commercial refrigeration - refrigerated display and ... · product profile: commercial...

A joint initiative of Australian, State and Territory and New Zealand

Governments

Commercial Refrigeration -

Refrigerated Display and

Storage Cabinets

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets ii

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. To view a copy of this

license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0/au

The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism on behalf of the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program

asserts the right to be recognised as author of the original material in the following manner:

© Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism) 2013.

The material in this publication is provided for general information only, and on the understanding that the

Australian Government is not providing professional advice. Before any action or decision is taken on the

basis of this material the reader should obtain appropriate independent professional advice.

This document is available at www.energyrating.gov.au

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct,

E3 does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the content, and shall not be liable for

any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the

contents of this publication.

ISBN 978-1-921516-08-5

http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0/au

http://www.energyrating.gov.au/

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets iii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ I Background ........................................................................................................................................................... i The Refrigerated Display Cabinet and Refrigerated Storage Cabinet Market ................................................. ii Proposed Standards ............................................................................................................................................ ii The Possible Case for Regulation ....................................................................................................................... ii Market Barriers .................................................................................................................................................. iii Policy Options..................................................................................................................................................... iii Market Size and Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. iii Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... iv Consultation on this Product Profile .................................................................................................................. v Key Questions ..................................................................................................................................................... vi

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 What is a Product Profile? .................................................................................................................................. 1 Outline of the Product Profile ............................................................................................................................. 1 The Policy Context............................................................................................................................................... 2 History of E3 Regulation .................................................................................................................................... 3

2. REFRIGERATED DISPLAY CABINETS AND REFRIGERATED STORAGE CABINETS .......................... 4 Equipment Covered by this Product Profile ...................................................................................................... 4 Design of RDCs and RSCs ................................................................................................................................... 6 Trends in Energy Performance ........................................................................................................................... 9 Energy Efficiency Potential ................................................................................................................................ 11

3. THE RDC AND RSC MARKET ................................................................................................................... 16 Characteristics of the Market ............................................................................................................................ 16 Energy Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Stock and Sales .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Registrations for Refrigerated Display Cabinets in Australia and New Zealand ........................................... 25 Forecast Energy Use and Stock ........................................................................................................................ 29 Modelling Business as Usual Energy Use and Stock ....................................................................................... 31 Modelling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use ................................................................................ 32

4. TESTING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ....................................................................................... 34 Current Test and Performance Standards ....................................................................................................... 34 Summary of Commercial Refrigeration Energy Efficiency Regulation .......................................................... 36 Future Developments ........................................................................................................................................ 37

5. POLICY OPTIONS TO ADDRESS MARKET FAILURES .......................................................................... 40 Barriers to Investment in Energy Efficient Commercial Refrigerated Cabinets ............................................ 40 Policy Responses to Identified Market Failures .............................................................................................. 42 Addressing Information Barrier Failures: Consumer Education and Information Dissemination .............. 44

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 47

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets iv

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A List of assumptions used in document ..................................................................................... 49 Appendix B Data tables supporting energy and greenhouse modelling ..................................................... 51 Appendix C Summary of classification system............................................................................................. 54 Appendix D Manufacturers and importers .................................................................................................. 57 Appendix E Australian and New Zealand RDC MEPS and HEPS levels .................................................... 61 Appendix F Summary of Test Methods ........................................................................................................ 63

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Common refrigerant gases .................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 2: Characteristics of registered refrigerated display cabinet models 2006-2012 .............................................. 10 Table 3: Energy efficiency improvement options for refrigerated display and storage cabinets ................................ 14 Table 4: European estimates of improvement potential and costs for energy saving technologies in refrigerated

display and storage cabinets ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Proportion of cabinets by end-use, Australia and New Zealand combined ................................................... 18 Table 6: Estimated stock and sales of refrigeration products in Australia ................................................................... 19 Table 7: Electricity used by commercial refrigeration ................................................................................................... 20 Table 8: Energy used by refrigerators in supermarkets and other food service providers .......................................... 21 Table 9: Summary of energy used by commercial refrigeration as reported ............................................................... 22 Table 10: Baseline energy use by the equipment (2008) .............................................................................................. 22 Table 11: Stock and sales of refrigerated display cabinets reported in 2000 ............................................................... 23 Table 12: EU-25 stock of products .................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 13: Comparison of EU-25 and Australia stock levels ........................................................................................... 24 Table 14: Data used to estimate stock and sales ............................................................................................................ 24 Table 15: Estimated stock and sales of RDCs in Australia and New Zealand in 2013 (units) ..................................... 25 Table 16: Commercial refrigeration equipment annual demand growth by region ..................................................... 30 Table 17: Worldwide commercial refrigeration equipment annual demand growth ................................................... 30 Table 18: Summary of International Energy Efficiency Programs ............................................................................... 36 Table 19: RDC market sectors and their current purchasing drivers ........................................................................... 43 Table 20: List of assumptions used in this document ................................................................................................... 49 Table 21: Emissions intensity and electricity cost forecast data ................................................................................... 50 Table 22: Integral Cabinets – Business as usual model ................................................................................................ 51 Table 23: Remote Cabinets – Business as usual model ................................................................................................. 52 Table 24: Refrigerated Storage Cabinets – Business as usual model ........................................................................... 53 Table 25: Types of Remote Refrigerated Cabinets (Medium Temperature) Table A1 of AS 1731.14:2003 ................ 54 Table 26: Types of Remote Refrigerated Cabinets (Low Temperature) Table A2 of AS 1731.14:2003 ....................... 55 Table 27: Types of Integral Refrigerated Cabinets Table A3 of AS 1731.14:2003 ........................................................ 56 Table 28: M-package Temperature Classes ................................................................................................................... 56 Table 29: Australian businesses that manufacture but do not import refrigerated equipment .................................. 57 Table 30: Australian businesses that manufacture and import refrigerated equipment ............................................ 57 Table 31: Australian businesses that only import refrigerated equipment .................................................................. 57 Table 32: New Zealand businesses that manufacture but do not import refrigerated equipment ............................. 59 Table 33: New Zealand businesses that manufacture and import refrigerated equipment ........................................ 59 Table 34: New Zealand businesses that only import refrigerated equipment ............................................................. 60 Table 35: MEPS: Maximum energy consumption – Remote cabinets ......................................................................... 61 Table 36: MEPS: Maximum energy consumption – Integral cabinets ......................................................................... 62 Table 37: Maximum energy consumption for ‘High Efficiency’ integral display cabinets .......................................... 62 Table 38: Summary of common test methods ............................................................................................................... 63

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Examples of Refrigerated Display Cabinets ...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Examples of Refrigerated Storage Cabinets ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Major components and energy flows of the refrigeration cycle ...................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Long-term trends in domestic refrigerator volume, energy use and unit price, Australia ........................... 11 Figure 5: Overview of the Australian and New Zealand markets for refrigerated cabinets..........................................17 Figure 6: Cabinet trade between Australia and New Zealand ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Electricity used by commercial refrigerators in Australia and New Zealand ............................................... 21 Figure 8: Registered sales of remote RDCs in New Zealand ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 9: Registered sales of integral RDCs in New Zealand ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 10: Registered remote RDCs from the E3 Registration Database ..................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Registered integral RDCs from the E3 Registration Database..................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Share of registered RDCs registered as high efficiency ................................................................................ 28 Figure 13: VC4 - Glass door cabinet registrations.......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 14: Cabinets registered for MEPS that could be registered for HEPS ............................................................... 29 Figure 15: Business as usual energy use forecast for Australia ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: Business as usual energy use forecast for New Zealand .............................................................................. 32 Figure 17: Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity use forecast, Australia ............................................................. 33 Figure 18: Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity use forecast, New Zealand ...................................................... 33

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets vi

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

AGO Australian Greenhouse Office

AS/NZS Australian Standards and New Zealand Standards

BAU Business-as-usual

CO2-e Carbon dioxide equivalent units

COAG Council of Australian Governments

DCCEE Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

DRET Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

E3 Equipment Energy Efficiency

ECM Electronically Commutated Motor

EEO Energy Efficiency Opportunities

EUP Energy Using Products

GEMS Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards

GEMS Act Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GWh Giga Watt hour – 1 million kilo Watt hours

GWP Global warming potential

HEPS High Efficiency Performance Standards

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

HFO Hydrofluoroolefins

ICs Integral Cabinets

Kt Kilo tonnes – 1 thousand tonnes

kWh Kilo Watt hour – 1 thousand Watt hours

LED Light Emitting Diode

MCE Ministerial Council for Energy

MEPS Minimum Energy Performance Standards

Mt Mega tonnes – 1 million tonnes

NFEE National Framework on Energy Efficiency

NPV Net Present Value

NSEE National Strategy on Energy Efficiency

NZ New Zealand

NZEECS New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2011-2016

NZES New Zealand Energy Strategy

NZMBIE New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

PID Proportional Integral Differential

RCs Remote Cabinets

RDCs Refrigerated Display Cabinets

RDC Determination

Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Performance Standards (Refrigerated Display Cabinets) Determination 2012

RIS Regulatory Impact Statement

RSCs Refrigerated Storage Cabinets

RECs Renewable Energy Certificates

SCER Standing Council on Energy and Resources

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets vii

TEC/TDA Total Energy Consumption/Total Display Area. The standard metric for energy consumption for RDCs, which balances energy use per unit of area display

The equipment RDCs and RSCs

TTMRA Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement

VSD Variable Speed Drive

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets i

Executive Summary

Background

This Product Profile was prepared for the Equipment Energy Efficiency (E3) Committee to analyse the case for

altering the minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for commercial refrigeration in Australia and

New Zealand.

Energy consumed by appliances and equipment is a major source of energy consumption and greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions in Australia and New Zealand; non-domestic or commercial refrigeration is estimated to account

for 4% of emissions from Australia’s energy sector and 6% of emissions in New Zealand (E3 2011). The

governments of both countries have recognised that substantial reductions in energy use can be achieved by

improving the efficiency of non-domestic refrigeration.

To achieve this reduction in energy use, the E3 Program develops, amongst other things, the regulations for MEPS

and energy labelling for appliances and equipment. The aim is to improve the energy efficiency of products sold on

the Australian and New Zealand markets. MEPS already apply to a range of electrical products such as three-phase

motors, distribution transformers and three-phase air conditioners, and other domestic appliances, such as

refrigerators, lighting, and air conditioners also have mandatory energy labelling.

Australia and New Zealand introduced MEPS and high efficiency performance standards (HEPS) for refrigerated

display cabinets in 2004, as specified in AS 1731. The potential for further energy savings was investigated by the

E3 Committee in 2009 through producing ‘In From The Cold - a 10-year strategic plan for non-domestic

refrigeration’.

This Product Profile provides an overview of the market in Australia and New Zealand for non-domestic

refrigerated display and storage cabinets (RDCs and RSCs). It identifies what products are available, efficiency

trends in the market, major suppliers and the available information on the sales and installed stock of the

equipment. It seeks feedback on whether energy efficiency improvements are possible and reasons why more

efficient models aren’t dominating the market.

Excluded from the scope of AS 1731 and this Product Profile are:

• Refrigerated vending machines;

• Ice-makers; and

• Cabinets intended for use in catering and similar non-retail application.

None of the documents related to the development of these standards provide definitive reasons for the current

exclusion of RSCs. However, consultation with stakeholders who were involved in the early stages of developing

AS 1731 suggest the contribution of RSCs was considered too small to include at that time.

This document does not propose policy but rather indicates a variety of options for feedback from stakeholders,

and for the governments of Australia and New Zealand to consider. MEPS and voluntary labelling are included in

the short list of possible options, along with education measures. Any proposals for regulation will need to have

further analysis and public consultation through a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS).

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets ii

The Refrigerated Display Cabinet and Refrigerated Storage Cabinet Market

The market for RDCs in Australia and New Zealand is complex and diverse. AS 1731, the standard which defines

the current MEPS, captures over 50 different products, across four temperature classes. These include units

ranging in size from multi-door cabinets in large supermarkets to counter-top glass cabinets designed to display

cakes.

Historic growth in the overall volume of refrigerated food, frozen foods and chilled beverages sold in supermarkets,

food retail and service establishments in Australia and New Zealand is expected to continue. As a result the total

estimated stock of RDCs is estimated to grow from 775,000 units in 2011 to approximately 1.4 million units in

2030. Data for the RSC market is less certain but is believed to be in the order of 10% of the RDC market.

Proposed Standards

The performance metrics in AS 1731 have not been changed since 2004, and there is concern that these standards

no longer represent a suitable minimum requirement for manufacturers. Energy intensity in the refrigeration

sector has trended down since 2004 and revisiting the standards could lead to cost effective outcomes for

consumers.

There was comment by some stakeholders questioned during the preliminary consultation phase of this project

that if AS 1731 is updated, Australia and New Zealand could adopt a standard aligned with the international

standard, ISO 23953, which is currently being developed. This new standard would set MEPS for RDCs, using

classes analogous to the current AS 1731. ISO 23953 is expected to be released in 2015, which gives some scope for

Australia and New Zealand representatives to contribute to its development.

Harmonising with ISO 23953 could provide two principle benefits to consumers in Australia and New Zealand.

Both Australia and New Zealand receive a significant proportion of their imports from China, in excess of two-

thirds in recent years. Importers questioned during the preliminary consultation phase suggested that many of the

Chinese factories manufacture for Europe in the same facility as Australia and New Zealand. As the Australian and

New Zealand market is relatively small these importers do not believe that they would manufacture different units

for any future Australian and New Zealand standard. Aligning with the ISO standard increases the certainty that

the standard will be met, but also that these businesses will continue servicing this market. Secondly, using the

ISO standard will reduce the compliance cost which is a component of current units. Rather than engineer and test

units to a standard intended for a small market, the testing and engineering costs will be spread across the whole

European and Australian-New Zealand markets.

The Possible Case for Regulation

Introducing more stringent MEPS will mostly benefit RDC users in small businesses, the cohort currently most

likely to make purchasing decisions based on just the capital costs. Preliminary analysis suggests that purchasing

more efficient equipment could be cost effective for periods greater than two years; however, in the absence of

more stringent MEPS, few small businesses are willing to spend the additional upfront capital required for the

more efficient equipment.

Large corporations in the supermarket sector, who have dedicated energy professionals, high operational certainty

and significant capital expenditure, have demonstrated that installing more efficient equipment is cost effective, by

installing units which exceed the current standards significantly. Updating the MEPS will have less impact on these

market participants than on small corporations where significant market barriers remain.

The outcomes in the RSC sector are less certain as the data is more uncertain. However, it is assumed that the RSC

market roughly shadows the integral RDC market: informed consumers with adequate capital are making

informed purchasing decisions, while less informed consumers are not. Again it is the consumers experiencing

information barriers that will benefit most from the possible application of MEPS to RSCs.

Separating the market into three cohorts, remote RDCs, integral RDCs and RSCs, the case for regulation is

strongest for integral RDCs and weakest for remote RDCs. Integral units contain both the condenser and

evaporator in the same case. Any regulations would only slightly impact smaller businesses who do not have the

resources to research and plan their purchases of cooling equipment.

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets iii

Market Barriers

The RDC sector is affected by the common barriers to improved energy efficiency; principle-agent and information

barriers. The RSC sector is also affected by similar barriers albeit to a lesser extent.

Principle-agent barriers occur when the equipment purchaser does not pay the operating costs for the equipment

and so has little incentive to select the most efficient equipment. In the RDC sector, this is most often associated

with the provision of promotional drinks and frozen confectionary cabinets, and also occurs when franchisees

purchase equipment through a franchise, or a service technician purchases equipment on another’s behalf.

However, some promotional equipment suppliers have recognised the market differentiation available from

providing best-in-class units; they are now providing what are considered by industry stakeholders to be some of

the most efficient units available worldwide. Therefore, the principle-agent barrier is declining in the RDC sector

due to competition in the market.

The most prevalent information barrier in the sector is the lack of consideration or understanding of on-going

running costs when making purchasing decisions; these decisions are generally based purely on capital cost.

Raising MEPS could address this to some degree by removing less efficient units from the market. However,

raising MEPS only impacts energy use when new units are purchased; as the typical lifetime of a cabinet is around

ten years, it will take considerable time to improve the efficiency of all RDCs in use across Australia and

New Zealand. Due to this, complimentary action could include an education program for RDC users on reducing

the energy use of existing RDCs.

Policy Options

Chapter 5 discusses in detail the policy options which could be used to address the barriers to improved energy

efficiency. These are outlined below.

1. Update MEPS, either through updating AS 1731 or by adopting or harmonising with the pending

ISO 23953 standard

2. Extend MEPS to RSCs, using a volume rather than total energy consumption/total display area metric

3. Introduce a ‘bottom-up” MEPS, where units assembled ‘on-site’ demonstrate compliance with MEPS

based on their components

4. Make mandatory or voluntary comparative labelling and product information available through

energyrating.gov.au

5. Explore ways to inform market participants of existing energy efficiency information, through industry

publications, membership bodies and suppliers

Market Size and Energy Use

Data on the number of units in use, their size and cost are difficult to determine accurately without significant

input from distributors operating in Australia and New Zealand. Stakeholders are invited to provide any

additional information which would enhance the understanding of the market size and energy use.

A number of data sources, the details of which are discussed in chapter 3, are currently available that provide

broad indications of the size of the market. There are estimated to be 192,000 remote RDCs in operation across

Australia and New Zealand in 2013, and as many as 900,000 integral RDCs.

These units are responsible for significant energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from the indirect emissions

associated with electricity production. Remote RDCs in Australia and New Zealand use about 5,300 GWh of

electricity each year and emit around 4 million tonnes of CO2-e. Integral units use almost 2,400 GWh each year,

contributing about 2 million tonnes of CO2-e.

The RSC market is the smallest of the three, using around 440 GWh of electricity across Australia and

New Zealand, and emitting around 300,000 tonnes of CO2-e each year.

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets iv

Conclusion

There are numerous policy options available to remove the market barriers impacting on the promotion of energy

efficiency in commercial refrigeration. The policy options considered most appropriate within this product profile

involve the removal of information barriers. There appears to be little evidence of principal-agent failures in the

market, as some suppliers view energy efficient units as a way to distinguish themselves in the market.

There is evidence that the current MEPS for RDCs are outdated and should be amended to better reflect the

efficiency of products in the market. Preliminary consultation indicates that industry stakeholders favour

harmonising the Australian and New Zealand standard with the International standard ISO 23953, currently

under review with an expected release during 2015. Harmonising with the International standard minimises the

compliance cost on manufacturers. Harmonisation may also have wider benefits due to the Australian and

New Zealand markets being are relatively small, so there is a risk that manufacturers may not be inclined to

manufacture specific models for the region if local requirements substantially differ from international

requirements.

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets v

Consultation on this Product Profile

Readers are asked to comment on a number of aspects of this document, particularly market data and modelling

assumptions, to assist with the formulation of a preferred policy option in the future. While we welcome comments

on all aspects of the Product Profile, comments responding to the questions listed under the heading, ‘Key

Questions’ would be of particular assistance.

Consultation workshops will be held in Melbourne, Sydney and Auckland. These will be coordinated by the New

Zealand project leader from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) on behalf of E3. Feedback

from the meetings and submissions will also be coordinated by EECA.

Written comments should be emailed, and received by Friday 4th October 2013.

Email: [email protected] and also [email protected]. Subject: Commercial refrigeration – RDCs and RSCs.

The evidence in this Product Profile will be reviewed and supplemented in light of any written submissions made

by stakeholders and/or issues raised at stakeholder meetings.

The Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee will make a decision on whether to proceed with a proposal to

improve the efficiency of commercial/non-domestic refrigerated display and storage cabinets and what the

preferred options should be.

If the preferred options involve regulation, a Regulation Impact Statement will be prepared to analyse the costs,

benefits, and other impacts of the proposal. Further consultation with industry will be carried out prior to any

final decisions being made.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets vi

Key Questions

Standards

1. Should the MEPS and HEPS detailed in AS 1731 be updated?

2. If the MEPS and HEPS are updated, to what level should they be increased?

3. Do you agree that MEPS and HEPS should be extended to include RSCs? If so, do you consider that the

use of energy consumption per unit net volume is the appropriate metric for the measurement of energy

efficiency? If not, please describe alternatives.

4. Do you agree that there is scope to reduce the complexity of the existing classification of RDCs

(e.g. 36 categories of remote display cabinets with 12 categories having no MEPS or HEPS)? What would

be the benefits and are there any potential costs or disadvantages from moving to a simpler system?

5. Do you agree that the international test method ISO 23953 would be appropriate for measuring the energy

performance of regulated RDCs and RSCs for MEPS in Australia and New Zealand? Is there a case for

moving to this standard?

6. If Australia and New Zealand were to adopt an international standard, is there a case for aligning our

MEPS/HEPS with international levels? If not, please provide a case.

7. What impact would updating the MEPS have on Australian and New Zealand manufacturers? Are there

instances where increased MEPS would adversely affect sales? If not, please provide evidence that can be

shared and discussed with other stakeholders.

8. Are there any shortcomings with the Australian or international standards which are creating a barrier to

energy efficient innovations?

Market data

1. Do you agree with the market data presented for Australia and New Zealand? In particular, do you agree

with the estimates of current and projected stock and sales of RDCs and RSCs? If not, please provide your

assumptions.

2. Do you agree with the category breakdown of commercial refrigerated cabinets between display and

storage cabinets, and between medium and low temperature products?

3. Do you agree with the assumptions on product lifespan, capital and installation costs and efficiency

presented in the BAU scenario? If not, please provide evidence.

4. Do you agree with the claim that over 97% of sales are for units imported into Australia and New Zealand?

If not, please provide evidence.

5. Is there a case for regulating other related devices like ice-makers, refrigerated vending machines and

wine fridges?

6. Do you agree with the barriers to improved energy efficiency identified in this product profile and that

they are limiting the uptake of higher efficiency RDCs and RSCs in the Australian and New Zealand

markets? Are you aware of other issues which impact on the sale of more efficient products?

7. Could you contribute to a survey to determine the size and cost of the RDC and RSC market in Australia

and New Zealand?

Policy issues

1. Do you think a comparative labelling scheme would improve the quality of energy use information in the

market? Are there alternate options which could achieve the same aim?

2. Should mandatory ‘star’ rating labels be used for these products, as for domestic refrigerators, or do you

think that voluntary endorsement labels, such as Energy Star, would work better?

3. What additional costs do you think mandatory star rating labels and / or voluntary endorsement labels

would place on industry compared to the current situation? What impact do you think they would have on

competition and consumer choice? Please provide evidence to support your case.

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets vii

4. If a voluntary label was applied, how would you ensure all industry players contributed to energy use

information on products on the market?

5. Do you believe the ‘Deemed to comply’ policy option is both feasible and desirable?

6. Are there any additional measures which the E3 program could consider to increase the efficiency of RDCs

and RSCs?

Product Profile: Commercial Refrigeration - Refrigerated Display and Storage Cabinets 1

1. Introduction

What is a Product Profile?

Energy consumed in the operation of equipment is a major contributor to Australian and New Zealand energy use

and a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In recognition of this, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)

and the New Zealand Government initiated the Equipment Energy Efficiency (E3) Program. The E3 Program

develops, amongst other things, Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and Energy Rating Labels

(ERLs) for appliances and equipment, with the aim of improving the energy efficiency of products sold in Australia

and New Zealand.

Product Profiles are developed for the E3 Program under the direction of the E3 Committee. The E3 Committee

comprises representatives of government agencies that promote energy efficiency in the Commonwealth, State,

Territory and New Zealand governments. A Product Profile outlines the factors impacting the energy performance

of an equipment or technology type and explores the case for targeted government intervention to improve energy

efficiency of the equipment type across the Australian and New Zealand economies.

Outline of the Product Profile

This Product Profile provides a technology and market assessment of commercial refrigerated display cabinets

(RDCs) and refrigerated storage cabinets (RSCs) in Australia and New Zealand. It is intended to review the energy

efficiency and energy consumption trends for these products under a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, to identify

scope for improvement and to investigate options to help improve the efficiency of RDCs and RSCs. This first

chapter provides some of the relevant history of the Australian Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards

(GEMS) legislation and its interaction with MEPS and Australian Standards.

The second chapter defines the equipment and processes covered by this Product Profile. It describes RDCs and

RSCs, including what equipment types are regulated or covered by standards, the energy using processes in

refrigeration and the typical application of RDCs. The chapter concludes with a discussion of energy efficiency

trends in the market and their impact on unit performance.

The third chapter examines the Australian and New Zealand market for RDCs and RSCs. It begins by defining the

characteristics of the market, including trade figures and discussion of the relationships between suppliers,

manufacturers and consumers. This is followed by an estimate of the energy used by the equipment and the

businesses which use this energy. The chapter concludes by estimating the current number of RDCs and RSCs in

use and the amount of energy they use.

Chapter four discusses the test and performance standards which apply to RDCs and RSCs, both locally and

internationally. This includes discussion of energy efficiency programs which apply to this equipment. This is

followed by summaries of registration data for MEPS units and discussion of options for updating the MEPS.

Chapter five considers the barriers to efficient energy use of RDCs and RSCs and discusses the policy options, if

any, that can be used to remove these barriers. This discussion considers the policy options to address the

identified market failures and the impact addressing these barriers may have on energy use and emissions in

Australia and New Zealand.


The Policy Context

The E3 Program operates under national legislation and is administered by the Australian Government, with input

from state and territory governments and the New Zealand Government. E3 was established in 1992 to coordinate

the mandatory MEPS and mandatory ERLs.

The policies that support the E3 Program differ in the two nations but drive towards a common goal of improving

the energy efficiency of appliances and products in Australia and New Zealand.

Australian Policy Context

In 2009 COAG released a comprehensive 10-year National Strategy on Energy Efficiency (NSEE). The strategy

established a cooperative plan to deliver a range of energy efficiency measures across all Australian jurisdictions.

The measures in the strategy are framed around the four following themes:

• Assisting households and businesses to transition to a low-carbon future;

• Reducing impediments to energy efficiency improvements;

• Making buildings more energy efficient; and

• Government working in partnership and leading the way.

The strategy is wide-ranging in scope and includes a suite of measures to strengthen energy efficiency standards

for appliances, equipment, buildings and vehicles. A number of measures under the strategy will also provide

Australians with better information and training to assist them in making informed choices to improve their

energy efficiency.

All Australian jurisdictions have also signed a National Partnership Agreement on Energy Efficiency to deliver a

nationally-consistent approach to energy efficiency through a range of energy efficiency initiatives, including

nationally consistent energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment and a process to enable industry to

adjust to increasingly stringent standards over time.

From October 2012, regulation of the Australian MEPS has been undertaken at a national level, under the

Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012 (GEMS Act 2012). This Act harmonised state legislation

and regulations previously used for compliance, and established a consistent, national legislative footing.

Subordinate to the GEMS Act 2012 are Determinations to manage individual products (for instance the

Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Performance Standards (Refrigerated Display Cabinets) Determination 2012

(RDC Determination)).

New Zealand Policy Context

Adopted in 2011, the New Zealand Energy Strategy (NZES) 2011-2021 (New Zealand Ministry of Business,

Innovation and Employment (NZMBIE) 2013) and the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy

(NZEECS) 2011-2016, together provide the strategic direction for the energy sector and the role energy plays in the

New Zealand economy. One of the objectives of the NZEECS is “greater business and consumer uptake of energy

efficient products” with a target of “extending minimum energy performance standards, labelling and ENERGY

STAR® product coverage to remain in line with major trading partners”.

The NZEECS promotes the careful use of a mix of measures, such as information on consumer and business needs,

along with codes and standards to underpin confidence in energy efficient products and practices. It recognises

that common standards and energy labelling information supports closer economic relationships with Australia

and reduces compliance costs for product manufacturers and suppliers who are often trading in both countries.

New Zealand is committed to providing energy efficiency labelling and standards for products, in association with

Australia, to better inform consumer choice.

NZES sets out four priority areas:

• Diverse resource development;

• Environmental responsibility;

• Efficient use of energy; and

• Secure and affordable energy.


History of E3 Regulation

The introduction of MEPS for RDCs and RSCs in Australia and New Zealand was first considered in 2000-2001

with the publication of several Technical Reports (Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) 2000a, AGO 2000b, AGO

2001a, AGO 2001b). After consultation with stakeholders, the Australia and New Zealand Governments

implemented MEPS for RDCs only, used in Australia and New Zealand. RSCs were originally excluded from

regulation because they were estimated to contribute less to total energy consumption compared to RDCs.

Australian Standard AS 1731:2003 defined both the test methods and the MEPS requirements for RDCs. These

requirements came into force in 2004. There are currently no MEPS for RSCs. However, as many RSCs are now

supplied by manufacturers and importers of RDCs, there appears to be a case for revisiting this exemption.

AS 1731 was reviewed in 2008. Strong stakeholder support for improvements to the current MEPS for RDCs

encouraged the E3 Committee to commit to a 10-year strategy to increase the energy efficiency of commercial

refrigeration appliances. The preparatory work for the strategy was documented in the “In from the Cold” reports

(E3 2011). Specific recommendations included adopting international standards to broaden the scope of MEPS to

include RSCs, strengthening MEPS to reflect improvements in performance since 2004, and adopting the

international test method for the equipment.

Since the review undertaken in 2008, AS 1731 has not been updated to take into account any of the

recommendations from ‘In From The Cold - a 10-year strategic plan for non-domestic refrigeration’.

This current Product Profile now explores some of these options.


Equipment Covered by this Product Profile

RDCs and RSCs are used to store and display foodstuffs and beverages in a temperature-controlled environment.

They are designed to maintain an internal temperature range suitable for the display or storage of perishable

goods, or for chilling non-perishable beverages. Food safety laws or guidelines usually dictate the temperature

requirements.

The Australian Standard AS 1731 classifies RDCs according to the intended application, location of condensing unit

or compressor, storage temperature and configuration of the cabinet. Each general classification is then identified

by a coded designation as a ‘type’ such as vertical, horizontal, open and those with glass-doors.

This Product Profile does not consider refrigerated vending machines, ice makers or cabinets intended for use in

catering and similar non-retail applications, which are excluded from AS 1731.

Refrigerated Display Cabinets

These are units that are intended to store and display for sale chilled and/or frozen foodstuffs and beverages. These

cabinets allow the stored products to be either directly viewed through an opening in the cabinet or through

transparent doors, lids or covers that:

• are normally kept closed, but can be opened to access the contents; and

• enable users to access any of the contents without stepping inside the refrigerated space.

RDCs are typically used in supermarkets, petrol stations and smaller food and beverage vendors such as ‘corner

stores’ and delicatessens. Supermarkets use RDCs to display fruit and vegetables, meat, fish and poultry and dairy

and deli items (with dedicated staff) and frozen goods. Petrol stations and smaller vendors use RDCs to display

chilled beverages and ice-confectionary.

A summary table of all cabinet types is included in Appendix C, and examples of the designations are included in

Figure 1.

Integral and Remote Units

Both RSCs and RDCs can be supplied as remote or self-contained/incorporated/integral units. In a remote unit the

condenser and compressor are in a different location to the evaporator, in a system analogous to split-system air-

conditioners. For example a supermarket might have a large bank of refrigerated cabinets, with compressors and

condensers outside to reduce space and noise on the shop floor. The use of one compressor to supply several

display cabinets (one-to-many configuration) is common in large facilities.

Integral units contain both the condenser and evaporator in the same case. The refrigeration cycles are functionally

identical, but remote units will necessarily involve more piping, and therefore a larger amount of refrigerant.

Remote cabinets are typically found in large to medium sized supermarkets with a centralised refrigeration area. In

this system, each display case is connected to an external compressor and condenser via high pressure liquid and

suction refrigerant piping with additional connections required for condensate drain lines and electricity. Cases

contain an expansion valve, one or more evaporators and evaporator fans to circulate air.

Integral cabinets are found in supermarkets, typically in addition to remote cabinets, in service stations and corner

stores. Integral cabinets can be easily moved and installed and therefore provide flexibility for large businesses and

low commitment to smaller businesses.

The designation for a remote cabinet is ‘R’ and for an integral cabinet is ‘I’. The full classification scheme for RDCs

is outlined in Appendix C.

2. Refrigerated Display Cabinets and

Refrigerated Storage Cabinets


Each of the examples in Figure 1 could be integral or remote systems. Separating the compressor and condenser

from the display cabinet will have little influence on the appearance of the cabinet and is primarily an engineering

and system design consideration.

Horizontal, frozen, open-top, island cabinet

Vertical, chilled, open, multi-deck cabinet

Semi-vertical, chilled, multi-deck cabinet

Vertical, refrigerated, glass-door cabinet

Horizontal, chilled service-counter

Horizontal, chilled, glass-door display cabinet

Figure 1: Examples of Refrigerated Display Cabinets


Refrigerated Storage Cabinets

These are products that are specifically designed to store, but not to display for sale, chilled and/or frozen

foodstuffs. They are not currently covered by MEPS and are not captured under any existing Australian or

New Zealand Standards. They are generally defined by the storage volume and any extra features, such as food

preparation areas, lighting and materials.

They predominantly have solid faced lids, drawers or doors that:

• are normally kept closed, but can be opened to access the contents;

• obscure the majority of the contents of the cabinet from view when closed; and

• allow users to access the contents of any part of the interior without stepping inside the refrigerated space.

Examples of RSCs are shown in Figure 2.

Refrigerated storage cabinet

Vertical refrigerated storage cabinet

Figure 2: Examples of Refrigerated Storage Cabinets

Design of RDCs and RSCs

RDCs and RSCs are special purpose refrigerators. This section presents a brief overview of the design of the

equipment. Special attention is paid to the components that make up the refrigerators as they are responsible for

most of the energy use. A more comprehensive description of the equipment can be found in ‘In From The Cold - a

10-year strategic plan for non-domestic refrigeration’.

The Refrigeration Cycle

In general, refrigeration equipment uses energy, or work, to move heat from a cold space to a hot space. A typical

refrigeration process operates by continuously heating and cooling a refrigerant gas in a closed loop, as shown in

Figure 3. This process includes the following steps:

• The refrigerant gas is sucked into the electrically driven compressor. The gas is compressed, causing it to

heat up

• The hot gas enters an air- or water-cooled condenser (the first heat exchanger) where it is cooled and

condensed into a liquid at high pressure

• The cooled high-pressure liquid flows through an expansion valve into a low-pressure evaporator

• The lower pressure causes the liquid to boil, which draws heat from the area surrounding the evaporator

coil (the second heat exchanger).

In an RDC or RSC, the evaporator coil is inside the cabinet, which is therefore cooled to the desired temperature.

The performance of both heat exchangers - the condenser and evaporator - can be enhanced with the addition of

electric fans.


Figure 3: Major components and energy flows of the refrigeration cycle

The efficiency of this process is referred to as the Coefficient of Performance (COP), which is usually expressed as a

ratio of the amount of electricity used to move each unit of heat. A refrigeration system with a COP of three uses

1 kW of electricity for every 3 kW of heat moved. It is a system characteristic and is the product of the efficiencies

of each individual component and their interactions. Typical COPs in this market range from three to about five.

Refrigerant Gases

The choice of gas in the refrigerator is driven by the target temperature inside the cabinet and the ambient

temperature. A range of gases are available to designers and the selection of the refrigerant gas can influence the

efficiency of the refrigerator. Several of these gases have a high Global Warming Potential (GWP) (IPCC 2007).

Others have been banned under the Montreal Protocol, which sought to eliminate the ozone depleting gases. It is

the responsibility of each participating country to implement the guidelines set out in the Montreal Protocol.

Table 1 lists several common refrigerant gases.

Refrigerant gases can be made from either a single chemical compound or a blend of multiple compounds. Blended

gases have the disadvantage that the components may leak at different rates, meaning that they cannot be topped-

up in the event of a leak and that the whole refrigerant charge may have to be discarded.


Table 1: Common refrigerant gases

Designation Applications GWP Strengths and weaknesses

R22

Chlorodifluoro-methane

Wide range of refrigeration

1,810 Montreal Protocol gas, with ozone depletion potential of 0.055

R134A

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoro-ethane

Air-conditioning and higher temperature refrigeration

1,430 High global warming potential

R407F

Blend of R32, R125 and R134a

Wide range of refrigeration. Designed as a swap for ozone-depleting R22

1,705 Blended gas

Straight-swap for R22, however, may reduce performance

R404A Mainly used for low temperature

3,784 Blended gas

High global warming potential

R290

Propane

Typical in ice cream freezers, but appropriate for wide range

3.3 Flammable. International laws limit charge of hydrocarbon refrigerants to less than 150g per unit. This means that the most common application is in small, integral units

Frequently used as a replacement for R22

R600a

Isobutane

Small cabinets and refrigerators

3 Flammable, so subject to safety restrictions

Low GWP replacement for R12 and R134a but size limited due to flammability

R744

Carbon dioxide

Wide range of refrigeration

1 Cheap and easily obtained. Requires higher pressure than other gases, requiring more robust components. Toxic in some situations

Note: GWP is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere, relative to a similar mass of carbon

dioxide.

The refrigeration loop is a closed system, but some leakage will occur and need to be refilled over time. This creates

safety issues with the gases which are flammable or poisonous, such as R290 or R744. Further, leakage is a

problem with the higher GWP gases, like R134A and R404A.

With the introduction of a price on greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, a restructuring of the refrigerants

market is underway. This will have some potential consequences for the energy performance of refrigerated

cabinets. The additional cost of using synthetic greenhouse gases with high GWPs, such as hydrofluorocarbons

(HFCs), is putting more focus on alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs including ‘natural’ refrigerants such as

hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and ammonia. However all of these alternatives possess characteristics that require

special design considerations to ensure safety.

Very low GWP refrigerants such as hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and the hydrocarbons, are flammable gases and

therefore have specific safety requirements. Ammonia (NH3 or R 717) is toxic and mildly flammable and again

requires certain precautions to ensure safety. Carbon dioxide (CO2 or R 744) operates at relatively high pressures

when compared to HFCs and this needs to be taken into account in the refrigeration system design.

Compressors

The largest energy using component in any refrigeration system is the compressor, typically driven by electricity.

Compressors are chosen for a given application based on the refrigerant to be used, the desired pressure range and

the cost. Other mechanisms are possible to compress the fluid but these are generally experimental.

Fans

Fans increase air flow over the heat exchangers, leading to higher heat-transfer rates per unit of area. Typical

systems will include an electric fan on both the evaporator and condenser. As with any electrical device, any fan

motor contained within the refrigerated space will contribute to the heat load.


Internal Lighting

Many RDCs incorporate lights to illuminate the contents. The technology used has evolved from incandescent to

fluorescent tubes, and more recently compact fluorescents and light emitting diodes (LEDs). Through this

progression the energy used in lighting has decreased, leading to a reduction in the related heat-load. Lights within

the refrigerated compartment contribute heat to the compartment, which typically needs to be removed by the

refrigeration cycle.

Refrigerator Controls

To maintain a constant temperature in the refrigerated compartment, electrical controllers must operate the

compressor. A basic system might use a simple thermostat in the cold compartment, which switches off the

compressor once the desired temperature is achieved. More complex systems might employ thermostats on the

heat exchangers, which operate fans to increase the rate of heat transfer. Modern systems might use a

microprocessor to control all system aspects and use sophisticated control devices like Proportional Integral

Differential (PID) controllers to achieve accurate temperature control.

Low temperature and some medium temperature evaporators require periodic defrosting to remove water that

condenses and/or freezes on the evaporator surface. This can be done with electric heating, hot refrigerant gas or

air defrosts. All defrosting methods add to the energy usage of the system.

Air Curtains

These devices are used on open display cabinets, blowing air across the opening of the refrigerated compartment.

They are intended to reduce infiltration of warm, ambient air into the refrigerated compartment and therefore

improve the refrigeration efficiency. However, their operation uses electricity to drive a fan, so the efficiency

improvement is the improved refrigeration efficiency, less the energy consumed to drive the fan. While they are

effective in some applications, if not properly designed they can actually decrease performance. As the barrier is

simply a barrier of moving air, it is susceptible to disruption by obstructions caused by improper stacking of

products, pedestrian traffic or air gusts through the store.

Insulation

Good insulation is central to the performance of all refrigerators. Many different materials can be used for this

task, but broadly speaking thicker insulation equates to less heat flow into the refrigerator. This includes all design

and material choices which reduce heat-flow, and also includes thermal-breaks and seal materials. Early RDCs

used single panes of glass for their doors, but new designs sometimes use double or triple glazed doors and some

utilise low-e (heat reflecting) glass as well.

Component Energy Use

In a typical RDC or RSC, the compressor will use the most energy of any system part, at around 50%, with fans

consuming about 33% and the ancillary systems 17%. The compressor and electric motor driving it are effectively

one energy using unit. As a guide, the compressor accounts for about half the system energy use.

The operation of both the evaporator and condenser are typically enhanced by employing electric fans, one, or

more, for each heat exchanger. These fans together draw about a third of the system energy use.

The balance of energy use is spread across a number of ancillary systems, the energy uses of which will be

determined by the system configuration and can vary widely depending on the application. These systems may

include the electronic control unit, cabinet lighting, air-curtains and defrost heaters.

This energy breakdown differs for freezer cases which incorporate defrost heaters. These are included in the

Ancillary Systems, and can shift this distribution, depending on operating characteristics.

Trends in Energy Performance

This section presents some information on the trends in the energy performance of the equipment. Through the

actions of the market, in some cases aided by policy measures, the performance of RDCs has been improving over

time. While there is no data available on the performance improvements of RSCs it is assumed that their efficiency

has improved in parallel with RDCs, as they share much of the same components.


The performance trend of RSCs throughout time is not as well documented. However, the major energy using

processes in RSCs are identical to RDCs and so will demonstrate the same improvements over the same time

period. The principle differences arise in the door materials, which will be solid and hence better insulating than in

RDCs, and in lighting, which will only operate when the door is open. Thus RSCs will use slightly less energy than

RDCs of comparable size, and follow the improvement trend in unit performance.

Table 2 shows the average performance of all the RDC models registered for MEPS in Australia and New Zealand

for the period 2006 to 2012. Over this time, the number of registrations has increased by 23% per annum, and the

total average energy consumption has dropped by 1.6%, mainly in the 2006-2007 period. Some of this fall in

energy consumption is due to a small shift in the proportion of registrations towards medium temperature cabinets

between 2006 and 2012. The average display area per model has grown slightly (+0.6%) to around 2m2 per unit in

2012, resulting in an overall energy efficiency improvement of 2.2% between 2006 and 2012.

Under both the Australian/New Zealand and international standards (AS 1731 and ISO 23953:2005) energy

efficiency of RDCs is measured by the Total Energy Consumption / Total Display Area (TEC/TDA). Calculation of

the TDA takes into account a number of factors including:

• The horizontal projection of the RDC;

• The vertical projection of the RDC;

• Cabinet length including both horizontal and vertical open length;

• Length of glazing, both horizontal and vertical; and

• The light transmission through the glazing surface, or the vertical or horizontal projection.

It should be noted that these figures are drawn from the values for individual models and the averages are

therefore ‘model-weighted’. They have not been combined with data on sales or stock here, to provide an indication

of the average performance of products sold each year, or the average performance of products in use. This is due

to the fact that no sales data is available.

Table 2: Characteristics of registered refrigerated display cabinet models 2006-2012

Date Registrations Average display area (m2)

Average energy consumption (kWh/day)

Average TEC/TDA (kWh/day/m2)

Jan 2006 423 1.9 24.5 12.9

Jan 2008 658 1.9 22.1 11.7

Jan 2010 929 2.0 22.4 11.3

Jan 2012 1447 2.0 22.3 11.3

Source: E3 Registration database

The improvement over time of domestic refrigerators is much better known, and may point to similar

improvements in commercial equipment. Figure 4 shows how the energy efficiency of residential refrigerators used

in Australia has improved (DCCEE 2013). Importantly, the figure highlights the influence of targeted performance

regulations. Similar trends have been reported for the United States (ASE 2011).


Figure 4: Long-term trends in domestic refrigerator volume, energy use and unit price, Australia

Combining these data, the trend in RDC registrations and domestic refrigerator efficiency improvements, informs

a picture of how the industry might change without the regulatory impact of a new MEPS. This gives the “business

as usual” baseline, which suggests annual efficiency improvements of about 1.8% since 1985 based on the

Australian data presented in Figure 4.

Energy Efficiency Potential

Developments in new materials, better control equipment and improved design have improved the performance of

some refrigerated display and storage cabinets. Some of the options for improved operation are discussed below to

inform discussion in later chapters. This is intended to be a guide of the options available rather than a

comprehensive list of opportunities that are being observed in the market place.

This section was informed by the European Commission’s Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements of

Energy using Products (EuPs) “Commercial refrigerators and freezers”, December 2007 (EU 2007) . More detail

on all of these options can be found in that report.

Energy Management Systems

New developments in microprocessors, temperature measurement and temperature control can all be applied to

refrigeration technology to improve efficiency. Microprocessor control uses PID algorithms to maintain accurate

temperature, which can minimise over-cooling and better control higher temperatures. Smart systems can be

programmed to respond to usage patterns and again minimise energy use. For example, Coca-Cola Amatil in

Australia are supplying RDCs that incorporate usage pattern programs, which ensure the drinks are only cooled

when consumers want them, minimising overnight energy use.

Fan Control

Other control solutions such as varying fan speed to obtain optimum airflow, switching fan motors off when doors

are open and electronic temperature control can all contribute to energy savings. These control solutions can have

greater benefits when installed on products such as beverage display cabinets where the internal temperature is

not critical to food preservation.


High Efficiency Compressors

Most RDC compressors are “hermetically sealed” to contain refrigerant losses from the compressor, which means

the compressor and motor must be considered together. High efficiency compressors use less energy to compress

the working fluid, enhanced by design and materials improvements.

The energy savings for this type of improvement vary with the application and type of compressor, but for a typical

beverage cooler, changing to a high-efficiency compressor will save about 5% of the total electricity consumption.

Variable Speed Drive Compressors

Variable speed drives (VSD) accurately control the power to electric motors, making low speed operation possible

and efficient. The benefits of VSDs are two-fold; allowing low-speed operation means the compressor can be run

closer to its best-efficiency-point (BEP), which in turn reduces the number of compressor on-off cycles, reducing

current spikes. This reduces energy cost and can also improve compressor life. VSDs are not compatible with all

motors and are generally bought as a motor and VSD pair.

Energy savings associated with VSDs are linked to the reduction of refrigerant mass flow. Lower refrigerant flow

reduces the condensing pressure and in turn, compressor energy consumption. VSDs draw some power, so will not

always yield energy savings. As a general rule, if the compressor works at a full load less than 80% of the time the

addition of a VSD will save energy.

Efficient Fan Motors

In a similar manner to compressor improvements discussed above, fan efficiency can be improved with either a

more efficient fan, motor or both. Computer modelling and material improvements continue to deliver

incrementally more efficient fans, and fans designed for specific applications.

Electronically commutated motors (ECMs) are high-efficiency direct current motors which use permanent

magnets and a built in inverter. They are significantly more efficient than common alternative current (AC) motors

and easier to control. ECMs achieve approximately 70% efficiency across their operating range, compared to 35%

for a standard AC fan motor. ECMs also report operating lives of 90,000 hours, approximately double that of a

standard AC motor.

In addition, high efficiency fan blades could have an application in some situations such as optimising air curtains

in open deck cabinets.

Motor efficiency has improved with the introduction of ECMs. Stakeholder consultation sessions indicate these are

the most likely retrofit opportunity, with pay-back periods of less than two years reported on straight motor swaps.

High Efficiency Lighting

Lighting technology has moved from traditional incandescent lights, to fluorescent tubes with magnetic ballasts,

then to fluorescent tubes with electronic ballasts and most recently to LEDs.

Each improvement has increased the luminous efficiency by decreasing the heat load associated with light output.

Luminous efficacy indicates how much light a lamp generates from the electricity it uses, with small numbers

meaning more efficient lights. This lowers the overall energy use of the unit through two different mechanisms;

electrical demand for lighting is reduced, and the heat load into the cabinet is reduced. Test standards require the

cabinet lights be run during testing, to reflect real life conditions so both of these mechanisms are captured.

Most new cabinets are now supplied with LEDs as standard and there are many retrofit LED products available to

replace fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

Light Control

Cabinets which are used intermittently, such as those in take-away food outlets, may include lighting controls

which turn off the cabinet lights when not required. These could be either a simple timer which runs the lights

during business hours or motion sensors which turn the lights on as a customer approaches.

These controllers could be retrofitted in some circumstances.


Insulation

There are many ways to reduce heat flow into the refrigerated compartment; these can be broadly lumped together

as insulation improvements. The most typical example is the insulation material around the cooled compartment;

making this thicker or using a higher r-value material will improve the unit performance. Other simple actions like

moving cabinets out of direct sunlight or from under heating vents will improve the unit performance.

New cabinets benefit from modern insulation materials, though are still limited by the overall cabinet size to

chilled compartment ratio, which will be reduced as thicker insulation is included. Customers often select cabinets

by external size and so the reduction in internal volume required by using thicker insulation is not detected.

Changes to Heat Ingress

The four technology options listed below (advanced glazing, air curtains, night blinds and physical barriers such as

doors and lids) can be retrofitted to existing units and are all designed to reduce heat entering the cooled space.

However, their application can have mixed results as they can significantly reduce the cooling load required by the

compressor. If the compressor or the unit controls cannot adapt to this change, the cabinet can be over-cooled,

leading to frozen products. For this reason, these modifications should be tested thoroughly before widespread

implementation.

Advanced Glazing

Heat ingress to RDCs with glass doors can be reduced with advanced glazing, such as double-glazing or heat

reflective glass. Double-glazing is becoming common in integral RDCs, demonstrated in particular in the units

supplied by Coca-Cola Amatil in Australia.

Retrofitting advanced glazing is plausible in some situations, but there are limits on physical installation. Most

RDCs with glass doors use metal frames, designed for a single pane of glass; thus a thicker glazing unit, such as a

double-glazed unit will be difficult to install. Some of the laminated and coated glass products avoid this problem.

Alternatively, some existing RDCs could have their whole door replaced with a more efficiently glazed unit.

Air Curtains

With open display cases, energy can be wasted by allowing refrigerated air to spill into the store. The effect of the

spillage can be minimised with air curtains where air is blown over the open section of the case, which separates

cooled food from the warmer store air. The use of air curtains must be carefully monitored as they may actually

lead to increased energy use if incorrectly operated.

Retrofitting an air-curtain is unlikely to be plausible and will require a large degree of testing to decrease energy

use.

Night Blinds

Night blinds are similar to roller-blinds used for windows and offer energy savings for open display cabinets,

particularly in applications where use varies greatly between day and night. They are inexpensive when compared

to other physical barriers, such as solid coverings, though they are also less effective.

Night blinds can be retrofitted fairly easily, but their interaction with the refrigeration system should be carefully

monitored, as freezing can occur. Night blinds decrease the heat flow into the cabinet overnight, significantly

reducing the cooling requirements. If the compressor cannot be run at low loads it will over-cool the compartment,

and in some cases freeze the product.

Night blinds can be mechanised and automated to open and close on a timer, ensuring gains are achieved without

reliance on manual operations.

Physical Barriers / Doors and Lids

Using RDCs with doors or lids will save energy when compared to open units and many supermarkets are already

applying this change. Some businesses have been reluctant to implement this change due to a perception that the

extra barrier of a door or lid would lead to a reduction in sales and permanent switching of customer allegiance.

However research on doors on RDCs suggests the impact of this mechanism on sales is exaggerated (ASHRAE

2010).

Currently there is a small trial underway in New Zealand to retrofit doors to cabinets containing processed dairy

products. Results are expected in late 2014.


Doors for retrofitting on vertical cabinets are very expensive. Replacing old open cabinets with new closed types

may be more cost effective, but not until the risk to customers was known.

Although horizontal, open-top “coffin” type freezers are less common now, their energy use can be reduced with

the use of retrofitted lids or doors. This can be as simple as a transparent cover, or there are options to retrofit

doors with glass that slides.

Refrigerant Choice

In small units, particularly integral cabinets, there may be an opportunity to choose between a hydrofluorocarbon

refrigerant such as R134A or R404A and a hydrocarbon refrigerant such as R600 or R290, or a blend of the two. In

many cases choosing the hydrocarbon will have efficiency benefits. This change may be possible as a retrofit, but

will require consultation with technical specialists.

Condensate Evaporation Heaters

During operation water may condense on the evaporator coil and then be collected in a tray. Some systems use an

electric heater to evaporate this water. A more efficient system is possible by including a coil of discharge pipe in

the tray to provide heat so less additional energy is required to evaporate the warmer water.

Opportunities by Cabinet Type

The major options for improving the energy efficiency of refrigerated display and storage cabinets are shown in

Table 3 (E3 2011, E3 2009a, E3 2009b).

Storage cabinets share the same refrigeration components as display cabinets, with solid doors and different

lighting requirements.

Table 3: Energy efficiency improvement options for refrigerated display and storage cabinets

Improvement options Remote RDCs Integral RDCs RSCs

High efficiency compressor X(1) X X

Variable speed drive compressor X(1) X X

High efficiency lighting X X X

Light control X X

Evaporator fan motors (ECM) X X X

Condenser fan motor (ECM) X X X

Fan control X X X

Energy management system X X

Insulation X(2) X X

Advanced glazing X X

Air curtains X X

Night blinds and physical barriers X X

Doors and lids X X

Notes: 1 - Remote condenser system

2 - In combination with doors


Cost Savings from Efficient Operation

Current cabinet designs use a variety of technologies depending upon supplier preferences and the price points for

the markets they are serving. For example, a top of the line model may already incorporate most of the latest

technology, such as ECM motors, LED lighting and high efficiency compressors while another model targeted at

the low end of the market will be more basic. It should be noted that the price differences for some manufacturers’

model ranges do not necessarily reflect the technology used but rather the market tier that they are sold into. As a

result, identifying the characteristics of a ‘standard’ cabinet, the potential for improvement and associated costs is

complex; however, the conclusions of studies in Europe (EU 2007), which have had substantial involvement from

industry, provide the best indication of potential improvements and costs. These are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: European estimates of improvement potential and costs for energy saving technologies in

refrigerated display and storage cabinets

Improvement options Energy savings Average cost increase per unit Payback

AUD NZD Average (years)

High efficiency compressor 4 - 10% $10 - $23 $12 -$29 0.74

VSD compressor 9 - 19% $63 - $145 $80 - $185 1.54

High efficiency lighting < 19%(1) $19 - $170 $24 - $216 1.59

Evaporator fan motors (ECM) 5 - 19% $24 - $31 $24 - $40 1.37

Condenser fan motor (ECM) 3 - 8% $24 - $31 $24 - $40 1.37

Fan control NA

Light control NA 1.48

Insulation (+25 mm) 1 - 6% $62 - $111 $81 - $143 3.09

Night blinds 24 - 29% $252 $322 0.28

Glass doors/lids 50 - 59% $2,200 $2,820 1.33

Inert gas insulated glass doors 8 - 10% $25 $32 0.74

Energy management system < 60% (2) $200 $244

Notes: 1 - With current LED technology dependent on the amount of light output required

2 - Dependant on stored product temperature


The market for RDCs and RSCs is complex, with a wide range of manufacturers and importers selling to a large

and diverse pool of customers. Therefore, the data required to construct a view of the current and forecast market

for the equipment is spread across a variety of sources. For instance, the Australian Bureau of Statistics data

bundles all sales of “heating and cooling equipment or parts thereof” into one metric in their

International Merchandise Imports, Australia report (ABS 2013).

Characteristics of the Market

The market for RDCs in Australia and New Zealand is dominated by the merchandising of refrigerated bottled

beverages and dairy products in individual integral ‘plug-in’ glass door or open cabinets. These products can be

found in all sectors of food retailing from corner stores/dairies/milk bars through to convenience stores and

supermarkets. Secondary to this is the display of refrigerated foods such as meat, fish, dairy products and frozen

foods in supermarkets with large multiplexed remote display cabinets. Self-contained or integral display cabinets

for both frozen ice cream and refrigerated alcoholic beverages and wines comprise the remainder of the market.

In Australia and New Zealand, two door cabinets with glass doors still occupy a large part of the integral RDC

market, although small open ‘point-of-sale’ display cabinets are being used more frequently to position refrigerated

items close to check-outs and in strategic locations.

The food service industry comprising restaurants, commercial kitchens, takeaways and fast food outlets has a

strong focus on food safety, which places clear requirements on food storage. The requirement to store food at low

temperatures drives the large market for RSCs. The main types of cabinets are integral upright or vertical

refrigerators and freezers with one or two doors and integral horizontal refrigerators and freezers with one, two or

three doors.

There is a tendency for glass door cabinets to be used in the fast food industry as a ready means of identifying the

stored foodstuffs. The ratio of freezers to refrigerators varies with the type of business; fast food and pub-style

meals usually require more frozen food and less fresh food while restaurants tend to have less need for freezer

space and more demand for fresh food that is kept refrigerated.

A number of horizontal storage cabinets also have ‘preparation’ benches built in to the working surface above the

storage area. These usually have provision for standard size trays containing ingredients for sandwiches or pizzas

which are refrigerated by simply being suspended in the refrigerated storage space or by having cold air blown over

the trays.

Figure 5 shows the overall structure of the equipment market.

The majority of local manufacturers, importers and wholesalers of commercial refrigerated cabinets participate in

both the refrigerated storage cabinet and the display cabinet markets, with products often sharing common cabinet

bodies and refrigeration components.

3. The RDC and RSC Market


Figure 5: Overview of the Australian and New Zealand markets for refrigerated cabinets

All RDCs and RSCs manufactured in Australia and New Zealand now use some imported components such as fan

motors, compressors, controls, evaporator and condenser coils, lighting and lighting controls and heated glass

units for doors. Stainless steel sheeting for cases is also usually imported. Some remote horizontal ‘Back of Bar’

display cabinets and custom made units from smaller manufacturers often have proprietary evaporator units fitted

into locally made cases.

Most integral equipment is imported completely assembled and ready to operate; however some imported

supermarket remote multi-deck and horizontal cabinets are imported partially assembled to be fitted and installed

on site. Over recent years, local manufacturers of display cabinets have claimed more challenging business

conditions and increasing competition from imported products.

The majority of wholesalers in Australia and New Zealand service both the hospitality and the retail industries,

with refrigerated cabinets sourced from local and overseas manufacturers.

Refrigerated beverage companies now supply the largest share of the Australian and New Zealand integral RDC

market, supplying cabinets at low or no-cost to retail outlets. These are the branded drink display cabinets seen in

smaller food outlets and convenience stores. They are not to be confused with refrigerated drink vending

machines. These introduce a potential market failure as the supplier of the refrigerated display cabinet is not the

one who will pay for its energy.

Remote RDCs on the other hand are mainly purchased by supermarkets and, to a lesser extent, convenience stores,

and normally would be supplied and installed by companies in long term relationships as preferred suppliers.

Data from the EU study showed that 70% of the merchandiser-type cabinets were for display of beverages and 90%

of those have one or more glass doors (EU 2012). The other 30% of EU merchandiser-type cabinets were ice cream

display freezers. Overall, these studies indicate that the majority of integral display cabinet sales are of the

merchandiser type with the remaining minority of the supermarket display cabinet type. This is because the vast

majority of supermarket display cabinets use remote refrigeration units rather than integral units.


Market Breakdown

Estimates of the distribution of cabinet end-use vary, and none of the available data indicate significant structural

differences in the markets between Australia and New Zealand. Table 5, below, outlines the approximate

proportion of cabinet per end-use type (E3 2009a, EECA 2003).

Table 5: Proportion of cabinets by end-use, Australia and New Zealand combined

Product Approximate end-use proportion

Glass door cabinets – remote 40%

Glass door cabinets – integral 30%

Ice cream retail - integral 20%

Open cabinets – service and display 10%

The businesses that manufacture, import or distribute RDCs and RSCs in Australia and New Zealand are listed in

Appendix D. The overwhelming majority of cabinets imported to Australia and New Zealand are manufactured in

Asia, particularly China. The end-use breakdown of cabinets outlined in Table 5 was confirmed during the

consultation with industry stakeholders.

When sales volume, rather than registrations are considered (excluding trade between Australia and

New Zealand), over 80% of commercial refrigerated cabinets sold in the Australia and New Zealand market are

imported from Asia. Since 2009, the share of the market that is supplied from Europe has decreased from 20% to

approximately 15%, while imports from North America have remained steady at around 2% and South Africa

contributing 0.5%. This data excludes the internal trade between Australia and New Zealand.

This is important to consider when examining the impacts of regulatory change. If the principal suppliers into

Australia and New Zealand already adhere to higher MEPS standards than those in Australia, the effect of

increasing Australian MEPS will be minimal for those suppliers. However, if standards are lower than any

proposed MEPS, these could lead to shifts within the supply country and thus increased prices for consumers. A

discussion of the standards and regulations affecting the equipment in various jurisdictions is in Section 4 of this

Product Profile.

Australia and New Zealand both have active RDC and RSC manufacturing industries which export to the local

region. This is relevant when considering the impacts that more stringent MEPS requirements could have on the

domestic industry. It may be worth considering, however, whether stricter MEPS regulations would increase prices

of Australian or New Zealand products to the point where they are no longer cost competitive in their export

markets.

Australia and New Zealand also trade refrigerated cabinets with each other (refer Figure 6), with the overwhelming

majority from New Zealand to Australia. This is important when considering where the costs of regulation for

business and administration, and compliance tests for governments will be borne.

Figure 6: Cabinet trade between Australia and New Zealand


Energy Use

Data available on both numbers of units and their energy use across the RDC and RSC markets is limited.

However, analysing and piecing together the data sources available gives an adequate approximation of the

market. The following sections summarise these data sources before combining them for a comprehensive market

model.

The National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program released the first public documents to consider

the case for regulation in the commercial refrigeration market in March 2000 “The Analysis of Potential for

Minimum Energy Performance Standards” (AGO 2000a). The reports are split by technology type, separately

considering remote and integral units.

The total energy use associated with RDCs and RSCs was reported to be 2,200 GWh per year for integral units and

4,380 GWh for remote units (E3 2000a, E32009b). This report also contained some estimates for the stock and

sales of refrigerated display cabinets, shown in Table 6 (E3 2009a).

Table 6: Estimated stock and sales of refrigeration products in Australia

Product Annual market Existing stock Life span (years)

Display cases 6,000 36,000 6

Glass door merchandisers 10,000 170,000 8

Reach in refrigerators 3,500 32,000 9

Reach in freezers 4,000 36,000 9

Ice-making equipment 4,500 45,000 10

Refrigerated vending

machines

13,300 120,000 9

Ice cream displays 10,000 60,000 6

Cold water 32,000 300,000 9

Further, the reports released in 2000 estimated energy use in 2015 as 3,600 GWh and 3.2 million tonnes of CO2-e

associated with this energy use. It is worth noting that these figures were released before the introduction of the

Renewable Energy Target in Australia and so overestimate the emissions factor, basing calculations on

0.889 tonnes/MWh, rather than 0.78 tonnes/MWh as used in this report.

Cold Hard Facts

The projected energy use from Australian refrigeration products was updated in the “Cold Hard Facts”

(DEWR 2007), which attempted to develop a comprehensive view of refrigeration in Australia.

“Cold Hard Facts” remarked on the difficulty in estimating the size and the characteristics of the market for non-

residential refrigeration in Australia. The detailed analysis in the study used the values included in the original

“Analysis of Potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards” (AGO 2000a) to estimate the energy used by

refrigerated cabinets in 2006.

The updated figure of 2,680 GWh per year relied on a 3.3% growth rate being applied to the 2000 figures for

integral cabinets (DEWR 2007). No other relevant technology types are discussed in the report.

The study also covered the supermarket sector, and derived an estimate of the total energy used by this sector from

specifications provided by contractors who install supermarket refrigeration systems. Their figure was 5,270 GWh

per year.

Table 7 provides an overview of the summary results of electricity used by remote commercial refrigeration units,

included in “Cold Hard Facts”.


Table 7: Electricity used by commercial refrigeration

Business type % Energy consumed

GWh/p.a.

Large supermarkets 32% 1,856

Midsized supermarkets 8% 464

Small supermarkets 1% 58

Large clubs 9% 522

Small clubs 2% 116

Grocery stores 3% 174

Large service stations 9% 522

Bottle shops 2% 116

Fresh meat, fish and poultry 6% 348

Pubs 6% 348

Cafés and restaurants 13% 754

Other 9% 522

Total remote commercial refrigeration 100% 5,800

Total self-contained commercial refrigeration N/A 2,680

Total commercial refrigeration N/A 8,480

Note: Results by business type do not indicate how significant the consumption may be to a certain type, e.g. while small supermarkets

are only responsible for 1% of total commercial refrigeration energy usage, this usage may be significant for small supermarkets.

The values in Table 7 represent the total energy used by the equipment (RDCs and RSCs) that is the subject of this

Product Profile. A breakdown for self-contained or integral commercial refrigeration in terms of business type

similar to remote commercial refrigeration is not available, therefore only a yearly energy consumption figure has

been provided.

In addition to the results in Table 7, “Cold Hard Facts” also reported a result derived from actual electricity used by

commercial refrigeration in supermarkets. In this case, the total consumption figure was 3,746 GWh per year, and

should be compared with the earlier figure of 5,270 GWh. This suggests that either the former figure did not cover

the whole sector, or that the latter was overestimated. In either case these figures demonstrate the uncertain and

incomplete nature of data in this sector.

In from the Cold, 2009

An additional data point was reported in the “In from the Cold” technical report (E3 2009b), based on modelling

for the “In from the Cold” study. Table 8 summarises the key values.


Table 8: Energy used by refrigerators in supermarkets and other food service providers

By application sectors Equipment types Electricity consumption (GWh p.a.)

Australia New Zealand

Supermarket industry

Central plant Rack system and RDC 3,926 779

Stand-alone unitary equipment Medium condensing units evaporators 508 101

Stand-alone self-contained equipment Self-contained equipment 185 37

Catering, hospitality and retail

Institutional and commercial Self-contained 1,915 380

Beverage coolers 180 36

Total 6,714 1,333

Note: The accompanying text in the “In from the Cold” report suggests that the supermarket industry includes smaller retail outlets.

The results outlined in Table 8 are shown graphically in Figure 7, along with the electricity used by other

commercial refrigeration applications.

Figure 7: Electricity used by commercial refrigerators in Australia and New Zealand

Several challenges are posed by the results discussed above. First, the end-use categories used to report the results

are different in each case. In addition, there are few independent data points as results reported. Table 9 seeks to

summarise the earlier results.


Table 9: Summary of energy used by commercial refrigeration as reported

Sector Source Annual electricity consumption (GWh)

Integral commercial refrigeration

Analysis of Potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Self-Contained Commercial Refrigeration, 2000

2,200

Remote commercial refrigeration Analysis of Potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Remote Commercial Refrigeration, 2000

4,380

Supermarket sector Cold Hard Facts, 2007 2,886

Remote commercial refrigeration Cold Hard Facts, 2007 5,800

Integral commercial refrigeration

Cold Hard Facts, 2007 2,860

Remote display and storage refrigerators in supermarkets and other food service providers

In from the Cold - Strategies to Increase Energy Efficiency of Non-domestic Refrigeration in Australia & New Zealand, Background Technical Report Volume 2, 2009

4,434

Integral display and storage refrigerators in supermarkets and other food service providers

In from the Cold - Strategies to Increase Energy Efficiency of Non-domestic Refrigeration in Australia & New Zealand, Background Technical Report Volume 2, 2009

2,280

As can be seen, there is significant inconsistency in the results listed in Table 9. For the purposes of the analysis

reported in this Product Profile, the figures reported in “In from the Cold” will be used (E3 2011), for the following

reasons:

• They are the most recent, and therefore do not require growth over several past years to be modelled;

• Figures for New Zealand are reported in “In from the Cold” using the same basis for estimation; and

• The categorisation of end-use best matches the areas covered by this product profile.

Further, the break out of integral units in the institutional and commercial sector allows for a first pass allocation

of energy use by refrigerated storage cabinets. “In from the Cold” provides sufficient data to estimate that the

fraction of energy used by all integral commercial refrigeration due to refrigerated storage cabinets is 15%. The

amount of energy used by RSCs (reach-in freezers and refrigerators) was calculated from the reported

consumption per unit and the stock of units. This was then divided by the total use of integral units (2,200 GWh)

(E3 2009a). Stakeholder comment on this approach is welcome.

The final allocation of energy use for the products covered by the profile is reported in Table 10.

Table 10: Baseline energy use by the equipment (2008)

Application Annual energy use (GWh)

Australia New Zealand

RDC – integral 1,938 385

RDC and RSC – remote 4,434 880

RSC – integral 342 68

Stock and Sales

“In from the Cold” provided some estimation for the stock and sales of refrigerated display cabinets. This also

included indicative lifespan for the equipment, this being an important factor when considering the phasing out of

older, less efficient equipment. Table 11 presents these results (E3 2009a, E3 2009b).


Table 11: Stock and sales of refrigerated display cabinets reported in 2000

Equipment Annual market Existing stock Lifespan (years)

Integral equipment included in the current study

Self-contained display cases 6,000 36,000 6

Glass door merchandisers 10,000 170,000 8

Reach in refrigerators 3,500 32,000 9

Reach in freezers 4,000 36,000 9

Ice cream displays 10,000 60,000 6

Remote equipment included in the current study

Display cases 6,000 36,000 6

Integral equipment excluded in the current study

Ice-making equipment 4,500 45,000 10

Refrigerated vending machines 13,300 120,000 9

Cold water dispensers 32,000 300,000 9

Remote equipment excluded in the current study

Cool rooms 23,500 240,000 10

The figures in Table 11 were used to estimate the total number of self-contained commercial refrigerators to be

821,500 units (AGO 2000a). This includes ice-making equipment, refrigerated vending machines and cold water

dispensers which are not included in the scope of this current study.

While the annual sales and installed stock figures corroborate well with other sources, the lifespans reported seem

to be a significant underestimate, with consequences for later modelling. Stakeholder consultation estimated

typical lifespans in the order of ten years. This was interpreted as the lifespan of units which are replaced; there is

strong anecdotal evidence that businesses hold on to equipment that operates adequately for much longer than

this, up to as long as 25 years. Further, the sales and stock figures recorded through registration in Australia and

New Zealand suggest lifespans of more than ten years. For these reasons modelling conducted for this report is

based on a twelve year lifespan, acknowledging that this could be higher than what retailers observe, but

accommodating consumers who update their equipment less frequently.

An interesting comparison to these values comes from figures published in the report from a major study

undertaken for the European Commission, to meet the requirements of the Energy Using Products (EuP) Directive

(EU 2007). The European numbers are in Table 12.

Table 12: EU-25 stock of products

Product category (covered in the scope of the Lot 12) Stock (units) Sales (units)

Remote refrigerated display cabinets (for year 2006) 2,150,000 240,000

Plug in refrigerated display cabinets – supermarket segment (for year 2006) 1,900,000 150,000

Beverage coolers – Food and beverage segment (for year 2006) 6,320,000 790,000

Ice cream freezers – Food and beverage segment (for year 2006) 2,710,000 339,000

Scaling the figures in Table 12 in proportion to the respective populations1 gives the results in Table 13 (ABS 2006).

The scaled EU numbers are within the same order of magnitude as the Australian figures. There are some major

differences though, with the respective figures often differing by a factor of 2. This may be a sign that the stock

numbers being used in this report are conservative. However additional stakeholder input was sought to improve

the accuracy of the estimates in this report.

1 According to the Eurostat yearbook 2006-07, the population of the EU-25 in 2006 was 460 million. The Australian Bureau of Statistics

reported Australia’s population in 2006 to be 21 million.


Table 13: Comparison of EU-25 and Australia stock levels

Product category

EU-25 Stock EU-25 Stock scaled to Australia

2000 figures for Australia (E3 2009a, E3 2009b)

Remote refrigerated display cabinets (for year 2006) 2,150,000 98,200 36,000

Plug in refrigerated display cabinets – supermarket segment (for year 2006)

1,900,000 86,700

206,000 Beverage coolers – Food and beverage segment (for year 2006)

6,320,000 288,500

Ice cream freezers – Food and beverage segment (for year 2006)

2,710,000 123,700 60,000

The following bottom up estimate of the number of refrigerated display cabinets was developed from information

gained through the stakeholder consultation. Note that these were derived though discussions with industry

stakeholders and have not been verified.

Table 14: Data used to estimate stock and sales

Parameter Value

Estimated number of RDCs owned by Coca Cola Amatil in Australia 140,000

Estimated number of RDCs owned by all beverage companies in Australia 300,000

Estimate fraction of integral RDC stock that are owned by beverage companies in Australia 33%

Typical number of remote RDCs in a large supermarket 65

Typical number of remote RDCs in a liquor store 4

Estimated number of remote RDCs in a midsized supermarket 30

Number of large supermarkets in Australia 1,700

Number of smaller supermarkets 1,200

Estimated number of liquor stores in Australia 2 3,500

Table 15 presents the results of the analysis. These numbers were derived with the aid of the following

assumptions:

• The RDCs in supermarkets and liquor stores (dominated by Coles and Woolworths) are all remote units

and all others are integral units;

• The ratio between stock and sales in Australia is the same as was reported for the EU-25 (see Table 12);

• The units in New Zealand are similar in size to the units in Australia, and so overall electricity

consumption for the respective countries can be used to scale the number of units in Australia to the

corresponding number in New Zealand (see Table 10);

• The New Zealand figures are based on sales registered through MEPS since 2004. Yearly sales have been

steady around the figures in Table 15 for a number of years. These figures only includes MEPS registered

products, so 25% was added to account for units imported and installed outside the program. The annual

sales were then extrapolated over the anticipated lifespan. As mentioned earlier, a lifespan of 12 years has

been used throughout the modelling for this Product Profile; and

• These figures are not proportional to the populations of Australia and New Zealand. The reasons for this

are not known, but could include an overestimate of products in Australia by stakeholders, underestimate

of the units sold and used outside MEPS in New Zealand or some structural difference between the two

countries, such as hotter weather in Australia.

2 This was derived from data on company websites, newspapers and the Manta small business directory.


Table 15: Estimated stock and sales of RDCs in Australia and New Zealand in 2013 (units)

Product category Australia New Zealand

Installed Sales Installed Sales

Remote refrigerated display cabinets 160,000 19,000 13,500 1,200

Integral refrigerated display cabinets 900,000 105,000 85,000 7,700

No figures for refrigerated storage cabinets are available.

Registrations for Refrigerated Display Cabinets in Australia and New Zealand

The history of MEPS for RDCs in Australia and New Zealand is described in Section 1 and the Australian Standard

AS 1731 is discussed in Section 4. The performance levels in this standard are listed in Appendix E.

Sales and of RDCs in New Zealand are plotted in the following graph. These trends are then used later in the

document as the starting points for modelling the future of the RDC market.

Figure 8: Registered sales of remote RDCs in New Zealand

Figure 8 shows the total sales of remote RDC units in New Zealand. Figure 9 compares the total sales of integral

RDC units in New Zealand.


Figure 9: Registered sales of integral RDCs in New Zealand

Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the number of registrations in the E3 Registration Database for RDCs, reported by

cabinet type and whether they meet MEPS or HEPS levels. A wide variation in the number of different registered

products in each class is evident, as is the differing fraction of high efficiency units in each class.


Figure 10: Registered remote RDCs from the E3 Registration Database

Figure 11: Registered integral RDCs from the E3 Registration Database


There is a growing fraction of products registered as high efficiency. Since 2004, the product market has changed

and technology has advanced so that the share of all RDCs registered as ‘high efficiency’ has risen from 20% in

2006 to greater than 30% in 2012, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Share of registered RDCs registered as high efficiency

However, not all products that meet the ‘high efficiency’ requirements are registered under this classification. In

fact, many registered models now exceed the high efficiency performance threshold despite being registered only

as being MEPS compliant. This implies that either the HEPS framework is not clearly understood by registrants or

it may not be useful as a consumer information tool.

Figure 13 shows the distribution of the energy performance (TEC/TDA in kWh/day/m2) of VC4 Glass Door

cabinets. The two datasets correspond to the models registered as MEPS compliant and models registered as HEPS

compliant. It is worth noting that many of the models registered as MEPS compliant could be registered as HEPS

compliant. The TEC/TDA limit for a high efficiency VC4 Glass Door cabinet is 10.7 kWh/day/m2 and

approximately 20% of MEPS registrations would meet the HEPS requirement, as indicated by the MEPS line in

Figure 14 showing registrations below 10.7 kWh/day/m2.

Figure 13: VC4 - Glass door cabinet registrations


This feature of the RDC registrations is explored further in Figure 14 which shows how a significant portion of the

more common cabinets that have been registered for MEPS could have been registered under HEPS. Figure 14

comprises 3 datasets, the first refers to the percentage of registrations for models which qualify for HEPS only

(ranging from 0% for the “RS1 – Lit Shelves” unit to 76% for the “RS8 – Fan Coil” unit). The second set refers to

registrations where the models have been registered for MEPS but would qualify for HEPS (ranging from 15 for

“RS2 – Unlit shelves” unit to 63% for “RS18” units) and the third set refers to registrations which qualify for MEPS

only (ranging from 3% for “RS18 units” to 93% for RS1 – Lit shelves units”).

Figure 14: Cabinets registered for MEPS that could be registered for HEPS

The challenge presented by these results is to understand why distributors would not seek the higher HEPS

registration when their equipment does meet the requirement. Two possibilities are:

• The distributors are not aware of the availability of the high efficiency standard; or

• Distributors of RDCs do not see a competitive advantage in offering high efficiency units, and in fact may

see it as a negative as cost will be increased by using high-efficiency components. This is related to a

perception that consumers do not understand the long-term cost benefits of efficient products.

Forecast Energy Use and Stock

To determine the potential energy and GHG savings across the economy delivered by more stringent MEPS

requires an estimate of the number of units in operation in Australia and New Zealand. The stock of RDC and RSC

units are considered in parallel as their growth rates are likely to be similar. Growth in stock must be considered

when assessing the impacts of an increase in the MEPS on imports. For the purposes of this exercise, sold units are

assumed to be installed and in operation, while stock are not.

Growth Rates

All modelling in this Product Profile is based on a sales growth rate of 5% year to year. Industry participants

estimated future growth would be closer to 4%. A 4% growth is low compared to international figures, reported in

Table 16 (EU 2007). Conversely, there is a risk that this figure over-estimates growth in the short term, as recent

sales may be higher than the long-run average. Large distribution initiatives being pursued by some businesses


may have inflated the figure, coupled with a possible spike in growth accompanied by recent technology advances,

particularly electrically-commutated motors.

Considering these risks, growth is modelled as 5% throughout this document.

The estimated rate of both historical and projected growth varies between different product categories; however

there is considerable agreement on the factors that are currently causing increases in sales. As well as being evident

in the Australian and New Zealand market, many of these trends are global, as demonstrated in Table 16 and

Table 17.

Table 16: Commercial refrigeration equipment annual demand growth by region

Region 1994-1999 1999-2004

United States 9.3% 5.2%

Canada and Mexico 7.5% 6.4%

Latin America 6.4% 9.4%

Western Europe 5.1% 4.5%

Eastern Europe 2.7% 6.9%

Africa and Middle-East 6.2% 7.8%

China 14.9% 13.7%

Japan 0.6% 3.8%

Other Asia and Pacific 4.2% 9.2%

Table 17: Worldwide commercial refrigeration equipment annual demand growth

Product category 1989-1994 1994-1999 1999-2004 2004-2009

Display cases 3.6% 4.6% 6.4% 6.8%

Reach-ins and walk-ins 6.8% 5.8% 6.8% 5.9%

Vending machines 4.6% 7.7% 6.4% 5%

Ice machines 4.6% 5.3% 5.8% 5.8%

Note: Only display cases above are considered in the Product Profile. The other technology classes are included as guidance.

The drivers for increased sales include:

• Growth in the overall volume of refrigerated food sales;

• Population growth;

• An increase in the choice of refrigerated foods (product lines) available on the market, e.g. the supply of

chilled bottled drinks in supermarkets;

• An increase in the number of frozen products available, e.g. pre-prepared meals; and

• An increased focus on health issues in food retail, including an increase in policing of existing regulations

regarding the temperature for storage and display of foodstuffs.

Stakeholders noted during the consultation phase a further trend is the use of small, open, integral RDCs

strategically placed close to the checkouts in supermarkets and convenience stores. These are designed to increase

‘impulse purchases’ of confectionary, ice cream and beverages, and many are provided by the larger corporate

‘brands’.

The growth in the market of ‘ready-to-drink’ alcoholic beverages has meant liquor outlets now have many more

RDCs merchandising product. In recent years, there has also been growth in refrigerated beverages merchandised

in non-traditional locations such as libraries, airports, museums, cafes and food outlets. These units are usually

small enough to sit on a counter and are frequently used in impulse-sale contexts.

The growth in energy use by the equipment is harder to estimate as it requires an estimate of future trends in

equipment performance in addition to the estimate in sales of the equipment. Industry stakeholders have

confirmed that the major supermarket chains have been proactive in improving the energy efficiency of

refrigeration equipment. For instance, the EEO Public Report for Woolworths (WW 2010) refers to improvements

to refrigeration including high efficiency fans, LED lighting, better temperature controllers and glass lids on island


freezers. Coles Supermarkets have installed night blinds on refrigeration cases at more than 620 stores and

anti-condensate heater controls on glass door freezers at more than 420 stores (WC 2011).

The impact of technology improvements on the energy performance of domestic refrigerators is well known, and

can be seen in Figure 4. The reported improvement in performance in Australia saw an almost 60% drop in specific

energy consumption over a period of 31 years. This corresponds to an annual improvement of about 1.8% as

discussed in ‘Trends in Energy Performance’.

Modelling Business as Usual Energy Use and Stock

The model used assumes a known starting point of units in operation, the stock, derived from industry

consultation. The replacement rate of this stock is based purely on the average lifetime of the units. Again, industry

consultation suggests a lifetime of 10-years is typical, but up to 15 or 25 is possible. Lifespan is modelled as twelve

years throughout this document.

Australia and New Zealand have both been modelled separately which enables the usage of separate stock and

sales estimates. The models include energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, until 2030, for remote RDCs,

integral RDCs and RSCs. These should be considered a model of the potential scale of the market, in the absence of

updated MEPS, driven by growth in sales and a 1.8% year on year improvement in efficiency.

Figure 15 and Figure 16 below, show the forecast stock, sales and energy use by refrigerated display cabinets in

Australia and New Zealand, out to 2030. The starting point was the stock and sales reported in Table 15 and the

baseline in Table 10.

The data tables supporting these graphs appear in Appendix B.

Figure 15: Business as usual energy use forecast for Australia


Figure 16: Business as usual energy use forecast for New Zealand

Remote and integral RDCs and RSCs, across New Zealand and Australia all show growth in stock until 2030.

Energy use rises across this period as well, with a suggestion that it may dip in the short term before rising again.

This dip reflects the change in efficiency driven by replacing old units, which were assumed to be of the lower

efficiency. As the impact of increasing sales alters this profile energy use reaches its minimum in 2015-16, climbing

thereafter.

Modelling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Use

Each of the six profiles (remote and integral RDCs and RSCs in both Australia and New Zealand) are then

multiplied by the forecast emissions intensity for Australia and New Zealand.

The emissions intensity for grid electricity in Australia was taken from a government report on Australia's

emissions projections (DCCEE 2012). New Zealand figures were provided by the New Zealand government,

starting at 0.129 kg CO2-e/kWh (MFE 2011) and reducing slowly until 2025 to reflect an increase in renewable

energy use.

The trend for greenhouse gas emissions from commercial refrigeration is fairly flat for Australia over this period,

and declining in New Zealand. In both cases, this is driven by the underlying emissions forecast. As energy use

climbs in all cases, declining emissions must be caused by declining emissions intensity. Should policy settings in

either country depart significantly from those assumed for the emissions intensity forecast, these figures will need

to be reconsidered.

Figure 17 and Figure 18 below show the forecast greenhouse gas emissions from electricity used in the operation of

commercial refrigeration in Australia and New Zealand, for the period from 2013 to 2030.


Figure 17: Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity use forecast, Australia

Figure 18: Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity use forecast, New Zealand

Both of these results are driven by the underlying emission-intensity and energy usage assumptions. These are

presented in Appendix B .


4. Testing and Performance Standards

Performance standards define the levels of performance to be achieved and test standards specify how the

performance of the equipment must be measured. The combination of these standards is used to ensure MEPS can

drive improvements in the energy performance of RDCs and RSCs.

This section of the Product Profile discusses performance and test standards for RDCs and RSCs, beginning with

AS 1731, the Australian Standard for RDCs.

The objective of the test standard is to simulate as close as possible the actual operating conditions of RDCs and to

classify and compare cabinets under defined conditions. Tests are carried out in a test room or laboratory in a

controlled environment with defined climate classes and loadings with energy consumption monitored.

A summary of the test methods found in the most relevant international testing standards is in Appendix F.

Australian Standard AS 1731 differs from some overseas test methods, such as those used in the US. It is however

based on the European/International Standard EN ISO 23953:2005 for the testing of RDCs with some key

differences such as the definitions for different categories of cabinets.

Current Test and Performance Standards

Australian Standard AS 1731

AS 1731 defines the test and performance standards for RDCs in both Australia and New Zealand. It is a

comprehensive document providing test methodology and requirements for classification, installation and

maintenance, user guides and MEPS. After consultation with stakeholders in both Australia and New Zealand,

Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand decided to develop and maintain this Standard as an Australian,

rather than an Australian/New Zealand Standard.

The standard does not apply to RSCs; in fact, there is no equivalent Australian Standard for RSCs. It also does not

cover refrigerated vending machines and ice-makers.

AS 1731 was first published as AS B220 in 1966. It became AS 1731:1975 when it was revised in 1975. Since then it

has been revised two further times (1983 and 2000). The second revision was updated in 2003, published as

AS 1731:2003, and came into force in 2004. The Australian Standard AS 1731 was a based on a European

publication EN 441; this latter standard has now been revised and published as a two part standard, ISO 23953.1

and 2.

The various parts of AS 1731 are:

• Part 1: Terms and definitions

• Part 2: General mechanical and physical requirements

• Part 3: Linear dimensions, areas and volumes

• Part 4: General test conditions

• Part 5: Temperature test

• Part 6: Classification according to temperatures

• Part 7: Defrosting test

• Part 8: Water vapour condensation test

• Part 9: Electrical energy consumption test

• Part 10: Test of absence of odour and taste

• Part 11: Installation, maintenance and user guide

• Part 12: Measurement of the heat extraction rate of the cabinets when the condensing unit is remote from

the cabinet


• Part 13: Test report

• Part 14: MEPS and HEPS requirements and the appropriate methods for determination of display areas of

a number of common varieties of RDCs

The key parts of AS 1731 are Part 9, which defines the electricity consumption test, and Parts 5 and 6, which detail

the testing temperature ranges within the cabinet. The Australian Standard AS 1731 defines seven categories of

typical cabinet operating temperature ranges; these are listed in Appendix C. The low temperature categories, L1,

L2 and L3, are used for the storage or display of frozen products, while the remainder are for medium temperature

(chilled) refrigeration applications.

See Appendix E for MEPS and HEPS thresholds as they currently stand under AS 1731.

Europe - ISO 23953

EN ISO 23953:2005 (and the previous version EN 441) is a two-part test method that specifies requirements for

the construction, characteristics and performance of RDCs used in the sale and display of foodstuffs. It specifies

test conditions and methods for checking that the requirements have been satisfied, as well as classification of the

cabinets, their marking and the list of their characteristics to be declared by the manufacturer.

EN ISO 23953:2005 is widely used in Europe as the preferred method of test for RDCs, including open cabinets

and those with glass doors. It has also been used to measure the energy consumption of solid door cabinets, and

provides the starting point for the proposed test method for European MEPS for closed RSCs. Based on work

undertaken by CECED Italia, a membership body representing over 100 companies within the Domestic and

Professional Appliance sector in Italy, a modified door opening sequence for all RSCs has been proposed

(Ita 2012).

United States - ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 defines the method of testing commercial refrigerators and freezers. The

revision of the Standard 72 combined Standard 72-1998 for open refrigerators (i.e. RDCs) and Standard 117-2002

for closed refrigerators (i.e. RSCs) into a common standard. It prescribes a uniform method of testing open and

closed commercial refrigerators and freezers for rating so that comparative evaluations can be made of energy

consumption, product temperature performance, refrigeration load, the suction pressures required, and other

performance factors.

The standard also clarifies door opening requirements, shelf loading, and test definitions, and includes

requirements that improve the consistency of ambient temperatures.

A related standard is AHRI Standard 1200 (2010), which describes how various efficiency metrics are calculated

using test results from ASHRAE Standard 72, including calculation of total display area.

Canada - CAN/C657, CAN/C827 and CAN/C804

CAN/C657 is the energy performance standard for commercial RDCs. It provides definitions, classifications, and a

method for determining calculated daily energy consumption values and specifies minimum energy efficiency

requirements.

This standard applies to remote condensing commercial equipment with and without doors, and integral

commercial equipment with and without doors, except as covered by CAN/C8279. The latter applies to commercial

refrigerators and commercial freezers with doors, including commercial ice cream freezers.

Refrigerated vending machines are covered by CAN/C804.

Mexico - NOM-022-ENER

This describes energy and safety requirements, test procedures and labelling requirements for new, used and

refurbished integral electrical refrigeration equipment with a capacity of 50 or more litres. It includes both the test

procedures and the MEPS requirements.

China - GB/T 21001 and GB 26920

The relevant standard for the People’s Republic of China is GB/T 21001. Part 1 contains the definitions, Part 2 the

classification, requirements and test conditions, and Part 3 the recommendation for reporting the results (Test

rating). Parts 1 and 2 are identical to ISO 23953.


GB 26920 (2011) gives the MEPS levels for remote RDCs. It was formulated on the basis of ISO 23953:2005 and

drew on other standards for RDCs, including Australia's AS 1731.14 and the USA's AHRI Standard 1200.

The MEPS levels in GB 26920.1 are similar to but not identical to the requirements in AS 1731.

Summary of Commercial Refrigeration Energy Efficiency Regulation

A number of energy efficiency programs exist in other countries. Table 18 provides summary information for the

major energy efficiency programs by country that cover commercial refrigeration products. The majority of these

programs specify performance for RDCs on the basis of energy consumption per unit display area; i.e.

kWh/24hrs/m2. The performance of refrigerated and freezer storage cabinets tend to be specified in terms of

energy consumption per unit volume, which may be the gross volume or the net volume.

Table 18: Summary of International Energy Efficiency Programs

Country/ Region

Type of Efficiency Scheme

Date most recently updated

Products Covered Energy Test Method RDC/ RSC

Canada MEPS CAN/CSA-C827-98

October 2011 – effective 12 April 2012

Integral commercial solid and glass refrigerators and freezer cabinets that are intended for storage or holding food products and other perishable merchandise

ANSI/ASHRAE

Standard 72 for open cabinets and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 117 for closed Refrigerators

RDC and RSC

Canada MEPS CAN/C657-04

2004 Open and closed integral and remote RDCs that are intended for displaying and merchandising food products including canned and bottled beverages, ice (intended for human consumption), and other perishable merchandise (e.g. cut flowers).

ANSI/ASHRAE

Standard 72 for open cabinets and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 117 for closed Refrigerators

RDC

China MEPS Implemented from August 2012

Remote commercial display cabinets

Based on EN ISO 23953:2005

RDC

Europe MEPS and Comparison Label

Proposed 2014

RDCs and professional refrigerated cabinets

New standard under development by CEN TC44 WG2 (based upon EN ISO 23953:2005)

RDC and RSC

Ireland Accelerated Capital Allowance scheme

June 2010 RDCs EN ISO 23953:2005 RDC

South Korea

MEPS and Comparison Label

1 January 2010

Commercial refrigerators and refrigerator freezers of 300 L - 2,000L

ISO 15502 RDC and RSC

Mexico MEPS and Comparison Label

2009 Integral commercial refrigerated and freezer cabinets >50L, including vertical cabinets with one or more doors, horizontal cabinets, closed display cabinets and ice storage.

NOM-022-ENER/SCFI-2008

RDC and RSC

UK Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme

2010 Integral and remote RDCs BS EN ISO 23953:2005

Climate Class 3

RDC


Country/ Region

Type of Efficiency Scheme

Date most recently updated

Products Covered Energy Test Method RDC/ RSC

UK Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme

2010 Integral commercial storage cabinets

BS EN 441-9:1995

Climate Class 4

RSC

USA

Endorsement Label (ENERGY STAR)

2010 Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers - Vertical and Chest Configuration - Glass door and Solid door.

ASHRAE Standard 117- 1992

RDC and RSC

USA High Efficiency Specifications (Consortium for Energy Efficiency)

January 2010 Solid door and glass door self-contained commercial refrigerators and freezers including roll-ins, under-counters, back bars, bottle coolers, glass frosters and merchandisers.

AHRI 1200-2008 with ANSI/ASHRAE 72-2005

RDC and RSC

USA MEPS (EPACT 2005)

2010 Solid and transparent door refrigerators and freezers

ANSI/ASHRAE 72-2005

RDC and RSC

USA MEPS March 2009.

Effective January 2013

Integral and remote commercial refrigerators, with and without doors, including ice- cream freezers.

ANSI/ARI-1200-2006 until 2016.

AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 from 2016.

RDC and RSC

Future Developments

Revision of AS 1731

Both AS 1731 and ISO 23953 are currently under review, which could impact on considerations of future MEPS.

The latter is important in the light of strong input from some industry stakeholders who supported aligning

AS 1731 with the revised version of ISO 23953.

When MEPS were introduced in Australia and New Zealand in 2004, it was intended that the MEPS and HEPS

levels would be reviewed within five years.

AS 1731 was reviewed in 2008. Strong stakeholder support for improvements to the current MEPS for RDCs

during the review encouraged the E3 Committee to commit in 2009 to a ten year strategy (E3 2011), to improve

energy efficiency in the non-domestic refrigeration sector. Specific recommendations with respect to RDCs and

RSCs include:

• Broadening the scope of MEPS to include RSCs

• Strengthening MEPS to reflect improvements in performance since 2004

• Reducing the complexity of the classification of cabinet types for easier compliance. This would include

aligning with the international standard, ISO 23953

• Adopting international test methods from ISO 23953

• Investigating ‘deemed to comply’ options for commercial refrigerators installed in-situ or produced in

small quantities.

ISO 23953:2005 contains only minor differences from AS 1731 and the Standards Australia committee, ME-008

(the Standards Australia Refrigerated Display Cabinet committee), considers that it now represents a robust test

method that is suitable for supporting the regulations for RDCs in Australia and New Zealand.

The benefits of completely harmonising with the international standard include the reduction of effort in

maintaining AS 1731 and reduced compliance costs for products tested to the ISO standard. Further, the two major

sources of equipment imported into Australia and New Zealand are China and Europe and both align their national

standards to ISO 23953.


At an industry consultation workshop on 4 April, stakeholders raised the point that the existence of the Australian

Standard is market restrictive for a number of international manufacturers who find it cost prohibitive to comply

with both AS and ISO testing regimes.


The same stakeholders did refer to some risks of moving to the ISO standards, such as:

• Climate classes which may not reflect Australian and New Zealand operating conditions (unlikely to be a

major risk as there eight climate classes specified in the ISO standard, however these classes may not

account for Australian or New Zealand conditions such as humidity); and

• Europe is in the process of developing a separate standard for the testing of RSCs. For many distributors

the costs of complying with two testing regimes (one for RDCs and one for RSCs) could be significant.

However, many distributors view that transitioning to the ISO standards is the most appropriate way forward. This

transition will minimise administrative costs for importers and exporters.

Inclusion of Refrigerated Storage Cabinets

RSCs were originally excluded from regulation because they were estimated to contribute less to total energy

consumption compared to RDCs. However, as many RSCs are now supplied by manufacturers and importers of

RDCs, there appears to be a case for revisiting this exemption. Extending MEPS to cover RSCs will not only

increase the energy and greenhouse gas savings, but will also be fairer and overcome confusion in the industry as

to which products are included and which are not included.

Of all the overseas programs used to stimulate improved energy efficiency in commercial refrigeration products,

the majority already target RSCs; this is another reason why they should be considered for regulation in Australia

and New Zealand.

The European Commission is currently developing proposals for MEPS for professional RSCs under

Directive 2009/125/EC, and comparative energy labels, under Directive 2010/30/EU. Inclusion of the EU

approach to RSCs into the Australian and New Zealand requirements for the equipment would be consistent with

the earlier suggestion to align with ISO 23953.

‘Deemed to Comply’ Provisions

Australian and New Zealand legislation requires that all regulated commercial refrigeration equipment must be

registered and comply with the appropriate MEPS limits under test conditions specified in AS 1731 prior to being

offered for sale. RDCs subject to MEPS are laboratory tested to ensure compliance. RSCs are not subject to the test

conditions established by AS 1731.

While the current regulatory regimes are applicable to the vast majority of RDCs, they are less suitable for cabinets

that are assembled at the premises of customers, since laboratory testing is not possible for these units. This issue

has been a significant factor against expanding the scope of regulations to cover all types of refrigerated cabinets in

Australia and New Zealand, thereby decreasing the potential energy and greenhouse gas savings.

To overcome this issue, “In from the Cold” (E3 2011) proposed to introduce an alternative means of compliance for

commercial refrigeration cabinets in the form of a design standard or ‘Deemed to Comply’ facility.

This facility would enable suppliers of refrigerated cabinets to comply with regulations by demonstrating that a

product was built using certain specified highly efficient components, such as compressors, fan motors and

lighting, as well as elements impacting on the heat load such as insulation and, where appropriate, glazing.

Under the proposal, the specifications for these items would be set so that any well designed ‘Deemed to Comply’

product would be no less efficient than the MEPS for that classification of product.

There are substantial benefits to this approach for both suppliers and regulators. For suppliers it provides a means

of demonstrating compliance with MEPS regulations for cabinets where testing under laboratory conditions may

be too difficult or expensive. For regulators it enables a visual check to be done on built-in cabinets in the

customer’s premises. The result would be more equitable treatment of similar products and increased energy and

greenhouse gas savings.

Under this proposal all regulated products will continue to be registered, however at the point of registration,

suppliers could nominate whether they comply with either the overall MEPS or the ‘Deemed to Comply’ option

with suitable evidence provided. Regulators will check compliance on the basis of this nomination. Stakeholder

comment on the level and type of evidence would assist the consideration of this option.


5. Policy Options to Address Market

Failures

Barriers to Investment in Energy Efficient Commercial Refrigerated Cabinets

The RDC and RSC market is beset by two main modes of market failure which limit improvements in energy

efficiency, much like in other markets; information asymmetry and principal-agent failures.

Information asymmetry failures capture any transaction where the desired outcome is not achieved because the

information is not available. An example of this could be that a supermarket wants to upgrade a specific cabinet to

a more efficient unit, but does not understand how to determine whether a new cabinet is more efficient than their

existing unit.

Principal-agent failures occur where the party responsible for expenditure is not the beneficiary of increased

expenditure. Examples in the RDC market could include a franchise that builds and fits out a store on behalf of a

franchisee. As the franchise will not benefit from installing more efficient refrigerators, which may come at a

higher cost, there is little incentive for them to be installed. This also occurs in instances where, for example,

beverage distributors provide branded RDCs to store operators and may choose low cost, inefficient units.

A third barrier may also exist, associated with the distance of the Australian and New Zealand markets from major

trading centres; goods or services associated with more efficient products may not be readily available.

Finally, other non-market barriers to energy efficient operation exist, where energy efficiency or lowest cost

operation is not the principal driver for the decision. Examples include supermarket operators, who have access

and display requirements of their refrigerators, or vendors who require a unit to display advertising or other, non-

refrigerated products.

Purchasers of commercial refrigerated cabinets comprise a broad range of companies and individuals with a varied

understanding of refrigeration technologies and diversity of product requirements. As a result, barriers to

investment in energy efficiency are not uniform across the sector, but are specific to the market and application.

The consultation phase with industry was designed to draw out as many examples of these barriers as possible. The

examples provided are categorised and discussed in this chapter, followed by policy responses which could address

these barriers.

Lack of Information

Some initial consultation with industry stakeholders suggested that many small to medium businesses are the most

likely to make purchasing decisions on the basis of minimising initial outlay rather than minimising the full life

cycle cost. This is often due to being unaware of differences in running costs of different products or concerns over

the probable lifetime of the business; new business owners may be concerned about capital outlay with a two year

and greater payback, due to uncertainty that their business will last that long. This barrier is more common for

equipment where energy users do not check the energy use frequently, and may only receive information quarterly

as part of their electricity bill. This does not imply that there are no cost-effective choices to be made, as the

example from Europe in Table 4 demonstrates that two year paybacks, or better, are quite possible.

Compounding this difficulty, small end-users may consider purchasing new equipment only when the old

equipment fails. The need for refrigeration in catering or food retail operations to ensure safety means that there is

often no time to analyse products in detail.

Importance of Merchandising

In most cases, the energy costs of display cabinets comprise a small proportion of food and beverage sales revenue,

so attention to reducing energy costs usually ranks lower than measures to maintain or increase product sales.

Companies such as supermarket chains and soft drink retailers are highly competitive and focus on achieving large


sales volumes. Within these industries there is concern that sales volumes will decrease if changes such as

illumination levels within or surrounding the cabinet is reduced. This could be due to greater insulation levels

leading to decreased storage space, or doors being placed on upright refrigerated cabinets. As a result, while

companies may wish to implement these or other energy efficiency options, single business entities are resistant to

unilateral measures that they believe, may have a negative impact on sales.

Existing Supplier Arrangements

For many businesses, energy cost is a secondary concern; reliability is far more important in their decision making,

and reliability problems could cost far more than energy costs. Consultation participants reported that

refrigeration supply is part of a service package, rather than stand-alone equipment purchases. This service

package is based on a three to five year service contract, which includes cabinet provision, maintenance and break-

down service. The service providers have preferred cabinet suppliers and extensive knowledge of these products;

these may not be the most efficient units available, though will be chosen by businesses as they are preferred by

their trusted service provider.

Principal-Agent Issues

Principal-agent issues exist in markets where the end-user does not purchase the refrigeration cabinet but is

responsible for the running costs. Cabinets may be designed and owned by major food and beverage supply

companies to display and store their products in third-party retail outlets. In these instances, the incentive for the

provider of the cabinets to optimise the design for energy efficiency may not be sufficient.

Stakeholders suggested during consultation that this mechanism may also be present in situations where a third

party is designing a kitchen, for example during construction of a major stadium or conference venue. As the

kitchen designer is unlikely to pay the running costs their incentive to design an efficient system is reduced.

However, this issue could be managed through the contract specifying the need to take energy efficiency into

account in the design.

Technological Risk and Skill Base

Given the sensitive nature of foodstuffs and the legitimate safety concerns from inadequate refrigeration, moving

away from tried and tested practices is treated with caution.

While some parts of the industry are extremely knowledgeable, many contractors are inadequately trained to

evaluate or install some of the new refrigeration technologies and products now available in the market. This slows

down the pace of improvement, which in any case tends to be slow considering the large stock and long life of

many refrigeration products.

Testing and Regulatory Certainty

Some stakeholders have expressed a desire for a comprehensive compliance regime. This would that all products

on the market are able to achieve a minimum level of performance.

Manufacturing outside of Australia or New Zealand to an Australian or New Zealand standard is difficult. There

are many different ways the test could have been performed differently, through accident or negligence, and these

are difficult to control through a third party supplier or manufacturer.

Supply Failures

Some stakeholders have reported that limited access to higher efficiency products is not encouraging their uptake

of these products. The options to increase this supply include taxing alternatives, subsidising goods or regulating

the market. There is currently no evidence that the problem is so severe that taxing alternative products should be

considered. Nor is there evidence that subsidising products will improve their distribution. Increasing the MEPS,

would eliminate inefficient products from the market, but not address the distribution of efficient products.

Skill supply shortages have previously been mitigated through government intervention and there may be a role for

government in this area in future. However, when specifically referring to refrigerated display and storage

cabinets, the technical skill barriers are not very high, and it seems likely that what appear to be skill shortages are

actually goods supply failures.


Policy Responses to Identified Market Failures

There are a range of policy options available to address the market failures outlined above, many of which have

been trialled for other products, such as residential whitegoods. These policy options are outlined below, with

consideration for the likely impacts and shortcomings of each option.

Harmonisation with International Standards

Increasing the minimum energy performance standards for RDCs and introducing standards for RSCs will to some

extent circumvent the information barriers present, but mostly at the small-to-medium enterprise end of the

market.

Feedback received during the preliminary industry consultation was unequivocal on which standards Australia and

New Zealand should work towards; harmonisation with the European standards, specifically ISO 23953. The

revision of this standard is underway and due to be completed in 2015 or later. In parallel with this standard,

performance and test standards are being considered for RSCs. Again, industry participants recommend that

Australia and New Zealand adopt these standards when they are introduced.

Harmonising with European standards was supported by initial stakeholder feedback for several reasons.

First, stakeholders commented that as our major trading partners, particularly Asia and Europe, also manufacture

extensively for the European market, it was unlikely that major suppliers would produce units specifically for

Australian standards. Pursuing a different standard could in time lead to a reduction in choice for Australian or

New Zealand consumers, or an increase in cost due to different test standards. Related to this, it was suggested

that the ISO and European certification brands are more widely recognised in China in particular, and so the test

standards are more likely to be followed, accurately, than if there was a separate Australian or New Zealand

standard.

Second, there is the perception that China, a major supplier into Australia (see Appendix D), will gradually move

towards meeting the ISO standard as Europe is a major trading partner.

Finally, the European market was seen as the most advanced in terms of efficiency standards, particularly when

compared with existing USA standards, which were the other most relevant comparison. If Australia or

New Zealand requirements lag behind international requirements, those markets may risk becoming a ‘dumping

ground’ for poorer products.

MEPS Update

Some concerns were raised with updating Australian MEPS in line with the ISO standard as the European test

conditions were seen as too different to Australian conditions. However, other consultation participants were less

concerned as the climate classes used for European testing are the same as those used for Australian tests.

Which Market Sectors Would a New MEPS Impact?

The impacts of any change to the MEPS will differ between businesses depending on how businesses currently

engage with the energy efficiency of RDCs. Any business that currently utilises equipment that is more efficient

than the current or proposed MEPS will not be impacted, while those using lower efficiency products will be more

acutely impacted. A discussion of the market sectors and the impact of MEPS is included in Table 19. It has also

been assumed that these impacts would be relevant to New Zealand due to the size and nature of food businesses.

As many manufacturers are located overseas, any additional costs imposed on those companies will not directly

impact the Australian and New Zealand cost-benefit analysis if this option is examined in a RIS.


Table 19: RDC market sectors and their current purchasing drivers

Market Sector Energy drivers and outcomes

Large Supermarkets

Woolworths, Coles

Energy use estimate: 40-50% of RDC energy use in Australia

Captured under the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act (EEO), which mandates that corporations report how much energy they use and where, and investigate cost-effective opportunities to reduce their energy use.

The actions of large corporations demonstrate that there are cost-effective opportunities in refrigeration; the capital, operation time and information barriers to these corporations are minimal and informed decisions can be made. This is demonstrated through their approach to energy efficiency; Coles (CCN 2013) and Woolworths are both implementing highly-efficient CO2 refrigeration systems that exceed the current MEPS.

This category includes the businesses related to these larger corporations such as liquor stores and service stations.

Medium Supermarkets

Aldi, IGA, FoodWorks

20-30% of RDC energy use in Australia

Similar drivers as the large supermarkets, but some may not be captured under EEO.

There is evidence that these businesses are making some purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency. Consultation participants report that Aldi use modern propane-cycle RDCs in their stores, with nightblinds in many cases. Larger IGAs are also installing more efficient units.

Some of these supermarkets are franchises and managed by smaller teams. These may not have access to the skills and information required to make informed energy efficiency decisions and be more likely to purchase based on capital cost.

Small businesses

Take-Away food and corner stores


These businesses experience a mix of drivers and engagement with the RDC market.

Many businesses will receive promotional fridges and freezers from companies like Coca-Cola Amatil and Unilever. Stakeholders interviewed during consultation reported that some of these suppliers were pursuing best-practice refrigeration, despite the split incentive. These units demonstrate corporate responsibility and consideration that creates a point of difference in the market.

Other RDCs in these businesses may be old or purchased previously with only capital costs in mind. Stakeholder consultation confirmed this, with reports that smaller businesses were the most likely to purchase units based purely on capital costs. This sector would benefit from energy efficiency information and would realise savings if new units were purchased that meet higher MEPS thresholds.

Cafes and Food service


Stakeholders reported during the consultation that this market segment is the most likely to make purchasing decisions based purely on capital costs. However, this section of the market is also the most likely to purchase units whose test and registration status are unknown or ambiguous.

This sector will benefit from an increased MEPS when purchasing new units and would also benefit from any policy responses which address the information barriers listed below.

Note: Energy use was estimated during the consultation phase. A more detailed analysis of energy use will require a bottom-up survey of

market participants.


Should MEPS be Extended to RSCs?

There was general enthusiasm from stakeholders to extend MEPS to storage cabinets and consensus that, should

this occur, consumers would likely benefit from more efficient operations. In addition, technology improvements

in the RSC market have virtually mirrored those in the RDC market.

The EU, through the ISO process, is considering MEPS for RSCs at the moment, in parallel with developing a new

standard for RDCs. Stakeholders were unanimous in their declaration that any attempts to regulate RSCs in

Australia should be harmonised with this forthcoming legislation. The current proposal is for a metric based on

volume, rather than TEC/TDA as for RDCs, and this was supported by the group.

Is There a Case to Exclude Remote RDCs from the MEPS?

Stakeholders indicate that the MEPS threshold has little influence on the equipment purchased by large

supermarkets, which make up the bulk of the remote RDC market, as many of the units purchased greatly exceed

the current standard. Removing remote RDCs from MEPS would lower the compliance cost included in these

items. However, this benefit will be eroded if the Australia-New Zealand standard harmonises with the European

standard as it is anticipated much of the compliance cost will be worn by suppliers manufacturing for the European

market. Countering this, removing MEPS for remote RDCs could lead to lower quality units for purchasers outside

the large supermarkets.

Addressing Information Barrier Failures: Consumer Education and

Information Dissemination

The traditional responses to information barrier market failures involve educating consumers about their

purchasing choices and the impact of their choices. Consumer education and public information sharing can be

undertaken through a number of approaches outlined below:

• Comparative labelling

• Voluntary endorsement labelling

• Industry endorsement labelling

• Consumer education on energy efficiency

The focus on capital costs and lack of visible information in the RDC market can be impacted by government

actions, which has been demonstrably successful in other sectors. Two methods to address the different

information barriers are discussed below.

Comparative Labelling

In Australia and New Zealand, mandatory comparative energy labelling has been used with great success for

domestic refrigerators and other household appliances but has not yet been introduced for commercial or

industrial refrigeration equipment.

A labelling scheme has been under consideration in Europe for some commercial RSCs but has not yet been

implemented. Comparative labels can be beneficial where the end-user has a reduced ability or time to access

information on the performance of cabinets and where a label can provide an easily understood guide to the energy

performance of products.

Industry stakeholders have supported the concept of comparative labelling but question the effectiveness of

comparative labelling as a measure for influencing consumer behaviour in respect of the RDC/RSC market. The

assessment of commercial equipment prior to purchase rarely involves side-by-side comparisons where the visual

impact of energy rating labels is effective. However, making the labels voluntary and hosting them on a site such as

energyrating.gov.au reduces this impediment, without placing a burden on all of industry.

Creating this system will give suppliers an incentive to engage with government and have their products tested and

registered. Further, this service would make units that are imported into Australia and New Zealand that do not

carry the energy rating endorsement more obvious and thus less likely to avoid registration and MEPS testing.

Endorsement Labelling

An alternative or addition to comparative energy labelling would be the voluntary application of an endorsement

label such as ENERGY STAR® used to identify the best performing products in the market. Endorsement labels

are simple for end-users to understand and the criteria could be based on a new set of ‘high efficiency’ thresholds.


To be effective, endorsement labels require a high degree of consumer brand awareness. While New Zealand has

invested in the promotion of the ENERGY STAR® brand amongst householders, there is no equivalent level of

awareness in Australia for ENERGY STAR® or other endorsement labels. Considerable investment would

therefore be required in Australia for an endorsement label to achieve recognition and impact. It is also not clear

how an ENERGY STAR® framework could be applied where there are sixty-five categories of appliances covered

by the current standard (see Appendix E).

Usage of ENERGY STAR® in the US currently includes criteria for some categories of storage cabinets based on

North American test methods. Adoption of these criteria would appear inconsistent with the strategy to harmonise

with Europe, and therefore negotiations with the US Environmental Protection Agency would be required to adopt

unique criteria for Australia and New Zealand.

Industry Endorsement Labelling

If the HEPS levels in the ISO or AS standard were re-defined, then more promotion of HEPS qualified models

could achieve a similar outcome to branding with ENERGYSTAR®. If industry could agree to a common format

for labels based on a test standard, then industry could brand their own high efficiency cabinets. At various times,

the New Zealand government has been approached by companies asking about endorsement for their high

efficiency RDCs using a label, but so far no universal labelling scheme has been forthcoming. It may only take one

influential company to insist on only purchasing high efficiency products for the market to adopt such

requirements– e.g. some RDC providers insisted that their drinks vending machines would be ENERGYSTAR®

qualified and this has set the industry expectations over energy performance.

A difficulty with industry labelling is that unless it is required by accredited industry bodies or associations as part

of membership and there is a comprehensive compliance program in place, on all models, then efficiency labelling

will be applied only to those models where efficiency is a marketing point. Models that are less efficient could be

marketed using different terms or selected features other than efficiency. This phenomenon has been seen in the

domestic appliance labelling scheme.

A combination approach between industry and governments is also a possibility given enough resources – this has

worked for certain set top boxes where suppliers and government developed a voluntary code of practice.

Energy Efficiency Education

The information barrier in the RDC and RSC sector is more related to consumer knowledge than the existence of

information which can assist consumers in making energy and cost efficient decisions. There are already many

publications available to educate consumers, but some do not know where to find this information, or to look for it

at all. Further, some consumers may realise that they have the opportunity to buy a more efficient unit once they

need to replace one out of necessity, but not that it may be cost effective to replace a unit that is working

satisfactorily.

To breakdown this barrier, it is worth investigating ways to “push” existing information out to consumers in the

marketplace. In this proposal existing information from government accredited sources, such as eex.gov.au could

be distributed to consumers through suppliers, trade publications or membership bodies. Existing information

that may be provided includes: technical opportunities for improving efficiency for RDCs and RSCs (refer to

Table 3 for information); as well as potential energy and cost savings associated with the implementation of these

technologies (refer to Table 4 for information).

Providing information in this way empowers and educates consumers, helping them make more educated

decisions. This sort of education campaign addresses barriers which are present before a decision to purchase has

been made, unlike comparative labelling, which requires the consumer to search for information.

Conclusion

There are numerous policy options available to remove the market barriers impacting on the promotion of energy

efficiency in commercial refrigeration. The policy options considered most appropriate within this product profile

involve the removal of information barriers. There is little evidence of on-going principal-agent failures in the

market, as some suppliers view energy efficient units as a way to distinguish themselves in the market.

Of the available options, labelling and subsequent listing of RDCs on the central government website

‘energyrating.gov.au’ present the most potential for value to government. Labelling, comparative or endorsement


types, could use existing infrastructure to deliver information to potential consumers, through a medium with a

long association with domestic and commercial energy efficiency.

There is good evidence that the current MEPS for RDCs are outdated and should be amended to better reflect the

efficiency of products in the market. Some industry stakeholders favour harmonising the Australian and

New Zealand standard with ISO 23953, currently under review with an expected release during 2015. Harmonising

with this Standard minimises the compliance cost on manufacturers, but is also considered necessary as the

Australian and New Zealand markets are relatively small, so manufacturers may not be inclined to manufacture

specific models for the region.


6. References

ABS 2006, Population Projections 2006 - 2101, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006.

ABS 2013, International Merchandise Imports, Australia, Feb 2013 - Table 3 data series A1828919C,

Australian Bureau of Statistics, February 2013.

AGO 2000a, Analysis of potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Self-Contained

Commercial Refrigeration, Final Draft Report, Mark Ellis and Associates, National Appliance and

Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, March 2000.

AGO 2000b, Analysis of potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Remote

Commercial Refrigeration, Final Draft Report, Mark Ellis and Associates, National Appliance and

Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, March 2000.

AGO 2001a, Minimum Energy Performance Standards: Self-Contained Commercial Refrigeration,

Mark Ellis and Associates, National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, March

2001.

AGO 2001b, Minimum Energy Performance Standards: Remote Commercial Refrigeration, Mark

Ellis and Associates, National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, March 2001.

ASE 2011, New Refrigerator Efficiency Standards Will Save Consumers Money, Ungar, L., Alliance

to Save Energy, 2011.

ASHRAE 2010, Doored Display Cases; they save energy, don’t lose sales, Fricke, B. A. and Becker, B.

R., American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Journal, Volume 52,

Issue 9, September 2010.

CCN 2013, Coles Showcases new Cascade System, Climate Control News, February 2013.

DCCEE 2012, Australia's Emissions Projections, Department of Climate Change and Energy

Efficiency, October 2012.

DCCEE 2013, Long Term Improvements in Refrigerator Energy and Price, Department of Climate

Change and Energy Efficiency, March 2013.

DEWR 2007, Cold hard facts – The Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry in Australia,

Energy Strategies, Department of Environment and Water Resources and Refrigerants Australia, June

2007.

EECA 2003, Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Cabinets,

Mark Ellis and Associates, Prepared for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority of

New Zealand, Canberra, June 2003.

E3 2009a, In from the Cold - Strategies to Increase Energy Efficiency of Non-domestic refrigeration

in Australia & New Zealand, Background Technical Report Volume 1, Mark Ellis and Associates,

Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, October 2009.

E3 2009b, In from the Cold - Strategies to Increase Energy Efficiency of Non-domestic refrigeration

in Australia & New Zealand, Background Technical Report Volume 2, Mark Ellis and Associates,

Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, October 2009.

E3 2011, In from the Cold - Strategies to Increase Energy Efficiency of Non-domestic Refrigeration

in Australia & New Zealand 2010-2020, Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, July 2011.

EU 2007, Commercial refrigerators and freezers, Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements


of EuPs, Lot 12, EU, The European Commission with Bio Intelligence Service, 2007.

EU 2012, Product Definition: Integral Refrigerated Retail Display Cabinets, 4E Mapping and

Benchmarking, The European Commission, April 2012.

GEMS Act 2012, Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act No. 132, 2012, Department of

Resources, Energy and Tourism, Australian Government, October 2012.

IPCC 2007, Assessment Report 4, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.

Ita 2012, Test protocol for professional refrigerators and freezers, European Committee for Domestic

Equipment Manufacturers, Italy, 2012.

MFE 2011, Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Emissions Factors 2011, Ministry for Environment,

New Zealand, 2011.

NZMBIE 2013, Energy Strategies, NZ Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 10 May

2013.

WC 2011, Wesfarmers Sustainability Report 2011, Wesfarmers- Coles, January 2011.

WW 2010, Woolworths Limited Public Report 2010, Woolworths Limited, June 2010.


Appendices

Appendix A List of assumptions used in

document Table 20: List of assumptions used in this document

Reference Assumption made Chapter reference

HEPS The market has clearly demonstrated that the HEPS is readily attainable.

6

Modelling

The industry stakeholders clearly indicated that the major supermarket chains are already introducing remote RDCs that exceed the minimum standard, and since the supermarket chains are the main users of remote RDCs, the impact of the change in MEPS to remote RDCs will not be felt widely in the economy

6

Distribution The current distribution of sales of MEPS and HEPS self-contained RDCs is similar to the distribution of registrations

6

Sales Growth 5% a year, based on stakeholder feedback and broader economy trends 3

Lifespan Twelve years, based on industry feedback and market implications 3

Efficiency improvement

1.8% each year, based on residential refrigeration improvements and sense-checked against international data

3

Emissions Emissions profiles to 2030 for both New Zealand and Australia are based on forecasts provided by the respective governments

3

Electricity cost

Electricity cost profiles to 2030 for New Zealand are based on a wholesale prices model provided by the New Zealand Government

Electricity use in Australia is based on the Energetics medium growth, retail price scenario, including modelled changes in the carbon price

3

Unit stock and sales

Based on a number of sources, covered in detail in chapter 3. Broadly the current market estimates are based on a combination of sales data, industry feedback and a comparison with similar markets

3

Remote cabinets

These large units are used almost exclusively by large supermarkets who have demonstrated a commitment to energy efficiency by installing systems which far exceed the minimum standards

6


Table 21: Emissions intensity and electricity cost forecast data

2012 Projections Emissions (,000t/GWh) Renewables (%) Electricity price

Australia NZ Australia (AU$/MWh)

NZ (NZ$/MWh)

2013 0.81 0.13 75.0% 58.08 93.5

2014 0.79 0.13 76.3% 57.31 93.5

2015 0.78 0.13 77.5% 46.9 93.5

2016 0.76 0.12 78.8% 50.47 93.5

2017 0.75 0.12 80.0% 52.03 93.5

2018 0.74 0.12 81.3% 52.03 93.5

2019 0.72 0.12 82.5% 52.03 93.5

2020 0.72 0.12 83.8% 52.03 93.5

2021 0.72 0.12 85.0% 52.03 93.5

2022 0.7 0.12 86.3% 52.03 93.5

2023 0.69 0.11 87.5% 52.03 93.5

2024 0.69 0.11 88.8% 52.03 93.5

2025 0.68 0.11 90.0% 52.03 93.5

2026 0.67 0.11 52.03 93.5

2027 0.66 0.11 52.03 93.5

2028 0.65 0.11 52.03 93.5

2029 0.63 0.11 52.03 93.5

2030 0.63 0.11 52.03 93.5

Note: See Table 20 for source of electricity prices.


Appendix B Data tables supporting energy and

greenhouse modelling Table 22: Integral Cabinets – Business as usual model

Year Australia New Zealand

Stock Sales Energy use (GWh)

GHG Emissions (,000 t)



2013 900000 105000 2218 1796 85000 7700 412 53

2014 935250 110250 2263 1788 86002 8085 409 52

2015 973075 115763 2312 1803 87324 8489 408 51

2016 1013536 121551 2365 1797 88961 8914 408 51

2017 1056703 127628 2421 1816 90907 9359 410 50

2018 1102654 134010 2481 1836 93159 9827 412 50

2019 1151476 140710 2544 1832 95714 10319 416 50

2020 1203265 147746 2611 1880 98573 10835 421 50

2021 1258126 155133 2681 1930 101735 11376 427 50

2022 1316172 162889 2754 1928 105202 11945 433 50

2023 1377525 171034 2830 1953 108978 12542 441 50

2024 1442317 179586 2910 2008 113066 13170 449 50

2025 1510688 188565 2993 2035 117472 13828 458 51

2026 1582791 197993 3080 2063 122202 14519 468 52

2027 1658784 207893 3169 2092 127264 15245 479 53

2028 1738840 218287 3263 2121 132666 16008 490 54

2029 1823138 229202 3359 2116 138419 16808 502 56

2030 1911872 240662 3459 2179 144533 17649 515 57

Note: The energy use in 2013 was derived from the 2008 values reported in Table 10. The 2008 values were inflated at a rate of equal to

the difference between the average stock growth and the annual rate of energy performance improvement.


Table 23: Remote Cabinets – Business as usual model






2013 160000 19000 5098 4129 13500 1200 937 121

2014 166617 19950 5213 4118 13635 1260 930 118

2015 173679 20948 5336 4162 13822 1323 926 116

2016 181201 21995 5467 4155 14059 1389 924 115

2017 189196 23095 5605 4204 14346 1459 926 114

2018 197679 24249 5751 4256 14682 1532 931 113

2019 206667 25462 5905 4251 15067 1608 938 112

2020 216180 26735 6065 4367 15500 1689 948 112

2021 226237 28072 6233 4488 15981 1773 960 112

2022 236859 29475 6408 4486 16511 1862 974 112

2023 248069 30949 6591 4548 17090 1955 990 113

2024 259893 32496 6781 4679 17718 2052 1008 113

2025 272357 34121 6978 4745 18396 2155 1027 114

2026 285488 35827 7183 4812 19126 2263 1049 116

2027 299316 37619 7395 4881 19908 2376 1072 119

2028 313873 39500 7615 4950 20744 2495 1097 122

2029 329191 41475 7843 4941 21635 2619 1123 125

2030 345307 43548 8079 5090 22582 2750 1152 128




Table 24: Refrigerated Storage Cabinets – Business as usual model


Energy use (GWh) GHG Emissions (,000 t)

Energy use (GWh) GHG Emissions (,000 t)

2013 400 324 80 10

2014 413 326 82 10

2015 426 332 85 11

2016 439 334 87 11

2017 453 339 90 11

2018 467 345 93 11

2019 481 346 96 11

2020 496 357 99 12

2021 511 368 102 12

2022 527 369 105 12

2023 544 375 108 12

2024 561 387 111 13

2025 578 393 115 13

2026 596 399 119 13

2027 615 406 122 14

2028 634 412 126 14

2029 653 412 130 14

2030 674 425 134 15




Appendix C Summary of classification system Table A1 of AS 1731.14 names and describes medium temperature types of remote RDCs, while Table A2 of

AS 1731.14 names and describes low temperature types. Table A3 of AS 1731.14 lists the application of medium and

low temperature types of integral RDCs. Integral RDCs are further categorised into storage or M-package

temperature classes relating to a storage temperature range or performance level that the cabinet can maintain in

normal operation.

Both remote and integral cabinets are also classified by Climate Class, which is a numeral, indicating the climatic

class of the appliance as specified in ISO 23953; i.e. ‘0, 1, 2, 3, 4....’. These climate classes specify the dry bulb

temperature conditions and relative humidity for which the cabinet is designed to be used in. A cabinet may be

intended to operate in more than one climatic condition.

Table 25: Types of Remote Refrigerated Cabinets (Medium Temperature) Table A1 of AS 1731.14:2003

Name Type Description Subclasses

High open multideck

RS 1 Medium temperature multideck, length of air curtain 1.5–1.9 m. Cabinet height 2.2–2.5 m and depth of 0.6–1.2 m

Lit shelves Unlit shelves

Medium open multideck

RS 2 Medium temperature multideck, length of air curtain 1.0–1.5 m. Cabinet height 1.8–2.19 m and depth 0.6–2.1 m


Low open multideck

RS 3 Medium temperature multideck, length of air curtain 0.8–1.2 m. Cabinet height 0–1.79 m depth0.6–1.2 m


Self-service and storage closed cabinet

RS 4 Requires detailed definition Solid door Glass door

Self-service and storage closed cabinet counter

RS 5 Requires detailed definition Solid door Glass door

Flat glass- fronted— single deck

RS 6 Medium temperature single tier cabinet with a flat front glass and a sliding door service access to the rear. Cabinet height 1.25–1.4 m, depth 0.8–1.2 m. Cabinets are divided into two subgroups on the basis of their evaporator coil arrangements

Gravity coil Fan coil

Flat glass- fronted—2 tier or more

RS 7 Medium temperature two or more tier cabinet with a flat front glass and a sliding door service access to the rear. Cabinet height 1.25–1.4 m, depth 0.8–1.2 m. Cabinets are divided into two subgroups on the basis of their evaporator coil arrangements


Curved glass- fronted— single deck

RS 8 Medium temperature single tier cabinet with a curved front glass and a sliding door service access to the rear. Cabinet height 1.25–1.4 m, depth 0.8–1.2 m. Cabinets are divided into two subgroups on the basis of their evaporator coil arrangements


Curved glass- fronted—2 tier or more

RS 9 Medium temperature two or more tier cabinet with a curved front glass and a sliding door service access to the rear. Cabinet height 1.25–1.4 m, depth 0.8–1.2 m. Cabinets are divided into two subclasses on the basis of their evaporator coil arrangements


Island/Walk around merchandiser

RS 10 High cabinet height 2.2–2.5 m, Medium cabinet height 1.8–2.19 m, Low cabinet height 1.0–1.79 m

High Medium Low


Table 26: Types of Remote Refrigerated Cabinets (Low Temperature) Table A2 of AS 1731.14:2003

Name Type Description Subgroup

Medium open multideck RS 11 Low temperature multideck, length of air curtain 1.0–1.5 m. Cabinet height 1.8–2.19 m and depth 0.6–1.2 m

No subgroup

Low open multideck RS 12 Low temperature multideck, length of air curtain 0.6–1.0 m. Cabinet height 1.0–1.79 m and depth 0.6–1.2 m

No subgroup

Well-type, single width cabinet

RS 13 Low temperature, well-type self-service cabinet, open with horizontal air curtain, length of air curtain 0.75–0.85 m

Solid sided Glass sided

Well-type, double width cabinet

RS14 Low temperature, well-type self-service cabinet, open with horizontal air curtain, length of air curtains 0.75–0.85 m

Solid sided Glass sided

High self-service and storage closed cabinet

RS 15 Low temperature, cabinet height 2.2–2.8 m, depth 0.6–1.2 m

Solid door Glass door

Medium self-service and storage closed cabinet

RS 16 Low temperature, cabinet height 1.8–2.10 m, depth 0.6–1.2 m


Low self-service and storage closed cabinet

RS 17 Low temperature, cabinet height 0–1.79 m, depth 0.6–1.2 m


Combination glass door over and well under

RS 18 Requires detailed definition No subgroup

High self-service island closed cabinet

RS 19 Low temperature, cabinet height 2.2–2.8 m, depth 1.9–2.1 m. Glass door

No subgroup

Medium self-service island closed cabinet

RS 20 Low temperature, cabinet height 1.8–2.19 m, depth 1.9–2.1 m. Glass door

No subgroup


Table 27: Types of Integral Refrigerated Cabinets Table A3 of AS 1731.14:2003

Category Medium temperature for chilled (non-frozen) foodstuffs

Low temperature for Frozen, quick frozen foodstuffs and ice cream

Horizontal Chilled, serve-over counter HC1 Frozen, serve-over counter HF1

Chilled, serve-over counter with integrated storage

HC2

Chilled, open top wall site HC3 Frozen, open top wall site HF3

Chilled, open top island HC4 Frozen, open top, island HF4

Vertical Chilled, glass top, wall site HC5 Frozen, glass top, wall site HF5

Chilled, glass top, island HC6 Frozen, glass top, island HF6

Chilled, semi-vertical VC1 Frozen, semi-vertical VF1

Chilled, multi-deck VC2 Frozen, multi-deck VF2

Chilled, roll in VC3

Combined Chilled, glass and solid door VC4 Frozen, glass and solid door VF4

Chilled, open top, open bottom YC1 Frozen, open top, open bottom YF1

Chilled, open top, closed bottom YC2 Frozen, open top, closed bottom YF2

Chilled, glass door top, open bottom

YC3 Frozen, glass door top, open bottom YF3

Chilled, glass door top, closed bottom

YC4 Frozen, glass door top, closed bottom

YF4

Multi-temperature, open top, open bottom YM5

Multi-temperature, open top, closed bottom YM6

Multi-temperature, glass door top, open bottom YM7

Multi-temperature, glass door top, closed bottom YM8

Table 28: M-package Temperature Classes

Category Class The highest temperature θah of the warmest M-package equal to or lower than °C

The lowest temperature θb of the coldest M-package equal to or higher than °C

The lowest temperature θal of the warmest M-package equal to or lower than °C

Low Temperature (frozen)

L1 −15 NA −18

L2 −12 NA −18

L3 −12 NA −15

Medium Temperature (chilled)

M1 +5 −1 NA

M2 +7 −1 NA

H1 +10 +1 NA

H2 +10 −1 NA


Appendix D Manufacturers and importers Table 29: Australian businesses that manufacture but do not import refrigerated equipment

Distributor Brand Country of Manufacture

Albany Refrigeration Albany Refrigeration (Vic) Australia

Austral Refrigeration Pty Ltd Austral Australia

ChillFlow Australia CFVO Australia

Advanced Refrigeration Technologies JCM Industries Australia

Orford Refrigeration Orford Australia

Trent Refrigeration Trent Australia

Walker Celano Refrigeration Walker Celano Refrigeration Australia

Table 30: Australian businesses that manufacture and import refrigerated equipment


Williams Refrigeration Topaz China

Williams Refrigeration Williams Refrigeration Australia, UK, China, Italy

FRR Corporation (Previously Frigrite) Frigrite Australia

FRR Corporation (Previously Frigrite) Carrier Linde Czech Republic

Table 31: Australian businesses that only import refrigerated equipment


888 Importing Mitchel China

A J Baker & Sons Vienna China

A J Baker & Sons Bonnet Neve Italy

A J Baker & Sons IARP Italy

Able Products Afinox Italy

Anaconda Wholesale Beerkool China

Artisan Food Equipment Coldmart Finland

Artisan Food Equipment Artisan Taiwan

Bevwizz Group Pty Ltd Bevwizz China

Bromic Jordao Portugal

Bromic Pty Ltd Bromic China, Portugal, Italy

Bromic Pty Ltd Ugur Turkey

Bryry Pty Ltd Turbo Line China

Carrier Australia Carrier Hungary

Coca-Cola Amatil Coca-Cola Amatil Austria

Complete Beverage Services Crystal Cooler China

Cyberchill Refrigeration Cyberchill UK

Exquisite Marketing Australia Liebherr Austria, Malaysia

Exquisite Marketing Australia Exquisite China, Malaysia

Exquisite Marketing Australia Exquisite Marketing Australia China, Malaysia


Food Equipment Distributors Bellevista China

Food Equipment Distributors F.E.D. China

Food Equipment Distributors Thermatech Temperate China

Frigoglass Frigorex India, Turkey, Romania, China

GAF Controls GAF China

Global Karma Global K China

Golden Bear Enterprises Bar Fridges Australia China

Gren Innovation Gren Taiwan

Hec Cater Gurbare China

Hec Cater Pastorkalt Italy

Hitchon International Iccold China

Hitech Engineering Iceblue China

Hoshizaki Lancer AHT Austria

Hoshizaki Lancer Hoshizaki Japan

Hospitality & Beverage Solutions Rhino China

ICS Pacific ICS Pacific China

ICS Pacific Caravell Denmark, Russian Federation

ICS Pacific Derby Denmark

Innotek Corolla China

Kingloc Commercial Refrigeration Berjaya Malaysia

Kingloc Commercial Refrigeration Kingloc Malaysia, China

Lassele Refrigeration Lassele Republic of South Korea

Market Refrigeration and Electrical Services Hill Phoenix USA

Maurice Kemp & Associates GRAM Denmark

Maurice Kemp & Associates Gram Commercial Denmark

McAlpine Hussmann Hussmann Ice NZ, China, Czech Republic, Spain

Milan Refrigeration Milan Refrigeration China

Milan Refrigeration Staycold South Africa

Nisbets Australia Firscool China

Orford Group Orford Group China

Perfect Fry Company Unis Czech Republic

Polar Air Polaco China

Quality Traders Berjaya Malaysia

Quirks ISA Italy

Quirks Quirks Italy

Quirks Sight Italy

Red Bull Australia AHT Austria

Red Bull Australia Frigoglass Austria

Red Bull Australia Liebherr Austria, Malaysia

Red Bull Australia Baixue China

Red Bull Australia Red Bull China, Austria

Red Rocket Technologies Glacier China


Refrigeration Rentals and Sales Aolike China

Refrigeration Rentals and Sales Norpe Finland

Roller Grill Australia Roller Grill Australia France

Ruey Shing Australia Ruey Shing Australia Taiwan

Sanden International Shanghai Freser International China

Sanden International Australia Pty Ltd Sanden Thailand

Sanden International Australia Pty Ltd Sanden Intercool Thailand

Skope Australia Pty Ltd SKOPE NZ, Republic of South Korea, China

Southern Hospitality Southern Hospitality NZ, China

Southern Hospitality Ltd Leader Malaysia

Specialised Promotions Meisda China

TME Refrigeration Silfer Italy

Tom Stoddart Pty Ltd Koldtech Thailand

True Food International True Food International USA

True Food International True Manufacturing USA

Unilever Australia Unilever China

Wellkart Wellquip China

Yili Ramli & Co Pty Ltd Aucma China

Table 32: New Zealand businesses that manufacture but do not import refrigerated equipment


Coolrite Refrigeration Coolrite NZ

Debonair Debonair NZ

Festive Festive NZ

Future Products Group FPG NZ

Table 33: New Zealand businesses that manufacture and import refrigerated equipment


Cossiga Cossiga NZ, Singapore

McAlpine Hussmann Hussmann NZ, Mexico, USA, China

McAlpine Hussmann Hussmann Impact NZ, Mexico, USA

McAlpine Hussmann Hussmann Specialty NZ, China

McAlpine Hussmann McAlpine Hussmann NZ

McAlpine Hussmann Hussmann Koxka Spain, China

McAlpine Hussmann Koxka Spain

Skope Industries Ltd SKOPE NZ, Republic of South Korea, China

Southern Hospitality Ltd Southern Hospitality NZ, China

Southern Hospitality Ltd Husky China

Southern Hospitality Ltd Delta NZ


Table 34: New Zealand businesses that only import refrigerated equipment


Arneg NZ Ltd Afinox Italy

Arneg NZ Ltd Arneg Italy, Republic of South Korea

Arneg NZ Ltd Oscartielle Italy

Arrow Refrigeration Framec Italy, Thailand

Arrow Refrigeration Mondial Italy

Cowley Refrigeration Ltd AHT Austria

Cowley Refrigeration Ltd Sanyo China

Cowley Refrigeration Ltd Interfridge Taiwan, Finland, China, Japan

Frigie King Ice Berg China

Frigie King Little Duck China

Gelid NZ Gelid N.Z. China

Honar Refrigeration Tecfrigo Italy

Honar Refrigeration Fricon Portugal

Honar Refrigeration Mafirol Portugal, Italy

Honar Refrigeration Mercatus Portugal

Honar Refrigeration Infrico Spain

Honar Refrigeration SFA Turkey

Impact Refrigeration Husky China

Impact Refrigeration Vestfrost Denmark

Surplus Brokers Ltd Caterchill China

Thermotech Vestfrost Denmark

Transcold Group Transcold China

Tyco Services Linde China, Thailand, Germany, Czech Republic

Tyco Services Tasselli Italy

Tyco Services Tyler Refrigeration Corporation

USA


Appendix E Australian and New Zealand RDC

MEPS and HEPS levels Table 35: MEPS: Maximum energy consumption – Remote cabinets

Type Maximum energy consumption TEC/TDA (kWh/day/m2)

Total Registrations (%)

MEPS HEPS HEPS

RS 1 – Unlit Shelves

12.55 8.37 7

RS 1 – Lit Shelves 17.76 10.66 0


12.73 8.49 3

RS 2 – Lit Shelves 16.98 11.32 7


14.84 10.32 0

RS 3 – Lit Shelves 18.39 12.26 24

RS 4 – Solid Door no value no value no value

RS 4 – Glass Door 9.73 6.77 0


RS 5 – Glass Door no value no value no value

RS 6 – Gravity Coil 14.21 9.88 88

RS 6 – Fan Coil 14.16 9.85 67

RS 7 – Gravity Coil no value no value no value

RS 7 – Fan Coil 14.79 9.86 25

RS 8 – Gravity Coil 12.25 8.52 76

RS 8 – Fan Coil 13.19 9.17 76

RS 9 – Gravity Coil no value no value no value

RS 9 – Fan Coil 12.09 8.06 33

RS 10 – High no value no value no value

RS 10 – Medium no value no value no value

RS 10 – Low 18.67 12.99 75

RS 11 38.13 26.52 0

RS 12 66.33 46.14 0

RS 13 – Solid Sided 19.48 12.99 0

RS 13 – Glass Sided 19.58 13.62 13

RS 14 – Solid Sided 15.49 11.45 6

RS 14 – Glass Sided 19.29 12.86 13


RS 15 – Glass Door 37.08 27.41 92


RS 16 – Glass Door 40.56 29.98 62


RS 17 – Glass Door no value no value no value

RS 18 48.58 39.75 34

RS 19 36.15 29.57 0

RS 20 no value no value no value


Table 36: MEPS: Maximum energy consumption – Integral cabinets

MAXIMUM ENERGY CONSUMPTION TEC/TDA (kWh/day/m2)

Type M-package temperature classes (see AS 1731.6 Clause 5)

Type M-package temperature classes(See AS 1731.6 Clause 5)

M1 M2 L1 L2

HC1 11.50 11.50 HF1 no value no value

HC2 no value no value HF2 no value no value


HC4 15.50 15.50 HF4 26.50 26.50


HC6 no value no value HF6 8.00 8.00

VC1 37.50 28.00 VF1 no value no value


VC3 no value no value VF3 no value no value

VC4 Solid Door 17.00 17.50 VF4 Solid Door 44.00 39.00

VC4 Glass Door 17.00 17.50 VF4 Glass Door 44.00 39.00

YC1 no value no value YF1 no value no value




Table 37: Maximum energy consumption for ‘High Efficiency’ integral display cabinets

MAXIMUM ENERGY CONSUMPTION TEC/TDA (kWh/day/m2)

Type M-package temperature classes Type M-package temperature classes

M1 M2 L1 L2

HC1 8.50 8.50 HF1 no value no value



HC4 11.40 11.40 HF4 19.50 19.50


HC6 no value no value HF6 5.90 5.90



VC3 no value no value VF3 no value no value

VC4 Solid Door 7.30 7.30 VF4 Solid Door 32.40 28.70

VC4 Glass Door 10.70 10.70 VF4 Glass Door 32.40 28.70





Appendix F Summary of Test Methods Table 38: Summary of common test methods

Standard (Country)

Climate Airflow Test room lighting

Power supply

Product load Test period - open cabinets

Test period -closed cabinets

Cabinet test temperature

Efficiency metric

AS 1731

(Australia and New Zealand)

Climatic Class 3 (25°C 60% RH)

0.2 m/s

+0/-0.1 m/s

600 ± 100 lux at 1 m above floor and on continuously

± 2% of nominal value of marked rating

ISO type M- Packages MECHLAB Filler/Test packages or 480 ± 80 kg/m3 filler packs

First test: Cabinet lighting on for 24 hours and night covers removed.

Second test: Night covers removed and cabinet lighting on for 12 h followed by night covers fitted and cabinet lighting off for 12 h

Closed cabinet 48 h with doors and lids opened cyclically for 12 h of each 24 h period. Cabinet Lighting on continuously unless automatically controlled

Manufacturers declared M- package temperature.

TEC/TDA

EN ISO 23953

(Europe)

Manufacturers declared Climatic Class

0.2 m/s

+0/-0.1 m/s



ISO type M- Packages and ISO type Filler/Test packages



24 h with all electrical components energised.

First test: Cabinet lighting on for 24 hours Second test: Cabinet lighting on for 12 h followed by cabinet lighting off for 12 h.

Manufacturers declared M- package temperature.

Not applicable

ANSI/ASHRAE 72-2005

(USA)

Dry Bulb 24°C ±1.0°C

Wet Bulb 18°C ± 1.0°C

< 0.25 m/s across display opening

Not less than 800 lux in relation to display opening

± 4% of rated voltage

Test Packages and Filler Packages


8 h with doors opened cyclically starting 3 hours after defrost. All electrical components energised.

Not directly specified

Volume

ARI 1200:2002

(USA)

Dry Bulb 24°C ±1.0°C

Wet Bulb 18°C ± 1.0°C

< 0.25 m/s across display opening

Not less than 800 lux in relation to display opening

± 4% of rated voltage

Test Packages and Filler Packages


8 h with doors opened cyclically starting 3 hours after defrost. All electrical components energised.

Low temp: Average -18°C ± 1.1°C. Medium temp:

3.3°C ± 1.1°C

Ice Cream: -26°C ± 1.1°C

Volume


Standard (Country)

Climate Airflow Test room lighting

Power supply

Product load Test period - open cabinets

Test period -closed cabinets

Cabinet test temperature

Efficiency metric

EN 441

(Europe)

Superseded and replaced by ISO23953

Manufacturers declared Climatic Class

0.2 m/s

+0/-0.1 m/s


± 2%

ISO type M- Packages and ISO type Filler/Test packages



48 h with doors and lids opened cyclically for 12 h of each 24 h period. Lighting on 2h longer than door opening cycles if switchable or otherwise continuously.

Manufacturers declared M- package temperature

Not applicable, However TDA is reported.

NOM-022-ENER/SCFI-

2008

(Mexico)

32°C ± 1.5°C and 65% ± 5% RH

< 0.254 m/s

Not specified 230 V ± 1 V

115 V ± 1 V

60 Hz

Medium temperature: 355 ml cans

Low temperature: ISO type test packages.

Pull down test. Minimum 24 h test period. All electrical components energised

Pull down test. Minimum test period 24 h without door openings. All electrical components energised.

Medium temp: with fan – Max 7.2°C, Min 0C, Av 3.3°C.

Cold plate – Max 10°C, Min -1o°C, Av ≤ 5°C.

Freezers: Max -18°C.

Refrigerated Volume

ECA RDCs

(UK)

Climatic Class 3

(25°C 60% RH)

0.2 m/s

+0/-0.1

m/s



ISO type M-Packages and ISO type Filler/Test packages

Night covers removed and cabinet lighting on for 12 h and off for 12 h.

Closed cabinet 48 h with doors and lids opened cyclically for 12 h of each 24 h period. Cabinet Lighting on continuously.

Manufacturers declared M- package temperature

Total Display Area

ECA Service Cabinets

(UK)

Climatic Class 4 (30°C 55% RH)

0.2 m/s +0/-0.1 m/s



ISO type M-Packages and ISO type Filler/Test

packages

N/A 48 h with doors and lids opened cyclically for 12 h of each 24 h period.

M1 (-1°C to +5°C)

L1 (-15°C to -18°C)

Refrigerated Volume

Commercial Refrigeration – Refrigerated Display and

Storage Cabinets

www.energyrating.gov.au

A joint initiative of Australian, State and Territory and New Zealand Governments

commercial refrigeration - refrigerated display and ... · product profile: commercial...

Documents