5 Small Saver Cooking MeasuresFryers, Holding Cabinets, Convection Ovens, Combination Ovens, Steamers

Regional Technical ForumJuly 16, 2013

2

Cooking Measure Overview• Current Category: Small Saver

• Current Status: Under Review

• Current Sunset Date: July, 2013

• Reason for Update/Review: Follow-up to recommendation memo

• Subcommittee Review: Yes (volunteer panel)

Foodservice measure history

• 5 cooking measures recommended to Small Saver category during 2012/2013 review

• Many common parameters among measures– Recommendation memos suggest convening

expert panel to discuss several parameters• Met with foodservice volunteers on 7/1/13• Arrived at agreement among many common

parameters and measure savings approach– Several decisions suggested for full RTF discussion

Subcommittee Volunteer List

• Rick Knori (Lower Valley Energy)• Jeff Mitchell (PECI)• Tianna Byrtus (PSE) - Provided program data• Nick O’Neil (NPCC)

• Received program info from Ted Light (ETO)• Talked with David Zabrowski at FSTC after

subcommittee meeting

Parameters common to all measures

• Efficient Case Market Penetration Rate• Annual Hours of Operation• Baseline and Efficient Case Sources• Preheat Energy• Lbs of Food cooked per day• Lbs/day Utilization Factor

Efficient Case Market Penetration Rate

• Agreed to use ENERGY STAR shipment data to establish penetration rates– Published in 2011, and refreshed annually– Use unless spec has recently taken place, skewing

shipments• In those cases, use CEC database (if available) or entire

market as proxy for market penetration rate• This occurs with HFHC where new spec has taken place

and CEC database data provides a proxy for market

Annual Hours of Operation

• FSTC & DEER say 15 hours/day, 365 days/year– Likely to be different for each building type

• 2009 CBSA shows varying hours by building type– Restaurant: 93 hours/week– Hotel/Motel: 160 hours /week– School: 52 hours/week– Dry Goods Retail: 73 hours/week

• Agreed store HOU ≠ equipment HOU– i.e. We need a utilization factor

• FSTC uses a set lbs food cooked /day to arrive at utilization average across building use types

• Previous method used max cooking rate and developed “part-load” usage of equipment per day

HOU Reports & Methodology

• 1993 Arthur D. Little (ADL) report provides estimates of cooking equipment distribution by building type (referenced by FSTC 2002 tech assessment)

• 2009 CBSA provides a representative sample of PNW building operating hours

• FSTC methodology incorporates a “utilization factor” by determining average lbs/day of food cooked on equipment compared to theoretical maximum– Doing so allows for separation of idle and cooking energy– Still uses average of 15hrs/day and 365 days/yr for calculations

HOU Reports & Methodology

• Agreed that approach would be:– Use ADL distribution of equipment locations*

• Ex. % split of equipment found in schools vs. restaurants

– Use CBSA data to obtain daily HOU• Ex. Average HOU/week for grocery vs. hospital

– Use professional judgment to estimate annual days of operation for each business type

• Ex. Schools - 180 days/yr; Hospitals - 365 days/yr

– Weight annual HOU estimates by equipment distribution to find overall average HOU for each piece of equipment

*No ADL data available for HFHCs. Used PSE program data as proxy for likely install locations

2009 CBSA Data Distribution from ADL PSE Analysis

Facility Type HOU/Week n % of total Fryers Ovens Steamers HFHC* Days/Week HOU/Day Days/Year**

HOU/Year Office 59 389 29% 3% 6% 5% 2% 5 12 249 2937

Dry Goods Retail 73 354 26% 20% 12% 17% 0% 7 10 365 3809

Restaurants 93 127 9% 50% 30% 43% 24% 7 13 365 4853

Grocery 113 147 11% 6% 7% 0% 2% 7 16 365 5896

Schools 52 209 15% 9% 21% 15% 72% 5 10 180 1872

Hotel/Motel 160 66 5% 10% 18% 18% 0% 7 23 365 8349

Hospital 122 58 4% 2% 6% 3% 0% 7 17 365 6366

Weighted average 78             6 13 303 3915

*Not in ADL report so used weighted average of PSE install locations with ADL hours of use estimates

**Offices: 249 workdays are used per year. Assume 52 weeks/yr x 5 days/week minus 12 holidays. Schools: 180 days per year typical for schools

HOU Results

HOU using CBSA Hours and ADL distribution

Cooking EquipmentAverage

HOU/YearHOU/Week Weeks/Year Days/Week HOU/Day Days/Year

Fryers 4,772 93 51 6.8 13.7 347

Ovens 4,769 95 50 6.4 14.7 324

Steamer 4,783 94 51 6.6 14.3 335

HFHC* 2,689 63 43 5.5 11.4 235

*No data for HFHC in ADL study so PSE program data used to determine install location mix

Baseline and Efficient Case Sources

• Most parameters rely on testing done by FSTC– FSTC uses “representative sample” of economy grade and

efficient grade units tested in the lab• Not comprehensive but end-use monitoring confirms energy use

– Some measures have different sources available• CEC Database, FSTC dataset, ENERGY STAR QPL

• FSTC also tests and develops measures outside ENERGY STAR spec– Ex. 2/3 size combi-oven analyzed by FSTC however excluded by

ENERGY STAR• Agreed to use FSTC dataset for baseline case, and ENERGY

STAR and CEE tiers (if developed) for efficient case

Preheat Energy

• Used in all measures• FSTC provides estimate of energy, time and

number per day• Makes up less than 15% of overall unit energy

consumption for an 8-hour/day operation– Savings impact is even less between baseline and

efficient case: ~1-3%• Agreed to adopt FSTC estimates of preheat

energy, time and number per day

Lbs of Food Cooked Per Day

• Most FSTC measures use this parameter as a proxy for utilization– Given as lbs of food cooked per day compared to full load

lbs/hr capability of equipment• Typically equivalent to around a 15% utilization rate

• FSTC estimates values based on average makeup of building types*– Previously thought this was based on full-service

restaurants only

• Agreed to use FSTC estimated values of lbs/day

*Conversation with Dave Zabrowski at FSTC on 7/10/13

Remaining Issues for RTF Discussion

• EUL is not currently supported by data– DEER and FSTC assume 12 years

• Consistent with previous RTF analysis (likely citing DEER as a reference)

– 2004 SERA retention study* (cited in DEER) indicates high removal/failure rate

• Likelihood analysis showed an EUL estimate of 5.6 years for ovens and 6.9 years for fryers.

– 5.6 years for both if you include failed businesses– Other equipment studied had low sample sizes

*ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/electric/energy+efficiency/Rulemaking/cpucretentionrptsera102004_v20.pdf

SERA Retention Study

Retention Study Drawbacks

• Study doesn’t specify location in samples– Equipment more likely to fail in high use areas

• Unsure of what was replaced– Doesn’t mention if replaced efficiency was same

or better, just that equipment did not match rebate

• Potential unknown equipment issues in 2004– Was ENERGY STAR performance in 2004 as reliable

as the market baseline equipment?

Potential EUL Path• Assume restaurant kitchens have shortest life

– Used 5.6 years in analysis, yielding 27,175 total equipment hours (cooking and idle)

• Ratio EUL of other business sectors to restaurant equipment hours

• Weight EUL for each sector by ADL distribution, consistent with savings methodology

*EUL Limited to maximum of 25 years

Analysis

Facility Type Days/Week HOU/Day Days/Year** HOU/Year Equip Hours EUL

Office 5 12 249 2,937 44,901 15Dry Goods Retail 7 10 365 3,809 34,620 9Restaurants 7 13 365 4,853 27,175 6Grocery 7 16 365 5,896 22,365 4Schools 5 10 180 1,872 70,442 25*Hotel/Motel 7 23 365 8,349 15,795 2Hospital 7 17 365 6,366 20,715 3Weighted average 6 13 303 3,915 39,576 12

Cooking Equipment

Average HOU/Year

HOU/Day Days/Year EUL

Fryers 4772 13.7 347 8

Ovens 4769 14.7 324 10

Steamer 4783 14.3 335 9

HFHC* 2689 11.4 235 20

Savings ComparisonFr

yers

Half-

Size

Full-

Size

Com

bina

tion

Ove

ns (6

-15)

Com

bina

tion

Ove

ns (1

6-20

)

3-pa

n St

eam

er

4-pa

n St

eam

er

5-pa

n St

eam

er

6-pa

n St

eam

er

10-p

an S

team

er

Half

Size

HFH

C

3/4

Size

HFH

C

Full

Size

HFH

C

Fryers Convection Combi Steamer HFHC

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Previous Savings Current Savings

Annu

al S

avin

sg (k

Wh/

yr)

*Current proposal removes ¾ size HFHC and adds 4-pan & 10-pan steamer, and large-size Combi oven

Cost ComparisonFr

yers

Half-

Size

Full-

Size

Com

bina

tion

Ove

ns (6

-15)

Com

bina

tion

Ove

ns (1

6-20

)

3-pa

n St

eam

er

4-pa

n St

eam

er

5-pa

n St

eam

er

6-pa

n St

eam

er

10-p

an S

team

er

Half

Size

HFH

C

3/4

Size

HFH

C

Full

Size

HFH

C

Fryers Convection Combi Steamer HFHC

-$500

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500Previous Cost Current Cost

Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

2006

$)

TRC Comparison

*High TRC capped at 11.0 to maintain chart scale

Frye

rs

Half-

Size

Full-

Size

Com

bina

tion

Ove

ns (6

-15)

Com

bina

tion

Ove

ns (1

6-20

)

3-pa

n St

eam

er

4-pa

n St

eam

er

5-pa

n St

eam

er

6-pa

n St

eam

er

10-p

an S

team

er

Half

Size

HFH

C

3/4

Size

HFH

C

Full

Size

HFH

C

Fryers Convection Combi Steamer HFHC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Previous TRC Current TRC

Bene

fic/C

ost R

atio

Decision

• “I _______ move to approve the updates to the 5 UES Cooking measures (HFHC, Steamers, Fryers, Combination Ovens & Convection Ovens); set the measure status to “Active”; and change the sunset date to July 2018 or until ENERGY STAR specifications are updated, whichever is sooner.”

BACK-UP SLIDESSubcommittee Decisions for Reference

Summary of UES Specific Issues

• HFHC – No market penetration data available

• Use splits in CEC database as market proxy

• Convection Oven– Two specs available to use for efficient case– Develop savings for ENERGY STAR v2.0 spec only

which goes into effect 1/1/14• Difference between current v1.1 and proposed v2.0 is

minimal (71% efficiency requirement compared to 70%)• Only 1 model drops out of FSTC savings analysis

Summary of UES Specific Issues

• Combination Ovens– No data on combination mode use in field– FSTC assumes 50% in steam mode, 50% in oven mode– Recommend using FSTC assumptions since no field data exists

• Consistent with our “we know it’s something, but we don’t know exactly what it is” methodology

– FSTC test data do not align with ENERGY STAR criteria• Ex. FSTC tests efficient units and finds 73% average efficiency; ENERGY

STAR requires minimum 75% efficiency • Reason is because ENERGY STAR developed after FSTC workpapers• Use ENERGY STAR data in FSTC savings methodology where lacking

– No ENERGY STAR shipment data available since spec is new• Program history implies very little uptake of measure• Agreed to set market penetration rate at zero

Summary of UES Specific Issues

• Steamers– ENERGY STAR allows boilerless and boiler based systems to

qualify; large difference in water consumption• 92% are boilerless on current QPL• Agreed to keep applicability open and not weighting for presence of

boiler-based systems

– Current approach is to use average savings regardless of pan count

• Clear cost difference between pan capacity• Agreed to split up by pan capacity using incremental cost of each pan

– Percentage of time in constant steam mode has little supporting field data information

• 90% for baseline, 0% for efficient case• Recommend keeping estimate based on conversations with FSTC over

baseline equipment operating in nearly constant steam mode