Emerging Technologies (ET) Energy Efficient Commercial ... Foodservice... · Commercial Food Service Equipment Demo and Showcase program under internal project number 2500669229

PG&E’s Emerging Technologies Program ET Project #ET12PGE2201

Emerging Technologies (ET) Energy Efficient Commercial Food Service Equipment Demo and Showcase

Food Service Technology Demo Kitchen

ET Project Number: ET12PGE2201

Project Manager: Charlene Spoor Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared By: Todd Bell Adam Cornelius Angelo Karas Janel Rupp Fisher-Nickel, inc 12949 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 101 San Ramon, CA 94583

Issued: November 15,2012

Copyright, 2012, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Emerging Technologies Program is responsible for this project. It was developed as part of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Emerging Technology – Energy Efficient Commercial Food Service Equipment Demo and Showcase program under internal project number 2500669229. Fisher-Nickel, inc (FNi) conducted this technology evaluation for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with overall guidance and management from Charlene Spoor. For more information on this project, contact [email protected].

LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared for PG&E for use by its employees and agents. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees and agents:

(1) makes any written or oral warranty, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to those concerning merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose;

(2) assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, process, method, or policy contained herein; or

(3) represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

DISCLAIMER In no event will FNi be liable for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect, or similar damages, including but not limited to lost profits, lost market share, lost savings, lost data, increased cost of production, or any other damages arising out of the use of the data or the interpretation of the data presented in this report.

FNi is neutral as to fuel and energy sources. Fisher-Nickel, Inc. does not endorse particular products or services from any specific manufacturer or service provider. FNi is strongly committed to evaluating the performance of foodservice equipment using the best available scientific techniques and instrumentation. FNi test results are made available to the general public through technical research reports and publications and are protected under U.S. and international copyright laws. Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of this document without reference to PG&E and FNi is prohibited.

This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It does not necessarily represent the views of the CPUC, its employees, or the State of California. The CPUC, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the CPUC nor has the CPUC passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.

ii


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ET Emerging Technologies

FNi Fisher-Nickel, inc.

FSTC Food Service Technology Center

GGRA Golden Gate Restaurant Association

h Hour

lb Pound

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt-hour

TVP Time Varying Pricing

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

RD&D Research, Development, and Design

SMB Small-to-Midsized Business

TVP Time Varying Pricing

iii


CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................1 Emerging Technologies Project Background ...................................................... 7

Project Assessment Objectives / Goals ............................................................. 7

General Boundaries / Scope of Assessment ....................................................... 7

Technology / Product Evaluation Approach ........................................................ 8

Description of Existing Technologies ........................................................ 8 Description of New Technologies ............................................................ 14

FIELD ANALYSIS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................20 Vic’s All-Star Kitchen (Pleasanton, CA) ............................................................ 20

Technical Approach .............................................................................. 20 Results .............................................................................................. 22

Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 22 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 25

Recommendations ............................................................................... 26 Vic’s All Star Kitchen Showcase (9/25/2012) ........................................... 26

Comal (Berkeley, CA) ................................................................................... 27



Recommendations ............................................................................... 30 Comal Showcase (10/4/2012) ............................................................... 30

Bridges Restaurant & Bar (Danville, CA) .......................................................... 31



Recommendations ............................................................................... 35 Bridges Showcase (10/23/2012) ............................................................ 36

Chow Restaurant and Bar (Danville, CA) .......................................................... 37



Recommendations ............................................................................... 40 Chow Showcase .................................................................................. 40

Melon’s Catering (South San Francisco, CA) ..................................................... 40


iv



Recommendations ............................................................................... 42 Melon’s Showcase ............................................................................... 42

Slanted Door (San Francisco, CA) ................................................................... 42



Recommendations ............................................................................... 44

Seminar and Showcase at US Foods Show (10/16/2012) ................................... 44

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................46 APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES .....................................................................................48 Vic’s All Star Kitchen .................................................................................... 48

Comal ........................................................................................................ 50

Bridges Restaurant ....................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................53 APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES .......63 C.1. US Foods Show Seminar Presentation ...................................................... 63

C.2 US Foods Show Seminar and Showcase Support Packet ............................... 67

C.3 US Foods Show List of Attendees .............................................................. 69

APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES .............72 D.1.1 Bridges Restaurant Support Packet ........................................................ 72

D.1.2 Bridges Restaurant List of Attendees ...................................................... 75

D.2.1.Comal Support Packet .......................................................................... 77

D.2.2. Comal List of Attendees ....................................................................... 80

D.3.1. Vic’s All Star Restaurant Support Packet ................................................ 83

D.3.2. Vic’s All Star Restaurant List of Attendees .............................................. 86

APPENDIX E: REFERENCES ........................................................................................87

v


TABLES Table ES1. Restaurant Name, Location, and Upgraded Appliances ...... 2

Table ES2. Appliance Description - Vic’s All Star Kitchen ................... 3

Table ES3. Appliance Description - Comal Restaurant ....................... 3

Table ES4. Appliance Description - Bridges Restaurant ..................... 3

Table ES5. Appliance Description - Chow Restaurant ........................ 4

Table ES6. Appliance Description - Melons Catering .......................... 4

Table ES7. Appliance Description - Slanted Door Restaurant .............. 4

Table ES8. Annual Energy Use, Energy Savings, and Operating Cost Savings ...................................................................... 5

Table 1. Fryer Operating Assumptions: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ....... 22

Table 2. Calculated Fryer Energy Use: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ........ 22

Table 3. Fryer Operating Costs and Savings: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen .................................................................... 23

Table 4. Oven Operating Assumptions: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ....... 23

Table 5. Calculated Oven Energy Use: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ........ 23

Table 6. Oven Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen .................................................................... 24

Table 7. Griddle Operating Assumptions: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ..... 24

Table 8. Calculated Griddle Energy Use: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ...... 25

Table 9. Griddle Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ............................................................. 25

Table 10. Fryer Energy Use and Operating Costs: Comal ............... 29

Table 11. Fryer Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Comal........... 29

Table 12. Oven Energy Use and Operating Costs: Bridges Restaurant & Bar ....................................................... 33

Table 13. Oven Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Bridges Restaurant & Bar ....................................................... 33

Table 14. Fryer Operating Assumptions: Bridges Restaurant & Bar . 34

Table 15. Calculated Fryer Energy Use: Bridges Restaurant & Bar .. 35

Table 16. Fryer Energy and Operatng Cost Savings: Bridges Restaurant & Bar ....................................................... 35

Table 17. Main Line Fryer Energy Use: Chow Restaurant and Bar ... 38

Table 18. Main Line Fryer Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Chow Restaurant and Bar ........................................... 38

Table 19. Grill Line Fryer Energy Use: Chow Restaurant and Bar .... 39

vi


Table 20. Grill Line Fryer Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Chow Restaurant and Bar ........................................... 39

Table 21. Oven Energy Use: Melon’s Catering .............................. 41

Table 22. Oven Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Melon’s Catering ................................................................... 41

Table 23. Steamer Energy Use: Slanted Door .............................. 43

Table 24. Steamer Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Slanted Door ........................................................................ 43

Table A1. US Foods Show Guests ............................................... 69

Table A2. Bridges Guests .......................................................... 75

Table A3. Bridges Vendors ........................................................ 76

Table A4. Comal Guests ............................................................. 80

Table A5. Comal Vendors ........................................................... 81

Table A6. Vic’s Guests ................................................................ 86

Table A7. Vic’s Vendors .............................................................. 86

FIGURES Figure 1. French Fryer ............................................................... 8

Figure 2. Distribution of Fryers in Commercial Facilities .................. 9

Figure 3. Griddle .................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Distribution of Griddles in Commercial Facilities ............. 11

Figure 5. Oven ....................................................................... 11

Figure 6. Distribution of Ovens in Commercial Facilities ................ 12

Figure 7. Steam Cooker ........................................................... 13

Figure 8. Distribution of Steamers in Commercial Facilities ........... 14

Figure 9. Fryer Energy Saving Potential ..................................... 16

Figure 10. Griddle Energy Saving Potential ................................... 17

Figure 11. Oven Energy Saving Potential ..................................... 18

Figure 12. Steamer Energy Saving Potential ................................. 19

Figure 13. Vic’s Cooking Line: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) ..................................................................... 25

Figure 14. Vic’s Showcase (9/25/2012) ....................................... 26

Figure 15. Comal Fryers: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) ... 29

Figure 16. Comal Showcase (10/4/2012) ..................................... 30

Figure 17. Bridges Ovens: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) .. 33

vii


Figure 18. Bridges Fryers: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) .. 35

Figure 19. Bridges Showcase (10/23/2012) .................................. 36

Figure 20. Chow’s Main Line Fryers: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) .................................................. 39

Figure 21. Chow’s Grill Line Fryers: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) .................................................. 40

Figure 22. US Foods Seminar and Showcase (10/16/2012) ............. 45

1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Commercial cooking appliances are the heart of any foodservice establishment. These appliances utilize a myriad of cooking mediums to heat or reheat foods to prepare them for customers. In doing so, they consume substantial amounts of either natural gas or electricity to heat oil, air, or cooking surfaces to transfer heat to the food product. Most of the cooking appliances operating in today’s restaurants and other commercial foodservice operations are inefficient, wasting the majority of the energy consumed during both the cooking process and idle periods between cooking events. A typical restaurant is five times more energy intensive per square foot then other retail establishments, and poor energy utilization is a primary contributor to this market segment’s high energy bills.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Food Service Technology Center (FSTC), a program devoted to energy-efficiency in commercial foodservice, has developed standardized test methods to determine performance of the major equipment typically found in foodservice operations. As a result of extensive, regimented testing on a multitude of equipment, the FSTC has been able to develop criteria to differentiate between low-, standard-, and high-efficiency foodservice equipment. This supports the California utilities’ Energy Wise monetary incentives for energy-efficient foodservice equipment paid directly to commercial customers when purchasing qualified models.

The primary objective of this Emerging Technologies project is to promote the California Energy Wise program through the targeted replacement of select low- or standard-efficiency cooking appliances with high-efficiency rebate-qualified units in multiple working restaurants. Existing appliances were benchmarked either through direct sub-metering of the equipment with utility-grade gas meters or through engineering analysis using FSTC’s life cycle cost calculators (www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/tools/calculators/) that can be configured to match the individual appliance’s operating parameters. Newly-installed energy-efficient appliances were likewise benchmarked and associated energy savings determined. This analysis serves as the backbone of the emerging technology case studies to support a customer’s decision to purchase California Energy Wise appliances.

To further promote the project to industry stakeholders, primarily other restaurateurs, FSTC personnel conducted onsite demonstration events to showcase the energy savings and performance benefits of the appliances installed at each restaurant. They also participated in the US. Foods show in Pleasanton, where the FSTC booth again showcased the three case studies with digital and storyboard media to the over 2,000 attendees.

PROJECT GOAL

The primary objective of this Emerging Technologies project is to promote the use of energy-efficient commercial foodservice equipment qualified under the California Energy Wise program. The project did this by identifying the energy-efficiency needs of several restaurants in PG&E’s service area, replacing the restaurant’s selected low- or standard-efficiency cooking appliances with high-efficiency rebate-qualified units, and developing case studies to showcase the results. Table ES1 documents the individual foodservice establishments participating in the study and the associated cooking appliances that were upgraded in each.

2


TABLE ES1. RESTAURANT NAME, LOCATION, AND UPGRADED APPLIANCES

Restaurant Location Type Replaced Appliance(s)

Vic’s All Star Kitchen

Pleasanton, CA Casual dining Two conventional ovens

One deep-fat fryer

Two griddles

Comal Berkeley, CA Casual dining One deep-fat fryer

Bridges Danville, CA Fine dining One 50-lb deep fat fryer

Two convection ovens

Chow Danville, CA Fine dining Two deep fat fryers

Melons Catering S. San Francisco, CA Catering Two convection ovens

Slanted Door San Francisco, CA Fine dining One boiler-based steamer

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Six sites were selected for assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of results. As mentioned in table ES1, restaurant types ranged from fine dining to casual dining to catering. Each piece of equipment listed in table ES1 above was selected from the California Energy Wise program’s list of energy-efficient cooking appliances (http://www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/rebates/). The appliances have been tested under the regimented guidelines of ASTM foodservice equipment standard test methods, developed by the FSTC and adopted by industry consensus, and were determined to meet the minimum energy-efficiency thresholds to qualify for the program. The appliances utilize design innovations to achieve energy savings, including increased insulation, enhanced or advanced heat exchange, thermostatic controls, or metered steam generation technology. Table ES2 – ES7 describe both the existing appliances and replacement appliances as well as the essential energy-efficient design features of each.

3


TABLE ES2. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN

Appliance Type Original Appliance Technology

Replacement Appliance Technology

Oven(x2) Natural convection, direct heating atmospheric natural gas burners

Forced-air convection, robust heat exchanger design and restrictive exhaust flue. Improved flue design in heat exchanger allows more heat to be pulled from burners.

Fryer Submerged, electric heating elements

Tube heat exchanger with internal baffles, optimized atmospheric natural gas burners.

Griddle Manually controlled, natural gas atmospheric burners

Thermostatic controls, natural gas atmospheric burners

TABLE ES3. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - COMAL RESTAURANT

Appliance Type Existing Appliance Technology


Fryer Open tube heat exchanger atmospheric natural gas burners

Tube heat exchanger with internal baffles, optimized atmospheric natural gas burners.

TABLE ES4. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - BRIDGES RESTAURANT



Oven(x2) Forced air convection, direct-fired natural gas burners

Forced air convection robust heat exchanger design and restrictive exhaust flue. Improved flue design in heat exchanger allows more heat to be pulled from burners.

Fryer Side heat exchanger, atmospheric natural gas burners

Advanced burner design with, multi-pass heat exchanger.

4


TABLE ES5. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - CHOW RESTAURANT



Fryer – main cook line Open tube heat exchanger, atmospheric natural gas burners

Advanced burner design with multi-pass heat exchanger.

Fryer – grill cook line Open tube heat exchanger atmospheric natural gas burners

Tube heat exchanger with internal baffles, atmospheric natural gas burners.

TABLE ES6. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - MELONS CATERING



Convection Oven(x2) Forced air convection, natural gas burners

Robust heat exchanger design and restrictive exhaust flue forced air convection. Improved flue design in heat exchanger allows more heat to be pulled from burners.

TABLE ES7. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - SLANTED DOOR RESTAURANT



Boiler-based Steamer Forced convection steamer with direct condensate drain, atmospheric natural gas burners

Forced convection steamer with regulated condensate drain and metered steam generation, atmospheric natural gas burners.

PROJECT FINDINGS/RESULTS

For each of the locations, appreciable energy savings was achieved through the installation of energy-efficient cooking appliances. Further, the operators noted a dramatic increase in productivity due to the shorter intervals required by the replacement appliances to recover to thermostat set point temperatures after food product was introduced to the cooking compartment, cooking surface or cooking media.

5


TABLE ES8. ANNUAL ENERGY USE, ENERGY SAVINGS, AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS

Restaurant Appliance Existing Appliance Annual Energy Use (Therms)

Replacement Appliance Annual Energy Use (Therms)

Annual Energy Savings (Therms)

Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)

Vic’s All Star Kitchen

Ovens (x2) 1,150 926 223 190

Fryer 7,085 kWh 448 NA 895

Griddle 1,693 912 781 664

Comal Fryer 1,422 821 601 511

Bridges Top convection oven

714 302 412 350

Bottom convection oven

618 136 482 409

Fryer 1,097 470 627 533

Chow Main cook line fryer

1,288 453 835 710

Grill cook line fryer

990 573 417 354

Melons Catering

Convection ovens

1,588 1,116 472 401

Slanted Door Boiler-based steamer

4,626 997 3,629 3,084

The measured pre- and post-installation energy use validates the FSTC’s life cycle cost calculator analysis tools that accurately model appliance energy use. These tools are the foundation of the energy-saving assumptions for the California statewide IOU Energy Wise appliance incentive program. As a result of this Emerging Technology project, commercial foodservice operators should feel confident that purchasing energy-efficient, utility rebate qualified appliances will guarantee energy savings and lower operating costs.

The results from three of the six monitored sites are included as case studies to highlight the energy and cost savings that were realized at each site. These case studies were showcased at individual events hosted by the restaurant where the equipment was replaced. On October 16, 2012, a seminar providing an overview of the ET project was presented at the US Foods Show. Attendees at all these events received free Turbo Pots; energy-efficient cookware designed to reduce open-range burner energy use when boiling or simmering liquids. With the Turbo Pot’s advanced heat exchanger design, FSTC research

6


has measured a 48% percent increase in open-range burner efficiency (from 33.5% for a standard pot to 49.6%).

Eleven guests attended the showcase at Vic’s, as well as ten representatives from seven vendors, on September 25, 2012. Twenty-nine guests attended the Comal showcase, as well as 19 representatives from 12 vendors, on October 4, 2012. Twenty-one guests attended the Bridges showcase event, as well as 17 representatives from ten vendors, on October 23, 2012. Eighty-eight guests attended the US Foods showcase on October 16, 2012, with 40 participating in the FSTC seminar. Each event was billed as an energy-efficiency and sustainability fair that allowed operators to attend the individual showcases over a two-hour window slotted for either before or after the lunch service period.

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subjective feedback from the operators, with the exception of one site, there was a general level of satisfaction with the performance of the replacement appliances at the restaurants where each was installed. The appliances in this study may be appropriate for similar types of restaurants with similar production needs.

While the energy savings when replacing like-for-like appliances is relatively easy to quantify, this study does call attention to the need for greater exploration of the real-world energy use of non-thermostatic, manually controlled griddles or frytops. While researches can model the energy use of this appliance type, there are subtle variances in usage patterns and operating conditions affected by human operators that can dramatically impact actual energy use and the savings associated with the installation of a thermostatically-controlled griddle. Appliance placement and space constraints did not allow for the sub metering of the manual griddles at Vic’s All Star Kitchen, forcing researchers to model their energy use based on rated input and control set points effected by the line cooks. Future studies should identify sites where sub-metering a manual griddle is viable, in order to validate calculated savings.

Operator satisfaction is paramount to the success of any appliance retrofit project. Removal of the new energy-efficient steamer from service at the Slanted Door, for instance, was a result of the operator having greater confidence in the build quality of the existing steamer after the replacement unit’s door gaskets failed after minimal use. The operator’s brand loyalty was strong enough that he placed the existing unit back in service, rather than repairing the replacement unit, which was still under warranty.

Despite the inherent challenges associated with reaching the restaurant operators and owners to promote utility resources, programs and incentives for energy efficiency upgrades like California Energy Wise cooking appliances, the onsite demonstration showcase events as well as the US Foods show were deemed successful. Given the time constraints placed on most restaurant operators, the open timeframe adopted by the FSTC for the showcases worked well for those who were able to attend. However, even within this open time format, the three restaurants required that events be held at different times, days, and locations to not hinder their normal operating schedules yet provide greater opportunities for operators to attend the showcase events. This represents an ongoing challenge when trying to develop such events for restaurant owner/operators – one that merits further exploration and discussion, possibly through focus groups with local restaurateurs.

7


INTRODUCTION

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT BACKGROUND PG&E’s ET program was created to fund field placement studies of energy-efficient commercial food service equipment in the PG&E service territory. The primary objective of the ET program is to promote the California Energy Wise rebate program by highlighting the performance of rebate-qualified equipment in real-world operating situations. The program involves replacing low- or standard-efficiency existing equipment in targeted foodservice establishments based on a site assessment; design consultation; measuring pre- and post-replacement energy use and calculating savings; and following up with a demo showcase event to share the project’s successes and lessons learned.

The project utilized recent findings in a PIER study completed by Fisher-Nickel, inc (FNi) which characterized the inventory, energy load, and energy-efficiency potential of various primary cooking appliances found in commercial and institutional foodservice sectors in the state of California. The goal of the PIER study was to identify energy-efficient needs in the restaurant industry; identify equipment with the highest energy loads; and outline specific strategies to stimulate RD&D improvements in energy efficiency and performance to support regulatory and utility-based incentive programs around this equipment. This ET program augments the PIER study by demonstrating “proof-of-concept” in live kitchens for implementing these energy reduction strategies to support current and future utility-based incentives for more efficient equipment. It will also help increase awareness in the foodservice industry of the real-world performance of energy-efficient equipment, further driving manufacturer research and development as demand for this type of equipment continues to grow.

PROJECT ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES / GOALS The primary project goals of the ET project/assessment goals were as follows:

Select at least three commercial equipment foodservice locations.

Provide assessment of existing equipment.

Establish energy and cost baselines with existing equipment.

Provide design assistance for replacement equipment at each site using a mechanical engineer knowledgeable in restaurant design.

Provide assistance with equipment selection and installation.

Measure data to calculate energy and cost savings using replacement equipment.

Hold demo showcases at the selected sites to share program successes.

GENERAL BOUNDARIES / SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT Although three sites were required for this ET project, three additional sites also qualified and were willing to participate in the field study in order to provide a larger set of data points towards the results, for a total of six monitored sites. These sites were selected as a result of prior interaction between the establishment and the FSTC in some sustentative

8


capacity such as an energy audit, design consultation or operator attendance at a Center’s energy-efficiency seminar. Further considerations included the types of cooking appliances already in operation in the facility, and whether or not those appliances were energy-efficient models. Three of the six sites were included as showcase events.

TECHNOLOGY / PRODUCT EVALUATION APPROACH

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES The site assessments of the six restaurants yielded equipment replacement candidates in four appliance categories: Fryers, griddles, ovens, and steam cookers.

FRENCH FRYERS

FIGURE 1. FRENCH FRYER

The French fryer is the single most common appliance in commercial kitchens and the largest consumer of natural gas energy in the state of California: estimated at 120 million therms annually. Fryers are available in a range of configurations but still share a common basic design. The kettle, or frypot, contains a sufficient amount of oil so that the cooking food is essentially supported by displacement of the oil rather than by the bottom of the vessel. The oil is heated by atmospheric or infrared gas burners underneath the kettle or in heated tubes that pass though the kettle walls. The kettle may be split into more than one cooking vat, allowing the operator to prepare different foods without flavor transfer. Fryers are manufactured as either countertop units or freestanding floor units. For scaled production these appliances can be used in batteries that consist of several fryers in one kitchen.

Gas fryers can be separated into three categories: low, standard, and high-efficiency. Low-efficiency gas fryers (the more common of the three) are typically designed with atmospheric burners with simple heat exchangers that either run through the frypot via tubes or underneath it. Mid-range gas fryers are fryers that employ a tuned atmospheric burner with a more restrictive heat exchanger heat-exchanger design that allows more heat to be imparted to the oil than a typical straight-through design. High-efficiency (ENERGY STAR®) gas fryers take advantage of new developments in gas technology, such as infrared (IR) burners, pulse combustion, powered burners and recirculation tubes. Higher end fryers incorporate various new technologies into their design that yield more efficient cooking rates with quicker recovery and greater productivity. The appliances replaced in this ET study were classified as low-efficiency fryers.

9


Fryers range in capacity from about 15 lb of oil for a small, countertop fryer to over 200 lb of fat for the largest floor-model fryers used for donuts and chicken. The larger sizes were designed to accommodate large products such as chicken and fish. The most common type of fryer is the standard 15" French fryer. It is this size fryer on which the ET project was primarily focused. At 83% of the estimated gas fryer inventory in California (109,602 units), French fryers comprise the largest gas oven segment in the state, making it an ideal candidate to evaluate for this project.

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the different fryer types throughout the various commercial segments.

FIGURE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF FRYERS IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

This ET study focused the majority of its French fryer replacement efforts on the largest fryer market sector: FSR casual dining. Two of the four fryer sites selected for monitoring in this ET project were casual dining establishments. This provided real-world examples of the performance of these high-efficiency appliances in their most common market segment.

10


GRIDDLES

FIGURE 3. GRIDDLE

Griddles are workhorse appliances that usually occupy a central position on the short-order line. Their versatility ranges from crisping and browning to searing, warming or toasting. Griddles are distributed across a wide variety of foodservice establishments: from institutions such as correctional facilities to full-service fine dining establishments. Griddles vary in size, power input, heating method, griddle-plate construction and control strategy. All designs cook via contact with a heated metal plate that has splashguards attached to the sides and rear and a shallow trough to guide grease and scraps into a holding tray. The griddle plate is heated from underneath by gas burners or electric elements, and controls are generally located on the front of the appliance. The griddle plate is typically a polished flat surface; however, it may be grooved to give the food product a seared pattern characteristic of charbroiling without the flare-up and smoke typically associated with broiling.

A griddle’s low-profile design enables manufacturers to offer them in a variety of configurations. The same griddle can be placed on a stand (freestanding floor model), a countertop, or be incorporated into a range top. Manufacturers also commonly offer griddles as a component of a restaurant range battery. Single-sided griddles, which is what this ET study focused on, are designed for cooking food in oil or its own juices by direct contact with a flat, smooth, hot surface (i.e., flat, polished steel plate) where plate temperature is either manually or thermostatically controlled. Burners or electric elements usually are spaced between eight and 12 inches apart beneath the plate with one control per 12-inch section. This allows each griddle section to be maintained at a different temperature.

Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the different griddle types throughout the various commercial segments.

11


FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF GRIDDLES IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

This ET study focused the griddle replacement efforts on the largest fryer market sector: FSR casual dining. The griddle site selected for monitoring in this ET project was a casual dining establishment. This provided a real-world example of the performance of high-efficiency griddles in its most common market segment.

OVENS

FIGURE 5. OVEN

Commercial ovens are the largest and most diverse category of commercial foodservice equipment. This versatility and diversity mean that they can be found in almost any type of foodservice operation. They are available in many different configurations. Natural gas is the predominant fuel source for most commercial ovens, representing 55 to 60% of the installed base. At 45% of the estimated gas oven inventory in California (67,824 units), convection ovens comprise the largest gas oven segment in the state, making it an ideal candidate to evaluate for this project.

12


An oven can be simply described as a fully enclosed, insulated chamber used to heat food. This ET study evaluated two types of ovens in its baseline case: convection ovens and range ovens. Convection ovens cook food by forcing hot air over the surface of the food product by a fan in a closed cavity. The rapidly moving hot air strips away the layer of cooler air next to the food and enables the food to absorb the heat energy. Convection ovens are commonly used for general purpose baking and roasting due to the improved speed and uniformity of cooking. Commercial convection ovens come in two basic sizes—full-size and half-size—based on whether the oven can accept standard full-size (18 x 26 x 1-inch) or half-size (18 x 13 x 1-inch) sheet pans. Most half- and full-size ovens are capable of handling up to six sheet pans.

Gas convection ovens can be separated into three categories: standard, medium, and high-efficiency. Low- and standard-efficiency convection ovens typically use basic indirect-fired designs and generally have minimal insulation and poor door seals. High-efficiency gas convection ovens take advantage of new developments in gas technology, such as infrared (IR) burners, direct-fired and snorkel designs, advanced insulation and tight door seals.

Range ovens are overall the most common type of conventional oven. The range oven exists as part of a cooking unit or system that forms the housing or base of the rangetop (i.e., burners, electric elements or hobs). The range/oven combination usually consists of only one oven cavity and is normally specified for smaller operations. With an estimated inventory of 44,133 units in California, range ovens make up 29% of gas ovens statewide; second only to convection ovens.

Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of the different oven types throughout the various commercial segments.

FIGURE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF OVENS IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

13


As with fryer replacement, the ET study focused the majority of its convection and range oven replacement efforts on the largest oven market sector for both: FSR casual dining. One of the three oven sites selected for monitoring in this ET project was a casual dining establishment. This provided real-world examples of the performance of high-efficiency ovens in their most common market segment.

STEAM COOKERS

FIGURE 7. STEAM COOKER

Commercial steam cookers (also known as steamers) provide an easy, fast way to prepare large quantities of food. The steam cooking method offers good nutrient retention, short cook times, and ease of preparation.

Steamers come in a variety of configurations, including countertop models, wall-mounted models and floor models mounted on a stand, pedestal or cabinet-style base. A steamer may consist of one to four stacked cavities. The cavity is usually designed to accommodate a standard 12 by 20-inch hotel pan. Smaller steamers may be designed for use with one-third size pans, and some large steamers can hold several 18 by 26-inch baking trays.

This ET project focused on pressureless, boiler-based steamers. The compartments of pressureless steamers are openly connected to a condensate drain and the steam environment within the compartment cannot sustain a pressure above atmospheric (both raw steam and condensate exit the cooking cavity through this drain). Pressureless steamers, also commonly referred to as "atmospheric" steamers, maintain the cooking compartment at close to atmospheric pressure. They generally employ a large cooking cavity to facilitate the circulation of steam around the food product. Because these steamers operate at or near atmospheric pressure, the door may be safely opened at any point during the cooking cycle to check the product. Many atmospheric steamers employ a fan for forced convection steaming, to produce shorter cook times and even cooking throughout the compartment under full-load conditions. With an estimated inventory of 28,584 pressureless gas steamers in California, the appliance was an ideal candidate for this ET study.

Boiler-based steamers require a drain line, water line, and a connection to an energy source — typically gas or electric. Self-contained units typically have boilers that fill automatically. Condensate from the cavity is directed to a drain tube, where it is cooled by a stream of water before flowing into the sewer (In many areas it is against code to drain water above 140°F).

Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of steam cookers throughout the various commercial segments.

14


FIGURE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF STEAMERS IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

The ET study focused the majority of its steam cooker replacement efforts on the largest oven market sector: FSR casual dining.

DESCRIPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES While the oil capacities of existing and replacement fryers differed slightly, the physical dimensions of almost all the existing fryers were the same as the replacement fryers (14"). The one exception was Vic’s, where their small countertop electric unit was replaced with a 14" floor unit. The steam cooker at Slanted Door was replaced with an energy-efficient equivalent of their atmospheric, boiler-based steamer. Ovens were replaced with similar-type, double-stacked convection ovens in all but one restaurant: at Vic’s All-Star Kitchen, a pair of conventional ovens under their range top was replaced with a set of energy-efficient stacked convection ovens. A single five-foot countertop gas griddle at Vic’s replaced both a three-foot unit (integrated into their existing range), as well as a four-foot floor model.

FRYERS From an energy-efficient design perspective, fryers are the most mature appliance category. Gas fryers exceeding 50% cooking-energy efficiency have been available for more than 20 years, as a result of demands from some of the more forward-thinking quick-service restaurant chains. With an expanding ENERGY STAR® category for commercial fryers and more restaurant chains pushing manufacturers to develop more efficient gas fryers, there are now many energy-efficient fryers on the market.

The energy efficiency within each category or type of gas fryer varies significantly, depending primarily on the applied heating technology. Due to the many possible

15


arrangements of the combustion and heat exchanger systems, gas fryers exhibit significant efficiency differences. The usage of a fryer from one foodservice operation to another also impacts its energy efficiency and consumption. Fryers are less efficient under part-load operation due to the increased effect that the heat loss from the fryer has on its efficiency. Gas fryers lose even more due to the part-load efficiency penalty that is characteristic of indirect fired-gas heating systems. Fryers spend a significant portion of their operating time in stand-by or idle mode. Under such conditions, the energy performance of a gas fryer drops even further due to the short duty cycle of the burners.

Although ENERGY STAR® has had a specification for French fryers since 2003, energy-efficient French fryers represent less than 10% of the total installed base. The perceived high incremental cost (typically $500 to $1,000 for a restaurant chain that purchases in bulk, and up to $2,500 for an independent facility purchasing a single fryer), coupled with the perception that ENERGY STAR® fryers do not perform well, have kept the market penetration low. This difficulty is exacerbated by the prevalence of economy (e.g., $800 purchase price), low-efficiency fryers that are carried by most equipment dealers and distributors.

While end-user education can begin to change some of the perceptions regarding the performance of ENERGY STAR® fryers, the cost gap between the throw-away fryers and ENERGY STAR® qualified fryers continues to be a major barrier. Some of the cost difference is due to the energy-efficiency design of the ENERGY STAR® fryers. But the majority of the increased price (e.g., $1,000-$2,500) is derived from the additional features and premium materials used in most ENERGY STAR® qualified models. There is room for an entry-level ENERGY STAR®-qualified fryer that is more cost-competitive with the economy line of fryers. Products that could fill that niche would entice independent operators that are low on capital resources without deteriorating the market share of the premium lines preferred by many quick service chains. There is an additional need to establish typical life spans for the low efficiency and high efficiency fryers to support the anecdotal claims that ENERGY STAR® fryers enjoy longer useful lives than low-efficiency fryers. In a fully mature market, including substantial gains in the ENERGY STAR® fryer market share and the elimination of the lowest efficiency units from the market, French fryer energy consumption can conservatively be reduced by 25 million therms.

Figure 9 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from a fryer with low efficiency to a high-efficiency fryer. The degree of energy savings potential when replacing a low-efficiency French fryer with an energy-efficient model makes it an ideal candidate for this ET project – particularly when comparing the potential energy savings against energy savings realized when replacing other fryer types.

16


FIGURE 9. FRYER ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL

GRIDDLES As with fryers, commercial griddles represent one of the most mature appliance categories, from an energy-efficient design perspective. Two factors have driven energy-efficient griddle designs. First, quick service chains, now followed by casual dining chains, have stimulated research on energy-efficient griddles because they recognize the possibility of increasing profits by specifying better equipment. Second, ASTM standard test methods developed by the FSTC have allowed testing facilities to produce comparable griddle energy performance data. This allows both manufacturers and purchasers to calculate the cost of operating specific griddle models and technologies. Published data shows that energy performance can vary significantly with griddle type and construction details.

The relatively simple design of griddles (large metal plate with a heat source located beneath the plate) belies the actual complexity of the appliance design. There are different strategies for applying heat to the griddle including open flame atmospheric burners, advanced burners and heat pipe technology. Even among appliances that use the same heating technology, there can be significant variations in appliance performance and energy use due to subtleties in appliance design and control. Figure 69 illustrates the energy load and energy saving potential of gas griddles.

Low-efficiency griddles represent 37 million therms of the overall annual gas cooking energy load. Double-sided griddles, which are more dominant in a few quick-service chains, are estimated to consume two million therms annually. Gas griddles can be separated into three basic categories: low-, standard-, and high-efficiency. The primary difference between standard- and low-efficiency griddles is the design of the temperature controls and the placement of the temperature sensing devices. Low-efficiency designs typically employ modulating thermostats and position the thermostat bulbs underneath the griddle plate, where they are secured by angle iron or metal clips. Heat from the burners interferes with

17


the bulb’s ability to sense plate temperature, leading to “lazy” or sluggish thermostat response. Standard-efficiency designs generally use snap-action style thermostats and secure the thermostat bulb in a groove along the underside of the griddle plate or embed the bulb within the plate itself. This creates more contact between the sensing bulb and the griddle plate, allowing for better temperature response. High-efficiency gas griddle designs employ advanced burner technologies and solid-state controls with a thermocouple embedded within the griddle plate.

Figure 10 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from a single-sided griddle with low efficiency to a high-efficiency griddle.

FIGURE 10. GRIDDLE ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL

OVENS This ET project replaced existing convection and range ovens at designated sites with high-efficiency convection ovens. With almost 68,000 units currently estimated in use in California, and an energy load of 28.9 million therms per year, convection ovens are one of the most common cooking appliances found in a commercial kitchen. Replacing low-efficiency ovens with high-efficiency convection ovens on a large scale could have a significant impact on statewide energy loads.

Convection ovens use a cooking chamber that uses fans to force hot air through the cooking chamber to convectively cook food products. The moving air improves the cook times and uniformity of the final products. In terms of cooking performance and emissions, the typical convection oven works well and changes in air flow patterns have been able to improve the cooking performance even more.

High-efficiency designs typically exhibit better baking uniformity, faster cook times and higher production capacities by transferring heat to the cooking cavity more quickly and

18


effectively. This is a positive attribute of high-efficiency convection ovens, as there generally is no performance tradeoff between energy efficiency and productivity.

Standard gas convection ovens exhibit very low efficiency, due in part to the prevalence of inexpensive, low-efficiency burner designs and controls. Additionally, convection ovens with high heavy-load cooking-energy efficiencies may still have significant idle losses, impacting part-load efficiencies. Since convection ovens may spend a large portion of their operating time in a ready-to-cook or idle mode, reducing the idle energy use of the convection ovens on the market will have the largest impact on reducing overall convection oven energy usage. Assuming a market penetration rate of 35%, convection oven consumption can be reduced by 8.3 million therms.

Figure 11 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from an oven with low efficiency to a high-efficiency oven. The degree of energy savings potential when replacing a low-efficiency convection oven with an energy-efficient model makes it an ideal candidate for this ET project – particularly when comparing the potential energy savings against energy savings realized when replacing other oven types.

FIGURE 11. OVEN ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL

PRESSURELESS STEAM COOKER Pressureless steam cookers consume 34 million therms annually. With a variety of strategies, this can be reduced by 6.3 million therms. The dominant design is an open system in which any steam injected into the compartment that does not condense on the food escapes down the drain as unused steam. Cooling water is then injected into the steamer drain line to condense the wasted steam before it is expelled to the main sewer line. This continuous flow of steam down the drain places a continuous demand on the boiler, as cold water (to replenish the wasted steam) is added to the boiler. While the

19


constant influx of fresh steam into the cooking compartment yields fast cook times, the speed is achieved at the expense of heavy energy and water consumption.

A variation in the design uses a drain trap and sensors to modulate steam production based on demand. When unused steam is condensing down the drain, the controls shut down steam production and stop the condensate cooling water spray. Only when the compartment pressure lowers, indicating that the food has absorbed heat from the steam, will the steam production resume. This approach has led to dramatic increases in efficiency with only a slight impact on speed.

In order to accommodate the production needs of the restaurant, a high-efficiency, boiler-based, pressureless steam cooker with a partially-closed system was installed for this ET project.

Figure 12 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from a steam cooker with low efficiency to a high-efficiency steam cooker.

FIGURE 12. STEAMER ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL

20


FIELD ANALYSIS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN (PLEASANTON, CA) An overview of the research performed at Vic’s All-Star Kitchen has been summarized in a two-page case study, located in Appendix A.

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SITE DESCRIPTION Vic’s All Star Restaurant is a 1,500 square foot, short order, casual dining restaurant with a 30-seat dining room and a ten-seat patio. Pleasanton is a city located in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area with an approximate population of 71,000. Vic’s is a 12-year-old restaurant and occupies a multi-unit retail complex. The equipment in the restaurant is a hold-over from a previous tenant which ran a similar restaurant concept on the premise for over ten years.

The original kitchen hot line was comprised of two manual-controlled griddles, one of which was incorporated into a range suite with two open burners and two conventional ovens. A small countertop electric deep-fat fryer was used for fried foods.

A FSTC energy analyst conducted an energy audit of the restaurant to identify energy savings opportunities for the operator.

SITE ASSESSMENT The aging cook line, typical in many small independent short-order restaurants, represented an opportunity for a complete kitchen hotline makeover where energy-intensive, underperforming appliances could be replaced with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise appliances to deliver energy savings and improved cooking performance.

SITE OBJECTIVES The objective the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production performance associated with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified fryer, convection ovens and thermostatically-controlled griddles.

The project entailed consolidating the two manually-controlled griddles, nominally three and four feet in width, into a single energy-efficient thermostatically controlled griddle. Replacement of the three-foot griddle with its integrated conventional ovens precipitated the installation of the high-efficiency, double stacked convection ovens.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN The energy use of each cooking platform was determined through the utilization of the FSTC’s web-based life cycle cost calculators. The calculators effectively model the appliance

21


energy use by referencing performance data generated from the implementation of standard ASTM test methods.

The fryer test method (ASTM F1361-07) determines fryer preheat time and energy, idle energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity. Preheat performance is a measure of the amount of time and energy the fryer requires to reach a fully-operational set point where the fry vat oil reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed in minutes and Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the fryer consumes while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the fry vat oil at 350°F. Cooking-energy efficiency is the calculated percentage of the energy to the appliance that is actually transferred to the test food product; a three-pound load of shoestring French fries. Lastly, production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of the standardized loads of fries to a pre-determined done temperature. Production capacity is essentially a measure of the fryers’ ability to recover to thermostat set point after each load of raw fries are introduced into the cooking media.

The convection oven test method (ASTM F1496-99) determines oven preheat time and energy, idle energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity. Preheat performance is a measure of the amount of time and energy the oven requires to reach a fully operational set point where the oven’s cooking cavity reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed in minutes and Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the oven consumes while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the cooking cavity at 350°F. Cooking-energy efficiency is the calculated percentage of energy to the appliance that is actually transferred to the test food product; a prescribed load of russet potatoes. Lastly, production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of the standardized loads of russet potatoes to a pre-determined done temperature. Production capacity is essentially a measure of the oven’s ability to recover to thermostat set point after each load of russet potatoes is removed from the oven.

The griddle test method (ASTM F1275-03) determines griddle preheat time and energy, idle energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity. Preheat performance is a measure of the amount of time and energy the griddle requires to reach a fully-operational set point where the griddle’s cooking surface reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed in minutes and Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the griddle consumes while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the cooking surface at 350°F. Cooking-energy efficiency is the calculated percentage of energy to the appliance that is actually transferred to the test food product; a prescribed load hamburger patties. Lastly, production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of the standardized loads of hamburger patties to a pre-determined done temperature. Production capacity is essentially a measure of the griddle’s ability to recover to thermostat set point after load of hamburger patties is removed from the griddle’s cooking surface.

Energy use of the existing manual griddles was based upon the direct relation between the units’ rated input and user interface – burner control set point. Observation of staff use of the manual griddles determined that the burners were regularly set to 85% of the griddles’ rated input. The primary griddle is used during every day of service – 363 days. The secondary unit is used only on Sunday to meet the increased needs during that service day.

22


RESULTS

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Fryer

Table 1 documents the fryer life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the energy use of both the existing and replacement fryer.

TABLE 1. FRYER OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Fryer Assumptions

Replacement Fryer Assumptions

Preheat Energy 2.3 kWh 15,000 Btu

Idle Energy Rate 1.0 kW 7,349 Btu/h

Cooking-Energy Efficiency (%)

75 50

Production Capacity (lb/h) 30 65

Days of Operation 363 359

Hours of Operation per Day 8 12

Pounds of Food Cooked per Day

50 50

Tables 2 and 3 document the calculated energy use of the existing and replacement natural gas fryer and the associated operating cost savings.

TABLE 2. CALCULATED FRYER ENERGY USE: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Fryer Calculated Annual Energy Use (kWh)

Replacement Fryer Calculated Annual Energy Use (therms)

7,085 448

23


TABLE 3. FRYER OPERATING COSTS AND SAVINGS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Fryer Annual Operating Cost ($)

Replacement Fryer Annual Operating Cost ($)

Replacement Fryer Projected Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)*

1,275 380 895

*Annual operating cost savings based on electric and natural gas utility rates of $0.18/kWh and $0.85/therm.

Convection Oven

Table 4 documents the oven life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the energy use of both the existing and replacement ovens.

TABLE 4. OVEN OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Oven(s) Assumptions

Replacement Oven(s) Assumptions

Preheat Energy (Btu) 10,000 11,000

Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h) 10,000 12,300


15 50





50 50

Tables 5 and 6 document the calculated energy use if the existing and replacement natural gas ovens, and the associated energy and operating cost savings.

TABLE 5. CALCULATED OVEN ENERGY USE: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Ovens’ Calculated Annual Energy Use (therms)

Replacement Ovens’ Calculated Annual Energy Use (therms)

1,150 926

24


TABLE 6. OVEN ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Replacement Ovens’ Projected Annual Energy Savings (therms)

Replacement Ovens’ Projected Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)*

223 190

*Annual operating cost savings based on a natural gas utility rate of $0.85/therm.

Griddle

Table 7 documents the griddle life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the energy use of the existing primary and secondary griddles and the replacement griddle.

TABLE 7. GRIDDLE OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Primary Griddle Assumptions

Existing Secondary Griddle Assumptions

Replacement Griddle Assumptions

Preheat Energy (Btu)

60,000 60,000 15,000

Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h)

60,000 60,000 31,056


NA NA 40%

Production Capacity (lb/h)

NA NA 79

Days of Operation 363 52 363

Hours of Operation per Day

8 8 8


50 50 50

Table 8 documents the calculated energy use of the existing primary and secondary manually-controlled griddles, and the annual energy use of the replacement thermostatically-controlled griddle. Table 9 documents the energy and operating cost savings of replacing the existing primary and secondary manually-controlled griddles with the replacement thermostatically-controlled griddle.

25


TABLE 8. CALCULATED GRIDDLE ENERGY USE: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Existing Primary and Secondary Griddles’ Calculated Annual Energy Use (therms)

Replacement Griddle Calculated Annual Energy Use (therms)

Primary 1,481 912

Secondary 212

TABLE 9. GRIDDLE ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN

Replacement Griddle Calculated Annual Energy Savings (therms)

Replacement Griddle Calculated Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)

781 664


Figure 13 illustrates Vic’s cooking line before and after the equipment was replaced. The existing line includes the range and conventional ovens, as well as the griddles. Replacement equipment shown includes the double-stacked convection ovens and floor griddle.

FIGURE 13. VIC’S COOKING LINE: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK The operator was satisfied with the revamped hot line. Increased productivity, especially during the busy Sunday morning breakfast rush, was noted. With its significantly faster cook times, the convection oven has enabled the operator to consolidate production into a single oven, which will deliver additional energy savings. With one oven freed from dedicated service for everyday menu demands, the operator has been able to expand his menu offering to include prime rib, which requires many hours of roasting time.

The new griddle’s seamless cooking surface provides greater functionality to Vic’s cooking staff, as they no longer have to work between two surfaces.

26


The fryer, too, delivers greater production. The operator did advise that the larger fryer vat has increased his oil requirements, which has resulted in additional operating costs to Vic’s. However, these costs do not outweigh the operating cost savings associated with new fryer.

RECOMMENDATIONS This project was a successful demonstration of the potential to replace an entire antiquated cook line with modern, efficient appliances. The greatest benefit came from the replacement of the manually controlled griddles, which are so common in small, independent restaurants. This study should demonstrate the economic viability of replacing manually-controlled griddles with those that are thermostatically-controlled.

VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN SHOWCASE (9/25/2012) The showcase was held at Vic’s on September 25th between the hours of 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM. The event was promoted through flyer distribution to vendor customers; to local FSTC database contacts; to restaurant contacts in the Tri-Valley area; and to friends of the restaurant owner. The event was also promoted on FSTC’s website (fishnick.com) and Facebook site, as well as through the newsletters of both the GGRA and the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce. PG&E sent mailers and e-mails to restaurants in nearby zip codes, and FSTC staff canvassed the area around the restaurant.

FIGURE 14. VIC’S SHOWCASE (9/25/2012)

Eleven guests attended the event, as well as ten representatives from seven vendors – including the City of Pleasanton’s sustainability program. Five restaurants signed up for onsite energy audits by FSTC energy analysts.

The layout for the Vic’s showcase included tables for vendors and for the FSTC; two digital displays to illustrate Vic’s energy saving story; a storyboard and flyers for Vic’s case study; and screenshots of Vic’s PG&E bill during the monitoring period to show how their energy use had been reduced. Flyers for rebates, seminars, FSTC contacts, and estimated ROI as a result of replacing existing equipment were also included, as were seminar calendars and lists of qualifying foodservice equipment. Turbo Pots were featured as part of the event, and 18 pots were given away to guests and vendors.

The Vic’s case study can be found in Appendix A. A list of attendees for the Vic’s showcase event can be found in Appendix D.3.

27


The majority of event attendees arrived at 3:00 PM, with a few arriving at 4:30 PM. The room was set up in a U-shape, and while space was limited, it worked well for this event. The showcase was featured at the back of the U-shape, and as a result, it received top billing. The owner was excited to have the showcase on-hand at his restaurant, and provided vendors and guests with a kitchen tour; an added benefit for the showcase.

Some feedback collected and insight gained from the Vic’s showcase included:

It was helpful to have Santino Bernazzani (the PG&E representative) on hand as he was able to give attendees detailed info on their accounts.

Ruben Ramirez, PG&E’s Time Varying Pricing (TVP) specialist was able to inform owners about TVP and answer questions/concerns

The green business and sustainability programs were good additions to the showcase; in addition to highlighting energy efficiencies, attendees were provided with information on how to green their restaurants.

The Tri-Valley Convention and Visitor’s Bureau was also a good addition to event; attendees were educated on how to utilize the Bureau to promote their business.

The two digital displays worked really well; it set the stage for the event.

Balloons added a nice touch and made it feel like a special event.

The amount of energy that restaurants use compared to other buildings, and the amount of energy that one appliance uses compared to a house, were great segues into why the FSTC is needed.

Purchase stick-on handles for city locations to make it easier to carry the Turbo Pot box.

Strengthen promotion and message on promotional piece for future events.

Make it clear that it is an Open House, and that attendees can come and go at their leisure.

It is difficult to reach restaurant operators and owners, word of mouth seems best.

Try to canvass neighborhoods near the restaurant day before or day of event to help bring in locals.

The Vic’s All Star Kitchen demonstration project was also a central element of the FSTC booth at the annual US Foods Show in Pleasanton CA.

An overview of the research performed at Vic’s has been summarized in a one-page case study, located in Appendix A.

COMAL (BERKELEY, CA)

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SITE DESCRIPTION Comal Restaurant is a 7,500 square foot casual dining restaurant with a 54-seat dining room, two 12-seat bars, and a 60-seat patio. Berkeley is a city located in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. The restaurant has with an approximate population of 114,000.

28


The restaurant is new and has been in operation for approximately ten months. It occupies a former retail space on a major downtown thoroughfare.

The kitchen hot line is comprised of four six-burner open range tops, two of which are built into a customized suite with a thermostatically controlled griddle. Free-standing equipment includes a countertop boilerless steamer, convection oven, 50-lb deep fat fryer, and a manually-controlled comal (a high-temperature griddle commonly used for cooking tortillas). Lastly, the kitchen has a solid-fuel rotisserie.

An FSTC energy analyst and PG&E account manager were involved in the build-out of the restaurant, and participated in a design consultation to review equipment schedules and mechanical drawings to help the owners mitigate energy use through the specification of energy-efficient appliances and equipment.

SITE ASSESSMENT After an energy audit/commissioning visit by an FSTC energy analyst shortly after the restaurant opened, the originally-specified and installed fryer was identified as a candidate for replacement. The convection oven and steamer were ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise - qualified appliances. The remaining candidate – the griddles – were not a viable candidate for replacement. The thermostatically controlled built in griddle, while a standard-efficiency unit, could not be easily replaced due to its integration into the customized suite. The high temperature, manually-controlled comal is a unique piece of equipment and delivers a higher cooking surface temperature – 700°F – that is crucial to food preparation.

SITE OBJECTIVES The objective the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production performance associated with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified fryer.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient fryer, the existing unit as well as the replacement model, was metered for energy use. Researchers utilized total volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a period of two weeks.

RESULTS

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Fryer

Table 10 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use and associated operating cost of the existing fryer and replacement fryer. Table 11 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement fryer and the annual operating cost savings.

29


TABLE 10. FRYER ENERGY USE AND OPERATING COSTS: COMAL

Appliance Existing Fryer Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Replacement Fryer Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Existing Fryer Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Replacement Fryer Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Fryer 3.9 2.25 1,422 821

*Annual energy use projections assumes 365 days of operation per year

TABLE 11. FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: COMAL

Appliance Replacement Fryer Projected Annual Energy Savings (therms)


Fryer 601 511


Comal’s existing and replacement fryers are shown in Figure 15.

FIGURE 15. COMAL FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK The operator was satisfied with the fryer performance and noticed an immediate increase in productivity due to the improved oil temperature recovery.

30


RECOMMENDATIONS This site represented the ideal retrofit opportunity. Since the existing fryer was free-standing, the new unit of similar dimensions could be replaced with little required time and effort.

COMAL SHOWCASE (10/4/2012) The showcase was held at Comal on October 4th between the hours of 10:00 AM and noon. The event was promoted through flyer distribution by the City of Berkeley to over 600 restaurants and foodservice establishments; to local FSTC database contacts; to vendor customers; and to friends of the restaurant owner. The event was also promoted on FSTC’s website (fishnick.com) and Facebook site, as well as through the newsletters of both the GGRA and the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce. PG&E sent mailers and e-mails to restaurants in nearby zip codes, and PG&E’s area representative canvassed the area on the day of the event.

FIGURE 16. COMAL SHOWCASE (10/4/2012)

Twenty-nine guests attended the event, as well as 19 representatives from 12 vendors – including the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Alameda County Green Business program, and vendor representatives for energy-efficient lighting and ice making products. Five restaurants signed up for onsite energy audits by FSTC energy analysts.

The layout for the Comal showcase included 12 tables for vendors and for the FSTC; two digital displays to illustrate Comal’s energy saving story, as well as a storyboard and flyers for the Comal case study; and screenshots of Comal’s PG&E bill during the monitoring period to show how their energy use had been reduced. Flyers for rebates, seminars, FSTC contacts, and estimated ROI as a result of replacing existing equipment were also included, as were seminar calendars and lists of qualifying foodservice equipment. Turbo Pots were featured as part of the event, and 46 pots were given away to guests and vendors.

31


The Comal case study can be found in Appendix A. A list of attendees for the Comal showcase event can be found in Appendix D.2.

As with the showcase at Bridges, setup and breakdown for this event had to be quick; Comal was busy with prep during the event and wanted to make sure that space was available for dinner.

Some feedback collected and insight gained from the Comal showcase included:

Using local organizations such as City of Berkeley to help promote was key to helping drive attendance up.

The room setup worked really well, the showcase used Comal’s back patio.

Using Comal's bar to set up televisions worked well as the main focal point.

Parking for the Comal event was challenging.

One of the challenges of holding an event on location was that the showcase had to work around the hours of the restaurant. In this case, the timeslot was hard for Comal.

As well as having a pre-registered attendee sign-in sheet, have registration forms available for walk-ins in order to capture their contact info.

In order to track who the Turbo Pots were given away to, make sure that those who received Turbo Pots initialed for them on the sign-in sheet.

Remember to include appliances when determining the layout of the showcase. Include the appliances in the floor plan for the space reserved for the showcase, and make sure to save enough room for the appliances to be displayed adequately.

The Comal demonstration project was also a central element of the FSTC booth at the annual US Foods Show in Pleasanton CA.

BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR (DANVILLE, CA) An overview of the research performed at Bridges Restaurant & Bar has been summarized in a two-page case study, located in Appendix A.

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SITE DESCRIPTION Bridges Restaurant & Bar is a 5,000-square-foot, fine dining restaurant with a 107-seat dining room, 26-seat bar, and 48-seat patio. Danville is a city located in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area with an approximate population of 42,000. The restaurant has been in operation for approximately 25 years and occupies a building that is several years older and has had prior restaurants as tenants.

Several open burner range top suites with convention oven, a charboiler, double stacked convection ovens and a single 50-lb deep fat fryer comprise the kitchen cooking line.

Bridges was selected as a study site after an energy audit conducted by Food Service Technology Center energy analysts, which analyzed each of the facility’s energy using systems.. Further, following the audit, restaurant management participated in 3rd party

32


partnership programs for lighting and refrigeration which upgraded older, inefficient systems at small capital expense – less than $2,000.

SITE ASSESSMENT The energy audit identified the kitchen’s aging fryer and two convection ovens as inefficient models and candidates for replacement with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified models. The appliances are considered industry standards and found in many similarly equipped kitchens. The other appliances on the hotline are not ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise categories.

SITE OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production performance associated with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified fryers and convection ovens.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient convection ovens, the existing units as well as the new models were each metered for energy use. Researcher utilized total volume, utility-grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a period of two weeks.

The energy use of the existing and replacement fryer was determined through utilization of the Food Service Technology Center’s online life cycle cost calculators which can be customized to reflect specific appliance operating parameters such as hours of operation, pounds of food cooked daily, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity.

RESULTS

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Convection Oven

Table 12 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use, and associated operating cost of the existing and replacement top and bottom convection ovens. 13 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement ovens and the annual operating cost savings.

33


TABLE 12. OVEN ENERGY USE AND OPERATING COSTS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR

Appliance Existing Ovens’ Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Replacement Ovens’ Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Existing Oven’s Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Replacement Oven’s Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Top Oven 1.99 0.84 714 302

Bottom Oven 1.72 0.38 618 136


TABLE 13. OVEN ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR

Appliance Replacement Ovens’ Projected Annual Energy Savings (therms)

Replacement Ovens’ Projected Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)*

Top Oven 412 350

Bottom Oven 482 409


Bridge’s existing and replacement ovens are shown in Figure 17.

FIGURE 17. BRIDGES OVENS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)

34


Fryer

The fryers’ energy use was calculated by using the FSTC’s web-based life cycle cost calculators. The calculator effectively models the appliance energy use by referencing performance data generated from the implementation of standard ASTM test methods.

Table 14 documents the fryer life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the energy use of both the existing and replacement fryer.

TABLE 14. FRYER OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR

Existing Fryer Assumptions

Replacement Fryer Assumptions

Preheat Energy (Btu) 16,000 15,000

Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h) 14,000 4,636


30 65





75 75

The fryer test method (ASTM F1361-07) determines fryer preheat time and energy, idle energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity. Preheat performance is a measure of the amount of time and energy the fryer requires to reach a fully-operational set point where the fry vat oil reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed in minutes and Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the fryer consumes while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the fry vat oil at 350°F. Cooking-energy efficiency is the calculated percentage of the energy to the appliance that is actually transferred to the test food product; a three-pound load of shoestring French fries. Lastly, production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of the standardized loads of fries to a pre-determined done temperature. Production capacity is essentially a measure of the fryers’ ability to recover to thermostat set point after each load of raw fries are introduced into the cooking media.

Tables 15 and 16 document the calculated energy use of the existing and replacement natural gas fryers, and the associated energy and operating cost savings.

35


TABLE 15. CALCULATED FRYER ENERGY USE: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR

Existing Fryer Calculated Energy Use Annual Energy (therms)


1,097 470


TABLE 16. FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR

Replacement Fryer Projected Annual Energy Savings (therms)


627 533


Bridge’s existing and replacement fryers are shown in Figure 18.

FIGURE 18. BRIDGES FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK Both Bridges partner and executive chef as well as the dessert chef were very satisfied with the replacement equipment – especially the convection ovens, which delivered significantly higher production capacity. As a result of the significantly lower exhaust flow temperature associated with high-efficiency fryers, Bridges chef also experienced lower radiant heat off the hot line back wall once the replacement fryer was installed.

RECOMMENDATIONS The demonstration of these energy-efficient appliances was a success at Bridges, and achieved the goal of showing the proprietor that energy-efficient cooking appliances not

36


only reduce operating costs, but deliver superior finished food product as well. The installed equipment is well-suited for restaurant operations similar to Bridges, and since the chef has a significant voice in the local fine dining community, there is a good chance that other local restaurants will also choose to adopt these types of appliances.

Project managers learned that installation of foodservice appliances is a complicated process that requires significant coordination of the appliance dealer group, installer, and restaurant management. Of note was the almost immediate operational failure of the convection ovens two days after installation. Fortunately, the appliances had simply come unplugged due to a worn electrical receptacle and FSTC staff remedied the situation in short order. This experience demonstrated the need for continuous follow-up for a period after installation to ensure customer satisfaction with the operation of the new appliances – particularly if issues with the new equipment are not communicated by the restaurant.

BRIDGES SHOWCASE (10/23/2012) The showcase event was held at Bridges on October 23rd between the hours of 1:30 PM and 3:30 PM. The event was promoted through flyer distribution to vendor customers; to local FSTC database contacts; to restaurant contacts in the Tri-Valley area; and to friends of the restaurant owner. The event was also promoted on FSTC’s website (fishnick.com) and Facebook site, as well as through the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA) newsletter. PG&E sent mailers and e-mails to restaurants in nearby zip codes, and FSTC and PG&E staff canvassed the Danville area on the day of the event.

FIGURE 19. BRIDGES SHOWCASE (10/23/2012)

Twenty-one guests attended the event, as well as 17 representatives from ten vendors – including the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa County Green Business program, Contra Costa County Environmental Health, and vendor representatives for energy-efficient lighting and ice-making products. Twelve restaurants signed up for onsite energy audits by FSTC energy analysts.

The event was held on a Tuesday to allow owner/operators the ability to have staff cover for them on a slower day of the week. Most attendees came to the event either at the beginning or towards the end of the showcase. Both setup and cleanup had to be quick to avoid interfering with Bridge’s normal operations.

The layout for the Bridges showcase included tables for vendors, two digital displays to illustrate Bridges’ energy saving story, and one TV display to highlight the rebate story. A

37


storyboard and flyers for the Bridges case study were included, as was the Bridges chef’s bio. Flyers for rebates, seminars, FSTC contacts, and estimated ROI as a result of replacing existing equipment were also included, as were seminar calendars and lists of qualifying foodservice equipment. A 14" fryer was on display, and Turbo Pots were featured as part of the event; 27 pots were given away to guests and vendors.

The Bridges case study can be found in Appendix A. A list of attendees for the Bridges showcase event can be found in Appendix D.1.

Some feedback collected and insight gained from the Bridges showcase included:

The layout at Bridges worked well. Registration was set up outside, and patio doors were used as the main entrance. It was a smaller space, but it made it feel like there was more activity.

Feedback from attendees indicated that the Bridges display looked nice and was a focal part of the event as people walked in. Vendors were very pleased with the event and felt that it also gave them a better opportunity to understand the programs offered to restaurants through PG&E, and how they could promote these programs to help their customers/clients as well.

The Bridges demonstration project was also a central element of the FSTC booth at the annual US Foods Show in Pleasanton, CA.

CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR (DANVILLE, CA)

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SITE DESCRIPTION Chow Restaurant and Bar is a 3,000 square foot, fine dining restaurant with a 95-seat dining room, 20-seat bar and 25-seat patio. Danville is a city located in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area with a population of approximately 42,000. The restaurant has been in operation for five years and occupies a space in a multi-site commercial development.

Chow was chosen as a study site as a result of the FSTC’s relationship with the restaurant’s director of operations. The director had attended FSTC seminars in the past, and had energy audit performed at the restaurant by FNi’s energy analysts. The site also afforded the opportunity to evaluate a best-in-class ENERGY STAR® fryer alongside a value-priced ENERGY STAR® fryer. The two units are differentiated by not only their incremental cost difference, approximately $2,500, but the technologies that make them efficient as well. The best-in-class fryer utilizes a multi-pass tube heat exchanger, whereas the value-priced unit employs a simple deflector screen inserted into the straight-tube heat exchanger.

SITE ASSESSMENT The main cook line consists of an integrated open-burner range and griddletop range suites, a water bath rethermalizer, a solid-fuel pizza oven, and a natural gas 50-lb low-efficiency fryer. A secondary grill line consists of another 50-lb low-efficiency fryer of the same model as well as a char broiler.

38


SITE OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production performance associated with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise-qualified fryers.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient fryers, the existing units, as well as the new models, were each metered for energy use. Researchers utilized total volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a period of two weeks.

RESULTS

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Table 17 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use and associated operating cost of the existing main line fryer and replacement main line fryer. Table 18 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement main line fryer and the annual operating cost savings.

TABLE 17. MAIN LINE FRYER ENERGY USE: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR



Existing Projected Annual Energy (therms)*


Main Line Fryer 3.59 1.26 1,288 453


TABLE 18. MAIN LINE FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR



Main Line Fryer 835 710


Chow’s existing and replacement main line fryers are shown in Figure 20.

39


FIGURE 20. CHOW’S MAIN LINE FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)

Table 19 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use and associated operating cost of the existing grill line fryer and replacement grill line fryer. Table 20 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement grill line fryer and the annual operating cost savings.

TABLE 19. GRILL LINE FRYER ENERGY USE: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR



Existing Fryer Projected Annual Energy (therms)*


Grill Line Fryer 2.76 1.6 990 573


TABLE 20. GRILL LINE FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR



Grill Line Fryer 417 354


Chow’s existing and replacement grill line fryers are shown in Figure 21.

40


FIGURE 21. CHOW’S GRILL LINE FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK The customer was satisfied with the cooking performance of the new fryers and advised that there was as appreciable decrease in cook times with each fryer.

RECOMMENDATIONS Chow represented an ideal retrofit condition where the free-standing low-efficiency fryers were removed from their respective cook lines and replaced with the energy-efficient models.

CHOW SHOWCASE While this site was an ideal candidate to host a showcase, unfortunately space limitations at the restaurant prevented them from holding an event of that size at their restaurant.

MELON’S CATERING (SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA)

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SITE DESCRIPTION Melon’s Catering is a 3,000-square-foot catering kitchen located in South San Francisco. The business caters to a wide variety of events and serves a varied menu of fine-dining French fusion cuisine. FSTC conducted an energy audit on Melon’s as a result of the owner’s participation in the San Francisco County Green Business program, which requires an onsite inspection systems, including cooking appliances, which make up a large quantity of electricity use in the business.

41


SITE ASSESSMENT Melon’s double-stack convection oven was identified as a candidate for replacement, as it represented the base efficiency, industry standard convection oven commonly used in the commercial foodservice industry.

SITE OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production performance associated with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise-qualified oven.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient oven, the existing units as well as the new modes were metered for energy use. Researchers used total volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btus) over a period of two weeks.

RESULTS

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Table 21 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use and associated operating cost of the existing and replacement top and bottom convection ovens. Table 22 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement ovens and the annual operating cost savings.

TABLE 21. OVEN ENERGY USE: MELON’S CATERING

Appliance Existing Oven Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Replacement Oven Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Existing Oven Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Replacement Oven Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Top and Bottom Oven

4.35 3.06 1,588 1,116


TABLE 22. OVEN ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: MELON’S CATERING

Oven Replacement Oven Projected Annual Energy Savings (therms)

Replacement Oven Projected Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)*

Top and Bottom Oven

472 401


42


CUSTOMER FEEDBACK The customer advised the FSTC that the oven performance is as good as, if not better than, the replaced units.

RECOMMENDATIONS For oven replacement, Melons represented an ideal retrofit condition; the open warehouse floor plan of the facility allowed the free-standing stacked ovens to be easily removed from the kitchen space.

MELON’S SHOWCASE An event at Melons had been scheduled, but was subsequently cancelled, since the location was too remote for an adequate attendance.

SLANTED DOOR (SAN FRANCISCO, CA)

TECHNICAL APPROACH

SITE DESCRIPTION The Slanted Door is a 5,000-square-foot fine dining restaurant serving modern Vietnamese cuisine located in the San Francisco Bay Area. The restaurant has a 125-seat dining room, 30-seat bar and 20-seat patio. San Francisco is the metropolitan center of the greater Bay Area and has a population of just over 800,000. The restaurant is located in the rehabilitated San Francisco Ferry Building which houses numerous restaurants, independent food dealers and retailers in an open-air pavilion.

The cooking appliances at Slanted Door consist of numerous Chinese ranges, fryers, convection ovens, and a steamer.

Slanted door was selected as a study site after an energy audit conducted by FSTC energy analysts, which analyzed each of the facility’s energy-using systems. Afterwards, the restaurant’s executive chef visited the FSTC to discuss energy-efficient appliances and what energy-efficiency upgrades could be made to their hot line.

SITE ASSESSMENT The energy audit identified the kitchen’s workhorse boiler-based steamer as one of the most energy-intensive cooking platforms on Slanted Door’s hotline.

SITE OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to replace the existing boiler-based steamer with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise model and demonstrate the energy savings associated with it.

43


MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient steamer, the existing unit as well as the new model was metered for energy use. Researchers utilized total volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a period of two weeks.

RESULTS

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Table 23 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use and associated operating cost of the existing steamer and the replacement steamer. Table 24 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement steamer and the annual operating cost savings.

TABLE 23. STEAMER ENERGY USE: SLANTED DOOR

Appliance Existing Steamer Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Replacement Steamer Fryer Measured Daily Energy (therms)

Existing Steamer Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Replacement Steamer Projected Annual Energy (therms)*

Steamer 11.5 2.7 4,626 997


TABLE 24. STEAMER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: SLANTED DOOR

Appliance Replacement Steamer Projected Annual Energy Savings (therms)

Replacement Steamer Projected Annual Operating Cost Savings ($)*

Steamer 3,629 3,084


CUSTOMER FEEDBACK Despite the significant operating cost savings associated with the steamer, the unit was removed from service by the operator approximately four weeks after installation. The operator advised that production was satisfactory during the first two weeks of operation, but soon the door gaskets began to fail and allowed steam to escape from the cooking compartment. This adversely impacted production and the steamer could no longer meet menu demands. The existing steamer was returned to service instead.

FSTC researchers were not made aware of this problem until after the operator removed the unit from service and placed it in storage at the company’s warehouse/commissary kitchen. The operator advised that he was unhappy with the build quality of the replacement unit

44


and was not interested in trying to repair it. He further stated that he felt the manufacturer of his existing steamer was of the best quality.

The operator had previously conducted testing at the FSTC on the ENERGY STAR® version of the steamer model previously in use at Slanted Door. However, during that assessment, he felt that the ENERGY STAR® version lacked adequate steam output to meet the restaurant‘s menu demands. At that time, the operator had selected a different ENERGY STAR® unit for replacement, one which he felt had adequate steaming capacity. Unfortunately, that replacement model was ultimately removed from Slanted Door’s production line after the door gaskets allowed steam to escape.

RECOMMENDATIONS This customer’s dissatisfaction with the steamer highlights the challenges associated with replacing cooking appliances in restaurant kitchens. Operators in some cases are wary of changing appliances they are familiar with after having operated them successfully for many years. Proven energy savings associated with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise models may not be enough to persuade an operator to replace an inefficient model as they fear the new model, potential of a different manufacturer may not perform satisfactorily, as was the case at the Slanted Door.

SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE AT US FOODS SHOW (10/16/2012) The FSTC hosted a 10x10 booth at the US Foods Seminar and show on October 16th, 2012. This showcase and seminar presentation promoted the monitoring work and subsequent findings from the Vic’s, Comal, and Bridges case studies.

US Foods is a leading foodservice distributor in the US, with a client base that includes restaurants, healthcare, hospitality facilities, government operations, and educational institutions. Their event is heavily-attended by their customers (US Foods busses in their customers from remote locations for this daylong event). While people attend the event to learn about new products they are also hoping to find answers to questions regarding their appliance needs, food safety, packaging, etc. So rather than trying to get the restaurant operators/owners to carve time out of their day to come to us, they came to us at an event they had already planned to attend.

The US Foods Show seminar and showcase event was a huge success. FSTC staff talked to 88 restaurant owners and operators at the showcase, three of whom signed up for an energy audit. Approximately 40 attendees also attended the seminar, and each seminar attendee received a Turbo Pot. Attendees were very receptive to the FSTC’s participation in the event; the movement from the digital signs attracted the attention of show attendees to the showcase, and allowed FSTC staff to spend 10-15 minutes with about half of them to talk about PG&E programs and the FSTC, and to help answer questions and offer suggestions. The US Foods Show proved to be a venue where the message of energy-efficient appliances can effectively reach the SMB customer.

45


FIGURE 22. US FOODS SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE (10/16/2012)

46


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For each of the locations, appreciable energy savings was achieved through the installation of energy-efficient cooking appliances. Further, the operators noted a dramatic increase in productivity due to the shorter intervals required by the replacement appliances to recover to thermostat set point temperatures after food product was introduced to the cooking compartment, cooking surface or cooking media.

The measured pre- and post-installation energy use validates the FSTC’s life cycle cost calculator analysis tools that accurately model appliance energy use. These tools are the foundation of the energy-saving assumptions for the California statewide IOU Energy Wise appliance incentive program. As a result of this Emerging Technology project, commercial foodservice operators should feel confident that purchasing energy-efficient, utility rebate qualified appliances will guarantee energy savings and lower operating costs.

The results from three of the six monitored sites are included as case studies to highlight the energy and cost savings that were realized at each site. These case studies were showcased at individual events hosted by the restaurant where the equipment was replaced. On October 16, 2012, a seminar providing an overview of the ET project was presented at the US Foods Show. Attendees at all these events received free Turbo Pots; energy-efficient cookware designed to reduce open-range burner energy use when boiling or simmering liquids. With the Turbo Pot’s advanced heat exchanger design, FSTC research has measured a 48% percent increase in open-range burner efficiency (from 33.5% for a standard pot to 49.6%).

Based on the subjective feedback from the operators, with the exception of one site, there was a general level of satisfaction with the performance of the replacement appliances at the restaurants where each was installed. The appliances in this study may be appropriate for similar types of restaurants with similar production needs.

While the energy savings when replacing like-for-like appliances is relatively easy to quantify, this study does call attention to the need for greater exploration of the real-world energy use of non-thermostatic, manually controlled griddles or frytops. While researches can model the energy use of this appliance type, there are subtle variances in usage patterns and operating conditions affected by human operators that can dramatically impact actual energy use and the savings associated with the installation of a thermostatically-controlled griddle. Appliance placement and space constraints did not allow for the sub metering of the manual griddles at Vic’s All Star Kitchen, forcing researchers to model their energy use based on rated input and control set points effected by the line cooks. Future studies should identify sites where sub-metering a manual griddle is viable, in order to validate calculated savings.

Operator satisfaction is paramount to the success of any appliance retrofit project. Removal of the new energy-efficient steamer from service at the Slanted Door, for instance, was a result of the operator having greater confidence in the build quality of the existing steamer after the replacement unit’s door gaskets failed after minimal use. The operator’s brand loyalty was strong enough that he placed the existing unit back in service, rather than repairing the replacement unit, which was still under warranty.

Despite the inherent challenges associated with reaching the restaurant operators and owners to promote utility resources, programs and incentives for energy efficiency upgrades like California Energy Wise cooking appliances, the onsite demonstration showcase events

47


as well as the US Foods show were deemed successful. Given the time constraints placed on most restaurant operators, the open timeframe adopted by the FSTC for the showcases worked well for those who were able to attend. However, even within this open time format, the three restaurants required that events be held at different times, days, and locations to not hinder their normal operating schedules yet provide greater opportunities for operators to attend the showcase events. This represents an ongoing challenge when trying to develop such events for restaurant owner/operators – one that merits further exploration and discussion, possibly through focus groups with local restaurateurs.

48


APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN, PAGE 1

49


APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES (CONTINUED) VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN, PAGE 2

50


APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES (CONTINUED) COMAL

51


APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES (CONTINUED) BRIDGES RESTAURANT, PAGE 1

52


APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES (CONTINUED) BRIDGES RESTAURANT, PAGE 2

53


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS PITCO VF 35 L10-347 GAS FRYER, PAGE 1

54


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONT’D) PITCO VF 35 L10-347 GAS FRYER, PAGE 2

55


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) VULCAN 1VK45A GAS FRYER, PAGE 1

56


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) VULCAN 1VK45A GAS FRYER, PAGE 2

57


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) GARLAND MCO-GS-10 ESS, PAGE 1

58


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) GARLAND MCO-GS-10 ESS, PAGE 2

59


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) BLODGETT DFG-100 CONVECTION OVEN, PAGE 1

60


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) BLODGETT DFG-100 CONVECTION OVEN, PAGE 2

61


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) MARKET FORGE ETP-10G STEAM COOKER, PAGE 1

62


APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) MARKET FORGE ETP-10G STEAM COOKER, PAGE 2

63


APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES C.1. US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR PRESENTATION, PAGE 1

64


APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) C.1. US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR PRESENTATION, PAGE 2

65



66



67


APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) C.2 US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1

68


APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKET AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) C.2 US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 2

69


APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKET AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) C.3 US FOODS SHOW LIST OF ATTENDEES

TABLE A1. US FOODS SHOW GUESTS

First Name Last Name Company/Organization

Jose Aguilar Lone Tree Golf Course

Carol Aladin Buckhorn Grill San Francisco

Robin Aldridge Kaiser Santa Clara

Tom Anderson San Damiano Retreat

Silverio Arteaga Buckhorn Grill Napa

Marlen Benitez San Damiano Retreat

Gina Berry Healdsburg District Hospital

Bob Boehm Bobby's Place

Grace Boehm Bobby's Place

Pat Cavanaugh Carp Harmon

Henry Chan The Prolific Oven Bakery

Michael Clark Michael's on Main

Robbie Clearie Redding Tents & Events Inc.

Dani Cline Sabert

Kyle Coffey Pacific Connection Catering

Sam Daniels American Legion Post 31

Steve De Parsia De Parsia's

Jarrod DeSoto Bobby's Place

Robert Donohoe St. Mary's Medical Center

Rhiannon Eddy The Purple Orchid

Greg Ellery Radisson Hotel

Rommel Esteybar Pebble Beach Co.

Chris Faurot County of Sonoma Probation

Oscar Flores Buckhorn Grill San Francisco

Antonio Gomez Severinos Sea Cliff Inn

Rod Goodman Jenness Park

Shelly Goodman Jenness Park Christian Camp

Danny Guadagnolo D'bonis Pizza

Chris Hampton Handles Gastropub

70



Marisol Hernandez Pacifica Senior Living

Russ Hollett Cattlemens

Thomas Horton Buckhorn Grill

Brian Isaeff US Foods

Chris Jackson Jackson Catering & Events

Jose Jaquez Faultline Brewing Co

Rocio Keiser Buckhorn Grill Embarcadero

Sharbari Khanna Kaiser Santa Clara

Jack Lair Woody

Karen Lair HVFM

Scott Litteral Il Forno Classico

Jesse Lockwood BW Yosemite Gateway

Debbie Logan Kaweah Delta West Campus

Celeste Lusher Crusco's Ristorante

Lorelie Magalong Veterans Home of CA

Eleni Magoulas Pete's Henny Pennys

Nikos Maheras Mezes

David Maria Buckhorn Grill

Corina Matsuo Five Ten Bistro

Rpbert Matsuo Bistro Bar Inc.

Ben Mattman JW Marriot San Francisco

Matthew McKnight The National Hotel

Tom McLaughlin Buckhorn Grill

Ian Melnilsak Danny's Roadside Kitchen

Steven Miller Buckhorn Grill Pleasanton

Aulely Miranda Barones Restaurant

Carlos Orozco Casa Orozco

Jesus Orozco Casa Orozco

Todd Parent Extreme Pizza

Randy Peters Randy Peters Catering

Lisa Peters Randy Peters Catering

Roger Praph La Gare

Paul Punsalang Buckhorn Grill Walnut Creek

Mark Purnell Afterfive Bar

Juan R. 500 Club

Stan Ramirez Stannie's Place

David Reich Outpost

Christine Reid Berkeley Bowl Produce, Inc

Thomas Rimpel The Westin St. Fracncis

Branden Rodgers Jackson Fine Dining

71



Bill Rogers State of CA

Stratis Rozakeas Mills-Peninsula Health Services

Juan Ruiz Buckhorn Emeryville

Ignacio Ruiz Cattlemens

Shaina Sartor Nexus

Eric Schaetz Chicago Fire

Jefferson Seay Chef's Pride

Cynthia Sidrian Little Manuel's

Gary Stidham Sun City Roseville Community Assoc. Inc.

Nancy Storm US Foods

Kathy Sweet Pebble Beach Co.

Snehal Tambe Plum Tree Care Center

William Wagner

Curtis West Buckhorn Grill Roseville

Jeff Yao The Westin St. Francis

Nazanin Yasavolian Amber Systems Technologies

72


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES D.1.1 BRIDGES RESTAURANT SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1

73


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.1.1 BRIDGES RESTAURANT SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 2

74


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.1.1 BRIDGES RESTAURANT SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 3

75


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.1.2 BRIDGES RESTAURANT LIST OF ATTENDEES

TABLE A2. BRIDGES GUESTS

First Name Last Name Company /Organization Pete Baria Alameda County Probation Matthew Belasco Pittsburg Unified School District Waltraud Charles Autobahn Cafe Brian Chen Wokkee Chinese Restaurant Jeffrey Collins Antioch Unified School District Gary Cooper Dickeys Barbecue Pit

Javonito De La Cruz de Morfulleda OB's Cafe

Maribel Delgado Mi Oficina Computer Cafe Ernie Guerrero La Tapatia Mexican Restaurants Frieda Hoffman Local 123 Eric Janssen Amber Bistro Bradly Kaderabek Round Hill Country Club Lawrence Kong Minerva's Restaurant Sherrylyn Larkins Jodie's Restaurant Travis Law TriMark Economy Restaurant Fixtures Eric Lim Dragon Terrace Judy Macaluso PG&E Steven Myli East Bay Regional Park District Sheena Nagpal KGSM Inc. Richard Nidever Everex Communications Aryan Omar Aryana Afghan Cuisine Reyes Ramos Agave Jodie Royston Jodie's Restaurant Michael Stott Bear Claw Bakery & Cafe Martin Thang Manns Chinese Cuisine Quang Tran Mrs. FieldsCookies Great Mall Jeff Yao Westin St Francis Joe Buhowsky Robby Skog Maria Maria Kevin Michel ICF/PGE Bryan Harder ICF/PGE Lee Huang Eneron Tam Phung GreenStar Hub John Kim NAMA Restaurant

76


First Name Last Name Company /Organization Jose Hernandez Amici's Pizzeria Payal Shal Rising Loafer

D.1.2 BRIDGES RESTAURANT LIST OF ATTENDEES TABLE A3. BRIDGES VENDORS

First Name Last Name Company /Organization

Martin Sum Contra Costa Environmental Health

Stewart Bambino San Ramon Chamber of Commerce

Michael Panza Biagio Artisan Meats

Henry Ichinose ABS Seafood

Claudia Pingatore Green Business Program

Paris Greenlee Green Business Program

Stacey Roth TriValley CVB

Pete Palm Western Pacific Distributors

Charles Bohlig EBMUD

Rolando Gonzalez EBMUD

Mike Palm Western Pacific Distributors

Loretta Broniak Energy Retrofit Co.

Deborah Casagrande Energy Retrofit Co.

77


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.2.1.COMAL SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1

78



79



80


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.2.2. COMAL LIST OF ATTENDEES

TABLE A4. COMAL GUESTS


Araceli Barriguete Taqueria Los Cerros

Arlene Giordano Le Bateau Ivre

Billi Romain City of Berkeley

Craig Jones Uncle Willie's BBQ & Fish

David Lee Cybelles

Eric Lim Dragon Terrace

Ernie Guerrero La Tapatia Mexican Restaurants

Javonito De La Cruz de Morfulleda OB's Cafe

Jon Lee Stuffed Inn

Jon Guhl Little Star Pizza

Josh Levine Pepples Donuts Inc.

Karen Bevels SAML, Inc.

Marsha Mcbride Cafe Rouge

Nancy Deming Oakland Unified School District

Norman Riffe Jed Riffe Catering

Patty Bonfilio Pixar Animation Studios

Perry Harmon Loards

Pete Baria Alameda County Probation

Rebecca Stevens Pepples Donuts Inc.

Robert Law Oakland School District

Robert Sill Arden Wood Inc.

Shirley Fudge-Mueller Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Susannah Blumenstock Little Star Pizza

Thanu Chaichana Tuk Tuk Thai cafe

Tina Ferguson-Riffe Smoke Berkeley

Travis Law TriMark Economy Restaurant Fixtures

81



Judy Chess UC Berkeley

Monica Rocchino The Local Butcher Shop

Rick Robinson Gotts Roadside

Ken Priest Gotts Roadside

Kit Dean Mary's Place

Faranak Shariati Cyprus Restaurant

Don Nguyen Saigon Express

Simone Arpaio Almare Gelato

Alberto Malvestio Almare Gelato

Eric LaPlante Hotel Shattuck Plaza

Jake Shrath Hotel Shattuck Plaza

David Lau Asha Tea House

Jeanne Boulet PG&E

Mike Benzen Diablo Unified School District

Brian Fritz Diablo Unified School District

Quang Tran Mrs. Fields Cookies

Charles Stevenson UC Berkeley

Amy Breshears Comal

Omar Huerta Comal

TABLE A5. COMAL VENDORS


Leila Khatapoush Green Business Program

Nadia Borisova EBMUD

Doug Sampson PG&E

Joel Everett PG&E

Santino Bernazzani PG&E

Don Logsdon Energy Retrofit Co.

Lori Broniak Energy Retrofit Co.

Michelle Jeffrey Stopwaste.org

Cassie Bartholomew Stopwaste.org

Ruben Ramirez PG&E (TVP)

Jennifer Cogley City of Berkeley

Rolando Gonzalez EBMUD

82



Charles Bohlig EBMUD

Andy Downing Greenleaf

Shelly Haygood Spindrift

Bradley Mart Fog Busters

Rosemary Logsdon Energy Retrofit Co.

Mike Palm WPD

Pete Palm WPD

83


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.3.1. VIC’S ALL STAR RESTAURANT SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1

84



85



86


APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) D.3.2. VIC’S ALL STAR RESTAURANT LIST OF ATTENDEES

TABLE A6 VIC’S GUESTS

First Name Last Name Company/Organization Javonito De La Cruz de Morfulleda OB's Cafe Babak Tehrani Pasta Primavera Tim Ludden Strizzi's Restaurants, Inc.

David Darlington Livermore Valley Unified School District

Nam Do Kim Huong Maribel Delgado Mi Oficina Computer Cafe David Knudsen Knudsen's Ice Creamery Paul DeJoy Dickeys Barbecue Pit Karen Bevels SAML, Inc. Michael Faria PG&E David Spott Burrito Shops, Inc. Jeanne Mancuso Vinnie's Bar & Grill Pete Palm WPD Dalton Parker Vinnie's Bar & Grill Enrique Gomez Mexxis Restaurant Jas AulakhJasA Avtar Inc. Son Pham Pho Huong Tam Len Pho Huong - San Jose

TABLE A7. VIC’S VENDORS


Stacey Roth Tri-Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau

Carlos Luna Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Carolina Miranda Green Business Program

Vincent Bitz PG&E

Ruben Ramirez PG&E

Santino Bernazzani PG&E

Laura Ryan City of Pleasanton

87


APPENDIX E: REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (2011), Standard Test Method for Performance of Griddles. ASTM Designation F1275-03. In annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2011), Standard Test Method for Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers. ASTM Designation F1361-07. In annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2011), Standard Test Method for Performance of Convection Ovens. ASTM Designation F1496-99. In annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.

Food Service Technology Center, Life-Cycle and Energy Cost Calculators (2012), www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/tools/calculators/.

Sorensen, Greg, Zabrowski, David (May 2008), Eneron, Inc. Prototype Commercial Stock Pot Testing. fishnick.com/publications/appliancereports/rangetops/Eneron_Pot_Testing.pdf.

Zabrowski, David. Mills, Lauren (April 2010), Characterizing the Energy Efficiency Potential of Gas-Fired Commercial Foodservice Equipment. Commission Contract No. #500-06-028.

Documents

Emerging Technologies (ET) Energy Efficient Commercial ... Foodservice... · Commercial Food Service Equipment Demo and Showcase program under internal project number 2500669229