Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Analyses and Next Steps 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Revise ANOPR Analyses

ANOPR Analysis Action

Engineering Analysis • Consider ANOPR commen

• Revise using latest data

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

• Consider ANOPR commen• Revise using latest data• Conduct LCC sub-group a

National Impacts Analysis • Consider ANOPR commen

• Revise using latest data

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for 

(Issue #7)

 The ANOPR identified the baseline level (Level 1) 

proposed efficiency levels (Level 2 through 8) from selects candidate standard levels (CSLs). 

 DOE selected CSLs for each equipment class (Cla

for NOPR analysis. 

 DOE has identified CSLs plus the baseline level (L

equipment class based on efficiency levels analyz

• Maximum energy savings.• Maximum LCC savings.• Maximum efficiency level showing positive LCC savings• Highest efficiency level with a payback period of three y

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for N

(Issue #7)

 Candidate standard levels and factors considered 

for future analysis

Candidate Standard Level Selection Consi

Equipment 

Class 

Maximum 

Efficiency 

Level 

Maximum 

Efficiency 

Level with 

Positive 

LCC 

Savings 

Efficiency 

Level with 

Minimum 

LCC 

Highest 

Efficiency 

Level with 

PBP <3 

Years 

Class A Level 8 Level 7 Level 5 Level 6 Class B Level 8 Level 7 Level 4 Level 4 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for N

(Issue #7)

 Candidate standard levels for analyzed equipmen

in terms of the refrigerated volume

Candidate Standard Level in Order of Eff

the Test Metr

Equipment 

Class Test Metric Baseline CSL1 CSL2 CS

Class A 

Daily Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/day 

B = 0.0550 

K = 4.74 

 (Level 1) 

B = 0.0508 

K = 3.78 

 (Level 3) 

B = 0.0494 

K = 3.39 

 (Level 4) 

B = 0

K = 

 (Lev

Class B 

Daily Energy 

Consumption 

kWh/day 

B = 0.0771 

K = 4.08 

 (Level 1) 

B = 0.0680 

K = 2.94 

 (Level 3) 

B = 0.0554 

K = 2.90 

 (Level 4) 

B = 0

K = 

 (Lev

DOE invites comments on the candidate standard levNOPR analysis.

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for N

(Issue #7)

Class A BVM Candidate Standard Levels

01234567

0

5 10 15 20 25 30 

Volume (ft3

)

Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day) 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for N

(Issue #7)

Class B BVM Candidate Standard Levels

01234567

0

5 10 15 20 25 30 

Volume (ft3

)

Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day) 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Approach to Characterizing Energy Conserv

(Issue #8)

 Standards will be based on the daily energy consu

calculated by the test procedure.

 DOE plans to define energy conservation standard

beverage vending machines in terms of:Maximum daily energy consumption M (kWh/day) 

• B is expressed in terms of kWh/day/ft3 of refrigerated vo• V is the refrigerated volume (ft

3) calculated for the equip

• K is an offset factor expressed in kWh/day.

DOE invites comments on this proposed approach ahow it could develop appropriate offset factors (K) foequipment classes.

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 Purpose

• To develop a list of trial standard levels from which impac

burdens) are weighed and a proposed standard level is s

– Each trial standard level consists of a set of distinct pote

levels covering all equipment classes which may vary be

– NOPR analyses assess impacts for trial standard levels.

 Method 

• Trial standard levels are assembled for the equipment cla

ANOPR.

– Trial standard levels cover a range of efficiencies and ca

 Most energy efficient level (max tech). Efficiency level with the lowest life-cycle cost. Efficiency level with a payback period of three years or 

 Efficiency levels with noteworthy technologies.

 Efficiency levels that fill in large gaps between candida

– Each trial standard level consists of the candidate stand

equipment class that meets one of the above criteria.

Selection of Trial Standard Lev

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Trial Standard Level Criteria

DOE invites comments on the criteria for selecting tri

 Trial standard levels are created from combinatio

standard levels for each equipment class.

 Trial standard levels are based around a consiste

lowest life-cycle cost or payback period of three y

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

Manu

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer Impact Analysi

Manu

 Purpose

• Assess the impacts of standards on beverage vending ma• Identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub-groups 

severely impacted than the industry as a whole.

• Examine the impact of cumulative regulatory burdens on th

 Method 

• Analyze industry cash flow and net present value through 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).

• Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, deve

and address qualitative issues.

 Output

• Manufacturer sub-group net present value impacts.• Other sub-group net present value impacts.• Other impacts.

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Industry profile

Develop straw-man GRIM

Develop interview guide

Interviews 

& industrywide / 

subgroup 

analyses

Assempcomcumburd

Phase 2

Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) 

Manu

Ph

 The MIA process consists of three phases:

Phase 1

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 Purpose

• Investigate the effects on electric utilities from reduced ene

reduced peak load demand due to new energy conservatio

 Method 

• Uses national energy savings results.• Uses the Energy Information Administration’s National Ene

(NEMS) tailored for DOE’s Building Technologies Program 

 Output

• Change in electricity sales and price by region.• Change in the mix of electricity generation.• Change in new capacity construction.

Utility Impact Analysis

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

Emp

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 Purpose

• Report net jobs created or eliminated nationally as a conse

conservation standards.

 Method 

• Uses the ImSET (Impact of Sector Energy Technologies) m

of indirect employment impacts.

• Changes in equipment and energy expenditures are devel

Energy Savings Analysis.

• Direct employment impacts are developed in the Manufact

 Output

• Change in the commercial and energy sector employment 

new energy conservation standards.

Emp

Employment Impact Analysis

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

Env

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 Purpose

• Report environmental impacts as a consequence of new e

standards, including changes in power plant emissions.

 Method 

• Energy savings results taken from the National Energy Sa• Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Mode

provides power-plant emissions.

 Output

• Estimate of national emission reductions of sulfur dioxide (

nitrogen (NOx ), carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and mercury (Hg).

Env

Environmental Assessment

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Trial Standard Levels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

Reg

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 Purpose

• Investigate the national impacts due of non—regulatory 

with mandatory energy conservation standards.

• The non-regulatory alternatives that may be considered 

– No new regulatory action; early replacement; prescriptive s

credits; manufacturer tax credits; customer rebates; volunta

government procurement.

 Method

• NES spreadsheet model is modified to consider scenari

energy prices and escalation factors; implicit market dispurchase price, operating cost, and income elasticities; data.

 Output

• National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of the n

alternatives.

• Impact of non-regulatory alternatives on purchase price 

efficient equipment.

Reg

Regulatory Impact Analysis

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 DOE seeks to encourage development of consens

new standards because standards with such broalikely to balance effectively the economic, energy, interests affected by standards.

 Any recommendation must satisfy the seven statu

provided by EPCA for determining whether an enestandard is technologically feasible and economicwill result in significant energy savings.

 Any consensus recommendation should also incl

DOE can use to assess the seven statutory criteriwhether the benefits of the standard exceed its bugreatest extent practicable.

Consensus Recommendation

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Factor An

1. Economic impact on consumers and 

manufacturers

Life-cycle cost anManufacturer imp

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost an3. Total projected energy savings National impact a4. Impact on utility or performance Screening analys

Engineering anal

5. Impact of any lessening of 

competition

Manufacturer imp

6. Need for national energy 

conservation

National impact a

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant

Environmental asUtility impact anaEmployment imp

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA

consider seven factors when setting energy cons

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
How to Submit Comments

 Public Meeting – oral comments will be captured in th

become part of the public record.

 Written comments – ANOPR comment period is open 

Reference Docket #EERE-2006-STD-1025 and/or RIN 

Email: beveragevending.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov Include 

1025 and/or RIN 1904-AB58 in the subject line of y

Mail: Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC, 20585-0121

Courier: Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L’Enfant Plaza, Suite 600, SWWashington, DC 20024

Please include one signed original paper copy.

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28