•
– Deemed measure analysis and review
• Developed by …
– (consultant, RTF member/staff, utility, etc.)
• Reviewed in detail by RTF subcommittee
– Until comfort level is high
– RTF Staff* gives a summary presentation to the full RTF
• Summary of subcommittee review
– Including details of any follow-up that hasn’t been fully vetted by the subcommittee
• Summary of the measure analysis
– Energy savings analysis presented using the (draft) measure summary template
– Measure Cost, Measure Life, O&M, etc.
•
– Improve and add consistency to the deemed measure review process
– Spend less time “in the weeds” at RTF meetings
*with support from both the subcommittee and the measure analysis developer
3

Analysis Prepared By:
RTF Subcommittee Review?
RTF Staff Review?
Presentation Prepared By:
PECI (Eric Mullendore and
Michele Friedrich)
Yes (Sept 2, 2010)
Yes (Adam Hadley)
RTF Staff (Adam Hadley)

• Measures
– Existing Cases
• Remove T8, T10, or T12 Fixtures and Ballasts, install LED fixtures and drivers
– 1-lamp Fluorescent fixture  1 Low-power LED fixture
– 2-lamp Fluorescent fixture  1 High-power LED fixture
– 3-lamp Fluorescent fixture  1 High-power LED fixture + “delamp” measure
– New Cases
• Choose LED fixtures instead of T8 fixtures
– 1 Low-power LED fixture (baseline = 1-lamp T8 fixture)
– 1 High-power LED fixture (baseline = 2-lamp T8 fixture)
• Savings
– Reduced energy use of lighting system
– Reduced load on the refrigeration system
• Requirements
– This measure only applies to open vertical or semi-vertical display cases.
• (does not apply to coffin cases)
– Fluorescent fixture and ballast must be replaced with a permanently installed LED fixture and driver
– LED ratings: Minimum CRI of 75; minimum of 7% of initial lumens at 50k hours.
– Minimum 3-year manufacturer’s warranty.
– Delamp measure must be combined with an LED retrofit measure
– Baseline controls, or better, must be used
5

•
(meeting notes available at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/rtf/subcommittees/grocery/meetings/meetings.htm
)
– Attendees
• PECI: Lagan Todd, Jen Shafter, Dustin Bailey, Ben Cartwright, Paul Schertz, Ben Wright,
Michele Friedrich
• RTF/Other: Diwanshu Shekhar, Charlie Grist, Eric Brateng, Tim Steele, Adam Hadley,
David Baylon
•
– PECI generated the analysis and presented its proposal to the subcommittee
– The group reviewed key input parameters and supporting data sources in detail
– Conclusion: PECI’s savings calculation approach and input assumptions are reasonable. The only follow-up needed is review of the assumption on number of ballasts per lamp.
•
– Ballasts/drivers per lamp is not addressed directly. The calculation determines energy use of the ballast/driver based on a fixed percentage of the lamp power draw.
6

Summary of Methdology and Sources for Unit Energy Savings Estimate (Continued)
Measure Classification and Properties
Market Sector Commercial
New / Existing Existing and New
Market Segment
Measure Category
RTF Workbook:
Grocery
LED Case Lighting
Grocery_EvaporatorFanControllerECMWalkIn_FY10v1_0.xls
Number of Measures, and UES
Components 8 measures with 2 UES components each
Measure Identifiers
Identifier
Baseline Lamp Type
LED Fixture Power (baseline number of lamps in fixture)
De-lamp
Possible Values
Existing T8
Existing T12 or T10
New Construction
High Power LED Fixture (baseline: 2-lamp fixture)
Low Power LED Fixture (baseline: 1-lamp fixture)
De-lamp
Further Explanation and Sources
Does not apply to new construction.
LED fixture power is not relevant.
Constant Parameters
Parameter
Hours of Operation
Hours of Operation Weighting
Portion of lamp energy rejected to the refrigerated space
Lamp location weighting (Applies to low power only)
Possible Values
18 hours per day
24 hours per day
18 hours per day: 49%
24 hours per day: 51%
Shelf: 100% (Applies to low power only)
Canopy or Rail: 50% (Applies to high or low power)
Shelf: 49%
Canopy or Rail: 51%
Further Explanation and Sources
Assumed
PECI invoice data for 1000 feet of medium temperature display cases
DOE: Final Rule for Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment
PECI audit data for 398 1-lamp fixtures in open cases in multiple stores in the PNW
7

Summary of Methdology and Sources for Unit Energy Savings Estimate (Continued)
Unit Energy Savings (UES) Estimation Method, Parameters and Sources
Measure Type UES
Component
Analysis approach Primary
Parameter /
Adjustment
Factor
Direct lighting energy savings
Baseline
Description
Savings is calculated as the difference between the energy use of the baseline and replacement lighting system. Energy use of the lighting systems is calculated as the sum of the lamp energy use and ballast (driver) energy use.
Lamp and ballast (driver) energy use are both calculated by the product of their hours of operation and their power draw. Savings are calculated for two hours of operation scenarios and weighted.
Lamp Power
Use (per linear foot)
Ballast/Driver
Power Use
T-8
1-lamp: 8 watts
2-lamp: 16 watts
T-12/10
1-lamp: 10 watts
2-lamp: 20 watts
T-8: 5% of fixture power
T-12/10: 15% of fixture power
Replace fluorescent fixture in open display cases with LED fixture
Refrigeration system savings due to reduced heat load from direct lighting energy savings
The approach applies the EER of the refrigeration system to the portion of direct lamp energy savings that would have been rejected to the refrigerated space.
Portion of lamp energy rejected to the refrigerated space is based on lamp location within the case.
Savings are calculated for two hours of operation scenarios and weighted. For 1-lamp fixture baseline measures, savings are also calculated for two lamp location scenarios and weighted.
EER 10.9
Efficient
Case
Description
High Power
7 watts
Low Power
4 watts
10% of fixture power
Baseline Source Efficient Case
Source
Grainger Catalog
32W T8
40W T12
Grainger Catalog
DOE2.2R Model from GrocerSmart
3.0
Manufacturers'
Specifications
Manufacturers'
Specifications
8

Summary of Methdology and Sources for Unit Energy Savings Estimate (Continued)
Unit Energy Savings (UES) Estimation Method, Parameters and Sources
Measure Type UES
Component
Analysis approach Primary
Parameter /
Adjustment
Factor
"Delamp" occurring during replacement of
3-lamp fluorescent fixture in open display cases with a highpower LED fixture
Direct lighting energy savings
Refrigeration system savings due to reduced heat load from direct lighting energy savings
Savings is calculated as the sum of lamp energy use and ballast energy use of 1 lamp in a 3-lamp fixture. Lamp and ballast energy use are both calculated by the product of their hours of operation and their power draw. Savings are calculated for two hours of operation scenarios and weighted.
The approach applies the EER of the refrigeration system to the portion of direct lamp energy savings that would have been rejected to the refrigerated space.
Portion of lamp energy rejected to the refrigerated space is based on a canopy or rail location. Savings are calculated for two hours of operation scenarios and weighted.
Lamp Power
Use (per linear foot)
T-8
1-lamp: 8 watts
2-lamp: 16 watts
T-12/10
1-lamp: 10 watts
2-lamp: 20 watts
T-8: 5% of fixture power
Ballast/Driver
Power Use
T-12/10: 15% of fixture power
EER
Baseline
Description
10.9
Efficient
Case
Description
High Power
7 watts
Low Power
4 watts
10% of fixture power
Baseline Source Efficient Case
Source
Grainger Catalog
32W T8
40W T12
Grainger Catalog
Manufacturers'
Specifications
DOE2.2R Model from GrocerSmart
3.0
Manufacturers'
Specifications
9

Summary of Methdology and Sources for Unit Energy Savings Estimate (Continued)
Measure Type UES
Component
Direct lighting energy savings
Analysis approach Primary
Parameter /
Adjustment
Factor
Baseline
Description
Efficient
Case
Description
Baseline Source Efficient Case
Savings is calculated as the difference between the energy use of the baseline and replacement lighting system. Energy use of the
Lamp Power
Use (per linear foot) lighting systems is calculated as the sum of the lamp energy use and ballast (driver) energy use.
Lamp and ballast (driver) energy use are both calculated by the product of their hours of operation and their power draw. Savings are calculated for two hours of
Ballast/Driver
Power Use operation scenarios and weighted.
1-lamp: 7 watts
2-lamp: 14 watts
5% of fixture power
High Power
7 watts
Low Power
4 watts
10% of fixture power
Manufacturers'
Specifications
28W T8
Grainger Catalog
Source
Manufacturers'
Specifications
Manufacturers'
Specifications
Install LED fixture in new open display cases
Refrigeration system savings due to reduced heat load from direct lighting energy savings
The approach applies the EER of the refrigeration system to the portion of direct lamp energy savings that would have been rejected to the refrigerated space.
Portion of lamp energy rejected to the refrigerated space is based on lamp location within the case.
Savings are calculated for two hours of operation scenarios and weighted. For 1-lamp fixture baseline measures, savings are also calculated for two lamp location scenarios and weighted.
EER 10.9
DOE2.2R Model from GrocerSmart
3.0
10

–
• Distributor Pricing, Marked-up 25%
– 4-foot Fixture
» High Power = $119.57
» Low Power = $93.08
– Driver (per fixture) = $28.13
» (assumes 2 fixtures per driver)
– Hardware (per fixture) = $1.63
• Labor @ $25 per fixture
– (not applicable to new cases)
–
• LED Reports (no lamp replacement costs)
– PG&E Application Assessment #0722
– SMUD Report: LED Freezer Case Lighting Systems
–
• ~50,000 hour life @ ~24 hours per day
11

Procost Full Measure Nam e
Open Case Lights - Low Pow er LED from T12
Open Case Lights - Low Pow er LED from T8
Open Case Lights - High Pow er LED from T12
Increm ental
Capital Cost
($/unit)
Increm ental
O&M Costs
($/unit)
Measure
Life
(years)
Annual
Savings
@ Site
(kw h/yr)
$ 36.96 $ (1.09) 6.0
65
$ 36.96 $ (1.09)
$ 43.58 $ (2.18)
6.0
6.0
38
133
Open Case Lights - High Pow er LED from T8
Open Case Lights - Delam p T12
$ 43.58 $ (2.18) 6.0
$ - $ - 6.0
Open Case Lights - Delam p T8 $ - $ - 6.0
Open Case Lights - LED High Pow er - New Case $ 19.22 $ (2.18) 6.0
Open Case Lights - LED Low Pow er - New Case $ 15.98 $ (1.09) 6.0
81
100
74
62
28
Total
Societal
Benefit /
Cost Ratio
(TRC B/C
Ratio)
0.9
0.6
1.5
1.0
9,999
9,999
2.5
1.4
Incremental Capital and O&M Costs and Annual Savings @ Site are per linear foot of fixture.
12

Analysis Prepared By:
RTF Subcommittee
Review?
PECI (Lagan Todd)
Yes (Sept 2, 2010)
RTF Staff Review?
Yes (Adam Hadley)
Presentation Prepared By: RTF Staff (Adam Hadley)

• Standard Practice:
– Evaporator fans run continuously
• Except during the defrost cycle in freezers
• Measure
– Install a controller to reduce the speed or turn off of the evaporator fan motors when there’s no call for cooling
• Savings
– Reduced energy use of the slower/off motor
– Reduced load on the refrigeration system
• Requirements
– This measure only applies where
• the evaporator fan motor is an ECM
• the evaporator is on a circuit with a liquid line solenoid
• motors have rated (nameplate) output power capacity of at least 16W
– Controller must reduce motor speed to not more than 600 RPM when there is no call for cooling.
– If the fan motors are cycled on/off, there must be a provision to prevent stratification.
14

(meeting notes available at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/rtf/subcommittees/grocery/meetings/meetings.htm
)
–
• PECI: Lagan Todd, Jen Shafter, Dustin Bailey, Ben Cartwright, Paul
Schertz, Ben Wright, Michele Friedrich, Jamie Anthony
• RTF/Other: Diwanshu Shekhar, Charlie Grist, Eric Brateng, Tim Steele,
Adam Hadley, David Baylon
–
–
–
15

PECI’s follow-up was emailed to the Subcommittee on Sept 16 th
• Measures are now disaggregated by motor size and case temperature
– (previously, one weighted savings value was proposed)
• Refrigeration system savings make up:
– 27% of the total savings for Medium Temp
– 47% of the total savings for Low Temp
• Recommend the following assumptions based on a field study of condenser/compressor runtimes of 5 LT and 7 MT walk-ins
– Low Temp
• Evaporator Fan at Full Speed: 68%
• Evaporator Fan at Low Speed: 32%
– Medium Temp
• Evaporator Fan at Full Speed: 58%
• Evaporator Fan at Low Speed: 42%
• Recommend using 2.5 for the exponent in the fan law calculation
– (savings more conservative than when using 2.7)
• Allow on/off type controllers.
– Savings are only slightly lower (~5%) than full speed/low speed type controllers
• 1 minute on / 7 minutes off assumed as the control strategy for on/off type controller
• EER values based on PECI’s extensive audit data, filtered for eligible applications (nearly 8000 systems)
16

Walk-In Fan Motors - Most, if not all (? the reports were unclear) ECMs are NRM model ME-59
Store
Grocery Store C
Grocery Store B
Markus Foods
Pacific PUD
Dairy Cooler
Meat Prep
Beer Cooler
Description
Produce Cooler
Fish Cooler
Yogurt/Juice
Dairy Cooler
Beer Cooler
Produce Cooler
Meat Prep Closed Area
Meat Cooler
Beverage Cooler
Dairy Cooler
Deli Freezer
Back Freezer
Produce Cooler
Beverage Cooler
Number of Evap Fan
Motors
4
9
8
8
8
6
4
2
4
4
4
1
9
3
2
8
2
4
10
ECM
Watts/motor
80
30
60
48
51
15
60
62
41
63
50
21
51
20
17
55
16
43
93
• Source: BPA/EMP2 M&V Studies
– Frank, David. EMP2. "Markus Foods M&V Findings: Anti-Sweat Heater Control and ECM Motors." January 2009
– Frank, David. EMP2. "Grocery Store M&V: Grocery Store B." For BPA. Jan 29, 2010.
– Frank, David. EMP2. "Grocery Store M&V: Grocery Store C." For BPA. January 29, 2010.
– Amundson, Todd. BPA. "Pacific PUD Four Grocery Stores with Vendor Grovery Energy Management System." October
31, 2006.
17

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
ECMotor Input Watts
Note: Most (if not all) motors were model ME-59. All reports did not specify whether some were ME-30 (or ME-25).
18

•
–
• Based on median from metered data
•
–
• Based on applying the ratio of metered-to-estimated from the large motor class to the estimated input watts for the small motor class.
– Original motor input estimates were based on the output watts (assumed the middle of the range), divided by an assumed motor efficiency of 66%
Revised Estimate for 16-23 watt motor class
Original Estimate for 1/20-1/10 hp class
Metered Data for 1/20-1/10 hp class (median)
Ratio (metered to estimated)
Original Estimate for 16-23 watt motor class
Revised Estimate for 16-23 watt motor class
75.4
50.0
66%
29.5
19.6
watts watts watts watts
19

Summary of Methdology and Sources for Unit Energy Savings Estimate
Measure Classification and Properties
Market Sector
New / Existing
Market Segment
Commercial
Existing
Grocery
Measure Category
RTF Workbook:
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller on Walk-ins
Grocery_EvaporatorFanControllerECMWalkIn_FY10v1_0.xls
Number of
Measures, and UES 4 measures with 2 UES components each
Measure Identifiers
Identifier
Motor Size
Possible Values
Either: a. within the range of 1/10 to 1/20 horsepower; or b. within the range of 16 to 23 Watts
Case Temperature Low Temperature
Medium Temperature
Constant Parameters
Parameter
Fan Law Exponent
Fan Speed at full speed
Fan Speed at low speed
Performance Degradation Factor
Possible Values
2.5
1550 rpm
550 rpm
98%
Further Explanation and Sources
Assumed. Theoretical value is 3. Reduced to 2.5 to adjust for losses.
1550 RPM is the most common rotational speed of WI evaporator fan motors
An average of two industry-recommended low speed settings
(500 and 600)
PECI assumption from GrocerSmart software
20

Summary of Methdology and Sources for Unit Energy Savings Estimate (Continued)
Unit Energy Savings (UES) Estimation Method, Parameters and Sources
Measure Type UES
Component
Analysis approach Primary
Parameter /
Adjustment
Factor
Baseline
Description
Efficient Case
Description
Baseline Source Efficient Case
Source
Installation of a motor controller on the evaporator fan motor in a walk-in cooler or freezer to either turn off or reduce the speed of the evaporator fan when there's no call for cooling.
Direct motor energy savings
Baseline energy use is the product of fan runtime at full speed and fan input power at full speed.
Efficient Case energy use is the product of fan runtime at full speed and fan input power at full speed, plus the product of fan runtime at low speed and fan input power at low speed.
Affinity laws are used as the basis for calculation of fan input power at low speed.
Fan Duty
Cycle
Full-speed fan motor input power
Medium Temp
Full Speed: 100%
Off: 0%
Low Temp
Full Speed: 96%
Off: 4%
Medium Temp
Full Speed: 58%
Low Speed: 42%
Low Temp
Full Speed: 68%
Low Speed: 32%
50.0 Watts
(for the 1/10 to 1/20 hp motor size category)
19.6 Watts
(for the 16 to 23 watt motor size category)
Assumed based on "always on" operation, except
Low Temperature turns off for periods of coil defrost (assumed at 1 hour per day).
Compressor runtimes used as a proxy.
Data from: "Analysis of Cooler Control energy Conservation
Measures, Final
Report" Submitted to
NSTAR Electric by
Select Energy (Impact
Evaluation of NRM measures dated
March 3, 2004)
Input power for the larger motor class is based on data from 100 metered walk-in evaporator fan ECMotors in 4 grocery stores (BPA/EMP2).
For the smaller motor class, a ratio of metered to expected input power for the lager motor class is applied to the expected intput power for the smaller motor class. Expected input power is the middle of the range of output power (19.5
W), divided by the expected motor efficiency (66%).
Refrigeration system savings due to reduced heat load from direct motor energy savings
The approach applies the EER of the refrigeration system and with a performance degradation factor to the direct motor energy savings.
EER
9.60 (Medium Temperature)
4.17 (Low Temperature)
Calculated weighted average from PECI audit data for estimated applicable equipment.
Data and weighting occur in a separate workbook: "Eng-Calc-weighted EER- WI
Evap Fan Control- ECM 100921.xlsx"
21

•
–
–
•
–
Note: Costs are shown in year 2010 dollars.
22

Procost Full Measure Nam e
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Medium Tem p - 1/10-1/20 HP
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Low Tem p - 1/10-1/20 HP
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Medium Tem p - 16-23 W
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Low Tem p - 16-23 W
Increm ental
Capital Cost
($/unit)
$ 129
Annual
Savings
@ Site
(kw h/yr)
264
Total Societal
Benefit / Cost
Ratio (TRC B/C
Ratio)
2.1
$ 129
$ 129
$ 129
207
104
81
1.6
0.8
0.6
Incremental Capital Cost and Annual Savings @ Site are per motor.
Note: Costs are shown in year 2006 dollars.
23

Motors per
Controller
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
TRC B/C Ratio
1/10 to 1/20 hp motor 16 to 23 watt motor
Med Temp Low Temp Med Temp Low Temp
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.5
2.1
2.6
3.1
3.6
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
Alternative RTF Staff Proposal
• Further disaggregation of the measure:
– Large Motor Class (1/10 to 1/20 HP)
• 3 or more motors controlled per controller
– Average of 5.8 motors per controller
• 1 or 2 motor per controller
– Average of 1.8 motors per controller
– Small Motor Class (16 to 23 watts)
• 6 or more motors controlled per controller
– Average of 8.2 motors per controller
• 1 to 5 motors controlled per controller
– Average of 2.8 motors per controller
Note: This issue and proposal was not reviewed at the subcommittee meeting.
24

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >20
Total MT LT
Data Source: PECI 25

Total
Societal
Benefit /
Cost Ratio
(TRC B/C
Ratio) Procost Full Measure Name
Incremental
Capital Cost
($/unit)
Annual
Savings
@ Site
(kwh/yr)
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Medium Temp - 1/10-1/20 HP - 3 or more motors/controller $ 88 264
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Low Temp - 1/10-1/20 HP - 3 or more motors/controller $ 88 207
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Medium Temp - 16-23 W - 6 or more motors/controller $ 63 104
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Low Temp - 16-23 W - 6 or more motors/controller $ 63 81
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Medium Temp - 1/10-1/20 HP - 1 or 2 motors per controller $ 283 264
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Low Temp - 1/10-1/20 HP - 1 or 2 motors per controller $ 283 207
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Medium Temp - 16-23 W - 1 to 5 motors per controller
Evaporator Fan ECMotor Controller - Walk-In - Low Temp - 16-23 W - 1 to 5 motors per controller
$ 182 104
$ 182 81
3.0
2.3
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
Incremental Capital Cost and Annual Savings @ Site are per motor.
Provisionally Deemed:
-18 month sunset period
-Data Collection Should Include:
-Metered ECMotor power input
-Metered ECMotor Runtimes
-Full Speed
-Off/Low Speed
26