1. Grocery Measure: EC Motors for Display Cases Regional Technical Forum June 16 th, 2015 Mohit Singh-Chhabra

2. Presentation Objective Approve proposed measure analysis, change measure category to Small Saver 2

3. Measure Background Measure Name:Grocery: ECMs for Display Cases Current Measure Category: UES Proposed Measure Category: Small Saver Current Measure Status:Active Proposed Measure Status:Active Measure Sector:Commercial End Use:Grocery- Refrigeration Current Sunset Date:August, 2015 3

4. Staff Highlighted Area CAT proposal of multiple savings and cost over measure life (and beyond) – Applies to all pre-conditions measures with RUL < EUL 4

5. What is this measure? Replace Shaded Pole motors with ECM (Electronically Commutated Motors) driving the evaporator fan for grocery display cases 5

6. How is energy saved? EC Motors are more efficient (~66%) than Shaded Pole (~20%) – More efficient EC Motor generate less heat less interaction with the refrigeration system Although these motors are small (<1 HP), they run all year long (8760 hours) 6

7. Proposed Measure Category: Small Saver Total savings claim calculated using CLEAResult (PECI) motor install count since mid-2013 is 0.14 aMW Bonneville estimates approx. 1 aMW remaining savings potential for all motor measures in grocery stores in its territory – Grocer Market Opportunity Assessment (6/13) study conducted by Cadmus Note: Other RTF Grocery Motor measures are categorized as small savers as well (ECMs for walk-ins, Compressor head fan motor retrofit) CAT proposal: update measure status for ECM in Display Case to Small Saver 7

8. Engineering Analysis Details Energy savings calculated as follows: – fan kWh savings component is a result of motor upgrade – the other part of the formula accounts for interactive effects with the refrigeration equipment 8

9. Data Used to Update Measure CLEAResult provided CAT with data on ECM installs in display cases starting in mid-2013 – Motor count 32 different motor type, ~1800 total – Rated watts – Installed cost/ motor – Install date and other relevant fields Recent data show higher average installed motor watts than existing estimate – Expect savings to go up 9

10. Key Assumption: Motor Efficiency EC Motors are assumed to be 66% efficient, SP Motors are assumed to be 20% efficient Source: US DOE Report: Energy Savings Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in Residential and Commercial Equipment (December, 2013) Same as existing workbook 10

11. Key Assumption: Annual Hours of Operation Proposed Assumption: 8,760 Hours (motors operate all year round) – Reason: evaporator motors in refrigerated display cases operate continually to: circulate cold air in the case and Develop an air curtain in open display cases – US DOE Technical Support Document for Commercial Refrigeration also advises that these motors run continually US DOE Technical Support Document for Commercial Refrigeration 11

12. Key Assumption: EER of Refrigeration System The following EER values were adopted based on PECI EER analysis presented to the RTF on 3/14: – Medium temperature cases EER = 11 – Low temperature cases EER = 4 Decision: RTF approve the EER analysis as presented and, following a diligent review by the Grocery Subcommittee, include the final EER results table in future updates of the Standard Information Workbook for use in UES measure assessments. – A review of the EER analysis measure spreadsheet conducted, the DOE 2R models used to generate data for the spreadsheet were not reviewed 12

13. Key Assumption: EER of Refrigeration System (contd.) Savings sensitivity to EER using high and low range presented to the RTF – Medium temperature case... +- 4% – Low temperature case… +-8% Measure is proposed as a Small Saver, CAT recommends these updated EER values be used, if RTF decides to review the DOE 2R models, the EER values will be updated as necessary 13

14. Key Assumption: Case Temperature Savings vary based on temperature of the display case EC Motors are retrofitted in – Refrigeration interaction Existing workbook used actual installation data to understand distribution of installation between low temp (LT) and med temp (MT) case – This data does not exist anymore Low – medium temperature ratio calculated using data in CBSA for walk-ins, – Data for reach ins, not available – 65% MT, 35% LT. – Distribution almost identical to existing workbook 14

15. Measure Lifetime EUL = 15 years (DEER) RUL needs to be estimated for pre-conditions – DEER provides estimate of 5 years – DEER assumption: RUL = EUL/3 – CAT proposal to go with that. No real reason to choose a different number What is current practice at end of RUL? – Combination of shaded pole and ECM. As per CBSA, all ratio of all SP to EC evaporator fan motors is 84% to 16% Full savings and cost assigned during RUL period Reduced savings and cost assigned for remaining EUL period 15

16. Energy Savings 16

17. Incremental Cost Data on motor cost provided by CLEAResult – Average weighted motor installed cost = $82 (2006$) Incremental cost is calculated by summing PV of all capital costs incurred and avoided over the measure EUL (15 years) – Assumption: at the end of the shaded pole motor life, it would have been replaced by a current practice motor – Same as the methodology presented in the Res Lighting presentation, Ref Decommissioning presentation earlier today – Timeline diagram on next slide…. 17

18. 18 No Risk Mitigation Credit Incremental Cost of EC Motor = PV(A) – { PV(B – C)}

19. Incremental Cost Results 19

20. Cost Effectiveness Results 20

21. Delivery Verification Guidance Measure Identifier: Check motor installed is an electronically commutated motor Savings Baseline (Pre-Conditions): Check measure replaced a shaded pole motor Consistent with what was adopted for Walk- Ins on May’15 Meeting 21

22. Decision Slide “I __________ move the RTF approve the Display Case EC Motors measure as presented and: – Set the Category to ‘Small Saver’; – Set the Status to ‘Active’; – Set the sunset date to March, 2019.” 22