[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60746-60865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17583]



[[Page 60745]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 170

September 5, 2023

Part II





 Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Part 431





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In 
Coolers and Freezers; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 60746]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]
RIN 1905-AD79


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including walk-in 
coolers and freezers (``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs''). EPCA also requires 
the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine 
whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. 
In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes amended 
energy conservation standards for walk-ins, and also announces a public 
meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated 
analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPR no later than November 6, 2023.
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, 
September 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, 
``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration information, 
participant instructions and information about the capabilities 
available to webinar participants.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section on or before October 5, 2023.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Non-electronic submissions: Please contact (202) 287-1445 for 
instructions if an electronic copy cannot be submitted.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Troy Watson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email: 
[email protected].
    Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins
    C. Deviation From Process Rule
    1. Public Comment Period
III. General Discussion
    A. General Comments
    B. Scope of Coverage
    C. Test Procedure
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Equipment Classes
    a. Doors
    b. Panels
    c. Refrigeration Systems
    2. Technology Options
    a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
    b. Doors and Panels
    c. Refrigeration Systems
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened Out Technologies
    a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
    b. Doors and Panels
    c. Refrigeration Systems
    2. Remaining Technologies
    a. Doors and Panels
    b. Refrigeration Systems
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Display Doors
    b. Non-Display Doors
    c. Panels
    d. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated 
Systems
    e. Unit Coolers
    2. Cost Analysis
    a. Teardown Analysis
    b. Cost Estimation Method
    c. Manufacturing Production Costs
    d. Manufacturer Markup and Shipping Costs

[[Page 60747]]

    3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Trial Standard Levels
    2. Energy Use of Envelope Components
    3. Energy Use of Refrigeration Systems
    a. Fan Power
    b. Nominal Daily Run Hours
    4. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Equipment Cost
    2. Consumer Sample
    3. Installation Cost
    4. Annual Energy Consumption
    5. Energy Prices
    a. Future Electricity Prices
    6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    7. Equipment Lifetimes
    8. Discount Rates
    9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    10. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    1. Price Elasticity
    2. Shipments Results
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    1. High Warm Air-Infiltration Applications
    2. Small Businesses
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
    d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
    3. Manufacturer Interviews
    a. Increasing Insulation Thickness
    b. Reduced Anti-Sweat Heat
    c. Refrigerant Regulation
    4. Discussion of MIA Comments
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Walk-Ins 
Standards
    a. Doors
    b. Panels
    c. Refrigeration Systems
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    a. Doors
    b. Panels
    c. Refrigeration Systems
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes walk-ins,\3\ the subject of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
    \3\ Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are defined as an 
enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors, 
and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures, 
respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can 
be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 
3,000 square feet; however, the terms do not include products 
designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or 
research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any 
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either 
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to 
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three trial 
standard levels (``TSLs'') for walk-ins. The TSLs and their associated 
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through 
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE 
has tentatively determined that TSL 2 represents the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. The proposed standards for walk-in non-display 
doors, which are expressed in maximum daily energy consumption in 
kilowatt-hours per day (``kWh/day''), are shown in Table I.1. These 
proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all non-display doors of 
walk-ins listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the 
United States starting on the date 3 years after the publication of the 
final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 60748]]



                 Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Non-Display Doors
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Equipment class
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Maximum daily energy
         Display/non-display             Opening mechanism           Temperature         consumption (kWh/day) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Display.........................  Manual.................  Medium.................        0.01 x And + 0.25
                                                               Low....................        0.06 x And + 1.32
                                      Manual.................  Medium.................        0.01 x And + 0.39
                                                               Low....................        0.05 x And + 1.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And is the representative value of surface area of the non-display door as determined in accordance with the
  DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A and applicable sampling plans.

    The proposed standards for walk-in refrigeration systems, which are 
expressed as annual walk-in energy factor 2 (``AWEF2'') in British 
thermal units per Watt-hour (``Btu/W-h''), are shown in Table I.2. 
These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all walk-in 
refrigeration systems listed in Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported 
into, the United States starting on the date 3 years after the 
publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

      Table I.2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In
                          Refrigeration Systems
                                 [TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Equipment class                 Minimum AWEF2 (Btu/W-h) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing System--
 High, Indoor, Non-Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7,000 Btu/h.................  7.80E-04 x qnet + 2.20
    >=7,000 Btu/h................  7.66
Dedicated Condensing system--
 High, Outdoor, Non-Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7,000 Btu/h.................  1.02E-03 x qnet + 2.47
    >=7,000 Btu/h................  9.62
Dedicated Condensing system--
 High, Indoor, Ducted with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7,000 Btu/h.................  2.46E-04 x qnet + 1.55
    >=7,000 Btu/h................  3.27
Dedicated Condensing system--
 High, Outdoor, Ducted with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7,000 Btu/h.................  3.76E-04 x qnet + 1.78
    >=7,000 Btu/h................  4.41
Dedicated Condensing unit and
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Medium, Indoor with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <8,000 Btu/h.................  5.58
    >=8,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.00E-05 x qnet + 5.34
     h.
    >=25,000 Btu/h...............  6.09
Dedicated Condensing unit and
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Medium, Outdoor with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <25,000 Btu/h................  2.13E-05 x qnet + 7.15
    >=25,000 Btu/h...............  7.68
Dedicated Condensing unit and
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Low, Indoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <25,000 Btu/h................  2.50E-05 x qnet + 2.36
    >=25,000 Btu/h and <54,000     1.72E-06 x qnet + 2.94
     Btu/h.
    >=54,000 Btu/h...............  3.03
Dedicated Condensing unit and
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Low, Outdoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <9,000 Btu/h.................  9.83E-05 x qnet + 2.63
    >=9,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.06E-05 x qnet + 3.23
     h.
    >=25,000 Btu/h and <75,000     4.96E-06 x qnet + 3.88
     Btu/h.
    >=75,000 Btu/h...............  4.25
Single-Packaged Dedicated
 Condensing system--Medium,
 Indoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <9,000 Btu/h.................  9.86E-05 x qnet + 4.91
    >=9,000 Btu/h................  5.8
Single-Packaged Dedicated
 Condensing system--Medium,
 Outdoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <9,000 Btu/h.................  2.47E-04 x qnet + 4.89
    >=9,000 Btu/h................  7.11
Single-Packaged Dedicated
 Condensing system--Low, Indoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6,000 Btu/h.................  8.00E-05 x qnet + 1.8
    >=6,000 Btu/h................  2.28
Single-Packaged Dedicated
 Condensing system--Low, Outdoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6,000 Btu/h.................  1.63E-04 x qnet + 1.8
    >=6,000 Btu/h................  2.77
Unit Cooler--High Non-Ducted with
 a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9,000 Btu/h.................  10.34
    >=9,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.83E-04 x qnet + 6.9
     h.
    >=25,000 Btu/h...............  16.46
Unit Cooler--High Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9,000 Btu/h.................  6.93
    >=9,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.64E-04 x qnet + 3.66
     h.
    >=25,000 Btu/h...............  12.76
    Unit Cooler--Medium..........  9.65

[[Page 60749]]

 
    Unit Cooler--Low.............  4.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* qnet is the representative value of net capacity in Btu/h as
  determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part
  431, subpart R, appendix C1 and applicable sampling plans.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.3 through Table I.5 present DOE's evaluation of the 
economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of walk-ins, as 
measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the 
simple payback period (``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are 
positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the 
average lifetime of walk-ins, which is estimated to be between 8 and 20 
years (see section IV.F.10 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards 
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is 
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative 
to the baseline product (see section IV.F of this document).
    \5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 
dollars.

  Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Walk-In Display and Non-Display
                                                      Doors
                                                   [TSL 2] \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Average LCC
        Display/non-display           Opening mechanism         Temperature           savings     Simple payback
                                                                                      (2022$)     period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display...........................  Manual...............  Low..................  ..............  ..............
                                                           Medium...............  ..............  ..............
Non-Display.......................  Manual...............  Low..................             723             1.3
                                                           Medium...............              86             3.2
                                    Motorized............  Low..................           1,192             1.0
                                                           Medium...............             113             2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table I.4--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Walk-In Panels
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Average LCC
                   Equipment                               Temperature                savings     Simple payback
                                                                                      (2022$)     period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural....................................  Low.............................  ..............  ..............
                                                Medium..........................  ..............  ..............
Floor.........................................  Low.............................  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table I.5--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Walk-in Refrigeration Systems
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Average LCC
              System                     Temperature              Location            savings     Simple payback
                                                                                      (2022$)     period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Unit and       Low..................  Indoor...............             163             4.0
 Matched Refrigeration System.                             Outdoor..............             172             3.6
                                    Medium...............  Indoor...............             567             3.4
                                                           Outdoor..............             136             2.6
Unit Cooler.......................  Low..................  N/A..................           1,306             1.2
                                    Medium...............                                    212             2.0
                                    High.................                         ..............  ..............
                                    High, Ducted.........                                    237             0.7
Matched Refrigeration Systems and   High, Non-Ducted.....  Indoor...............             124             1.3
 Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems.                        Outdoor..............             126             2.9
                                    High, Ducted.........  Indoor...............             296             1.7
                                                           Outdoor..............             305             3.4

[[Page 60750]]

 
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems.  Low..................  Indoor...............             180             3.8
                                                           Outdoor..............  ..............  ..............
                                    Medium...............  Indoor...............             103             3.5
                                                           Outdoor..............             177             1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 
dollars unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the 
end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of 
9.4 percent for doors, 10.5 percent for panels, and 10.2 percent for 
refrigeration systems, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of 
walk-in display doors, non-display doors, panels, and refrigeration 
systems in the case without amended standards is $278.0 million, $536.7 
million, $875.2 million, and $490.1 million, respectively. Under the 
proposed standards, all walk-in display door equipment classes remain 
at the baseline efficiency level. As a result, there are no changes to 
INPV and no conversion costs for display door manufacturers. Under the 
proposed standards, the change in INPV for non-display door 
manufacturers is estimated to range from -4.8 percent to -2.6 percent, 
which is approximately -$25.5 million to -$14.2 million. Under the 
proposed standards, all walk-in panel equipment classes remain at the 
baseline efficiency level. As a result, there are no changes to INPV 
and no conversion costs for panel manufacturers. Under the proposed 
standards, the change in INPV for refrigeration system manufacturers is 
estimated to range from -9.8 percent to -7.7 percent, which is 
approximately -$47.8 million to -$37.9 million. In order to bring 
equipment into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that 
the walk-in non-display door and refrigeration system industries would 
incur total conversion costs of $28.9 million and $60.1 million, 
respectively.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The 
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are 
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for walk-ins would save a significant amount of energy. 
Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy 
savings for walk-ins purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056) 
amount to 1.51 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or 
quads.\7\ This represents a savings of 6 percent relative to the energy 
use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred 
to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete 
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the proposed standards for walk-ins ranges from $1.45 
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.66 billion (at a 3-percent 
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future 
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs and 
installation costs for walk-ins purchased in 2027-2056.
    In addition, the proposed standards for walk-ins are projected to 
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the 
proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over 
the same period as for energy savings) of 28.5 million metric tons 
(``Mt'') \8\ of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 8.8 thousand tons 
of sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), 52.9 thousand tons of nitrogen 
oxides (``NOX''), 237.4 thousand tons of methane 
(``CH4''), 0.3 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(``N2O''), and 0.1 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \9\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, 
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this 
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect 
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social 
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of 
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide 
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of 
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit 
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on 
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\10\ The derivation of 
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For 
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the 
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $1.6 
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and 
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this 
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical 
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions using benefit-per-ton estimates 
from the Environmental Protection Agency,\11\ as discussed in

[[Page 60751]]

section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the 
health benefits would be $1.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, 
and $3.2 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\12\ DOE is currently 
only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations from two 
precursors (SO2 and NOX), and from changes in 
ambient ozone from one precursor (for NOX), but will 
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health 
benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 
Directly Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and 
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
    \12\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.6 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to 
result from the proposed standards for walk-ins. There are other 
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate 
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of 
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security 
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

  Table I.6--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
                   Conservation Standards for Walk-Ins
                                 [TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Billion 2022$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................                4.7
Climate Benefits *...................................                1.6
Health Benefits **...................................                3.2
                                                      ------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger]..........................                9.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..........                1.3
Net Benefits.........................................                8.2
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])..    (0.07) - (0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................                2.2
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................                1.6
Health Benefits **...................................                1.3
Total Benefits [dagger]..............................                5.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..........                0.7
Net Benefits.........................................                4.4
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])..    (0.07) - (0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in
  coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-2056. These results include
  consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the
  walk-in coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
  (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
  discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
  section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
  GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
  associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
  shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
  the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To
  monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses
  the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
  Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
  Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
  health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
  purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
  cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
  rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
  installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life
  cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in
  detail. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA
  includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
  chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
  manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price
  experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed
  analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J
  of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
  pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments,
  conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of
  impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change
  in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow,
  including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and
  manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the
  industry weighted average cost of capital values of 9.4 percent for
  walk-in non-display doors and 10.2 percent for walk-in refrigeration
  systems that are estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD
  for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of
  capital). For walk-ins, those values are -$73 million to -$52 million.
  DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a
  TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE
  is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup
  scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the
  manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer
  Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of
  Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers
  would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion
  to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range
  of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained
  further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional
  context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to
  society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
  which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE
  were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this
  proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $8.13 billion to
  $8.15 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $4.33
  billion to $4.35 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( )
  indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.


[[Page 60752]]

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reductions, all annualized.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year 
to 2023. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance 
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. 
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the 
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of walk-ins shipped 
in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved 
as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the 
lifetime of walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 
3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG 
social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values 
are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this 
document.
    Table I.7 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs 
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized 
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOx and SO2 emissions, and the 
3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG 
emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is 
$70.7 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
estimated annual benefits are $214.1 million in reduced equipment 
operating costs, $90.4 million in climate benefits, and $132.2 million 
in health benefits. In this case the net benefit would amount to $366.0 
million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $72.4 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$260.0 million in reduced operating costs, $90.4 million in climate 
benefits, and $177.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $455.7 million per year.

         Table I.7--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-ins
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2022$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           260.0           265.3           264.9
Climate Benefits *..............................................            90.4            92.6            90.0
Health Benefits **..............................................           177.7           182.1           177.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................           528.1           540.0           531.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            72.4           102.6            64.7
Monetized Net Benefits..........................................           455.7           437.4           467.2
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger][Dagger])..............   (7.6) - (5.4)   (7.6) - (5.4)   (7.6) - (5.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           214.1           218.8           218.3
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            90.4            92.6            90.0
Health Benefits **..............................................           132.2           135.3           131.7
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................           436.7           446.7           440.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            70.7            95.4            64.1
Monetized Net Benefits..........................................           366.0           351.2           376.0
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).............   (7.6) - (5.4)   (7.6) - (5.4)   (7.6) - (5.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056. These results
  include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
  The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
  AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
  incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the
  Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
  derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the
  Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
  at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the
  benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG
  emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost
  of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021
  by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

[[Page 60753]]

 
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
  impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA includes
  all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the
  manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE
  also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of
  this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding
  investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's
  expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow,
  including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized
  change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital values of 9.4 percent for
  walk-in non-display doors and 10.2 percent for walk-in refrigeration systems that are estimated in the MIA
  (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital).
  For walk-ins, those values are -$7.6 million to -$5.4 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts
  in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the
  range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is
  the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and
  the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to
  increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes
  the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in
  section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this
  proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's
  Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for
  this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $448.1 million to $450.3 million at 3-percent
  discount rate and would range from $358.4 million to $360.6 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses (
  ) indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to 
technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels 
are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by 
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that 
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the 
burdens of the proposed standards.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOx and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount 
rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed 
standards for walk-ins is $70.7 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $214.1 million in 
reduced equipment operating costs, $90.4 million in climate benefits 
and $132.2 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to 
$366.0 million per year.
    The significance of the savings offered by a new or amended energy 
conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the 
specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For example, 
some covered products and equipment have substantial energy consumption 
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these 
products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates 
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in 
estimated national energy savings of 1.55 quad FFC for walk-in doors, 
panels and refrigeration systems shipped between 2027 and 2056, the 
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 42.7 million homes, or 
1.4 million homes per year of the analysis. In addition, they are 
projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 28.5 Mt for walk-in 
doors, panels and refrigeration systems shipped between 2027 and 
2056.\15\ Based on these findings, DOE has initially determined the 
energy savings from the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' 
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed 
discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in 
the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support 
document (``TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These results include benefits to consumers which accrue 
after 2056 from the equipment shipped in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. 
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of 
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits.
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to this document and related information collected and 
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either 
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of 
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
walk-ins.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment.
    Title III, Part C 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-ins, the subject of this 
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for 
these products. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)) EPCA specifically prescribed that 
no later than January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall publish a final rule 
to determine if the standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)) 
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish 
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not 
need to be amended, or a NOPR including 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)).
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of 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

[[Page 60754]]

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
    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 for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions 
of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment during a 
representative average use cycle and that are not unduly burdensome to 
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must 
use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE 
that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that 
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test 
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant 
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for walk-ins appear at title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart R, appendices 
A, B, C, and C1.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment, including walk-ins. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt 
any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 
products, including walk-ins, if no test procedure has been established 
for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is 
not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed 
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the 
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after 
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the 
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

    Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard 
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional 
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of 
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any 
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE 
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different 
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such 
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have 
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    The current energy conservation standards for walk-ins are set 
forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.306. The current energy 
conservation standards for walk-in doors are in terms of maximum daily 
energy consumption, which is measured in kWh/day (see Table II.1). The 
current energy conservation standards for walk-in panels are in terms 
of R-value, which is measured in h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu (see Table II.2). 
The current energy conservation standards for refrigeration systems are 
in terms of AWEF, which is measured in Btu/W-h (see Table II.3).

  Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-in Coolers
                        and Walk-In Freezer Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Equations for maximum daily
              Equipment class                 energy consumption  (kWh/
                                                        day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display door, medium-temperature..........  0.04 x Add + 0.41.
Display door, low-temperature.............  0.15 x Add + 0.29.
Passage door, medium-temperature..........  0.05 x And + 1.7.
Passage door, low-temperature.............  0.14 x And + 4.8.

[[Page 60755]]

 
Freight door, medium-temperature..........  0.04 x And + 1.9.
Freight door, low-temperature.............  0.12 x And + 5.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add or And = surface area of the display door or non-display door,
  respectively, expressed in ft\2\, as determined in appendix A to
  subpart R of 10 CFR part 431.


  Table II.2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers
                       and Walk-In Freezer Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Minimum R-
                                                            value  (h-
                     Equipment class                       ft\2\-[deg]F/
                                                               Btu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall or ceiling panels, medium-temperature..............              25
Wall or ceiling panels, low-temperature.................              32
Floor panels, low-temperature...........................              28
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table II.3--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers
                and Walk-In Freezer Refrigeration Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Equipment class                  Minimum AWEF  (Btu/W-h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated condensing system, medium-        5.61.
 temperature, indoor.
Dedicated condensing system, medium-        7.60.
 temperature, outdoor.
Dedicated condensing system, low-           9.091 x 105 x qnet + 1.81.
 temperature, indoor with a net capacity
 (qnet) of <6,500 British thermal units
 per hour (``Btu/h'').
Dedicated condensing system, low-           2.40.
 temperature, indoor with a net capacity
 (qnet) of >=6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated condensing system, low-           6.522 x 10-5 x qnet + 2.73.
 temperature, outdoor with a net capacity
 (qnet) of <6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated condensing system, low-           3.15.
 temperature, outdoor with a net capacity
 (qnet) of >=6,500 Btu/h.
Unit cooler, medium-temperature...........  9.00.
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with   1.575 x 10-5 x qnet + 3.91.
 a net capacity (qnet) of <15,500 Btu/h.
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with   4.15.
 a net capacity (qnet) of >=15,500 Btu/h.
Where qnet is net capacity as determined
 in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and
 certified in accordance with 10 CFR part
 429.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins
    In a final rule published on June 3, 2014 (``June 2014 Final 
Rule''), DOE prescribed the energy conservation standards for walk-in 
doors, panels, and refrigeration systems manufactured on and after June 
5, 2017. 79 FR 32050. After publication of the June 2014 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.). A settlement agreement was reached among the 
parties under which the Fifth Circuit vacated energy conservation 
standards for six of the refrigeration system equipment classes--the 
two standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems 
(subsequently re-named as ``unit coolers'') operating at medium and 
low-temperatures and the four standards applicable to dedicated 
condensing refrigeration systems operating at low-temperatures.\16\ 
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 its recommendations into a Term Sheet (see Docket EERE-2015-
BT-STD-0016-0056) that was presented to, and approved by, the Appliance 
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee on December 18, 
2015. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0055 at p. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 13 other standards established in the June 2014 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. The compliance date for the remaining 
standards was on or after June 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a final rule published on July 10, 2017 (``July 2017 Final 
Rule''), DOE adopted energy conservation standards for the six classes 
of walk-in refrigeration systems were vacated--specifically, unit 
coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems. 82 FR 31808. 
The rule required compliance with the six new standards on and after 
July 10, 2020.
    To evaluate whether to propose amendments to the energy 
conservation standards for walk-ins, DOE issued a request for 
information (``RFI'') in the Federal Register on July 16, 2021 (``July 
2021 RFI''). 86 FR 37687. In the July 2021 RFI, DOE sought data, 
information, and comment pertaining to walk-ins. 86 FR 37687, 37689.
    DOE subsequently announced the availability of the preliminary 
analysis it had conducted for the purpose of evaluating the need for 
amending the current energy conservation standards for walk-ins in the 
Federal Register on June 30, 2022, (``June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis''). The analysis was set forth in the Department's 
accompanying preliminary TSD. DOE held a public meeting via webinar to 
discuss and receive comment on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on 
July 22, 2022. The meeting covered the analytical framework, models, 
and tools that DOE

[[Page 60756]]

used to evaluate potential standards; the results of the preliminary 
analyses performed by DOE; the potential energy conservation standard 
levels derived from those analyses; and other relevant issues.
    In response to the publication of the July 2021 RFI, DOE received 
comments from interested parties. The July 2021 RFI comments were 
addressed in chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
    DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.4 of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AHRI submitted two comment documents to the docket. The 
first document in the docket includes AHRI's comments for 
traditional walk-in manufacturers (i.e., medium- and low-temperature 
walk-in components). The associated file name in the docket is: AHRI 
Comments WICF NOPR EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. These comments are 
referenced in this document as ``AHRI'' comments.
    \18\ AHRI submitted two comment documents to the docket. The 
second document in the docket includes AHRI's comments supporting 
wine cellar manufacturers (i.e., high-temperature walk-in 
refrigeration systems). The associated file name in the docket is: 
Comments WICF NOPR EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009 Wine. These comments are 
referenced in this document as ``AHRI-Wine'' comments.

                           Table II.4--June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Comment No. in
              Commenter(s)                       Abbreviation           the docket          Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and            AHRI \17\.................              39  Trade Association.
 Refrigeration Institute.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and            AHRI-Wine \18\............              39  Trade Association.
 Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    Efficiency Advocates......              37  Efficiency Organizations.
 American Council for an Energy-
 Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
 Defense Council, Northwest Energy
 Efficiency Alliance.
Heat Transfer Products Group, LLC.......  HTPG......................              35  Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation....................  Hussmann--Door............              33  Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation....................  Hussmann--Refrigeration...              38  Manufacturer.
KeepRite Refrigeration, Inc.............  KeepRite..................              41  Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc................  Lennox....................              36  Manufacturer.
North American Association of Food        NAFEM.....................              42  Trade Association.
 Equipment.
Rob Brooks..............................  Brooks....................              34  Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\19\ 
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments 
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided 
during the July 22, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written 
comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during 
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments 
are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for walk-ins. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0009, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket 
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Process Rule

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages 
for an energy conservation standard rulemaking by not publishing a 
framework document and providing a public comment period less than 75 
days. Framework Document
    Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines 
it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages 
of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that 
DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary 
analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE 
published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (see 87 FR 39008), 
DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the 
preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the 
preliminary TSD that accompanied the preliminary analysis--entitled 
Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE 
Responses--describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in 
evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation 
standards.\20\ As such, publication of a separate framework document 
would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The preliminary technical support document is available at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Public Comment Period
    Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of 
the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar 
days. For this NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60-day comment period, 
consistent with EPCA requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p). DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period 
because stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities 
to provide comments on this proposed rulemaking.
    As noted previously, DOE requested comment in the July 2021 RFI on 
the analysis conducted in support of the last energy conservation 
standard rulemaking for walk-ins and provided a 30-day comment period. 
In its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and TSD, DOE's analysis remained 
largely the same as the analysis conducted in support of the previous 
energy conservation standards rulemaking for walk-ins. DOE requested 
comment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD on the analysis 
conducted in support of this current rulemaking. Given that this 
analysis remained largely the same as the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis, and in light of the 60-day comment period DOE has already 
provided with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE has determined 
that a 60-day comment period is appropriate for this NOPR and that it 
will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to 
comment on the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

[[Page 60757]]

A. General Comments

    This section summarizes general comments received from interested 
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
    The Efficiency Advocates commented that they encourage DOE to 
consider evaluating potential standards for refrigeration shipping 
containers. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at pp. 5-6) As discussed in 
the test procedure final rule that was published on May 4, 2023 (``May 
2023 TP Final Rule''), DOE has not evaluated refrigerated shipping 
containers to determine if current walk-in test procedures would 
produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or 
estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle, 
without being unduly burdensome to conduct. 88 FR 28780, 28787. 
Therefore, DOE has determined that refrigerated shipping containers are 
not currently subject to the DOE test procedure or energy conservation 
standards for WICFs. DOE may consider whether test procedures and 
energy conservation standards should be applied to refrigerated 
shipping containers in a future rulemaking.
    AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers seek 
clarification on whether the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis would 
change AWEF standards for high-temperature walk-in refrigeration 
systems. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5) DOE notes that there are currently 
no standards for high-temperature units. DOE did analyze high-
temperature units in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. In this NOPR, 
DOE is proposing an energy conservation standard for high-temperature 
units in section I.
    AHRI-Wine urged DOE to increase in future analysis the box load 
multiplier of 0.5 that was proposed in the April 2022 test procedure 
because many wine cellar applications are high-end homes with little 
traffic into and out of the cellar. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 3) DOE 
notes that the box load multiplier is part of the walk-in test 
procedure and not the energy conservation standards. The May 2023 TP 
Final Rule adopted the box load multiplier of 0.5 and therefore, the 
NOPR engineering analysis for high-temperature units used this value.
    AHRI-Wine recommended that DOE conduct interviews with more wine 
cellar manufacturers to get a better representation of the wine cellar 
market. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 5) DOE notes that it invited several wine 
cellar manufacturers to participate in interviews, which informed this 
rulemaking. DOE further notes that it welcomes comments, data, and 
information regarding this proposed rule from all interested parties.
    The Efficiency Advocates suggested that DOE consider setting 
standards for refrigeration systems as a function of capacity since 
larger capacity units are generally able to reach higher efficiency 
levels. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at pp. 2-3) Furthermore, the 
Efficiency Advocates cited the disparity in the LCC to support setting 
standards as a function of capacity. Id. DOE evaluated the economics of 
each efficiency level for each representative unit. This analysis 
indicated that more stringent standards were generally economically 
justified for larger units and, therefore, DOE proposed standards that 
reflected this. As seen in section I, DOE is proposing standards as a 
function of capacity for most refrigeration system equipment classes.
    Lennox commented that several items were non-functional in the June 
2022 preliminary engineering analysis worksheet. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 
9) DOE notes that a new engineering spreadsheet has been updated to 
reflect the updated analysis for this NOPR and the items identified by 
Lennox have been resolved in this version of the engineering sheet.\21\ 
Additionally, DOE has reviewed the non-functional items identified in 
Lennox's comment and found that none impacted the results of the 
engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The new refrigeration systems engineering sheet can be 
found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAFEM stated that it endorses and reiterates all comments made by 
AHRI. (NAFEM, No. 42 at p. 2) DOE notes that throughout this document, 
reference to comments made by AHRI are therefore understood to be 
representative of the viewpoints of NAFEM as well. NAFEM also commented 
that it hopes DOE will follow the Process Rule. Id. In section II.C of 
this document, DOE discusses certain minor deviations from the Process 
Rule as well as the justification for such deviations. Aside from these 
minor deviations, DOE has developed this NOPR in accordance with the 
Process Rule.

B. Scope of Coverage

    This NOPR covers ``walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers'' defined 
as an enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, 
doors, and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures, 
respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be 
walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 
square feet; however, the terms do not include products designed and 
marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10 
CFR 431.302. Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in 
systems, DOE has established standards for the principal components 
that make up a walk-in (i.e., doors, panels, and refrigeration 
systems).
    A ``door'' means an assembly installed in an opening on an interior 
or exterior wall that is used to allow access or close off the opening 
and that is movable in a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving manner 
of movement. For walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, a door includes 
the frame (including mullions), the door leaf or multiple leaves 
(including glass) within the frame, and any other elements that form 
the assembly or part of its connection to the wall. Id.
    A ``panel'' means a construction component that is not a door and 
is used to construct the envelope of the walk-in, (i.e., elements that 
separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the 
exterior). Id.
    A ``refrigeration system'' means the mechanism (including all 
controls and other components integral to the system's operation) used 
to create the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in 
cooler or walk-in freezer, consisting of:
    (1) A dedicated condensing refrigeration system (as defined in 10 
CFR 431.302); or
    (2) A unit cooler.
    The scope of coverage and equipment classes for this NOPR are 
discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1 of this document.

C. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's 
current energy conservation standards for walk-in doors are expressed 
in terms of maximum daily energy consumption, DOE's current energy 
conservation standards for walk-in panels are expressed in terms of R-
value, and DOE's current energy conservation standards for walk-in 
refrigeration systems are expressed in terms of AWEF. (See 10 CFR part 
431, subpart R, appendices A, B, C, and C1.)
    On April 21, 2022, DOE published a test procedure NOPR (``April 
2022 TP NOPR'') and on May 4, 2023, DOE published the May 2023 TP Final 
Rule.

[[Page 60758]]

87 FR 23920; 88 FR 28780 In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 
used the test procedure proposed in the April 2022 TP NOPR to evaluate 
the efficiency of walk-in components. In this NOPR analysis, DOE used 
the test procedure adopted in the May 2023 TP Final Rule to evaluate 
the efficiency of walk-in components. From this point forward the May 
2023 TP Final Rule will be the ``current test procedure''.
    In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established a new appendix, 
appendix C1 to subpart R (``appendix C1''), and a new energy metric, 
AWEF2, for refrigeration systems. (See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, 
appendix C1.) The engineering analysis results and the proposed energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration systems are presented as AWEF2 
values. Manufacturers would be required to begin using appendix C1 as 
of the compliance date of an energy conservation standards promulgated 
as a result of this rulemaking.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As 
the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology 
options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design 
engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of 
those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE 
considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment 
or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; 
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) 
of the Process Rule.
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process 
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the 
screening analysis for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration 
systems, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened 
out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this 
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this 
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or 
class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is 
technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE 
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') 
improvements in energy efficiency for walk-in doors, panels, and 
refrigeration systems, using the design parameters for the most 
efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. 
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are 
described in section IV.C.1 of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of 
the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to walk-in doors, panels, and 
refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in 
the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056).\22\ The 
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of walk-in doors, panels, 
and refrigeration systems purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for the 
equipment would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
equipment class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in 
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or 
new standards for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration systems. The 
NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) 
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy 
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For 
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary 
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to 
generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in 
terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy 
consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels 
(i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more 
complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.\23\ 
DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for 
each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For 
more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\24\ For 
example, some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption 
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of this 
equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates 
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into 
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the 
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the 
global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially 
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are 
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of 
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule 
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the standard levels proposed in this document are 
projected to result in national energy savings of 1.55 quads, the 
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 42.7 million homes. 
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in 
emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE

[[Page 60759]]

has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard 
levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has 
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended standard 
on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of 
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine 
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) 
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of 
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular 
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC 
and PBP analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, 
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates 
appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability 
in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE 
uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each 
value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new 
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document, 
DOE uses its NIA model to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
    In establishing equipment classes and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards 
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance 
of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to 
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to 
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to 
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy 
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this 
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's 
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public 
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this 
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments 
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES 
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards 
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of 
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity 
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the 
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to 
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation

[[Page 60760]]

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy 
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how 
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in 
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value 
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as 
discussed in section V.C.1 of this document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant 
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the 
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such 
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation 
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the 
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate 
values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation 
standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These 
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period 
contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE 
routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range 
of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the 
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for 
DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard 
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption 
payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this proposed 
rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to walk-ins. Separate subsections address each 
component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56&action=viewlive. Additionally, DOE used 
output from the latest version of the Energy Information 
Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely 
known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and 
utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment 
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope 
of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, 
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options 
that could improve the energy efficiency of walk-ins. The key findings 
of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. 
See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and 
technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment 
(i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that 
separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or 
if DOE determines that equipment capacity or other performance-related 
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)) In making a determination whether a 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 
determines are appropriate. (Id.)
    Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in systems, 
DOE has established standards for each of the principal components that 
make up a walk-in (i.e., doors, panels, and refrigeration systems).
a. Doors
    DOE's existing standards for walk-in doors are based on six 
equipment classes, differentiated by temperature and whether they are 
display doors or non-display doors. DOE defines a display door as a 
door that is designed for product display or has 75 percent or more of 
its surface area composed of glass or another transparent material. 10 
CFR 431.302. Non-display doors are all doors not considered display 
doors and are mainly used to allow people and products to be moved into 
and out of the walk-in. Non-display doors are further divided by 
whether they are passage or freight doors. DOE defines a freight door 
as a door that is not a display door and is equal to or larger than 4 
feet wide and 8 feet tall. DOE defines passage doors as any doors that 
are not display doors or freights doors. Id. Display, passage, and 
freight doors are further divided based on walk-in temperature (i.e., 
cooler or freezer). DOE currently defines separate energy conservation 
standards for the following walk-in door classes (10 CFR 431.306(c) and 
(d)):
     Display Door, Medium-temperature,
     Display Door, Low-temperature,
     Passage Door, Medium-temperature,
     Passage Door, Low-temperature,
     Freight Door, Medium-temperature, and
     Freight Door, Low-temperature.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE combined passage and 
freight non-display door classes and

[[Page 60761]]

instead differentiated non-display doors by whether or not they have 
motorized door openers. DOE's initial research and analysis indicated 
that distinguishing non-display door classes by the presence or absence 
of a motorized door opener could be a more appropriate distinction of 
equipment classes rather than door size. As with its prior analysis, 
DOE also evaluated the motorized and non-motorized non-display door 
classes by temperature conditions: medium-temperature (i.e., cooler) 
and low-temperature (i.e., freezer).
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE also distinguished 
display door classes by the presence or absence of a motorized door 
opener. DOE analyzed medium- and low-temperature display doors without 
motorized door openers and medium-temperature display doors with 
motorized door openers. DOE has not identified any motorized display 
doors for low-temperature applications and therefore did not analyze 
such equipment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. See section 
3.1.2.1 of chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary analysis TSD.
    DOE sought feedback on the equipment classes analyzed for walk-in 
doors in section ES.4.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. 
Hussmann-Doors commented that their request to have their Heavy Duty 
Door (``HDD'') and ABC Beer Cave (``ABC'') products classified as 
passage doors was not approved in 2017 and stated that there would be a 
cost benefit if their HDD and ABC product were to be classified as 
passage doors rather than display doors. Hussmann-Doors further 
elaborated that if these products were recognized as passage doors, 
they would not need to use expensive vacuum-insulated glass packs and 
could consider a more economical glass pack. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at 
p. 2) In response, DOE notes that the display door definition 
references the physical characteristics of the door (i.e., the 
percentage of surface area composed of glass or another transparent 
material) and is not contingent on door application. It is DOE's 
understanding that both Hussmann's HDD and ABC products are composed of 
at least 75 percent glass or another transparent material. Any door(s) 
that meets this criteria is considered a display door, even those not 
necessarily designed for product display.
    The Efficiency Advocates agreed that non-display doors should be 
differentiated by manual or motorized opening mechanism (Efficiency 
Advocates, No. 37 at pp. 1-2).
    Consistent with stakeholder feedback, DOE has tentatively concluded 
that it is more appropriate to distinguish non-display doors by whether 
or not they have a motorized door opener, rather than by size. 
Additionally, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to 
distinguish display doors by whether or not they have a motorized door 
opener. DOE is proposing to establish the equipment classes listed in 
Table IV.1 for walk-in doors.

                            Table IV.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for Walk-In Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Display/non-display              Opening mechanism           Temperature               Class code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display..............................  Manual.................  Medium.................  DW.M.
                                                                Low....................  DW.L.
                                       Motorized..............  Medium.................  DS.M.
Non-display..........................  Manual.................  Medium.................  NM.M.
                                                                Low....................  NM.L.
                                       Motorized..............  Medium.................  NO.M.
                                                                Low....................  NO.L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE discusses representative units, baseline assumptions for 
representative unit efficiency, and design options analyzed at higher 
efficiency levels for walk-in display and non-display doors in sections 
IV.C.1.a and IV.C.1.b of this document, respectively. DOE notes that, 
consistent with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, it did not consider 
more efficient levels for the motorized display door class beyond the 
current maximum energy consumption (i.e., baseline efficiency level) in 
this NOPR. In its review of the motorized display door market, DOE 
found that manufacturers are already implementing maximum technology 
design options, such as vacuum- insulated glass, to achieve the current 
maximum energy consumption standard since the motor consumes additional 
energy. DOE has not identified any energy-saving technology options for 
motorized display doors that were retained during the screening 
analysis, as discussed in sections IV.A.2.b and IV.B of this document. 
DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
regarding efficiency of motorized (i.e., sliding) display doors. These 
comments are addressed in section IV.C.1.a of this document.
b. Panels
    DOE's existing standards for walk-in panels apply to three 
equipment classes that are differentiated by whether they are 
structural (also referred to as ``wall or ceiling panels'') or floor 
panels. Structural panels are further separated by temperature 
condition (i.e., cooler or freezer). DOE's analysis for the June 2014 
Final Rule determined that, unlike walk-in freezers, the majority of 
walk-in coolers have concrete floors and no insulated floor panels. 
Thus, DOE did not adopt insulation R-value standards for walk-in cooler 
floors. 79 FR 32050, 32067. DOE's re-evaluation of the market for this 
rulemaking suggests that the walk-in cooler floor panel market has not 
changed substantially since the June 2014 Final Rule. Therefore, DOE 
has excluded walk-in cooler floor panels from this proposed rulemaking.
    DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for 
the following walk-in panel classes (10 CFR 431.306(a)):
     Structural Panel, Medium-Temperature,
     Structural Panel, Low-Temperature, and
     Floor Panel, Low-Temperature.
    DOE has not established standards for display panels because they 
make up a small percentage of the panel market; therefore, standards 
would not result in significant energy savings without incurring 
disproportionate costs. 79 FR 32050, 32067. In the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis, DOE maintained the current panel equipment 
classes. See section 3.1.2.2 of chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary 
analysis TSD. In section ES.4.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
TSD, DOE requested comment on the equipment classes used in this 
analysis. DOE received no comment regarding panel equipment classes in 
response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. As such, DOE is 
proposing to maintain its

[[Page 60762]]

current equipment classes for walk-in panels. Table IV.2 summarizes the 
equipment classes for walk-in panels.

            Table IV.2--Equipment Classes for Walk-In Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Component                 Temperature         Class code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural Panel................  Medium............  PS.M.
                                  Low...............  PS.L.
Floor Panel.....................  Low...............  PF.L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Refrigeration Systems
    DOE's existing standards for walk-in refrigeration systems apply to 
nine equipment classes, differentiated by whether they are unit coolers 
or dedicated condensing systems and by temperature (i.e., whether they 
are a cooler or freezer). A ``dedicated condensing system'' means a 
dedicated condensing unit, a single-packaged dedicated system, or a 
matched refrigeration system. (See 10 CFR 431.302.) Dedicated 
condensing systems are further differentiated by their installation 
location (i.e., indoor or outdoor). Low-temperature dedicated 
condensing systems and unit cooler equipment classes are further 
differentiated by net capacity. DOE currently defines separate energy 
conservation standards for the following walk-in refrigeration system 
classes (10 CFR 431.306(e)):
     Dedicated Condensing System, Medium-Temperature, Indoor,
     Dedicated Condensing System, Medium-Temperature, Outdoor,
     Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Indoor, Net 
Capacity of less than 6,500 Btu/h,
     Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Indoor, Net 
Capacity of greater than or equal to 6,500 Btu/h,
     Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Outdoor, Net 
Capacity of less than 6,500 Btu/h,
     Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Outdoor, Net 
Capacity of greater than or equal to 6,500 Btu/h,
     Unit Cooler, Medium-Temperature,
     Unit Cooler, Low-Temperature, Net Capacity of less than 
15,500 Btu/h, and
     Unit Cooler, Low-Temperature, Net Capacity of greater than 
or equal to 15,500 Btu/h.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE noted that single-
packaged dedicated systems, which are dedicated condensing systems with 
a combined condensing unit and unit cooler, were not evaluated 
separately from dedicated condensing units and matched refrigeration 
systems in the previous rulemaking. New test procedure provisions in 
appendix C1 require specific test methods for single-packaged dedicated 
systems that measure the inherent thermal losses of such systems. These 
thermal losses reduce the capacity and therefore the efficiency of 
single-packaged dedicated systems. For this reason, in the June 
Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated single-packaged dedicated systems 
separately from split dedicated condensing systems.\25\ See section 
3.1.2.3 of chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary analysis TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Split dedicated condensing systems or split systems refer 
to any dedicated condensing system that is made up of a unit cooler 
and a remote dedicated condensing unit. The systems are split 
because the unit cooler and dedicated condensing unit are not in the 
same package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE defined a high-temperature 
refrigeration system as a walk-in refrigeration system that is not 
designed to operate below 45 [deg]F. 88 FR 28780, 28789. High-
temperature units are generally smaller capacity than medium-
temperature units and therefore contain small-capacity compressors, 
which DOE has found to be less efficient. Additionally, some high-
temperature units are sold in ducted configurations. Ducting adds 
flexibility to installation location and removes refrigeration 
equipment from the refrigerated storage space. Ducts also increase 
energy consumption due to the higher external static pressure imposed 
on the system's fans. In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 
evaluated high-temperature units and ducted units as separate equipment 
classes. The equipment classes that DOE analyzed in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis are summarized in Table IV.3.

    Table IV.3--Walk-In Refrigeration System Equipment Classes Analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                System                       Temperature                Location                Class code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Unit............  Medium-Temperature.....  Outdoor................  DC.M.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  DC.M.I.
                                       Low-Temperature........  Outdoor................  DC.L.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  DC.L.I.
Unit Cooler..........................  High-Temperature.......  N/A....................  UC.H.
                                       Medium-Temperature.....                           UC.M.
                                       Low-Temperature........                           UC.L.
Single-Packaged Dedicated System.....  High-Temperature (Non-   Outdoor................  SPU.H.O.
                                        ducted).                Indoor.................  SPU.H.I.
                                       High-Temperature         Outdoor................  SPU.H.O.D.
                                        (Ducted).               Indoor.................  SPU.H.I.D.
                                       Medium-Temperature.....  Outdoor................  SPU.M.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  SPU.M.I.
                                       Low-Temperature........  Outdoor................  SPU.L.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  SPU.L.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60763]]

    DOE requested comment on the equipment classes in section ES.4.1 of 
the Executive Summary of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, 
repeated in Table IV.3. AHRI requested further clarification on DOE's 
reasoning for separating single-packaged dedicated systems and 
dedicated condensing systems. (AHRI, No. 39 at pp. 1-2) Hussmann-
Refrigeration stated that it agrees with AHRI's inquiry. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 2) HTPG commented that it disagrees with 
DOE separating single-packaged dedicated systems and dedicated 
condensing systems because a single-packaged dedicated system is 
essentially a matched pair and matched pairs have the same efficiency 
requirements as dedicated condensing systems. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 3) 
Additionally, HTPG stated that if single-packaged dedicated systems are 
held to a lower standard than dedicated condensing systems and matched 
pairs, then consumers could purchase lower cost single-packaged 
dedicated systems at a lower efficiency level than dedicated condensing 
units and matched pairs. Id. The Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to 
ensure that efficiency standard levels for single-packaged dedicated 
systems are as stringent (e.g., incorporate similar assumed design 
options) as efficiency standard levels for dedicated condensing units 
to prevent a shift in the market away from dedicated condensing units 
and towards single-packaged dedicated systems. (Efficiency Advocates, 
No. 37 at p. 5)
    DOE clarifies that in Table IV.3, the dedicated condensing unit 
equipment class refers to all split systems. In general, DOE has 
separated packaged equipment from split systems as packaged equipment 
provides consumers with more options for space-constrained 
applications. But packaged refrigeration systems are inherently less 
efficient because manufacturers cannot employ the same technologies 
such as increased heat exchanger sizes without impacting the overall 
dimensions of the packaged system. In addition, packaged systems are 
constrained by their overall weight limitations of the equipment, which 
affects the technologies options that can be applied to the system. 
Packaged systems typically contain smaller heat exchangers and those 
heat exchangers have less faces for airflow to pass over impacting the 
overall heat transfer of the system. In addition, packaged systems have 
both the cold and hot sides connected within the packaged framework and 
the cold side is exposed to the outside, which increases the losses 
associated with the thermal loads. Overall, DOE has tentatively decided 
that packaged system and split system WICF refrigeration systems cannot 
be combined into the same product class because packaged systems 
provide consumers with more options for space-constrained applications 
and inherent differences in system design between packaged systems and 
split systems limit the efficiency of the former.
    AHRI-Wine commented that it seeks clarification on where matched 
split systems are represented in Table 5.3.4 of the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis TSD, which lists the representative units chosen 
for the refrigeration system analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2) 
Also, AHRI-Wine recommended adding high-temperature dedicated 
condensing [units] since leaving these out of the scope would be a 
competitive disadvantage for manufacturers that sell single-packaged 
dedicated systems and matched split systems. Id. Furthermore, AHRI-Wine 
commented that wine cellar manufacturers seek clarification on the 
classes that constitute matched split, ducted and non-ducted, and 
indoor and outdoor systems. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5)
    DOE notes that it did not establish a test procedure for high-
temperature dedicated condensing units tested alone in the May 2023 TP 
Final Rule; however, it did establish a test procedure for high-
temperature matched refrigeration systems and single-packaged dedicated 
condensing systems. This decision is discussed in detail in the May 
2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 28780, 28816-28817. As such, DOE did not 
analyze high-temperature dedicated condensing units in this NOPR 
analysis and therefore is not proposing to establish an equipment class 
for high-temperature dedicated condensing units. DOE is, however, 
proposing to establish an equipment class for both high-temperature 
matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-packaged 
dedicated condensing systems. For this NOPR, DOE evaluated high-
temperature matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-
packaged dedicated systems as a single equipment class since both are 
sold with a condenser and an evaporator that are matched for optimal 
performance. Furthermore, the temperature difference between the 
refrigerated and ambient spaces for high-temperature refrigeration 
systems is less than the temperature difference for medium- and low-
temperature systems. Therefore, thermal losses have less impact for 
high-temperature systems. This means that the difference in performance 
between high-temperature matched refrigeration systems and high-
temperature single-packaged dedicated systems is much less than the 
performance difference expected between medium- or low-temperature 
matched refrigeration systems and medium- or low-temperature single-
packaged dedicated systems. Because of the expected similarity in 
performance, DOE has tentatively determined that a single class of 
equipment encompassing high-temperature matched refrigeration systems 
and single-packaged dedicated systems is appropriate. In its analysis 
of high-temperature refrigeration units, DOE focused on single-packaged 
dedicated systems since this is where most of the shipments are 
concentrated for the high-temperature market.
    DOE is proposing to establish the following equipment classes for 
refrigeration systems, as presented in Table IV.4.

                    Table IV.4--Proposed Equipment Classes for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                System                       Temperature                Location                Class code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units and         Medium-Temperature.....  Outdoor................  DC.M.O.
 Matched Refrigeration Systems.                                 Indoor.................  DC.M.I.
                                       Low-Temperature........  Outdoor................  DC.L.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  DC.L.I.
Unit Cooler..........................  High-Temperature (Non-   N/A....................  UC.H.
                                        Ducted).
                                       High-Temperature                                  UC.H.D.
                                        (Ducted).
                                       Medium-Temperature.....                           UC.M.
                                       Low-Temperature........                           UC.L.
Matched Refrigeration Systems and      High-Temperature (Non-   Outdoor................  SPU.H.O.
 Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems.     ducted).                Indoor.................  SPU.H.I.

[[Page 60764]]

 
                                       High-Temperature         Outdoor................  SPU.H.O.D.
                                        (Ducted).               Indoor.................  SPU.H.I.D.
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems....  Medium-Temperature.....  Outdoor................  SPU.M.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  SPU.M.I.
                                       Low-Temperature........  Outdoor................  SPU.L.O.
                                                                Indoor.................  SPU.L.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed previously, the current DOE standards for walk-in 
refrigeration systems differentiate low-temperature dedicated 
condensing systems and unit coolers by net capacity. DOE understands 
that for split systems and single-packaged dedicated systems, lower 
capacity systems may have greater difficulty attaining higher 
efficiency levels than higher capacity systems since compressors for 
small-sized equipment are generally less efficient. Additionally, DOE 
has found through testing that lower capacity unit coolers tend to have 
reduced efficiency compared to higher capacity unit coolers. As 
discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE received comments on 
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis suggesting that walk-in 
refrigeration system efficiency standards should vary with net capacity 
for walk-in refrigeration system equipment classes. In this NOPR, DOE 
evaluated multiple capacities in each equipment class to better 
ascertain the relationship between efficiency and net capacity. This is 
discussed in more detail in the Representative Units subsection of 
section IV.C.1.d of this document. In section I, DOE discusses the 
proposed standards for walk-in refrigeration systems.
2. Technology Options
    DOE considered separate technology options for whole walk-ins, 
doors, and panels, and refrigeration systems.
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
    In the market analysis and technology assessment presented in 
Chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary analysis TSD, DOE identified 
seven technology options that would be expected to improve the 
efficiency of a fully assembled walk-in (i.e., wall, ceiling and floor 
panels, door(s), and refrigeration system(s)) but would not apply 
specifically to any of the components analyzed in this rulemaking:
     Energy storage systems,
     Refrigeration system override,
     Automatic evaporator fan shut-off,
     Non-penetrative internal racks and shelving,
     Humidity sensors,
     Fiber optic natural lighting, and
     Heat reclaim valve.
    DOE requested comment on the technology options in section ES.4.2 
of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE received no comments on 
the technology options that might improve the efficiency of whole walk-
ins. Therefore, DOE identified the same technology options for the NOPR 
analysis. DOE further discusses these technology options in chapter 3 
of the NOPR TSD.
b. Doors and Panels
    In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE 
identified 15 technology options that would be expected to improve the 
efficiency of doors and/or panels, as measured by the DOE test 
procedure. These technology options are listed in Table IV.5.

    Table IV.5--Summary of Door and Panel-Related Technology Options
             Analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Technology options                  Applicable component
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door gaskets..............................  Doors.
Anti-sweat heater/freezer wire controls...
Display and window glass system insulation
 performance.
Non-electric, reduced, or no anti-sweat
 systems.
Improved frame systems....................
Automatic door opening and closing systems
Occupancy sensors.........................
High-efficiency lighting..................
Automatic insulation deployment systems...  Display Doors.
Infiltration-reducing devices or systems    Non-display Doors.
 (e.g., air curtains, strip curtains,
 vestibule entryways, revolving doors).
Insulation thickness and material.........  Non-display doors and
                                             panels.
Framing materials.........................
Damage-sensing systems (e.g., air and
 water infiltration sensors, heat flux
 sensors).
Panel interface systems...................  Panels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hussmann-Doors 
stated that its sliding doors are designed to utilize insulation from 
the box/cooler wall to minimize door anti-sweat heat power. (Hussmann-
Doors, No. 33 at p. 3) Per Hussmann-Doors' recommendation, DOE is 
considering this as a technology option for walk-in doors. The 
screening of this technology option is discussed further in section 
IV.B.1.a.
    DOE is considering the same technology options for doors and panels 
in this NOPR that it considered in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, 
as well as the sliding doors referenced the comment from Hussmann-
Doors.
c. Refrigeration Systems
    In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE 
identified 16 technology options that would be expected to improve the 
efficiency of refrigeration systems:
     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,
     Crank case heater controls,
     Single-package thermal insulation, and
     Oil management systems.
    DOE requested comment on the technology options in section ES.4.2 
of

[[Page 60765]]

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. AHRI commented that there are 
many technology options on the market that may individually provide 
energy savings for refrigeration systems, however, these technologies 
would require significant modification to implement with current 
systems and once implemented, they may no longer provide significant 
energy savings, as they are contingent on other aspects of the system. 
(AHRI, No. 39 at p. 2)
    DOE notes that it applies screening criteria to all potential 
technology options which is designed to eliminate technologies that are 
not suitable for further analysis as discussed in section IV.B and in 
Ch. 4 of the TSD. This includes analysis of the technological 
feasibility and practicability. DOE then conducts a full engineering 
analysis to weigh the costs and energy savings of each design option 
that remains after the screening analysis. The engineering analysis is 
discussed in section IV.C. This engineering analysis evaluates 
potential changes to other aspects of the system necessary to implement 
the option.
    HTPG agreed that DOE has considered all the technology options 
available on the market for walk-in refrigeration systems that it is 
aware of. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 4) AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar 
manufacturers agree with the technologies that DOE has considered in 
its analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2)
    Based on comments received from stakeholders, DOE is considering 
the same technology options for walk-in refrigeration systems in this 
NOPR as were considered in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    1. Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial equipment or in commercially viable, 
existing prototypes will not be considered further.
    2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial equipment 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further.
    3. Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to 
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to 
subgroups of consumers or result in the unavailability of any covered 
equipment type with performance characteristics (including 
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are 
substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United 
States at the time, it will not be considered further.
    4. Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology 
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not 
be considered further.
    5. Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has 
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a 
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the 
potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
    In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination 
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, 
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in 
the following sections.
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each 
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether 
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened 
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened Out Technologies
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out the 
following technology options under the tentative assumption that they 
would not affect rated energy consumption of the walk-in components as 
measured by the DOE test procedure. While these technologies may 
improve the energy efficiency of a fully assembled walk-in installed in 
the field, DOE's current walk-in test procedures are component-specific 
(i.e., DOE does not have a test procedure for determining energy use of 
a fully assembled walk-in):
     Energy storage systems,
     Refrigeration system override,
     Automatic evaporator fan shut-off,
     Non-penetrative internal racks and shelving,
     Humidity sensors, and
     Heat reclaim valves.
    See section 4.2.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
    Furthermore, in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened 
out fiber optic natural lighting since it is not technologically 
feasible. DOE is not aware of any such systems currently manufactured 
and sold for walk-in operations.
    DOE requested comment on the technologies that it had screened out 
in section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. HTPG 
commented that it agrees that energy storage systems, refrigeration 
systems override, automatic evaporator fan shut-off, humidity sensors, 
and heat reclaim valves do not affect the rated energy consumption as 
measured under the walk-in test procedures. (HTPG, No. 359 at p. 4) 
Lennox supported DOE's conclusions and rationale for the screened out 
technologies. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 3) AHRI-Wine stated that wine 
cellar manufacturers agree with the technologies screened in and out of 
the analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2)
    In its NOPR analysis, DOE has screened out all technology options 
for whole walk-ins for the same rationales as it did for the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis.
b. Doors and Panels
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out the 
following technology options because any reduction in energy use would 
not be captured by the test procedure in appendix A to subpart R of 10 
CFR part 431 (``appendix A'') and any increase in R-value would not be 
captured by the test procedure in appendix B to subpart R of 10 CFR 
part 431 (``appendix B''):
     Infiltration-reducing devices,
     Air and water infiltration sensors,
     Heat flux sensors, and
     Structural materials for panels.
    Infiltration-reducing technologies could include door gaskets, 
automatic door opening and closing systems, air curtains, strip 
curtains, vestibule entryways, revolving doors, and panel interface 
systems. In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE had tentatively 
determined that any potential energy savings from infiltration-reducing 
devices would not be captured because air infiltration is a 
characteristic of a fully assembled walk-in. The walk-in test 
procedures do not evaluate the energy use of the assembled walk-in box 
and instead evaluate the energy use of a single component (i.e., door 
or panel); therefore, technologies that may improve energy efficiency 
of the full walk-in box were screened out.
    Additionally, DOE preliminarily concluded that any potential energy 
savings from air and water infiltration sensors, heat flux sensors, and 
structural materials for panels would not be captured by either the 
appendix A or

[[Page 60766]]

appendix B test procedures. Air and water infiltration sensors and heat 
flux sensors are technology options that would most benefit the end 
user for monitoring the continuing performance of walk-in components; 
however, the potential degradation captured by these sensors over the 
lifetime of a walk-in are not reflected in the current test procedure. 
Additionally, changes to panel structural materials are not captured in 
the test procedure since the current walk-in panels test procedure 
provides a method for determining the R-value of the panel insulation 
only. In other words, the overall R-value of the panel, including 
structural materials, is not captured by the current test procedure. 
Therefore, such technologies were screened out.
    Furthermore, in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened 
out the following technologies due to technological infeasibility since 
DOE was not able to find these technologies incorporated into either 
prototypes or commercially available walk-in doors or panels:
     Non-electric anti-sweat systems,
     Higher efficiency LEDs, and
     Automatic insulation deployment systems.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out panel and 
door insulation thicker than six inches because DOE received feedback 
during manufacturer interviews that it is not practicable to 
manufacture and install and it has adverse impacts on consumer utility. 
See section 4.3.2.4 of chapter 4 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
TSD. DOE preliminarily concluded that insulation thicker than six 
inches would be heavy, unwieldy, and would take up space that the 
consumer would otherwise use. Additionally, panels and non-display 
doors greater than six inches that use foam-in-place insulation would 
take an excessive amount of time to cure, impacting the practicability 
to manufacture, install, and service.
    In section ES.4.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 
requested comment on the technology options it had screened out for 
doors and panels. DOE received no comment on the screened out 
technologies for doors and panels. In this analysis, DOE is screening 
out the same technologies that it screened out in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis, in addition to the eliminated anti-sweat heater 
system technology option.
    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) glass 
from fogging, and (3) condensation that may lead to low-temperature 
doors freezing shut. The amount and rate of condensation on walk-in 
doors is dependent on the relative humidity surrounding the walk-in and 
the surface temperature of the door. To ensure the temperature of the 
door surface stays above the dew point of its surroundings, electric 
resistive heater wire is installed around the frame of the door. DOE 
recognizes that anti-sweat systems on doors may be necessary in high-
humidity environments and DOE does not have sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that anti-sweat heat can be removed from doors installed in 
all climate zones of the U.S. without having a potential negative 
impact on the safety and utility of the walk-in. Therefore, DOE is 
screening out eliminated anti-sweat heater systems in this NOPR on the 
basis of safety of technology.
    Furthermore, DOE is screening out the technology option to utilize 
insulation from the box/cooler wall to minimize door anti-sweat heat 
power recommended by Hussmann-Doors in its comment and discussed in 
section IV.A.2.b of this document. DOE recognizes that an ideally 
designed walk-in box ensures that panel design could reduce door 
sweating; however, DOE notes that since its walk-in test procedures 
evaluate the performance of walk-in components separately, these design 
pairings are not captured by the test procedure and therefore cannot be 
used to analyze higher efficiency levels.
c. Refrigeration Systems
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE tentatively determined 
that adaptive defrost, hot gas defrost, oil management systems, and 
economizer cooling would not affect the measured AWEF2 value of walk-in 
refrigeration systems based on appendix C1. DOE requested comment on 
the screened out technologies in section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis TSD.
    HTPG commented that it agrees that oil management systems, adaptive 
defrost, hot gas defrost, and economizer cooling do not affect rated 
energy consumption as measured under the test procedures for 
refrigeration systems. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 4)
    DOE has tentatively determined that oil management systems, 
adaptive defrost, hot gas defrost, and economizer cooling would not 
affect the measured AWEF2 value of walk-in refrigeration systems when 
measured using appendix C1.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE also screened out three-
phase motors as a design option. In general, three-phase motors can 
save energy compared to single-phase motors, however, use of three-
phase motors requires three-phase power. Not all businesses that use 
walk-ins are equipped with three-phase power, and therefore must use 
single-phase equipment. DOE therefore screened out this design option 
on the grounds of utility.
    HTPG commented that it agrees with screening out three-phase motors 
as a technology option. Id. In this NOPR analysis, DOE is screening out 
three-phase motors based on utility.
    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI-Wine 
recommended that DOE consider how a 50-percent increase in condenser 
face area would increase the footprint of a single-packaged wine cooler 
system and how this increase in footprint would affect the market. 
(AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2) DOE received similar feedback during 
manufacturer interviews. DOE notes that high-temperature walk-ins are 
often installed in residential applications that have standard stud 
spacing in walls and standard joist spacing in floors and ceilings; 
therefore, these units may be designed to fit between these structural 
members for construction and aesthetic reasons. DOE has tentatively 
determined that consumers would lose the compact feature of high-
temperature refrigeration systems if the evaporator or condenser heat 
exchangers underwent a considerable increase in size. Therefore, DOE is 
proposing to screen out improved evaporator and condenser coils for 
high-temperature refrigeration systems on the grounds of customer 
utility due to the additional heat exchanger size needed for this 
technology option.
    The screened out technologies for fully assembled walk-ins and each 
component of walk-ins are discussed in more detail in chapter 4 of the 
accompanying TSD.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
none of the identified technologies for whole walk-ins, listed in 
section IV.A.2.a, met all five screening criteria to be examined 
further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis.
a. Doors and Panels
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
all of the other identified technologies for doors and panels, listed 
in section IV.A.2.b of this document met all five screening criteria to 
be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In

[[Page 60767]]

summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:
     Glass system insulation performance for display doors,
     Occupancy sensors (lighting controls) for doors,
     Anti-sweat heater controls for doors,
     Improved frame systems and materials for non-display 
doors,
     Reduced anti-sweat heater systems for doors, and
     Increased insulation thicknesses up to 6 inches for non-
display doors and panels.
    In section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 
requested comment on the screened in technologies. Hussmann-Doors 
stated that increased insulation thicknesses up to 6 inches for non-
display doors and panels would help reduce insulation requirements on 
framing materials for door products and that increased wall thickness 
would offer additional insulation. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 3) DOE 
understands this comment to support increased insulation thicknesses up 
to 6 inches as a technology option for non-display doors and panels.
    Additionally, Hussmann-Doors stated that the cost of applying 
controllers (e.g., to control the on time of electrical components like 
lighting and anti-sweat heat) to door products is not economically 
justified by the resulting energy savings. However, Hussmann-Doors 
commented that it does use controllers on its products to be compliant 
with regulations. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 2) Hussmann-Doors also 
commented that it does not see a need for a change to the standard for 
doors based on the technology option of occupancy sensors. Id. DOE 
understands Hussmann-Doors comment to mean that it believes the energy 
consumption standard for doors should not change to reflect that 
occupancy sensors can reduce energy consumption. In response to these 
comments, DOE notes that it in addition to the screening analysis 
discussed above, it conducts a full engineering analysis to weigh the 
costs and energy savings of each potential design option. While DOE 
evaluates specific design options for the purposes of developing a 
representative cost-efficiency curve, manufacturers are not bound to 
implement the design options that DOE analyzes to meet a performance-
based energy conservation standard. Manufacturers may employ any design 
option, whether DOE has evaluated it or not, so long as it meets the 
energy consumption standard based on the Federal test procedure. The 
engineering analysis is discussed further in section IV.C of this 
document.
    DOE has initially determined that these technology options are 
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously 
been used in commercially available equipment or working prototypes. 
DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the 
other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, 
and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, 
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
b. Refrigeration Systems
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
all the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2.c of 
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as 
design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen 
out the following technology options for walk-in refrigeration systems:
     Hydrocarbon refrigerants,
     Higher efficiency compressors,
     Improved evaporator and condenser coil,
     Higher efficiency condenser fan motors,
     Improved condenser and evaporator fan blades,
     Ambient sub-cooling,
     Off-cycle evaporator fan control,
     Head pressure control,
     Variable-speed condenser fan control,
     Crankcase heater controls,
     Improved thermal insulation for single-packaged dedicated 
systems,
     Higher efficiency evaporator fan motors,
     On-cycle evaporator fan control, and
     Liquid suction heat exchanger.
    In section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 
requested comment on the screened in technologies. DOE received no 
comment on the screened in technologies for refrigeration systems.
    DOE has initially determined that these technology options are 
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously 
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE 
also finds that all the remaining technology options meet the other 
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, 
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of each component of walk-
ins (e.g., doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). There are two 
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of 
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
walk-ins, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not 
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each walk-in component 
equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the 
incremental cost for the walk-in component at efficiency levels above 
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge 
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to 
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on 
the market).

[[Page 60768]]

    In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a design-option approach for 
doors, panels, dedicated condensing units, and single-packaged 
dedicated systems. DOE relies on both a design-option and an 
efficiency-level approach for unit coolers, depending on the equipment 
class. These approaches are discussed in the following sections.
a. Display Doors
Representative Units
    As previously mentioned in section IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE 
evaluated equipment classes for display doors in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis based on the presence or absence of a motor. In 
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed three representative 
door sizes for manually opening display doors and two representative 
door sizes for motorized display doors. The representative units were 
based on the number of door openings within a common frame. 
Additionally, DOE based its representative door sizes on typical height 
and width of doors found in equipment product literature. See section 
5.3.1 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE 
sought comment on the representative units selected in section ES.4.5 
of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
    In response, Hussmann-Doors commented that the representative door 
sizes used in the analysis are appropriate; however, Hussmann-Doors 
stated that it sells a sliding door that is larger than the 
representative units. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 3) DOE notes that 
the representative units it selects for analysis are intended to be 
representative of the display door industry as a whole and cannot 
capture every door available on the market. Additionally, DOE 
ultimately did not define representative units for motorized display 
doors in this NOPR since, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this 
document, DOE did not evaluate higher efficiency levels for these doors 
in its analysis. However, DOE may consider evaluating higher efficiency 
levels for motorized display doors in a future rulemaking, at which 
time it would determine representative units based on the market at 
that time.
    DOE received no comments on the manually opening display door 
representative units; therefore, in this NOPR, DOE maintained the same 
manually opening display door representative units that were evaluated 
in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Table IV.6 lists the display 
door classes and sizes that DOE analyzed in its engineering analysis 
for this NOPR, where the dimensions listed are consistent with the 
surface area that is used to determine the maximum daily energy 
consumption.

                           Table IV.6--Representative Units Analyzed for Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of door  Dimensions height
        Opening mechanism               Temperature           Class code          openings        x length, ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual...........................  Medium-temperature..  DW.M................               1         6.25 x 2.5
                                                                                            3         6.25 x 7.5
                                                                                            5        6.25 x 12.5
                                   Low-temperature.....  DW.L................               1         6.25 x 2.5
                                                                                            3         6.25 x 7.5
                                                                                            5        6.25 x 12.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Efficiency, Design Options, and Higher Efficiency Levels
    To determine the baseline efficiency of manually opening display 
doors in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE relied on the current 
energy conservation standards and minimum prescriptive requirements for 
the glass pack of transparent reach-in doors at 10 CFR 431.306(b)(1)-
(2). DOE's analysis suggested that manufacturers already implement 
high-efficiency frame designs to minimize thermal transmission; 
therefore, DOE included high-efficiency frame designs as a baseline 
design option for manually opening display doors in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated the design 
options listed in Table IV.7 for manually opening display doors. As 
noted, design option DR1 includes baseline design options; additional 
design options are evaluated in DR2 (efficiency level 1) and DR3 
(efficiency level 2).

  Table IV.7--Design Options Evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and This NOPR Analysis for Display
                                                      Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Description
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
           Efficiency level               Design option code      Medium-temperature,    Low-temperature, manual
                                                                  manual display doors        display doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 (Baseline).........................  DR1....................  2-pane glass with argon  3-pane glass with argon
                                                                 gas fill.                gas fill.
1....................................  DR2....................  3-pane glass with argon  3-pane glass with
                                                                 gas fill.                krypton gas fill.
2....................................  DR3....................  2-pane vacuum-insulated  2-pane vacuum-insulated
                                                                 glass.                   glass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hussmann-Doors 
commented that vacuum-insulated glass on a sliding door affects the U-
factor. DOE interprets this comment to suggest that vacuum-insulated 
glass could be used to reach higher efficiency levels for all display 
doors, including manually opening display doors. DOE notes that vacuum-
insulated glass is the maximum technology option for manually opening 
display doors.
    DOE received no other comments on the design options or efficiency 
levels for manually opening display doors. In this NOPR analysis, DOE 
maintained the same baseline efficiency level, design options, and 
higher efficiency levels that it evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis.

[[Page 60769]]

b. Non-Display Doors
Representative Units
    As previously mentioned in section IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE 
evaluated equipment classes for non-display doors based on the presence 
or absence of a motorized door opener in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis. DOE analyzed three representative sizes for each class of 
non-display doors based on the representative sizes analyzed for both 
passage and freight doors in the June 2014 Final Rule and based on 
typical height and width of doors found in current equipment product 
literature. See section 5.3.1 of chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis 
TSD. DOE sought comment on the representative units selected in section 
ES.4.5 of the preliminary analysis TSD. DOE did not receive any 
stakeholder comments with respect to non-display door representative 
units.
    In this NOPR analysis, DOE modified the non-display door 
representative sizes that it evaluated based on further review of 
product literature and interviews with manufacturers. Table IV.8 lists 
the non-display door classes and sizes that DOE analyzed in the 
engineering analysis for this NOPR.

                         Table IV.8--Representative Units Analyzed for Non-Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Dimensions,
        Opening mechanism             Temperature          Class code             Size          height x length,
                                                                                                       in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual..........................  Medium-temperature.  NM.M..............  Small.............            84 x 38
                                                                           Medium............            90 x 40
                                                                           Large.............            96 x 56
                                  Low-temperature....  NM.L..............  Small.............            84 x 38
                                                                           Medium............            90 x 40
                                                                           Large.............            96 x 56
Motorized.......................  Medium-temperature.  NO.M..............  Small.............           100 x 66
                                                                           Medium............           118 x 90
                                                                           Large.............           154 x 90
                                  Low-temperature....  NO.L..............  Small.............           100 x 66
                                                                           Medium............           118 x 90
                                                                           Large.............           154 x 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Efficiency, Design Options, and Higher Efficiency Levels
    To determine non-display door baseline efficiency, DOE relied on 
the current energy conservation standards. For the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis, based on certifications in the private 
certification and compliance management system (``CCMS'') database and 
product literature, DOE assumed that baseline non-display doors had 
3.5-inch-thick insulation for coolers and 4-inch-thick insulation for 
freezers, wood framing materials, anti-sweat heat with no controls, and 
lighting with no controls.
    For the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated the design 
options listed in Table IV.9 for non-display doors. While DOE largely 
maintained these design options in its analysis for this NOPR, there 
were a few changes specific to their implementation, discussed in more 
detail below.

    Table IV.9--Design Options Evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary
                     Analysis for Non-Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Design option code                      Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Occupancy sensors (lighting
                                    controls).
LNC..............................  No lighting controls.
LCTRL............................  Lighting controls.
                                   Anti-sweat heater wire controls.
ASHNC............................  No anti-sweat heater controls.
ASCTRL...........................  Anti-sweat heater controls.
                                   Improved frame systems and lower
                                    conductivity framing materials.
FR1..............................  Baseline non-display door frame made
                                    of wood.
FR2..............................  Improved non-display door frame made
                                    of insulation.
                                   Decreased anti-sweat heater power.
ASH1.............................  Baseline anti-sweat heater power.
ASH2.............................  Reduced or eliminated anti-sweat
                                    heater power.
                                   Increased Insulation Thickness.
TCK1.............................  Baseline insulation thickness.
TCK2.............................  Increased insulation thickness 1.
TCK3.............................  Increased insulation thickness 2.
TCK4.............................  Increased insulation thickness 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE included lighting in 
baseline manually opening non-display doors. DOE's research at the time 
indicated that non-display doors sometimes include lighting and 
switches to operate that lighting. Therefore, DOE was able to use 
lighting controllers as a design option for the representative units it 
modeled. However, upon further review of the market, DOE found that 
lighting may or may not be included with non-display doors. Therefore, 
DOE removed lighting from its baseline representative units of manually 
opening non-display doors in this NOPR, thus removing the use of the 
lighting controller as a design option in its analysis of non-display 
doors.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE combined improved non-
display door framing systems and materials with reduced or eliminated 
anti-sweat heater power. In section ES.4.6 of the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis TSD, DOE requested comment on its assumptions that anti-sweat 
heater power can be reduced or eliminated by use of improved framing 
systems and materials. If anti-sweat heater power can be reduced 
through other means of design or technology options for doors, DOE 
sought specific data on the achievable reduction in anti-sweat heater 
power and the cost to implement. DOE received no comment on whether 
improving framing systems and materials could reduce anti-sweat heater 
or by how much anti-sweat heater power could potentially be reduced.
    In this NOPR analysis, DOE decoupled improved frame systems and 
materials from the reduction in anti-sweat heater power and implemented 
these as separate design options. Additionally, in this NOPR analysis, 
rather than present a fixed value of anti-

[[Page 60770]]

sweat heater wire power in watts, DOE is presenting the amount of anti-
sweat heater power in terms of rated power per linear foot, which can 
be converted into the total anti-sweat heater power per representative 
unit using door leaf dimensions. DOE recognizes that the total value of 
anti-sweat heater power will vary based on the size of the door leaf 
but that manufacturers generally use wire with the same rating of power 
per linear foot across doors of different sizes. DOE is presenting 
anti-sweat heat in terms of a rated power per linear foot and is 
soliciting feedback on the values used in this analysis.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE had considered 
eliminated anti-sweat heater power as a design option for medium-
temperature non-display doors, however, as discussed in section 
IV.B.1.b of this document, DOE is no longer considering elimination of 
anti-sweat heater systems as a design option since DOE does not have 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that doors without anti-sweat heat 
could be installed in all climates or installation locations. Instead, 
DOE has tentatively concluded in this NOPR that cooler doors could 
reduce anti-sweat heater power. Based on certified information in DOE's 
private CCMS database, approximately 93 percent of models reported a 
rated anti-sweat heater power of less than or equal to 2 W/ft; 
therefore, DOE evaluated the energy savings and cost associated with 
reducing rated anti-sweat heater power from baseline levels to 2 W/ft.
    For low-temperature non-display doors, in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis, DOE determined reduced anti-sweat heater power values based 
on a line of best fit of anti-sweat heater power versus door area from 
the lower third of non-zero anti-sweat heater power values certified in 
DOE's private CCMS database. See section 5.7.1.4 of chapter 5 of the 
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In this NOPR analysis, based on a 
combination of certified values in CCMS, rated anti-sweat heater power 
per linear foot of wire based on product literature, and information 
received during confidential interviews with manufacturers, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that freezer doors may be able to implement a 
reduced rated anti-sweat heater system power of 5 W/ft.
    Table IV.10 shows the baseline and reduced anti-sweat heater wire 
power evaluated in this NOPR for each equipment class. The design 
options that DOE evaluated for non-display doors for the NOPR analysis 
are shown in Table IV.11.

 Table IV.10--Anti-Sweat Heater Wire Power per Linear Foot Used in NOPR
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Baseline anti-     Reduced anti-
                                    sweat heater wire  sweat heater wire
          Equipment class            power rating (W/   power rating (W/
                                           ft)                ft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium-Temperature, Manually-                       4                  2
 Opening Non-Display Doors........
Low-Temperature, Manually-Opening                  10                  5
 Non-Display Doors................
Medium-Temperature, Motorized Non-                  4                  2
 Display Doors....................
Low-Temperature, Motorized Non-                   9.5                  5
 Display Doors....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table IV.11--Design Options Evaluated in This NOPR Analysis for Non-
                              Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Design option code                      Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Anti-sweat heater wire controls.
ASHNC............................  No anti-sweat heater controls.
ASCTRL...........................  Anti-sweat heater controls.
                                   Improved frame systems and lower
                                    conductivity framing materials.
FR1..............................  Baseline non-display door framing
                                    made of wood.
FR2..............................  Improved non-display door framing
                                    made of insulation.
                                   Decreased anti-sweat heater power.
ASH1.............................  Baseline anti-sweat heater power.
ASH2.............................  Reduced anti-sweat heater power.
                                   Increased Insulation Thickness.
TCK1.............................  Baseline insulation thickness.
TCK2.............................  Increased insulation thickness 1.
TCK3.............................  Increased insulation thickness 2.
TCK4.............................  Increased insulation thickness 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the baseline and assumed reduction in anti-
sweat heater wire power listed in Table IV.10. DOE specifically seeks 
feedback on whether the reduced anti-sweat heater wire power is 
acceptable for use in walk-in doors at all climates and installations 
throughout the U.S.
c. Panels
Representative Units
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated the same 
representative units for each panel equipment class that it evaluated 
for the June 2014 Final Rule. See section 5.3.2 of chapter 5 of the 
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE requested comment on these 
panel representative units in section ES.4.5 of the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE did not receive any comments regarding 
the representative units analyzed for panels. Therefore, DOE maintained 
the same representative units it evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis for this NOPR analysis. Table IV.12 summarizes the 
representative units evaluated for walk-in panel equipment classes.

                       Table IV.12--Representative Units Analyzed for Panels in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Dimensions
                Equipment                         Temperature            Equipment class code        height x
                                                                                                    length, ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural..............................  Medium....................  PS.M......................         8 x 1.5
                                                                                                           8 x 4
                                                                                                         9 x 5.5
Structural..............................  Low.......................  PS.L......................         8 x 1.5
                                                                                                           8 x 4

[[Page 60771]]

 
                                                                                                         9 x 5.5
Floor...................................  ..........................  PF.L......................           8 x 2
                                                                                                           8 x 4
                                                                                                           9 x 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Efficiency, Design Options and Efficiency Levels
    For panels, DOE evaluated increasing insulation thickness to obtain 
higher insulation R-values as calculated pursuant to appendix B of 
subpart R to 10 CFR 431. The thermal resistance of insulating materials 
increases approximately linearly with material thickness.
    For determining the baseline efficiency level, DOE relied on the 
current R-value standards. Based on DOE's analysis of the market, 3.5 
inches of foam insulation is generally used for baseline medium-
temperature panels and low-temperature floor panels, while 4 inches of 
foam insulation is used in baseline low-temperature structural panels 
to meet the minimum R-value requirements specified in 10 CFR 
431.306(a)(3)-(4).
    In addition, DOE found that many panel manufacturers offer 
insulation in thicknesses of 4, 5, and 6 inches. DOE also observed that 
the majority (approximately 75 percent) of the market uses polyurethane 
insulation, with the remainder using extruded polystyrene (``XPS''), 
expanded polystyrene, and polyisocyanurate insulation in its walk-in 
panels. Therefore, DOE assessed the incremental increase in R-value for 
polyurethane insulation at 4, 5, and 6 inches as design options, with 6 
inches being the max-tech design option.
d. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
Refrigerants Analyzed
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE assumed R-448A as a 
refrigerant for medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units 
and single-packaged dedicated systems. Based on the available 
compressor performance coefficients, and an examination of the 
refrigerant compositions, DOE tentatively concluded that R-448A and R-
449A have nearly identical performance characteristics for walk-in 
applications and that AWEF2 standards would not be meaningfully changed 
if analysis was conducted using R-449A instead of R-448A. R-448A/R-449A 
was chosen because the walk-in industry is shifting to lower global 
warming potential (``GWP'') refrigerants. R-448A/R-449A have much lower 
GWP compared to R-404A--additionally R-448A/R-449A has a higher glide, 
which will tend to disadvantage dedicated condensing units when they 
are tested alone according to the DOE test procedure. In other words, 
R-448A/R-449A are the most conservative, lower GWP, widely available 
refrigeration options. For the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used 
R-134A in its evaluation of high-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
units since this is the only refrigerant option currently offered for 
this equipment.
    DOE requested comment on whether the refrigerants used are 
representative of the current and future walk-in market in section 
ES.4.8 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response to the 
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received several comments on the 
refrigerants used in the analysis and on the need to consider lower GWP 
refrigerants.
    HTPG agreed with DOE using R-448A and R-449A in its analysis of 
medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units, specifically 
the compressor coefficients and the reduction in mass flow rate. (HTPG, 
No. 35 at pp. 3, 6) AHRI agreed with DOE using R-448A and R-449A in its 
analysis, however, it recommended that A2L \26\ or other refrigerants 
(i.e., R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-744A) be considered in a future 
analysis. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 3) Hussmann-Refrigeration stated that due 
to the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') regulations,\27\ 
changes to refrigerants are expected and further analysis of system 
performance may be required to determine the efficiency impact of the 
new refrigerants. (Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 2) Hussmann-
Refrigeration additionally commented that it agrees with the views of 
other AHRI members on the matter of the transition to A2L refrigerants 
and stated that R-448A and R-449A will not be available for future 
markets and are currently not available for new applications at a 
charge level greater than 50 pounds in California. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 4) Lennox commented that R-448A and R-449A 
are not representative of the future market, which would likely consist 
of R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, and R-744. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 5) Lennox 
also stated that R-744 (i.e., CO2) could pose a significant 
challenge if it is required for transcritical operation.\28\ Id. Lennox 
recommended that DOE consider the technological feasibility, 
performance, and cost impacts of the transition to lower GWP 
refrigerants, specifically A2L and CO2 refrigerants, when 
proposing energy conservation standards. (Lennox, No. 36 at pp. 1-3). 
HTPG also recommended that DOE consider the transition to low-GWP 
refrigerants in its analysis. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ A2L is a refrigerant classification from the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
(``ASHRAE'') Standard 34: ``Designation and Safety Classification of 
Refrigerants''. The A2L class defines refrigerants that are 
nontoxic, but mildly flammable. Refrigerants in this classification 
include R-454A, R-454C, and R-455A.
    \27\ See ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Allowance Allocation 
Methodology for 2024 and Later Years'', 87 FR 66372.
    \28\ CO2 refrigeration systems are transcritical 
because the high-temperature refrigerant that is cooled by ambient 
air is in a supercritical state, above the 87.8 [deg]F critical 
point temperature, above which the refrigerant cannot exist as 
separate vapor and liquid phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published a NOPR, ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 
Restrictions on the Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection 
(i) the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020'', on 
December 15, 2022, as a part of the American Innovation and 
Manufacturing (``AIM'') Act (``December 2022 AIM NOPR'') which outlined 
new refrigerant regulations regarding acceptable GWP limits for various 
air conditioning and refrigeration systems. 87 FR 76738. One proposal 
in the December 2022 AIM NOPR is to limit the GWP of refrigerants in 
remote condensing units used in retail food refrigeration or cold 
storage warehouse systems to 300 GWP or less if the system's 
refrigerant charge is less than 200 pounds. As proposed, this limit

[[Page 60772]]

would take effect on January 1, 2025. DOE has tentatively determined 
that walk-in refrigeration systems within the scope of this energy 
conservation standards rulemaking, designed to cool a chilled storage 
area less than 3,000 square feet, would not exceed 200 pounds of 
refrigerant charge and would therefore be subject to the GWP 
limitations proposed in the December 2022 AIM NOPR. R-448A and R-449A 
have GWPs of just under 1,400, well over the proposed 300 GWP limit. 
Therefore, DOE acknowledges that by the compliance date of any 
potential standards promulgated by this rulemaking, R-448A and R-449A 
may no longer be permitted for use in walk-in refrigeration systems if 
the proposals in the December 2022 AIM NOPR are finalized.
    For this NOPR, to estimate potential performance penalties 
associated with transitioning from R-448A and R-449A to a lower GWP 
refrigerant, DOE modeled the performance of three potential replacement 
A2L refrigerants: R-454A, R-454C, and R-455A. At the DOE test 
conditions prescribed for dedicated condensing units tested alone, R-
407A, R-448A and R-454A have condenser glides of less than 9 [deg]F, 
R454C has a glide of roughly 12 [deg]F, and R455A has a glide or 
roughly 17 [deg]F. When analyzed with available compressor 
coefficients, DOE found that R-454A had a coefficient of performance 
higher than R-407A and R-448A, while R455A and R-454C had coefficients 
of performance that were lower than R-407A and R-448A. Of the three 
refrigerants with GWPs less than 300, R-454A has the lowest glide and 
highest coefficient of performance. Based on these results, DOE has 
tentatively determined that R-454A would be the most likely replacement 
for R-407A, R-448A, and R-449A in walk-in applications if the proposals 
in the December 2022 AIM NOPR are adopted. DOE further analyzed the 
compression efficiency of R-454A compared to R-448A and has tentatively 
determined that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would not suffer a 
performance penalty when switching from R-407A, R-448A, or R-449A to R-
454A.
    DOE attempted to corroborate these modeling results with data from 
testing. During interviews, DOE asked if manufacturers had tested any 
A2L refrigerants such as R-454A, R-454C, and R-455A. At the time, 
manufacturers indicated that they were not able to obtain a sufficient 
quantity of these refrigerants for testing. Manufacturers stated that 
chemical companies that manufacturer these refrigerants were still in 
the process of formulating these refrigerant blends. Additionally, 
manufacturers emphasized that there was not yet industry consensus on 
the best refrigerant to move forward with given the information they 
have about refrigerants and regulations at this time. As such, DOE was 
not able to compare its modeling results to real-world tests prior to 
the publication of this NOPR.
    In response to the December 2022 AIM NOPR the Chemours Company FC, 
LLC (``Chemours'') submitted a comment in which they presented results 
from an analysis comparing the performance of various refrigerants. 
(Chemours, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643 No. 141 at p. 12) That analysis showed 
that R-454A has similar, if not better, performance to refrigerants 
used in walk-in coolers today. Id. Chemours generally supported R-454A 
as a replacement for higher GWP refrigerants. Id.
    DOE has tentatively determined that any standards set based on an 
analysis of dedicated condensing units operating with R-448A or R-449A 
would be appropriate for units operating with R-454A. DOE has therefore 
continued to use R-448A as the baseline refrigerant for all medium- and 
low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-packaged 
dedicated systems in this NOPR analysis.
    DOE requests test results or performance data for walk-in 
refrigeration systems using R-454A, R-454C, and/or R-455A. 
Additionally, DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that 
R-454A is the most likely replacement for R-448A and R-449A with a GWP 
of less than 300 and that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would 
not suffer a performance penalty when switching from R-448A or R-449A 
to R-454A.
    DOE did not consider R-744 (CO2) as a potential 
refrigerant for this NOPR analysis. During interviews, manufacturers 
stated that while CO2 may be a viable option for larger 
grocery store rack condenser installations, CO2 is unlikely 
to be commonly adopted for walk-in dedicated condensing systems in 
response to a low-GWP transition. Based on this feedback, DOE has 
tentatively determined that analyzing CO2 dedicated 
condensing systems would not be representative of the industry as a 
whole and would not provide insight into the performance of walk-in 
dedicated condensing systems after the low-GWP transition.
    DOE also did not analyze R-290 (propane) as a potential refrigerant 
in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis because DOE lacked R-290 
performance data for walk-in systems. See the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis TSD, chapter 2, section 2.4.3.2 for details. In response to 
this, AHRI stated that some companies have transitioned smaller charge 
walk-in refrigeration system products to propane. (AHRI, no. 39 at p. 
5) DOE is aware that there are single-packaged dedicated systems 
currently on the market that use R-290 as a refrigerant for use in 
walk-in systems. In this NOPR analysis, DOE collected additional 
performance data for R-290 compressors and has included R-290 in its 
analysis of medium- and low-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
systems. The current charge limits for A3 (flammable) refrigerants are 
limited to 150 grams.\29\ DOE has determined that all split system 
walk-in refrigeration systems would exceed this limit, so DOE did not 
analyze R-290 as a refrigerant for dedicated condensing units. 
Additionally, DOE was unable to identify compressors for high-
temperature applications designed for use with R-290. As such, DOE did 
not analyze high-temperature refrigeration systems using R-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ EPA published a final rule pertaining to hydrocarbon 
refrigerants on December 20, 2011. FR 76 78832. This rule limits the 
acceptable charge of propane in a refrigeration circuit to 150 grams 
for refrigeration systems with end-uses in the retail food industry. 
FR 76 78832, 78836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI commented that when transitioning from non-flammable 
refrigerants to R-290, other components must be upgraded to comply with 
UL60335-2-89 \30\ requirements. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 6) Furthermore, 
AHRI stated that few state and local building codes are updated to 
handle charging refrigeration equipment that use A3 refrigerants and 
storing the necessary quantities of flammable refrigerants to supply 
end-user needs. Id. AHRI also commented that charge sizes may need to 
be increased; however, this may only be possible when doors are not 
present on equipment. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 6) In this NOPR, DOE assumed 
that refrigerant system component costs would increase to comply with 
safety standards when switching from non-flammable refrigerants to R-
290. These cost increases are associated with ensuring all components 
are spark proof. Details of DOE's cost analysis are discussed in more 
detail in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD. Additionally, DOE limited 
each refrigeration circuit using R-290 to 150 grams of charge in its 
analysis to comply with current regulations. DOE is aware of commercial 
refrigeration systems and walk-in

[[Page 60773]]

refrigeration systems currently on the market that use propane as a 
refrigerant. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that building 
codes and local regulations are in-place for refrigeration systems 
charged with A3 refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ UL standard ``Household and Similar Electrical Appliances--
Safety--Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for Commercial 
Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or 
Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed high-
temperature refrigeration systems using R-134A. In response to this 
analysis, AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers agree with 
DOE using R-134A and stated that adopting other refrigerants may not be 
viable for high-temperature units. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5) Feedback 
from manufacturer interviews indicates that manufacturers are not 
currently aware of a reasonable replacement for R-134A. Based on 
manufacturer feedback and manufacturer product catalogs, DOE has 
tentatively determined that high-temperature refrigeration systems 
currently on the market are only available with R-134A. Therefore, DOE 
only evaluated R-134A for high-temperature units in this NOPR analysis. 
DOE notes that if the proposals in the December 2022 AIM NOPR are 
finalized, R-134A would be banned for use in walk-in coolers and a low-
GWP substitute would be required. If a low-GWP replacement becomes 
available for R-134A and DOE determines that the performance of this 
hypothetical refrigerant is sufficiently different than R-134A, DOE may 
analyze that refrigerant for high-temperature systems as a part of this 
rulemaking or a future rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on any potential low-GWP replacements for 
high-temperature systems. Additionally, DOE requests high-temperature 
performance data or test results for any potential low-GWP alternatives 
to R-134A.
Representative Units
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE chose representative 
units to span the range of capacities sold for each equipment class. 
See section 5.3.3 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
TSD. Table IV.13 summarizes the representative dedicated condensing 
units and single-packaged dedicated system units evaluated in the June 
2022 Preliminary Analysis. DOE requested comment on these 
representative units in section ES.4.5 of the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis TSD.

   Table IV.13--June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Representative Units for Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-
                                           Packaged Dedicated Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Capacities
              System                   Temperature            Location         Equipment class    analyzed (Btu/
                                                                                     code               h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Unit........  Medium.............  Outdoor............  DC.M.O.............           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
                                                        Indoor.............  DC.M.I.............           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
                                   Low................  Outdoor............  DC.L.O.............           3,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
                                                        Indoor.............  DC.L.I.............           3,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems  High (Non-ducted)..  Outdoor............  SPU.H.O............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.H.I............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                   High (Ducted)......  Outdoor............  SPU.H.O.D..........           9,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.H.I.D..........           9,000
                                   Medium.............  Outdoor............  SPU.M.O............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.M.I............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                   Low................  Outdoor............  SPU.L.O............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.L.I............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Efficiency Advocates and HTPG commented that DOE 
should consider analyzing additional representative units to provide a 
broader range of capacities to help set standards as a function of 
capacity. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at p. 4; HTPG, No. 35 at p. 5) 
Specifically, HTPG suggested analyzing the following representative 
units for dedicated condensing units:
     Medium-temperature, indoor, hermetic, 3,000 Btu/h,
     Medium-temperature, indoor, scroll, 6,000 Btu/h,
     Medium-temperature, outdoor, hermetic, 3,000 Btu/h,
     Medium-temperature, outdoor, scroll, 6,000 Btu/h,
     Medium-temperature, outdoor, semi-hermetic, 175,000 Btu/h,
     Low-temperature, indoor, hermetic, 4,000 Btu/h,
     Low-temperature, indoor, scroll, 3,000 Btu/h,
     Low-temperature, outdoor, hermetic, 4,000 Btu/h,
     Low-temperature, outdoor, scroll, 3,000 Btu/h, and
     Low-temperature, outdoor, semi-hermetic, 120,000 Btu/h.

(HTPG, No. 35 at p. 5)

    As discussed in section IV.A.1.c, lower-capacity compressors are 
less

[[Page 60774]]

efficient than higher capacity compressors. While the standards for 
low-temperature dedicated condensing systems take this into account, 
current standards for the medium-temperature dedicated condensing 
systems do not. Based on testing and its analysis of the compliance 
certification database (``CCD'') and manufacturer literature, DOE has 
tentatively determined that medium-temperature dedicated condensing 
units below around 4,000 Btu/h would have to be equipped with all 
available design options to meet the current standards. As such, DOE 
did not evaluate higher efficiency levels for lower capacity medium-
temperature dedicated condensing units in this NOPR; instead, DOE is 
proposing to maintain the current standard level for this equipment. 
Standards proposed for these units in this NOPR were converted from the 
current AWEF metric to the AWEF2 metric based on the appendix C1 test 
procedure.
    Lennox commented that it generally agrees with the capacities 
chosen but suggested that the analysis could be improved by including 
larger capacity products. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 2) AHRI suggested that 
DOE refer to its capacity suggestion in its response to the WICF TP 
NOPR,\31\ which included a recommendation to analyze larger capacity 
representative units such as 96,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 39 at pp. 2-3) 
Hussmann-Refrigeration and Lennox stated that they agree with AHRI's 
recommendation that DOE evaluate a larger capacity unit of 96,000 Btu/h 
as a representative unit for dedicated condensing units. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 36 at pp. 3-4) Lennox added 
that the recommendation to include a high-capacity representative unit 
is based on the number of basic models in the CCD. (Lennox, No. 36 at 
pp. 3-4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0010-0022 at 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on stakeholder feedback and the number of certified basic 
models in the CCD, DOE has included additional lower and higher 
capacity representative units in its NOPR analysis. Specifically, DOE 
has included 75,000 Btu/h medium-temperature outdoor and indoor 
dedicated condensing units, a 124,000 Btu/h medium-temperature outdoor 
dedicated condensing unit, and a 75,000 Btu/h low-temperature outdoor 
dedicated condensing unit. Additionally, DOE analyzed 2,000 Btu/h and 
9,000 Btu/h medium-temperature, indoor and outdoor single-packaged 
dedicated systems and 2,000 Btu/h and 6,000 Btu/h low-temperature, 
indoor and outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems. As discussed in 
section IV.A.1.c of this document, DOE did not analyze smaller medium-
temperature dedicated condensing units as it has tentatively determined 
that the units on the market are already at the maximum technology 
level.
    AHRI-Wine recommended that DOE consider using representative units 
specific to the high-temperature and wine cellar cooling industry, with 
a range of capacities from 1,000 Btu/h to 18,000 Btu/h. (AHRI-Wine, No. 
39 at p. 3) AHRI-Wine also recommended including indoor and outdoor 
high-temperature dedicated condensing systems with capacities of 2,000 
Btu/h, 9,000 Btu/h, and 25,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 3) 
Furthermore, AHRI-Wine suggested that DOE analyze 2,000 Btu/h and 9,000 
Btu/h high-temperature ducted and non-ducted, indoor and outdoor 
single-packaged dedicated systems. (Id.)
    DOE interprets AHRI-Wine's recommendation to evaluate additional 
dedicated condensing system representative units to refer to dedicated 
condensing units and matched refrigeration systems. As discussed in 
section IV.A.1.c of this document, DOE only analyzed high-temperature 
single-packaged dedicated systems in this NOPR analysis and is 
proposing a single high-temperature equipment class for matched 
refrigeration systems and single-packaged dedicated systems. Based on 
manufacturer feedback and a review of high-temperature product 
literature, DOE analyzed 2,000 Btu/h and 7,000 Btu/h, indoor and 
outdoor, ducted and non-ducted high-temperature single-packaged 
dedicated systems for this NOPR analysis. DOE did not encounter single-
packaged high-temperature units with a capacity of over 7,000 Btu/h. As 
discussed in section IV.A.1.c of this document, DOE did not analyze 
high-temperature matched refrigeration systems separately from single-
packaged dedicated systems since DOE has tentatively concluded that 
single-packaged dedicated systems are representative of the majority of 
the high-temperature market. Therefore, DOE did not analyze any 
representative units for high-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
systems larger than 7,000 Btu/h for this NOPR analysis.
    AHRI-Wine requested that DOE clarify how capacity factors into 
DOE's high-temperature analysis and observed that if the lowest 
capacity for high-temperature systems is 9,000 Btu/h with a rotary 
compressor, then any unit with a capacity below 9,000 Btu/h with a 
hermetic compressor may be at a disadvantage. Id.
    In this NOPR analysis, the capacity of a representative unit 
determines its characteristics, components, and design. For example, 
DOE analyzed 7,000 Btu/h high-temperature representative units with a 
rotary compressor and analyzed 2,000 Btu/h high-temperature 
representative units with a hermetic compressor based on DOE's review 
of the market. DOE is proposing standards for high-temperature 
refrigeration systems in this rulemaking that vary with capacity.
    Table IV.14 lists the representative capacities evaluated in this 
NOPR for walk-in dedicated condensing units and single-packaged 
dedicated systems. More details on the representative units DOE 
selected for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated 
systems are in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.

 Table IV.14--Representative Units Analyzed for Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Capacity (Btu/
              System                   Temperature            Location            Class code            h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units.......  Medium.............  Outdoor............  DC.M.O.............           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
                                                                                                          75,000
                                                                                                         124,000

[[Page 60775]]

 
                                                        Indoor.............  DC.M.I.............           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
                                                                                                          75,000
                                   Low................  Outdoor............  DC.L.O.............           3,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
                                                                                                          75,000
                                                        Indoor.............  DC.L.I.............           9,000
                                                                                                          25,000
                                                                                                          54,000
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems  High (Non-ducted)..  Outdoor............  SPU.H.O............           2,000
                                                                                                           7,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.H.I............           2,000
                                                                                                           7,000
                                   High (Ducted)......  Outdoor............  SPU.H.O.D..........           2,000
                                                                                                           7,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.H.I.D..........           2,000
                                                                                                           7,000
                                   Medium.............  Outdoor............  SPU.M.O............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.M.I............           2,000
                                                                                                           9,000
                                   Low................  Outdoor............  SPU.L.O............           2,000
                                                                                                           6,000
                                                        Indoor.............  SPU.L.I............           2,000
                                                                                                           6,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design Options
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used a design option 
approach to evaluate potential efficiency improvements for walk-in 
dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems. DOE 
considered the technologies listed in Table IV.15 as design options for 
dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems.

 Table IV.15--June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Refrigeration System Design
                                 Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Dedicated condensing     Single-packaged
                                      units           dedicated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Units...................   Improved      Improved
                               condenser coil.       condenser coil.
                               Higher        Higher
                               efficiency            efficiency
                               condenser fan         condenser fan
                               motors.               motors.
                               Improved      Off-cycle
                               fan blades.           evaporator fan
                                                     control.
                                                     Improved
                                                     thermal insulation.
                                                     Improved
                                                     fan blades.
Outdoor Only................   Crankcase     Crankcase
                               heater controls.      heater controls.
                               Variable-     Variable-
                               speed condenser fan   speed condenser fan
                               control.              control.
                               Ambient sub-  Ambient sub-
                               cooling.              cooling.
                               Head          Head
                               pressure control.     pressure control.
High-temperature............  ....................   Higher
                                                     efficiency
                                                     compressors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some design options passed the screening analysis but were not 
evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. DOE did not analyze 
higher efficiency evaporator fan motors in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis since EPCA prescribes use of either electronically commutated 
motors (``ECMs'') or 3-phase motors (42 U.S.C. 6213(f)(1)(E)). DOE did 
not have sufficient data for the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis to 
evaluate variable-capacity compressors, hydrocarbon refrigerants, 
improved evaporator coils, and liquid suction heat exchangers. Finally, 
DOE did not analyze on-cycle evaporator fan control since variable-
capacity compressors are a prerequisite for this design option to be 
effective.
    As discussed in the Refrigerants Analyzed subsection of section 
IV.C.1.d of this document, DOE included hydrocarbon refrigerants in 
this NOPR analysis. Stakeholder comments pertaining to hydrocarbon 
refrigerants are addressed in the Refrigerants Analyzed subsection.
    In section ES.4.6 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 
specifically requested data and feedback on improved evaporator coils 
for single-packaged dedicated systems and liquid suction heat 
exchangers for refrigeration systems.
    DOE received no comments regarding improved evaporator coils as a 
design option; however, during interviews, manufacturers indicated that 
larger evaporator coils were an effective design option to increase the 
efficiency of single-packaged dedicated systems. DOE gathered 
additional data on evaporator performance from the CCD and modeled 
improved evaporator coils as a design

[[Page 60776]]

option for single-packaged dedicated systems. Details of DOE's analysis 
for this design option are discussed in chapter 5 of the accompanying 
TSD.
    DOE also received no comments regarding improved evaporator motors. 
As stated previously, DOE's interpretation of the language in EPCA is 
that it prescribes the use of either ECMs or 3-phase motors (42 U.S.C. 
6213(f)(1)(E)). As such, DOE did not evaluate improved evaporator 
motors in this NOPR analysis.
    In response to the request for comment about liquid suction heat 
exchangers, AHRI, HTPG, Hussmann-Refrigeration, and Lennox suggested 
that DOE exclude liquid suction heat exchangers as a design option, 
since this technology does not always improve efficiency. (AHRI, No. 39 
at p. 3; HTPG, No. 35 at p. 6; Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 3; 
Lennox, No. 36 at p. 4) AHRI also commented that liquid suction heat 
exchangers are difficult to implement on units with higher AWEF. (AHRI, 
No. 39 at p. 3). AHRI-Wine recommended that heat exchangers should only 
be used for split systems when there may be liquid subcooling losses 
and low return gas temperatures. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 4) DOE 
understands AHRI-Wine's comment to be in reference to liquid suction 
heat exchangers. As stated in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, 
DOE does not have sufficient data on how liquid suction heat exchangers 
may impact performance or component lifetimes of walk-in refrigeration 
systems. See section 5.7.2.9 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis TSD. Since DOE did not receive additional data from 
stakeholders in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did 
not analyze liquid suction heat exchangers as a design option in this 
NOPR analysis.
    The Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to evaluate multiple-
capacity and/or variable-speed compressors as design options.\32\ 
(Energy Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) However, KeepRite stated that using 
variable-capacity compressors does not automatically increase the 
efficiency and that the system must be designed to exploit the 
advantages provided by the variable-speed components. (KeepRite, No. 41 
at p. 1) Additionally, KeepRite commented that compressor efficiency 
should be regulated at the compressor manufacturer level. (KeepRite, 
No. 41 at p. 2) In this NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed variable-capacity 
compressors for low- and medium-temperature refrigeration systems and 
assumed that the system was redesigned to take advantage of the 
variable-speed compressor. Specifically, DOE assumed that unit coolers 
paired with dedicated condensing units under analysis, and unit coolers 
contained within single-packaged dedicated systems under analysis, had 
on-cycle two-speed capabilities. However, DOE did not analyze on-cycle 
variable-speed evaporator fan controls as an independent design option 
because not all unit coolers would be paired with condensing systems 
that could vary the cooling load to take advantage of on-cycle 
variable-speed evaporator fans. Details of the variable-capacity 
compressor design option implementation in this NOPR analysis can be 
found in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Multiple-capacity compressors have three or more distinct 
capacities at which they can operate. Variable-capacity or variable-
speed compressors have a range of capacities in which they can 
operate at any given speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HTPG commented that it disagrees with DOE's statement that the air-
side heat transfer characteristics of coils could be improved by 
decreasing the spacing between the fins because there could be 
potential negative impacts, such as increased fouling, clogging of the 
coil on condensers, frost accumulation, and blockage on evaporator 
coils. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that decreased fin 
spacing can increase coil fouling or result in frost accumulation on 
low-temperature evaporator units that would negatively affect unit 
operation. As such, when DOE evaluated improved condenser and 
evaporator coils in this NOPR, it maintained a constant fins per inch 
between baseline and improved coils.
    KeepRite commented that efficiency gains from higher efficiency 
condenser fan motors are limited because motors are already regulated 
for efficiency. (KeepRite, No. 41 at p. 2) Through market research and 
manufacturer feedback, DOE has tentatively determined that most 
baseline condenser fan motors are permanent split capacity-type motors; 
however, DOE has found some dedicated condensing unit fans models that 
utilize more efficient ECMs. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined 
that higher efficiency condenser fan motors are a feasible design 
option.
    AHRI requested clarification on whether two-speed fans are 
considered in DOE's analysis and whether they fall under the same 
requirements as variable-speed fans. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 2) Hussmann-
Refrigeration reiterated AHRI's comment seeking clarification on 
variable- and multiple-speed fans. (Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at 
p. 2) Lennox commented that it considers the scope of technologies DOE 
has evaluated to be appropriate; however, it suggested that DOE 
consider variable-speed condenser fan control. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 2) 
Furthermore, Lennox stated that two- or multiple-speed condenser fans 
could be considered as a potential subset of full variable-speed 
condenser fans. Id. DOE is interpreting AHRI and Hussmann-
Refrigeration's comments to be asking for clarification about the 
variable-speed condenser fan design option. In the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered only fully variable-speed, not 
two-speed, condenser fan motors as a design option. Through 
manufacturer interviews and its own analysis, DOE has tentatively 
determined that fully variable-speed fans are more effective at 
increasing a unit's efficiency than two-speed fans. Furthermore, based 
on an analysis of ECM prices, DOE has tentatively determined that the 
cost for variable- and two-speed ECMs are similar. Therefore, DOE did 
not include two-speed condenser fans as an intermediate design option 
in its NOPR analysis. DOE notes that it has chosen what it considers to 
be the most realistic design path in its NOPR analysis, however, the 
design options evaluated by DOE should not be interpreted as 
prescriptive requirements but rather possible steps along a potential 
efficiency improvement path.
    KeepRite stated that efficiency gains from implementing a variable-
speed condenser fan are limited by the lowered head pressure setting 
that many units already implement to reach baseline and that many units 
already use this type of fan. (KeepRite, No. 41 at p. 2) DOE notes that 
it received multiple comments suggesting that dedicated condensing 
units already use the lowest reliable head pressure setting to meet 
baseline efficiency levels. These comments are addressed in the 
baseline efficiency subsection of section IV.C.1.d. DOE acknowledges 
that there is limited potential for variable-speed condenser fans to 
save energy when a unit's head pressure has already been lowered and 
DOE considers the relationship between variable-speed condenser fans 
and a unit's head pressure setting in its analysis. Based on 
manufacturer interview feedback, DOE has tentatively determined that 
very few or no baseline walk-in refrigeration systems use variable-
speed condenser fans. Rather, variable-speed condenser fans are an 
optional extra for additional control or efficiency that consumers can 
specify at an additional cost.
    KeepRite also commented that no real energy savings would occur 
from

[[Page 60777]]

ambient subcooling because it is already realized in the liquid line of 
a typical installation, and because ambient subcooling decreases the 
overall condensing area of the unit resulting in an increase in energy 
consumption. (KeepRite, No. 41 at p. 2) In this NOPR analysis, DOE 
implemented the ambient subcooling design option by assuming that 
condenser face area is added to a coil to make an ambient subcooling 
circuit, rather than re-circuiting a portion of the existing heat 
exchanger condensing area to ambient subcooling. Based on its analysis, 
DOE has tentatively determined that increased liquid line subcooling 
does increase system efficiency. As such DOE, is analyzing ambient 
subcooling as a design option for walk-in refrigeration systems.
    AHRI-Wine stated that smaller-sized high-temperature units can 
maximize liquid subcooling entering the expansion valve without having 
a dedicated liquid subcooling section in the condenser coil. (AHRI-
Wine, No. 39 at p. 6) Additionally, AHRI-Wine commented that it seeks 
clarification on if the ambient subcooling design option is defined by 
a specific subcooling target. Id. DOE understands that smaller-sized 
high-temperature units can maximize subcooling without having a 
dedicated liquid subcooling section, however, based on its analyses, 
DOE has found that an additional subcooling circuit does result in 
efficiency increases for all walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is 
therefore maintaining ambient subcooling as a design option for all 
outdoor dedicated condensing units and outdoor single-packaged 
dedicated systems. Furthermore, DOE clarifies that in this NOPR 
analysis, the subcooling achieved through the addition of an ambient 
subcooling circuit is based on a specified subcooling target determined 
consistent with manufacturer interview feedback. The details of the 
ambient subcooling design option are further discussed in chapter 5 of 
the accompanying TSD.
    AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers seek further 
clarification on the head pressure design options: (1) If fixed head 
pressure is regulated by adding a head pressure control valve to the 
system for hot gas bypass; (2) if floating head pressure means a 
condenser that drops head pressure as a function of the ambient 
[temperature] with no external controls; and (3) if fan speed 
regulation is categorized as fan speed reduction or fan cycling based 
on head pressure. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 6) DOE assumes that in a 
system without floating head pressure controls (``fixed head 
pressure''), there would be no head pressure controls. This includes 
passive or active controls that would allow head pressure reductions at 
lower ambient temperatures. For systems with floating head pressure, 
DOE assumes the system would be equipped with a valve or a set of 
valves that would enable refrigerant gas to bypass the condenser coil 
and allow the system head pressure to float down at lower ambient 
temperatures. In this NOPR, DOE implemented two condenser fan control 
options: cycling fans and variable-speed fans. DOE assumed cycling 
condenser fans would cycle on and off at low ambient temperature to 
reduce fan power. DOE assumed that variable-speed fan controls were 
combined with appropriate motors and would reduce the fan's speed at 
lower ambient temperature to reduce fan power. The details of DOE's 
implementation of floating head pressure controls and condenser fan 
controls can be found in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.
    KeepRite commented that crankcase heaters use a small fraction of 
the energy used for compressors and fans and stated that controlling 
the crankcase heaters would only save a portion of that small fraction 
of energy. (KeepRite, No. 41 at p. 2) KeepRite added that some 
crankcase heater controls can reduce efficiency due to the current test 
procedure calculations. Id. DOE has tentatively determined that 
although crankcase heaters use less energy than other system 
components, crankcase heater controls can still reduce energy use of 
walk-in refrigeration units when tested according to the current test 
procedure in accordance with appendix C1.
    AHRI-Wine recommended that DOE consider 0.5-inch, R-2 insulation or 
equivalent for baseline thermal insulation and 1.5-inch, R-6 
insulation, or equivalent, for the increased thermal insulation design 
options. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 6) DOE considered this recommendation 
and data collected through high-temperature unit teardowns and has 
reduced the thermal insulation thickness for high-temperature units to 
be consistent with AHRI-Wine's recommendation. This is consistent with 
DOE's acknowledgment of the size-sensitive nature of the high-
temperature walk-in market, as thermal insulation thicker than 1.5 
inches would not be practical in many high-temperature applications.
    During manufacturer interviews conducted prior to this NOPR 
analysis, some manufacturers indicated that improvements to condenser 
fan blades did not effectively increase walk-in refrigeration system 
efficiency. DOE analyzed evaporator fan data as a proxy for condenser 
fan data and found no correlation between evaporator fan designs and 
evaporator efficiency. Based on the manufacturer interview feedback and 
the fan data analysis, DOE has tentatively determined that improving 
fan blade designs has no measurable effect on AWEF2 values. As such, 
DOE is not including improved condenser fan blades as a design option 
in this NOPR analysis.
    In summary, the dedicated condensing unit and single-packaged 
dedicated systems design options analyzed in this NOPR, and the 
equipment classes that they apply to, are listed in Table IV.16.

     Table IV.16--NOPR Analysis Refrigeration System Design Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Dedicated        Single-packaged
                                   condensing units    dedicated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Units.......................   Higher      Higher
                                   efficiency          efficiency
                                   compressors.        compressors.
                                   Improved    Higher
                                   condenser coil.     efficiency
                                   Higher      condenser fan
                                   efficiency          motors.
                                   condenser fan       Off-cycle
                                   motors.             evaporator fan
                                                       control.
                                                       improved
                                                       thermal
                                                       insulation.
Outdoor Units Only..............   Crankcase   Crankcase
                                   heater controls.    heater controls.
                                   Variable-   Variable-
                                   speed condenser     speed condenser
                                   fan control.        fan control.
                                   Ambient     Ambient
                                   subcooling.         sub-cooling.
                                   Head        Head
                                   pressure controls.  pressure
                                                       controls.
Medium- and Low-Temperature       ..................   Improved
 Units Only.                                           evaporator and
                                                       condenser coil.
                                                      
                                                       Hydrocarbon
                                                       refrigerants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60778]]

Baseline Efficiency
    For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as 
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from 
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The 
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics 
of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy 
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline 
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE set baseline efficiency 
levels for currently covered dedicated condensing units using the 
applicable minimum energy conservation standard. See 10 CFR 431.306. 
For equipment classes that were not analyzed in previous walk-in 
rulemakings (e.g., single-packaged dedicated systems, high-temperature 
single-packaged dedicated systems), DOE used product catalogs, feedback 
from manufacturer interviews, and testing to set the baseline at the 
lowest efficiency level commonly seen on the market today.
    The Efficiency Advocates requested clarification on the discrepancy 
between the baseline AWEF ratings in the engineering analysis and the 
current standards, stating that some dedicated condensing units in the 
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis have baseline efficiency levels both 
below and above the current standard levels. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 
37 at pp. 4-5) HTPG commented that no representative unit of single-
packaged dedicated systems meets the minimum AWEF of 7.6 for dedicated 
condensing systems after all design options are applied. (HTPG, No. 35 
at p. 3)
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE set baseline efficiency 
levels for dedicated condensing units with energy conservation 
standards at the current minimum standard level using the appendix C 
test procedure (see appendix C to Subpart R to 10 CFR 431). For 
example, for a medium-temperature, outdoor dedicated condensing unit, 
DOE determined which technology options would just meet the current 
AWEF standard of 7.6 Btu/W-h using the appendix C test procedure. Once 
units had their baseline design options set, DOE conducted the rest of 
the efficiency analysis using the appendix C1 test procedure to 
determine AWEF2 values for each efficiency level, including baseline. 
DOE notes that in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, efficiency value 
was labeled as ``AWEF,'' however, all efficiency values calculated in 
accordance with the appendix C1 test procedure were AWEF2 values, as 
defined in the appendix C1.
    Among other updates, appendix C1 includes additional off-cycle 
power measurements and accounts for single-packaged dedicated system 
thermal losses that are not included in appendix C. Therefore, the 
AWEF2 of a given representative unit tends to be lower than the AWEF 
for the same unit, which explains why AWEF2 for some baseline units was 
below current AWEF standards in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 
Single-packaged dedicated system AWEF2 values are generally more 
affected by the test procedure changes since appendix C1 accounts for 
thermal loss. As observed by HTPG, this could mean that even with all 
design options added, many single-packaged dedicated unit AWEF2 values 
do not meet current AWEF standards. DOE notes that the tested AWEF 
values for these units would meet the current AWEF standards. In 
contrast, some baseline dedicated condensing units did not require any 
additional design options to meet the current standard level. Using the 
appendix C1 test procedure, these baseline dedicated condensing units 
exceed the current standards.
    In this NOPR analysis, DOE maintained the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis baseline approach and set baseline efficiency levels for 
dedicated condensing systems analyzed in previous rulemakings by 
determining the combination of design options using the appendix C test 
procedure necessary to meet the current applicable minimum energy 
conservation standards for AWEF.
    AHRI-Wine suggested that DOE consider hermetic compressors for all 
wine cellar units with a capacity less than 9,000 Btu/h. (AHRI-Wine, 
No. 39 at p. 5) Based on feedback from high-temperature refrigeration 
manufacturers and a review of compressor catalogs, DOE has tentatively 
determined that high-temperature rotary compressors are readily 
available and are commonly used in high-temperature refrigeration 
systems above 5,000 Btu/h. DOE therefore assumed that the 7,000 Btu/h 
representative units would use a rotary compressor at baseline for this 
NOPR analysis. Consistent with AHRI-Wine's recommendation and DOE's 
review of product catalogs, DOE assumed hermetic compressors are used 
in 2,000 Btu/h high-temperature single-packaged dedicated systems at 
baseline.
    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis baseline 
discussion, HTPG commented that baseline for dedicated condensing units 
should include floating head pressure since many condensing units on 
the market utilize this design option to meet the current minimum AWEF. 
(HTPG, No. 35 at p. 5) AHRI commented that in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis, DOE assumed a higher head pressure than what is typically 
seen on the market. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 2). KeepRite stated that most 
units include a lower head pressure setting and any further reduction 
could have adverse effects and reduce operating efficiency. (KeepRite, 
No. 41 at pp. 1-2) Furthermore, KeepRite commented that flashing would 
occur from routing a liquid line through a warm area of a building 
unless the line is well insulated. Id. DOE found that manufacturers 
generally agreed with these statements during manufacturer interviews.
    Based on stakeholder feedback, DOE has adjusted the baseline head 
pressure control design option to allow head pressure to float down to 
150 pounds per square inch. Additionally, DOE assumed that liquid lines 
would be well insulated if routed through warm areas of a building. 
Details of DOE's procedure for determining baseline for each 
representative unit and modeling of head pressure controls are 
discussed in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.
Higher Efficiency Levels
    Consistent with the analysis for previous walk-in refrigeration 
system rulemakings (i.e., The June 2014 Final Rule and the July 2017 
Final Rule), in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE added the 
remaining applicable design options to each representative unit to 
determine efficiency levels above baseline. As discussed in the design 
option section, the increase in AWEF2 from each design option for each 
representative unit is calculated using appendix C1 and is calibrated 
using test data, stakeholder comments, and manufacturer interview 
feedback.
    In section ES.4.4 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 
requested comment on the efficiency levels that it evaluated.
    Hussmann-Refrigeration commented that efficiency levels beyond the 
baseline may not be attainable because many of the technology options 
that DOE considered in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis are already 
being implemented to achieve the current minimum AWEF. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 2) Based on its analysis, DOE notes that 
while most or all available design options are necessary to meet the 
baseline efficiency

[[Page 60779]]

level for some representative units, other representative units can 
achieve efficiencies higher than baseline with the application of the 
evaluated design options. DOE has validated its results through its own 
walk-in refrigeration system testing. Additionally, DOE's performance 
modeling of each design option in this analysis was developed with 
manufacturer feedback through manufacturer interviews. DOE has 
tentatively determined that the results of this analysis are 
representative of the units and technology currently available on the 
market and has therefore adopted the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
efficiency level approach in this NOPR.
    The Efficiency Advocates questioned why no meaningful energy 
savings occur for efficiency levels (corresponding to the variable-
speed condensing fan, ambient subcooling, and self-regulated crankcase 
heater control design options) above the baseline for the smallest 
representative unit for medium-temperature, outdoor, dedicated 
condensing units. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) The June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis showed that the variable-speed condensing fan and 
ambient subcooling design options were less effective at improving the 
energy efficiency of smaller capacity units. Additionally, the self-
regulated crankcase heater control design option reduced energy 
consumption and improved efficiency by only a small amount for all 
equipment classes. As such, these design options did not meaningfully 
improve the AWEF2 or reduce the energy consumption of the 9,000 Btu/h 
medium-temperature outdoor dedicated condensing representative unit. In 
this NOPR analysis DOE has revised its assumptions for these three 
design options based on manufacturer feedback received during 
interviews. With these modifications, these design options become more 
effective than what DOE presented in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis. Details of DOE's revised assumptions for these design options 
are discussed in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.
    AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers already optimize 
their units for efficiency, including heat exchanger coils with high 
density corrugated fins, rifled tubing, and circuiting optimized for 
specific operating points for wine cellar applications. (AHRI-Wine, No. 
39 at p. 4) AHRI-Wine also stated that it may be difficult for wine 
cellar manufacturers to reach higher efficiency levels because fewer 
technology options are available for smaller capacity units. (AHRI-
Wine, No. 39 at p. 3) Based on its analysis for this NOPR, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that there are design options that can be applied 
to baseline high-temperature units to improve their efficiency, such as 
electronically commutated condenser fan motors and crankcase heater 
controls. DOE also notes that several design options considered for 
medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-
packaged dedicated systems are not being considered for high-
temperature systems in this analysis, such as improved condenser and 
evaporator coils. Table IV.16 in the Design Options subsection of 
section IV.C.1.d shows the design options that apply to all units, 
including high-temperature units, and to medium- and low-temperature 
units only.
    For the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE developed correlations 
between fan power and the nominal capacity for units with different 
temperature and ducting configurations. See section 5.5.5.4 of chapter 
5 of the June 2022 preliminary TSD. In response to this analysis, AHRI 
requested clarification on DOE's approach for using fan watts as a 
function of nominal capacity and external static pressure. (AHRI, No. 
39 at p. 2) In this NOPR analysis, DOE built fan power models similar 
to those presented in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. These models 
are based on either unit capacity (from product catalogs and testing) 
or the ratio of condenser load to condenser temperature difference 
(from testing) and external static pressure for ducted units (from 
manufacturer's requests for waivers submitted to DOE).\33\ These models 
and the data they are based on are discussed in more detail in chapter 
5 of the accompanying TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ CellarPro Decision and Order, 86 FR 23702 (May 4, 2021); 
Air Innovations Decision and Order, 86 FR 26504 (May 14, 2021); 
Vinotemp Decision and Order, 86 FR 36732 (July 13, 2021); LRC Coil 
Interim Waiver 86 FR 47631 (Aug. 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI commented that reliability issues with maximum technology 
options could prove the maximum technology options to be unfeasible. 
(AHRI, No. 39 at p. 2) As previously discussed, the purpose of DOE's 
screening analysis is to remove technology options that may have a 
negative impact on equipment utility; therefore, DOE has tentatively 
determined that application of any design option, including all maximum 
technology design options, would not have a negative impact on 
equipment utility. The Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should 
ensure that the maximum technology efficiency levels are at least 
equivalent to the most efficient products on the market and pointed to 
certified models with AWEFs that exceed the maximum technology level in 
the June 2022 preliminary TSD for multiple walk-in refrigeration 
equipment classes. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at p. 5) DOE notes 
that the engineering analysis is based on design options that DOE has 
identified as available on the market and has shown, through analysis 
and/or testing, to increase dedicated condensing unit and/or single-
packaged dedicated system efficiency. DOE has tentatively concluded 
that some of the higher AWEF values reported in CCD are either not 
feasible or are not representative of the maximum technology options 
attainable for the entire market. This means that maximum technology 
AWEF2 values in this analysis may not reach the maximum AWEF levels in 
the CCD for some refrigeration equipment classes. The CCD efficiency 
distribution is discussed in detail in chapter 3 of the accompanying 
TSD.
    The specifics of modeling each design option are discussed in 
chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.
e. Unit Coolers
Refrigerants Analyzed
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE assumed R-404A in its 
analysis of medium- and low-temperature unit coolers and assumed R-134A 
in its analysis of high-temperature unit coolers. See section 2.4.3.2 
of chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE requested 
comment on whether the refrigerants it used in its analysis are 
representative of the current and future walk-in market in section 
ES.4.8 of the preliminary analysis TSD.
    In response, HTPG commented that it agrees with DOE using R-404A in 
its analysis of medium- and low-temperature unit coolers. (HTPG, No. 35 
at p. 6) AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers agree with 
DOE using R-134A for high-temperature unit coolers in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5)
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.d, there is an upcoming December 
2022 AIM NOPR that, if adopted as proposed, would require the use of 
lower GWP refrigerants for walk-in coolers and freezers. DOE notes that 
the primary concern about the transition to lower GWP refrigerants 
relative to the performance of refrigeration systems is the potential 
for higher refrigerant glide. As discussed in section IV.C.1.d of this 
document, glide has a differential impact for walk-in refrigeration 
systems since dedicated condensing units and

[[Page 60780]]

unit coolers are tested and rated separately. Increased refrigerant 
glide can decrease condensing unit performance, however, increased 
refrigerant glide does not decrease unit cooler performance. As such, 
there is limited concern that unit coolers would not be able to meet a 
proposed standard should the proposals in the December 2022 AIM NOPR be 
finalized. DOE is therefore basing its unit cooler NOPR analysis on the 
same refrigerants that it analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis--R-404A for medium- and low-temperature unit coolers and R-
134A for high-temperature unit coolers.
Representative Units
    As discussed in section 5.3.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
TSD, DOE analyzed the representative units listed in Table IV.17.

 Table IV.17--Representative Units Analyzed for Unit Coolers in the June
                        2022 Preliminary Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Temperature                     Class code         Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High.................................  UC.H..................      9,000
                                                                  25,000
Medium...............................  UC.M..................      9,000
                                                                  25,000
Low..................................  UC.L..................      9,000
                                                                  25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requested comment on the representative units analyzed in 
section ES.4.5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. HTPG 
commented that DOE should consider analyzing additional representative 
units to provide a broader range of capacities to help set standards as 
a function of capacity. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 5) Specifically, HTPG 
recommended analyzing medium- and low-temperature unit coolers at 
75,000 and 175,000 Btu/h. (Id.) AHRI also requested that DOE consider 
larger capacity representative units (also recommended in their comment 
to the WICF TP NOPR \34\), such as 72,000 Btu/h for unit coolers. 
(AHRI, No. 39 at pp. 2-3) Hussmann-Refrigeration and Lennox stated that 
they agree with AHRI's request for a larger capacity representative 
unit at 72,000 Btu/h for unit coolers. (Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 
at p. 3; Lennox, No. 36 at pp. 3-4) AHRI also recommended that DOE 
analyze ducted and non-ducted high-temperature unit coolers with 
capacities of 2,000 Btu/h, 9,000 Btu/h, and 25,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 39 
at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0010-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this NOPR analysis, DOE identified additional representative 
units for the medium- and low-temperature equipment classes based on 
stakeholder comments combined with the common units certified in the 
CCD. Specifically, DOE has added 3,000 Btu/h, 54,000 Btu/h, and 75,000 
Btu/h representative capacities for medium- and low-temperature unit 
coolers. DOE has tentatively concluded that for walk-in applications 
(total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet), unit 
cooler capacities would not exceed 75,000 Btu/h and therefore did not 
include a representative unit above 75,000 Btu/h. Similarly, DOE 
identified representative units for the high-temperature equipment 
classes based on stakeholder comments and a review of manufacturer 
literature. Ultimately, DOE has included ducted high-temperature unit 
coolers at 9,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h in this NOPR analysis.
    The unit cooler representative units analyzed in this NOPR analysis 
are listed in Table IV.18.

       Table IV.18--Representative Units Analyzed for Unit Coolers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Capacity
             Temperature                     Class code         (Btu/h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High (Non-Ducted)....................  UC.H..................      9,000
                                                                  25,000
High (Ducted)........................  UC.H.D................      9,000
                                                                  25,000
Medium...............................  UC.M..................      3,000
                                                                   9,000
                                                                  25,000
                                                                  54,000
                                                                  75,000
Low..................................  UC.L..................      3,000
                                                                   9,000
                                                                  25,000
                                                                  54,000
                                                                  75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Levels
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE defined efficiency 
levels using the design option approach. See section 5.2 of chapter 5 
of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
    In response to DOE's design options analysis, Lennox commented that 
it believes the potential for efficiency increases based on design 
options for evaporator coils and heat exchangers are relatively small 
and that improvements in evaporator coils should be cost-justified 
because they are capital intensive. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 4) DOE notes 
that in the engineering analysis, it considers both the efficiency and 
cost increases for each design option. These costs and efficiency gains 
are further analyzed in the downstream analyses where manufacturer 
capital expenditure is evaluated relative to potential standard levels. 
For more details on this analysis, see section IV.J of this document.
    Additionally, DOE received comments from stakeholders pertaining to 
the improved evaporator fan blade design option considered in section 
5.7.2.4 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Lennox 
commented that, based on its own experience, changing the evaporator 
fan blade does not increase a unit's efficiency. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 
3) AHRI commented that it believes changing fan blades would result in 
only minimal energy gains. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 2) In the manufacturer 
interviews that DOE conducted, most manufacturers agreed that improving 
evaporator fan blades has no measurable effect on unit cooler 
efficiency. Based on this feedback, DOE assumed that fans with improved 
blades were not an effective design option for improving the efficiency 
of walk-in refrigeration systems in this NOPR analysis.
    KeepRite commented that applying variable-speed evaporator fans can 
save energy during low load operation; however, since the system will 
run at a lower efficiency, the system must be designed to modulate the 
cooling capacity. (KeepRite, No. 41 at p.1) DOE notes that in the June 
2022 Preliminary Analysis, variable-speed evaporator fans were only 
analyzed as a design option for reducing off-cycle unit cooler fan 
power. DOE did not consider variable-speed fan controls that adjust the 
evaporator fan speed during the compressor on-cycle since on-cycle 
variable-speed evaporator fan control requires pairing to a condensing 
system that can modulate the cooling load sent to the evaporator to 
effectively save energy, and there is no guarantee that unit coolers 
will be paired with such condensing systems in the field. See section 
5.7.2.7 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In this 
NOPR analysis, DOE is not considering variable-speed evaporator fans as 
a design option to improve efficiency.
    The Efficiency Advocates requested clarification on why no 
meaningful energy savings occur when implementing a variable-speed 
evaporator fan and improved fan blades for low-temperature unit 
coolers. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) DOE notes that both the 
calculated AWEF and estimated energy consumption of low-temperature 
unit coolers include evaporator fan power, defrost power, estimated 
system power, and any ancillary power. Evaporator fan power makes up a 
limited proportion of the total energy a unit cooler consumes.

[[Page 60781]]

As such, design options that provide relatively small energy 
improvements relative to the overall energy use of a unit cooler (like 
improved evaporator fan blades and variable-speed evaporator fan 
controls) will have minimal impact on overall energy savings and 
reduction in AWEF.
    HTPG stated that it disagrees with DOE's design option analysis 
approach, since DOE did not recognize that most baseline units already 
include improved evaporator fan blades and variable-speed evaporator 
fans. (HTPG, No. 35 at pp. 2-5) Furthermore, HTPG commented that it 
does not believe unit cooler efficiency levels should be increased 
because the remaining technology options, excluding improved fan blades 
and variable-speed fans, would result in no efficiency increases. (Id.)
    DOE notes that in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, there were 
some unit cooler representative units that just met baseline with all 
design options, including improved fan blades and variable-speed fans, 
applied; however, DOE found that some units in the CCD at each 
representative capacity for medium- and low-temperature unit coolers 
are rated at a higher efficiency than baseline. Therefore, DOE has 
tentatively determined that the efficiency level of unit coolers could 
be increased beyond the current energy conservation standards.
    Based on additional market research and stakeholder comments, DOE 
switched to an efficiency level approach for medium- and low-
temperature unit coolers in this NOPR analysis. DOE has tentatively 
determined that this approach results in more accurate cost-efficiency 
curves, which are directly informed by the unit cooler market. To 
conduct this analysis, DOE constructed a database of medium- and low-
temperature unit coolers by combining CCD data and manufacturer product 
literature. Throughout this notice, this database is referenced as 
``the unit cooler performance database.'' The efficiency levels 
evaluated in this NOPR analysis for medium- and low-temperature units 
are not defined using design options but are based on the unit cooler 
performance database.
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE observed that in the 
unit cooler performance database there was a group of low- and medium-
temperature unit coolers with ratings at what appears to be a constant 
offset above the current standards. See section 3.2.4.4 in chapter 3 of 
the preliminary TSD. In response to DOE's finding, HTPG commented that 
DOE should be able to determine the constant offset that low- and 
medium-temperature unit coolers are rated above the current standards 
from product literature because disclosure of efficiency information in 
marketing materials is required by title 10 Code of Federal Regulations 
Part 431.305 Walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer labeling requirements. 
(HTPG, no. 35 at p. 2) DOE was not able to find product literature or 
marketing materials for the units in question and therefore was not 
able to confirm the AWEF ratings for this group of unit coolers 
certified in the CCD and did not consider them in its analysis. The 
most recent CCD efficiency distribution is discussed in more detail in 
chapter 3 of the accompanying TSD.
    Not including the group of unit coolers with ratings at what appear 
to be a constant offset above the current standards, the current CCD 
includes few unit coolers rated above baseline. However, after 
evaluating certified unit cooler capacities, DOE has tentatively 
determined that there are unit coolers on the market at efficiencies 
higher than baseline. As such, instead of modeling efficiency based on 
certified AWEF values, DOE calculated unit cooler AWEF in accordance 
with appendix C to subpart R using certified capacity, catalog fan 
power, and default defrost power calculations. Using the unit cooler 
performance database, DOE found that the primary design option in unit 
coolers on the market today to improve efficiency is an improved 
evaporator coil. Specifically, DOE found that adding tube rows to unit 
cooler evaporators increases capacity while keeping fan power constant, 
resulting in more efficient units.
    DOE was unable to construct a performance database for high-
temperature unit coolers since there are no high-temperature units 
certified in the CCD; therefore, DOE conducted a design option approach 
for high-temperature unit coolers. As discussed in section IV.B.2.b of 
this document, the design options remaining for unit coolers after 
screening are improved evaporator coil, improved evaporator fan blades, 
off-cycle evaporator fan control, and on-cycle evaporator fan control. 
As discussed previously in this section, DOE has tentatively determined 
that improved evaporator fan blades do not effectively improve unit 
cooler efficiency, and therefore DOE did not analyze improved 
evaporator fan blades as a design option for high-temperature unit 
coolers. Additionally, on-cycle evaporator fan control requires a 
condensing system that varies cooling load to the unit cooler and DOE 
is aware that not all high-temperature condensing systems are capable 
of this type of operation. As a result, DOE did not analyze on-cycle 
evaporator fan control as a design option for high-temperature unit 
coolers. The remaining design options for high-temperature unit coolers 
are improved evaporator coils and off-cycle evaporator fan controls.
    Details on DOE's methods for defining baseline efficiency and 
efficiency levels above baseline are discussed in the following 
sections and in more detail in Ch. 5 of the accompanying TSD.
Baseline Efficiency
    For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as 
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from 
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The 
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics 
of equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy 
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline 
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
    As discussed in section 5.6.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
TSD, DOE assumed that a baseline medium- or low-temperature unit would 
just meet the current energy conservation standards (see 10 CFR 
431.306). The analysis in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis evaluated 
which design option combinations would be needed to achieve the current 
standards.
    In response to this baselining approach, AHRI commented that DOE 
did not consider in its analysis that many manufacturers are already 
using variable-speed technology in their unit coolers. (AHRI, No. 39 at 
p. 2). KeepRite commented that most unit coolers include off-cycle fan 
control to meet the current standards. (KeepRite, No. 41 at p. 2) HTPG 
stated that it believes baseline unit coolers should include improved 
evaporator fan blades and variable-speed evaporator fans. (HTPG, No. 35 
at p.5) KeepRite stated that enhanced tubing and fin surfaces are 
already found in most evaporator and condenser coils. (KeepRite, No. 41 
at p. 2)
    DOE acknowledges that many baseline medium- and low-temperature 
unit coolers use variable-speed fans, improvements to fan blades, and 
optimized heat exchanger coils. While constructing the unit cooler 
performance database for this NOPR analysis, DOE found that all units 
included in the database used two-speed ECMs. DOE made no assumptions 
about baseline unit cooler technologies while constructing this 
database since

[[Page 60782]]

the performance benefits of different technologies should be apparent 
from the fan power and capacities of the unit. DOE found that baseline 
medium- and low-temperature unit coolers with a capacity less than 
25,000 Btu/h typically had two evaporator rows and baseline units with 
a capacity greater than 25,000 Btu/h typically had three evaporator 
tube rows. Table IV.19 lists representative units and the number of 
baseline evaporator tubes DOE used in its analysis.

Table IV.19--Baseline Medium- and Low-Temperature Unit Cooler Evaporator
                                Tube Rows
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Baseline
                   Temperature                     Capacity   evaporator
                                                   (Btu/h)    tube rows
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium..........................................      3,000            2
                                                      9,000            2
                                                     25,000            2
                                                     54,000            3
                                                     75,000            3
Low.............................................      3,000            2
                                                      9,000            2
                                                     25,000            2
                                                     54,000            3
                                                     75,000            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently no energy conservation standards for high-
temperature unit coolers; therefore, DOE could not use a current 
standard as the baseline for the high-temperature equipment classes. 
Instead, DOE used manufacturer literature to select baseline units that 
DOE has tentatively determined are representative of the baseline 
efficiency currently on the market. DOE determined potential design 
options applied to these units based on a review of manufacturer 
literature and feedback from high-temperature refrigeration system 
manufacturers. DOE validated the AWEF values used to define the high-
temperature baseline efficiency level through investigative testing.
Maximum Technology Levels
    In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE defined the maximum 
technology unit cooler as a unit cooler that includes all analyzed 
design options. See chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
TSD. As discussed in the Efficiency Levels subsection of section 
IV.C.1.e of this document, the baseline and maximum technology 
efficiency levels are the same for some unit coolers. However, DOE's 
reevaluation using the unit cooler performance database indicates that 
unit coolers at efficiencies higher than baseline are currently 
available in the market.
    To set the maximum technology level for medium- and low-temperature 
unit coolers in its NOPR analysis, DOE selected the highest efficiency 
unit cooler available for each representative capacity from the unit 
cooler performance database. As discussed previously, the highest 
efficiency unit coolers at each representative capacity corresponded to 
an increase in two evaporator tube rows. Table IV.20 lists the unit 
cooler representative units evaluated in the NOPR and the number of 
tubes used to reach the highest efficiency level.

 Table IV.20--Maximum Technology Medium- and Low-Temperature Unit Cooler
                          Evaporator Tube Rows
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
                                                   Capacity   technology
                   Temperature                     (Btu/h)    evaporator
                                                              tube rows
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium..........................................      3,000            4
                                                      9,000            4
                                                     25,000            4
                                                     54,000            5
                                                     75,000            5
Low.............................................      3,000            4
                                                      9,000            4
                                                     25,000            4
                                                     54,000            5
                                                     75,000            5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the high-temperature unit cooler analysis, DOE maintained the 
approach it used in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Specifically, 
it defined the maximum technology level as a representative unit with 
all the design options applied. As discussed in the unit cooler 
Efficiency Levels subsection of section IV.C.1.e of this document, the 
design options analyzed for high-temperature unit coolers were off-
cycle evaporator fan controls and improved evaporator coils. In this 
NOPR, a maximum technology high-temperature unit cooler includes both 
design options.
    Defining maximum technology levels for unit coolers is discussed in 
more detail in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.
Intermediate Efficiency Levels
    All medium- and low-temperature unit cooler representative 
capacities had baseline and maximum technology efficiency levels that 
differed by more than one tube row. DOE defined an efficiency level for 
each of these representative units at the number of tube rows between 
their baseline and maximum technology levels. For example, if the 
baseline has three tube rows and the maximum technology had five tube 
rows, DOE defined an intermediate efficiency level at four tube rows. 
DOE's analysis of the market suggested that manufacturers only use full 
tube rows and therefore, DOE only used whole number tube rows for the 
analysis. DOE determined the efficiency of these intermediate 
efficiency levels using data from the unit cooler performance database. 
DOE did not define intermediate efficiency levels for high-temperature 
unit coolers.
    Defining and determining the efficiency of intermediate efficiency 
levels is discussed in more detail in chapter 5 of the accompanying 
TSD.
2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the 
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Virtual teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams and spec 
sheets (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair 
websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the 
product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using physical 
teardowns supplemented with virtual teardowns.
    As discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document, DOE identified the 
energy efficiency levels associated with walk-in components using 
testing, market data, and manufacturer interviews. Next, DOE selected 
equipment for the physical teardown analysis having characteristics of 
typical equipment on the market at the representative capacity. DOE 
gathered information from performing a

[[Page 60783]]

physical teardown analysis to create detailed bill of materials 
(``BOMs''), which included all components and processes used to 
manufacture the equipment. DOE used the BOMs from the teardowns as 
inputs to calculate the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') for 
equipment at various efficiency levels spanning the full range of 
efficiencies from the baseline to the maximum technology available.
    During the development of the analysis for this NOPR, DOE held 
confidential interviews with manufacturers to gain insight into the 
walk-in industry and to request feedback on the engineering analysis. 
DOE used the information gathered from these interviews, along with the 
information obtained through the teardown analysis and public comments, 
to refine its MPC estimates for this rulemaking. Next, DOE derived 
manufacturer markups using data obtained for past walk-in rulemakings 
in conjunction with manufacturer feedback. The markups were used to 
convert MPCs into manufacturer sales prices (``MSPs''). Further 
information on comments received and the analytical methodology is 
presented in the following subsections. For additional detail, see 
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Teardown Analysis
    To assemble BOMs and to calculate the manufacturing costs for the 
different parts of walk-in components, DOE disassembled multiple 
envelope and refrigeration system units into their base parts and 
estimated the materials, processes, and labor required for the 
manufacture of each individual part, a process referred to as a 
``physical teardown.'' Using the data gathered from the physical 
teardowns, DOE characterized each part according to its weight, 
dimensions, material, quantity, and the manufacturing processes used to 
fabricate and assemble it.
    DOE also used a supplementary method, called a ``virtual 
teardown,'' which examines published manufacturer catalogs and 
supplementary component data to estimate the major physical differences 
between equipment that was physically disassembled and similar 
equipment that was not. For supplementary virtual teardowns, DOE 
gathered equipment data such as dimensions, weight, and design features 
from publicly available information, such as manufacturer catalogs.
    For parts fabricated in-house, the prices of the underlying ``raw'' 
metals (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are estimated on the basis of 5-year 
averages to smooth out spikes in demand. Other ``raw'' materials such 
as plastic resins, insulation materials, etc. are estimated on a 
current-market basis. The costs of raw materials are based on 
manufacturer interviews, quotes from suppliers, and secondary research. 
Past results are updated periodically and/or inflated to present-day 
prices using indices from resources such as MEPS Intl.,\35\ 
PolymerUpdate,\36\ the U.S. geologic survey (``USGS''),\37\ and the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS'').\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For more information on MEPS Intl, please visit: 
www.meps.co.uk/.
    \36\ For more information on PolymerUpdate, please visit: 
www.polymerupdate.com.
    \37\ For more information on the USGS metal price statistics, 
please visit www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/commodity-statistics-and-information.
    \38\ For more information on the BLS producer price indices, 
please visit: www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More information regarding details on the teardown analysis can be 
found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
b. Cost Estimation Method
    The costs of models are estimated using the content of the BOMs 
(i.e., materials, fabrication, labor, and all other aspects that make 
up a production facility) to generate the MPCs. For example, these MPCs 
consider cost contributions from overhead and depreciation. DOE 
collected information on labor rates, tooling costs, raw material 
prices, and other factors as inputs into the cost estimates. For 
purchased parts, DOE estimated the purchase price based on volume-
variable price quotations and detailed discussions with manufacturers 
and component suppliers. For fabricated parts, the prices of raw metal 
materials \39\ (i.e., tube, sheet metal) are estimated using the 
average of the most recent 5-year period. The cost of transforming the 
intermediate materials into finished parts was estimated based on 
current industry pricing at the time of analysis.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Fastmarkets, available at www.fastmarkets.com/amm-is-part-of-fastmarkets.
    \40\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Producer Price Indices, available at www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Manufacturing Production Costs
    DOE estimated the MPC at each efficiency level considered for each 
representative unit, from the baseline through the maximum technology 
and then calculated the percentages attributable to each cost category 
(i.e., materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead). These percentages 
are used to validate the assumptions by comparing them to 
manufacturers' actual financial data published in annual reports, along 
with feedback obtained from manufacturers during interviews. DOE uses 
these production cost percentages in the MIA (see section IV.J).
    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hussmann-Doors 
commented that the manufacturer production costs used in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis are about 30 percent lower for display, swinging, 
medium-temperature doors and 50 percent lower for display, swinging, 
low-temperature doors compared to its current door products. (Hussmann-
Doors, No. 33 at p. 4) Hussmann-Doors also commented specifically on 
its display door frames, stating that its structures use a new material 
that was developed to meet the DOE energy requirements that were set in 
2017 and that the material costs 1.5 times the cost of conventional 
materials on a per pound basis. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 4) Lennox 
commented that the MPC estimates are below current values. (Lennox, No. 
36 at p. 4)
    AHRI commented that it believes many assumptions for labor and time 
that contribute to MPCs are too low. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 3) Hussmann-
Refrigeration commented that it agrees with AHRI that the assumptions 
that contribute to MPCs are too low. (Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at 
p. 3) AHRI-Wine commented that it disagrees with the MPCs and MSPs due 
to the volatility of the market, supply chain issues, the dates that 
the efficiency standards will be implemented, and the volume of the 
wine cellar market. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 4)
    Based on stakeholder feedback, in preparing this NOPR DOE updated 
the labor costs that contribute to the MPC by increasing the hourly 
wages. Additionally, for refrigeration systems, DOE lowered the 
employee to supervisor ratio. DOE also sought feedback on costs during 
the most recent round of manufacturer interviews. DOE has incorporated 
the feedback received during these interviews and from stakeholder 
comments into its cost analysis for this NOPR. DOE has tentatively 
determined that the MPCs presented in this NOPR are representative of 
the current walk-in market.
d. Manufacturer Markup and Shipping Costs
    To account for manufacturer non-production costs and profit margin, 
DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The 
resulting MSP is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit 
into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by 
examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission

[[Page 60784]]

10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers whose combined 
product range includes walk-ins. DOE also relied on data published in 
the June 2014 Final Rule and information gathered from manufacturer 
interviews to develop the initial manufacturer markup estimates. See 
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD or section IV.J.2.d of this document for 
additional detail on the manufacturer markup.
    In response to the MSPs, KeepRite commented that larger coils would 
result in higher installation and shipping costs. (KeepRite, No. 41 at 
p. 2)
    DOE acknowledges that shipping costs account for additional non-
production cost for manufacturers to distribute their equipment to the 
first buyer in the distribution chain. In this NOPR analysis, DOE 
estimated a per-unit shipping cost for each representative unit at each 
efficiency level based on the size and weight of the given unit. Design 
options such as larger condenser coils resulted in larger per unit 
shipping costs due to the increased size and weight associated with the 
design option. These shipping costs were incorporated into consumer 
prices. Installation costs are discussed in section IV.F.3 of this 
document.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
efficiency curves in the form of maximum daily energy consumption (in 
kWh/day) versus MSP (in dollars) for doors, R-value (in h-ft\2\-[deg]F/
Btu) versus MSP (in dollars) for panels, and AWEF2 (in Btu/h) versus 
MSP (in dollars). The methodology for developing the curves started 
with determining the energy consumption for baseline equipment and MPCs 
for this equipment. For the equipment classes that used the design 
option approach, DOE implemented design options above baseline using 
the ratio of cost to savings and implemented only one design option at 
each efficiency level. Design options were implemented until all 
available technologies were employed (i.e., at a max-tech level). For 
the equipment classes that used the efficiency level approach, DOE 
increased the efficiency level using the ratio of cost to savings above 
baseline until the maximum efficiency level was reached. See chapter 5 
of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis and 
appendix 5B of the NOPR TSD for complete cost-efficiency results.
    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI requested 
further clarification on the cost-efficiency data in Tables 5A.5.22, 
5A.5.25, 5A.5.34, and 5A.5.35, particularly on how the AWEF values were 
determined and the cost differences between efficiency levels. (AHRI, 
No. 39 at p. 3). The cost-efficiency curves were determined using the 
cost and efficiency analyses. These are discussed in detail in chapter 
5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. The cost and efficiency 
analyses for this NOPR are described in sections IV.C.1 and IV.C.2 of 
this document, and in more detail in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP and shipping cost estimates 
derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then 
used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution 
channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business 
costs and profit margin.
    Regarding its markup analysis in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis, DOE received comments from AHRI and Lennox. AHRI responded 
that single-packaged dedicated systems are sold through the original 
equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') distribution channel more so than 
other walk-in refrigeration systems, where 75 percent of shipments are 
through OEMs, 15 percent are through refrigeration wholesalers, and the 
remaining 10 percent are spread across general contractor and equipment 
distributor. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 15) Lennox responded that its analysis 
of e-commerce channels for dedicated condensing equipment, unit coolers 
and single-packaged dedicated systems indicates these channels are 
primarily used to source used refurbished equipment. (Lennox, No. 36 at 
p. 5) Lennox stated that it believes single-packaged dedicated systems 
could have quicker adoption via e-commerce because of the nature of the 
equipment and its simpler application use, and that while e-commerce 
may be a factor in the future, dedicated condensing unit and unit 
cooler application require knowledgeable personnel to select and 
balance the equipment. Lennox further commented that with EPA's plans 
to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (``HFC'') emissions per the AIM Act, low-
GWP refrigerants including A2Ls and CO2 are expected to come 
into the market, which will increase the complexity of selecting walk-
in refrigeration equipment for customers, affecting the rate of e-
commerce adoption. (Id.)
    In response to AHRI, DOE notes that the distribution channels that 
were used in its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis are consistent with the 
values provided by AHRI and DOE has maintained these values in its NOPR 
analysis. DOE tentatively agrees with Lennox's position that the e-
commerce distribution channel is primarily used for refurbished/used 
equipment and that e-commerce may become a viable means of distribution 
of dedicated condensing and unit cooler equipment in the future. 
However, DOE notes that refurbished/used equipment are outside the 
scope of this rulemaking and are therefore not considered in this 
analysis and that future distribution through e-commerce is uncertain. 
Because of these uncertainties, DOE has not included the e-commerce 
distribution channel in this analysis and has maintained the approach 
used in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. However, DOE may consider 
including walk-ins e-commerce distribution channels in its analysis in 
a future rulemaking.
    DOE seeks comment on e-commerce distribution channels, including 
which types of walk-in equipment use this channel and the size of this 
channel.
    DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each agent in 
the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of 
equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are 
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental 
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to 
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or 
amended standards.\41\ In the context of this analysis, OEMs are mostly 
manufacturers of envelope insulation panels who may also sell entire 
walk-in units. Manufacturers of entire walk-in units assemble a 
combination of purchased and manufactured components at either the 
manufacturer's plant or at the customer site. Table IV.21 shows the 
distribution channels DOE defined for this analysis. Table IV.22 
summarizes the baseline markups and incremental markups developed for 
walk-in equipment. The markups shown in this table reflect national 
average values for the given markup. In the

[[Page 60785]]

subsequent LCC analysis, regional markup multipliers were developed and 
were used to capture regional variation in mechanical contractor 
markups as well as state-to-state differences in sales taxes. Also, in 
the LCC analysis, the relative shipments to new construction and to the 
replacement market vary by equipment class resulting in some slight 
differences between sales-weighted average baseline and average 
incremental markups by equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant 
equipment is typically higher than the price of baseline equipment, 
using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost 
would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an 
outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are 
reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

                                    Table IV.21--Distribution Channel Weights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Dedicated                                        Single-
                                    condensing                    Panels and non-    packaged      Unit coolers
      Distribution channel        units and unit   Display doors   display doors     dedicated     for multiplex
                                      coolers                                         systems            *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct (National Account).......            0.03            0.30            0.45  ..............            0.45
Contractors.....................            0.03            0.14            0.11             0.5            0.01
Distributors....................            0.34            0.56            0.44             0.5            0.05
OEM.............................            0.18  ..............  ..............            0.75            0.05
Wholesale.......................            0.42  ..............  ..............            0.15            0.45
Grand Total.....................            1.00            1.00            1.00            1.00            1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Unit coolers are sold into applications where they are connected to both dedicated, and multiplex condensing
  systems. While multiplex condensing systems are not currently with scope unit coolers connected to them are.


                              Table IV.22--Distribution Channel Shares and Markups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Baseline       Incremental
             Equipment class code                       Equipment family              markup          markup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.O........................................  DC..............................            2.03            1.37
DC.L.I........................................  DC..............................            2.03            1.37
DC.M.O........................................  DC..............................            2.03            1.37
DC.M.I........................................  DC..............................            2.03            1.37
UC.L..........................................  UC..............................            2.03            1.37
UC.M..........................................  UC..............................            2.03            1.37
UC.L--Multiplex...............................  UC..............................            1.98            1.46
UC.M--Multiplex...............................  UC..............................            1.98            1.46
FP.L..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
PS.L..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
PS.M..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
NM.L..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
NM.M..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
NO.L..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
NO.M..........................................  P and NDD.......................            1.32            1.19
DW.L..........................................  DD..............................            1.71            1.29
DW.M..........................................  DD..............................            1.71            1.29
SP.M.I........................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.M.O........................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.L.I........................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.L.O........................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.H.I........................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.H.O........................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.H.ID.......................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
SP.H.OD.......................................  SP..............................            1.53            1.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: DC = dedicated condensing unit; UC = unit cooler; P = panel, NDD = non-display door; DW = display door, SP
  = single-packaged dedicated system.

    After identifying the six distribution channels listed in Table 
IV.21, DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau \42\ and 
other sources \43\ to determine how prices are marked up as equipment 
is passed from the manufacturer to the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ U.S. Census Bureau. Electrical, Hardware, Plumbing, and 
Heating Equipment and Supplies: 2020. 2020. Washington, DC Report 
No. EC-02-421-17
    \43\ Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors 
International. 2012 Profit Report (2011 Data). 2012. Columbus, OH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of 
markups for walk-in coolers and freezers.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of walk-in coolers and freezers at different 
efficiencies in representative U.S. commercial buildings, and to assess 
the energy savings potential of increased walk-in efficiency. The 
energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use for walk-ins in 
the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers) stated as 
annual energy consumption (``AEC''). The energy use analysis provides 
the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of 
the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that 
could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
1. Trial Standard Levels
    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three trial standard 
levels (``TSLs'') for the considered walk-in doors, panels, and 
refrigeration systems. These TSLs were developed by combining specific 
efficiency levels for each of the equipment classes analyzed by DOE in 
the engineering analysis, as

[[Page 60786]]

discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document. DOE presents the results 
for the TSLs in this document by equipment type rather than by 
equipment class for brevity, while the results for all efficiency 
levels for each representative unit and equipment class that DOE 
analyzed are available in chapters 5, 8, and 10 of the NOPR TSD.
    To estimate the impacts of improved efficiency on walk-in envelope 
components (e.g., panels, doors), DOE must first establish the 
efficiencies and energy use of the connected refrigeration equipment; 
therefore, DOE is presenting the TSLs in this section of the document. 
By determining the TSL in the energy use analysis, DOE can estimate the 
impacts of specific, consistent policy scenarios across both walk-in 
refrigeration systems and envelope components. For this analysis DOE is 
examining three TSLs.
    TSL 3 is the efficiency levels that use the combination of design 
options for each representative unit at the maximum feasible 
technologically level.

Table IV.23--Envelope Components Efficiency Level by Representative Unit
                            Mapping for TSL 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Equipment class                           TSL 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L....................................................               2
DW.M....................................................               2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Non-display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM.L....................................................               5
NM.M....................................................               6
NO.L....................................................               5
NO.M....................................................               6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L....................................................               3
PS.L....................................................               2
PS.M....................................................               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Table IV.24--Refrigeration Systems Efficiency Level by Representative Unit Mapping for TSL 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Capacity  (kBtu/hr)
                   Equipment class                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2          3          6          7          9          25         54         75        124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Dedicated Condensing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I...............................................  .........          2  .........  .........          1          3          2  .........  .........
DC.L.O...............................................  .........          3  .........  .........          5          8          5          5  .........
DC.M.I...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          2          3          3  .........
DC.M.O...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          7          8          7          8          8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Single-packaged Dedicated Condensing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.H.I...............................................          2  .........  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.ID..............................................          2  .........  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.O...............................................          6  .........  .........          6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.OD..............................................          6  .........  .........          6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.L.I...............................................          7  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.L.O...............................................          4  .........          4  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.M.I...............................................          5  .........  .........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.M.O...............................................          9  .........  .........  .........          5  .........  .........  .........  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Unit Coolers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC.H.................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          1  .........  .........  .........
UC.H.ID..............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          1  .........  .........  .........
UC.L.................................................  .........          2  .........  .........          2          2          2          2  .........
UC.M.................................................  .........          2  .........  .........          2          2          2          2  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 2 is the combination of efficiency levels of all representative 
units where FFC is maximized while constrained to a positive NPV at a 
7-percent discount rate. For display doors (DW.L and DW.M) and for 
panels (PF.L, PS.L, and PS.M) there are no efficiency improvements that 
results in consumer benefits; therefore, the mapped ELs for this TSL 
remain at baseline (EL 0). In this proposed rule, the efficiency levels 
for non-display doors and structural panels at TSL 2 are constrained 
such that improvements to insulation are harmonized across non-display 
doors and structural panels to avoid a circumstance where DOE would 
propose a standard where one component would require increased 
insulation thickness, but not the other. Thus, the efficiency levels at 
TSL 2 are aligned to reflect design options where the insulation 
thickness is harmonized and results in positive NPV for both non-
display doors and structural panels. Aligning the insulation thickness 
of non-display doors and panels avoids a potential unintended 
consequence where the installation of replacement non-display doors 
could trigger the replacement of some, or all, of the attached walk-in 
enclosure panels because the thickness of the components do not match.
    DOE seeks comment on its assumptions and rationale for harmonizing 
panel and non-display door thicknesses at a given TSL.
    DOE notes that for refrigeration systems there are no such 
constraints and TSL 2 is evaluated by the strict criteria of maximum 
FFC with positive consumer NPV at a 7 percent discount rate. This 
results in a situation where the combination of ELs for TSL 2 for some 
equipment are at max-tech levels where others are not.

Table IV.25--Envelope Components Efficiency Level by Representative Unit
                            Mapping for TSL 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Equipment class                           TSL 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L...........................................................        0
DW.M...........................................................        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Non-display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM.L...........................................................        3
NM.M...........................................................        3

[[Page 60787]]

 
NO.L...........................................................        3
NO.M...........................................................        3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L...........................................................        0
PS.L...........................................................        0
PS.M...........................................................        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Table IV.26--Refrigeration Systems Efficiency Level by Representative Unit Mapping for TSL 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Capacity  (kBtu/hr)
                   Equipment class                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2          3          6          7          9          25         54         75        124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Dedicated Condensing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I...............................................  .........          1  .........  .........          0          2          1  .........  .........
DC.L.O...............................................  .........          2  .........  .........          3          7          4          3  .........
DC.M.I...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          0          1          2          2  .........
DC.M.O...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          2          3          3          3          3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Single-packaged Dedicated Condensing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.H.I...............................................          1  .........  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.ID..............................................          2  .........  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.O...............................................          5  .........  .........          5  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.OD..............................................          5  .........  .........          6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.L.I...............................................          4  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.L.O...............................................          0  .........          0  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.M.I...............................................          3  .........  .........  .........          1  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.M.O...............................................          7  .........  .........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Unit Coolers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC.H.I...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          0          0  .........  .........  .........
UC.H.ID..............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          1  .........  .........  .........
UC.L.................................................  .........          2  .........  .........          2          2          2          2  .........
UC.M.................................................  .........          2  .........  .........          2          2          2          2  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 1 is the combination of efficiency levels where NPV at a 7-
percent discount rate is maximized. Panels and non-display doors are 
subject to the same constraint as in TSL 2 that the design options for 
insulation thickness must result in positive NPV.

Table IV.27--Envelope Components Efficiency Level by Representative Unit
                            Mapping for TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Equipment class                           TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L...........................................................        0
DW.M...........................................................        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Non-display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM.L...........................................................        3
NM.M...........................................................        1
NO.L...........................................................        3
NO.M...........................................................        1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L...........................................................        0
PS.L...........................................................        0
PS.M...........................................................        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Table IV.28--Refrigeration Systems Efficiency Level by Representative Unit Mapping for TSL 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Capacity  (kBtu/hr)
                   Equipment class                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2          3          6          7          9          25         54         75        124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Dedicated Condensing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I...............................................  .........          1  .........  .........          0          2          1  .........  .........
DC.L.O...............................................  .........          2  .........  .........          3          5          3          3  .........
DC.M.I...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          0          1          2          2  .........
DC.M.O...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          2          3          3          2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Single-packaged Dedicated Condensing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.H.I...............................................          1  .........  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.ID..............................................          2  .........  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.H.O...............................................          4  .........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........

[[Page 60788]]

 
SP.H.OD..............................................          4  .........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.L.I...............................................          4  .........          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.L.O...............................................          0  .........          0  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.M.I...............................................          2  .........  .........  .........          1  .........  .........  .........  .........
SP.M.O...............................................          5  .........  .........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Unit Coolers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC.H.I...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          0          0  .........  .........  .........
UC.H.ID..............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          1  .........  .........  .........
UC.L.................................................  .........          1  .........  .........          2          1          2          1  .........
UC.M.................................................  .........          2  .........  .........          1          2          1          2  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Energy Use of Envelope Components
    DOE used the results of the engineering analysis to determine the 
annual electrical energy consumption of each walk-in envelope component 
(i.e., panels, non-display doors, and display doors). For panels, the 
AEC is calculated as the energy consumption per unit area of the panel 
for heat infiltration through the panel or door. For doors that use 
electricity directly from electricity-consuming components (i.e., 
lighting and/or anti-sweat heaters), DOE calculated the associated 
increased refrigeration load from the electricity-consuming components 
and added it to the total to obtain the daily refrigeration load. This 
refrigeration load was divided by the annual energy efficiency ratio 
(``AEER'') of the shipment-weighted average of refrigeration system 
equipment classes grouped by temperature rating to estimate the 
associated energy use. DOE multiplied the daily electrical energy 
consumption by the number of days per year to obtain the AEC. DOE then 
determined the total electrical energy consumption associated with each 
envelope component by (1) calculating the refrigeration energy 
consumption required to compensate for heat infiltration through the 
envelope based on the assumed connected refrigeration system, and (2) 
adding any direct electrical energy consumed by component. The 
refrigeration load was calculated by multiplying the U-factor for the 
component by the reference temperature difference between the exterior 
and the interior, as specified in the DOE test procedure.
    DOE notes that the energy savings from improved insulation or 
reduced heat infiltration would be realized as reduced load on the 
attached refrigeration systems; however, for the purpose of reporting 
savings to determine any potential amended standard, these energy 
savings are attributed to the individual envelope component in 
question.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its energy use analysis 
pertaining to envelope components and has therefore maintained its 
approach from the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

                                  Table IV.29--Applied AEERs by Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                 Equipment class                     Baseline    -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I..........................................            2.79            2.84            2.84            2.84
DC.L.O..........................................            4.10            4.16            4.18            4.82
DC.M.I..........................................            5.81            6.09            6.09            6.09
DC.M.O..........................................            8.02            8.74            8.74           10.81
SP.L.I..........................................            2.11            2.38            2.38            2.47
SP.L.O..........................................            3.30            3.30            3.30            3.98
SP.M.I..........................................            5.68            6.02            6.05            6.12
SP.M.O..........................................            7.80            8.23            8.25            9.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Energy Use of Refrigeration Systems
    DOE calculated the AEC of the refrigeration system assuming it is 
matched to a walk-in envelope with the appropriate refrigeration load. 
Further, DOE assumes that this refrigeration load is fixed in both the 
no-new standards and amended standards cases.
    The engineering analysis uses a design-option approach that, for 
each design-option combination, adds a feature that increases 
efficiency. Hence, equipment class can be represented by a group of 
efficiency level indicators matching the engineering design option.
    For each equipment class, the engineering analysis evaluates the 
performance of the dedicated condensing unit, unit cooler, or single-
packaged dedicated system, and for each representative capacity the 
performance data are passed to the energy use calculation. The data and 
equations used to calculate the annual energy use depend on the type of 
equipment and are available in chapters 7, 8, and associated appendixes 
of the NOPR TSD. The unit coolers that are not attached to dedicated 
condensing units are assumed to be paired with a compressor rack with 
constant net capacity; these are referred to as multiplex applications. 
Low-temperature unit coolers include the impact of energy consumption 
during the defrost cycle. For refrigeration systems, the net capacity 
is affected by the design options added, so at each efficiency level 
the run hours are adjusted to ensure that the amount of heat removed is 
constant across all efficiency levels. For outdoor systems, the 
compressor and condenser performance are also affected by ambient 
temperature, and this effect is

[[Page 60789]]

incorporated into the energy use calculation. Detailed equations and 
input data are presented for each equipment type in chapter 7 of the 
NOPR TSD.
a. Fan Power
    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented 
that refrigeration system fans would need to continuously operate when 
using A2L refrigerants to reduce the concentration of flammable 
refrigerants, which might result in the need for evaporator redesign. 
(AHRI, No. 39 at p. 5) DOE is not aware of a safety standard that 
requires continuous fan operation for systems using flammable 
refrigerants. As such, in this NOPR, DOE assumed the same fan operation 
for refrigeration systems using R-448A or R-449A and refrigeration 
systems using A2L refrigerants.
b. Nominal Daily Run Hours
    The daily run hours for baseline units are assumed to be 16 hours 
for medium- and high-temperature systems and 18 hours for low-
temperature systems based on guidelines typically used in sizing 
refrigeration systems. DOE assumed that systems were sized at design 
temperatures of 95 [deg]F for outdoor units and 90 [deg]F for indoor 
units. DOE also assumed an oversize factor of 20 percent is included, 
which has the effect of reducing the daily run hours by a factor of \1/
1.2\. These assumptions are unchanged from the June 2014 Final Rule and 
the July 2017 Final Rule. 79 FR 32083, 82 FR 31842. During the rest of 
the time, the system is in off-mode, so the only energy consumption is 
from the controls and evaporator fan.
    In section ES.4.13 of the Executive Summary of the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE requested comment on its approach for 
determining the energy use of walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE 
received comments from several stakeholder regarding daily run hours.
    Lennox stated that DOE's application of 16 hours per day run time 
is significantly low. (Lennox No. 36 at p. 6) Lennox also stated that 
WICF refrigeration systems must be properly sized with extended run 
times to ensure consistent temperature control to preserve the products 
within. Lennox additionally commented that Heatcraft engineering manual 
guidelines exist for a range of applications and that Heatcraft 
guidelines for high-temperature rooms and unit coolers are based on 
prep room applications where there is a higher level of outside air-
infiltration that increases the box loads. Lennox stated that Heatcraft 
Run Time Guidelines are as follows:
     35 [deg]F room with no timer: 16 hours,
     35 [deg]F room with timer: 18 hours,
     Blast coolers/freezers with positive defrost: 18 hours,
     Storage freezer 20 hours,
     25 to 34 [deg]F coolers with hot gas or electric defrost 
20-22 hours, and
     50 [deg]F rooms and higher with coil temperatures above 32 
[deg]F: 20-22 hours.
    (Id.)
    Additionally, AHRI commented that some of its members stated that 
some high-temperature unit coolers and high-temperature single-packaged 
equipment would estimate the run time closer to 20 hours and requested 
clarification on how the 16-hour per day nominal run time was 
determined. (AHRI No. 39 at p. 4), Hussmann-Refrigeration agreed with 
AHRI and stated that 20 hours is the appropriate nominal run time hours 
for high-temperature single-packaged equipment. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 4)
    In response to Lennox, DOE notes that the run time guidelines they 
provided are specifically for determining the box cooling load for 
prep-room applications. DOE further notes that these guidelines 
encompass equipment not currently covered by the standard. In the June 
2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE adopted the run time hours from previous 
analyses and stakeholder negotiations, in which they have been a 
central non-contentious modeling assumption. 79 FR 32083, 81 FR 63008, 
82 FR 31846. The benefit of using these single point values is that 
they simplify an already complicated analysis. DOE notes that using a 
single point assumption for all equipment types may not capture the 
wide range of ways walk-ins are used in the field. DOE has the 
technical capability to include a distribution of run time values 
weighted by different walk-in applications; however, DOE does not have 
either data or information with enough detail from which to construct 
such a distribution.
    In response to AHRI and Hussmann-Refrigeration and their request 
for background on why DOE applied 16 hours as the nominal run time 
hours for high-temperature single-packaged condensing systems and unit 
coolers, DOE presented this number in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis as a modeling assumption because the intended cooling 
temperature of high-temperature equipment is similar to that of medium-
temperature systems at 35 [deg]F.
    Additionally, AHRI commented that it agreed with the 16-hour per 
day run time for single-packaged equipment. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 4) HTPG 
agreed with the daily nominal run time hours per day for low and 
medium-temperature single-packaged equipment. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 6) 
NAFEM also confirmed that the run times used in the previous rulemaking 
are still representative. (NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 2)
    For this NOPR, DOE is maintaining its modeling assumption of 16 
hours per day of nominal daily run hours for high-temperature equipment 
and maintaining its modeling assumptions from the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis for all other classes. However, in its subgroup analysis, DOE 
will examine high-temperature equipment where the nominal run time is 
20 hours per day to approximate consumers with walk-ins with high warm 
air-infiltration (e.g., prep-rooms) as a separate consumer subgroup 
analysis. See section IV.I. DOE's applied run time hours are shown in 
Table IV.30.

              Table IV.30--Applied Nominal Daily Run Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Temperature                            Hrs/day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low..........................................................         18
High.........................................................         16
Medium.......................................................         16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks information and data from which to create representative 
distributions of run time hours for different walk-in refrigeration 
equipment and temperature classes.
4. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption

                           Table IV.31--Annual Energy Consumption Estimates for Panels
                                              [kWh/year per ft\2\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Equipment class                     Baseline          TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L............................................             5.8             5.8             5.7             4.0
PS.L............................................             9.5             9.4             9.4             5.2
PS.M............................................             2.3             2.2             2.2             1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60790]]


                           Table IV.32--Annual Energy Consumption Estimates for Doors
                                                   [kWh/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Equipment class                     Baseline          TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L............................................           2,698           2,668           2,663           2,120
DW.M............................................             775             765             762             523
NM.L............................................           3,796           1,318           1,316           1,118
NM.M............................................           1,239             554             281             212
NO.L............................................           5,320           2,049           2,045           1,678
NO.M............................................           1,738             835             462             339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table IV.33--Annual Energy Consumption Estimates for Refrigeration Systems
                                                   [kWh/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Equipment class                     Baseline          TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I..........................................          26,420          25,917          25,917          25,887
DC.L.O..........................................          40,791          40,254          40,090          34,729
DC.M.I..........................................          12,178          11,621          11,621          11,615
DC.M.O..........................................          17,720          17,478          17,303          13,147
SP.H.I..........................................           2,275           2,035           2,035           1,999
SP.H.ID.........................................           3,897           3,258           3,258           3,258
SP.H.O..........................................           3,184           2,935           2,795           2,746
SP.H.OD.........................................           5,264           4,607           4,139           4,127
SP.L.I..........................................           6,624           5,880           5,880           5,653
SP.L.O..........................................           8,535           8,535           8,535           7,077
SP.M.I..........................................           6,360           6,006           5,983           5,907
SP.M.O..........................................           5,963           5,645           5,636           4,816
UC.H............................................           4,666           4,666           4,666           4,613
UC.H.ID.........................................           6,948           6,519           6,519           6,519
UC.L............................................          45,993          43,845          43,190          43,190
UC.M............................................          17,333          16,895          16,785          16,785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides further details on DOE's energy 
use analysis for walk-ins.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
walk-ins. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on 
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and 
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to 
measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of walk-ins in the absence of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given 
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
commercial consumers. As stated previously, DOE developed household 
samples from the 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 
(``CBECS 2018'').\44\ For each sample, DOE determined the energy 
consumption for the walk-ins and the appropriate energy price. By 
developing a representative sample of commercial consumers, the 
analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy 
prices associated with the use of walk-ins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Commercial 
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2018, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and 
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to 
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and 
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created 
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales 
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 
uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the 
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from 
the probability distributions and walk-ins user samples. The model 
calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level per simulation 
run. The analytical results include a distribution of 30,000 data 
points for refrigeration systems and 10,000 data points for envelope 
components, showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency 
level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In 
performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation

[[Page 60791]]

for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its 
probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal 
to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC 
calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard 
level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient 
products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing 
product efficiency.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of walk-ins as if each 
were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required 
compliance with new or amended standards. Amended standards would apply 
to walk-ins manufactured three years after the date on which any new or 
amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)(B)(i)) At this 
time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2024; therefore, for 
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance 
with any amended standards for walk-ins.
    Table IV.34 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 
of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

 Table IV.34--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost.................  Derived by multiplying MPCs by
                                manufacturer and retailer markups and
                                sales tax, as appropriate. Used
                                historical data to derive a price
                                scaling index to project product costs.
Installation Costs...........  Baseline installation cost determined
                                with data from RS Means. Assumed no
                                change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use............  The total annual energy use multiplied by
                                the buildings containing WICF.
                               Variability: Based on the CBECS 2018.
Energy Prices................  Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861 data
                                for 2021.
                               Variability: Regional energy prices
                                determined for 9 divisions.
Energy Price Trends..........  Based on AEO2023 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs.  Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime.............  Average: between 9 and 12 years.
Discount Rates...............  Approach involves identifying all
                                possible debt or asset classes that
                                might be used to purchase the considered
                                appliances, or might be affected
                                indirectly. Primary data source was the
                                Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
                                Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date..............  2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
  mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
  table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Equipment Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described 
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for 
baseline products and higher-efficiency equipment because DOE applies 
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
    DOE examined historical producer price index (``PPI'') data for 
commercial refrigerators and related equipment manufacturing available 
between 1978 and 2021 from the BLS.\45\ Even though this PPI series may 
also contain prices of refrigeration equipment other than walk-ins, 
this is the most disaggregated price series that are representative of 
walk-ins. DOE assumes that this PPI is a close proxy to historical 
price trends for walk-ins. The PPI data reflect nominal prices, 
adjusted for product quality changes. The inflation-adjusted (deflated) 
price index for commercial refrigerators and related equipment 
manufacturing was calculated by dividing the PPI series by the Gross 
Domestic Product Chained Price Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Product series ID: PCU3334153334153. Available at: 
www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has observed a spike in the trend of annual real prices between 
2021 and 2022. However, when the PPI is examined at a month-by-month 
level, the nominal PPI from 2022 through 2023 appears to be leveling 
off. Specifically, the monthly PPI data in Table IV.35 shows the 
Observation Value increasing from a value of 339 in January 2022 to a 
value of 375 through July 2022; thereafter the Observed Value increases 
slightly to 378 in February 2023 (emphasis added). As of the 
publication of this NOPR, the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price 
Index was not available for 2023; therefore, DOE was unable to include 
data for the year 2023 in this NOPR. These data will be monitored by 
DOE. If a trend in the data appears prior to publication of the final 
rule, DOE will apply it. Additionally, the engineering analysis was 
conducted in 2022 and captures this increase in terms of walk-in 
equipment prices. DOE notes that it has captured the impact of this 
spike, if it were realized, as a constant increase in real prices in 
the low economic price scenario results shown in section V.C.

     Table IV.35--Excerpt From PPI Industry Data for Air-Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Forced Air Heating
    Equipment Mfg-Refrigeration Condensing Units, All Refrigerants, Except Ammonia (Complete), Not Seasonally
                                                    Adjusted
                                              [ID PCU3334153334155]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Observation
                     Year                           Period                    Label                    value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022..........................................             M01  2022 Jan........................             339
2022..........................................             M02  2022 Feb........................             339
2022..........................................             M03  2022 Mar........................             348

[[Page 60792]]

 
2022..........................................             M04  2022 Apr........................             356
2022..........................................             M05  2022 May........................             356
2022..........................................             M06  2022 Jun........................             366
2022..........................................             M07  2022 Jul........................             375
2022..........................................             M08  2022 Aug........................             375
2022..........................................             M09  2022 Sep........................             376
2022..........................................             M10  2022 Oct........................             375
2022..........................................             M11  2022 Nov........................             376
2022..........................................             M12  2022 Dec........................             376
2023..........................................             M01  2023 Jan........................             377
2023..........................................             M02  2023 Feb........................             378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received no comments on its future price trend methodology in 
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. For this analysis, DOE maintained 
the same approach for determining future equipment prices as in the 
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and assumed that equipment prices would 
be constant over time in terms of real dollars, i.e., constant 2022 
prices.
2. Consumer Sample
    DOE conducts its analysis in support of a potential new minimum 
efficiency standard at the National level. This means that DOE must 
distribute its sample of consumers of walk-in equipment throughout the 
Nation to capture variability of key inputs of walk-ins operation. 
Specifically, for the annual energy use estimate, DOE is concerned 
about distributing the population of walk-in installations across 
different regions to capture variability in equipment installation 
saturations and electricity prices, which will impact the operating 
cost of the equipment. This distribution of installations is referred 
to as the ``consumer sample.'' For this analysis DOE used data supplied 
by AHRI and CBECS to estimate the number of walk-in installations by 
sector and Census Division. The weights of each representative unit by 
sector are shown in Table IV.36 through Table IV.38.\46\ These weights 
show that dedicated condensing systems are evenly spread across all 
sectors, with small business sectors limited to smaller capacity 
equipment, additionally, single-packaged dedicated condensing systems 
are limited to the small business sectors and concentrated in the food 
service sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ A full breakdown of the consumer sample showing the 
distribution of equipment by Census Division can be found in 
appendix 8E of the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Lennox requested 
more detail on the ``Large Other'' sector distribution versus other 
sectors, especially when compared to the food service sector, which has 
a much lower sector distribution in the TSD.
    The other categories, both small and large, are used by CBECS as a 
catchall for buildings with primary building activities that are not 
defined within specific categories. In this analysis, DOE defines a 
small business as one of less than 3000 ft\2\ of floorspace, and a 
large business as one greater than 3000 ft\2\ floorspace. When 
examining CBECS for buildings containing walk-in coolers and freezers 
(RFGWIN6), DOE found the count of walk-in installations in the other 
category to be substantial, leading DOE to conclude that these are 
installed in grocery sections of ``big box'' retail properties, which 
do not have a category in CBECS.
    HTPG disagreed with DOE's selection of unit capacity values for the 
respective equipment classes in Table 8.2.1 and Table 8.2.2 of the June 
2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, stating that the range of values is too 
narrow and does not provide a valid representation of the distribution 
of WICF into the various sectors. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 7) HTPG also 
disagreed with DOE's weighting values reflected in the table for large 
and small food sales, food service and other sectors for the range of 
unit capacities selected, commenting that the smaller capacity units 
would dominate the small sectors with a very low weighting in the large 
sectors; however, HTPG stated that DOE's data reflects just the 
opposite distribution. HTPG commented that properly understanding the 
distribution requires viewing the entire product line with a set of 
broader capacity ranges in the various sectors. (Id.)
    As discussed above, and shown in Table IV.36 through Table IV.38, 
DOE has estimated the installation of walk-in coolers and freezers 
across several business categories and sizes, and has tried to 
concentrate the installation of smaller capacity walk-ins into small-
sized business. The large weight of walk-ins attributed to large other 
is a result of the large quantity of walk-in installations found in 
CBECS. Further, for this NOPR, DOE has increased the number of 
representative capacities within each equipment class to better reflect 
the size of the equipment distributed in commerce. See section IV.C.1 
for a more detailed discussion regarding the selection of analyzed 
equipment.
    Lennox commented that in section 8.2.1.1, bullet 2a of the June 
2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE explains how the proportion of walk-
in boxes across medium- and low-temperature applications was 
determined. Lennox commented that, based on stakeholder input, DOE 
assumed that the relative proportion of coolers to freezers is \2/3\ to 
\1/3\. (Lennox, No. 36 at pp. 6-7) Lennox further commented, however, 
that DOE displays two equations in that section to conclude its number 
of coolers and freezes by building type using the same ratio ``\2/3\,'' 
instead of ``\2/3\'' on one and ``\1/3\'' on the other, which can be 
assumed to be the split to achieve 100 percent; Lennox stated that this 
looks like a clerical oversight, which DOE should address. (Id.) 
Further, the CA IOUs noted that most indoor walk-in dedicated 
condensing units are part of single-packaged dedicated systems, and for 
the low-temperature, indoor category (778), a total of 1,631 indoor 
models, or 11 percent of the 15,008 dedicated

[[Page 60793]]

condensing system listings, exist in CCMS. The CA IOUs stated that, for 
comparison, in food service, generally about one third of walk-ins are 
freezers while two-thirds of walk-ins are coolers. (CA IOUs, No. 17 at 
p. 8)
    To clarify, in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the 
ratios of \2/3\ medium-temperature and \1/3\ low-temperature to split 
the market of coolers and freezers in its economic analysis. DOE has 
maintained this ratio in the NOPR analysis.

                                          Table IV.36--Consumer Sample and Weights--Dedicated Condensing Units
                                                                           [%]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Sector                                            Capacity (kBtu/hr)
             Equipment class             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Cat.                         Size                3        9        25       54       75      124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I..................................  Other......................  Large......................       23       18        4       10  .......  .......
                                                                       Small......................        1        1        0        0  .......  .......
                                          Sales......................  Large......................        4        3        1        2  .......  .......
                                                                       Small......................        3        3        1        0  .......  .......
                                          Service....................  Large......................        5        4        1        2  .......  .......
                                                                       Small......................        7        6        1        0  .......  .......
DC.L.O..................................  Other......................  Large......................        7       25        7        5       14  .......
                                                                       Small......................        0        2        0        0        0  .......
                                          Sales......................  Large......................        1        4        1        1        2  .......
                                                                       Small......................        1        4        1        0        0  .......
                                          Service....................  Large......................        1        6        1        1        3  .......
                                                                       Small......................        2        8        2        0        0  .......
DC.M.I..................................  Other......................  Large......................     * 12       30        7        4        0  .......
                                                                       Small......................      * 1        2        0        0        0  .......
                                          Sales......................  Large......................      * 2        5        1        1        0  .......
                                                                       Small......................      * 2        4        1        0        0  .......
                                          Service....................  Large......................      * 3        6        1        1        0  .......
                                                                       Small......................      * 4        9        2        0        0  .......
DC.M.O..................................  Other......................  Large......................      * 3       30        9        2        6        6
                                                                       Small......................      * 0        2        1        0        0        0
                                          Sales......................  Large......................      * 1        5        2        0        1        1
                                                                       Small......................      * 0        4        1        0        0        0
                                          Service....................  Large......................      * 1        7        2        0        1        1
                                                                       Small......................      * 1        9        3        0        0        0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For this NOPR DOE is not considering the impacts of representative units DC.M.I and DC.M.O at the 3 kBtu/hr capacity (see the Representative Units
  subsection of section IV.C.1.d). However, these capacities persist within the consumer sample as they are still distributed in commerce, and the
  impacts for the fraction of these equipment must be accounted for when determining overall costs and benefits for DC.M.I and DC.M.O as equipment
  classes even if efficiency improvements are not being considered for these specific capacities.


                   Table IV.37--Consumer Sample and Weights--Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
                                                       [%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Sector                           Capacity (kBtu/hr)
         Equipment class          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cat.                  Size            2        6        7        9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.H.I...........................  Other...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............       74  .......       26  .......
SP.H.ID..........................  Other...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............       74  .......       26  .......
SP.H.O...........................  Other...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............       22  .......       78  .......
SP.H.OD..........................  Other...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0  .......        0  .......
                                                         Small..............       22  .......       78  .......
SP.L.I...........................  Other...............  Large..............        0        0  .......  .......
                                                         Small..............        9        4  .......  .......
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0        0  .......  .......
                                                         Small..............       19        9  .......  .......
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0        0  .......  .......
                                                         Small..............       41       18  .......  .......
SP.L.O...........................  Other...............  Large..............        0        0  .......  .......
                                                         Small..............        3        9  .......  .......
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0        0  .......  .......
                                                         Small..............        7       21  .......  .......
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0        0  .......  .......

[[Page 60794]]

 
                                                         Small..............       15       45  .......  .......
SP.M.I...........................  Other...............  Large..............        0  .......  .......        0
                                                         Small..............        3  .......  .......       10
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0  .......  .......        0
                                                         Small..............        6  .......  .......       22
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0  .......  .......        0
                                                         Small..............       14  .......  .......       46
SP.M.O...........................  Other...............  Large..............        0  .......  .......        0
                                                         Small..............        1  .......  .......       12
                                   Sales...............  Large..............        0  .......  .......        0
                                                         Small..............        2  .......  .......       26
                                   Service.............  Large..............        0  .......  .......        0
                                                         Small..............        3  .......  .......       56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table IV.38--Consumer Sample and Weights--Unit Coolers
                                                       [%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Sector                             Capacity (kBtu/hr)
        Equipment class        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cat.              Size           3        9        25       54       75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC.H.I *......................  Other............  Large...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                                   Small...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                Sales............  Large...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                                   Small...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                Service..........  Large...........  .......       30       11  .......  .......
                                                   Small...........  .......       43       16  .......  .......
UC.H.ID.......................  Other............  Large...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                                   Small...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                Sales............  Large...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                                   Small...........  .......        0        0  .......  .......
                                Service..........  Large...........  .......       30       11  .......  .......
                                                   Small...........  .......       43       16  .......  .......
UC.L.I........................  Other............  Large...........       18       16        4       14        0
                                                   Small...........        1        1        0        1        0
                                Sales............  Large...........        3        3        1        3        0
                                                   Small...........        3        2        1        2        0
                                Service..........  Large...........        4        3        1        3        0
                                                   Small...........        6        5        1        5        0
UC.L.M........................  Other............  Large...........        2       21       28        8        8
                                                   Small...........        0        0        0        0        0
                                Sales............  Large...........        0        4        5        1        1
                                                   Small...........        0        0        0        1        1
                                Service..........  Large...........        0        5        6        2        2
                                                   Small...........        1        0        0        2        2
UC.L.O........................  Other............  Large...........        6       22        7        7       10
                                                   Small...........        0        1        0        0        1
                                Sales............  Large...........        1        4        1        1        2
                                                   Small...........        1        3        1        1        2
                                Service..........  Large...........        1        5        2        2        2
                                                   Small...........        2        7        2        2        3
UC.M.I........................  Other............  Large...........       10       27        8        7        0
                                                   Small...........        1        2        1        0        0
                                Sales............  Large...........        2        5        1        1        0
                                                   Small...........        1        4        1        1        0
                                Service..........  Large...........        2        6        2        1        0
                                                   Small...........        3        9        2        2        0
UC.M.M........................  Other............  Large...........        2       29       19        8        8
                                                   Small...........        0        0        0        0        0
                                Sales............  Large...........        0        5        3        1        1
                                                   Small...........        0        0        0        1        1
                                Service..........  Large...........        0        6        4        2        2
                                                   Small...........        1        0        0        2        2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For unit coolers, the index I, O, and M indicate that the unit cooler is connected to an Indoor, Outdoor, or
  Multiplex condensing system.

    AHRI commented that it maintains that a small fraction of panels 
are installed outdoors (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 17) For this analysis, DOE 
maintained the approach it used in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
and did not consider panels and doors installed outdoors in this NOPR 
analysis.
3. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from 
RSMeans 2023 \47\ (``RSMeans'') to estimate the baseline installation 
cost for walk-in coolers and freezers. The information from RSMeans did 
not indicate that installation costs would be impacted

[[Page 60795]]

with increased efficiency levels over the baseline for all the designs 
options considered in the engineering analysis (see section IV.C.1). As 
such, installation costs were not included in the June 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Reed Construction Data, RSMeans Facilities Maintenance & 
Repair 2013 Cost Data Book, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI, HTPG, Lennox, and Hussmann-Refrigeration disagreed with DOE's 
assumption that installation costs are not a function of efficiency and 
stated that characteristics necessary for efficiency gains, like 
additional sensors, control systems and technologies, will affect 
installation and manufacturing cost of units. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 4; 
HTPG, No. 35 at p. 8; Lennox, No. 36 at p. 8; Hussmann-Refrigeration, 
No. 38 at p. 5)
    DOE tentatively agrees with concerns from AHRI, HTPG, Lennox, and 
Hussmann-Refrigeration that the inclusion of sensors and controls at 
increased efficiency levels would increase the cost of equipment 
installation (and commissioning) over the baseline. Therefore, in the 
standards case, for this analysis DOE is asserting that the cost of 
installing will not change with equipment efficiency with the exception 
of improvements to controls. As this rulemaking covers walk-in 
equipment where each type of equipment is considered a package unto 
itself, and any control or sensor improvement would be part of said 
package; therefore, there would be no additional costs for control 
installation, but there would be additional costs for control 
configuration prior to equipment commissioning. For this analysis, DOE 
examined RSMeans for the cost of control configuration and added the 
following installation costs where equipment has the following design 
option (see section IV.C.1 of this document). RSMeans shows that the 
amount of time to configure most controls is half-hour of labor, while 
for variable-capacity HVAC drives--used as a proxy for variable-
capacity refrigeration compressors--the amount of labor is two hours. 
DOE assumed the average nonunion shop rate to be $154 (2022$) per 
hour.\48\ In instances where multiple improvements were applied to a 
single equipment sub-system, (e.g., crank case heating controls: CCHC1 
and CCHC2), DOE only included a single control configuration cost. DOE 
did not find any evidence that control configuration scales with 
equipment capacity and did not include any additional control 
configuration costs related to equipment costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See: series: 230953103620 and 230953103680.

    Table IV.39--Example Installation Costs by Design Option for Low-Temperature Dedicated Condensing Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Additional         Total
           Equipment class             kBtu/hr      EL         Design option       installation   installed cost
                                                                                     cost ($)           ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I..............................          3        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  EC....................              77              77
                                                       2  CMPVS.................             308             385
                                              9        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CMPVS.................             308             308
                                             25        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CD2...................               0               0
                                                       2  EC....................              77              77
                                                       3  CMPVS.................             308             385
                                             54        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CD2...................               0               0
                                                       2  CMPVS.................             308             308
DC.L.O..............................          3        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CCHC1.................              77              77
                                                       2  CCHC2.................               0              77
                                                       3  CMPVS.................             308             385
                                              9        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CCHC1.................              77              77
                                                       2  CCHC2.................               0              77
                                                       3  VSCF..................              77             154
                                                       4  ASC...................               0             154
                                                       5  CMPVS.................             308             462
                                             25        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CCHC1.................              77              77
                                                       2  CCHC2.................               0              77
                                                       3  CCF...................               0              77
                                                       4  EC....................              77             154
                                                       5  VSCF..................               0             154
                                                       6  CD2...................               0             154
                                                       7  ASC...................               0             154
                                                       8  CMPVS.................             308             462
                                             54        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CCHC1.................              77              77
                                                       2  CCHC2.................               0              77
                                                       3  VSCF..................              77             154
                                                       4  ASC...................               0             154
                                                       5  CMPVS.................             308             462
                                             75        0  Baseline..............               0               0
                                                       1  CCHC1.................              77              77
                                                       2  CCHC2.................               0              77
                                                       3  VSCF..................              77             154

[[Page 60796]]

 
                                                       4  ASC...................               0             154
                                                       5  CMPVS.................             308             462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, HTPG commented that structures may be required to 
mount products, and increased piping sizes to reduce pressure drop and 
additional control wiring may be necessary for higher efficiency 
products, which will increase cost. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 8) Lennox 
commented that increase in the product physical size is due to larger 
heat exchangers and larger equipment could require more costly building 
structure support as well as increased rigging costs. (Lennox, No. 36 
at p. 8)
    Neither HTPG nor Lennox provided data or information on the rate at 
which installation would require new structures or showing that more 
efficient equipment would require more costly building structures or 
rigging costs, or any other details to support their claims. In this 
analysis, DOE is not considering a purchasing shift to larger 
capacities (see section IV.G of this document) but is considering like-
for-like capacity installations between the no-new standards and 
standards cases. As such, DOE did not include any further installation 
costs for refrigeration systems.
    Brooks stated that per 2021ICC (IBC) section 2603.4.1.2 and 
2603.4.1.3, cooler and freezer walls--if up to a maximum of 10 inches 
thick--must have a covering of steel (0.4 mm) or aluminum (0.8mm) and 
be protected by an automatic sprinkler system.\49\ (Brooks, No. 34 at 
p. 2) Brooks further stated that for installations less than 4 inches 
thick and WICF less than 400 ft\2\ in non-sprinklered buildings, the 
foam must have a metal facing of aluminum (0.81mm) or non-corrosive 
steel (0.41mm). (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ International Codes Council, International Building Codes, 
2018, codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018P6/chapter-26-plastic#IBC2018P6_Ch26_Sec2603.4.1.2 (Last accessed: March 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes the fire code requirements indicated by Brooks and 
has added $0.50 per ft\2\ of installation cost for panels with greater 
than 4 inches of insulation thickness to cover the cost of facing the 
panel with non-corrosive steel.
4. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each consumer from the consumer sample (see section IV.F.2 of 
this document), DOE determined the energy consumption for walk-ins of 
the different efficiency levels determined in the engineering analysis 
(see section IV.C.1 of this document) for each TSL (see section IV.E.1 
of this document) using the approach described previously in section 
IV.E of this document.
5. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE 
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product 
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices 
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other 
efficiency levels considered.
    DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from Edison 
Electric Institute's Typical Bills and Average Rates 
reports.50 51 Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide 
surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric 
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by 
investor-owned utilities. For the commercial sector, DOE calculated 
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and 
Beraki (2019).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and Average 
Rates--Summer 2022, December 2022, ISBN: 978-1-938066-04-7.
    \51\ Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and Average 
Rates--Winter 2022, June 2022, ISBN: 978-0-931032-88-2.
    \52\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this NOPR DOE maintained the methodology it used in the July 
2021 Preliminary Analysis where electricity prices to vary by sector 
and region. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices is 
chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy 
use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis for walk-ins. DOE 
derived average and marginal annual non-residential (commercial and 
industrial) electricity prices using data from EIA's Form EIA-861 
database (based on ``Annual Electric Power Industry Report''),\53\ 
Edison Electric Institute's Typical Bills and Average Rates Reports, 
and information from utility tariffs. Electricity tariffs for non-
residential consumers can be very complex, with the principal 
difference from residential rates being the incorporation of demand 
charges. The presence of demand charges means that two consumers with 
the same monthly electricity consumption may have very different bills, 
depending on their peak demand. For this analysis, DOE used marginal 
electricity prices to estimate the impact of demand charges for 
consumers of walk-ins and EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2023 
(``AEO2023'') to estimate future energy prices (see section IV.F.5.a of 
this document). DOE developed discount rates from estimates of the 
finance cost for consumers and commercial businesses that purchase 
walk-ins. More detail on the methodology of use to calculate the 
marginal electricity rates can be found in appendix 8B of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.

[[Page 60797]]



             Table IV.40--Marginal and Average Electricity Prices by Census Division and Sector Size
                                                   [2022$/kWh]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Marginal
                             Sector                                   Region          Average       electricity
                                                                                    electricity        price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Food Sales................................................               1           0.155           0.128
Large Food Service..............................................               1           0.155           0.128
Large Other.....................................................               1           0.155           0.128
Small Food Sales................................................               1           0.175           0.156
Small Food Service..............................................               1           0.175           0.156
Small Other.....................................................               1           0.175           0.156
Large Food Sales................................................               2           0.091           0.072
Large Food Service..............................................               2           0.091           0.072
Large Other.....................................................               2           0.091           0.072
Small Food Sales................................................               2           0.119           0.116
Small Food Service..............................................               2           0.119           0.116
Small Other.....................................................               2           0.119           0.116
Large Food Sales................................................               3           0.104           0.084
Large Food Service..............................................               3           0.104           0.084
Large Other.....................................................               3           0.104           0.084
Small Food Sales................................................               3           0.129           0.116
Small Food Service..............................................               3           0.129           0.116
Small Other.....................................................               3           0.129           0.116
Large Food Sales................................................               4           0.123           0.101
Large Food Service..............................................               4           0.123           0.101
Large Other.....................................................               4           0.123           0.101
Small Food Sales................................................               4           0.151           0.140
Small Food Service..............................................               4           0.151           0.140
Small Other.....................................................               4           0.151           0.140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Future Electricity Prices
    To estimate energy prices in future years in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis, DOE multiplied the 2021 energy prices by the 
projection of annual average price changes for each of the nine census 
divisions from the Reference case in AEO 2022, which has an end year of 
2050.\54\ To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE assumed constant 
real prices at the 2050 rate. In section ES.4.17 of the Executive 
Summary of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE requested 
comment on its assumed average and marginal electricity costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. 
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed February 13, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI disagreed with the analysis that real electricity price will 
decrease to 2050 but agrees that average and marginal electricity 
prices will increase to 2050. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 4) Hussmann-
Refrigeration agrees with the views of the other AHRI members on the 
matter of electricity costs. (Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at pp. 4-
5)
    HTPG agreed with the costs in Table ES.3.18 of the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis TSD. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 7) HTPG stated that the 
costs seem in line with the electrical cost of $0.1063/kWh stated in 
ASHRAE 90.1, but that the trend illustrated in Electricity Price Factor 
Projections (Figure 8.3.2), with the cost going down year over year, 
does not seem reasonable. HTPG stated that according to the U.S. Energy 
Information Administration (EIA), electricity prices have increased 1.8 
percent per year in the United States for the past 25 years. HTPG 
commented that with the phase out of fossil fuels and the process of 
replacing technologies that use fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural 
gas) with technologies that use electricity as a source of energy, the 
demand for electricity should go up year over year driving prices up 
even further, not down. (Id.)
    Lennox stated that DOE's estimate of average and marginal 
electricity costs up to year 2050 (using as reference the AEO 2022 
projection) appears logical. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 8)
    In response to commenters on DOE's future electricity price trend 
from the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE notes that it uses the 
most current price trends developed by EIA for its AEO. For the 2022 
publication, future commercial electricity prices were shown to have a 
slight decrease, in terms of real dollars, over the time period of 2027 
through 2050.\55\ For this NOPR analysis DOE has applied the most 
recent AEO (AEO2023) which shows a similar, slight downward trend as in 
the 2022 publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed April 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product 
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, 
small incremental increases in product efficiency entail no, or only 
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline 
efficiency products.
    AHRI, HTPG, Hussmann-Refrigeration, Lennox, and KeepRite disagreed 
with DOE's assumption that repair and maintenance costs are not a 
function of efficiency and stated that the various technologies to make 
the unit more efficient will affect these costs. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 4; 
HTPG, No. 35 at p. 7; Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 4; KeepRite, 
No. 41 at p. 3)
    For this analysis, DOE has revised its maintenance and repair cost 
assumptions. DOE notes that the quantity of walk-in refrigeration 
equipment sold above the current standard is very small. This has 
resulted in an absence of repair or maintenance data from which DOE can 
determine an informed methodology. In the absence of such data, DOE has 
made the simple modeling assumption consumers would pay an additional 
10 percent per year of equipment MSP in the standards and no-new-
standards cases for each maintenance and repair.

[[Page 60798]]

    Lennox stated that hot gas defrost requires additional piping, 
which will also increase maintenance and repair costs. Lennox stated 
that it understands DOE has screened out this technology from this 
analysis but these costs must be considered if hot gas is considered. 
(Lennox, No. 36 at p. 6) DOE is not considering the cost or benefits of 
adaptive defrost technologies, such as hot gas defrost, in this 
analysis.
    DOE requests any comment, data, and sources of information for the 
maintenance and repair costs of walk-in coolers and freezers with the 
technologies described in IV.C.
7. Equipment Lifetimes
    For walk-ins, DOE used lifetime estimates from the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis.
    Because the basis for the lifetime estimates in the literature for 
walk-in equipment is uncertain, DOE used distributions to estimate the 
lifetimes of walk-in systems and envelope components in the field. The 
resulting survival function, which DOE assumed has the form of a 
cumulative Weibull distribution, provides an average and median 
appliance lifetime. DOE used different Weibull distributions to 
estimate the lifetimes for similar equipment types. In the July 2021 
RFI, DOE presented the following list of the average of the lifetime 
distributions of WICF equipment used in this analysis, shown in Table 
IV.41. 86 FR 37687, 37702.
    Additionally, DOE maintained its modeling assumption of a minimum 
service lifetime of 2 years for all equipment classes. This reflects 
the fact that many units are purchased with a warranty that effectively 
guarantees that the unit will remain in operation during the warranty 
period.
    Table IV.41 shows the average and maximum lifetimes for walk-in 
envelope components and refrigeration systems.

                                  Table IV.41--Lifetimes for Walk-In Equipment
                                                     [Years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        WICF equipment lifetimes (years)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                      Equipment category                           Panels and      Non-display    Refrigeration
                                                                 display doors        doors         equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Lifetime..............................................               12             8.5             10.5
Maximum Lifetime..............................................               25              12               20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this analysis, DOE maintained the lifetimes from the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis.
8. Discount Rates
    The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are 
discounted to estimate their present value. DOE employs a two-step 
approach in calculating discount rates for analyzing customer economic 
impacts (e.g., LCC). The first step is to assume that the actual cost 
of capital approximates the appropriate customer discount rate. The 
second step is to use the capital asset pricing model (``CAPM'') to 
calculate the equity capital component of the customer discount rate. 
For this NOPR, DOE estimated a statistical distribution of commercial 
customer discount rates of walk-in consumers, by calculating the cost 
of capital for the different types of walk-in owners.
    DOE's method views the purchase of a higher efficiency appliance as 
an investment that yields a stream of energy cost savings. DOE derived 
the discount rates for the LCC analysis by estimating the cost of 
capital for companies that purchase walk-ins. For private firms, the 
weighted average cost of capital (``WACC'') is commonly used to 
estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical 
company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity 
capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted 
average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing, as 
estimated from financial data for publicly traded firms in the sectors 
that purchase distribution transformers.\56\ As discount rates can 
differ across industries, DOE estimates separate discount rate 
distributions for a number of aggregate sectors with which elements of 
the LCC building sample can be associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Previously, Damodaran Online provided firm-level data, but 
now only industry-level data is available, as compiled from 
individual firm data, for the period of 1998-2018. The data sets 
note the number of firms included in the industry average for each 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received no comments on its discount rate methodology and 
analysis and maintained its approach for this NOPR. See chapter 8 of 
the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of consumer 
discount rates.
9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a 
potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency 
level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market 
shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (i.e., 
the case without amended or new energy conservation standards).
    To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of walk-ins for 
2027, DOE used information provided from stakeholder in response to the 
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and records from DOE's CCMS database. 
The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for walk-in 
coolers and freezers panels and doors are shown in Table IV.42. See 
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further information on the derivation of 
the efficiency distributions.
    Lennox stated that it has yet to observe customer demand for higher 
efficiency walk-in equipment (dedicated condensing systems, unit 
coolers, and single-packaged units) versus equipment meeting the base 
walk-ins standard. While there is potential for higher efficiency 
product demand, consumers are buying the base walk-in equipment that 
meets the minimum standard levels. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 7)
    Regarding refrigeration systems, for this analysis, DOE tentatively 
agrees with the statement from Lennox stating that while more efficient 
equipment designs are possible to manufacture, there is little market 
for them. For refrigeration systems, DOE has made the modeling 
assumption that all walk-in coolers and freezers refrigeration systems 
would be at baseline in the no-new-standards case. However, for non-
display doors and panels, DOE did apply the rates of more efficient 
designs found in DOE's CCMS database.\57\ DOE related the fraction of 
designs in the

[[Page 60799]]

CCMS database to the different panel and non-display doors efficiency 
levels based on the percentage reduction in daily energy consumption 
(kWh/day). (see sections IV.C.1.b and IV.C.1.c of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U. S. Department of Energy. Compliance Certification 
Database. 2023. https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 
(Last accessed: February 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges that its application of the equipment information 
available in CCMS is not consistent over the different equipment types 
covered in this analysis; however, DOE has found that the resulting 
distribution of efficiencies for envelope components and refrigeration 
systems is a close reflection of the overall sales of efficient 
equipment disclosed to DOE during confidential manufacturer interviews.

    Table IV.42--Distribution of Efficiencies in the No-New Standards Case for Panel and Non-Display Doors by
                                                Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Equipment class
          Efficiency level          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NM.L       NM.M       NO.L       NO.M       PF.L       PS.L       PS.M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................       0.48       0.20       0.85       0.12       0.34       0.64       0.49
1..................................       0.14       0.18       0.07       0.08       0.48       0.25       0.30
2..................................       0.17       0.53       0.08       0.71       0.13       0.11       0.21
3..................................       0.17       0.09       0.00       0.09       0.06       0.00       0.00
4..................................       0.04       0.00       0.00       0.00  .........  .........  .........
5..................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00  .........  .........  .........
6..................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00  .........  .........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency 
distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the walk-in coolers 
and freezers purchased by each sample consumer in the no-new-standards 
case. The resulting percent shares within the sample match the market 
shares in the efficiency distributions.
10. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period (``PBP'') is the amount of time (expressed in 
years) it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost 
of more-efficient products, compared to baseline products, through 
energy cost savings. PBPs that exceed the life of the product mean that 
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced 
operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE 
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes 
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same 
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer will be less than three times the value 
of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable test procedure, when purchasing a 
product in compliance with an energy conservation standard level. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure 
and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection 
for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be 
required.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\58\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market 
shares of each equipment class and the vintage of units in the stock. 
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age 
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age 
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to 
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any 
year depend on the age distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate projected shipments of each equipment type, DOE uses a 
two-step approach. In the first step, the annual shipments of completed 
walk-in installations (hereafter referred to as ``boxes'') of all types 
are calculated using a stock model, whose principal inputs are 
commercial floor space projections and the average lifetime of a walk-
in box. In the second step, the various types of refrigeration systems 
and envelopes are partitioned over the shipments of the entire market 
for boxes.
    DOE modeled the shipments of walk-in boxes to three commercial 
building sectors: food sales, food service and other. Projections of 
the growth in floor space for each of these sectors are taken from the 
Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (AEO2023) \59\ Reference case. To estimate 
the lifetime of walk-in boxes, DOE used the distribution from the LCC 
(see chapter 8 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 
Outlook 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shipments of walk-in coolers and freezers are driven by new 
purchases and stock replacements due to failures. In each year, the 
model calculates total stock by vintage and then estimates the number 
of units that will fail. The number of units that fail determines the 
replacement shipments in that year. Shipments to new installations are 
determined by the market saturation (number of boxes per square foot) 
multiplied by the new floor space constructed in that year. As walk-in 
boxes have been in use for several decades, DOE assumed that market 
saturations are constant.
    AHRI commented that it has seen a shift in volume estimates towards 
larger equipment for WICFs but cannot provide justification as to why 
and need more time to review. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 4) Hussmann-
Refrigeration commented that it supports AHRI's comment (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 4)
    DOE notes that the comments from AHRI and Hussmann-Refrigeration 
regarding a growth trend in the overall capacity of walk-in 
refrigeration equipment is of interest and could be incorporated into 
its shipments and downstream analysis, provided that specific details 
can be determined. DOE would need to know if this shift in capacity 
toward larger equipment affects

[[Page 60800]]

all refrigeration systems (i.e., dedicated condensing systems, unit 
coolers, or single-packaged condensing systems) and all applications 
and temperature classes (i.e., indoor/outdoor or low-, medium- or high-
temperature equipment). Additionally, DOE would need information as to 
whether this trend toward higher capacity equipment will come at the 
expense of small capacity equipment and, if so, which capacities 
specifically. If DOE were to apply a capacity growth trend to its 
existing analysis with the information provided by AHRI, without 
further details, it could result in an overstatement of benefits as 
larger capacity equipment are showing greater potential benefits.
    For this analysis, DOE continued to maintain the constant market 
shares for refrigeration equipment as presented in the June 2022 
Preliminary Analysis.
    DOE requests information or data to characterize a shift toward 
larger capacity equipment in its analysis. DOE seeks information about 
the represented units, customer types (food service, food sales, 
other), and business sizes effected.
    Additionally, AHRI, Hussmann-Refrigeration, and HTPG commented that 
DOE's initial shipments estimates were overstated. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 5; HTPG, No. 35 at p. 8; AHRI, No. 39 at p. 
5)
    AHRI, Hussmann-Refrigeration, and HTPG did not specify which 
shipment they found to be overstated. However, DOE notes that in the 
July 2022 public meeting (EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0026), it had 
mislabeled the metric of shipments for refrigeration systems on slide 
number 35 as the number of physical units shipped, and that in fact it 
should have been labeled capacity shipped in kBtu/hr; DOE notes this 
may be the cause of the appearance of inflated shipments. DOE's initial 
shipment estimates are shown in section IV.G.2 of this document.
1. Price Elasticity
    Economic theory suggests that changes in the price of walk-in 
components resulting from this standard could potentially affect the 
number of shipments due to the price elasticity of demand. This might 
take the form of either a decrease in shipments in cases where purchase 
costs increase or an increase in shipments in cases where life-cycle 
costs decrease. But this general economic theory applies differently in 
different contexts and, based on the information available to DOE, 
indicates that shipments will not be meaningfully affected by the 
proposed rule.
    Lennox commented on DOE's assumption that a decrease in shipments 
would be unlikely in the walk-in market due to potential new standards. 
(Lennox, No. 36 at p. 8) Lennox supported DOE's modeling assumption 
that future shipments would either not be affected, or would only be 
marginally affected, by new standards as long as the standards were 
``reasonable'' and cost-justified by consumers. (Id.) However, DOE 
notes that Lennox did not specifically quantify what a ``reasonable'' 
and cost-justified level would be. The levels proposed in this analysis 
show positive economic benefits for consumers (see section V.B.1.a for 
LCC results) and the Nation as whole.
    For this analysis, DOE continues to use the assumption in the June 
2022 Preliminary Analysis that a decrease in shipments is unlikely in 
the walk-in market. In addition, DOE observes that changes in 
purchasing behavior are unlikely due to the essential nature of the 
equipment and the lack of available substitutes. Moreover, the 
substantial savings to consumers over the lifetime of the equipment is 
expected to positively affect consumer purchasing incentives. Based on 
these considerations, and the lack of contradictory information, DOE 
continues to assume that the shipments do not change between the base 
case and standards case.
2. Shipments Results

                         Table IV.43--Projected Shipments of WICF Boxes for Select Years
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                          Food sales     Food service        Other           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................          24,488          34,423          91,740         150,652
2031............................................          24,867          35,339          94,367         154,573
2035............................................          25,865          37,502          99,254         162,621
2039............................................          26,528          39,052         103,269         168,850
2043............................................          27,402          41,017         108,051         176,470
2047............................................          28,071          42,559         112,600         183,229
2051............................................          28,749          44,072         116,556         189,378
2056............................................          28,881          44,367         117,358         190,605
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\60\ 
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being 
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard 
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments, 
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data 
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, 
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of walk-ins sold from 
2027 through 2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE 
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    DOE uses a model to calculate the energy savings and the national 
consumer costs and savings from each TSL. The NIA spreadsheet model 
uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as 
inputs.

[[Page 60801]]

    Table IV.44 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows 
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details.

   Table IV.44--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments....................  Annual shipments from shipments model.
Compliance Date of Standard..  2027.
Efficiency Trends............  Constant.
Annual Energy Consumption per  Annual weighted-average values are a
 Unit.                          function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                function of cost at each TSL.
                                Incorporates projection of future
                                product prices based on historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit..  Annual weighted-average values as a
                                function of the annual energy
                                consumption per unit and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost    Annual values do not change with
 per Unit.                      efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends..........  AEO2023 projections (to 2050) and
                                constant thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and     A time-series conversion factor based on
 FFC Conversion.                AEO2023.
Discount Rate................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year.................  2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.F.9 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered equipment classes for the year of anticipated compliance 
with an amended or new standard. To project the trend in efficiency 
absent amended standards for walk-in coolers and freezers over the 
entire shipment's projection period, DOE maintained constant 
efficiencies.
    DOE used the shipments-weighted energy efficiency distribution for 
2027 (the assumed date of compliance with a new standard) as a starting 
point. To represent the distribution of walk-in energy efficiencies in 
2027, DOE used the same market shares as used in the no-new-standards 
case for the life-cycle cost analysis (see section IV.C.1.a). The 
approach is further described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market 
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard 
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
    To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2027, DOE assumed 
that efficiency would remain constant.
2. National Energy Savings
    The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy 
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards 
case (``TSL'') and the case with no new or amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by 
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or 
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated 
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for 
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. 
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and 
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy 
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site 
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2023. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the 
timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the equipment due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any 
data on the rebound effect specific to walk-ins. Further, due to the 
nature of the walk-ins used in commercial applications, those using the 
equipment would not likely have knowledge of the equipment's efficiency 
and would not likely alter their usage behavior based on the 
equipment's efficiency. Because of this, DOE has not applied a rebound 
effect for this analysis.
    In a statement of policy published on August 18, 2011 (``August 
2011 Statement of Policy''), in response to the recommendations of a 
committee on ``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches 
to Energy Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of 
Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use 
and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses 
and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281. After evaluating the approaches discussed in 
the August 2011 Statement of Policy, DOE published a statement of 
amended policy on August 17, 2012 in which it explained its 
determination that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is 
the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use 
NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701. NEMS is a public domain, multi-
sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \61\ that 
EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural 
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to 
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The 
approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is 
described in appendix 10A of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm (last accessed 
April 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (i.e., energy costs and repair and maintenance 
costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of 
costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the 
difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in 
terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in 
installed

[[Page 60802]]

costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each 
product shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed 
walk-in price trends based on historical PPI data. DOE applied the same 
trends to project prices for each equipment class at each considered 
TSL. DOE did not receive comments on its future price trend methodology 
as presented in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis; as such, DOE 
maintained constant real prices throughout this analysis. DOE's 
projection of product prices is described in appendix 10C of the NOPR 
TSD.
    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend 
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price 
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for walk-ins in 
addition to the default price trend. DOE considered two product price 
sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on the period 
between 2005 and 2021 showing a price increase of 1.29 percent a year, 
and (2) a low price decline case based on the period between 1978 and 
2004 showing a price decline of 0.56 percent per year. The derivation 
of these price trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are 
described in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
    The energy cost savings are calculated using the estimated energy 
savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of 
energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 
average National energy prices by the projection of annual National-
average commercial energy price changes in the Reference case from 
AEO2023, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 
2050, DOE used constant real prices at 2050 levels. As part of the NIA, 
DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs from variants of the 
AEO2023 Reference case that have lower and higher economic growth. 
Those cases have lower and higher energy price trends compared to the 
Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in 
appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
    In considering the consumer welfare gained due to the direct 
rebound effect, DOE accounted for change in consumer surplus attributed 
to additional cooling from the purchase of a more efficient unit. 
Overall consumer welfare is generally understood to be enhanced from 
rebound. The net consumer impact of the rebound effect is included in 
the calculation of operating cost savings in the consumer NPV results. 
For walk-ins, DOE found no evidence that a rebound effect occurs and 
did not apply a rebound effect for this analysis.
    DOE requests comments on its assumption that there is no rebound 
effect for walk-in coolers and freezers.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\62\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in 
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are 
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value 
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society 
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. (last accessed February 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed 
the impacts of the considered standard levels on the following two 
subgroups:
1. High Warm Air-Infiltration Applications
    In response to comments discussed in section IV.E.3.b of this 
document, DOE is including a subgroup to approximate the impacts for 
business where walk-ins are operated in environments with higher warm 
air-infiltration. This would have the effect of putting a greater 
cooling load on the refrigeration equipment, thus increasing run hours. 
For this subgroup DOE has assumed 20 daily run hours for all 
refrigeration system equipment.
    The results of this analysis can be found in Table V.51, Table 
V.52, and Table V.53, which show increased benefits for, in terms of 
LCC savings, for all equipment. This is a direct result of the 
increased hours of operation.
2. Small Businesses
    This analysis used subsets of the CBECS 2018 sample composed of 
businesses that are small business in the consumer sample (see section: 
IV.F.2 of this document). DOE used the LCC and PBP model to estimate 
the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. DOE 
used adjusted electricity costs and discount rates to better reflect 
these costs experienced by small businesses.

                               Table IV.45--Electricity Costs for Small Businesses
                                                   [2022$/kWh]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Sector                                   Region          Average        Marginal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Food Sales................................................               1           0.175           0.156
Small Food Service..............................................               1           0.175           0.156
Small Other.....................................................               1           0.175           0.156
Small Food Sales................................................               2           0.119           0.116
Small Food Service..............................................               2           0.119           0.116
Small Other.....................................................               2           0.119           0.116
Small Food Sales................................................               3           0.129           0.116
Small Food Service..............................................               3           0.129           0.116
Small Other.....................................................               3           0.129           0.116
Small Food Sales................................................               4           0.151            0.14

[[Page 60803]]

 
Small Food Service..............................................               4           0.151            0.14
Small Other.....................................................               4           0.151            0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table IV.46--Distribution of Discount Rates for Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Discount rate
                 Sector                         (%)           Weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Food Sales........................          0.0649          0.1201
Small Food Sales........................          0.0743          0.4700
Small Food Sales........................          0.0838          0.2598
Small Food Sales........................          0.0933          0.0358
Small Food Sales........................          0.1067          0.0393
Small Food Sales........................          0.1176          0.0370
Small Food Sales........................          0.1205          0.0208
Small Food Sales........................          0.1425          0.0173
Small Food Service......................          0.0798          0.0516
Small Food Service......................          0.0850          0.3690
Small Food Service......................          0.0944          0.4114
Small Food Service......................          0.1009          0.0810
Small Food Service......................          0.1138          0.0440
Small Food Service......................          0.1215          0.0429
Small Other.............................          0.0433          0.0859
Small Other.............................          0.0567          0.0493
Small Other.............................          0.0637          0.1416
Small Other.............................          0.0714          0.0518
Small Other.............................          0.0854          0.2307
Small Other.............................          0.0945          0.2325
Small Other.............................          0.1048          0.1053
Small Other.............................          0.1154          0.0590
Small Other.............................          0.1237          0.0355
Small Other.............................          0.1311          0.0083
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the small businesses subgroup analysis are shows 
increased consumer benefit across most equipment, as shown in Table 
V.51, Table V.52, and Table V.53. The increase in benefits is driven by 
the higher electricity prices attributed to small businesses customers.
    Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup 
analysis.
    DOE requests comments on its subgroups analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of walk-ins and to 
estimate the potential impacts of such standards on direct employment 
and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and 
qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash 
flows, the INPV, investments in research and development (``R&D'') and 
manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. 
Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy 
conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, 
and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall 
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any 
disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small 
business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash flow model with 
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on 
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, 
manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital 
required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the 
INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis 
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, 
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses 
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by 
comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between 
a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases. To capture the 
uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following 
amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under 
different manufacturer markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the walk-in manufacturing 
industry based on the market and technology assessment, preliminary 
manufacturer interviews, and publicly-available information. This 
included a top-down analysis of walk-in door, panel, and refrigeration 
system manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial 
inputs for the GRIM (e.g.,

[[Page 60804]]

revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and R&D 
expenses). DOE also used public sources of information to further 
calibrate its initial characterization of the walk-in manufacturing 
industry, including company filings of form 10-K from the SEC,\63\ 
corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Survey of 
Manufactures (ASM),\64\ and reports from Dun & Bradstreet.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Electronic Data 
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. Available at 
www.sec.gov/edgar/search/ (last accessed February 14, 2023).
    \64\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures. 
``Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S 
(2021).'' Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/asm/2018-2021-asm.html (Last accessed February 14, 2023).
    \65\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available at: 
app.dnbhoovers.com (Last accessed February 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a 
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the 
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance 
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, 
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. 
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
    In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to 
distribute to manufacturers of walk-ins in order to develop other key 
GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to 
gather additional information on the anticipated effects of energy 
conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, 
industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed 
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, 
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial 
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key 
issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of this document for a 
description of the key issues raised by manufacturers during the 
interviews. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended 
standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost 
assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such 
manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-
volume manufacturers, niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a 
cost structure that largely differs from the industry average. DOE 
identified one subgroup for a separate impact analysis: small business 
manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed in section VI.B 
of this document, ``Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' and 
in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new 
or amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. 
The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The GRIM 
spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, 
beginning in 2023 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing to 
2056. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted 
cash flows during this period. For walk-in door, panel, and 
refrigeration system manufacturers, DOE used a real discount rate of 
9.4 percent, 10.5 percent, and 10.2 percent, respectively, which was 
derived from industry financials and then modified according to 
feedback received during manufacturer interviews.
    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new or 
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of 
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering 
analysis, results of the shipments analysis, and information gathered 
from industry stakeholders during the course of manufacturer 
interviews. The GRIM results are presented in section V.B.2 of this 
document. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and 
other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient equipment is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline equipment due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of covered equipment can affect the revenues, 
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry. In this rulemaking, DOE 
relies on a design-option approach for doors, panels, dedicated 
condensing units, and single-packaged dedicated systems. DOE relies on 
both a design-option and an efficiency-level approach for unit coolers, 
depending on the equipment class. For a complete description of the 
MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD or section IV.C of this document.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the 
shipments analysis from 2023 (the base year) to 2056 (the end year of 
the analysis period). The shipments model takes an accounting approach, 
tracking market shares of each equipment class and the vintage of units 
in the stock. Stock accounting uses equipment shipments as inputs to 
estimate the age distribution of in-service equipment stocks for all 
years.
    To calculate projected shipments of each equipment type, DOE uses a 
two-step approach. In the first step, the annual shipments of completed 
WICF installations (also referred to as ``boxes'') installations of all 
types are calculated using a stock model, whose principal inputs are 
commercial floor space projections and the average lifetime of a WICF 
box. In the second step, the various types of refrigeration systems and 
envelopes are partitioned over the shipments of the entire market for 
boxes. See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for additional details or section 
IV.G of this document.
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
    New or amended energy conservation standards could cause 
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production 
facilities and equipment

[[Page 60805]]

designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related 
expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered 
efficiency level in each equipment class. For the MIA, DOE classified 
these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) capital conversion 
costs; and (2) product conversion costs. Capital conversion costs are 
investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or 
change existing production facilities such that new compliant equipment 
designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product conversion costs are 
investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other 
non-capitalized costs necessary to make equipment designs comply with 
new or amended energy conservation standards.
    DOE relied on information derived from manufacturer interviews, 
equipment teardown analysis, and the engineering models, as well as 
data collected in support of the June 2014 Final Rule, to evaluate the 
level of capital and product conversion costs manufacturers would 
likely incur at the considered standard levels. In interviews, DOE 
asked manufacturers to estimate the capital conversion costs (e.g., 
changes in production processes, equipment, and tooling) to implement 
the various design options. The data generated from the equipment 
teardown and engineering analyses were used to estimate the capital 
investment in equipment, tooling, and conveyor required of OEMs at each 
efficiency level, considering such factors as product design, raw 
materials, purchased components, and fabrication method. Changes in 
equipment, tooling, and conveyer, supplemented by feedback from 
confidential manufacturer interviews, were then used to estimate 
capital conversion costs. In interviews, DOE also asked manufacturers 
to estimate the redesign effort and engineering resources required at 
various efficiency levels to quantify the product conversion costs. 
Manufacturer data was aggregated to protect confidential information.
    For manufacturers of refrigeration systems, DOE also included the 
costs associated with appendix C1, as finalized in the May 2023 TP 
Final Rule. 88 FR 28780. Using individual model counts from the CCD and 
the efficiency distribution assumptions in the shipments analysis, DOE 
estimated the industry costs associated with re-rating compliant models 
in accordance with appendix C1.
    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur 
between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which 
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion cost 
figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of this 
document. For additional information on the estimated capital and 
product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer markups to the MPCs 
estimated in the engineering analysis for each equipment class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these manufacturer markups in the standards 
case yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 
DOE modeled two standards-case scenarios to represent uncertainty 
regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for 
manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy 
conservation standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin percentage 
scenario; and (2) a preservation of operating profit scenario. These 
scenarios lead to different manufacturer markup values that, when 
applied to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE 
applied an uniform ``gross margin percentage'' markup across all 
efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to 
maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all 
efficiency levels within an equipment class. If manufacturer production 
costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the per-unit 
dollar profit will increase. DOE assumed a gross margin percentage of 
31 percent for display doors, 33 percent for non-display doors, 24 
percent for panels, and 26 percent for refrigeration systems.\66\ 
Manufacturers tend to believe it is optimistic to assume that they 
would be able to maintain the same gross margin percentage if their 
production costs increase, particularly for minimally efficient 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The gross margin percentages of 31 percent, 33 percent, 24 
percent, and 26 percent are based on manufacturer markups of 1.45, 
1.50, 1.32, and 1.35, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preservation of operating profit scenario, if the cost of 
production goes up under a standards case, manufacturers are generally 
required to reduce their manufacturer markups to a level that maintains 
base-case operating profit. DOE implemented this scenario in the GRIM 
by adjusting the manufacturer markups at each TSL to yield 
approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the 
standards case as in the no-new-standards case in the year after the 
expected compliance date of the amended standards. The implicit 
assumption behind this scenario is that the industry can only maintain 
its operating profit in absolute dollars after the standard takes 
effect. Therefore, operating profit in percentage terms is typically 
reduced between the no-new-standard case and the standards cases.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE interviewed seven door manufacturers, including OEMs of display 
and non-display doors, three panel manufacturers, and four 
refrigeration system manufacturers. Some manufacturers interviewed 
produced more than one walk-in component. Participants included both 
small businesses and large manufacturers with a range of equipment 
offerings and market shares.
    In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major 
concerns regarding the potential for more stringent energy conservation 
standards for walk-ins. The following section highlights manufacturer 
concerns that helped inform the projected potential impacts of an 
amended standard on the industry. Manufacturer interviews are conducted 
under nondisclosure agreements (``NDAs''), so DOE does not document 
these discussions in the same way that it does public comments in the 
comment summaries and DOE's responses throughout the rest of this 
document.
a. Increasing Insulation Thickness
    Manufacturers of non-display doors and panels expressed concern 
about the impact of increased insulation thickness on processing time, 
capital investment, equipment cost, and company profitability. In 
interviews, manufacturers stated that much of the existing production 
equipment is designed to produce non-display doors and panels 3.5 
inches to 5 inches thick. Panels that are 6 inches thick are less 
common in the industry. Manufacturers stated that increasing insulation 
thickness to 5 inches or 6 inches would notably extend curing and 
processing times, potentially reducing

[[Page 60806]]

manufacturing capacity. To maintain current production levels, some 
manufacturers stated that they would need to buy additional fixtures 
and presses to offset the added processing time. A standard that 
requires 6-inch-thick panels would involve significant additional 
investment by most manufacturers. Furthermore, some manufacturers 
asserted that the walk-in market is price sensitive and increasing 
insulation thickness would add product costs with minimal benefit to 
the consumer. Alternatively, absorbing these costs would significantly 
reduce profit margins.
b. Reduced Anti-Sweat Heat
    In interviews, some door manufacturers expressed concern that more 
stringent standards would necessitate reduced anti-sweat heat power, 
which could lead to safety hazards in some settings. These 
manufacturers stated that doors are typically designed for a range of 
ambient conditions because store operating conditions deviate from 
humidity levels assumed in standard test conditions. These 
manufacturers asserted that lowering the energy use requirements would 
increase the risk of condensation, particularly in stores without 
adequate climate control or stores located in humid regions. 
Manufacturers stated that excessive condensation could lead to water 
pooling on the floor, which is a slip hazard.
c. Refrigerant Regulation
    Nearly all refrigeration system manufacturers expressed concerns 
about their ability to meet more stringent energy conservation 
standards and comply with refrigerant regulation limiting the use of 
HFC and high-GWP refrigerants. First, manufacturers expressed concern 
about the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the transition to low-GWP 
refrigerants. Second, manufacturers shared that there is technical 
uncertainty about the performance of A2L refrigerants and their impact 
on system efficiency. Third, manufacturers stated that transitioning 
walk-in refrigeration systems to make use of A2L or A3 refrigerants 
requires a significant amount of engineering resources, laboratory 
testing time, and capital investment. Some manufacturers also 
manufacture other equipment, such as commercial refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, which are subject to both EPA and 
DOE regulations and would potentially require redesign during a similar 
timeframe as walk-ins. Nearly all manufacturers expressed concern that 
they would have neither the time nor the resources to complete the dual 
development necessary to comply with both more stringent DOE energy 
conservation standards and EPA regulations over a short duration. 
Specifically, manufacturers stated that there could be staffing and 
testing bandwidth constraints in the years leading up to EPA and DOE 
compliance deadlines. Some manufacturers said they are already 
struggling to find more laboratory capacity for evaluation and 
analysis, which would be further exacerbated should DOE adopt more 
stringent energy conservation standards.
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI suggested 
that DOE consider the refrigerant transition and other relevant 
rulemakings in the regulatory burden evaluation, including the 
requirement to change chemicals in articles containing phenol, 
isopropylated phosphate (``PIP'') (3:1) and others. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 
6) Additionally, AHRI stated that to make the transition to flammable 
refrigerants, manufacturers report capital expenditure estimates of 
$0.5 to $1.0 million for small facilities and $2.0 to $4.0 million for 
medium and larger facilities and equipment for spark-proof and 
explosion-proof equipment and design. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 5)
    DOE analyzes cumulative regulatory burden pursuant to section 13(g) 
of appendix A. Pursuant to section 13(g) of appendix A, the Department 
will analyze and consider the impact on manufacturers of multiple 
product/equipment-specific Federal regulatory actions. Regarding 
potential refrigerant regulation, DOE understands that manufacturers of 
walk-in refrigeration systems will likely need to transition to 
alternative, low-GWP refrigerants to comply with anticipated 
refrigeration regulations, such as the December 2022 AIM NOPR, prior to 
the expected 2027 compliance date of potential energy conservation 
standards. 87 FR 76738. While DOE did not consider the refrigerant 
transition costs to be conversion costs, as the change in refrigerant 
is independent of DOE actions related to any amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE did incorporate the estimated costs 
associated with redesigning walk-in refrigeration systems to make use 
of flammable refrigerants and upgrading production facilities to 
accommodate flammable refrigerants in the GRIM. DOE relied on 
manufacturer feedback in confidential interviews, a report prepared for 
EPA,\67\ and AHRI's written comments to estimate the industry 
refrigerant transition costs. See subsection ``Refrigerants Analyzed'' 
of section IV.C.1.d of this document for additional discussion on the 
analyzed refrigerants in this NOPR and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for 
additional discussion on cumulative regulatory burden. Regarding 
chemical regulations, such as EPA's final rule prohibiting the 
processing and distribution of PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing 
products, DOE did not consider these regulations in its NOPR cumulative 
regulatory burden analysis as EPA's final rule is not a walk-in-
specific Federal regulatory action. 86 FR 894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See pp. 5-113 of the ``Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse 
Gas Emission Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: 
Methodology Documentation'' (2019). www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented 
that DOE should be aware that many independent custom cellar and 
cabinet builders could be impacted by amended energy conservation 
standards for WICFs. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5)
    DOE notes that similar comments were made by a high-temperature 
refrigeration system manufacturer during confidential interviews. As 
discussed in section IV.B, DOE understands that design options that 
necessitate a significant change in system size could impact custom 
wine cellar designs since high-temperature walk-ins may be space-
constrained. DOE has tentatively determined that consumers would lose 
the utility of compact high-temperature refrigeration systems if the 
evaporator or condenser heat exchangers underwent a considerable 
increase in size. Therefore, DOE is proposing to screen out improved 
evaporator and condenser coils for high-temperature refrigeration 
systems on the grounds of customer utility due to the additional heat 
exchanger size needed for this technology option. See IV.B of this 
document or chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on the 
screening analysis.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the

[[Page 60807]]

reductions to emissions of other gases due to ``upstream'' activities 
in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities comprise 
extraction, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of 
combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended 
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity 
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology 
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side 
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The 
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis 
presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2023. Power sector 
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are 
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
published by the EPA.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed April 17, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the NIA.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs, and the Inflation Reduction Act.\69\ SO2 
emissions from affected electric generating units (``EGUs'') are 
subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade programs. 
Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the 
District of Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO2 
emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of the United States 
are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''). 
76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these States to reduce 
certain emissions, including annual SO2 emissions, and went 
into effect as of January 1, 2015.\70\ AEO2023 incorporates 
implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR ozone season 
program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 
(Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is 
enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under 
existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2023 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed April 17, 2023).
    \70\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to 
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the 
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall 
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for 
power plants.\71\ 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, 
EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 
acid gas hazardous air pollutants (``HAP''), and also established a 
standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 
equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are 
used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions 
are being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on 
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid 
gas. Because of the emissions reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely 
that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the 
lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU. 
Therefore, energy conservation standards that decrease electricity 
generation would generally reduce SO2 emissions. DOE 
estimated SO2 emissions reduction using emissions factors 
based on AEO2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have 
either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems 
installed. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 
emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX 
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation 
goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the 
configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need 
for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at 
the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy 
conservation standards might reduce NOX emissions in covered 
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in 
its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not 
reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy 
conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX 
emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2023 data to 
derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not 
covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2023, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose 
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions 
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and 
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 
emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in 
the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis 
for the values used for monetizing

[[Page 60808]]

the emissions benefits and presents the values considered in this NOPR.
    To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis 
uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: 
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates 
Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC-CO2). These 
estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society 
associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in 
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates 
are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related 
changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property 
damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 
of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem 
services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the 
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social 
costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 
interim estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the 
rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, 
CH4, and N2O reductions using SC-GHG values that 
were based on the interim values presented in the Technical Support 
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 
Estimates under Executive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by 
the IWG (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). The SC-GHGs is the monetary 
value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in 
emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 
principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate change impacts, 
including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased 
flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of 
conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. 
The SC-GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing 
emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the 
theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost 
analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O and 
CH4 emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the 
development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the 
interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate estimate of the 
SC-GHG until revised estimates have been developed reflecting the 
latest, peer-reviewed science.
    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other 
executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that 
agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (``SC-CO2'') values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (``SC-CH4'') and 
nitrous oxide (``SC-N2O'') using methodologies that are 
consistent with the methodology underlying the SC-CO2 
estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO2 
methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone multiple stages of 
peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates were 
developed by Marten et al.\72\ and underwent a standard double-blind 
peer review process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of 
the response to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for 
comments on the SC-CO2 estimates, the IWG announced a 
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the 
SC-CO2 estimates to offer advice on how to approach future 
updates to ensure that the estimates continue to reflect the best 
available science and methodologies. In January 2017, the National 
Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate Damages: 
Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 
recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-
CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified 
criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs 
pertaining to various components of the estimation process.\73\ Shortly 
thereafter, in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 
13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and 
directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in 
regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's 
Circular A-4, ``including with respect to the consideration of domestic 
versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate 
discount rates'' (Executive Order (``E.O.'') 13783, Section 5(c)). 
Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that 
attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change damages 
as estimated by the models and were calculated using two discount rates 
recommended by Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. All other 
methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG calculations 
remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Marten, A. L., E. A. Kopits, C. W. Griffiths, S. C. 
Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 
N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. 
Government's SC-CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 
15(2): pp. 272-298.
    \73\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 
nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 13990, which re-
established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations in the national Academies 2017 report. The IWG was 
tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in 
Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the 
E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG

[[Page 60809]]

to undertake a fuller update of the SC-GHG estimates that takes into 
consideration the advice in the National Academies 2017 report and 
other recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD 
provides a complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted 
under E.O.13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates 
used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions 
in multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such 
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider 
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries 
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The 
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions 
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of 
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, 
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global 
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE 
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of 
climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does 
not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 
2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate 
of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. 
because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and 
spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important 
physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized 
in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG 
TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature, 
including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-
GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full 
range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to 
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount 
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately 
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of 
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National 
Academies and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude 
that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate 
discount rate in an intergenerational context,\74\ and recommended that 
discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational 
ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount 
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 17, 
2023.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed 
April 17, 2023.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. 
(Last accessed April 17, 2023.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 
Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the 
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed April 17, 
2023.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3% and 7% discount rates as 
``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that ``different 
regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending 
on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the 
sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.'' 
On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special ethical 
considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at 
a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% discount rate 
is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
    To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, 
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value 
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future 
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be 
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent 
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with 
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount 
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed several options, including 
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits 
with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue 
to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. 
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer-
reviewed science to

[[Page 60810]]

develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set the interim 
estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the IWG prior to 
the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on the same 
models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range of 
discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG 
has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values 
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as 
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject 
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory 
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science 
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to 
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well 
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\75\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the IAMs, their incomplete treatment of 
adaptation and technological change, the incomplete way in which inter-
regional and intersectoral linkages are modeled, uncertainty in the 
extrapolation of damages to high-temperatures, and inadequate 
representation of the relationship between the discount rate and 
uncertainty in economic growth over long time horizons. Likewise, the 
socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as inputs to the models do 
not reflect new information from the last decade of scenario generation 
or the full range of projections. The modeling limitations do not all 
work in the same direction in terms of their influence on the SC-
CO2 estimates. However, as discussed in the February 2021 
TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken together, the limitations 
suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates used in this proposed rule 
likely underestimate the damages from GHG emissions. DOE concurs with 
this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and 
SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the 
following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the 
benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented in 
section IV.L.2 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this NOPR were based on the 
values developed for the IWG's February 2021 TSD, which are shown in 
Table IV.47 in five-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The set of 
annual values that DOE used, which was adapted from estimates published 
by EPA,\76\ is presented in Appendix 14A of the final rule TSD. These 
estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and parameters identical 
to the estimates published by the IWG (which were based on EPA 
modeling), and include values for 2051 to 2070. DOE expects additional 
climate benefits to accrue for products still operating after 2070, but 
a lack of available SC-CO2 estimates for emissions years 
beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing these potential benefits in 
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed February 21, 2023).

                    Table IV.47--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                           [2020$ Per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount Rate and Statistic
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                                                                            3% 95th
                                                  5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average      percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..........................................              14              51              76               152
2025..........................................              17              56              83               169
2030..........................................              19              62              89               187
2035..........................................              22              67              96               206
2040..........................................              25              73             103               225
2045..........................................              28              79             110               242
2050..........................................              32              85             116               260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price 
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of 
monetary values, DOE

[[Page 60811]]

discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CO2 values 
in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
NOPR were based on the values developed for the February 2021 TSD. 
Table IV.48 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is 
presented in Appendix 14-A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the 
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 
determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. 
DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for 
the SC-CO2.

                                  Table IV.48--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                                                 [2020$ Per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             SC-CH4                                           SC-N2O
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Discount rate and statistic                      Discount rate and statistic
                         Year                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            5%         3%        2.5%        3% 95th         5%         3%        2.5%        3% 95th
                                                         Average    Average    Average     percentile     Average    Average    Average     percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..................................................        670       1500       2000            3900       5800      18000      27000           48000
2025..................................................        800       1700       2200            4500       6800      21000      30000           54000
2030..................................................        940       2000       2500            5200       7800      23000      33000           60000
2035..................................................       1100       2200       2800            6000       9000      25000      36000           67000
2040..................................................       1300       2500       3100            6700      10000      28000      39000           74000
2045..................................................       1500       2800       3500            7500      12000      30000      42000           81000
2050..................................................       1700       3100       3800            8200      13000      33000      45000           88000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price deflator for 
gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount 
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation 
using the latest benefit-per-ton estimates for that sector from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\77\ DOE used EPA's values 
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX 
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates 
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define 
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE combined the EPA regional 
benefit-per-ton estimates with regional information on electricity 
consumption and emissions from AEO2023 to define weighted-average 
national values for NOX and SO2 (see appendix 14B 
of the NOPR TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating the 
Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, 
PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone precursors from 21 Sectors. 
www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimated the monetized value of NOX and 
SO2 emissions reductions from site use of natural gas in 
walk-in coolers and freezers using benefit-per-ton estimates from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. Although none of the 
sectors covered by EPA refers specifically to residential and 
commercial buildings, the sector called ``area sources'' would be a 
reasonable proxy for residential and commercial buildings.\78\ The EPA 
document provides high and low estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-
percent discount rates.\79\ DOE used the same linear interpolation and 
extrapolation as it did with the values for electricity generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ ``Area sources'' represents all emission sources for which 
states do not have exact (point) locations in their emissions 
inventories. Because exact locations would tend to be associated 
with larger sources, ``area sources'' would be fairly representative 
of small dispersed sources like homes and businesses.
    \79\ ``Area sources'' are a category in the 2018 document from 
EPA, but are not used in the 2021 document cited above. See: 
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year 
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed 
electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each 
considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS 
associated with AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well 
as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of 
changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts 
are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector 
generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the 
AEO2023 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the 
methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the 
NOPR TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or 
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect 
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 
employees of manufacturers of the equipment subject to standards. The 
MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in 
national employment that occur due to

[[Page 60812]]

the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase 
and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts 
from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the 
national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 
regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) 
reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) 
increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards 
apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three 
factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\80\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at https://apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed April 27, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(``ImSET'').\81\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. 
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed 
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model 
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long 
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results 
for near-term timeframes (2027-2036), where these uncertainties are 
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see 
chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for walk-
in coolers and freezers. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the 
projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy 
conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, and the 
standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR. 
Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR 
TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential new or amended 
standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency 
levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and 
consider manufacturer cost interactions between the equipment classes, 
to the extent that there are such interactions, and price elasticity of 
consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard 
levels are set.
    In the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits 
and burdens of three TSLs for walk-ins. DOE developed TSLs that combine 
efficiency levels for each analyzed equipment class, these TSL are 
discussed in section IV.E.1 of this document.

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on walk-in coolers and freezers 
consumers by looking at the effects that potential amended standards at 
each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts 
of potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses 
are discussed in the following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.1 through Table V.56 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for each equipment class. In the first of each pair of 
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
product. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the 
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance 
year (see section III.E of this document). Because some consumers 
purchase equipment with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 
the average savings are less than the difference between the average 
LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The 
savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a 
given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or 
above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC 
increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
Doors

[[Page 60813]]



                                            Table V.1--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: DW.L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           3,101             260           2,160           5,261  ..............            12.1
1.......................................................           3,101             257           2,136           5,237  ..............            12.1
2.......................................................           3,101             256           2,132           5,233  ..............            12.1
3.......................................................           4,463             210           1,747           6,210            44.0            12.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


Table V.2--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution
                        for Equipment Class: DW.L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0  .................
2.................................                  0  .................
3.................................                100             -1,106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                            Table V.3--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: DW.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,888              75             615           3,504  ..............            12.0
1.......................................................           2,888              74             607           3,495  ..............            12.0
2.......................................................           2,888              73             605           3,493  ..............            12.0
3.......................................................           4,248              53             436           4,684            99.1            12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


Table V.4--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution
                        for Equipment Class: DW.M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0  .................
2.................................                  0  .................
3.................................                100             -1,247
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                            Table V.5--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: NM.L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,574             368           2,219           4,793  ..............             8.0
1.......................................................           2,833             164             992           3,825             1.3             8.0
2.......................................................           2,833             164             991           3,824             1.3             8.0
3.......................................................           3,136             145             878           4,014             2.8             8.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 60814]]


Table V.6--Lcc Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution
                        for Equipment Class: NM.L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  2                724
2.................................                  2                723
3.................................                 37                307
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                            Table V.7--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: NM.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,605             120             727           3,332  ..............             8.0
1.......................................................           2,736              64             387           3,123             2.4             8.0
2.......................................................           2,850              41             251           3,101             3.2             8.0
3.......................................................           3,229              34             209           3,438             8.2             8.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


Table V.8--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution
                        for Equipment Class: NM.M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average  savings--
                                                            impacted
                TSL                 % Consumers  with      consumers
                                         net cost           (2022$)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  2                203
2.................................                 11                 86
3.................................                 96               -291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                            Table V.9--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: NO.L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           7,102             516           3,089          10,191  ..............             7.9
1.......................................................           7,363             247           1,480           8,844             1.0             7.9
2.......................................................           7,363             246           1,478           8,841             1.0             7.9
3.......................................................           7,688             212           1,276           8,964             2.1             7.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.10--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                 Distribution for Equipment Class: NO.L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  1              1,194
2.................................                  2              1,192
3.................................                  9                932
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


[[Page 60815]]


                                            Table V.11--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: NO.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           7,059             168           1,014           8,073  ..............             8.0
1.......................................................           7,190              94             568           7,758             1.8             8.0
2.......................................................           7,307              63             383           7,690             2.4             8.0
3.......................................................           7,704              51             311           8,015             6.3             8.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.12--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                 Distribution for Equipment Class: NO.M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0                306
2.................................                  3                113
3.................................                 95               -266
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

Panels

                                       Table V.13--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: PF.L per ft\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           13.27            0.57            4.41           17.68  ..............            11.5
1.......................................................           13.27            0.56            4.35           17.62  ..............            11.5
2.......................................................           13.27            0.56            4.34           17.61  ..............            11.5
3.......................................................           16.10            0.40            3.15           19.25            26.1            11.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.14--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
            Distribution for Equipment Class: PF.L per ft\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0  .................
2.................................                  0  .................
3.................................                 95              -1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                       Table V.15--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: PS.L per ft\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           13.31            0.93            7.23           20.54  ..............            11.6
1.......................................................           13.31            0.91            7.12           20.43  ..............            11.6
2.......................................................           13.31            0.91            7.11           20.41  ..............            11.6

[[Page 60816]]

 
3.......................................................           16.18            0.55            4.33           20.51            10.1            11.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.16--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
            Distribution for Equipment Class: PS.L per ft\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average  savings--
                                     % Consumers with       impacted
                TSL                      net cost      consumers (2022$)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0  .................
2.................................                  0  .................
3.................................                 64              -0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                       Table V.17--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: PS.M per ft\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           12.82            0.22            1.72           14.54  ..............            11.6
1.......................................................           12.82            0.22            1.69           14.50  ..............            11.6
2.......................................................           12.82            0.21            1.67           14.49  ..............            11.6
3.......................................................           16.13            0.12            0.94           17.07            54.0            11.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.18--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
            Distribution for Equipment Class: PS.M per ft\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0  .................
2.................................                  0  .................
3.................................                100              -2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

Refrigeration Systems

                                           Table V.19--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: DC.L.I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           7,644           2,476          22,075          29,719  ..............            10.6
1.......................................................           7,764           2,436          21,849          29,614             4.0            10.6
2.......................................................           7,764           2,436          21,849          29,614             4.0            10.6

[[Page 60817]]

 
3.......................................................          11,192           2,434          23,745          34,937           -16.2            10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.20--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: DC.L.I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                 11                163
2.................................                 11                163
3.................................                100             -5,218
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.21--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: DC.L.O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................          26,565           3,788          39,834          66,399  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................          26,618           3,745          39,544          66,162             1.4            10.5
2.......................................................          26,720           3,732          39,507          66,227             3.6            10.5
3.......................................................          38,663           3,323          43,528          82,191           -25.0            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.22--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: DC.L.O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0                237
2.................................                  8                172
3.................................                100            -15,792
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.23--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: DC.M.I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           3,801           1,157          10,327          14,128  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           3,916           1,113          10,065          13,982             3.4            10.5
2.......................................................           3,916           1,113          10,065          13,982             3.4            10.5
3.......................................................           5,401           1,113          10,775          16,175           -26.7            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 60818]]


      Table V.24--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: DC.M.I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  1                567
2.................................                  1                567
3.................................                100             -2,047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.25--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: DC.M.O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           5,803           1,651          15,078          20,881  ..............            10.6
1.......................................................           5,829           1,632          14,951          20,780             1.6            10.6
2.......................................................           5,872           1,618          14,873          20,745             2.6            10.6
3.......................................................           8,771           1,300          14,006          22,777            21.6            10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.26--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: DC.M.O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0                101
2.................................                  1                136
3.................................                 96             -1,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.27--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.H.I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     Period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           1,978             255           2,709           4,688  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           2,006             230           2,557           4,563             1.3            10.5
2.......................................................           2,006             230           2,557           4,563             1.3            10.5
3.......................................................           2,035             226           2,550           4,585             2.5            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.28--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.H.I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  2                124
2.................................                  2                124
3.................................                  3                103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


[[Page 60819]]


                                          Table V.29--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.H.ID
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,051             436           3,977           6,027  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           2,145             370           3,586           5,731             1.7            10.5
2.......................................................           2,145             370           3,586           5,731             1.7            10.5
3.......................................................           2,145             370           3,586           5,731             1.7            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.30--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.H.ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0                296
2.................................                  0                296
3.................................                  0                296
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.31--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.H.O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,857             357           3,829           6,686  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           2,867             331           3,659           6,526             0.4            10.5
2.......................................................           2,948             317           3,612           6,560             2.9            10.5
3.......................................................           3,079             312           3,660           6,738             9.0            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.32--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.H.O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % Consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0                159
2.................................                  3                126
3.................................                 81                -53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                          Table V.33--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.H.OD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,820             590           5,401           8,221  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           2,836             522           4,948           7,784             0.2            10.5
2.......................................................           3,119             474           4,797           7,916             3.4            10.5
3.......................................................           3,146             472           4,806           7,951             3.8            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 60820]]


      Table V.34--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.H.OD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Average
                                                             savings--
                   TSL                      % Consumers      impacted
                                           with net cost     consumers
                                                              (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................               0             437
2.......................................               4             305
3.......................................              13             270
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.35--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.L.I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           3,722             743           7,026          10,748  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           3,939             666           6,630          10,568             3.8            10.5
2.......................................................           3,939             666           6,630          10,568             3.8            10.5
3.......................................................           5,223             643           7,100          12,323             inf            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.36--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.L.I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  7                180
2.................................                  7                180
3.................................                100             -1,575
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.37--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.L.O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           4,951             956           9,129          14,079  ..............            10.6
1.......................................................           4,951             956           9,129          14,079  ..............            10.6
2.......................................................           4,951             956           9,129          14,079  ..............            10.6
3.......................................................           6,514             806           8,843          15,357            39.0            10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.38--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.L.O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  .................  .................
2.................................  .................  .................
3.................................              100.0             -1,278
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


[[Page 60821]]


                                           Table V.39--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.M.I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           4,002             713           6,961          10,963  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           4,087             677           6,762          10,849             3.0            10.5
2.......................................................           4,104             674           6,756          10,860             3.5            10.5
3.......................................................           5,277             666           7,263          12,540             inf            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.40--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.M.I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  4                114
2.................................                  5                103
3.................................                100             -1,577
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                           Table V.41--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: SP.M.O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           4,795             668           7,032          11,826  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           4,821             635           6,820          11,641             0.9            10.5
2.......................................................           4,830             634           6,819          11,649             1.2            10.5
3.......................................................           6,093             549           6,848          12,942            50.8            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.42--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: SP.M.O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                  0                186
2.................................                  0                177
3.................................                100             -1,116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                            Table V.43--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: UC.H
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           3,083             483           4,626           7,709  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           3,083             483           4,626           7,709  ..............            10.5
2.......................................................           3,083             483           4,626           7,709  ..............            10.5
3.......................................................           3,201             478           4,660           7,861             inf            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 60822]]


      Table V.44--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                 Distribution for Equipment Class: UC.H
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  .................  .................
2.................................  .................  .................
3.................................                 61               -152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                          Table V.45--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: UC.H.ID
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           3,161             719           6,377           9,538  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           3,188             679           6,113           9,301             0.7            10.5
2.......................................................           3,188             679           6,113           9,301             0.7            10.5
3.......................................................           3,188             679           6,113           9,301             0.7            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.46--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                Distribution for Equipment Class: UC.H.ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average savings--
                TSL                  % consumers with       impacted
                                         net cost      consumers (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                0.0                237
2.................................                0.0                237
3.................................                0.0                237
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                            Table V.47--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: UC.L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,658           4,413          34,322          36,980  ..............            10.5
1.......................................................           2,801           4,239          33,099          35,900             0.9            10.5
2.......................................................           2,908           4,186          32,766          35,674             1.2            10.5
3.......................................................           2,908           4,186          32,766          35,674             1.2            10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.48--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                 Distribution for Equipment Class: UC.L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average savings--
             TSL              % Consumers with net   impacted consumers
                                      cost                 (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................                     3                 1,080
2...........................                     8                 1,306
3...........................                     8                 1,306
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


[[Page 60823]]


                                            Table V.49--Average LCC and PBP Results for Equipment Class: UC.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2022$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                           TSL                                             First year's      Lifetime                     period (years)     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           2,468           1,675          13,649          16,118  ..............            10.6
1.......................................................           2,530           1,640          13,418          15,948             2.0            10.6
2.......................................................           2,546           1,631          13,360          15,906             2.0            10.6
3.......................................................           2,546           1,631          13,360          15,906             2.0            10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.50--LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency
                 Distribution for Equipment Class: UC.M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average savings--
             TSL              % Consumers with net   impacted consumers
                                      cost                 (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................                     9                   170
2...........................                    10                   212
3...........................                    10                   212
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on high warm air-infiltration applications, and small 
businesses. Table V.51 through Table V.53 compare the average LCC 
savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups 
with similar metrics for the reduced consumer sample for all equipment 
classes and representative units. In most cases, the average LCC 
savings and PBP for small business and applications with high amount of 
warm-air infiltration at the considered trial standard levels are not 
substantially different from the average for all consumers. In those 
cases where the results differ, the selected subgroups tend to have 
greater benefits due to in the case of the small business subgroup: 
higher electricity costs; and; in the case of the warm-air infiltration 
subgroup: increased hours of operation.
    Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP 
results for the subgroups.

                                 Table V.51--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups for Walk-In Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Reference                                    Small business
                     Equipment class                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L....................................................  ..............  ..............          -1,106  ..............  ..............          -1,004
DW.M....................................................  ..............  ..............          -1,247  ..............  ..............          -1,206
NM.L....................................................             724             723             307           1,287           1,287           1,072
NM.M....................................................             203              86            -291             289             345              -5
NO.L....................................................           1,194           1,192             932           1,761           1,761           1,610
NO.M....................................................             306             113            -266             419             534             192
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L....................................................  ..............  ..............            44.0  ..............  ..............            29.1
DW.M....................................................  ..............  ..............            99.1  ..............  ..............            67.0
NM.L....................................................             1.3             1.3             2.8             1.0             1.0             2.0
NM.M....................................................             2.4             3.2             8.2             1.8             2.4             5.7
NO.L....................................................             1.0             1.0             2.1             0.7             0.7             1.5
NO.M....................................................             1.8             2.4             6.3             1.4             1.8             4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L....................................................  ..............  ..............             100  ..............  ..............             100
DW.M....................................................  ..............  ..............             100  ..............  ..............             100
NM.L....................................................               2               2              37               2               2               6
NM.M....................................................               2              11              96               6               7              51
NO.L....................................................               1               2               9               0               0               3
NO.M....................................................               0               3              95               2               5              28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60824]]


                                 Table V.52--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups for Walk-In Panels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Reference                                    Small business
                     Equipment class                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Consumer Average LCC Savings per ft\2\ (2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L....................................................  ..............  ..............           -1.61  ..............  ..............           -1.66
PS.L....................................................  ..............  ..............           -0.50  ..............  ..............            0.17
PS.M....................................................  ..............  ..............           -2.33  ..............  ..............           -2.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L....................................................  ..............  ..............            26.1  ..............  ..............            17.4
PS.L....................................................  ..............  ..............            10.1  ..............  ..............             6.8
PS.M....................................................  ..............  ..............            54.0  ..............  ..............            33.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS.M....................................................  ..............  ..............              95  ..............  ..............             100
PS.L....................................................  ..............  ..............              64  ..............  ..............              41
PS.M....................................................  ..............  ..............             100  ..............  ..............             100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table V.53--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Reference                           Small businesses                           Warm air
          Equipment class           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3        TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3        TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I.............................          163          163       -5,218          256          256       -2,851          266          266       -5,138
DC.L.O.............................          237          172      -15,792          243          191       -2,603          271          226      -15,238
DC.M.I.............................          567          567       -2,047          763          763       -1,851        1,004        1,004       -1,932
DC.M.O.............................          101          136       -1,896           -8           34       -1,331         -136          -41       -1,055
SP.H.I.............................          124          124          103          124          124          103          180          180          167
SP.H.ID............................          296          296          296          297          297          297          446          446          446
SP.H.O.............................          159          126          -53          159          125          -53          165          164           -3
SP.H.OD............................          437          305          270          439          307          272          540          518          485
SP.L.I.............................          180          180       -1,575          180          180       -1,578          265          265       -1,461
SP.L.O.............................  ...........  ...........       -1,278  ...........  ...........       -1,279  ...........  ...........       -1,121
SP.M.I.............................          114          103       -1,577          114           92       -1,576          198          183       -1,467
SP.M.O.............................          186          177       -1,116          186          177       -1,116          208          202         -898
UC.H...............................  ...........  ...........         -152  ...........  ...........         -145  ...........  ...........         -141
UC.H.ID............................          237          237          237          263          263          263          320          320          320
UC.L...............................        1,080        1,306        1,306        1,638        2,025        2,025        1,289        1,568        1,568
UC.M...............................          170          212          212          273          341          341          235          293          293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I.............................          4.0          4.0          inf          2.0          2.0          inf          3.1          3.1          inf
DC.L.O.............................          1.4          3.6          inf          1.2          3.3         45.3          1.2          3.1          inf
DC.M.I.............................          3.4          3.4          inf          2.1          2.1          inf          2.4          2.4          inf
DC.M.O.............................          1.6          2.6         21.6          inf          3.0         22.2          inf         19.2         12.0
SP.H.I.............................          1.3          1.3          2.5          1.3          1.3          2.4          0.9          0.9          1.7
SP.H.ID............................          1.7          1.7          1.7          1.7          1.7          1.7          1.2          1.2          1.2
SP.H.O.............................          0.4          2.9          9.0          0.4          2.9          9.1          0.4          2.5          7.0
SP.H.OD............................          0.2          3.4          3.8          0.2          3.4          3.8          0.2          2.5          2.8
SP.L.I.............................          3.8          3.8          inf          3.8          3.8          inf          3.2          3.2        291.4
SP.L.O.............................  ...........  ...........         39.0  ...........  ...........         39.1  ...........  ...........         24.9
SP.M.I.............................          3.0          3.5          inf          3.0          3.7          inf          2.1          2.5          inf
SP.M.O.............................          0.9          1.2         50.8          0.9          1.1         50.7          0.8          1.0         22.9
UC.H...............................  ...........  ...........          inf  ...........  ...........          inf  ...........  ...........          inf
UC.H.ID............................          0.7          0.7          0.7          0.7          0.7          0.7          0.6          0.6          0.6
UC.L...............................          0.9          1.2          1.2          0.5          0.7          0.7          0.7          1.0          1.0
UC.M...............................          2.0          2.0          2.0          1.2          1.2          1.2          1.6          1.6          1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I.............................           11           11          100            2            2          100            5            5          100
DC.L.O.............................            0            8          100            0            4          100            0            5          100
DC.M.I.............................            1            1          100            0            0          100            0            0          100
DC.M.O.............................            0            1           96           23           23           95           38           29           85
SP.H.I.............................            2            2            3            2            2            3            0            0            1
SP.H.ID............................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
SP.H.O.............................            0            3           81            0            3           81            0            2           56
SP.H.OD............................            0            4           13            0            4           13            0            2            5
SP.L.I.............................            7            7          100            7            7          100            4            4          100
SP.L.O.............................            0            0          100            0            0          100            0            0          100
SP.M.I.............................            4            5          100            4            5          100            1            2          100

[[Page 60825]]

 
SP.M.O.............................            0            0          100            0            0          100            0            0          100
UC.H...............................            0            0           61            0            0           47            0            0           41
UC.H.ID............................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
UC.L...............................            3            8            8            0            1            1            2            5            5
UC.M...............................            9           10           10            0            1            1            7            7            7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section IV.G of this document, EPCA establishes a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product 
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a 
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, 
DOE used discrete values, and as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedure for walk-in coolers and freezers. 
In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this document 
were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy 
use in the field.
    Table V.54 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for walk-in coolers and freezers. While DOE 
examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether 
the standard levels considered for the NOPR are economically justified 
through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those 
levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full 
range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and 
environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 
definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential 
standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any 
preliminary determination of economic justification.

                      Table V.54--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods for Walk-In Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                         Equipment class                         -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L............................................................  ..............  ..............            65.7
DW.M............................................................  ..............  ..............           109.1
NM.L............................................................             1.6             1.6             3.3
NM.M............................................................             2.6             3.7             9.1
NO.L............................................................             1.2             1.2             2.6
NO.M............................................................             2.0             2.8             7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table V.55--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods for Walk-In Panels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                         Equipment class                         -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L............................................................  ..............  ..............             0.7
PS.L............................................................  ..............  ..............             0.6
PS.M............................................................  ..............  ..............             2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table V.56--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods for Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        TSL
                         Equipment class                         -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I..........................................................           * Inf             inf             inf
DC.L.O..........................................................             1.5             6.1             inf
DC.M.I..........................................................             inf             inf             inf
DC.M.O..........................................................             1.5             3.4             inf
SP.H.I..........................................................            15.0            15.0            18.8
SP.H.ID.........................................................             4.2             4.2             4.2
SP.H.O..........................................................             0.3             3.5            12.2
SP.H.OD.........................................................             0.2             3.5             3.9
SP.L.I..........................................................            12.7            12.7             inf
SP.L.O..........................................................  ..............  ..............             inf
SP.M.I..........................................................             6.1            10.9             inf
SP.M.O..........................................................             1.0             1.4             inf
UC.H............................................................  ..............  ..............             inf
UC.H.ID.........................................................             0.8             0.8             0.8
UC.L............................................................             0.8             1.1             1.1

[[Page 60826]]

 
UC.M............................................................             2.4             2.5             2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates that the estimated payback results are negative. This is the results of projected negative operating
  cost savings at the proposed TSL, resulting in overall negative payback periods.

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of walk-ins. The following 
section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each 
considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 
further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The 
following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented 
by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of walk-ins, as well as the conversion costs that DOE 
estimates manufacturers of walk-ins would incur at each TSL.
    The impact of potential amended energy conservation standards were 
analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the preservation of gross margin 
percentage; and (2) the preservation of operating profit, as discussed 
in section IV.J.2.d of this document. The preservation of gross margin 
percentages applies a ``gross margin percentage'' of 31 percent for 
display doors, 33 percent for non-display doors, 24 percent for panels, 
and 26 percent for refrigeration systems, across all efficiency 
levels.\82\ This scenario assumes that a manufacturer's per-unit dollar 
profit would increase as MPCs increase in the standards cases and often 
represents the upper-bound to industry profitability under potential 
amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ The gross margin percentages of 31 percent, 33 percent, 24 
percent, and 26 percent are based on manufacturer markups of 1.45, 
1.50, 1.32, and 1.35, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preservation of operating profit scenario reflects 
manufacturers' concerns about their inability to maintain margins as 
MPCs increase to reach more-stringent efficiency levels. In this 
scenario, while manufacturers make the necessary investments required 
to convert their facilities to produce compliant equipment, operating 
profit does not change in absolute dollars and decreases as a 
percentage of revenue. The preservation of operating profit scenario 
typically results in the lower (or more severe) bound to impacts of 
potential amended standards on industry.
    Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows 
and corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2023-2056). The ``change in INPV'' results refer to 
the difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and 
standards case at each TSL. To provide perspective on the short-run 
cash flow impact, DOE includes a comparison of free cash flow between 
the no-new-standards case and the standards case at each TSL in the 
year before amended standards would take effect. This figure provides 
an understanding of the magnitude of the required conversion costs 
relative to the cash flow generated by the industry in the no-new-
standards case.
    Conversion costs are one-time investments for manufacturers to 
bring their manufacturing facilities and product designs into 
compliance with potential amended standards. As described in section 
IV.J.2.c of this document, conversion cost investments occur between 
the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which 
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion costs 
can have a significant impact on the short-term cash flow on the 
industry and generally result in lower free cash flow in the period 
between the publication of the final rule and the compliance date of 
potential amended standards. Conversion costs are independent of the 
manufacturer markup scenarios and are not presented as a range in this 
analysis.
    Table V.57, Table V.58, Table V.59, and Table V.60 show the MIA 
results for each TSL for walk-in display door, non-display door, panel, 
and refrigeration system industries, respectively.
Doors
Display Doors

                   Table V.57--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results for Walk-In Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No-new-
                                        Unit         standards     TSL 1       TSL 2              TSL 3
                                                       case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV...........................  2022$ Million....       278.0       278.0       278.0  215.5 to 355.6.
Change in INPV *...............  %................  ..........  ..........  ..........  (22.5) to 27.9.
Free Cash Flow * (2026)........  2022$ Million....        21.7        21.7        21.7  12.8.
Change in Free Cash Flow *       %................  ..........  ..........  ..........  (41.0).
 (2026).
Product Conversion Costs.......  2022$ Million....  ..........  ..........  ..........  24.0
Capital Conversion Costs.......  2022$ Million....  ..........  ..........  ..........  1.5.
Total Conversion Costs.........  2022$ Million....  ..........  ..........  ..........  25.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses (-) negative values.

    At TSL 1 and TSL 2, the standard for all walk-in display door 
equipment classes (DW.L, DW.M) are set to the baseline efficiency level 
(EL 0). As a result, there are no changes to INPV, no changes in 
industry free cash flow, and no conversion costs.

[[Page 60827]]

    At TSL 3, the standard represents the max-tech energy efficiency 
for all equipment classes. The change in INPV is expected to range from 
-22.5 to 27.9 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by 41.0 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of 
$21.7 million in the year 2026, the year before the standards year. DOE 
estimates that no display door shipments currently meet the max-tech 
efficiency levels.
    DOE expects display doors would require the use of vacuum-insulated 
glass as a substitute for the prescriptive minimum design of double-
pane or triple-pane insulated glass packs for medium-temperature doors 
(DW.M) and low-temperature doors (DW.L), respectively. For the 10 OEMs 
that manufacture walk-in display doors, implementing vacuum-insulated 
glass would require significant engineering resources and testing time 
to ensure adequate durability of their doors in all commercial 
settings. In interviews, manufacturers emphasized that there are 
currently a very limited number of suppliers of vacuum-insulated glass. 
Door manufacturers expressed concerns that the 3-year conversion period 
between the publication of the final rule and the compliance date of 
the amended energy conservation standard might be insufficient to 
design and test a full portfolio of vacuum-insulated doors that meet 
the max-tech efficiencies and maintain their internal metrics over the 
door lifetime. Of the 10 OEMs that manufacture walk-in display doors, 
four are small, domestic businesses. DOE estimates capital conversion 
costs of $1.5 million and product conversion costs of $24.0 million. 
Conversion costs total $25.5 million.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all display doors 
is expected to increase by 63.6 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all display doors in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the 
increase in cashflow from the higher MSP outweighs the $25.5 million in 
conversion costs, causing a positive change in INPV at TSL 3 under this 
scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, 
manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be 
earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn 
additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the 
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the 
$25.5 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 
large negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario. See section IV.J.2.d of this document or 
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for additional details about the 
manufacturer markup scenarios.
Non-Display Doors

                                     Table V.58--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results for Walk-In Non-Display Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           No-new-
                                           Unit           standards             TSL 1                        TSL 2                       TSL 3
                                                            case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.............................  2022$ Million.......       536.7  522.6 to 529.4.............  511.2 to 522.5............  485.1 to 549.4.
Change in INPV *.................  %...................  ..........  (2.6) to (1.4).............  (4.8) to (2.6)............  (9.6) to 2.4.
Free Cash Flow * (2026)..........  2022$ Million.......        42.6  35.7.......................  30.0......................  22.5.
Change in Free Cash Flow * (2026)  %...................  ..........  (16.1).....................  (29.5)....................  (47.1)
Product Conversion Costs.........  2022$ Million.......  ..........  2.4........................  3.8.......................  15.8.
Capital Conversion Costs.........  2022$ Million.......  ..........  13.4.......................  25.0......................  32.5.
Total Conversion Costs...........  2022$ Million.......  ..........  15.8.......................  28.9......................  48.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses (-) negative values.

    At TSL 1, the standard represents a combination of efficiency 
levels where NPV at a 7-percent discount rate is maximized.\83\ The 
change in INPV is expected to range from -2.6 to -1.4 percent. At this 
level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 16.1 percent compared 
to the no-new-standards case value of $42.6 million in the year 2026, 
the year before the standards year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ As discussed in section IV.E.1 of this document, the TSL 
construction has an additional constraint that improvements to 
insulation are harmonized across non-display doors and structural 
panels to avoid a circumstance where DOE would propose a standard 
where one component would require increased insulation thickness, 
but not the other. Aligning the insulation thickness of non-display 
doors and panels avoids a potential unintended consequence where the 
installation of replacement non-display doors would trigger the 
replacement of some, or all, of the attached WICF enclosure (panels) 
because the thickness of the components do not match.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE expects that all non-display door equipment classes (NM.L, 
NM.M, NO.L, NO.M) would require anti-sweat heater controls. For low-
temperature classes (NM.L, NO.L), DOE expects that manufacturers would 
also need to incorporate improved framing systems and reduced anti-
sweat heat. For non-display door medium temperature classes (NM.M, 
NO.M), TSL 1 corresponds to EL 1. For non-display door low-temperature 
classes (NM.L, NO.L), TSL 1 corresponds to EL 3. Currently, 
approximately 61 percent of non-display door shipments meet the TSL 1 
efficiencies. Capital conversion costs may be necessary to purchase 
additional foaming equipment to incorporate improved frame designs for 
low-temperature non-display doors, which account for approximately 32 
percent of non-display door shipments. Product conversion costs may be 
necessary to update and test new non-display door designs. DOE 
estimates capital conversion costs of $13.4 million and product 
conversion costs of $2.4 million. Conversion costs total $15.8 million.
    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for non-display doors 
is expected to increase by 1.6 percent relative to the no-new-standards 
case shipment-weighted average MPC for non-display doors in 2027. In 
the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the minor 
increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is slightly outweighed by the 
$15.8 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change 
in INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario. Under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit 
operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but 
manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments. In 
this scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year 
after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer 
markup and the $15.8 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 2, the standard represents a combination of efficiency 
levels for all

[[Page 60828]]

representative units where FFC is maximized while constrained to a 
positive NPV at a 7-percent discount rate.\84\ The change in INPV is 
expected to range from -4.8 to -2.6 percent. At this level, free cash 
flow is estimated to decrease by 29.5 percent compared to the no-new-
standards case value of $42.6 million in the year 2026, the year before 
the standards year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ As with TSL 1, DOE applied the additional constraint that 
improvements to insulation are harmonized across non-display doors 
and panels to avoid a circumstance where DOE would propose a 
standard where one component would require increased insulation 
thickness, but not the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 2, DOE expects that all non-display doors (NM.L, NM.M, NO.L, 
NO.M) would require anti-sweat heater controls, improved framing 
systems and reduced anti-sweat heat. For non-display door equipment 
classes, TSL 2 corresponds to EL 3. Currently, approximately 12 percent 
of non-display door shipments meet TSL 2 efficiencies. Capital 
conversion costs may be necessary to purchase additional foaming 
equipment to incorporate improved frame designs for all non-display 
doors. Product conversion costs may be necessary to update and test new 
non-display door designs. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of 
$25.0 million and product conversion costs of $3.8 million. Conversion 
costs total $28.9 million.
    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for non-display doors 
is expected to increase by 2.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards 
case shipment-weighted average MPC for non-display doors in 2027. In 
the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the minor 
increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is slightly outweighed by the 
$28.9 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change 
in INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario. Under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit 
operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but 
manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments. In 
this scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year 
after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer 
markup and the $28.9 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 3, the standard represents the max-tech efficiency levels 
for all equipment classes. The change in INPV is expected to range from 
-9.6 to 2.4 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by 47.1 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of 
$42.6 million in the year 2026, the year before the standards year.
    The design options DOE analyzed at TSL 3 for non-display doors 
included anti-sweat heater controls, improved framing systems, reduced 
anti-sweat heat, and insulation thickness of at least 6 inches. DOE 
estimates that no non-display door shipments currently meet the max-
tech efficiency levels. For the 43 OEMs that manufacture walk-in non-
display doors, increasing insulation thickness from the assumed 
baseline thickness of 3.5 inches for medium-temperature (NM.M, NO.M) 
and 4 inches for low-temperature (NM.L, NO.L) non-display doors to 6 
inches would require purchasing new foaming equipment since most 
manufacturers are only able to manufacture non-display doors up to 5 
inches thick. Additionally, non-display door manufacturers were 
concerned about the flow of foam and the curing time of foam at max-
tech. New foaming equipment to accommodate 6-inch non-display doors 
would require significant capital investment and is a key driver of 
capital conversion costs. Of the 43 non-display door OEMs identified, 
40 are small, domestic businesses. DOE estimates capital conversion 
costs of $32.5 million and product conversion costs of $15.8 million. 
Conversion costs total $48.3 million.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all non-display 
doors is expected to increase by 15.8 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for non-display doors in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the 
increase in cashflow from the higher MSP slightly outweighs the $48.3 
million in conversion costs, causing a positive change in INPV at TSL 3 
under this scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit 
scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as 
would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not 
earn additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the 
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the 
$48.3 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of operating 
profit scenario.
    DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion 
costs and product conversion costs estimated for each efficiency level 
and TSL for walk-in display and non-display doors. See chapter 12 of 
the NOPR TSD for the estimated conversion costs for each analyzed 
efficiency level.
Panels

                       Table V.59--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results for Walk-In Panels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No-new-
                                        Unit         standards     TSL 1       TSL 2              TSL 3
                                                       case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV...........................  2022$ Million....       875.2       875.2       875.2  676.5 to 787.4.
Change in INPV *...............  %................  ..........  ..........  ..........  (22.7) to (10.0).
Free Cash Flow * (2026)........  2022$ Million....        78.6        78.6        78.6  (22.0).
Change in Free * Cash Flow *     %................  ..........  ..........  ..........  (128.0).
 (2026).
Product Conversion Costs.......  2022$ Million....  ..........  ..........  ..........  74.5.
Capital Conversion Costs.......  2022$ Million....  ..........  ..........  ..........  166.8.
Total Conversion Costs.........  2022$ Million....  ..........  ..........  ..........  241.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses (-) negative values.

    At TSL 1 and TSL 2, the standard for all walk-in panel equipment 
classes are set to the baseline efficiency level (EL 0). As a result, 
there are no changes to INPV, no changes in industry free cash flow, 
and no conversion costs.
    At TSL 3, the standard represents the max-tech energy efficiency 
for all equipment classes. The change in INPV is expected to range from 
-22.7 to -10.0 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by 128.0

[[Page 60829]]

percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $78.6 million in 
the year 2026, the year before the standards year. Currently, 
approximately 3 percent of domestic panel shipments meet the 
efficiencies required at TSL 3.
    The design options DOE analyzed at max-tech include increasing 
insulation thickness to 6 inches across all equipment classes. At this 
level, DOE assumes all manufacturers will need to purchase new foaming 
equipment. Increasing the insulation thickness for all panel equipment 
classes to 6 inches would require significant capital investment. Like 
non-display doors, most manufacturers are currently able to manufacture 
panels up to 5 inches thick. A standard level necessitating 6-inch 
panels would likely require new, costly foaming equipment for all 
manufacturers. Additionally, DOE estimates that every additional inch 
of foam increases panel cure times by roughly 10 minutes, which means 
that manufacturers would likely need to purchase additional equipment 
to maintain existing throughput. Some OEMs may need to invest in 
additional manufacturing space to accommodate the extra foaming 
stations. Of the 42 walk-in panel OEMs, 38 OEMs are small, domestic 
businesses. In interviews, manufacturers expressed concern about 
industry's ability to source the necessary foaming equipment to 
maintain existing production capacity within the 3-year compliance 
period due to the long lead times and limited number of foam fixture 
suppliers. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $166.8 million and 
product conversion costs of $74.5 million. Conversion costs total 
$241.3 million.
    At TSL 3, the large conversion costs result in a free cash flow 
dropping below zero in the years before the standards year. The 
negative free cash flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to 
access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all panels is 
expected to increase by 17.4 percent relative to the no-new-standards 
case shipment-weighted average MPC for all panels in 2027. In the 
preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the increase in 
cashflow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $241.3 million in 
conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under this 
scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, 
manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be 
earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn 
additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the 
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the 
$241.3 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 
large negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario.
    DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion 
costs and product conversion costs estimated for each efficiency level 
and TSL for walk-in panels. See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for the 
estimated conversion costs for each analyzed efficiency level.
Refrigeration Systems

                                   Table V.60--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           No-new-
                                           Unit           standards             TSL 1                        TSL 2                       TSL 3
                                                            case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.............................  2022$ Million.......       490.1  447.2 to 453.0.............  442.2 to 452.2............  330.5 to 456.2.
Change in INPV *.................  %...................  ..........  (8.7) to (7.6).............  (9.8) to (7.7)............  (32.6) to 11.5.
Free Cash Flow (2026)............  2022$ Million.......        44.8  21.7.......................  20.7......................  7.3.
Change in Free Cash Flow (2026) *  %...................  ..........  (51.6).....................  (53.7)....................  (83.7).
Product Conversion Costs.........  2022$ Million.......  ..........  25.3.......................  28.0......................  47.1.
Capital Conversion Costs.........  2022$ Million.......  ..........  32.1.......................  32.1......................  47.5.
Total Conversion Costs...........  2022$ Million.......  ..........  57.4.......................  60.1......................  94.6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses (-) negative values.

    At TSL 1, the standard represents a combination of efficiency 
levels where NPV at a 7-percent discount rate is maximized. The change 
in INPV is expected to range from -8.7 to -7.6 percent. At this level, 
free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 51.6 percent compared to the 
no-new-standards case value of $44.8 million in the year 2026, the year 
before the standards year. Currently, DOE has no evidence of 
significant shipments meeting efficiency levels above the baseline 
efficiency level (EL 0).
    DOE expects that at TSL 1, low- and medium-temperature indoor 
dedicated condensing system equipment classes \85\ would generally 
require larger condenser coils; low- and medium-temperature outdoor 
dedicated condensing system equipment classes would generally require 
self-regulating crank case heater controls with a temperature switch; 
low-temperature outdoor dedicated condensing systems would also 
generally require electronically commutated variable-speed condenser 
fan motors; some low- and medium-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
system equipment classes would require variable-speed evaporator fans; 
lower-capacity low- and medium-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
condensing units would generally require propane compressors; high-
temperature outdoor single-packaged dedicated condensing systems would 
generally require self-regulating crank case heater controls with a 
temperature switch and variable-speed condenser fans; high-temperature 
indoor single-packaged dedicated condensing systems would generally 
require up to 1.5 inches of thermal insulation. DOE expects that at TSL 
1, most unit cooler equipment classes would incorporate improved 
evaporator coil designs. See Table IV.28 for the efficiency levels by 
representative unit for TSL 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Dedicated condensing system equipment classes include 
dedicated condensing units, matched-pair refrigeration systems 
(consisting of a paired dedicated condensing unit and unit cooler) 
and single-packaged dedicated systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Capital conversion costs are driven by incorporating design options 
such as larger condenser coils, improved evaporator coils, and/or 
ambient subcooling circuits, which would likely necessitate new tooling 
for updated baseplate designs across some refrigeration system 
capacities and equipment classes. Implementing these design options 
would also require notable engineering resources and testing time, as 
manufacturers redesign models. Manufacturers would also need to 
qualify, source, and test new high-

[[Page 60830]]

efficiency components. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $32.1 
million and product conversion costs of $25.3 million. Conversion costs 
total $57.4 million.
    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigeration 
systems is expected to increase by 1.5 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigeration 
systems in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin percentage 
scenario, the minor increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is 
slightly outweighed by the $57.4 million in conversion costs, causing a 
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario. Under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 
same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-
standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from 
their investments. In this scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases 
in 2028, the year after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in 
the manufacturer markup and the $57.4 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at 
TSL 1 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 2, the standard represents a combination efficiency levels 
where FFC is maximized while constrained to a positive NPV at a 7-
percent discount rate. The change in INPV is expected to range from -
9.8 to -7.7 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by 53.7 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of 
$44.8 million in the year 2026, the year before the standards year.
    At TSL 2, DOE expects that manufacturers would need to incorporate 
similar design options as TSL 1. In addition to the design options 
analyzed at TSL 1, DOE expects that some low-temperature and indoor 
medium-temperature dedicated condensing system equipment classes would 
require larger condenser coils and/or ambient subcooling circuits. DOE 
expects that more medium-temperature outdoor dedicated condensing 
system equipment classes would require electronically commutated 
condenser fan motors and may require ambient subcooling circuits. DOE 
also expects that more low- and medium-temperature single-packaged 
dedicated system equipment classes would require larger evaporator 
coils and variable-speed evaporator fans. Low-temperature single-
packaged dedicated system equipment classes would also generally 
require thermal insulation up to 4 inches in thickness (i.e., 
SP.M.O.002, SP.M.I.002). High-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
condensing systems would generally require up to 1.5 inches of thermal 
insulation, electronically commutated variable-speed condenser fan 
motors, and ambient subcooling. DOE expects that at TSL 2, more unit 
cooler equipment classes would incorporate the max-tech design options 
(i.e., all equipment classes except for high-temperature non-ducted 
unit coolers, which would generally require evaporator coils 4 rows 
deep at TSL 2). See Table IV.26 for the efficiency levels by 
representative unit for TSL 2.
    DOE expects manufacturers would incur similar capital conversion 
costs at TSL 2 and TSL 1 since most manufacturers could rely on similar 
tooling investments at both TSLs. DOE expects manufacturers would incur 
slightly more conversion costs compared to TSL 1 as they update and 
test more refrigeration system capacities across their portfolio. DOE 
estimates capital conversion costs of $32.1 million and product 
conversion costs of $28.0 million. Conversion costs total $60.1 
million.
    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigeration 
systems is expected to increase by 2.6 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigeration 
systems in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin percentage 
scenario, the increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is slightly 
outweighed by the $60.1 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly 
negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario. Under the 
preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same 
per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards 
case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their 
investments. In this scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 
2028, the year after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in 
the manufacturer markup and the $60.1 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 2 
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 3, the standard represents the max-tech efficiency for all 
equipment classes. The change in INPV is expected to range from -32.6 
to 11.5 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease 
by 83.7 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $44.8 
million in the year 2026, the year before the standards year.
    At TSL 3, all manufacturers would need to incorporate all analyzed 
design options to meet the efficiencies required. DOE expects that 
medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing system equipment 
classes would require larger condenser coils, variable capacity 
compressors, and electronically commutated variable-speed condenser fan 
motors. Additionally, low- and medium-temperature outdoor dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes would generally require self-
regulating crank case heater controls with a temperature switch, and 
ambient subcooling circuits. DOE anticipates that low- and medium-
temperature single-packaged dedicated system equipment classes would 
also require larger evaporator coils, variable speed evaporator fans, 
and thermal insulation up to 4 inches in thickness. DOE expects that 
lower-capacity low- and medium-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
condensing units would require propane compressors. DOE expects that 
high-temperature dedicated condensing system equipment classes would 
require the same design options as medium- and low-temperature 
dedicated condensing systems except for larger condensing coils and 
variable capacity compressors. Additionally, DOE expects that high-
temperature single-packaged dedicated condensing systems would require 
up to 1.5 inches of thermal insulation and would not require larger 
evaporator coils or variable speed evaporator fans. DOE anticipates 
that lower-capacity low- and medium-temperature unit cooler equipment 
classes would require evaporator coils 4 rows deep at TSL 3. Finally, 
DOE anticipates that higher-capacity low- and medium-temperature unit 
cooler equipment classes and all high-temperature unit cooler equipment 
classes would require evaporator coils 5 rows deep at TSL 3. See Table 
IV.24 for the efficiency levels by representative unit for TSL 3.
    Currently, DOE has no evidence of significant shipments meeting the 
max-tech levels. As such, DOE assumes that all manufacturers would need 
to redesign their refrigeration system models to incorporate a range of 
design options to meet TSL 3 efficiencies. Capital conversion costs are 
driven by incorporating design options such as larger condenser coils, 
improved evaporator coils, and/or ambient subcooling circuits, which 
would likely necessitate new tooling for updated baseplate designs 
across the full range of refrigeration system capacities and equipment 
classes. Implementing these design options would also require notable 
engineering resources and testing time, as manufacturers redesign

[[Page 60831]]

models and potentially increase the footprint of refrigeration systems 
to accommodate larger condensers and/or evaporators.
    Manufacturers would also need to qualify, source, and test new 
high-efficiency components. For medium- and low-temperature dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes that would likely require variable 
capacity compressors to meet the max-tech levels, manufacturers could 
face challenges sourcing variable capacity compressors across their 
portfolio of capacity offerings since the availability of variable 
capacity compressors for walk-in applications is limited. At the time 
of this NOPR publication, the few variable capacity compressor product 
lines DOE identified are not advertised for the North American market. 
Additionally, the identified product lines may not have a sufficient 
range of available compressor capacities to replace compressors in all 
walk-in applications. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $47.5 
million and product conversion costs of $47.1 million. Conversion costs 
total $94.6 million.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigeration 
systems is expected to increase by 55.5 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigeration 
systems in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin percentage 
scenario, the increase in cashflow from the higher MSP outweighs the 
$94.6 million in conversion costs, causing a positive change in INPV at 
TSL 3 under this scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit 
scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as 
would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not 
earn additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the 
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the 
$94.6 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a 
significant negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario.
    DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion 
costs and product conversion costs estimated for each TSL for walk-in 
refrigeration systems.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of amended energy 
conservation standards on direct employment in the walk-in industry, 
DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and 
number of direct employees in the no-new-standards case and in each of 
the standards cases during the analysis period. DOE calculated these 
values using statistical data from the 2021 ASM,\86\ BLS employee 
compensation data,\87\ results of the engineering analysis, and 
manufacturer interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures. 
``Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S. 
(2021).'' Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/asm/2018-2021-asm.html (Last accessed February 14, 2023).
    \87\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation. March 17, 2023. Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (Last accessed April 12, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the 
labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption 
that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor 
expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the total MPCs 
by the labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the 
GRIM were then converted to total production employment levels by 
dividing production labor expenditures by the average fully burdened 
wage multiplied by the average number of hours worked per year per 
production worker. To do this, DOE relied on the ASM inputs: Production 
Workers Annual Wages, Production Workers Annual Hours, Production 
Workers for Pay Period, and Number of Employees. DOE also relied on the 
BLS employee compensation data to determine the fully burdened wage 
ratio. The fully burdened wage ratio factors in paid leave, 
supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally 
required benefits.
    The number of production employees is then multiplied by the U.S. 
labor percentage to convert total production employment to total 
domestic production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents 
the industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for 
the covered equipment. This value is derived from manufacturer 
interviews, equipment database analysis, and publicly available 
information. DOE estimates that approximately 90 percent of doors, 95 
percent of panels, and 70 percent of refrigeration systems are 
manufactured domestically.
    The domestic production employees estimate covers production line 
workers, including line supervisors, who are directly involved in 
fabricating and assembling products within the OEM facility. Workers 
performing services that are closely associated with production 
operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are also 
included as production labor. DOE's estimates only account for 
production workers who manufacture the specific equipment covered by 
this proposed rulemaking.
    Non-production workers account for the remainder of the direct 
employment figure. The non-production employees estimate covers 
domestic workers who are not directly involved in the production 
process, such as sales, engineering, human resources, and management. 
Using the amount of domestic production workers calculated above, non-
production domestic employees are extrapolated by multiplying the ratio 
of non-production workers in the industry compared to production 
employees. DOE assumes that this employee distribution ratio remains 
constant between the no-new-standards case and standards cases.
    In evaluating the impact of energy efficiency standards on 
employment, DOE performed separate analyses on all three walk-in 
component manufacturer industries: doors, panels, and refrigeration 
systems.
    Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards there would be 4,351 domestic workers for walk-
in doors, 7,534 domestic workers for walk-in panels, and 877 domestic 
workers for walk-in refrigeration systems in 2027. Table V.61, Table 
V.62, and Table V.63 show the range of the impacts of potential amended 
energy conservation standards on U.S. manufacturing employment in the 
door, panel, and refrigeration systems markets, respectively.

[[Page 60832]]



              Table V.61--Direct Employment Impacts for Domestic Walk-In Door Manufacturers in 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Trial standard levels
                                       No-new-standards --------------------------------------------------------
                                             case                1                  2                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Employment in 2027                         4,351              4,434              4,526              4,710
 (Production Workers + Non-
 Production Workers)................
Potential Changes in Direct           .................      (3,193) to 83     (3,193) to 175     (3,193) to 359
 Employment in 2027 *...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses denote negative values.


             Table V.62--Direct Employment Impacts for Domestic Walk-In Panel Manufacturers in 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Trial standard levels
                                       No-new-standards --------------------------------------------------------
                                             case                1                  2                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Employment in 2027                         7,534              7,534              7,534              7,689
 (Production Workers + Non-
 Production Workers)................
Potential Changes in Direct           .................  .................  .................     (5,529) to 155
 Employment in 2027 *...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses denote negative values.


      Table V.63--Direct Employment Impacts for Domestic Walk-In Refrigeration System Manufacturers in 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Trial standard levels
                                       No-new-standards --------------------------------------------------------
                                             case                1                  2                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Employment in 2027                           877                894                905                958
 (Production Workers + Non-
 Production Workers)................
Potential Changes in Direct           .................        (644) to 17        (644) to 28        (644) to 81
 Employment in 2027 *...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses denote negative values.

    The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.61 through Table 
V.63 represent the potential domestic employment changes that could 
result following the compliance date of amended energy conservation 
standards. The upper bound estimate corresponds to the change in the 
number of domestic workers that would result from amended energy 
conservation standards if manufacturers continue to produce the same 
scope of covered equipment within the United States after compliance 
takes effect. To establish a conservative lower bound, DOE assumes all 
manufacturers would shift production to foreign countries with lower 
costs of labor.
    Additional detail on the analysis of direct employment can be found 
in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. Additionally, the employment impacts 
discussed in this section are independent of the employment impacts 
from the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 16 of 
the NOPR TSD.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Doors
Display Doors
    In interviews, display door manufacturers indicated that 
implementing vacuum-insulated glass across all equipment classes and 
configurations would require significant engineering resources and 
testing time to ensure adequate durability in all commercial settings. 
Manufacturers also emphasized that there are currently a very limited 
number of suppliers of vacuum-insulated glass. In interviews, 
manufacturers expressed concerns that the 3-year time period between 
the announcement of the final rule and the compliance date of the 
amended energy conservation standard might be insufficient to design 
and test a full portfolio of new doors.
Non-Display Doors
    The production of non-display doors is very similar to the 
production of panels and faces the same capacity challenges as panels, 
which is discussed in the following paragraphs. As indicated in the 
panel discussion, DOE does not anticipate capacity constraints at a 
standard that moves manufacturers to 5 inches of thickness.
    DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect manufacturing 
capacity constraints would limit walk-in display and non-display door 
availability to consumers in the timeframe of the amended standard 
compliance date (2027).
Panels
    Manufacturers indicated that design options that necessitate 
thicker panels could lead to longer production times for panels. In 
general, every additional inch of foam increases cure times by roughly 
10 minutes. Based on information from manufacturer interviews and the 
engineering analysis, DOE understands that a number of manufacturers 
are able to produce panels above the baseline today and that a standard 
based on 5-inch panels is not likely to lead to equipment shortages in 
the industry. However, a standard that necessitates 6-inch panels for 
any of the panel equipment class would require manufacturers to add 
foaming equipment to maintain throughput due to longer curing times or 
to purchase all new tooling to enable production if the manufacturer's 
current equipment cannot accommodate 6-inch panels.
    DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect manufacturing 
capacity constraints would limit walk-in panel availability to 
consumers in the timeframe of the amended standard compliance date 
(2027).
Refrigeration Systems
    Manufacturers raised concerns about technical resource constraints 
due to overlapping regulations. Manufacturers may face resource 
constraints should EPA finalize its proposals in the December 2022 AIM 
NOPR and DOE set more stringent standards that necessitate the redesign 
of the majority

[[Page 60833]]

of models. These manufacturers stated that meeting EPA's proposed 
refrigerant regulation would take significant amounts of engineering 
resources, laboratory time, and investment.
    Based on manufacturer feedback from confidential interviews and 
publicly available information, DOE expects the walk-in refrigeration 
system industry would need to invest approximately $29.5 million over a 
two-year time period (2023-2024) to redesign models for low-GWP 
refrigerants and retrofit manufacturing facilities to accommodate 
flammable refrigerants in order to comply with EPA's proposal. Should 
amended standards require significant product development or capital 
investment, the 3-year period between the announcement of the final 
rule and the compliance date of the amended energy conservation 
standard might be insufficient to complete the dual development needed 
to meet both EPA and DOE regulations.
    DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect manufacturing 
capacity constraints or engineering resource constraints would limit 
walk-in refrigeration system availability to consumers in the timeframe 
of the amended standard compliance date (2027).
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop industry cash flow 
estimates may not capture the differential impacts among subgroups of 
manufacturers. Small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers 
exhibiting a cost structure that differs substantially from the 
industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE investigated 
small businesses as a manufacturer subgroup that could be 
disproportionally impacted by energy conservation standards and could 
merit additional analysis. DOE did not identify any other adversely 
impacted manufacturer subgroups for this rulemaking based on the 
results of the industry characterization.
    DOE analyzes the impacts on small businesses in a separate analysis 
in section VI.B of this document as part of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis. In summary, the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') 
defines a ``small business'' as having 1,250 employees or less for 
NAICS 333415, ``Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' For 
a discussion of the impacts on the small business manufacturer 
subgroup, see the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in section VI.B of 
this document and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product/equipment-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.

Table V.64--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting
                                                  Walk-In OEMs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Industry
                                               Number of OEMs      Approx.          Industry        conversion
 Federal energy conservation   Number of OEMs    affected by      standards     conversion costs   costs/product
           standard                   *         today's rule     compliance       (millions $)      revenue ***
                                                     **             year                                (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Pool Heaters, 88 FR               20               1            2028      $48.4 (2021$)             1.5
 34624 (May 30, 2023)........
Commercial Water Heating                   14               1            2026      34.60 (2020$)             4.7
 Equipment,[dagger] 87 FR
 30610 (May 19, 2022)........
Consumer Furnaces,[dagger] 87              15               4            2029      150.6 (2020$)             1.4
 FR 40590 (July 7, 2022).....
Microwave Ovens, 88 FR 39912               18               2            2026       46.1 (2021$)             0.7
 (June 20, 2023).............
Consumer Conventional Cooking              34               1            2027      183.4 (2021$)             1.2
 Products, 88 FR 6818
 [dagger] (February 1, 2023).
Refrigerators, Freezers, and               49               1            2027    1,323.6 (2021$)             3.8
 Refrigerator-
 Freezers,[dagger] 88 FR
 12452 (February 27, 2023)...
Room Air Conditioners, 88 FR                8               1            2026       24.8 (2021$)             0.4
 34298 (May 26, 2023)........
Miscellaneous Refrigeration                38               2            2029      126.9 (2021$)             3.1
 Products,[dagger] 88 FR 7840
 (February 7, 2023)..........
Dishwashers,[dagger] 88 FR                 22               1            2027      125.6 (2021$)             2.1
 32514 (May 19, 2023)........
Consumer Water Heaters                     22               1            2030      228.1 (2022$)             1.3
 [dagger] [Dagger]...........
Automatic Commercial Ice                   23               2            2027       15.9 (2022$)             0.6
 Makers,[dagger] 88 FR 30508
 (May 11, 2023)..............
Consumer Boilers [dagger]                  24               1            2030       69.5 (2022$)            2.6
 [Dagger]....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule that is
  contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of OEMs producing walk-ins that are also listed as OEMs in the identified
  energy conservation standard that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion
  period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant
  products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/
  equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are
  made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation
  standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking.
 [dagger] These rulemakings are at the NOPR stage, and all values are subject to change until finalized through
  publication of a final rule.
[Dagger] At the time of issuance of this WICFs proposed rule, the consumer water heaters and consumer boilers
  proposed rules have been issued and are pending publication in the Federal Register. Once published, the
  proposed rule pertaining to consumer water heaters will be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019 and the proposed rule pertaining to consumer boilers will be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0047.


[[Page 60834]]

Other Federal Regulations
    The December 2022 AIM NOPR \88\ proposes to restrict the use of 
hydrofluorocarbons in specific sectors or subsectors, including use in 
walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE understands that switching from non-
flammable to flammable refrigerants requires time and investment to 
redesign walk-in refrigeration systems and upgrade production 
facilities to accommodate the additional structural and safety 
precautions required. As discussed in sections IV.C.1.d of this 
document, DOE tentatively expects manufacturers will need to transition 
to an A2L or A3 refrigerant or CO2 to comply with upcoming 
refrigerant regulations, such as the December 2022 AIM NOPR, prior to 
the expected 2027 compliance date of any potential energy conservation 
standards. DOE tentatively determined that dedicating condensing 
systems would not suffer a performance penalty when switching to the 
likely low-GWP alternative (i.e., R-454A), and, therefore, DOE has 
continued to use R-448A and R-449A as the baseline refrigerant for all 
medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-
packaged dedicated systems in this NOPR analysis. DOE also does not 
expect that unit coolers would suffer a performance penalty when 
switching to low-GWP alternatives since increased refrigerant glide 
does not decrease unit cooler performance. Therefore, DOE has continued 
to use R-404A for medium- and low-temperature unit coolers and R-134A 
for high-temperature unit coolers in this NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The proposed rule was published on December 15, 2022. 87 FR 
76738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE maintains the use of current refrigerants (i.e., R-
448A, R-449A, R-404A, and R-134A) in its engineering analysis due to 
its tentative conclusion that there will be performance parity with the 
likely low-GWP alternatives, DOE still considers the cost associated 
with the refrigerant transition in its GRIM because the change in 
refrigerant is independent of DOE actions related to any amended energy 
conservation standards. Investments required to transition to flammable 
refrigerants in response to EPA's proposed rule, should it be 
finalized, necessitates a level of investment beyond typical annual R&D 
and capital expenditures. DOE accounted for the costs associated with 
redesigning walk-in refrigeration systems to make use of flammable 
refrigerants and retrofitting production facilities to accommodate 
flammable refrigerants in the GRIM in the no-new-standards case and 
standards cases to reflect the cumulative regulatory burden from 
Federal refrigerant regulation. DOE relied on manufacturer feedback in 
confidential interviews. a report prepared for EPA,\89\ and written 
comments from AHRI in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis to 
estimate the industry refrigerant transition costs. Based on feedback, 
DOE assumed that the transition to low-GWP refrigerants would require 
industry to invest approximately $14.5 million in R&D and $15.0 million 
in capital expenditures (e.g., investments in new charging equipment, 
leak detection systems, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See pp. 5-113 of the ``Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse 
Gas Emission Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: 
Methodology Documentation'' (2019). Available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comments on the magnitude of costs associated with 
transitioning walk-in refrigeration systems and production facilities 
to accommodate low-GWP refrigerants that would be incurred between the 
publication of this NOPR and the proposed compliance date of amended 
standards. Quantification and categorization of these costs, such as 
engineering efforts, testing lab time, certification costs, and capital 
investments (e.g., new charging equipment), would enable DOE to refine 
its analysis.
    DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of walk-ins associated with multiple 
DOE standards or product/equipment-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of 
consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as 
potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, DOE compared their energy 
consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy 
consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire 
lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). 
Table V.65 through Table V.70 presents DOE's projections of the NES for 
each TSL considered for walk-in coolers and freezers. The savings were 
calculated using the approach described in section IV.H of this 
document.

Table V.65--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezer Doors; 30 Years of Shipments 2027-
                                                      2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      (quads)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.53            0.62            0.89
FFC energy......................................................            0.54            0.64            0.92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60835]]


Table V.66 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezer Panels; 30 Years of Shipments 2027-
                                                      2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial Standard Level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      (quads)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.00            0.00            0.63
FFC energy......................................................            0.00            0.00            0.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.67--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezer Refrigeration Systems; 30 Years
                                                  of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      (quads)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.68            0.89            3.02
FFC energy......................................................            0.70            0.91            3.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \90\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\91\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to walk-ins. Thus, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis 
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table 
V.70. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of walk-in components 
purchased in 2027-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last 
accessed April 26, 2023).
    \91\ EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once 
every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period 
after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, 
except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 
years of the compliance date of the previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) While adding a 6-year review to the 3-
year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 
undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year period and that the 
3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year 
analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that 
occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some 
products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

   Table V.68--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Doors; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      (quads)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.14            0.16            0.24
FFC energy......................................................            0.14            0.17            0.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.69--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Panels; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      (quads)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................  ..............  ..............            0.17
FFC energy......................................................  ..............  ..............            0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60836]]


 Table V.70--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration Systems; 9 Years
                                                  of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      (quads)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.19            0.24            0.83
FFC energy......................................................            0.19            0.25            0.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for walk-in 
components. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory 
analysis,\92\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 
real discount rate. Table V.71 through Table V.73 shows the consumer 
NPV results with impacts counted over the lifetime of products 
purchased in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last 
accessed April 26, 2023).

 Table V.71--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Doors; 30 Years
                                                  of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (billion 2022$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................            1.56            1.74           -7.96
7 percent.......................................................            0.70            0.77           -4.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.72--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Panels; 30 Years
                                                  of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (billion 2022$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................  ..............  ..............           -5.18
7 percent.......................................................  ..............  ..............           -3.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.73--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration
                                         Systems; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (billion 2022$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................            1.49            1.62          -25.14
7 percent.......................................................            0.64            0.68          -12.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.74 through Table V.76. The impacts are 
counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2035. As 
mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational 
purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical 
methodology or decision criteria.

[[Page 60837]]



Table V.74--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Doors; 9 Years of
                                                    Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (billion 2022$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................            0.56            0.63           -2.86
7 percent.......................................................            0.34            0.37           -2.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.75--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Panels; 9 Years
                                                  of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (billion 2022$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................  ..............  ..............           -1.91
7 percent.......................................................  ..............  ..............           -1.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.76--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration
                                          Systems; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (billion 2022$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................            0.55            0.60           -9.18
7 percent.......................................................            0.32            0.34           -6.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate 
the change in price for walk-in coolers and freezers over the analysis 
period (see section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also conducted a 
sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of 
price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher 
rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these 
alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the 
high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in 
the default case. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer 
benefits is lower than in the default case.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE estimates that that amended energy conservation standards for 
walk-in coolers and freezers would reduce energy expenditures for 
consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being 
redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts 
in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As 
described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output 
model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of 
the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in 
projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of 
the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes 
(2027-2036), where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to 
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. 
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in 
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 
effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed 
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section III.F.1.d of this document, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would 
not lessen the utility or performance of the walk-in coolers and 
freezers under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 
products currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed 
standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e 
of this document, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, 
of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed 
standard, and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To 
assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has 
provided DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for 
review. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in 
determining whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and 
respond to DOJ's comments in that document. DOE invites comment

[[Page 60838]]

from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to 
result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also 
provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. 
See the ADDRESSES section for information to send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD 
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, 
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered 
in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers is expected to yield 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.77 provides DOE's estimate of 
cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs 
considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the 
multipliers discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports annual emissions 
reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

        Table V.77--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Shipped in 2027-2054
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................           20.68           25.91          149.54
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................            1.55            1.94           11.63
N2O (thousand tons).............................................            0.22            0.27            1.63
NOX (thousand tons).............................................            9.96           12.48           75.08
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................            6.86            8.60           71.84
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.05            0.06            0.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................            2.07            2.60           11.49
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................          187.92          235.47         1086.42
N2O (thousand tons).............................................            0.01            0.01            0.06
NOX (thousand tons).............................................           32.23           40.38          174.00
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................            0.13            0.16            0.80
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................           22.75           28.50          161.03
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................          189.47          237.41         1098.04
N2O (thousand tons).............................................            0.22            0.28            1.68
NOX (thousand tons).............................................           42.18           52.86          249.08
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................            6.99            8.76           72.64
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.05            0.06            0.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Negative values refer to an increase in emissions.

    As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE 
estimated for each of the considered TSLs for walk-ins. Section IV.L of 
this document discusses the SC-CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.78 
presents the value of CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for each of 
the SC-CO2 cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for the 
proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

   Table V.78--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-CO2 case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                       TSL                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (billion 2022$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.24            1.02            1.59            3.11
2...............................................            0.30            1.28            1.99            3.89
3...............................................            0.90            3.81            5.94           11.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60839]]

    As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the 
climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane 
and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for walk-in 
coolers and freezers. Table V.79 presents the value of the CH4 
emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table V.80 presents the value of 
the N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of annual 
values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

 Table V.79--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-CH4 case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                       TSL                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3%  Average    2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (billion 2022$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.09            0.27            0.37            0.71
2...............................................            0.11            0.34            0.47            0.89
3...............................................            0.34            1.00            1.40            2.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table V.80--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Shipped in 2027-
                                                      2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-N2O case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                       TSL                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (billion 2022$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.00            0.00            0.01            0.01
2...............................................            0.00            0.00            0.01            0.01
3...............................................            0.00            0.01            0.02            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future 
global climate and the potential resulting damages to the global and 
U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with other 
Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for estimating 
the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This 
ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part 
of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes that the proposed 
standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of 
monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions anticipated to result 
from the considered TSLs for walk-ins. The dollar-per-ton values that 
DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this document. Table V.81 
presents the present value for NOX emissions reduction for each TSL 
calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.82 
presents similar results for SO2 emissions reductions. The results in 
these tables reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, 
which DOE used to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is 
presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

    Table V.81--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for Walk-Ins
                          Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TSL                 3% Discount rate    7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              (million 2022$)
                                 ---------------------------------------
1...............................            2,066.09              865.00
2...............................            2,588.54            1,083.62
3...............................            7,697.98            3,187.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60840]]


    Table V.82--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Walk-Ins
                          Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  (million 2022$)
                                         -------------------------------
1.......................................          478.11          204.03
2.......................................          599.00          255.59
3.......................................        1,778.80          750.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the 
reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx, and SO2 are captured in 
the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from the 
reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of direct 
PM and other co-pollutants may be significant. DOE has not included 
monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg emissions because the amount 
of reduction is very small.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.83 through Table V.85 present the NPV values that result 
from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting 
from reduced GHG and NOX and SO2 emissions to the 
NPV of consumer benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this 
rulemaking. The consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings 
that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment, and are 
measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2027-2056. The climate 
benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the 
adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated based on 
the lifetime of walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056.

 Table V.83--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits for Walk-In Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            2.83            3.24           -5.83
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            3.25            3.74           -5.12
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................            3.55            4.09           -4.62
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................            4.37            5.05           -3.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            1.32            1.51           -3.61
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            1.75            2.01           -2.90
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................            2.04            2.36           -2.40
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................            2.86            3.32           -1.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.84--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits for Walk-In Panels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................  ..............  ..............           -3.73
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................  ..............  ..............           -3.24
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................  ..............  ..............           -2.90
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................  ..............  ..............           -1.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................  ..............  ..............           -2.41
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................  ..............  ..............           -1.92
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................  ..............  ..............           -1.58
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................  ..............  ..............           -0.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V.85--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits for Walk-In
                                              Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            3.10            3.73          -18.00
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            3.64            4.44          -15.61
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................            4.02            4.93          -13.93
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................            5.05            6.29           -9.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60841]]

 
                   Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            1.42            1.70           -9.54
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            1.96            2.41           -7.15
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................            2.34            2.90           -5.47
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................            3.38            4.26           -0.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically 
justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, 
considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result 
in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for 
walk-ins at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically 
feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically 
justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then 
considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a 
significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Walk-Ins Standards
a. Doors
    Table V.87, Table V.88, Table V.90, and Table V.91 summarize the 
quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for walk-in display doors 
and non-display doors. National impacts for walk-in doors are measured 
over the lifetime of walk-ins purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards 
(2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of 
emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results.
Display Doors
    Walk-in display door efficiency levels contained in each TSL are 
shown in Table V.86 and described in section IV.E.1 of this document. 
Table V.87 and Table V.88 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for walk-in display doors.

               Table V.86--Walk-In Display Doors Efficiency Level Mapping by Trial Standard Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Equipment class                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Temperature (DW.L)..........................................               0               0               2
Medium Temperature (DW.M).......................................               0               0               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table V.87--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Display Doors TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...........................................................  ..............  ..............            0.25
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................  ..............  ..............             4.5
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............            37.8
N2O (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............             0.0
NOX (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............             8.4
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............             1.4
Hg (tons).......................................................  ..............  ..............            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................  ..............  ..............            0.86
Climate Benefits *..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.25
Health Benefits **..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.49
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................  ..............  ..............            1.60
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................  ..............  ..............            8.41
Consumer Net Benefits...........................................  ..............  ..............           -7.54
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 60842]]

 
    Total Net Monetized Benefits................................  ..............  ..............           -6.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................  ..............  ..............            0.38
Climate Benefits *..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.25
Health Benefits **..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.20
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................  ..............  ..............            0.83
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................  ..............  ..............            4.61
Consumer Net Benefits...........................................  ..............  ..............           -4.22
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Net Monetized Benefits................................  ..............  ..............           -3.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and
  value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits
  of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
  Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
  published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


  Table V.88--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-Ins Display Doors TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                         TSL 1 *         TSL 2 *                  TSL 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards           278.0           278.0  215.5 to 355.6.
 case INPV = 278.0).
Industry NPV (% change).......................              --              --  (22.5) to 27.9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L..........................................              --              --  (1,106).
DW.M..........................................              --              --  (1,247).
Shipment-Weighted Average *...................              --              --  (1,232).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L..........................................              --              --  44.0.
DW.M..........................................              --              --  99.1.
Shipment-Weighted Average *...................              --              --  93.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW.L..........................................              --              --  100.
DW.M..........................................              --              --  100.
Shipment-Weighted Average *...................              --              --  100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``--'' means not applicable because there is no change in
  the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.

    For walk-in display doors, DOE first considered TSL 3, which 
represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At TSL 3, DOE expects 
display doors would require the use of vacuum-insulated glass as a 
substitute for the prescriptive minimum design of double-pane or 
triple-pane insulated glass packs for medium-temperature doors and low-
temperature doors, respectively. TSL 3 would save an estimated 0.25 
quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the 
NPV of consumer benefit would be -$4.22 billion using a discount rate 
of 7 percent, and -$7.54 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 4.5 Mt of 
CO2, 1.4 thousand tons of SO2, 8.4 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 37.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.0 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $0.25 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is $ 0.20 billion using a 7-percent

[[Page 60843]]

discount rate and $0.49 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is -$6.81 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is -$3.78 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3 for walk-in display doors, the average LCC impact ranges 
from a savings of -$1,247 for DW.M to -$1,106 for DW.L. The simple 
payback period ranges from 44.0 years for DW.L to 99.1 years for DW.M. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 100 percent 
for all walk-in display doors.
    At TSL 3 for walk-in display doors, the projected change in INPV 
ranges from a decrease of $62.5 million to an increase of $77.6 
million, which corresponds to a decrease of 22.5 percent and an 
increase of 27.9 percent, respectively. DOE estimates industry would 
invest $25.5 million to redesign walk-in display doors to incorporate 
vacuum-insulated glass.
    DOE estimates that there are no walk-in display door shipments that 
currently meet the max-tech efficiency levels. For the 10 OEMs that 
manufacture walk-in display doors, implementing vacuum-insulated glass 
would require significant engineering resources and testing time to 
ensure adequate durability of their doors in all commercial settings. 
In interviews, manufacturers emphasized that there are currently a very 
limited number of suppliers of vacuum-insulated glass. Door 
manufacturers expressed concerns that the 3-year conversion period 
between the publication of the final rule and the compliance date of 
the amended energy conservation standard might be insufficient to 
design and test a full portfolio of vacuum-insulated doors that meet 
the max-tech efficiencies and maintain their internal metrics over the 
door lifetime.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for all walk-in 
display doors, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and 
the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be 
outweighed by the economic burden in the form of negative NPV of 
consumer benefits, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the 
large conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a 
large reduction in INPV. No manufacturers currently offer equipment 
that meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 3. Walk-in display door 
manufacturers raised concern about their ability to incorporate vacuum 
insulated glass across all their offerings, while also maintaining 
important display door performance characteristics, within three years. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for walk-
in display doors by grouping the efficiency levels for low- and medium-
temperature display doors into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed 
efficiency levels in its analysis. As defined in section IV.E.1, TSL 2 
and TSL 1 require efficiency levels with positive consumer NPV at a 7-
percent discount rate. As shown in appendix 8E of the NOPR TSD, none of 
the efficiency level improvements to walk-in display doors yield 
positive consumer benefit for any of the considered equipment classes, 
resulting in TSL 2 and TSL 1 with efficiency levels at the current 
baseline.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, the Secretary is 
tentatively proposing to not amend energy conservation standards for 
walk-in display doors at this time.
Non-Display Doors
    Walk-in non-display door efficiency levels contained in each TSL 
are shown in Table V.89 and described in section IV.E.1 of this 
document. Table V.90 and Table V.91 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for walk-in non-display doors.

              Table V.89--Walk-In Non-Display Door Efficiency Level Mapping by Trial Standard Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Equipment class                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Motorized Low Temperature (NM.L)............................               3               3               5
Non-Motorized Medium Temperature (NM.M).........................               1               3               6
Motorized Low Temperature (NO.L)................................               3               3               5
Motorized Medium Temperature (NO.M).............................               1               3               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table V.90--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Non-display Doors TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...........................................................            0.54            0.64            0.67
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................            10.0            11.8            12.4
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................            82.7            97.6           102.7
N2O (thousand tons).............................................             0.1             0.1             0.1
NOX (thousand tons).............................................            18.4            21.8            22.9
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................             3.1             3.6             3.8
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.02            0.02            0.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            1.99            2.35            2.47
Climate Benefits *..............................................            0.57            0.67            0.71
Health Benefits **..............................................            1.12            1.33            1.40
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................            3.68            4.35            4.58
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            0.43            0.61            2.89

[[Page 60844]]

 
Consumer Net Benefits...........................................            1.56            1.74           -0.41
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Net Monetized Benefits................................            3.25            3.74            1.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            0.93            1.11            1.16
Climate Benefits *..............................................            0.57            0.67            0.71
Health Benefits **..............................................            0.48            0.56            0.59
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................            1.98            2.34            2.47
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            0.23            0.34            1.59
Consumer Net Benefits...........................................            0.70            0.77           -0.43
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Net Monetized Benefits................................            1.75            2.01            0.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and
  value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits
  of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
  Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
  published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


 Table V.91--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Non-Display Doors TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                              TSL 1 *            TSL 2 *            TSL 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards case         522.6 to 529.4     511.2 to 522.5     485.1 to 549.4
 INPV = 536.7).........................................
Industry NPV (% change)................................     (2.6) to (1.4)     (4.8) to (2.6)       (9.6) to 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM.L...................................................                724                723                307
NM.M...................................................                203                 86              (291)
NO.L...................................................              1,194              1,192                932
NO.M...................................................                306                113              (266)
Shipment-Weighted Average *............................                388                308               (80)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM.L...................................................                1.3                1.3                2.8
NM.M...................................................                2.4                3.2                8.2
NO.L...................................................                1.0                1.0                2.1
NO.M...................................................                1.8                2.4                6.3
Shipment-Weighted Average *............................                2.0                2.5                6.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM.L...................................................                  2                  2                 37
NM.M...................................................                  2                 11                 96
NO.L...................................................                  1                  2                  9
NO.M...................................................                  0                  3                 95
Shipment-Weighted Average *............................                  2                  2                 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``--'' means not applicable because there is no change in
  the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.

    For walk-in non-display doors, DOE first considered TSL 3, which 
represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At TSL 3, DOE expects all 
non-display doors would require the following additional design 
options: anti-sweat heater controls, improved framing systems, reduced 
anti-sweat heat, and insulation thickness of 6 inches.

[[Page 60845]]

    For walk-in non-display doors, TSL 3 would save an estimated 0.68 
quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the 
NPV of consumer benefits would be -$0.43 billion using a discount rate 
of 7 percent, and -$0.41 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 12.4 Mt of 
CO2, 3.8 thousand tons of SO2, 22.9 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.03 tons of Hg, 102.7 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $0.71 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is $0.59 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.40 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $0.88 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $1.69 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact ranges from a savings of -$291 for 
medium-temperature manual non-display doors to $932 for low-temperature 
motorized non-display doors. The simple payback period ranges from 2.1 
years for low-temperature motorized non-display doors to 8.2 years for 
medium-temperature manual non-display doors. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from 7 percent for low-temperature 
motorized non-display doors to 78 percent for medium-temperature manual 
non-display doors.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$51.6 million to an increase of $12.7 million, which corresponds to a 
decrease of 9.6 percent and an increase of 2.4 percent, respectively. 
DOE estimates industry would invest $48.3 million to purchase new 
foaming equipment and tooling to increase insulation thickness to 6 
inches for all walk-in non-display doors.
    DOE estimates that there are no walk-in non-display door shipments 
that currently meet the max-tech efficiency levels. For the 43 OEMs 
that manufacture walk-in non-display doors, increasing insulation 
thickness from the assumed baseline thickness of 3.5 inches for medium-
temperature and 4 inches for low-temperature non-display doors to 6 
inches would require purchasing new foaming equipment since most 
manufacturers are only able to manufacture non-display doors up to 5 
inches thick. Additionally, non-display door manufacturers were 
concerned about the flow of foam and the curing time of foam at max-
tech. New foaming equipment to accommodate 6-inch non-display doors 
would require significant capital investment and is a key driver of 
capital conversion costs. Of the 43 non-display door OEMs identified, 
40 are small, domestic businesses.
    Furthermore, of the 43 walk-in non-display door OEMs, 39 OEMs also 
produce walk-in panels. Most of these OEMs use the same panel foaming 
systems to produce non-display doors that they use to produce panels; 
however, panel shipments dwarf shipments of non-display doors. Because 
the same product lines are used, these OEMs offer non-display doors in 
the same range of thickness as panels. It is typical to align the 
thickness of non-display doors and panels to avoid a situation where 
the walk-in door protrudes from the surrounding panel enclosure. Were 
the thickness of non-display doors and panels to be different in an 
installation, consumers may need to prematurely replace the surrounding 
panels to accommodate a thicker non-display door. Thus, a standard that 
would require 6-inch-thick non-display doors may inadvertently force 
consumers to purchase some or all panels of the walk-in that are 6-
inches thick so that the thickness of the entire walk-in is the same or 
that there is appropriate structural transition between the door and 
panels of differing thicknesses. As discussed in section V.C.1.b, 
panels of 6-inch thickness do not have positive consumer benefits.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for walk-in non-
display doors, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and 
the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be 
outweighed by the economic burden of negative NPV of consumer benefits, 
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and 
profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV, and the 
absence of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the 
efficiency levels required at this TSL, including all small businesses 
of non-display doors. Manufacturers of non-display doors would need to 
increase insulation thickness to 6 inches across all equipment classes, 
necessitating large capital investments. Additionally, no walk-in non-
display door manufacturers offer models in the CCD that meet the 
efficiency level required at TSL 3. Nearly all the non-display door 
OEMs identified are small, domestic businesses. Lastly, to purchase 
walk-in doors at TSL 3, consumers may also be required to purchase some 
or all panels of their walk-ins at a level that is not economically 
justified for the thickness of the door and panel to be uniform. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2 for walk-in non-display doors, which 
represents efficiency level 3 for all non-display doors. At TSL 2, DOE 
expects that all walk-in non-display doors would require anti-sweat 
heater controls, improved framing systems and reduced anti-sweat heat.
    TSL 2 would save an estimated 0.64 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be $0.77 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.74 billion 
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 11.8 Mt of 
CO2, 3.6 thousand tons of SO2, 21.8 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.02 tons of Hg, 97.6 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 2 is $0.67 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 2 is $0.56 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.33 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $2.01 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $3.74 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact ranges from a savings of $86 for 
medium-temperature, manual non-display doors to $1,192 for low-

[[Page 60846]]

temperature motorized non-display doors. The simple payback period 
ranges from 1.0 years for low-temperature, motorized non-display doors 
to 3.2 years for medium-temperature, manual non-display doors. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from 2 percent 
for low-temperature, motorized non-display doors to 11 percent for 
medium-temperature, manual non-display doors.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$25.5 million to a decrease of $14.2 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 4.8 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $28.9 million to comply with standards for 
non-display doors set at TSL 2. DOE estimates that approximately 12 
percent of non-display door shipments currently meet TSL 2 
efficiencies. At this level, DOE expects manufacturers would need to 
update non-display door models to incorporate anti-sweat heater 
controls, improved door frame designs, and reduced anti-sweat heat. DOE 
does not expect manufacturers would need to increase insulation 
thickness to meet the efficiency levels required by TSL 2.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at 
TSL 2 for walk-in non-display doors would be economically justified. At 
this TSL, the average LCC savings for all non-display door consumers 
are positive, and the greatest fraction of consumers to experience net 
cost is estimated at 11 percent for medium-temperature, manual non-
display doors. At TSL 2, the FFC national energy savings are 
significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 
3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to 
consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At TSL 2, the NPV 
of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount 
rate of 7 percent is over 28 times higher than the maximum estimated 
manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 2 are 
economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary 
value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are 
included--representing $0.67 billion in climate benefits (associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $1.33 
billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.56 billion (using a 7-
percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale for setting 
standards at TSL 2 for walk-in doors is further strengthened.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for walk-in non-display doors 
at TSL 2. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for walk-
in non-display doors, which are expressed as kWh/year, are shown in 
Table V.92.

            Table V.92--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Non-Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Maximum daily energy
         Display/non-display              Opening mechanism           Temperature        consumption (kWh/day) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Display..........................  Manual.................  Medium.................  0.01 x And + 0.25
                                                                Low....................  0.06 x And + 1.32
                                       Manual.................  Medium.................  0.01 x And + 0.39
                                                                Low....................  0.05 x And + 1.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And is the representative value of surface area of the non-display door as determined in accordance with the
  DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A and applicable sampling plans.

b. Panels
    The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are shown in Table V.93 
and described in section IV.E.1 of this document. Table V.94 and Table 
V.95 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for 
walk-in panels. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of 
walk-ins purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated 
year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). The energy 
savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer 
to full-fuel-cycle results.

                   Table V.93--Walk-In Panel Efficiency Level Mapping by Trial Standard Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Equipment class                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor Low Temperature (PF.L)....................................               0               0               3
Structural Low Temperature (PS.L)...............................               0               0               2
Structural Medium Temperature (PS.M)............................               0               0               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table V.94--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Panel TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...........................................................  ..............  ..............            0.64
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................  ..............  ..............            11.7
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............            98.2
N2O (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............             0.1
NOX (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............            21.8
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................  ..............  ..............             3.6
Hg (tons).......................................................  ..............  ..............            0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60847]]

 
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................  ..............  ..............            2.28
Climate Benefits *..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.65
Health Benefits **..............................................  ..............  ..............            1.28
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...............................  ..............  ..............            4.22
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................  ..............  ..............            7.46
Consumer Net Benefits...........................................  ..............  ..............           -5.18
Total Net Monetized Benefits....................................  ..............  ..............           -3.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................  ..............  ..............            1.02
Climate Benefits *..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.65
Health Benefits **..............................................  ..............  ..............            0.52
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...............................  ..............  ..............            2.20
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................  ..............  ..............            4.12
Consumer Net Benefits...........................................  ..............  ..............           -3.10
Total Net Monetized Benefits....................................  ..............  ..............           -1.92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-
  2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-
  2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and
  value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits
  of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
  Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
  published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


Table V.95--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Panel TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer
                                                     Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                       TSL 1 *         TSL 2 *                    TSL 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-                875.2           875.2  676.5 to 787.4.
 standards case INPV = 875.2).
Industry NPV (% change)...................              --              --  (22.7) to (10.0).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Consumer Average LCC Savings per ft\2\ (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L......................................              --              --  (1.61).
PS.L......................................              --              --  (0.50).
PS.M......................................              --              --  (2.33).
Shipment-Weighted Average *...............              --              --  (1.92).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L......................................              --              --  26.1.
PS.L......................................              --              --  10.1.
PS.M......................................              --              --  54.0.
Shipment-Weighted Average *...............              --              --  43.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PF.L......................................              --              --  95.
PS.L......................................              --              --  64.
PS.M......................................              --              --  100.
Shipment-Weighted Average *...............              --              --  92.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``--'' means not applicable because there is no change in
  the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.

    For panels, DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-
tech efficiency levels. At TSL 3, DOE expects that all panels would 
require an insulation thickness of 6 inches.

[[Page 60848]]

    TSL 3 would save an estimated 0.64 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be -$3.10 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$5.18 
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 11.79 Mt of 
CO2, 3.6 thousand tons of SO2, 21.8 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.02 tons of Hg, 982 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $0.65 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is $0.52 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.28 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is -$1.92 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is -$3.24 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact ranges from a savings of -$2.33 
per square foot of panel for medium-temperature, structural panels to -
$0.50 per square foot of panel for low-temperature, structural panels. 
The simple payback period ranges from 10.1 years for low-temperature, 
structural panels to 54.0 years for medium-temperature, structural 
panels. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges 
from 64 percent for low-temperature, structural panels to 100 percent 
for medium-temperature, structural panels.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$198.8 million to a decrease of $87.9 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 22.7 percent and 10.0 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $241.3 million to update panel designs and 
purchase new foaming equipment and tooling to increase insulation 
thickness to 6 inches across all panel models.
    DOE estimates that 3 percent of walk-in panel shipments currently 
meet the max-tech levels. Increasing the insulation thickness for all 
panel equipment classes to 6 inches would require significant capital 
investment. Like walk-in non-display doors, most manufacturers are 
currently able to manufacture walk-in panels up to 5 inches thick. A 
standard level necessitating 6-inch panels would likely require new, 
costly foaming equipment for all manufacturers. Additionally, DOE 
estimates that every additional inch of foam increases panel cure times 
by roughly 10 minutes, which means that manufacturers would likely need 
to purchase additional equipment to maintain existing throughput. Some 
OEMs may need to invest in additional manufacturing space to 
accommodate the extra foaming stations. Of the 42 walk-in panel OEMs, 
38 OEMs are small, domestic businesses. In interviews, manufacturers 
expressed concern about industry's ability to source the necessary 
foaming equipment to maintain existing production capacity within the 
3-year compliance period due to the long lead times and limited number 
of foam fixture suppliers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for walk-in 
panels, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be 
outweighed by the economic burden, in the form of negative NPV, on many 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large 
conversion costs, profit margin impacts that could result in a large 
reduction in INPV, and the small number of manufacturers currently 
offering products meeting the efficiency levels required at this TSL, 
including most small businesses. A majority of panel consumers would 
experience a net cost ranging from 64 percent for low-temperature, 
structural panels to 100 percent for medium-temperature, structural 
panels and the average LCC savings would be negative. The potential 
reduction in INPV could be as high as 22.7 percent. The drop in 
industry value and reduction in free cash flow after the compliance 
year is driven by a range of factors, but most notably the changes are 
driven by conversion cost investments manufacturers must make to 
redesign and produce more efficient walk-in panels. Most manufacturers 
would need to dedicate significant resources to purchase all new 
foaming equipment. Due to the longer curing times, some manufacturers 
may need to both replace existing foaming equipment and purchase 
additional foaming equipment to maintain current production capacity. 
Furthermore, most panel manufacturers are small, domestic 
manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded 
that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for walk-
in panels by grouping the efficiency levels for low- and medium-
temperature structural panels and low-temperature floor panels into 
TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. As 
defined in section IV.E.1 of this document, TSL 2 and TSL 1 require 
efficiency levels with positive consumer NPV at a 7 percent discount 
rate. As shown in appendix 8E of the NOPR TSD, none of the efficiency 
level improvements to insulated panels yield positive consumer benefit 
for any of the considered equipment classes, resulting in TSL 2 and TSL 
1 with efficiency levels at the current baseline.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, the Secretary is 
tentatively proposing to not amend energy conservation standards for 
walk-in panels at this time.
c. Refrigeration Systems
    The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are shown in Table V.96 
and described in section IV.E.1 of this document. Table V.97 and Table 
V.98 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for 
walk-ins. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of walk-
ins purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year 
of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, 
emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-
fuel-cycle results.

               Table V.96--Walk-In Refrigeration System Efficiency Levels by Trial Standard Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Capacity
                  Type                          Equipment class       (kBtu/hr)    TSL 1      TSL 2      TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Systems............  DC.L.I....................          3          1          1          2
                                          DC.L.I....................          9          0          0          1
                                          DC.L.I....................         25          2          2          3

[[Page 60849]]

 
                                          DC.L.I....................         54          1          1          2
                                          DC.L.O....................          3          2          2          3
                                          DC.L.O....................          9          3          3          5
                                          DC.L.O....................         25          5          7          8
                                          DC.L.O....................         54          3          4          5
                                          DC.L.O....................         75          3          3          5
                                          DC.M.I....................          9          0          0          1
                                          DC.M.I....................         25          1          1          2
                                          DC.M.I....................         54          2          2          3
                                          DC.M.I....................         75          2          2          3
                                          DC.M.O....................          9          1          2          7
                                          DC.M.O....................         25          2          3          8
                                          DC.M.O....................         54          3          3          7
                                          DC.M.O....................         75          3          3          8
                                          DC.M.O....................        124          2          3          8
Single-Packaged Dedicated Condensing      SP.H.I....................          2          1          1          2
 Systems.
                                          SP.H.I....................          7          2          2          2
                                          SP.H.ID...................          2          2          2          2
                                          SP.H.ID...................          7          2          2          2
                                          SP.H.O....................          2          4          5          6
                                          SP.H.O....................          7          3          5          6
                                          SP.H.OD...................          2          4          5          6
                                          SP.H.OD...................          7          3          6          6
                                          SP.L.I....................          2          4          4          7
                                          SP.L.I....................          6          2          2          3
                                          SP.L.O....................          2          0          0          4
                                          SP.L.O....................          6          0          0          4
                                          SP.M.I....................          2          2          3          5
                                          SP.M.I....................          9          1          1          3
                                          SP.M.O....................          2          5          7          9
                                          SP.M.O....................          9          3          3          5
Unit Coolers............................  UC.H.I....................          9          0          0          1
                                          UC.H.I....................         25          0          0          1
                                          UC.H.ID...................          9          1          1          1
                                          UC.H.ID...................         25          1          1          1
                                          UC.L......................          3          1          2          2
                                          UC.L......................          9          2          2          2
                                          UC.L......................         25          1          2          2
                                          UC.L......................         54          2          2          2
                                          UC.L......................         75          1          2          2
                                          UC.M......................          3          1          2          2
                                          UC.M......................          9          2          2          2
                                          UC.M......................         25          1          2          2
                                          UC.M......................         54          2          2          2
                                          UC.M......................         75          1          2          2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table V.97--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Refrigeration
                      System TSLs: National Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                 TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads............................         0.70         0.91         3.10
CO2 (million metric tons)........         12.8         16.7         56.8
CH4 (thousand tons)..............        106.8        139.8        474.0
N2O (thousand tons)..............          0.1          0.2          0.6
NOX (thousand tons)..............         23.8         31.1        105.4
SO2 (thousand tons)..............          3.9          5.1         17.4
Hg (tons)........................         0.03         0.04         0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings..         1.91         2.31        -9.16
Climate Benefits *...............         0.72         0.95         3.22
Health Benefits **...............         1.42         1.86         6.31
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]         4.06         5.12         0.37
Consumer Incremental Product              0.42         0.69        15.99
 Costs [Dagger]..................
Consumer Net Benefits............         1.49         1.62       -25.14
Total Net Monetized Benefits.....         3.64         4.44       -15.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60850]]

 
  Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings..         0.88         1.06        -4.17
Climate Benefits *...............         0.72         0.95         3.22
Health Benefits **...............         0.59         0.77         2.63
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]         2.19         2.79         1.67
Consumer Incremental Product              0.23         0.38         8.82
 Costs [Dagger]..................
Consumer Net Benefits............         0.64         0.68       -12.99
Total Net Monetized Benefits.....         1.96         2.41        -7.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in
  coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-2056. These results include
  benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products
  shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together, these represent the global SC-
  GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
  associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
  shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
  the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To
  monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses
  the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
  Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
  Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of
  3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health
  benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both
  the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
  GHG with 3-percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
  installation costs.


      Table V.98--Summary of Analytical Results for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration System TSLs:
                                        Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                       TSL 1 *                    TSL 2 *                   TSL 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-  447.2 to 453.0...........  442.2 to 452.2..........  330.5 to 546.2
 new-standards case INPV = 490.1).
Industry NPV (% change)..........  (8.7) to (7.6)...........  (9.8) to (7.7)..........  (32.6) to 11.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I...........................  163......................  163.....................  (5,218)
DC.L.O...........................  237......................  172.....................  (15,792)
DC.M.I...........................  567......................  567.....................  (2,047)
DC.M.O...........................  101......................  136.....................  (1,896)
SP.H.I...........................  124......................  124.....................  103
SP.H.ID..........................  296......................  296.....................  296
SP.H.O...........................  159......................  126.....................  (53)
SP.H.OD..........................  437......................  305.....................  270
SP.L.I...........................  180......................  180.....................  (1,575)
SP.L.O...........................  --.......................  --......................  (1,278)
SP.M.I...........................  114......................  103.....................  (1,577)
SP.M.O...........................  186......................  177.....................  (1,116)
UC.H.............................  --.......................  --......................  (152)
UC.H.ID..........................  237......................  237.....................  237
UC.L.............................  1,080....................  1,306...................  1,306
UC.M.............................  170......................  212.....................  212
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\....  308......................  353.....................  (2,384)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I...........................  4.0......................  4.0.....................  inf
DC.L.O...........................  1.4......................  3.6.....................  inf
DC.M.I...........................  3.4......................  3.4.....................  inf
DC.M.O...........................  1.6......................  2.6.....................  21.6
SP.H.I...........................  1.3......................  1.3.....................  2.5
SP.H.ID..........................  1.7......................  1.7.....................  1.7
SP.H.O...........................  0.4......................  2.9.....................  9.0
SP.H.OD..........................  0.2......................  3.4.....................  3.8
SP.L.I...........................  3.8......................  3.8.....................  inf
SP.L.O...........................  .........................  ........................  39.0
SP.M.I...........................  3.0......................  3.5.....................  inf
SP.M.O...........................  0.9......................  1.2.....................  50.8
UC.H.............................  .........................  ........................  inf
UC.H.ID..........................  0.7......................  0.7.....................  0.7
UC.L.............................  0.9......................  1.2.....................  1.2

[[Page 60851]]

 
UC.M.............................  2.0......................  2.0.....................  2.0
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\....  2.0......................  2.4.....................  32.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.I...........................  11.......................  11......................  100
DC.L.O...........................  0........................  8.......................  100
DC.M.I...........................  1........................  1.......................  100
DC.M.O...........................  0........................  1.......................  96
SP.H.I...........................  2........................  2.......................  3
SP.H.ID..........................  0........................  0.......................  0
SP.H.O...........................  0........................  3.......................  81
SP.H.OD..........................  0........................  4.......................  13
SP.L.I...........................  7........................  7.......................  100
SP.L.O...........................  --.......................  --......................  100
SP.M.I...........................  4........................  5.......................  100
SP.M.O...........................  0........................  --......................  100
UC.H.............................  --.......................  0.......................  61
UC.H.ID..........................  0........................  0.......................  0
UC.L.............................  3........................  8.......................  8
UC.M.............................  9........................  10......................  10
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\....  4........................  6.......................  60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``--'' means not applicable because there is no change in
  the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.

    For walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE first considered TSL 3, 
which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At this level, DOE 
expects that medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing system 
equipment classes \93\ would require larger condenser coils, variable 
capacity compressors, and electronically commutated variable-speed 
condenser fan motors. Additionally, low- and medium-temperature outdoor 
dedicated condensing system equipment classes would generally require 
self-regulating crank case heater controls with a temperature switch, 
and ambient subcooling circuits. DOE anticipates that low- and medium-
temperature single-packaged dedicated system equipment classes would 
also require larger evaporator coils, variable speed evaporator fans, 
and thermal insulation up to 4 inches in thickness. DOE expects that 
lower-capacity low- and medium-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
condensing units would require propane compressors. DOE expects that 
high-temperature dedicated condensing system equipment classes would 
require the same design options as medium- and low-temperature 
dedicated condensing systems except for larger condensing coils and 
variable capacity compressors.\94\ Additionally, DOE expects that high-
temperature single-packaged dedicated condensing systems would require 
up to 1.5 inches of thermal insulation and would not require larger 
evaporator coils or variable speed evaporator fans.\95\ DOE anticipates 
that lower-capacity low- and medium-temperature unit cooler equipment 
classes would require evaporator coils 4 rows deep at TSL 3. Finally, 
DOE anticipates that higher-capacity low- and medium-temperature unit 
cooler equipment classes and all high-temperature unit cooler equipment 
classes would require evaporator coils 5 rows deep at TSL 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Dedicated condensing system equipment classes include 
dedicated condensing units, matched-pair refrigeration systems 
(consisting of a paired dedicated condensing unit and unit cooler) 
and single-packaged dedicated systems.
    \94\ As discussed in section IV.C.1.d, DOE did not consider 
larger condensing coils or variable capacity compressors for high-
temperature dedicated condensing systems.
    \95\ As discussed in section IV.C.1.d of this document, DOE did 
not consider larger evaporator coils or off cycle variable speed 
evaporator fans for high-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
condensing systems and only considered improved thermal insulation 
up to 1.5 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 3 would save an estimated 3.10 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be -$12.99 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$25.14 
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 56.8 Mt of 
CO2, 17.4 thousand tons of SO2, 105.4 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.12 tons of Hg, 474.0 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.6 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $3.22 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is $2.63 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $6.31 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is -$7.15 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is -$15.61 billion. The estimated 
total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact ranges from a savings of -$15,792 
for low-temperature outdoor dedicated condensing units to $1,306 for 
low-temperature unit coolers. The simple payback period ranges from 1.2 
years for low-temperature unit coolers to an infinite payback period 
for low-temperature dedicated condensing units, medium-temperature 
dedicated condensing units, low- and medium-temperature indoor single-
packaged dedicated systems, and nonducted high-temperature unit 
coolers. several equipment classes. The fraction of

[[Page 60852]]

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from 0 percent for high-
temperature ducted unit coolers and high-temperature indoor ducted 
single-packaged dedicated system to 100 percent for low-temperature 
indoor and outdoor dedicated condensing units, medium-temperature 
indoor dedicated condensing units, and low- and medium-temperature 
indoor and outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$159.6 million to an increase of $56.2 million, which corresponds to a 
decrease of 32.6 percent and an increase of 11.5 percent, respectively. 
DOE estimates that industry must invest $94.6 million to redesign walk-
in refrigeration systems and purchase new tooling to accommodate 
changes to the condensers and/or evaporators for most analyzed 
capacities and equipment classes.
    Currently, DOE has no evidence of significant shipments meeting the 
max-tech levels. As such, all manufacturers would need to redesign 
their walk-in refrigeration system models to incorporate a range of 
design options to meet TSL 3 efficiencies. Capital conversion costs are 
driven by incorporating design options such as larger condenser coils, 
improved evaporator coils, and/or ambient subcooling circuits, which 
would likely necessitate new tooling for updated baseplate designs 
across the full range of refrigeration system capacities and equipment 
classes. Implementing these design options would also require notable 
engineering resources and testing time, as manufacturers redesign 
models and potentially increase the footprint of refrigeration systems 
to accommodate larger condensers and/or evaporators.
    Manufacturers would also need to qualify, source, and test new 
high-efficiency components. For medium- and low-temperature dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes that would likely require variable 
capacity compressors to meet the max-tech levels, manufacturers could 
face challenges sourcing variable capacity compressors across their 
portfolio of capacity offerings since the availability of variable 
capacity compressors for walk-in applications is limited. At the time 
of this NOPR publication, the few variable capacity compressor product 
lines DOE identified are not advertised for the North American market. 
Additionally, the identified product lines may not have a sufficient 
range of available compressor capacities to replace compressors in all 
walk-in applications.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for walk-in 
refrigeration systems, the benefits of energy savings, emissions 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers 
in the form of negative NPV of consumer benefits, and the impacts on 
manufacturers, including the large conversion costs, and profit margin 
impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Most low- and 
medium-temperature dedicated condensing system and single-packaged 
dedicated system consumers (ranging from 96 to 100 percent) would 
experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative. At 
this level, there is risk of greater reduction in INPV at max-tech if 
manufacturers maintain their operating profit in the presence of 
amended efficiency standards on account of having higher costs but 
similar profits. Most manufacturers would need to dedicate notable 
capital and engineering resources to incorporate all analyzed design 
options across their entire range of equipment classes and capacity 
offerings. Furthermore, manufacturers may face challenges sourcing 
variable capacity compressors given the limited availability of 
variable capacity compressor product lines designed for walk-in 
applications. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded 
that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2 for walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE 
expects that for medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing 
systems, TSL 2 would not include variable capacity compressors.
    DOE expects that at TSL 2, low-temperature and indoor medium-
temperature dedicated condensing system equipment classes would 
generally require larger condenser coils; low- and medium-temperature 
outdoor dedicated condensing system equipment classes would also 
generally require self-regulating crank case heater controls with a 
temperature switch; additionally, low-temperature outdoor dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes would generally require 
electronically commutated variable-speed condenser fan motors and may 
require ambient subcooling circuits; low- and medium-temperature 
single-packaged dedicated system equipment classes would generally 
require larger evaporator coils and variable speed evaporator fans; 
low-temperature single-packaged dedicated system equipment classes 
would generally require thermal insulation up to 4 inches in thickness; 
lower-capacity low- and medium-temperature single-packaged dedicated 
condensing units would generally require propane compressors; high-
temperature indoor dedicated condensing system equipment classes would 
generally incorporate max-tech design options; and high-temperature 
outdoor dedicated condensing system equipment classes would generally 
require self-regulating crank case heater controls with a temperature 
switch, thermal insulation up to 1.5 inches in thickness, and 
electronically commutated variable speed condenser fans. DOE expects 
that at TSL 2 all unit cooler equipment classes would incorporate the 
max-tech design options, except for high-temperature non-ducted unit 
coolers, which would generally require evaporator coils 4 rows deep at 
TSL 2.
    TSL 2 would save an estimated 0.91 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be $0.68 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.62 billion 
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 16.7 Mt of 
CO2, 5.1 thousand tons of SO2, 31.1 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.04 tons of Hg, 139.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.2 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 2 is $.95 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 2 is $0.77 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.68 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $2.41 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $4.44 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact ranges from a savings of $103 for 
medium-temperature indoor single-packaged dedicated systems to $1,306 
for low-temperature non-ducted unit coolers. The simple payback period 
ranges from 0.0 years for low-temperature outdoor single-packaged 
dedicated systems to 4.0 years for low-

[[Page 60853]]

temperature indoor dedicated condensing units. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from 0 percent for high-
temperature indoor ducted single-packaged dedicated systems and high-
temperature unit coolers to 11 percent for low-temperature indoor 
single-packaged dedicated systems.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$47.8 million to a decrease of $37.9 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 9.8 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $60.1 million to redesign walk-in 
refrigeration systems and purchase some new tooling to accommodate 
changes to the condensers and/or evaporators for select capacities and 
equipment classes. At this level, DOE expects manufacturers could reach 
the TSL 2 efficiencies without implementing all the max-tech design 
options. Specifically, only some analyzed dedicated condensing system 
representative units would have to incorporate larger condenser coils 
or ambient subcooling, reducing the expected capital and product 
conversion costs at this level (i.e., DC.L.O.009, DC.L.O.075, and all 
DC.M.O representative units would not require larger condensers or 
ambient subcooling, which together account for approximately 31 percent 
of industry refrigeration system unit shipments). Additionally, at this 
level, DOE does not expect manufacturers would need to implement 
variable capacity compressors, further reducing industry product 
conversion costs as compared to TSL 3.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at 
TSL 2 for refrigeration systems would be economically justified. At 
this TSL, the average LCC savings for all refrigeration equipment is 
positive. The consumers of low-temperature indoor single-packaged 
dedicated systems will be most affected with 11 percent of consumers 
experiencing a net cost, the consumers of the remaining equipment are 
estimated to experience a net cost between 0 and 10 percent of the 
time. The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of 
consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent 
discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the 
cost to manufacturers. At TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits, even 
measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 33 
times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. 
The standard levels at TSL 2 are economically justified even without 
weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When 
those emissions reductions are included--representing $0.95 billion in 
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent 
discount rate), and $1.86 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or 
$0.77 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the 
rationale for setting standards at TSL 2 for walk-in refrigeration 
systems is further strengthened.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt energy conservation standards for walk-in refrigeration systems 
at TSL 2. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for walk-
in refrigeration systems, which are expressed as AWEF2, are shown in 
Table V.99.

          Table V.99--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Equipment class                                     Minimum AWEF2 (Btu/W-h) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing System--High, Indoor, Non-Ducted with
 a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h............................................  7.80E-04 x qnet + 2.20
    >=7000 Btu/h...........................................  7.66
Dedicated Condensing system--High, Outdoor, Non-Ducted with
 a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h............................................  1.02E-03 x qnet + 2.47
    >=7000 Btu/h...........................................  9.62
Dedicated Condensing system--High, Indoor, Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h............................................  2.46E-04 x qnet + 1.55
    >=7000 Btu/h...........................................  3.27
Dedicated Condensing system--High, Outdoor, Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h............................................  3.76E-04 x qnet + 1.78
    >=7000 Btu/h...........................................  4.41
Dedicated Condensing unit and Matched Refrigeration System--
 Medium, Indoor with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <8000 Btu/h............................................  5.58
    >=8000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h..........................  3.00E-05 x qnet + 5.34
    >=25000 Btu/h..........................................  6.09
Dedicated Condensing unit and Matched Refrigeration System--
 Medium, Outdoor with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <25000 Btu/h...........................................  2.13E-05 x qnet + 7.15
    >=25000 Btu/h..........................................  7.68
Dedicated Condensing unit and Matched Refrigeration System--
 Low, Indoor with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <25000 Btu/h...........................................  2.50E-05 x qnet + 2.36
    >=25000 Btu/h and <54000 Btu/h.........................  1.72E-06 x qnet + 2.94
    >=54000 Btu/h..........................................  3.03
Dedicated Condensing unit and Matched Refrigeration System--
 Low, Outdoor with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h............................................  9.83E-05 x qnet + 2.63
    >=9000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h..........................  3.06E-05 x qnet + 3.23
    >=25000 Btu/h and <75000 Btu/h.........................  4.96E-06 x qnet + 3.88
    >=75000 Btu/h..........................................  4.25
Single-Packaged Dedicated Condensing system--Medium, Indoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h............................................  9.86E-05 x qnet + 4.91
    >=9000 Btu/h...........................................  5.8
Single-Packaged Dedicated Condensing system--Medium,
 Outdoor with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h............................................  2.47E-04 x qnet + 4.89
    >=9000 Btu/h...........................................  7.11
Single-Packaged Dedicated Condensing system--Low, Indoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6000 Btu/h............................................  8.00E-05 x qnet + 1.8

[[Page 60854]]

 
    >=6000 Btu/h...........................................  2.28
Single-Packaged Dedicated Condensing system--Low, Outdoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6000 Btu/h............................................  1.63E-04 x qnet + 1.8
    >=6000 Btu/h...........................................  2.77
Unit Cooler--High Non-Ducted with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h............................................  10.34
    >=9000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h..........................  3.83E-04 x qnet + 6.9
    >=25000 Btu/h..........................................  16.46
Unit Cooler--High Ducted with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h............................................  6.93
    >=9000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h..........................  3.64E-04 x qnet + 3.66
    >=25000 Btu/h..........................................  12.76
    Unit Cooler--Medium....................................  9.65
    Unit Cooler--Low.......................................  4.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Where qnet is net capacity as determined in accordance with Sec.   431.304 and certified in accordance with 10
  CFR part 429.

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission 
reductions.
    Table V.100 shows the annualized values for walk-in non-display 
doors and refrigeration systems under TSL 2, expressed in 2022$. The 
results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $126.4 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $280.6 million in 
reduced equipment operating costs, $190.1 million in climate benefits, 
and $245.6 million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit 
would amount to $589.8 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $129.6 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$338.6 million in reduced operating costs, $190.1 million in climate 
benefits, and $331.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $730.5 million per year.

        Table V.100--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-Ins
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2022$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           260.0           265.3           264.9
Climate Benefits *..............................................            90.4            92.6            90.0
Health Benefits **..............................................           177.7           182.1           177.0
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...............................           528.1           540.0           531.9
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            72.4           102.6            64.7
Monetized Net Benefits..........................................           455.7           437.4           467.2
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).............     (7.6)-(5.4)     (7.6)-(5.4)     (7.6)-(5.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           214.1           218.8           218.3
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            90.4            92.6            90.0
Health Benefits **..............................................           132.2           135.3           131.7
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...............................           436.7           446.7           440.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            70.7            95.4            64.1
Monetized Net Benefits..........................................           366.0           351.2           376.0
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).............     (7.6)-(5.4)     (7.6)-(5.4)     (7.6)-(5.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-
  2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-
  2056.

[[Page 60855]]

 
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane
  (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates;
  95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the
  global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-
  GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
  the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG
  emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost
  of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021
  by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and
  monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are
  presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
  impact analysis as discussed in detail. See sections IV.F and IV.H document. DOE's NIA includes all impacts
  (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer
  to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also
  separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this
  document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding
  investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's
  expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow,
  including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized
  change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital values of 9.4 percent for
  walk-in non-display doors and 10.2 percent for walk-in refrigeration systems that are estimated in the
  manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry
  weighted average cost of capital). For walk-ins, those values are -$7.6 million to -$5.4 million. DOE accounts
  for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this
  document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of
  Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating
  Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed
  manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in
  manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above
  table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context
  for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and
  consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into
  the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from
  $448.1 million to $450.3 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $358.4 million to $360.6
  million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this
  approach.

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For walk-in 
coolers and freezers, the certification template reflects the general 
certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-
specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.53. As discussed in the 
previous paragraphs, DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific 
certification requirements for this equipment in this proposed 
rulemaking.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and 
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 
(April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to 
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and 
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the 
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory 
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent 
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; 
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance 
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance 
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess 
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user 
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices 
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify 
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as 
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this final regulatory action constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f)(1) 
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 
12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying 
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the final regulatory 
action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of 
those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of 
costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives to the planned regulation, and an explanation why the 
planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential 
alternatives. These assessments are summarized in this preamble and 
further detail can be found in the technical support document for this 
rulemaking.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies

[[Page 60856]]

available on the Office of the General Counsel's website (energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the following IRFA for the 
products that are the subject of this rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of walk-ins, the SBA has set a size threshold, 
which defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size 
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to 
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards 
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') 
code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of walk-ins is 
classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for walk-
ins. EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
C 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-ins, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) 
EPCA prescribed initial standards for these products. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)) EPCA provides that, not later than 6 years after the 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including 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 prescribed the energy conservation standards for walk-in doors, 
panels, and refrigeration systems manufactured on and after June 5, 
2017 in a final rule published on June 3, 2014. 79 FR 32050. After 
publication of the June 2014 Final Rule, 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.). A settlement agreement was reached among the parties under which 
the Fifth Circuit vacated energy conservation standards for six of the 
refrigeration system equipment classes--the two standards applicable to 
multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (subsequently re-named as 
``unit coolers'') operating at medium and low-temperatures and the four 
standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems 
operating at low-temperatures.\96\ 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). In a final rule published on July 10, 2017, DOE adopted energy 
conservation standards for the six classes of walk-in refrigeration 
systems were vacated--specifically, unit coolers and low-temperature 
dedicated condensing systems manufactured. 82 FR 31808. The rule 
required compliance with the six new standards on and after July 10, 
2020. This rulemaking is in accordance with DOE's obligations under 
EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The 13 other standards established in the June 2014 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. The compliance date for the remaining 
standards was on or after June 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
C 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-ins, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) 
EPCA prescribed initial standards for these products. EPCA further 
provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final 
rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a 
notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to 
be amended, or a NOPR including 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))
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE conducted a market survey using public information and 
subscription-based company reports to identify potential small 
manufacturers. DOE constructed databases of walk-in doors, panels, and 
refrigeration systems based on its review of models listed in DOE's 
Compliance Certification Database (CCD),\97\ and supplemented the 
information in CCD with information from the California Energy 
Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (for 
refrigeration systems),\98\ individual company websites, and prior 
walk-in rulemakings (79 FR 32050) to create a comprehensive database of 
walk-in components available on the U.S. market and their 
characteristics. DOE examined this database to identify companies that 
manufacture, produce, import, or assemble the equipment covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE then consulted publicly available data, such as 
manufacturer websites, manufacturer specifications and product 
literature, import/export logs (e.g., bills of lading from Panjiva 
\99\), and basic model numbers, to identify original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs) of walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration 
systems. DOE further relied on public data and subscription-based 
market research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \100\) to 
determine company, location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE 
screened out companies that do not offer equipment covered by this 
rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' 
or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification 
Database is available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed January 27, 2023).
    \98\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System is available at: 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx. 
(Last accessed January 27, 2023.)
    \99\ S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is available at: 
panjiva.com/import-export/United-States (Last accessed April 11, 
2023).
    \100\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is 
available at app.dnbhoovers.com. (Last accessed April 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using these data sources, DOE identified 79 original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs) of WICFs that could be potentially affected by 
this rulemaking. Of these 79 OEMs, 58 are small, domestic 
manufacturers. DOE notes that some manufacturers may produce more than 
one of the principal components of WICFs: doors, panels,

[[Page 60857]]

and refrigeration systems. Forty-four of the small, domestic OEMs 
manufacture doors; 38 of the small, domestic OEMs manufacture panels; 
and 14 of the small, domestic OEMs manufacture refrigeration systems.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
a. Doors
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing not to amend energy conservation 
standards for walk-in display doors. Walk-in display doors would remain 
at the current DOE minimum efficiency. Manufacturers, including small 
business manufacturers, would not need to make additional investments 
for walk-in display doors to comply with the proposed standard levels.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to amend energy conservation 
standards for walk-in non-display doors. Of the 44 small, domestic OEMs 
of walk-in doors, 40 manufacture non-display doors. At TSL 2, DOE 
expects manufacturers would need to update all non-display door designs 
to incorporate anti-sweat heater controls, improved door frame designs, 
and reduced anti-sweat heat. DOE does not expect manufacturers would 
need to increase insulation thickness to meet the efficiency levels 
required by the proposed level. However, manufacturers may need to 
invest in improved frame designs, which are most commonly made of 
polyurethane foam. Capital conversion costs are investments in 
property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing 
production facilities such that new compliant equipment designs can be 
fabricated and assembled. Product conversion costs are investments in 
research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized 
costs necessary to make equipment designs comply with amended energy 
conservation standards. For the purposes of this IRFA, DOE assumed that 
the industry capital and product conversion costs would be evenly 
distributed across the 43 walk-in non-display door OEMs to avoid 
underestimating the potential capital and R&D investments small 
manufacturers may incur as a result of the proposed standard. DOE's 
investment estimates are based on results from the equipment teardown 
analysis, which assumed an average, representative production volume 
and feedback from higher volume manufacturers in confidential 
interviews. However, many of the small manufacturers have lower 
production volumes and require less production capacity (e.g., fewer 
foam fixtures).
    Therefore, DOE estimates that the 38 small businesses that only 
manufacture swinging non-display doors (i.e., NM.L, NM.M) may each 
incur $0.6 million in capital and product conversion costs and that the 
two small businesses that also manufacture motorized doors (i.e., NO.L, 
NO.M), may each incur conversion costs of approximately $1.2 million to 
meet the efficiencies required at TSL 2. Based on market research tools 
(e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports), DOE estimates that the annual revenue 
of small, domestic walk-in non-display door OEMs range from 
approximately $1.8 million to approximately $276.8 million, with an 
average annual revenue of $32.6 million. Conversion costs range from 
$0.6 million to $1.2 million, with average per OEM conversion costs of 
$0.6 million, which are approximately 2.9 percent of company revenue, 
on average, over the 3-year conversion period. See Table VI.1 for 
additional details. See section IV.J.2.c of the document and chapter 12 
of the NOPR TSD for additional information on the conversion cost 
methodology and estimates.

                     Table VI.1--Potential Small Business Impacts: Walk-In Non-Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Average conversion
                                     Range of estimated annual revenue    Average per OEM      costs as a % of
   Number of small, domestic OEMs               ($ millions)             conversion costs     conversion period
                                                                           ($ millions)            revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.................................  <=5.0............................                 0.6                   7.3
10.................................  >5.0 and <=15.0..................                 0.6                   2.3
11.................................  >15.0 and <=30.0.................                 0.7                   0.9
8..................................  >30.0............................                 0.7                   0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small 
businesses in the walk-in display and non-display door market, the 
names of those small businesses, and their market shares by equipment 
class. DOE also requests comment on the potential impacts of the 
proposed standards on small walk-in display and non-display door 
manufacturers.
b. Panels
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing not to amend energy conservation 
standards for walk-in panels. Therefore, DOE does not expect that 
manufacturers of walk-in panels, including small business 
manufacturers, would be directly impacted by the efficiency levels 
proposed in this NOPR as the levels would remain at the current DOE 
minimum efficiency.
    DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small 
businesses in the walk-in panel industry, the names of those small 
businesses, and their market shares by equipment class. DOE also 
requests comment on the potential impacts of the proposed standards on 
small walk-in panel manufacturers.
c. Refrigeration Systems
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to amend energy conservation 
standards for walk-in refrigeration systems. At TSL 2, DOE expects some 
manufacturers of low-temperature and indoor medium-temperature 
dedicated condensing system equipment classes would generally need to 
incorporate larger condenser coils and/or ambient subcooling circuits; 
manufacturers of low- and medium-temperature outdoor dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes would also generally need to 
incorporate self-regulating crank case heater controls with a 
temperature switch; additionally, low-temperature outdoor dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes would generally require 
electronically commutated variable-speed condenser fan motors and may 
require ambient subcooling circuits; manufacturers of low- and medium-
temperature single-packaged dedicated system equipment classes would 
generally need to incorporate larger evaporator coils and variable-
speed evaporator fans; manufacturers of low-temperature single-packaged 
dedicated system equipment classes would also generally require thermal 
insulation up to 4 inches in thickness; manufacturers of lower-capacity 
low- and medium-temperature single-

[[Page 60858]]

packaged dedicated condensing units would generally need to incorporate 
propane compressors; manufacturers of high-temperature indoor dedicated 
condensing system equipment classes would generally have to incorporate 
max-tech design options; and manufacturers of high-temperature outdoor 
dedicated condensing system equipment classes would generally have to 
incorporate self-regulating crank case heater controls with a 
temperature switch, thermal insulation up to 1.5 inches in thickness, 
and electronically commutated variable speed condenser fans. DOE 
expects that at TSL 2 all unit cooler equipment classes would 
incorporate the max-tech design options, except for high-temperature 
non-ducted unit coolers, which would generally require evaporator coils 
4 rows deep at TSL 2.
    Of the 14 small, domestic OEMs of walk-in refrigeration systems, 
five OEMs only manufacture high-temperature units (i.e., SP.H.I, 
SP.H.ID, SP.H.O, SP.H.OD, UC.H, and/or UC.H.ID), three OEMs only 
manufacture low- and medium temperature dedicated condensing systems, 
two OEMs only manufacture low- and medium temperature unit coolers, and 
the remaining four OEMs manufacture low and medium temperature 
dedicated condensing systems and unit coolers.
    For the five high-temperature OEMs, at TSL 2, DOE does not expect 
these small manufacturers would incur any capital conversion costs. 
Based on information gathered during manufacturer interviews, DOE 
understands that manufacturers of high-temperature units typically 
purchase the heat exchangers used for walk-in systems and would 
therefore not incur any capital conversion costs as a direct result of 
the proposed rule. For the remaining nine small, domestic OEMs of 
dedicated condensing systems and/or unit coolers, manufacturers would 
need to invest in new tooling to accommodate larger condenser coils, 
ambient subcooling, and/or larger evaporator coils. For the purposes of 
this IRFA, DOE assumed that the industry capital and product conversion 
costs for each equipment class would be evenly distributed across the 
OEMs that manufacture those equipment classes to avoid underestimating 
the potential capital and R&D investments small manufacturers may incur 
as a result of the proposed standard. DOE believes this conservative 
approach represents an upper bound of potential small business 
investments. DOE's investment estimates are based on results from the 
equipment teardown analysis, which assumed an average, representative 
production volume and array of capacity offerings. However, small 
manufacturers have lower production volumes and require less production 
capacity (e.g., lower tooling costs).
    Based on market research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports), 
DOE estimates that annual revenue of small, domestic walk-in 
refrigeration system OEMs range from approximately $3.7 million to 
approximately $276.8 million, with an average annual revenue of $74.9 
million. The conversion costs range from $0.3 million to $3.8 million, 
with average per OEM conversion costs of $1.8 million, which are 
approximately 2.6 percent of company revenue, on average, over the 3-
year conversion period. See Table VI.2 for additional details.

                   Table VI.2--Potential Small Business Impacts: Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Conversion
                                        Estimated       Estimated       Estimated                     costs as a
                                         capital         product          total         Estimated        % of
              Company                  conversion      conversion      conversion    annual revenue   conversion
                                        costs ($        costs ($        costs ($      ($ millions)      period
                                        millions)       millions)       millions)                      revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer 1.....................             0.0             0.3             0.3             3.7          2.8
Manufacturer 2.....................             0.0             0.3             0.3             3.9          2.6
Manufacturer 3.....................             1.3             0.8             2.1             6.3         11.3
Manufacturer 4.....................             0.0             0.3             0.3             8.9          1.2
Manufacturer 5.....................             0.0             0.3             0.3            10.7          1.0
Manufacturer 6.....................             1.3             0.8             2.1            11.4          6.3
Manufacturer 7.....................             1.3             0.8             2.1            13.1          5.4
Manufacturer 8.....................             0.8             0.7             1.5            33.8          1.5
Manufacturer 9.....................             2.1             1.5             3.6            88.7          1.4
Manufacturer 10....................             2.1             1.7             3.8           110.3          1.1
Manufacturer 11....................             2.1             1.5             3.6           116.2          1.0
Manufacturer 12....................             2.1             1.7             3.8           156.3          0.8
Manufacturer 13....................             0.0             0.3             0.3             208          0.1
Manufacturer 14....................             0.8             0.7             1.5           276.8          0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small 
businesses in the walk-in refrigeration system industry, the names of 
those small businesses, and their market shares by equipment class. DOE 
also requests comment on the potential impacts of the proposed 
standards on small walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 2 for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration systems. In 
reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy 
conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels for walk-in non-
display doors and refrigeration systems. While TSL 1 would reduce the 
impacts on small business manufacturers of walk-in non-display doors 
and refrigeration systems, it would come at the expense of a reduction 
in energy savings. For walk-in non-display doors, TSL 1 achieves 1.1 
percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 2. 
For walk-in refrigeration systems, TSL 1 achieves 11.5 percent lower 
energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 2.

[[Page 60859]]

    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2 
for walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration systems balances the 
benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential burdens 
placed on walk-ins manufacturers, including small business 
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs 
considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined 
as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of 
the NOPR TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. Manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may 
apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief 
under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 
430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (``PRA''), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water 
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned 
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered 
equipment, including walk-in coolers and freezers.
    DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and 
comprehensive information about the energy and water use 
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the 
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered 
equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is 
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is 
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the 
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no 
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must 
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer 
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report 
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered 
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the 
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all 
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy 
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification 
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date 
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
    Revised certification data would be required for walk-in 
refrigeration systems were this NOPR to be finalized as proposed; 
however, DOE is not proposing amended certification or reporting 
requirements for walk-in refrigeration systems in this NOPR. Instead, 
DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and 
reporting for walk-in refrigeration systems under a separate rulemaking 
regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address 
changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    Manufacturers of walk-in doors and panels must certify to DOE that 
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the DOE test procedures for walk-ins, including 
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including walk-
ins. (See generally 10 CFR part 429). The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise 
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the 
final rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has 
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

[[Page 60860]]

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental 
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also 
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor 
is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any 
one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical 
requirements of UMRA do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes amended energy conservation standards for walk-ins, is not a 
significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator 
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects on this proposed rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific

[[Page 60861]]

information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does 
have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or 
private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\101\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have 
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of 
Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether 
modifications are needed to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is 
in the process of evaluating the resulting report.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed April 17, 2023).
    \102\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on 
DOE's website: https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their 
systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons 
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to 
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to 
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they 
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone 
number where they can be reached.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public 
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. 
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, 
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the 
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to 
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures 
governing the conduct of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of 
proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other 
commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar 
and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit 
further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking.
    The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE 
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this 
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, 
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a 
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the 
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other 
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The 
official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional 
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or 
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper 
conduct of the webinar.
    A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which 
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of 
this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript 
from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of

[[Page 60862]]

comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be 
viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking 
number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully 
uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. 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:
    (1) DOE requests comment on the methodology used to present the 
change in producer cash flow (INPV) in the monetized benefits and costs 
tables in Table I.6, Table I.7, and Table V.100.
    (2) DOE seeks comment on the baseline and assumed reduction in 
anti-sweat heater wire power listed in Table IV.10. DOE specifically 
seeks feedback on whether the reduced anti-sweat heater wire power is 
acceptable for use in walk-in doors at all climates and installations 
throughout the U.S.
    (3) DOE requests test results or performance data for walk-in 
refrigeration systems using R-454A, R-454C, and/or R-455A. 
Additionally, DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that 
R-454A is the most likely replacement for R-448A and R-449A with a GWP 
of less than 300 and that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would 
not suffer a performance penalty when switching from R-448A or R-449A 
to R-454A.
    (4) DOE requests comment on any potential low-GWP replacements for 
high-temperature systems. Additionally, DOE requests high-temperature 
performance data or test results for any potential low-GWP alternatives 
to R-134A.
    (5) DOE seeks comment on e-commerce distribution channels, 
including which types of walk-in equipment use this channel and the 
size of this channel.
    (6) DOE seeks comment on its assumptions and rationale for 
harmonizing panel and non-display door thicknesses at a given TSL.
    (7) DOE seeks information and data from which to create 
representative distributions of run time hours for different walk-in 
refrigeration equipment and temperature classes.
    (8) DOE requests any comment, data, and sources of information for 
the maintenance and repair costs of walk-in coolers and freezers with 
the technologies described in IV.C.
    (9) DOE requests information or data to characterize a shift toward 
larger capacity equipment in its analysis. DOE seeks information about 
the represented units, customer types (food service, food sales, 
other), and business sizes effected.
    (10) DOE requests comments on its assumption that there is no 
rebound effect for walk-in coolers and freezers.
    (11) DOE requests comments on its subgroups analysis.
    (12) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital 
conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each 
efficiency level and TSL for walk-in display and non-display doors. See 
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for the estimated conversion costs for each 
analyzed efficiency level.
    (13) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital 
conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each 
efficiency level and TSL for walk-in panels. See chapter 12 of the NOPR 
TSD for the estimated conversion costs for each analyzed efficiency 
level.
    (14) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital 
conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each TSL 
for walk-in refrigeration systems.
    (15) DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect 
manufacturing capacity constraints would limit walk-in display and non-
display door availability to consumers in the timeframe of the amended 
standard compliance date (2027).
    (16) DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect 
manufacturing capacity constraints would limit walk-in panel 
availability to consumers in the timeframe of the amended standard 
compliance date (2027).
    (17) DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect 
manufacturing capacity constraints or engineering resource constraints 
would limit walk-in refrigeration system availability to consumers in 
the timeframe of the amended standard compliance date (2027).
    (18) DOE requests comments on the magnitude of costs associated 
with transitioning walk-in refrigeration systems and production 
facilities to accommodate low-GWP refrigerants that would be incurred 
between the publication of this NOPR and the proposed compliance date 
of amended standards. Quantification and categorization of these costs, 
such as engineering efforts, testing lab time, certification costs, and 
capital investments (e.g., new charging equipment), would enable DOE to 
refine its analysis.
    (19) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of walk-ins associated with multiple 
DOE

[[Page 60863]]

standards or product/equipment-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies.
    (20) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of 
small businesses in the walk-in display and non-display door market, 
the names of those small businesses, and their market shares by 
equipment class. DOE also requests comment on the potential impacts of 
the proposed standards on small walk-in display and non-display door 
manufacturers.
    (21) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of 
small businesses in the walk-in panel industry, the names of those 
small businesses, and their market shares by equipment class. DOE also 
requests comment on the potential impacts of the proposed standards on 
small walk-in panel manufacturers.
    (22) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of 
small businesses in the walk-in refrigeration system industry, the 
names of those small businesses, and their market shares by equipment 
class. DOE also requests comment on the potential impacts of the 
proposed standards on small walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues or data 
relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be 
identified in this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, and Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 11, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, 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 August 11, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  431.306 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.306  Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

* * * * *
    (d) Walk-in cooler and freezer non-display doors.
    All walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer non-display doors 
manufactured starting on June 5, 2017 and before [date 3 years after 
the publication of the final rule] must satisfy the following 
standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Equations for maximum
               Equipment class                 energy consumption  (kWh/
                                                         day) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passage Door, Medium Temperature.............          0.05 x And + 1.7
Passage Door, Low Temperature................          0.14 x And + 4.8
Freight Door, Medium Temperature.............          0.04 x And + 1.9
Freight Door, Low Temperature................          0.12 x And + 5.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And represents the surface area of the non-display door.

    All walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer non-display doors 
manufactured starting on [date 3 years after the publication of the 
final rule], must satisfy the following standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Equations for maximum
               Equipment class                 energy consumption  (kWh/
                                                         day) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Display Door, Manual, Medium Temperature.         0.01 x And + 0.25
Non-Display Door, Manual, Low Temperature....         0.06 x And + 1.32
Non-Display Door, Motorized, Medium                   0.01 x And + 0.39
 Temperature.................................
Non-Display Door, Motorized, Low Temperature.         0.05 x And + 1.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And represents the surface area of the non-display door.

    (e) Walk-in cooler refrigeration systems.
    All walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems 
manufactured starting on the dates listed in the table and before [date 
3 years after the publication of the final rule], except for walk-in 
process cooling refrigeration systems (as defined in Sec.  431.302), 
must satisfy the following standards:

[[Page 60864]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Compliance date:  equipment
         Equipment class                  Minimum AWEF  (Btu/W-h) *            manufactured  starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing System--     5.61                                       June 5, 2017.
 Medium, Indoor.
Dedicated Condensing System--     7.60                                       ...................................
 Medium, Outdoor.
Dedicated Condensing System--
 Low, Indoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <6,500 Btu/h................  9.091 x 10-\5\ x qnet + 1.81               July 10, 2020.
    >=6,500 Btu/h...............  2.40                                       ...................................
Dedicated Condensing System--
 Low, Outdoor with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6,500 Btu/h................  6.522 x 10-\5\ x qnet + 2.73               ...................................
    >=6,500 Btu/h...............  3.15                                       ...................................
    Unit Cooler--Medium.........  9.00                                       ...................................
Unit Cooler--Low with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <15,500 Btu/h...............  1.575 x 10-\5\ x qnet + 3.91               ...................................
    >=15,500 Btu/h..............  4.15                                       ...................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Where qnet is net capacity as determined in accordance with Sec.   431.304 and certified in accordance with 10
  CFR part 429.

    All walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems 
manufactured starting on [date 3 years after the publication of the 
final rule], except for walk-in process cooling refrigeration systems 
(as defined in Sec.  431.302), must satisfy the following standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Equipment class                 Minimum AWEF2 (Btu/W-h) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing System--      .....................................
 High, Indoor, Non-Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h..................  7.80E-04 x qnet + 2.20
    >=7000 Btu/h.................  7.66
Dedicated Condensing system--      .....................................
 High, Outdoor, Non-Ducted with a
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h..................  1.02E-03 x qnet + 2.47
    >=7000 Btu/h.................  9.62
Dedicated Condensing system--      .....................................
 High, Indoor, Ducted with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h..................  2.46E-04 x qnet + 1.55
    >=7000 Btu/h.................  3.27
Dedicated Condensing system--      .....................................
 High, Outdoor, Ducted with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <7000 Btu/h..................  3.76E-04 x qnet + 1.78
    >=7000 Btu/h.................  4.41
Dedicated Condensing unit and      .....................................
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Medium, Indoor with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <8000 Btu/h..................  5.58
    >=8000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h  3.00E-05 x qnet + 5.34
    >=25000 Btu/h................  6.09
Dedicated Condensing unit and      .....................................
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Medium, Outdoor with a Net
 Capacity (qnet) of:
    <25000 Btu/h.................  2.13E-05 x qnet + 7.15
    >=25000 Btu/h................  7.68
Dedicated Condensing unit and      .....................................
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Low, Indoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <25000 Btu/h.................  2.50E-05 x qnet + 2.36
    >=25000 Btu/h and <54000 Btu/  1.72E-06 x qnet + 2.94
     h.
    >=54000 Btu/h................  3.03
Dedicated Condensing unit and      .....................................
 Matched Refrigeration System--
 Low, Outdoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h..................  9.83E-05 x qnet + 2.63
    >=9000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h  3.06E-05 x qnet + 3.23
    >=25000 Btu/h and <75000 Btu/  4.96E-06 x qnet + 3.88
     h.
    >=75000 Btu/h................  4.25
Single-Packaged Dedicated          .....................................
 Condensing system--Medium,
 Indoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h..................  9.86E-05 x qnet + 4.91
    >=9000 Btu/h.................  5.8
Single-Packaged Dedicated          .....................................
 Condensing system--Medium,
 Outdoor with a Net Capacity
 (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h..................  2.47E-04 x qnet + 4.89
    >=9000 Btu/h.................  7.11
Single-Packaged Dedicated          .....................................
 Condensing system--Low, Indoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6000 Btu/h..................  8.00E-05 x qnet + 1.8
    >=6000 Btu/h.................  2.28
Single-Packaged Dedicated          .....................................
 Condensing system--Low, Outdoor
 with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <6000 Btu/h..................  1.63E-04 x qnet + 1.8
    >=6000 Btu/h.................  2.77
Unit Cooler--High Non-Ducted with  .....................................
 a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h..................  10.34
    >=9000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h  3.83E-04 x qnet + 6.9
    >=25000 Btu/h................  16.46
Unit Cooler--High Ducted with a    .....................................
 Net Capacity (qnet) of:
    <9000 Btu/h..................  6.93
    >=9000 Btu/h and <25000 Btu/h  3.64E-04 x qnet + 3.66
    >=25000 Btu/h................  12.76
Unit Cooler--Medium..............  9.65

[[Page 60865]]

 
Unit Cooler--Low.................  4.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Where qnet is net capacity as determined in accordance with Sec.
  431.304 and certified in accordance with 10 CFR part 429.


[FR Doc. 2023-17583 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P