5-i 

CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

5.3 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED.......................................................................... 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 Differential 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 Radiation 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 .................................................................................... 5-31
5-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 ................................. 5-42
5-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 Equipment 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 the 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 Equipment 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 Curve 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

Figure 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 Equipment Class ................................. 5-56
5-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 ................................................................................................................... 5-60
5-1 

CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between manufacturer 

production cost (MPC) and energy consumption for the commercial refrigeration 

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 transparent 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 (chapter 3) 

and technology options from the screening analysis (chapter 4). Additional inputs include 

cost and energy consumption data that 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 converting MPC to 

manufacturer selling price (MSP). In the subsequent markups analysis (chapter 6), DOE 

determines customer prices by applying distribution markups, sales tax, and contractor 

markups. After applying these markups, the data serve as inputs to the building energyuse analysis (chapter 7) and the life-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 used 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-efficiency 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 for 

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 way 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 equation 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 

first 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 designations 

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-shipment 

volume equipment classes, and then extended the standards developed from those 

analyses 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 analysis 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 Low 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 equipment class in this rulemaking, see chapter 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 refrigeratorfreezers. 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 final 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 the 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 equipment 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 rulemaking 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 estimate the case costs of new equipment classes. DOE intends to 
5-4 

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 costs into 

the following 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 product 

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 

Insurance

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 those 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 other nonproduction cost 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 characteristics, 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 vertically 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 needs 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 practices. 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 assumed 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 made 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 each 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 provided 
5-6 

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 spreadsheet 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 Market1 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 processing 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 final rule technical support document (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 excludes 

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 the 

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 equipment 
5-7 

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 2005 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 classes 

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 currently 
5-8 

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 outbound freight cost to arrive at the MSP. Wholesaler, 

contractor, and other markups are determined in the markups analysis, which is further 

described in chapter 6 of the TSD.

The manufacturer markup was calculated as the market share weighted average 

value 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 

estimated 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 the 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 

refrigeration 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 chapter 3 of this TSD), but is sufficiently generalized to 

model the energy consumption of all 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 performance 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 each level 

above the baseline, 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 surface area

• higher efficiency evaporator fan blades 

• low pressure differential evaporators

• case insulation increases or improvements 

• improved transparent doors 

• defrost mechanisms 

• defrost cycle controls 

• vacuum insulated panels 

• occupancy sensors for lighting controls

• 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 (chapter 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 the energy consumption model. These include 

location of remote lighting ballasts, variable speed evaporator motors and evaporator fan 

motor 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 VCT 
5-10

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 configured 

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 motors, as well as evaporator 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 of 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 

requirements 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 

technology 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 increased 

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 greater motor 
5-11

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-termination 

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 (chapter 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 offcycle defrost. Because off-cycle defrost uses no energy (and decreases compressor ontime), 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 icecream 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 manufacturers 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 technical factors related to implementation of hot-gas defrost, the test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is not capable of quantifying the 

energy expenditure of the compressor during a hot-gas defrost cycle for remotecondensing equipment. Therefore, 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 

families (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 families, medium temperature 

(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 

reduction 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 (LED) lighting systems, which do not 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 

lumen 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 

technical 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 families” design option for the lighting in a vertical 

configuration. The VCS and HCS equipment families do not require lighting because 

they are not designed to display food, while the HCT and HZO equipment families

typically 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 sensors2, 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-effective 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 and 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 families” 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 LED 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 lighting 

systems in the horizontal configuration. This 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 VOP, SVO, HZO, and SOC Equipment Families 

Design Option

Level Description Lamp 

Type

Lamp 

Rated 

Power 

W

Lamp 

Rated Light 

Output 

lumens

System 

Efficacy 

lumens/W

System Light 

Output 

lumens

T8N 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 

families, 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 families” design option. 

Table 5.6.2 Details for Lighting for VCT and PD Equipment Families Design Option

Level Description Lamp 

Type

Lamp 

Rated 

Power 

W

Lamp 

Rated Light 

Output 

lumens

System 

Efficacy 

lumens/W

System Light 

Output 

lumens

T8N 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 1564.0

 

 
5-15

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 product 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, listed 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 UAvaluea 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. 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 overall UA-value is the product of the overall heat transfer coefficient (Btu/h-ft2

-°F) and the total 

surface area (ft2

) 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 Height (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 Rifled

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 performance 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 improvements 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 stage 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 Panels 

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 equipment classes based on discussions with manufacturers regarding case design and 
5-17

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 insignificant 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 

Single 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 panels (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 rulemakings 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 which 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 

estimate 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 Cost Calculation Methodology for Vacuum Insulated 

Panels 

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 rate 7.0%

Product line lifetime (years) 7

Units per year 35,000

Sunk cost per unit $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 air inside the 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 and 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 for 
5-19

the commercial refrigeration equipment industry 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 combination 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 Design Option 

Level Description Overall U-Factor 

Btu/hr-ft2-°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 families 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 equipment 

manufacturers, 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 families at medium temperature includes an anti-sweat heater power of 

zero.

Table 5.6.10 Details for Doors for VCT and PD Equipment Families, Medium 

Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U-Factor 

Btu/hr-ft2-°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-emissivity 
5-20

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-ft2-°F

Anti-Sweat Heater 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 temperatures 

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 

panes 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-ft2-°F

Anti-Sweat Heater Power 

W/door

DR1 Standard Door 1.05 0

DR2 High-Performance 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 shows 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 

Design Option

Level Description Overall U-Factor 

Btu/hr-ft2-°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 equipment 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 the 
5-21

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 teardowns 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 with 

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 Area” Design Option 

Level Description Normalized 

UA 

(-)

Normalized Coil Cost 

$/Btu/hr

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 14 °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

Overall 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 section 

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 manufacturers provided DOE with performance data for standard singlespeed 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 design-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 currently 

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 

consultation with outside experts. (See section 5.6.5 for details on this multiplier.)

Some manufacturers mentioned in interviews that scroll compressors were 

available from certain producers for commercial refrigeration 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 that 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 unit 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 Refrigerated Volume ft3

Case Total Display Area ft2

Number of Doors #

Single Door Area ft2

Non-Door Glass Area ft2

Non-Door Anti-Sweat Power W

Wall Area (ft2) ft2

Insulation Thickness In.

Case Interior Surface Area ft2

Air Curtain Angle from Vertical °

Infiltrated Air Mass Flow lb/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 Multiplier #

Defrost Mechanism n/a

Defrost Time per Day hr

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 consumption 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 chamber subjected to Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 1200, which references the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72-2005 (ASHRAE 72), Method of Testing Commercial 
5-25

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 level, and other requirements. 

DOE assumed that there is not a pull-down load associated with re-shelving 

products since the test procedure does not address product re-shelving. Product reshelving 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 

refrigeration 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. Because 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 refrigeration 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 conditions 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 during 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 appreciable 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 Chamber Temperature (°F) 75 ASHRAE 729

Test Chamber Relative Humidity (%) 55 ASHRAE 729

Test Chamber Pressure (pounds per square 

in (psi), absolute) 14.7 Assumed

Manufacturer Markup ($/$) 1.39 Publicly available 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) v3.010

Lighting Operating Time per Day (hr) 24 Assumed – for cases without occupancy sensors

Convective Film Coefficient Inside Case 

Walls (Btu/hr-ft2-°F) 4.00 Communication with Southern California Edison, RTTC

Convective Film Coefficient Outside Case 

Walls (Btu/hr-ft2-°F) 1.46 Communication with RTTC

Overall U-Value of Single-Pane Glass 

(Btu/hr-ft2-°F) 1.059 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory WINDOW 5 Software5

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 (ft2) 1000 Communication with RTTC

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

Refrigeration, ASHRAE Journal, November 199911

Evaporator Coil Overall Bypass Factor (%) 17 DOE estimate

High-Efficiency Compressor Cost 

Premium 5% Communication with manufacturers

High-Efficiency Compressor Power 

Reduction 10% Communication 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/day): 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 consumption is calculated from the total heat load (expressed 

as Btu/hr) 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 refrigerated 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 energy 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 AHRI 1200. Table 1 in AHRI 1200 lists remote 

condensing 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 

Where: 

SET = the saturated evaporator temperature (°F).

Once ADP is calculated, Table 1 in AHRI 1200 is used to find the corresponding 

EER value. The CEC (kWh/day) is then calculated as:

CEC = Qtot x (24 - tdefrost) / (EER × 1000) Eq. 5.3

Where: 

 

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

tdefrost = 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 (AHRI 

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 compressors 

modeled, rather than capacities at standard ASHRAE rating evaporator and condenser 

rating conditions. This is because the actual ASHRAE 72 test conditions for most 

commercial refrigeration equipment are not the same as standard compressor rating 
5-29

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 oversize 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, 

lamps, 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 motors, irreversibilities 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 electrical 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 do 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 load 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

Where: 

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

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

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

DOE assumed that all the 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 antisweat 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 

Where: 

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

σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (Btu/hr-ft2-°F4),

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

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

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

εcase = the emissivity of the case inner walls (dimensionless),

Aroom = the area of the room walls (ft2),

Acase = the area of the interior of the case (ft2), and 

Fcase-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 

constants 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. 5.6 
5-31

where: 

Awalls = the area of the exterior of the case (ft2),

ho = the convective film coefficient on the outside of case walls (Btu/h-ft2-°F),

hi = the convective film coefficient on the inside of case walls (Btu/h-ft2

-°F),

dins = the insulation thickness (in.), and 

kins = the insulation thermal conductivity (Btu-in/hr-ft2-°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 calculation 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

Where: 

Uoverall = the overall U-factor, including convection and radiation (Btu/h-ft2

-°F), and

Aglass = the area of the glass (ft2).

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 

specification sheets, recognizing that infiltration load is the only load component that 

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 to 

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 CURVES

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 (chapter 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 60

Manufacturer 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 

kWh/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 Motor
5-34

$5,000 

$6,000 

$7,000 

$8,000 

$9,000 

$10,000 

$11,000 

$12,000 

95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

VOP.RC.L

Vertical Remote Freezer without Doors

Figure 5.7.2 Cost-Efficiency Curve 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 

$

Manufacturer 

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 + Brushless 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 

Panels
5-35

$2,000 

$2,500 

$3,000 

$3,500 

$4,000 

$4,500 

$5,000 

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

Manufacturer 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 

Consumption 

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 37.27 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 2,747.33 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 Lighting 

with Occupancy Sensors

AD13 26.99 3,289.11 4,639.86 AD12 + Vacuum Insulated 

Panels
5-36

$3,000 

$4,000 

$5,000 

$6,000 

$7,000 

$8,000 

$9,000 

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Manufacturer 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 + Super 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 

Panels
5-37

$1,500 

$2,000 

$2,500 

$3,000 

$3,500 

$4,000 

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

Manufacturer 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 Class

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 + Enhanced-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 + Vacuum Insulated 

Panels
5-38

$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 21

Manufacturer 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

Design 

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 

Panels
5-39

$4,500 

$5,000 

$5,500 

$6,000 

$6,500 

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Manufacturer 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 Baseline

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 

Panels
5-40

$1,500 

$1,700 

$1,900 

$2,100 

$2,300 

$2,500 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Manufacturer 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 

kWh/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 AD5 + 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 

Panels
5-41

$2,000 

$2,200 

$2,400 

$2,600 

$2,800 

$3,000 

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

Manufacturer 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 Cost-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-UA 

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 + Additional 1/2 in. 

Insulation

AD10 29.67 2,034.32 2,847.71 AD9 + Vacuum Insulated 

Panels
5-42

$6,500 

$7,000 

$7,500 

$8,000 

$8,500 

$9,000 

$9,500 

$10,000 

$10,500 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Manufacturer 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 + Additional 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 

Panels
5-43

$7,000 

$8,000 

$9,000 

$10,000 

$11,000 

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Manufacturer 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 

Panels
5-44

$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 16

Manufacturer 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 Baseline

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 3,346.43 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

AD10 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 Panels
5-45

$3,000 

$3,500 

$4,000 

$4,500 

$5,000 

$5,500 

10 15 20 25 30 35

Manufacturer 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 

Panels
5-46

$3,000 

$3,500 

$4,000 

$4,500 

$5,000 

$5,500 

$6,000 

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

VCT.SC.I

Vertical Self-Contained Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors

Figure 5.7.14 Cost-Efficiency 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

AD4 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 4,281.49 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

AD12 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 

Panels
5-47

$2,000 

$2,100 

$2,200 

$2,300 

$2,400 

$2,500 

$2,600 

$2,700 

$2,800 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Manufacturer 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 

Above 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 Compressor

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 

Panels
5-48

$2,100 

$2,300 

$2,500 

$2,700 

$2,900 

$3,100 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Manufacturer 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 Added 

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. 

Reciprocating 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 

Panels
5-49

$1,500 

$2,000 

$2,500 

$3,000 

$3,500 

$4,000 

15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Manufacturer 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 Equipment 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 

$

Design 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 + Brushless 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 + Permanent 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 

Panels
5-50

$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 3.0

Manufacturer 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 Price 

$

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-Performance 

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 

Panels
5-51

$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 7.0

Manufacturer 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 

Production 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 Motor

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 

Panels
5-52

$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 8.0

Manufacturer 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 Daily 

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 

Panels
5-53

$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 0.9

Manufacturer 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 Equipment 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 + High-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 

Panels
5-54

$800 

$900 

$1,000 

$1,100 

$1,200 

$1,300 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Manufacturer 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 Equipment 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 + Permanent 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 

Panels
5-55

$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 33

Manufacturer 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 + Permanent 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 + Additional 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 

Panels
5-56

$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 10.0

Manufacturer 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 + Permanent 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 AD10 + 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 Panels
5-57

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 therefore 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 energy 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 available 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 equipment 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 standard 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 slopes of the standard 

equations for its 2009 final rule standard levels as the difference between the CDEC at 

the analysis point corresponding to 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 be 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 calculated, 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 factors 

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 0.88
5-59

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 those equipment classes as well. 

5.9 EXTENSION OF ANALYSIS TO SECONDARY EQUIPMENT CLASSES

In its 2009 final rule, DOE did not analyze all covered equipment 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 multipliers 

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 multipliers 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 were 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 extending 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 equipment classes to develop 

extension multipliers in that rulemaking. 

First, DOE examined the CDEC/TDA relationship between remote and selfcontained medium-temperature equipment without doors (Table 5.9.1). There was 

reasonable 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 selfcontained equipment 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.I
5-61

Table 5.9.1 2009 Final Rule Extension Multipliers for Remote and Self-Contained 

Equipment Without 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 showed 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. 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 1.17 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 showed 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 

without 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 selfcontained ice-cream-temperature equipment with transparent doors. To make this 

comparison, DOE used the 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 for 
5-62

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 

equipment 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 to 

the 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 simplicity, 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 found that the 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 the 

similarities in these two medium-temperature equipment classes 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 the orientation has 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 Rule Extension Multipliers by Equipment Class

 RC SC

I L M I L M

Open

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 i

Closed

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 analysis

**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 Solid 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 Thermal 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 AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA 

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

Alto, CA.

11. Faramarzi, R. Efficient Display Case Refrigeration. ASHRAE Journal. November 

1999.