[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37687-37708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14902]
========================================================================
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. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37687]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]
RIN 1904-AD79
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review;
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is undertaking an
early assessment review to evaluate whether to amend the energy
conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers (``walk-ins''
or ``WICFs''). Specifically, through this request for information
(``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information to evaluate whether amended
energy conservation standards would result in significant savings of
energy; be technologically feasible; and be economically justified. DOE
welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the
scope of this document (including those topics not specifically raised
in this RFI), as well as the submission of data and other relevant
information concerning this early assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before August 16, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 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. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, the Department
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment
submission process in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and
hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an
undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at
(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once
the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents
in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=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 for information on how to submit
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, 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. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Scope and Equipment Classes
1. Display Panels
2. High-Temperature Freezers
3. Single-Package Refrigeration Systems
4. Wine Cellar Refrigeration Systems
B. Significant Savings of Energy
1. Duty-Cycles and Typical Run Hours
2. Oversizing Factors
3. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Doors and Panels
2. Refrigeration Systems
D. Economic Justification
1. Markups Analysis--Distribution Channels
2. Lifetime Analysis
3. Shipments Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
I. Introduction
DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether
a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on
the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis,
DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or
amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial
determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria or DOE's analysis is
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a
rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If
DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that a
new or amended energy conservation standard
[[Page 37688]]
would not meet the applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in
notice and comment rulemaking before issuing a final determination that
new or amended energy conservation standards are not warranted.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
among other things, 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 \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes walk-in coolers and
freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6299).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The Secretary
may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in
significant conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
EPCA specifies standards for walk-ins. First, all walk-in doors
narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet must have
automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have
been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, and must also have strip
doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration
when doors are open. Additionally, walk-ins must contain wall, ceiling,
and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers,
excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor
insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors
of under 1 horsepower (``hp'') and less than 460 volts must be
electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or
three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1
horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically
commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must
have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast
losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a
timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the
walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).
Second, walk-ins have requirements related to electronically
commutated motors used in them. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)).
Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a
rating of under 1 hp and less than 460 volts, that motor must be either
a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor.\3\ (42
U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requirement regarding electronically commutated motors
was predicated on DOE determining that more than one manufacturer
offered such motors for sale. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A). DOE
documented this determination in Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072
(available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, EPCA requires that walk-in freezers with transparent reach-
in doors must have triple-pane glass with either heat-reflective
treated glass or gas fill for doors and windows. Transparent walk-in
cooler doors must have either double-pane glass with heat-reflective
treated glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with heat-reflective
treated glass or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins
with transparent reach-in doors, EPCA also prescribes specific anti-
sweat heater-related requirements: Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater
controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts
per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively.
Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater
power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door
opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat
heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity
corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or
to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C.
6313(f)(3)(C)-(D).
Additionally, EPCA prescribed two cycles of WICF-specific
rulemakings; the first to establish performance-based standards that
achieve the maximum improvement in energy that the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and economically justified, and the second
to determine whether to amend those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)
and (5)) EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type of covered
equipment, including those at issue here, and publish either a
notification of determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes
new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule,
as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE is
publishing this RFI to inform its decision consistent with its
obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking History
On June 3, 2014, DOE published a final rule (``June 2014 ECS final
rule'') establishing performance-based standards for the components of
a walk-in: Doors, panels, and refrigeration systems. 79 FR 32050. The
standards were expressed in terms of daily energy consumption for walk-
in doors, R-value for walk-in panels, and annual walk-in energy factor
(``AWEF'') for walk-in refrigeration systems. Id.
After publication of the June 2014 ECS final rule, the Air-
Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') and Lennox
International, Inc. (``Lennox''), a manufacturer of walk-in
refrigeration systems, filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule
and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the
rule (79 FR 59090 (October 1, 2014)) with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lennox Int'l v. Dep't of Energy, Case
No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). As a result
[[Page 37689]]
of this litigation, a settlement agreement was reached to address, and
a controlling order from the Fifth Circuit vacated, standards for six
of the refrigeration system equipment classes--the two energy
conservation standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration
systems (subsequently re-named as ``unit coolers'') operating at medium
and low temperatures and the four energy conservation standards
applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at
low temperatures.\4\ After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, DOE
established a Working Group to negotiate energy conservation standards
to replace the six vacated standards. 80 FR 46521 (August 5, 2015). The
Working Group assembled their recommendations into a Term Sheet (See
Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0056) \5\ that was presented to, and
approved by, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (``ASRAC'') on December 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The thirteen other standards established in the June 2014
ECS final rule (i.e., the four standards applicable to dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium-temperatures;
the three standards applicable to panels; and the six standards
applicable to doors) were not vacated.
\5\ The docket can be accessed at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Term Sheet contained recommended energy conservation standards
to replace the six vacated standards, definitions for a number of WICF-
related terms, and test procedure changes to implement the recommended
energy conservation standards. Consequently, DOE initiated both an
energy conservation standard rulemaking and a test procedure rulemaking
in 2016 to implement these recommendations. The Term Sheet also
recommended additional specific test procedure changes for future
rulemaking to help improve its ability to be fully representative of
walk-in energy use.
On July 10, 2017, DOE published a final rule adopting energy
conservation standards for the six classes of walk-in refrigeration
systems for which the prior standards were vacated. 82 FR 31808 (``July
2017 ECS final rule''). The energy conservation standards established
in the July 2017 ECS final rule were consistent with those recommended
by the Working Group and approved by ASRAC. 82 FR 31808, 31878. The
current energy conservation standards for walk-ins are codified at 10
CFR 431.306.
II. Request for Information
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during
the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its
obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed
with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has identified
certain topics for which information and data are requested to assist
in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy conservation
standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues relevant to its
early assessment that may not specifically be identified in this
document.
A. Scope and Equipment Classes
This RFI covers equipment meeting the walk-in definition codified
in 10 CFR 431.302: An enclosed storage space (i.e., box) refrigerated
to temperatures (1) above 32 [deg]F for walk-in coolers and (2) at or
below 32 [deg]F for walk-in freezers, that can be walked into, and has
a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet, but
excluding equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. (See also 42 U.S.C.
6311(20)) DOE has codified and established energy conservation
standards applicable to the principal components that make up a walk-in
(i.e., doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). In addition to the
prescriptive requirements for walk-ins established by EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6313(f)(3)(A)-(D)) and codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a)-(b), DOE
established performance-based energy conservation standards for doors
and refrigeration systems. 10 CFR 431.306(c)-(e).
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered equipment into classes by the type of energy used,
or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In
making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. Id.
DOE established standards for walk-in doors based on (1) whether
they are used in a walk-in cooler (i.e., medium-temperature) or walk-in
freezer (i.e., low-temperature), (2) whether they are display or non-
display doors,\6\ and (3) if non-display, whether they are passage or
freight doors.\7\ 10 CFR 431.306(c)-(d). Table II.1 presents the
equipment classes for all walk-in doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A ``display door'' is a door that (1) is designed for
product display, or (2) has 75 percent or more of its surface area
composed of glass or another transparent material. 10 CFR 431.302.
\7\ A ``freight door'' is a door that is not a display door and
is equal to or larger than 4 feet wide and 8 feet tall. 10 CFR
431.302. A ``passage door'' is a door that is not a freight or
display door. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE codified standards for non-display panels: Based on (1) whether
they are used in a walk-in cooler (i.e., medium-temperature) or walk-in
freezer (i.e., low-temperature), and (2) whether they are structural
(wall or ceiling) or floor panels. 10 CFR 431.306(a)(3)-(4). Table II.2
presents the equipment classes for walk-in panels.
DOE established equipment classes for walk-in refrigeration systems
based on (1) whether they are dedicated condensing systems \8\ or unit
coolers,\9\ and (2) whether they are used in a walk-in cooler (i.e.,
medium-temperature) or walk-in freezer (i.e., low-temperature). 10 CFR
431.306(e). DOE further divided dedicated condensing refrigeration
systems into ``indoor'' and ``outdoor'' equipment classes.\10\ Id.
``Indoor, low temperature'' dedicated condensing systems, ``outdoor,
low temperature'' dedicated condensing systems,'' and ``low
temperature'' unit coolers are further divided based on net capacity.
See 10 CFR 431.306(e). Table II.3 lists the equipment classes for WICF
refrigeration systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A ``dedicated condensing system'' is one of the following:
(1) A dedicated condensing unit; (2) A single-package dedicated
system; or (3) A matched refrigeration system. 10 CFR 431.302.
\9\ The term, ``unit cooler'' means ``an assembly, including
means for forced air circulation and elements by which heat is
transferred from air to refrigerant, thus cooling the air, without
any element external to the cooler imposing air resistance.'' 10 CFR
431.302.
\10\ An ``indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system'' is
a ``dedicated condensing refrigeration system designated by the
manufacturer for indoor use or for which there is no designation
regarding the use location.'' 10 CFR 431.302. An ``outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system'' is a ``dedicated condensing
refrigeration system designated by the manufacturer for outdoor
use.'' Id.
Table II.1--Equipment Classes for Walk-In Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Temperature Class code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display Door.................... Medium............ DD.M.
Low............... DD.L.
Passage Door (Non-display)...... Medium............ PD.M.
Low............... PD.L.
Freight Door (Non-display)...... Medium............ FD.M.
Low............... FD.L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37690]]
Table II.2--Equipment Classes for Walk-In Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Temperature Class code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor Panel.................... Low.............. FP.L.
Structural (Wall or Ceiling) Medium........... SP.M.
Panel. Low.............. SP.L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3--Equipment Classes for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration
System type Temperature Condenser location system net Class code
capacity (Btu/h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing............ Medium............ Indoor............ All Capacities.... DC.M.I.
Outdoor........... All Capacities.... DC.M.O.
Low............... Indoor............ <6,500............ DC.L.I, <6,500.
>=6,500........... DC.L.I, >=6,500.
Outdoor........... <6,500............ DC.L.O, <6,500.
>=6,500........... DC.L.O >=6,500.
Unit Cooler..................... Medium............ All Capacities.... UC.M.
Low............... <15,500........... UC.L, <15,500.
>=15,500.......... UC.L, >=15,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicability of these current equipment classes for certain
walk-in products is discussed in more detail in sections II.A.1 through
II.A.4 of this document.
1. Display Panels
A display panel is defined as a panel that is entirely or partially
comprised of glass, a transparent material, or both, and is used for
display purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. DOE has established a test procedure
for calculating total daily energy consumption, based on measured
thermal transmittance (also ``U-factor''), of display panels. 10 CFR
431.304(b)(1). DOE has not, however, adopted standards for display
panels based on energy consumption as at the time of the June 2014 ECS
final rule such panels made up a small fraction of the panel market and
had a limited energy savings potential. 79 FR 32049, 32067. DOE has
identified two manufacturers of display doors who also manufacture
display panels.\11\ Some models of these display panels contain anti-
sweat heaters to prevent condensation similar to display doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Display panel product information from two manufacturers
can be found at www.regulations.gov Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0009-0001 and Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 1: DOE seeks information regarding the thermal transmission
through display panels and design characteristics which would affect
the thermal transmission, specifically, ``glass pack'' \12\ design and
frame design. DOE also seeks information regarding the amount of direct
electrical energy consumption of electricity-consuming devices sited on
or within display panels, including the amount of anti-sweat heat
required, if any. DOE additionally requests information on any specific
design or use characteristics differentiating display panels from
display doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The ``glass pack'' in a display door or window of a non-
display door is an assembly of glass layers typically filled with
low thermal-conductivity inert gas and held together at the edges of
the glass by low-conductivity leak-tight spacers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. High-Temperature Freezers
DOE has established a test procedure for determining the net
capacity and AWEF of walk-in refrigeration systems at appendix C to
subpart R of 10 CFR part 431 (``Appendix C''), which incorporates by
reference AHRI Standard 1250P (I-P), ``2009 Standard for Performance
Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers,'' (``AHRI 1250-2009''). 10 CFR
431.304(b)(4). As defined previously, the storage space (i.e., box) of
a walk-in cooler is refrigerated to temperatures above 32 [deg]F, while
walk-in freezers are refrigerated to temperatures at or below 32
[deg]F. 42 U.S.C. 6311(20). See also 10 CFR 431.302. The current walk-
in test procedure rates medium-temperature refrigeration systems (which
are used in walk-in coolers) at 35 [deg]F and low-temperature
refrigeration systems (which are used in walk-in freezers) at -10
[deg]F. (See section 5 of AHRI 1250-2009 (dry bulb temperature
specifications) (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.303(b)))
Consequently, refrigeration system energy use for walk-in coolers is
represented by performance at a 35 [deg]F box temperature and
refrigeration system energy use for walk-in freezers is represented by
performance at a -10 [deg]F box temperature.
As discussed in the July 2017 ECS final rule, stakeholders
commented that so-called ``high-temperature'' freezer walk-ins are
those with a box temperature range of 10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F, and that
medium-temperature refrigeration systems are generally used for this
temperature range. 82 FR 31808, 31830. As discussed in a RFI published
on June 17, 2021 (``June 2021 TP RFI''), high-temperature freezers
would be considered walk-in freezers because their room temperature is
less than or equal to 32 [deg]F, and would therefore be rated at -10
[deg]F. 86 FR 32332, 32349. To the extent a medium-temperature
refrigeration system is used for high-temperature freezer applications,
such a system may not be able to operate at the -10 [deg]F room
temperature prescribed by the test procedure for freezers. 81 FR 95758,
95790. Although the capacity of medium-temperature models measured at
high-temperature freezer application temperatures is commonly reported
in product literature, energy use levels are not.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Product literature showing capacity measurements of medium-
temperature models used in high-temperature freezer applications
from two manufacturers can be found at www.regulations.gov Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0003 and Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-
0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on (1) whether there are medium-
temperature refrigeration system models that are used exclusively in
high temperature freezers, and (2) if a medium-temperature
refrigeration system is efficient for cooler applications, will it also
be efficient for use in high-temperature freezer applications. To the
extent available, DOE requests data on dedicated condensing unit energy
efficiency ratio (``EER'') at both high-
[[Page 37691]]
temperature freezer and medium-temperature refrigeration operation.
See section II.C.2.a for more discussion on high-temperature
freezers.
3. Single-Package Refrigeration Systems
Single-package refrigeration systems are considered a type of
dedicated condensing refrigeration system. 81 FR 95758, 95763. Many
single-package systems are constructed in such a way that the entire
refrigeration system is located outside of the refrigerated space; the
package is typically mounted either on top of, or directly adjacent to
the walk-in enclosure. Due to this construction, single-package systems
may experience additional thermal losses not observed in split systems.
Specifically, single-package systems circulate air through a ``cold
section'' (evaporator, fan(s), and internal ducting) that may have
exterior surfaces exposed to the warm air outside of the walk-in
enclosure and/or the warm condensing unit side of the refrigeration
system. This configuration can lead to conduction and/or infiltration
thermal losses which represent a reduction in net capacity and
efficiency.
As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE is considering whether
test procedure modifications are necessary to more appropriately
address the conduction and/or infiltration thermal losses for single-
package systems. 86 FR 32332, 32343-32344. To the extent that these
losses are accounted for in the test procedure, technology options that
mitigate such losses would reduce energy consumption and increase AWEF.
Given the differences in construction between single-package and split
systems and the potential for differentiated design options, DOE
intends to separately evaluate single-package system representative
units in its engineering and downstream analyses.
Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on the impact of single-
package system design limitations on efficiency and how single-package
systems differ from split systems. DOE additionally requests
information showing the trend of efficiency as a function of capacity
for single-package refrigeration systems.
See section II.C.2.a for more discussion on single-package
refrigeration systems.
4. Wine Cellar Refrigeration Systems
As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE has received requests for
waiver and interim waiver from several manufacturers from the test
procedure in Appendix C for walk-in wine cellar refrigeration systems.
86 FR 32332, 32344-32346. These systems are typically designed to
provide a cold environment at a temperature range between 45-65 [deg]F
with 50-70 percent relative humidity (``RH''), and typically are kept
at 55 [deg]F and 55 percent RH.
The wine cellar refrigeration systems addressed in waiver petitions
are sold as single-package systems, matched-pair systems, and unit
cooler-only systems. The minimum capacity of available wine cellar
refrigeration systems is lower than that of other walk-in cooler units
(e.g., capacity can be as low as 1,100 Btu/h \14\ as compared with
4,200 Btu/h for the lowest-capacity medium-temperature dedicated
condensing unit currently listed in the DOE Compliance Certification
Management System (``CCMS'') database).\15\ One manufacturer,
Vinotheque, has noted that there are size constraints for wine cellar
refrigeration systems. 86 FR 11961, 11972 (March 1, 2021).
Additionally, certain wine cellar units can be ducted as an option--
either on the condensing unit side, the evaporator side, or both--for
greater installation flexibility. This factor increases fan energy use.
Compressors that are typically available for use in lower-capacity wine
cellar refrigeration systems are of a ``hermetic reciprocating''
design,\16\ which generally has a lower efficiency than the larger-
capacity compressors used for low- and medium-temperature walk-in
refrigeration systems. Finally, as discussed previously, single-package
wine cellar systems are also subject to additional thermal losses. DOE
intends to conduct a separate analysis for wine cellar refrigeration
systems in its engineering and downstream analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Product literature for a wine cellar refrigeration system
with a capacity of 1,130 Btu/h from one manufacturer can be found at
www.regulations.gov Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0005.
\15\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database, www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Walk-In_Coolers_and_Freezers_-_Refrigeration_Systems.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Walk-In%20Coolers%20and%20Freezers%20-%20Refrigeration%20Systems%22, Last
Accessed: February 2, 2021.
\16\ In a ``hermetic'' compressor, the compressor and motor are
both contained in a single outer welded steel shell. Reciprocating
compressors have a piston that slides back and forth in a cylinder.
Refrigerant gas is drawn in through a suction valve as the piston
moves away from the cylinder head, increasing the internal volume,
and is compressed and discharged through a discharge valve as the
piston returns. ``Hermetic reciprocating'' compressors are
hermetically sealed with a reciprocating function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 4: DOE seeks information on how trends in wine cellar
installations (e.g., commercial vs. residential, square footage, etc.)
are expected to impact the type of refrigeration system (i.e., single-
package, matched-pair, dedicated condensing unit, or unit cooler
system) used in wine cellars over the next 5 to 10 years. Additionally,
DOE requests information and data on the extent to which capacity may
impact the efficiency of wine cellar refrigeration systems.
B. Significant Savings of Energy
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how a given equipment type is used, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements.
The energy use analysis estimates the annual energy consumption of
refrigeration systems (dedicated condensing systems and unit coolers)
serving walk-ins, and the energy consumption, and losses, that can be
directly ascribed to the selected components of the WICF envelopes
(doors and panels). These estimates are used in the subsequent
consumer, and National Impacts Analysis.
The estimates for the annual energy consumption of each analyzed
representative refrigeration system were derived assuming that (1) the
refrigeration system is sized such that it follows a specific daily
duty cycle for a given number of hours per day at full-rated capacity,
and (2) the refrigeration system produces no additional refrigeration
effect for the remaining period of the 24-hour cycle. These assumptions
are consistent with the present industry practice for sizing
refrigeration systems. This methodology assumes that the refrigeration
system is correctly paired with an envelope (e.g., panels, door, etc.)
that generates a load profile such that the rated hourly capacity of
the paired refrigeration system, operated for the given number of run
hours per day, produces sufficient refrigeration to meet the daily
refrigeration load of the envelope with a safety margin to meet
contingency situations. Thus, the annual energy consumption estimates
for the refrigeration system depend on the methodology adopted for
sizing, including implied assumptions and the extent of oversizing.
While DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following issues, this request for information is not
strictly limited to them.
1. Duty-Cycles and Typical Run Hours
For both the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule
analyses, DOE used nominal daily run-times of 16 hours for coolers, and
18 hours for freezers to estimate the in-field energy
[[Page 37692]]
use of walk-in refrigeration systems.\17\ These run-times assume a
capacity for a ``perfectly''-sized refrigeration system at specified
reference ambient temperatures of 95 [deg]F and 90 [deg]F for
refrigeration systems with outdoor and indoor dedicated condensing
units, respectively. 79 FR 32050, 32083 and 82 FR 31808, 31842. Nominal
run-time hours for coolers and freezers were adjusted to account for
equipment over-sizing safety margins and capacity mismatch factors (see
section II.B.2. of this document). They were further adjusted to
account for the change in net capacity from increased efficiency
projected to occur in the standards case, and, in the case of outdoor
equipment, variations in ambient temperature.\18\ As discussed in the
prior section, single-package refrigeration systems, high-temperature
freezers, and wine cellars may have different run-times or be subject
to different assumptions regarding sizing and ambient temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This methodology differs from the run-times established in
DOE's test procedure, which assumes a high-load period of 8 hours
corresponding to frequent door openings, equipment loading events,
and other design load factors, and a low-load period for the
remaining 16 hours. In the June 2014 ECS final rule analyses, DOE
concluded that these duty cycle assumptions should not be used for
sizing purposes because they may not represent the average
conditions for WICF refrigeration systems for all applications under
all conditions. 79 FR 32050, 32083. These assumptions were
maintained in the July 2017 ECS final rule. 82 FR 31808, 31842. DOE
also notes that while 16 and 18 hours were assumed for coolers and
freezers, respectively, these assumptions may not be appropriate for
wine cellars, for which test procedure waiver alternate test
procedures were established based on an expectation that typical
operating time is 50 percent. (See: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/current-test-procedure-waivers#walk-ins for the list of all waivers
to test procedures that DOE has granted for walk-in coolers and
freezers).
\18\ See Chapter 6 of the Technical Support Document (``TSD'')
for the July 2017 ECS final rule. Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 5: DOE seeks input and data as to the daily run-time hours,
sizing practice, and ambient conditions for the following: Single-
package refrigeration systems, high-temperature freezers, and wine
cellars described in sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of this document.
DOE also requests information and data regarding any other aspects of
the operation of such equipment that would influence run-time hours.
In its analysis supporting the June 2014 ECS final rule, DOE used
the percent time off (``PTO'') value defined in the test procedure and
engineering analysis to adjust the nominal direct electrical energy
usage attributed to the anti-sweat heater (in kilowatt-hours per day
(``kWh/day'')). The PTO values were applied as set forth in section
4.4.2(2) of appendix A to subpart R of 10 CFR part 431: 75 percent for
anti-sweat heaters with timers, control systems, or other demand-based
controls in cooler doors, and 50 percent for anti-sweat heaters with
timers, control systems, or other demand-based controls in freezer
doors. DOE is aware that some manufacturers design and market display
doors for high-humidity cooler applications.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Product data sheets from two manufacturers that produce
walk-in cooler display doors marketed for high-humidity applications
can be found at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0009-0006 and EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 6: DOE seeks input and data on the appropriate PTO values for
display doors that would be exposed to higher levels of humidity.
Specifically, DOE requests information on high-humidity walk-in cooler
doors, including the range of typical installation conditions (e.g.,
relative humidity throughout the year in store). DOE also requests data
on the average amount of time per day or per year that anti-sweat
heaters with timers, control systems, or demand-based controls \20\ are
operating at their full power and partial power (if applicable) for
walk-in cooler display doors marketed for high-humidity applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For anti-sweat heaters, demand-based controls monitor
humidity and temperature external to the walk-in and regulate anti-
sweat heater wire use on demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Oversizing Factors
In both the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule,
DOE assumed that WICF refrigeration condensing systems and unit coolers
in the field are sized to account for a ``worst case scenario'' need
for refrigeration to prevent food spoilage, and as such are oversized
by a safety margin. 79 FR 32050, 32083 and 82 FR 31808, 31842. DOE
found that it is customary in the industry to add a 10 percent safety
margin to the aggregate 24-hour load, resulting in 10 percent
oversizing of the refrigeration system. Id. Additionally, DOE
recognized that an exact match for the calculated refrigeration system
capacity may not be available for the refrigeration systems available
in the market because most refrigeration systems are produced in
discrete capacities. To account for this situation, DOE applied a
capacity mismatch factor of 10 percent to capture the inability to
perfectly match the calculated WICF capacity with the capacity
available in the market. 79 FR 32050, 32084 and 82 FR 31808, 31842. The
combined safety margin factor and capacity mismatch factor result in a
total oversizing factor of 1.2. With the oversize factor applied, the
nominal run-time hours of the refrigeration system are reduced to 13.3
hours from 16 hours per day for coolers, and to 15 hours from 18 hours
per day for freezers at their respective full design point capacity. 79
FR 32050, 32083 and 82 FR 31808, 31842.
Issue 7: DOE seeks input on whether the combined safety and
capacity mismatch oversizing factors for adjusting daily nominal run-
time hours relied on in the June 2014 ECS final rule and the July 2017
ECS final rule are appropriate for single-package refrigeration
systems, high-temperature freezers, and wine cellars as described in
sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of this document. If different factors
would be appropriate for such equipment, DOE requests data in support
of alternate assumptions.
3. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution
DOE measures savings of potential standards relative to a ``no-new-
standards'' case that reflects conditions without new and/or amended
standards. The no-new-standards case reflects the distribution of
equipment efficiency or energy use beginning at the baseline
performance level. The baseline performance level in each equipment
class represents the characteristics of common or typical equipment in
that class. If there is an established DOE energy conservation standard
for the class, the baseline performance level coincides with the
current minimum energy conservation standard and provides basic end-
user utility. However, not all models in an equipment class may be
rated at the baseline performance level. DOE uses efficiency market
shares to characterize the no-new-standards case equipment mix. By
accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient equipment,
DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from potential standards.
In the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE assumed that 100 percent of
WICF refrigeration equipment is sold at the baseline efficiency level
in the absence of new and/or amended standards. (Docket No. EERE-2015-
BT-STD-0016, Public Meeting, No. 68 at pp. 53-54) These assumptions did
not include medium-temperature condensing systems (which were not
within the scope of that rulemaking). Medium-temperature condensing
systems were included in the June 2014 ECS final rule where DOE assumed
that 75 percent of shipments were baseline equipment, with the
remaining 25 percent at the efficiency of the first design option above
baseline. 79 FR 32050, 32087. DOE understands that these assumptions
may not reflect the current
[[Page 37693]]
state of the market due to adoption of more stringent efficiency
standards.
Next, DOE examined the ratings for walk-in refrigeration systems
reported in DOE's CCMS.\21\ The number of models at or above the
current standards are shown in Table II.4. These data show the count of
models distributed in commerce with their respective efficiency
ratings; however, these data do not indicate the volume of shipments of
each model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Please see footnote 15.
Table II.4--Distribution of Efficiencies for Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Percent of
Equipment class Count of models at models at
models baseline baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC.L............................................................ 3,899 1,618 41
DC.L.O.......................................................... 1,780 1,438 81
DC.L.I.......................................................... 877 825 94
UC.M............................................................ 5,228 3,222 62
DC.M.O.......................................................... 2,722 2,057 76
DC.M.I.......................................................... 1,145 956 83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2014 ECS final rule DOE assumed that: (1) All panels
and non-display door shipments were at the baseline; (2) 25 percent of
display low-temperature door shipments were at the baseline, with the
remaining 75 percent at a higher efficiency (45 percent were assumed to
have light emitting diode (``LED'') lighting, corresponding to the
first design option above the baseline in the engineering analysis, and
30 percent were assumed to have LED lighting plus anti-sweat heater
wire controls, corresponding to the second design option above the
baseline); and (3) 80 percent of medium-temperature display doors
shipments were at baseline and the remaining 20 percent would have LED
lighting, corresponding to the first design option above the baseline
for low-temperature display doors. 79 FR 32050, 32087. DOE understands
that these assumptions may not reflect the current state of the market
due to adoption of more stringent efficiency standards.
Next, DOE examined the ratings for walk-in doors and panels
reported in the CCMS. The number of models at or above the current
standards are shown in Table II.5.\22\ Again, these data show the count
of models distributed in commerce with their respective efficiency
ratings; however, these data do not indicate the volume of shipments of
each model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database, www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Walk-In_Coolers_and_Freezers_-_Doors.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Walk-In%20Coolers%20and%20Freezers%20-%20Doors%22; and
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Walk-In_Coolers_and_Freezers_-_Panels.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Walk-In%20Coolers%20and%20Freezers%20-%20Panels%22, Last Accessed: March
17, 2021.
Table II.5--Distribution of Efficiencies for Panels and Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Percent of
Equipment class Count of models at models at
models baseline baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD.M............................................................ 2,861 2,785 97
DD.L............................................................ 1,213 1,108 91
PD.M............................................................ 1,872 334 18
PD.F............................................................ 1,124 604 54
FD.M............................................................ 631 0 0
FD.L............................................................ 274 95 35
SP.M............................................................ 87 14 16
SP.L............................................................ 98 50 51
FP.L............................................................ 77 13 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 8: DOE seeks data and information regarding the current, and
projected future market shares of WICF equipment by efficiency level
(e.g., expressed in terms of increments of 10 percent improvement in
AWEF, R-values, and kWh/day for refrigeration systems, panels, and
doors, respectively, above or below the existing standards in 10 CFR
431.306) to establish market trends in equipment efficiency over time.
DOE also seeks information on how the current regulatory environment
has affected the market share of WICF equipment by efficiency rating.
C. Technological Feasibility
During the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule,
DOE considered a number of technologies for reducing walk-in cooler and
freezer energy consumption.\23\ DOE is interested in understanding any
technology improvements for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems since the previous energy standards rulemaking. Additionally,
DOE is interested in any changes to the technologies it evaluated in
the rulemakings for the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS
final rule that may affect whether DOE could propose a ``no-new-
standards'' determination, such as an insignificant increase in the
range of efficiencies and performance characteristics of these
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For a complete list of technology options analyzed during
the June 2014 and July 2017 ECS final rules, see chapter 3 of
``TSD'' for each rulemaking. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131 (June
2014) and Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099 (July 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following issues, this request for information is not
strictly limited to them.
1. Doors and Panels
a. Technology Options
A complete list of options evaluated in preparation for the June
2014 ECS
[[Page 37694]]
final rule and explained in the TSD are listed in Table II.6 for doors
and Table II.7 for panels.\24\ Table II.8 lists additional technology
options that DOE may consider in a future WICF energy conservation
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See sections 3.3.3 to 3.3.6 at pp. 3-26 to 3-30 of the TSD
for the June 2014 ECS final rule. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
Table II.6--Technology Options Considered for WICF Doors From the June
2014 ECS Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display doors............................. Non-electric anti-sweat
systems.
Anti-sweat heater wire
controls.
Removal of heater wire.
High-efficiency lighting.
Lighting sensors.
Occupancy sensors.
Automatic insulation
deployment systems.
Enhanced glass systems.
Non-Display Doors......................... Increased insulation
thickness.
Improved insulation
material.
Improved framing materials.
Heater wire controls.
Enhanced glass systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7--Technology Options Considered for WICF Panels From the June
2014 ECS Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panels.................................... Increased insulation
thickness.
Improved insulation
material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.8--Potential New Technology Options for WICF Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display and Non-Display Doors............. Vacuum insulated glass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk-in doors typically use anti-sweat heater wires to prevent (1)
condensation from collecting on the glass, frame, or any other portion
of the door, which can puddle and be hazardous to consumers, (2)
fogging of the glass, and (3) the collecting of condensation that may
lead to doors freezing shut. DOE has observed that anti-sweat heater
wires for display doors may be placed within the door rail surrounding
the glass pack and/or within the surrounding frame. For display doors,
display panels, and non-display doors with viewing windows, as the
thermal performance of the glass pack improves, the amount of anti-
sweat heat required for the glass pack decreases. With a more
insulative glass pack, there is a smaller temperature difference
between the interior and exterior faces of the glass and the interior
walk-in and exterior air temperatures, resulting in less condensation
on the glass. As mentioned in the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule,
DOE based the amount of anti-sweat heater wire energy consumption on
the glass packs selected.\25\ If a frame does not contain a thermal
break or has poor insulative properties, despite having a glass pack
with better insulative performance, the door assembly may still require
more anti-sweat heat on the surrounding frame to prevent the
condensation and fogging issues noted earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See section 5.5.2.3 at p. 5-19 of the TSD for the June 2014
ECS final rule. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 9: DOE seeks information on how the physical construction of
a display door, including the glass pack and the frame, impact the
amount of anti-sweat heater wire power needed to prevent condensation
accumulating on any part of the door. Specifically, DOE seeks
quantitative data, if available, on the change in anti-sweat heater
power (1) with a specific change in door frame design but no change in
glass pack design, (2) with a specific change in glass pack design but
no change in door frame design, and/or (3) with specific changes to the
entire assembly. If there are specific design choices which are more
costly but result in less or no anti-sweat heat, DOE requests cost data
based on the capability of the door to prevent condensation from
forming and the respective design options chosen. DOE also requests
comment on any other considerations which may impact the use and power
of anti-sweat heaters.
As stated previously, DOE is aware that some manufacturers design
and market display doors for high-humidity applications. These doors
generally have anti-sweat heaters with higher rated power than those of
standard medium-temperature display doors but lower than the power
required for low-temperature display doors. For example, data from the
CCMS database show that doors marketed for high-humidity applications
have a range of anti-sweat heater power per door opening area from 0.39
to 5.59 watt (``W'')/square foot (``ft\2\''), with the average being
1.66 W/ft\2\. By comparison, the range of anti-sweat heater power is
between 0 to 3.74 W/ft\2\ for cooler doors not marketed for high-
humidity applications made by the manufacturers who also produce doors
marketed for high-humidity applications, with the average being 1.01 W/
ft\2\.
Issue 10: DOE seeks specific data and information on the
correlation between relative humidity conditions at installation and
the anti-sweat heater power needed to prevent condensation from
accumulating on a walk-in door.
DOE is also aware that walk-in display door manufacturers may
produce glass doors for other kinds of refrigeration equipment. DOE has
specifically observed that some glass doors for commercial
refrigeration equipment, while appearing very similar in design to
their walk-in door counterparts, do not include any anti-sweat heaters
around the door or frame.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the differences in design,
typical conditions, and usage of a walk-in display door as compared to
a display door for commercial refrigeration equipment which result in
commercial refrigeration equipment door designs with no anti-sweat
heaters.
Non-display doors (passage and freight doors) typically have better
insulative properties than display doors because they have little or no
glass needed for viewing purposes. Door insulation is also subject to a
minimum R-value. 10 CFR 431.306(a)(3). DOE expects that less anti-sweat
heat may be needed to prevent condensation accumulation for non-display
doors because of their improved overall resistance to heat flow as
compared to display doors. Certified data from DOE's CCMS database,\26\
presented in Table II.9, shows that passage and freight doors have
lower average anti-sweat heater power per area of door opening than
display doors and a higher percentage of passage and freight doors
certify 0 W/ft\2\ of anti-sweat heater power per area of door opening
than display doors. However, the maximum anti-sweat heater power per
area of door opening for low-temperature passage and freight doors is
higher than the average for these equipment classes, and the maximum
for these equipment classes is also higher than the maximum for low-
temperature display doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Please see footnote 22.
[[Page 37695]]
Table II.9--Certified Ranges of Anti-Sweat Heater Power per Area of Door Opening for Each Walk-In Door Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display door, Display door, Passage door, Passage door, Freight door, Freight door,
medium low medium low medium low
temperature temperature temperature temperature temperature temperature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum (W/ft\2\)....................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum (W/ft\2\)....................................... 5.59 5.39 6.80 7.08 3.40 7.00
Average (W/ft\2\)....................................... 1.37 2.99 0.42 1.15 0.11 0.16
Percent of Models without Anti-sweat Heat............... 5% 3% 60% 46% 63% 77%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 12: DOE seeks specific data and information on how the
physical construction of both passage and freight doors impact the
amount of anti-sweat heater wire power needed to prevent condensation
accumulation on any part of the door. DOE requests specific comment on
any technologies that may reduce or eliminate the need for anti-sweat
heat on passage or freight doors. DOE also requests door design
information and data that explain why many passage and freight doors
are able to perform without any anti-sweat heater power in the field
but some doors, specifically low-temperature passage and freight doors,
still require anti-sweat power that is greater than that required for
display doors to prevent condensation accumulation.
As stated previously, DOE may consider technology options for walk-
in doors that were not considered in the June 2014 ECS final rule,
specifically vacuum-insulated glass packs for display doors and windows
in non-display doors. DOE has identified two manufacturers that produce
display doors with vacuum-insulated glass packs.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Product data sheets from two manufacturers that produce
display doors with vacuum-insulated glass can be found at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0008 and
Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on the prevalence of vacuum-
insulated glass for walk-in doors and whether other manufacturers are
considering adopting this technology. DOE requests specific feedback on
any obstacles or concerns (e.g., patents, proprietary use, durability,
practicability to manufacture, etc.) which would prevent manufacturers
from using vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in doors. DOE also requests
cost data for implementing vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in display
doors.
b. Screening of Technology Options
Table II.10 lists the technology options that DOE screened out for
walk-in doors and panels in the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule
and the applicable screening criteria.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See section 4.3 at p. 4-5 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS
final rule. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
Table II.10--Doors and Panels Technology Options Screened From the June 2014 ECS Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA Criteria (X = Basis for Screening Out)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practicability Adverse
Screened technology option Technological to manufacture, Adverse impact impacts on Unique- pathway
feasibility install, and on product health and proprietary
service utility safety technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-electric anti-sweat systems................................... X ................ ............... ............... ...............
Automatic insulation deployment systems........................... X ................ ............... ............... ...............
Insulation thicker than 6 inches.................................. ............... X X ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, DOE's
screening criteria (technological feasibility; practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; adverse impacts on product utility
or product availability; adverse impacts on health or safety; and
unique-pathway proprietary technologies) would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.6, Table II.7, and Table II.8 of
this document. DOE also seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
walk-in doors and panels.
For the 2014 ECS final rule analyses, DOE screened out insulation
thickness greater than six inches for panels and doors due to concerns
about panels and doors becoming extremely heavy and unwieldy, long cure
times for the insulation, and reduced space within the walk-in to store
product.\29\ DOE has identified one manufacturer that markets panels
with a thickness range from 2-inches to 10-inches.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See section 4.3.5 at p. 4-5 of the TSD for the June 2014
ECS final rule. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
\30\ Technical data from one manufacturer that produces panels
ranging from 2-inches to 10-inches thick can be found at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on whether 6 inches is an
appropriate upper limit for screening out insulation thickness for
panels and doors. For manufacturers that produce and certify panels
with insulation thicknesses exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests feedback
on what manufacturing investments have been made to do so. For
manufacturers that do not produce panels with insulation thicknesses
exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests feedback on the obstacles preventing
them from increasing panel thickness.
c. Representative Units
In the June 2014 ECS final rule, DOE analyzed representative walk-
in cooler and freezer doors and panels. 79 FR 32050, 32072-37073. The
representative walk-in doors are presented in Table II.11.
[[Page 37696]]
Table II.11--Representative Walk-In Doors Evaluated in June 2014 ECS Final Rule *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Window area
Utility Temperature Representative Dimensions (height x (ft\2\) for non-
unit size length, ft) display doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display Door................... Cooler............ Small............. 5.25 x 2.25.......... ................
Medium............ 6.25 x 2.25.......... ................
Large............. 7 x 3................ ................
Freezer........... Small............. 5.25 x 2.25.......... ................
Medium............ 6.25 x 2.25.......... ................
Large............. 7 x 3................ ................
Passage Door................... Cooler............ Small............. 6.5 x 2.5............ 2.25
Medium............ 7 x 3................ 2.25
Large............. 7.5 x 4.............. 2.25
Freezer........... Small............. 6.5 x 2.5............ 2.25
Medium............ 7 x 3................ 2.25
Large............. 7.5 x 4.............. 2.25
Freight Door................... Cooler............ Small............. 8 x 5................ 2.25
Medium............ 9 x 7................ 4.00
Large............. 12 x 7............... 4.00
Freezer........... Small............. 8 x 5................ 2.25
Medium............ 9 x 7................ 4.00
Large............. 12 x 7............... 4.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See section 5.3.1 at p. 5-3 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule, Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
For the 2014 ECS final rule, DOE only analyzed single-width display
doors as representative units in the engineering analysis. However,
many display doors are sold as multi-door configurations with 2-, 3-,
4-, or 5-door openings encapsulated within one outer frame. The
relationship of energy use for a single-width display door may not
linearly extrapolate for multi-door configurations. For example, a
single-width door may include two light fixtures, one on each side of
the door opening, whereas additional doors may add one light fixture
per door opening. Thus, a single-width door of equal area to a double-
width door would use less lighting power than the double-width door,
despite being equal in area.
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on the representative units for
display doors used for the 2014 ECS final rule engineering analysis and
whether multi-door configurations should be included as representative
units. If so, DOE seeks comment on panel size and the number of panels
that would be most representative for multi-door configurations.
Additionally, DOE seeks specific data on the appropriate number of door
openings and door sizes to consider and the additional electrical
component power (e.g., anti-sweat heater power, lighting, etc.)
required for each additional door opening. DOE is also interested in
any other differences between single-door and multi-door configurations
that would impact energy use.
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested feedback on the current
definitions of passage and freight doors and whether there were any
attributes, including size, which distinguish them from each other. 86
FR 32332, 32335.
Issue 17: DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of the
representative units chosen for the previous analysis of passage and
freight doors. DOE requests specific feedback on what the minimum and
maximum sizes of both passage and freight doors are and if there are
other attributes besides size which differentiate passage doors from
freight doors and vice versa.
As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE received multiple test
procedure waivers requesting to increase the percent time off (``PTO'')
for motorized walk-in door openers. 86 FR 32332, 32338. In the
engineering analysis for the June 2014 ECS final rule, the
representative units of walk-in doors analyzed did not include
motorized door openers. DOE is considering whether motorized door
openers should be considered in its representative models.
Issue 18: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of motorized door
openers for both display and non-display doors. DOE requests specific
feedback on the prevalence of motorized door openers by equipment
class, the minimum door size that might have a motorized door opener,
the percentage of doors sold which typically include a motorized door
opener, and any data relating power of a motorized door opener to door
size.
2. Refrigeration Systems
a. Technology Options
A complete list of technology options evaluated for refrigeration
systems in preparation for the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017
ECS final rule is presented in Table II.12.\31\ Table II.13 lists
additional technology options that DOE may consider in a future WICF
energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.7-3.3.10 at pp. 3-24 through 3-
25 and 3-30 through 3-33 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final
rule. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131. See section 3.3 at pp. 3-14
through 3-18 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS final rule. Docket
EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099.
Table II.12--Technology Options Considered for WICF Refrigeration
Systems in the June 2014 ECS Final Rule and July 2017 ECS Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration Systems..................... Energy storage systems.
Refrigeration system
override.
Automatic evaporator fan
shut-off.
Improved evaporator and
condenser fan blades.
Improved evaporator and
condenser coils.
Evaporator fan control.
Ambient sub-cooling.
Higher-efficiency fan
motors.
Higher-efficiency
compressors.
Variable-speed compressors.
Liquid suction heat
exchanger.
Adaptive Defrost.
Hot gas defrost.
Floating head pressure.
Condenser fan control.
Economizer cooling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37697]]
Table II.13--Potential New Technology Options for WICF Refrigeration
Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration Systems..................... Improved Thermal Insulation.
Crankcase Heater Controls.
Refrigerant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in sections II.A.2, II.A.3, and II.A.4 of this
document, DOE is interested specifically in high-temperature freezers,
single-package refrigeration systems, and wine cellar refrigeration
systems and how their particular applications may influence the use of
the technology options listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this
document.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether there are technology
options or other design features that would be unique to high-
temperature freezer refrigeration systems (i.e., medium-temperature
systems operating at a temperature between 10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F) as
compared to technology options or design features for medium-
temperature refrigeration systems operating at above-freezing (cooler)
temperatures. If high-temperature freezer refrigeration systems have
certain unique features, DOE seeks information on those features and
how they impact refrigeration system performance.
As discussed in section II.A.3 and II.A.4 of this document, single-
package and wine cellar refrigeration systems have structural designs
different from other walk-in split systems. Due to differences in
design, DOE expects that the design options for these products may be
different from dedicated condensing units and unit coolers sold
separately.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on which of the technology options
listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this document are available
and used in single-package refrigeration systems. DOE also requests
comment on whether there are other technologies that apply to single-
package refrigeration systems not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table
II.13 of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on which
technology options are feasible for dedicated condensing systems and
unit coolers but may not be feasible for single-packaged refrigeration
systems due to structural design constraints.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on which of the technology options
listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this document are available
and used in wine cellar refrigeration systems. DOE also seeks
information on whether there are additional technologies that apply to
wine cellar refrigeration systems that are not mentioned in Table II.12
or Table II.13 of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on
the specific design constraints for wine cellar refrigeration systems
and how these constraints may impact the use of certain technology
options.
In the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE considered and ultimately
screened out improved compressor technology options, such as multiple-
capacity or variable-capacity compressors. 82 FR 31808, 31839. The
current DOE test procedure does not allow testing of multiple-capacity
or variable-capacity systems using the condenser-alone rating method.
Although the test procedure does have provisions for testing multiple-
capacity and variable-capacity matched-pair refrigeration systems, DOE
did not analyze matched-pair systems in the engineering analysis and
thus did not further consider this option. 82 FR 31808, 31839. DOE
requested information and comment on testing multiple-capacity and
variable-capacity compressors in the June 2021 TP RFI. 86 FR 32332,
32348-32349.
Issue 22: DOE seeks information on the availability of multiple-
capacity or variable-capacity compressors in the current market. DOE is
also interested in any end-user requirements that may restrict the use
of, or reduce the potential benefits of, multi- or variable-capacity
compressors in the field.
In the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE evaluated scroll compressors
for smaller capacity systems (capacities between 6,000 Btu/h and 25,000
Btu/h) and semi-hermetic compressors for larger capacity systems
(capacities between 25,000 Btu/h and 72,000 Btu/h). 82 FR 31808, 31837-
31838. For most evaluated representative capacities, DOE assigned the
expected compressor type and did not evaluate compressor type as a
design option. (At the 25,000 Btu/h overlap representative capacity,
DOE applied a blended analysis, but also did not consider compressor
type as a design option for efficiency improvement.) However, DOE is
aware that some compressor types are more efficient than others. For
example, a preliminary evaluation of DOE's CCMS database indicates that
for those reported models with an AWEF value higher than the minimum
standard, low-temperature dedicated condensing units (less than 25,000
Btu/h) with semi-hermetic compressors have reported AWEF values six
percent, on average, higher than similar units that use a scroll
compressor. DOE is interested in understanding how manufacturers select
compressors when designing their equipment and the utility advantages
and disadvantages of scroll versus semi-hermetic compressors over a
range of capacities for which both compressors types could be
considered.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on the relative efficiency
difference between scroll and semi-hermetic compressors in the range of
capacities in which both are available. DOE also requests comment on
other design parameters that would lead a manufacturer to select a
certain compressor design over another and would represent potential
utility differences of different compressor designs, specifically, (1)
compressor weight relative to the final equipment weight and its impact
on equipment shipping, installation, and end-use; (2) compressor
durability, equipment warranty, and equipment lifetime; and (3) any
other relevant differences.
DOE is also interested in understanding if other higher efficiency
single-capacity compressors have become available for use in walk-in
systems since the last rulemaking. For instance, DOE is interested in
information on whether some compressors are more efficient than others
at certain walk-in capacity ranges or operating conditions..
Issue 24: DOE seeks information on the availability and
efficiencies of single-speed compressors (e.g., scroll compressors,
rotary compressors, semi-hermetic compressors) that were not available
or were not considered in the analysis during the rulemaking finalized
in 2017. Additionally, DOE is interested in understanding the
availability of rotary compressors for use in single-package and wine
cellar refrigeration systems.
As shown in Table II.13 of this document, DOE is investigating
crankcase heater controls to understand how they are used in, and the
field requirements for, outdoor walk-in refrigeration systems. There
are several types of crankcase heater control systems that are
available on the market for other types of equipment, specifically,
central air conditioners and heat pumps (``CACs''). The technical
support document from the direct final rule amending standards for CACs
published on January 6, 2017 (``CAC 2017 direct final rule'') provides
descriptions of different crankcase heater control systems.\32\
[[Page 37698]]
Thermostatically-controlled crankcase heaters adjust whether the heater
is on or off based on a temperature sensor that measures outdoor
ambient air. When the outside ambient temperature is high enough the
heater turns off, thus reducing energy use. (Id.). Self-regulating
crankcase heaters have control systems that vary the resistivity as a
function of temperature, thus providing ``internal'' thermostatic
control to reduce energy use. (Id.) In its testing, DOE has observed
that some walk-in refrigeration systems have the crankcase heater
energized 100 percent of the time including when the compressor is
operating, without demand-based controls. DOE is considering whether
crankcase heater control technology might be applied to WICF
refrigeration systems to improve efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See sections 3.4.1 at p. 3-34 of the TSD for the CAC 2014
direct final rule. Docket EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048-0098. The docket and
supporting materials for the CAC 2017 direct final rule can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 25: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of the use of
crankcase heater controls for walk-in refrigeration systems.
Additionally, DOE requests information on what type of crankcase heater
controls are considered viable, and what application circumstances
would make certain control approaches inappropriate e.g., by
unacceptably increasing the chance of compressor failure.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of this document, single-package
refrigeration systems are susceptible to thermal losses associated with
the structural design. Table II.13 lists thermal insulation as a
potential technology option for these systems. Improved thermal
insulation may reduce conduction losses, and better sealing of cabinet
air leaks may reduce infiltration of warm outdoor air.
Issue 26: DOE seeks information on the potential for improved
thermal insulation and sealing of air leaks to improve the efficiency
of single-package refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE is
interested in data on the range of typical insulation thickness used in
single-package systems to insulate the indoor portion, in addition to
the insulation materials that are typically used. Additionally, DOE
requests information on the processes and materials that manufacturers
utilize to ensure airtight enclosures. DOE is also interested in
understanding the quality control processes manufacturers have in place
to ensure that airtight units are released to the market.
Evaluation of outdoor dedicated condensing units in DOE's CCMS
database \33\ indicate that 86 percent of medium-temperature and 91
percent of low-temperature models are offered with R-404A, R-407A, R-
448A/R-449A, or R-507A. R-448A/R-449A has low Global Warming Potential
(``GWP'') compared to R-407A, which in turn has lower GWP than R-404A
and R-507A. The remaining medium- and low-temperature condensing unit
models are offered with R-407C, R-407F, and R-52A. Additionally, DOE is
aware that wine cellar walk-in refrigeration systems are currently
offered with R-134A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Please see footnote 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past rulemakings, DOE has conducted its walk-in refrigeration
system engineering analysis using a single refrigerant--using R-404A
for the June 2014 ECS final rule and using R-407A for the July 2017 ECS
final rule. 79 FR 32050, 32073-32074 and 82 FR 31808, 31835-31836.
However, for basic models certified with an AWEF value higher than the
minimum standard in DOE's CCMS database, DOE observes that some
refrigerants provide efficiency advantages over others for products
with similar rated capacities. For instance, between certified
capacities of 13,500 Btu/h and 16,500 Btu/h, one low-temperature
condensing unit basic model was certified with a reported AWEF range
from 3.5 to 3.87 and from 3.49 to 4.43 with R-407A and R-448A/R-449A,
respectively.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment and data to support whether it
should include refrigerant as a design option in its engineering
analysis for walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE also requests
information on the availability and relative utility of R-452A, R-407C,
and R-407F compared to R-407A and R-448A/R-449A for use in walk-in
dedicated condensing units and single-package systems. Additionally,
DOE is interested in understanding the availability and relative
utility of R-450A, R-513A/R-513B, and R-515A compared to R-134A for
wine cellar walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is also interested in
understanding what domestic and international activities may be driving
trends in the market adoption of low GWP refrigerants.
In addition to evaluating low GWP refrigerants, DOE is
investigating the potential use of non-traditional refrigerants, such
as hydrocarbon refrigerants.
Issue 28: DOE requests information on the availability of specific
non-traditional (e.g. hydrocarbon) refrigerants for use in dedicated
condensing unit, unit cooler, single-package, and wine cellar walk-in
refrigeration systems. DOE is interested in understanding what domestic
and international activities may be driving trends in market adoption
of non-traditional (e.g. hydrocarbon) refrigerants. DOE also seeks
comment on whether and how the availability of higher-efficiency
compressors might be impacted by the use of non-traditional (e.g.
hydrocarbon) refrigerants. DOE requests information on whether charge
limits or safety standards (e.g., standards issued by Underwriter's
Laboratory) would restrict the use of non-traditional (e.g.
hydrocarbon) refrigerants in walk-in refrigeration systems. Finally,
DOE requests comment on any additional design changes or safety
measures that may be necessary for WICFs to incorporate non-traditional
(e.g. hydrocarbon) refrigerants.
In its supporting analysis to the June 2014 ECS final rule, DOE
evaluated evaporator coils with either 4 or 6 fins per inch for both
low- and medium-temperature unit coolers.\34\ For the July 2017 ECS
final rule, DOE's engineering analysis included evaporator coils with 4
fins per inch for low-temperature and 6 fins per inch for medium-
temperature unit coolers.\35\ An evaluation of DOE's CCMS database \36\
indicates a minimum of 4 fins per inch and a maximum of 8 fins per inch
for both low-temperature and medium-temperature units, with higher
certified AWEF values for models with a higher number of fins per inch.
Roughly 65 percent of low-temperature models have more than 4 fins per
inch, while about 10 percent of medium-temperature models have more
than 6 fins per inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Table 5.3.5 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final
rule. Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
\35\ See Table 5.3.2 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS final
rule. Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099.
\36\ Please see footnote 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 29: DOE seeks comment on if 4 fins per inch and 6 fins per
inch for low- and medium-temperature unit coolers, respectively, are
still appropriate to use in its engineering analysis given the number
of certified models at each operating temperature that do not meet
these specifications--and if not, which fin configuration(s) should DOE
use for its analysis?
[[Page 37699]]
DOE also requests information and data on the potential impact on
defrost frequency and/or daily energy use contributions for low-
temperature unit coolers with more than 4 fins per inch and for medium-
temperature unit coolers with more than 6 fins per inch used in high-
temperature freezer applications (i.e. freezers with an interior
temperature range from 10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F). Finally, DOE requests
comment on whether the number of fins per inch would be different for
medium-temperature unit coolers used for medium-temperature versus
high-temperature freezer applications. If the number of fins per inch
would differ, DOE seeks data to support a representative number of fins
per inch for medium-temperature unit coolers used in high-temperature
freezer applications.
b. Screening of Technology Options
Table II.14 summarizes the refrigeration system technology options
that DOE did not include in its analysis in the June 2014 ECS final
rule and July 2017 ECS final rule, and the applicable screening
criteria.
Table II.14--Refrigeration Systems Technology Options Screened From the June 2014 ECS Final Rule and/or July 2017 ECS Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practicability Adverse Other reasons
Technological to manufacture, Adverse impact impacts on for not
Screened technology option feasibility install, and on product health and considering the
service utility safety technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid suction heat exchangers.................................... ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
Refrigeration system override..................................... ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
Economizer cooling................................................ ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
Automatic evaporator fan shut-off................................. ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
Energy storage systems............................................ X ................ ............... ............... ...............
High efficiency evaporator fan motor.............................. X ................ ............... ............... ...............
3-Phase motors.................................................... ............... ................ X ............... ...............
Improved evaporator coil.......................................... ............... ................ X ............... ...............
Variable-capacity compressors..................................... ............... ................ ............... ............... X[dagger]
Adaptive defrost.................................................. ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
On-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans........................... ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
Hot gas defrost................................................... ............... ................ ............... ............... X *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE screened out these technology options because they do not affect energy consumption as measured by the current DOE test procedure. (Docket EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0015-0131, Section 4.2 at pp. 4-3 through 4-4; EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099, Section 4.2 at pp. 4-2 through 4-4).
[dagger] DOE screened out variable-capacity compressors (a subset of higher-efficiency compressors) because the current DOE test procedure does not
include a method for assessing variable-capacity dedicated condensing units tested without a matched unit cooler (see 10 CFR 431.304). 82 FR 31808,
31839.
Issue 30: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, DOE's
screening criteria (technological feasibility; practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; adverse impacts on product utility
or product availability; adverse impacts on health or safety; and
unique-pathway proprietary technologies) would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.12 or Table II.13 of this
document. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
walk-in refrigeration systems.
The current test procedure includes a method to address systems
with adaptive defrost. Section 3.3.5 of appendix C to subpart R of 10
CFR part 431. As provided in the DOE test procedure, adaptive defrost
is not included in the determination of AWEF to demonstrate compliance
but a manufacturer may voluntarily account for a unit's improved
performance with adaptive defrost activated in its market
representations. Id. As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, an adaptive
system with a long period (i.e., when too much frost builds up on the
coils) between defrosts may significantly affect the on-cycle
performance of the refrigeration system; however, a system that
defrosts frequently could increase defrost energy use. 86 FR 32332,
32348. DOE recognizes the potential efficiency advantage offered by
adaptive defrost and is considering how best to incorporate adaptive
defrost into its analysis.
In a future rulemaking, DOE may consider allowing walk-in
refrigeration systems with adaptive defrost to continue to
qualitatively represent improved efficiency performance solely for
marketing purposes and not for demonstrating compliance with the
current standards. Adaptive defrost could also be used to demonstrate
compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE could also include
adaptive defrost in its analysis for setting new energy conservation
standards; however, DOE would need to determine whether adaptive
defrost would be included in the engineering analysis for dedicated
condensing unit or for unit coolers (since DOE's analysis is based on a
single component).
Issue 31: DOE requests stakeholder feedback on how to address
adaptive defrost in a future rulemaking. Specifically, DOE is
interested in data that support whether DOE should continue to screen
adaptive defrost from its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE is
interested in understanding whether adaptive defrost functionality and
cost burden should be included in its analysis of dedicated condensing
units or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE additionally requests
comment on how the screening results summarized in Table II.14 may have
changed for adaptive defrost, such that the approaches used in the
prior rulemaking analyses may no longer be appropriate.
DOE removed hot gas defrost as a design option in its analysis for
the July 2017 ECS final rule. 82 FR 31808, 31834. Instead, DOE assigned
to hot gas defrost unit coolers the same default values for electric
defrost heat and energy use calculations that the test procedure
assigns to dedicated condensing units that are not matched with a unit
cooler for testing (i.e., tested
[[Page 37700]]
alone). 81 FR 95758, 95774-95777, see also section 3.5 of appendix C to
subpart R of 10 CFR part 431. In a test procedure final rule published
on March 26, 2021 (``March 2021 TP final rule''), DOE updated the
defrost energy use and thermal load equations for hot gas defrost unit
coolers tested alone to provide a consistent performance evaluation
between hot gas defrost and electric defrost unit coolers when tested
alone. 86 FR 16027, 16030. However, this approach does not measure or
account for actual hot gas defrost thermal load and energy use. 81 FR
95758, 95774-95777.
As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, defrost heat and energy
values specific to hot gas defrost units are included in the most
recent industry test method, ``2020 Standard for Performance Rating of
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers,'' (``AHRI 1250-2020''). 86 FR 32332,
32347. Similar to the current approach for adaptive defrost, DOE could
allow walk-in refrigeration systems with hot gas defrost to
qualitatively represent improved efficiency performance solely for
marketing purposes and not for demonstrating compliance with the
current standards. Hot gas defrost could also be used to demonstrate
compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE could also include
hot gas defrost as a design option in its analysis for setting new
energy conservation standards.
Issue 32: DOE requests stakeholder feedback on how to address hot
gas defrost in a future rulemaking. Specifically, DOE is interested in
data that support whether DOE should continue to screen hot gas defrost
from its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE is interested in
understanding whether hot gas defrost functionality and cost burden
should be included in its analysis of dedicated condensing units or in
its analysis of unit coolers. DOE additionally requests comment on how
the screening results presented in Table II.14 of this document have
changed for hot gas defrost, such that the approaches used in the prior
rulemaking analyses may no longer be appropriate.
c. Representative Units
In the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE
analyzed the representative refrigeration system capacities presented
in Table II.15. 79 FR 32050, 37073 and 82 FR 31808, 31835. However,
data retrieved from DOE's CCMS database \15\ indicates that:
For outdoor medium-temperature dedicated condensing units,
39 percent of certified units have a nominal capacity greater than
96,000 Btu/h and 19 percent of certified units have a capacity greater
than 200,000 Btu/h;
For low-temperature unit coolers, 48 percent of certified
units have a rated capacity of greater than 40,000 Btu/h and 19 percent
are rated at greater than 100,000 Btu/h;
For medium-temperature unit coolers, 55 percent of
certified units have a nominal capacity greater than 24,000 Btu/h, with
16 percent rated at greater than 100,000 Btu/h.
These data are based on a count of basic models submitted to the
CCMS database and do not indicate the volume of shipments of each
model.
Table II.15--Representative Refrigeration System Units Evaluated in the June 2014 and July 2017 ECS Final Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Equipment class unit capacity Representative unit Associated rulemaking
(Btu/h) compressor type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing, Medium, Indoor.... 6,000 Hermetic.................. June 2014 ECS final rule.*
6,000 Semi-hermetic.............
18,000 Hermetic..................
18,000 Scroll....................
18,000 Semi-hermetic.............
54,000 Scroll....................
54,000 Semi-hermetic.............
96,000 Scroll....................
96,000 Semi-hermetic.............
Dedicated Condensing, Medium, Outdoor... 6,000 Hermetic..................
6,000 Semi-hermetic.............
18,000 Hermetic..................
18,000 Scroll....................
18,000 Semi-hermetic.............
54,000 Scroll....................
54,000 Semi-hermetic.............
96,000 Scroll....................
96,000 Semi-hermetic.............
Dedicated Condensing, Low, Indoor, 6,000 Scroll.................... July 2017 ECS final
<6,500 Btu/h. rule.**
Dedicated Condensing, Low, Indoor, 9,000 Scroll....................
>=6,500 Btu/h.
25,000 Scroll....................
25,000 Semi-hermetic.............
54,000 Semi-hermetic.............
Dedicated Condensing, Low, Outdoor, 6,000 Scroll....................
<6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated Condensing, Low, Outdoor, 9,000 Scroll....................
>=6,500 Btu/h.
25,000 Scroll....................
25,000 Semi-hermetic.............
54,000 Semi-hermetic.............
72,000 Semi-hermetic.............
Unit Cooler, Medium..................... 4,000 N/A.......................
9,000 N/A.......................
24,000 N/A.......................
Unit Cooler, Low, <15,500 Btu/h......... 4,000 N/A.......................
9,000 N/A.......................
Unit Cooler, Low, >=15,500 Btu/h........ 18,000 N/A.......................
[[Page 37701]]
40,000 N/A.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See section 5A.5 at pp. 5A-28 through 5A-45 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule, Docket EERE-2008-BT-
STD-0015-0131.
** See section 5A.2 at pp. 5A-1 through 5A-18 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS final rule, Docket EERE-2008-BT-
STD-0015-0099.
Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative minimum
and maximum capacities listed in Table II.15 of this document are
appropriate for walk-ins of 3,000 square feet or less. Specifically,
DOE is interested in whether the highest capacities listed for each
equipment class in Table II.15 of this document appropriately represent
walk-ins within the scope of DOE's energy conservation standards (and/
or sufficiently representative of models up to the largest capacities).
If the highest capacities listed for each equipment class in Table
II.15 of this document are not representative, DOE requests data and
supporting information as to why they are not representative, and what
appropriate maximum capacities for each equipment class would be.
Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of the
compressor types associated with each representative unit.
Specifically, DOE seeks data on the respective ranges of refrigeration
system capacities for which each compressor type (scroll, hermetic, and
semi-hermetic) may realistically be used. Further, DOE seeks comment on
if there are refrigeration system capacity ranges for which multiple
types of compressors may be used.
DOE's initial research into single-package refrigeration systems
indicates that capacities range between 1,900 Btu/h and 29,000 Btu/h,
with most units less than 17,000 Btu/h. In order to conduct an
engineering analysis for single-package refrigeration systems, DOE
seeks information on the capacities of the most representative units on
the market.
Issue 35: DOE requests comment on appropriate representative
capacities for single-package refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE
requests data on the availability and prevalence of single-package
units sized between 17,000 Btu/h and 29,000 Btu/h, and whether DOE
should consider including a representative single-packaged
refrigeration system with capacity in this range.
To conduct an engineering analysis for wine cellar refrigeration
systems, DOE seeks information on the size and capacities of the most
representative units on the market. DOE's initial research into wine
cellar refrigeration systems indicates that the capacity for most
single-package and matched-pair units ranges from 1,000 Btu/h to 18,000
Btu/h, with very few units between 13,000 Btu/h and 18,000 Btu/hr.
Additionally, DOE received information from AHRI in 2019 listing
capacity, AWEF, condenser fan power, and compressor type for wine
cellar refrigeration systems.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The AHRI Wine Cellar AWEF Technical Justification document
containing the performance data of wine cellar refrigeration systems
can be found at www.regulations.gov Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0009-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 36: DOE requests comment on if the capacity, AWEF, condenser
fan power, and compressor types provided by AHRI are representative of
the market for single-package and matched-pair wine cellar
refrigeration systems. DOE also seeks information on the availability
and prevalence of wine cellar refrigeration systems between 13,000 and
18,000 Btu/h for walk-in wine cellars with a square footage of 3,000
square feet or less.
D. Significant Savings of Energy
In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential
economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks
comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more
stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and
data on any other aspects of its economic justification analysis from
the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule that may
indicate whether a more stringent energy conservation standard would be
economically justified or cost effective.
While DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following issues, this request for information is not
strictly limited to them.
1. Markups Analysis--Distribution Channels
DOE derives customer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate),
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency products (``incremental
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the
products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer) and
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in
generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA'').
In the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE
defined the distribution channels for WICFs and estimated their
respective shares of shipments as: (1) Direct to customer sales,
through national accounts or contractors; (2) refrigeration wholesalers
to consumers; (3) Original Equipment Manufacturers (``OEM'') to
consumers--the OEM distribution channel primarily represents
manufacturers of WICF refrigeration systems who may also install and
sell entire WICF refrigeration units; (4) contractors who primarily
install WICF envelope components (panels and doors); and (5)
refrigeration equipment distributors of panels and non-display doors.
WICF distribution channels evaluated in DOE's previous rulemakings are
summarized in Table II.16.
[[Page 37702]]
Table II.16--Distribution Channels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution channel Dedicated Panels and non-
condensing Unit coolers display doors Display doors
equipment (%) (%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................... Direct (National 3 45 49 30
Accounts).
2..................... Refrigeration 42 45 .............. ..............
Wholesalers.
3..................... OEM..................... 55 10 .............. 70
4..................... General Contractor...... .............. .............. 8 ..............
5..................... Equipment Distributor... .............. .............. 43 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................ 100 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 37: DOE seeks comment on whether the distribution channels
used in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule (as
depicted in Table II.16) remain relevant today, and if not, DOE
requests information on these channels as well as the existence of any
additional channels that are used to distribute walk-in components into
the market. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the appropriateness
of these channels, and their respective fractions for the following
equipment: display-panels, high-temperature freezers, single-package
refrigeration systems, and wine cellars as described in sections II.A.1
through II.A.4 of this document.
2. Lifetime Analysis
The equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired
from service. To reflect the uncertainty of equipment lifetimes the LCC
analysis uses Weibull probability distributions for each equipment
class. For the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule
DOE developed separate lifetime distributions for WICF envelope
components and refrigeration system components. 79 FR 32050, 32086 and
82 FR 31808, 31846. The average values of these distributions are shown
in Table II.17.
Table II.17--Estimated Average WICF Equipment Lifetimes
[Years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Component lifetime
(years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration Systems (condensing systems and unit coolers).. 10.5
Non-display Doors (freight and passage doors)................ 6
Display Doors................................................ 12
Panels....................................................... 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on its estimated equipment lifetime for
WICF refrigeration system and envelope components. Specifically, DOE
requests data on appropriate average lifetimes that DOE's analyses
should use for: display-panels, high-temperature freezers, single-
package refrigeration systems, and wine cellars as described in
sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this document.
3. Shipments Analysis
DOE develops shipments forecasts of walk-ins to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future
manufacturer cash flows.\38\ DOE's shipments projections are based on
available data broken out by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency.
Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model that captures
recent trends in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are not readily available
for DOE to examine. In general, one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales in light of their direct
relationship with each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The envelope component shipments model for panels and doors, and
the refrigeration system shipments model for dedicated condensing
systems and unit coolers, take an accounting approach, tracking market
shares of each equipment class and the vintage of units in the existing
stock over time. Stock accounting uses equipment shipments as inputs to
estimate the age distribution of in-service equipment stocks for all
the years covered under a potential revised standard. The age
distribution of in-service equipment stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the National Energy Savings (``NES'') and NPV of a
potential new standard because operating costs for any year depend on
the age distribution of the stock.
DOE's shipments model of walk-in refrigeration systems and envelope
components are driven by new purchases and stock replacements due to
failures. Equipment failure rates are related to equipment lifetimes
(see section II.D.2 of this document). In the analyses done for the
June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE modeled
projections for new equipment using the commercial building floor space
growth rates of buildings classified as ``food sales,'' ``food
service,'' and ``other'' from the Energy Information Administration's
Annual Energy Outlook.\39\ In both the June 2014 ECS final rule and
July 2017 ECS final rule DOE assumed that the share of shipments for
each equipment class and capacity would remain constant over time. \40\
82 FR 31808, 31847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See chapter 9, section 9.2 of the June 2014 ECS final rule
TSD, available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131. See chapter 9, section 9.3 of the July 2017 ECS final
rule TSD, available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099. For more information see: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
\40\ The assumption that shipments for each capacity of each
equipment class would remain constant over time were not explicitly
stated in either the Notice or the TSD of the June 2014 ECS final
rule. However, the results for the shipments analysis, where this
assumption is applied, can be reviewed in the final rule National
Impacts Analyses (NIA) models for both refrigeration systems,
panels, and doors. For refrigeration systems: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0135. For panels and doors:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, complete historical shipments data for walk-ins could
not be obtained from any single source. Therefore, in the June 2014 ECS
final rule DOE used data from multiple sources to estimate historical
shipments. 79 FR 32050, 32088. For the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE
continued with the same sources of shipments described in the NOPR
published on September 13, 2016. 81 FR 62980, 63012.
Issue 39: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the market
share of shipments for each equipment class would remain constant over
time.
[[Page 37703]]
a. Dedicated Condensing Systems and Unit Coolers
For the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE initialized its stock and
shipments model for low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment and
unit coolers based on shipments data provided by stakeholders.\41\ 82
FR 31808, 31847. These data did not explicitly state the share of
medium-temperature dedicated condensing units and were inferred from
both the fraction of low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment for
various applications, and from medium-temperature unit cooler
shipments. Walk-in shipments data used in the July 2017 ECS final rule
analysis are summarized in Table II.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0029,
WICF Refrigeration Equipment Shipment Data--10212015.
Table II.18--Estimated Condensing System and Unit Cooler Shipments, 2020
[Units]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I DC.L.O UC.L DC.M.I DC.M.O UC.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Unit Only.......................... 3,202 4,075 .............. 6,459 11,481 ..............
Field Paired (Dedicated Condensing Systems and Unit 14,943 19,019 .............. 30,141 53,586 ..............
Coolers)...............................................
Unit Coolers Only (connected to Dedicated Condensing .............. .............. 7,277 .............. .............. 17,941
Units).................................................
Unit Coolers Only (connected to Multiplexing Condensing .............. .............. 11,635 .............. .............. 20,459
Units).................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data showed that:
4 percent of shipments were manufacturer-matched dedicated
condensing units and unit coolers (manufacturer matched-paired), and
the remaining 96 percent were sold as individual dedicated condensing
units or unit coolers that installers matched in the field (stand-
alone, and field-paired);
82 percent of low-temperature unit coolers were paired
with dedicated condensing systems, and the remaining 18 percent were
paired with multiplex systems. With respect to medium-temperature unit
coolers, 85 percent of these were paired with dedicated condensing
systems while the remaining 15 percent were paired with multiplex
systems; and
46 percent of low-temperature dedicated condensing systems
were installed indoors with the remaining 54 percent installed
outdoors. Among medium-temperature dedicated condensing systems, 36
percent of these were installed indoors with the remaining 64 percent
installed outdoors.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Chapter 9 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS final rule.
Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These shipments estimates are exclusive of single-package
refrigeration systems, high-temperature freezers, and wine cellar
refrigeration systems described in sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of
this document.
Issue 40: DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
shipments shown for low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment and
unit coolers are still relevant. Further, DOE seeks data on the annual
shipments of low-temperature single-package refrigeration systems (see
section II.A.3 of this document) and the distribution of rated
capacities as shown in Table II.15 of this document.
Issue 41: DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
shipments shown for medium-temperature condensing equipment and unit
coolers reflect the state of the current market.
Issue 42: DOE seeks data on the annual shipments of medium-
temperature single-package refrigeration systems (see section II.A.3 of
this document), high-temperature freezers (see section II.A.2 of this
document) and wine cellar refrigeration systems (see section II.A.4 of
this document) and the distribution of rated capacities of each (Btu/
h). DOE also seeks data on the fraction of high-temperature freezers
and wine cellar refrigeration systems that are sold as single-package,
manufacturer matched-pair or split systems. Additionally, DOE requests
data on the relative market size of refrigeration systems used in high
temperature freezers compared to the refrigeration system market sizes
for cooler applications (i.e., temperature greater than 32 [deg]F) and
low-temperature (e.g., less than or equal to -10 [deg]F) freezer
applications.
b. Doors and Panels
For the July 2014 ECS final rule, DOE initialized its stock and
shipments model for panels and doors based on the number of complete
WICF units per unit of floor space area, per building of a given type
and size having any WICF unit. These data were derived from the
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (``CBECS'') 1999 \43\
and CBECS 2003.44 45
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 1999.
Washington, DC.
\44\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2003.
Washington, DC.
\45\ See Chapter 9 TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule. Docket
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data show that 70 percent of panel shipments are medium-
temperature, 23 percent are low-temperature wall panels, and the
remaining 7 percent are low-temperature floor panels (in terms of ft\2\
shipped). DOE's forecasted shipments for WICF panels in 2020 are shown
in Table II.19 of this document. For the June 2014 ECS final rule, DOE
did not include panels and non-display doors that were installed
outdoors its analysis.
Table II.19--Estimated Panel Shipments, 2020
[Million ft2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments
Utility Temperature (million ft2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Panels....................... Medium.............. 74
[[Page 37704]]
Wall Panels....................... Low................. 27
Floor Panels...................... Low................. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For display and non-display (freight and passage) doors, the CBECS
data show that:
92 percent of display doors shipments were medium-
temperature with low-temperature making up the remaining 8 percent;
67 percent of passage doors shipments were medium-
temperature and 33 percent were low-temperature; and
65 percent of freight doors shipments were medium-
temperature and 35 percent were low-temperature.
DOE's forecasted shipments for WICF doors in 2020 are shown in
Table II.20. For the June 2014 ECS final rule DOE assumed that all
doors were installed indoors.
Table II.20--Estimated Door Shipments, 2020
[Units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments
Utility Temperature (units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display Door...................... Medium.............. 325,869
Display Door...................... Low................. 26,751
Passage Door...................... Medium.............. 328,103
Passage Door...................... Low................. 161,848
Freight Door...................... Medium.............. 19,477
Freight Door...................... Low................. 10,529
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These shipments estimates are exclusive of display panels described
in section II.A.1 of this document.
Issue 43: DOE requests data on the fraction of low-temperature and
medium-temperature panels that are installed outdoors versus indoors.
Additionally, DOE requests data on the fraction of low-temperature and
medium-temperature freight and passage doors that are installed
outdoors versus indoors.
Issue 44: DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
shipments shown for panels and doors reflect the state of the current
market. Further, DOE seeks data on the annual shipments, in terms of
units shipped, of low-temperature and medium-temperature display panels
described in section II.A.1 of this document.
Issue 45: DOE also requests specific information on high-humidity
medium-temperature display door shipments (see section II.C.1.a of this
document) and their fraction of annual display door shipments.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed
in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early
assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are
warranted for walk-in coolers and freezers.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page requires 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 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. If this instruction is followed, 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. Comments and documents submitted via
email 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
[[Page 37705]]
long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not 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, written in English, and 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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
and information about this process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE seeks information regarding the thermal transmission
through display panels and design characteristics which would affect
the thermal transmission, specifically, ``glass pack'' design and frame
design. DOE also seeks information regarding the amount of direct
electrical energy consumption of electricity-consuming devices sited on
or within display panels, including the amount of anti-sweat heat
required, if any. DOE additionally requests information on any specific
design or use characteristics differentiating display panels from
display doors.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on (1) whether there are medium-
temperature refrigeration system models that are used exclusively in
high temperature freezers, and (2) if a medium-temperature
refrigeration system is efficient for cooler applications, will it also
be efficient for use in high-temperature freezer applications. To the
extent available, DOE requests data on dedicated condensing unit energy
efficiency ratio (``EER'') at both high-temperature freezer and medium-
temperature refrigeration operation.
Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on the impact of single-
package system design limitations on efficiency and how single-package
systems differ from split systems. DOE additionally requests
information showing the trend of efficiency as a function of capacity
for single-package refrigeration systems.
Issue 4: DOE seeks information on how trends in wine cellar
installations (e.g., commercial vs. residential, square footage, etc.)
are expected to impact the type of refrigeration system (i.e., single-
package, matched-pair, dedicated condensing unit, or unit cooler
system) used in wine cellars over the next 5 to 10 years. Additionally,
DOE requests information and data on the extent to which capacity may
impact the efficiency of wine cellar refrigeration systems.
Issue 5: DOE seeks input and data as to the daily run-time hours,
sizing practice, and ambient conditions for the following: single-
package refrigeration systems, high-temperature freezers, and wine
cellars described in sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of this document.
DOE also requests information and data regarding any other aspects of
the operation of such equipment that would influence run-time hours.
Issue 6: DOE seeks input and data on the appropriate PTO values for
display doors that would be exposed to higher levels of humidity.
Specifically, DOE requests information on high-humidity walk-in cooler
doors, including the range of typical installation conditions (e.g.,
relative humidity throughout the year in store). DOE also requests data
on the average amount of time per day or per year that anti-sweat
heaters with timers, control systems, or demand-based controls are
operating at their full power and partial power (if applicable) for
walk-in cooler display doors marketed for high-humidity applications.
Issue 7: DOE seeks input on whether the combined safety and
capacity mismatch oversizing factors for adjusting daily nominal run-
time hours relied on in the June 2014 ECS final rule and the July 2017
ECS final rule are appropriate for single-package refrigeration
systems, high-temperature freezers, and wine cellars as described in
sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of this document. If different factors
would be appropriate for such equipment, DOE requests data in support
of alternate assumptions.
Issue 8: DOE seeks data and information regarding the current, and
projected future market shares of WICF equipment by efficiency level
(e.g., expressed in terms of increments of 10 percent improvement in
AWEF, R-values, and kWh/day for refrigeration systems, panels, and
doors, respectively, above or below the existing standards in 10 CFR
431.306) to establish market trends in equipment efficiency over time.
DOE also seeks information on how the current regulatory environment
has affected the market share of WICF equipment by efficiency rating.
Issue 9: DOE seeks information on how the physical construction of
a display door, including the glass pack and the frame, impact the
amount of anti-sweat heater wire power needed to prevent condensation
accumulating on any part of the door. Specifically, DOE seeks
quantitative data, if available, on the change in anti-sweat heater
power (1) with a specific change in door frame design but no change in
glass pack design, (2) with a specific change in glass pack design but
no change in door frame design, and/or (3) with specific changes to the
entire assembly. If there are specific design choices which are more
costly but result in less or no anti-sweat heat, DOE requests cost data
based on the capability of the door to prevent condensation from
forming and the respective design options chosen.
[[Page 37706]]
DOE also requests comment on any other considerations which may impact
the use and power of anti-sweat heaters.
Issue 10: DOE seeks specific data and information on the
correlation between relative humidity conditions at installation and
the anti-sweat heater power needed to prevent condensation from
accumulating on a walk-in door.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the differences in design,
typical conditions, and usage of a walk-in display door as compared to
a display door for commercial refrigeration equipment which result in
commercial refrigeration equipment door designs with no anti-sweat
heaters.
Issue 12: DOE seeks specific data and information on how the
physical construction of both passage and freight doors impact the
amount of anti-sweat heater wire power needed to prevent condensation
accumulation on any part of the door. DOE requests specific comment on
any technologies that may reduce or eliminate the need for anti-sweat
heat on passage or freight doors. DOE also requests door design
information and data that explain why many passage and freight doors
are able to perform without any anti-sweat heater power in the field
but some doors, specifically low-temperature passage and freight doors,
still require anti-sweat power that is greater than that required for
display doors to prevent condensation accumulation.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on the prevalence of vacuum-
insulated glass for walk-in doors and whether other manufacturers are
considering adopting this technology. DOE requests specific feedback on
any obstacles or concerns (e.g., patents, proprietary use, durability,
practicability to manufacture, etc.) which would prevent manufacturers
from using vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in doors. DOE also requests
cost data for implementing vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in display
doors.
Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, DOE's
screening criteria (technological feasibility; practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; adverse impacts on product utility
or product availability; adverse impacts on health or safety; and
unique-pathway proprietary technologies) would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.6, Table II.7, and Table II.8 of
this document. DOE also seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
walk-in doors and panels.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on whether 6 inches is an
appropriate upper limit for screening out insulation thickness for
panels and doors. For manufacturers that produce and certify panels
with insulation thicknesses exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests feedback
on what manufacturing investments have been made to do so. For
manufacturers that do not produce panels with insulation thicknesses
exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests feedback on the obstacles preventing
them from increasing panel thickness.
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on the representative units for
display doors used for the 2014 ECS final rule engineering analysis and
whether multi-door configurations should be included as representative
units. If so, DOE seeks comment on panel size and the number of panels
that would be most representative for multi-door configurations.
Additionally, DOE seeks specific data on the appropriate number of door
openings and door sizes to consider and the additional electrical
component power (e.g., anti-sweat heater power, lighting, etc.)
required for each additional door opening. DOE is also interested in
any other differences between single-door and multi-door configurations
that would impact energy use.
Issue 17: DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of the
representative units chosen for the previous analysis of passage and
freight doors. DOE requests specific feedback on what the minimum and
maximum sizes of both passage and freight doors are and if there are
other attributes besides size which differentiate passage doors from
freight doors and vice versa.
Issue 18: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of motorized door
openers for both display and non-display doors. DOE requests specific
feedback on the prevalence of motorized door openers by equipment
class, the minimum door size that might have a motorized door opener,
the percentage of doors sold which typically include a motorized door
opener, and any data relating power of a motorized door opener to door
size.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether there are technology
options or other design features that would be unique to high-
temperature freezer refrigeration systems (i.e., medium-temperature
systems operating at a temperature between 10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F) as
compared to technology options or design features for medium-
temperature refrigeration systems operating at above-freezing (cooler)
temperatures. If high-temperature freezer refrigeration systems have
certain unique features, DOE seeks information on those features and
how they impact refrigeration system performance.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on which of the technology options
listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this document are available
and used in single-package refrigeration systems. DOE also requests
comment on whether there are other technologies that apply to single-
package refrigeration systems not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table
II.13 of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on which
technology options are feasible for dedicated condensing systems and
unit coolers but may not be feasible for single-packaged refrigeration
systems due to structural design constraints.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on which of the technology options
listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this document are available
and used in wine cellar refrigeration systems. DOE also seeks
information on whether there are additional technologies that apply to
wine cellar refrigeration systems that are not mentioned in Table II.12
or Table II.13 of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on
the specific design constraints for wine cellar refrigeration systems
and how these constraints may impact the use of certain technology
options.
Issue 22: DOE seeks information on the availability of multiple-
capacity or variable-capacity compressors in the current market. DOE is
also interested in any end-user requirements that may restrict the use
of, or reduce the potential benefits of, multi- or variable-capacity
compressors in the field.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on the relative efficiency
difference between scroll and semi-hermetic compressors in the range of
capacities in which both are available. DOE also requests comment on
other design parameters that would lead a manufacturer to select a
certain compressor design over another and would represent potential
utility differences of different compressor designs, specifically, (1)
compressor weight relative to the final equipment weight and its impact
on equipment shipping, installation, and end-use; (2) compressor
durability, equipment warranty, and equipment lifetime; and (3) any
other relevant differences.
Issue 24: DOE seeks information on the availability and
efficiencies of single-speed compressors (e.g., scroll compressors,
rotary compressors, semi-hermetic compressors) that were not available
or were not considered in the analysis during the rulemaking finalized
in 2017. Additionally, DOE is interested in understanding the
availability of
[[Page 37707]]
rotary compressors for use in single-package and wine cellar
refrigeration systems.
Issue 25: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of the use of
crankcase heater controls for walk-in refrigeration systems.
Additionally, DOE requests information on what type of crankcase heater
controls are considered viable, and what application circumstances
would make certain control approaches inappropriate e.g., by
unacceptably increasing the chance of compressor failure.
Issue 26: DOE seeks information on the potential for improved
thermal insulation and sealing of air leaks to improve the efficiency
of single-package refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE is
interested in data on the range of typical insulation thickness used in
single-package systems to insulate the indoor portion, in addition to
the insulation materials that are typically used. Additionally, DOE
requests information on the processes and materials that manufacturers
utilize to ensure airtight enclosures. DOE is also interested in
understanding the quality control processes manufacturers have in place
to ensure that airtight units are released to the market.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment and data to support whether it
should include refrigerant as a design option in its engineering
analysis for walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE also requests
information on the availability and relative utility of R-452A, R-407C,
and R-407F compared to R-407A and R-448A/R-449A for use in walk-in
dedicated condensing units and single-package systems. Additionally,
DOE is interested in understanding the availability and relative
utility of R-450A, R-513A/R-513B, and R-515A compared to R-134A for
wine cellar walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is also interested in
understanding what domestic and international activities may be driving
trends in the market adoption of low GWP refrigerants.
Issue 28: DOE requests information on the availability of specific
non-traditional (e.g., hydrocarbon) refrigerants for use in dedicated
condensing unit, unit cooler, single-package, and wine cellar walk-in
refrigeration systems. DOE is interested in understanding what domestic
and international activities may be driving trends in market adoption
of non-traditional (e.g., hydrocarbon) refrigerants. DOE also seeks
comment on whether and how the availability of higher-efficiency
compressors might be impacted by the use of non-traditional (e.g.,
hydrocarbon) refrigerants. DOE requests information on whether charge
limits or safety standards (e.g., standards issued by Underwriter's
Laboratory) would restrict the use of non-traditional (e.g.,
hydrocarbon) refrigerants in walk-in refrigeration systems. Finally,
DOE requests comment on any additional design changes or safety
measures that may be necessary for WICFs to incorporate non-traditional
(e.g., hydrocarbon) refrigerants.
Issue 29: DOE seeks comment on if 4 fins per inch and 6 fins per
inch for low- and medium-temperature unit coolers, respectively, are
still appropriate to use in its engineering analysis given the number
of certified models at each operating temperature that do not meet
these specifications--and if not, which fin configuration(s) should DOE
use for its analysis? DOE also requests information and data on the
potential impact on defrost frequency and/or daily energy use
contributions for low-temperature unit coolers with more than 4 fins
per inch and for medium-temperature unit coolers with more than 6 fins
per inch used in high-temperature freezer applications (i.e., freezers
with an interior temperature range from 10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F).
Finally, DOE requests comment on whether the number of fins per inch
would be different for medium-temperature unit coolers used for medium-
temperature versus high-temperature freezer applications. If the number
of fins per inch would differ, DOE seeks data to support a
representative number of fins per inch for medium-temperature unit
coolers used in high-temperature freezer applications.
Issue 30: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, DOE's
screening criteria (technological feasibility; practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; adverse impacts on product utility
or product availability; adverse impacts on health or safety; and
unique-pathway proprietary technologies) would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.12 or Table II.13 of this
document. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
walk-in refrigeration systems.
Issue 31: DOE requests stakeholder feedback on how to address
adaptive defrost in a future rulemaking. Specifically, DOE is
interested in data that support whether DOE should continue to screen
adaptive defrost from its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE is
interested in understanding whether adaptive defrost functionality and
cost burden should be included in its analysis of dedicated condensing
units or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE additionally requests
comment on how the screening results summarized in Table II.14 may have
changed for adaptive defrost, such that the approaches used in the
prior rulemaking analyses may no longer be appropriate.
Issue 32: DOE requests stakeholder feedback on how to address hot
gas defrost in a future rulemaking. Specifically, DOE is interested in
data that support whether DOE should continue to screen hot gas defrost
from its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE is interested in
understanding whether hot gas defrost functionality and cost burden
should be included in its analysis of dedicated condensing units or in
its analysis of unit coolers. DOE additionally requests comment on how
the screening results presented in Table II.14 of this document have
changed for hot gas defrost, such that the approaches used in the prior
rulemaking analyses may no longer be appropriate.
Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative minimum
and maximum capacities listed in Table II.15 of this document are
appropriate for walk-ins of 3,000 square feet or less. Specifically,
DOE is interested in whether the highest capacities listed for each
equipment class in Table II.15 of this document appropriately represent
walk-ins within the scope of DOE's energy conservation standards (and/
or sufficiently representative of models up to the largest capacities).
If the highest capacities listed for each equipment class in Table
II.15 of this document are not representative, DOE requests data and
supporting information as to why they are not representative, and what
appropriate maximum capacities for each equipment class would be.
Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of the
compressor types associated with each representative unit.
Specifically, DOE seeks data on the respective ranges of refrigeration
system capacities for which each compressor type (scroll, hermetic, and
semi-hermetic) may realistically be used. Further, DOE seeks comment on
if there are refrigeration system capacity ranges for which multiple
types of compressors may be used.
Issue 35: DOE requests comment on appropriate representative
capacities for single-package refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE
requests data on the availability and prevalence of single-package
units sized between 17,000 Btu/h and 29,000 Btu/h, and whether DOE
should consider including a representative single-packaged
refrigeration system with capacity in this range.
[[Page 37708]]
Issue 36: DOE requests comment on if the capacity, AWEF, condenser
fan power, and compressor types provided by AHRI are representative of
the market for single-package and matched-pair wine cellar
refrigeration systems. DOE also seeks information on the availability
and prevalence of wine cellar refrigeration systems between 13,000 and
18,000 Btu/h for walk-in wine cellars with a square footage of 3,000
square feet or less.
Issue 37: DOE seeks comment on whether the distribution channels
used in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule (as
depicted in Table II.16) remain relevant today, and if not, DOE
requests information on these channels as well as the existence of any
additional channels that are used to distribute walk-in components into
the market. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the appropriateness
of these channels, and their respective fractions for the following
equipment: display-panels, high-temperature freezers, single-package
refrigeration systems, and wine cellars as described in sections II.A.1
through II.A.4 of this document.
Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on its estimated equipment lifetime for
WICF refrigeration system and envelope components. Specifically, DOE
requests data on appropriate average lifetimes that DOE's analyses
should use for: Display-panels, high-temperature freezers, single-
package refrigeration systems, and wine cellars as described in
sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this document.
Issue 39: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the market
share of shipments for each equipment class would remain constant over
time.
Issue 40: DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
shipments shown for low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment and
unit coolers are still relevant. Further, DOE seeks data on the annual
shipments of low-temperature single-package refrigeration systems (see
section II.A.3 of this document) and the distribution of rated
capacities as shown in Table II.15 of this document.
Issue 41: DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
shipments shown for medium-temperature condensing equipment and unit
coolers reflect the state of the current market.
Issue 42: DOE seeks data on the annual shipments of medium-
temperature single-package refrigeration systems (see section II.A.3 of
this document), high-temperature freezers (see section II.A.2 of this
document) and wine cellar refrigeration systems (see section II.A.4 of
this document) and the distribution of rated capacities of each (Btu/
h). DOE also seeks data on the fraction of high-temperature freezers
and wine cellar refrigeration systems that are sold as single-package,
manufacturer matched-pair or split systems. Additionally, DOE requests
data on the relative market size of refrigeration systems used in high
temperature freezers compared to the refrigeration system market sizes
for cooler applications (i.e., temperature greater than 32 [deg]F) and
low-temperature (e.g., less than or equal to -10 [deg]F) freezer
applications.
Issue 43: DOE requests data on the fraction of low-temperature and
medium-temperature panels that are installed outdoors versus indoors.
Additionally, DOE requests data on the fraction of low-temperature and
medium-temperature freight and passage doors that are installed
outdoors versus indoors.
Issue 44: DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
shipments shown for panels and doors reflect the state of the current
market. Further, DOE seeks data on the annual shipments, in terms of
units shipped, of low-temperature and medium-temperature display panels
described in section II.A.1 of this document.
Issue 45: DOE also requests specific information on high-humidity
medium-temperature display door shipments (see section II.C.1.a of this
document) and their fraction of annual display door shipments.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14902 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P