COMMERCIAL GAS COOKING EQUIPMENT ......COMMERCIAL GAS COOKING EQUIPMENT: OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY Center for Energy and the Urban Environment Mary Sue Lobenstein

COMMERCIAL GAS COOKING EQUIPMENT:

OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Center for Energy and the Urban Environment

Mary Sue Lobenstein

Martha J. Hewett

December, 1991

Prepared under contract to Minnegasco, Inc.

Revised 4/92 CEUE/TR91 -1 -CM

COMMERCIAL GAS COOKING APPLIANCES:

CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Mary Sue Lobenstein, Martha J. Hewett Center for Energy and the Urban Environment

ABSTRACT

Commercial cooking is the fourth largest commercial gas end-use in the United States, accounting for roughly 10% of gas consumed in the commercial sector or approximately 0.219 quads annually. In recent years, a number of high efficiency cooking technologies have been developed. Notable among these are infrared fryers, infrared griddles, clamshell griddles, direct-fired convection ovens, combination ovens, and power burner or jet impingement range tops. Energy savings for these options are estimated at 25% to 40%, much greater than untapped opportunities in the residential market. A number of other promising technologies have been developed and tested in the laboratory (eg; pulse combustion fryers and griddles, vent dampers) but have not been manufactured or else were marketed for a while and then withdrawn, apparently due to a lack of interest in the marketplace.

Despite the high savings potential among available technologies, market penetration of this equipment is still quite low, generally 10% or less of current shipments. The primary reason for this is the fact that first cost is the overriding factor for the end-user. Another major deterrent has been the lack of standardized rating systems which makes it impossible for end-users to compare the operating costs among different options. This deficiency is in the process of being rectified' through an unprecedented industry-wide effort. Other market barriers include lack of dealer motivation to sell high efficiency equipment, and exaggerated concerns over the unreliability of the new technologies.

Results of a simplified economic analysis indicate that paybacks for high useage applications range from 2 to 6 years with 5 years typical. By comparison, paybacks for average usage cases range from 4 to 9 years with 7 years typical. Unfortunately, paybacks in these ranges are higher than most commercial customers are willing to accept. As a result, rebates, standards or other approaches may be necessary to improve current penetration. The most likely candidates for rebates are forced convection range ovens, power burner ranges, jet impingement ranges, infrared fryers, infrared griddles, and possibly clamshell griddles or combination ovens. If pulse combustion technology becomes available, rebates for it should also be offered. Several measures could benefit from local testing and/or demonstration projects, including the clamshell griddle, the power burner or jet impingement range top with convection oven base, and vent dampers or intermittent ignition devices used as retrofits. Field tests to generate accurate data on typical energy use and load shapes of the major types of commercial cooking equipment are also recommended. In addition, an information service on high efficiency equipment options should be developed for equipment vendors, designers and end-users.

1

COMMERCIAL GAS COOKING APPLIANCES:

OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

INTRODUCTION

Commercial cooking is the fourth largest commercial gas end-use in the United States (following gas space heating, domestic hot water and process heat), and accounts for about 10% of the total annual commercial gas consumption (AGA, pers comm, 1991). Nationally, this corresponded to roughly 0.219 quads1 of energy for 1990 (AGA, Gas Facts, 1991). In Minnegasco's service territory, commercial gas sales totaled 51.349 TBtu2 (5.135 X 1011 therms3 ) in 1990, with cooking accounting for about 6% of the total or 3.083 TBtu (3.083 X 107 therms) (German, et al., 1991). In recent years, a number of promising technologies have improved the efficiency of new cooking equipment. Notable among these are infrared, power burner, pulse combustion and direct-fired, forced convection technologies. The American Gas Association (AGA) estimates that replacement equipment accounts for 64.6% of annual, national, commercial cooking appliance sales and that much of the older equipment replaced has efficiencies below 40% (Himmel, 1984 cited in Usibelli, et al., 1985). Efficiency improvements of 25% to 50% are possible with currently available technologies. If equipment with these high efficiency features were consistently specified and installed for the replacement market alone, consumption in this sector would be reduced considerably over the next 30 years. However, acceptance of these technologies in the market place appears mixed. In addition, some technologies while showing good potential in the laboratory, have never made it to market.

The purpose of this study was to obtain an overview of the commercial cooking appliance market and investigate the availability and relative cost of high efficiency cooking equipment for commercial kitchens. While not intended as an exhaustive effort, the report also examines the current market penetration of high efficiency cooking equipment and the potential for energy savings in this sector. In addition, the role of financial incentives and standards in increasing market penetration is explored and recommendations for follow-up tests or demonstrations, if any, are made.

METHODS

Information for the market analysis was obtained from published studies when available. However, a fairly extensive literature search completed at the onset of the study indicated that well-documented published sources on the commercial cooking market are relatively rare and when available tend to be out of date. As a result, information for this part of the study was also

1 One quad is equivalent to 1 X 1015 Btu.

2One TBtu is equivalent to 1 X 1012 Btu.

3One therm equals one CCF is equivalent to approximately 100,000 Btu.

3

made to as many manufacturers and local dealers as possible to obtain additional pricing and marketing information.

One of the more difficult tasks in reviewing manufacturers' literature was determining which equipment was indeed "high efficiency." In the past the commercial cooking industry did not have standardized test procedures for any of its equipment. As a result unlike the case for most residential equipment (eg; furnaces, boilers, air conditioners), a standard efficiency rating system for commercial cooking appliances is nonexistent. Many manufacturers do not even test their equipment internally and, if they do test it, often do not publish the data. Furthermore, the efficiency estimates that are found in the sales literature are not comparable among different brands since the method of determining efficiency may be entirely different. As a result, we looked for specific technologies (eg: infrared, power burner, pulse combustion) to help us determine whether or not a particular piece of equipment was actually high efficiency or not. In addition, we relied on published data when available as well as conversations with independent industry sources and manufacturers for further clarifications. Of the 31 manufacturers whose literature we reviewed, 16 have equipment that incorporates advanced high efficiency features.

Manufacturers and dealers were asked to provide estimates of the approximate penetration rates of their high efficiency equipment and were queried regarding the importance of energy efficiency as a criterion in the purchasing decision of the end-user.6 Information on penetration rates and general interest in energy efficiency features was also obtained from interviews with industry specialists and utility personnel. Specific pieces of equipment which seemed particularly promising were investigated in more detail to determine whether they might be good candidates for follow-up laboratory tests or promotional incentives, such as rebates, to encourage their purchase.

In order to obtain information about utility rebate programs in the commercial cooking sector, a list of the fifty largest gas utilities (in terms of number of customers) was obtained from Brown's 1990 Directory of North American Gas Utility Companies. Each utility was contacted to determine if it currently offers any promotions or financial incentives in the area of commercial cooking, and the details of any programs offered were obtained. In addition a survey was conducted of the five largest Wisconsin utilities not already included in the largest fifty list, since many Wisconsin utilities were known to offer commercial cooking equipment promotions and the market is similar to Minnesota.

MARKET OVERVIEW

Current Inventory and Overall Energy Use

Gas consumption for the commercial sector for the period from 1967 to 1990 is shown in Table I (AGA Gas Facts, 1991). As indicated in Figure 1, gas use

5 Recently, Pacific Gas and Electric has been working with a coalition of industry representatives to develop such test procedures and the status of this project is discussed in more detail later in this report,

6Since many manufacturers and dealers did not want to be identified with particular statistics and comments, results from these conversations are often presented in more general terms and specific observations are frequently not annotated.

5

A decrease in existing inventory (and energy use) is consistent with market sources which indicate that the restaurant industry has been suffering from harder economic times in the last three to five years, resulting in more business closures and fewer expansions. This is in contrast to the previous ten years in which the restaurant industry was apparently expanding. In general, other sources tended to collaborate this perspective. For instance, according to statistics collected annually from Dunn and Bradstreet, business starts for the food and beverage industry (which includes restaurants) decreased 10% from 1985 to 1987: 13,745 in 1985 compared to 12,361 in 1987 (Dunn and Bradstreet, per comm, 1992). 10 While these statistics are not available from Dunn and Bradstreet beyond 1987, statistics from another source for the more recent period concur with these findings and show a 7.5% drop in new unit openings from 1989 to 1991 (10,973 in 1989 to 10,149 in 1991) (Foodservice Equipment and Supplies Specialist, January 25, 1992, p 40). This reference also predicts a 4% drop for 1992. Equipment taken out of service due to business failure is not permanently out of the inventory, since it may be stockpiled for resale at a later date. In fact, this corresponds with information from several sources which indicated a growing used market in commercial cooking appliances, both nationally and locally.

Further collaboration of the notion that fewer businesses are opening (and perhaps an indication of increased competition from the used appliance market) can be found in statistics on the volume of new equipment shipped to market during the recent period in comparison to earlier years. In the 1986 report, Hurley provides information on annual shipments of gas cooking appliances from 1977 through 1982 for the same six categories of equipment previously discussed (Figure 3). Data on annual shipments by category of equipment were not available from any source beyond 1982. However, the Gas Appliance Manufacturer's Association (GAMA) did indicate that total shipments of commercial cooking appliances numbered about 115,000 overall in 1982, compared to 160,000 units in 1985 and 130,000 in 1990 (Langmead, pers comm 1991). This is a 19% drop from 1985 to 1990 and is consistent with the trend noted in a second source which estimates that equipment manufacturer sales for the categories of "cooking and warming" and "food preparation" were down 14.0% and 12.9% respectively in 1991 compared to 1990 (Foodservice Equipment and Supplies Specialist, January 25, 1992, p 44). This later reference goes on to note that overall equipment and supplies manufacturer sales are 16% lower than the volume reached during 1987-1988 (considered by this source as the industry's peak) (Foodservice Equipment and Supplies Specialist, January 25, 1992, p 35).

While equipment specific shipment numbers were not available for 1990, they can be estimated from the total number of units shipped in 1990 based on the typical breakdown found in Hurley, since this has not changed appreciably over the years (Langmead, pers comm, 1991). Figure 4 shows the share (in percent) of total yearly shipments each equipment type represented for 1982 (Hurley, et al., 1986). By this accounting ranges and fryers (each at about 31% of the total) make up the largest numbers of the 130,000 units shipped to market in 1990, or around 40,500 and 40,000 respectively. Correspondingly, about 19,500

10Dunn and Bradstreet also report a decrease in failure rates for the same industry category (14% in 1985/86 compared to 9% in 1987/88 and 7% in 1989/90), but this may simply be consistent with fewer business starts rather than a phenomenon which necessarily contradicts the trend.

7

reduced: one piece of equipment will cook faster, and the other unit will cook slower, but the same energy will be needed to cook the product.

The reason for the lack of standardized test procedures in the past is not completely clear, but industry sources had similar views on the issue. Many manufacturers do not have the budgets to test their own equipment internally and are resistant to have it tested by outside sources. Even if a manufacturer tests its equipment, it is usually unwilling to place the results in the public domain. In both cases the reason stems from manufacturers' concerns that test results will be misinterpreted to the advantage of a competitor. Another deterrent has been the fact that gas-fired equipment often competes with electric equipment for the same market share. As a result, a particular test standard which is endorsed by the gas industry may not be supported by the electric industry if it tends to put electric equipment in a bad light and vice versa. Perhaps the biggest barrier of all is simply the fact that it is very complicated to develop test standards for the industry. Each type of equipment (eg; ovens, griddles, fryers, ranges, broilers) requires its own standard. Results of laboratory tests can be affected by the quality of the food product being used in the test, its consistency, moisture content and whether or not it is frozen and for that matter how frozen it is. If a non-food product test is used to eliminate some of this variance (eg; a boiling water test), the test may or may not accurately represent actual operating conditions. Cooking equipment itself is inconsistent in operation, depending on whether it is in idle, under a heavy load or somewhere in between. Conditions in the lab itself (heat, humidity and venting conditions) can also affect results. In summary, there are a lot of variables to control, and test procedures which do control for them can be very complicated.

Whatever the barriers of the past, the industry is now actively developing standardized test procedures, partly because manufacturers are beginning to see the development of test procedures as necessary to the industry and partly because they realize that if they do not work together then mandatory standards, in which their input may be limited, would eventually be put in place. A big boost in the movement toward establishing these procedures came from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) which, under the leadership of industry specialist Bettie Ferlin, has spearheaded the development of standardized test procedures over the last five years, partly based on some very good work done earlier by AGA Laboratories and Southern California Gas. PG&E is in a unique position to lead this endeavor since it is both one of the largest utilities in the United States, and a combined gas and electric utility, which gives it a profile of impartiality on the issue of electric versus gas cooking equipment. However, work on these standardized test procedures represents a truly industry-wide effort, as it is jointly sponsored by PG&E, the Gas Research Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the National Restaurant Association (GAS Newsletter, January 1992, p 4). In addition, input from a national advisory group consisting of these four organizations as well as AGA Laboratories, Underwriters Laboratories, McDonald's Corporation, Marriott Corporation, General Mills Restaurants, and the Pennsylvania State University provides additional industry perspective (ibid).

An extensive high-technology testing laboratory, where engineers can perform controlled investigations and put new test procedures on trial, has been in service at PG&E since August 1990. This laboratory is part of PG&E's Food

9

there is currently not an independent, reliable basis of comparison for it among different models.

Sources largely agree that first cost continues to be the overall driving force for this market, with reliability and productivity also important factors. In addition, differences in the market occur depending on the sophistication of the buyer. For the purpose of comparison, buyers of commercial cooking appliances could be considered to be on a continuum from least sophisticated to most sophisticated.

The least sophisticated of all purchasers in this market start out on one end of the continuum and might be termed "one-issue" buyers. For these, purchase price is the only consideration, assuming a certain piece of equipment fulfills the specific cooking job needed. This one-issue buyer appears to account for only a small percentage of the overall market, perhaps 5% to 10%.

The other end of the continuum has the most sophisticated buyers, who are thought to make up an estimated 20 to 25% of the market. These purchasers consider reliability and productivity ahead of purchase price. Reliability is a determinant that is sometimes at odds with high efficiency. High efficiency features often involve new technologies which are less time-tested and may break down more frequently (eg; early electronic ignitions). In addition, when there is a breakdown, it can require a specialized service person to fix, a major deterrent in an industry where even a couple of hours of downtime on a piece of equipment can be very costly. Productivity is usually defined as the amount of product divided by the labor cost to produce it (Fritzsche, pers comm 1991), and is often synonymous with the term "high efficiency" in the marketing literature for commercial cooking equipment (eg; if the equipment is high production, it is automatically called high efficiency whether or not there is truly any high efficiency technology applied to the unit). In addition to considering reliability and productivity, the sophisticated buyer also takes into account actual operating features as well as factors such as ease of maintenance and equipment lifetime. Energy efficiency on its own is still a hard sell even to this buyer group, but is often a consideration, since it is linked to operating costs which are tracked more closely by this group. In terms of cost-effectiveness, this group of buyers is typically unwilling to go beyond a two to three year payback unless other benefits outweigh the additional cost of the particular high efficiency feature. Although not universal, the sophisticated buyer tends to be someone who is a long-time business owner with more than the average amount of experience in this field, and/or a larger owner (like a chain, or an institutional buyer). A local dealer as well as one manufacturer both pointed out that with less expansion in the chain market over the recent period, the pool of sophisticated buyers appears to be decreasing.

The vast majority of commercial equipment buyers (thought to account for 70% to 75% of the market) make up the middle of the continuum. For this buyer, who could be called the "typical" buyer, first cost is a predominant but not the only consideration. As with the more sophisticated buyer, two other key factors for this group are reliability and productivity. How much influence these other factors bring to bear on the purchase decision depends on how much the particular buyer leans toward the sophisticated end of the scale: the more sophisticated, the more the buyer will weigh reliability and productivity in the purchase decision. However, it is clear that energy efficiency on its

11

efficiency products which have other advantages the market place seeks. For instance if a particular energy saving feature also has potential to create product faster (assuming the labor to produce it does not increase), a manufacturer is more likely to spend development dollars on the project. Similarly if more fancy controls are required with a certain energy saving product, a manufacturer may be interested in developing the product if the controls also provide an opportunity to reduce the labor involved in making product. In either of these two previous examples, "productivity" as defined in our earlier discussion (ie; the amount of product divided by the labor cost to produce it) is enhanced and the manufacturer has another marketing ploy to sell the appliance. In addition, while not the general rule, occasionally manufacturers have developed more efficient equipment in response to a request from a large customer (particularly a chain) with a specific need.15 This is particularly advantageous in that it sometimes takes a long time for the demand to boost production quantities enough to have any effect on the pricing of a new product. However, if a large end-user has agreed to purchase certain quantities of the equipment after its developed, prices can sometimes be reduced at the onset.

High efficiency cooking technologies which have been developed over the past ten years were researched and specific equipment which incorporates these technologies was identified. Pricing information and penetration rates were also gathered or estimated where necessary. List price directly from manufacturers' literature is given in all cases. It should be noted that several industry sources told us that end-users seldom pay list price for commercial cooking equipment, as these items are typically heavily discounted.16 Discounts in the range of 30-40% are not unusual. In fact, one source told us that sometimes equipment is simply given away at cost or less because suppliers are more interested in getting ongoing business from customer (for supplies) than they are in making money on equipment. As a result, the prices in this report are probably high compared to what an end-user would actually pay.

Equipment in this survey includes ovens, ranges, fryers and griddles, the four most important product categories in terms of inventory size and energy use. Broilers and steam equipment were not investigated, since these equipment types do not account for much of the market comparatively. Results are displayed in tables within the individual sections on each equipment type described. Equipment efficiencies and energy use are also given when available. Unfortunately, most references did not always distinguish exactly how efficiency numbers were obtained (a problem already discussed). When known from the source, it is clearly stated in the text how these numbers were achieved; when unavailable, the reference is left purposely vague and should be taken as such.

150ne example of this is a conveyorized broiler which received extensive research as a result of heavy support from the Burger King chain. Subsequently, Burger King was sold and the project was shelved during the middle of development due to a lack of interest from the new owner.

160ne industry person related that a standing Joke about price is "take 5% off for early delivery, and another 5% off for the January discount, and another 5% off for the special sales promotion, and another 5% off for being a regular customer, and another 5% off for etc."

13

160,000 Btu per hour (for comparison purposes, roughly the size of a typical residential furnace or boiler). Combination ovens have inputs of about 100,000 Btu per hour and range oven inputs extend from 30,000 to 50,000 Btu per hour.

Some of the most promising energy efficiency modifications to conventional equipment in this sector have centered on improvements to free-standing convection ovens and direct-fired range top ovens. In addition, a new type of oven, the combination oven and steamer, has been introduced which appears to be very energy efficient and versatile, although it may target a more specific end user.18 While not many modifications have been made to pizza ovens they are also discussed since two of the manufacturers indicated that most deck ovens are sold for baking pizza. In addition, one Wisconsin utility indicated that pizza ovens have a fairly active market at least in their service territory.

Free-Standing Forced Convection Ovens

A convection oven uses fans located in the rear of the oven compartment to circulate heated air over and around the product being cooked. This process accelerates heat absorption and reduces shrinkage (Jernigan, Ross, 1989, p 47). The burners on all currently available convection ovens are atmospheric. One of the significant advantages of convection ovens over standard ovens is increased cooking speed, an estimated 30% to 50% faster according to one source (ibid). Further advantages include more even heat and a better end-product (Scriven, Stevens, 1989, p 88). In addition, convection ovens have a much larger capacity (since racks can be stacked closer together) than standard ovens. One result is an oven which takes up less floor space, a commodity which is at a premium in most commercial kitchens. A typical comparison is that one convection oven (with approximate dimensions of 38 X 38 inches) will produce as much as three single conventional ovens (Jernigan, Ross, 1989, p 47). Simple modifications to free-standing forced convection ovens were among the earliest high efficiency improvements researched and put into effect (Farnsworth, Himmel, 1984). Changes included converting from indirect fired to direct-fired equipment, utilizing vent dampers and electronic ignitions, and reducing motor horsepower.

One of the most effective improvements found was to modify the ovens so that hot flue gas is directly circulated in the compartment which holds the food product, providing improved heat transfer. This type of oven is often referred to as direct-fired (also called snorkler-type ovens), whereas units which circulate air heated from the walls of the oven compartment are referred to as indirect-fired. Results from AGA side-by-side laboratory tests indicate that direct-fired convection ovens save from 19% to 39% compared to indirect fired units depending on the type of product cooked (Table VI) (Stack, et al, 1989).19 Average savings for the direct-fired unit were about 30%. An added advantage to the direct-fired design is that food cooks more quickly than in an indirect model. Some early problems with food quality, caused by the fans

18Several estimates from various sources indicate that combination ovens have a fairly small share of the current market (le; probably less than 6% of annual oven sales.

191t should be noted that these results were collected incidental to AGA market introduction tests completed on the Groen Combination oven discussed later.

15

According to manufacturers, free-standing convection ovens have wide acceptance in the market, with no particular maintenance or breakdown problems. Most manufacturers would not share data on the percent of the current market share going to convection ovens, but based on conversations with other industry sources, penetration is probably in the vicinity of 40% to 60%. This agrees with other information we got which indicates that competition for convection oven sales is mostly from deck and standard slow cook and hold ovens, each of which may make up as much as 20% of the market. Within convection oven sales, Farnsworth reports as early as 1984 that the majority of convection ovens shipped were of the direct-fired type (Farnsworth, Himmel, 1984).

The potential for increasing market share of convection ovens overall may be comparatively small. According to one manufacturer (Blodgett), most people who purchase deck ovens have a preference for that type of oven for a particular specialty item (eg; pizza or certain breads), and probably cannot be talked into buying a convection oven instead (even though according to manufacturers at least, convection ovens do work for these items). People who purchase standard cook and hold ovens may be convinced to purchase a convection oven instead, since many of the manufacturers now offer a cook and hold feature as an option on their convections ovens. However, the cost differential may be a deterrent. In addition, the potential for affecting the penetration of direct- versus indirect-fired units is also probably quite small, although not completely nonexistent, since it has been reported that the majority of convection ovens sold are already direct-fired.

Direct-Fired Range Top Ovens

A commercial range top oven is an oven with a built in "range" on top, similar in style to the typical residential cooking stove. The top can be customized to be open burners, a griddle, a hot top, or some combination of these. The standard oven in this type of equipment is direct-fired, but circulation of the hot gases is typically accomplished by natural circulation. As a result, one of the main energy efficiency modifications made to this type of equipment is to add forced convection. Since the heat is more evenly distributed with a forced convection oven, more of the oven interior can be used, boosting production. Cooking speed is also enhanced. Gas fuel savings of about 40% have been demonstrated with this modification (Farnsworth, Himmel, 1984). We found five manufacturers producing forced convection range top ovens: Garland, Jade, Southbend, U.S. Range, Vulcan-Hart and Wolf (Table VIII). Most of these ovens also have IIDs either standard or available as an option, as well as lower horsepower motors.

The option of a convection oven over a standard oven in a range top costs an additional 30% to 60% (Table VIII). Prices for a conventional oven run from $2,000 to $4,000, whereas a range top with a convection oven generally costs from $3,000 to $6,000. Information on market share for range top ovens with convection versus conventional ovens was also difficult to obtain from manufacturers, but is definitely much lower than for free standing convection ovens. Based on information from various sources, market penetration is probably in the vicinity of 5% to 15%. As a result, good potential exists for encouraging the end-user to purchase a forced convection range top oven over a standard oven.

17

the same two ovens. In cooking tests, the AGA also found that the Groen used an average of 67% less total energy compared to the direct-fired convection oven and an average of 77% less total energy compared to the indirect-fired oven. In terms of Btu per pound of product, the Groen used an average of 18% less energy per pound compared to the direct-fired unit and an average of 42% less than the indirect-fired unit. The Groen sometimes required more cooking time and sometimes less than the conventional convection ovens depending on the particular product, and in most cases the browning pattern, although acceptable, was uneven with the Groen. In the steamer mode, the Groen used about 65% less energy in preheat, but 34% more energy to maintain temperature for one hour than a conventional steamer (Table X-B). In cooking, the Groen in steamer mode averaged about 54% less total energy and 39% less energy per pound of product cooked than a typical steamer, and usually cooked in the same or less time when compared to a conventional steamer. AGA also tested the unit in combined mode and found that it used about 61% more total energy as well 65% more energy per pound of cooked product than the combination oven itself in convection mode (Table X-C). Comparing the Groen in combination mode to standard convection ovens, the AGA tests found that savings varied depending on the product being cooked. On average, the Groen in combination mode used about 51% less total energy but 21% more energy per pound of cooked product than a direct-fired convection oven (Table X-C). Compared to an indirect-fired convection oven, the combination mode used on average about 37% less total energy and about 8% less energy per pound of product. Another result of the testing was that overall performance in the Groen was best when the unit was cooking heavy loads. The only tests available on the Jade range show a significant decrease in cooking time (15% to 40%), but it is unclear from the source what equipment the unit was compared to, and what cooking mode(s) the Jade model was tested in (GRI, 1988).

Cost for the combination oven is quite high. A half size unit, which accommodates 7 half size pans, sells for about $10,000 and a full size unit, which accommodates 9 full size pans, sells for about $16,000 (Table IX). Prices for the Blodgett electric combination, also shown in Table IX for comparison, are roughly comparable to the gas combination. No pricing information is available on the forthcoming Blodgett gas combination oven. Exact pricing is not established for the Jade combination, but one source indicated that it would be available for less than $10,000 (Hughs, pers comm 1992). While these costs may seem high in comparison to deck and convection ovens, they are is not unreasonable compared to the cost of both a convection oven and a steamer as separate units, which would probably cost in the range of $10,000 to $12,000.

According to Groen, acceptance of the combination oven in the market has been good overall. In particular, the unit is selling well to the institutional buyer (eg; hospitals, schools, nursing homes) who tends to be more sophisticated. Penetration has been less good among the private sector or individual restauranteur. According to industry sources this is because the combination oven is designed for large facilities where mass production is the norm, and a high first cost and increased complication are not significant deterrents. Both Groen and Jade believe the combination oven has a place in every commercial kitchen. Nationally, Groen estimates sales of several thousand units per year. This seems in line with other industry sources which indicate that all combination ovens (gas and electric) account for only about 5% of total annual oven sales.

19

the food product (Jernigan, Ross, 1989, p 48). The advantage of this oven style is that it provides uniform, rapid baking from both the top and the bottom. One source reports that in general conveyor ovens will bake and reheat food two to four times faster than conventional ovens, and will operate at lower temperatures in standby (Scriven, Stevens, 1989, p 118) In PG&E comparison tests, the conveyor ovens cooked pizzas about 50% to 60% faster than either a revolving oven or a deck oven (Ferlin, Cushman, 1983). The conveyor was also found to use about the same energy during idling as the conventional deck. The conveyor oven has the added feature that it is labor saving. We found two manufacturers of conveyor ovens among the manufacturers we surveyed: Blodgett and Middleby Marshall (Table XI). All models have standing pilots as standard equipment and do not appear to have IID as an option. Of the two conveyor ovens tested by PG&E one was manufactured by Middleby Marshall and the other by Warever, a company we did not receive literature from. Sources at Blodgett indicate that the conveyorized oven is really designed for restaurants that require particularly high production (ie; not your "mom and pop"). These ovens cost three to four times as much as conventional decks (Table XI). From conversations with industry sources, conveyor ovens of all types, including pizza ovens, appear to have about the same market share as revolving ovens (roughly 5%).

Range Tops

Commercial ranges, including braisers, account for approximately 26% of the total gas consumed for commercial cooking (Hurley, et al., 1986). Inventories and energy use for 1990 are estimated at 443,000 units and 0.056 quads respectively (Table IV). Jr' addition, we have estimated that about 40,500 ranges were shipped to market in 1990 (Table V). Typical inputs for range top burners are around 20,000 Btu per hour per burner. GRI estimates the operating efficiency for conventional range top burners at roughly 45% (GRI, December 1986). Two improvements have been tested for range tops, both of which considerably increase this efficiency: the gas power burner and the infrared gas impingement burner.

Power Burner Range

Designing the burners of a commercial range with a power burner system that fully mixes the air and gas in the burner (as opposed to drawing secondary combustion air from around the burner itself) has been shown to increase burner efficiency to about 60% (ibid). GRI indicates that there are several other advantages to this design. Most notably the power burner has a wider control range and tends to distribute the heat more evenly, which decreases cooking time significantly. Performance tests conducted by the AGA showed that the power burner raised the temperature of 19 pounds of water to 140°F in about 36% less time than a comparable atmospheric burner and used about 34% less energy using the ANSI hot start test with a 13" pot (Parobechek, et al, 1987) (Table XII). On average, taking into account all the test methods AGA used for comparison, the power burner used an average of 24% less energy to boil water than the atmospheric burner it was compared to (Table XII). In addition, the average measured thermal efficiency was about 45% for the power burner, compared to 34% for the atmospheric unit (Table XII). These measured efficiencies are considerably less than those given in GRI literature, which estimated efficiencies of around 60% for the power burner and 45% for the

21

was not available on the unit, but a light duty model with two jet impingement burners, four standard burners and a conventional oven will probably list for around $2,400 ($2,700 with IID), whereas the same configuration in a heavy duty model will be about $3,700 ($4,000 with IID). Conventional range ovens cost from $1,600 to $3,300.

Deep Fat Fryers

About 19% of the total energy used for commercial cooking is attributable to deep fat fryers (Hurley, et al., 1986). Corresponding energy use is calculated at 0.043 quads for 1990 with an estimated 427,000 units in stock (Table IV). In terms of the volume of deep fat fryers shipped to market in 1990, we estimate the number at about 40,000 (Table V). Typical fryer inputs range from 80,000 to 120,000 Btu per hour, although units are usually specified according to the number of pounds of fat the particular model holds. In addition, manufacturers often compare units by giving the typical hourly production. For example, one model might cook 40 pounds of raw potatoes in an hour or 25 pounds of chicken, whereas a different model might cook 45 pounds of potatoes and 30 pounds of chicken.

From various industry sources, it appears that floor model deep fat fryers account for the majority of the market (probably between 55% and 70%). Counter top models and pressure fryers account for the remaining market. Typical fryers in the early 1980s had efficiencies of 45 to 50% (Usibelli, et al, 1985). Since then, several innovative technologies have been developed which have improved the efficiency of new deep fat fryers to 70% or greater. These technologies include infrared, forced convection and pulse combustion. Of these, infrared technology is the only one that is currently being produced and marketed. In addition, a couple of manufactures claim to have several fryers with improved burner designs which, while not as efficient as the infrared design, are reputed to be more efficient than standard fryers.

Infrared Fryers

Infrared technology was among the first improvements to deep fat fryers, with the initial units marketed as early as 1980 (Farnsworth, Himmel, 1984). Infrared heat utilizes invisible electromagnetic energy from a heat source to transfer its energy. In the typical infrared burner, mixed natural gas and air flows through the pores in a series of ceramic plate burners and combusts at the surface of these plates at temperatures around 1650°F or higher (AGA, undated). As the temperature of this heat source increases, the radiant output also increases. The process of increasing temperatures to these levels creates invisible electromagnetic energy which does not actually become heat until it is absorbed by an opaque object. The radiant energy vibrates the atoms in the absorbing object which results in a temperature rise of that object. In this way heat is delivered directly to the product (in this case the frying oil), without relying on convective or conductive heat transfer. Some infrared fryers have the burners placed flush against a V-shaped fry tank, while in others the burners are suspended inside cylinders at the bottom of the fry tank. Compared to typical atmospheric tube burner fryers, infrared models are expected to have efficiencies of 75% to 80% (Scriven, Stevens, 1989, p 76). Three manufacturers of infrared fryers were found: Frymaster, Pitco and Vulcan-Hart (Table XIV). In addition to a standard infrared,

2 3

In a forced convection fryer, hot oil is continuously pumped through a heat exchanger with a built in filter. The burner itself is forced combustion and it has an IID. Comparison tests are available between the forced convection fryer and an equivalent infrared as well as between the convection fryer and a standard high output fryer (Table XV). In these tests the convection fryer was found to use about the same total energy as an infrared fryer to cook 3/8" french fries, but about 20% less energy per pound for the task (Sobieski, et al., 1985). In addition, in comparison to a typical high input fryer, the convection unit used 37% less total energy and 46% less energy per pound for cooking 3/8" the fries (ibid). Efficiency for the convection fryer is estimated to be around 72% to 73% (Fritzsche, 1991).

One manufacturer (Hobart) produced the convection fryer for a short time and then took it off the market because of problems. According to the developer, the unit was originally designed as a high efficiency french fry fryer, but ran into difficulties when it was sold to cook everything (ibid). It was used for so many applications that the unit could not handle the residue from the cooking process (ie; the filter clogged up continually, requiring constant cleaning). It is not currently known whether this item will be marketed again in the near future.

Pulse Combustion Fryer

In the pulse combustion process, air and gas are premixed in a combustion chamber and initially ignited by spark ignition. Once ignited, a pressure pulse is created which forces the combustion products through a heat exchanger and out the exhaust. The resulting pressure drop draws in air and gas for the second pulse, which is ignited by the residual heat of the first pulse. Once started, the process is self-perpetuating.

Applying pulse combustion technology to a commercial fryer was investigated by GRI and showed substantial promise to decrease energy consumption. In fact, preliminary tests showed energy savings of 54% over a standard fryer (Farnsworth, Himmel, 1984). Vulcan-Hart was the manufacturer which cooperated with GRI on these tests. Although promising, the technology was never produced for market. Apparently this was both because the cost of the unit to the end-user was expected to be too high (evidently even higher than infrared fryers) and because there were concerns about the reliability of operating this type of equipment (which is fairly complicated and a bit touchy) in the hostile environment of a commercial kitchen. It is possible that a manufacturer will put a pulse combustion unit into production at some future point if gas prices increase enough to justify the high first cost of the appliance.

Miscellaneous High Efficiency Fryers

Two manufacturers (Dean and Pitco) claim to make an "improved" tube-type burner fryer which they claim is more efficient than their standard fryers, although less efficient than the infrareds (Table XIV). Of its design, a representative from Dean would only state that the flue temperatures of the unit are much less than standard, implying that some modification to the burner or heat exchanger design has improved heat transfer to the frying oil. The unit comes standard with an IID. No more specific information was available. Regarding the Pitco design, an engineer at the factory stated that

2 5

griddles at SoCal Gas. In addition, the infrared griddle used 40% less when cooking thawed hamburgers compared to the 20°F hamburgers cooked on standard griddles in the SoCal Gas tests. The AGA tests also found that 30% less energy was used in idling the infrared griddle compared to the average of the standard griddles. In these same tests the infrared had a 22% greater production cooking the thawed hamburgers compared to the -20°F hamburgers.

Costs for the infrared griddle range from about $4,000 to $8,000 (Table XVI). For one manufacturer (Keating) this is about 35% more than its standard griddles. For the other manufacturer (Wolf) it is about twice as much. Penetration rates for the infrared griddle were not available from either manufacturer. In terms of reliability, one industry source said that unlike infrared fryers, he has not received any complaints on the infrared griddles, so they appear to be working well in the field (Fritzsche, 1991).

Pulse Combustion Griddle

Pulse combustion technology can also by applied to commercial griddles, with expected efficiencies of over 70% and fuel savings of about 27% (GRI, 1987). The griddle has other benefits of good temperature control and consistency of product. In addition, the design allows flexibility in that individual portions of the griddle can be operated or not as required. In spite of its advantages, the pulse combustion griddle has not been marketed to date, apparently for the same concerns as the pulse combustion fryer: cost and reliability. However, this unit may yet come to the market if gas prices increase enough to justify the high first cost.

Clamshell Griddle

The clamshell griddle is a new gas item (there has been an electric equivalent for several years) which shows promise to considerably reduce the energy costs and time associated with griddle foods. The unit has a conventional griddle bottom and an infrared broiler top that can be lowered down on top of the food product to cook both sides at once.26 The advantages of the clamshell include speed (according to the manufacturer it cooks twice as fast as a typical griddle), versatility (more than one type of product can be cooked at the same time) and high efficiency (according to the manufacturer, it approaches 74% efficient.) The unit can be used instead of an electric clamshell, conventional gas or infrared gas griddle. No performance tests have been completed on this unit as of yet, but it will be tested in 1992 under the AGA market introduction program.

Lang is the manufacturer of the only all-gas clamshell currently on the market (Table XVI). This product is applicable for any restaurant which serves a variety of food products and needs the versatility and speed of such a unit. While sales figures were not available, Lang has been pleased with the unit's acceptance into the marketplace. The clamshell costs roughly twice as much as a conventional griddle, and about the same as an infrared (Table XV).

26A predecessor to this all gas clamshell was a gas bottomed griddle with a quartz electric top. These were manufactured by Lang and Wolf, but both companies have discontinued the product because the quartz lamp tops were difficult and expensive to replace, causing customer dissatisfaction. In addition, there was some concern over contamination of the food product with glass if the quartz lamp ever burst.

2 7

available high efficiency technologies have good potential to reduce energy costs associated with commercial cooking. Most measures are estimated to save in the range of 25% to 40%, which is much greater than untapped opportunities in the residential market. However, since this market is so heavily driven by first cost and since there is a considerable cost differential between high efficiency equipment and conventional equipment, penetration rates are generally quite low for most of the available high efficiency equipment. In fact some beneficial measures (eg; vent dampers) have been withdrawn from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) market, and other promising measures have yet to be commercialized (eg; pulse combustion technology) due to the lack of interest among buyers. As a result, it may be necessary to offer financial incentives to provide additional motivation to effectively move the market toward high efficiency options. In order to determine if monetary incentives are worthwhile and then to establish the appropriate levels of incentives if warranted, it is necessary to understand the specific conservation potential represented by each of the high efficiency appliances already discussed.

The most accurate payback analysis would be based on measured data showing typical useage patterns (during start-up, idling and cooking) for the types of commercial cooking equipment of interest. Unfortunately, that data does not currently exist and what little data is available is out of date or inadequate. As a result, the payback analysis relies on basic engineering references and rules-of-thumb. Typical annual usage for various types of commercial cooking appliances is shown in Table XVIII by type of facility. Assumptions for number of meals served per day, equipment operating hours (full on) and total annual operating days which were used in the calculations are also shown for each facility type (Minnegasco Architects' and Engineers' Manual, undated; Holman, pers comm, 1992). Average annual operating costs were calculated based on these assumptions using the following formula:

ANNUAL OPERATING COST =

Avg input (Btu/Hr) * Hrs full on per day * Operating days per yr

* Avg Gas Price ($/CCF)

100,000 Btu/CCF

Average annual energy use for each appliance type is computed at 240 MBtu27 for

steamers, 184 MBtu for ranges, 127 MBtu for braisers, 113 MBtu for infrared broilers, 85 MBtu for convection ovens, 170 MBtu for deck ovens, 156 MBtu for fryers, and 127 MBtu for griddles (Table XVIII). These averages are relatively close to calculated energy consumption based on data given in Hurley, which produce estimated annual use per unit of 131 MBtu for steamers, 127 MBtu for ranges/braisers, 100 MBtu for broilers, 100 MBtu for ovens, 100 MBtu for fryers, and 91 MBtu for griddles (Table XIX) (Hurley, et al, 1986).

Based on the typical annual consumptions given in Table XVIII, and estimates of savings for specific high efficiency upgrades already discussed, savings potential and payback can be calculated for each appliance type of interest. In cases where data from AGA market introduction studies were available, an average of the energy savings per pound over all product types cooked was used 270ne MBtu is equivalent to one million Btu or 1 X 106 Btu.

2 9

differential of approximately $1,340 between a conventional and convection oven, paybacks for the two options are estimated at 4.2 years for an indirect convection oven and 2.4 years for a direct fired convection. For an average use case, paybacks are estimated at 6.1 and 3.7 years respectively for the two oven types. The additional savings with the direct-fired unit ($50 to $240 depending on use) clearly make it a worthwhile purchase in comparison to the indirect oven, especially considering the fact that there is virtually no cost differential between the two options (Table VII).

Since free-standing convection ovens generally have good penetration already, more potential to influence purchasing decisions toward high efficiency options probably exists in the category of range ovens, where convection ovens are not as readily purchased (perhaps penetration rates as low as 5% to 10%). Estimates of paybacks for a high use case are 5 years and for a typical case are 8 years (Table XX).

In terms of combination ovens, these units appear to be more efficient than using two separate pieces of equipment (ie; a steamer and a convection oven) independently (Table X-A and X-B). In cases where a facility can utilize a combination oven (ie; does not need to use a steamer and convection oven at bl2Hthe same time), it is an excellent option and savings potential cola from $50 to $400 per year depending on how heavily the equipment is used (Table XX) The merit of a combination oven as a direct replacement for a convection oven is yet to be determined, but seems unlikely given the high cost. In addition, there is probably some concern that energy use could increase in comparison to a direct-fired convection oven if an end-user is likely to use the combination mode a lot for specialty items (eg; crusty bread), since the combination mode used more energy per pound of product than a standard direct-fired convection unit (Table X-C).

About 12,000 ovens are shipped yearly.29 Of this number, approximately 50%, or 6,000 are convection units. Assuming one-quarter (1,500) of the convection ovens currently sold are indirect-fired units and assuming approximately $141 (282 therms) savings per unit per year, then approximately 4.23 X 1010 Btu could be saved if direct-fired ovens were installed instead. In addition, if 500 of the 6,000 non-convection style ovens sold were replaced with direct fired convection ovens at per unit savings of $360 per year (720 therms), an additional 3.60 X 1010 per year could be conserved.

Ranges

A large potential appears to exist to move the market-place towards the purchase of more efficient ranges. As mentioned under ovens, one option is to upgrade a conventional range oven to a convection style oven. In terms of the range burner itself, the only high efficiency technology currently on the market is a power burner range, but savings are substantial for this upgrade (about 24%). In addition, it looks like the jet impingement range will be available soon and savings for it could be estimated at roughly 20%.

29This is our estimate from Table V. Unfortunately, It is unclear whether the data this estimate is based on includes range top ovens or is only for free-standing ovens.

31

Patani, 1982). At a list price of $300 as an option, conservative savings estimates are $25 to $30 per year, depending on oven use. Corresponding paybacks are about 10 years.

REVIEW OF UTILITY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

The 50 largest gas utilities in the United States (based on number of customers served) were identified using the Brown 1990 Directory of North American Gas Utility Companies (Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich, 1990). (Minnegasco was listed as 21st on this list.) In order to review what other gas utilities are currently doing (in terms of financial incentives and technical services) to encourage the purchase of high efficiency commercial cooking appliances, these 50 utilities were first contacted by phone to determine if they offered any type of program geared to this market. If a program was available from a particular utility, a follow-up phone call was made to the appropriate contact person at the utility and a general survey was conducted. Since the Wisconsin commercial market is similar to the Minnesota market and it was known that a number of Wisconsin gas utilities currently offer programs in this area, it seemed reasonable to focus some special attention on utilities from that state. According to the Brown Directory, eight Wisconsin utilities have a customer base of 10,000 or greater. Of these, two occupied the 33rd and 41st spots on the largest 50 list already mentioned. The remaining six were also surveyed as part of this project. As a result, 56 utilities in all were polled. The names of the utilities surveyed are not published in this report in connection with the survey results to provide anonymity.

Of the fifty-six utilities contacted, a total of 13 or 23% currently offer some financial incentives for high efficiency commercial cooking equipment (Appendix B). From among the fifty largest gas utilities, seven or 14% offer some monetary inducement. All eight of the Wisconsin gas utilities surveyed offer these incentives. In addition, three of the utilities which do not currently have this type of program stated they were actively looking into such a program for the near future.

Based on our conversations with utilities which offer financial incentives, the equipment most commonly rebated appears to be convection ovens, fryers and griddles. Utilities surveyed were also asked how popular the rebates were in their territories. Most said that few customers are taking advantage of the rebates currently (estimates were usually in the neighborhood of 1 to 2 rebates per month). A great deal of this lack of interest is probably marketing, since a lot of commercial programs are marketed by word-of-mouth, or by other fairly low-key methods. In fact, several utilities even stated that they did not market the rebates vigorously. In addition, one utility (#33) which appears to have among the most aggressive marketing programs reported that total rebates for 1991 were in the 110 to 120 range.

The incentives offered are based on slightly different criteria for each utility, but most often they are tied to certain recognizable high efficiency features (such as infrared technology). Sometimes the definition of what qualifies as high efficiency equipment is very liberal (eg; any equipment with an intermittent ignition device) and sometimes it is more specific (eg;

33

if the equipment specifier has an incentive to select high efficiency options. Details of each incentive program are described below and a summary of all the utilities surveyed can be found in Appendix B.

Utility #1

Commercial cooking appliances which feature intermittent ignition devices instead of standing pilots, advanced burner technologies (eg; infrared or power burners) or solid state controls are eligible for incentives from this utility of $10.00 per thousand Btu per hour input rating on the particular appliance. In addition, combination ovens are rebated at the rate of $3.75 per thousand Btu per hour input rating. In either case, there is a maximum rebate of 20% of the equipment invoice cost (not including installation cost). Technical assistance is offered directly by this utility. In addition, the utility has a consultant program, in which customers are rebated either $0.50 per annual therm saved for retrofits recommended by an independent qualified consultant which are installed, or 50% of the cost of the consultant study, whichever is less.

Utility #3

This utility offers financial incentives for commercial cooking equipment which are individually tailored and quite nominal and are limited to schools only. However, they have a very active program which offers technical services to commercial customers including restaurants. Part of the emphasis of this service is to encourage customers to upgrade to high efficiency appliances, but no incentives are offered.

Utility #23

The program offered by this utility is currently limited to only a small portion of their service territory in which it is being run as a pilot. They offer a free cooking survey in which improvements of all kinds are recommended. The incentive consist of a 10% rebate on the purchase price (not including installation) for only five specific types of equipment: infrared broilers, infrared fryers, infrared griddles, any convection oven and ranges equipped with power burners.

Utility #33 (Wisconsin)

This utility offers free surveys for commercial customers as well as financial incentives of 10% on the purchase price (not including installation) for the following slate of cooking equipment:

Braising Pans with heat-sink grids or looped burners and solid state controls

Broilers/Cheesemelters which have infrared burners

Convection Ovens

3 5

Broilers with infrared burners

Cheesemelters with infrared burners

Braising Pans with solid state controls

Fryers with thermostatic controls

Conveyor Ovens with solid state controls

Compartment Steamers which are direct-fired, self-contained and have solid state controls

Also offered is either a free energy survey from the utility itself, or an outside consultant program. On the outside consultant program, the utility offers rebates of up to $5,000: 50% up to $2,500 for the cost of the study itself and 50% up to $2,500 for the cost of installing a qualifying technology that is recommended in the study. In addition, submeters are loaned to commercial customers at no charge for up to 24 months to help the customer accurately monitor specific pieces of equipment.

Wisconsin Utility B

Set rebates on a laundry list of eligible equipment are not offered by this utility. Instead, they look at the specific technology being considered and the savings expected for installation in the particular restaurant to determine if the customer is eligible for a rebate. If an incentive is warranted, the rebates are in general equivalent to about 25% of the cost of the equipment or 125% of the first year savings, whichever is less.

Wisconsin Utility C

Rebates of 10% of the purchase and installation costs of high efficiency cooking equipment are offered by this utility for four specific appliances. Eligible equipment includes infrared griddles, infrared fryers, infrared broilers and convection ovens.

Wisconsin Utility D

For its rebate, this utility offers a 10% rebate on the installed cost of any piece of equipment that is an upgrade from the existing equipment, as long as it meets a ten year payback. For new construction, the program is more complicated. The utility tries to get involved early on in the design process and attempts to convince the end-user to purchase the most efficiency equipment that is available. The rebate is set up to give the customer more incentive for going with higher efficiency equipment. To do this the utility pays a flat $0.25 per therm of total estimated savings during the entire payback period. For example, if a particular high efficiency fryer is estimated to save 600 therms per year and take 8 years to payback, the rebate would be $1,200 (ie; 600 therms per year, multiplied by 8 years, multiplied by $0.25 per therm equals $1,200).

37

options, the market penetration of most of these technologies is still comparatively low, in most cases 10% or less of current shipments.

A significant reason for the low penetration rates of high efficiency cooking equipment is that in a market which is highly driven by first-cost, the substantial price differential between cooking appliances with high efficiency features and those with standard features is difficult to overcome. On average, the list price of most high efficiency options is about one-and-onehalf to two times the list price of the standard efficiency alternative. However, not all of this price tag can be attributed solely to the cost of high efficiency technology, since most high efficiency equipment has other premium features (eg; deluxe controls) which contribute to the price disparity.

The lack of a standardized rating system has been another formidable barrier, even for end-users who are interested in high efficiency equipment, since an impartial means of comparing operating costs among equipment options has been nonexistent. This has also been an information gap for dealers and specifiers of equipment for this market. Fortunately, this difficulty is in the process of being rectified through an industry-wide effort to establish and utilized standardized test procedures for each type of commercial cooking equipment. In addition to making it possible to compare the efficiencies of different equipment options, this enterprise will undoubtedly promote interest in high efficiency equipment in general and is a significant trend.

A further deterrent to the purchase of high efficiency equipment is the fact equipment dealers lack the information or motivation to sell high efficiency equipment. In a competitive field, pricing may make the difference between a sale or no sale. Since high efficiency equipment tends to cost more than standard equipment for the same function, there is little incentive for a dealer to push high efficiency when a competitor can easily undercut the price, often without the customer really understanding the difference between the units being specified.

Some buyers may also hesitate to purchase high efficiency equipment for fear that it will break down more often or cost more to repair and maintain; since equipment breakdowns translate directly into lost revenue, reliability is an understandable concern. While it is true that high efficiency equipment tends to use more complicated components (eg; blower motors), reliability has generally been good. In addition, most high efficiency equipment has additional features that are more reliable and easy to use (eg; solid state controls) than similar features of standard equipment, and this can have substantial side benefits to customer. As with any new technology, some difficulties have arisen, but most have been addressed and resolved.

Results of a simplified economic analysis indicate that paybacks in applications of high use range from 2 to 6 years, whereas paybacks in applications of which are more typical range from 4 to 9 years. Paybacks in these ranges are usually longer than commercial customers are willing to accept without some other incentive.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3 9

Combination Ovens are an interesting innovation which may save energy in situations where the end-user can use it to replace both a steamer and an oven. However, this may be a fairly small market niche. Further research on market potential may be needed to determine if rebates are warranted for this technology.

Power Burner Ranges are a good candidate for rebates since savings potential is high (24%) and penetration is low (probably less than 10%).

Jet Impingement Range technology is very promising, with savings potential expected in the 20% to 30% range. Rebates are recommended as soon as the unit is commercially available.

Infrared Fryers are recommended for rebates since penetration appears to be low and the technology has anticipated savings in the neighborhood of 30% to 40%.

Pulse Combustion Fryers should be included in a rebate program when and if they become available. Preliminary data show expected savings of over 50% from the technology.

Forced Convection Fryers are an example of a good idea which was badly applied. While no longer available on the market, if a unit is reintroduced it should be rebated since savings potential is predicted at 40% to 45%.

Miscellaneous "High Efficiency" Fryers were investigated, but do not seem worthwhile to include in a rebate program at this time. If further investigation, or the results of standardized testing prove one of the units to approach the savings of an infrared fryer, they should be considered for rebates at that time.

Infrared Griddles are good candidates for rebates. Savings of about 34% have been demonstrate, but market penetration appears to be low.

Pulse Combustion Griddles should be included in a rebate program when and if they come to market. No test results are currently available.

Clamshell Griddles seem like a good technology and are probably good candidates for rebates. AGA tests are due to be completed this calendar year and it is recommended that the results be reviewed when available and the unit considered for rebate at that time.

Duplex Griddles are under development, but are not currently ready for production or testing. This item should be followed up on in the future and considered for rebates, although it has a more select market niche: the high production kitchen.

Miscellaneous "High Efficiency" Griddles do not seem worthwhile to include in a rebate program at this time. If further investigation, or the results of standardized testing prove one of

4 1

Development of marketing approaches including coordination of these rebates with existing Blue Flamei0 rebates,

and other tasks. With further analysis a program which encourages the participation of the largest market share, minimizes free riders, and achieves the biggest return for investment dollar can be developed.

Opportunities for Research or Demonstration Projects

Commercial Equipment Load Shape Field Monitoring

One of the difficulties with estimating savings and paybacks for implementation of high efficiency cooking technologies is the lack of reliable field data on the typical energy use of various types of cooking equipment under varying load conditions. The limited information on useage patterns that is available is based on engineering computations or inadequate, out-of-date monitoring data. As a result, field tests to generate accurate data on typical energy use and load shapes of the major types of commercial cooking equipment are recommended. These tests should include monitoring of the equipment in a variety of different food service operations for periods of at least one month. In addition, the data analysis should include the daily average hours of operation, the percent average burner operation, the percent of idle time, and the hours of low, moderate and high loads. These results could then be combined with information on seasonal variations in business activity (eg; number of meals served) to compute annual estimates of energy use patterns.

Testing of High Efficiency Equipment

A major barrier to the acceptance of energy efficient technologies in the marketplace is the lack of standard ratings and third party tests of the technologies. Standardized test procedures are in the process of being developed by the industry and as they become available, operating and performance data from independent sources will also become more readily available. However, at this point such data have only begun to trickle out. In addition, even with such information available on a national level, local tests often prove extremely helpful in lending credibility and convincing an owner to follow through with the recommended action. (The multifamily program that CEUE administers for Minnegasco has been a good example of just how important local field testing can be in persuading owners to install appropriate retrofits.) Acknowledging the need for performance data, but recognizing the complexity of executing laboratory tests on commercial cooking appliances, a fairly modest testing agenda is recommended and summarized below.

Convection Ovens appear well-accepted in the current market and therefore laboratory or field tests are not warranted.

30The Blue Flame rebates are a coordinated rebate program offered by all gas utilities who are members of the Blue Flame

association. These rebates are for customers who select gas equipment and are not correlated to the efficiency of the equipment selected. The program is advantageous since paperwork is standardized and the rebates can be marketed broadly by dealers

throughout Minnesota.

4 3

several applications of interest is recommended to ascertain if the measure is worthwhile.

Vent Dampers showed good savings in tests performed by AGA, but application of this measure as a retrofit was not investigated. Follow-up research should be conducted, initially with the one manufacture who offered vent dampers in the past, to determine if retrofit of existing equipment is a practical option and to establish which equipment it could be retrofitted on. If warranted from this investigation, field tests of retrofitted vent dampers are recommended on applicable equipment.

Opportunities Information Services

It is recommended that a technical information service be established for commercial cooking appliance vendors and designers. In addition, Minnegasco should consider some sort of direct service to end-users to supplement the marketing approach through dealers and to provide independent examination of equipment options as well as to evaluate other opportunities for reducing energy costs in individual facilities.

In the food service industry it is vitally important to provide accurate information on high efficiency equipment options to vendors and commercial kitchen consultants or designers. These specialists have a considerable influence over equipment purchases in the commercial sector and a lack of such information may be one of the factors contributing to low penetration rates for high efficiency equipment. These professionals can also be very effective allies in marketing rebates or other services offered by Minnegasco. A first step in this process is to obtain input from equipment vendors and designers to better determine what information is lacking. In addition, input on the design of a reasonable rebate process and program structure should also be obtained from this group. Once the existing circumstances are better understood and a rebate program has been established, it is recommended that Minnegasco set up a series of informational meetings for industry dealers, consultants and designers. At these seminars, general information about high efficiency equipment options will be discussed, program specifics explained in detail and promotional literature distributed. Following these seminars, follow-up and/or ongoing informational services should also be established to keep interest in the program high and assure maximum implementation of program measures.

In addition to informational services to vendors and designers, Minnegasco should consider some sort of direct service to end-users. Minnegasco already operates a highly successful energy audit and information service for the multifamily sector through CEUE which has a 30% to 40% installation rate of recommended measures. Offering a similar audit and/or information service to commercial cooking customers has several benefits. Foremost is the fact that direct one-to-one promotion of program measures is one of the most effective marketing tools available. Customers would have the benefit of recommendations that are specific to their facility and would obtain more accurate performance and payback data than if the program were marketed through generic brochures or other information sources. Available rebates could be explained in a straightforward, easily understood approach. In

4 5

REFERENCES

American Gas Association, December 1991. Personal communication from research staff of Gas Demand Analysis Division, 1515 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209.

American Gas Association, 1991. Gas Facts, 1515 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209.

American Gas Association, 1973. Fundamentals of Gas Combustion, Catalogue # XH0373, 1515 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209.

American Gas Association, undated. "Advances in Gas Cooking Technology Into the 1990s," A special supplement to Food Facilities and Energy News, AGA, Arlington, VA 22209.

Bender, John, March 1992. Personal communication, Wolf Range, P.O. Box 7050, Compton, CA 90221.

Bonne, U., A. Patani, May 1982. "Combustion system Performance Analysis and Simulation," GRI # 81/0093, Gas Research Institute, 8600 W. Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631.

Brown 1990 Directory of North American Gas Utility Companies. Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich, NY, NY.

Claar, C.N., R.P. Mazzucchi, J.A. Heidell, March 1985. "The Project on Restaurant Energy Performance - End-Use Monitoring and Analysis," U.S. DOE Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA.

Diggins, R., F. Parobechek, G. Wells, R. Himmel, March 1987. "Vulcan-Hart Frycat Catalytic Deep Fat Fryer Model CCFD-1C," American Gas Association Performance Test Report, Gas Foodservice Equipment Market Introduction Program, AGA, Arlington, VA 22209.

Dunn and Bradstreet, personal communication from Mark Mindek, February 1992, New York, NY.

Farnsworth, Craig A., Robert L. Himmel, August 1984, "Commercial Cooking Appliances: Moving Towards the Future," American Gas Association, Proceedings from ACEEE 1984 Summer Study, Volume E, pp 91-104, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 801„ Washington, DC, 20036.

Ferlin, Bettie, December 1991. Personal communication, Pacific Gas and Electric, San Ramon, CA 94583.

Ferlin, Bettie, Suzanne M. Cushman, March 1983. "Comparison of Five Pizza Ovens," Pacific Gas and Electric, San Ramon, CA 94583.

Foodservice Equipment & Supplies Specialist Magazine, January 25, 1992. Cahners Publishing Company, 1350 E. Touhy Avenue, P.O. Box 5080, Des Plaines, IL 60017-5080.

4 7

Krauss, William E., December 1991. Personal communication, Krauss and Associates, Inc., Chicago, IL.

Kwansa, Francis, 1991. "Business Failure Analysis," Hospitality Research Journal, Washington, DC.

Langmead, Jack, December 1991. Personal communication, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA 20209.

Minnegasco Architects' and Engineers' Handbook, undated. Minnegasco, Inc., 201 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, Mn 55402.

Parobechek, F., R. Nelson, T. Krulick, August 1987. "Garland Commercial Industries Heavy Duty Hotel Range With Power Top Burners, Model PB42RC," American Gas Association Performance Test Report, Gas Foodservice Equipment Market Introduction Program, AGA, Arlington, VA 22209.

Scriven, Carl, James Stevens, 1989. Food Equipment Facts, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY 10003.

Sobieski, S., A. Waters, R. Himmel, M. Green, S. Kennedy, T. Moskitis, July 1985. "Hobart Gas Convection Deep Fat Fryer Model GFM-50," American Gas Association Performance Test Report, Gas Foodservice Equipment Market Introduction Program, AGA, Arlington, VA 22209.

Sobieski, S., A. Waters, R. Himmel, L. Vasan, M. Green, S. Kennedy, July 1985. "Wolf Gas Infra-Red Griddle Model Pro 48-IR-F," American Gas Association Performance Test Report, Gas Foodservice Equipment Market Introduction Program, AGA, Arlington, VA 22209.e

Stack, R, R. Erhard, R. Himmel, July 1989. "Groen Convection Combo Model CC10-G," American Gas Association Performance Test Report, Gas Foodservice Equipment Market Introduction Program, AGA, Arlington, VA 22209.

Usibelli, Anthony, Steve Greenberg, Margaret Mead, Alan Mitchell, February 1985. "Commercial-Sector Conservation Technologies," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

Ener

gy

Consu

med

(Q

uad

s)

0 . 3

0 . 2 9

0 . 2 8

0 . 2 7

0 . 2 6

0 . 2 5

0 . 2 4

0 . 2 3

0 . 2 2

0 . 2 1

0 . 2

0 . 1 9

0 . 1 8

0 . 1 7

0 . 1 6

0 . 1 5

0 . 1 4

0 . 1 3

0 . 1 2

0 . 1 1

0 . 1

' Assumes cooking accounts for 10% of total commercial gas use given in 1991 Gas Facts

FIGURE 1

Gas Consumption For Commercial Sector

En

erg

y C

on

su

med

(Q

uads)

2 .

8

2 .

6

2 .

4

2 .

2

2

1 .

8

1 .

6

1 .

4

1 .

2

1

0 .

8

0 .

6

0 .

4

0 .

2

0

196 7 1 96 9 9 7 973 97 5 9 77 1 97 9 9 81 19 83 1 98 5 19 87 19 89

1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Yea r

Source: AGA Gas Facts, 1991

FIGURE 2

Gas Energy Used For Commercial Cooking

1967 [ I 1969 I 1971 1 I 1973 I 1975 I 1977 I 1979 I 1981 1 1983 I 1985 I 1987 1 1989 I 1111 r i

1 9 6 8 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 4 . 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 8 1 9 9 0 Y e a r

0 AGA Estimate* + Hurley Calculation

Refrig (5.8%)

L i g h t i n g ( 1 3 . 5 i 1

S a n i t a t i o n ( 1 7 . 8 % ) 1 1 1 1 0

Food Prep (34.8%)

FIGURE 5

Average End—Use Consumption Shares

For Seven Metered Foci!Mee

HVAC (28.03)

Source: Clear, et al., 1985

TABLE I.

Gas Use In Commercial Sector

Total Y E A R Q u a d s C h a n g e

1967 1.5776

1968 1.7049 8.1%

1969 1.8781 10.2% 1970 2.0066 6.8% 1971 2.1555 7.4% 1972 2.2757 5.6%

1973 2.2808 0.2% 1974 2.2934 0.6% 1975 2.3868 4.1% 1976 2.4226 1.5%

1977 2.4094 -0.5% 1978 2.4995 3.7%

1979 2.4858 -0.5%

1980 2.4554 -1.2%

1981 2.3754 -3.3% 1982 2.4713 4.0% 1983 2.2982 -7.0% 1984 2.3960 4.3% 1985 2.3380 -2.4% 1986 2.2389 -4.2%

1987 2.1559 -3.7%

1988 2.3060 7.0% 1989 2.3218 0.7%

1990 2.1934 -5.5%

Source: AGA Gas Facts, 1991

TABLE IV.

Estimated 1990 Inventories and Energy Use

Appliance Type

Energy Use TrItu/Year*

1982**•

Estimated Inventory

% of

Inventory Total

# of Units Gas Use

Average

MBtu/Year".

I. Unit

1990,..••

Estimated inventory

Energy Use

TBtu/Year* # Units

Steam Equipment 21.3 162800 9% 131 19.4 148230

fianges/Braisers 81.7 486800 26% 127 58.2 443233

Broilers 15.0 150200 6% 100 13.7 136757

Ovens 47.7 478100 20% 100 43.4 435311

Deep Fat Fryers 46.7 468800 19% 100 42.5 426843

Griddles 48.5 535800 20% 91 44.2 487847

Total: 240.9 2282500 100% 219.3 2078221

TBtu = times 10 to the power of 12 (tera)

• M B t u = t i m e s 1 0 t o t h e p o w e r o f 6 ( m e g a ) * * * B a s e d

o n H u r l e y , e t a l . , 1 9 8 6 * * * * C a l c u l a t e d b a s e d o n 1 9 8 2 %

b r e a k d o w n o f g a s u s e a n d e s t i m a t e d e n e r g y u s e / y e a r / u n i t

......... 10% of total commercial gas use given in 1991 Gas Facts

TABLE VI

Comparative Energy Use of Convection Ovens

DIRECT-FIRED

CONVECTION OVEN

Energy Use

Indirect-Fired

CONVECTION OVEN

% Savings

Direct-Fired Energy Over

Use Indirect-Fired

Preheat (Btu) 12,250 17,031 28.1%

Idling (Btu/Hr) 13,195 21,078 37.4%

Cooking Sheet Cakes

Total Btu 11,760 16,674 29.5%

Btu/Pound 392 556 29.5%

Rolls Total Btu 11,697 19,005 38.5%

Btu/Pound 806 985 38.5%

Frozen Pie Total Btu 30,555 38,430 20.5%

Btu/Pound 540 669 19.3%

Frozen Lasagne Total Btu 69,773 107,310 35.0%

Btu/Pound 581 894 35.0%

AVERAGE COOKING SAVINGS Total: 30.8%

Btu/Pound: 30.6% Source: AGA Market Introduction Test Report

TABLE VIII. RANGE OVENS

MFGR

Std Burners w/Storage

Model. Descr Btu/hr Cost

Std Burners w/Std Oven

Model Descr Btu/hr Cost

Std Burners w/Convect Oven

Model - Descr Btu/hr Cost

G28S 4 Burner 80,000 $1,325 G28 4 Burner 105,000 $1,865

02863 8 Burner 120,000 $1,532 G286 8 Burner 155,000 $2,200 G286RC 8 Burner 155,000 $3,375

G2886 8 Burner 195,000 $3,058 0288RO 8 Burner 195,000 $4,230

0288 8 Burner 210,000 $3,870 G288RC2 8 Burner 210,000 $5,376

G2846 10 Burner 200,000 $3,297 0284 10 Burner 270,000 $3,710 6284RC 10 Burner 235,000 $4,885

G287 10 Burner 235,000 $3,300 0284RC2 10 Burner 270,000 $6,030

4 0282 8 + Grid 198,500 $3,670 0282RC 6 + Grid 198,500 $4,745

0283 8 + Grid 233,500 $4,246 G283RC 6 + Grid 233,500 $5,890

0283RC2 8 + Grid 233,500 $6,566

4440S 4 Burner 80,000 $2,750 4440R 4 Burner 120,000 $3,335 4440RC 4 Burner 120,000 $4,510

4340S 6 Burner 84,000 $3,060 4340R 6 Burner 124,000 $3,670 43-4ORC 8 Burner 124,000 $4,845

43401S 4 + Grid 78,000 $3,280 43401R 4 + Grid 118,000 $3,870 43401RC 4 + Grid 118,000 $5,045

43402S 2 + Grid 72,000 $3,390 43402R 2 + Grid 112,000 $3,979 43402RC 2 + Grid 112,000 $5,154

4740S Griddle 54,000 3270 4740R Griddle 89,000 $3,460 4740R0 Griddle 89,000 $4,636

6

Manufacture a model, but no Manufacture a model, but no

literature received after several requests literature received after several requests

15

300 6 Burner 162,000 $2,043 C0300 6 Burner 152,000 $3,193

301 2 + Grid 120,000 $2,515 C0301 2 + Grid 113,000 $3,685

302 Griddle 96,000 $2,604 C0302 Griddle 89,000 $3,754

303 6 + Grid 185,500 $3,397 C0303 6 + Grid 178,500 $4,547

304 4 + Grid 195,500 $3,671 C0304 4 + Grid 188,500 $4,821

16

P420 4 Burner 107,000 61,590

P2420 Griddle 75,000 $1,850 P628 6 Burner 120,000 $1,890 COP626 6 Burner 115,000 $2,885

P12426 4 + Grid 139,000 $2,190 COP12 4 + Grid 134,000 $3,186

P1026 10 Burner 235,000 $2,780 CGP1026 10 Burner 230,000 $3,775

P24626 6 + Grid 203,000 $2,990 CGP24 6 + Grid 198,000 $3,985

P36426 4 + Grid 187,000 $3,090 CGP36 4 + Grid 182,000 $4,086

17 HM45S 4 Burner 120,000 $2,962 1146 4 Burner 170,000 $3,220 H45C 4 Burner 152,000 $4,320

HM56S 6 Burner 120,000 $3,182 H68 6 Burner 170,000 $3,540 H56C 8 Burner 162,000 $4,640

HM6OS Griddle 80,000 $3,582 H60 Griddle 130,000 $3,930 H60C Griddle 112,000 $5,030

HM6045S 2 + Grid 100,000 $3,622 H60/45 2 + Grid 150,000 $3,960 H60/45C 2 + Grid 132,000 $5,060

20 F4036 4 Burner 80,000 $2,268 F427 4 Burner 120,000 $3,298 KF427 4 Burner 110,000 $4,358

F6038 6 Burner 120,000 $2,352 F627 8 Burner 160,000 $3,384 KF627 6 Burner 160,000 $4,444

FOFT36 Griddle 90,000 $2,640 F027FT Griddle 130,000 $3,672 KO27FT Griddle 103,000 $4,735

F227FT 2 + Grid 140,000 63,588 K227FT 2 + Grid 130,000 54,646

NOTE: Comparisons between brands cannot be made since different features or finishes may be standard

Model numbers or other information may be abbreviated to accomodate space in table Prices

include Intermittent Ignition Device option

TABLE X. - A

Comparative Energy Use of Combi Ovens in Convection Mode

COMBI OVEN

CONVECTION

MODE

Energy Use

Direct-Fired

CONVECTION OVEN

% Savings

Combi Over Energy Direct-Fired Use Convection

Indirect-Fired

CONVECTION OVEN

% Savings

Combi Over Energy Indirect-Fired Use Convection

Preheat (Btu) 5,438 12,250 55.6% 17,031 68.1%

Idling (Btu/Hr) 7,385 13,195 44.0% 21,078 65.0%

Cooking Sheet Cakes

Total Btu 3,718 11,760 88,4% 16,674 77.7%

Btu/Pound 310 392 20.9% 556 44.2%

Rolls Total Btu 2,338 11,697 80.0% 19,005 87.7%

Btu/Pound 324 606 46.5% 985 67.1%

Frozen Pie Total Btu 12,788 30,555 58.1% 38,430 66.7%

Btu/Pound 541 540 -0.2% 669 19.1%

Frozen Lasagne Total Btu 26,483 69,773 62.0% 107,310 75.3%

Btu/Pound 552 581 5.0% 894 38.3%

AVERAGE COOKING SAVINGS Total: 67.1% 78.9%

Btu/Pound: 18.1% 42.2% Source: AGA Market Introduction Test Report

NOTE: In AGA Report, direct-fired unit is refered to as low Input and Indirect-fired unit is referred to as high imput (Himmel, pers comm, 1992)

TABLE X. - B

Comparative Energy Use of Combi Ovens in Steam Mode

COMBI OVEN

STEAM MODE

Energy ..

Use

Typical

STEAMER

% Savings

Energy Combi Over

Use Steamer

Preheat (Btu) 10,569 30,239 65.0%

Idling (Btu/Hr) 14,092 10,553 -33.5%

Cooking French Beans Lght Ld

Total (Btu) 5,499 12,238 55.1%

Btu/Pound 1,100 2,023 45.6%

Regular Beans Lght Ld Total (Btu) 3,243 4,965 34.7%

Btu/Pound 649 991 34.5%

French Beans Full Ld Total (Btu) 15,432 36,267 57.4%

Btu/Pound 772 1,007 23.3%

Reg Beans Full Ld Total (Btu) 9,168 29,064 68.5%

Btu/Pound 458 969 52.7%

AVERAGE COOKING SAVINGS Total: 53.9%

Btu/Pound: 39.1% Source: AGA Market Introduction Test Report

TABLE XI. PIZZA OVENS

MFOR Model

Standard Deck

Descr Btu/hr- Cost

High Effleciecy Deck

Model Descr Btu/hr Coat Model

Conveyor Style

Descr Btu/hr Cost

1 1048 47w X 37d 86,000 $4,927

MT21 38 long 55,000 $18,500

1060 60w X 36d 85,000 $5,581 MT32 55 long 122,000 $23,720

8

0P01 55w X 38d 84,000 $6,410

0P02 2 Deck 168,000 $12,820 Features "Air Door"

11

PS200 40w X 32d 120,000 $15,270

PS2000 2 Deck 240,000 $29,028

XL100 78w X 43d 140,000 $4,425 PS3606 90w X 50d 136,000 $19,090

XL100C 2 Deck 280,000 $8,578 PS360d 2 Deck 270,000 $37,777

PS310 90w X 32d 136,000 $17,020

PS310d 2 Deck 270,000 $33,730

15

P0152 81w X 464 75,000 $5,974

P0252 2 Deck 75,000 $11,784 Features vent baffle and interior oven

design Intended to promote increased hot

air recirculation

NOTE: Comparisons between brands cannot be made since different features or finishes may be

standard Model numbers or other information may be abbreviated to accomodate space in

table No Intermittent Ignition Device available for this equipment

TABLE XIII. POWER BURNER RANGES

watt

:i With Storage Unit.;:

Model •:.. Descr Btu/ht. Cost

-...:With Standard Oven

. Model - . Descr -• Btu/hr :Cost

: With Convection Oven • ,

, Model Descr ' Btu/hr Cost

4 PB42S 4 Burner* 80,000 $4,285 PB42R 4 Burner' 120,000 $4,880 PB42RC 4 Burner' 120,000 $6,055

2 of burners are power, 2 are atmospheric

TABLE XV.

Comparative Energy Use of Various Fryers

FRYCAT

CONVECTION

FRYER

Typical

INFRARED FRYER Average

HIGH INPUT FRYER

% Svge % Svgs % Svgs % Svgs % Svgs % Svgs

Energy Energy Frycat over Energy Frycat over Convect over Energy Frycat over. Convect over IR over

Use Use* Convection Use IR IR Use Avg Fryer Avg Fryer Avg Fryer

Preheat (Btu) 12,337 13,818 9.4% 13,440 8.2% -1.3% 18,286 24.2% 18.4% 17.5%

Idling (Btu/Hr) 9,228 Not Given NA 4,725 -95.3% NA 12,310 25.0% NA 81.6%

3/8' Frozen Fries Total Btu 38,056 42,147 9.7% 42,840 11.2% 1.6% 68,881 43.1% 37.0% 35.9%

Btu/Pound 951 904 -5.2% 1,124 15.4% 19.8% 1,872 43.1% 45.9% 32.8%

Energy Use for Convection Fryer is average of two tests reported by AGA

Source: AGA Market Introduction Test Report

TABLE XVII.

Energy Use of Infrared Vs Standard Griddle

INFRARED GRIDDLE STANDARD GRIDDLE

AVERAGE

% Savings

ALL Tests

ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY

USE USE USE

AGA Test AGA Test So Cal Test

With With With

—10 Deg F Thawed +20 Deg F

Hamburger Hamburger Hamburger

ENERGY

USE

SoCal Test

With

+20 Deg F

Hamburger

SAVINGS RESULTS

% Savings % Savings % Savings

IR AGA Test IR AGA Test IR SoCal Te

w/ —10 Deg F w/ Thawed w/ +20 Deg

Over Std Over Std Over Std

SoCal Test SoCal Test SoCa1 Test

w/ +20 Deg F w/+20 Deg F w/.+20 Deg r

Preheat (Btu)

Idling (Btu/Hr)

Cooking Hamburgers

Total Btu

Btu/Pound

24,180 — 25200

20,190 — 22785

26,380 38350 49245

988 701 912

Not Given

Not Given

Not Given

1,172

Not Given — Not Given

30.0% — 21.0%

NA NA NA

17.4% 40.2% 22.2%

25.5%

26.8%

* Energy Use is average of three griddles tested by So Cal Gas

Source: AGA Market Introduction Test Report

TABLE )0C

Savings and Payback Estimates for Commercial Ovens

Standard Oven Vs. Convection Standard Deck

Indirect Convect Differential

Standard Deck

Direct Convect

Direct Differential

First Cost: $1,650 $2,988 $1,338 $1,650 $2,988 $1,338

HIGH Annual Operating Cost: $1,114 $795 ($319) $1,114 $557 ($557)

Simple Payback: 4.2 yrs 2.4 yrs

LOW Annual Operating Cost: $203 $150 ($53) $203 $102 ($101)

Simple Payback: 25.2 yrs 13.2 yrs

AVG Annual Operating Cost: $719 $500 ($219) $719 $359 ($360)

Simple Payback: 6.1 yrs 3.7 yrs

Indirect Vs Direct Convection Indirect Direct Convect Convect Differential

First Cost: $2,988 $2,988 $0

HIGH Annual Operating Cost: $795 $557 ($238) Simple Payback: 0.0 yrs

LOW Annual Operating Cost: $150 $102 ($48) Simple Payback: 0.0 yrs

AVG Annual Operating Cost: $500 $359 ($141) Simple Payback: Direct

0.0 yrs

Std Range Oven Vs Convection Standard Convect Differential

First Cost: $1,875 $2,718 $843

HIGH Annual Operating Cost: $400 $240 ($160) Simple Payback: 5.3 yrs

LOW Annual Operating Cost: $75 $45 ($30) Simple Payback: 28.1 yrs

AVG Annual Operating Cost: $260 $156 ($104) Simple Payback: 8.1 yrs

Combi Oven Vs. Steamer & Steamer & Combi Steamer & Combi Convection Oven Indirect Con Oven Differential Direct Cony Oven Differential

First Cost: $6,000 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $0

HIGH Annual Operating Cost: $1,185 $778 ($407) $1,068 $762 ($306)

Simple Payback: 0.0 yrs 0.0 yrs

LOW Annual Operating Cost: $220 $145 ($75) $195 $140 ($55)

Simple Payback: 0.0 yrs 0.0 yrs

AVG Annual Operating Cost: $760 $500 ($260) $688 $492 ($196)

Simple Payback: 0.0 yrs 0.0 yrs

Notes and Assumptions:

Equipment costs assume a 40% discount

High, Low and Average operating costs taken from Table XVIII

Direct-fired free standing convection oven uses 30% less energy than indirect-fired free standing oven

Range oven accounts for one-third of total range operating costs given in labile XVIII

Convection range oven uses 40% less energy than standard range oven

Energy costs for separate steamer and convection oven are equal to one-half the combined use of both appliances

Combi oven used 50% of time in steamer mode, 25% of time in convection mode, and 25% of time in combination mode

Comb' oven saves 39% in steamer mode, 42% in convection mode and 8% in combined mode over std steamer & Indirect cony oven.

Combi oven saves 39% in steamer mode, 18% in convection mode and -20% in combined mode over std steamer & direct cony oven.

TABLE )0(11.

Savings and Payback Estimates for Fryers

Infrared Vs Typical Typical

Fryer

Infrared

Fryer Differential

First Cost: $1,165 $2,538 $1,373

HIGH Annual Operating Cost: $1,021 $684 ($337)

Simple Payback: 4.1 yrs

LOW Annual Operating Cost: $187 $125 ($62)

Simple Payback: 22.1 yrs

AVG Annual Operating Cost: $659 $441 ($218)

Simple Payback: 6.3 yrs

Frycat Vs Typical Typical Frycat Fryer Fryer Differential

First Cost: $1,165 $2,418 $1,253

HIGH Annual Operating Cost: $1,021 $582 ($439)

Simple Payback: 2.9 yrs

LOW Annual Operating Cost: $187 $107 ($80)

Simple Payback: 15.7 yrs

AVG Annual Operating Cost: $659 $376 ($283)

Simple Payback: 4.4 yrs Notes and Assumptions:

Equipment costs assume a 40% discount

High, Low and Average operating costs taken from Table

XVIII Infrared fryer saves 33% over conventional fryer

Frycat fryer saves 43% over conventional fryer

1

APPENDIX A

Manufacturer's Letter of Inquiry and List of Manufacturers Contacted

C a s E C E N T E R F O R E N E R G Y A N D T H E U R B A N E N V I R O N M E N T

510 1st Avenue North, Suite 400 ■ Minneapolis, MN 55403-1609 ■ (612) 348-6829 ■ Fax: (612) 348-9335

D a t e

Mfg Name Mfg Address City, ST Zip Phone Number

To Whom It May Concern:

I am currently engaged in a project to assess the potential for energy efficiency improvements in commercial gas cooking. As part of that project, we may be field testing one or more new technologies that show promise. As a result, I am interested in information on any high efficiency gas cooking equipment that your company manufactures such as forced convection ovens with direct fire, vent dampers or reduced horse power motors, range ovens with forced convection, range tops with power burners, deep fat fryers that are infrared or pulse combustion, closed top griddles that are infrared or pulse combustion, and anything else that in your opinion fits the definition of higher efficiency equipment. I would also like information on the conventional gas cooking equipment your company makes.

Please send a complete set of product literature, including technical specifications as well as trade and list price sheets, to my attention at the address on this letterhead. Product types we are particularly interested in include broilers, griddles, fryers, ovens and range-tops. If there is a local manufacturer's representative or distributor I should be dealing with instead of the factory, please FAX this letter to them so that there will not be a delay in receiving the information I need.

I appreciate your speedy response to my request. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Enclosed is a short information piece and a Technical Publications List to acquaint you with our organization and the kind of research we have done in the past.

Regards,

Mary Sue Lobenstein

Engineering Analyst

(612) 348-6234

LTR-MFGR

An Affirmative Action Employer ■

3

APPENDIX A (continued)

*Jade Range Inc.

City of Commerce, CA 90040

*Keating of Chicago

Bellwood, IL 60104

Keromate/Mr. Bar-B-Q

Old Bethpage, NY 11804

King Refrigerator Corp.

Glendale, NY 11385

L & M Mfg. Co.

Downsview, ON M3J 2R1,

Canada

Lambertson Industries

Hayward, CA 94545

*Lang Mfg. Co.

Redmond, WA 98073

Lincoln Foodservice Products

Fort Wayne, IN 46801

Lucks Co.

Kent, WA 98032

Magikitch'n Equipment Corp.

Quakertown, PA 18951

Majestic Range Works

Mascoutah, IL 62258

*Market Forge

Everett, MA 02149

Marshall Air Systems

Charlotte, NC 28217

Mental Masters Equip.

Smyrna, DE 19977

Merco Products Inc.

Eugene, OR 97402

*Middleby Marshall Inc.

Morton Grove, IL 60053

Miroil

Allentown, PA 18105

*The Montague Company

Moyer Diebel Corp.

Winston-Salem, NC 27115

Nationwide Industries Inc.

Wyoming, MN 55092

Nevo Corporation

Commack, NY 11725

*Nieco Corp.

Burlingame, CA 94010

Nordic Ware

Minneapolis, MN 55416

Nu-Vu Food Service Systems

Menominee, MI 49585

Nussex Co.

West Chester, PA 19380

Orchids of Hawaii

Bronx, NY 10466

*Peerless Stove & Mfg. Co.

Sandusky, OH 44870

*Piutco Frialator Inc.

Concord, NH 03301

*Rankin-Delux Inc.

Whittier, CA 90607

Rational Combi-Oven Div.

Burlinton, VT 05402

Raytheon Co.

Waltham, MA 02254

Rondo Inc.

Hackensack, NJ 07601

Roto-Flex Oven Company

San Antonia, TX 78204

Savoy Equipment Inc.

Lakewood, NJ 08701

*Southbend

Furquay-Varina, NC 27526

Southern Pride

Marion, IL 62959

Star Mfg. Co.

St. Louis, MO 63132

*Stein Inc.

Sandusky, OH 44871-8001

Sterling Metalware Co.

Philadelphia, PA 19134

Super Chef Mfg. Co.

Houston, TX 77085

Thermos Co.

Freeport, IL 61032

Toastmaster

Elgin, IL 60120

Town Food Serv. Equip Co.

New York, NY 10003

U.S. Stove Co.

Chattanooga, TN 37406

*U.S. Range

Gardena, CA 90248

*Viking Range Corp.

Greenwood, MS 38930

*Vulcan-Hart Corp.

Louisville, KY 40201

*Wells Mfg. Co.

Verdi, NV 89439

Winston Products Co.

Louisville, KY 40299

*Wisconsin Alum Foundry Co.

Manitowoc, WI 54221-0246

*Wolf Range Co.

Compton, CA 90224

Wouthbend

Furquay-Varina, NC 27526

* Received literature and/or

Hayward, CA 94540 spoke with this manufacturer.

MS1_103 \ SUR-UTIL 03/05/92

1 4 ,515 ,073 594 ,329

2 3 , 37 2 ,0 00 7 86 , 73 4

3 1 , 65 7 ,9 89 3 30 , 70 4

4 1 , 54 3 ,8 45 2 94 , 80 0

5 1 , 51 9 ,0 00 2 47 , 87 7

6 1 , 33 8 ,4 87 2 35 , 94 8

7 1 , 25 1 ,1 23 1 50 , 05 6

8 1 , 24 1 ,0 00 2 11 , 73 7

9 1 ,163 ,402 168 ,922

10 1,160,648 184,244

11 1,100,059 117,010

12 1,090,966 227,140

13 1,053,787 158,438

1 4 1 ,0 24 , 29 6 98 , 37 6

1 5 8 5 3 , 0 6 5 1 5 5 , 3 4 2

1 6 8 4 1 , 2 4 6 1 8 2 , 4 1 8

17 796,577 88,911

1 8 7 2 7 , 6 7 4 2 9 4 , 6 7 0

1 9 6 9 1 , 3 1 9 1 2 8 , 6 5 5

20 661,503 56,451

* *21 647,487 143,551

2 2 6 4 4 , 1 3 0 1 6 4 , 1 0 7

2 3 6 3 2 , 8 2 5 1 3 3 , 1 7 6

24 • 585,789 249,906

2 5 5 7 7 , 6 1 4 1 0 1 , 1 7 4

2 6 5 3 4 ; 8 8 7 1 1 0 , 2 8 3

27 528,513 74,127

28 • 528,000 90,968

29 519,726 65,467

30 500,000 67,000

3 1 4 9 0 , 7 2 0 1 0 8 , 8 0 4

32 466,000 80,677

* * 3 3 4 3 9 , 0 6 3 1 1 2 , 8 5 8

3 4 4 2 6 , 0 6 0 5 5 6 , 9 0 2

35 405,323 44,275

36 402,590 89,097.

37 395,000 76,794

386,960 64,197

357,289 66,676

350,662 56,908

345,233 77,637

344,929 66,870

43 340,186 62,635

44 339,157 46,254

45 330,768 74,219

46 319,654 70,391

47 310,000 79,600

48 303,806 44,086

49 300,975 58,239

50 283,732 25,930

**"A 263,763 41,130

***B 172,518 33,170

***C 114,717 18,591 D 84,557 15,970

44,467 9,666

**,F 42,483 8,706

Rebate based on MBtu/Hr input for combi ovens or equip with IID, adv burner, or solid state control Fixed rebate for IR Griddles & IR Fryers, customized rebates for anything else

Small financial incentives for Schools ONLY; tech sery actively promotes hi elf for all comm kitchens

Only for fuel switching; incentive individually tailored

Looking into possibility in future as part of LCP; likely to have program by '93 or '94

Only for fuel switching; incentive in $/MCF load; dealers also get incentive

Only for fuel switching; nominal ($100 - $200) Incentive plus financing available

Rebate 10% for infrared griddles, fryers, or broilers, convection ovens and power burner range

Looking into possibility of program in future

Looking into possibility of program in future . •

Rebate 10% for equip with certain Hi Eff features; additional $200 for fuel switch

Incentives individually tailored; market through dealers only

Rebate 10% for equip with certain Hi Eff features; additional $200 for fuel switch

Only for.fuel switching; $50 per 1000 Btu/Hr input on equipment

Rebate 15% for equip with certain Hi Eff features

Rebate 10% for any HI Eff upgrade

Incentives individually tailored (roughly 125% of first year savings or 25% of cost, whichever

less) Consider incentives on case by case basis If savings data backs it up: additional, incentive

for fuel swit Rebate 10% for any Hi Eff upgrade as long as it meets 10 year payback Rebate

10% for most efficient unit available in each equipment type

x x

•

38

39

40

41

42

56 TOTALS: 35 13 4 4

% OF TOTAL: 63% 23% 7% 7%

APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF UTILITY SURVEY RESULTS

? = Incentive information unknown; utility did not respond to repeated inquiries FS = Utility offers financial incentives for fuel switching only; not linked to efficiency improvement

** Minnegasco *** Wisconsin Utility