11 RFV Remote Freezer Vertical Vertical RS11, RS12, RS15, RS16, RS17, RS18, RS19, RS20 RVF1, RVF2, RVF4, RYF1, RYF2, RYF3, RYF4 12 SRH Service Cabinet, refrigerated Horizontal with door Integral Refrigerated Storage cabinet Refrigerator Counter (Horizontal) No equivalent registered Storage cabinet types are defined into four categories (but not classified by the technical standards yet) 13 SRV Service Cabinet, Refrigerated, Vertical with solid door Vertical IVC4 Solid door M1 & M2 14 SFH Service Cabinet, Freezer, Horizontal with solid door Freezer Counter (Horizontal) No equivalent registered 15 SFV Service Cabinet Freezer, Vertical with solid door Vertical IVF4 Solid doors L1 & L2 Options 2 and 3 were developed on the basis of local registration data, overseas data and New Zealand sales weighted data. For ease of interpretation, cabinets were divided into 15 groups of similar types, to distinguish between high selling types (beverage cabinets) and those that would need to comply with distinct standards (ice-cream, beverage, gelato, storage). MEPS levels were imposed per group – an approach which is simpler to understand and enforce. These 15 groups have distinct efficiency levels and dates of implementation. Table 5 outlines the groups for the purpose of setting MEPS in Australia and New Zealand. MEPS levels in Europe are imposed per group irrespective of cabinet type (remote or integral, closed or open). This approach to MEPS levels (broad definitions based on cabinet groups and group-level MEPS), is preferable to the specific class and MEPS definitions in AS 1731. Separate type definitions are still essential for specific test methods and test setups. Essentially the supplier must define what temperature their units will operate at – and from there, work out what group it will be classified into.
Table 6: Proportion of cabinet types per group, estimated from European data vs local sales data. Application AS 1731.14 Types Dissection by type and EU Local (1) Refrigerated Display Cabinet (Integral) Refrigerator Horizontal HC1, HC2, HC3, HC4, HC5, HC6 67% 62% 1.4% Vertical IVC1, IVC2, IVC3 5.9% IVC4 46.5% Freezer Horizontal HF1, HF3, HF4 0.6% HF5, HF6 2.7% Vertical IVF1, IVF2, IVF4 2.6% Refrigerated Display Cabinet (Remote) Refrigerator Horizontal RS6, RS7, RS8, RS9 14% 18% 1.2% Vertical RS1, RS3, RS4, RS5, RS10 2.7% RS2 10.5% Freezer Horizontal RS13, RS14, 1.0% Vertical RS11, RS12, RS15, RS16, RS17, RS18, RS19, RS20 2.3% Refrigerated Storage Cabinet (Integral) Refrigerator Counter (Horizontal) Storage cabinet types are defined into four categories. No further breakdown of types yet 19% 20% (2) 1.4% Vertical 5.9% Freezer Counter (Horizontal) 46.5% Vertical 0.6% Table 6 above shows a sales profile of grouped cabinet types, including a comparison of Australian and New Zealand registered cabinets and storage types with the European sales profile of broader categories (EC 2014b and EC 2012). Sales of integral display cabinets are slightly higher in the EU than in Australia and New Zealand, and remote types are lower.
RS19, RS20 12 SRH Service Cabinet, refrigerated Horizontal with door Integral Refrigerated Storage cabinet Refrigerator Counter (Horizontal) No equivalent registered Storage cabinet types are defined into four categories (but not classified by the technical standards yet) 30% NA 13 SRV Service Cabinet, Refrigerated, Vertical with solid door Vertical IVC4 Solid door M1 & M2 30% NA 14 SFH Service Cabinet, Freezer, Horizontal with solid door Freezer Counter (Horizontal) No equivalent registered 30% NA 15 SFV Service Cabinet Freezer, Vertical with solid door Vertical IVF4 Solid doors L1 & L2 30% NA Overall effect (Groups 1 to 11) 30% 13.4% Costs and Benefits Figure 15 the reduction in energy consumption over time due to Option3, there is also a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions when compared with BAU, but these are not significant when compared with other scenarios (see Options 4 below). Figure 15: Annual energy consumption from Option 3. 14 shows the modelled impacts of Option 3 and indicates the net benefits to Australia of $AU798 million and to New Zealand of NZ$51 million and the benefit to cost ratios are 8:1 and 4.5:1 respectively. Table 14 Evaluation of impacts – Option 3. Indicator Appliances installed 2017 - 2035 Australia New Zealand Energy Savings 6406GWh 1142GWh Emissions savings (CO2-e cumulative) 4.76Mt 147kt Benefits $AU912 million $NZ66 million million $NZ15 million Net Present Value million $NZ51 million Benefit cost ratio 8:1 4.5:1 Further details of the modelling and assumptions are at Attachment C.
The New Zealand market characteristic is similar, just on a smaller scale, with a core group of committed industry participants making up a significant portion of the market plus a long tail of miscellaneous importers. There are several regimes and commercial barriers that already restrict opportunistic importers. These ‘barriers’ include electrical safety and EMC requirements, product support necessary to comply with consumer laws as well as the cost penalty of part loading shipping containers to Australia or New Zealand. There are incremental costs to both Government and industry from introducing and operating an energy efficiency testing and registration program. This has been taken into account in the Cost Benefit Analysis of the RIS modelling (see Table D 2 below). Table D 2: Incremental costs of changed regime. Regulatory cost burden The estimated ‘regulatory cost burden’ on Australian companies also needs to be factored in to the analysis (see Table D3 below). The extra costs are shown for the three regulatory proposals vs Business As Usual. The table shows the annual total regulatory costs per business and per product. These consist of the additional cost for administration time spent to register a product and additional testing costs, but does not include the cost of registration itself. D3: Estimated regulatory burden cost (excluding cost to register in Australia) – for Australian businesses (in $AUD). These calculations appear different from those in Table D 2 (incremental costs of a changed regime) because: Only the costs to Australian businesses are shown here (NZ companies are not included). The cost per registered model can vary from the full cost to much less because a large number of units may be sold against each registered model.