CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED

.......................................................................... 5-1 5.3 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

.................................................................................... 5-4 5.4 COST MODEL

................................................................................................................ 5 -6 5.4.1 Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions

................................ 5-6 5.4.2 Structure of the Cost Model Spreadsheet

............................................................. 5-8 5.4.3 Material Prices

..................................................................................................... 5-9 5.4.4 Results

.................................................................................................................. 5-9 5.5 MANUFACTURER MARKUP AND LIST PRICE MARKUP

................................... 5-13 5.6 ENERGY CONSUMPT ION MODEL

.......................................................................... 5-14 5.6.1 Screened-In Technologies

.................................................................................. 5-14 5.6.2 Screened-In Technologies Not Consider ed in the Engineering Analysis

.......... 5-15 5.6.2.1 Remote Lighting Ballast Location

......................................................... 5-15 5.6.2.2 Evaporator Fan Motor Controllers

......................................................... 5-15 5.6.2.3 Higher Efficiency Evaporator and Condenser Fan Blades

.................... 5-16 5.6.2.4 Improved Insulation

............................................................................... 5-16 5.6.2.5 Low-Pressure Differential Evaporators

................................................. 5-17 5.6.2.6 Defrost Cycle Control

............................................................................ 5-17 5.6.2.7 Defrost Mechanisms

.............................................................................. 5-17 5.6.3 Design Options

................................................................................................... 5-17 5.6.3.1 Higher Efficiency Lighting and Ballasts

................................................ 5-18 5.6.3.2 Higher Efficiency Evap orator Fan Motors

............................................ 5-20 5.6.3.3 Increased Evaporator Surface Area

....................................................... 5-21 5.6.3.4 Increased Insulation Thickness

.............................................................. 5-22 5.6.3.5 Improved Doors

..................................................................................... 5-23 5.6.3.6 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors

............................................. 5-25 5.6.3.7 Increased Condenser Surface Area

........................................................ 5-25 5.6.3.8 Higher Efficiency Compressors

............................................................. 5-26 5.6.4 Baseline Specifications

...................................................................................... 5-27 5.6.5 Non-Numerical Assumptions

............................................................................. 5-28 5.6.6 Numerical Constants and Assumptions

............................................................. 5-30 5.6.7 Model Components

............................................................................................ 5-31 5.6.7.1 Component Energy Consumption

.......................................................... 5-32 5.6.7.2 Compressor Energy Consumption

......................................................... 5-33 5.6.7.3 Component Load Model

........................................................................ 5-34 5.6.7.4 Radiation Load Model

........................................................................... 5-35 5.6.7.5 Conduction Load Model

........................................................................ 5-36 5.6.7.6 Infiltration Load Model

.......................................................................... 5-37 5.7 COST-EFFICIENCY CURVES

.................................................................................... 5-38 5.8 OFFSET FACTORS

...................................................................................................... 5-55 5.9 EXTENSION OF STANDARDS

.................................................................................. 5-57

5-i5.9.1 Extension Multipliers

......................................................................................... 5-58 5.10 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

......................................................................................... 5-61 5.10.1 Material Price Sensitivity

................................................................................... 5-61 5.10.2 Alternative Refrigerants

..................................................................................... 5-62 5.11 RESULTS

................................................................................................................... ... 5-63 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................................... ..... 5-64

LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.2.1 Shipment Data and Equipment Classes Analyzed

.................................................. 5-3

Table 5.6.1 Details for Lighting for VOP, S VO, HZO, and SOC Equipment Families Design

Table 5.6.7 Details for Doors for VCT Equipmen t Family, Low Temperature Design Option.. 5­
Table 5.6.8 Details for Doors for VCT Equipm ent Family, Medium Temperature Design Option
Table 5.6.9 Details for “Doors for HCT Equipm ent Family, Ice-Cream Temperature” Design
Table 5.6.10 Details for Doors for SOC Equi pment Family, Medium Temperature Design

Table 5.6.15 Summary of Changes to Infiltration Load Calculation in the NOPR and Final Rule Table 5.2.2 Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis

.................................... 5-4 Table 5.4.1 Major Manufacturing Processes

............................................................................. 5-9 Table 5.4.2 Extension of Cost Model Estim ates to Other Equipment Classes

........................ 5-13
Option

......................................................................................................................... ............... 5-20 Table 5.6.2 Details for Lighting for VC T Equipment Family Design Option

......................... 5-20 Table 5.6.3 Details for Evaporat or Fan Motor Design Option

................................................ 5-21 Table 5.6.4 Details for Evapor ator Coil Design Option

.......................................................... 5-21 Table 5.6.5 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Evaporator Coil

........................................ 5-22 Table 5.6.6 Insulation Thickne ss Increase Assumptions

......................................................... 5-23

24

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

......................................................................................................................... ............... 5-25
Option

......................................................................................................................... ............... 5-25 Table 5.6.11 Details for “Increased C ondenser Surface Area” Design Option

........................ 5-26 Table 5.6.12 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Condenser Coil

........................................ 5-26 Table 5.6.13 Baseline Specifications

........................................................................................ 5- 28 Table 5.6.14 Energy Consumption Model Numerical Constants and Assumptions

................. 5-31

............................................................................................................................... ..................... 5-38 Table 5.7.1 Figure, Table, and Page Numbers for Cost -Efficiency Results

............................ 5-39 Table 5.7.2 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

.................................. 5-40 Table 5.7.3 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

................................. 5-41 Table 5.7.4 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class

................................. 5-42 Table 5.7.5 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class

.................................. 5-43 Table 5.7.6 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class

................................. 5-44 Table 5.7.7 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class

................................. 5-45 Table 5.7.8 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class

.................................. 5-46 Table 5.7.9 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class

................................. 5-47 Table 5.7.10 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class

................................ 5-48 Table 5.7.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for the SVO.SC.M Equipment Class

................................ 5-49

5-ii59 Table 5.7.12 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class

................................. 5-50 Table 5.7.13 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class

................................ 5-51 Table 5.7.14 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class

................................... 5-52 Table 5.7.15 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class

................................... 5-53 Table 5.7.16 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class

................................... 5-54 Table 5.8.1 Offset Factors

................................................................................................... ..... 5-57 Table 5.9.1 Extension Multipliers for Remote and Self-Contained Equipment Without Doors . 5­
Table 5.9.2 Extension Multipli ers by Equipment Class

.......................................................... 5-61

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5.3.1 Flow Diagram of Engineering Methodology

......................................................... 5-5 Figure 5.4.1 Components of Manuf acturer Production Cost

...................................................... 5-7 Figure 5.4.2 Manufacturer Production Cost Assessment Stages

................................................ 5-8 Figure 5.4.3 Part Count by Equipm ent Class and Subsystem

................................................... 5-10 Figure 5.4.4 Weight by Equipmen t Class and Subsystem

........................................................ 5-11 Figure 5.4.5 Manufacturer Production Cost by Equipment Class and Subsystem

................... 5-12 Figure 5.6.1 Components of the En ergy Consumption Model

................................................. 5-32 Figure 5.7.1 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

............................... 5-40 Figure 5.7.2 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

.............................. 5-41 Figure 5.7.3 Cost-Efficiency Curves fo r the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class

............................. 5-42 Figure 5.7.4 Cost-Efficiency Curves fo r the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class

.............................. 5-43 Figure 5.7.5 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class

.............................. 5-44 Figure 5.7.6 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class

.............................. 5-45 Figure 5.7.7 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class

............................... 5-46 Figure 5.7.8 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class

............................... 5-47 Figure 5.7.9 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class

............................... 5-48 Figure 5.7.10 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SVO.SC.M Equipment Class

............................. 5-49 Figure 5.7.11 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class

.............................. 5-50 Figure 5.7.12 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class

............................. 5-51 Figure 5.7.13 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class

............................... 5-52 Figure 5.7.14 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class

............................... 5-53 Figure 5.7.15 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class

............................... 5-54 Figure 5.8.1 Illustratio n of Offset Factor

................................................................................ 5-55 Figure 5.9.1 Illustration of Exte nsion of Standard Level

........................................................ 5-58 Figure 5.10.1 Material Pri ce Sensitivity for the VOP.R C.M Equipment Class

........................ 5-62

5-iii5-ivCHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The engineering analysis establishes the re lationship between manu facturer production cost and energy consumption for the commercial re frigeration equipment (CRE) covered in this rulemaking. This equipment includes commercial ice-cream freezers; se lf-contained commercial refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commerc ial refrigerator-freez ers without doors; and remote condensing commercial refrigerators, co mmercial freezers, and commercial refrigeratorfreezers. The “cost-efficiency” relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations in terms of individual customers, ma nufacturers, and the Nation. In determining this relationship, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimate s the increase in manufacturer production cost (MPC) associated with technologi cal changes that reduce the ener gy consumption of the baseline models.
The primary inputs to the engine ering analysis are baseline in formation and data for each equipment class addressed in the market and technology assessment (Chapter 3) and technology options from the screening anal ysis (Chapter 4). Additional inputs include cost and energy consumption data that DOE estimated using a cost model and an energy-consumption model, respectively. The primary output of the engineeri ng analysis is a set of cost-efficiency curves (both analytically derived and industry-supplied curves), and a manufacturer markup used to convert MPC to manufacturer selling price (MSP). In the subsequent markups analysis (Chapter 6), DOE determines customer prices by applying distribution markups, sale s tax, and contractor markups. After applying these markups, the data serve as inputs to the building energy-use and end-use load characterization (Cha pter 7) and the life-cycle cost and payback period analyses (Chapter 8).
This chapter discusses the equipment classe s DOE analyzed, representative baseline units, sensitivity to material prices, and use of a lternative refrigerants. The chapter also covers the methodology DOE used to develop MPC, estimate energy consumption and cost-efficiency curves, and extend the analysis to lo w-shipment volume equipment classes.

5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED
In the advance notice of proposed rulemaki ng (ANOPR) engineering analysis, DOE did not directly analyze all covere d equipment classes. This methodology has been maintained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and the final rule engineering analysis. DOE used the shipment data presented in the market and technology assessment (recreated in Table 5.2.1) to prioritize the analysis by elim inating equipment classes with fewer than 100 annual shipments. DOE analyzed the 14 remaining high-shipment volume equipment classes. One additional

5-1equipment class, the VOP.RC.L equipment cl ass, was added after discussions with manufacturers. a
According to Air-Conditioning and Refrigerat ion Institute (ARI) equipment shipments data, these 15 equipment classes represent 98 pe rcent of the shipments of covered commercial refrigeration equipment. Table 5.2.2 shows the 15 equipment classes (out of 38 total) DOE analyzed in the engineering an alysis, organized by equipment family, condensing unit type, and rating temperature.

a Product class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order separated by periods) of product family code (VOP=vertical open, SVO=semivertical open, HZO=horizontal open, VCT=vertical transparent doors, VCS=vertical solid doors, HCT=horizo ntal transparent doors, HCS=horizont al solid doors, or SOC=service over counter), operating mode code (RC=remote condensing or SC=self-contained), and rating temperature code (M=medium temperature (38°F), L=low te mperature (0°F), or I=ice-cream temperature (-15°F)). For example, “VOP.RC.M” refers to the “vertical open, remote condensing, medium temperature” product class. See Chapter 3, market and technology assessment, for a more detailed explanation of the product class terminology.

5-2Table 5.2.1 Shipment Data and Equipment Classes Analyzed Equipment

Family Designation Condensing Unit Type Designation Rating Temperature Designation Equipment Class Designation* ARI Shipments**

VOP RC M (38°F) VOP.RC.M 38,743 L (0°F) VOP.RC.L† 0† I (-15°F) VOP.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) VOP.SC.M 6,512 L (0°F) VOP.SC.L 0 I (-15°F) VOP.SC.I 0

SVO RC M (38°F) SVO.RC.M 29,552 L (0°F) SVO.RC.L 0 I (-15°F) SVO.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) SVO.SC.M 9,750 L (0°F) SVO.SC.L 0 I (-15°F) SVO.SC.I 0

HZO RC M (38°F) HZO.RC.M 4,541 L (0°F) HZO.RC.L 14,278 I (-15°F) HZO.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) HZO.SC.M 838 L (0°F) HZO.SC.L 1,738 I (-15°F) HZO.SC.I 0

VCT RC M (38°F) VCT.RC.M 2,767 L (0°F) VCT.RC.L 38,483 I (-15°F) VCT.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) VCT.SC.M‡ 43,374‡ L (0°F) VCT.SC.L‡ 2,472‡ I (-15°F) VCT.SC.I 1,898

VCS RC M (38°F) VCS.RC.M 49 L (0°F) VCS.RC.L 2 I (-15°F) VCS.RC.I 43

SC M (38°F) VCS.SC.M‡ 4‡ L (0°F) VCS.SC.L‡ 4,202‡ I (-15°F) VCS.SC.I 470

HCT RC M (38°F) HCT.RC.M 0 L (0°F) HCT.RC.L 15 I (-15°F) HCT.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) HCT.SC.M‡ 724‡ L (0°F) HCT.SC.L‡ 0‡ I (-15°F) HCT.SC.I 9,056

HCS RC M (38°F) HCS.RC.M 37 L (0°F) HCS.RC.L 0 I (-15°F) HCS.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) HCS.SC.M‡ 39,761‡ L (0°F) HCS.SC.L‡ 4,109‡ I (-15°F) HCS.SC.I 0

SOC RC M (38°F) SOC.RC.M 9,312 L (0°F) SOC.RC.L 9 I (-15°F) SOC.RC.I 0

SC M (38°F) SOC.SC.M‡ 1,108‡ L (0°F) SOC.SC.L‡ 0‡ I (-15°F) SOC.SC.I 0

* Equipment classes that DOE directly analyzed are shown in bold font. **Source: ARI, No. 7 Exhibit B at p. 1. † Based on discussions with manufacturers, the VOP.R C.L equipment class was added to the analysis. ‡ These equipment classes have standards established by En ergy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) and are therefore not covered under this rulemaking.

5-3Table 5.2.2 Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis Equipment

Family Remote Condensing Self-Contained
Medium Low Ice Cream Medium Low Ice Cream
Without

Doors VOP 3 3 3 SVO 3 3 HZO 3 3 3 3

With Doors VCT 3 3 * 3 VCS 3 HCT 3 HCS SOC 3
3 Full analysis conducted.

* Shaded boxes indicate that these equipment classes have standards established by EPACT 2005 and are therefore not considered in this rulemaking. The engineering analysis considered refrig erators (medium temper ature), freezers (low temperature), and ice-cream freezers (ice-cream te mperature) individually, but did not consider refrigerator-freezers directly (combinations of compartments at different temperatures). Although DOE did not explicitly analyze refrigerato r-freezers in the engineering analysis, it did develop a method to combine the standards for re frigerators, freezers, and ice-cream freezers to create standards for refrigerator-freezers. Because of the similari ties in construction, components, and features, DOE believes refrigerat or-freezers have a cost-efficiency relationship comparable to refrigerators and freezers. Thus DOE assumed that standards developed separately for refrigerators and freezers can be a pplied to refrigerator-freezers. The final rule Federal Register notice describes in detail the met hodology used to combine standards for refrigerators and freezers into standards for refrigerator-freezers.

5.3 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
This section describes the analytical methodology DOE used in the engineering analysis. In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a design-op tion approach. For all 15 equipment classes directly analyzed, DOE used th e analytically derived curves developed using a design-option approach in the downstream analyses. ARI provi ded four industry-supplie d curves for the four highest shipment volume equipment classe s (VCT.RC.L, VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L). These curves were used as a ch eck against the four corresponding curves DOE developed to allow DOE and stak eholders to verify the validity of the engineering model.
Figure 5.3.1 shows a flow diagram of that me thodology and the corresponding sections in this chapter, starting with mode ls and sub-analyses on the left, and ending with results on the right. DOE developed the cost and energy-consump tion models in the engineering analysis. The sub-analyses are the markups analysis and the matched pair analysis. The results of the engineering analysis are 15 analyt ically derived cost-efficiency curves (four of which have been validated by industry-supplied curves ), and two sensitivity analyses.

5-4Cost Model (section 5.4) 15 AnalyticallyDerived CostEfficiency

Curves (CDEC versus MPC)

Sensitivity Analyses (section 5.10) 15 AnalyticallyDerived CostEfficiency

Curves (CDEC versus MSP) ( section 5.7)

Offset Factors

( section 5.8 )

Extension Factors ( section 5.9)4 IndustrySupplied Cost Efficiency Curves* (CDEC versus MLP ) Energy Consumption Model (section 5.6)

Markups Analysis (section 5.5)

Extension Analysis (section 5.9) 15 AnalyticallyDerived CostEfficiency

Curves (CDEC versus MSP)

CDEC = Calculated Daily Energy Consumption LIST = List price MPC = Manufacturer Production Cost MSP = Manufacturer Selling Price

* VCT.RC.L, VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC.M, HZO.RC.L

Figure 5.3.1 Flow Diagram of Engineering Methodology

The foundation of the engineering analysis is the 15 curves DOE developed. These analytically derived curves we re developed using a design opti on analysis on the selected 15 equipment classes. In the markups analysis , DOE developed a markup between manufacturer production cost MPC and MSP. DOE used this markup to convert the MPC (developed in the cost model) to MSP for comparison to the industry-supplied curves.
DOE used the data submitted by ARI to check its engineering analysis. ARI submitted four cost-efficiency curves developed using an efficiency-level approach in the form of calculated daily energy consumption (CDEC) vers us manufacturer list price (MLP). These industry-supplied curves were for the VC T.RC.L, VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC.M, and HZO.RC.L equipment classes. As part of the markups analysis, DOE estimated the average industry discount from MLP to MSP (the li st price discount). DOE used this discount to convert the industry-supplied curves into CDEC versus MSP.
As explained in section 5.2, some equipment classes have very low or no shipments and were not included in the direct analysis. To develop standards for these equipment classes, DOE developed extension factors for 23 low shipment volume classes using anal ytical correlations. Section 5.8 explains this methodology.

5-5DOE developed offset factors fo r the engineering analysis as a way to correct standards for smaller-sized equipment. Because cost-effici ency curves were typically developed for large equipment sizes ( e.g., a 12-foot VOP.RC.M case or a 5- door VCT.RC.L case), the resulting standard equations could be unfair to smaller-sized cases. In gene ral, the loads a particular case is subject to do not go to zero as the size of the case is decrea sed. Certain components of the refrigeration load (such as the conduction end eff ects) remain constant. These constant loads affect smaller cases disproportiona tely. Offset factors are intende d to approximate these constant loads and provide a second end point for the line that will become the standard equation (the first end point being one of the values of energy consumption determined in the engineering analysis). Section 5.8 describes the methodology DOE used to develop offset factors.
The primary results of the engineering analysis are a set of cost-efficiency curves, in the form of MSP versus CDEC, for 15 equipment classe s. For four of these equipment classes, the DOE cost-efficiency curves are validated by the industry-supplied curves. The secondary results of the engineering analysis are two sensitivity analyses, a set of offset factors, and a set of extension factors. One sensitivity analysis deals with commodity pr ices performed on the VOP.RC.M cost-efficiency curve. The other is a se nsitivity analysis of alternative refrigerants. The offset factors will be used in formulating standards equations, while the extension factors will be used to extend standards developed for the 15 primary equipment classes to the remaining 23 equipment classes.

5.4 COST MODEL

DOE used a cost model to estimate the MPC of commercial refrigeration equipment. This approach involved disassembling a unit from the VCT.SC.M equipment class, analyzing the materials and manufacturing proces ses, and developing a parametric spreadsheet model flexible enough to cover all equipment classes. The manufacturing cost model estimated MPC and reported it in aggregated form to maintain conf identiality of sensitive cost data. DOE obtained input from stakeholders on the MPC estimates an d assumptions to confirm accuracy. The cost model was applied directly to 7 of the 15 cove red equipment classes, and the results were extended to 6 of the remaining equipment classes. The cost of remaining two equipment classes was estimated using available MLP information discounted to MPC.

5.4.1 Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions
Manufacturer production cost is the sum of direct labor, di rect material, and overhead (including investment depreciati on). Other non-production cost elem ents include selling, general and administrative, research and development, a nd interest. Together, these costs make up the MPC, shown in Figure 5.4.1.

5-6Manufacturer Production Cost (MPC)

Full Production Cost Non-Production Cost

Interest Research &

Development General &

Administrative Selling Overhead Direct Material Direct Labor

Figure 5.4.1 Components of Manufacturer Production Cost
The cost of specific models

― or costs to individual manufacturers

― will vary, depending on the equipment’s precise characteristics, the actual manufacturing processes, the equipment mix in the factory, and other elements. There are also considerable differences in the levels of vertical integration (companies with a large market share and/or revenue base tend to be more vertically integrated than their sm aller competitors) that affect cost structure and thus the cost of equipment. Yet, potentially all manufacturers buy at least some of their parts and/or subsystems from outside vendors.
The CRE market includes producers that span the range from mass-customized equipment to tailored, one-off fabr icators. Most equipment listed in catalogs uses platforms that are then customized to meet the particular n eeds of customers. Depending on the manufacturer and the degree of customization, e ngineering costs can thus represen t a significant portion of the MPC.
DOE made a number of simplifying assumptions to reflect common industry practice. For example, DOE assumed that the cabinets for the VCT equipment family are made in-house, but the entire door system (frames, doors, frame heaters, lights, ball asts, etc.) is purchased as an assembled sub-system from a door manufacturer. Further, DOE assumed that completed heat exchanger assemblies, fan motors and blades, or compressor sleds for self-contained units are also purchased as completed sub-systems that ne ed to be integrated into the finished case.
Since there was only one equipment teardow n from which to draw data regarding manufacturing practices, DOE built a parametric m odel that allowed the scaling of most input factors. The assumptions behind the model are based on published data by manufacturers, general industry practice (based on site vis its), manufacturer interviews, and previously published DOE reports. DOE compared the model re sults to published unit da ta, list prices, and stakeholders comments. For example, DOE compared listed shipping weights with the calculated weights for cabinets and doors.
The lack of detailed teardowns for every equipment class and the varying degrees of vertical integration in the industry make cal culating representative i nvestment requirements difficult. Not only does the market share vary for each manufacturer across every equipment class, the scale of operations al so varies greatly. It is also quite li kely that high-volume

5-7Bill of
Materials Processes Assembly
Processes Purchased Parts manufacturers derive a cost advantage ba sed on their purchasing volume for common raw materials and purchased parts alike. Lacking de tailed data, DOE did not try to account for lowversus high-volume purchasing power.
DOE updated the cost model in engineering an alysis to reflect im proved understanding of the various cost components that make up the fu ll manufacturing production cost. This included changes to the calculation of factory overhead, depreciation, and indirect labor.

5.4.2 Structure of the Cost Model Spreadsheet
DOE used a detailed, component-focused ma nufacturing cost assessment methodology to estimate the MPC of each equipment class analyzed in the cost model, taking into account, for example, direct materials, direct labor, and factory overhead costs. Figure 5.4.2 shows the three major steps in generating the MPC.

Raw Finished Fabrication Materials Materials

Figure 5.4.2 Manufacturer Produc tion Cost Assessment Stages
The first step in the MPC assessment was cr eating a complete and structured bill of materials (BOM) from the disassembly of a co mmercial refrigerator with transparent doors (VCT.SC.M). DOE dismantled the commercial refrigerator and characterized each part according to weight, manufacturing processes, dimensions, material, and quantity. The BOM includes the costs for materials, components, and fa steners, and provides estimates for the cost of raw materials and purchased parts. DOE based assumptions about the sourcing of parts and inhouse fabrication on industry experience, informa tion in trade pub lications, and di scussions with manufacturers. DOE conducted interviews and plant visits with manufacturers to ensure accuracy in methodology and pricing.
Following the development of a detailed BOM, DOE identified the major manufacturing processes and developed the sp readsheet model. Table 5.4.1 lists these processes. DOE estimated fabrication process cycle times and entered them into the BOM. For this analysis, DOE used $24 per hour as the average fully bur dened labor rate based on the typical annual wages and benefits of industry employees. In the final step of the cost assessment, DOE estimated assembly times and associated direct la bor costs. Once the cost estimate for each unit was finalized, DOE prepared a detailed summary of relevant components, subassemblies, and processes.

5-8Table 5.4.1 Major Manufacturing Processes Fabrication Finishing Assembly/Joining

Fixturing Washing Adhesive Bonding Stamping/Pressing Powder Coating Spot Welding

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

5.4.3 Material Prices

DOE determined the cost of raw material s by using prices for copper, steel, and aluminum from the American Metals Market. 1 DOE obtained prices for rifled and unrifled copper tubing directly from a tubi ng manufacturer. There have been drastic fluctuations in metal prices over the last few years. To account for these large fluctuations, DOE used prices of metals that reflect a 5-year average of the Bu reau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices (PPIs) spanning 2002 to 2006 with an adjustment to 2007$. 2 DOE used the PPIs for steel mill products and for copper rolling, drawing, and ex truding, and then adjust ed to 2007$ using the gross domestic product imp licit price deflator. 3
Between 2003 and 2006, the price of steel rose over 60 percent and the price of copper rose over 140 percent. Because DOE used a 5-ye ar average in material prices from 2002 to2006, these drastic increases are normalized to some extent to better represent long-term material price averages. Because it is not clear if these mate rial price trends will continue, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the effect of raw material price increases on the cost of commercial refrigeration equipment (section 5.10.1).

5.4.4 Results
DOE reported the cost model results as a core case cost for seven analyzed equipment classes: VCT.RC.L, VOP.RC.M, SVO.RC. M, HZO.RC.L, HCT.SC.I, HZO.SC.M, and VCT.SC.I. The core case cost is the cost of the structure and other features, but excludes all components that relate to design options (such as fans, doors, and evaporator coils) and special exterior materials (such as si gnage and other customer-specifi ed options). Figure 5.4.3 through Figure 5.4.5 show the part count, weight, and cost , respectively, for the seven equipment classes directly analyzed in the cost model.
Figure 5.4.3 details the part count by equipment class, cabinet size, and sub-system. The large number of cabinet parts is driven primarily by fasteners holding all the sheet metal parts together. The distinction between inner, outer, and other cabinet parts represents DOE’s best effort to disaggregate the various cabinet cate gories. “Other” can include some fascia and structural elements that help keep the inner and outer skins in alignment. The condenser and evaporator descriptors attempt to capture all co mponents outside the heat exchangers that are related to condensers and evaporator circuits. The electrical section mainly captures the cost of wiring for the ballasts.

5-90 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000Part Count (#) Outer Cabinet
Inner Cabinet
Cabinet-Other Wiring/Electric Evaporator-Other
Condenser-Other
Fasteners

VCT.RC.L VOP.RC.M SVO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HCT.SC.I HZO.SC.M VCT.SC.I
Figure 5.4.3 Part Count by Equipment Class and Subsystem
Figure 5.4.4 summarizes the weight that each subsystem contribut es to the overall weight of baseline CRE units of different lengths. Th ese calculated weights are for the basic case only and do not incorporate the weight of doors or fr ames (in the VCT or VCS equipment families), compressor sleds (for SC units), heat exchange rs, or other design options. Thus, depending on the equipment class, the weight reported in th is figure is lighter compared to manufacturerreported shipping weights for completed units.
The weight of commerci al refrigeration equipment is heav ily influenced by the weight of the inner, outer, and cabinet base assemblies. Th is equipment is built to withstand years of use, and the shipping weights of the cabinets reflect this necessity. The degree to which a design option adds weight and expense is largely driven by the subsystem. For example, the design options include doors with two to three panes of glass. While a dding coatings to the glass may reduce the energy consumption without a weight impact, a design option calling for additional panes will require stronger door hinges and frames.

5-10Weight (lb) 1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200 Outer Cabinet
Inner Cabinet
Insulation
Cabinet-Other Wiring/Electric Evaporator-Other
Condenser-Other
Fasteners

0 VCT.RC.L VOP.RC.M SVO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HCT.SC.I HZO.SC.M VCT.SC.I
Figure 5.4.4 Weight by Equipment Class and Subsystem
The actual MPC of this equipment is driven by the processes used to make them, the cost of the underlying raw and purchased materials, an d the labor required to assemble them into a working commercial refrigerator. Figure 5.4.5 shows the MPC for the basic cases discussed in this section.
When the costs are considered by percentage , the inner cavity assembly dominates the overall cost due largely to th e higher raw material costs; th e manufacturing steps required to form, shape, and paint these parts; and the time and effort required to assemble and seal them.
Exterior parts that are not visible to the supermarket consumer tend to be made of uncoated galvanized cold rolled steel, remain unpainted, and us ually do not require nearly as much work to be prepared for assembly. As expected, freestanding uni ts like those in the HZO.SC.M equipment class tend to have highe r relative costs for their exterior cabinet assemblies, which have ten highly visible surf aces, compared to units in the VCT.RC.L equipment class, which have six surfaces.

5-110 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Cost (US$) Outer Cabinet
Inner Cabinet
Insulation
Cabinet-Other Wiring/Electric Evaporator-Other
Condenser-Other
Fasteners

VCT.RC.L VOP.RC.M SVO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HCT.SC.I HZO.SC.M VCT.SC.I
Figure 5.4.5 Manufacturer Production Cost by Equipment Class and Subsystem
DOE developed basic case cost s (as MPC) for the seven equipment classes. As Table 5.4.2 illustrates, these results were extended to si x of the remaining equipment classes directly analyzed in the engineering analysis. Because of the complexity of construction, the cost of the remaining two equipment classes (SOC.RC.M and VOP.RC.L) was estimated using MLP information from several manufacturers. DOE discounted the MLP values to MPC, and subtracted the estimated costs of known components (fan motors, li ghting, etc.) to arrive at a basic case cost. These basic case costs (in th e form of MPC) were incorporated into an engineering spreadsheet, where the costs for various design options we re added and markups were applied.

5-12Table 5.4.2 Extension of Cost Model Estimates to Other Equipment Classes Developed in Cost Model Extended to VCT.RC.L VCT.RC.M VOP.RC.M VOP.SC.M SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.RC.M HCT.SC.I

- HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I

5.5 MANUFACTURER MARKUP AND LIST PRICE MARKUP
At each stage of the distribu tion chain, manufacturers, wholes alers, and contractors apply a markup to cover their operating costs and profit margins. In the engineering analysis, DOE determined a manufacturer markup, and applied it to the MPC to arrive at the MSP. Wholesaler, contractor, and other markups are determined in the markups analysis, Chapter 6 of the TSD.
The manufacturer markup was calculated as th e market share weighted average value for the industry. For the ANOPR, DOE developed th is manufacturer markup by examining several major CRE manufacturers’ gross margin inform ation from annual reports and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports. Th e manufacturers DOE analyzed account for approximately 80 percent of the CRE market. Each company is a s ubsidiary of a more diversified parent company that manufactures eq uipment other than commercial refrigeration equipment. Because the 10-K reports do not provide gross margin information at the subsidiary level, the estimated markups repr esent the average markups that th e parent company applies over its entire range of equipment offerings and does not necessarily represent the manufacturer markup of the subsidiary. The result of the ANOPR analysis shows that the average manufacturer markup is 1.39. However, followi ng discussions with manufacturers during the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) interviews (Chapter 13), DOE adjusted the markups to be more representative of the industry. An aggr egation of the MIA interview responses gives a market share weighted average manufacturer markup value of 1.32. DOE used this updated manufacturer markup with the MPC values from th e engineering analysis to arrive at the MSP values used in the GRIM.
DOE also estimated an industry list pri ce markup, which is a markup on the MSP that gives the MLP. DOE understands that manufactu rers typically offer a discount off the MLP, which depends on various factors such as the rela tionship with the customer, and the volume and type of equipment being purchased. For this estimate, DOE relied on information gathered on self-contained commercial refrig eration equipment, since list price information is readily available and typically published by manufacturers. A review of the data for self-contained equipment shows that the list pr ice markup is typically 2.0. Du ring manufacturer interviews, some CRE manufacturers agreed with the 2.0 markup estimate, while others stated the estimate was somewhat high. DOE further verified th e estimate by obtaining list price quotes from several remote condensing equipment manufactur ers. Because list price markup is highly uncertain and depends on many factors, DOE applied the same estimated list price markup across each equipment class to simplify the analysis. DOE comp ared the analytically derived

5-13cost-efficiency curves to the i ndustry-supplied cost-efficiency curv es using the list price markup estimate. (See section 5.7 for these comparisons.)

5.6 ENERGY CONSUMPTION MODEL
The energy consumption model is the second of two key analytical models used in constructing cost-efficiency curves. This model estimates the CDEC of commercial refrigeration equipment in kilowatt hours (kWh) at various performance levels using a design-options approach. The model is specific to the type s of equipment covere d under this rulemaking (described in Chapter 3 of this TSD), but is sufficiently generalized to model the energy consumption of all covered equipment classes. DOE developed the energy consumption model as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is available to the public on DOE’s website ( http://www.eere.ener gy.gov/buildings/appliance_standard s / commercial_products.html). Appendix A provides instructions for using the spreadsheet.
For a given equipment class, the model estim ates the daily energy consumption for the baseline and the energy consumption of several levels of performance above the baseline. The model calculates each performance le vel separately. For the baseline level, a corresponding cost is calculated using the cost model (section 5.4). For each level above the baseline, the cost increases of the various design options are used to recalculate the cost.
These are substantive changes that have b een made to improve the accuracy of the engineering spreadsheet, and aff ect the numerical output of the model. Other formatting, layout, and editorial changes have been made to the spreadsheet, but are not detailed here. Changes to specific model components are detailed in their respective sections. Ma jor revisions include changes to infiltration load calculation (sect ion 5.6.7.6), radiation load calculation (section 5.6.7.4), LED lighting energy use (section 5.6.3.1), and the self-contained compressor model (section 5.6.7.2).

5.6.1 Screened-In Technologies
DOE analyzed the following 15 technology options:

• higher efficiency lighting

• higher efficiency lighting ballasts

• remote lighting ballast location

• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors

• evaporator fan motor controllers

• higher efficiency evaporator fan blades

• increased evaporator surface area

• low pressure differential evaporators

• insulation increases or improvements

• defrost mechanism

• defrost cycle control

• higher efficiency compressors (self-contained equipment only)

5-14• increased condenser surface area (self-contained equipment only)

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

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

5.6.2 Screened-In Technologies Not Consid ered in the Engineering Analysis
In the market and technology assessment (Chapter 3), DOE defined an initial list of technologies that can reduce the energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment. In the screening analysis, DOE firs t narrowed this list by eliminating from consideration those technologies that can reduce a nnual energy consumption of comme rcial refrigeration equipment but do not reduce CDEC. DOE screened out the remaining technologies that were not technologically feasible, were not practical to manufacture, reduced equipment utility, or were considered unsafe.
The remaining list of screened-in technologies became one of the inputs to the engineering analysis. However, for reasons note d below, DOE did not incorporate all of these technologies in the energy consumption model. These include location of remote lighting ballasts, evaporator fan motor c ontrollers, higher efficiency evapor ator and condenser fan blades, insulation increases or improvements, low-pre ssure differential evaporators, defrost cycle controls, and defrost mechanisms.

5.6.2.1 Remote Lighting Ballast Location
Relocation of fluorescent lamp ballasts outside the refrigerated space can reduce energy consumption by lessening the refrigeration load on th e compressor. However, for the majority of commercial refrigeration equipment currently manufactured, ballasts ar e already located in electrical trays outside the refrig erated space, in either the base or top of the equipment. The notable exceptions are the equipment classes in the VCT equipment family, where ballasts are most often located on the interior of each door mullion.
Most CRE manufacturers purch ase doors for VCT units that are preassembled with the entire lighting system in place ra ther than configured for separate ballasts. DOE believes that most CRE manufacturers choose these kinds of doors because it would be labor intensive and time consuming to relocate these ballasts at the f actory and wire separate ballasts. Also, the potential energy savings are small, since mode rn electronic ballasts are very efficient and typically contribute only a few watts each to th e refrigeration load. Therefore, DOE did not consider remote relocation of ballasts as a design option.

5.6.2.2 Evaporator Fan Motor Controllers
Evaporator fan motor controllers allow fan mo tors to run at variable speed to match changing conditions in the case. For evaporator fan motor controllers, there is some opportunity for energy savings since frost buildup and remo val creates differing pressure drops across the evaporator coil. Theoretically, less fan power is required when the coil is free of frost. The coil also would operate at a more stable temp erature during frost build-up. However, the effectiveness of the air curtain in equipment without doors is very sensitive to changes in airflow,

5-15and fan motor controllers could disrupt the air cu rtain. The potential of disturbance to the air curtain, which could lead to higher infiltration lo ads, does not warrant the use of evaporator fan motor controllers in equipment without doors, ev en if there were some reduction in fan energy use. In addition, savings from evaporator fan mo tor controllers in all equipment types would be small. Therefore, DOE did not consider eva porator fan motor contro llers as a design option.

5.6.2.3 Higher Efficiency Evaporator and Condenser Fan Blades
Higher efficiency evaporator and condens er fan blades reduce motor shaft power requirements by moving air more efficientl y. Current technology used in commercial refrigeration equipment is stamped sheet metal or plastic axial fan blades. These fan blades are lightweight and inexpensive. DOE was not able to identify any axial fan bl ade technology that is significantly more efficient than what is currentl y used, but did identify one alternative fan blade technology that might improve effi ciency: tangential fan blades. They can produce a wide, even airflow, and have the potential to allow for in creased saturated evaporator temperature (SET) through improved air distribution across the evap orator coil, which would reduce compressor power. However, tangential fan blades in small si zes are themselves less efficient at moving air, and thus require greater motor shaft power. Because of these competing effects, DOE did not consider tangential fan bl ades as a design option.

5.6.2.4 Improved Insulation
Improvements to insulation material incl ude better polyurethane foams and vacuum panels. In consultation with in sulation material manufacturers, DOE determined that there are no significant differences in “grades” of insula tion material, so most equipment manufacturers are already using the best commercially availabl e foam materials in thei r equipment. Vacuum panels are an alternative form of insulation, but they may degrade in performance in time as small leaks develop. In addition, vacuum panels cannot be penetrated by fasteners, and do not provide the rigidity of “foamed- in-place” panels that polyurethane insulation creates. Therefore, DOE did not consider insulation thickness incr eases or improvements as a design option.

DOE also did not include insulation thickne ss increases as a desi gn option in the ANOPR because thicker insulation must either borrow vol ume from the refrigerated space or increase the overall size of the equipment cabinet. Because th e outer dimensions of co mmercial refrigeration equipment are limited ( e.g., by interior dimensions of shi pping containers), it is often not practical to increase the overall size of the cabinet. In addi tion, reducing the volume of the refrigerated space to accommodate thicker insulati on would reduce the utility of the equipment.
DOE understands that in equipment classe s where conduction makes up a significant portion of the total refrigeration load, an insulation thickness increase can lead to small, but significant energy savings. DOE decided to ad d insulation thickness incr ease as a design option in the NOPR, and maintained this in the fina l rule, because it is co st-effective in several equipment types, most notably self-containe d ice-cream freezers with doors. DOE also considered improvements to the efficiency ( e.g., thermal conductance) of doors in the design options analysis. Higher efficien cy doors reduce the overall heat ga in to the case by using better frame materials, more panes of glass, and better (or more) insulation in the doorframe.

5-165.6.2.5 Low-Pressure Differential Evaporators
Low-pressure differential evaporators redu ce energy consumption by reducing the power of evaporator fan motors. However, in space -constrained equipment such as commercial refrigeration equipment, this reduction usually co mes from a decrease in evaporator coil surface area, which generally requires a lower SET to ac hieve the same discharge air temperature and cooling potential. This, in turn, results in a reduction in compressor efficiency. Because of these competing effects, DOE did not consider low-pressure differential evaporators as a design option.

5.6.2.6 Defrost Cycle Control
Defrost cycle control can reduce energy c onsumption by reducing the frequency and duration of defrost periods. The majority of equipment currently ma nufactured already uses partial defrost cycle control in the form of cycl e termination control. However, defrost cycle initiation is still scheduled at regular intervals. Full defros t cycle control would involve a method of detecting frost buildup and initiating defrost. As described in the market and technology assessment (Chapter 3), this could be accomplished through an optical sensor or sensing the temperature differential across the eva porator coil. However, both of these methods are unreliable due to fouling of the coil with du st and other surface contaminants. This becomes more of an issue as the display case ages. Because of these issues, DOE did not consider defrost cycle control as a design option.

5.6.2.7 Defrost Mechanisms
Defrosting for medium-temperature equipment is typically accomplished with off-cycle defrost. Because off-cycle defrost uses no ener gy (and decreases compressor on-time), there is no defrost design option capable of reducing defrost energy in cases that use off-cycle defrost. Some medium temperature cases and all low te mperature and ice-cream temperature cases use supplemental heat for defrost. Electric resistance heating (electric defrost) is commonly used in these cases. An alternative to electric defrost in those cases that require supplemental defrost heat is hot-gas defrost. This is most often seen in remote condensing equipment and involves using the hot compressor discharge gas to warm the evaporator from the refrigerant side. The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equi pment is not capable of quantifying the energy expenditure of the compressor during a hot-gas defr ost cycle. Therefore, DOE did not consider it as a design option.

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

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

• higher efficiency lighting and ballasts for VCT equipment family (vertical fixtures);

5-17• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors;

• increased evaporator surface area;

• increased insulation thickness;

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

• improved doors for VCT equipment family, medium temperature (hinged, 30 x 67 inches);

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

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

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

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

• higher efficiency compressors (for self-contained equipment only).
Each design option has two to three technology levels, ranging from the minimum (worst performing) to the maximum (best performi ng) technology. The design options and the technology levels for each desi gn option are described below.

5.6.3.1 Higher Efficiency Lighting and Ballasts
Lighting is an important characteristic of commercial refrigeration equipment because it makes the product visible to the consumer. Li ghting systems operate continuously and provide an opportunity for significant energy savings. As lighting system efficiency increases, reductions in total case energy consumption can be achieved through a direct reduction in electricity consumption by the lighting system, and a reduction of heat in side the case, thereby reducing compressor work.
It is important that product illumination not degrade with higher design option levels, which would decrease the utility of the equipment. DOE made every effort to maintain constant system illumination among design options. This approach meant that DOE had to consider lighting as a system, rather than distinguishing lamps and ballasts as separate design options. This approach becomes more important when considering light emitting diode (LED) lighting systems, which do not use ballasts , as fluorescent lighting systems do.
Although LED systems generally have lower e fficacy than the fluorescent systems they replace, the fixtures are more efficient at directing light onto the product. Although the total lumen output of LED systems is lower than comparable fluorescent systems, the amount of light incident on the product (illuminance) is r oughly equivalent. Cons ultation with CRE manufacturers, lighting manufact urers, and other technical expe rts indicate that current LED technology provides product lightin g that is adequate, and in most cases comparable to fluorescent lighting.
To account for the variation in design be tween equipment families, DOE used two lighting design options in the energy-consumpti on model. DOE used the “higher efficiency lighting and ballasts for VOP, SVO, HZO, a nd SOC equipment families” design option for

5-18lighting in a horizontal configuration, and the “higher effi ciency lighting a nd ballasts for VCT equipment family” design option for the lighting in a vertical configur ation. The VCS and HCS equipment families do not require lighting because they are not designed to display food, while the HCT equipment family typically does not ha ve lighting because it relies on store ambient lighting. Therefore, DOE did not consider lighting design opti ons for these three equipment families.
Because of the horizontal configuration of sh elving and the linear nature of display-case lineups in the VOP, SVO, HZO, and SOC equipmen t families, fluorescent lighting is typically installed with the bulb in a horiz ontal plane. Details for the “higher efficiency lighting and ballasts for VOP, SVO, HZO, and SOC equipmen t families” design option are shown in Table 5.6.1. Remote condensing versions of these displa y cases are most often sold in 8-foot and 12­ foot sections, using multiples of 4-foot fluorescent lamps to continuously light the entire width of the case. Self-contained versions are commonly sold in 4-foot le ngths, so that a single 4-foot fluorescent lamp will light the full width of the case. Therefore, 4-foot lamps were specified for all lighting systems in the horizontal configuratio n. These lamps also were required to have a color temperature of 3,500 Kelvin (K), which is ty pical for this type of equipment. Fluorescent T12 magnetic and electronic systems were not co nsidered for the horizontal lighting because a survey of existing equipment and discussions with manufacturers indicate that this technology is no longer used in these equipment classes.
In the NOPR engineering analysis, DOE revi sed its cost assumptions for LED lighting used in the VOP, SVO, HZO, and SOC equipment fa milies (horizontal 4-foot fixtures) and in the VCT equipment family (vertical 5-foot fixtures). DOE originally based LED lighting costs on an LED retrofit case study for the ANOPR, but re vised some of its assumptions based on conversations with manufacturers for the NOP R. Specifically, DOE revised the assumption regarding the relative co st of one-row and two-row LED fixt ures, giving more weight to the labor involved in manufacturing th e fixtures. DOE assumed labor accounts for approximately half of the fixture cost, and that LED chips accoun t for the majority of the material costs. Thus, removing half of the LED chips would reduce the cost by approximate ly 25 percent. DOE therefore assumed a one-row fixt ure costs 75 percent of a two-ro w fixture. DOE also assumed that a 4-foot fixture costs approximately 90 percen t of a 5-foot fixture. These two changes cause the original equipment manufactur er (OEM) cost of LED fixtures to increase for the equipment families for which they are an option: VOP, SVO, HZO, and SOC families (horizontal fixtures) and VCT (vertical fixtures).
Also, for the NOPR, DOE could only identify LED luminaires on the market specifically for use in vertical refrigerated cases with tr ansparent doors (i.e., the VCT equipment family). Since DOE could not identify LED lu minaires specifically for use in open refrigerated cases (i.e., the VOP equipment family), DOE used the LED luminaires specifically for use in vertical refrigerated cases with transparent doors as th e basis for the LED lighting for open refrigerated

cases.
In the final rule engineering analysis, DOE updated its assumptions for all LED lighting to reflect the current state of the technology. DOE was able to identify more efficacious LED luminaires on the market specifically for use in both open and closed refr igeration cases than was

5-19used in the NOPR. DOE updated the LED lighti ng prices and efficacies for open refrigerated cases using these newly identified LED lu minaires. DOE also updated the lighting configurations specific to each equipment class fo r the final rule. For more detail on the updates to the LED lighting assumptions used in th e engineering analysis, see Appendix B.

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

Level Description Lamp Type Lamp Rated Power

(W) Lamp Rated Light Output (Lumens) System Efficacy (Lumens/W) System Light Output (Lumens) T8 T8S LED 4 ft, T8 Elec. 4 ft, Super T8 Elec. 4 ft, LED F32T8 F32T8/HL LED 4 ft 32.0 32.0 15.0 2,850 3,100 888 85.0 91.4 59.2 2,679 2,697 888
Because of the vertical configuration of the doors in the VCT equipment family, fluorescent lamps are typically installed vertic ally behind the mullions between doors. Such lighting systems typically consist of a single 5- foot or 6-foot lamp and a single ballast per mullion and are installed at each end of the case. All ligh ting systems in the vertical configuration were specified to have 5-foot lamps and a color temperature of 4,100 K, which is typical for this equipment family.
As stated earlier, for the final rule, DOE updated the LED lighting efficacy for the VCT equipment family based on newly identified LED lu minaires that is currently available. In addition, DOE also modified the assumption of the LED lighting configurati on for the final rule. Table 5.6.2 shows details for the “lighting for VC T equipment family” design option. For more detail on the LED lighting assumptions used in the engineering analysis, see Appendix B.
Table 5.6.2 Details for Lighting for VCT Equipment Family Design Option

Level Description Lamp Type Lamp Rated Power

(W) Lamp Rated Light Output (Lumens) System Efficacy (Lumens/W) System Light Output (Lumens) T8 LED 5 ft, T8 Elec. 5 ft, LED F58T8/835

- 58.0 29.0 5,400 1,564 93.1 53.9 5,400 1,564

5.6.3.2 Higher Efficiency Evaporator Fan Motors
In conjunction with fan blades, fan motors ar e necessary for transferring heat from the display case to the refrigerant a nd, in the case of self-contained e quipment, rejecting heat from the refrigerant into the ambient air. Fan moto rs are also responsible for maintaining product temperatures and air curtains on open cases. They must operate virtually continuously, and therefore use a significant amount of energy. As motor efficiency increases, reductions in total case energy consumption are achieved through a dire ct reduction both in el ectricity consumption and waste heat inside the case, reducing compressor work.

5-20Table 5.6.3 shows details for the evaporator fan motor design option. DOE considers shaded-pole motors (SPM) as the minimum t echnology, permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors as the mid-level technology, and brushless direct current (DC) or electronically commutated motors (ECMs) as the maximum technology level. DOE took the motor efficiency levels listed in Table 5.6.3 taken from American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ARI Standard 1200­ 2006 (ARI 1200), Performance Rating of Commercia l Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets

. Table 5.6.3 Details for Evaporator Fan Motor Design Option

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

(W) Actual Power

(W) Efficiency (%) Actual Power

(W) Efficiency (%) Actual Power

(W) Efficiency (%)
15.0 75.0 20 51.7 29 22.7 66

9.0 45.0 20 31.0 29 13.6 66 6.0 30.0 20 20.7 29 9.1 66

5.6.3.3 Increased Evaporator Surface Area
Evaporator coils are another component nece ssary for transferring heat from the display case to the refrigerant. Table 5.6.4 shows details fo r the evaporator coil design option. In view of available information, DOE considered a mi nimum and a maximum technology level for this design option. For each level, DOE specified an overall UA-value b and a coil cost. The UAvalue is normalized to the standard coil, and th e coil cost is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil. This allowed DOE to appl y these details of coil design across all equipment classes. In consulta tion with outside experts, DOE dete rmined that applying the same coil improvements to different sized coils would result in similar performance improvements.
Table 5.6.4 Details for Evaporator Coil Design Option
Normalized Coil Cost Level Description Normalized UA (-) ($/Btu/hr) EVAP1 Standard Coil 1 $0.0358 EVAP2 High-Performance Coil 1.667 $0.0500
DOE based the details of coil construction (T able 5.6.5) on a baseline and prototype highperformance coil evaluated in a st udy by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 4 The highperformance coil uses a combination of enhancements to the heat transfer surfaces that increased its overall UA-value. These enhancements incl ude higher fin pitch, rifl ed tubing, and different tube spacing. In sum, these improvements allow the prototype coil to run at a SET that is 6° warmer than the baseline coil and maintain the sa me discharge air temperature (30°F) and heat removal capacity (12,990 British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr)).

b The overall UA-value is the product of th e overall heat transfer coefficient (Btu/h-ft 2 -°F) and the total surface area (ft 2 ) of the coil. This value can be derived from the total heat transfer rate of the coil (Btu/h) divided by the average temperature difference between the discharge ai r and the saturated evaporator temperature ( Δ T).

5-21Table 5.6.5 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Evaporator Coil Property Standard Co il High-Performance Coil Overall Width (in) 81 81 Overall Height (in) 7 5/8 7 1/2 Overall Depth (in) 12 13 9/16 Tube Rows per Circuit 12 12 Number of Parallel Circuits 4 6 Tubing Material Copper Copper Tubing Outer Diameter (in) 1/2 3/8 Tubing Wall Thickness (in) 0.012 0.012 Tubing Inner Surface Smooth Rifled Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum Fin Surface Flat Flat Fin Dimensions (in) 8.66 x 7.5 (all rows) 5.415 x 7.5 (5 front rows) 7.581 x7.5 (7 rear rows) Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 2 (all rows) 3 (5 front rows) 4 (7 rear rows)
Because compressor performance is directly related to SET, reductions in total case energy consumption are realized through an improved energy e fficiency ratio (EER) at the condensing unit. In consultation with outside experts, DOE determ ined that applying the same coil improvements to different sized coils and at different temperatures would result in similar SET improvements.

5.6.3.4 Increased Insulation Thickness

DOE included increased foam insulation thic kness as a design option in the NOPR and final rule engineering analysis because it is co st-effective in several equipment types, most notably self-contained ice-cream freezers with doors. A half-inch increase in insulation thickness was modeled for all equipment classes. DOE added this increase in thickness to the baseline value of insulation thickness and reca lculated the conduction lo ad (section 5.6.7.5). The cost of increasing the insulation thickness is based on a sunk cost per unit, considering foam fixture engineering and tooling costs, production line lifetime, a nd number of fixtures and units produced. Table 5.6.6 provides details of the assumpti ons used to calculate the additional cost of insulation thickness increases. DOE assumed that the cost increase due to additional foam material is insignificant compared to the cost of upgrading foam fixtures.

5-22Table 5.6.6 Insulation Thickness Increase Assumptions

Item Value Notes Cost to Upgrade Single Insulation Fixture $100,000

Number of Fixtures 25 Based on a survey of the number of products offered by each manufacturer Engineering Costs $5,000,000 Assumes $100,000 per year salary and one month to complete redesign per machine plus one month for testing

Interest Rate 7.0%
Product Line Lifetime (years) 7.0

Units per Year 35,000

Sunk Cost Per Machine $39.76 Assumes changes in material costs are negligible compared to fixture and engineering costs

5.6.3.5 Improved Doors
Transparent doors allow refrigerated products to be displayed to consumers while keeping cold air inside of the display case. On freezers and some refrig erators, glass doors must be heated to prevent frost from forming and rubber seals from freezing. These “anti-sweat” heaters often run continuously and consume sign ificant amounts of energy. Transparent doors also allow heat to radiate into the display case and have a lower in sulation value than solid walls. Reductions in total case energy consumption can be achieved both by improving the overall insulation value (U-factor) of th e door and by reducing the requi red anti-sweat heater power.
A wide variety of door types are used on the equipment covered in this rulemaking. Door construction and performance can vary by equipmen t family as well as operating temperature of the case. To account for this variation, DOE developed four se parate design options for the different door types represente d in the 15 equipment classes th at DOE analyzed. For all door design options, DOE estimated the thermal perfor mance of the door (expressed as an overall Ufactor) using information about door constructio n from manufacturers a nd WINDOW 5 software available from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. 5
Doors for the VCT equipment family operati ng at low temperature are hinged and are 30 inches wide and 67 inches tall with three pane s of glass. Table 5.6.7 shows details of thermal performance and anti-sweat heater requirements for this door type.
DOE considered two technology levels for this design option: the high-performance door that uses a combination of low-emissivity coatin g, frame material, and iner t fill-gas to reduce the overall U-factor; and a standard door. DOE update d the design option for glass doors for vertical equipment with glass doors (VCT equipment fa mily) in the NOPR and final rule engineering analysis. Based on discussions with manufacturers and data fr om manufacturer specification sheets, the anti-sweat heater power for both th e baseline and high-effi ciency doors increased from 160 to 200 for baseline doors and from 60 to 110 for high-efficiency doors. DOE did not update the cost data because more accurate data was unavailable.

5-23Table 5.6.7 Details for Doors for VCT Equipment Family, Low Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U-Factor (Btu/hr-ft-°F) Anti-Sweat Heater Power (W/door) DOOR1 DOOR2 Standard Door High-Performance Door 0.547 0.276 200 110
Doors for the VCT equipment family operating at medium temperature are hinged and 30 inches wide and 67 inches tall with two panes of glass. Table 5.6.8 shows details of thermal performance and anti-sweat heater requirements for this door type.
DOE considered two technology levels for th is design option. The high-performance door uses a combination of low-emissivity coatin g, frame material, and inert fill-gas to reduce the overall U-factor compared to the standard d oor and eliminate anti-sw eat heater power. DOE updated the design option for gla ss doors for medium temperature VCT equipment in the NOPR engineering analysis, and maintained this in the final rule. Based on discussions with manufacturers and data from manu facturer specification sheets, the anti-sweat heater power for both the baseline and high-efficiency doors increased from 60 to 100 for baseline doors and from 0 to 50 for high-efficiency doors. DOE did not upda te the cost data because more accurate data was unavailable.

Table 5.6.8 Details for Doors for VCT Equipment Family, Medium Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U-Factor (Btu/hr-ft-°F) Anti-Sweat Heater Power (W/door) DOOR1 DOOR2 Standard Door High-Performance Door 0.560 0.478 100 50

Doors for the HCT equipment family operating at ice-cream temperature (HCT.SC.I and HCT.RC.I equipment class) are sliding and18 inch es wide and 20.5 inches tall with one pane of glass. Table 5.6.9 shows details of thermal perf ormance and anti-sweat he ater requirements for this door type.
DOE considered two technology levels for th is design option: a high-performance door that uses a combination of low-emissivity coatin g, frame material, and an extra pane with inert fill-gas to reduce the overall U- factor; and a standard door. Typically, a high-performance door does not require anti-sweat heater power.

5-24Table 5.6.9 Details for “Doors for HCT Equipment Family, Ice-Cream Temperature” Design Option

Level Description Overall U-Factor (Btu/hr-ft-°F) Anti-Sweat Heater Power (W/door) DOOR1 DOOR2 Standard Door High-Performance Door 1.046 0.377 0 0
Doors for the SOC equipment family operating at medium temperature are of the sliding type and are 24 inches wide and 20 inches tall with two panes of glass. Table 5.6.10 shows details of door thermal performance and anti-sweat heater requirements for this door type. DOE considered two technology levels for this desi gn option: a high-performance door that uses a combination of low-emissivity coating, frame mate rial, and inert fill-gas to achieve a reduced overall U-factor; and a standard door. Typical ly, a high-performance doordoes not require antisweat heater power.

Table 5.6.10 Details for Doors for SOC Equipment Family, Medium Temperature Design Option

Level Description Overall U-Factor (Btu/hr-ft-°F) Anti-Sweat Heater Power (W/door) DOOR1 DOOR2 Standard Door High-Performance Door 0.672 0.320 0 0

5.6.3.6 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors
The condenser fan motor design option applies only to those equipment classes that are self-contained. Details for the condenser fan moto r design option are identical to those shown in Table 5.6.3. As with evaporator fan motors , the SPM is the minimum technology, the PSC motor is the mid-technology, and the DC motor or ECM is the maximum technology level. Because condenser fan motors are outside the re frigerated space, efficiency improvements only affect the direct electrical consumption of the motors and not the total case heat load.

5.6.3.7 Increased Condenser Surface Area
Table 5.6.11 shows details for this design op tion, which only applie s to self-contained equipment classes. Details of coil construction are based on data from tear-downs by Southern California Edison’s Refrigeration an d Thermal Test Center (RTTC). 6 Based on this information, DOE considered both minimum and maximum t echnology levels for this design option. For each level, DOE specified an overall UA-value a nd a coil cost. The UA-value is normalized to the standard coil, and the coil cost is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil. This approach allowed DOE to apply the details of coil design across all se lf-contained equipment classes. In consulta tion with outside experts, DOE dete rmined that applying the same coil improvements to different sized coils would result in similar performance improvements.

5-25Table 5.6.11 Details for “Increased Condenser Surface Area” Design Option

Level Description Normalized UA (-) Normalized Coil Cost ($/Btu/h)

COND1 COND2 Standard Coil High-Performance Coil 1.00 2.56 $0.0146 $0.0439

Table 5.6.12 shows details of coil construc tion. The high-performance coil uses a combination of enhancements to the heat transfer surfaces that increased its overall UA-value. These enhancements include higher fin pitch, rifl ed tubing and different tube spacing. These improvements allow the prototype co il to run at a saturated condens er temperature (SCT) that is 14°F cooler than the baseline coil while maintaining the same heat rejection rate (1,600 Btu/hr). Because compressor performance is directly related to SCT, reductions in total case energy consumption are achieved through an improved EER at the condensing unit.
Table 5.6.12 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Condenser Coil Property Standard Co il High-Performance Coil Overall Width (in) 12.5 24 Overall Height (in) 10 10 Overall Depth (in) 2.25 3 Tube Rows per Circuit 28 16 Number of Parallel Circuits 3 2 Tubing Material Copper Copper Tubing Outer Diameter (in) 3/8 3/8 Tubing Wall Thickness (in) 0.012 in 0.012 in Tubing Inner Surface Smooth Rifled Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum Fin Surface Flat Flat Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 6 7

5.6.3.8 Higher Efficiency Compressors
The compressor design option applies only to self-contained equipment classes. In consultation with compressor manufacturers and exte rnal technical experts, DOE determined that two levels of technology were applicable for the compressor design option. The minimum technology level is a standard single-speed hermetic compre ssor, and the maximum technology level is a high-efficiency singl e-speed hermetic compressor. (See section 5.6.5 for a discussion of why DOE did not consider va riable-speed compressors.) Re ductions in total case energy consumption are achieved through a reduction in compressor power consumption.
Several manufacturers provided DOE performance data for standard single-speed hermetic compressors a range of capacities ap plicable to the covered equipment (1,500 - 20,000 Btu/h). DOE used this data to find appropriately sized compressors when developing each design-option curve. (See section 5.6.7.2 for information on the calculation of compressor energy consumption.) Although several compre ssor manufacturers produce high-efficiency compressors, little data are currently availa ble on their performance. Therefore, DOE approximated a set of high-efficiency compressors by adjusting the power consumption of the standard compressors using a constant multipli er. DOE developed this multiplier through its

5-26own research and consultation with outside e xperts. (See section 5.6.5 for details on this multiplier.)
In the NOPR, DOE updated the assumptions us ed to estimate the changes in cost and efficiency for high-efficiency single-speed compressors. Based on discussions with manufacturers and other experts, DOE concluded that the assump tions used in the ANOPR (a 10-percent increase in cost results in a 20-percen t reduction in energy use) overstated the actual efficiency gains that are possible in today’ s compressors. Therefore, DOE revised its assumptions for the NOPR and final rule (a 5-pe rcent increase in cost results in a 10-percent reduction in compressor energy use). Per dollar, efficiency gains are equivalent with these new assumptions, but the overall magnitude of power reduc tion is lower, as well as the cost premium. This change affects only the se lf-contained equipment classes analyzed in the engineering analysis.

5.6.4 Baseline Specifications
DOE defined baseline specifications (or cas e design specifications) for each equipment class. These specifications in clude dimensions, numbers of components, temperatures, nominal power ratings, and other case feat ures that are necessary to ca lculate energy consumption. In conjunction with the lowest technological level of each design option (section 5.6.3), the baseline specifications define the energy consumption and cost of the typical minimum technology equipment on the market. Table 5.6.13 shows the specifications and units that DOE defined for each equipment class.

5-27Table 5.6.13 Baseline Specifications Specification Units Case Length ft Case Gross Refrigerated Volume ft 3 Case Total Display Area ft 2 Number of Lamps in Conditioned Space # Number of Lamps Not in Conditioned Space # Number of Ballasts in Conditioned Space # Number of Ballasts Not in Conditioned Space # Evaporator Fan Nominal Rated Wattage W Number of Evaporator Fans per Case # Condenser Fan Nominal Rated Wattage W Number of Condenser Fans per Case # Defrost Mechanism Type (Off-C ycle, Electric, Manual) n/a Defrost Time per Day hr Defrost and Drain Heater Power W Anti-Sweat Power Other Than Doors W Condensate Pan Heater Power W Average Case Temperature °F Saturated Evaporator Temperature (SET) Nominal °F Saturated Condenser Temperature (SCT) Nominal °F Compressor Oversize Factor (>1) n/a Nominal Insulation Thickness in Wall Area ft 2
Number of Doors # Single Door Area ft 2
Non-Door Glass Area ft 2
Case Interior Surface Area ft 2 Air-Curtain Height ft Air-Curtain Angle from Vertical ° Infiltrated Air Mass lb/hr
DOE established baseline specifications for each equipment class modeled in the engineering analysis by reviewi ng available manufacturer data, selecting several representative units from that data, and then aggregating the phys ical characteristics of the selected units. This process created a representative unit for each eq uipment class with aver age characteristics for physical parameters ( e.g., volume, total display area), and minimum performance of energyconsuming components ( e.g., fans, lighting). Appendix B provides these numerical specifications for each equipment class, as well as changes to baseline design specifications.

5.6.5 Non-Numerical Assumptions
In developing the energy consumption mode l, DOE made certain general non-numerical assumptions about the analysis, as well as sp ecific assumptions about load components and design options.

5-28DOE assumed that all conditi ons are based on new equipmen t tested in a controlledenvironment chamber subjected to ARI 1200, which references the ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioni ng Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 72-2005 (ASHRAE 72), Method of Testing Comm ercial Refrigerat ors and Freezers . Manufacturers that certify their equipment to comply with Federal sta ndards will be required to test new units to this test method, which specifies ambient temperature, humidity, light level, and other requirements.

DOE assumed that there is no pull-down load associated with re-shelving products since the test procedure does not addres s product re-shelving. Product re-shelving is the act of loading new products into refrigerated display cases as existing products are sold . Typically, commercial refrigeration equipment is not designed to pull down the temperature of warm products, but only to display products that were already chilled or frozen in a refrigerated storage unit.
DOE also assumed that there are no pull-down lo ads associated with post-defrost periods. During defrost periods, the compressor (or the flow of refrigerant for remote condensing cases) stops and the coil warms to a temperature above freezing (aided by electric resistance heating in the case of electric defrosts). After the evaporator coil has been cleared of frost, the merchandise in the case will typically have warmed several degrees. The merchandise must be returned to normal operating temperature when th e refrigeration cycle resumes, adding an additional load to the condensing unit. Between equipment families and even within equipment classes there is a large variation in defrost mechanism, defrost cy cle time, temperature recovery time, and product mass. Because of the uncertainty of these fact ors, DOE was unable to ac curately calculate the defrost pull-down load and did not include it in th e model. Sample calculations show that this load may only account for two to four percent of the total refrigeration load for a VOP.RC.M case, or roughly one to two percent of the total daily energy consumption.
DOE did not consider hot-gas defrost as a design option for defrost mechanisms in remote condensing cases (Chapter 4 of this TSD). During hot-gas defrost, hot refrigerant from the compressor rack bypasses the condenser and e xpansion device and is piped directly to the evaporator coil, melting the frost on the coil. The ASHRAE 72 test pr ocedure provides a method for measuring the total refrigeration load duri ng steady-state conditions, and does not capture the energy added to a display case durin g a hot-gas defrost cycle. Th erefore, DOE did not consider this technique.
DOE did not consider liquid suction heat exch angers (LSHX) as a design option (Chapter 4 of this TSD). As with hot-gas defrost, the effects of LSHX cannot be measured with the ASHRAE 72 test procedure.
DOE did not consider variable-speed co mpressors as a compressor design option. Variable-speed compressors reduce energy c onsumption under real-world conditions by matching their capacity to the refrigeration load , which can change due to variation in ambient conditions and product loading. This eliminates th e inefficiencies that occur due to mismatched capacity and load in a single-speed compre ssor during part-load operation. The ASHRAE 72 test procedure prescribes stea dy-state conditions. Thus, a vari able-speed compressor would be limited to single-speed operation, the EER would be no better than a properly sized single-speed compressor, and no appreciable energy savings would result. Similarly, under ASHRAE 72, the

5-29performance of a high-efficiency variable-sp eed compressor would be comparable to a highefficiency single-speed compressor.

5.6.6 Numerical Constants and Assumptions
In developing the energy consumption m odel, DOE identified constants and made assumptions concerning numerical values used in the analysis. These include ambient conditions, financial assumptions, and parameters necessary to calculate the component and nonelectric loads. Table 5.6.14 show s details of these assumptions.

5-30Table 5.6.14 Energy Consumption Model Numerical Constants and Assumptions Numerical Constants and Assumptions Number Source Test Chamber Temperature (°F) 75 ASHRAE 72 7
Test Chamber Relative Humidity (%) 55 ASHRAE 72 7
Test Chamber Pressure (pounds per square in (psi), absolute) 14.7 Assumed
Manufacturer Markup ($/$) 1.32 Publicly available corporate financial data
List Price Markup ($/$) 2.00 DOE estimate based on discussion with manufacturers Fraction of Anti-Sweat Heater Power into Case (W/W) 0.7 DOE estimate based on discussions with manufacturers Fraction of Lighting Power into Case for Lamps Outside of Air Curtain (W/W) 0.5 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Supermarket Simulation Tool (SST) v3.0 8 Lighting Operating Time per Day (hr) 24 Assumed Thermal Conductivity of Foam Insulation (Btu-in/hr-ft 2 -F) 0.125 Discussions with foam manufacturers; Manufacturer data sheets Convective Film Coeffi cient Inside Case Walls (Btu/hr-ft 2 -F) 4.00 Communication with Southern California Edison, RTTC Convective Film Coeffi cient Outside Case Walls (Btu/hr-ft 2 -F) 1.46 Communication with RTTC Overall U-Value of Single-Pane Glass (Btu/hr-ft 2 -F) 1.059 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory WINDOW 5 Software 5 Emissivity of Test Chamber Walls (-) 0.9 Communication with RTTC Emissivity of Case Inner Walls (-) 0.9 Communication with RTTC

Area of Test Chamber Walls (ft 2 ) 1000 Communication with RTTC
Case Interior Relative Humidity (%) 65 R. Faramarzi, Efficient Display Case Refrigeration, ASHRAE Journal, November 1999 9 Evaporator Coil Overall Bypass Factor (%) 17 DOE estimate High-Efficiency Compressor Cost Premium 5% Communication with manufacturers High-Efficiency Compressor Power Reduction 10% Communication with manufacturers

5.6.7 Model Components
Figure 5.6.1 presents a schematic showing th e components in the energy consumption model. The model calculates energy consumption in two majo r subsections (expressed as kWh/day): compressor energy consumption an d component energy consumption. Component energy consumption is the sum of electrical ener gy directly consumed by each fan motor, lamp, defrost and drain heater, anti-sw eat heater, and pan heater.
Compressor energy consumption is calculated from the total heat load (expressed as Btu/h) and one of two compressor models: one version for remote condensing equipment, and one for self-contained equipment. The total heat load is a sum of the component load and the non-electric load. The component load is a su m of the heat emitted by evaporator fan motors,

5-31lighting, defrost heaters, drain heaters, and anti-sweat heater s inside and adjacent to the refrigerated space (condenser fan motors and pan heaters are outside the refrigerated space and do not contribute to the component heat load). The non-electric load is the sum of the heat contributed by radiation through glass and openings, heat conducted through walls and doors, and warm air infiltration through openings.

Figure 5.6.1 Components of the Energy Consumption Model Total Heat

Load [Btu/h]

Component

Load [Btu/h] Non-Electric Load [Btu/h]

Fan Motor Heat Load

[Btu/h] Lighting Heat Load [Btu/h] Radiation Load [Btu/h] Conduction Load [Btu/h] Infiltration Load [Btu/h] Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Compressor

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day] Compressor Model (ARI 540)

Electric Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Heat Load

[Btu/h] Legend: Component

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Fan Motor

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day] Lighting Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

5.6.7.1 Component Energy Consumption
Fan motor energy consumption is calculat ed by summing the power draw of each evaporator and condenser fan motor, and multip lying the total motor pow er by the total running time over a 24-hour period. (This calculation assu mes that evaporator and condenser fans run continuously when off-cycle defrost is used, a nd are turned off during defrost when electric defrost is used).
Lighting energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each lamp and ballast, and multiplying the total by the total operating time of th e lighting system over a 24-hour period. (This calculation assume s that lighting operates cont inuously.) In the ANOPR, the calculation of LED energy use assumed that the LED lighting fixtures at the ends of VCT cases were identical to those between doors. With fluorescent fixtures, manufacturers install the same lamp whether the lamp is at the end of the cas e (an end mullion) or between doors (an interior

5-32mullion). This causes excess of light at the ends of the case, since the light output of a single lamp between two doors goes in both directions. Lamps at the ends direct light only on the contents behind the end door.
LED fixtures are inherently sc alable, so manufacturers can in stall an LED fixture in the end mullion that uses half the energy (and produces ha lf the light) of fixtures in interior mullions. The calculation in the NOPR analysis assumes si ngle-row LED fixtures are used in the end mullions. Single-row fixtures ar e assumed to use half the en ergy of double-row fixtures in interior mullions.
Defrost and drain heater energy consumpti on is calculated by summing the power draw of each defrost heater and drain heater, and multi plying by the total time the case is in defrost operation over a 24-hour period.
Anti-sweat energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each antisweat heater, and multiplying by the total operati ng time of the heaters over a 24-hour period. (This calculation assumes that anti -sweat heaters run continuously.)
Pan heater energy consumption is calculated by multiplying the power draw of each pan heater by the total operating time of the heater over a 24-hour peri od. The total operating time is calculated as the time it would take to evaporate all of the defrost melt water.

5.6.7.2 Compressor Energy Consumption
Compressor energy consumption (C EC) is calculated from the to tal heat load and one oftwo compressor models: one version for remote condensing equipment and one for selfcontained equipment. Compressor energy cons umption for remote condensing equipment is calculated using default efficiency values fr om ARI 1200. Table 1 in ARI 1200 lists remote condensing compressor EER in Btu/Wh as a fu nction of adjusted dew point temperature.
Adjusted dew point (ADP) temper ature (°F) is calculated as:
ADP = SET – 2°F (for medium temperature) ADP = SET – 3°F (for low/ice-cream temperature) Eq. 5.1 Eq. 5.2

where
SET is the saturated evaporator temperature (°F).
Once ADP is calculated, Table 1 in ARI 1200 is used to find the corresponding EER value. The compressor energy consumption (kWh/day) is then calculated as:

CEC = Q tot x (24 - t defrost ) / (EER x 1000) Eq. 5.3

where

5-33Q tot is the total heat load (Btu/hr), and
t defrost is the total defrost time in a 24-hour period (hr).
Compressor energy consumption for self-contai ned equipment is calculated by using the compressor model described in section 6.4 of ARI Standard 540-2004 (ARI 540), Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Compressor Units . This model is based on a 10-coefficient polynomial derived from empirical compressor performance data for power, mass flow, current, and efficiency. The co efficients are derived for each parameter as a function of SET and SCT. Compressor coefficien ts, or tabulated empirical data (from which coefficients can be derived), are available fr om compressor manufacturers. Similar to the method used for remote condensing equipment, the EER of any compressor can be determined given a SET and SCT. Using Equation 5.3 above, the compressor energy consumption can be determined.
In the NOPR engineering analysis, DOE revi sed its rated capacity values for selfcontained compressors. In the ANOPR, rated cap acity was listed at standard ASHRAE rating evaporator and condenser rating conditions. Beca use the actual conditions in most commercial refrigeration equipment are not at standard rating conditions , listed capacities differed significantly from capacities at modeled conditi ons. The compressor model used a look-up function to select the most appropriate compressor based on the total refrigeration load in the case and the compressor oversize factor from the ba seline design specifications. Because of the mismatch of capacity at standard conditions and actual modeled conditions, the capacity of the selected compressors was typically overestimat ed. To compensate, the compressor oversize factor was adjusted to an unrealistic level (typi cally 1) so the model c ould select the correct compressor. In the NOPR, the corrected capacity listings required revising the oversize factor for all self-contained equipment classes to maintain th e selection of the correct compressor size. Because no compensation is needed in the updated NOPR model, the compressor oversize factors are more real istic (typically 1.4).

5.6.7.3 Component Load Model
The component load is the sum of the heat e ach evaporator fan motor, lamp, defrost and drain heater, and anti-sweat heat er emits inside and adjacent to the refrigerated space. Each component creates waste heat that is rejected to the refrigerat ed space and must be removed by the compressor.

DOE assumed that all electrica l energy the evaporator fan motors consume ends up as heat inside the refrigerated space. In any electr ic motor, irreversibiliti es in the motor windings, bearings, and other mechanical components convert much of the input electrical energy into heat. The rest of the energy is convert ed to moving air inside the case. This moving air is slowed by friction and eventually conve rted to heat as well.
For lamps inside the refrigerated space, DOE assumed that all electrical energy the lamps consumed ends up as heat inside the space. Fo r lamps that are outside the refrigerated space

5-34( i.e., adjacent to the air curtain), DOE assumed that 50 percent of the electrical energy the lamps consumed ends up as heat inside the space. For ballasts inside the refrigerated space, DOE assumed that all electrical energy the ballasts consumed ends up as heat inside the space. Ballasts outside the refrigerated space do not contribute any heat to the space.
The phase change that occurs when defrost heaters melt the frost from evaporator coils consumes most of the electrical energy that supplied during a defrost period. Over a 24-hour period, the total heat of melting is determined by
Q melt = m frost H f
, water Eq. 5.4

where
Q melt is the heat of melting (Btu/hr),

m

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

f,water is the heat of fusion of water (Btu/lb).
DOE assumed that all the electrical energy that defrost heaters consume, other than what is used to melt the frost, ends up as heat inside the refrigerated space. For drain heaters, DOE assumed that all electrical energy ends up as heat inside the refrigerated space.
DOE assumed that on average, 70 percent ofthe electrical energy consumed by antisweat heaters adjacent to the refrigerated space (fra me, rail, glass, sill and air grille heaters) ends up as heat inside the space.

5.6.7.4 Radiation Load Model

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

4 4 σ



# ( T

room − T
case 

# ) Q rad = Eq. 5.5 1

− ε 1 1

− ε room case ε

room A
room + A
room F
case

− room + ε case A
case
where
Q rad is the net radiation load (Btu/h),

σ

is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (Btu/h-ft 2 -°F 4 ), T

room is the temperature of the room walls (°F), T

case is the temperature of the case inner walls (°F),

ε room is the emissivity of the room walls (dimensionless),

ε case is the emissivity of the case inner walls (dimensionless), A room is the area of the room walls (ft 2 ), A case is the area of the interior of the case (ft 2 ), and

5-35F case-room is the view factor from the case interior to the room walls (dimensionless).
DOE assumed that the wall temperatures of th e case was in thermal equilibrium with the air temperature in the case, and that the wall temperatures of the room were in thermal equilibrium with the air temperature in the room. See Table 5.6.14 for numerical constants pertaining to the radiation model.
DOE made one change to the methodology of calculating the radia tion load for cases without doors (VOP, SVO, and HZO equipment families). In the ANOPR, DOE estimated the view factor from the interior of the case to the walls of the test chamber as 0.025, based on data and calculations from the RTTC. This value was ke pt constant for all cases and sizes, but it is clear this value should change somewhat as the geometry and the overall size of the case changes.
In the NOPR, the view factor is calculated se parately for each equipment class depending on the geometry specific to the baseline design specifi cations of that class. The view factor from the case to the room is calculated as the ratio of total display area (TDA, area of the plane separating the case from the room) to the test chamber wall surface area.
For glass doors and other glass, the net radiat ion is incorporated into the overall U-value of the door calculated by WINDOW 5 (Table 5.6.7 through Table 5.6.10, and Table 5.6.14). The WINDOW 5 program specified the environmental conditions in the case and the room for cases at medium temperature, low temperature, and ice-cream temperature. See section 5.6.7.5 for a discussion of the calculation of the combined radiation and conduction loads for glass doors and other glass.

5.6.7.5 Conduction Load Model

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

T

room − T
case Q cond = A walls Eq. 5.6 1 d ins 1 h
o + k ins + h i
where

A walls is the area of the exterior of the case (ft 2 ), h o is the convective film coefficient on the outside of case walls (Btu/h-ft 2 -°F), h i is the convective film coefficient on the inside of case walls (Btu/h-ft 2 -°F), d ins is the insulation thickness (in), and k ins is the insulation thermal conductivity (Btu-in/h-ft 2 -°F).

5-36Because of its high thermal conductivity, the sh eet metal that encloses the insulation has no significant effect on the conduction load, and ther efore was not included in the calculation of conduction load. See Table 5.6.14 for numerical c onstants pertaining to the conduction model.
For glass doors and other glass, the conducti on load is incorporat ed into the overall Ufactor of the door assembly or glass calcula ted by WINDOW 5 (Table 5.6.7 through Table 5.6.10 and Table 5.6.14). The combined radiation and conduction load for gla ss doors and other glass is calculated as:

Q = U A 

# ( T

− T 

# ) Eq. 5.7

glass overall glass room case

where

U overall is the overall U-factor, includi ng convection and radiation (Btu/h-ft 2 -°F), and A glass is the area of the glass (ft 2 ).

5.6.7.6 Infiltration Load Model
In the ANOPR, infiltration load was calculate d using empirical defrost meltwater data obtained from manufacturers’ deta iled spec sheets. DOE assumed that defrost meltwater could be correlated with infiltration load, given cert ain known parameters such as ambient relative humidity. This methodology was calibrated with deta iled case load data obtained from Southern California Edison for several large-volume equipment classes.
At the ANOPR public meeting, stakeholders commented that using defrost meltwater may not be an accurate way of calculating the in filtration load. They explained that defrost meltwater data was a rough estimate of the amount of infiltrated air, and in many cases could underestimate the infiltration loa d. DOE agrees with this asse ssment and altered its methodology accordingly.
In the NOPR engineering design specifications , DOE replaced the defrost melt water (in pounds per hour (lbs/hr)) with infiltrated air (als o in lbs/hr) for all equipment classes. DOE estimated infiltrated air by using manufacturers’ de tailed spec sheets, rec ognizing that infiltration load is the only load component that cannot be directly calculated. DOE calculated other load components (internal load, conductio n load, radiation load) using phys ical parameters about each case. DOE subtracted these load components from the listed total re frigeration load, and assumed that the remaining load is due to infiltration. Table 5.6.15 provides a summary of changes to the infiltration load for each equipm ent class DOE examined in the NOPR. This was also used in the final rule.

5-37Table 5.6.15 Summary of Changes to Infilt ration Load Calculation in the NOPR and Final Rule Equipment Class NOPR Infiltrated Air Mass (lbs/hr) NOPR Infiltration Load (Btu/hr) ANOPR Infiltration Load (Btu/hr) VOP.RC.M 860 16,066 16,050 VOP.RC.L 530 15,643 15,277 SVO.RC.M 590 11,022 10,982 HZO.RC.M 250 4,670 620 HZO.RC.L 140 4,132 1,428 VCT.RC.M 30 524 210 VCT.RC.L 30 865 887 SOC.RC.M 15 267 279 VOP.SC.M 300 5,605 4,224 SVO.SC.M 220 4,110 2,816 HZO.SC.M 100 1,868 620 HZO.SC.L 100 2,951 1,214 VCT.SC.I 15 491 391 VCS.SC.I 15 491 391 HCT.SC.I 3 98 78

5.7 COST-EFFICIENCY CURVES
The result of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency curves. DOE developed 15 curves representing the 15 directly analy zed equipment classes, using the baseline specifications and design options described above. (See Appendix B for details). The methodology for developing curves started with determining the baseline energy consumption and manufacturer production cost . Above the baseline, DOE im plemented design options from lowest to highest payback, and only one desi gn option was implemented at each design option level. Design options were implemented unt il all technologies were at a maximum level.
ARI created four industry-aggregated curves using an efficiency-level approach. ARI presented these curves to DOE in the form of daily energy consumption and manufacturer list price normalized by TDA. DOE applied the list price discount developed in the markup section (section 5.5) to the industry- supplied curves to arrive at a TDA-normalized MSP.
The 15 cost-efficiency curves are show n in Figure 5.7.1 through Figure 5.7.15 and in Table 5.7.2 through Table 5.7.16 in the form of TDA-normalized daily energy consumption and MSP. Figure 5.7.1 through Figure 5.7.4 and Table 5.7.2 through Tabl e 5.7.5 include the corresponding industry-supplied data for co mparison. Table 5.7.1 shows a list of the 15 analyzed equipment classes and their correspondi ng figure, table, and page numbers. Appendix B provides more detailed results, including the design options used at each design option level in the analytically derived (AD) curves.

5-38Table 5.7.1 Figure, Table, and Page Numbers for Cost-Efficiency Results Equipment Class Figure Table Page Number VCT.RC.L* Figure 5.7.1 Table 5.7.2 5-40 VOP.RC.M* Figure 5.7.2 Table 5.7.3 5-41 SVO.RC.M* Figure 5.7.3 Table 5.7.4 5-42 HZO.RC.L* Figure 5.7.4 Table 5.7.5 5-43 HZO.RC.M Figure 5.7.5 Table 5.7.6 5-44 VCT.RC.M Figure 5.7.6 Table 5.7.7 5-45 VOP.RC.L Figure 5.7.7 Table 5.7.8 5-46 SOC.RC.M Figure 5.7.8 Table 5.7.9 5-47 VOP.SC.M Figure 5.7.9 Table 5.7.10 5-48 SVO.SC.M Figure 5.7.10 Table 5.7.11 5-49 HZO.SC.L Figure 5.7.11 Table 5.7.12 5-50 HZO.SC.M Figure 5.7.12 Table 5.7.13 5-51 HCT.SC.I Figure 5.7.13 Table 5.7.14 5-52 VCT.SC.I Figure 5.7.14 Table 5.7.15 5-53 VCS.SC.I** Figure 5.7.15 Table 5.7.16 5-54 * Shown with industry-supplied data. ** VCS equipment family is normalized by volume. As stated above, DOE used the cost-efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input to the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis to determine the price of co mmercial refrigeration equipment to the customer (Chapter 8). In th e LCC analysis, DOE used industry-supplied curves for the equipment classes that had industry-suppl ied curves provided. For all other equipment classes, DOE used the AD curves in the LCC analysis.

5-39VCT.RC.L $160 Vertical Remote Freezer w ith Transparent Doors

$100 $110 $120 $130 $140 $150TDA-Normalized ManufacturerSelling Price [$/ft2]

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.1 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.2 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCT.RC.L Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data

Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDANormalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 1.07 1.04 1.01 0.72 0.62 0.61 0.60 113.17 113.61 114.67 134.42 143.16 143.98 145.70

5-40$180 VOP.RC.M Vertical Remote Refrigerator without Doors $160

$140

$120

$100

$80

$60 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.2 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.3 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VOP.RC.M Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data
Design Option Level TDANormalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 )

AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 1.09 1.04 0.98 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.82 79.12 79.76 81.30 82.90 87.59 88.58 158.71

5-41SVO.RC.M $185 Semi-Vertical Remote Refrigerator without Doors $170

$155

$140

$125

$110

$95

$80 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.3 Cost-Efficiency Curves for the SVO.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.4 Cost-Efficiency Data for the SVO.RC.M Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data
Design Option Level TDANormalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 )

AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 1.09 1.04 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.90 0.84 95.10 95.67 97.04 98.56 102.91 104.24 172.27

5-42HZO.RC.L $100 Horizontal Remote Freezer without Doors

$94 $96 $98TDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

$92

$90 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.4 Cost-Efficiency Curves for the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.5 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HZO.RC.L Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data
Design Option Level TDANormalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 )

AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.73 0.72 93.63 94.12 95.31 97.40 98.56

5-43TDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2] $140

$136 HZO.RC.M Horizontal Remote Refrigerator without Doors

$132

$128

$124

$120 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.5 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.6 Cost-Efficiency Data for the HZO.RC.M Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 0.59 0.54 0.48 0.45 0.44 129.23 129.92 131.58 133.95 135.56

5-44TDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2] VCT.RC.M $140 Vertical Remote Refrigerator with Transparent Doors

$130

$120

$110

$100

$90

$80 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.6 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.7 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCT.RC.M Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.37 0.26 0.25 0.25 103.23 103.67 104.72 113.47 129.02 129.84 130.86

5-45VOP.RC.L $190 Vertical Remote Freezer without Doors $180

$170

$160

$150

$140

$130

$120 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.7 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.RC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.8 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VOP.RC.L Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 2.99 2.84 2.65 2.54 2.52 2.51 2.43 143.54 145.32 149.62 156.20 157.02 158.21 180.22

5-46TDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2] SOC.RC.M Service Over Counter Remote Refrigerator $220

$200

$180

$160

$140

$120

$100 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.8 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.9 Cost-Efficiency Data for the SOC.RC.M Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.53 0.51 0.42 0.41 0.40 146.36 146.81 147.88 149.08 150.33 189.53 190.57 196.55

5-47VOP.SC.M $300 Vertical Self-Contained Refrigerator without Doors $275
$250
$225
$200
$175
$150
$125
$100 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35 2.55 2.75 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.9 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VOP.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.10 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the VOP.SC.M Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 AD11 2.65 2.54 2.50 2.46 2.41 2.30 2.27 2.24 2.06 2.05 1.96 145.66 146.49 147.25 148.39 150.23 155.87 157.96 160.71 179.11 182.67 265.29

5-48SVO.SC.M $300 Semi-Vertical Self-Contained Refrigerator without Doors $275
$250
$225
$200
$175
$150
$125
$100 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35 2.55 2.75 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.10 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the SVO.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for the SVO.SC.M Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 AD11 2.59 2.47 2.44 2.43 2.40 2.30 2.28 2.26 2.09 2.08 2.01 138.92 139.82 140.27 140.71 141.78 146.81 147.88 149.57 165.98 170.13 240.51

5-49HZO.SC.L $190 Horizontal Self-Contained Freezer without Doors
$185
$180
$175
$170
$165
$160
$155
$150 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.11 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.L Equipment Class

Table 5.7.12 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the HZO.SC.L Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 3.22 3.03 3.00 2.96 2.80 2.79 2.54 2.53 2.51 154.04 155.38 155.85 156.99 161.97 162.44 178.69 179.83 184.26

5-50HZO.SC.M $155 Horizontal Self-Contained Refrigerator without Doors

$150

$145

$140

$135

$130 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.12 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HZO.SC.M Equipment Class

Table 5.7.13 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the HZO.SC.M Equipment ClassTDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2]

DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 1.60 1.52 1.49 1.45 1.44 1.38 1.26 1.24 1.23 132.19 132.87 133.34 134.48 134.96 137.83 147.19 148.33 152.76

5-51TDA-NormalizedManufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2] HCT.SC.I $250 Horizontal Self-Contained Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors

$240

$230

$220

$210

$200 0.35 0.55 0.75 0.95 1.15 1.35 1.55 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.13 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class

Table 5.7.14 Cost-Efficiency Data fo r the HCT.SC.I Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 1.42 1.29 1.24 0.72 0.69 0.65 202.29 203.93 205.04 225.93 228.61 239.00

5-52TDA-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft2] VCT.SC.I $200 Vertical Self-Contained Ice-Cream Freezer with Transparent Doors

$180

$160

$140

$120

$100 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90 TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 2 ]

Figure 5.7.14 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class

Table 5.7.15 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCT.SC.I Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level TDA-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 2 ) TDA-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 2 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 AD10 AD11 1.76 1.66 1.61 1.55 1.45 1.28 0.90 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 134.76 135.45 135.88 136.94 138.95 146.92 166.68 173.24 173.67 174.73 176.77

5-53VCS.SC.I $50 Vertical Self-Contained Ice-Cream Freezer with Solid Doors

$48Vr-Normalized Manufacturer SellingPrice [$/ft3] $46

$44

$42 Note: The VCS equipment family is normalized by refrigerated volume $40 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 Vr-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day/ft 3 ]

Figure 5.7.15 Cost-Efficiency Curve for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class

Table 5.7.16 Cost-Efficiency Data for the VCS.SC.I Equipment Class DOE Analytically Derived Data Design Option Level Vr-Normalized Daily Energy Consumption (kWh/day/ft 3 ) Vr-Normalized Manufacturer Selling Price ($/ft 3 ) AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6 AD7 AD8 AD9 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 43.38 43.61 43.91 44.48 45.03 46.82 47.06 48.17 48.74

5-545.8 OFFSET FACTORS
Equipment energy use (CDEC) scales with equipment size, but smaller equipment tends to use more energy per TDA (or per volume) than la rger equipment in the same equipment class. This extra energy is attributed to components of case load that do not scale with equipment size. These load components therefore have a dispropo rtionate effect on the energy consumption of small equipment. DOE developed offset f actors to account for th ese load components, commonly referred to as “end effects,” as a way to adjust standards to a llow more energy use for smaller equipment.
In the ANOPR public meeting, stakeholders rais ed concerns that standards developed for large sizes of equipment would be unfair when ap plied to smaller equipment in the same class, because of the end effects that disproportionately affect smaller equipment. In most equipment classes, larger equipment is more common, especial ly in those classes that are used in grocery stores ( i.e., remote condensing equipment). In its engineering analysis, DOE developed costefficiency curves for a single size within ea ch equipment class. The representative TDA c selected for each class was toward the larger end of the equipment available within that class. DOE intended for standards to be based on this single point (the poi nt defined by TDA and CDEC). In effect, DOE was proposing in th e ANOPR to implement standards by requiring equipment to meet an energy consumption limit defined by a line drawn between the origin and the TDA-CDEC point determined by the engineering cost-efficiency curve. (See the left pane of Figure 5.8.1.) As the right pane of Figure 5.8.1 shows, the offset factor fixes the left end of the standard equation at a fixed o ffset on the CDEC axis, effectiv ely providing a higher limit on energy consumption for smaller equipment.

Figure 5.8.1 Illustration of Offset Factor

c TDA is used here to illustrate the concept of offset fact ors. However, this explanation also applies to equipment classes that use volume as a normalizing factor.

5-55A standard equation, then, consists of tw o components: a size-dependent multiplier (slope) and a constant (offset f actor). DOE calculated the slope of the standard equation as the difference between the CDEC at the analysis point corresponding to the se lected standard level and the offset factor, divided by the TDA at the analysis point:

CDEC

− b m = Eq. 5.10 TDA
where,

m is the slope of the standard equation, and b is the offset factor.
The standard equation then takes the form:

CDEC MAX = m TDA ⋅ + b Eq. 5.11

where CDEC MAX is the maximum allowable energy consumption. This form of the standard equation also applies to equipment cl asses that use volume as a normalizing factor.
In determining offset factors, DOE considered different end effects for each equipment family. For all open cases (VOP, SVO, and HZO), DOE considered the effects of heat conduction through the case ends, as well as the infiltr ation load end effects. For vertical closed transparent cases (VCT), the c onduction through the ends was take n into account, as well as the heat load and electrical load of one T8 lamp. DOE considered one T8 lamp because there is generally always one more lamp than the number of doors ( e.g., six lamps in a five-door case), meaning that in a theoretical case with no doors, th ere would still be one la mp. In the remaining equipment families (SOC, HCT, VCS), DOE only considered the conduction effects through the case ends.

To estimate the heat load due to conducti on through the case ends for each equipment class, DOE used the same methodology that it used to find the conduction through case walls (Eq. 5.6). DOE substituted the area of the case ends for the wall area of the entire case to find only the heat load caused by conduction through the ends. For the open cases, DOE estimated the infiltration load end effects. DOE estimated the infiltration end effects of a VOP.RC.M case as 1,100 Btu/h per end, 10 and then scaled that value for the other open cases based on the air curtain length of each equipment class compared to the air curtain length of the VOP.RC.M case. DOE estimated the heat load due to a lamp as 198.08 Btu/h (section 5.6.7.3).
Once the appropriate heat loads were calculated, DOE summed the applicable heat loads for each class. DOE used the total heat load of each individual equipment class to calculate the daily energy use of the compressor for that cl ass, using the method de scribed in section 5.6.7.2. For all equipment classes except for those in th e VCT equipment family, this became the offset factor. For VCT equipment, DOE also consider ed the amount of electrical energy consumed by lighting. DOE estimated the daily electrical lo ad of lighting as 1.392 kWh/day for one lamp using the method explained in section 5.6.7.1. DOE then summed the energy use of the lamp

5-56and compressor for each VCT equipment class to get the total daily energy consumption of a zero-length case for each class. These figures be came the offset factors for the various VCT equipment classes. Table 5.8.1 Offset Factor s shows the offset factors for the 15 primary equipment classes.

Table 5.8.1 Offset Factors

Equipment Class Offset Factor (kWh/day) VCT.RC.L 2.61 VOP.RC.M 4.07 SVO.RC.M 3.18 HZO.RC.L 6.88 HZO.RC.M 2.88 VCT.RC.M 1.95 VOP.RC.L 6.85 SOC.RC.M 0.11 VOP.SC.M 4.71 SVO.SC.M 4.59 HZO.SC.L 7.08 HZO.SC.M 5.55 HCT.SC.I 0.43 VCT.SC.I 3.29 VCS.SC.I 0.88

5.9 EXTENSION OF STANDARDS
DOE did not analyze all covered equipment cl asses, but focused its analysis on 15 highshipment equipment classes (Table 5.2.2). DOE developed an extension approach to apply the standards developed for these 15 “primary” clas ses to the remaining 23 “secondary” classes. This approach involves extensi on multipliers developed with the 15 primary results and a set of focused matched-pair analyses. In addition, stan dards for certain primary equipment classes can be directly applied to other si milar secondary equipment classes. This section explains each aspect of this approach.
In the final rule, trial standard levels are presented for each of the 15 primary equipment classes in the form of a standard equation. This standard equation consis ts of a size-dependent multiplier (slope) and an offset factor (section 5.8 ). The extension multipliers are applied to the slopes and offset factors of the primary standard equations (Figur e 5.9.1). In this illustration, a standard is multiplied by an extension factor greater than one, for example in the case of extending a standard from a low-temperature cl ass to an ice-cream-temperature class.

5-57Figure 5.9.1 Illustration of Extension of Standard Level

5.9.1 Extension Multipliers
DOE examined extending standards using the 15 primary equipment classes developed in the engineering analysis. Using the TDA-normali zed baseline CDEC values, several trends are apparent for certain sub-groups of equipment. DOE examined several related pairs of equipment classes to develop extension multipliers.
First, DOE examined the CDEC/TDA relati onship between remote and self-contained medium-temperature equipment without doors (T able 5.9.1). There is reasonable agreement across equipment families among medium-temperature open equipment, with an average multiplier of 2.51 between remote and self-cont ained equipment. The differences between remote and self-contained equipment are similar for VOP, SVO, and HZO equipment. In addition to the inclusion of a self -contained condensing unit, which is less efficient than remote condensing systems, self-contained open equipm ent must have provisions for dealing with defrost meltwater. Because self-contained equipm ent is designed to be mobile, defrost meltwater must be collected in a drain pa n and evaporated using electric-re sistance heating. This feature adds considerable energy use to open self-contained equipment. The 2.51 multiplier is also applicable to low- and ice-cream-temperature equipment without doors. The differences in design are similar for low-temperature and ice- cream-temperature equipment, consisting of a self-contained condensing unit and the addition of a defrost meltwater evaporation system. Thus, the 2.51 multiplier is applicable to the following standard extensions:

• VOP.RC.L to VOP.SC.L

• SVO.RC.L to SVO.SC.L

• VOP.RC.I to VOP.SC.I

• SVO.RC.I to SVO.SC.I

• HZO.RC.I to HZO.SC.I

5-58Table 5.9.1 Extension Multipliers for Remote and Self-Contained Equipment Without Doors Relationship CDEC/TDA Multiplier
VOP.RC.M to VOP.SC.M 2.431

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

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

DOE next examined the CDEC/TDA relati onship between low-temperature and icecream-temperature remote equipment using a fo cused matched-pair analysis. The focused matched-pair analysis methodology was described in detail in the ANOPR TSD, and establishes a correlation between rating temperature levels and CDEC/TDA, using data collected from manufacturer specification sheets. DOE quantified the differences in energy consumption for matched pairs of equipment classes that are very similar in features and dimensions, but have different operating temperatures. Pairs of un its at low- and ice-cr eam-temperatures were selected from several different manufacturers fo r comparison. DOE selected identical units from a given manufacturer designed to operate at multiple temperatures to isolate operating temperature as the only variable.
The matched-pair results show that VCT. RC.I units (at -15°F) have on average CDEC/TDA values that are 1.17 times higher than comparable VCT.RC.L units. The 1.17 multiplier is also applicable to other similar e quipment types with doors. Differences in design consist of a lower operating temperature (res ulting in a lower compressor EER) and higher defrost and anti-sweat heater power. Thus, the 1.17 multiplier is applicable to the following standard extensions:

• SOC.RC.L to SOC.RC.I

• HCT.RC.L to HCT.RC.I
The matched-pair results further show that HZO.RC.I units (at -15°F) have on average CDEC/TDA values that are 1.27 times higher than comparable HZO.RC.L units. The 1.27 multiplier is also applicable to other similar equipment types without doors. Differences in design consist of a lower operating temperatur e (resulting in a lower compressor EER) and higher defrost and anti-sweat heater power. T hus, the 1.27 multiplier is applicable to the following standard extensions:

• VOP.RC.L to VOP.RC.I

• SVO.RC.L to SVO.RC.I

• VOP.SC.L to VOP.SC.I

• SVO.SC.L to SVO.SC.I

• HZO.SC.L to HZO.SC.I

DOE next examined the CDEC/TDA relations hip between remote and self-contained icecream-temperature equipment with transparent d oors. To make this comparison, DOE used the matched-pair results to estimate the baseline CDEC/TDA values for VCT.RC.I equipment, and

5-59compared the results to VCT.SC.I equipment. The comparison showed that CDEC/TDA values for VCT.SC.I equipment are 1.40 times higher th an VCT.RC.I equipment. DOE understands that this difference in energy use is due to the differences in efficiency of the self-contained condensing unit, as well as the addition of defros t meltwater evaporation sy stems. However, in contrast to open equipment, equipment with transparent doors is subject to a much lower infiltration load, and thus a lower melt water eva poration requirement. This leads to a lower multiplier than was seen for open equipment. The 1.40 multiplier can be applied to the following standard extensions:

• SOC.RC.I to SOC.SC.I

• HCT.RC.I to HCT.SC.I

• VCS.RC.I to VCS.SC.I

• HCS.RC.I to HCS.SC.I
Finally, DOE examined the relationship betw een medium- and low-temperature remote equipment with transparent doors. Both the VCT.RC.M and VCT.RC.L equipment classes were directly examined in the engineering analysis . Using the engineeri ng results, the comparison showed that CDEC/TDA values for VCT. RC.L equipment are 2.10 times higher than VCT.RC.M equipment. This difference is due to the higher defrost heater power and anti-sweat heater power requirements in low-temperature e quipment. The 2.10 multiplier can be applied to the standard extension from HCT.RC.M to HCT.RC.L.
Using these extension factors, DOE can exte nd standards to the 23 secondary equipment classes, as illustrated in Ta ble 5.9.2. Baseline CDEC/TDA values for the 15 primary equipment classes are represented by th e letters a through o (in bold fo r the 15 primary classes) for simplicity, multiplied or divided by the appropriat e extension values. Note that the SVO.RC.L baseline CDEC/TDA value is identified as “a,” which is the same as the baseline CDEC/TDA value for VOP.RC.L. The base line CDEC/TDA values for VOP.RC.M (b) and SVO.RC.M (d) are equal, and additionally the CDEC/TDA levels above the baseline are very similar (see detailed cost-efficiency results in Appendix B). The similarities in these two mediumtemperature equipment classes would extend to th e respective low-temperature versions. Also note that the baseline CDEC/TDA value for the HC S.SC.I equipment class is identified as the letter “o,” which is the same value for VCS.SC .I. The orientation has little effect on energy consumption for equipment with solid doors, and standards for all corresponding equipment classes within the VCS and HCS families should be equivalent.

5-60Table 5.9.2 Extension Multipliers by Equipment Class RC SC I L M I L MOpen VOP 1.27a a b 1.27(2.51c) 1.27(2.51e) 1.27h 2.51c 2.51e

h c

e i SVO 1.27a a d HZO 1.27f f gClosed SOC 1.17(2.10j) 2.10j j 1.40(1.17(2.10j))

m

n O

o VCT 1.17k k l HCT n/1.40 (n/1.40)/1.17 ((n/1.40)/1.17)/2.10 VCS o/1.40 (o/1.40)/1.17 ((o/1.40)/1.17)/2.10 HCS o/1.40 (o/1.40)/1.17 ((o/1.40)/1.17)/2.10

5.10 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
DOE conducted two sensitivity analyses. The fi rst examined the sensitivity of the costefficiency curves to material prices. The s econd examined the sensi tivity of standards to alternative refrigerants.

5.10.1 Material Price Sensitivity
DOE conducted a sensitivity analys is on material prices to examine the effect of spikes in commodity prices that the indus try has experienced over the past few years. The analysis compares the 5-year average prices for 2002-2006 (described in section 5.4.3) with the 5-year high price for the same period (2006 is the year w ith the highest material prices during that 5­ year period). The results of this sensitivity analysis are presente d in Figure 5.10.1 for the VOP.RC.M equipment class, which has the highes t shipment volume of all analyzed equipment classes. Shown for comparison is the industry-supplied data for th e VOP.RC.M equipment class.
In addition to adding about 15 percent to the overall cost of the equipment, the large increase in copper prices dramatically raises th e cost of the evaporator coil (roughly 50 percent for both the baseline and enhanced evaporator coil) . This increase in coil cost reduces the costeffectiveness of this design option, which can be seen as a change in the slope of the costefficiency curve between the third and fourth de sign option levels above th e baseline. For this equipment class, the 5-year average prices pr oduce an analytically derived curve that more closely matches the industry-supplied curve. Base d on the assumption that the overall case cost would increase by roughly 15 perc ent for other equipment classes, the 5-year average prices would also provide a closer match than the 5- year high prices for th e other industry-supplied curves (Figure 5.7.1, Figure 5.7.3, and Figure 5.7.4).

5-61Figure 5.10.1 Material Price Sensitiv ity for the VOP.RC.M Equipment Class

5.10.2 Alternative Refrigerants
In conducting an engineering analysis, DOE must consider the e ffects of regulatory changes outside DOE’s statutory energy conser vation standards rulemaking process that can affect the manufacturers of the covered equipment. Some of these changes can also affect the energy efficiency or energy consumption of th e covered equipment. DOE identified such external engineering issues that could affect th e engineering analysis. These issues are closely related to the cumulative regulat ory burden assessment that DOE carried out as part of the manufacturer impact analysis.
Due to the phase-out of chlorofluorocar bons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), the commercial refrigeration indus try must transition to non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. As a result, the refrigeration i ndustry is transitioning to hydrofluorocarbon-based (HFC-based) refrigerants in its equipment. Fo r the commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking, much of the industry has already been using HFC-based refrigerants for both remote condensing and self-contained equipment. Therefore, DOE considered the effects of HFC-based refrigerants from the outset by using HFC refrigerants in its analyses. For remote condensing equipment, the compressor efficiency values used in its analysis are based on ARI 1200, which uses an HFC-based compressor rack with R-404a refrigerant. Likewise for selfcontained equipment, DOE’s analysis uses R- 134a and R-404a, both HFC-based refrigerants.

5-625.11 RESULTS
DOE presents more detailed results and suppor ting data for the engi neering analysis in Appendix B of this TSD.

5-63REFERENCES

1 American Metals Market. 2007. (Last acc essed July 11, 2007.) http://www.amm.com/ The July 11, 2007, material from this webs ite is available in Docket # EE-2006-STD0126. For more information, contact Br enda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945.

2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bu reau of Labor Statistics. Producer Price Indices . 2007. (Last accessed June 28, 2007.) http://www .bls.gov/ppi / The June 28, 2007, material from this website is available in Dock et #EE-2006-STD-0126. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards- Jones at (202) 586-2945.

3 U.S. Department of Commer ce, Bureau Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator . 2007. (Last accessed June 28, 2007.)
< https://bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView .asp#Mid > The June 28, 2007 material from this website is available in Dock et #EE-2006-STD-0126. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards- Jones at (202) 586-2945.

4 David H. Walker, Ramin T. Farmarzi, Van D. Baxter, Investigation of Energy-Efficient Supermarket Display Cases . 2004. Oak Ridge National La boratory: Oak Ridge, TN. Report No. TM-292-2004.

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

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

7 ANSI/ASHRAE. Standard 72-2005 : Method of Testing Commerc ial Refrigerators and Freezers . 2005.

8 Electric Power Research Institute. Supermarket Simulation Tool v3.0 . 2007.

9 R. Faramarzi. Efficient Display Case Refrigeration. In ASHRAE Journal . November 1999.

10 P. D'Agaro, G. Cortella, G. Croce, Two- and Three-Dimensional CFD Applied to Vertical Display Cabinet Simulation , Int. J Refrigeration, Vol. 29, 2, pp. 178-190, 2005.

5-64