1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov The Parker Ranch installation in Hawaii



### - -

- - - 

## BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Walk In Coolers and Walk In Freezers Energy Conservation Program Preliminary Analysis May 19, 2010 Charles Llenza Department of Energy Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy WICF 2008 STD 0015@ee.doe.gov



## Welcome and Introduction

2 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Introductions
• Role of the Facilitator
• Ground Rules (norms)

– Listen as an ally

– Use short, succinct statements (keep to the point)

– Hold sidebar conversations outside the room

– Focus on issues, not personalities

– One person speak at a time (raise hand to be recognized, state name for

the record)

– Set cell phones to silent/vibrate 

### • Housekeeping Items

## Agenda (Morning)

3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 9:00 – 9:30 am

9:30 – 9:45 am 9:45 – 10:45 am

10:45 – 11:00 am 11:00 – 11:45 am 11:45 – 12:45 pm

12:45 – 1:45 pm Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, and Opening Statements Rulemaking Overview Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and Engineering Analysis Break Markup Analysis and Energy Use Analysis Shipments Analysis, Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, and National Impact Analysis Lunch



## Agenda (Afternoon)

4 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 1:45 – 2:15 pm 2:15 – 2:45 pm

2:45 – 3:00 pm 3:00 – 4:00 pm 4:00 – 4:30 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis Break Test Procedures Next Steps and Closing Remarks- 

## Public Meeting Agenda

5 | Building Technologies Program 1 Introduction and Overview
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov



## Request for Comments

6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Issue Box For the Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document, DOE welcomes comment. Throughout this presentation, specific issues will be raised for discussion in yellow issue boxes. However , comments concerning any part of the document or presentation are welcome.

## DOE Seeks Comments on its Proposal

7 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### In all correspondence, include all of the following :

– Energy Conservation Standards for Walk

- In Coolers and Walk

- In Freezers

– Docket Number EERE

- 2008

- BT

- STD

- 0015

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904

- AB86
Email : WICF - 2008 - STD - 0015@ee.doe.gov



## Comment period closes May 28, 2010 Postal Mail :

Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Mailstop EE

- 2J Washington, DC 20585 Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L‘Enfant Plaza, 6 th Floor Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: 202.586.2945



## Purpose of the Public Meeting

8 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Present the procedural and analytical approaches to evaluate energy conservation standards for walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers (WICF or walk

- ins).

• Provide a forum for public discussion of rulemaking issues.

• Encourage interested parties to submit data, information, and written comments.

• Inform interested parties and facilitate the rulemaking process.

## Opening Statements

9 | Building Technologies Program 

### At this time, DOE welcomes opening remarks on the preliminary analyses for walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers

.

eere.energy.gov



## Statute and Context: Introduction

10 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • As amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110

- 140) , the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA):

– Sets prescriptive standards on certain components of WICF.

– Directs DOE to publish test procedures for WICF.

• The subject of a separate but concurrent rulemaking.

– Directs DOE to ―publish performance based standards for walk

- in coolers

and walk

- in freezers that achieve the maximum improvement in energy that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified ‖ by January 1, 2012.

• The subject of this rulemaking.

## WICF Rulemaking Schedule

11 | Building Technologies Program Milestone Framework Document published Federal Register Notice of Public Meeting (NOPM) and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document Issue NOPR Issue Final Rule Standard Effective Date 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

eere.energy.gov Date January 6, 2009 April 5, 2010 Spring 2011 January 1, 2012 January 1, 2015 2015 2016



## Stakeholder Participation in the Rulemaking Process

12 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Federal Register Notices Framework Document Preliminary Analysis NOPR Final Rule



# • Public meetings and oral comments 

# • Written comments on Federal Register notices, Technical Support Documents (TSDs), and analytical spreadsheets 

# • Data input from manufacturers and other interested parties

Stakeholder Participation Today

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

13 | Building Technologies Program Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Markups for Equipment Price Determination Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis



## Statute and Context: Overall Approach

14 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • DOE is developing separate standards for envelopes and refrigeration systems.

– Approach was based on feedback from interested parties in the

framework stage.

– Proposed test procedures: separate tests.



### • DOE conducted the Market and Technology Assessment and the Engineering Analysis separately for envelopes and refrigeration systems.

• DOE conducted downstream analyses on combinations of envelope and refrigeration classes at all efficiency levels.

Item 1 - 1 DOE seeks comment on developing separate standards for envelopes and refrigeration systems. (Question ES.4.1 in the Executive Summary)- 

## Public Meeting Agenda

15 | Building Technologies Program 1 Statute and Context
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis ; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov



## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

16 | Building Technologies Program Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis17 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– Characterize the WICF market and manufacturers

– Determine appropriate equipment classes



### • Method

– Determine scope of coverage

– Identify and characterize manufacturers of WICF

– Use historical shipment data to characterize market trends

– Classify covered equipment into appropriate equipment classes



### • Detailed description of methodology and results is contained in Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD. 

## Market Assessment: Purpose & Method

Market Assessment: Equipment Classes (cont.) Equipment Classes for Envelopes Equipment Type Operating Temperature Equipment Class Designation Non

- Display Cooler ND.C Freezer ND.F Display Cooler D.C Freezer D.F 

### Equipment Classes for Refrigeration Systems

Condensing Type Operating Temperature Condenser Location Equipment Class Designation Multiplex Medium

- - MC.M Low

- - MC.L Medium Indoor DC.M.I Dedicated Low DC.L.I Medium Outdoor DC.M.O

Low DC.L.O

18 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

## Market Assessment: Request for Comment

19 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 2 - 1 DOE seeks comment on these equipment classes. (Question ES.4.3 in the Executive Summary)

eere.energy.gov

20 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– To develop a preliminary list of technology options that could improve

the efficiency of walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers.



### • Method

– DOE identified technology options from:
• Literature review • Manufacturer marketing brochures
• Comments and input from stakeholders



### • All technology options are described in Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD. 

## Technology Assessment: Purpose & Method

## Technologies Identified: Envelope

21 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### All Envelope Classes Wall, Ceiling, and Floor Insulation Door Gaskets Automatic Door Opening and Closing Systems Electronic Ballasts and High

- Efficiency Lighting Occupancy Sensors Panel Interface Systems Air Curtains Strip Curtains Refrigeration System Override Air and Water Infiltration Sensors Humidity Sensors Heat Flux Sensors Vestibule Entryways Revolving Doors Fiber Optic Natural Lighting Energy Storage Systems Non

- Penetrative Internal Racks and Shelving



## Technologies Identified: Envelope (cont.)

22 | Building Technologies Program 

### Display Envelopes Only Anti

- Sweat Heater Controls Non

- Electric Anti

- Sweat Systems No Anti

- Sweat Systems Automatic Insulation Deployment Display and Window Glass System Insulation Performance

eere.energy.gov

## Technologies Identified: Refrigeration Systems

23 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### All Refrigeration System Classes High

- Efficiency Evaporator Fan Blades Improved Evaporator Coils Evaporator Fan Control High

- Efficiency Evaporator Fan Motors Three

- Phase Motors 

### Dedicated Condensing Refrigeration Systems Only Ambient Sub

- Cooling High

- Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors Automatic Evaporator Fan Shutoff High

- Efficiency Condenser Fan Blades High Efficiency Compressors Improved Condenser Coil 

### Low Temperature Refrigeration Systems Only Hot Gas Defrost Defrost Controls 

### Outdoor Refrigeration Systems Only Floating Head Pressure Economizer Cooling



## Technology Assessment: Request for Comment

24 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 2 - 2 DOE asks interested parties to comment on other technologies that DOE should consider.

eere.energy.gov

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

25 | Building Technologies Program Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis



## Screening Analysis: Purpose

26 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– To determine which technology options will be considered in

downstream analyses.



### • Technology options are ―screened o ut‖ i f they

– Are not technologically feasible

– Are not practicable to manufacture, install, and service

– Have adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability to customers

– Have adverse impacts on health or safety



### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD.27 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Screened

- Out Technologies:

– For Envelopes:
• Revolving doors • Fiber

- optic natural lighting • Energy storage systems • Non

- electric anti

- sweat systems • Automatic insulation deployment systems

– For Refrigeration:
• Higher efficiency evaporator fan motors
• Three

- phase motors • Economizer cooling 

## Screening Analysis (cont.)

Item 2 - 3 DOE seeks comment on the screened

- out technologies.

28 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis National Impact Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

## Engineering Analysis: Purpose and Methods

29 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Purpose

– To characterize the relationship between manufacturer selling price

and walk

- in equipment energy consumption.



### • Methods

– DOE performed the engineering analysis on envelopes and

refrigeration systems separately.

– DOE chose representative units on which to perform the analysis:
• Envelope: Three sizes per class • Refrigeration system: Two sizes per class

– For each unit, DOE determined the baseline configuration

.
– DOE also analyzed the technology options for each class.



### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD.

eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis: Approach

30 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • DOE used a design

- option approach to estimate the effect of implementing advanced technologies.

– For a baseline unit, DOE first calculated:
• Energy consumption • Cost

– DOE added advanced technologies to the baseline and calculated:
• Reduction in energy consumption • Incremental cost

– Finally, DOE sorted the technologies in order from most to least cost

effective.



### • Result: Cost

- Efficiency Curves , which describe the relationship between energy consumption and manufacturer selling price.

## Engineering Analysis: Representative Sizes Analyzed

31 | Building Technologies Program 

## Small Medium Large 

# ? ?

• DOE selected “representative” sizes for each equipment class

eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis: Representative Sizes Analyzed (cont.)

32 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Equipment Sizes for Envelopes

Equipment Sizes for Refrigeration Systems Dimensions [length x width x height, ft] Class Small Medium Large ND.C 10 x 8 x 7.6 12 x 20 x 9.5 25 x 30 x 12 ND.F 8 x 6 x 7.6 9 x 20 x 9.5 25 x 20 x 12 D.C 6 x 6 x 6.6 10.2 x 7 x 7.6 80 x 15 x 7.6 D.F 6 x 6 x 6.6 10.2 x 7 x 7.6 80 x 15 x 7.6

Nominal Capacity [ Btu/hr ] Class Small Large DC.M.I 12,000 24,000 DC.L.I 6,000 12,000 DC.M.O 15,000 24,000 DC.L.O 6,000 12,000 MC.M 9,000 30,000 MC.L 6,000 30,000

## Engineering Analysis: Technologies Analyzed

33 | Building Technologies Program 

### All Envelopes Improved Wall, Ceiling, and Floor Insulation Improved Door Gaskets and Panel Interface Systems Electronic Lighting Ballasts and High

- Efficiency Lighting Occupancy Sensors and Automatic Door Opening and Closing Systems Air Curtains and Strip Curtains Vestibule Entryways 

### Display Only Display and Window Glass System Insulation Enhancement Anti

- Sweat Heater Controls and No Anti

- Sweat Systems

eere.energy.gov 

### All Refrigeration Systems Improved Evaporator Fan Blades Improved Evaporator Coil Evaporator Fan Control 

### Dedicated Condensing Only Larger Condenser Coil Improved Condenser Fan Blades ECM Condenser Fan Motors High

- Efficiency Scroll Compressors 

### Outdoor Only Floating Head Pressure 

### Low Temperature Only Defrost Controls



## Engineering Analysis: Request for Comment

34 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 2 - 6 DOE seeks comment on other technologies that are currently available that could improve the efficiency of WICF equipment. Item 2 - 4 DOE seeks comment on the representative equipment sizes analyzed.

Item 2 - 5 DOE seeks comment on divisions between sizes for each equipment class.

eere.energy.gov

## Engineering Analysis: Envelope Energy Model

35 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis: Refrigeration Energy Model

36 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov37 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Manufacturer Production Cost

– Total material and part costs were derived from a review of envelopes

and refrigeration systems.

– Factory parameter assumptions (labor, overhead, and depreciation

costs) were based on DOE‘s internal expertise and manufacturer feedback. 

## Engineering Analysis: Cost Model

Manufacturer Markups


## • Sales & marketing 

## • Research & development 

## • Interest 

## • Profit Manufacturer

Production Cost Outbound Freight Cost 

# =

• Direct material 

## • Direct labor 

## • Factory overhead 

## • Depreciation 

# +
Shipping from manufacturer to distributor Manufacturer Selling Price

38 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Manufacturer Markup

– DOE developed manufacturer markups using SEC form 10

- K

reports from publicly owned WICF manufacturing companies.

• Net Sales
• Costs of Sales
• Gross Profit

– The aggregate manufacturer markup was found to be 1.39

. 

## Engineering Analysis: Cost Model (cont.)

Outbound Freight Cost 

# =
Shipping from manufacturer to distributor Manufacturer Selling Price


## • Sales & marketing 

## • Research & development 

## • Interest 

## • Profit Manufacturer

Production Cost Manufacturer Markups



## • Direct material 

## • Direct labor 

## • Factory overhead 

## • Depreciation 

# +

## Engineering Analysis: Cost Model (cont.)

39 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Outbound Freight

– DOE assumed that manufacturers included their outbound freight

cost in the equipment selling price.

– Outbound freight cost varies by:
• Volume
• Weight



## • Sales & marketing 

## • Research & development 

## • Interest 

## • Profit Manufacturer

Production Cost Manufacturer Markups Outbound Freight Cost 

# =

• Direct material 

## • Direct labor 

## • Factory overhead 

## • Depreciation Manufacturer Selling Price 

# +
Shipping from manufacturer to distributor



## Engineering Analysis: Cost Model (cont.)

40 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Item 2 - 7 DOE seeks comment on its costs, markup, and outbound freight assumptions. Manufacturer

Production Cost Manufacturer Markups Outbound Freight Cost 

# = Manufacturer Selling Price 

# +

## Engineering Analysis: Envelope Cost

- Efficiency Curve

41 | Building Technologies Program Baseline Max Tech 

### Medium Non - Display Cooler (ND.C)

eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis: Refrigeration Cost

- Efficiency Curve

42 | Building Technologies Program Baseline Max Tech Large, Dedicated - Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor Unit (DC.M.I)

eere.energy.gov- 

## Engineering Analysis: Efficiency Levels

43 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Each point on a cost

- efficiency curve is called an Efficiency Level.

• DOE conducted downstream analyses at each combination of Efficiency Levels for envelope and refrigeration system pairs.

Efficiency Levels



## Public Meeting Agenda

44 | Building Technologies Program 1 Statute and Context
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

45 | Building Technologies Program Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis



## Markups Analysis: Purpose

46 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– Determine end

- user prices based on manufacturer costs

– Characterize equipment distribution channels

– Reflect WICF distribution direct costs, expenses, and profits



### • Inputs

– Firm balance sheets from HARDI (wholesalers) and ACCA (mechanical

contractors) data

– U.S. Census Bureau on wholesalers, mechanical contractors, general

contractors



### • Output

– Baseline and incremental markups



### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD.

## Markups Analysis: Distribution Channels for Equipment to Grocery Segment

47 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov WICF Manufacturers (Grocery Segment)

National Accounts (Chain Stores) Food and Equipment Wholesaler

Mechanical Contractor (New Construction or Replacement)

Customer Customer Customer Customer Distribution Intermediary [Equipment Dealer (and Mechanical Contractor )]



## Markups Analysis: Distribution Channels for Equipment to Foodservice Segment

48 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov WICF Manufacturers (Foodservice Segment)

Dealers

OPERATORS Design Consultants Buying Groups

Franchisers Broadline Distributors

E - Commerce Value - Added Resellers

## Markups Analysis: Distribution Channel Shares

49 | Building Technologies Program Multiplex Condensing Equipment

70% 15% 15%

eere.energy.gov Dedicated Condensing Equipment

Convenience Stores and Small Grocery Stores

( 50 %)

Food Service (50%) 30%

35% 35%

10%

80% 10%



## Distribution Channels: Request for Comment

50 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 3 - 2 DOE seeks comment on the accuracy of these distribution channels and the distribution channel shares. Item 3 - 1 DOE seeks comment on the markups analysis modeling approach (i.e. using multiple distribution channels). (Question ES.4.4 in the Executive Summary)

eere.energy.gov

## Markups Analysis: Preliminary Average Markups Markups ( Baseline / Incremental )

Distributor Mechanical Contractor (Includes Distributor) National Account (Mfg Direct) Overall Weighted Average Markup Multiplex Equipment Dedicated Equipment Distributor(s) Markup 

### 1.45 / 1.12 2.21 / 1.38 1.23 / 1.06 1.41 / 1.12 1.83 / 1.25 Overall Markup (Incl. Sales Tax) 

### 1.56 / 1.20 2.36 / 1.48 1.31 / 1.13 1.51 / 1.20 1.96 / 1.34

Sales Tax Multiplier 

### 1.07

51 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Item 3 - 3 DOE seeks comment on the baseline and incremental markups.

52 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis National Impact Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

## Energy Use Analysis: Purpose

53 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– To provide annual energy consumption estimates by efficiency level for

walk

- in equipment

– For units with outdoor condensers, to estimate and analyze state

- wide

annual energy consumption by efficiency level



### • Outputs

– Annual WICF energy consumption for all envelope and refrigeration

system combinations at all efficiency levels.



### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD.



## Energy Use Analysis: Methodology

54 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Analyzed 12 representative envelopes (4 equipment classes x 3 sizes).
• Matched each envelope with one of three refrigeration system types:

– Dedicated indoor system

– Dedicated system with external condenser

– Multiplex system 

### • Assumed product loading and duty cycle.
• Determined direct electrical energy consumption using proposed envelope test procedure methodology.
• Estimated energy for the refrigeration system using proposed test procedure (AHRI 1250

- 2009).
• Added energy consumption of the envelope and refrigeration system to calculate the total energy consumption of the walk

- in.Envelope Direct Energy 

## Data Inputs and Methodology

55 | Building Technologies Program Data from Proposed Refrigeration System Test Procedure (AHRI 1250) Heat Load Refrigeration System Energy Consumption ( Inside Envelope )

Assumptions Product Load Envelope Load Data from Proposed Envelope DOE Test Procedure
Refrigeration System Energy Consumption (Outside Envelope ) Envelope Direct Energy Consumption

eere.energy.gov Aggregate System Energy Consumption

Energy Consumption Results Heat Loads Inputs from Proposed Test

Procedures LEGEND

56 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Energy Use Analysis: Assumptions for Product Load

Item 3 - 4 DOE seeks comment on the assumptions made for calculating the product load. 

## Coolers Freezers
Product Pull Down Temperature Difference ( F ) 

## 10

Product Specific Heat ( Btu/lb

- F ) 

## 0.9 0.45

Small Medium/ Large Small Medium/ Large Loading Ratio (lbs/ft 3

- 24 hr) 

## 4 2 1 0.5

## Energy Use Analysis: Assumptions for Duty Cycle

57 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Coolers Freezers High Box Load (BLH) BLH = 0.7 x q ss * BLH = 0.8 x q ss *

Low Box Load (BLL) BLL = 0.1 x q ss * BLL = 0.4 x q ss *

Average Box Load (BLA) BLA = (8 BLH + 16 BLL) / 24



### Item 3 - 5 DOE seeks comment on the duty cycle assumptions and the rationale to use the duty cycle assumptions from the proposed refrigeration system test procedure (AHRI 1250

- 2009). * q ss =steady state capacity of the refrigeration system



## Energy Use Analysis: Oversize Factor

58 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov • Oversize factor (or mismatch factor) is the ratio between the required capacity and the closest available (size) refrigeration system capacity
• The mismatch factor is used to calculate the nearest matched refrigeration system capacity- 

## Energy Use Analysis: Sample Estimates of Annual Energy Consumption

59 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Energy Consumption for a Medium Non

- Display Cooler with a Dedicated Medium

- Temperature Outdoor System ( 12' x 20' x 9.5'):



## Public Meeting Agenda

60 | Building Technologies Program 1 Statute and Context
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov61 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis National Impact Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

62 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– Estimates financial impacts for a single consumer over time in two ways:
• Life

- cycle cost (LCC) savings
• Payback period (PBP)



### • Methodology

– Life Cycle Cost: Equipment

- installed price + sum of operating cost

stream

• LCC savings: Baseline minus standard level

– Payback Period: Equipment

- installed price / one year‘s operating costs

– LCC is discounted; PBP is not discounted (―simple ‖ PBP)



### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 

## Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis: Purpose & Methodology63 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Analysis Flow Chart

Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Electricity Prices

64 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Current electricity prices based on EIA form 861 data

– Specific to state and sector



### • Growth rates based on EIA‘s Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO )

– Specific to sector only



### • Both will be updated again for the NOPR

– Current EIA form 861 data is 2008

- 2009, current AEO is April 2009



### • Average energy prices

– Not time

- of

- use pricing or marginal pricing

– Assumes no variation by building type

eere.energy.gov

## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Repair, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs

65 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Major repairs = Replacement of entire refrigeration system and doors

– Probability of replacing refrigeration system during envelope lifetime = 0.5

– Annualized



### • Annual maintenance costs = $158 to $239

– One national figure

– Independent of size, efficiency level



### • Replacement accounted separately and considered as maintenance activity

• Main data source for all three: RS Means



## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Request for Comment

66 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 4 - 1 DOE seeks comment on whether the maintenance and repair costs are reasonable and how maintenance and repair costs may vary with efficiency level.

Item 4 - 2 DOE seeks comments on any additional sources that could be considered for maintenance, repair, and installation costs

.

eere.energy.gov

## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Installation Costs

67 | Building Technologies Program • Installation costs

– Unit cooler and condensing units installations considered separately

– Labor hour and rates based on RS Means for various sizes.

– Data extrapolated to cover full range

eere.energy.gov



## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Other Inputs

68 | Building Technologies Program



### • Discount Rates

– Real rates based on weighted average cost of capital (WACC)

– Different rates by establishment type
• Grocery stores • C onvenience stores • Food service establishments • Dairy farms
• M iscellaneous



### • Lifetimes

– Used average lifetime for one envelope ( 15 years)

– Includes two refrigeration systems in that time

– More detail in shipments section

eere.energy.gov

## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Sample Results

69 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• Difficult to summarize LCC results (many equipment classes, Efficiency Levels ) • Need summary statistic: max LCC for each class, size • Typically occurs at high Efficiency Levels, but not max tech



## Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Monte Carlo Simulation

70 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • For NOPR stage, DOE will also conduct Monte Carlo analysis for LCC.

• Allows DOE to consider variations in:

– Energy use (based on climate region/state)

– Prices (based on state taxes/labor prices/markups)

– Discount rates (based on sector/WACC)

– Possibly other factors (e.g., shipping distance)



### • Correlates inputs where necessary (e.g., state taxes and state climate region)

• Key value: shows how many consumers ―wi n‖ or ―los e‖ f inancially

– As opposed to average consumer‘s financial gain or loss- 

# Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Other Comments

71 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 4 - 3 DOE welcomes any other comments on the Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis at this time.

eere.energy.gov



## Public Meeting Agenda

72 | Building Technologies Program 1 Statute and Context
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

73 | Building Technologies Program Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis



## Shipments Analysis: Outputs & Purpose

74 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose:

– Estimate future stock & future shipments of envelopes and refrigeration

systems

– Estimate efficiency mix of the stock over time



### • Supports numerous downstream analyses including:

– National Impact Analysis

– Manufacturer Impact Analysis



### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD.

### - 75 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Future shipments are based on historical shipments.

• DOE could not find historical data for walk

- in shipments.

• Solution:

– Estimate historical stock (1997

- 2009)

– Estimate equipment replacement rates

– Estimate market growth rates



### • Calculate for many possible walk

- in types (equipment classes, efficiency levels...) 

## Shipments Analysis: Method

76 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • DOE estimated historical stock by combining two data sources:

– Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS): walk

- ins

per building square foot (―saturation ‖)

– Census: number and size (square feet) of buildings with walk

- ins 

### • Next, DOE apportioned the estimated historical stock:

– By building type (based on Census data)

– By equipment class (using DOE estimates and manufacturer interviews) 

### • Results (for 2007): 

## Shipments Analysis: Step 1 Estimate historical stock

Envelope Stock – 2,010,000 Equipment Class Percent of Stock Non

- Display Coolers 45% Display Coolers 25%
Non

- Display Freezers 10% Display Freezers 20% Refrigeration System Stock – 2,010,000 Equipment Class Percent of Stock Multiplex Condensing, Medium Temp 31% Multiplex Condensing, Low Temp 15% Direct Condensing, Indoor, Medium Temp 4% Direct Condensing, Indoor, Low Temp 2% Direct Condensing, Outdoor, Medium Temp 29% Direct Condensing, Outdoor, Low Temp 19%

### - 

## Shipments Analysis Historical Stock : Request for Comment

77 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 5 - 1 DOE seeks comment on its methodology for estimating historical stock.

eere.energy.gov

78 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Shipments Analysis : Step 2 Estimate equipment replacement rates

• DOE estimated equipment replacement rates

– Received input from manufacturers

– Accounted for variation in lifetimes 

### • Envelopes

– For historical analysis, DOE assumed average replacement rate of 5 %. Replacement Rate 2007 Stock 2007 Shipments Rate Used in Analysis 5% (~ e very 20 years) 2,010,000 102,000 Hypothetical Rate 10% (~ e very 10 years) 202,000

Replacement Rate 2007 Stock 2007 Shipments Rate Used in Analysis 15% (~ e very 8 years) 2,010,000 288,000 Hypothetical Rate 30% (~ e very 3 years) 575,000 

### • Refrigeration systems

– For historical analysis, DOE assumed average replacement rate of 15 %.

### - 

## Shipments Analysis Growth : Request for Comment

79 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 5 - 2 DOE seeks comment on the quantity and growth rate of historical shipments and the methodology for estimating these shipments. DOE requests that interested parties submit historical shipment data for WICF equipment

.

Item 5 - 3 DOE seeks comment regarding average lifetimes for envelopes and refrigeration systems, as well as variation around these averages.

eere.energy.gov



## Shipments Analysis : Step 3 Estimate market growth rates

80 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### DOE estimated future growth of the WICF market based on growth in the square footage of buildings that use walk

- ins

– Restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, dairy farms, and ―othe r‖

– Standard DOE procedure for a mature / saturated market

– Note that this growth rate was NOT observed in 1997

- 2007

– Sources: AEO2009 (most walk

- ins) and Ag Census (dairy farm walk

- ins)

Growth

Rate 2045 Stock 2045 Envelope Shipments

~ 1.6% ( prelim

. analysis ) 3,596,000 223,000
~0.1% (historical

rate) ~2,100,000 ~105,000

## Shipments Analysis Trends : Request for Comment

81 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 5 - 4 DOE seeks comment on the assumption that growth of WICF stock will match the square foot growth of the building stock of restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, and dairy farms in America.

Item 5 - 5 DOE seeks to know of any notable trends toward higher or lower shipments of WICF equipment in recent years, as well as high or low demand events in recent years.

eere.energy.gov



## Shipments Analysis: Sizes

82 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • Shipments are distributed across different sizes of walk

- ins:

– Needed for energy use & costs in

National Impact Analysis.

– Used representative sizes from

engineering analysis. 

### • DOE‘s estimates used publicly available information about commonly manufactured sizes.

Item 5 - 6 DOE seeks comment on any trends in WICF shipments in recent years. 

### Share of Shipments by Size (Example)83 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis National Impact Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

84 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • Purpose

– To assess the aggregate impacts at the national and regional level at each Efficiency

Level as measured by:

• NES
• NPV of total consumer economic impacts 

### • Method

– For each year, for both the base

- case and standards

- cases , DOE calculates:
• National energy consumption (energy use per unit per year times size of stock)
• Total consumer expenditures on walk

- ins is the sum of:

– National equipment expenditures (total installed cost per unit x forecasted

shipments in that year)

– National operation and maintenance costs (costs per unit per year x size of

stock)

– Take difference between base

- case and standards

- cases in each year for

NES and NPV of consumer economic impacts.

– Years are then discounted and summed 

### • The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD. 

## National Impact Analysis: Purpose & Method- -

85 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## National Impact Analysis: National Energy Savings Flow Diagram

Base - Case Annual Energy Consumption (2015 - 2045) Shipments Analysis Standards - Case Projection Base - Case Projection

Base Case Cumulative Energy Use Standards Case Cumulative Energy Use Site - to - Source Energy Conversion

+ Discount Rate

National Energy Savings Standards - Case Annual Energy Consumption (2015 - 2045)



## National Impact Analysis: National Consumer Net Present Value Flow Diagram

Base - Case Shipments Analysis Standards - Case Projection Projection

Energy Cost ( 2015 - 2045)

Operating Cost Savings Total Equipment Cost Increase

Net Present Value Maint
. & Install. Cost

( 2015 - 2045 ) Equipment Cost ( 2015 - 2045) Energy Cost ( 2015 - 2045) Maint
. & Install. Cost

( 2015 - 2045) Equipment Cost ( 2015 - 2045)

Discount

Rate

86 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

## National Impact Analysis: Inputs from Prior Analyses

87 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Key inputs: walk

- in stock and number of shipments by Efficiency Level (Shipments Analysis)

– NES requires stock (for energy per year )

– NPV requires shipments (for installed cost ) and stock (for operating cost)

– Includes the number of pre

- standard vs. post

- standard efficiency units

per year

• Some walk

- ins are a hybrid (pre

- standard envelope with a replaced,

post

- standard refrigeration system)

– DOE assumes all pre

- standard walk

- ins do not meet standard, and

all post

- standard walk

- ins meet but do not exceed standard (a ―roll

- up ‖ effect)



### • Additional cost/energy use inputs (LCC/PBP Analysis)

– Annual electricity costs per walk

- in

– Installed cost per walk

- in

– Annual operating costs other than energy costs per walk

- in



## National Impact Analysis: New Inputs

88 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Discount Factor

– Used 7 percent and 3 percent real discount rates from the Office of

Management and Budget‘s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A

- 4

– Future expenses are discounted to present (2010)



### • Electricity Site

- to

- Source Conversion Factors

– Used to convert on

- site energy consumption to primary (or source)

energy generation

– Depend on variables such as:
• Time

- varying generation mix • Distribution and transmission losses

– For pre

- analysis, used average factor over time
• For NOPR stage, will derive specific rate for each year (similar results

expected)

eere.energy.gov

## National Impact Analysis: New Inputs (cont.)

89 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) factor

– Measures interactions between walk

- ins and HVAC systems

– For this analysis, DOE assumed a factor of 1 (no effect): heat output

largely outdoors



### • Rebound factor

– Measures tendency of consumers to make more use of highly efficient

equipment

– For this analysis, DOE assumed a factor of 1 (no effect): operation

already constrained



## National Impact Analysis: NES and NPV Summary Statistics

90 | Building Technologies Program • Too many scenarios to characterize easily • One summary statistic: maximum NES where NPV > 0

– Other metrics possible National Energy Savings (in quads at a 7% Discount Rate) for Large Display Freezer with Large Dedicated Condensing Outdoor Refrigeration System

Note: Highlighted cells are Efficiency Level combinations for which NPV > 0. eere.energy.gov

## National Impact Analysis: NES and NPV Summary Statistics (cont.)

91 | Building Technologies Program National Energy Savings (in quads at a 7% Discount Rate) for Medium Non - Display Cooler with Large Dedicated, Indoor Refrigeration System • For many rules, this approach highlights max tech

– Other summary statistics (e.g. maximum NPV) different

Note: Highlighted cells are Efficiency Level combinations for which NPV > 0.

eere.energy.gov



## National Impact Analysis: NES and NPV Preliminary Results

92 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Results

– Typically occurs at a high Efficiency Level combination
• Occasionally at max tech

– NPV varies more than NES (because NPV is based on maximum NES)



### • Considerable savings available at max tech for both envelopes and refrigeration systems.

– NES: 6 quads at 7% DR (13 quads at 3% DR)

– NPV: $33B over 30 years at 7% DR ($72B at 3% DR)



### Item 5 - 7 DOE welcomes any comments on the National Impacts Analysis at this time.- 

## Public Meeting Agenda

93 | Building Technologies Program 1 Statute and Context
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov



## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

94 | Building Technologies Program Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis

## Manufacturer Impact Analysis: Overview

95 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • Purpose

– Assess the impacts of new standards on manufacturers.

– Identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer subgroups that may be

more severely impacted than the industry as a whole.

– Examine the impact of cumulative regulatory burden on the industry.



### • Method

– Analyze industry cash flow and net present value through use of the

Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).

– Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, develop subgroup

analyses, and address qualitative issues.



### • Outputs

– Industry NPV impacts

– Subgroup NPV impacts

– Other impacts (employment, competitive landscape, cumulative burden)



## Manufacturer Impact Analysis: Methodology

96 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Industry profile Develop straw - man GRIM Develop interview guide Interviews & subgroup analyses Assess direct employment, competition, cumulative burden Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1 

### • Three main phases of the Manufacturer Impact Analysis:

• The methodology and results are presented in detail in Chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD.- 

## NOPR Analyses

97 | Building Technologies Program Environmental Assessment Life

- Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis Manufacturer Impact Analysis Utility Impact Analysis Employment Impact Analysis Revise Preliminary Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov Regulatory Impact Analysis



## Public Meeting Agenda

98 | Building Technologies Program 1 Statute and Context
2
3

4 Market and Technology Assessment; Screening and Engineering Analyses Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis

5 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Shipments Analysis; National Impact Analysis
6 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis; NOPR Analyses
7 Test Procedures

eere.energy.gov

## Major Test Procedure Issues: Overview

99 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Definition of Manufacturer

• Testing and Compliance Responsibility

• Basic Model of Envelope

• Modifications to Envelope Test Procedure

– Accounting for Heat Conduction through Structural Members

– New Door Tests

eere.energy.gov



## Definition of Manufacturer

100 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • EPCA provides that  ̳[ t]he term ―manufac ture‖ means to manufacture, produce, assemble or import.‘ 42 U.S.C. 6291(10)

• At the NOPR public meeting, interested parties requested clarification of the definition and responsibilities associated with “manufacture.”

• DOE is considering applying the term ―assembl e‖ (within the definition of ―manufac ture‖ ) to cover those entities that design and/or select components for an envelope or refrigeration system for walk

ins.

## Testing and Compliance Responsibility

101 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • In the test procedure NOPR , DOE assumed that the manufacturer should be responsible for testing equipment and complying with the standard.

• Interested parties submitted comments on the NOPR:

– Indicating a strong preference for allowing component manufacturers to

test their own products.

– Noting that requiring a component manufacturer to test another

component manufacturer‘s products would be burdensome.



### • In response to these comments:

– DOE is considering that the assembler of the walk

- in shall be the

manufacturer responsible for demonstrating compliance with the performance standard

.
– DOE is considering allowing the assembler to conduct tests or to rely on

test results provided by component suppliers

.



## Request for Comment

102 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 7 - 1 DOE seeks comment on the proposed interpretation of the term ―assembl e‖ within the context of the statutory definition of ―manufac ture.‖

Item 7 - 2 DOE seeks comment on the proposal to allow the assembler to conduct tests or to rely on test results provided by component suppliers.

eere.energy.gov

## Basic Model of Envelope

103 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Definition proposed in the NOPR:

– ―Basic Model means all units of a given type of walk

- in equipment

manufactured by a single manufacturer, and — (1) With respect to envelopes, which do not have any differing construction methods, materials, components, or other characteristics that significantly affect the energy consumption characteristics .‖



### • DOE is considering changing the definition of Basic Model in order to be consistent with other changes to the test procedure
.

• Revised definition that DOE is considering:

– ―Basic Model means — (1) with respect to envelopes, all envelopes

manufactured by a single entity, which do not have any differing features or characteristics that affect normalized energy consumption .‖



## Basic Model of Envelope (cont.)

104 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Justification:

– Provides a way to distinguish envelopes that vary in normalized energy

consumption from those that differ only cosmetically.



### • Impact on Manufacturer Burden

– Testing burden: this change would not result in an increased testing

burden because of the burden

- reducing measures proposed elsewhere in the test procedure.

• Calculating energy consumption by scaling results of physical testing
• Allowing manufacturers to rely on suppliers‘ test data

– Compliance and reporting burden: DOE will consider reducing

compliance and reporting burden in a future rulemaking establishing compliance, certification, and enforcement regulations for WICF.


### Item 7 - 3 DOE seeks comment on the revised definition of basic model for envelopes.

## Modifications to Envelope Test Procedure: Heat Conduction Through Structural Members

105 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • In the NOPR, DOE proposed to determine heat conduction through the envelope by measuring the R

- value of the foam used in the panels.

• Interested parties stated that DOE must also account for heat conduction through structural members of panels.

• DOE is considering ASTM C1363

- 05: Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus

– First, manufacturers find the U

- factor of the fully assembled panel using

ASTM C1363

- 05.

– Second, the U

- factor is de

- rated using the R

- value of the foam as found

by ASTM C1303

- 09a. 

### Item 7 - 4 DOE seeks comment on the use of ASTM C1363

- 05.



## Modifications to Envelope Test Procedure: New Door Tests

106 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • In the NOPR, DOE proposed certain procedures for testing doors:

– U

- Factor of display doors : NFRC Rating or Window 5.2 methodology

– Steady

- state infiltration around doors: Gas tracer method for each door.



### • DOE is considering expanding and clarifying testing to make it easier for door manufacturers to complete testing.

• DOE is considering the following tests for display and non

- display doors :

– U

- factor of doors: NFRC 100

- 2010, Procedure for Determining

Fenestration Product U

- Factors

– Steady

- state infiltration around doors: NFRC 400

- 2010, Procedure for

Determining Fenestration Product Air Leakage

• Incorporates ASTM E283

- 04, Standard Test Method for Determining Rate of

Air Leakage Through Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under Specified Pressure Differences Across the Specimen 

### Item 7 - 5 DOE requests comment on these test procedures.

## DOE Seeks Comments on its Proposal

107 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### In all correspondence, include all of the following :

– Energy Conservation Standards for Walk

- In Coolers and Walk

- In Freezers

– Docket Number EERE

- 2008

- BT

- STD

- 0015

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904

- AB86
Email : WICF - 2008 - STD - 0015@ee.doe.gov



## Comment period closes May 28, 2010 Postal Mail :

Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Mailstop EE

- 2J Washington, DC 20585 Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L‘Enfant Plaza, 6 th Floor Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: 202.586.2945



## Relevant Webpages

108 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• DOE Appliance Standards

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

• Walk - in Coolers and Walk - in Freezers Rule

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial

/wicf.html

• Contact Charles Llenza, Project Manager, from the Appliance Standards Program for additional information:

– Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov

– 202.586.2192

• Contact John Cymbalsky, Supervisor, from the Appliance Standards Program for additional information:

– John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov

– 202.287.1692109 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Appendix: Acronyms & Abbreviations

AEO Annual Energy Outlook AHRI Air - Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ARI Air - Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute ASM Annual Survey of Manufacturers BT building technologies BTU British thermal units CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey DF discount factor EIA Energy Information Agency EISA 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 FTC U.S. Federal Trade Commission GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model HARDI Heating, Air - Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning INPV industry net present value kWh kilowatt hour LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LCC life - cycle cost LFH load factor at high load LFL load factor at low load MIA manufacturer impact analysis MPC manufacturer production cost MSP manufacturer selling price MTA market and technology assessment NAFEM North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEMS National Energy Modeling System NES national energy savings NIA national impact analysis NPV net present value NOPR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PBP payback period PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory RIA regulatory impact analysis SBA U.S. Small Business Administration SEC Securities and Exchange Commission SST saturated suction temperature TSD Technical Support Document USC United States Code VIP vacuum insulated panel WACC weighted - average cost of capital WICF walk - in coolers and walk - in freezers



## Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stages

110 | Building Technologies Program Markups for Equipment Price Determination Market and Technology Assessment Screening Analysis Engineering Analysis

Shipments Analysis Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

eere.energy.gov National Impact Analysis

## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

111 | Building Technologies Program Market and Technology Assessment



# 1. Characterizes the market 2. Identifies technologies that can improve efficiency

eere.energy.gov



## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

112 | Building Technologies Program Screening Analysis



### • Technology A 

### • Technology B 

### • Technology C 

### • Technology D 

### • Technology E 

### • Technology A 

### • Technology C 

### • Technology E

eere.energy.gov

### –

–

– 

## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

113 | Building Technologies Program Engineering Analysis



### • Cost/performance Technology A Technology C Technology E



### • Product Classes 

### • Cost Efficiency

Curves

eere.energy.gov



## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

114 | Building Technologies Program 

# 1. Determine end - user equipment price by:
o Determining distribution channel markups. Markups for Equipment Price Determination

eere.energy.gov

## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

115 | Building Technologies Program Energy Use Analysis & End Use Load Characterization



### • Efficiency Curves



### • Climatic Data 

### • End - Use Behavior 

### • Equipment Energy Profiles

eere.energy.gov



## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

116 | Building Technologies Program Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis



### • Equipment Energy Profiles



### • End - User Prices 

### • Electricity Prices 

# $

Economic Benefit (Per Individual Shipped Unit)

eere.energy.gov

## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

117 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Shipments Analysis



### • Current Equipment Stock



### • Replacement Rate Assumptions 

### • Market Growth

Assumptions 

### • Annual Forecast



### – Equip. Efficiency Mix



### – Shipments



### – Installed Base



## Appendix: Rulemaking Stage Details

118 | Building Technologies Program National Impact Analysis 

# $ & kWh (Per Individual Shipped Unit)



### • Annual Forecast



### – Equip. Efficiency Mix



### – Shipments



### – Installed Base 

# Societal Impact $ & kWh

(Years: 2015 - 2045)

eere.energy.gov