ES

- i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PREL IMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE A NALYSIS

................................ ................................ ............... 4

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

................................ ................................ ....... 4

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................... 6

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed

................................ ................................ ......... 6

ES.3.3.2 Manufact uring Cost Assessment

................................ ................................ .... 7

ES.3.3.3 Energy Consumption Model

................................ ................................ .......... 7

ES.3.4 Markups Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9

ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis

................................ ................................ .............................. 10

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

................................ ...................... 12

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ 27

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ....................... 29

ES.3.8.1 National Energy Savings

................................ ................................ .............. 30

ES.3.8.2 Net Present Value

................................ ................................ ......................... 32

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufact urer Impact Analysis

................................ ........................... 38

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

................................ .............. 39

ES.4.1 Test Procedure Issues

................................ ................................ ............................. 39

ES.4.2 Technology Options

................................ ................................ ............................... 39

ES.4.3 Design Option Costs

................................ ................................ .............................. 39

ES.4.4 Alternative Refrigerant System Component Cost and Performance

..................... 40

ES.4.5 Refurbishment cost

................................ ................................ ................................ 40

ES.4.6 Refurbishment efficiency improvements

................................ ............................... 40

ES.4.7 Sh ipments of new and refurbished refrigerated beverage vending machines

........ 40

ES.4.8 Shipments by equipment class

................................ ................................ ............... 41

ES.4.9 Shipments of CO 2 refrigerant

- based refrigerated beverage vending

machines

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 41

ES.4.10 Lifetime of refrigerated beverage vending machines

................................ ............ 4 1

ES.4.11 Repair and maintenance costs

................................ ................................ ................ 42

ES.4.12 Efficienc y level distributions

................................ ................................ ................. 42

ES.4.13 Efficiency level trends

................................ ................................ ........................... 43

ES.4.14 Distributions of refrigerated volumes

................................ ................................ .... 43

ES.4.15 Equipment price trends

................................ ................................ .......................... 43

ES.4.16 Indoor/outdoor fraction and energy use of outdoor units

................................ ...... 44

ES.4.17 BVM Purchasers and Users

................................ ................................ ................... 44

ES.4.18 Technologies for Low

- Power Modes

................................ ................................ ..... 44ES

- ii LIST OF TABLES

Table ES .3.1 Equipment Classes for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

................... 5

Table ES.3.2 Summary of Markups for Refrigerated Beverage Ven ding Machines

............ 10

Table ES.3.3 Annual Energy Consumption for Equipment Classes A and B Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

................................ ...................... 11

Table ES.3.4 Annual Energy Consumption for Combination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

................................ ................................ ........... 12

Table ES.3.5 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class A HFC

................................ ............ 15

Table ES.3.6 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Class A HFC

................................ ................................ .......... 15

Table ES.3.7 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class A CO 2

................................ ............ 16

Table ES.3.8 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Class A CO 2

................................ ................................ ........... 16

Table ES.3.9 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class B HFC

................................ ............ 17

Table ES.3.10 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Class B HFC

................................ ................................ .......... 18

Table ES.3.11 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class B CO 2

................................ ............. 19

Table ES.3.12 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Class B CO 2

................................ ................................ ........... 20

Table ES.3.13 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- A HFC

................................ ........ 21

Table ES.3.14 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Combo

- A HFC

................................ ................................ ....... 22

Table ES.3.15 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- A CO 2

................................ ......... 23

Table ES.3.16 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Combo

- A CO 2

................................ ................................ ........ 24

Table ES.3.17 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- B HFC

................................ ........ 25

Table ES.3.18 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Combo

- B HFC

................................ ................................ ....... 25

Table ES.3.19 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- B CO 2

................................ ......... 26

Table ES.3.20 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency

Distribution for Combo

- B CO 2

................................ ................................ ........ 26

Table ES.3.21 Equipme nt Class A: Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Results (quads)

......... 31

Table ES.3.22 Equipment Class B: Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Res ults (quads)

......... 31

Table ES.3.23 Equipment Combination Class: Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Results (10 - 3 quads)

................................ ................................ .......................... 32

Table ES.3.24 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class A Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 3

- Per cent Discount

Rate

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 33

Table ES.3.25 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class A Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 7

- Percent Discount

Rate

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 34

Table ES.3.26 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment

Class B Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 3

- Percent Discount

Rate

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 35ES

- iii Table ES.3.27 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class B Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 7

- Percent Discount

Rate

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 36

Table ES.3.28 Cumulative Net Pr esent Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Combination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 3

- Percent Discount Rate

................................ ................................ ...................... 37

Table ES.3.29 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Combination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 7

- Percent Discount Rate

................................ ................................ ...................... 38

LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES 1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the BVM Rulemaking Process

......................... 2 Figure ES 3.1 Class B R

- 134a Engineering Analysis Curves

................................ ................... 8 Figure ES 3.2 Class B Size Medium Engineering Analysis Curves

................................ ......... 8 Figure ES 3.3 Combo

- A R

- 134a Engineering Analysis Curves

................................ ............... 9 Figure ES 3.4 Class A HFC Shipments Forecasts for the Base Case and Considered

ELs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 28

Fi gure ES 3.5 Class A CO 2 Shipments Forecasts for the Base Case and Considered

ELs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 29 Figure ES 3.6 Class Combination Combo

- A HFC Shipments Forecasts for the Base

Case and Considered ELs

................................ ................................ ................ 29ES

- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. L. 94

- 163, 42 U.S.C.

6291 et seq.

, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency. ( 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)( 4 )( A ) and 6313(d)(4) ) T his executive summary provides an overview of the preliminary analysis activities conduct ed by DOE as part of the current rulemaking to set energy conservation standards for refrigerat ed beverage vending machines and summarizes key results. Additionally, t h is executive summary delineates issues identified during the analyses about which DOE seeks comments from interested parties. Th o se issues are also highlighted in the public meeting presentation and are discussed further in chapter 2 of the preliminary TS D

.

Figure ES 1

. 1 summarizes the analytical components of the standards

- setting process

. The focus of this figure is the column identified as “Analyses.” These c ore analyses are out lined in a logical sequence that DOE follows in carrying out the rulemaking process. Dotted lines connecting analyses show types of information that feed from one analysis to another. The columns labeled “Key Inputs” and “Key Outputs” show how the analyses fit into the rulemaking

pr ocess, and how the analyses relate to each other. Many outputs also form inputs for the downstream analyses. DOE collects inputs from various sources including, but not limited to, technical publications, market

- survey reports, trade publications, interest ed parties’ comments, industry experts and consultants, interagency guidance, and interactions with end users and the manufacturers. Key outputs form the analytical basis for setting the amended and/or new energy conservation standards.ES

- 2 Figure ES 1

. 1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the BVM Rulemaking ProcessES

- 3 ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

For the preliminary analysis, DOE publishes a notice of public meeting (NOPM) in the Federal Register , which announces the availability of the preliminary technical support document (TSD), the date and place of the public meeting, and presentation material s interested parties may review before the public meeting. In addition, the NOPM highlights the major analyses DOE developed in the preliminary analysis stage.

The preliminary TSD describes the preliminary analys e s in detail, providing descriptions

of in puts, sources, methodologies, and results. Chapter 1 of the preliminary TSD provides an introduction to the appliance standards, the rulemaking process, and the equipment covered by this rulemaking. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD summarizes the analytica l framework for this rulemaking , the comments received in response to the framework document, and DOE’s responses to those comments. The following chapters of the preliminary TSD describe in detail

the preliminary analyses performed for this stage of the r ulemaking

.

• Chapter 3: The market and technology assessment (MTA) characterizes the relevant equipment markets and technology options, including prototype designs.

• Chapter 4: The screening analysis reviews each technology option identified in the MTA

to de termine whether it (1) is technologically feasible; (2) is practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) would adversely affect equipment utility or availability; or (4) would have adverse impacts on health and safety.

• Chapter 5: The engineering an alysis develops cost

- efficiency relationships that show a manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency. DOE uses manufacturer markups to convert manufacturer production cost (MPC) to manufacturer selling price (MSP).

• Chapter 6: The markups analysi s converts the MSP derived from the engineering analysis

to customer equipment prices based on distribution chain markups.

• Chapter 7: The energy use analysis determines the annual energy consumption of the equipment under consideration.

• Chapter 8: The life

- cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis calculates, at the

customer level, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment , compared to any increase in the equipment ’s

installed cost like ly to result directly from the imposition of a given standard.

• Chapter 9: The shipments analysis forecasts shipments of equipment , which are then used to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy consumption, the net present value (NPV) of cust omer costs and savings, and future manufacturer cash flows.

• Chapter 10: The national impact analysis (NIA) assesses the cumulative national energy savings (NES) from standards and the NPV of customer costs and savings associated with standards at different efficiency levels.ES

- 4 • Chapter 12: The preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) assesses the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers, such as effects on expenditures for capital conversion, profitability , shipments, and research and development costs.

The r emaining chapters of the preliminary TSD address the analyses to be performed for the NOPR stage:

• Chapter 11: The customer subgroup analysis evaluates the effects of potential energy conservation standards on various national subgroup s of the population

.

• Chapter 13: The emissions analysis discusses the effects of potential energy conservation

standards on various airborne emissions of electric utilities.

• Chapter 14: Monetization of emissions reductions benefits considers the estimated monetary benefits l ikely to result from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides expected to result from the standards.

• Chapter 15: The utility impact analysis examines impacts of potential energy conservation standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities.

• Chapter 16: The employment impact analysis examines the effects of potential energy

conservation st andards on national employment.

• Chapter 17: A regulatory impact analysis examines the national impacts of non

regulatory alternatives to mandator y energy conservation standards.

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

The following sections summarize the key analyses DOE performed in support of the preliminary analysis for refrigerated beverage vending machine s

.

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

When initiat ing an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE obtains i nformation on the present and past industry structure and market characteristics for the equipment

concerned. DOE assesses the industry and equipment both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information. For the equipment in the preliminary analyses, DOE addressed the following: (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics, (2) existing regulatory and non

regulatory initiatives to improve the efficiency of the equip ment, and (3) trends in the equipment’s characteristics and retail markets. This information serves as resource material throughout the rulemaking. Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD describes the market analysis and resulting information.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into classes b ased on the type of energy used

, by equipment capacity

, or by an other performance

- related feature that affects efficiency

. Different energy conservation standards may apply to different equipment classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In this rulemaking, DOE is consideringES

- 5 maintaining the equipment classes from the 2009 BVM F inal R ule, defined at 10 CFR 431.292

and listed in Table ES.3.1

.

Table ES

. 3

. 1 Equipment Classes for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

Class Definition

A A refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is fully cooled, and is not a combination vending machine

B A ny refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine not considered to be Class A, and is not a combination vending machine

C ombination A refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has nonrefrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non

- “sealed beverage” merchandise

DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to attain higher performance levels. Based on this information, DOE develops a list of technologies for consideration. Initially, these technologies encomp ass all of those options that improve equipment efficiency. DOE developed its list of technology options for refrigerated beverage vending machines from teardowns of covered equipment and examination of technical documents ( e.g. , trade publications, techni cal papers, and manufacturer literature). Th is list

include s the following technologies for consideration:

• Higher

- efficiency lighting

• Higher

- efficiency evaporator fan motors

• Higher

- efficiency evaporator fan blades

• Improved evaporator design

• Low

- pressure

- differential evaporators

• Improved or thicker insulation

• Improved glass pack (for Class A machines)

• Higher

- efficiency compressors

• Improved condenser design

• Higher

- efficiency condenser fan motors

• Higher

- efficiency condenser fan blades

• Variable

- speed compressors

• Microchannel heat exchangers

• Liquid suction heat exchangers

• Higher efficiency expansion valves

• Improved Anti

- sweat heater s

• Low power states

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

In the screening analysis, DOE examined the technologies identified in the MTA. Technologies are removed from further consideration if they (1) are not technologically feasible; (2) are not practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have an adverse impact on equipment utility or availability; and/or (4) have adverse im pacts on health and safety. In theES

- 6 subsequent engineering analysis, DOE further examines the technology options that are not removed from consideration in the screening analysis.

As part of this analysis, DOE als o examined whether these features reduce energy consumption as measured under the DOE test procedure . DOE is conducting a separate rulemaking to consider amending the current test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending

machines . DOE expects that any amended test proced ure would be used to determine compliance with any revised energy conservation standards. DOE published a NOPR proposing to amend the current DOE test procedure , and information on this test procedure rulemaking can be found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/24 . The screening analysis for the energy conservation standard used the proposed test procedure to assess which technologies could be quantified by the test procedure. At th is time, DOE is not further considering those technologies whose impact on energy efficiency cannot be measured using the proposed test procedure.

The following technologies were included in the results of the MTA but were removed during the screening a nalysis:

• Higher

- efficiency expansion valves

• Liquid

- suction heat exchangers

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the cost of manufacturing refrigerated beverage vending machines and their efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for calculating costs and benefits of modified equipment designs for consumers, manufacturers, and the n ation. Chapter 5 describes the equipment classes DOE analyzed, the representative baselin e units, the efficiency levels DOE considered, the methodology DOE used to develop the manufacturing production cost model, and the cost

- efficiency results.

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed

The engineering analysis analyzed potential new or amended energy stand ards for all equipment classes covered in the rulemaking, including Class A, Class B, and a C ombination

Class , using a design

- option approach . The Class A and Class B analyses were each conducted at three representative sizes. For the purposes of analysis, the C ombination C lass was broken into

two parts, “ Combo

- A ” equipment

, featuring a fully cooled compartment that vends beverages,

and “ Combo

- B ” equipment

, using a refrigerated compartment that vends beverages and is not fully cooled

. Combo

- A and Combo

- B analyses were each conducted at two representative sizes.

T hese analyses w ere conducted using information from publically

- available product literature, teardowns, and public comments in response to the 2013 Framework Document . For each of these equipment class and size combinations, DOE developed two sets of cost

- efficiency relationships , one based on the use of the hydrofluorocarbon ( HFC ) refrigerant R134a and the

other based on the use of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) refrigerant , the other major refrigerant app rovedES

- 7 for use in refrigerated beverage vending applications by EPA SNAP 1 at the time of this analysis

. A total of twenty cost

- efficiency curves were generated for the different combinations of equipment class, representative size, and refrigerant. A select ion of these curves is displayed in Figures ES.3.1, ES.3.2, and ES.3.3

. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD includes additional details on the representative equipment classes and the cost

- efficiency curves developed as part of the engineering analysis

ES.3.3.2 Manufa cturing Cost Assessment

DOE estimated the manufacturing costs associated with improvements in daily energy consumption ( DEC ) for each of the equipment sizes and classes analyzed. The assessment method involved disassembling select beverage vending machines (“teardown analysis”) ; analyzing the materials, components, and manufacturing processes used to manufacture the equipment ; and developing a spreadsheet model itemizing all parts and associated manufacturing

costs. DOE calculated the estimated MPC for each disassembled machine based on the results of the physical disassembly process. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD provides a detailed description of DOE’s reverse engineering process and includes information on the inputs used to

determine the manu facturing cost, including material, labor, and overhead. Chapter 5 also includes information on the various components and features incorporated into designs for refrigerated beverage vending machines.

ES.3.3.3 Energy Consumption Model

The complementary analysis to the manufacturing cost model is the energy consumption

model. This spreadsheet

- based analytical model calculates energy consumption of a given equipment configuration in two major subsections: component and compressor energy consumption. Component energ y consumption is the sum of all electrical energy used directly by each fan motor, light fixture , or other energy

- consuming component. Compressor energy consumption is calculated from the total heat load to be removed from the refrigerated space, using man ufacturer

- provided models of representative compressor performance. The total heat load is the sum of the heat emitted by electrical

- energy

- consuming components inside the refrigerated space and the heat contributed by radiation through glass and openings, conduction through walls and doors, and warm air infiltration. The energy consumption model calculates daily energy use for a unit based on a given design option configuration and numerical specifications designed to model the conditions at which a unit w ould be physically tested. DOE calibrated and verified the outputs of its energy consumption model by comparing modeled results to the results of physical tests which DOE conducted on production units

.

The primary outputs of the engineering analysis, bas ed on the results of the manufacturing cost assessment and energy consumption model, are cost

- efficiency curves, described by the DEC levels associated with the design options DOE analyzed and the increase in MSP associated with achieving each of these DEC levels. MSP is equal to the estimated MPC multiplied by a manufacturer markup (see section ES.3.4).

1 The EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program is the U.S. government regulatory program responsible for maintaining the list of alternatives to ozone depleting substances allowed for use within specific applications, including refrigeration, in the United States.ES

- 8 Figure ES 3

. 1

, Figure ES 3

. 2 , and Figure ES 3

. 3 demonstrate relationships between cost

efficiency curves varying in size and refrigerant. The cost

- efficiency curves for all 20 analyses

can be found in c hapter 5 of the preliminary TSD.

Figure ES 3

. 1 Class B R

- 134a Engineering Analysis Curves

Figure ES 3

. 2 Class B Size Medium Engineering Analysis Curves $1,750.00 $2,000.00 $2,250.00 $2,500.00 $2,750.00 $3,000.00 $3,250.00 $3,500.00

2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000 5.500Manufacturer Selling Price

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] 

## Class B R

- 134a Engineering Analysis Curves

Small

Medium

Large

$2,000.00 $2,200.00 $2,400.00 $2,600.00 $2,800.00 $3,000.00 $3,200.00

2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000Manufacturer Selling Price

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] 

## Class B Size Medium Engineering Analysis

Curves

- HFC and CO 2

R-134a

Carbon DioxideES

- 9 Figure ES 3

. 3 Combo

- A R

- 134a Engineering Analysis Curves

ES.3.4 Markups Analysis

The markups analysis (chapter 6) calculates appropriate markups in the distribution chain

to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engin eering analysis to customer purchase prices. In developing markups, DOE identified the distribution channels for refrigerated beverage vending

machines and the markup associated with each party in the distribution channel.

Based on input from equipment m anufacturers

, DOE estimated that 10 percent of equipment is purchased by vending machine operators from wholesaler/distributors, 5 percent is purchased by site owners from wholesaler/distributors, and 85 percent is purchased by bottlers

and distributors directly from equipment manufacturers.

DOE developed separate markups for baseline equipment (baseline markups) and for the cost increase associated with improvements required to produce more

- efficient equipment (incremental markups). DOE also added sale s tax to the estimated retail prices. Table ES. 3

. 2

summarizes the markups developed for refrigerated beverage vending machine s . Based on the percentages of the market share attributed to each of the distribution channel described above, the weighted

- average overall baseline markup equals 1.148 and the weighted

- average overall incremental markup equals 1.119. $2,000.00 $2,200.00 $2,400.00 $2,600.00 $2,800.00 $3,000.00 $3,200.00 $3,400.00

1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500Manufacturer Selling Price

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] 

## Combo

- A R

- 134a Engineering Analysis

Curves

Medium

LargeES

- 10 Table ES. 3

. 2 Summary of Markups for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machine s

Distribution

Channel Manufacturer  Bottler /Distributor Manufacturer  Wholesaler  Operator/Site Owner

Baseline Markup Incremental Markup Baseline Markup Incremental Markup

Wholesaler

- - 1.48 1.30

Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 1.071 1.071

Overall Markup 1.071 1.071 1.585 1.392

ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis

The energy use analysis estimates the energy savings from higher efficiency appliances used in the LCC and subsequent analyses. The DOE test procedure provides standardized results that can serve as the basis for comparing the performance of different appliances used under the

same condit ions, but actual usage in the field may differ from usage estimated by the test procedure.

To determine the distribution of energy use for refrigerated beverage vending machine s , DOE began with representative HFC refrigerant

- based units

, based on engineering model outputs

simulated under standard test conditions

, to obtain estimates of daily energy consumption (DEC) by equipment class (see chapter 5). DOE t est conditions (75 degrees Fahrenheit and 45 percent relative humidity) were deemed similar enough to typical indoor settings that DOE estimated the annual energy consumption (AEC) of equipment located indoors, as the product of DEC and 365 days per year

. DOE determined that C lass A and Combo

- A, and a portion of C lass B and

Combo

- B, were generally installed indoors. From publicly available data, DOE determined that 16 percent of Class B and Combo

- B units are generally installed outdoors

.

For equipment loca ted in outdoor settings, DOE developed a linear regression model (see chapter 7) based on output from an engineering model developed in the 2009 BVM Final Rule to simulate the energy consumption of Class B equipment refrigerated beverage vending machine s i n different ambient temperature and relative humidity environments . DOE found that the

average annual energy consumption ( AEC ) of Class B equipment in outdoor use across the

United States to be 80 percent of the estimated DEC times 365 days per year

. DOE also used its

linear model to account for meteorological and climatic variations for each state and the District of Columbia through the use of a dimensionless adjustment factor. The AEC for a specific geographic location was obtained from the product of the national average AEC and the state

specific adjustment factor. These same adjustment factors were used to scale the outdoor portion

of Combo

- B energy use.

Table ES. 3.3 and Table ES. 3

. 4 present the results of the energy use analysis at each considered efficiency level. The results for C lass B and Combo

- B are weighted averages of the

values for indoor and outdoor units. CO 2 - based refrigerant refrigerated beverage vending

machine s were assumed to have the same baseline energy use as the corresponding HFC

- based vending machine s, and that scaling factors for outdoor environments were also assumed to beES

- 11 identical. Therefore, the annual energy consumption shown in the tables is identical for HFC and

CO 2 - based refrigerant refrigerated beverage vending machine s.

Chapter 7 provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the energy use analysis.

Table ES. 3

. 3 Annual Energy Consumption for Equipment Class es A and B Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machine s
Class A (2 9.6 cu. ft.) Class B (23.4 cu. ft.)

Efficiency level Percentage of

b aseline e nergy

u se Annual energy consumption

(kWh/yr) Percentage of

b aseline e nergy

u se Annual energy consumption

(kWh/yr)

EL0 (Baseline) 100 1525 100 1717

EL 1 95 1448 95 1631

EL2 90 1372 90 1545

EL3 85 1296 85 1459

EL4 80 1220 80 1373

EL5 75 1144 75 1288

EL6 70 1067 70 1202

EL7 65 991 65 1116

EL8 60 915 60 1030

EL9 57 (HFC) 59 (CO 2 ) 8 69 (HFC)

90 0 (CO 2 ) 55 944

EL10 50 858

EL11 49 (HFC only) 841ES

- 12 Table ES. 3

. 4 Annual Energy Consumption for C ombination Class Refrigerated

B everage V ending M achine s

Combo

- A ( Refrigerated Volume: 10.3 cu. ft.) Combo

- B ( Refrigerated Volume: 4.3 cu. ft.)

Efficiency

level Percentage of

b aseline e nergy

u se Annual energy consumption

(kWh/yr) Percentage of

b aseline e nergy

u se Annual energy consumption

(kWh/yr)

EL0 (Baseline) 100 222 2 100 1718

EL1 90 2000 90 154 6

EL2 80 177 8 80 137 4

EL3 70 155 6 70 1203

EL4 60 1333 60 1031

EL5 55 1222 55 945

EL6 50 1111 50 859

EL7 45 1000 45 773

EL8 40 88 9 41 70 4

EL9 35 77 8

EL10 30 66 7

EL11 29 644

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analys i s

N ew energy conservation standards for equipment result in changes in c ustomer operating expenses , which usually decrease

, and changes in customer equipment price s , which usually increase. DOE analyzed the net effect of new standards on customer s by evaluating the LCC using the cost

- efficiency relationship derived in the engineering analysis, as well as the

e nergy costs derived from the energy use analysis . Inputs to the LCC calculation included the

installed cost to the customer (purchase price plus installation cost), operating costs (primarily energy expenses), the lifetime of the appliance, and a discount rate.

The installed cost of equipment typically increases while operating cost typically decreases in response to new standards. For equipment with higher

- than

- baseline efficiency, there is a point in time since the equipment was purchased when the net op erating

- cost benefit (in dollars) is equal to the incremental first cost of purchasing the equipment. The length of time required for equipment to reach this cost

- equivalence point is known as the payback period (PBP).

DOE assumed that equipment costs wer e not constant, but declined according to an exponential trend with time determined from historical Producer Price Index ( PPI ) data for

“ automatic merchandising machines, excluding parts ” du ring the time period of 1967 to 2013ES

- 13 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

. 2 This time series is the most disaggregated industry data

available that includes refrigerated beverage vending machine manufacturing

.

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using values that reflect utilization of the equipment in the field. DOE utilized various reports and simulation data for information on

customer sectors, equipment characteristics, equipment lifetime, refurbishment costs, and installation, repair, and maintenance costs.

Because data were not available to indicate how installation costs might vary with equipment efficiency, DOE assumed that installation costs were kept constant (i.e., did not increase with efficiency).

DOE has adjusted cost estimates of repair and maintenance costs for refrigerated beverage vending mac hines with LED lighting as compared with equipment without LED lighting, taking into account both a longer lifetime for LED lighting and a higher replacement cost of LEDs relative to linear fluorescent tube lighting. As a result, repair and maintenance cos ts varied with efficiency level for some equipment classes (specifically, Class B and Combination vending machines ).

DOE also assumed that each refrigerated beverage vending machine is refurbished up to

two times in its lifetime (at five and 10 years), at a cost of $550 per refurbishment, which was in addition to maintenance and repair costs of $153

- 173 per year (depending on whether the machine has LED lighting)

.

To estimate energy cost savings, DOE multiplied the annual energy use of refrigerated

bever age vending machine s in various locations by an appropriate electricity price. DOE used data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to derive average annual commercial

and industrial electricity prices for each state and the District of Columbia. DOE then assigned an appropriate price to each customer in the sample, depending on its location

. To project future prices, DOE multiplied the se prices by the forecast of annual average price changes in EIA’s

201 4 Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO )

.

DOE used data from various reports to estimate the survival function of these appliances,

which DOE assumed has the form of a cumulative Weibull distribution. T he analysis yielded an

average beverage vend ing machine lifetime of 13.4 years. DOE has assumed that machines at all efficiency levels have the same lifetime.

To estimate the share of customer s that would be affected by a standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis consid ered the projected distribution ( i.e. , market shares) of equipment efficiencies that customer s purchase under the base case ( i.e. , the case without new energy efficiency standards). DOE used both market performance data and simulated energy consumption modeling to estimate the efficiency distribution in recent years.

2 Series ID PCU33331833331811

. Producer Price Index Industry Data, http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=pc

.ES

- 14 DOE assumed that the distribution of efficiency levels in shipments of C lass A and Class

B equipment reflected the efficiencies of model availability data provided by DOE’s Compliance

Ce rtification Management System (CCMS) 3 database and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of ENERGY STAR qualified equipment. 4 Moreover, DOE assumed that major bottlers, representing 90 percent of shipments, will ship exclusively ENERGY STAR

comp liant models corresponding to a minimum of EL 1 for C lass A equipment and EL 2 for C lass

B equipment. F or remaining manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machine s, DOE

assumed 30 percent of equipment shipped would be ENERGY STAR

- compliant, bringing the

total ENERGY STAR

- compliant market share for C lass A and Class B equipment to 93 percent each. This ENERGY STAR market share was used to weight the data from the CCMS and ENERGY STAR databases to arrive at its best determination of efficiency level dis tributions of shipped equipment

.

For Combination Class vending machines , data on available models was unavailable, so

DOE assumed tha t 100 percent of shipped equipment corresponded to the baseline energy use (EL0) from the engineering energy consumption model (see chapter 5). No ENERGY STAR specifications currently exist for these equipment classes.

Using the projected distribution of equipment efficiencies for each equipment class, DOE randomly assigned a specific equipment efficiency to each sample customer drawn from a distribution of building type data from the 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) . If a customer was assigned a n equipment efficiency that is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under con sideration, the LCC calculation would

show that this customer is not impacted by that standard level.

Table ES. 3

. 5 t hrough Table ES. 3

. 20 show the results of the LCC and PBP analyses at each considered energy efficiency level. The average lifetime operating cost presented in the tables is a discounted value. Figures presented in chapter 8 show the range of LCC savings for all of the efficiency levels considered for each equipment class. DOE performed separate analyses

for equipment utilizing HFC and CO 2 refrigerants.

Chapter 8 provides more details on the methods, data, and assu mptions used for the LCC and PBP analyses.

3 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Compliance Certification Datab ase, http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification

data/CCMS

- 41431629825.html

. 4 Energy Star, Vending Machines for Consumers, http://www.energystar.gov/certified

products/detail/vending_machines

.ES

- 15 Table ES. 3

. 5 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class A HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 2,387 386 4,921 7,309

--- 13.4

1 95 2,392 379 4,828 7,220 0.7 13.4

2 90 2,398 371 4,734 7,132 0.7 13.4

3 85 2,410 364 4,641 7,050 1.0 13.4

4 80 2,447 357 4,547 6,994 2.1 13.4

5 75 2,499 350 4,454 6,953 3.1 13.4

6 70 2,647 342 4,360 7,007 6.0 13.4

7 65 2,894 335 4,266 7,160 10.0 13.4

8 60 3,141 328 4,173 7,313 13.0 13.4

9 57 3,289 323 4,117 7,405 14.5 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Table ES. 3

. 6 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Effici ency Distribution

for Class A HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 4

2 90 0 48

3 85 0 107

4 80 0 159

5 75 1 200

6 70 18 146

7 65 60

- 7

8 60 80

- 160

9 57 86

- 252

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 16 Table ES. 3

. 7 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class A CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 2,464 386 4,921 7,386

--- 13.4

1 95 2,469 379 4,828 7,297 0.7 13.4

2 90 2,475 371 4,734 7,209 0.8 13.4

3 85 2,489 364 4,641 7,130 1.2 13.4

4 80 2,536 357 4,547 7,084 2.5 13.4

5 75 2,590 350 4,454 7,043 3.5 13.4

6 70 2,809 342 4,360 7,169 7.9 13.4

7 65 3,047 335 4,266 7,313 11.5 13.4

8 60 3,285 328 4,173 7,458 14.2 13.4

9 59 3,333 326 4,154 7,487 14.6 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Table ES. 3

. 8 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution

for Class A CO 2

EL % of

b aseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 4

2 90 0 48

3 85 0 104

4 80 1 148

5 75 2 188

6 70 43 62

7 65 73

- 82

8 60 85

- 227

9 59 87

- 256

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 17 Table ES. 3

. 9 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class B HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 2,041 424 5,410 7,451

--- 13.4

1 95 2,041 416 5,305 7,346 0.1 13.4

2 90 2,042 408 5,199 7,241 0.1 13.4

3 85 2,044 400 5,094 7,138 0.1 13.4

4 80 2,046 391 4,989 7,035 0.2 13.4

5 75 2,055 383 4,883 6,938 0.3 13.4

6 70 2,080 375 4,778 6,858 0.8 13.4

7 65 2,141 367 4,673 6,814 1.8 13.4

8 60 2,219 339 4,314 6,533 2.1 13.4

9 55 2,573 331 4,209 6,782 5.7 13.4

10 50 2,971 322 4,104 7,074 9.2 13.4

11 49 3,050 321 4,082 7,133 9.8 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.ES

- 18 Table ES. 3

. 10 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution

for Class B HFC

EL % o f

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 6

2 90 0 12

3 85 0 26

4 80 0 69

5 75 0 118

6 70 0 167

7 65 0 196

8 60 0 423

9 55 23 192

10 50 62

- 78

11 49 70

- 135

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 19 Table ES. 3

. 11 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class B CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 2,117 424 5,410 7,527

--- 13.4

1 95 2,117 416 5,305 7,422 0.1 13.4

2 90 2,118 408 5,199 7,317 0.1 13.4

3 85 2,120 400 5,094 7,214 0.1 13.4

4 80 2,122 391 4,989 7,111 0.2 13.4

5 75 2,131 383 4,883 7,014 0.4 13.4

6 70 2,159 375 4,778 6,937 0.9 13.4

7 65 2,231 367 4,673 6,904 2.0 13.4

8 60 2,389 339 4,314 6,704 3.2 13.4

9 55 2,752 331 4,209 6,961 6.8 13.4

10 50 3,129 322 4,104 7,232 10.0 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.ES

- 20 Table ES. 3

. 12 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution

for Class B CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 95 0 5

2 90 0 11

3 85 0 24

4 80 0 67

5 75 0 115

6 70 0 162

7 65 1 184

8 60 0 345

9 55 38 107

10 50 68

- 143

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 21 Table ES. 3

. 13 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- A HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 2,230 472 6,030 8,260

--- 13.4

1 90 2,235 451 5,757 7,992 0.2 13.4

2 80 2,242 430 5,485 7,727 0.3 13.4

3 70 2,259 409 5,212 7,471 0.5 13.4

4 60 2,280 388 4,939 7,219 0.6 13.4

5 55 2,290 357 4,550 6,840 0.5 13.4

6 50 2,301 347 4,414 6,715 0.6 13.4

7 45 2,313 336 4,277 6,590 0.6 13.4

8 40 2,342 325 4,141 6,483 0.8 13.4

9 35 2,445 315 4,005 6,450 1.4 13.4

10 30 2,984 304 3,868 6,852 4.5 13.4

11 29 3,096 302 3,841 6,937 5.1 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.ES

- 22 Table ES. 3

. 14 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution

for Combo

- A HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 90 0 268

2 80 0 533

3 70 0 789

4 60 0 1,041

5 55 0 1,420

6 50 0 1,545

7 45 0 1,670

8 40 0 1,777

9 35 0 1,811

10 30 0 1,408

11 29 0 1,323

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 23 Table ES. 3

. 15 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- A CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 2,288 472 6,030 8,318

--- 13.4

1 90 2,293 451 5,757 8,051 0.2 13.4

2 80 2,302 430 5,485 7,786 0.3 13.4

3 70 2,321 409 5,212 7,533 0.5 13.4

4 60 2,342 388 4,939 7,281 0.6 13.4

5 55 2,353 377 4,803 7,156 0.7 13.4

6 50 2,364 347 4,414 6,778 0.6 13.4

7 45 2,378 336 4,277 6,655 0.7 13.4

8 40 2,407 325 4,141 6,548 0.8 13.4

9 35 2,519 315 4,005 6,524 1.5 13.4

10 30 3,041 304 3,868 6,910 4.5 13.4

11 29 3,150 302 3,841 6,991 5.1 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.ES

- 24 Table ES. 3

. 16 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Eff iciency Distribution

for Combo

- A CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 90 0 268

2 80 0 532

3 70 0 785

4 60 0 1,037

5 55 0 1,162

6 50 0 1,540

7 45 0 1,663

8 40 0 1,770

9 35 0 1,794

10 30 0 1,409

11 29 0 1,327

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 25 Table ES. 3

. 17 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- B HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 1,854 424 5,411 7,265

--- 13.4

1 90 1,855 408 5,200 7,055 0.1 13.4

2 80 1,858 392 4,990 6,848 0.1 13.4

3 70 1,868 375 4,779 6,646 0.3 13.4

4 60 1,891 359 4,568 6,459 0.6 13.4

5 55 1,910 351 4,463 6,373 0.8 13.4

6 50 1,973 343 4,357 6,330 1.5 13.4

7 45 2,088 314 3,999 6,087 2.1 13.4

8 41 2,543 308 3,914 6,457 5.9 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Table ES. 3

. 18 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution

for Combo

- B HFC

EL % of

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 90 0 210

2 80 0 417

3 70 0 618

4 60 0 806

5 55 0 892

6 50 0 935

7 45 0 1,178

8 41 1 807

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 26 Table ES. 3

. 19 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo

- B CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use Average Costs ( 2013$ ) Simple Payback

Period ( years ) Average

Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating

Cost Lifetime Operating

Cost LCC

0 100 1,911 424 5,411 7,322

--- 13.4

1 90 1,912 408 5,200 7,112 0.1 13.4

2 80 1,915 392 4,990 6,905 0.1 13.4

3 70 1,926 375 4,779 6,704 0.3 13.4

4 60 1,949 359 4,568 6,517 0.6 13.4

5 55 1,971 351 4,463 6,434 0.8 13.4

6 50 2,032 343 4,357 6,389 1.5 13.4

7 45 2,135 314 3,999 6,134 2.0 13.4

8 41 2,561 308 3,914 6,475 5.6 13.4

Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use products with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Table ES. 3

. 20 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution

for Combo

- B CO 2

EL % of

baseline

energy

use % of Customers that Experience a Net Cost Average Life

- Cycle Cost Savings* ( 2013$ )

0 100 0 0

1 90 0 210

2 80 0 417

3 70 0 618

4 60 0 805

5 55 0 888

6 50 0 933

7 45 0 1,188

8 41 0 847

* The calculation includes customer s with zero LCC savings (no impact).ES

- 27 ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

DOE conducts s hipment forecasts for each equipment class to calculate the national impact of potential standards on national energy savings

, net present value , and future

manufacturer cash flows. Minimal d ata is available on shipments for refrigerated beverage vending machine s

. To conduct the shipments analysis, DOE used pas t projections from the 2009

BVM Final Rule , stakeholder comments, and market penetration data available from ENERGY

STAR for 2005 through 2012 to project future shipments. DOE found that s hipments have been relatively stable over the period for which data w as available, and having no other data

, DOE has assumed that shipments will remain flat at 100,000 units from 2013 onward

.

DOE has assumed that shipments of C lass A and Class B equipment are evenly split, and that shipments of the C ombination Classes make up only two percent of total shipments (evenly split between Combo

- A and Combo

- B ). In summary, DOE assumed shipments by equipment class were 49 percent C lass A, 49 percent C lass B, and two percent Comb ination Classes

. Moreover, DOE did not assume any shifts in these shipment fractions in the future.

DOE has observed that CO 2 refrigerant

- based refrigerated beverage vending machine s have entered the market. Based on recent market reports, DOE assumes that C lass B CO 2 shipments are currently higher than C lass A. By 202 0

, DOE assumes that half of all shipments in each equipment class will be CO 2 - based refrigerated beverage vending machine s, with fixed

market shares thereafter. The use of hydrocarbon refrigerants has not yet been considered in this

rulemaki ng, because their use in beverage vending machines is not currently permitted by the US

EPA SNAP program 5

. I n July 2014, EPA issued two n otice s of proposed rulemaking s. One of these proposed to ban the use of certain HFC refrigerants in beverage vending ma chines and other refrigeration equipment, and the other proposed adding three hydrocarbon

- based refrigerants (propane, isobutene, and R441A

- a blend of propane, n

- butane, isobutane and

ethane ) as acceptable alternatives in this application. 6 DOE will continue to monitor the open rulemaking s at EPA regarding allowable refrigerant options and will adjust these assumptions as necessary as this rulemaking progresses.

Chapter 9 of the TSD provides additional detail on the shipments analysis.

Figure ES 3

. 4 and Figure ES 3

. 5 show the forecasted shipments for C lass A HFC and CO 2
at t he considered efficiency levels. As can be seen in the early years there is a shift in the market

from HFC

, which shows a decrease

, to CO 2 , which shows an increase. DOE expects this market

shift to occur even in the absence of amended standards. Amended st andards are projected to cause a slight decrease in shipments. The forecasted shipments for C lass B equipment show a similar pattern, and are not shown here. For combination equipment

, DOE only projects a

5 See EPA

, Acceptable Substitutes in Vending Machines, http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/vending.html (Aug. 15, 2012).

6 See Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes, 79 FR 38811 (proposed July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811 ), and Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, (proposed July 9, 2014), available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/downloads/SAN_5750_SNAP_Status_Change_Rule_NPRM_signature_version

signed_7

- 9

- 2014.pdf

.ES

- 28 decrease in shipments at the two highest efficiency level s for the two equipment Class Comb o

- A subcategories

. DOE only projects a decrease in shipments of the Combo

- B subcategories at the highest efficiency level. Figure ES 3

. 6 shows the shipments forecast for C ombo

- A equipment using HFC refrigerant

. Because there is no change in shipments at most efficiency levels, the figure shows these levels superimposed on top of one another, with only the highest efficiency

level (s) displaying reduced shipments.

Figure ES 3

. 4 Class A HFC Shipments Forecasts for the Base Case and Considered ELs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27Shipments (thousands) Base Case

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

EL7

EL8

EL9ES

- 29 Figure ES 3

. 5 Class A CO 2 Shipments Forecasts for the Base Case and Considered ELs

Figure ES 3

. 6 Class Combination C ombo

- A HFC Shipments Forecasts for the Base

Case and Considered ELs

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

The NIA estimates the national impacts of potential new energy efficiency levels for refrigerated beverage vending machine s . Those impacts encompass: (1) national energy savings (NES) ; (2) monetary value of the energy savings due to standards ; (3) increased total installed

costs of the considered equipment due to standards ; and (4) the NPV of energy savings ( the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Shipments (thousands) Base Case

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

EL7

EL8

EL9

0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54Shipments (thousands) Base Case

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

EL7

EL8

EL9

EL10

EL11ES

- 30 difference between value of energy savings and increased total installed co sts). DOE prepared a spreadsheet model to forecast energy savings and national customer economic costs and savings resulting from new standards. The NIA model uses typical values for inputs.

T he trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the base case (wi thout amended standards) and each of the standards cases (with amended standards) is a key component of DOE’s

estimates of NES and NPV

. DOE did not forecast any change in the base

- case efficiency

distribution s over the forecast period . For its determinatio n of standards

- case efficiency distributions, DOE used a “roll

- up” scenario to establish the distribution of efficiencies for the year that the new standards are assumed to become effective ( i.e. , 2019 ) and subsequent years.

DOE assumed that equipment effi ciencies in the base case that did not meet the standard level under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level in 20 19

.

Chapter 10 provides additional details on this and other aspects of the NIA analysis.

ES.3.8.1 National Energy Savings

DOE calculated annual NES as the difference between national energy consumption in the base case (without new efficiency standards) and at each higher efficiency level (EL). DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the si te energy values to primary energy using factors that account for losses in transmission and distribution and in electricity generation. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES over the period in which equipment shipped in 2019

- 2048 are in operation

. DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. On August 18, 2011, DOE published a statement of policy in the Federal Register announcing its intention to use full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conse rvation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281. FFC energy savings are included in these results.

The NES FFC results for C lass A and Class B equipme nt in Table ES. 3

. 21 and Table

ES. 3

. 22 are shown in quads (quadrillion Btu). Table ES. 3

. 23 shows NES FFC results for the

Combination Class equipment in 10 - 3 quads (trillion Btu).ES

- 31 Table ES. 3

. 21 Equipment Class A : Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Results (quads)

Efficiency Level HFC CO 2 Total

1 0.0003 0.0003 0.0007

2 0.0038 0.0038 0.0076

3 0.0088 0.0088 0.0176

4 0.0154 0.0153 0.0306

5 0.0223 0.0222 0.0446

6 0.0292 0.0290 0.0582

7 0.0358 0.0355 0.0713

8 0.0422 0.0420 0.0842

9 0.0460 0.0432 0.0892

Table ES. 3

. 22 Equipment Class B : Cumulative N ES Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Results ( quads )

Efficiency Level HFC CO 2 Total

1 0.0005 0.0005 0.0009

2 0.0009 0.0009 0.0018

3 0.0020 0.0020 0.0040

4 0.0053 0.0053 0.0106

5 0.0092 0.0092 0.0184

6 0.0141 0.0140 0.0281

7 0.0192 0.0191 0.0383

8 0.0255 0.0253 0.0509

9 0.0323 0.0320 0.0643

10 0.0387 0.0385 0.0773

11 0.0401 0.0401ES

- 32 Table ES. 3

. 23 Equipment Combination Class : Cumulative NES Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Results ( 10 - 3 q uads )

Efficiency

Level Combo

- A HFC Combo

- A CO 2 Combo

- B HFC Combo

- B CO 2 Total

1 0.417 0.416 0.323 0.321 1.477

2 0.835 0.831 0.645 0.642 2.954

3 1.252 1.247 0.968 0.964 4.430

4 1.669 1.662 1.290 1.285 5.907

5 1.878 1.870 1.452 1.446 6.646

6 2.087 2.078 1.613 1.606 7.384

7 2.296 2.286 1.774 1.767 8.123

8 2.504 2.494 1.867 1.865 8.730

9 2.713 2.701 5.414

10 2.893 2.881 5.774

11 2.920 2.909 5.829

ES.3.8.2 Net Present Value

DOE calculated net monetary savings each year as the difference between total savings in operating costs and increases in total equipment costs in the base case and standards cases. DOE calculated savings over the life of the equipment purchased in the for ecast period. The NPV i s the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of

increased total installed costs. I n accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on r egulatory analysis, DOE used discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent to discount future costs and savings to the present.

The NPV results by equipment class are shown in Table ES. 3

. 24 through Table ES. 3

. 29

. A negative NPV indicates that the costs of a standard at a given efficiency level exceed the savings. Note that the units in Table ES. 3

. 24 through Table ES. 3

. 27 are billion 2013 dollars,

whereas the units in Table ES. 3

. 28 and Table ES. 3

. 29 are million 2013 dollars.ES

- 33 Table ES. 3

. 24 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class

A Refrigerated B everage V ending M achine s , 3

- Percent Discount Rate
Efficiency

Level HFC CO 2 Total

Billion 2013 dollars

1 0.0017 0.0017 0.0034

2 0.0196 0.0194 0.0391

3 0.0440 0.0431 0.0870

4 0.0680 0.0641 0.1320

5 0.0890 0.0847 0.1737

6 0.0793 0.0525 0.1318

7 0.0384 0.0151 0.0535

8

- 0.0015

- 0.0214

- 0.0229

9

- 0.0250

- 0.0286

- 0.0535ES

- 34 Table ES. 3

. 25 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class

A Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines , 7

- Percent Discount Rate
Efficiency

Level HFC CO 2 Total

Billion 2013 dollars

1 0.0007 0.0007 0.0014

2 0.0079 0.0078 0.0157

3 0.0175 0.0170 0.0345

4 0.0259 0.0237 0.0496

5 0.0323 0.0299 0.0622

6 0.0220 0.0076 0.0296

7

- 0.0050

- 0.0173

- 0.0223

8

- 0.0312

- 0.0415

- 0.0727

9

- 0.0466

- 0.0463

- 0.0929ES

- 35 Table ES. 3

. 26 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class

B Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines , 3

- Percent Discount Rate
Efficiency

Level HFC CO 2 Total

Billion 2013 dollars

1 0.0025 0.0025 0.0049

2 0.0049 0.0049 0.0098

3 0.0106 0.0106 0.0212

4 0.0282 0.0280 0.0561

5 0.0479 0.0476 0.0955

6 0.0690 0.0681 0.1371

7 0.0840 0.0807 0.1647

8 0.0982 0.0741 0.1723

9 0.0329 0.0077 0.0407

10

- 0.0420

- 0.0601

- 0.1022

11

- 0.0572

- 0.0572ES

- 36 Table ES. 3

. 27 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment Class

B Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines , 7

- Percent Discount Rate
Efficiency

Level HFC CO 2 Total

Billion 2013 dollars

1 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020

2 0.0020 0.0020 0.0040

3 0.0043 0.0043 0.0086

4 0.0115 0.0114 0.0229

5 0.0194 0.0192 0.0386

6 0.0273 0.0268 0.0542

7 0.0318 0.0300 0.0618

8 0.0349 0.0219 0.0569

9

- 0.0054

- 0.0188

- 0.0242

10

- 0.0506

- 0.0599

- 0.1105

11

- 0.0597

- 0.0597ES

- 37 Table ES. 3

. 28 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment

C omb ination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines , 3

- Percent

Discount Rate
Efficiency

Level Combo

- A HFC Combo

- A CO 2 Combo

- B

HFC Combo

- B

CO 2 Total

m illion 20 13 dollars

1 2.22 2.20 1.73 1.72 7.87

2 4.41 4.38 3.44 3.42 15.66

3 6.56 6.49 5.12 5.08 23.25

4 8.67 8.59 6.71 6.66 30.62

5 9.72 9.63 7.45 7.38 34.18

6 10.77 10.68 7.91 7.85 37.21

7 11.82 11.70 8.03 8.05 39.60

8 12.76 12.63 5.65 5.89 36.93

9 13.21 13.02 26.23

10 10.71 10.66 21.36

11 10.16 10.14 20.29ES

- 38 Table ES. 3

. 29 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment

C omb ination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines , 7

- Percent

Discount Rate
Efficiency

Level Combo

- A

HFC Combo

- A

CO 2 Combo

- B

HFC Combo

- B

CO 2 Total

m illion 20 13 dollars

1 0.90 0.89 0.71 0.70 3.21

2 1.80 1.78 1.41 1.39 6.37

3 2.66 2.62 2.09 2.06 9.43

4 3.51 3.46 2.71 2.68 12.36

5 3.93 3.88 3.00 2.96 13.77

6 4.35 4.29 3.14 3.10 14.88

7 4.77 4.70 3.08 3.09 15.64

8 5.13 5.05 1.72 1.85 13.75

9 5.22 5.12 10.34

10 3.72 3.70 7.42

11 3.40 3.39 6.80

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

DOE conduct s the preliminary MIA in three phases and further tailor s the analytical

framework based on comments received from interested parties

. In Phase 1

, DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and conducts preliminary manufacturer interviews to identify important issues that require special consideration. The preliminary analysis TSD presents the results of the Phase 1 analysis. In Phase 2

, DOE prepares an industry cash

- flow

model and an interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions. In Phase 3

, DOE

interviews manufacturers, and assesses the impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards both quantitatively and qualitatively. The NOPR TSD presents the results of Phase 2

and Phase 3 analyses.

During the preliminary manufacturer impact analysis, DOE identified several key issues facing manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines through public comments and information submitted confidentially. Chapter 12 of the preliminar y TSD includes details on the key issues identified during the preliminary MIA.

DOE identified the following key issues facing manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines :

• Customer Impacts and Performance Requirements

• Current Market Condition s

• Cumulative Regulatory Burden

• Continued Emphasis on Lighting Equipment

• Split Incentive ProblemES

- 39 • Profitability

• Small Business Impacts

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

DOE is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of this preliminary analy sis

, especially comments or data that might improve DOE’s analys e s

. DOE welcomes data or information that will respond to the following specific issues, which were raised in response to the framework document and in preparation of the preliminary TSD.

ES.4.1 Te st Procedure Issues

Concurrent with this energy standards rulemaking, DOE is undertaking a rulemaking to address amendments to its test procedures for refrigerated beverage vending machines. DOE published a NOPR announcing proposed amendme nts to the DOE refrigerated beverage vending machine test procedure. For more information on that rulemaking, please visit http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/24

DOE welcomes comments regarding the effects that the proposed test procedure changes have on the energy conservation standards rulemaking currently in progress.

ES.4.2 Technolog y Options

In its market and technology assessment, DOE identifies technologies which could be used by manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines to reduce the energy consumption of this equipment. DOE based its list of candidate technologies on the resu lts of investigation of manufacturer literature, component supplier information, research studies, and

other sources.

DOE welcomes input on additional technology options that could reduce BVM energy consumption as evaluated by the DOE beverage vending ma chine test procedure.

ES.4.3 Design Option Costs

In its engineering cost model, DOE develops manufacturer production costs by estimating the cost to produce baseline units and then adding the cost of design options incrementally up to the max

- tech level. DOE base s these costs upon information gained from teardowns, component supplier pricing, and manufacturer interviews.

DOE requests information regarding the costs associated with the design options under consideration, as well as for any technology options whic h should be considered at the NOPR

stage.ES

- 40 ES.4.4 Alternative Refrigerant System Component Cost and Performance

In its preliminary analysis, DOE included modeling of the cost and performance of transcritical carbon dioxide refrigerated beverage vending machines as part of its engineering analysis. In developing these outputs, DOE estimated the costs and performance attributes of refrigeration system components unique to these system types. DOE plans to update this analysis of transcritical carbon dioxide systems for the NOPR, and is remaining alert to actions by EPA SNAP which may allow hydrocarbon refrigerants to be used in BVM applications while removing HFCs from the list of allowable refrigerants. If such action is finalized, DOE will adjust its analysis acco rdingly to align with the choices in the refrigerant market allowed by SNAP. DOE would need additional information on the cost, performance, and availability of components specific to hydrocarbon systems should they become allowable in BVM applications.

DOE requests comment and data regarding the cost and performance of compressors , heat exchangers, and other refrigeration system components for carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon refrigeration systems in the beverage vending machine capacity range.

ES.4.5 Refurb ishment cost

DOE has adjusted cost estimates for refurbishment from the 2009 BVM Final Rule, taking into account modified discount rates. However, DOE would like clarification on whether these refurbishment costs, which DOE assumes occurs twice over the l ifetime of a BVM unit ($550 at 5 years of age, and $550 at 10 years of age), are in addition to maintenance and repair
costs that DOE assumed were $153

- 173 per year (depending on whether the machine has LED lighting as discussed in ES.4.11 below).

What are the average costs of refurbishment, as distinct from maintenance and repair costs, that refrigerated beverage vending machines incur over their lifetime?

ES.4.6 Refurbi shment efficiency improvements

DOE has observed that, in the past, refurbishment often included lighting upgrades to more efficient LED technology, resulting in a lower annual energy use of the refrigerated beverage vending machine. By 2019, DOE assumes t hat refurbishment does not result in changes in lighting technology and hence BVM efficiency remains constant over the life of the equipment.

Will refurbishment result in improvements to annual energy use in 2019 or later? If so, what is the nature of the improvements and how much is annual energy use expected to decrease?

ES.4.7 Shipments of new and refurbished refrigerated beverage vending machine s

Based on past projections from the 2009 BVM Final Rule as well as recent shipments data and stakeholder comments, DOE has assumed that shipments remain flat at 100,000 units from 2013 onward, resulting in a pronounced decrease to the national stock. Moreover, DOE assumed for the purpose of modeling that refurbished units remained in the same location asES

- 41 when they wer e first installed, so that units experience no change in electricity prices over their

lifetimes.

Should DOE continue to use an assumption of flat BVM shipments of 100,000 units per year starting in 2013? Is the approximation reasonable that refurbished units remain in the same geographic location as when they were new?

ES.4.8 Shipments by equipment class

DOE has assumed that shipments of Class A and Class B are evenly split and that shipments of the Combination Class make up only two percent of total shipments (and furthermore are evenly split between Combo

- A and Combo

- B units). In summary, DOE assumed shipments by equipment class were 49 percent Class A, 49 percent Class B, and two percent

Combination Class . Moreover, DOE did not assume any shifts in these shi pment fractions in the

future.

Are DOE’s assumptions of fixed market share shipments of equipment classes (49 percent Class A, 49 percent Class B, and 2 percent Combination Class ) reasonable?

ES.4.9 Shipments of CO 2 refrigerant

- based refrigerated beverage vendin g machines

Based on public announcements by major bottling companies and market reports, DOE

has observed that CO 2 refrigerant

- based refrigerated beverage vending machines are beginning to enter the market. By 202 0 , it assumes that half of all shipments w ill be CO 2 - based refrigerated beverage vending machines, with fixed market shares thereafter. Furthermore, DOE assumes that this same fraction applies to all equipment classes equally.

Should DOE assume that shipments of CO 2 refrigerant

- based refrigerated beverage vending machines reach 50 percent of total market share by 202 0 , and that this fraction applies equally to all equipment classes?

ES.4.10 Lifetime of refrigerated beverage vending machines

The lifetime of refrigerated beverage vending machines was revis ed since the 2009 BVM Final Rule to an average of 13.4 years, based on market research data presented in chapter 8. DOE assumed that this lifetime included any service life after refurbishment. Because lifetime

was modeled as a Weibull

- shaped survival func tion, some refrigerated beverage vending machines have lifetimes significantly shorter or longer than the average; in particular, the survival function was developed with a pronounced “tail” at longer lifetimes, so that some units

are still in use even aft er 30 years, corresponding to the maximum evaluation period of the analysis. Moreover, DOE has assumed that machines at all efficiency levels have the same

lifetime.

Is a 13.4 year average lifetime for refrigerated beverage vending machines with a Weibul l

shaped survival function a reasonable approximation of real

- world BVM lifetime behavior? Should DOE continue to assume that machines at all efficiency levels have the same lifetime?ES

- 42 ES.4.11 Repair and maintenance costs

DOE has adjusted cost estimates of repair and maintenance costs for refrigerated beverage vending machines with LED lighting as compared with equipment without LED lighting, taking into account both a longer lifetime for LED lighting and a higher LED lighting

cost relative to linear fluorescent t ube lighting. Annual repair and replacement cost is estimated to be $119 per year with LED lighting and $139 per year without LED lighting. DOE also adjusted annual preventative maintenance to $34 per year for all units based on two published reports (on e for vending machines and the other for refrigerator display cases). These repair and maintenance costs are in addition to any refurbishment costs discussed in ES.4.1

.

Are the average annual costs of repair and maintenance for refrigerated beverage vending machines with and without LED lighting and for annual preventative maintenance reasonable? Is there an appreciable fraction of repair and maintenance work done in the shop vs. in the field that would shift repair and maintenance and/or refurbishment cost assumptions?

ES.4.12 Efficiency level distributions

DOE assumed that the distribution of efficiency levels in shipments of Class A and Class

B equipment reflected the efficiencies of model availability data provided by DOE’s Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) 7 database and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of ENERGY STAR qualified equipment. 8 Moreover, DOE assumed that major bottlers, repr esenting 90 percent of shipments, will ship exclusively ENERGY STAR

compliant models corresponding to a minimum of EL1 for equipment C lass A and EL2 for equipment C lass B . F or remaining manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines,

DOE assumed o ne

- third of equipment shipped would be ENERGY STAR

- compliant . This bring s the total ENERGY STAR

- compliant market share for C lasses A and Class B equipment to 93 percent each. This ENERGY STAR market share was used to weight the data from the CCMS

and ENERG Y STAR databases to arrive at its best determination of efficiency level distributions of shipped equipment.

For Combination Class equipment

, because data on available models was unavailable,

DOE assumed tha t 100 percent of shipped equipment corresponded to the baseline energy use (EL0) determined from engineering modeling (see chapter 5). No ENERGY STAR specifications currently exist for this equipment class.

Should DOE continue to use the CCMS and ENERGY STAR model availability databases to estimate ef ficiencies of C lass A and Class B equipment shipments, weighted by an assumed ENERGY STAR compliance of 93 percent for each? Should DOE assume that 100 percent of equipment class Combination ship ments have an efficiency corresponding to baseline energy use (EL 0 )?

7 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Compliance Certification Database, http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification

data/CCMS

- 41431629825.html

. 8 Energy Star, Vending Machines for Consumers, http://www. energystar.gov/certified

products/detail/vending_machines

.ES

- 43 ES.4.13 Efficiency level trends

Based on market reports, DOE assumed that 100 percent of new shipments of Class A refrigerated beverage vending machine will have LED lighting by 2019. Furthermore, DOE assumed no change in efficiency level market share di stributions for any equipment class beyond

2019

.

Is DOE’s assumption reasonable that 100 percent of new shipments of Class A refrigerated beverage vending machines will have LED lighting by 20 19 ? Should DOE assume no change in efficiency level market share distributions for any equipment class beyond 2019?

ES.4.14 Distributions of refrigerated volumes

DOE assumed that the distribution of refrigerated volumes in shipments of equipment classes A and B reflected the refrigerated volumes of model availability data provided by the CCMS and ENERGY STAR databases (described above). An ENERGY STAR market share of 93 percent was used to weight the data from the CCMS and ENERGY STAR databases to arrive at its best determination of refrigerated volume dis tributions of shipped equipment.

For Combination Class equipment , DOE assigned 25 percent market share to each of the two refrigerated volumes of equipment it modeled for Combo

- A, and 25 percent market share to each of the two refrigerated volumes of equ ipment it modeled for Combo

- B (see chapter 5).

Should DOE continue to use the CCMS and ENERGY STAR model availability databases to estimate refrigerated volume of C lass A and Class B equipment shipments, weighted by an assumed ENERGY STAR compliance of 93 percent? For Combo

- A and Combo

- B equipment, should DOE assume that 25 percent of equipment shipped corresponds to each refrigerated

volume that DOE modeled ?

ES.4.15 Equipment price trends

DOE assumed that equipment costs were not constant, but declined accordin g to an exponential trend with time determined from historical Producer Price Index ( PPI ) data for

“ automatic merchandising machines, excluding parts ” du ring the time period of 1967 to 2013

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

. 9 This time series is the most disaggregated industry data available that includes BVM manufacturing

. T he PPI data reflect ed nominal prices, adjusted for equipment quality changes , and was inflation

- adjusted using the Gross Domestic Product

Chained Price Index for this equipment catego ry

. The resulting best fit indicated an annual price

decline rate of 1.48 percent

.

9 Series ID PCU33331833331811 . Producer Price Index Industry Data, http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=pc

.ES

- 44 Should DOE apply an exponential price decline trend based on PPI data for “automatic merchandising machines, excluding parts” during the time period of 1967 to 2013, to its future estimates of equipment prices of refrigerated beverage vending machines?

ES.4.16 Indoor/outdoor fraction and energy use of outdoor units

DOE used data on the locations of approximately 700 refrigerated beverage vending machines from six U.S. college campuses to determine that the fraction of outdoor use is approximately 16 percent, which is a reduction from the 25 percent used in the 2009 B VM Final Rule. To determine outdoor energy use, DOE fit a regression to the detailed engineering analysis it performed for the 2009 BVM Final Rule to determine scaling factors between daily energy consumption (DEC) according to DOE tests and annual energy consumption (AEC). These scaling factors were further adjusted by state to account for meteorological and climatic variation across the United States. This data, in combination with the outdoor fraction of refrigerated beverage vending machines, was used t o determine an overall scaling factor between DEC and AEC for Class B refrigerated beverage vending machines.

Should DOE rely on data from six U.S. college campuses to determine that the fraction of outdoor use is approximately 16 percent, and should it f urther use regressions based on 2009 BVM Final Rule engineering analysis results to scale daily energy consumption (from DOE test data) to annual energy consumption, taking into account state

- by

- state adjustment factors?

ES.4.17 BVM Purchasers and Users

DOE has assumed for the purpose of modeling that the same party who pays the equipment costs also pays the energy, repair and maintenance costs. DOE recognizes that this arrangement is not always the case in real world situations, but assumes that the increased co st of

the more

- efficient BVM equipment can be passed on to the party that pays the energy costs.

What are the financial arrangements between BVM owners and the party that pays for the energy costs? Is it a reasonable assumption that the increased cost o f the more

- efficient BVM equipment can be passed on to the party that pays the energy costs?

ES.4.18 Technologies for Low

- Power Modes

In chapter 2, DOE noted that a stakeholder ( Royal ) commented that third parties sell

timers and rela ted devices that reduce ener gy consumption in low

- or non

- use periods by turning

off the refrigerated beverage vending machine (see chapter 2). DOE has included l ow

- power lighting and refrigeration technology options that would affect energy use based on the T est

P rocedure NOPR curr ently in draft. Third

- party accessories , however, are not include d in the cost efficiency curves, and were not considered in the energy use analysis.

DOE welcomes data from stakeholders on technologies that may reduce energy consumption through low

- power modes.