Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)Analyses and Next Steps2ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisRevise ANOPR Analyses3Revise ANOPR AnalysesANOPR AnalysisActionEngineering Analysis•Consider ANOPR comments•Revise using latest dataLife-Cycle Cost and PaybackPeriod Analyses•Consider ANOPR comments•Revise using latest data•Conduct LCC sub-group analysisNational Impacts Analysis•Consider ANOPR comments•Revise using latest dataRevise ANOPR Analyses4Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for NOPR Analyses(Issue #7)Revise ANOPR AnalysesThe ANOPR identified the baseline level (Level 1) and sevenproposed efficiency levels (Level 2 through 8) from which DOEselects candidate standard levels (CSLs).DOE selected CSLs for each equipment class (Class A & Class B)for NOPR analysis.DOE has identified CSLs plus the baseline level (Level 1) for eachequipment class based on efficiency levels analyzed showing:•Maximum energy savings.•Maximum LCC savings.•Maximum efficiency level showing positive LCC savings.•Highest efficiency level with a payback period of three years or less.5Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for NOPR Analyses(Issue #7)Candidate standard levels and factors considered in their selectionfor future analysisCandidate Standard Level Selection ConsiderationsEquipmentClassMaximumEfficiencyLevelMaximumEfficiencyLevel withPositiveLCCSavingsEfficiencyLevel withMinimumLCCHighestEfficiencyLevel withPBP <3YearsAdditional CandidateStandard Level Selectedfor Future AnalysisClass ALevel 8 Level 7 Level 5 Level 6 Level 4 Level 3Class BLevel 8 Level 7 Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 Level 3Revise ANOPR Analyses6Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for NOPR Analyses(Issue #7)Candidate standard levels for analyzed equipment classes expressedin terms of the refrigerated volumeCandidate Standard Level in Order of Efficiency Expressed in Terms ofthe Test MetricEquipmentClassTest MetricBaseline CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4 CSL 5Class ADaily EnergyConsumptionkWh/dayB = 0.0550K = 4.74(Level 1)B = 0.0508K = 3.78(Level 3)B = 0.0494K = 3.39(Level 4)B = 0.0451K = 3.29(Level 5)B = 0.0397K = 3.12(Level 7)B = 0.0386K = 2.97(Level 8)Class BDaily EnergyConsumptionkWh/dayB = 0.0771K = 4.08(Level 1)B = 0.0680K = 2.94(Level 3)B = 0.0554K = 2.90(Level 4)B = 0.0833K = 2.00(Level 5)B = 0.0479K = 2.37(Level 7)B = 0.0471K = 2.33(Level 8)DOE invites comments on the candidate standard levels selected forNOPR analysis.Revise ANOPR Analyses7Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for NOPR Analyses(Issue #7)Revise ANOPR AnalysesClass A BVM Candidate Standard Levels012345670510 15 20 25 30 35 40Volume (ft3)

Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day)CSL1CSL2CSL3CSL4CSL58Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for NOPR Analyses(Issue #7)Revise ANOPR AnalysesClass B BVM Candidate Standard Levels012345670510 15 20 25 30 35 40Volume (ft3)

Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day)CSL1CSL2CSL3CSL4CSL59Approach to Characterizing Energy Conservation Standards(Issue #8)Revise ANOPR AnalysesStandards will be based on the daily energy consumption (DEC) ascalculated by the test procedure.DOE plans to define energy conservation standards for refrigeratedbeverage vending machines in terms of:Maximum daily energy consumptionM (kWh/day) = (B x V) + K•Bis expressed in terms of kWh/day/ft3of refrigerated volume,•Vis the refrigerated volume (ft3) calculated for the equipment class, and•Kis an offset factorexpressed in kWh/day.DOE invites comments on this proposed approach and comments onhow it could develop appropriateoffset factors (K) for the twoequipment classes.10ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisTrial Standard Levels11Purpose•To develop a list of trial standard levels from which impacts (benefits andburdens) are weighed and a proposed standard level is selected.–Each trial standard level consists of a setof distinct potential minimum efficiencylevels covering all equipment classes which may vary between equipment classes–NOPR analyses assess impacts for trial standard levels.Method•Trial standard levels are assembled forthe equipment classes identified in theANOPR.–Trial standard levels cover a range of efficiencies and can include:Most energy efficientlevel (max tech).Efficiency level with the lowest life-cycle cost.Efficiency level with a paybackperiod of three years or less.Efficiency levels withnoteworthy technologies.Efficiency levels that fill in largegaps between candidate standard levels.–Each trial standard level consists of the candidate standard level for eachequipment class that meetsone of the above criteria.Trial Standard LevelsSelection of Trial Standard Levels12Trial Standard Level CriteriaDOE invites comments on the criteria for selecting trial standard levels.Trial Standard LevelsTrial standard levels are created from combinations of candidatestandard levels for each equipment class.Trial standard levels are based around a consistent theme, such aslowest life-cycle cost or payback period of three years or less.13ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisManufacturer Impact Analysis14Manufacturer Impact AnalysisManufacturer Impact AnalysisPurpose•Assess the impacts of standards onbeverage vending machines manufacturers.•Identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub-groups that may be moreseverely impacted thanthe industry as a whole.•Examine the impact of cumulativeregulatory burdens on the industry.Method•Analyze industry cash flow and net present value through use of the GovernmentRegulatory Impact Model (GRIM).•Interview manufacturers to refine inputsto the GRIM, developsub-group analyses,and address qualitative issues.Output•Manufacturer sub-group netpresent value impacts.•Other sub-group net present value impacts.•Other impacts.15IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIMDevelopinterviewguideInterviews& industrywide /subgroupanalysesAssess directemployment,competition,cumulativeburdenFinalizeMIA resultsfor NOPRPhase 2Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) ProcessManufacturer Impact AnalysisPhase 3The MIA process consists of three phases:Phase 116ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtility Impact Analysis17Purpose•Investigate the effects on electric utilities from reduced energyconsumption andreduced peak load demanddue to new energy conservation standards.Method•Uses national energy savings results.•Uses the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System(NEMS) tailored for DOE’s BuildingTechnologies Program (NEMS-BT).Output•Change in electricity sales and price by region.•Change in the mix of electricity generation.•Change in new capacity construction.Utility Impact AnalysisUtility Impact Analysis18ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisEmployment Impact Analysis19Purpose•Report net jobs created or eliminatednationally as a consequence of new energyconservation standards.Method•Uses the ImSET (Impact of Sector EnergyTechnologies) model for the evaluationof indirect employment impacts.•Changes in equipment and energy expenditures are developed in the NationalEnergy Savings Analysis.•Direct employment impacts are developedin the Manufacturer Impact Analysis.Output•Change in the commercial and energy sector employment asa consequence ofnew energy conservation standards.Employment Impact AnalysisEmployment Impact Analysis20ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmental Assessment21Purpose•Report environmental impacts as aconsequence of new energy conservationstandards, including changes in power plant emissions.Method•Energy savings results taken fromthe National Energy Savings Analysis.•Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)provides power-plant emissions.Output•Estimate of national emission reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides ofnitrogen (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg).Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Assessment22ManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisNOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatory Impact Analysis23Purpose•Investigate the national impacts due ofnon—regulatory alternatives comparedwith mandatory energyconservation standards.•The non-regulatory alternatives that may be considered include:–No new regulatory action;early replacement; prescriptive standards; customer taxcredits; manufacturer tax credits; customer rebates; voluntary efficiency targets; bulkgovernment procurement.Method•NES spreadsheet model is modified toconsider scenarios.These include:energy prices and escalation factors; implicit marketdiscount rates; customerpurchase price, operating cost, and income elasticities; and equipment stockdata.Output•National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of the non-regulatoryalternatives.•Impact of non-regulatory alternativeson purchase price and use of energyefficient equipment.Regulatory Impact AnalysisRegulatory Impact Analysis24DOE seeks to encourage development of consensus proposals fornew standards because standards with such broad-based support arelikely to balance effectively the economic, energy, and environmentalinterests affected by standards.Any recommendation must satisfy the seven statutory criteriaprovided by EPCA for determining whether an energy conservationstandard is technologically feasible and economically justified, andwill result in significant energy savings.Any consensus recommendation should also include information thatDOE can use to assess the seven statutory criteria that determinewhether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to thegreatest extent practicable.ClosingConsensus Recommendations25FactorAnalysis1. Economic impact on consumers andmanufacturersLife-cycle cost analysisManufacturer impacts analysis2. Lifetime operating cost savingsLife-cycle cost analysis3. Total projected energy savingsNational impact analysis4. Impact on utility or performanceScreening analysisEngineering analysis5. Impact of any lessening ofcompetitionManufacturer impacts analysis6. Need for national energyconservationNational impact analysis7. Other factors the Secretaryconsiders relevantEnvironmental assessmentUtility impact analysisEmployment impact analysisClosingThe Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DOE toconsider seven factors when setting energy conservation standards26How to Submit CommentsPublic Meeting– oral comments will be captured in the transcript andbecome part of the public record.Written comments– ANOPR comment period is open until July 16, 2008.Reference Docket #EERE-2006-STD-1025 and/or RIN 1904-AB58Email: beveragevending.rulemaking@ee.doe.govInclude EERE-2006-STD1025 and/or RIN 1904-AB58 in thesubject line of your message.Mail: Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding TechnologiesProgram, Mailstop EE-2J1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington DC, 20585-0121Courier: Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program950 L’Enfant Plaza, Suite 600, SWWashington, DC 20024Please include one signedoriginal paper copy.Closing