5-i 

### CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 EQUIPMENT CLASSES AN ALYZED

................................ .......................................... 5-2

5.4 COST MODEL ................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.4.1 Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions ................................ 5-4

5.4.2 Structure of the Cost Model ................................................................................. 5-5

5.4.3 Material Prices ..................................................................................................... 5-6

5.4.4 Results .................................................................................................................. 5-6

5.4.5 Extension of 2009 Final Rule Results .................................................................. 5-7

5.5 MANUFACTURER MARKUP ...................................................................................... 5-8

5.6 ENERGY CONSUMPTION MODEL ............................................................................ 5-8

5.6.1 Screened -In Technologies .................................................................................... 5-8

5.6.2 Screened -In Technologies Not Considered in the Engineering Analysis ............ 5-9

5.6.2.1 Remote Lighting Ballast Location ........................................................... 5-9

5.6.2.2 Variable -Speed Evaporator Fan Motors and Evaporator Fan Motor
Controllers.......................................................................................................... 5-10

5.6.2.3 Higher Efficiency Evaporator and Condenser Fan Blades .................... 5-10

5.6.2.4 Low

- Pressure Diff erential Evaporators ................................................. 5-11

5.6.2.5 Defrost Cycle Control ............................................................................ 5-11

5.6.2.6 Defrost Mechanisms .............................................................................. 5-11

5.6.3 Design Options

................................ ................................ ................................... 5-12

5.6.3.1 Higher Efficiency Lighting and Occupancy Sensors ............................. 5-12

5.6.3.2 Higher Efficiency Evaporator Fan Motors ............................................ 5-15

5.6.3.3 Increased Evaporator Surface Area ....................................................... 5-15

5.6.3.4 Improved Insulation and Vacuum Insulated Panels ............................... 5-16

5.6.3.5 Improved Transparent Doors ................................................................. 5-18

5.6.3.6 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors ............................................. 5-20

5.6.3.7 Increased Condenser Surface Area ........................................................ 5-21

5.6.3.8 Higher Efficiency Compressors ............................................................. 5-22

5.6.3.9 Night Curtains ........................................................................................ 5-23

5.6.4 Baseline Specifications ...................................................................................... 5-23

5.6.5 Non

- Numerical Assumptions

................................ ............................................. 5-24

5.6.6 Numerical Constants and Assumptions ............................................................. 5-25

5.6.7 Model Components ............................................................................................ 5-26

5.6.7.1 Component Energy Consumption .......................................................... 5-27

5.6.7.2 Compressor Energy Consumption ......................................................... 5-28

5.6.7.3 Component Load Model ........................................................................ 5-29

5.6.7.4 Rad iation Load Model ........................................................................... 5-30

5.6.7.5 Conduction Load Model ........................................................................ 5-30

5.6.7.6 Infiltration Load Model.......................................................................... 5-31

5.7 COST

- EFFICIENCY CURVES .................................................................................... 5-315- ii 

### 5.8 OFFSET FACTORS ...................................................................................................... 5-57
5.9 EXTENSION OF ANALYSIS TO SECONDARY EQUIPMENT CLASSES ............ 5-59

5.9.1 Extension Multipliers ......................................................................................... 5-60
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 5-64

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.2.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis ...................................... 5-3 Table 5.4.1 Cost Model Output Classifications ........................................................................... 5-4 Table 5.4.2 Major Manufacturing Processes ............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5.4.3 Directly-Developed and Extended Case Costs ......................................................... 5-7 Table 5.4.4 Extension of 2009 Rulemaking Case Costs to Other Equipment Classes ................ 5-7 Table 5.6.1 Details for Lighting for VOP, SVO, HZO, and SOC Equipment Families Design Option ................................................................................................................ 5-14 Table 5.6.2 Details for Lighting for VCT and PD Equipment Families Design Option ........... 5-14 Table 5.6.3 Details for Evaporator Fan Motor Design Option .................................................. 5-15 Table 5.6.4 Details for Evaporator Coil Design Option ............................................................ 5-16 Table 5.6.5 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Evaporator Coil Designs ............................. 5-16 Table 5.6.6 Assumptions in Cost Calculation Methodology for Insulation Thickness Increase5-17 Table 5.6.7 Assumptions in Cost Calculation Methodology for Vacuum Insulated Panels ...... 5-18 Table 5.6.8 Details for Insulation Design Options .................................................................... 5-18 Table 5.6.9 Details for Doors for VCT Equipment Family, Low and Ice- Cream Temperature Design Option .................................................................................................... 5-19 Table 5.6.10 Details for Doors for VCT and PD Equipment Families, Medium Temperature Design Option .................................................................................................... 5-19 Table 5.6.11 Details for HCT Equipment Family, Medium Temperature Design Option ........ 5-20 Table 5.6.12 Details for Doors for HCT Equipment Family, Low and Ice- Cream Temperature Design Option .................................................................................................... 5-20 Table 5.6.13 Details for Doors for SOC Equipment Family, Medium Temperature Design Option

................................ ................................ ............................................................ 5-20
Table 5.6.14 Details for “Increased Condenser Surface Area” Design Option ......................... 5-21 Table 5.6.15 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Condenser Coil ......................................... 5-22 Table 5.6.16 Details for “Night Curtains” Design Option ......................................................... 5-23 Table 5.6.17 Baseline Specifications ......................................................................................... 5-24 Table 5.6.18 Energy Consumption Model Numerical Constants and Assumptions.................. 5-26 Table 5.7.1 Figure, Table, and Page Numbers for Cost- Efficiency Results .............................. 5-32
Table 5. 7.2 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class ................................... 5-33
Table 5.7.3 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class .................................... 5-34
Table 5.7.4 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class ................................... 5-35
Table 5.7.5 Cost- Efficiency Data for the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class ................................... 5-36
Table 5.7.6 Cost- Efficiency Data for the SVO.SC.M Equipment Class ................................... 5-37
Table 5.7.7 Cost- Efficiency Data for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class ................................... 5-38
Table 5.7.8 Cost- Efficiency Data for the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class .................................... 5-39
Table 5.7.9 Cost- Efficiency Data for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class ................................... 5-40
Table 5.7.10 Cost- Efficiency Data for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class .................................. 5-41 Table 5.7.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class ................................. 5-425- iii 

### Table 5.7.12 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class .................................. 5-43 Table 5.7.13 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.M Equipment Class ................................. 5-44
Table 5.7.14 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.L Equipment Class .................................. 5-45
Table 5.7.15 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class .................................... 5-46 Table 5.7.16 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.M Equipment Class .................................. 5-47
Table 5.7.17 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.L Equipment Class ................................... 5-48
Table 5.7.18 Cost- Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class .................................... 5-49 Table 5.7.19 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC.M Equipmen t Class ................................. 5-50
Table 5.7.20 Cost- Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC.L Equipment Class .................................. 5-51
Table 5.7.21 Cost- Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC. I Equipment Class .................................... 5-52 Table 5.7.22 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HCS.SC.M Equipment Class .................................. 5-53
Table 5.7.23 Cost- Efficiency Data for t he HCS.SC.L Equipment Class ................................... 5-54 Table 5.7.24 Cost-Efficiency Data for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class ................................. 5-55
Table 5.7.25 Cost- Efficiency Data for the PD.SC.M Equipment Class .................................... 5-56
Table 5.8.1 Offset Factors from the 2009 Final Rule ................................................................ 5-58 Table 5.9.1 2009 Final Rule Extension Multipliers for Remote and Self-Contained Equipment
Without Doors .................................................................................................... 5-61 Table 5.9.2 2009 Final Rule Extension Multipliers by Equipment Class .................................. 5-63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.6.1 Components of the Energy Consumption Model .................................................. 5-27 Figure 5.7.1 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class ............................... 5-33 Figure 5.7.2 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class ................................ 5-34 Figure 5.7.3 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class ................................ 5-35 Figure 5.7.4 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class ............................... 5-36 Figure 5.7.5 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SVO.SC.M Eq uipment Class ................................ 5-37 Figure 5.7.6 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class ............................... 5-38 Figure 5.7.7 Cost- Efficiency Curve for the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class ................................ 5-39 Figure 5.7.8 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class................................ 5-40 Figure 5.7.9 Cost- Efficiency C urve for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class ................................. 5-41 Figure 5.7.10 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class ............................. 5-42 Figure 5.7.11 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class .............................. 5-43 Figure 5.7.12 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.M Equipment Class .............................. 5-44 Fig ure 5.7.13 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.L Equipment Class ............................... 5-45 Figure 5.7.14 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class ................................ 5-46 Figure 5.7.15 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.M Equipment Class .............................. 5-47 Figure 5.7.16 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.L Equipment Class ............................... 5-48 Figure 5.7.17 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class ................................ 5-49 Figure 5.7.18 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.M Equipment Class .............................. 5-50 Figure 5.7.19 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.L Equipment Class ............................... 5-51 Figure 5.7.20 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class ................................ 5-52 Figure 5.7.21 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCS.SC.M Equipment Class .............................. 5-53 Figure 5.7.22 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCS.SC.L Equipment Class ............................... 5-54 Figure 5.7.23 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class.............................. 5-55 Figure 5.7.24 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the PD.SC.M Eq uipment Class ................................. 5-565- iv 

### Figure 5.8.1 Illustration of Offset Factor ................................................................................... 5-57 Figure 5.9.1 Illustration of Extension of Standard Level from Primary to Secondary Equipment
Class ................................................................................................................... 5-605-1 

### CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between manufacturer production cost (MPC) and energy consumption for the commercial r efrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking. This equipment includes self-contained and remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator

- freezers

, ice cream freezers; as well as self

- contained commercial refrigerators with transpare nt doors designed for pull-down temperature applications. The “cost

- efficiency” relationship

, which shows a manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency, serves as the basis
for cost -benefit calculations in terms of individual customers, manufacturers, and the
nation. In determining this relationship, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates
the increase in MPC associated with technological changes that reduce the energy consumption of the baseline models.

The primary inputs to the engineering analysis are baseline information and data for each equipment class addressed in the market and technology assessment (c hapter 3) and technology options from the screening analysis (c hapter 4). Additional inputs include cost and energy consumption data th at DOE estimated using a cost model and an energy consumption model, respectively. The primary output of the engineering analysis is a set
of cost- efficiency curves and a manufacturer markup used in convert ing MPC to manufacturer selling price (MSP). In th e subsequent markups analysis (chapter 6), DOE determines customer prices by applying distribution markups, sales tax, and contractormarkups. After applying these markups, the data serve as inputs to the building energyuse analysis (chapter 7) and the li fe

- cycle cost and payback period analyses ( chapter 8).

This chapter discusses the equipment classes DOE analyzed, as well as the representative baseline units selected for use in the analysis. The chapter also covers the methodology DOE used to develop MPC and MSP, estimate energy consumption, and
generate cost

- efficiency curves.

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

This section describes the analytical methodology DOE used for the engineering analysis. In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a design-option approach. DOE use d this approach to produce analytically derived curves for all 24 equipment classes directly analyzed. DOE developed the cost and energy consumption models in the engineering analysis, as well as the manufacturer markup.

The foundation of the engineering analysis is the 24 curves that DOE developed. These analytically derived cost -efficiency curves were developed using a design option analysis on the selected primary equipment classes. DOE then applied markups and added outbound freight costs to the cost-e fficiency curves to represent the relationship
between MPC and MSP. As explained in section 5.2 , some equipment classes were not included in the direct analysis. In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE developed standards f or these low shipment volume equipment classes, henceforth referred to as “secondary”5-2 

### equipment classes, by calculating extension factors using analytical correlations. DOE plans to use a similar methodology to extend the results of the primary analysis to the remaining classes in this rulemaking. Section 5.8 explains the methodology that DOE

may use.

As part of the 2009 rulemaking methodology, DOE also developed offset factors for its engineering analysis as a w ay to correct standards for smaller -sized equipment.

Because cost

- efficiency curves were typically developed for representative equipment sizes near the larger end of the size spectrum ( e.g., a 12 -foot VOP.RC.M case or a 5-door VCT.RC.L case), a standard e quation based solely on the analysis point could be unfair
to smaller

- sized cases. In general, the loads to which a particular case is subject do not go to zero as the size of the case is decreased, as certain components of the refrigeration load (such as the conduction end effects) remain constant. These constant loads affect smaller cases disproportionately. The offset factors developed were intended to approximate these constant loads and provide a second end point for the standard equation line (the
fir st end point being one of the values of energy consumption determined in the engineering analysis). DOE plans to use a similar methodology in the development of standard equations later in this rulemaking.

The primary results of the engineering analysis are a set of cost

- efficiency curves, in the form of MSP versus calculated daily energy consumption (CDEC), for 24 equipment classes. The offset factors will be developed in subsequent steps of the rulemaking and used in formulating standards equations, while the extension factors, also to be developed, will be used to extend standard levels for the 24 primary equipment classes to the remaining equipment classes.

5.3 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED

In the Framework Document, DOE listed equipment class nomenclature consisting of 49 equipment class designations. Based on the equipment class structure
that was developed as part of the 2009 rulemaking, this list includes the 38 equipment classes for which standards were set in that rulemaking, as well as 11 class designatio ns for equipment covered by standards set in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). In its previous analyses for the 2009 final rule, DOE only analyzed high -ship ment volume equipment classes, and then extended the standards developed from those analys es to cover equipment classes with smaller number of shipments. In the current engineering analysis, DOE elected to retain the primary equipment classes from the 2009 rulemaking. DOE also directly analyzed 9 of the 11 classes consisting of equipment previously covered by the EPACT 2005 standards, with the exception of the SOC.SC.M and SOC.SC.L classes. DOE chose not to analyze SOC.SC.L because no units could be identified for sale in the marketplace. DOE chose not to include SOC.SC.M in the engineering anal ysis because of on- going issues with the standards set with that class in

2005. Table 5.2.1 shows the 24 equipment classes (out of 49 total) that DOE directly analyzed in the engineering analysis, organized by equipment family, condensing unit type, and rating temperature.5-3 

### Table 5.2.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis
Equipment

Family Remote Condensing Self

- Contained

Medium Low Ice
Cream Medium Lo w Ice
Cream

Without

Doors VOP 

###   

SVO 

###  

HZO 

###    

With

Doors VCT 

###     

VCS 

###   

HCT 

###   

HCS 

###  

SOC 

###  *

PD 

### 

 Full analysis conducted.

* For a full discussion of the treatment of the SOC.SC.M equi pment class in this rulemaking, see c hapter 2.



### The engineering analysis specifically considered refrigerators (medium temperature), freezers (low temperature), and ice

- cream freezers (ice

- cream temperature ) individually, but did not consider refrigerator

- freezers directly (combinations of compartments at different temperatures) . Instead, DOE plans to maintain the approach used in the 2009 final rule, in which DOE developed a method to combine the standards for refrigerators, freezers, and ice

- cream freezers to create standards for refrigerator

freezers

. Similarly, while the engineering analysis did not explicitly consider hybrid equipment, consisting of compartments from different families contained in a single unit, the 2009 final rule did present a methodology for combining standards to create standards for hybrid units. DOE intends to maintain that methodology in this rulemaking. The 2009
final rule Federal Register notice describes this methodology in detail . 74 FR 1092, 1122 (Jan. 9, 2009).

5.4 COST MODEL

In its analyses for the 2009 commercial refrigeration equipment f inal rule, DOE
used a cost model to estimate the MPC of this equipment. This approach involved disassembling a representative commercial refrigerator, analyzing the materials and manufacturing processes, and developing a parametric spreadsheet model flexible enough to cover many other equipment classes. The manufacturing cost model estimated MPC and reported it in aggregated form to maintain confidentiality of sensitive cost data. As part of th e 2009 rulemaking, DOE obtained input from stakeholders on the MPC estimates and assumptions to confirm accuracy. The cost model was applied directly to 7
of the 15 covered primary equipment classes, and the results were extended to 6 of the remaining equi pment classes. The cost of the remaining two equipment classes was estimated using available manufacturer list price information discounted to MPC.

As part of the current rulemaking, DOE used the case cost estimates developed as part of the 2009 rulemaki ng as the basis for the case costs for the current directly analyzed equipment classes. DOE updated these costs to account for inflation since the time of that rulemaking, and geometrically scaled the costs of existing classes from the 2009 rulemaking to e stimate the case costs of new equipment classes. DOE intends to5-4 

### modify the case cost estimates based on data obtained from teardown analyses performed
for the notice of proposed rulemaking ( NOPR ) stage of this rulemaking. This process, which is currently underway in preparation for the NOPR analyses, includes performing teardowns on units from most of the equipment families at unit sizes corresponding to high -shipment- volume designs. The majority of units selected for teardown are at baseline configurations , and a focus was placed on selecting self -contained teardown units, as they contain all system components and thus provide more data for use in cost modeling.

The cost model was based on production activities and divided factory cost s into
the followin g categories.

Table 5.4.1 Cost Model Output Classifications
Major Category Sub

- Category Description

Material Costs Direct Raw materials ( e.g. coils of sheet metal) and purchased parts (fan motors, compressors , etc.)

Indirect Welding rods, die oil, release media

Labor Assembly Parts / unit assembly on manufacturing line

Fabrication Conversion of raw material into parts ready for assembly

Indirect Fraction of overall labor not associated directly with pro duct manufacturing ( e.g. , forklift drivers, quality control )

. Supervisory Fraction of above labor, is paid a higher wage

Depreciation Equipment, Conveyor, Building Straight line depreciation over expected life.

Tooling Cost is allocated on a per

- use basis or obsolescence, whichever
is shorter.

Other
Overhead Utilities A fixed fraction of all material costs meant to cover electricity and other utility costs.

Maintenance Based on installed equipment and tooling investment. Property Tax and

Insuranc e A fixed fraction based on total unit costs.



### The cost model analysis created cost estimates for each of the commercial refrigeration equipment units analyzed. The cost model used specific assumptions to provide cost estimates, and the following sections describe th o se assumptions.

5.4.1 Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions

Manufacturer production cost includes the sum of direct labor, direct material, and overhead (including investment depreciation). It also incorporates o ther nonproduction c ost elements , including selling, general and administrative, research and development, and interest. Together, these costs make up the MPC.

The cost of specific models―or costs to individual manufacturers―will vary, depending on the equipment’s precise cha racteristics, the actual manufacturing processes, the equipment mix in the factory, and other elements. There are also considerable differences in the levels of vertical integration (companies with a large market share
and/or revenue base tend to be more v ertically integrated than their smaller competitors)5-5 

### that affect cost structure and thus the cost of equipment. Yet, potentially all manufacturers buy at least some of their parts and/or subsystems from outside vendors.

The commercial refrigeration equipment market includes manufacturers that produce a range of equipment— from mass -customized equipment to tailored, one- of-akind units. Most equipment listed in catalogs consists of general -purpose models that can then be customized to meet the particular nee ds of customers. Depending on the manufacturer and the degree of customization, engineering costs can thus represent a significant portion of the MPC.

In its 2009 rulemaking, DOE made a number of simplifying assumptions to reflect common industry practice s. For example, DOE assumed that the cabinets for the VCT equipment family are made in -house, but the entire door system (frames, doors, frame heaters, lights, ballasts, etc.) is purchased as an assembled sub -system from a door
manufacturer. Further, DOE as sumed that completed heat exchanger assemblies, fan motors and blades, or compressor sleds for self-contained units are also purchased as completed sub-systems that need to be integrated into the finished case.

In expanding upon the teardown data which it had available in the 2009 rulemaking analyses , DOE built a parametric model that allowed the scaling of most input factors. The assumptions behind the model are based on published data by manufacturers, general industry practice (based on site visits), manufacturer interviews, and previously published DOE reports. DOE compared the model results to published unit data, list prices, and stakeholder comments. For example, DOE compared listed shipping weights with the calculated weights for cabinets and doors.

The lack of detailed teardowns for every equipment class and the varying degrees of vertical integration in the industry ma d e calculating representative investment requirements difficult. Not only does the market share vary for each manufacturer across every equipment class, the scale of operations also varies greatly. It is also quite likely that high -volume manufacturers derive a cost advantage based on their purchasing volume for common raw materials and purchased parts alike. Lacking detailed data, DOE did not try to account for low- versus high-volume purchasing power in the development
of the 2009 final rule cost model.

5.4.2 Structure of the Cost Model

DOE used a detailed, component- focused manufacturing cost assessment methodology to estimate the MPC of ea ch equipment class analyzed in the 2009 cost model, taking into account, for example, direct materials, direct labor, and factory
overhead costs.

The first step in the MPC assessment was creating a complete and structured bill of materials (BOM) from the disassembly of a commercial refrigerator with transparent doors (VCT.SC.M). DOE dismantled the commercial refrigerator and characterized each part according to weight, manufacturing processes, dimensions, material, and quantity. The BOM included the costs for materials, components, and fasteners, and provided5-6 

### estimates for the cost of raw materials and purchased parts. DOE based assumptions about the sourcing of parts and in-house fabrication on industry experience, information in trade publications, and discussions with manufacturers. DOE conducted interviews and plant visits with manufacturers to ensure accuracy in methodology and pricing.

Following the development of a detailed BOM, DOE identified the major manufacturing processes and developed the spread sheet model. Table 5.4.2 lists these processes. DOE estimated fabrication process cycle times and entered them into the BOM. For this analysis, DOE used $24 per hour as the average fully burdened cost of labor based on the typical annual wages and benefits of industry employees. In the final step of the cost assessment, DOE estimated assembly times and associated direct labor costs. Once the cost estimate for each unit was finalized, DOE prepared a detailed

summary of relevant components, subassemblies, and processes.

Table 5.4.2 Major Manufacturing Processes

Fabrication Finishing Assembly/Joining

Fixturing Washing Adhesive Bonding Stamping/Pressing Powder Coating Spot Welding

Brake Forming De

- burring Seam Welding Cut and Shearing Polishing Inspecting & Testing Insulating



### 5.4.3 Material Prices

In the development of the 2009 rulemaking cost model, DOE determined the cost of raw materials by using prices for copper, steel , and aluminum from the American
Metals Market 1 

### and obtained prices for tubing from tubing manufacturers. DOE used a methodology based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Producer Price Indices to account for fluctuations in material prices and process ing costs. DOE intends to use a similar methodology in this rulemaking to determine raw material prices in conjunction with the development of a cost model and bills of materials . DOE plans to develop these based upon the teardown data that it is currently collecting for the NOPR stage of the rulemaking. For the preliminary analysis, DOE updated the 2009 final rule case costs and
scaled them to the appropriate representative equipment sizes.

5.4.4 Results

As part of the 2009 f inal r ule technical support documen t ( TSD ), DOE reported the cost model results as a core case cost for seven analyzed equipment classes: VCT.RC.L, VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L, HCT.SC.I, HZO.SC.M, and

VCT.SC.I. The core case cost is the cost of the structure and other features, but exclude s all components that relate to design options (such as fans, doors, and evaporator coils) and special exterior materials (such as signage and other customer -specified options)

DOE developed basic case costs (as MPC) in its 2009 engineering analysis for th e seven equipment classes discussed above. As Table 5.4.4 illustrates, these results were extended to six of the remaining equipment classes directly analyzed in the engineering analysis. Because of the complexity of construction, the cost of the remaining equipment5-7 

### classes (SOC.RC.M and VOP.RC.L) was estimated using available information from
several manufacturers. DOE discounted the price values obtained from manufacturers to
MPC and subtracted the estimated costs of known components (fan motors, lighting, etc.)
to arrive at a basic case cost. These basic case costs (in the form of MPC) were incorporated into the engineering spreadsheet, where the costs for various design options were added and markups were applied

.

Table 5.4.3 Directly

- Developed and Extended Case Costs
Developed in Cost Model Extended to

VCT.RC.L VCT.RC.M

VOP.RC.M VOP.SC.M

SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M

HZO.RC.L HZO.RC.M

HCT.SC.I

- HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L

VCT.SC. I VCS.SC.I



### 5.4.5 Extension of 2009 Final Rule Results

In this preliminary analysis, DOE utilized the core case costs developed in the 2009 final rule, updated them to current pricing, and scaled them to model the case
construction of the additional new EPACT 20 05 equipment classes analyzed. All case costs were brought forward from 2006$ to 2010$ using the BLS gross domestic product ( GDP ) implicit price deflator. Furthermore, since the EPACT 2005 equipment classes
covered in this rulemaking still fit into the existing framework of equipment families from the 2009 final rule, DOE used some of the existing case costs as a basis for the costs for new equipment classes. When a case cost was needed for a new equipment class, DOE used an existing cost from the 2009 rulemaking for a piece of equipment in the same family, adjusted it to current dollars, and then scaled the cost according to the lengths of the representative equipment sizes for the existing and new equipment classes. For example, the HCT.SC.I case cost from the 2009 rulemaking was extended to the HCT.SC.M class in this rulemaking. Table 5.4.4 shows the equipment classes for which case costs were directly developed as part of the 2009 rulemaking, as well as the classe s to which each of those case costs was extended. Case costs for classes directly analyzed in both rules were brought forward to 2010 dollars using the BLS GDP deflator.

Table 5.4.4 Extension of 2009 Rulemaking Case Costs to Other Equipment Classes
Developed in 2009 Rulemaking Extended to

VCT.RC.M VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, VCS.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, PD.SC.M

HCT.SC.I HCT.SC.M, HCT.SC.L, HCS.SC.M,

HCS.SC.L



### In the preliminary analysis, DOE used these base case costs as the basis for its
MPC estimates. During the NOPR stage of this rulemaking, DOE intends to revise the estimates by using teardown data from representative commercial refrigeration equipment units to develop a new cost model and calculate specific case costs for the covered equipment classes. As previously mentioned, the teardown analysis is currently5-8 

### underway, and consists of representative units from the majority of equipment families, with a focus on self-contained equipment.

5.5 MANUFACTURER MARKUP

At each stage of the distribution chain, manufacturers, wholesalers, and contractors apply a markup to cover their operating costs and profit margins. In the engineering analysis, DOE determined a manufacturer markup, applied it to the MPC, and added a representative o utbound freight cost to arrive at the MSP. Wholesaler, contractor, and other markups are determined in the markups analysis, which is further
described in c hapter 6 of the TSD.

The manufacturer markup was calculated as the market share weighted average
val ue for the industry. For the preliminary analysis , DOE developed this manufacturer markup by examining several major commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers’ gross margin information from annual reports and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10- K reports. Each company is a subsidiary of a more diversified parent company that manufactures equipment other than commercial refrigeration equipment. Because the 10-K reports do not provide gross margin information at the subsidiary level, the
estima ted markups represent the average markups that the parent company applies over its entire range of equipment offerings and does not necessarily represent the manufacturer markup of the subsidiary. The result of the preliminary markup analysis
shows that th e average manufacturer markup is 1.39.

5.6 ENERGY CONSUMPTION MODEL

The energy consumption model is the second key analytical model used in constructing cost

- efficiency curves. This model estimates the CDEC of commercial
refr igeration equipment in kilowatt-hours (kWh) at various performance levels using a design -option approach. The model is specific to the types of equipment covered under this rulemaking (described in c hapter 3 of this TSD), but is sufficiently generalized to model the energy consumption of a ll covered equipment classes. DOE developed the energy consumption model as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

For a given equipment class, the model estimates the daily energy consumption for the baseline and the energy consumption of subsequent levels of per formance above
the baseline. The model calculates each performance level separately. For the baseline level, a corresponding cost is calculated using the cost model (section 5.4 ). For eac h level
above the baseli ne, the changes in system cost due to the implementation of various design options are used to recalculate the cost.

5.6.1 Screened

- In Technologies

The technology options that were analyzed ( i.e.

, were not screened out as part of the screening analysis, chapter 4) are as follows:5-9 

### • higher efficiency lighting

• higher efficiency lighting ballasts

• remote lighting ballast location

• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors

• variable -speed evaporator fan motors and evaporator fan motor controllers

• increased evaporator surfa ce area

• higher efficiency evaporator fan blades

• low pressure differential evaporators

• case insulation increases or improvements

• improved transparent doors

• defrost mechanism s

• defrost cycle controls

• vacuum insulated panels

• occupancy sensors for lighting cont rols

• night curtains (equipment without doors only)

• higher efficiency compressors (self -contained equipment only)

• increased condenser surface area (self -contained equipment only)

• higher efficiency condenser fan motors (self -contained equipment only)

• higher efficiency condenser fan blades (self -contained equipment only)

5.6.2 Screened

- In Technologies Not Considered in the Engineering Analysis

In the market and technology assessment (c hapter 3), DOE defined an initial list of technologies that can reduce the energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment. In the screening analysis (chapter 4) , DOE first shortened this list by eliminating from consideration those technologies that could potentially reduce field energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment but do not reduce energy consumption as measured by the test procedure , as there exists no way to effectively quantify their impacts

. DOE then screened out the remaining technologies that were not technologically feasible, were not practical to manufacture, reduced equipment utility, or
were considered unsafe. The remaining list of screened -in technologies became one of the inputs to the engineering analysis. However, for reasons noted below, DOE did not incorporate all of these technologies in t he energy consumption model. These include location of remote lighting ballasts, variable speed evaporator motors and evaporator fanmotor controllers, higher efficiency evaporator and condenser fan blades, insulation lowpressure differential evaporators, defrost cycle controls, and defrost mechanisms.

5.6.2.1 Remote Lighting Ballast Location

Relocation of fluorescent lamp ballasts outside the refrigerated space can reduce energy consumption by lessening the refrigeration load on the compressor. However, for the majority of commercial refrigeration equipment currently manufactured, ballasts are already located in electrical trays outside the refrigerated space, in either the base or top of the equipment. The notable exceptions are the equipment classes in the VCT5- 10 

### equipment family, where ballasts are most often located on the interior of each door
mullion.

Most commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers purchase doors for VCT units that are preassembled with the entire lighting system in place rather than conf igured for separate ballasts. DOE believes that most commercial refrigeration equipment
manufacturers choose these kinds of doors because it would be labor intensive and time consuming to relocate these ballasts at the factory and wire separate ballasts. This also aligns with the manufacturing practices of the door manufacturers, who often produce similar door designs, with integrated lighting, for many equipment types. Also, the potential energy savings are small because modern electronic ballasts are very efficient and do not significantly impact the refrigeration load. Therefore, DOE did not consider remote relocation of ballasts as a design option.

5.6.2.2 Variable-Speed Evaporator Fan Motors and Evaporator Fan
Motor Controllers

Variable -speed evaporator fan mot ors, as well as e vaporator fan motor controllers, allow fan motors to run at variable speed to match changing conditions inside the case. In practice , there is some opportunity for energy savings since the pressure drop of air moving across the evaporator coil varies significantly depending on the level of frost buildup on the coil. Theoretically, less fan power is required when the coil is free of frost

, and variable-speed motors or controllers could adapt motor operation to these conditions. Moreover, such a system would also allow the coil to operate at a more stable temperature during frost build-up by varying fan speed proportionally. However, there are also negative attributes to the implementation of such technologies. In one case, the
effectiveness o f the air curtain in equipment without doors is very sensitive to changes in airflow, and fan motor controllers could disrupt the air curtain. The potential of disturbance to the air curtain, which could lead to higher infiltration loads, does not

warrant the use of evaporator fan motor controllers in equipment without doors, even if there were some reduction in fan energy use. In addition, DOE understands that savings from evaporator fan motor controllers in all equipment types would be small. Therefore, DOE did not consider variable-speed evaporator fan motors or evaporator fan motor controllers as a design option.

5.6.2.3 Higher Efficiency Evaporator and Condenser Fan Blades

Higher efficiency evaporator and condenser fan blades reduce motor shaft power requiremen ts by moving air more efficiently. Current technology used in commercial refrigeration equipment is stamped sheet metal or plastic axial fan blades. These fan blades are lightweight and inexpensive. DOE was not able to identify any axial fan blade
technolo gy that is significantly more efficient than what is currently used, but did identify one alternative fan blade technology that might improve efficiency: tangential fan blades. They can produce a wide, even airflow, and have the potential to allow for incr eased saturated evaporator temperature (SET) through improved air distribution across the evaporator coil, which would reduce compressor power. However, tangential fan blades in small sizes are themselves less efficient at moving air, and thus require grea ter motor5- 11 

### shaft power. Because of these competing effects, DOE did not consider tangential fan blades as a design option.

5.6.2.4 Low- Pressure Differential Evaporators

Low -pressure differential evaporators reduce energy consumption by reducing the power of evaporator fan motors, often by increasing the air gap between fins. However, in space -constrained equipment such as commercial refrigeration equipment, this reduction usually comes from a decrease in evaporator coil surface area, which generally requires a lower SET to achieve the same discharge air temperature and cooling potential. This, in turn, results in a reduction in compressor efficiency. Because of these competing effects, DOE did not consider low-pressure differential evaporators as a design option.

5.6.2.5 Defrost Cycle Control

Defrost cycle control can reduce energy consumption by reducing the frequency and duration of defrost periods. The majority of equipment currently manufactured already uses partial defrost cycle control in the form of cycle temperature -t ermination
control. However, defrost cycle initiation is still scheduled at regular intervals. Full defrost cycle control would involve a method of detecting frost buildup and initiating
defrost. As described in the market and technology assessment (c hapte r 3), this could be accomplished through an optical sensor or sensing the temperature differential across the evaporator coil. However, both of these methods are unreliable due to fouling of the coil with dust and other surface contaminants, which becomes more of an issue as cases age

. Because of these issues, DOE did not consider defrost cycle control as a design option.

5.6.2.6 Defrost Mechanisms

Defrosting for medium

- temperature equipment is typically accomplished with off

cycle defrost. Because off

- cycle defrost uses no energy (and decreases compressor on

time), there is no defrost design option capable of reducing defrost energy in cases that
use off- cycle defrost. Some medium temperature cases and all low temperature and ice

cream temperature cases use supplemental heat for defrost. Electric resistance heating (electric defrost) is commonly used in these cases. An alternative to electric defrost in those cases that require supplemental defrost heat is hot- gas defrost. This defrost
mechanism involves using the hot compressor discharge gas to warm the evaporator from the refrigerant side. Manufacturers told DOE during the preliminary manufacturer impact analysis interviews that the use of hot-gas defrost is a subject of division within the industry, with some manu facturers employing it on many of their models and others using it very rarely, if at all. These manufacturers mentioned various positive and negative attributes of the technology, depending on their stance on the issue. However, independent of the technic al factors related to implementation of hot -gas defrost, t he test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is not capable of quantifying the energy expenditure of the compressor during a hot- gas defrost cycle for remote

condensing equipment. Theref ore, DOE did not consider hot- gas defrost as a design option.5- 12 

### 5.6.3 Design Options

After conducting the screening analysis and removing from consideration those technologies described above, DOE implemented the remaining technologies as design options in the energy consumption model:

• higher efficiency lighting and occupancy sensors for VOP, SVO, and SOC equipment families (horizontal fixtures);

• higher efficiency lighting and occupancy sensors for VCT and PD equipment
famil ies (vertical fixtures);

• increased evaporator coil surface area ;

• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors;

• improved case insulation;

• improved doors for VCT equipment family, low and ice- cream temperature (hinged, 30 x 67 inches);

• improved doors for VCT and PD equipment famil ies , medium temperatur e (hinged, 30 x 67 inches);

• improved doors for HCT equipment family, low and ice

- cream temperature (sliding, 18 x 20.5 inches);

• improved doors for HCT equipment family, medium temperature (sliding, 18 x 20.5 inches);

• improved doors for SOC equipment family , medium temperature (sliding, 20 x 24 inches);

• increased condenser surface area (for self -contained equipment only);

• higher efficiency condenser fan motors (for self-contained equipment only);

• higher efficiency compressors (for self -contained equipment only); and

• night curtains (equipment without doors only).

Each design option has at least two technology levels , ranging from the minimum ( lowest performing) to the maximum (best performing) technology. The design options and the technology levels for each design option are described below.

5.6.3.1 Higher Efficiency Lighting and Occupancy Sensors

Lighting is an important characteristic of commercial refrigeration equipment because it makes the product visible to the consumer. Lighting systems typically operate continuously and provide an opportunity for significant energy savings. As lighting system efficiency increases, reductions in total case energy consumption can be achieved through a direct reduction in electricity consumption by the lighting system, and a
redu ction of heat inside the case, thereby reducing compressor work.

It is important that product illumination not degrade with higher design option levels, as this would decrease the utility of the equipment. DOE made every effort to maintain constant system illumination among design options. This approach meant that DOE had to consider lighting as a system, rather than distinguishing lamps and ballasts as separate design options. This approach becomes more important when considering light-5- 13 

### emitting diode (L ED) lighting systems, which do no t use ballasts, as fluorescent lighting systems do.

Although LED systems generally have lower absolute efficacy than fluorescent systems, the fixtures produce light that is much more directional in nature. While the total
lume n output of LED systems is lower than comparable fluorescent systems, the amount of light incident on the product (illuminance) is roughly equivalent. Consultation with commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, lighting manufacturers, and other

tec hnical experts indicate that current LED technology provides product lighting that is adequate, and in most cases comparable to fluorescent lighting. In recent years, according to discussions with manufacturers, the trend within the market has been toward a much greater usage of LED lighting in this equipment.

To account for the variation in design between equipment families, DOE used two lighting design options in the energy consumption model. DOE used the “higher efficiency lighting and ballasts for VOP, SVO, and SOC equipment families” design option for lighting in a horizontal configuration, and the “ higher efficiency lighting and
ballasts for VCT and PD equipment famil ies ” design option for the lighting in a vertical configuration. The VCS and HCS equi pment families do not require lighting because they are not designed to display food, while the HCT and HZO equipment famil ies
typ ically do not have lighting because they rely on store ambient lighting for product
illumination . Therefore, DOE did not consider lighting design options for these four equipment families.

DOE also considered occupancy sensors, which allow for case lighting to be reduced or shut off during periods of inactivity around the case, as part of the design options for the VCT/PD and VOP /SVO/SOC groupings. These equipment families are generally used for display purposes and include lighting for product illumination, making occupancy sensor implementation an option for this equipment. Because fluorescent lamps require a start -up period after being powered on and fluorescent lamp lifetime is greatly reduced by frequent cycling on and off, DOE only considered occupancy sensors to be an option compatible with LED lighting. From analysis of past empirical studies
and discussions with commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, DOE
determined that a net 30 percent reduction in lighting run time due to the implementation of occupancy sensors would be an appropriate figure for modeling the performance of
these sensors 2

, 3 

### . This value was directly implemented into the energy consumption model, such that a unit with occupancy sensors would see a lighting time reduction of 30
percent from the standard 24-hour daily run time. This directly affected both the calculated energy consumption of the lighting and the lighting contribution to the case
heat load. In the commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure rulemaking, which is currently ongoing, DOE is seeking to develop standardized methods for applying credit to units equipped with occupancy sensors. As those methods become finalized, DOE will model them in its engineering analysis in upcoming stages of this rulemaking. Additionally, in some cases, where incremental implementation of occupancy sensors proved in the analysis to be more cost- eff ective than the implementation of LEDs alone,5- 14 

### DOE implemented the two together, going directly from T8 or Super T8 lighting to LEDs with occupancy sensors, without an intermediate option of LEDs alone.

Because of the horizontal configuration of shelving a nd the linear nature of display case lineups in the VOP, SVO, and SOC equipment families, lighting for these

cases is typically installed in the horizontal plane. Details for the “higher efficiency lighting and ballasts for VOP, SVO, and SOC equipment fami lies” design option are
shown in Table 5.6.1 . Remote condensing versions of these display cases are most often sold in 8-foot and 12-foot sections, using multiples of 4-foot fixtures (either fluorescent
bulbs or LE D strips) to continuously light the entire width of the case. Self -contained versions are commonly sold in 4-foot lengths, so that a single 4-foot light fixture will light the full width of the case. Therefore, 4 -foot fixtures were specified for all lighti ng systems in the horizontal configuration. Th is lighting was also required to have a color temperature of 3,500 Kelvin (K), which is typical for this type of equipment.

Table 5.6.1 Details for Lighting for V OP, SVO, HZO, and SOC Equipment Families Design Option

Level Description Lamp Type Lamp

Rated

Power

W Lamp Rated Light Output
l umen s System Efficacy

l umens/W System Light Output

l umens

T8 N 4 ft, T8 Elec. F32T8 32.0 2850.0 85.0 2679.0

T8S 4 ft, Super T8 Elec. F32T8/HL 32.0 3100.0 94.6 2697.0

LED 4 ft, LED LED 4 ft 15.0 888.0 59.2 888.0

OCC 4 ft, LED with Occupancy Sensors LED 4 ft 15.0 888.0 59.2 888.0



### Because of the vertical configuration of the doors in the VCT and PD equipment
famil ies , fluorescent lamps are typically installed vertically behind the mullions between
doors. Such lighting systems typically consist of a single 5 -foot lamp and single ballast per mullion as well as a lamp installed at each end of the case. All lighting systems in the vertical configuration were specified to have 5

- foot lamps and a color temperature of 4,100 K, which is typical for this equipment family. Table 5.6.2 shows details for the “lighting for VCT and PD equipment famil ies” design option.

Table 5.6.2 Details for Lighting for VCT and PD Equipment Famil ies Design Option

Level Description Lamp Type Lamp

Rated

Power

W Lamp Rated Light Output

lu mens System Efficacy

l umens/W System L ight Output

l umens

T8 N 5 ft, T8 Elec. F58T8/835 58.0 5400.0 93.1 5400.0

LED 5 ft, LED LED 5 ft 29.0 1564.0 53.9 1564.0

OCC 5 ft, LED with Occupancy Sensors LED 5 ft 29.0 1564.0 53.9 1564.05- 15 

### 5.6.3.2 Higher Efficiency Evaporator Fan Motors

In conjunction with fan blades, fan motors are necessary for transferring heat from the display case to the refrigerant and, in the case of self -contained equipment, rejecting heat from the refrigerant into the ambient air. Fan motors are also responsible for maintaining pro duct temperatures and air curtains on open cases. They must operate virtually continuously, and therefore use a significant amount of energy. As motor efficiency increases, reductions in total case energy consumption are achieved through a
direct reduction both in electricity consumption and waste heat inside the case, reducing

compressor load

.

Table 5.6.3 shows details for the evaporator fan motor design option. DOE considers shaded-pole motors (SPM) as the baseline (or lowest

- efficiency ) technology, permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors as the mid -level technology, and brushless direct current (DC) or electronically commutated motors (ECMs) as the maximum technology
level. DOE adapted motor efficiency levels

, list ed in Table 5.6.3 , from the 2009 final rule
and ongoing DOE rulemaking efforts . DOE verified these efficiency values through discussions with equipment manufacturers.

Table 5.6.3 Details for Evaporator Fan Motor Design Option

Rated

Power

(W) Shaded

- Pole Motor (SPM) Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) Motor Brushless DC Motor (ECM)

Actual

Power

W Efficiency
% Actual

Power

W Efficiency
% Actual

Power

W Efficiency
%

12 .0 60.0 20 41.4 29 18.2 66

9.0 45.0 20 31.0 29 13.6 66

6.0 30.0 20 20.7 29 9.1 66



### 5.6.3.3 Increased Evaporator Surface Area

Evaporator coils are another component necessary for transferring heat from the display case to the refrigerant. Table 5.6.4 shows details for the evaporator coil design options. In view of available information, DOE considered a baseline and a maximum technology level for this design option. For each level, DOE specified an overall UA

value a 

### and a coi l cost. The UA -value is normalized to the standard coil, and the coil cost is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil. This allowed DOE to apply these details of coil design across all equipment classes and at different capacities

. In consultation with outside experts, DOE determined that applying the same coil design improvements to different sized coils would result in similar increases in coil performance

.

a The ov erall UA

- value is the product of the overall heat transfer coefficient (Btu/h

- ft 2

- °F) and the total surface area (ft 2 ) of the coil. This value can be derived from the total heat transfer rate of the coil (Btu/h) divided by the average temperature difference between the discharge air and the saturated evaporator temperature (ΔT).5- 16 

### Table 5.6.4 Details for Evaporator Coil Design Option

Level Description Normalized UA (

- ) Normalized Coil Cost $/Btu/hr

EVAP1 Standard Coil 1 $0.0358

EVAP2 High

- Performance Coil 1.667 $0.0500



### DOE based the details of coil construction ( Table 5.6.5 ) on a baseline and prototype high- performance coil evaluated in a study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 4 

### The high-performance coil uses a combination of enhancements to the heat
transfer surfaces that increased its overall UA

- value. These enhancements include higher fin pitch, rifled tubing, and different tube spacing. In sum, these improvements allow the prototype coil to run at a SET that is 6 °F warmer than the baseline coil and maintain the same discharge air temperature (30 °F) and heat removal capacity (12,990 British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr)).

Table 5.6.5 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Evaporator Coil Designs
Property Standard Coil High

- Performance Coil Overall Width (in

. ) 81 81 Overall Heigh t (in

. ) 7 5/8 7 1/2 Overall Depth (in

. ) 12 13 9/16 Tube Rows per Circuit 12 12

Number of Parallel Circuits 4 6 Tubing Material Copper Copper Tubing Outer Diameter (in

. ) 1/2 3/8 Tubing Wall Thickness (in

. ) 0.012 0.012 Tubing Inner Surface Smooth Rifl ed

Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum

Fin Surface Flat Flat

Fin Dimensions (in .) 8.66 x 7.5 (all rows) 5.415 x 7.5 (5 front rows) 7.581 x7.5 (7 rear rows)

Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 2 (all rows) 3 (5 front rows) 4 (7 rear rows)



### Because compressor per formance is directly related to SET, reductions in total case energy consumption are realized through an improved energy efficiency ratio (EER) at the condensing unit. In consultation with outside experts, DOE determined that applying the same coil improve ments to different sized coils and at different temperatures would result in similar SET improvements. Consequently, the coil design was scaled as appropriate to model the coil in the representative unit for each equipment class analyzed. For the NOPR stag e of this rulemaking, DOE is considering updating and revising the evaporator coil models in order to reflect data that could arise from the teardown analysis, discussions with manufacturers, or other sources.

5.6.3.4 Improved Insulation and Vacuum Insulated Panel s

Several technology levels were implemented in the engineering model representing improvements to case insulation. DOE included increased foam insulation thickness as a design option, and modeled a half-inch increase in insulation thickness for all equipm ent classes based on discussions with manufacturers regarding case design and5- 17 

### foam insulation fixturing . DOE added this increase in thickness to the baseline value of insulation thickness and recalculated the conduction load in the energy consumption
model (section 5.6.7.5 ). The cost of increasing the insulation thickness is based on a sunk cost per unit, considering foam fixture engineering and tooling costs, production line lifetime, and number of fixtures and units produced. Table 5.6.6 provides details of the assumptions used to calculate the additional cost of insulation thickness increases. DOE assumed that the cost increase due to additional foam material is insigni ficant compared to the cost of upgrading foam fixtures.

Table 5.6.6 Assumptions in Cost Calculation Methodology for Insulation Thickness

Increase

Item Value Notes Cost to Upgrade

S ingle Insulation

Fixture $100,000

Number of Fixtures 25 Based on a survey of the number of products offered by each
manufacturer

Engineering Costs $ 416,667 Assumes $100,000 per year salary and one month to complete redesign per machine plus one month for testing

Interest Rate 7.0 %

Product Line

Lifetime (years) 7.0

Units per Year 35,000

Sunk Cost Per Unit $ 15.46 Assumes changes in material (polyurethane and blowing agent) costs are negligible compared to fixture and engineering costs



### DOE also considered vacuum insulated pane ls (VIPs) as an option for improving
the insulation performance of the insulated walls of commercial refrigeration equipment cases. Data regarding VIP performance was gathered from discussions with VIP manufacturers in conjunction with past and ongoing rul emakings on residential refrigerators and walk -in coolers and freezers. These discussions yielded a representative
material cost of $3.00 per square foot for 1- inch -thick, R-30 VIPs . This cost was then multiplied in the engineering cost model by the number of square feet of insulated wall in a given representative unit , as well as the wall thickness, to produce a differential cost of upgrading from traditional foam insulation to VIPs. This differs from the methodology for the foam thickness upgrade, in whic h case the cost of additional insulation material was deemed insignificant.

Additionally, as with the increased foam thickness design option, a sunk cost per unit of upgrading to VIPs was calculated and applied to the unit cost. This consists of an
estima te for the additional costs of product engineering and redesign, new production equipment, and new tooling, amortized over the typical equipment production lifetime and divided by the number of units per year. The result is a levelized cost per commercial refrigeration equipment case produced. The assumptions used for this design option are
shown in Table 5.6.7

.5- 18 

### Table 5.6.7 Assumptions in C ost Calculation Methodology for Vacuum Insulated

Panel s

Item Value Cost per square foot of 1

- inch

- thick R

- 30 VIP $3.00 Additional tooling/engineering/product redesign costs $500,000 New equipment costs $300,000

Interest r ate 7.0%

Product line l ifetime (years) 7 Units per y ear 3 5,000

Sunk cost p er u nit $4.24



### For each equipment class analyzed, DOE considered both the increase in
conventional insulation thickness and the switch to vacuum insulated panels as design options. While these insulation improvement design options benefit some equipment types more than others, DOE modeled them for each of the directly analyzed equipment classes, as conduction through the case is present in all equipment classes. Table 5.6.8 summarizes these design options.

Table 5.6.8 Details for Insulation Design Options

Level Description Additional Thickness

Above Baseline

inches Insulation R

- Value
Per Inch Thickness

IN1 Baseline insulation 0 8

IN2 Extra 1/2 inch insulation thickness 0.5 8

VIP Vacuum insulated panels 0 30



### 5.6.3.5 Improved Transparent Doors

Transparent doors allow refrigerated products to be displayed to consumers while keeping cold a ir inside t he display case. Transparent doors also allow heat to radiate into the display case and have a lower insulation value than solid walls. On freezers and some refrigerators, glass doors must be heated to prevent frost or condensation from forming.
These “anti

- sweat” heaters , which are used to prevent formation of frost or condensation on the glass doors, often run continuously and consume significant amounts of energy. Reductions in total case energy consumption can be achieved both by improving the overall insulation value (U-factor) of the door and by reducing the required anti- sweat heater power. Reductions in the anti- sweat heater power needed can often be achieved as a function of improved conductive performance of the door, as well as in improvements to the gasketing and other door features.

A wide variety of door types are used on the equipment covered in this rulemaking. Door construction and performance can vary by equipment family as well as operating temperature of the case. To account for this variation, DOE developed six separate design options for the different door types represented in the primary equipment classes that DOE analyzed. For all door design options, DOE estimated the thermal performance of the door (expressed as an overall U -factor) using information about door
construction from manufacturers a nd WINDOW 5 software available from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. 5 

### This information was cross- referenced from DOE’s ongoing rulemaking on walk-in coolers and freezers, as the major door manufacturers for5- 19 

### the commercial refrigeration equipment indus try also possess a large share of the market
for walk -in display doors.

Doors for the VCT equipment family operating at low and ice

- cream temperature are hinged and are a representative size of 30 inches wide and 67 inches tall with three panes of glass. Table 5.6.9 shows details of thermal performance and anti- sweat heater requirements for this door type.

DOE considered two technology levels for this design option: the highperformance door that uses a combinatio n of low- emissivity coating, frame material, and
inert fill

- gas to reduce the overall U -factor; and a standard door.

Table 5.6.9 Details for Doors for VCT Equipment Family, Low and Ice

- Cream Temperature Desig n Option

Level Description Overall U

- Factor
Btu/hr

- ft

2

- °F Anti

- Sweat Heater Power

W/door

DR1 Standard Door 0.21 165

DR2 High

- Performance Door 0.14 80



### Doors for the VCT and PD equipment famil ies operating at medium temperature are hinged and have a representative size of 30 inches wide and 67 inches tall with two panes of glass at the baseline

. Table 5.6.10 shows details of thermal performance and
anti -sweat heater requirements for this door type.

DOE considered two technology levels for this design option. The highperformance door uses a combination of an additional pane of glass, low- emissivity coating, frame material, and inert fill

- gas to reduce the overall U

- factor compared to the
standard door. Based on interviews conducted with commercial refrigeration equipmentmanufacturers, DOE understands that the implementation of these sorts of highperformance glass doors in medium- temperature equipment can allow for the complete
elimination of anti

- sweat power. As a result, the high -performance door design option for
the VCT and PD famil ies at medium temperature includes an anti

- sweat heater power of

zero.

Table 5.6.10 Details for Doors for VCT and PD Equipment Famil ie s , Medium Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U

- Factor
Btu/hr

- ft

2

- °F Anti

- Sweat Heater Power

W/door

DR1 Standard Door 0.23 50

DR2 High

- Performance Door 0.21 0



### Doors for the HCT equipment family operating at medium temperature are sliding and are a representative size of 18 inches wide and 20.5 inches tall with one pane of glass
at the baseline. Table 5.6.11 shows details of thermal performance and anti

- sweat heater requirements for this door type.

DOE considered two technology levels for this design option. The highperformance door uses a combination of an additional pane of glass, low- emissivity5- 20 

### coating, frame material, and inert fill

- gas to reduce the overall U

- factor compared to the standard door. Typically, these door types do not require anti-sweat power.

Table 5.6.11 Details for HCT Equipment Family, Medium Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U

- Factor
Btu/hr

- ft

2

- °F Anti

- Sweat He ater Power
W/door

DR1 Standard Door 1.05 0

DR2 High

- Performance Door 0. 23 0



### Doors for the HCT equipment family operating at low and ice

- cream temperature s are sliding and are a representative size of 18 inches wide and 20.5 inches tall with one pane of glass at the baseline

. Table 5.6.12 shows details of thermal performance and antisweat heater requirements for this door type.

DOE considered two technology levels for this design option: a high

- performance
door that uses a combination of low- emissivity coating, frame material, and two extra

pane s of glass with inert fill -gas to reduce the overall U-factor; and a standard door. Typically, these door types do not require anti- sweat heater power.

Table 5.6.12 Details for Doors for HCT Equipment Family, Low and Ice

- Cream Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U

- Factor
Btu/hr

- ft

2

- °F Anti

- Sweat Heater Power

W/door

DR1 Standard Door 1.05 0

DR2 High

- Performanc e Door 0.21 0



### Doors for the SOC equipment family operating at medium temperature are of the sliding type and have a representative size of 24 inches wide and 20 inches tall with two panes of glass. Table 5.6.13 sh ows details of door thermal performance and anti- sweat heater requirements for this door type. DOE considered two technology levels for this design option: a high -performance door that uses a combination of low- emissivity coating, frame material, and inert fill

- gas to achieve a reduced overall U

- factor; and a
standard door. Typically, SOC doors do not require anti- sweat heater power.

Table 5.6.13 Details for Doors for SOC Equipment Family, Medium Temperature

De sign Option

Level Description Overall U

- Factor
Btu/hr

- ft

2

- °F Anti

- Sweat Heater Power
W/door

DR1 Standard Door 0.23 0

DR2 High

- Performance Door 0.21 0



### 5.6.3.6 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors

The condenser fan motor design option applies only to those equi pment classes
that are self -contained. Details for the condenser fan motor design option are identical to
those shown in Table 5.6.3 . As with evaporator fan motors, the SPM is the baseline technology, the PSC motor is the mid -technology, and the DC motor or ECM is the5- 21 

### maximum technology level. Because condenser fan motors are outside the refrigerated space, efficiency improvements only affect the direct electrical consumption of the
motors and not the total case heat load.

5.6.3.7 Increased Condenser Surface Area

Table 5.6.14 shows details for this design option, which only applies to selfcontained equipment classes. Details of coil construction are based on data from tear

downs by Southern California Edison’s Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center (RTTC). 6


### Based on this information, DOE considered both baseline and maximum technology levels for this design option. For each level, DOE specified an overall UA

- value and a
coil cost. The UA -value is normalized to the standard coil, and the coil cost is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil in Btu/hour . This approach allowed DOE to apply the details of coil design across all self

- contained equipment classes. In consultation w ith outside experts, DOE determined that applying the same coil improvements to different sized coils would result in similar performance improvements.

Table 5.6.14 Details for “Increased Condenser Surface Are a” Design Option

Level Description Normalized

UA (

- ) Normalized Coil Cost $/Btu/h r

COND1 Standard Coil 1.00 $0.0146

COND2 High

- Performance Coil 2.56 $0.0439



### Table 5.6.15 shows details of coil construction. The high

- performance coil uses a
combination of enhancements to the heat transfer surfaces that increased its overall UAvalue. These enhancements include higher fin pitch, rifled tubing and different tube spacing. These improvements allow the prototype coil to run at a saturated condenser temperature (SCT) that is 1 4 °F cooler than the baseline coil while maintaining the same heat rejection rate (1,600 Btu/hr). Because compressor performance is directly related to SCT, reductions in total case energy consumption are achieved through an improved EER at the condensing unit. For the NOPR stage of this rulemaking, DOE is considering updating and revising the condenser coil models in order to reflect data which could arise from the teardown analysis, discussions with manufacturers, or other sources.5- 22 

### Table 5.6.15 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Condenser Coil
Property Standard Coil High

- Performance Coil Overall Width (in

. ) 12.5 24 Overall Height (in

. ) 10 10

Overal l Depth (in

. ) 2.25 3 Tube Rows per Circuit 28 16

Number of Parallel Circuits 3 2 Tubing Material Copper Copper Tubing Outer Diameter (in

. ) 3/8 3/8 Tubing Wall Thickness (in

. ) 0.012 in 0.012 in Tubing Inner Surface Smooth Rifled

Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum

Fin Surface Flat Flat Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 6 7



### 5.6.3.8 Higher Efficiency Compressors

The compressor design option applies only to self- contained equipment classes. In consultation with manufacturers and external technical experts, DOE determined that two levels of technology were applicable for the compressor design option. The baseline technology level is a standard single-speed hermetic compressor, and the maximum technology level is a high- efficiency single

- speed hermetic compressor. (See sect ion

5.6.5 for a discussion of why DOE did not consider variable-speed compressors.) Reductions in total case energy consumption are achieved through a reduction in compressor power consumption.

Several manufactu rers provided DOE with performance data for standard single

speed hermetic compressors over a range of capacities applicable to the covered equipment (1,500

− 20,000 Btu/hr ). DOE used this data to find appropriately sized compressors when developing each des ign -option curve. (See section 5.6.7.2 for information on the calculation of compressor energy consumption.) Although several compressor manufacturers produce high- efficiency compressors, little data is currentl y available on their performance. Therefore, DOE approximated a set of high- efficiency compressors by adjusting the power consumption of the standard compressors using a constant multiplier. DOE developed this multiplier through its own research and
consul tation with outside experts. (See section 5.6.5 for details on this multiplier.)

Some manufacture rs mentioned in interviews that scroll compressors were
available from certain producers for commercial refrigerat ion equipment applications. However, these manufacturers also stated that the scroll compressors, while presenting a slight performance improvement over reciprocating compressors, had an extremely high associated cost premium. These manufacturers stated th at this cost premium made scroll compressors a viable option only in specific design scenarios, such as when certain geometric configurations were required or in instances where noise reduction is very important. They also mentioned that scroll compressors were only available over a certain range of capacities , which would not cover the entire commercial refrigeration equipment market. As a result, DOE did not consider scroll compressors in its analysis.5- 23 

### 5.6.3.9 Night Curtains

In response to stakeholder input and discussions with commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, DOE included night curtains as a design option for the VOP and SVO equipment families in the preliminary analysis engineering model. DOE based its modeling of this design option on specifications obtained from manufacturer interviews, publicly available data from night curtain manufacturers, and past studies of night curtain performance. For cases with night curtains implemented, a curtain down
time of 6 hours per day was used in the energy consumption model, in accordance with the time proposed in the commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure NOPR. 75 FR 71603 (Nov. 24, 2010). The performance of the curtains in the model was based on a survey of field studies of night curtain effectiveness, which resulted in an average 39
percent reduction in case heat load over a 24-hour test period. 7

, 8 

### When the night curtain design option was implemented, the 39 percent reduction in case heat load was applied to
the load calculated for the same uni t without night curtains, and the new heat load was normalized over 24 hours to give a standard hourly load. Table 5.6.16 shows the specifications for the night curtain design option.

Table 5.6.16 Details for “Night Curtains” Design Option

Level Description Curtain

Down Time

hr Case Heat Load Multiplier

OFF No Night Curtains 0 1.00

NC1 Night Curtains 6 0.61



### 5.6.4 Baseline Specifications

DOE defined baseline specifications (or case design specifications) for each equipment class. These specifications include dimensions, numbers of components, temperatures, nominal power ratings, and other case features that are necessary to calculate energy consumption. In conjunction with the lowest technological level of each design option (section 5.6.3 ), the baseline specifications define the energy consumption and cost of the typical minimum- efficiency equipment on the market. Table 5.6.17 shows the specifications and units that DOE defined for each equipment class.5- 24 

### Table 5.6.17 Baseline Specifications
Specification Units Case Length ft

Case Gross Refri gerated Volume ft 3

Case Total Display Area ft 2

Number of Doors #
Single Door Area ft 2

Non

- Door Glass Area ft 2

Non

- Door Anti

- Sweat Power W Wall Area (ft 2 ) ft 2

Insulation Thickness I n

. Case Interior Surface Area ft 2

Air Curtain Angle from Vertical °

Infiltrated Air Mass Flow l b/hr
Number of Bulbs in Conditioned Space #
Number of Bulbs Not in Conditioned Space #
Number of Ballasts in Conditioned Space #
Number of Ballasts Not in Conditioned Space #
Evaporator Fan Nominal Rated Wattage W

Number of Evaporator Fans per Case #
Condenser Fan Nominal Rated Wattage W Number of Condenser Fans per Case #
Discharge Air Temperature (DAT) °F
Baseline Evaporator Temperature (SET) °F
Baseline Condenser Temperature (SCT) °F
Compressor Oversize Multiplie r #

Defrost Mechanism n/a
Defrost Time per Day h r
Defrost and Drain Heater Power W

Condensate Pan Heater Power W



### DOE established baseline specifications for each equipment class modeled in the engineering analysis by reviewing available manufacturer data, selecting representative units from that data, and then modeling the physical characteristics of the selected units. This process created a representative unit for each equipment class with typical characteristics for physical parameters ( e.g., volume, total display area), and minimum performance of energy -consuming components ( e.g., fans, lighting). Appendix 5A provides these numerical specifications for each equipment class.

5.6.5 Non

- Numerical Assumptions

In developing the energy con sumption model, DOE made certain general nonnumerical assumptions about the analysis, as well as specific assumptions about load components and design options.

DOE assumed that all conditions are based on new equipment tested in a
controlled- environment c hamber subjected to Air -Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ( AH RI ) 1200, which references the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI ) /American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72- 2005 (A SHRAE 72), Method of Testing Commercial5- 25 

### Refrigerators and Freezers

. Manufacturers that certify their equipment to comply with Federal standards will be required to test new units to this test method, which specifies ambient temperature, humidity, light lev el, and other requirements.

DOE assumed that there is no t a pull-down load associated with re-shelving products since the test procedure does not address product re-shelving. Product re

shelving is the act of loading new products into refrigerated display cases as existing products are sold. Typically, commercial refrigeration equipment is not designed to pull down the temperature of warm products, but only to display products that were already chilled or frozen in a refrigerated storage unit. An exception to this is in the case of beverage merchandisers, which are represented by the pull-down class included in this rulemaking analysis; however, this equipment is still tested at steady state, so pull -down load effects will not be quantified by testing.

DOE also assumed that there are no pull-down loads associated with post- defrost periods. During defrost periods, the compressor (or the flow of refrigerant for remote condensing cases) stops and the coil warms to a temperature above freezing (aided by
electric resistance heating in the case of electric defrosts). After the evaporator coil has been cleared of frost, the merchandise in the case will typically have warmed several degrees. The merchandise must be returned to normal operating temperature when the

re frigeration cycle resumes, adding an additional load to the condensing unit. Between equipment families and even within equipment classes there is a large variation in defrost mechanism, defrost cycle time, temperature recovery time, and product mass. Beca use of the uncertainty of these factors, DOE was unable to calculate the defrost pull -down load with sufficient certainty and did not include it in the model. Sample calculations show that this load may only account for 2 to 4 percent of the total refriger ation load for an example VOP.RC.M case, or roughly 1 to 2 percent of the total daily energy consumption.

DOE did not consider variable-speed compressors as a compressor design option.
Variable -speed compressors reduce energy consumption under real- world c onditions by matching their capacity to the refrigeration load, which can change due to variation in ambient conditions and product loading. This eliminates the inefficiencies that occur due to mismatched capacity and load in a single-speed compressor duri ng part -load operation. The ASHRAE 72 test procedure prescribes steady -state conditions. Thus, a variablespeed compressor would be limited to single-speed operation, the EER would be no better than a properly sized single-speed compressor, and no apprecia ble energy savings would result. Similarly, under ASHRAE 72, the performance of a high- efficiency
variable -speed compressor would be comparable to a high- efficiency single

- speed

compressor.

5.6.6 Numerical Constants and Assumptions

In developing the energy consumption model, DOE identified constants and made assumptions concerning numerical values used in the analysis. These include ambient conditions, financial assumptions, and parameters necessary to calculate the component
and non- electric loads. Table 5.6.18 shows details of these assumptions.5- 26 

### Table 5.6.18 Energy Consumption Model Numerical Constants and Assumptions
Numerical Constants and Assumptions Value Source

Test C hamber Temperature (°F) 75 ASHRAE 72 9
Test Chamber Relative Humidity (%) 55 ASHRAE 72 9

Test Chamber Pressure (pounds per square in (psi), absolute) 14.7 Assumed

Manufacturer Markup ($/$) 1. 39 Publicly availa ble corporate financial data

Fraction of Anti

- Sweat Heater Power into

Case (W/W) 0.7 DOE estimate based on discussions with
manufacturers Fraction of Lighting Power into Case for Lighting Outside of Air Curtain (W/W) 0.5 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Supermarket Simulation Tool (SST) v3.0 10
Lighting Operating Time per Day (hr) 24 Assumed

– for cases without occupancy sensors

Convective Film Coefficient Inside Case
Walls (Btu/hr

- ft

2 -° F) 4.00 Communication with Southern California Edison,

RTTC

Convective Film Coefficient Outside Case
Walls (Btu/hr

- ft

2

- ° F) 1.46 Communication with RTTC

Overall U

- Value of Single

- Pane Glass (Btu/hr

- ft

2 -° F) 1.059 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
WINDOW 5 Software 5
Emissivity of Test Chamber Walls (

- ) 0.9 Communication with RTTC Emissivity of Case Inner Walls (

- ) 0.9 Communication with RTTC

Area of Test Chamber Walls (ft 2 ) 1000 Communication with RTTC

Case Interior Relative Humidity (%) 65 R. Faramarzi, Efficient Display Case Refrigeration

, ASHRAE Journal , November 1999 11
Evaporator Coil Overall Bypass Factor (%) 17 DOE estimate High

- Efficiency Compressor Cost
Premium 5% Communication with manufacturers

High

- Efficiency Compressor Power
Reduction 10% Communicatio n with manufacturers



### 5.6.7 Model Components

Figure 5.6.1 presents a schematic showing the components in the energy consumption model. The model calculates energy consumption in two major subsections (expressed as kWh/da y): compressor energy consumption and component energy consumption. Component energy consumption is the sum of electrical energy directly consumed by each fan motor, lamp, defrost and drain heater, anti-sweat heater, and pan
heater.

Compressor energy cons umption is calculated from the total heat load (expressed
as Btu/h r) and one of two compressor models: one version for remote condensing equipment, and one for self-contained equipment. The total heat load is a sum of the component load and the non- electric load. The component load is a sum of the heat emitted by evaporator fan motors, lighting, defrost heaters, drain heaters, and anti- sweat heaters inside and adjacent to the refrigerated space (condenser fan motors and pan heaters are outside the refrigera ted space and do not contribute to the component heat load). The non-electric load is the sum of the heat contributed by radiation through glass and openings, heat conducted through walls and doors, and warm air infiltration through openings.5- 27 Total Heat

Load [Btu/h]

Component

Load [Btu/h] Non-Electric

Load [Btu/h]

Fan Motor

Heat Load

[Btu/h] Lighting Heat

Load [Btu/h] Radiation

Load [Btu/h] Conduction

Load [Btu/h] Infiltration

Load [Btu/h] Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Compressor

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Compressor Model (ARI 540) Component Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Fan Motor

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day] Lighting Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]



### Figure 5.6.1 Components of the Energy Consumption Model

5.6.7.1 Component Energy Consumption

Fan motor energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each evaporator and condenser fan motor, and multiplying the total motor power by the total running time over a 24-hour period. (This calculation assumes that evaporator and condenser fans run continuously when off-cycle defrost is used, and are turned off during
defrost when electric defrost is used .)

Lighting ene rgy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each lamp and ballast, and multiplying the total by the total operating time of the lighting system over a 24-hour period. (This calculation assumes that lighting operates continuously.) For cases where lighting controls and occupancy sensors have been implemented, a 30 percent run -time reduction is used, based upon empirical data from field studies of occupancy sensor performance.

Defrost and drain heater energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each defrost heater and drain heater, and multiplying by the total time the case is in defrost operation over a 24-hour period.

Anti

- sweat energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each
anti

- sweat heater, and multiplying by the total operating time of the heaters over a 24

- hour period. (This calculation assumes that anti -sweat heaters run continuously.)5- 28 

### Pan heater energy consumption is calculated by multiplying the power draw of each pan heater by the total operating time of the heater over a 24 -hour period. The total operating time is calculated as the time it would take to evaporate all of the defrost melt

water.

5.6.7.2 Compressor Energy Consumption

Compressor energy consumption (CEC) is calculated from the total heat load and one of two compressor models: one version for remote condensing equipment and one for
self

- contained equipment. CEC for remote condensing equipment is calculated using default efficiency values from A HRI 1200. Table 1 in AHRI 1200 lists remote
condens ing compressor EER in Btu/W -h as a function of adjusted dew point temperature.

Adjusted dew point (ADP) temperature (°F) is calculated as:

ADP = SET – 2 °F (for medium temperature) Eq. 5.1

ADP = SET – 3 °F (for low/ice

- cream temperature) Eq. 5.2

W here :

SET = the saturated evaporator temperature (°F).

Once ADP is calculated, Table 1 in A HRI 1200 is used to find the corresponding
EER value. The CEC (kWh/day) is then calculated as:

CEC = Q tot 

### x (24 - t defrost 

### ) / (EER × 1000) Eq. 5.3

W here :

Q tot 

### = the total heat load (Btu/hr), and

t defrost 

### = the total defrost time in a 24 -hour period (hr).

Compressor energy consumption for self- contained equipment is calculated by using the compressor model described in section 6.4 of AHRI Standard 540-2004 (AH RI 540), Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Compressor Units . This model is based on a 10-coefficient polynomial derived from empirical compressor performance data for power, mass flow, current, and efficiency. The coefficients are derived for each parameter as a function of SET and SCT. Compressor coefficients are available from compressor manufacturers. Similar to the method used for remote condensing equipment, the EER of any compressor can be determined given a SET and SCT. Using Equation 5.3, the CEC can be determined.

In the engineering analysis, DOE uses adjusted capacities for compres sors modeled, rather than capacities at standard ASHRAE rating evaporator and condenser rating conditions. This is b ecause the actual ASHRAE 72 test conditions for most commercial refrigeration equipment are not the same as standard compressor rating5- 29 

### conditions, causing capacities at the modeled test conditions to differ from listed capacities. The compressor model then uses a look -up function to select the most appropriate compressor based on the total refrigeration load in the case and the

compressor over size factor from the baseline design specifications.

5.6.7.3 Component Load Model

The component load is the sum of the heat emitted by evaporator fan motors, lamp s, defrost and drain heater, and anti- sweat heater inside to the refrigerated space. Each component creates waste heat that is rejected to the refrigerated space and must be removed by the compressor.

DOE assumed that all electrical energy consumed by the evaporator fan motors ends up as heat inside the refrigerated space. In electric motor s , irreversibi lities in the motor windings, bearings, and other mechanical components convert much of the input electrical energy into heat. The rest of the energy is used in moving air inside the case. This moving air is slowed by friction

, and the kinetic energy of the air is converted into
heat

.

For lighting inside the refrigerated space, DOE assumed that all electrical energy consumed by the light fixtures ends up as heat inside the space. For lighting adjacent to the air curtain, DOE assumed that 50 percent of the e lectrical energy consumed ends up as heat inside the space. For fluorescent ballasts inside the refrigerated space, DOE assumed that all electrical energy that the ballasts consume ends up as heat inside the

space. Ballasts outside the refrigerated space d o not contribute any heat to the space. In cases in which occupancy sensors have been implemented as a design option, the heat inside the case due to lighting as calculated as above, but the run- time multiplier for the lighting is used to scale that heat l oad proportionately.

The phase change that occurs when defrost heaters melt the frost from evaporator
coils consumes most of the electrical energy that supplied during a defrost period. Over a 24-hour period, the total heat of melting is determined by



## Q m H

melt frost f water 

## =

, 

### Eq. 5.4

W here :

Q melt 

### = the heat of melting (Btu/hr),

m

frost 

### = the frost mass in a 24-hour period (lbs/hr), and

H

f,water 

### = the heat of fusion of water (Btu/lb).

DOE assumed that all th e electrical energy that defrost heaters consume, other than what is used to melt the frost, ends up as heat inside the refrigerated space. For drain heaters, DOE assumed that all electrical energy ends up as heat inside the refrigerated

space.5- 30 

### DOE assumed that on average, 70 percent of the electrical energy consumed by anti

sweat heaters adjacent to the refrigerated space (frame, rail, glass, sill and air grille heaters) ends up as heat inside the space.

5.6.7.4 Radiation Load Model

The radiation heat load model accounts for the gray-body radiation between the warm surfaces of the surrounding environment (the test chamber) and the cold inner surfaces of the refrigerated space. For cases without doors, the net radiation is
determined:


# ( ) Q T T

A A F A rad room case

room

room room room case room case

case case 

### = −

− + + −

− 

### σ

ε

ε ε

ε 4 4



### 1 1 1 

### Eq. 5.5

W here :

Q rad 

### = the net radiation load (Btu/hr ),

σ = the Stefan

- Boltzmann constant (Btu/h r- ft 2 

### -°F 4 

### ),

T

room 

### = the temperature of the room walls (°F),

T

case 

### = the temperature of the case inner walls (°F),

ε room 

### = the emissivity of the room walls (dimensionless),

ε case 

### = the emissivity of the case inner wal ls (dimensionless),

A

room 

### = the area of the room walls (ft 2 

### ),

A

case 

### = the area of the interior of the case (ft 2 

### ), and

F

case

- room 

### = the view factor from the case interior to the room walls (dimensionless).

DOE assumed that the wall temperatures of the case were in thermal equilibrium with the air temperature in the case, and that the wall temperatures of the room were in thermal equilibrium with the air temperature in the room. See Table 5.6.18 for numerical

constan ts pertaining to the radiation model.

For glass doors and other glass, the net radiation is incorporated into the overall U-value of the door, which is calculated by WINDOW 5 ( Table 5.6.9 through Table

5.6.13 , and Table 5.6.18 ). See section 5.6.7.5 for a discussion of the calculation of the combined radiation and conduction loads for glass doors and other glass.

5.6.7.5 Conduction Load Model

The conduction load model accounts for the heat conducted through walls and doors. For solid walls and doors, the conduction is given by:

Q A T T

h d

k h cond walls room case

o ins

ins i 

### = −

+ + 1 1 

### Eq. 5.65- 31 

### w here :

A walls 

### = the area of the exterior of the case (ft 2 

### ),
h

o 

### = the convective film coefficient on the outside of case walls (Btu/h- ft 2



### - °F),
h i 

### = the convective film coefficient on the inside of case walls (Btu/h

- ft 2



### - °F),
d

ins 

### = the insulation t hickness (in .), and
k

ins 

### = the insulation thermal conductivity (Btu -in/hr- ft 2



### - °F).

Because of its high thermal conductivity, the sheet metal that encloses the
insulation has negligible effect on the conduction load, and therefore was not included in
the ca lculation of conduction load. See Table 5.6.18 for numerical constants pertaining to
the conduction model.

For glass doors and other glass, the overall U-factor of the door assembly or glass
is calculated by WINDOW 5 ( Table 5.6.9 through Table 5.6.13 and Table 5.6.18 ). The combined radiation and conduction load for glass doors and other glass is calculated as:


# ( ) Q U A T T

glass overall glass room case 

### =

− 

### Eq. 5.7

W here :

U

overall 

### = the overall U -factor, including convection and radiation (Btu/h- ft 2



### - °F), and

A glass 

### = the area of the glass (ft 2 

### ).

5.6.7.6 Infiltration Load Model

In the engineering analysis, DOE used values for infiltrated air (in lbs/hr) for all equipment classes. DOE estimated infiltrated air by using manufacturers’ detailed

spec ification sheets, recognizing that infiltration load is the only load component tha t cannot be directly calculated. These estimates were directly calculated for some equipment classes, and then expanded for use in the remaining primary classes. DOE
then used the infiltrated air mass data to calculate a sensible load and latent load due t o infiltration, based on the thermodynamic properties of the water in the air as well as the assumed ambient and operating conditions. The sum of these two values constituted the portion of the case load attributed to air infiltration.

5.7 COST

- EFFICIENCY CU RVES

The result of the engineering analysis is a set of cost

- efficiency curves. DOE developed 24 curves representing the directly analyzed primary equipment classes, using the baseline specifications and design options described above. (See appendix B for details). The methodology for developing curves started with determining the baseline energy consumption and MPC . Above the baseline, DOE implemented design options from lowest to highest payback, and only one design option was implemented at each design option level, except for LED lighting and lighting occupancy sensors, which, in some classes, were implemented simultaneously

. Design options were implemented until all technologies were at a maximum level.5- 32 

### The 24 cost

- efficiency curves are shown in Figure 5.7.1 through Figure 5.7.24 in the form of daily energy consumption versus MSP. Supporting data for each primary class, including CDEC , MPC, MSP, and the design option ordering used in DOE’s analysis, is shown in Table 5.7.2 through Table 5.7.25

. Table 5.7.1 shows a list of the 24 analyzed equipment classes and their corresponding figure, table, and page numbers. Appendix 5A provides more detailed results, including the design options used at each design option level in the analytically derived curves.

Table 5.7.1 Figure, Table, and Page Numbers for Cost- Efficiency Results
Equipment Class Figure Table Page Number

VOP.RC.M Figure 5.7.1 Table 5.7.2 5

- 33

VOP.RC.L Figure 5.7.2 Table 5.7.3 5

- 34

VOP.SC.M Figure 5.7.3 Table 5.7.4 5

- 35

SVO.RC.M Figure 5.7.4 Table 5.7.5 5

- 36

SVO.SC.M Figure 5.7.5 Table 5.7.6 5

- 37

HZO.RC.M Figure 5.7.6 Table 5.7.7 5

- 38

HZO.RC.L Figure 5.7.7 Table 5.7.8 5

- 39

HZO.SC.M Figure 5.7.8 Table 5.7.9 5

- 40

HZO.SC.L Figure 5.7.9 Table 5.7.10 5

- 41

VCT.RC.M Figure 5.7.10 Table 5.7.11 5

- 42

VCT.RC.L Figure 5.7.11 Table 5.7.12 5

- 43

VCT.SC.M Figure 5.7.12 Table 5.7.13 5

- 44

VCT.SC.L Figure 5.7.13 Table 5.7.14 5

- 45

VCT.SC.I Figure 5.7.14 Table 5.7.15 5

- 46

VCS.SC.M Figure 5.7.15 Table 5.7.16 5

- 47

VCS.SC.L Figure 5.7.16 Table 5.7.17 5

- 48

VCS.SC.I Figure 5.7.17 Table 5.7.18 5

- 49

HCT.SC.M Figure 5.7.18 Table 5.7.19 5

- 50

HCT.SC.L Figure 5.7.19 Table 5.7.20 5

- 51

HCT.SC.I Figure 5.7.20 Table 5.7.21 5

- 52

HCS.SC.M Figure 5.7.21 Table 5. 7.22 5

- 53

HCS.SC.L Figure 5.7.22 Table 5.7.23 5

- 54

SOC.RC.M Figure 5 .7.23 Table 5.7.24 5

- 55

PD.SC.M Figure 5.7.24 Table 5.7.25 5

- 56



### As stated above, DOE used the cost- efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input to the life- cycle cost (LCC) analysis to determine the price of commercial refrigeration equipment to the customer ( c hapter 8).5- 33 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000

35 40 45 50 55 60Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VOP.RC.M Vertical Remote Refrigerator without Doors



### Figure 5.7.1 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.2 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption

kW h/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 57.90 3,330.91 4,878.97 Baseline

AD2 55.28 3,354.91 4,912.33 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 51.99 3,405.91 4,983.22 AD2 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD4 50.52 3,433.91 5,022.14 AD 3+ Brushless DC Evap.

Fan Motor

AD5 46.84 3,553.91 5,188.94 AD4 + LED Lighting

AD6 46.58 3,569.37 5,210.43 AD5 + High

- Performance

Door

AD7 44.22 3,772.30 5,492.49 AD6 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD8 37.46 6,188.30 8,850.73 AD7 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD9 37.02 6,968.74 9,935.54 AD8 + Brushless DC Cond.

Fan Motor5- 34 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000

95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VOP.RC.L
Vertical Remote Freezer without Doors



### Figure 5.7.2 Cost

- Efficiency Curv e for the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.3 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer
Production Cost $ Manufacture r Selling Price $ Design Option Added
Above the Baseline

AD1 133.60 5,115.92 7,360.12 Baseline

AD2 126.90 5,171.92 7,437.96 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 118.44 5,290.92 7,603.37 AD2 + Brus hless DC Evap.

Fan Motor

AD4 111.58 5,410.92 7,770.17 AD3 + Night Curtains

AD5 110.92 5,422.92 7,786.85 AD4 + Super T8 Lighting*

AD6 110.28 5,438.38 7,808.35 AD5 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD7 105.87 5,677.28 8,140.42 AD6 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD8 101.26 6,387.28 9,127.32 AD7 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD9 99.62 7,660.06 10,896.49 AD8 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 35 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VOP.SC.M
Vertical Self

- Contained Refrigerator without Doors



### Figure 5.7.3 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.4 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumpti on kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 39.60 1,736.58 2,481.85 Baseline

AD2 37.91 1,747.63 2,497.21 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 3 7.27 1,756.63 2,509.72 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 36.47 1,771.13 2,529.88 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap.

Fan Motor

AD5 35.91 1,781.63 2,544.47 AD4 + Super T8 Lighting*

AD6 34.10 1,821.63 2,600.07 AD5 + Night Curtains

AD7 33.65 1,833.63 2,616.75 AD6 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD8 33.08 1,859.13 2,652.20 AD7 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 31.93 1,927.57 2,74 7.33 AD8 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD10 29.51 2,150.87 3,057.71 AD9 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD11 29.43 2,166.33 3,079.20 AD10 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD12 27.15 3,025.83 4,273.91 AD11 + LED Lightin g with Occupancy Sensors

AD13 26.99 3,289.11 4,639.86 AD12 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 36 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] SVO.RC.M Semivertical Remote Refrigerator without Doors



### Figure 5.7.4 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.5 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 43.56 3,024.11 4,341.52 Baseline

AD2 41.78 3,040.11 4,363.76 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 39.58 3,074.11 4,411.02 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap.

Fan Motor

AD4 38.47 3,094.11 4,438.82 AD3 + Supe r T8 Lighting*

AD5 35.74 3,214.11 4,605.62 AD4 + Night Curtains

AD6 33.95 3,355.58 4,802.26 AD5 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD7 33.78 3,371.04 4,823.75 AD6 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD8 29.01 5,153.04 7,300.73 AD7 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD9 28.70 5,652.12 7,994.45 AD8 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 37 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] SVO.SC.M
Semivertical Self

- Contained Refrigerator without Doors



### Figure 5.7.5 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the SVO.SC.M Equipment Cla ss

Table 5.7.6 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the SVO.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 33.11 1,424.03 2,021.40 Baseline

AD2 31.60 1,433.83 2,035.02 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 31.27 1,438.33 2,041.28 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 30.86 1,445.58 2,051.36 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 30.45 1,452.83 2,061.43 AD4 + Super T8 Lighting*

AD6 30.25 1,456.83 2,066.99 AD5 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD7 28.83 1,496.83 2,122.59 AD6 + Night Curtains

AD8 28.61 1,505.33 2,134.41 AD7 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 27.65 1,557.63 2,207.11 AD8 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD10 25.72 1,728.29 2,444.32 AD9 + Enha nced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD11 25.65 1,743.75 2,465.81 AD10 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD12 24.02 2,394.00 3,369.66 AD11 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD13 23.90 2,563.68 3,605.51 AD12 + Va cuum Insulated
Panels5- 38 $4,500 $4,700 $4,900 $5,100 $5,300 $5,500 $5,700 $5,900

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HZO.RC.M Horizontal Remote Refrigerator without Doors



### Figure 5.7.6 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.7 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class

De sign Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 19.63 3,447.52 4,904.05 Baseline

AD2 17.89 3,463.52 4 ,926.29 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 15.73 3,497.52 4,973.55 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 14.69 3,561.00 5,061.78 AD3 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD5 14.54 3,576.46 5,083.28 AD4 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD6 14.24 3,984.97 5,651.12 AD5 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 39 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HZO.RC.L
Horizontal Remote Freezer without Doors



### Figure 5.7.7 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.8 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the B aseline

AD1 38.38 3,482.13 4,952.17 Baseline

AD2 37.01 3,500.13 4,977.19 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 35.30 3,529.13 5,017.50 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 34.78 3,544.60 5,038.99 AD3 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD5 32.97 3,622.75 5,147.62 AD4 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD6 31.74 4,451.52 6,299.62 AD5 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 40 $1,500 $1,700 $1,900 $2,100 $2,300 $2,500

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HZO.SC.M
Horizontal Self

- Contained Refrigerator without Doors



### Figure 5.7.8 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.9 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption

kW h/day Manufacturer
Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added
Above the Baseline

AD1 19.23 1,299.49 1,826.29 Baseline

AD2 18.19 1,307.09 1,836.86 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 17.85 1,311 .59 1,843.11 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 17.42 1,318.84 1,853.19 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 17.27 1,323.34 1,859.44 AD4 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD6 16.51 1,351.32 1,898.34 A D5 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD7 16.35 1,358.57 1,908.42 AD6 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD8 14.93 1,449.87 2,035.31 AD7 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD9 14.81 1,465.33 2,056.81 AD8 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD10 14.56 1,697.11 2,378.98 AD9 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 41 $2,000 $2,200 $2,400 $2,600 $2,800 $3,000

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HZO.SC.L
Horizontal Self

- Contained Freezer without Doors



### Figure 5.7.9 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.10 Cos t- Efficiency Data for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 38.69 1,475.49 2,070.93 Baseline

AD2 36.39 1,487.59 2,087.75 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 36.02 1,492.09 2,094.01 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 35.56 1,499.34 2,104.09 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 33.65 1,547.90 2,171.58 AD4 + Enhanced

- U A Evaporator Coil

AD6 33.52 1,552.40 2,177.84 AD5 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD7 30.44 1,710.83 2,398.05 AD6 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD8 30.31 1,718.08 2,408.13 AD7 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 30.14 1,733.54 2,429.62 AD8 + A dditional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD10 29.67 2,034.32 2,847.71 AD9 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 42 $6,500 $7,000 $7,500 $8,000 $8,500 $9,000 $9,500 $10,000 $10,500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCT.RC.M Vertical Remote Refrigerator with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.10 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.11 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer
Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added
Above the Baseline

AD1 24.75 5,014.87 7,202.66 Baseline

AD2 23.33 5,037.37 7,233.94 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 21.58 5,073.62 7,284.33 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 14.39 5,422.57 7,769.38 AD3 + High

- Performance

Door

AD5 14.13 5,438.04 7,790.87 AD4 + Addi tional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD6 6.76 5,972.54 8,533.83 AD5 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD7 6.70 6,012.24 8,589.02 AD6 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD8 6.22 6,919.02 9,849.44 AD7 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 43 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCT.RC.L Vertical Remote Freezer with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.11 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.12 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 58.58 5,441.67 7,795.92 Baseline

AD2 56.98 5,464.17 7,827.19 AD1+ Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 55.00 5,500.42 7,877.58 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 40.24 5,779.59 8,265.62 AD3 + High

- Performance

Door

AD5 39.67 5,795.05 8,287.12 AD4 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD6 31.08 6,329.55 9,030.07 AD5 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD7 30.76 6,399.61 9,127.46 AD6 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD8 29.31 7,588.39 10,779.87 AD7 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 44 $3,000 $3,200 $3,400 $3,600 $3,800 $4,000 $4,200 $4,400 $4,600 $4,800

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCT.SC.M
Vertical Self

- Contained Refrigerator with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.12 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.13 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseli ne

AD1 14.29 2,193.18 3,109.52 Baseline

AD2 13.54 2,202.18 3,122.03 Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 13.00 2,209.53 3,132.25 High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD4 12.11 2,224.03 3,152.41 Brushless DC Evap. Fan

Motor

AD5 8.68 2,363.62 3,34 6.43 High

- Performance Door

AD6 4.51 2,536.12 3,586.20 LED Lighting

AD7 4.32 2,551.58 3,607.70 Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD8 4.23 2,560.58 3,620.21 Permanent Split Cap.
Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 4.13 2,575.08 3,640.36 Brushless DC Cond. Fan

Motor

AD 10 3.54 2,662.58 3,761.99 LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD11 3.30 2,716.59 3,837.06 Enhanced

- UA Condenser
Coil

AD12 3.27 2,733.14 3,860.07 Enhanced

- UA Evaporator
Coil

AD13 2.99 3,050.51 4,301.21 Vacuum Insulated Panels5- 45 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500

10 15 20 25 30 35Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCT.SC.L
Vertical Self

- Contained Freezer with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.13 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.14 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 32.70 2,420.52 3,425.52 Baseline

AD2 31.35 2,428.52 3,436.64 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 29.90 2,437.67 3 ,449.36 AD2 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD4 28.32 2,454.67 3,472.99 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 20.95 2,566.33 3,628.20 AD4 + High

- Performance

Door

AD6 20.04 2,594.91 3,667.92 AD5 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD7 15.47 2,767.41 3,907.70 AD6 + LED Lighting

AD8 15.18 2,782.87 3,929.19 AD7 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD9 13.91 2,876.11 4,058.79 AD8 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD10 13.81 2,885.11 4,071.30 AD9 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD11 13.70 2,899.61 4 ,091.46 AD10 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD12 13.08 2,987.11 4,213.08 AD11 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD13 12.47 3,414.01 4,806.47 AD12 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 46 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000

10 15 20 25 30 35 40Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCT.SC.I
Vertical Self

- Contained Ice

- Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.14 Cost

- Effic iency Curve for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class

Table 5.7.15 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 38.00 2,571.49 3,638.37 Baseline

AD2 36.63 2,579.49 3,649.49 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 34.74 2,592.84 3,668.04 AD2 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD 4 33.13 2,609.84 3,691.67 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 25.20 2,721.50 3,846.89 AD4 + High

- Performance

Door

AD6 24.12 2,754.38 3,892.59 AD5 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD7 19.31 2,926.88 4,132.37 AD6 + LED Lighting

AD8 17.64 3,034.17 4,2 81.49 AD7 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD9 17.42 3,049.63 4,302.98 AD8 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD10 17.33 3,058.63 4,315.49 AD9 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD11 16.67 3,146.13 4,437.12 AD10 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

A D12 16.57 3,160.63 4,457.27 AD11 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD13 15.80 3,726.91 5,244.40 AD12 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 47 $2,000 $2,100 $2,200 $2,300 $2,400 $2,500 $2,600 $2,700 $2,800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCS.SC.M
Vertical Self

- Contained Refrigerator with Solid Doors



### Figure 5.7.15 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.16 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Abo ve the Baseline

AD1 4.97 1,436.81 2,057.16 Baseline

AD2 4.14 1,445.81 2,069.67 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 3.13 1,460.31 2,089.83 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 2.90 1,465.51 2,097.06 AD3 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compres sor

AD5 2.72 1,472.54 2,106.83 AD4 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD6 2.40 1,488.00 2,128.33 AD5 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD7 2.11 1,510.95 2,160.22 AD6 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD8 2.02 1,519.95 2,172.73 AD7 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 1.91 1,534.45 2,192.88 AD8 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD10 1.44 1,851.82 2,634.03 AD9 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 48 $2,100 $2,300 $2,500 $2,700 $2,900 $3,100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCS.SC.L
Vertical Self

- Contained Freezer with Solid Doors



### Figure 5.7.16 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.17 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option A dded
Above the Baseline

AD1 12.37 1,505.66 2,152.87 Baseline

AD2 11.02 1,513.66 2,163.99 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 9.37 1,530.66 2,187.62 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 8.79 1,538.06 2,197.91 AD3 + High

- Eff. Reciprocat ing Compressor

AD5 8.32 1,550.68 2,215.45 AD4 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD6 7.86 1,566.15 2,236.94 AD5 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD7 7.18 1,607.32 2,294.18 AD6 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD8 7.08 1,616.32 2,306.69 AD7 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 6.95 1,630.82 2,326.85 AD8 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD10 5.97 2,057.72 2,920.23 AD9 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 49 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000

15 17 19 21 23 25 27Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] VCS.SC.I
Vertical Self

- Contained Ice

- Cream Freezer with Solid Doors



### Figure 5.7.17 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.I Equip ment Class

Table 5.7.18 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Desi gn Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 25.12 1,660.41 2,371.98 Baseline

AD2 23.74 1,668.41 2,383.10 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 22.52 1,679.26 2,398.18 AD2 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD4 20.91 1,696.26 2,421.81 AD3 + Brush less DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 19.85 1,717.68 2,451.58 AD4 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD6 18.19 1,787.57 2,548.72 AD5 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD7 17.85 1,803.03 2,570.21 AD6 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD8 17.74 1,812.03 2,582.72 AD7 + Permane nt Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD9 17.59 1,826.53 2,602.87 AD8 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD10 16.48 2,392.81 3,390.00 AD9 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 50 $800 $900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HCT.SC.M
Horizontal Self

- Contained Refrigerator with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.18 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HCT. SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.19 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Pri ce $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 2.39 679.12 963.97 Baseline

AD2 2.18 684.32 971.20 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 2.09 688.32 976.76 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD4 0.97 744.69 1,055.12 AD3 + High

- Perf ormance Door

AD5 0.86 760.16 1,076.62 AD4 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD6 0.81 768.66 1,088.43 AD5 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD7 0.59 913.81 1,290.19 AD6 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 51 $800 $900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HCT.SC.L
Horizontal Self

- Contained Freezer with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.19 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.20 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC.L Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Pro duction Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 6.26 717.01 1,016.65 Baseline

AD2 5.69 723.36 1,025.47 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 5.51 727.36 1,031.03 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Mo tor

AD4 2.26 809.36 1,145.01 AD3 + High

- Performance

Door

AD5 2.07 824.82 1,166.51 AD4 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD6 1.98 833.32 1,178.32 AD5 + Brushless DC Cond.

Fan Motor

AD7 1.45 1,030.60 1,452.54 AD6 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 52 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HCT.SC.I
Horizontal Self

- Contained Ice

- Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors



### Figure 5.7.20 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class

Table 5.7.21 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Da ily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 7.25 762.37 1,077.70 Baseline

AD2 6.60 768.87 1,086.74 AD1 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 6.37 772.87 1 ,092.30 AD2 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD4 3.03 854.87 1,206.28 AD3 + High

- Performance

Door

AD5 2.89 863.37 1,218.09 AD4 + Brushless DC Cond.

Fan Motor

AD6 2.68 878.84 1,239.58 AD5 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD7 1.94 1,143.39 1,607.31 AD6 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 53 $900 $950 $1,000 $1,050 $1,100 $1,150 $1,200

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HCS.SC.M
Horizontal Self

- Contained Refrigerator with Solid Doors



### Figure 5.7.21 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HCS.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.22 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HCS.SC.M E quipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 0.77 654.40 932.61 Baseline

AD2 0.70 659.60 939.84 AD1 + Hig h

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD3 0.58 675.06 961.33 AD2 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD4 0.56 679.06 966.89 AD3 + Permanent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD5 0.53 687.56 978.71 AD4 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD6 0.31 800.09 1,135.12 AD5 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 54 $800 $900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] HCS.SC.L
Horizontal Self

- Contained Freezer with Solid Doors



### Figure 5.7.22 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the HCS.SC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.23 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the HCS.SC.L Equipm ent Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer
Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added
Above the Baseline

AD1 2.71 656.27 935.21 Baseline

AD2 2.54 660.27 940.77 AD1 + Permanen t Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD3 2.32 665.42 947.93 Ad2 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD4 2.11 673.92 959.75 AD3 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD5 1.84 689.38 981.24 AD4 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD6 1.07 843.16 1,194.99 AD5 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 55 $7,000 $7,500 $8,000 $8,500 $9,000 $9,500 $10,000 $10,500 $11,000 $11,500 $12,000

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] SOC.RC.M Service over Counter Remote Refrigerator



### Figure 5.7.23 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.24 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 30.99 5,875.92 8,330.53 Baseline

AD2 29.30 5,891.92 8,352.77 AD1 + Permanen t Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 27.22 5,925.92 8,400.03 AD2 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD4 26.07 5,945.92 8,427.83 AD3 + Super T8 Lighting*

AD5 25.47 5,993.90 8,494.52 AD4 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD6 25.35 6,009.36 8,516.01 AD5 + Additio nal 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD7 20.80 7,265.86 10,262.54 AD6 + LED Lighting

AD8 20.75 7,365.86 10,401.54 AD7 + High

- Performance

Door

AD9 20.53 7,735.34 10,915.12 AD8 + Vacuum Insulated
Panels5- 56 $1,500 $1,700 $1,900 $2,100 $2,300 $2,500 $2,700

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] 

### PD.SC.M
Pull

- Down Self

- Contained Refrigerator with Transparent Doors

Figure 5.7.24 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the PD.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.25 Cost

- Efficiency Data for the PD.SC.M Equipment Class

Design Option

Level Calculated Daily Energy Consumption kWh/day Manufacturer

Production Cost $ Manufacturer Selling Price $ Design Option Added

Above the Baseline

AD1 8.98 1,217.48 1,729.29 Baseline

AD2 8.60 1,221.98 1,735.55 AD1 + Permanent Split Cap. Evap. Fan Motor

AD3 8.22 1,227.83 1,743.68 AD2 + High

- Eff. Reciprocating Compressor

AD4 7.77 1,235.08 1,753.76 AD3 + Brushless DC Evap. Fan Motor

AD5 4.48 1,322.33 1,875.04 AD4 + LED Lighting

AD6 2.78 1,392.12 1,972.05 AD5 + High

- Performance

Door

AD7 2.73 1,396.62 1,978.30 AD6 + Perma nent Split Cap. Cond. Fan Motor

AD8 2.57 1,412.08 1,999.79 AD7 + Additional 1/2 in.
Insulation

AD9 2.51 1,419.33 2,009.87 AD8 + Brushless DC
Cond. Fan Motor

AD10 2.30 1,452.52 2,056.00 AD9 + Enhanced

- UA
Condenser Coil

AD11 2.00 1,540.02 2,177.63 AD 10 + LED Lighting with Occupancy Sensors

AD12 1.98 1,550.19 2,191.76 AD11 + Enhanced

- UA Evaporator Coil

AD13 1.72 1,798.08 2,536.33 AD12 + Vacuum
Insulated Panels5- 57 

### 5.8 OFFSET FACTORS

Equipment energy use, CDEC

, scales with equipment size, but smaller equipment tends to use more energy per unit of total display area ( TDA ) or volume than larger equipment in the same equipment class. This extra energy is attributed to components of case load that do not scale with equipment size. These load components therefor e have a disproportionate effect on the energy consumption of small equipment. In its 2009 final rule, DOE developed offset factors to account for these load components, commonly referred to as “end effects,” as a way to adjust standards to allow more ener gy use for smaller equipment.

During the early stages of the 2009 rulemaking , stakeholders raised concerns that standards developed for large sizes of equipment would be unfair when applied to smaller equipment in the same class, because of the end effects that disproportionately affect smaller equipment. In its engineering analysis, DOE developed cost

- efficiency curves for a single size within each equipment class. The representative size selected for each class was toward the larger end of the equipment a vailable within that class. DOE intended for standards to be based on this single point (the point defined by TDA or volume and CDEC). In the 2009 rulemaking advance notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANOPR ) , DOE proposed to implement standards by requiring eq uipment to meet an energy consumption limit defined by a line drawn between the origin and the point determined by the engineering cost

- efficiency curve. (See the left pane of Figure 5.8.1 .) However, the stakeholder concerns previously mentioned led DOE to account for end effects in later stages of the rulemaking and in the final rule. As the right pane of Figure 5.8.1 shows, the
offset factor fixes the left end of the stand ard equation at a fixed offset on the CDEC axis, effectively providing a higher limit on energy consumption for smaller equipment.

Figure 5.8.1 Illustration of Offset Factor

A standard equation, then, consists of two components: a size-dependent multiplier (slope) and a constant (offset factor). DOE calculated the slope s of the standard equations for its 2009 final rule standard levels as the difference between the CDEC at the analysis point corresponding t o the selected standard level and the offset factor, divided by the value of the normalization metric at the analysis point.5- 58 

### In determining offset factors in the 2009 final rule, DOE considered different end effects for each equipment family. For all open cases (VOP, SVO, and HZO), DOE considered the effects of heat conduction through the case ends, as well as the infiltration
load end effects. For vertical closed transparent cases (VCT), the conduction through the ends was taken into account, as well as the heat load and electrical load of one T8 lamp. DOE considered one T8 lamp because there is generally always one more lamp than the number of doors ( e.g., six lamps in a five

- door case), meaning that in a theoretical case with no doors, there would still b e one lamp. In the remaining equipment families (SOC, HCT, VCS), DOE only considered the conduction effects through the case ends.

To estimate the heat load due to conduction through the case ends for each equipment class in its 2009 final rule engineering analysis , DOE substituted the area of the case ends for the wall area of the entire case to find only the heat load caused by conduction through the ends. For the open cases, DOE estimated the infiltration load end
effects of a VOP.RC.M case , and then scaled that value for the other open cases based on
the relative air curtain length of each equipment class. DOE used a standard, estimated
value for the heat load due to a lamp located inside the refrigerated space.

Once the appropriate heat loads were calcu lated, DOE summed the applicable
heat loads for each class. DOE used the total heat load of each individual equipment class to calculate the daily energy use of the compressor for that class. For all equipment classes except for those in the VCT equipment family, this became the offset factor. For VCT equipment, DOE also considered the amount of electrical energy consumed by lighting. DOE estimated the daily electrical load of lighting per lamp, then summed the energy use of the lamp and compressor for each VCT equipment class to get the total daily energy consumption of a zero- length case for each class. These figures became the offset factors for the various VCT equipment classes. Table 5.8.1 shows the offset facto rs for the 15 primary equipment classes in the 2009 final rule.

Table 5.8.1 Offset Factors from the 2009 Final Rule

Equipment

Class Offset

Factor kWh/day

VCT.RC.L 2.61

VOP.RC.M 4.07

SVO.RC.M 3.18

HZO.RC.L 6.88

HZO.RC.M 2.88

VCT.RC.M 1.95

VOP.RC.L 6.85

SOC.RC.M 0.11

VOP.SC.M 4.71

SVO.SC.M 4.59

HZO.SC.L 7.08

HZO.SC.M 5.55

HCT.SC.I 0.43

VCT.SC.I 3.29

VCS.SC.I 0.885- 59 

### As part of the analyses for upcoming stages of the current rulemaking, DOE plans to revisit the offset factors that it developed as part of the 2009 rulemaking, and to update them should it prove warranted. Additionally, DOE will review the offset factors included in the standard level equations for the equipment for which standards were set in EPACT 2005. Should the analysis show it to be necessary, DOE may develop updated
offset factors for th o se equipment classes as well.

5.9 EXTENSION OF ANALYSIS TO SECONDARY EQUIPME NT CLASSES

In its 2009 final rule, DOE did not analyze all covered equip ment classes, but focused its analysis on 15 high-shipment equipment classes. DOE developed an extension approach to apply the standards developed for these 15 “primary” classes to the remaining 23 “secondary” classes. This approach involves extension mult ipliers developed with the 15 primary results and a set of focused matched- pair analyses. In addition, DOE determined that standards for certain primary equipment classes could be directly applied to other similar secondary equipment classes.

In the current rulemaking, DOE intends to preserve the extension multiplier approach and results developed and used in the 2009 final rule analysis. As the standards set in the 2009 final rule are not yet in effect as of the time of this rulemaking, DOE understands that the baseline for this equipment remains unchanged from that which was modeled in the 2009 final rule. Since the extension multipliers were developed in the 2009 final rule based on normalized baseline energy consumption values, DOE believes
that the mul tipliers from the 2009 rulemaking can be retained. The classes of equipment covered by EPACT 2005 standards are being treated as primary classes in this rulemaking, with the exception of SOC.SC.L and SOC.SC.M, and thus do not require extension multipliers (for discussion of the treatment of the SOC.SC.M equipment class, please see chapter 2). This section explains each aspect of the extension multiplier approach developed in the 2009 final rule engineering analysis.

In the 2009 final rule, standard levels w ere presented for each of the 15 primary equipment classes in the form of a standard equation. These standard equations consisted
of a size -dependent multiplier (slope) and an offset factor. The extension multipliers were applied to the slopes and offset factors of the primary standard equations ( Figure 5.8.1 ). In this illustration, a standard is multiplied by an extension factor greater than one, for example in the case of extending a standard from a low

- temperature class to an ice

- cream temperature class.5- 60 

### Figure 5.9.1 Illustration of Extension of Standard Level from Primary to Secondary Equipment Class

5.9.1 Extension Multipliers

In the 2009 final rule, DOE examined ext ending standards using the 15 primary equipment classes developed in that engineering analysis. Using the TDA -normalized baseline CDEC values, several trends became apparent for certain sub -groups of equipment. DOE examined several related pairs of equipme nt classes to develop extension multipliers in that rulemaking

.

First, DOE examined the CDEC/TDA relationship between remote and self

contained medium-temperature equipment without doors ( Table 5.9.1 ). There was

re asonable agreement across equipment families among medium- temperature open equipment, with an average multiplier of 2.51 between remote and self- contained equipment. The differences between remote and self

- contained equipment were similar for VOP, SVO, and HZO equipment. In addition to the inclusion of a self-contained condensing unit, which is less efficient than remote condensing systems, self-contained open equipment must have provisions for dealing with defrost meltwater. Because self

contained equipmen t is designed to be mobile, defrost meltwater must be collected in a drain pan and evaporated using electric- resistance heating. This feature adds considerable energy use to open self -contained equipment. The 2.51 multiplier was also applied to
low- and ice- cream -temperature equipment without doors. The differences in design are
similar for low

- temperature and ice

- cream -temperature equipment, consisting of a selfcontained condensing unit and the addition of a defrost meltwater evaporation system. Thus, the 2.51 multiplier was applied to the following standard extensions:

• VOP.RC.L to VOP.SC.L

• SVO.RC.L to SVO.SC.L

• VOP.RC.I to VOP.SC.I

• SVO.RC.I to SVO.SC.I

• HZO.RC.I to HZO.SC.I5- 61 

### Table 5.9.1 2009 Final Rule Extension Multipliers for Remote and Self

- Contained Equipment W ithout Doors
Relationship CDEC/TDA Multiplier

VOP.RC.M to VOP.SC.M 2.431

SVO.RC.M to SVO.SC.M 2.376

HZO.RC.M to HZO.SC.M 2.712



### DOE also examined the CDEC/TDA relationship between low- temperature and
ice

- cream temperature remote equipment using a focused matched- pair analysis. The
focused matched -pair analysis methodology was described in detail in the 2009 rulemaking ANOPR TSD, and established a correlation between rating temperature levels and CDEC/TDA, using data collected from manufacturer specification sheets. DOE quantified the differences in energy consumption for matched pairs of equipment
classes that were very similar in features and dimensions, but with different operating
temperatures. Pairs of units at low

- and ice

- cream

- temperatures were selected from several different manufacturers for comparison. DOE selected identical units from a given manufacturer designed to operate at multiple temperatures to isolate operating temperature as the only variable.

The matched -pair results show ed that VCT.RC.I units (at -15 °F) had on average
CDEC/TDA values that were 1.17 times higher than comparable VCT.RC.L units. The 1.17 multiplier was also applied to other similar equipment types with doors. Di fferences in design consist of a lower operating temperature (resulting in a lower compressor EER) and higher defrost and anti- sweat heater power. Thus, the 1.17 multiplier was applied to the following standard extensions:

• SOC.RC.L to SOC.RC.I

• HCT.RC.L to HCT.RC.I

The matched -pair results further show ed that HZO.RC.I units (at -15 °F) had, on

average , CDEC/TDA values that were 1.27 times higher than comparable HZO.RC.L units. The 1.27 multiplier was found to be applicable to other similar equipment types
wi thout doors. Differences in design consist of a lower operating temperature (resulting in a lower compressor EER) and higher defrost and anti- sweat heater power. Thus, the 1.27 multiplier was applied to the following standard extensions:

• VOP.RC.L to VOP.RC .I

• SVO.RC.L to SVO.RC.I

• VOP.SC.L to VOP.SC.I

• SVO.SC.L to SVO.SC.I

• HZO.SC.L to HZO.SC.I

DOE also examined the CDEC/TDA relationship between remote and self

contained ice

- cream -temperature equipment with transparent doors. To make this comparison, DOE used t he matched

- pair results from the 2009 rulemaking ANOPR to estimate the baseline CDEC/TDA values for VCT.RC.I equipment, and compared the results to VCT.SC.I equipment. The comparison showed that CDEC/TDA values for5- 62 

### VCT.SC.I equipment were 1.40 times higher than VCT.RC.I equipment. DOE understands that this difference in energy use is due to the differences in efficiency of the
self -contained condensing unit, as well as the addition of defrost meltwater evaporation
systems. However, in contrast to open equipment, equipment with transparent doors is subject to a much lower infiltration load, and thus a lower melt water evaporation requirement. This leads to a lower multiplier than was seen for open equipment. The 1.40 multiplier was applied to the following standard extensions:

• SOC.RC.I to SOC.SC.I

• HCT.RC.I to HCT.SC.I

• VCS.RC.I to VCS.SC.I

• HCS.RC.I to HCS.SC.I

Finally, DOE examined the relationship between medium- and low- temperature remote equipment with transparent doors. Both the VCT.RC.M and VCT.RC.L equi pment classes were directly examined in the 2009 final rule engineering analysis. Using the engineering results, DOE found that CDEC/TDA values for VCT.RC.L equipment were 2.10 times higher than VCT.RC.M equipment. This difference is due tothe higher defrost heater power and anti-sweat heater power requirements in lowtemperature equipment. The 2.10 multiplier was applied to the standard extension from

HCT.RC.M to HCT.RC.L.

Using these extension factors, DOE extended standards to the 23 secondary equipment classes, as illustrated in Table 5.9.2 . Baseline CDEC/TDA values for the 15 primary equipment classes from the 2009 final rule are represented by the letters a through o (in bold for the 15 primary classes) for si mplicity, multiplied or divided by the appropriate extension values. Note that the SVO.RC.L baseline CDEC/TDA value is identified as “a,” which is the same as the baseline CDEC/TDA value for VOP.RC.L. In the 2009 final rule engineering analysis, it was fou nd that t he baseline CDEC/TDA values for VOP.RC.M (b) and SVO.RC.M (d) were equal, and additionally , that the
CDEC/TDA levels above the baseline were very similar. It was thus determined that t he
similarities in these two medium

- temperature equipment class es would extend to the respective low

- temperature versions. Also note that the baseline CDEC/TDA value for the HCS.SC.I equipment class is identified as the letter “o,” which is the same value for

VCS.SC.I. Analytical results showed that t he orientation ha s little effect on energy consumption for equipment with solid doors, and that standards for all corresponding equipment classes within the VCS and HCS families should be equivalent.5- 63 

### Table 5.9.2 2009 Final Rul e Extension Multipliers by Equipment Class

RC SC

I L M I L MOpen VOP 1.27a a * b 1.27(2.51c) 2.51c c
SVO 1.27a a ** d 1.27(2.51e) 2.51e e
HZO 1.27f f g 1.27h h iClosed SOC 1.17(2.10j) 2.10j j 1.40(1.17(2.10j))

EPACT 2005 EQUIPMENT VCT 1.17k k l m
HCT n/1.40 (n/1.40)/1.17 ((n/1.40)/1.17)/2.10 n
VCS o/1.40 (o/1.40)/1.17 ((o/1.40)/1.17)/2.10 o
HCS o/1.40 (o/1.40)/1.17 ((o/1.40)/1.17)/2.10 o ** *Classes represented by bold letters were primary classes in the 2009 final rule engineering an alysis
**The SVO.RC.L and HCS.SC.I classes were determined to have the exact same normalized baseline energy consumption levels as the VOP.RC.L and VCS.SC.I classes, respectively.



### DOE intends to preserve this extension multiplier approach, as well as the multiplier values determined in the 2009 final rule engineering analysis, for use in this rulemaking with the classes that were secondary in the 2009 final rule. This is due to consistency in the baseline equipment between the two rulemaking periods. For the EPACT 2005 equipment which has been added to the scope of the current rulemaking, DOE intends to treat these classes as primary, with the exception of SOC.SC.L, for which an extension approach will be developed in the NOPR stage.5- 64 

### REFERENCES

1. American Metals Market. 2007. (Last accessed July 11, 2007.)

< http://www.amm.com/ > The July 11, 2007 material from this website is available
in Docket # EE-2006- STD -0126. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945.

2. Watt Stopper/Legrand. Case Study – Watt Stopper/Legrand Helps Wal- Mart
Achieve Environmental Goals . 2007. (Last accessed March 17, 2011.)

< http://www.wattstopper.com/getdoc/2240/Casestudy_WalMart0707.pdf >

3. U.S. DOE So lid State Lighting Technology Demonstration GATEWAY Program. Demonstration Assessment of Light- Emitting Diode (LED) Freezer Case Lighting

. 2009. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

4. Walker D. , R. T. Farmarzi, V

. D. Baxter

. Investigation of Energy- Efficient Supermarket Display Cases . 2004. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN. Report No. TM-292-2004.

5. Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. Window 5.0 . 2007. (Last accessed June 26, 2007.) < http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/window.html > The June 26, 2007
material from this website is available in Docket #EE -2006- STD -0126. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945.

6. Refrigeration and The rmal Test Center. Personal communication . Southern California Edison. March 29, 2007.

7. Southern California Edison Refrigeration Technology and Test Center. Effects of the Low Emissivity Shields on Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated Display Case . 1997. Southern California Edison, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

8. Technischer Uberwachungs-Verein Rheinland E.V. Laboratory test results for energy savings on refrigerated dairy case, conducted for Econofrost.

9. ANSI/ASHRAE. Standard 72-2005, Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators
and Freezers . 2005. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA

10. Electric Power Research Institute. Supermarket Simulation Tool v3.0 . 2007. Palo Alto, CA.

11. Faramarzi , R. E fficient Display Case Refrigeration. ASHRAE Journal . November

1999.