1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

September 16, 2014

Ronald Majette

Department of EnBuilding Technolo

EERE‐2013‐BT‐TP‐

BVM2013TP0045@

Test Procedure:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for

Refrigerated Beverage Vending

Machines
2

Welcome• Introductions (around the room)

• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules

– Speak one at a time.

– Say your name for the record – there will be a complete tra

this meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air‐time’.

– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar

conversations.

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks
3

Agenda1) 9:00 AM Introductions

2) 9:15 AM Stakeholder Opening Statements

3) 9:30 AM Regulatory History & Scope4) 9:45 AM Test Procedure Amendments: Appendix 

5) 11:00 AM Break6) 11:15 AM Test Procedure Amendments: Appendix 7) 11:45 AM Small Business Impacts

8) 11:55 PM Closing Remarks
4

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History & Scope4 Appendix A5 Appendix B

6 Small Business Impacts

7 Closing Remarks
5

Listening Via the Webcast• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live ov

Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stake

that are unable to attend the public meeting in perso

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in an

the slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written co

after the public meeting.
6

Purpose of the Public Meeting• Present DOE’s proposed test procedure for refrigerat

beverage vending machines (BVMs).

• Invite comment on the notice of proposed rulemakin

(NOPR) document.

• Discuss next steps in the rulemaking.

• Invite participants to provide summary comments or

statements and raise additional issues for discussion.
7

Steps in the Test Procedure Rulemaking• NOPR published in the Federal Register on August 11

(79 FR 46908)

• NOPR Public Meeting today, September 16, 2014

• Comments on NOPR from interested parties

• Transcript records oral comments from today’s public m

• Written comments (comment period closes October 27, 

• DOE reviews and considers all comments• Final Rule Publication

• Final Rule is expected to be issued by Summer 2015.

NOPR Final

Rule
8

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History & Scope45

Appendix A

7

Appendix B

Closing Remarks

6 Small Business Impacts
9

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening rem

statements at this time.
10

Issue boxes correspond to the list of issues published at 

of the NOPR document, available at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EER

BT‐TP‐0045‐0001.

The deadline for submitting comments is October 27, 2

11:59 PM ET.

Issues for Discussion

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information concerning its proposed test procedufor refrigerated beverage vending machines. Whetinvited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s analysis.
11

How to Submit Written Comments

In all correspondence, please refer to this rulemaking by:

– Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

– Docket Number EERE‐2013‐BT‐TP‐0045

– Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AD07

Email: BVM2013TP0045@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Building Technologies Prog

Mailstop EE‐5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585‐0121 Tel: 202 586‐2945

Comment period closes October 27, 2014, 11:59 
12

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History & Scope45

Appendix A

7

Appendix B

Closing Remarks

6 Small Business Impacts
13

Regulatory History & Authority• Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) Pub.

– The Act set forth a variety of provisions designed to improv

efficiency of various products and equipment

– Part B of Title III provides for the “Energy Conservation Pro

Consumer Products Other than Automobiles.” (42 U.S.C. 62

– A part of this program directed DOE to establish energy con

standards for beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(

– Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescri

procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equi

complies with the applicable energy conservation standard

under EPCA, and when making representations about the e

the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s))

– DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether 

equipment complies with any relevant standards promulga

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
14

Regulatory History & Authority• EPCA also requires:

– Any test procedures prescribed or amended under this sec

reasonably designed to produce test results which measure 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost o

unit of equipment during a representative average use cycl

use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U

6293(b)(3))

– At least once every 7 years DOE review its test procedures 

products and either amend the test procedures or publish 

determination in the Federal Register not to amend them. 

6293(b)(1)(A))

• DOE is undertaking this rulemaking to meet this EPCA re
15

Scope of Covered Equipment• EPCA definition:

– The term ‘refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 

means a commercial refrigerator that cools bottled or cann

and dispenses the bottled or canned beverages on paymen

(42 U.S.C. 6291(40))

• BVM 2009 Final Rule Equipment Classifications:

– DOE established three equipment classes for beverage ven

machines:

EquipmentClass

DefinitionRefrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending mach

Class A is fully cooled equipment and is not a combination vend

Class B is not considered to be Class A and is not a combination 

machine.

Combination also has non‐refrigerated volumes for vending other, no

beverage” merchandise.
16

Current BVM Test Procedure

• The current DOE test procedure was

established by a final rule on December 8,

2006 (the 2006 BVM test procedure finalrule), and incorporated by reference:

– American National Standards Institute

(ANSI)/American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE) Standard 32.1‐2004, “Methods of

Testing for Rating Vending Machines for

Bottled, Canned, or Other Sealed Beverages,”

as the method of test, with a few minor

modifications. 71 FR 71340 (Dec. 8, 2006).

– ANSI/Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF‐1‐2004 to calculate

the refrigerated volume of beverage vending

machines. 71 FR 71340, 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006).
17

Proposed Changes in this NOPR

• In this NOPR, DOE proposes to reorganize the BVM te

procedure into a new appendix A and B:

Appendix A Appendix B

Effectivedate

30 days after publication of

any test procedure Final Rule

in the Federal Register

With compliance of 

amended standardspromulgated as a re

associated ECS rulem(EERE‐2013‐STD‐002

Summaryofproposedchanges

Several clarifications and

amendments to the DOE test

procedure

All the clarifications 

amendments incorp

appendix A, and pro

account for the impa

power modes.
18

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History & Scope4 Appendix A5 Appendix B

7 Closing Remarks6 Small Business Impacts
19

Clarifications Included in appendix A

• The clarifications included in appendix A include

1. updating the referenced method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE S

32.1‐2010;

2. eliminating testing at the 90 °F ambient test condition;

3. clarifying the test procedure for combination vending mac

4. clarifying the requirements for loading BVM models under 

test procedure;

5. clarifying the specifications of the test package;

6. clarifying the next‐to‐vend beverage temperature test cond

7. providing a definition for “fully cooled;”

8. specifying placement of thermocouples during the DOE tes

9. establishing testing provisions at the lowest application pro

temperature;

10. clarifying certification and reporting requirements; and

11. clarifying the treatment of certain accessories when condu

DOE test procedure.
20

Effective Date of Appendix A

• DOE does not expect these clarifications to change t

results of its current BVM test procedure.

• Manufacturers would use appendix A to certify the

compliance of beverage vending machines with exis

energy conservation standards.

• These amendments would also be reflected in the re

test procedure in appendix B.
21

Updating the Referenced Method of Test

• Since the publication of the 2006 BVM test procedure 

new editions of both standards incorporated by refere

been published.

CurrentlyIncorporatedby Reference

UpdatedStandard

Differences

ANSI/ASHRAE32.1‐2004

ANSI/ASHRAE32.1‐2010

‐ Inclusion of new definitions and n

adopted by DOE in the 2009 BVM 

‐ New Appendix C, “Measurement 

that is consistent with section 5.2 subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2

ANSI/AHAM HRF‐1‐2004 .

ANSI/AHAMHRF‐1‐2004

ANSI/AHAM

HRF‐1‐2008

‐ Reorganizes and simplifies sectio

into one section describing meth

determining the refrigerated volu

refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezer

chillers, and freezers.
22

Updating the Referenced Method of Test

• DOE believes these amendments to ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 do not a

tested daily energy consumption (DEC) of covered equipment.

• DOE notes that the updated ANSI/AHAM HRF‐1‐2008 contains s

changes regarding the inclusion or exclusion of certain special fe

the determination of refrigerated volume and, thus, has the pot

yield refrigerated volume values that differ slightly from those t

the method in the current DOE test procedure.

• For the sake of simplicity and consistency, DOE is proposing to u

industry test method incorporated by reference to ANSI/ASHRA

32.1‐2010 for the measurement of DEC, vendible capacity, and 

volume.
23

Issue for Discussion

Updating References

DOE requests comment on the proposal to update its test proced

incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1‐2010.

DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the referenced 

of test for the measurement of refrigerated volume in its test pro

from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF‐1‐2004 to Appendix C of ANSI

3.1‐2010.DOE requests comment on whether the methodology in Append

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1‐2010 for the measurement of refrig

volume is more appropriate for beverage vending machines than 

methodology outlined in section 4 of AHAM HRF‐1‐2008.
24

Eliminating the 90 °F Ambient Test Condition• The current BVM test procedure requires testing at

A. 75 °F  2 °F and 45 percent ± 5 percent relative humidity; 

B. 90 °F  2 °F and 65 percent ± 5 percent relative humidity.

• DOE energy conservation standards are based on pe

determined at the 75 °F ambient test condition only.

• DOE proposes to eliminate the requirement to test a

ambient test condition.
25

Issue for Discussion

Ambient Temperatures for Testing

DOE requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the requirem

conduct testing at the 90 °F ambient test condition.
26

Test Procedure for Combination Vending Mach

• DOE believes that its current test procedure and the a

test procedure proposed in the NOPR are both approp

the evaluation of the refrigerated volume, vendible caand energy use of combination vending machines wit

following clarifications:

– Only the refrigerated compartment of the combination vend

would be considered in the determination of refrigerated vo

the vendible capacity would be that of both refrigerated and 

refrigerated compartments;

– Only the refrigerated compartment of the combination vend

would be fully loaded with standard test packages and stand

products; and

– Any lighting or other energy‐consuming features in the non‐

compartment would be fully energized during the test proce

operated in the same manner as any lighting or features in t

refrigerated compartment.
27

Issue for Discussion

Product Type Definitions

DOE requests comment on the applicability of the existing test p

as clarified, to combination vending machines.
28

Loading of Test Packages• The current BVM test procedure requires that equip

loaded

– with the maximum quantity of standard product and

– with standard test packages in each next‐to‐be‐vended pos

each selection,

– as required by section 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

32.1‐2004 and 2010.

Front

StanpackStan

Front prod

Class A Machine Class B Machine
29

Loading of Test Packages• Refrigerated beverage vending machines may be ava

variety of configurations and may be configured to vrefrigerated merchandise.

• DOE proposes to clarify in the DOE test procedure th

equipment that is available with a variety of product 

configurations should be configured, for purposes of 

hold the maximum number of sealed beverages that capable of accommodating per manufacturer specifi

• The performance of BVM models that differ only in p

and type of shelving may be represented by the perf

that BVM model with the maximum beverage config

such BVM models may be certified as separate basic 

manufacturer wishes to make differing representatio

shelving configuration.
30

Standard Product

• Section 5 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1‐2004 and 20

further requires that the standard product shall be 12

cans for machines that are capable of dispensing 12‐o

cans. For all other machines, the standard product sh

product specified by the manufacturer as the standar

product.

• DOE understands that there may be variability among

manufacturers and testing laboratories with regard to 

configuration of standard product and standard test p

and wished to clarify the characteristics of the standaproduct.
31

DOE’s Proposed Standard Product Characterist

• DOE proposes that

• DOE selected a density range of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL 

is inclusive of most test fluids currently in use.

For... The Standard Product Shall bbeverage vending machines capable of

vending 12‐ounce cans

standard 12‐ounce aluminum 

cans filled with a liquid with a 

1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL

at 36 °F

canned beverage vending machines thatare not capable of holding 12‐ounce

cans, but are capable of vending 20‐

ounce bottles

20‐ounce plastic bottles filled 

liquid with a density of 1.0 g/g/mL at 36 °F

beverage vending machines that are not

capable of holding 12‐ounce cans or 20‐ounce bottles

the product specified by the

manufacturer as the standard 

shall continue to be used
32

Issue for Discussion

Standard Products

DOE requests comment on the proposed clarification that the st

product shall be 12‐ounce cans or 20‐ounce bottles, for BVM mo

are capable of holding cans or bottles, respectively, filled with a 

a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F.

DOE requests comment on the need to maintain the flexibility o

the standard product as that specified by the manufacturer for r

bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are not capa

holding 12‐ounce cans or 20‐ounce bottles. DOE specifically requ

examples of BVM models that might require this flexibility and w

of standard products they are tested with currently.
33

Standard Test Packages• Section 3 of ASHRAE 32.1‐2004 and 2010 defines the 

test package as a beverage container of the size and 

which the vending machine is designed, altered to in

temperature‐measuring instrument at its center of m

• DOE finds the requirements in

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1‐20

2010 to be fairly clear and concpaired with the clarification abo

regarding the standard product
34

Issue for Discussion

Standard Test Packages

DOE requests comment on the sufficiency of the existing require

regarding standard test packages. If the existing language is not s

clear, DOE requests comments and recommendations regarding 

additional clarifications might be necessary to ensure consistenc

repeatability of test results.
35

Next‐to‐Vend Beverage Temperature• The current test procedure does not provide specific

instructions with regard to how to determine the aveto‐vend” beverage temperature.

– ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1‐2004 and 2010 state “the bev

temperature shall be measured in standard test packages i

to‐be‐vended position for each selection” and specify an av

to‐vend beverage temperature of 36 F  1 F “throughout 

• DOE considered two interpretations of what 36 F  

“throughout test” refers to:

1. a condition in which the average next‐to‐vend temperatu

maintained at 36 F  1 F constantly for the duration of t

2. one in which the temperature of next‐to‐vend beverages 

across all selections and over the entire length of the test

single value of 36 °F (±1 °F).
36

Next‐to‐Vend Beverage Temperature

• In response to the Framework document for beverag

machines (78 FR 33262 (June 4, 2013)), several intere

parties noted that it was impractical and unnecessari

to maintain a ±1 °F tolerance throughout the test.

• DOE agrees with commenters that the average next‐t

temperature should be both a spatial and temporal a

• To clarify, DOE proposes to add the following definitio

integrated average temperature to the BVM test proc

Integrated average temperature means the averagtemperature of all standard test package measurem

in the next‐to‐vend beverage positions taken during 

test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
37

Issue for Discussion

Integrated Average Temperature

DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of “integrated 

temperature” for beverage vending machines.

DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition for

“integrated average temperature” aligns with standard practice 

and whether any manufacturers have been maintaining the 36 °

next‐to‐vend temperature constantly throughout the test used f

certification.
38

Definition of “Fully Cooled”• The distinguishing criterion between Class A and Cla

equipment is whether or not equipment is fully cool

431.292

• DOE does not currently define fully cooled.

• In the BVM framework document, DOE considered a 

of fully cooled that required each item in the machin

maintained at an average temperature within 2 °F of 

average next‐to‐vend beverage temperature.

• Several interested partied commented that many ma

are clearly Class A, glass front machines may have te

gradients greater than 2 °F during normal operation.
39

Proposed Definitions

Fully cooled means a condition in which therefrigeration system of a beverage vending machinecools product throughout the entire refrigerated

volume of a machine instead of being directed at afraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume asmeasured by the average temperature of the standtest packages in the furthest from the next‐to‐vendpositions being no more than 10 °F above the

integrated average temperature of the standard tes

packages.

• Based on the comments received, DOE is proposing t

following definition for fully cooled:
40

Verification of Fully Cooled Equipment• To verify whether or not a given BVM model is fully c

is proposing an additional optional test method basedifference between the average next‐to‐vend bevera

temperature and the average temperature of standa

packages placed in the furthest from next‐to‐vend p

during the test period.

• DOE notes that this test method would not be requir

certify equipment but would be the method used by 

determine the appropriate equipment class for com

purposes.
41

Additional Temperature Measurements

• The optional test method would require additional tem

measurements at the furthest from next‐to‐vend posit

quantitatively differentiate between Class A and Class B 

• For beverage vending machines with horizontal produc

would require a standard package at the back of the ho

product rows in the four corners of the machine (e.g., b

bottom left, top right, and top left).

Front

StanpackStanprodFurthnextstandpackposi

Side view Back view

Shelf-style 

Machine
42

Verification of Fully Cooled Equipment• For beverage vending machines with standard produ

configured in a vertical stack, this would include an a

standard test package at the top of each stack.

• DOE proposes to determine fully cooled based on th

in average temperatures:

Standard test packageStandard productFurthest from next-to-vend standard test package positions

Front

Stack Machine

Fully cooled if (Integrated average temperature of next‐t(average temperature of furthest from next‐to‐vend) ≤ 1
43

Issue for Discussion

Definition and Verification of Fully Cooled

DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of “fully coole

would further appreciate comment as to whether the proposed 

aligns with the classifications of Class A and Class B equipment c

used in industry.DOE requests comment on the proposed fully cooled validation t

method. Specifically, DOE requests comment as to whether a ran

is an appropriate threshold to differentiate fully cooled equipme

incremental burden on manufacturers associated with the optiomethod for determining if a BVM model meets the definition of 

cooled.”
44

Placement of Thermocouples• There is currently a lack of specificity regarding the p

placement of thermocouple wires during testing.

• DOE believes that thermocouple wire should be run 

manner that avoids compromising the thermal integvending machine (e.g., through the dispensing door)

• DOE proposes to amend the regulatory text to requi

thermocouple wire be run through the door gasket a

through the dispensing door of the beverage vendin

such that the sensor pathway is sealed to prohibit ai

between the interior refrigerated volume and the amroom air.
45

Lowest Application Product Temperature

• Certain models of beverage vending machines availab

market are covered, but they are not capable of main

prescribed rating temperature of 36 °F and thus canntested in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

– Manufacturers of such equipment currently must request a 

procedure waiver.

• DOE proposes that such equipment be tested at the

equipment’s lowest application product temperaturethe lowest temperature the equipment is capable of

maintaining.

– This will often be the lowest setting on a unit’s thermostat.
46

Lowest Application Product Temperature Defin

• Accordingly, DOE proposes to adopt the following def

lowest application product temperature:

Lowest application product temperature means the integrated average temperature a given basic model capable of maintaining so as to comply with the tempstabilization requirements specified in section 7.2.2.2 

ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see§431.293).
47

Lowest Application Product Temperature Prov

• Equipment tested using a revised lowest application 

temperature would still have to meet all other test pr

requirements.

• Equipment tested and certified using the lowest appl

product temperature would be required to meet the 

applicable for its equipment class and refrigerated vo

the manufacturer would be required to maintain reco

lowest application product temperature at which a gi

is rated.

• This definition and test provision is similar to that ado

commercial refrigeration equipment. 10 CFR 431.64
48

Issue for Discussion

Lowest Application Product Temperature

DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt a lowest applica

product temperature provision for covered beverage vending m

that cannot be tested at the specified average next‐to‐vend tem

36 °F (±1 °F).

DOE also requests comment on how the lowest application prod

temperature might be best determined for beverage vending ma

and whether the lowest thermostat setting is a reasonable appr

most equipment. DOE requests comment on how to determine 

application product temperature for equipment without thermo

DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow covered equipm

cannot maintain the 36 °F (±1 °F) average next‐to‐vend temperat

tested at the lowest application product temperature without re

DOE waiver.
49

Treatment of Accessories• DOE is proposing the following specifications regarding the trea

accessories, which DOE feels is consistent with the current DOE 

procedure:

Accessory Proposed OperationMoney‐Processing Devices In place and functional – the m

consuming combination should 

Internal Lighting Maximum energy‐consuming s

Anti‐sweat and Other Electric

Resistance Heaters

Set to automatic if available; ot

maximum energy‐consuming s

Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps In place and operational

Illuminated Temperature Displays Energized and operated norma

Condenser Filters Remove for test

Security Covers Remove for test

General Purpose Outlets No external load

Crankcase Heaters and Other ElectricResistance Heaters for Cold Weather

Operational with any control sy

activated
50

Treatment of Accessories

Appendix

Operation if not required for

vending or refrigeration

functionality

Operation if required fo

refrigeration functiona

A De‐energized or lowest energy‐ consuming state Placed in it’s lowest ene

consuming state that do

B De‐energized or standby mode interfere with operation 

• Some BVM models incorporate additional exterior lighting or s

is not integral to the cabinet and is not primary to the vending 

refrigeration functions of the beverage vending machine.

• The energy use of such external customer display signs, lighting

screens may be significant but is often already covered by anot

energy conservation standard (e.g., TVs).

• DOE believes that, since the energy use of such external custom

signs, lighting, or digital screens is extremely variable and perip

primary function of the BVM, their energy use should not be ac

in the measured DEC of BVM models.
51

Definition of Standby Mode• DOE proposes the following definition of standby mo

applies to external customer display signs, lighting, a

screens:

• To the extent that a “standby mode” energy consum

may exist for external customer display signs, lightindigital screens that is different from de‐energizing suequipment, DOE is specifying the use of standby for 

only.

Standby mode means the mode of operation in whicexternal, integral customer display signs, lighting, or screens are connected to mains power, do not produ

intended illumination, display, or interaction functioncan be switched into another mode automatically wiremote user‐generated or internal signal.
52

Issue for Discussion

Treatment of Accessories

Internal Lighting ‐DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify in appendix A a

internal lighting shall be operated in the maximum energy‐consu

under the DOE test procedure.

DOE requests comment on whether the maximum energy‐consu

for internal lighting is consistent with “normal” operation.
53

Issue for Discussion

Treatment of Accessories

External Customer Display Signs, Lighting, and Digital Screens ‐DOE requests comment on the range of equipment that should 

addressed in this category of accessories and if the proposed ter

of customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens is sufficie

capture the variety of similar auxiliary energy‐consuming access

might be installed on BVM models.

DOE requests comment on the treatment of external and integr

display signs, lighting, and digital screens in appendix A.

DOE requests comment on the proposed treatment of external a

customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in appendix 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether disabling extern

and placing integral devices in standby mode or their lowest ene

consuming state is sufficiently representative of the energy use 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
54

Issue for Discussion

Treatment of Accessories

External Customer Display Signs, Lighting, and Digital Screens (cDOE requests comment on the proposed definition of standby m

mode of operation in which the external, integral customer disp

lighting, or digital screens are connected to mains power, do not 

the intended illumination, display, or interaction functionality, a

switched into another mode automatically with only a remote u

generated or internal signal.

For digital screens that also perform the vending or money‐proc

function, DOE requests comment on the proposal to place these 

their lowest energy‐consuming state that still allows the money‐

feature to function.
55

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History & Scope45

Appendix A

7

Appendix B

Closing Remarks

6 Small Business Impacts
56

Appendix B

• DOE also proposes new test procedure provisions t

be included only in appendix B that are required for 

with any new energy conservation standards.

• The appendix B proposed test procedure provisions 

a low power mode test methodology that would remore accurate representation of beverage vending 

performance for certain equipment.
57

Low Power Mode Characteristics• Many BVM models are equipped with low power mo

designed to be used when demand for refrigerated b

low by:

– switching off or dimming interior lighting or other accessor

– raising the temperature setpoint (to which the unit cools th

a value higher than the temperature setpoint associated w

vending mode.

• BVM low power modes may operate on a fixed sched

based on sensor input, such as that from an occupan

or customer interface on the machine.

• A given BVM model may be equipped with multiple 

states for different usage patterns.
58

Low Power Mode in the Current BVM Test Pro• Most low power modes are “capable of being adjust

machine operator.”

• The current DOE test procedure specifies that the ve

machine be “operated with normal lighting and contusing only those energy management controls that a

permanently operational and not capable of being a

machine operator.” (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1‐200

• DOE proposes to adopt specific provisions for testing 

models equipped with a low power mode to better rfield energy use.
59

Proposed Definitions

Low power mode means a state in which a beverage machine’s lighting, refrigeration, and/or other energysystems are automatically adjusted (without userintervention) such that they consume less energy thaconsume in an active vending environment.

• DOE proposes to define “low power mode” as follow
60

Proposed Definitions (cont’d)

Refrigeration low power mode means a state in which beverage vending machine’s refrigeration system is in 

power mode. To qualify as low power mode, the avera

to‐vend beverage temperature must automatically (w

user intervention) rise to at least 4 °F above the integr

average temperature or lowest application producttemperature, as applicable, and remain above this thr

for at least one hour.

Accessory low power mode means a state in which a bvending machine’s lighting and/or other energy‐using 

except the refrigeration system, are in low power modmay include, but is not limited to, dimming or turning 

but does not include adjustment of the refrigeration s

• DOE also proposes to differentiate between low powe

that affect only lighting or accessories and those that 

refrigeration system.
61

Low Power Mode Test Methods• DOE considered several options to account for low p

modes in the DOE test procedure:

Test Method Pros ConsSeparate physical tests, one

for vending state and one

for low power mode

Quantitative, unambiguous,

captures the variationsamong low power modes

Does not captenergy use

Single test: 18 hr vending

state + 6 hr low power

mode + pull‐down

Quantitative, unambiguous,

captures the variationsamong low power modes

Difficult to spe

procedure tha

applicable for 

models, may rmanufacturer 

Single test: (18 hr vendingstate + 6 hr accessory‐only

low power mode) ൈrefrigeration low power

mode credit

Quantitative, easy toimplement, repeatable,

captures the variations

among accessory low

power modes

Does not capt

among refrigepower modes
62

Proposed Low Power Mode Test Method• DOE proposes to establish a physical test with the fo

periods:

Time From

Start of Test

Time Period Operation

‐12 to 0 hr Stabilization two successive 6‐hr periods are within

2% of each other.

0 to 18 hr Vending

State Test

Period

all equipment and accessories energized as 

adjust able energy management controls se

energy‐consuming state; provide any phys

other input to the machine that may be ne

prevent automatic activation of low power 

during the vending state test period

18 to 24 hr Accessory

Low Power

Mode Test

Period

enable operation of accessory low power m
63

Refrigeration Low Power Mode Credit• To account for the potential energy savings attributa

refrigeration low power modes, DOE proposes a 3% 

credit be applied to any equipment with a refrigerati

power mode.

– DOE believes 3% is a reasonable estimate of expected savin

hour refrigeration low power mode based on test results fr

models.

• To determine the DEC of BVM models, the measured 

energy consumption from the vending state and acc

power mode test periods.

	࡯ࡱࡰ

ࢎࢃ࢑

࢟ࢇࢊ

ൌ

	ࢋ࢙ࢁ	࢟ࢍ࢘ࢋ࢔ࡱ	ࢋ࢚ࢇ࢚ࡿ	ࢍ࢔࢏ࢊ࢔ࢋࢂ

ࢎࢃ࢑

൅ ࢟ࢇࢊ

ሾ	ࢋ࢙ࢁ	࢟ࢍ࢘ࢋ࢔ࡱ	ࢋࢊ࢕ࡹ	࢘ࢋ࢝࢕ࡼ	࢝࢕ࡸ	࢟࢘࢕࢙ࢋࢉࢉ࡭

ࢎࢃ࢑

ሿ ࢟ࢇࢊ

࢕ࡼ	࢝࢕ࡸ	࢔࢕࢏࢚ࢇ࢘ࢋࢍ࢏࢘ࢌࢋࡾ ൈ
64

Refrigeration Low Power Mode Verification Te

• Since the refrigeration low power mode credit will not 

performance or existence of a refrigeration low power DOE is proposing an optional refrigeration low power m

verification test consisting of the following steps:

– Initiate the refrigeration low power mode after completion of 

BVM test period and record the average temperature of the st

packages in the next‐to‐vend beverage positions for at least th

hours.

– Over the course of this 2‐hour period, the instantaneous avera

vend beverage temperatures must increase above 40 °F, rema

°F for at least 1 hour.

– At the conclusion of the 2‐hour period the BVM must automa

to 36 °F ± 2 °F within operator intervention.

• This validation test is not required to certify performan

– DOE will use it for enforcement purposes to verify the existen

refrigeration low power mode.
65

Issue for Discussion

Low Power Mode

Definitions‐DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of “low pow

“refrigeration low power mode,” and “accessory low power mod
66

Issue for Discussion

Low Power Mode

Vending State‐DOE requests comment on its proposal that units run at the mos

consuming lighting and control settings, except as otherwise spe

during the BVM test procedure, except for during the 6‐hour low 

mode test period.

DOE requests comment on its proposal to require, as part of the 

procedure, whatever stimuli are necessary to prevent automatic 

of low power modes during the vending state test procedure.
67

Issue for Discussion

Low Power Mode

Refrigeration Low Power Mode‐DOE requests comment on whether a credit equal to 3 percent o

measured DEC is reflective of the 6 hours of time in refrigeration 

power mode.DOE requests comment on the refrigeration low power mode va

test and, particularly, if a 1‐hour time period in which the instan

average of all standard test packages in the next‐to‐vend bevera

is maintained above 40 °F is appropriate to verify the performan

refrigeration low power modes.
68

Issue for Discussion

Low Power Mode

DOE requests comment on whether its proposed method is repr

of equipment that can use low power modes.

DOE requests comment on whether the proposed method reflec

field use.DOE requests comment on whether 6 hours is an appropriate len

time for the low power mode test period.

DOE requests information on the prevalence of non‐cycling (vari

speed) compressors in the BVM industry.

DOE requests comment on whether a physical test method wou

more representative and accurate method to account for low po

operation, including refrigeration low power mode.
69

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History & Scope4 Appendix A5 Appendix B6 Small Business Impacts

7 Closing Remarks
70

Request for Closing Remarks

At this time DOE welcomes any closing remarks from

interested parties.
71

Reminder: How to Submit Comments• Public Meeting – oral comments will be captured in the transcr

become part of the public record.

• Written comments – NOPR comment period open until Octobe

Reference docket #: EERE–2013–BT–TP–0045 and/or RIN #: 190

Email: BVM2013TP0045@ee.doe.gov

Mail: Mrs. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program1000 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop EE‐2J

Washington, DC 20585‐0121

Courier: Mrs. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program950 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 600Washington, DC 20024Telephone: (202) 586‐2945
72 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Energy Conservation Standards:

Preliminary Analysis forRefrigerated Beverage Vending

Machines

September 16, 2014

Ronald MaDepartment of EnBuilding Technolo

EERE‐2013‐BT‐ST

BVM2013STD0022@
73

Agenda

1:00 – 1:30 pm Introduction

1:30 – 1:45 pm Market and Technology Assessment and 

1:45 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis

2:00 – 2:30 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analys

2:30 – 2:45 pm Markups and Energy Use Analysis

2:45 – 3:00 pm Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analy

3:00 – 3:15 pm Shipments and National Impact Analysis

3:15 – 3:30 pm Next Steps

3:30 – 3:45 pm Closing Comments from Participants

3:45 – 4:00 pm Closing Remarks
74

Request for Comment

DOE welcomes comments, data, and information concerning 

preliminary analysis for refrigerated beverage vending machi

(BVMs). Issues that correspond to those raised in DOE’s publ

material will be numbered in accordance with that material. 

invited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on an

DOE’s analysis.

Issues for Discussion• Issue “boxes” correspond to the list of issues for which th

Department seeks comments.

• The list of issues is in the preliminary analysis notice, avai

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE‐2

0022‐0021

• The deadline for submitting comments is October 7, 2014
75

How to Submit Written Comments

In all correspondence, please refer to this rulemaking by:

– Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

– Docket Number EERE‐2013‐BT‐STD‐0022

– Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AD00

Email: BVM2013STD0022@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Building Technologies Prog

Mailstop EE‐5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585‐0121 Tel: 202 586‐2945

Comment period closes October 7, 2014, 11:59 P
76

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide open

remarks or statements at this time.
77

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
78

Regulatory History• Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) P.L. 94‐163

– Set forth a variety of provisions designed to improve the energy e

various products and equipment

– Part B of Title III provides for the “Energy Conservation Program f

Products Other than Automobiles” (42 U.S.C. 6291‐6309)

– A part of this program directed DOE to prescribe energy conserva

for beverage vending machines (42 U.S.C. 6295(v))

– DOE published a final rule establishing standards for refrigerated 

canned beverage vending machines in August 2009. 74 FR 44914 

• EPCA also requires, within 6 years after issuance of any final r

establishing or amending a standard, DOE to publish:

– A determination that existing standards do not require amendme

– A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) with new proposed ene

conservation standards 42 US

• DOE is undertaking this rulemaking to meet this EPCA require
79

Definition of Covered Equipment• EPCA definition:

– The term ‘refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 

means a commercial refrigerator that cools bottled or cann

and dispenses the bottled or canned beverages on paymen

(42 U.S.C. 6291(40))
80

Energy Conservation Standards History• The 2009 BVM final rule established the following (c

energy conservation standards for beverage vending 

for which compliance is required as of August 31, 20

Equipment Class

Maximum Daily Energy Consu

[kWh/day]

As a function of refrigerated vo

A 0.055 x V + 2.56

B 0.073 x V + 3.16

Combination [Reserved]
81

Standards Rulemaking Timeline

2013 2014 2015 2016 

Milestone D

Preliminary Analysis Publication August 

Preliminary Analysis Public Meeting Septemb

Comment Period Ends Octobe

NOPR Publication (projected) Q2 Final Rule Publication (projected) Q2 
82

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
83

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
84

Market and Technology Assessment• Purpose:

– Define product classes

– Characterize the refrigerated beverage vending machine in

– Identify existing regulatory and voluntary efficiency progra

– Gather historical shipments and other relevant market data

– Identify technology options for improving efficiency
85

Product Classes• When evaluating and establishing energy conservati

standards, DOE generally divides covered products inclasses by the type of energy used or by capacity or o

performance‐related features that affect efficiency.
86

Equipment Classes• DOE conducted its preliminary analysis using the foll

product class definitions:

– Class A means a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage ve

machine that is fully cooled, and is not a combination vend

– Class B means any refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

machine not considered to be Class A, and is not a combina

machine.

– Combination vending machine means a refrigerated bottled 

beverage vending machine that also has nonrefrigerated vo

purpose of vending other, non‐“sealed beverage” merchan

• DOE analyzed two types of combination vending ma

– Combo A units with a fully‐cooled refrigerated compartme

– Combo B units with a fully‐cooled refrigerated compartme
87

Manufacturers• DOE has identified 7 manufacturers that make refrig

beverage vending machines for the American marke

1. Automatic Merchandising Systems, Inc.

2. Crane Merchandising

3. Jofemar USA

4. Multi‐Max Distributed Vending Systems

5. Royal Vendors, Inc.

6. Sanden‐Vendo America

7. Seaga Manufacturing

• There is a large range of market shares among manu

– Largest market shares held by manufacturers that supply B

bottlers
88

Efficiency Distribution: Class A• The plot below shows the current availability of Class A b

vending machines, based on the current test conditions.

Source: DOE-certified beverage vending machines http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/)

3

3.23.43.63.8

4

4.24.44.64.8

15 20 25 30 35 

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Refrigerated Volume [ft3]

E‐Star 3.0 Standard DOE BVM1 Standard
89

Efficiency Distribution: Class B• The plot below shows the current availability of Class B b

vending machines, based on the current test conditions.

Source: DOE-certified beverage vending machines (http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/)

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Refrigerated Volume [ft3]

E‐Star 3.0 Standard DOE BVM1 Standard
90

Technology Assessment• Purpose:

– To develop a preliminary list of technology options that co

the efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment.

• This list is examined in greater detail, and inappropriate tech

removed, in subsequent analyses.

• Method:

– DOE identified technology options from:

• Literature review

• Review of commercially available equipment

• Comments and input from stakeholders

• All technology options are described in Chapter 3 of the T
91

Technology Assessment• DOE identified the following initial technology option

could be used to improve energy efficiency in refrigebeverage vending machines:

Initial Technology Options for BVMs

Higher efficiency lighting Improved condenser desigHigher efficiency evaporator fan motors Higher efficiency condense

Higher efficiency evaporator fan blades Higher efficiency condense

Improved evaporator design Variable‐speed compresso

Low pressure differential evaporators Liquid suction heat exchan

Improved or thicker insulation Higher efficiency expansio

Improved glass pack (for transparent‐front

machines) Improved anti‐sweat heateHigher efficiency compressors Low power states
92

Request for Comment

Item 4.2: DOE welcomes input on additional technology optiocould reduce BVM energy consumption as evaluated by the D

beverage vending machine test procedure.

Technology Assessment
93

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
94

Screening Analysis• Purpose:

– Identify any technologies to be eliminated from further co

• DOE screens out technology options based on four 

1. Technological feasibility

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service

3. Impacts on product utility to consumers; and

4. Effects on health or safety
95

Screened‐Out Technologies• No technologies were screened out upon application 

screening factors.

• Two technologies were eliminated due to not affecti

daily energy consumption:

– Higher efficiency expansion valves

– Liquid‐suction heat exchangers
96

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
97

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
98

Engineering Analysis• Purpose:

– Evaluate design options that improve efficiency

– Characterize manufacturer production cost (MPC) versus e

higher‐efficiency BVMs

Downstream Ana

• Life‐Cycle Cost an

Payback Period A

• National Impact A

• Manufacturer Im

Analysis

Manufacturer Production Cost–

Efficiency Relationship

Manufacturer

Selling Price (MSP)

Energy Consumption Level
99

Engineering Analysis ProcessThe engineering analysis for BVMs was conducted as f

1. Product Testing

Conduct tests according

to current and proposed

DOE Test Procedures.

2. Teardown

Perform teardowns to

determine product

designs and

manufacturing costs.

3. Des

Identify a

design op

be imp

increas

ef

4. Mode

Mode

energy p

each le

option im

for severa

sizes in 

5. Model Cost and Price

Generate manufacturer

production costs for each

modeled unit, add

markup and shipping to

calculate manufacturer

selling prices.

6. Cost‐Efficiency Curves

Create cost‐efficiency

curves from the

performance and

manufacturer production

cost results.
100

Product Teardowns• DOE disassembled beverage vending machines from seve

manufacturers.

• Bills of Material (BOMs) were generated, describing the p

components in detail and including estimates of material

capital equipment, and overhead costs.

• Teardowns provided information regarding baseline mach

configurations, equipment case costs, and design options

• Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) provi

additional details on DOE’s teardown and cost model met
101

Design Options• Sixteen technologies were screened in through the S

Analysis.

• Of those, six were removed from consideration in th

Engineering Analysis due to competing effects, lack operformance, or other factors:

– Higher efficiency evaporator– Higher efficiency condenser fan blades

– Low‐pressure differential evaporators– Improvements to anti‐sweat heaters

– Variable‐speed compressors

– Microchannel heat exchangers
102

Design Options• The following technologies were implemented as de

options:

– Higher efficiency lighting

– Higher efficiency evaporator fan motors

– Improved evaporator design

– Improved or thicker insulation

– Higher efficiency compressors

– Improved condenser design– Higher efficiency condenser fan motors

– Improved glass pack design (for Class A machines)

– Lighting controls

– Low‐power refrigeration controls, timers, and/or sensors
103

Representative Sizes

• The following representative size designations and sp

were used:

Equipment Class Refrigerated Volume (ft3) Size Designatio

Class A 17 SmallClass A 22 MediumClass A 34 Large

Class B 17 SmallClass B 22 MediumClass B 26 Large

Combo A 9 Medium

Combo A 12 Large

Combo B 4 Medium

Combo B 5 Large
104

Performance Modeling• The representative unit and design option data were used 

major inputs into DOE’s performance model.

• This Excel‐based model calculates equipment performanc

DOE test procedure (kWh/day consumed per proposed a

for baseline and improved equipment configurations.

• The representative sizes in each class were modeled at th

as well as at efficiency levels corresponding to implement

each applicable design option in order of ascending payb

• Modeling was conducted for equipment with both R‐134

(carbon dioxide) refrigerant.

• The output was a set of performance results consisting of 

modeled energy consumption in kWh/day for each analy

configuration and refrigerant, up to the max‐tech level.

• Details of the performance analysis are included in the ne
105

Performance Modeling: Overview

The BVM performance model was developed in the 2009 ruland updated for this rulemaking. It is composed of two main 1) Case Heat Load Model (under DOE TP 75 F ambient test conditi

– Accounts for thermal loads, including conduction through doors and walls, r

openings, and heat and moisture addition due to warm air infiltration.

– Calculates heat introduced into case by electricity use of internal componen

lighting, defrost, and anti‐sweat.

2) Refrigeration System Performance Model

– Compressor power input is calculated using compressor performance data. 

exchanger effectiveness is used to estimate compressor operating condition

– The energy use of auxiliary components such as lighting and fans is based o

power input and run time.

The system energy usage is calculated as the sum of the refrigera

and auxiliary component energy consumption.
106

Performance Modeling: Heat Load Calculation

Load calculations are based on the geometry and design parameters of th

modeled, as well as on the conditions of the DOE test procedure, and inclu

DOE TP conditions:

75°F, 45% relative humidity

Radiation through glass.

Key parameters: case and 

ambient temperatures, door Ufactor, glass area. 

Evaporator farejected into cKey parameters: number of fans, r

Lighting power emitted 

into case as heat (in 

transparent front units).

Key parameters: lighting 

wattage per fixture, number of 

fixtures, run time.

• Case geometries and design parameters based on 

literature.

• Thermal performance of case and components bas

manufacturer and supplier literature and interviews

Conduction thwalls and glas

Key parameters: value, wall area, factor, temperatuWarm air infiltcase.Key parameters: test chamber con
107

Performance Modeling: Refrigeration System

• Refrigeration system performance simulation is drive

compressor modeling

– Compressor energy consumption is calculated based on performan

obtained from compressor suppliers based on testing per ANSI/AHR

540.

– Compressor “maps” provide compressor performance (capacity, po

etc.) based on operating conditions (suction and discharge pressure 

temperature).

– Within the engineering model, suction and discharge conditions are 

a function of the design air temperatures and the design of the hea

– Heat exchanger design parameters were developed through first‐pr

modeling by an outside subject matter expert.

• Auxiliary component performance completes the en

estimate

– Fan and auxiliary component energy consumption are then calculat

to the compressor electricity consumption.
108

Performance Model: Refrigerants

• In the Engineering Analysis, DOE modeled equipment usi

and R744, the most often‐used refrigerants in the Americ

industry.

• The share of non‐HFC units is currently small, but DOE rea

non‐HFC refrigerants represent a growing portion of the

marketplace.

• DOE also is remaining apprised of actions by the EPA SNA

which could significantly alter the landscape of available

refrigerants, and will adjust its analyses accordingly as ne
109

Cost Model

• DOE developed costs for the modeled equipment in several p

– Costs for the “core case” of the cabinets, including all non‐e

consuming components, were developed from teardowns o

currently on the market.

– Costs for energy‐consuming components and design option

developed through research of industry literature, supplier 

quotes, and manufacturer interviews.

– Estimates of manufacturer markup were developed in the 2

rulemaking and used again due to lack of any new informat

• Design option costs were applied to core case costs at each m

efficiency level to yield Manufacturer Production Cost (MPC) v

Markups and outbound freight were added to yield Manufact

Price (MSP) values.
110

Request for Comment

Item 4.3: DOE requests information regarding the costs associwith the design options under consideration, as well as for an

technology options which should be considered at the NOPR 

Item 4.4: DOE requests comment and data regarding the cost 

performance of compressors, heat exchangers, and other refr

system components for carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon refri

systems in the beverage vending machine capacity range.

Cost Model
111

Cost‐Efficiency Curves

• The final output of the engineering analysis is a set of cos

efficiency curves, one for each analyzed equipment config

and refrigerant, depicting equipment cost and performan

efficiency level modeled.

• These serve as the inputs to the downstream analyses, an

basis for development of trial standard levels.

$1,500.00$1,750.00$2,000.00$2,250.00$2,500.00$2,750.00$3,000.00

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 

Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Cost-Efficiency CurveClass B – Medium – R-134a
112

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
113

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
114

• Purpose

– To identify the impacts of energy conservation standards on man

• Phase 1

– DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and id

important issues that require consideration.

• Phase 2

– DOE prepares an industry cash‐flow model and an interview ques

to guide subsequent discussions with manufacturers.

• Phase 3

– DOE interviews manufacturers, and assesses the impacts of stand

quantitatively (using the Government Regulatory Impact Model) a

qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, em

and regulatory burden).

Manufacturer Impact Analysis ‐ Overview

Industry profile

Develop preliminary GRIM

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrysubgroupanalyses

Assess employmcompetitcapacity, regulatorburdens

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
115

• DOE has identified the following general areas of in

be investigated during the MIA:

– Customer impacts and performance requirements

– Current market conditions

– Cumulative regulatory burden

– Split incentive problems

– Profitability– Small business impacts

Preliminary MIA Key Issues
116

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Item A: DOE requests comment on its identification of key issurequests data and information from interested parties that can 

in evaluating the potential impact on manufacturers.

Item B: DOE considers the impacts on certain manufacturer

subgroups, including small business manufacturers, that have

different cost structures or operate within different regulatory

frameworks in the NOPR stage. DOE requests feedback on sub

to analyze and/or characteristics appropriate for subgroup ana
117

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
118

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
119 119

• Purpose:

– Characterize distribution channels and market segments.

– Estimate customer prices based on manufacturer selling pri

• Approach:

– Wholesaler markups are based on the “Professional and Co

Equipment and Supplies” industry data from the U.S. Censu

Wholesale Trade Report.

Markups Analysis Markups Analysis

85% 10% 5%
120

Markups Markup Types Analysis

• Baseline Markups:

– Relate the MSP of baseline equipment to the customer purc

price.

– Indicate a customer price that covers the wholesaler’s expe

profit.

• Incremental Markups:

– Relate the increase in MSP of more efficient equipment to t

increase in customer purchase price.

– Cover only expenses that vary with MSP, in this case, expen

increase due to an efficiency standard.

• DOE applies baseline markups to the MSP of the baseline level, 

incremental markups to the incremental difference in MSP in ea

above the baseline.
121

Markups Overall Markups Analysis

DistributionChannel

Manufacturer Bottler/Distributor

Manufacturer  Wh

 Operator/Site Ow

Baseline Incremental Baseline Inc

Manufacturer 1.26 1.26 1.26 Wholesaler ‐ ‐ 1.48 Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 1.071 

OverallMarkup

1.349 1.349 1.997 
122

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life‐CycleCost andPaybackPeriod Analysis

Market &Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

MarkupsAnalysis

PreliminaryManufacturerImpactAnalysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
123

Purpose:• Annual energy use is the site energy use associated with operat

equipment.

• Develop distributions of annual energy use representative of cu

U.S.

• These distributions are used in the LCC and PBP analysis to calcu

annual operating costs.

Method:• Develop distribution of volumes.

• Develop distribution of indoor and outdoor equipment.

• Estimate energy use with DOE test procedure and simulation mo

Energy Use Analysis
124

Class A and B:• Estimated from Compliance Certification Management System d

and list of ENERGY STAR qualified equipment.

Combination A and Combination B:• Used sizes from the engineering analysis.

• Estimated 50% of the market at medium size and 50% at large s

Distribution of Refrigerated Volume

Class A Class B

Volume range

(cu. ft.)

Market share

(%)

Volume range

(cu. ft.)

Marke

(%

Small <18 0 <18 2Medium 18 to 28 36 18 to 23 1Large >=28 64 >=23 5
125

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Issue 4.14: Should DOE continue to use the CCMS and ENERGmodel availability databases to estimate refrigerated volume 

A and Class B equipment shipments, weighted by an assumed 

STAR compliance of 93 percent? For Combo‐A and Combo‐B

equipment, should DOE assume that 25 percent of equipment 

corresponds to each refrigerated volume that DOE modeled?
126

Class A and Combo A:• 100% indoor.Class B and Combination B:• 84% indoor, 16% outdoor.

• Estimated using information from colleges and universities arou

country.

Distribution of Indoor and Outdoor Equipment
127

• Estimate baseline daily energy use.

• Class A and Class B: use values from current standard, as me

DOE test procedure.

• Combination: use values from engineering analysis.

• Convert daily energy use to annual energy use.

• Indoor: multiply daily energy use by 365 days.

• Outdoor: multiply daily energy use by 365 days and adjustm

• Outdoor adjustment factor.

• Adjusts daily energy use in response to climate of each state

• Based on simulation model used in 2009 BVM Final Rule.

• Average: 0.8.

• Range: 0.6 to 1.04.

Calculate Annual Energy Use
128

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Issue 4.16: Should DOE rely on data from six U.S. college camdetermine that the fraction of outdoor use (≈16%), and should 

further use regressions based on 2009 BVM Final Rule enginee

analysis results to scale DEC (from DOE test data) to AEC, takin

account state‐by‐state adjustment factors?
129

Energy Use Analysis

Annual Energy Consumption‐ Classes A & B BV

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

Efficiency

level

Percentage of

baseline energy use

Annual energy

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Percentage of

baseline energy

use

EL0 (Baseline) 100 1525 100 

EL 1 95 1448 95 

EL2 90 1372 90 EL3 85 1296 85 EL4 80 1220 80 EL5 75 1144 75 EL6 70 1067 70 EL7 65 991 65 EL8 60 915 60 EL9 57 (HFC)

59 (CO2)

869 (HFC)

900 (CO2) 55 

EL10 50 EL11 49 (HFC only) 
130

Energy Use Analysis

Annual Energy Consumption‐ Combination BVM

Combo A

(Refrigerated volume 10.3 cu. ft.)

Combo 

(Refrigerated volum

Efficiency level

Percentage of

baseline energy

use

Annual energy

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Percentage of

baseline energy

use

EL0 (Baseline) 100 2222 100 

EL1 90 2000 90 EL2 80 1778 80 EL3 70 1556 70 EL4 60 1333 60 EL5 55 1222 55 EL6 50 1111 50 EL7 45 1000 45 EL8 40 889 41 EL9 35 778

EL10 30 667EL11 29 644
131

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
132

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
133

Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP) 

Purpose:• Provide an economic evaluation from the end‐user’s perspective

• Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total customer cost over the life of th

equipment.

• Payback Period (PBP) is the time required to recover the increas

purchase price of more energy‐efficient equipment through red

operating costs.

Method:• Use customer samples developed in the energy use analysis.

• Determine total installed costs for each EL.

• Determine operating costs for first year and lifetime of equipme

• Calculate PBP by dividing average increase in installed cost by av

decrease in first‐year operating cost.

• Calculate LCC by adding installed cost and lifetime operating cos

• Calculate LCC savings by subtracting LCC of each EL from LCC of 

purchaser would purchase in the absence of a new standard.
134

• Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 sample customers.

• Geographic location

• 2005 Interim State Population Projections to determine the 

that a BVM is located in a particular state.

• Building use

• 2007 State of the Vending Industry report used to determin

distribution of building types (e.g., manufacturer, office, sc

Customer Sample
135

• Total Installed Cost is the sum of equipment price and installati

• Equipment price provided by markups analysis.

• A price learning factor of 0.91 was applied to derive the equipm

in 2019 based on prices from 2013.

• The price trend is based on an exponential fit to the Produc

Index (PPI) series for “automatic merchandising machines, 

parts” industry for 1967 to 2013, with an average annual p

of 1.48%.

• Installation costs represent the labor and materials necessary t

appliance

• Based on the person‐hours required to install BVMs from d

Foster‐Miller, Inc. and labor rates from the U.S. Bureau of L

Statistics.

Total Installed Cost
136

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Issue 4.15: Should DOE apply an exponential price decline trenon PPI data for “automatic merchandising machines, excluding 

during the time period of 1967 to 2013, to project the future

equipment prices of refrigerated beverage vending machines?
137

• Annual energy consumption provided by energy use analysis.

• DOE estimated state‐level electricity prices from EIA Form 826 d

• DOE used Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 for projections of f

average energy prices for each census division.

Annual Energy Cost
138

• Estimated repair cost for machines with and without LED lighti

Foster‐Miller Inc.

• $119 for LED, $139 for non‐LED.

• Estimated levels with LED lighting in 2019.

• Class A: All levels

• Class B: EL8 and higher

• Combo‐A: EL5 and higher

• Combo‐B: EL7 and higher

• Estimated annual maintenance cost from RSMeans.

• $ 34 for all levels.

• Estimated annualized refurbishment cost from a 2006 ENERGY 

report.

• $88 for all levels.

Maintenance and Repair Costs
139

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Item 4.5: What are the average costs of refurbishment, as distfrom maintenance and repair cost, that refrigerated beverage 

machines incur over their lifetime?

Item 4.11: Are the average annual costs of repair and mainten

refrigerated beverage vending machines with and without LED 

and for annual preventative maintenance reasonable? Is ther

appreciable fraction of repair and maintenance work done in 

vs. in the field that would shift repair and maintenance and/o

refurbishment cost assumptions?

Item 4.13: Is DOE’s assumption reasonable that 100 percent o

shipments of Class A refrigerated beverage vending machines 

have LED lighting by 2019?
140

• DOE used information from available literature sources to esta

specific beverage vending machine lifetimes.

• Average lifetime for BVM is 13.4 years (min=8 years; max=30 ye

• No change in lifetime with EL.

Lifetime

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%120%

0 10 20 30 40

Age (years)

Percent Surviving
141

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Issue 4.10: DOE estimated an average lifetime of 13.4 years forefrigerated beverage vending machines with a Weibull‐shape

survival function. Is this a reasonable approximation of real‐w

BVM lifetime behavior?

Should DOE continue to assume that machines at all efficiency 

have the same lifetime?
142

• Used to convert streams of annual operating expenses to the y

purchase (i.e., 2019).

• Estimated as the weighted average cost of capital using capital 

pricing model (CAPM).

• Damodaran Online is a source of information about company d

equity financing.

• Financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase equipment

• Opportunity cost of any equity to purchase equipment

• Discount rates were estimated for the types of firms on whose 

the BVM is located.

• For leased BVMs, DOE assumed that the purchasers would 

higher equipment prices through the leasing arrangement.

Discount Rates
143

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Issue 4.17: What are the financial arrangements between BVM and the party that pays for the energy costs? Is it a reasonable

assumption that the increased cost of the more‐efficient BVM

equipment can be passed on to the party that pays the energy 
144

• Base case is used to estimate the share of customers affected b

particular efficiency level in 2019.

• DOE estimated the base case efficiency distribution by combin

compliance certification database and the ENERGY STAR datab

• DOE estimated that 93 percent of refrigerated beverage vendin

sales are ENERGY STAR.

Energy Efficiency in the Base Case
145

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Issue 4.12: Should DOE continue to use the CCMS and ENERGY databases to estimate efficiencies of Class A and Class B equipshipments, weighted by an assumed ENERGY STAR compliance 

percent for each? Should DOE assume that all class Combinati

shipments are at the baseline energy level (EL0)?
146

Example Results for Class A HFC
147

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
148

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
149

• Purpose:

‒ Quantify changes over time in equipment shipments due to 

amended energy efficiency standards.

‒ Estimate the disaggregation of shipments into equipment c

how the shipments by equipment class change over time.

• Method:

‒ The shipments model relies on ENERGY STAR market penet

reports.

‒ The model accounts for replacement shipments only.

‒ The total number of machines in stock are believed to 

‒ Shipments have remained relatively stable since 2005.

Shipments Analysis
150

Shipments Analysis Inputs

Input Data Source / DescriptionReplacement Rate Appliance Lifetime from Life‐Cycle Cost Analysis

Historical Shipments ENERGY STAR market penetration reports

Shipments by EquipmentClass

• Combination machines are estimated as 2% o

market (1% each for combo A and combo B)

• Class A and Class B machines are estimated a

• Market shares are assumed to be fixed over 
151

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Item 4.8: Are DOE’s assumptions of fixed market share shipmeequipment classes (49 percent Class A, 49 percent Class B, and 

percent Combination Class) reasonable?
152

• Depicts the situation where amended standards are not adopt

• A constant shipment rate of 100,000 units per year assumed t

for decreasing total stocks.

• Shipment projection accounts for replacements only. Refurbis

assumed to remain in same geographic location.

• Base‐case projections developed for each equipment class.

• Estimate that base case distribution of efficiency levels remain

beyond 2019.

Base‐Case Shipments Projection
153

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Item 4.6: Will refurbishment result in improvements to annuause in 2019 or later? If so, what is the nature of the improvem

how much is annual energy use expected to decrease?

Item 4.7: Should DOE continue to use an assumption of flat BV

shipments of 100,000 units per year starting in 2013? Is the

approximation reasonable that refurbished units remain in th

geographic location as when they were new?

Item 4.13: Is DOE’s assumption reasonable that the efficiency 

market share distributions remain constant beyond 2019?
154

Projected Share of Market by Refrigerant Type

Refrigerant Market Share (%)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

CO2 2.5 10.0 17.5 25.0 32.5 40.0 43.3 46.7 

HFC 97.5 90.0 82.5 75.0 67.5 60.0 56.7 53.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

• CO2 refrigerant based shipments expected to increase without re

due to commitment of market leader.

• HC refrigerant shipments could not be considered as not yet on S

• The market share is not assumed to vary with efficiency level.
155

Issues for Comment

Request for Comment

Item 4.9: Should DOE assume that shipments of CO2 refrigeranrefrigerated beverage vending machines reach 50 percent of t

market share by 2020, and that this fraction applies equally to 

equipment classes?
156

• DOE developed Standards‐Case Projections from the same dat

develop the Base‐Case Projection.

• Standards‐Case Projections also use purchase price increases a

operating cost savings to estimate shipments impacts.

• Market impact analysis shows only higher efficiency levels caus

decrease in shipments, and the scale of the impacts will decrea

time. The minimum EL at which shipments decrease is shown b

Standards Impacts on Shipments

Class A

HFC andCO2

Class B

HFC andCO2

Combo AHFC

Combo A

CO2

Combo BHFC andCO2

EL4 EL7 EL10 EL11 EL8
157

Preliminary Analysis Rulemaking Stage

Energy Use Analysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis NOPR
158

• Purpose:

‒ Determine the projected national energy savings and custo

national net present value.

• Method:

‒ Develop annual series of national energy and economic im

‒ Use the shipments model to estimate the total stock of ref

beverage vending machines in service each year.

‒ Aggregate the costs and energy use per unit in any given ye

‒ Report estimates for economic impact as change in consum

Net Present Value (NPV) (in constant year dollars).

‒ Account for the time‐value of money through defined disco

National Impact Analysis
159

Shipments Model

National Energy Savings

NationalEconomicImpacts

LCC Analysis Results and Other Inputs

Na

Energ

(Q

Na

Net Pre

(

(2013 U

• National energy savings calculated for equipment shipped over 

from 2019 ‐ 2048 (30 years of shipments).

• NPV calculated for equipment shipped over the period from 20

years of shipments).

National Impact Analysis Process
160

National Energy Savings Flow Diagram
161

National Consumer Net Present Value Flow Dia
162

• Shipment‐weighted Efficiency (SWEF) Data:

‒ Key components of the national impact analysis are depen

shipment‐weighted efficiencies.

• Per‐unit annual energy consumption—needed to deter

• Retail price and per‐unit annual operating costs—need

determine NPV.

• Market Share Efficiency Data:

‒ Historical market share efficiency data help estimate how s

will impact base‐case efficiencies and reveals the distributi

equipment efficiencies for a given year by equipment class

‒ Market share data (or base‐case efficiency distributions) ar

the LCC and PBP analysis and will also be used in the nation

analysis.

‒ DOE has assumed a “roll up” scenario to project standards 

Shipment‐Weighted and Market Share Efficien
163

Input DescriptionTotal Installed Cost Annual weighted‐average per unit values as a function of efficiency level t

analysis.

Repair and

Maintenance Costs

Repair and maintenance costs vary with efficiency level for some equipme

Annual Energy Use Annual weighted‐average per unit values as a function of efficiency level t

analysis.

Base‐Case Efficiencies Shipments‐weighted efficiencies determined for the effective year. Based 

efficiency distribution from LCC analysis.

Standards‐Case

Forecasted Efficiencies

Roll‐up scenario assumed for determining shipment‐weighted efficiency fo

case.

Energy Prices Average prices and forecasted energy prices from EIA AEO 2014 forecasts 

extrapolation to 2078.

Full Fuel Cycle Multiplier to convert site energy to full‐fuel cycle energy.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A‐

Present Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2013.

National Impact Analysis Inputs
164

National Energy Savings Full Fuel Cycle Results (10‐3 

National Impact Analysis

Equipment Class EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 EL8 EL9 

A‐HFC 0.33 3.83 8.84 15.35 22.35 29.19 35.78 42.22 46.

A‐CO2 0.33 3.81 8.80 15.28 22.24 28.96 35.53 41.95 43.B‐HFC 0.46 0.92 1.99 5.30 9.22 14.06 19.20 25.54 32.B‐CO2 0.46 0.92 1.99 5.28 9.18 14.00 19.12 25.34 32.Combo A‐HFC 0.42 0.83 1.25 1.67 1.88 2.09 2.30 2.50 2.7Combo A‐CO2 0.42 0.83 1.25 1.66 1.87 2.08 2.29 2.49 2.7Combo B‐HFC 0.32 0.65 0.97 1.29 1.45 1.61 1.77 1.87Combo B‐CO2 0.32 0.64 0.96 1.28 1.45 1.61 1.77 1.86
165

Example NPV Results, Equipment Class A HFC, 

-4.0-2.0

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0

Million 2013$

Year

Operating Cost SavingsIncreased Equipment CNet Savings
166

Public Meeting Topics

1 Regulatory History, Test Procedures, and Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening3 Engineering Analysis

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis5 Markups and Energy Use Analysis6 Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Shipments and National Impact Analysis8 Next Steps
167

NOPR Stage

Framework

Document

Fin

Ru

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employme

Impact

Analysis

Consumer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

RevisePreliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalysis

National

Impact

Analysis
168

• LCC Subgroup Analysis

– Effects on various national consumer subgroups

• Manufacturer Impact Analysis

– Continue work begun in the preliminary MIA

• Emissions Analysis and Monetization of Emission Red

Benefits

– Effects on airborne pollutant emissions

• Utility Impact Analysis

– Model effects on generation capacity of utilities using NEMS

• Employment Impact Analysis

– Indirect effects on national employment

• Regulatory Impact Analysis

– Potential for non‐regulatory approaches

NOPR Analyses
169

How to Submit Written Comments

In all correspondence, please refer to this rulemaking by:

– Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines

– Docket Number EERE‐2013‐BT‐STD‐0022

– Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AD00

Email: BVM2013STD0022@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Building Technologies Progr

Mailstop EE‐5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585‐0121 Tel: 202 586‐2945

Comment period closes October 7, 2014, 11:59 P