ES-i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT DOCUMENT ....................................................................................................3

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS ...............................................................................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 Manufacturing 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 Manufacturer 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 Shipments of new and refurbished refrigerated beverage vending machines........40

ES.4.8 Shipments by equipment class...............................................................................41

ES.4.9 Shipments of CO2 refrigerant-based refrigerated beverage vending 

machines ................................................................................................................41

ES.4.10 Lifetime of refrigerated beverage vending machines ............................................41

ES.4.11 Repair and maintenance costs................................................................................42

ES.4.12 Efficiency 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.....................................................................44
ES-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 Vending 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 CO2 ............................................16

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

Distribution for Class A CO2 ...........................................................................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 CO2.............................................19

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

Distribution for Class B CO2 ...........................................................................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 CO2 .........................................23

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

Distribution for Combo-A CO2........................................................................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 CO2 .........................................26

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

Distribution for Combo-B CO2 ........................................................................26

Table ES.3.21 Equipment Class A: Cumulative NES Full-Fuel-Cycle Results (quads).........31

Table ES.3.22 Equipment Class B: Cumulative NES Full-Fuel-Cycle Results (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-Percent 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 ..................................................................................................................35
ES-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 Present 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

Figure ES 3.5 Class A CO2 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 ................................................................................29
ES-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)) This 

executive summary provides an overview of the preliminary analysis activities conducted by

DOE as part of the current rulemaking to set energy conservation standards for refrigerated 

beverage vending machines and summarizes key results. Additionally, this executive summary 

delineates issues identified during the analyses about which DOE seeks comments from 

interested parties. Those issues are also highlighted in the public meeting presentation and are 

discussed further in chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD.

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 core analyses are outlined 

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 

process, 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, interested 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 Process
ES-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 materials 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 analyses in detail, providing descriptions 

of inputs, 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 analytical 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 rulemaking.

• 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 determine 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 analysis 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 analysis 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 likely 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 customer 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 remaining 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 subgroups 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 likely 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 standards on national employment.

• Chapter 17: A regulatory impact analysis examines the national impacts of nonregulatory alternatives to mandatory 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 machines.

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

When initiating an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE obtains information 

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 nonregulatory initiatives to improve the efficiency of the equipment, 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 based on the type of energy used, by equipment capacity, or by another 

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 considering 
ES-5

maintaining the equipment classes from the 2009 BVM Final Rule, 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 Any refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine not 

considered to be Class A, and is not a combination vending machine

Combination

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 encompass 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, technical papers, and manufacturer literature). This list 

includes 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 heaters

• 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 impacts on health and safety. In the 
ES-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 also 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 procedure 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 this 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 analysis:

• 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 nation. Chapter 5 describes the equipment classes DOE analyzed, the 

representative baseline 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 standards for all 

equipment classes covered in the rulemaking, including Class A, Class B, and a Combination

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 Combination Class 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. 

These analyses were 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 (CO2) refrigerant, the other major refrigerant approved 
ES-7

for use in refrigerated beverage vending applications by EPA SNAP1 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 selection 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 Manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 energy 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 manufacturer-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 would 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, based 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 costefficiency curves varying in size and refrigerant. The cost-efficiency curves for all 20 analyses 

can be found in chapter 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 5.500

Manufacturer 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 5.000

Manufacturer Selling Price

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Class B Size Medium Engineering Analysis 

Curves - HFC and CO2

R-134a

Carbon Dioxide
ES-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 engineering 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 manufacturers, 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 sales tax to the estimated retail prices. Table ES.3.2

summarizes the markups developed for refrigerated beverage vending machines. 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 6.500

Manufacturer Selling Price

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Combo-A R-134a Engineering Analysis 

Curves

Medium

Large
ES-10

Table ES.3.2 Summary of Markups for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

Distribution 

Channel

Manufacturer  Bottler/Distributor Manufacturer  Wholesaler 

Operator/Site Owner

Baseline Markup Incremental

Markup Baseline Markup IncrementalMarkup

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 conditions, 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 machines, 

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 test 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 Class A and Combo-A, and a portion of Class 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 located 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 machines 

in 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 statespecific 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 Class B and Combo-B are weighted averages of the 

values for indoor and outdoor units. CO2-based refrigerant refrigerated beverage vending 

machines were assumed to have the same baseline energy use as the corresponding HFC-based 

vending machines, and that scaling factors for outdoor environments were also assumed to be 
ES-11

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

CO2-based refrigerant refrigerated beverage vending machines.

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 Classes A and B 

Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

Class A (29.6 cu. ft.) Class B (23.4 cu. ft.)

Efficiency level

Percentage of

baseline energy 

use

Annual energy 

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Percentage of

baseline energy 

use

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 (CO2)

869 (HFC)

900 (CO2) 55 944

EL10 50 858

EL11 49 (HFC only) 841
ES-12

Table ES.3.4 Annual Energy Consumption for Combination Class Refrigerated 

Beverage Vending Machines

Combo-A

(Refrigerated Volume: 10.3 cu. ft.)

Combo-B

(Refrigerated Volume: 4.3 cu. ft.)

Efficiency 

level

Percentage of

baseline energy 

use

Annual energy 

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Percentage of

baseline energy 

use

Annual energy 

consumption

(kWh/yr)

EL0 

(Baseline) 100 2222 100 1718

EL1 90 2000 90 1546

EL2 80 1778 80 1374

EL3 70 1556 70 1203

EL4 60 1333 60 1031

EL5 55 1222 55 945

EL6 50 1111 50 859

EL7 45 1000 45 773

EL8 40 889 41 704

EL9 35 778

EL10 30 667

EL11 29 644

ES.3.6 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

New energy conservation standards for equipment result in changes in customer

operating expenses, which usually decrease, and changes in customer equipment prices, which 

usually increase. DOE analyzed the net effect of new standards on customers by evaluating the 

LCC using the cost-efficiency relationship derived in the engineering analysis, as well as the 

energy 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 operating-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 were 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” during the time period of 1967 to 2013
ES-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 machines 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 costs 

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 

beverage vending machines 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 these prices by the forecast of annual average price changes in EIA’s 

2014 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. The analysis yielded an 

average beverage vending machine lifetime of 13.4 years. DOE has assumed that machines at all 

efficiency levels have the same lifetime.

To estimate the share of customers that would be affected by a standard at a particular 

efficiency level, DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis considered the projected distribution (i.e., market 

shares) of equipment efficiencies that customers 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 Class A and Class 

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

Certification 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 STARcompliant models corresponding to a minimum of EL1 for Class A equipment and EL2 for Class 

B equipment. For remaining manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines, DOE 

assumed 30 percent of equipment shipped would be ENERGY STAR-compliant, bringing the 

total ENERGY STAR-compliant market share for Class 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 distributions of 

shipped equipment.

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

DOE assumed that 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 an equipment efficiency that is greater than or 

equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation would 

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

Table ES.3.5 through 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 CO2 refrigerants.

Chapter 8 provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the LCC 

and PBP analyses.

 3 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Compliance Certification Database, http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/CCMS-41431629825.html. 4 Energy Star, Vending Machines for Consumers, http://www.energystar.gov/certifiedproducts/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 Efficiency 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 customers with zero LCC savings (no impact).
ES-16

Table ES.3.7 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class A CO2

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 CO2

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 0 104

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 customers 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

% of 

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 customers with zero LCC savings (no impact).
ES-19

Table ES.3.11 Average LCC and PBP Results for Class B CO2

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 CO2

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 customers 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 customers with zero LCC savings (no impact).
ES-23

Table ES.3.15 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo-A CO2

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 Efficiency Distribution 

for Combo-A CO2

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 customers 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 customers with zero LCC savings (no impact).
ES-26

Table ES.3.19 Average LCC and PBP Results for Combo-B CO2

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 CO2

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 customers with zero LCC savings (no impact).
ES-27

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

DOE conducts shipment 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 data is available on shipments for refrigerated beverage 

vending machines. To conduct the shipments analysis, DOE used past 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 shipments have been 

relatively stable over the period for which data was 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 Class A and Class B equipment are evenly split, and 

that shipments of the Combination 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 Class A, 49 percent Class B, and two percent Combination Classes. 

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

DOE has observed that CO2 refrigerant-based refrigerated beverage vending machines 

have entered the market. Based on recent market reports, DOE assumes that Class B CO2

shipments are currently higher than Class A. By 2020, DOE assumes that half of all shipments in 

each equipment class will be CO2-based refrigerated beverage vending machines, with fixed 

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

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

EPA SNAP program5. In July 2014, EPA issued two notices of proposed rulemakings. One of 

these proposed to ban the use of certain HFC refrigerants in beverage vending machines 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 

rulemakings 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 3.5show the forecasted shipments for Class A HFC and CO2

at the 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 CO2, which shows an increase. DOE expects this market 

shift to occur even in the absence of amended standards. Amended standards are projected to 

cause a slight decrease in shipments. The forecasted shipments for Class 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_versionsigned_7-9-2014.pdf.
ES-28

decrease in shipments at the two highest efficiency levels for the two equipment Class Combo-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 Combo-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

27

Shipments (thousands)

Base Case

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

EL7

EL8

EL9
ES-29

Figure ES 3.5 Class A CO2 Shipments Forecasts for the Base Case and Considered ELs

Figure ES 3.6 Class Combination Combo-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 machines. 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

25

Shipments (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

0.54

Shipments (thousands)

Base Case

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

EL7

EL8

EL9

EL10

EL11
ES-30

difference between value of energy savings and increased total installed costs). 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. 

The trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the base case (without 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 

distributions over the forecast period. For its determination 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 efficiencies in the base case that did not meet the standard level 

under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level in 2019. 

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 site 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 conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 

51281. FFC energy savings are included in these results.

The NES FFC results for Class A and Class B equipment 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 CO2 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 NES Full-Fuel-Cycle Results (quads)

Efficiency Level HFC CO2 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 0.0401
ES-32

Table ES.3.23 Equipment Combination Class: Cumulative NES Full-Fuel-Cycle Results 

(10-3 quads)

Efficiency 

Level Combo-A HFC Combo-A CO2 Combo-B HFC Combo-B CO2 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 forecast period. The NPV is 

the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of 

increased total installed costs. In accordance with guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on regulatory 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 Beverage Vending Machines, 3-Percent Discount Rate

Efficiency 

Level HFC CO2 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 -0.0535
ES-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 CO2 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 -0.0929
ES-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 CO2 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 -0.0572
ES-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 CO2 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 -0.0597
ES-37

Table ES.3.28 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment 

Combination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 3-Percent 

Discount Rate

Efficiency 

Level Combo-A HFC Combo-A CO2

Combo-B 

HFC

Combo-B 

CO2

Total

million 2013 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 20.29
ES-38

Table ES.3.29 Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Equipment 

Combination Class Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 7-Percent 

Discount Rate

Efficiency 

Level

Combo-A 

HFC

Combo-A 

CO2

Combo-B 

HFC

Combo-B 

CO2

Total

million 2013 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 conducts the preliminary MIA in three phases and further tailors 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 preliminary 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 Conditions

• Cumulative Regulatory Burden

• Continued Emphasis on Lighting Equipment

• Split Incentive Problem
ES-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 analysis,

especially comments or data that might improve DOE’s analyses. 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 Test 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 amendments 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 Technology 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 results 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 machine 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 bases 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 which 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 accordingly 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 Refurbishment 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 lifetime 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 Refurbishment 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 that 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 machines

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 as 
ES-41

when they were 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 shipment 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 CO2 refrigerant-based refrigerated beverage vending machines

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

has observed that CO2 refrigerant-based refrigerated beverage vending machines are beginning 

to enter the market. By 2020, it assumes that half of all shipments will be CO2-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 CO2 refrigerant-based refrigerated beverage vending 

machines reach 50 percent of total market share by 2020, 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 revised 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 function, 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 after 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 Weibullshaped 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 tube 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 (one 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, representing 90 percent of shipments, will ship exclusively ENERGY STARcompliant models corresponding to a minimum of EL1 for equipment Class A and EL2 for 

equipment Class B. For remaining manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines, 

DOE assumed one-third of equipment shipped would be ENERGY STAR-compliant. This brings

the total ENERGY STAR-compliant market share for Classes 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 distributions 

of shipped equipment.

For Combination Class equipment, because data on available models was unavailable,

DOE assumed that 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 efficiencies of Class 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 shipments have an efficiency corresponding to baseline energy use

(EL0)?

 7 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Compliance Certification Database, http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/CCMS-41431629825.html. 8 Energy Star, Vending Machines for Consumers, http://www.energystar.gov/certifiedproducts/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 distributions 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 2019? 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 distributions 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 equipment 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 Class 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 according to an 

exponential trend with time determined from historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for 

“automatic merchandising machines, excluding parts” during 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. The PPI data reflected nominal prices, adjusted for 

equipment quality changes, and was inflation-adjusted using the Gross Domestic Product 

Chained Price Index for this equipment category. 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 BVM 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 to 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 further 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 cost 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 of 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 related devices that reduce energy consumption in low- or non-use periods by turning 

off the refrigerated beverage vending machine (see chapter 2). DOE has included low-power 

lighting and refrigeration technology options that would affect energy use based on the Test 

Procedure NOPR currently in draft. Third-party accessories, however, are not included 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.