‘NES’’) and the net present
value (‘‘NPV’’) of consumer benefits that
would result from each of the TSLs as
potential amended standards for the
equipment under consideration in this
NODA. For this NODA, DOE maintained
the methodologies and modeling
assumptions that were used in the 2023
September NOPR. For brevity the NIA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
results are presented here by equipment
category (i.e., refrigeration systems), the
results for each equipment class can be
found in section 6 of the NODA support
document.
The detailed description of how DOE
calculates its national impacts can be
found in chapter 10 and associated
appendices of the September 2023
NOPR TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a. Non-Display Doors
As discussed in the September 2023
NOPR, the energy savings from
improved insulation or reduced heat
infiltration would be realized as
reduced load on the attached
refrigeration systems; however, for the
purpose of reporting, these energy
savings are attributed to the individual
door in question. 88 FR 60746, 60788.
For this NODA, when determining the
NES and NPV of consumer benefits of
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18575
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
each TSL DOE bounds the range of
potential costs and benefits for nondisplay doors when they are connected
to max-tech refrigeration systems (the
low bound), and baseline refrigeration
systems (the high bound). These results
are shown in table II.21 and table II.23.
b. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings
attributable to potential amended
standards for walk-in refrigeration
systems, DOE compared their energy
consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated
energy consumption under each TSL.
The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of equipment purchased
in the 30-year period that begins in the
year of anticipated compliance with
amended standards (2027–2056). Table
II.20 and table II.21 present DOE’s
projections of the NES for each TSL
considered for walk-in refrigeration
systems shown in section II.B. The
savings were calculated using the
approach described in chapter 10 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD.22
TABLE II.20—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZER
REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS (QUADS); 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
1
2
I
I
3
(quads)
Primary energy ............................................................................................................................
FFC energy ..................................................................................................................................
0.86
0.89
1.11
1.14
I
3.51
3.61
I
TABLE II.21—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS: NONDISPLAY DOORS (QUADS); 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
I
1
I
2
3
(quads)
Primary energy ............................................................................................................................
FFC energy ..................................................................................................................................
0.27 to 0.28
0.28 to 0.29
c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
discount rate. Table II.22 and table II.23
show the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of
walk-in coolers and freezers
refrigeration systems and non-display
doors purchased in 2027–2056.
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the
TSLs considered for walk-in
refrigeration systems. In accordance
with the Office of Management and
Budget’s guidelines on regulatory
analysis,23 DOE calculated NPV using
both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real
I
0.58 to 0.61
0.59 to 0.63
I
0.65 to 0.70
0.67 to 0.72
TABLE II.22—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS
REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
Discount rate
1
2
I
I
3
(billion 2023$)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3 percent ..................................................................................................................................
7 percent ..................................................................................................................................
22 See: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2017-BT-STD-0009-0046.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
23 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1.53
0.64
I
1.57
0.62
I
¥25.45
¥13.15
legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last
accessed April 26, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18576
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.23—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS: NONDISPLAY DOORS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
Discount rate
1
2
I
3
I
(billion 2022$)
3 percent ..................................................................................................................................
7 percent ..................................................................................................................................
D. Updated Equations for Proposed
Standards
1. Energy Consumption Equations for
Non-Display Doors
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
proposed amended energy conservation
standards for walk-in non-display doors
at TSL 2 from the NOPR analysis. 88 FR
60746, 60748. Table II.24 presents
updated MDEC curves for the affected
equipment classes at the same trial
standard level proposed in the
0.78 to 0.83
0.35 to 0.37
I
1.57 to 1.72
0.69 to 0.76
¥0.43 to ¥0.24
I ¥0.43 to ¥0.35
September 2023 NOPR using the
updated analysis presented in this
NODA.
TABLE II.24—CHANGES TO ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN NON-DISPLAY DOORS PROPOSED IN THE
SEPTEMBER 2023 NOPR
Equipment class
TSL 2 NOPR equations for
MDEC
(kWh/day) *
Non-Display Door, Manual, Medium Temperature ...........
Non-Display Door, Manual, Low Temperature .................
0.01 × And + 0.25 ...............
0.06 × And + 1.32 ...............
Non-Display Door, Motorized, Medium Temperature .......
Non-Display Door, Motorized, Low Temperature .............
0.01 × And + 0.39 ...............
0.05 × And + 1.56 ...............
TSL 2 NODA equations for MDEC
(kWh/day) *
0.01 × And + 0.25 + 0.33a + 0.25b +
0.06 × And + 1.35 + 0.40a + 1.42b
0.85e.
0.01 × And + 0.39 + 0.33a + 0.25b +
0.05 × And + 1.59 + 0.40a + 1.42b
0.85e.
0.07c + 0.24d.
+ 0.09c + 0.30d +
0.07c + 0.24d.
+ 0.09c + 0.30d +
And represents the surface area of the non-display door.
a = 1 for a door with lighting and = 0 for a door without lighting.
b = 1 for a door with a heated viewport window and = 0 for a door without a heated viewport window.
c = 1 for a door with a digital temperature display without alarms and = 0 for a door without a digital display without alarms.
d = 1 for a door with a digital temperature display with alarms and = 0 for a door without a digital temperature display with alarms.
e = 1 for a door with a heated pressure relief vent and = 0 for a door without a heated pressure relief vent.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2. AWEF2 Equations
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
proposed amended energy conservation
standards for walk-in refrigeration
system equipment at TSL 2 from the
NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60748.
The equations for the proposed
amended energy conservation standards
for dedicated condensing units and
single-packaged dedicated systems
generally followed the trends of the TSL
2 levels determined for the analyzed
representative capacities. For unit
coolers, DOE proposed energy
conservation standards that do not vary
with capacity.
AHRI and Hussmann commented on
the proposed energy conservation
standards for unit coolers by providing
plots for medium- and low-temperature
unit coolers showing that DOE proposed
AWEF2 standards equations that
resulted in AWEF2 values above the
AWEF2 values determined for EL 2 (i.e.,
the max-tech efficiency level) for certain
representative capacities. (AHRI, No. 72
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
at pp. 4–5; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2–
3)
DOE notes that it proposed unit cooler
standards that do not depend on
capacity, averaging the proposed TSL 2
efficiency levels of the representative
capacities within each unit cooler class.
Thus, the proposed standard levels at
higher representative capacities were
above the max-tech efficiency levels
determined for those capacities. DOE
analyzed the unit cooler performance
database to determine if the proposed
standards for medium- and lowtemperature were technologically
feasible. DOE was able to identify lowtemperature unit cooler models above
the standard level proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR across the full
range of capacities analyzed. Therefore,
DOE has tentatively concluded that the
AWEF2 standard proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR for lowtemperature unit coolers is
technologically feasible. DOE was
unable to identify medium-temperature
unit cooler models at efficiency levels at
or above the standard level proposed in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the September 2023 NOPR at certain
capacities. Therefore, DOE has revised
the medium-temperature unit cooler
standard equation proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR such that it
never exceeds the maximum technology
level identified in the unit cooler
performance database for given capacity
ranges. Revised medium-temperature
unit cooler standard equations are
presented in section 7 of the NODA
support document.
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
proposed an AWEF2 standard level for
medium-temperature outdoor singlepackaged dedicated systems of 7.11 for
models with capacities greater than or
equal to 9 kBtu/h. 88 FR 60746, 60853.
In response to the September 2023
NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates
commented that DOE’s proposed
AWEF2 standard of 7.11 corresponds to
EL 1 for 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature
outdoor single-packaged dedicated
systems even though table IV.26 in the
September 2023 NOPR maps TSL 2 to
EL 3 (Efficiency Advocates, No. 77 at p.
6). DOE acknowledges that table IV.26
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
III. Public Participation
through www.regulations.gov before
DOE requests comment on the
posting. Normally, comments will be
updated efficiency levels, incremental
posted within a few days of being
MPCs, LCC, PBP, and NIA results for
submitted. However, if large volumes of
walk-in refrigeration systems presented
comments are being processed
in the NODA. As noted in the
simultaneously, your comment may not
September 2023 NOPR, DOE may adopt be viewable for up to several weeks.
energy efficiency levels that are either
Please keep the comment tracking
higher or lower than the proposed
number that www.regulations.gov
standards, or some combination of
provides after you have successfully
level(s) that incorporate the proposed
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
standards in part.
DOE will accept comments, data, and delivery/courier, or postal mail.
information regarding this NODA no
Comments and documents submitted
later than the date provided in the DATES via email, hand delivery/courier, or
section at the beginning of this
postal mail also will be posted to
document. Interested parties may
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
submit comments, data, and other
your personal contact information to be
information using any of the methods
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
described in the ADDRESSES section at
documents. Instead, provide your
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via
contact information in a cover letter.
www.regulations.gov. The
Include your first and last names, email
www.regulations.gov web page will
address, telephone number, and
require you to provide your name and
optional mailing address. The cover
contact information. Your contact
letter will not be publicly viewable as
information will be viewable to DOE
long as it does not include any
Building Technologies staff only. Your
comments.
Include contact information each time
contact information will not be publicly
you submit comments, data, documents,
viewable except for your first and last
and other information to DOE. If you
names, organization name (if any), and
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
submitter representative name (if any).
courier, please provide all items on a
If your comment is not processed
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
properly because of technical
necessary to submit printed copies. No
difficulties, DOE will use this
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
information to contact you. If DOE
accepted.
cannot read your comment due to
Comments, data, and other
technical difficulties and cannot contact
information submitted to DOE
you for clarification, DOE may not be
electronically should be provided in
able to consider your comment.
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
it in the comment itself or in any
secured, that are written in English, and
documents attached to your comment.
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Any information that you do not want
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
in the September 2023 NOPR maps TSL
2 for 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature
single-packaged outdoor dedicated
systems to EL 3, which has an AWEF2
of 7.5. 88 FR 60746, 60787.
Additionally, table 5A.5.21 in appendix
5A in the September 2023 NOPR TSD
specifies that EL 3 of the 9 kBtu/h
medium-temperature outdoor singlepackaged dedicated systems
(SP.M.O.009) corresponds to an AWEF2
of 7.5. However, the proposed standard
level for medium-temperature outdoor
single-packaged dedicated systems was
erroneously set based on an AWEF2 of
7.11 for the representative capacity of 9
kBtu/h. DOE has corrected this in table
7.1 of the NODA Support Document.
Section 7 of the NODA Support
Document presents updated AWEF2
calculations for refrigeration system
equipment classes at the trial standards
levels presented in this NODA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18577
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
IV. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notification of data
availability and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on March 11, 2024,
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.
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
18578
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 11,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024–05462 Filed 3–13–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 21
[Docket No.: FAA–2024–0159; Notice No.
24–10]
RIN 2120–AL87
Disclosure of Safety Critical
Information; Extension of Comment
Period
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); Extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
This action extends the
comment period for the NPRM titled
‘‘Disclosure of Safety Critical
Information’’ that was published on
January 25, 2024. In that document, the
FAA proposed the implementation of
certain mandates in the Aircraft
Certification, Safety, and Accountability
Act of 2020 by requiring applicants for,
and holders of, new and amended
transport category airplane type
certificates to submit, and subsequently
continue to disclose, certain safety
critical information to the FAA. The
FAA also proposed a requirement for all
applicants for type certificates,
including new, amended, and
supplemental type certificates, to
submit a proposed certification plan to
the FAA. The FAA is extending the
comment period closing date, on
request, to allow commenters additional
time to analyze the proposed rule and
prepare a response.
DATES: The comment period for the
NPRM published on January 25, 2024, at
89 FR 4841, is extended. Comments
should be received on or before May 9,
2024.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2024–0159
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Mar 13, 2024
Jkt 262001
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking
process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan McCormick, Systems Standards,
Product Policy Management, Policy and
Standards Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 26805 East 68th Ave.,
Denver, CO 80249–6339; telephone
(206) 231–3242; email
susan.mccormick@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. The agency also invites
comments relating to the economic,
environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting
the proposals in this document. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments it receives, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting
on this proposal, the FAA will consider
all comments it receives on or before the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
closing date for comments. The FAA
will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The agency may
change this proposal in light of the
comments it receives.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information
(CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI
as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document. Any
commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
C. Availability of Rulemaking
Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking
documents may be obtained from the
internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov;
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies web page at www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing
Office’s web page at www.GovInfo.com.
Copies may also be obtained by
sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of
Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or
by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters
must identify the docket or notice
number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in
developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and
technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
Background
On January 25, 2024, the FAA
published a NPRM titled ‘‘Disclosure of
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18555-18578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05462]
========================================================================
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. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18555]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]
RIN 1904-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 and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of
data availability (``NODA''), DOE is updating portions of its analysis
for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers based on information DOE
received in response to DOE's September 2023 NOPR. DOE requests
comments, data, and information regarding the updated analysis.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NODA no later than April 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments 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:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III 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 III 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. Engineering Analysis
1. Non-Display Doors
a. Maximum Daily Energy Consumption Allowances for Non-Display
Doors With Certain Electrical Components
b. Adjustment of U-Factors and Resulting Thermal Load
2. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated
Systems
a. More Efficient Single Speed Compressors
b. Off-Cycle Ancillary Power
c. Low GWP Refrigerant Transition
d. Miscellaneous Updates to the Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet
3. Unit Coolers
a. Cost Assumptions at Max-Tech Efficiency Levels
b. Unit Cooler Fan Power
c. Miscellaneous Updates to the Unit Cooler Analysis
B. Trial Standard Levels
1. Refrigeration Systems
2. Non-Display Doors
C. Analytical Results
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
a. Application of the Low-GWP Refrigerant Transition to Specific
Regions
b. Results for Refrigeration Systems
c. Results for Non-Display Doors
2. National Impacts Analysis
a. Non-Display Doors
b. Significance of Energy Savings
c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
D. Updated Equations for Proposed Standards
1. Energy Consumption Equations for Non-Display Doors
2. AWEF2 Equations
III. Public Participation
IV. 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
[[Page 18556]]
as ``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs''), the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE defines ``walk-ins'' 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. 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).
On September 5, 2023, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') 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. DOE did not
propose to amend the standard for walk-in panels or display doors. For
walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE proposed amended standards in terms
of the newly adopted annual walk-in energy factor 2 (``AWEF2'')
metric.\4\ The technical support document (``TSD'') that presented the
methodology and results of the September 2023 NOPR analysis
(``September 2023 NOPR TSD'') is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0046. Additionally, on September 28,
2023, DOE published a notification of data availability (``September
2023 NODA'') summarizing additional comments received on the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 39008) that were considered but not
discussed in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 66710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE adopted the AWEF2 metric in a test procedure final rule
published on May 4, 2023. 88 FR 28780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2023, DOE held a public webinar (``September 2023
Public Webinar'') in which it presented an overview of the topics
addressed in the September 2023 NOPR, allowed time for prepared general
statements by participants, and encouraged all interested parties to
share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking.
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, DOE received additional
data and information regarding walk-in non-display doors and
refrigeration systems, which is summarized in sections II.A and II.D.2
of this document.
Upon consideration of the views shared in the September 2023 Public
Webinar and public comments DOE received in response to the September
2023 NOPR, this NODA presents updated analysis for walk-in non-display
doors and refrigeration systems. DOE is requesting comments, data, and
information regarding the updated analysis.
DOE notes that it is continuing to consider all of the stakeholder
comments received in response to the September 2023 NOPR and September
2023 Public Webinar in further development of the rulemaking. As
discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, based on consideration of all of
the public comments received, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels
that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some
combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in
part.
II. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE details its updated analysis for
walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration systems.
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Non-Display Doors
a. Maximum Daily Energy Consumption Allowances for Non-Display Doors
With Certain Electrical Components
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE assumed for its analysis that
baseline non-display doors had 3.5-inch-thick insulation for coolers
and 4-inch-thick insulation for freezers, wood framing materials, a
viewing window, and anti-sweat heat around the perimeter of the door
leaf without controls. 88 FR 60746, 60769. DOE did not consider
lighting or other electrical components in its baseline representative
units for non-display doors. Id. As such, DOE only considered design
options relevant to the design of the baseline representative units,
including: anti-sweat controls, reduced anti-sweat heat, improvements
to the framing systems to make the frame more thermally insulative, and
increased insulation thickness. Id. at 88 FR 60770.
Kolpak commented that while it agrees with providing limits on door
components, it disagrees with the overall formulas representing the
proposed energy conservation standards for manual non-display doors.
(Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 1, 3) \5\ Kolpak stated that its
basic models are fully compliant with DOE's current regulations, but
that it believes the new proposed maximum daily energy consumption
(``MDEC'') formulas are impossibly stringent. (Kolpak, No. 66,
Attachment 1 at p. 1) Kolpak stated that when considering all
electricity-consuming devices that are installed on its doors,
including the anti-sweat heater wire, door light, heated ventilator,
heated viewing window, and thermometer/temperature alarms, the proposed
standards would not be able to be met. (Id.) Kolpak provided
calculations of the daily energy consumption of six different doors for
both cooler and freezer applications to support their comment. (Kolpak,
No. 66, Attachment 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the relevant docket for this rulemaking,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. The references are
arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
attachment number (if there are multiple attachments in a single
comment submission), page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test procedure for non-display doors requires the direct and
indirect electrical energy consumption of electrical components be
calculated and included in the determination of daily energy
consumption (``DEC'') using rated power of electrical components sited
on the door and an assumed percent time off (``PTO'') value. As
previously mentioned, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE only considered
one electrical component (i.e., the anti-sweat heat around the
perimeter of the door leaf) in its representative units of manual non-
display doors for the engineering analysis. DOE also considered motors
in its representative units of motorized non-display doors. However,
DOE understands that other electricity-consuming devices could be
installed on a non-display door, which are included in the calculation
of DEC per the test procedure. As indicated by Kolpak in its comment,
the current MDEC standards allow for additional electrical components
such as heated vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/
temperature alarms to be included and considered in the DEC
calculation. However, the basis of the proposed energy conservation
standards only accounts for the energy consumption from anti-sweat heat
around the perimeter of the door (and motors for doors classified as
motorized non-display doors). As a result, DOE understands that the
proposed standards as outlined in the September 2023 NOPR may be
difficult to meet for basic models of doors that have
[[Page 18557]]
additional electrical components beyond what DOE considered in its
representative units.
Also in response to the September 2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door
commented that DOE's method for complying with the new standards
presume that all doors have certain features (e.g., lights) that can be
adjusted to consume less energy, but that many doors do not have these
features; thus, Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE cannot
conclude that new standards are technologically feasible by pointing to
methods for compliance with the standards that are not available for
all classes, types, and sizes of doors. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78
at p. 3) DOE notes that for the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE did
not consider lighting in its baseline representative units, and
therefore did not consider any design options for reducing lighting
energy consumption in the analysis. However, as indicated by Senneca
and Frank Door, DOE recognizes that it cannot include all other
possible electrical components in its baseline representative units and
cannot analyze reduced energy consumption for other electrical
components because not all doors contain these components.
In light of these comments, DOE is considering equipment classes
with maximum daily energy consumption allowances for non-display doors
if manufacturers offer basic models with certain electricity-consuming
devices as discussed in the following sections. This is similar to the
approach used for the energy conservation standards for consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In a direct final
rule relating to energy conservation standards for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers published on January 17, 2024, DOE
established separate standards and separate product classes for
products with multiple doors or specialty doors. The standards for
those product classes (i.e., any product classes that implement special
and multi-door designs) include energy allowances (i.e., specific
increases in maximum allowable energy use) corresponding to the
specific performance-related features (i.e., door-in-door designs,
transparent doors, and multi-door designs). 89 FR 3026, 3028-3029.
To develop the maximum daily energy consumption allowances specific
for walk-in non-display doors with certain electrical components, DOE
reviewed the data and calculations submitted by Kolpak, as well as
product literature from hardware and instrument manufacturers. In its
comment, Kolpak provided information regarding the following components
that are included on its basic models of non-display doors: anti-sweat
heat on viewing windows; lighting and mechanisms to turn the lighting
on or off (e.g., manual toggle switches, door open timers, occupancy
sensors); heated ventilators (also called heated pressure relief
vents); and temperature alarms. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 1-
2) Kolpak provided information on model numbers of electrical
components, rated wattage of those components, number of electrical
components on its doors, and the calculation of the direct and indirect
electrical energy consumption for all electrical components. (Kolpak,
No. 66, Attachment 2) Using the detail provided by Kolpak, DOE also
looked into the hardware and instrument manufacturers product offerings
for electrical components to better understand the range of potential
options for these additional electrical components. Based on this, DOE
grouped the electrical components into four categories: lighting, anti-
sweat heat for viewing windows, digital temperature displays/alarms,
and heated pressure relief vents. The underlying assumptions for each
category of electrical components are described in the paragraphs that
follow.
Lighting
For the lighting category, DOE considered lighting, a night light,
and a pilot light located on a switch to develop an appropriate DEC
allowance for doors that have lighting. Lighting features provide
valuable utility to consumers, namely visibility within the walk-in,
particularly near the entrance and exit of the walk-in and is commonly
controlled by a switch. Switches used for turning the lights on and off
often have a pilot light so that the switch can be located in the dark.
Additionally, as included in Kolpak's comment and calculations, a night
light could also be attached to the walk-in door. Based on Kolpak's
provided data and a review of product literature, DOE assumed lighting
would have rated power of 13 W, a switch with a pilot light would have
a rated power of 0.3 W, and a night light would have a rated power of 1
W. DOE also assumed that these components would not be controlled by
some demand-based controls, and therefore used the PTO values specified
for lighting and other electricity-consuming devices without controls,
timers, or auto-shut-off systems per table A.2 of appendix A along with
the rated power to determine the direct electrical energy consumption.
DOE assumed based on a review of product literature and doors it has
tested that the light and night light would be located on the interior
of the walk-in, and the switch may be located either interior or
exterior to the walk-in. Therefore, all of the three components
associated with lighting were conservatively assumed to be sited on the
internal face of the door for the purposes of determining the indirect
electrical energy consumption. See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix
A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. Based on these assumptions, DOE
calculated the MDEC allowances (i.e., the sum of the direct and
indirect electrical energy consumption) for doors with lighting
components which can be found in Table II.1. DOE notes that the
lighting MDEC allowance would apply to doors with a light that may also
have a night light and/or switch. Therefore, a door does not need to be
equipped with all three components to use the allowance (i.e., a door
with a light and a switch but no nightlight could use the allowance
specified in Table II.1).
Anti-Sweat Heater for Viewing Window
As previously mentioned, DOE included windows in its representative
units of non-display doors. However, DOE did not consider additional
anti-sweat heat specific to the window. Anti-sweat heaters are a
performance-related feature used on viewing windows to prevent (1)
condensation from collecting on the glass and (2) fogging of the glass.
Kolpak commented that it is standard for medium-temperature non-display
doors with viewing windows to have an anti-sweat heater wire around the
frame of the window and for low-temperature non-display doors with
viewing windows to have an anti-sweat heater wire and heated glass
coating on the outer pane of glass. Kolpak commented that the widely
used supplier used to provide a 10 W/ft anti-sweat heater wire without
controls. Kolpak stated that it uses a 5 W/ft heater wire with controls
in the frame of the viewport window. Kolpak stated that it cannot find
additional means to reduce the energy consumption of the anti-sweat
heater wire in the viewing window frame further. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p.
1) Based on Kolpak's provided data and a review of product literature,
DOE assumed that if anti-sweat heat is included around and/or on
viewing windows, that anti-sweat heat would have rated power of 34 W
for medium-temperature (i.e., cooler) applications and 84 W for low-
temperature (i.e., freezer) applications. DOE also assumed that these
components would be controlled by some demand-based controls based on
the information provided by Kolpak, and therefore DOE used the PTO
values specified for anti-sweat heat with
[[Page 18558]]
controls, timers, or auto-shut-off systems per table A.2 of appendix A
along with the rated power to determine the direct electrical energy
consumption. DOE assumed that for the purposes of determining the
indirect electrical energy consumption of the anti-sweat heater, 75-
percent of the total power is attributed to the interior and 25-percent
of the total power is attributed to the exterior of the walk-in,
consistent with the assumptions outlined in the DOE test procedure. See
10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3.
Based on these assumptions, DOE calculated the MDEC allowance (i.e.,
the sum of the direct and indirect electrical energy consumption) for
doors with anti-sweat heat on their viewing windows, which can be found
in Table II.1.
Digital Temperature Displays With or Without Alarms
A digital temperature display provides utility in that it allows
for users to easily monitor the temperature of the walk-in. The digital
temperature display is connected to a thermocouple that measures the
temperature of the walk-in and the interface on the exterior of the
walk-in displays the temperature within the walk-in compartment. Based
on review of product literature and Kolpak's data, DOE has determined
that a digital temperature display could be paired with alarms or be
standalone (i.e., without alarms). The alarms alert kitchen staff or
others if the refrigerated goods within the walk-in compartment are in
conditions that are too warm or too cold, which may spoil or ruin these
goods. Additionally, alarms can sound if the walk-in door is left open
for too long. Kolpak commented that walk-ins with multiple compartments
that have only one exterior door but have doors on interior partitions
that separate the compartments often have two temperature alarms on the
exterior door so that the alarms can be heard by those outside of the
walk-in. (Kolpak, No. 6, Attachment 1 at p. 2) Kolpak stated that the
temperature alarm is typically rated at 4 W and Kolpak is unable to
source a temperature alarm that has a lower rated power. (Id.)
Additionally, through its review of hardware and instrument
manufacturers product offerings, DOE identified that a panic or
entrapment alarm could be installed for use in the event that a user is
unable to exit the walk-in. Based on Kolpak's provided data and a
review of hardware manufacturer product literature, DOE assumed a
digital temperature display without alarms would have a rated power of
2.4 W and a digital temperature display with alarms would have rated
power of 4 W. In consideration of Kolpak's comment that a walk-in
comprised of two compartments may require two temperature displays with
alarms to be located on the exterior non-display door, DOE assumed that
a digital temperature display with alarm(s) would have a total rated
power of 8 W i.e., to reflect two digital temperature displays with
alarms at 4 W each; an alternative approach could account for the power
multiplied by the number of temperature displays with alarms present in
the walk-in). DOE assumed based on a review of Kolpak's data and
product literature that the digital temperature display with or without
alarms would always be on, and as such used the PTO specified for other
electricity-consuming devices without controls, timers, or auto-shut-
off systems per table A.2 of appendix A along with the rated power to
determine the direct electrical energy consumption. The temperature
display and alarms would likely be sited on the exterior of the walk-in
door to be seen and heard, however, components of the display would be
located interior to the walk-in, such as the thermocouple. Therefore,
DOE conservatively assumed these components would be sited on both the
internal and external face of the door for the purposes of determining
the indirect electrical energy consumption. See 10 CFR part 431,
subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. Based on these
assumptions, DOE calculated the MDEC allowances (i.e., the sum of the
direct and indirect electrical energy consumption) for doors with a (1)
digital temperature display without an alarm or (2) digital temperature
display with alarms. These calculated MDEC allowances can be found in
Table II.1. DOE assumed that a door would either have one or the other,
but would not have both (1) a digital temperature display without an
alarm or (2) digital temperature display with alarms. As such, only one
of these MDEC allowances would apply based on whether there is or is
not an alarm connected to the digital temperature display.
Heated Pressure Relief Vent
Heated ventilators, or heated pressure relief vents, are
performance-related features that allow doors to open more easily when
there is a pressure differential between the interior and the exterior
of the walk-in. Kolpak commented that heated ventilators were not
considered in DOE's analysis of non-display doors. Kolpak stated that
some manufacturers put heated ventilators on a non-door panel so that
they are not considered in the energy consumption calculation of a
door, however, Kolpak places these devices on the door, where its
energy consumption is captured in the daily energy consumption
calculation. Kolpak commented that it uses the lowest wattage heated
ventilator available. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 2) Kolpak's data indicates
that a 4 W heated ventilator is used on doors for both medium-
temperature and low-temperature installations. DOE has tentatively
determined, however, that while medium-temperature applications may
require a pressure relief vent, it may not be necessary for the
pressure relief vent to be heated. Therefore, DOE did not develop a
MDEC allowance for medium-temperature non-display doors. Additionally,
based on review of hardware manufacturer product literature and the
recommendations for pressure relief vents based on the size of a walk-
in, DOE has tentatively determined that a heated pressure relief vent
for a freezer could require up to 23 W of heat to prevent freezing and
therefore provide sufficient airflow between the walk-in compartment
and the exterior. DOE assumed based on a review of Kolpak's data and
product literature that the heater component of the pressure relief
vent would always be on, and as such used the PTO specified for other
electricity-consuming devices without controls, timers, or auto-shut-
off systems per table A.2 of appendix A along with the rated power to
determine the direct electrical energy consumption. Because the heated
vent is located between both the exterior and interior of the walk-in,
it is considered to be located interior to the walk-in for the purposes
of determining the indirect electrical energy consumption. See 10 CFR
part 431, subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. The MDEC
allowance for low-temperature doors with heated pressure relief vents
can be found in Table II.1.
Components Summary
Table II.1 presents the MDEC allowances for lighting, anti-sweat
heat for viewing windows, digital temperature displays/alarms, and
heated pressure relief vents, as described in the previous sections.
[[Page 18559]]
Table II.1--Maximum Daily Energy Consumption Allowances and Assumptions for Each Component
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDEC MDEC
Wattage of allowance-- allowance--
Device component(s) Controls (Y/N) Location medium- low-
(W) temperature temperature
(kWh/day) (kWh/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door light, night light, and/or 14.3 No............. Interior...... 0.33 0.40
switch.
Heated viewing window: Cooler 34 Yes............ Interior...... 0.25 ..............
Freezer.
Heated viewing window--freezer. 84 Yes............ Interior...... .............. 1.42
Digital temperature without 2.4 No............. Interior...... 0.07 0.09
alarm.
Digital temperature display 8 No............. Interior...... 0.24 0.30
with alarm.
Heated vent--freezer only...... 23 No............. Interior...... .............. 0.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, each of these electrical
components provide some consumer utility when installed on a non-
display door. Additionally, having these electrical components
installed on the door limits the number of electrical connections that
need to be wired when installing a walk-in. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE may
establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment (i.e.,
establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used or if DOE
determines that the equipment's capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)(B)) DOE has tentatively determined that that the devices it
has listed previously constitute a performance-related feature that
justify a higher standard. DOE notes that the information described
previously and in Table II.1 was used to develop the MDEC allowances
for basic models of non-display doors that have any number of these
components. However, DOE notes that for the purposes of determining DEC
in accordance with the Federal test procedure at appendix A,
manufacturers must follow the instructions for calculating both direct
and indirect electrical energy consumption of components as described
in appendix A.
DOE reviewed non-public manufacturer data submitted to DOE's
Compliance Certification Management System Database (``CCD'') to
estimate the percentage of the market that includes these other
electricity consuming devices on non-display doors. DOE's estimates of
shipments containing electricity consuming devices are shown in Table
II.2.
Table II.2--Percentage of Non-Display Door Shipments Containing Each Electricity Consuming Device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of shipments with component
---------------------------------------------------------------
Component Medium- Low- Medium- Low-
temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature,
manual (%) manual (%) motorized (%) motorized (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting........................................ 10 6 22 33
Viewing Window ASH.............................. 4 1 4 3
All Other Electrical Components................. 8 8 28 73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the MDEC allowances for the specified
electricity consuming devices. Additionally, DOE requests comment on
the assumed wattages, presence or absence of controls, and location
that were considered in the calculation of MDEC allowances for the
specified electricity consuming devices.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) presented in
section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this
section.
b. Adjustment of U-Factors and Resulting Thermal Load
The DOE test procedure requires that the total non-display door
energy is calculated by summing (1) the total daily energy consumption
due to thermal conduction load through the door (i.e., the additional
refrigeration energy consumption to overcome conduction through the
door), (2) total daily direct electrical energy consumption (i.e., the
energy consumed by electrical components sited on the door), and (3)
the total daily indirect electrical energy consumption (i.e., the
additional refrigeration energy consumption due to thermal output into
the walk-in from electrical components contained on the inside face of
the door). See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, section 6.3.4.
The energy consumption due to thermal conduction load is based on an
assumed temperature difference between the interior and exterior of the
walk-in, an assumed refrigeration system energy efficiency ratio
(``EER''), and the U-factor and size of the door. Improvements to the
design and/or materials of the door and its frame could result in a
decreased thermal load.
At the proposed standard level in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
assumed that all manual-opening non-display doors would need to
implement anti-sweat heater controls, improved framing systems, and
reduced anti-sweat heat. 88 FR 60746, 60845. As discussed in the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE determined U-factors for each
representative door size by scaling the U-factors determined from
tested non-display doors based on theoretical U-factors. DOE also
assumed each non-display door had a window sized at 2 ft\2\. Wood
frames are the least efficient framing material currently found on the
market and were selected as the baseline framing material. High-density
polyurethane door frames are more thermally insulative and were
selected as the improved framing material. See section 5.7.1.3 of the
September NOPR TSD. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, Kolpak
commented that it uses low-density, high-insulation foam core material
in its frame, which has better insulation than wood or high-density
[[Page 18560]]
foam. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 2) Therefore, DOE would expect that the
thermal load at the proposed level to be consistent with or greater
than the thermal load in the Kolpak data.
In the data provided by Kolpak there are U-factor test results for
both medium-temperature and low-temperature non-display doors of
various sizes with and without a window. (Kolpak, No. 66 Attachment 2)
For medium-temperature doors, DOE found that the thermal conduction
load at the proposed energy conservation standard level from the
September 2023 NOPR is consistent with the thermal conduction load
calculated from the data provided by Kolpak data. For low-temperature
doors, DOE found that the thermal conduction load at the proposed
energy conservation standard level from the September 2023 NOPR was
lower than the thermal conduction load calculated from the data
provided by Kolpak data. To further evaluate thermal conduction load
for both medium-temperature and low-temperature non-display doors, DOE
further reviewed additional non-public manufacturer data submitted to
DOE's Compliance Certification Management System Database (``CCD'').
Manufacturers are not currently required to certify the U-factor or
thermal conduction load to the CCD; however, they are required to
certify the rated power of each light, heater wire, and/or other
electricity consuming device associated with each basic model and
whether such device(s) has a timer, control system, or other demand-
based control reducing the device's power consumption. See 10 CFR
429.53(b)(4)(i). Using the certified data, DOE back-calculated the
thermal load and ultimately U-factor for multiple basic models of
medium-temperature and low-temperature non-display doors. DOE verified
these back-calculated U-factors with its own test data. DOE compared
the thermal conduction load by non-display door area (AND)
of (1) Kolpak's data, (2) any back-calculated data from the CCD that
has been verified with test data, (3) data received during confidential
manufacturer interviews, and (4) test data, with the thermal load by
non-display door area for each representative unit and efficiency level
with a different door construction design (and thus different thermal
conduction load) from the September 2023 NOPR. DOE is posting a
supplementary file that contains supplementary information to support
the analysis provided in this NODA (referred to as the ``NODA support
document'').\6\ The updated thermal conduction load for low-temperature
non-display doors is shown in Figure 4.1 of the NODA support document
that has been posted to the docket. Additionally, the updated energy
consumption values for low-temperature non-display doors that reflect
the U-factor and resulting thermal load update can be found in section
2 of the NODA support document. Note that these energy consumption
values do not account for any of the MDEC allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NODA support document can be found in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For low-temperature applications, DOE has tentatively determined
that the thermal conduction load by area for low-temperature
applications in the proposed standard level from the September 2023
NOPR is lower than that calculated using the data DOE evaluated for
this NODA. Therefore, DOE increased the U-factors for each
representative unit of low-temperature non-display doors by 9-percent
for this NODA. DOE has tentatively determined that this increase in U-
factor would be more representative of the low-temperature non-display
doors currently on the market.
DOE requests comment on representativeness of the adjustments made
to the U-factors for the low-temperature non-display doors.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) presented in
section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this
section.
2. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
a. More Efficient Single Speed Compressors
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE analyzed higher-efficiency
compressors for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged
dedicated systems. The higher-efficiency compressor design options
included both higher-efficiency single-speed compressors and variable-
speed compressors. For single-packaged dedicated systems, DOE
considered both higher-efficiency single-speed compressors and
variable-speed compressors in the September 2023 NOPR. However, DOE did
not consider higher-efficiency single-speed compressors for dedicated
condensing units in the September 2023 NOPR. See section 5.7.2.1 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD for further discussion.
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates
recommended that DOE analyze improved single-speed compressor
efficiency as a design option. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 77 at p. 2)
The Efficiency Advocates stated that there is a range of single-speed
compressor efficiencies available even when selecting for a given
compressor type, capacity, input voltage, power supply, and
refrigerant. (Id. at p. 2)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider two single-speed
compressor efficiencies (i.e., CMP1 and CMP2) as design options for
dedicated condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at pp. 8-9) The CA IOUs
stated that the compressor manufacturers Copeland and Bitzer offer two
or three more compressor options with different efficiencies at each
size and temperature application and that therefore CMP1 and CMP2 are
justified as design options. (Id. at pp. 8-9)
In response to the comments received, DOE reviewed publicly
available compressor performance data for both medium-temperature and
low-temperature walk-in applications. DOE specifically collected data
for compressors applicable to the range of representative capacities
analyzed for dedicated condensing units in the September 2023 NOPR.\7\
For this NODA analysis, DOE only considered single-speed compressors
compatible with R-448A that are rated at the DOE walk-in test
conditions and available for the North American walk-in market.\8\ DOE
excluded from consideration any compressors that may negatively impact
consumer utility--e.g., DOE did not consider three-phase compressors
when there were options for both single- and three-phase compressors at
a given capacity, as some buildings where walk-ins are installed may
not have the necessary three-phase power. Additionally, as discussed in
section 5.7.2.1 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD, during interviews
manufacturers highlighted utility concerns related to customer
preference for specific compressor types (e.g., scroll, semi-hermetic,
etc.). Therefore, when evaluating higher-efficiency single-speed
compressors for this NODA, DOE selected the highest compressor
efficiency that would still allow for consumer choice between scroll
and semi-hermetic compressors if both compressor types were available
at the given representative capacity. DOE notes that it cannot verify
that the
[[Page 18561]]
compressor data provided by the CA IOUs and Efficiency Advocates in
their respective comments are representative of compressors rated at
DOE walk-in test conditions. Additionally, the compressors provided may
impact utility because there are both scroll and semi-hermetic types.
Therefore, DOE did not evaluate the compressors provided in the
comments from the CA IOUs and Efficiency Advocates. However, using the
criteria described for reviewing publicly available compressor data,
DOE identified single-speed compressors with capacities roughly between
50 and 60 kBtu/h that have higher efficiencies than the compressor in
that capacity range used in the September 2023 NOPR analysis.
Compressors in this capacity range could be used in the DC.M.O.054,
DC.M.I.054, and DC.M.O.124 representative units.\9\ DOE did not
identify any higher efficiency single-speed compressors for low-
temperature applications at the representative capacities analyzed
based on the criteria previously mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These capacities are as follows: 9 kBtu/h, 25 kBtu/h, 54
kBtu/h, 75 kBtu/h, and 124 kBtu/h for medium-temperature dedicated
condensing units; 3 kBtu/h, 9 kBtu/h, 54 kBtu/h, 75 kBtu/h for low-
temperature dedicated condensing units.
\8\ For a discussion of DOE's tentative conclusions regarding
the appropriateness of setting standards based upon models operating
with R-448A, see 88 FR 60746, 60771.
\9\ DOE used two compressors with capacities between 50 and 60
kBtu/h for the 124 kBtu/h medium-temperature outdoor dedicated
condensing unit. DOE determined that this would be representative
for units of this capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, DOE determined that a higher-efficiency single-speed
compressor design option could be applied to the following
representative units: DC.M.O.054, DC.M.I.054, and DC.M.O.124. In this
NODA, DOE presents an updated analysis when considering the additional
compressor design option for these three representative units.
In its updated analysis, DOE added an efficiency level (``EL'')
which corresponds to the higher-efficiency single-speed compressor
design option for the three representative units mentioned previously.
The higher-efficiency single-speed compressor has an EER for walk-in
refrigeration systems of 7.62 Btu/(W-h), which is 5 percent greater
than the baseline compressor's EER of 7.25 Btu/(W-h).\10\ Similar to
the NOPR analysis, DOE ordered the design options for each
representative unit in terms of decreasing cost-effectiveness
(manufacturer production cost differential/AWEF2 differential). Table
3.1 of the NODA support document describes the design option codes
related to the refrigeration system representative units analyzed in
this NODA. The higher-efficiency single-speed compressor was added at
EL 1 for the DC.M.I.054 representative unit and at EL 3 for both
DC.M.O.054 and DC.M.O.124 representative units. As a result, the design
options that are used at ELs after the higher-efficiency single-speed
compressor design option are now associated with one EL higher than in
the September 2023 NOPR. For example, in the September 2023 NOPR,
electronically commutated (``EC'') condenser fan motors were
implemented at EL 1 for the DC.M.I.054 Because the higher-efficiency
single-speed compressor design option was implemented at EL 1 in this
NODA analysis, the EC condenser fan motor design option is implemented
at EL 2 for this representative unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE determined compressor performance using conditions
representative of the A condition test specified by the DOE test
procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems in appendix C1 to
subpart R of 10 CFR part 431. The test conditions used to determine
compressor performance were as follows: a return gas temperature of
41 [deg]F, an evaporator dewpoint temperature of 23 [deg]F, and a
condenser dewpoint temperature of 120 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3 of the NODA support document shows the cost-efficiency
results from the September 2023 NOPR, which were published in appendix
5A of the September 2023 NOPR TSD,\11\ and the updated cost-efficiency
results with the additional compressor design option EL. The tables
show the AWEF2, manufacturer production cost (``MPC''), and
manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') plus shipping costs associated
with each EL. DOE notes that due to the interaction between design
options in the engineering analysis, the performance increase and/or
incremental MPC associated with design options added after the higher-
efficiency single-speed compressor design option differ from those
presented in the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE notes that in appendix 5A of the September 2023 NOPR
TSD, the tables label the efficiency values in terms of AWEF,
however, they are in terms of AWEF2 and should have been labeled as
such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the updated cost-efficiency results for the
54 kBtu/h indoor and outdoor medium-temperature dedicated condensing
units and 124 kBtu/h outdoor medium-temperature dedicated condensing
unit presented in section 3 of the NODA support document.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) presented in
section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this
section.
b. Off-Cycle Ancillary Power
Based on test data available at the time, in the September 2023
NOPR analysis DOE tentatively determined that the only source of off-
cycle power for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged
dedicated systems would be crankcase heater power. See section 5.6.3.3
of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. DOE assumed that the off-cycle
crankcase heater power would be the same for both medium-temperature
and low-temperature applications, which DOE estimated using crankcase
heater wattage specifications from compressor manufacturer product
literature.
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, AHRI and Hussmann commented
that there are potential sources of off-cycle ancillary power that DOE
did not account for and should consider, such as standard operating
controls, defrost time clocks, digital controllers, and transformers.
(AHRI, No. 72 at p. 19; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 9)
In response to these comments, DOE analyzed additional test data
and compared the tested off-cycle power values to the crankcase heater
wattages specified by compressor manufacturers. DOE found that for
medium-temperature dedicated condensing units, the assumed crankcase
heater wattage used in the NOPR analysis matched both the tested off-
cycle power values and the compressor manufacturer-specified wattages.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the assumed crankcase
heater wattages used to analyze medium-temperature dedicated condensing
units and single-packaged dedicated systems in the NOPR analysis are
representative of the entire off-cycle power of such units.
For low-temperature dedicated condensing units, DOE found that the
off-cycle power test data was up to 5 Watts greater than the compressor
manufacturer-specified crankcase heater wattages, indicating there may
be additional sources of off-cycle power other than the crankcase
heater. Additionally for low-temperature units, DOE found that the
compressor manufacturer-specified crankcase heater wattages at a given
capacity range were slightly different than those specified for medium-
temperature units. Therefore, for this NODA, DOE adjusted the assumed
crankcase heater wattages for low-temperature dedicated condensing
units and single-packaged dedicated systems, as shown in table II.2 and
table II.3. DOE also added 5 Watts of off-cycle ancillary power not
associated with crankcase heater power for all low-temperature
dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems. Both
changes can be seen in the updated refrigeration engineering analysis
spreadsheet.\12\ As
[[Page 18562]]
indicated by commenters, DOE suspects that this additional 5 Watts of
power is attributed to timers and controls associated with defrost
cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The updated refrigeration systems engineering sheet can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009.
Table II.3--Crankcase Heater Power (W) for Low-Temperature Refrigeration Systems From September 2023 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration system capacity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor type >=10,000 and >=50,000- >=100,000-
<10,000 Btu/h <50,000 Btu/h <100,000 Btu/h <200,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermetic.................................... 40
Scroll...................................... 40 67 90 100
Semi-Hermetic............................... 40 50 70 100
Rotary...................................... 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4--Updated Crankcase Heater Power (W) for Low-Temperature Refrigeration Systems for This NODA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration system capacity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor type >=5,000- >=20,000- >=50,000-
<5,000 Btu/h <20,000 Btu/h <50,000 Btu/h <200,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermetic.................................... 40
Scroll...................................... 40 70 73 100
Semi-Hermetic............................... 40 50 70 100
Rotary...................................... 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the updated crankcase heater wattages and
additional off-cycle ancillary power for low-temperature dedicated
condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) presented in
section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this
section.
c. Low GWP Refrigerant Transition
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') published a NOPR, ``Phasedown of
Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection (i) the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020'', on December 15, 2022, as a part of the
American Innovation and Manufacturing (``AIM'') Act, which outlined new
refrigerant regulations regarding acceptable global warming potential
(``GWP'') limits for various air conditioning and refrigeration
systems. 87 FR 76738. On October 24, 2023, EPA finalized these
proposals (``October 2023 AIM Act Final Rule''). 88 FR 73098. The
October 2023 AIM Act Final Rule established (effective January 1, 2026)
a limit of 300 GWP for remote condensing units in retail food
refrigeration systems and cold storage warehouses with less than 200
lbs of charge, which includes split-system walk-in refrigeration
systems covered under the scope of the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR
73098, 73209. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE analyzed R-454A and R-
455A refrigerants which have GWPs less than 300 and tentatively
determined that R-454A would be the most likely replacement refrigerant
for medium- and low-temperature walk-in refrigeration systems once the
regulations finalized in the October 2023 AIM Act Final Rule take
effect. DOE also tentatively determined that R-454A would have
comparable performance to the currently-used refrigerant R-448A. 88 FR
60746, 60772. As there was limited compressor performance data
available for R-454A at the time, DOE used R-448A as the basis for its
engineering analysis for medium- and low-temperature dedicated
condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems.\13\ Id. In the
September 2023 NOPR, DOE requested performance data for walk-in
refrigeration systems using R-454A, R-454C, and/or R-455A. DOE also
sought comment on its tentative determinations that R-454A is the most
likely replacement for the current refrigerants being used (i.e., R-
448A and R-449A) and that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would
not suffer a performance penalty when switching from R-448A or R-449A
to R-454A. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DOE notes that a more efficient single-speed compressor
that used propane was analyzed as a design option for some single-
packaged dedicated systems. A propane compressor was analyzed if the
charge limit for propane was sufficient to provide the analyzed
capacity and the propane compressor resulted in increased
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, AHRI, Lennox, and Hussmann commented that R-454A is
comparable in performance to R-448A but that it is not the most likely
low-GWP replacement for WICFs because R-454A has a GWP above 150.
(AHRI, No. 72 at p. 10; Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 6-7; Hussmann, No. 75 at
p. 10) AHRI and Lennox recommended that modeling should instead be
conducted using R-454C and/or R-455A since California and Washington
state regulations prohibit the use of a refrigerant with a GWP greater
than 150 for systems with more than 50 lbs. of refrigerant charge.
(AHRI, No. 72 at p. 10; Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 6-7) Hussmann and NRAC
commented that there may be some states with stricter regulations than
the EPA that may not allow refrigerants above 150 GWP. (Hussmann, No.
75 at p. 10; NRAC, No. 73 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that certain localities already require, or may
require in the future, WICF refrigeration systems to be designed for
use with sub-150 GWP refrigerants.\14\ Based on analysis of low-GWP
refrigerant performance in walk-in refrigeration systems conducted for
the September
[[Page 18563]]
2023 NOPR, DOE has tentatively concluded that the highest performing
sub-150 GWP refrigerant appropriate for use in split-system walk-in
refrigeration systems is R-454C. See section 5.6.3.1 of the September
2023 NOPR TSD. To assess the potential impact of state level sub-150
GWP requirements, DOE reviewed the EERs of R-454C compressors with
capacities representative of walk-in refrigeration systems and compared
these EERs to those of the baseline compressors analyzed in the
September 2023 NOPR. DOE determined the R-454C EERs at operating
conditions representative for the A test conditions prescribed in the
DOE test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems, adjusting the
condensing dewpoint up 2 [deg]F to account for the higher refrigerant
temperature glide of R-454C as compared to R-448A or R-454A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ California established (effective January 1, 2022) a limit
of 150 GWP for retail food refrigeration equipment and cold storage
warehouses with less than 50 lbs of charge. Washington is expected
to establish a limit of 150 GWP for retail food refrigeration
equipment and cold storage warehouses with less than 50 lbs of
charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE found that trends in the R-454C compressor efficiencies
generally aligned with the compressor EERs used in the September 2023
NOPR analysis, except for the DC.M.O.025 and DC.M.I.025 representative
units. At this 25 kBtu/h capacity DOE found that the available R-454C
compressor had an EER that is 4 percent less than that of the
compressor analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR. Based on this, DOE
determined that using the R-454C compressor analyzed could result in an
AWEF2 that is 2 percent lower for 25 kBtu/h medium-temperature
dedicated condensing units than a comparable unit using an R-454A-
compatible compressor. As such, and in the absence of more efficient
compressors of the same type compatible with R-454C, DOE has
tentatively determined that to achieve the standard proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR (based on the performance of R-448A), a medium-
temperature walk-in refrigeration system using a sub-150 GWP
refrigerant may need to incorporate additional design options beyond
what DOE presumed in the September 2023 NOPR. To determine the cost of
these additional design options DOE constructed the cost curves
corresponding to use of the R-454C compressor (with roughly 2-percent
reduction of AWEF2 for each evaluated design) and calculated additional
cost to attain the proposed AWEF2 by interpolating along the cost-
efficiency curves. Based on this analysis DOE has tentatively
determined that additional MSP required to achieve the proposed AWEF2
for less-than-150 GWP refrigerant would be $381 for 25 kBtu/h medium
temperature indoor dedicated condensing units and $96 for 25 kBtu/h
medium temperature outdoor dedicated condensing units.
DOE requests comment on the estimated additional MPC associated
with 25 kBtu/h medium temperature indoor and outdoor dedicated
condensing units achieving the proposed AWEF2 standard levels while
operating with a refrigerant with less than 150 GWP.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) presented in
section II.C account for the cost adder presented in this section, as
described in section II.C.1.a of this document.
d. Miscellaneous Updates to the Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, stakeholders commented that
there were several issues with calculations in the refrigeration
systems engineering spreadsheet.\15\ AHRI and Hussmann suggested
several corrections to the engineering spreadsheet. (AHRI, No. 72 at
pp. 17-19; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 7-9) DOE also identified several
issues not prompted by comments. DOE discusses the corrections that it
made in this NODA in the following paragraphs. To the extent that
stakeholders made comments on the engineering spreadsheet and DOE has
determined that updates to the spreadsheet are not necessary, DOE will
address those comments in a subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The September 2023 NOPR refrigeration systems engineering
sheet can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI and Hussmann commented that row 77 for the condenser and row
86 for the evaporator on the `Calculation' tab were calculating
pressures at the incorrect point of the refrigeration cycle, claiming
that all subsequent calculations use the wrong pressures. (AHRI, No. 72
at pp. 17-18; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 7-8) DOE notes that the
calculations in question are used only for determination of refrigerant
glide to adjust from midpoint to dewpoint. The errors in these
adjustments result in roughly 0.1 [deg]F difference in calculated dew
point temperature for the condenser. They result in zero difference in
evaporator dew point temperature for dedicated condensing unit
calculations (for which evaporator dew point temperature is prescribed
by the test procedure) and roughly 0.03 [deg]F difference for single-
packaged dedicated systems calculations. These differences make no
significant impact on overall results. Nevertheless, DOE has revised
the calculations for this NODA such that the calculation will be based
on a quality of 0.5 for the condenser, which is representative of the
condenser midpoint, and a quality for the evaporator somewhat greater
than 0.5 to account for the fact that evaporator refrigerant inlet
quality is non-zero.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that in rows 165 and 233 of the
`Calculations' tab, which contain the condenser half glide calculation
for B and C conditions, the formula is using a temperature input rather
than a pressure input to calculate a temperature output. (AHRI, No. 72
at pp. 18-19; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 9). This calculation results in
overestimation of the dew point by roughly 0.5 [deg]F, and a
corresponding slight overestimation of compressor energy use. DOE has
revised this calculation for this NODA.
In the September 2023 NOPR, the cost of additional spark-proofing
electronic components was not properly accounted for due to an
incorrect formula. In the updated refrigeration system engineering
analysis spreadsheet, DOE updated the compressor cost calculation
(which feeds into the MPC) to include the additional costs for spark-
proofing electronic components for single-packaged dedicated systems
that use propane as the refrigerant. As a result of this change in MPC
associated with propane-compatible compressors, DOE reordered the
design options of the SP.M.O.002 and SP.M.I.002 representative units
such that the design options are ordered from most cost-effective AWEF2
improvements to the least cost-effective AWEF2 improvements, where
cost-effectiveness is based on the ratio of AWEF2 increase to MPC
increase.
In the September 2023 NOPR, all the high-temperature, 2 kBtu/h and
7 kBtu/h, outdoor single-packaged dedicated system representative units
implemented the variable-speed condenser fan design option before the
electronically commutated motor design option was implemented. However,
an electronically commutated motor is a prerequisite for the variable-
speed condenser fan design option. In the updated refrigeration system
engineering spreadsheet, DOE reordered the variable-speed condenser fan
and electronically commutated motor design options for these
representative units. DOE notes that reordering these design options
did not impact the results of the proposed efficiency level as both
design options were included in the efficiency level corresponding to
the proposed standard level.
Additionally, DOE updated the calculation of the enthalpy exiting
the unit cooler that is used in the calculation of the gross capacity
for
[[Page 18564]]
dedicated condensing units to be consistent with the DOE test
procedure. See section C7.5.2 of American National Standards Institute/
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 1250
(I-P), ``2020 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and
Freezers''. The calculation for the enthalpy exiting the unit cooler
for single-packaged dedicated systems was consistent with the DOE test
procedure for the NOPR analysis and therefore, DOE did not update it
for single-packaged dedicated systems for this NODA.
Overall, the updates made to the engineering analysis spreadsheet
resulted in a minimal change to the cost-efficiency curves for each
representative unit. Comparing efficiency levels with the same design
option combinations for each representative unit between the September
2023 NOPR and this NODA, the AWEF2s generally increased or decreased
between 1- and 3-percent as a result of the changes discussed
previously. Similarly, in this NODA, design option order generally
remained as it was in the NOPR, and manufacturer production costs did
not change from the NOPR for many representative units. However, in
some cases, changes in representative unit performance at the baseline
required re-baselining to meet the current energy conservation
standards. This re-baselining resulted in slightly different
combinations of design options at the baseline efficiency level for the
following representative units, which also resulted in either more or
fewer design options above baseline depending on whether the baseline
efficiency level needed fewer or more design options at the baseline to
meet the current AWEF standards: DC.M.O.009, DC.M.I.025, DC.L.O.075,
and SP.L.I.006. Additionally, some of the changes to the engineering
spreadsheet impacted cost model inputs (e.g., fan motor horsepower
impacts the cost of a fan motor); therefore, there are slight changes
to the manufacturer production costs associated with some
representative units' efficiency levels even if the design option order
has not changed from the September 2023 NOPR analysis. This was the
case for the following representative units: DC.M.O.009, DC.M.O.025,
DC.M.O.054, DC.M.O.075, DC.M.O.124, DC.M.I.009, DC.M.I.025, DC.M.I.054,
DC.M.I.075, DC.L.O.003, DC.L.O.009, DC.L.O.025, DC.L.O.054, DC.L.I.003,
DC.L.I.009, DC.L.I.025, DC.L.I.054, SP.L.O.002, and SP.L.I.002.
See section 3 of the NODA support document for updated cost-
efficiency results. The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA)
presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates
discussed in this section.
3. Unit Coolers
a. Cost Assumptions at Max-Tech Efficiency Levels
In the September 2023 NOPR, using the Unit Cooler Performance
Database \16\ DOE developed linear cost-efficiency correlations for
each representative unit, which DOE used to determine the MPC increase
from the baseline efficiency level to the higher efficiency levels for
unit coolers. See section 5.8.6 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. When
building the Unit Cooler Performance Database, DOE did not consider
that adding additional rows to the unit cooler heat exchanger would
require an increase in cabinet size when determining the MPCs
associated with each efficiency level. DOE based this assumption on
manufacturers' unit cooler product catalogs, which included unit cooler
case dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Unit Cooler Performance Database can be found at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Lennox stated that increasing 4-row unit cooler
designs to 5- or 6-row designs is not cost-effective because adding
coil rows has diminishing returns on improved efficiency and would
result in increased coil face area and increased cabinet size. (Lennox,
No. 70 at p. 4) AHRI, Hussmann, and Lennox commented that current unit
cooler coil and cabinet designs are optimized around 4-row designs and
increasing efficiency would be more costly than what DOE estimated when
considering packaging, freight, materials, and scrap. (AHRI, No. 72 at
pp. 3-4, 9; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2, 12; Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4) \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ DOE notes that it also received comments indicating that
the conversion costs for refrigeration systems should be
incorporated as an amortized consideration in the MSP. DOE will
consider and address these stakeholder comments in a subsequent
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the development of the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE
identified several manufacturers producing unit coolers with heat
exchangers 5 or more rows deep. However, DOE acknowledges the concerns
of AHRI, Lennox, and Hussmann that some manufacturers may not be
currently producing unit coolers with heat exchangers 5 rows deep. As
such, these manufacturers may need to expand the cabinet size of their
4-row unit coolers to accommodate larger heat exchangers (i.e.,
evaporator coils with at least 5 rows). In response to this feedback,
DOE updated its analysis for this NODA and assumed that the unit cooler
case would have to be expanded to accommodate an additional row at the
maximum technology (``max-tech'') efficiency level for every unit
cooler representative unit.
DOE estimated the additional MPC using the same cost modeling
processes described in section 5.4 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. The
additional MPC includes additional material, scrap, and packaging
associated with the cabinet size increase. DOE developed this
additional MPC for expanding unit cooler case size for several
representative units. The average cost adder associated with the
cabinet size increase was $11 for the representative capacities DOE
analyzed. Updated unit cooler cost efficiency curves can be found in
section 3 of the NODA support document.
DOE has tentatively determined that the increase in shipping cost
would not significantly affect the analysis and therefore, did not
include this in the revised analysis in this NODA.
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) for unit coolers
presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates
discussed in this section.
b. Unit Cooler Fan Power
As discussed in section 5.5.4.2 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE
used unit cooler fan powers from manufacturer product catalogs to
construct the Unit Cooler Performance Database. In general, DOE found
that the fan powers reported in product catalogs were constant across
unit cooler models that only appeared to differ in the number of rows
in their heat exchangers. Further, fan motor powers per fan were the
same across families of unit coolers having the same general geometry
and fan diameter, where the unit coolers differed only by overall unit
cooler length (and number of fans) and number of tube rows in the
evaporator. As such, DOE assumed for the NOPR analysis that unit cooler
fan power would not change when additional heat exchanger rows were
added.
Lennox stated that adding additional rows would have diminishing
performance returns for several reasons including that higher fan power
is needed to maintain airflow when additional coil depth is added due
to the additional pressure drop imposed by the added tube rows.
(Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4)
Increasing heat exchanger size by adding a row could increase the
internal static pressure (``ISP'') that the unit cooler fan would need
to overcome and would therefore require more fan power to maintain the
same airflow at a higher
[[Page 18565]]
ISP. DOE notes that when unit cooler airflow is reported in product
catalogs for models that only appear to differ in number of heat
exchanger rows, the airflow generally decreases when an additional heat
exchanger row is added, but (as previously noted) the fan power listed
stays constant. To quantify the potential increase in fan power, DOE
estimated the increase in ISP associated with adding additional heat
exchanger rows using CoilDesigner.\18\ For the CoilDesigner model, DOE
assumed heat exchanger and fan characteristics based on physical and
catalog teardowns of unit coolers and unit cooler airflow based on
manufacturer product catalogs. DOE estimated a percentage fan power
increase using representative fan performance curves, the reported air
flow, and unit cooler system pressure drop before and after adding the
coil row, accounting for the additional ISP estimated using
CoilDesigner. Based on this analysis, DOE has tentatively determined
that increasing the number of heat exchanger rows from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4
would result in roughly a 6-percent increase in unit cooler fan power,
and increasing heat exchanger rows from 4 to 5 would result in roughly
a 4-percent unit cooler fan power increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ CoilDesigner is a heat exchanger coil simulation tool.
CoilDesigner Version 4.8.20221.110 was used for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the fan power reported in product catalogs does not appear
to change, as the number of heat exchanger rows changes, it is likely,
as indicated by the analysis described above, that the fan power is
different for these models. To evaluate the potential impact of this
variation on potential ranges of AWEF2, DOE evaluated multiple
scenarios regarding fan power increase with the Unit Cooler Performance
Database medium-temperature unit coolers. For medium-temperature unit
coolers, AWEF2 depends only on the fan power and capacity, and
questions about potential variation in the defrost energy (a factor for
low-temperature unit coolers), would not apply. The initial
construction of the Unit Cooler Performance Database, posted to the
rulemaking docket, was based on using the literature fan power as
reported (i.e., DOE did not consider any changes to fan power based on
number of rows).\19\ DOE further evaluated two alternative approaches:
(a) that the reported fan power applies for unit coolers with the least
number of tube rows and therefore, the actual fan power increases above
the levels reported in the literature with additional tube rows; and
(b) that the reported fan power applies for the unit coolers with the
greatest number of tube rows and therefore, the actual fan power
decreases below the levels reported in the literature with fewer tube
rows. For each scenario, DOE adjusted the unit cooler fan powers based
on the ISP difference determined by DOE's Coil Designer analysis. In
all cases, the calculated AWEF2 values include many that are lower than
the current baseline level. However, the number of AWEF2 values that
are lower than the current baseline level is significantly lower for
approach (b) described previously. The highest AWEF2 values are roughly
the same at 10.0 for the NOPR scenario (no fan power differences within
a family of unit coolers) and scenario (b), and are lower (close to
9.7) for scenario (a). Given that the unit coolers evaluated are all
certified as compliant with DOE standards, and the likelihood that the
reported motor power would apply for the highest-power (motor design)
operating point, DOE concludes that scenario (b) is the most likely.
DOE notes that for all three of the scenarios, the Unit Cooler
Performance Database has AWEF2 values that are higher than the max-tech
AWEF2 values calculated for the representative capacities. Thus, DOE
concludes that the max-tech efficiency levels considered in the NOPR
were not overestimated due to the potential increase in fan power as
additional tube rows are added within the range considered. Therefore,
DOE did not adjust the unit cooler AWEF2 values proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR based on the potential for additional unit cooler
rows to impose additional ISP that could require increased fan power.
The results of the three scenarios are shown in Figure 5.1 through
Figure 5.3 of the NODA support document that has been posted to the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Unit Cooler Performance Database can be found at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Miscellaneous Updates to the Unit Cooler Analysis
After the September 2023 NOPR was published, DOE identified an
issue in the calculation of baseline net capacities for high-
temperature unit coolers in its engineering analysis. DOE corrected
this issue for this NODA and as a result baseline AWEF2 values are
slightly less than the AWEF2 values shown in the NOPR. Additionally,
since the AWEF2 values at efficiency levels above baseline are
dependent on the baseline AWEF2 values for the high-temperature unit
cooler analysis, the AWEF2 values at higher efficiency levels are less
than those AWEF2 values shown in the NOPR. On average, the calculated
efficiencies of all high-temperature unit cooler efficiency levels have
decreased by 2-percent from the NOPR values.
In addition, DOE found an issue in the calculation of the max-tech
MPC of the UC.L.009 representative unit, which resulted in a higher
MPC. For this NODA analysis, DOE addressed this calculation issue,
which results in an MPC that is 4-percent lower than the MPC presented
in the September 2023 NOPR. When accounting for this change and the MPC
change associated with the cabinet size increase cost adder discussed
in section II.A.3.a, the MPC determined for this NODA is 2-percent less
than the MPC presented in the NOPR for this representative unit.
See section 3 of the NODA support document that has been posted to
the docket for the updated cost-efficiency curves that includes these
corrections. The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, and NIA) presented
in section II.C of this document account for these corrections.
B. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three trial standard
levels (``TSLs'') for the considered walk-in doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 60746, 60785-
60786.
DOE notes that the TSLs presented in this NODA are tentative and
for evaluating the analytical changes considered in the context of this
NODA and DOE may revise the number of, or structure of, these TSLs in
response to comments in future analysis. DOE further notes that the
TSLs presented in this NODA are within or close to the range of values
presented in the September 2023 NOPR.
1. Refrigeration Systems
For this NODA, DOE is presenting three TSLs to demonstrate the
changes discussed in sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 of this document that
pertain to refrigeration systems. The efficiency levels that correspond
to these TSLs for these equipment classes are shown in Table II.5
through Table II.7.
TSL 3 in this NODA includes the efficiency levels that use the
combination of design options for each representative unit at the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level. For this NODA,
DOE notes a correction here where in the NOPR, the design option
representing max-tech for the DC.M.O.054 representative unit was mapped
to EL 7--when in fact it should have been EL 8. With the added
efficiency level in this NODA, the max-tech efficiency level for the
DC.M.O.054 representative unit is now EL 9 as shown in Table II.5. TSL
1 represents
[[Page 18566]]
the efficiency levels in this NODA that yield AWEF2 values closest to
those AWEF2 values that align with TSL 2 in the September 2023 NOPR,
which is the TSL that DOE proposed to adopt. TSL 2 in this NODA is an
intermediate TSL that is higher than TSL 1 but below the max-tech
level.
Table II.5--Refrigeration Systems Efficiency Level by Representative Unit Mapping for TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)........ ...... 2 ...... ...... 1 3 2 ...... ......
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)....... ...... 3 ...... ...... 5 8 5 4 ......
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 3 4 3 ......
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O).... ...... ...... ...... ...... 8 8 9 8 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor 2 ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(SP.H.ID)..............................
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor 6 ...... ...... 6 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(SP.H.OD)..............................
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)....... 2 ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)...... 6 ...... ...... 6 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)........ 7 ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)....... 4 ...... 4 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)..... 5 ...... ...... ...... 3 ...... ...... ...... ......
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O).... 9 ...... ...... ...... 5 ...... ...... ...... ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Temperature (UC.H)................. ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 1 ...... ...... ......
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 1 ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature (UC.L).................. ...... 2 ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 ......
Medium Temperature (UC.M)............... ...... 2 ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.6--Refrigeration Systems Efficiency Level by Representative Unit Mapping for TSL 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)........ ...... 1 ...... ...... 0 2 1 ...... ......
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)....... ...... 2 ...... ...... 4 7 4 3 ......
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 2 3 2 ......
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O).... ...... ...... ...... ...... 3 3 4 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor 2 ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(SP.H.ID)..............................
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor 6 ...... ...... 6 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(SP.H.OD)..............................
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)....... 2 ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)...... 5 ...... ...... 5 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)........ 4 ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)....... 2 ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)..... 3 ...... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... ......
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O).... 8 ...... ...... ...... 3 ...... ...... ...... ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Temperature (UC.H)................. ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 ...... ...... ......
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 1 ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature (UC.L).................. ...... 2 ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 ......
Medium Temperature (UC.M)............... ...... 2 ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7--Refrigeration Systems Efficiency Level by Representative Unit Mapping for TSL 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity (kBtu/hr)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)........ ...... 1 ...... ...... 0 2 1 ...... ......
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)....... ...... 2 ...... ...... 4 7 4 2 ......
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 2 2 2 ......
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O).... ...... ...... ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor 2 ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(SP.H.ID)..............................
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor 5 ...... ...... 6 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(SP.H.OD)..............................
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)....... 1 ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
[[Page 18567]]
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)...... 5 ...... ...... 5 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)........ 4 ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)....... 0 ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)..... 3 ...... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... ......
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O).... 8 ...... ...... ...... 3 ...... ...... ...... ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Temperature (UC.H)................. ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 ...... ...... ......
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 1 ...... ...... ......
Low Temperature (UC.L).................. ...... 2 ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 ......
Medium Temperature (UC.M)............... ...... 2 ...... ...... 2 2 2 2 ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-Display Doors
For this NODA, DOE is presenting three TSLs to demonstrate the
changes discussed in section II.A.1 of this document that pertain to
non-display doors. The efficiency levels that correspond to these TSLs
for these equipment classes are shown table II.8.
TSL 3 in this NODA includes the efficiency levels that use the
combination of design options for each representative unit at the max-
tech level. TSL 1 and TSL 2 are intermediate TSLs between baseline and
TSL 3. The efficiency levels for each TSL are based on the updated
engineering analysis for non-display doors, as discussed in section
II.A.1 of this document and as shown in the NODA support document.
Table II.8--Non-Display Doors Efficiency Level to TSL Mapping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Manual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Temperature (NM.L).......................................... 1 3 5
Medium Temperature (NM.M)....................................... 1 3 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Motorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Temperature (NO.L).......................................... 1 3 5
Medium Temperature (NO.M)....................................... 1 3 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Analytical Results
To quantify the impacts to consumers and the Nation from the
additional analysis of the technologies described in section II.A of
this document, DOE ran its life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period
(``PBP'') analysis and national impacts analysis (``NIA'') with the
same inputs as it used in the September 2023 NOPR, with the exception
of the changes described in sections II.A and II.B of this document.
DOE also considered the potential impacts of the updated analysis
discussed in this NODA on the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'').
As discussed in chapter 12 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE relies
on several sources, including the engineering analysis and the
shipments analysis, to obtain inputs to quantify the potential impacts
of amended energy conservation standards on the walk-in cooler and
freezer industry. Changes to MSPs and shipments would affect industry
revenue, and, therefore, the MIA results. However, considered in
isolation, DOE does not expect that the changes to the engineering
analysis or shipments distribution detailed in this NODA would
substantively alter the industry financial results (represented by
change in industry net present value) presented in the September 2023
NOPR. DOE will assess and incorporate the most up-to-date data in any
subsequent MIA conducted for this rulemaking.
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on walk-in coolers and freezers
consumers by looking at the effects that potential amended standards at
each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. The detailed description of how
DOE calculates its LCC impacts can be found in chapter 8 and associated
appendices of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.
In general, higher-efficiency equipment affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. For this NODA, DOE
maintained the same methods and modeling assumptions discussed in
chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD with the exception of the
revised engineering analysis discussed in section II.A of this document
and TSL composition discussed in section II.B of this document.
a. Application of the Low-GWP Refrigerant Transition to Specific
Regions
As discussed in section II.A.2.c of this document, the states of
California and Washington require the use of sub-150-GWP refrigerants.
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE conducted its LCC analysis at the
geographic level of Census regions, where the region containing the
states of California and Washington is the Western Region
[[Page 18568]]
(Region 4).\20\ To approximate any additional costs associated with
moving to low-GWP refrigerants to consumers in California and
Washington DOE applied the cost of the additional design options
determined in section II.A.2.c of this document to the fraction of
consumers in Western Census Region based on population.\21\ Theses
weights and design option cost are shown in table II.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf.
\21\ See: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html.
Table II.9--Low-GWP Refrigerant Cost Adders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity Cost adder
EC (kBtu/hr) Census region ($) Weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.M.I.......................................... 3 4 0 0.59
3 4 0 0.41
9 4 0 0.59
9 4 0 0.41
25 4 381.20 0.59
25 4 0 0.41
54 4 0 0.59
54 4 0 0.41
75 4 0 0.59
75 4 0 0.41
DC.M.O.......................................... 3 4 0 0.59
3 4 0 0.41
9 4 0 0.59
9 4 0 0.41
25 4 95.94 0.59
25 4 0 0.41
54 4 0 0.59
54 4 0 0.41
75 4 0 0.59
75 4 0 0.41
124 4 0 0.59
124 4 0 0.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its approach to applying the transition to
low-GWP refrigerant to specific regions.
b. Results for Refrigeration Systems
Table II.10 through table II.14 show the LCC and PBP results for
the TSLs for each category of refrigeration system equipment impacted
in this NODA. In the first of each pair of tables by equipment category
(dedicated refrigeration systems, single-packaged dedicated
refrigeration systems, etc.), the simple payback is measured relative
to the baseline equipment. In the second table, impacts are measured
relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in
the compliance year. The savings refer only to consumers who are
affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase
equipment with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected.
Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net
cost.
Table II.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for Dedicated Condensing Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2023$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simple payback Average
TSL First year's Lifetime period (yrs) lifetime (yrs)
Installed cost operation cost operating cost LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................... 7,643....................... 2,486 22,151 29,793 0.0 10.6
1......................................... 7,771....................... 2,435 21,844 29,615 3.2 10.6
2......................................... 7,771....................... 2,435 21,844 29,615 3.2 10.6
3......................................... 10,891...................... 2,331 22,956 33,847 inf 10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................... 26,579...................... 3,790 39,853 66,432 0.0 10.5
1......................................... 26,799...................... 3,731 39,540 66,339 5.3 10.5
2......................................... 26,885...................... 3,724 39,546 66,430 7.5 10.5
3......................................... 38,360...................... 3,321 43,510 81,870 inf 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................... 3,783....................... 1,164 10,379 14,162 0.0 10.5
1......................................... 3,882....................... 1,123 10,126 14,008 3.0 10.5
2......................................... 3,921....................... 1,111 10,058 13,979 3.3 10.5
[[Page 18569]]
3......................................... 5,107....................... 1,037 10,214 15,320 64.4 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................... 5,757....................... 1,661 15,136 20,892 0.0 10.6
1......................................... 5,761....................... 1,648 15,041 20,802 0.4 10.6
2......................................... 5,884....................... 1,607 14,799 20,683 2.9 10.6
3......................................... 8,470....................... 1,297 14,004 22,474 18.7 10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table II.11--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
Distribution for Dedicated Condensing Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average savings--
TSL % Consumers with impacted consumers
net cost (2023$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 7 276
2............................... 7 276
3............................... 100 -4,054
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 28 93
2............................... 47 2
3............................... 100 -15,438
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1 594
2............................... 2 709
3............................... 97 -1,159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0 90
2............................... 3 209
3............................... 95 -1,582
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table II.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2023$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Average
TSL First year's Lifetime payback lifetime
Installed operation operating LCC period (yrs) (yrs)
cost cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,051 436 3,977 6,027 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 2,145 370 3,586 5,731 1.7 10.5
2....................................................... 2,145 370 3,586 5,731 1.7 10.5
3....................................................... 2,145 370 3,586 5,731 1.7 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,820 590 5,401 8,221 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 3,119 476 4,811 7,930 3.5 10.5
2....................................................... 3,146 474 4,819 7,965 3.8 10.5
3....................................................... 3,146 474 4,819 7,965 3.8 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 1,978 255 2,709 4,688 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 2,006 230 2,557 4,563 1.3 10.5
2....................................................... 2,035 226 2,550 4,585 2.5 10.5
[[Page 18570]]
3....................................................... 2,035 226 2,550 4,585 2.5 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,857 357 3,829 6,686 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 2,948 319 3,629 6,577 3.1 10.5
2....................................................... 2,948 319 3,629 6,577 3.1 10.5
3....................................................... 1,764 62 2,033 3,797 inf 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 3,755 732 6,963 10,718 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 3,947 665 6,621 10,568 3.9 10.5
2....................................................... 3,947 665 6,621 10,568 3.9 10.5
3....................................................... 3,947 665 6,621 10,568 3.9 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 4,951 967 9,202 14,153 0.0 10.6
1....................................................... 4,952 955 9,121 14,074 0.2 10.6
2....................................................... 4,974 951 9,095 14,068 1.5 10.6
3....................................................... 6,129 920 9,641 15,771 inf 10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 4,002 713 6,958 10,959 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 4,177 674 6,800 10,977 7.8 10.5
2....................................................... 4,177 674 6,800 10,977 7.8 10.5
3....................................................... 5,042 666 7,307 12,349 inf 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 4,795 667 7,023 11,818 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 4,857 636 6,846 11,703 2.5 10.5
2....................................................... 4,857 636 6,846 11,703 2.5 10.5
3....................................................... 5,806 632 7,436 13,242 inf 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table II.13--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
Distribution for Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average savings--
TSL % Consumers with impacted
net cost consumers (2023$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor
(SP.H.ID)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0 296
2............................... 0 296
3............................... 0 296
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor
(SP.H.OD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 5 291
2............................... 16 256
3............................... 16 256
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 2 124
2............................... 3 103
3............................... 3 103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 3 108
2............................... 3 108
3............................... 21 -55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 8 150
[[Page 18571]]
2............................... 8 150
3............................... 8 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0 105
2............................... 20 85
3............................... 100 -1,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 27 -17
2............................... 27 -17
3............................... 100 -1,390
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 6 114
2............................... 6 114
3............................... 100 -1,425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table II.14--Average LCC and PBP Results for Unit Coolers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2023$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Average
TSL First year's Lifetime payback lifetime
Installed cost operation operating LCC period (yrs) (yrs)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, High Temperature (UC.H)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 3,083 479 4,595 7,678 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 3,083 479 4,595 7,678 0.0 10.5
2....................................................... 3,083 479 4,595 7,678 0.0 10.5
3....................................................... 3,223 474 4,642 7,865 inf 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 3,161 681 6,111 9,271 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 3,212 642 5,859 9,071 1.5 10.5
2....................................................... 3,212 642 5,859 9,071 1.5 10.5
3....................................................... 3,212 642 5,859 9,071 1.5 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, Low Temperature (UC.L)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,658 4,413 34,322 36,980 0.0 10.5
1....................................................... 2,918 4,186 32,772 35,690 1.3 10.5
2....................................................... 2,918 4,186 32,772 35,690 1.3 10.5
3....................................................... 2,918 4,186 32,772 35,690 1.3 10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, Medium Temperature (UC.M)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,468 1,675 13,649 16,118 0.0 10.6
1....................................................... 2,569 1,631 13,373 15,942 2.7 10.6
2....................................................... 2,569 1,631 13,373 15,942 2.7 10.6
3....................................................... 2,569 1,631 13,373 15,942 2.7 10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table II.15--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
Distribution for Unit Coolers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average savings--
TSL % Consumers with impacted consumers
net cost (2023$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, High Temperature (UC.H)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... n/a n/a
2............................... n/a n/a
[[Page 18572]]
3............................... 100 -187
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0 201
2............................... 0 201
3............................... 0 201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, Low Temperature (UC.L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 10 1,290
2............................... 10 1,290
3............................... 10 1,290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Coolers, Medium Temperature (UC.M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 23 176
2............................... 23 176
3............................... 23 176
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
c. Results for Non-Display Doors
Table II.16 through table II.19 show the LCC and PBP results for
the TSLs for each non-display doors equipment class impacted in this
NODA. In the first of each pair of tables by equipment class (manual
non-display doors, motorized non-display doors), the simple payback is
measured relative to the baseline equipment. In the second table,
impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-
new-standards case in the compliance year. The savings refer only to
consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who
already purchase equipment with efficiency at or above a given TSL are
not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL
experience a net cost.
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, to estimate the impacts of
improved efficiency on walk-in envelope components (e.g., panels,
doors), DOE must first establish the efficiencies and energy use of the
connected refrigeration equipment. 88 FR 60746, 60786. For the purposes
of this NODA, DOE has presented the results for non-display doors based
on both the baseline and max-tech refrigeration system to show the
range of potential impacts associated with each analyzed TSL.
Table II.16--Average LCC and PBP Results for Manual Non-Display Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2023$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL First year's Lifetime period (yrs) lifetime (yrs)
Installed cost operation cost operating cost LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Manual, Low Temperature (NM.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,663 315 2,079 4,742 0.0 8.7
1....................................................... 2,754 237 1,566 4,319 1.2 8.7
2....................................................... 2,854 161 1,068 3,922 1.3 8.7
3....................................................... 3,136 147 975 4,111 2.8 8.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,574 347 2,289 4,863 0.0 8.7
1....................................................... 2,705 240 1,582 4,288 1.2 8.7
2....................................................... 2,833 159 1,050 3,883 1.4 8.7
3....................................................... 3,136 145 961 4,097 2.8 8.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Manual, Medium Temperature (NM.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,766 77 505 3,271 0.0 8.8
1....................................................... 2,827 51 337 3,163 2.4 8.8
2....................................................... 2,900 35 233 3,132 3.2 8.8
3....................................................... 3,229 32 211 3,439 10.4 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18573]]
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 2,605 108 714 3,319 0.0 8.8
1....................................................... 2,736 56 368 3,105 2.5 8.8
2....................................................... 2,850 37 246 3,095 3.4 8.8
3....................................................... 3,229 34 226 3,454 8.4 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table II.17--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
Distribution for Manual Non-Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average savings--
TSL % Consumers with impacted consumers
net cost (2023$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Manual, Low Temperature (NM.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1 607
2............................... 1 1,049
3............................... 5 847
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1 575
2............................... 1 980
3............................... 5 766
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Manual, Medium Temperature (NM.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 3 233
2............................... 8 263
3............................... 69 -91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 4 214
2............................... 9 224
3............................... 78 -135
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table II.18--Average LCC and PBP Results for Motorized Non-Display Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2023$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL First year's Lifetime period (yrs) lifetime (yrs)
Installed cost operation cost operating cost LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Low Temperature (NO.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 7,120 495 3,244 10,364 0.0 8.7
1....................................................... 7,240 362 2,376 9,615 0.9 8.7
2....................................................... 7,367 253 1,663 9,029 1.0 8.7
3....................................................... 7,688 223 1,466 9,154 2.1 8.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 7,102 480 3,146 10,248 0.0 8.7
1....................................................... 7,233 341 2,237 9,470 0.9 8.7
2....................................................... 7,363 237 1,558 8,921 1.1 8.7
3....................................................... 7,688 210 1,381 9,069 2.2 8.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18574]]
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Medium Temperature (NO.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 7,333 91 597 7,930 0.0 8.8
1....................................................... 7,377 66 436 7,813 1.8 8.8
2....................................................... 7,435 50 331 7,767 2.5 8.8
3....................................................... 7,704 45 298 8,002 8.1 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 7,059 151 992 8,051 0.0 8.8
1....................................................... 7,190 81 536 7,727 1.9 8.8
2....................................................... 7,307 56 373 7,679 2.6 8.8
3....................................................... 7,704 50 333 8,037 6.4 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table II.19--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
Distribution for Manual Non-Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average savings--
TSL % Consumers with impacted consumers
net cost (2023$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Low Temperature (NO.L)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0 819
2............................... 0 1,417
3............................... 2 1,291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0 778
2............................... 0 1,326
3............................... 2 1,179
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Medium Temperature (NO.M)
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1 349
2............................... 3 424
3............................... 42 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1 324
2............................... 4 372
3............................... 51 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
2. National Impacts Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the changes in national
energy savings (``NES'') and the net present value (``NPV'') of
consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs as potential
amended standards for the equipment under consideration in this NODA.
For this NODA, DOE maintained the methodologies and modeling
assumptions that were used in the 2023 September NOPR. For brevity the
NIA results are presented here by equipment category (i.e.,
refrigeration systems), the results for each equipment class can be
found in section 6 of the NODA support document.
The detailed description of how DOE calculates its national impacts
can be found in chapter 10 and associated appendices of the September
2023 NOPR TSD.
a. Non-Display Doors
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, the energy savings from
improved insulation or reduced heat infiltration would be realized as
reduced load on the attached refrigeration systems; however, for the
purpose of reporting, these energy savings are attributed to the
individual door in question. 88 FR 60746, 60788. For this NODA, when
determining the NES and NPV of consumer benefits of
[[Page 18575]]
each TSL DOE bounds the range of potential costs and benefits for non-
display doors when they are connected to max-tech refrigeration systems
(the low bound), and baseline refrigeration systems (the high bound).
These results are shown in table II.21 and table II.23.
b. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE compared their energy
consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy
consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period that begins in
the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-2056).
Table II.20 and table II.21 present DOE's projections of the NES for
each TSL considered for walk-in refrigeration systems shown in section
II.B. The savings were calculated using the approach described in
chapter 10 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-
0046.
Table II.20--Cumulative Full-Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezer Refrigeration
Systems (Quads); 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................................................. 0.86 1.11 3.51
FFC energy...................................................... 0.89 1.14 3.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.21--Cumulative Full-Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers: Non-Display
Doors (Quads); 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................................................. 0.27 to 0.28 0.58 to 0.61 0.65 to 0.70
FFC energy...................................................... 0.28 to 0.29 0.59 to 0.63 0.67 to 0.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for walk-in
refrigeration systems. In accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\23\ DOE calculated NPV
using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. Table II.22
and table II.23 show the consumer NPV results with impacts counted over
the lifetime of walk-in coolers and freezers refrigeration systems and
non-display doors purchased in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last
accessed April 26, 2023).
Table II.22--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration
Systems; 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate -------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2023$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent..................................................... 1.53 1.57 -25.45
7 percent..................................................... 0.64 0.62 -13.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18576]]
Table II.23--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers: Non-Display
Doors; 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate -------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent..................................................... 0.78 to 0.83 1.57 to 1.72 -0.43 to -0.24
7 percent..................................................... 0.35 to 0.37 0.69 to 0.76 -0.43 to -0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Updated Equations for Proposed Standards
1. Energy Consumption Equations for Non-Display Doors
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed amended energy
conservation standards for walk-in non-display doors at TSL 2 from the
NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60748. Table II.24 presents updated MDEC
curves for the affected equipment classes at the same trial standard
level proposed in the September 2023 NOPR using the updated analysis
presented in this NODA.
Table II.24--Changes to Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Non-
Display Doors Proposed in the September 2023 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 2 NOPR
Equipment class equations for TSL 2 NODA equations
MDEC (kWh/day) * for MDEC (kWh/day) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Display Door, Manual, 0.01 x And + 0.25 0.01 x And + 0.25 +
Medium Temperature. 0.33a + 0.25b +
0.07c + 0.24d.
Non-Display Door, Manual, Low 0.06 x And + 1.32 0.06 x And + 1.35 +
Temperature. 0.40a + 1.42b +
0.09c + 0.30d +
0.85e.
Non-Display Door, Motorized, 0.01 x And + 0.39 0.01 x And + 0.39 +
Medium Temperature. 0.33a + 0.25b +
0.07c + 0.24d.
Non-Display Door, Motorized, 0.05 x And + 1.56 0.05 x And + 1.59 +
Low Temperature. 0.40a + 1.42b +
0.09c + 0.30d +
0.85e.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And represents the surface area of the non-display door.
a = 1 for a door with lighting and = 0 for a door without lighting.
b = 1 for a door with a heated viewport window and = 0 for a door
without a heated viewport window.
c = 1 for a door with a digital temperature display without alarms and =
0 for a door without a digital display without alarms.
d = 1 for a door with a digital temperature display with alarms and = 0
for a door without a digital temperature display with alarms.
e = 1 for a door with a heated pressure relief vent and = 0 for a door
without a heated pressure relief vent.
2. AWEF2 Equations
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed amended energy
conservation standards for walk-in refrigeration system equipment at
TSL 2 from the NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60748. The equations for the
proposed amended energy conservation standards for dedicated condensing
units and single-packaged dedicated systems generally followed the
trends of the TSL 2 levels determined for the analyzed representative
capacities. For unit coolers, DOE proposed energy conservation
standards that do not vary with capacity.
AHRI and Hussmann commented on the proposed energy conservation
standards for unit coolers by providing plots for medium- and low-
temperature unit coolers showing that DOE proposed AWEF2 standards
equations that resulted in AWEF2 values above the AWEF2 values
determined for EL 2 (i.e., the max-tech efficiency level) for certain
representative capacities. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 4-5; Hussmann, No. 75
at pp. 2-3)
DOE notes that it proposed unit cooler standards that do not depend
on capacity, averaging the proposed TSL 2 efficiency levels of the
representative capacities within each unit cooler class. Thus, the
proposed standard levels at higher representative capacities were above
the max-tech efficiency levels determined for those capacities. DOE
analyzed the unit cooler performance database to determine if the
proposed standards for medium- and low-temperature were technologically
feasible. DOE was able to identify low-temperature unit cooler models
above the standard level proposed in the September 2023 NOPR across the
full range of capacities analyzed. Therefore, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the AWEF2 standard proposed in the September 2023 NOPR
for low-temperature unit coolers is technologically feasible. DOE was
unable to identify medium-temperature unit cooler models at efficiency
levels at or above the standard level proposed in the September 2023
NOPR at certain capacities. Therefore, DOE has revised the medium-
temperature unit cooler standard equation proposed in the September
2023 NOPR such that it never exceeds the maximum technology level
identified in the unit cooler performance database for given capacity
ranges. Revised medium-temperature unit cooler standard equations are
presented in section 7 of the NODA support document.
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed an AWEF2 standard level
for medium-temperature outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems of
7.11 for models with capacities greater than or equal to 9 kBtu/h. 88
FR 60746, 60853. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, the Efficiency
Advocates commented that DOE's proposed AWEF2 standard of 7.11
corresponds to EL 1 for 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature outdoor single-
packaged dedicated systems even though table IV.26 in the September
2023 NOPR maps TSL 2 to EL 3 (Efficiency Advocates, No. 77 at p. 6).
DOE acknowledges that table IV.26
[[Page 18577]]
in the September 2023 NOPR maps TSL 2 for 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature
single-packaged outdoor dedicated systems to EL 3, which has an AWEF2
of 7.5. 88 FR 60746, 60787. Additionally, table 5A.5.21 in appendix 5A
in the September 2023 NOPR TSD specifies that EL 3 of the 9 kBtu/h
medium-temperature outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems
(SP.M.O.009) corresponds to an AWEF2 of 7.5. However, the proposed
standard level for medium-temperature outdoor single-packaged dedicated
systems was erroneously set based on an AWEF2 of 7.11 for the
representative capacity of 9 kBtu/h. DOE has corrected this in table
7.1 of the NODA Support Document.
Section 7 of the NODA Support Document presents updated AWEF2
calculations for refrigeration system equipment classes at the trial
standards levels presented in this NODA.
III. Public Participation
DOE requests comment on the updated efficiency levels, incremental
MPCs, LCC, PBP, and NIA results for walk-in refrigeration systems
presented in the NODA. As noted in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE may
adopt energy efficiency levels that are either higher or lower than the
proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate
the proposed standards in part.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NODA
no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning
of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and
other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of data availability and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 11,
2024, 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.
[[Page 18578]]
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-05462 Filed 3-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
