**ENERGY STAR^®^ Steamer Industry Meeting**

**Hilton Chicago, Illinois**

# May 20, 2003

# MEETING NOTES

In conjunction with the National Restaurant Association (NRA) Show, EPA
conducted a meeting with product manufacturers and other interested
parties to discuss the Draft 1 ENERGY STAR Steamer specification. To
view the Draft 1 specification, meeting presentation, and attendee list
visit the ENERGY STAR Product Development Web site at
[www.energystar.gov/productdevelopment](http://www.energystar.gov/productdevelopment).

Provided below is a summary of the discussions that took place during
the meeting. Each section includes comments and/or questions that were
posed by the group; ENERGY STAR representatives are working to address
these items.

**[Presentation: ENERGY STAR Commercial Food Service Equipment Industry
Meeting -- Steamers]{.underline}**

Rachel Schmeltz, EPA

##### ENERGY STAR Overview and the Potential Savings of Labeling Steamers

Ms. Schmeltz began the meeting with an overview of the ENERGY STAR
program. She then explained the criteria that EPA uses in determining
whether or not to include a new product in the ENERGY STAR suite of
products and the preliminary research that takes place leading up to a
draft specification. Ms. Schmeltz shared the impact that ENERGY STAR has
had on the marketplace, including a more than 40% consumer awareness of
the ENERGY STAR brand. She then walked through the requirements of the
ENERGY STAR Partnership Agreement and partner commitments that must be
met to participate in the program. Ms. Schmeltz concluded this portion
of the presentation with the energy and dollar savings potential of
implementing an ENERGY STAR specification for steamers based on the
proposed Draft 1 performance requirements and calculations provided by
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).

#### Draft 1 Steamer Specification: Discussion

Ms. Schmeltz lead the group through the second portion of the
presentation which walked through each section of the Draft 1
Eligibility Criteria, including: definitions, specification levels,
testing and reporting requirements, and specification effective and
launch dates. Comments and questions for each section of the
specification are provided below.

**Section 1-2: Definitions and Qualifying Products**

[Question to Group]{.underline}: Are there additional product types that
should be considered in this specification?

-   Currently the specification only applies to pressureless models but
    there is manufacturer interest to expand the program to pressure
    steamers. They perform better than boiler-based models and could
    reach high efficiencies.

-   Although pressureless and pressure steamers are used in different
    applications, they are tested by the same criteria and efficiencies
    are similar.

-   Excluding pressure steamers could pose a problem to the end user if
    they are looking for ENERGY STAR models and end up purchasing the
    wrong equipment type for a specific application.

-   Pressure cooking as been lost over the years, some of the attendees
    would like to see it put "back on the map".

-   EPA could make it simple by using the term "compartment steamers" or
    "steam cookers" in the title of the specification and in the
    definitions.

-   "Connectionless steamer" is not exactly the right term to use
    because these products can come with connections. Connectionless
    only applies to the fact that there is no water or drain-line. EPA
    could consider using "boilerless" steamers.

# Section 3: Energy Efficiency Specifications

[Question to EPA]{.underline}: What is the 400-watt idle rate, currently
proposed in Draft 1 specification, based on?

[Don Fisher (FSTC) Response]{.underline}: It was based on a 3-pan
capacity. A 6-pan unit will idle at a rate less than a 5-pan unit [per
3-pan]{.underline}. This attempts to level the playing field across all
unit sizes, but it's not perfect. Rated input does not affect the energy
efficiency of the unit. A 6kW unit could have the same efficiency as a
12 kW unit but production rates could be different as well as idle
rates, due to heat loss. Input rate does not effect efficiency. There is
no advantage based on unit size. Using the normalization equation
provided in the Draft 1 specification, a 6-pan unit could use no more
than 600 watts at idle rate in order to qualify as ENERGY STAR. To avoid
any confusion with understanding the normalization per 3 pans, a simple
table should be developed listing the maximum idle rate for each
capacity steamer (i.e., 3-pan, 4-pan, 5-pan and 6-pan).

[Question to EPA]{.underline}: Who administers the Energy Guide program?

[EPA Response]{.underline}: The Department of Energy (DOE) administers
the program which is currently only used for residential products. EPA
is not aware of any plans to expand this program to commercial products.

-   Idle rates really drive end user energy costs.

-   The current Draft 1 performance requirements can be normalized for
    3-pans for larger sized units; not to be confused with a 3-pan unit
    comparison. The 3-pan units are the smallest in the market.

-   One option would be to keep the 50% efficiency minimum requirement
    yet have different idle rates for each size.

-   The 50% minimum requirement includes most connectionless steamers
    but also includes some boiler-based models.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The meeting participants thought that the levels proposed in the
    Draft 1 specification are a good start. They might even like to see
    the bar raised in the future.

[Question to EPA]{.underline}: Does the Food Service Technology Center
(FSTC) test all product types?

[Don Fisher (FSTC) Response]{.underline}: The center has tested all
connectionless steamer models and some boiler-based models by
manufacturer request.

#### Section 4: Testing Requirements

[Question to EPA]{.underline}: Does the data provided for ENERGY STAR
qualification need to be certified?

[EPA Response]{.underline}: Manufacturers supply the data; it is a
self-policing process. As long as the product is tested to ASTM
standards, EPA will accept the data. EPA is counting on competition to
ensure products are truly meeting claims made by the manufacturer.
Competing companies will keep an eye on each others' product performance
claims.

-   There are three ways to test steamers: ice load, potato, and pea
    tests. The ice load test is cheaper but does not give a good
    differential of product efficiencies. The pea test is also cheaper
    and good for determining production capacity, however, it does not
    give a good differential of product efficiencies. The potato test
    gives more of a range of product efficiencies. The difference
    between the potato and the other two tests is mainly in the idle
    energy rates.

-   The product efficiencies resulting from the potato test best emulate
    the real-world scenario (i.e., what really happens on the kitchen).
    The potato test is more consistent and repeatable than the pea test.

-   Manufacturers use both pea and potato test results to promote a
    product to the end user. ENERGY STAR would only require only the
    test results from the potato test to determine if a model qualifies.
    Production capacity is a separate selling point for the
    manufacturer.

-   The ASTM testing procedure is currently being revised to include a
    specification of the number of potatoes (as well as the currently
    specified weight) for each pan; this will improve the repeatability
    and accuracy of the test.

-   The sophisticated buyer will know that the ENERGY STAR means that
    the unit has been tested and that there is production data
    available, without actually showing the hard numbers.

#### Section 5: Effective Date

-   The North American Association for Food Equipment Manufacturers
    (NAFEM) would be a good venue to launch an ENERGY STAR specification
    for steamers.

# Next Steps

-   For those interested parties who would like to send additional
    comments, the deadline to submit feedback to EPA is **June 16,
    2003**. All written comments on the Draft 1 specification should be
    submitted to Rachel Schmeltz or Rebecca Miller; contact information
    is provided below.

-   In the interest of process transparency, EPA will post all written
    comments on the ENERGY STAR Web site. Sensitive information included
    in comments should be indicated as such so that these comments will
    not be posted.

-   EPA plans to release another Draft version of the specification by
    the end of June.

**ENERGY STAR Contact Information:**

Rachel Schmeltz Rebecca Miller

ENERGY STAR Product Development ICF Consulting

\(202\) 564-9124 (202) 862-1266

<schmeltz.rachel@epa.gov> [rmiller@icfconsulting.com]{.underline}