appendix d: appliance showcase support packets and list of attendees

Transcription

PG&E’s Emerging Technologies Program
ET Project #ET12PGE2201
Emerging Technologies (ET) Energy Efficient
Commercial Food Service Equipment Demo and
Showcase
Food Service Technology Demo Kitchen
ET Project Number: ET12PGE2201
Project Manager: Charlene Spoor
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared By:
Todd Bell
Adam Cornelius
Angelo Karas
Janel Rupp
Fisher-Nickel, inc
12949 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 101
San Ramon, CA 94583
Issued:
November 15,2012
 Copyright, 2012, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Emerging Technologies Program is responsible for this project. It
was developed as part of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Emerging Technology – Energy Efficient
Commercial Food Service Equipment Demo and Showcase program under internal project number
2500669229. Fisher-Nickel, inc (FNi) conducted this technology evaluation for Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) with overall guidance and management from Charlene Spoor. For more information on
this project, contact [email protected].
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared for PG&E for use by its employees and agents. Neither PG&E nor any of its
employees and agents:
(1) makes any written or oral warranty, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to those
concerning merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose;
(2) assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, process, method, or policy contained herein; or
(3) represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned rights, including, but not limited to,
patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
DISCLAIMER
In no event will FNi be liable for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect, or similar damages,
including but not limited to lost profits, lost market share, lost savings, lost data, increased cost of
production, or any other damages arising out of the use of the data or the interpretation of the data
presented in this report.
FNi is neutral as to fuel and energy sources. Fisher-Nickel, Inc. does not endorse particular products or
services from any specific manufacturer or service provider. FNi is strongly committed to evaluating the
performance of foodservice equipment using the best available scientific techniques and instrumentation.
FNi test results are made available to the general public through technical research reports and
publications and are protected under U.S. and international copyright laws. Reproduction or distribution of
the whole or any part of the contents of this document without reference to PG&E and FNi is prohibited.
This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC). It does not necessarily represent the views of the CPUC, its employees, or the State of
California. The CPUC, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no
warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any
party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report
has not been approved or disapproved by the CPUC nor has the CPUC passed upon the accuracy or
adequacy of the information in this report.
i
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
ET
Emerging Technologies
FNi
Fisher-Nickel, inc.
FSTC
Food Service Technology Center
GGRA
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
h
Hour
lb
Pound
kW
Kilowatt
kWh
Kilowatt-hour
TVP
Time Varying Pricing
PG&E
RD&D
Research, Development, and Design
SMB
Small-to-Midsized Business
TVP
Time Varying Pricing
ii
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................1 Emerging Technologies Project Background ...................................................... 7 Project Assessment Objectives / Goals ............................................................. 7 General Boundaries / Scope of Assessment ....................................................... 7 Technology / Product Evaluation Approach ........................................................ 8 Description of Existing Technologies ........................................................ 8 Description of New Technologies ............................................................ 14 FIELD ANALYSIS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................20 Vic’s All-Star Kitchen (Pleasanton, CA) ............................................................ 20 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 20 Results .............................................................................................. 22 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 22 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 25 Recommendations ............................................................................... 26 Vic’s All Star Kitchen Showcase (9/25/2012) ........................................... 26 Comal (Berkeley, CA) ................................................................................... 27 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 27 Results .............................................................................................. 28 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 28 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 29 Recommendations ............................................................................... 30 Comal Showcase (10/4/2012) ............................................................... 30 Bridges Restaurant & Bar (Danville, CA) .......................................................... 31 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 31 Results .............................................................................................. 32 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 32 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 35 Recommendations ............................................................................... 35 Bridges Showcase (10/23/2012) ............................................................ 36 Chow Restaurant and Bar (Danville, CA) .......................................................... 37 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 37 Results .............................................................................................. 38 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 38 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 40 Recommendations ............................................................................... 40 Chow Showcase .................................................................................. 40 Melon’s Catering (South San Francisco, CA) ..................................................... 40 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 40 Results .............................................................................................. 41 iii
Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 41 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 42 Recommendations ............................................................................... 42 Melon’s Showcase ............................................................................... 42 Slanted Door (San Francisco, CA) ................................................................... 42 Technical Approach .............................................................................. 42 Results .............................................................................................. 43 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 43 Customer Feedback ..................................................................... 43 Recommendations ............................................................................... 44 Seminar and Showcase at US Foods Show (10/16/2012) ................................... 44 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................46 APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES .....................................................................................48 Vic’s All Star Kitchen .................................................................................... 48 Comal ........................................................................................................ 50 Bridges Restaurant ....................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................53 APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES .......63 C.1. US Foods Show Seminar Presentation ...................................................... 63 C.2 US Foods Show Seminar and Showcase Support Packet ............................... 67 C.3 US Foods Show List of Attendees .............................................................. 69 APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES .............72 D.1.1 Bridges Restaurant Support Packet ........................................................ 72 D.1.2 Bridges Restaurant List of Attendees ...................................................... 75 D.2.1.Comal Support Packet .......................................................................... 77 D.2.2. Comal List of Attendees ....................................................................... 80 D.3.1. Vic’s All Star Restaurant Support Packet ................................................ 83 D.3.2. Vic’s All Star Restaurant List of Attendees .............................................. 86 APPENDIX E: REFERENCES ........................................................................................87 iv
TABLES
Table ES1. Restaurant Name, Location, and Upgraded Appliances ...... 2 Table ES2. Appliance Description - Vic’s All Star Kitchen ................... 3 Table ES3. Appliance Description - Comal Restaurant ....................... 3 Table ES4. Appliance Description - Bridges Restaurant ..................... 3 Table ES5. Appliance Description - Chow Restaurant ........................ 4 Table ES6. Appliance Description - Melons Catering.......................... 4 Table ES7. Appliance Description - Slanted Door Restaurant .............. 4 Table ES8. Annual Energy Use, Energy Savings, and Operating Cost
Savings...................................................................... 5 Table 1. Fryer Operating Assumptions: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ....... 22 Table 2. Calculated Fryer Energy Use: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ........ 22 Table 3. Fryer Operating Costs and Savings: Vic’s All-Star
Kitchen .................................................................... 23 Table 4. Oven Operating Assumptions: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ....... 23 Table 5. Calculated Oven Energy Use: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ........ 23 Table 6. Oven Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Vic’s All-Star
Kitchen .................................................................... 24 Table 7. Griddle Operating Assumptions: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ..... 24 Table 8. Calculated Griddle Energy Use: Vic’s All-Star Kitchen ...... 25 Table 9. Griddle Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Vic’s AllStar Kitchen ............................................................. 25 Table 10. Fryer Energy Use and Operating Costs: Comal ............... 29 Table 11. Fryer Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Comal........... 29 Table 12. Oven Energy Use and Operating Costs: Bridges
Restaurant & Bar ....................................................... 33 Table 13. Oven Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Bridges
Restaurant & Bar ....................................................... 33 Table 14. Fryer Operating Assumptions: Bridges Restaurant & Bar . 34 Table 15. Calculated Fryer Energy Use: Bridges Restaurant & Bar .. 35 Table 16. Fryer Energy and Operatng Cost Savings: Bridges
Restaurant & Bar ....................................................... 35 Table 17. Main Line Fryer Energy Use: Chow Restaurant and Bar ... 38 Table 18. Main Line Fryer Energy and Operating Cost Savings:
Chow Restaurant and Bar ........................................... 38 Table 19. Grill Line Fryer Energy Use: Chow Restaurant and Bar .... 39 v
Table 20. Grill Line Fryer Energy and Operating Cost Savings:
Chow Restaurant and Bar ........................................... 39 Table 21. Oven Energy Use: Melon’s Catering .............................. 41 Table 22. Oven Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Melon’s
Catering ................................................................... 41 Table 23. Steamer Energy Use: Slanted Door .............................. 43 Table 24. Steamer Energy and Operating Cost Savings: Slanted
Door ........................................................................ 43 Table A1. US Foods Show Guests............................................... 69 Table A2. Bridges Guests .......................................................... 75 Table A3. Bridges Vendors ........................................................ 76 Table A4. Comal Guests ............................................................. 80 Table A5. Comal Vendors ........................................................... 81 Table A6. Vic’s Guests................................................................ 86 Table A7. Vic’s Vendors .............................................................. 86 FIGURES
Figure 1. French Fryer ............................................................... 8 Figure 2. Distribution of Fryers in Commercial Facilities .................. 9 Figure 3. Griddle .................................................................... 10 Figure 4. Distribution of Griddles in Commercial Facilities ............. 11 Figure 5. Oven ....................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Distribution of Ovens in Commercial Facilities ................ 12 Figure 7. Steam Cooker ........................................................... 13 Figure 8. Distribution of Steamers in Commercial Facilities ........... 14 Figure 9. Fryer Energy Saving Potential ..................................... 16 Figure 10. Griddle Energy Saving Potential ................................... 17 Figure 11. Oven Energy Saving Potential ..................................... 18 Figure 12. Steamer Energy Saving Potential ................................. 19 Figure 13. Vic’s Cooking Line: Existing (Left) and Replacement
(Right) ..................................................................... 25 Figure 14. Vic’s Showcase (9/25/2012) ....................................... 26 Figure 15. Comal Fryers: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right) ... 29 Figure 16. Comal Showcase (10/4/2012) ..................................... 30 Figure 17. Bridges Ovens: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right).. 33 vi
Figure 18. Bridges Fryers: Existing (Left) and Replacement (Right).. 35 Figure 19. Bridges Showcase (10/23/2012) .................................. 36 Figure 20. Chow’s Main Line Fryers: Existing (Left) and
Replacement (Right) .................................................. 39 Figure 21. Chow’s Grill Line Fryers: Existing (Left) and
Replacement (Right) .................................................. 40 Figure 22. US Foods Seminar and Showcase (10/16/2012)............. 45 vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commercial cooking appliances are the heart of any foodservice establishment. These
appliances utilize a myriad of cooking mediums to heat or reheat foods to prepare them for
customers. In doing so, they consume substantial amounts of either natural gas or
electricity to heat oil, air, or cooking surfaces to transfer heat to the food product. Most of
the cooking appliances operating in today’s restaurants and other commercial foodservice
operations are inefficient, wasting the majority of the energy consumed during both the
cooking process and idle periods between cooking events. A typical restaurant is five times
more energy intensive per square foot then other retail establishments, and poor energy
utilization is a primary contributor to this market segment’s high energy bills.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Food Service Technology Center (FSTC), a program
devoted to energy-efficiency in commercial foodservice, has developed standardized test
methods to determine performance of the major equipment typically found in foodservice
operations. As a result of extensive, regimented testing on a multitude of equipment, the
FSTC has been able to develop criteria to differentiate between low-, standard-, and highefficiency foodservice equipment. This supports the California utilities’ Energy Wise
monetary incentives for energy-efficient foodservice equipment paid directly to commercial
customers when purchasing qualified models.
The primary objective of this Emerging Technologies project is to promote the California
Energy Wise program through the targeted replacement of select low- or standard-efficiency
cooking appliances with high-efficiency rebate-qualified units in multiple working
restaurants. Existing appliances were benchmarked either through direct sub-metering of
the equipment with utility-grade gas meters or through engineering analysis using FSTC’s
life cycle cost calculators (www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/tools/calculators/) that can be
configured to match the individual appliance’s operating parameters. Newly-installed
energy-efficient appliances were likewise benchmarked and associated energy savings
determined. This analysis serves as the backbone of the emerging technology case studies
to support a customer’s decision to purchase California Energy Wise appliances.
To further promote the project to industry stakeholders, primarily other restaurateurs, FSTC
personnel conducted onsite demonstration events to showcase the energy savings and
performance benefits of the appliances installed at each restaurant. They also participated
in the US. Foods show in Pleasanton, where the FSTC booth again showcased the three case
studies with digital and storyboard media to the over 2,000 attendees.
PROJECT GOAL
The primary objective of this Emerging Technologies project is to promote the use of
energy-efficient commercial foodservice equipment qualified under the California Energy
Wise program. The project did this by identifying the energy-efficiency needs of several
restaurants in PG&E’s service area, replacing the restaurant’s selected low- or standardefficiency cooking appliances with high-efficiency rebate-qualified units, and developing case
studies to showcase the results. Table ES1 documents the individual foodservice
establishments participating in the study and the associated cooking appliances that were
upgraded in each.
1
TABLE ES1. RESTAURANT NAME, LOCATION, AND UPGRADED APPLIANCES
Restaurant
Location
Type
Replaced Appliance(s)
Vic’s All Star
Kitchen
Pleasanton, CA
Casual dining
Two conventional ovens
One deep-fat fryer
Two griddles
Comal
Berkeley, CA
Casual dining
One deep-fat fryer
Bridges
Danville, CA
Fine dining
One 50-lb deep fat fryer
Two convection ovens
Chow
Danville, CA
Fine dining
Two deep fat fryers
Melons Catering
S. San Francisco, CA
Catering
Two convection ovens
Slanted Door
San Francisco, CA
Fine dining
One boiler-based steamer
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Six sites were selected for assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of results. As mentioned
in table ES1, restaurant types ranged from fine dining to casual dining to catering. Each
piece of equipment listed in table ES1 above was selected from the California Energy Wise
program’s list of energy-efficient cooking appliances
(http://www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/rebates/). The appliances have been tested under the
regimented guidelines of ASTM foodservice equipment standard test methods, developed by
the FSTC and adopted by industry consensus, and were determined to meet the minimum
energy-efficiency thresholds to qualify for the program. The appliances utilize design
innovations to achieve energy savings, including increased insulation, enhanced or
advanced heat exchange, thermostatic controls, or metered steam generation technology.
Table ES2 – ES7 describe both the existing appliances and replacement appliances as well
as the essential energy-efficient design features of each.
2
TABLE ES2. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN
Appliance Type
Original Appliance
Technology
Replacement Appliance
Technology
Oven(x2)
Natural convection, direct
heating atmospheric natural
gas burners
Forced-air convection, robust
heat exchanger design and
restrictive exhaust flue.
Improved flue design in heat
exchanger allows more heat
to be pulled from burners.
Fryer
Submerged, electric heating
elements
Tube heat exchanger with
internal baffles, optimized
atmospheric natural gas
burners.
Griddle
Manually controlled, natural
gas atmospheric burners
Thermostatic controls,
natural gas atmospheric
burners
TABLE ES3. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - COMAL RESTAURANT
Appliance Type
Existing Appliance
Technology
Technology
Fryer
Open tube heat exchanger
burners
internal baffles, optimized
burners.
TABLE ES4. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - BRIDGES RESTAURANT
Appliance Type
Existing Appliance
Technology
Technology
Oven(x2)
Forced air convection, directfired natural gas burners
Forced air convection robust
heat exchanger design and
restrictive exhaust flue.
Improved flue design in heat
exchanger allows more heat
to be pulled from burners.
Fryer
Side heat exchanger,
burners
Advanced burner design
with, multi-pass heat
exchanger.
3
TABLE ES5. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - CHOW RESTAURANT
Appliance Type
Existing Appliance
Technology
Technology
Fryer – main cook line
Open tube heat exchanger,
burners
Advanced burner design with
multi-pass heat exchanger.
Fryer – grill cook line
Open tube heat exchanger
burners
internal baffles, atmospheric
natural gas burners.
TABLE ES6. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - MELONS CATERING
Appliance Type
Existing Appliance
Technology
Technology
Convection Oven(x2)
Forced air convection, natural
gas burners
Robust heat exchanger
design and restrictive
exhaust flue forced air
convection. Improved flue
design in heat exchanger
allows more heat to be
pulled from burners.
TABLE ES7. APPLIANCE DESCRIPTION - SLANTED DOOR RESTAURANT
Appliance Type
Existing Appliance
Technology
Technology
Boiler-based Steamer
Forced convection steamer
with direct condensate drain,
burners
Forced convection steamer
with regulated condensate
drain and metered steam
generation, atmospheric
natural gas burners.
PROJECT FINDINGS/RESULTS
For each of the locations, appreciable energy savings was achieved through the installation
of energy-efficient cooking appliances. Further, the operators noted a dramatic increase in
productivity due to the shorter intervals required by the replacement appliances to recover
to thermostat set point temperatures after food product was introduced to the cooking
compartment, cooking surface or cooking media.
4
TABLE ES8. ANNUAL ENERGY USE, ENERGY SAVINGS, AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS
Restaurant
Appliance
Existing
Appliance
Annual
Energy
Use
(Therms)
Replacement
Appliance
Annual
Energy Use
(Therms)
Annual
Energy
Savings
(Therms)
Annual
Operating
Cost
Savings
($)
Vic’s All Star
Kitchen
Ovens (x2)
1,150
926
223
190
Fryer
7,085 kWh
448
NA
895
Griddle
1,693
912
781
664
Comal
Fryer
1,422
821
601
511
Bridges
Top
convection
oven
714
302
412
350
Bottom
convection
oven
618
136
482
409
Fryer
1,097
470
627
533
Main cook
line fryer
1,288
453
835
710
Grill cook line
fryer
990
573
417
354
Melons
Catering
Convection
ovens
1,588
1,116
472
401
Slanted Door
Boiler-based
steamer
4,626
997
3,629
3,084
Chow
The measured pre- and post-installation energy use validates the FSTC’s life cycle cost
calculator analysis tools that accurately model appliance energy use. These tools are the
foundation of the energy-saving assumptions for the California statewide IOU Energy Wise
appliance incentive program. As a result of this Emerging Technology project, commercial
foodservice operators should feel confident that purchasing energy-efficient, utility rebate
qualified appliances will guarantee energy savings and lower operating costs.
The results from three of the six monitored sites are included as case studies to highlight
the energy and cost savings that were realized at each site. These case studies were
showcased at individual events hosted by the restaurant where the equipment was
replaced. On October 16, 2012, a seminar providing an overview of the ET project was
presented at the US Foods Show. Attendees at all these events received free Turbo Pots;
energy-efficient cookware designed to reduce open-range burner energy use when boiling or
simmering liquids. With the Turbo Pot’s advanced heat exchanger design, FSTC research
5
has measured a 48% percent increase in open-range burner efficiency (from 33.5% for a
standard pot to 49.6%).
Eleven guests attended the showcase at Vic’s, as well as ten representatives from seven
vendors, on September 25, 2012. Twenty-nine guests attended the Comal showcase, as
well as 19 representatives from 12 vendors, on October 4, 2012. Twenty-one guests
attended the Bridges showcase event, as well as 17 representatives from ten vendors, on
October 23, 2012. Eighty-eight guests attended the US Foods showcase on October 16,
2012, with 40 participating in the FSTC seminar. Each event was billed as an energyefficiency and sustainability fair that allowed operators to attend the individual showcases
over a two-hour window slotted for either before or after the lunch service period.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the subjective feedback from the operators, with the exception of one site, there
was a general level of satisfaction with the performance of the replacement appliances at
the restaurants where each was installed. The appliances in this study may be appropriate
for similar types of restaurants with similar production needs.
While the energy savings when replacing like-for-like appliances is relatively easy to
quantify, this study does call attention to the need for greater exploration of the real-world
energy use of non-thermostatic, manually controlled griddles or frytops. While researches
can model the energy use of this appliance type, there are subtle variances in usage
patterns and operating conditions affected by human operators that can dramatically impact
actual energy use and the savings associated with the installation of a thermostaticallycontrolled griddle. Appliance placement and space constraints did not allow for the sub
metering of the manual griddles at Vic’s All Star Kitchen, forcing researchers to model their
energy use based on rated input and control set points effected by the line cooks. Future
studies should identify sites where sub-metering a manual griddle is viable, in order to
validate calculated savings.
Operator satisfaction is paramount to the success of any appliance retrofit project. Removal
of the new energy-efficient steamer from service at the Slanted Door, for instance, was a
result of the operator having greater confidence in the build quality of the existing steamer
after the replacement unit’s door gaskets failed after minimal use. The operator’s brand
loyalty was strong enough that he placed the existing unit back in service, rather than
repairing the replacement unit, which was still under warranty.
Despite the inherent challenges associated with reaching the restaurant operators and
owners to promote utility resources, programs and incentives for energy efficiency upgrades
like California Energy Wise cooking appliances, the onsite demonstration showcase events
as well as the US Foods show were deemed successful. Given the time constraints placed on
most restaurant operators, the open timeframe adopted by the FSTC for the showcases
worked well for those who were able to attend. However, even within this open time format,
the three restaurants required that events be held at different times, days, and locations to
not hinder their normal operating schedules yet provide greater opportunities for operators
to attend the showcase events. This represents an ongoing challenge when trying to
develop such events for restaurant owner/operators – one that merits further exploration
and discussion, possibly through focus groups with local restaurateurs.
6
INTRODUCTION
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT BACKGROUND
PG&E’s ET program was created to fund field placement studies of energy-efficient
commercial food service equipment in the PG&E service territory. The primary objective of
the ET program is to promote the California Energy Wise rebate program by highlighting the
performance of rebate-qualified equipment in real-world operating situations. The program
involves replacing low- or standard-efficiency existing equipment in targeted foodservice
establishments based on a site assessment; design consultation; measuring pre- and postreplacement energy use and calculating savings; and following up with a demo showcase
event to share the project’s successes and lessons learned.
The project utilized recent findings in a PIER study completed by Fisher-Nickel, inc (FNi)
which characterized the inventory, energy load, and energy-efficiency potential of various
primary cooking appliances found in commercial and institutional foodservice sectors in the
state of California. The goal of the PIER study was to identify energy-efficient needs in the
restaurant industry; identify equipment with the highest energy loads; and outline specific
strategies to stimulate RD&D improvements in energy efficiency and performance to support
regulatory and utility-based incentive programs around this equipment. This ET program
augments the PIER study by demonstrating “proof-of-concept” in live kitchens for
implementing these energy reduction strategies to support current and future utility-based
incentives for more efficient equipment. It will also help increase awareness in the
foodservice industry of the real-world performance of energy-efficient equipment, further
driving manufacturer research and development as demand for this type of equipment
continues to grow.
PROJECT ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES / GOALS
The primary project goals of the ET project/assessment goals were as follows:
 Select at least three commercial equipment foodservice locations.
 Provide assessment of existing equipment.
 Establish energy and cost baselines with existing equipment.
 Provide design assistance for replacement equipment at each site using a mechanical
engineer knowledgeable in restaurant design.
 Provide assistance with equipment selection and installation.
 Measure data to calculate energy and cost savings using replacement equipment.
 Hold demo showcases at the selected sites to share program successes.
GENERAL BOUNDARIES / SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
Although three sites were required for this ET project, three additional sites also qualified
and were willing to participate in the field study in order to provide a larger set of data
points towards the results, for a total of six monitored sites. These sites were selected as a
result of prior interaction between the establishment and the FSTC in some sustentative
7
capacity such as an energy audit, design consultation or operator attendance at a Center’s
energy-efficiency seminar. Further considerations included the types of cooking appliances
already in operation in the facility, and whether or not those appliances were energyefficient models. Three of the six sites were included as showcase events.
TECHNOLOGY / PRODUCT EVALUATION APPROACH
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES
The site assessments of the six restaurants yielded equipment replacement candidates in
four appliance categories: Fryers, griddles, ovens, and steam cookers.
FRENCH FRYERS
FIGURE 1. FRENCH FRYER
The French fryer is the single most common appliance in commercial kitchens and the
largest consumer of natural gas energy in the state of California: estimated at 120 million
therms annually. Fryers are available in a range of configurations but still share a common
basic design. The kettle, or frypot, contains a sufficient amount of oil so that the cooking
food is essentially supported by displacement of the oil rather than by the bottom of the
vessel. The oil is heated by atmospheric or infrared gas burners underneath the kettle or in
heated tubes that pass though the kettle walls. The kettle may be split into more than one
cooking vat, allowing the operator to prepare different foods without flavor transfer. Fryers
are manufactured as either countertop units or freestanding floor units. For scaled
production these appliances can be used in batteries that consist of several fryers in one
kitchen.
Gas fryers can be separated into three categories: low, standard, and high-efficiency. Lowefficiency gas fryers (the more common of the three) are typically designed with
atmospheric burners with simple heat exchangers that either run through the frypot via
tubes or underneath it. Mid-range gas fryers are fryers that employ a tuned atmospheric
burner with a more restrictive heat exchanger heat-exchanger design that allows more heat
to be imparted to the oil than a typical straight-through design. High-efficiency (ENERGY
STAR®) gas fryers take advantage of new developments in gas technology, such as infrared
(IR) burners, pulse combustion, powered burners and recirculation tubes. Higher end fryers
incorporate various new technologies into their design that yield more efficient cooking rates
with quicker recovery and greater productivity. The appliances replaced in this ET study
were classified as low-efficiency fryers.
8
Fryers range in capacity from about 15 lb of oil for a small, countertop fryer to over 200 lb
of fat for the largest floor-model fryers used for donuts and chicken. The larger sizes were
designed to accommodate large products such as chicken and fish. The most common type
of fryer is the standard 15" French fryer. It is this size fryer on which the ET project was
primarily focused. At 83% of the estimated gas fryer inventory in California (109,602 units),
French fryers comprise the largest gas oven segment in the state, making it an ideal
candidate to evaluate for this project.
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the different fryer types throughout the various
commercial segments.
FIGURE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF FRYERS IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
This ET study focused the majority of its French fryer replacement efforts on the largest
fryer market sector: FSR casual dining. Two of the four fryer sites selected for monitoring in
this ET project were casual dining establishments. This provided real-world examples of the
performance of these high-efficiency appliances in their most common market segment.
9
GRIDDLES
FIGURE 3. GRIDDLE
Griddles are workhorse appliances that usually occupy a central position on the short-order
line. Their versatility ranges from crisping and browning to searing, warming or toasting.
Griddles are distributed across a wide variety of foodservice establishments: from
institutions such as correctional facilities to full-service fine dining establishments. Griddles
vary in size, power input, heating method, griddle-plate construction and control strategy.
All designs cook via contact with a heated metal plate that has splashguards attached to the
sides and rear and a shallow trough to guide grease and scraps into a holding tray. The
griddle plate is heated from underneath by gas burners or electric elements, and controls
are generally located on the front of the appliance. The griddle plate is typically a polished
flat surface; however, it may be grooved to give the food product a seared pattern
characteristic of charbroiling without the flare-up and smoke typically associated with
broiling.
A griddle’s low-profile design enables manufacturers to offer them in a variety of
configurations. The same griddle can be placed on a stand (freestanding floor model), a
countertop, or be incorporated into a range top. Manufacturers also commonly offer griddles
as a component of a restaurant range battery. Single-sided griddles, which is what this ET
study focused on, are designed for cooking food in oil or its own juices by direct contact
with a flat, smooth, hot surface (i.e., flat, polished steel plate) where plate temperature is
either manually or thermostatically controlled. Burners or electric elements usually are
spaced between eight and 12 inches apart beneath the plate with one control per 12-inch
section. This allows each griddle section to be maintained at a different temperature.
Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the different griddle types throughout the various
10
FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF GRIDDLES IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
This ET study focused the griddle replacement efforts on the largest fryer market sector:
FSR casual dining. The griddle site selected for monitoring in this ET project was a casual
dining establishment. This provided a real-world example of the performance of highefficiency griddles in its most common market segment.
OVENS
FIGURE 5. OVEN
Commercial ovens are the largest and most diverse category of commercial foodservice
equipment. This versatility and diversity mean that they can be found in almost any type of
foodservice operation. They are available in many different configurations. Natural gas is
the predominant fuel source for most commercial ovens, representing 55 to 60% of the
installed base. At 45% of the estimated gas oven inventory in California (67,824 units),
convection ovens comprise the largest gas oven segment in the state, making it an ideal
candidate to evaluate for this project.
11
An oven can be simply described as a fully enclosed, insulated chamber used to heat food.
This ET study evaluated two types of ovens in its baseline case: convection ovens and range
ovens. Convection ovens cook food by forcing hot air over the surface of the food product
by a fan in a closed cavity. The rapidly moving hot air strips away the layer of cooler air
next to the food and enables the food to absorb the heat energy. Convection ovens are
commonly used for general purpose baking and roasting due to the improved speed and
uniformity of cooking. Commercial convection ovens come in two basic sizes—full-size and
half-size—based on whether the oven can accept standard full-size (18 x 26 x 1-inch) or
half-size (18 x 13 x 1-inch) sheet pans. Most half- and full-size ovens are capable of
handling up to six sheet pans.
Gas convection ovens can be separated into three categories: standard, medium, and highefficiency. Low- and standard-efficiency convection ovens typically use basic indirect-fired
designs and generally have minimal insulation and poor door seals. High-efficiency gas
convection ovens take advantage of new developments in gas technology, such as infrared
(IR) burners, direct-fired and snorkel designs, advanced insulation and tight door seals.
Range ovens are overall the most common type of conventional oven. The range oven
exists as part of a cooking unit or system that forms the housing or base of the rangetop
(i.e., burners, electric elements or hobs). The range/oven combination usually consists of
only one oven cavity and is normally specified for smaller operations. With an estimated
inventory of 44,133 units in California, range ovens make up 29% of gas ovens statewide;
second only to convection ovens.
Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of the different oven types throughout the various
FIGURE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF OVENS IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
12
As with fryer replacement, the ET study focused the majority of its convection and range
oven replacement efforts on the largest oven market sector for both: FSR casual dining.
One of the three oven sites selected for monitoring in this ET project was a casual dining
establishment. This provided real-world examples of the performance of high-efficiency
ovens in their most common market segment.
STEAM COOKERS
FIGURE 7. STEAM COOKER
Commercial steam cookers (also known as steamers) provide an easy, fast way to prepare
large quantities of food. The steam cooking method offers good nutrient retention, short
cook times, and ease of preparation.
Steamers come in a variety of configurations, including countertop models, wall-mounted
models and floor models mounted on a stand, pedestal or cabinet-style base. A steamer
may consist of one to four stacked cavities. The cavity is usually designed to accommodate
a standard 12 by 20-inch hotel pan. Smaller steamers may be designed for use with onethird size pans, and some large steamers can hold several 18 by 26-inch baking trays.
This ET project focused on pressureless, boiler-based steamers. The compartments of
pressureless steamers are openly connected to a condensate drain and the steam
environment within the compartment cannot sustain a pressure above atmospheric (both
raw steam and condensate exit the cooking cavity through this drain). Pressureless
steamers, also commonly referred to as "atmospheric" steamers, maintain the cooking
compartment at close to atmospheric pressure. They generally employ a large cooking
cavity to facilitate the circulation of steam around the food product. Because these steamers
operate at or near atmospheric pressure, the door may be safely opened at any point during
the cooking cycle to check the product. Many atmospheric steamers employ a fan for forced
convection steaming, to produce shorter cook times and even cooking throughout the
compartment under full-load conditions. With an estimated inventory of 28,584 pressureless
gas steamers in California, the appliance was an ideal candidate for this ET study.
Boiler-based steamers require a drain line, water line, and a connection to an energy source
— typically gas or electric. Self-contained units typically have boilers that fill automatically.
Condensate from the cavity is directed to a drain tube, where it is cooled by a stream of
water before flowing into the sewer (In many areas it is against code to drain water above
140°F).
Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of steam cookers throughout the various commercial
segments.
13
FIGURE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF STEAMERS IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
The ET study focused the majority of its steam cooker replacement efforts on the largest
oven market sector: FSR casual dining.
DESCRIPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
While the oil capacities of existing and replacement fryers differed slightly, the physical
dimensions of almost all the existing fryers were the same as the replacement fryers (14").
The one exception was Vic’s, where their small countertop electric unit was replaced with a
14" floor unit. The steam cooker at Slanted Door was replaced with an energy-efficient
equivalent of their atmospheric, boiler-based steamer. Ovens were replaced with similartype, double-stacked convection ovens in all but one restaurant: at Vic’s All-Star Kitchen, a
pair of conventional ovens under their range top was replaced with a set of energy-efficient
stacked convection ovens. A single five-foot countertop gas griddle at Vic’s replaced both a
three-foot unit (integrated into their existing range), as well as a four-foot floor model.
FRYERS
From an energy-efficient design perspective, fryers are the most mature appliance category.
Gas fryers exceeding 50% cooking-energy efficiency have been available for more than 20
years, as a result of demands from some of the more forward-thinking quick-service
restaurant chains. With an expanding ENERGY STAR® category for commercial fryers and
more restaurant chains pushing manufacturers to develop more efficient gas fryers, there
are now many energy-efficient fryers on the market.
The energy efficiency within each category or type of gas fryer varies significantly,
depending primarily on the applied heating technology. Due to the many possible
14
arrangements of the combustion and heat exchanger systems, gas fryers exhibit significant
efficiency differences. The usage of a fryer from one foodservice operation to another also
impacts its energy efficiency and consumption. Fryers are less efficient under part-load
operation due to the increased effect that the heat loss from the fryer has on its efficiency.
Gas fryers lose even more due to the part-load efficiency penalty that is characteristic of
indirect fired-gas heating systems. Fryers spend a significant portion of their operating time
in stand-by or idle mode. Under such conditions, the energy performance of a gas fryer
drops even further due to the short duty cycle of the burners.
Although ENERGY STAR® has had a specification for French fryers since 2003, energy-efficient
French fryers represent less than 10% of the total installed base. The perceived high
incremental cost (typically $500 to $1,000 for a restaurant chain that purchases in bulk, and
up to $2,500 for an independent facility purchasing a single fryer), coupled with the
perception that ENERGY STAR® fryers do not perform well, have kept the market penetration
low. This difficulty is exacerbated by the prevalence of economy (e.g., $800 purchase
price), low-efficiency fryers that are carried by most equipment dealers and distributors.
While end-user education can begin to change some of the perceptions regarding the
performance of ENERGY STAR® fryers, the cost gap between the throw-away fryers and
ENERGY STAR® qualified fryers continues to be a major barrier. Some of the cost difference is
due to the energy-efficiency design of the ENERGY STAR® fryers. But the majority of the
increased price (e.g., $1,000-$2,500) is derived from the additional features and premium
materials used in most ENERGY STAR® qualified models. There is room for an entry-level
ENERGY STAR®-qualified fryer that is more cost-competitive with the economy line of fryers.
Products that could fill that niche would entice independent operators that are low on capital
resources without deteriorating the market share of the premium lines preferred by many
quick service chains. There is an additional need to establish typical life spans for the low
efficiency and high efficiency fryers to support the anecdotal claims that ENERGY STAR® fryers
enjoy longer useful lives than low-efficiency fryers. In a fully mature market, including
substantial gains in the ENERGY STAR® fryer market share and the elimination of the lowest
efficiency units from the market, French fryer energy consumption can conservatively be
reduced by 25 million therms.
Figure 9 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from a fryer with
low efficiency to a high-efficiency fryer. The degree of energy savings potential when
replacing a low-efficiency French fryer with an energy-efficient model makes it an ideal
candidate for this ET project – particularly when comparing the potential energy savings
against energy savings realized when replacing other fryer types.
15
FIGURE 9. FRYER ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL
GRIDDLES
As with fryers, commercial griddles represent one of the most mature appliance categories,
from an energy-efficient design perspective. Two factors have driven energy-efficient griddle
designs. First, quick service chains, now followed by casual dining chains, have stimulated
research on energy-efficient griddles because they recognize the possibility of increasing
profits by specifying better equipment. Second, ASTM standard test methods developed by
the FSTC have allowed testing facilities to produce comparable griddle energy performance
data. This allows both manufacturers and purchasers to calculate the cost of operating
specific griddle models and technologies. Published data shows that energy performance can
vary significantly with griddle type and construction details.
The relatively simple design of griddles (large metal plate with a heat source located
beneath the plate) belies the actual complexity of the appliance design. There are different
strategies for applying heat to the griddle including open flame atmospheric burners,
advanced burners and heat pipe technology. Even among appliances that use the same
heating technology, there can be significant variations in appliance performance and energy
use due to subtleties in appliance design and control. Figure 69 illustrates the energy load
and energy saving potential of gas griddles.
Low-efficiency griddles represent 37 million therms of the overall annual gas cooking energy
load. Double-sided griddles, which are more dominant in a few quick-service chains, are
estimated to consume two million therms annually. Gas griddles can be separated into three
basic categories: low-, standard-, and high-efficiency. The primary difference between
standard- and low-efficiency griddles is the design of the temperature controls and the
placement of the temperature sensing devices. Low-efficiency designs typically employ
modulating thermostats and position the thermostat bulbs underneath the griddle plate,
where they are secured by angle iron or metal clips. Heat from the burners interferes with
16
the bulb’s ability to sense plate temperature, leading to “lazy” or sluggish thermostat
response. Standard-efficiency designs generally use snap-action style thermostats and
secure the thermostat bulb in a groove along the underside of the griddle plate or embed
the bulb within the plate itself. This creates more contact between the sensing bulb and the
griddle plate, allowing for better temperature response. High-efficiency gas griddle designs
employ advanced burner technologies and solid-state controls with a thermocouple
embedded within the griddle plate.
Figure 10 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from a singlesided griddle with low efficiency to a high-efficiency griddle.
FIGURE 10. GRIDDLE ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL
OVENS
This ET project replaced existing convection and range ovens at designated sites with highefficiency convection ovens. With almost 68,000 units currently estimated in use in
California, and an energy load of 28.9 million therms per year, convection ovens are one of
the most common cooking appliances found in a commercial kitchen. Replacing lowefficiency ovens with high-efficiency convection ovens on a large scale could have a
significant impact on statewide energy loads.
Convection ovens use a cooking chamber that uses fans to force hot air through the cooking
chamber to convectively cook food products. The moving air improves the cook times and
uniformity of the final products. In terms of cooking performance and emissions, the typical
convection oven works well and changes in air flow patterns have been able to improve the
cooking performance even more.
High-efficiency designs typically exhibit better baking uniformity, faster cook times and
higher production capacities by transferring heat to the cooking cavity more quickly and
17
effectively. This is a positive attribute of high-efficiency convection ovens, as there generally
is no performance tradeoff between energy efficiency and productivity.
Standard gas convection ovens exhibit very low efficiency, due in part to the prevalence of
inexpensive, low-efficiency burner designs and controls. Additionally, convection ovens with
high heavy-load cooking-energy efficiencies may still have significant idle losses, impacting
part-load efficiencies. Since convection ovens may spend a large portion of their operating
time in a ready-to-cook or idle mode, reducing the idle energy use of the convection ovens
on the market will have the largest impact on reducing overall convection oven energy
usage. Assuming a market penetration rate of 35%, convection oven consumption can be
reduced by 8.3 million therms.
Figure 11 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from an oven
with low efficiency to a high-efficiency oven. The degree of energy savings potential when
replacing a low-efficiency convection oven with an energy-efficient model makes it an ideal
candidate for this ET project – particularly when comparing the potential energy savings
against energy savings realized when replacing other oven types.
FIGURE 11. OVEN ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL
PRESSURELESS STEAM COOKER
Pressureless steam cookers consume 34 million therms annually. With a variety of
strategies, this can be reduced by 6.3 million therms. The dominant design is an open
system in which any steam injected into the compartment that does not condense on the
food escapes down the drain as unused steam. Cooling water is then injected into the
steamer drain line to condense the wasted steam before it is expelled to the main sewer
line. This continuous flow of steam down the drain places a continuous demand on the
boiler, as cold water (to replenish the wasted steam) is added to the boiler. While the
18
constant influx of fresh steam into the cooking compartment yields fast cook times, the
speed is achieved at the expense of heavy energy and water consumption.
A variation in the design uses a drain trap and sensors to modulate steam production based
on demand. When unused steam is condensing down the drain, the controls shut down
steam production and stop the condensate cooling water spray. Only when the
compartment pressure lowers, indicating that the food has absorbed heat from the steam,
will the steam production resume. This approach has led to dramatic increases in efficiency
with only a slight impact on speed.
In order to accommodate the production needs of the restaurant, a high-efficiency, boilerbased, pressureless steam cooker with a partially-closed system was installed for this ET
project.
Figure 12 below highlights, by type, the energy savings potential of moving from a steam
cooker with low efficiency to a high-efficiency steam cooker.
FIGURE 12. STEAMER ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL
19
FIELD ANALYSIS, RESULTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN (PLEASANTON, CA)
An overview of the research performed at Vic’s All-Star Kitchen has been summarized in a
two-page case study, located in Appendix A.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
SITE DESCRIPTION
Vic’s All Star Restaurant is a 1,500 square foot, short order, casual dining restaurant with a
30-seat dining room and a ten-seat patio. Pleasanton is a city located in the East Bay of the
San Francisco Bay Area with an approximate population of 71,000. Vic’s is a 12-year-old
restaurant and occupies a multi-unit retail complex. The equipment in the restaurant is a
hold-over from a previous tenant which ran a similar restaurant concept on the premise for
over ten years.
The original kitchen hot line was comprised of two manual-controlled griddles, one of which
was incorporated into a range suite with two open burners and two conventional ovens. A
small countertop electric deep-fat fryer was used for fried foods.
A FSTC energy analyst conducted an energy audit of the restaurant to identify energy
savings opportunities for the operator.
SITE ASSESSMENT
The aging cook line, typical in many small independent short-order restaurants, represented
an opportunity for a complete kitchen hotline makeover where energy-intensive,
underperforming appliances could be replaced with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise
appliances to deliver energy savings and improved cooking performance.
SITE OBJECTIVES
The objective the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production
performance associated with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified fryer,
convection ovens and thermostatically-controlled griddles.
The project entailed consolidating the two manually-controlled griddles, nominally three and
four feet in width, into a single energy-efficient thermostatically controlled griddle.
Replacement of the three-foot griddle with its integrated conventional ovens precipitated the
installation of the high-efficiency, double stacked convection ovens.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
The energy use of each cooking platform was determined through the utilization of the
FSTC’s web-based life cycle cost calculators. The calculators effectively model the appliance
20
energy use by referencing performance data generated from the implementation of
standard ASTM test methods.
The fryer test method (ASTM F1361-07) determines fryer preheat time and energy, idle
energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity. Preheat performance is a
measure of the amount of time and energy the fryer requires to reach a fully-operational set
point where the fry vat oil reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed in minutes and
Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the fryer consumes
while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the fry vat oil at 350°F. Cookingenergy efficiency is the calculated percentage of the energy to the appliance that is actually
transferred to the test food product; a three-pound load of shoestring French fries. Lastly,
production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of the standardized
loads of fries to a pre-determined done temperature. Production capacity is essentially a
measure of the fryers’ ability to recover to thermostat set point after each load of raw fries
are introduced into the cooking media.
The convection oven test method (ASTM F1496-99) determines oven preheat time and
energy, idle energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity. Preheat
performance is a measure of the amount of time and energy the oven requires to reach a
fully operational set point where the oven’s cooking cavity reaches 350°F. Time and energy
is expressed in minutes and Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount
energy the oven consumes while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the
cooking cavity at 350°F. Cooking-energy efficiency is the calculated percentage of energy to
the appliance that is actually transferred to the test food product; a prescribed load of
russet potatoes. Lastly, production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive
cooking of the standardized loads of russet potatoes to a pre-determined done temperature.
Production capacity is essentially a measure of the oven’s ability to recover to thermostat
set point after each load of russet potatoes is removed from the oven.
The griddle test method (ASTM F1275-03) determines griddle preheat time and energy, idle
measure of the amount of time and energy the griddle requires to reach a fully-operational
set point where the griddle’s cooking surface reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed
in minutes and Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the
griddle consumes while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the cooking
surface at 350°F. Cooking-energy efficiency is the calculated percentage of energy to the
appliance that is actually transferred to the test food product; a prescribed load hamburger
patties. Lastly, production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of
the standardized loads of hamburger patties to a pre-determined done temperature.
Production capacity is essentially a measure of the griddle’s ability to recover to thermostat
set point after load of hamburger patties is removed from the griddle’s cooking surface.
Energy use of the existing manual griddles was based upon the direct relation between the
units’ rated input and user interface – burner control set point. Observation of staff use of
the manual griddles determined that the burners were regularly set to 85% of the griddles’
rated input. The primary griddle is used during every day of service – 363 days. The
secondary unit is used only on Sunday to meet the increased needs during that service day.
21
RESULTS
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Fryer
Table 1 documents the fryer life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the
energy use of both the existing and replacement fryer.
TABLE 1.
FRYER OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing Fryer
Assumptions
Replacement Fryer
Assumptions
Preheat Energy
2.3 kWh
15,000 Btu
Idle Energy Rate
1.0 kW
7,349 Btu/h
Cooking-Energy Efficiency
(%)
75
50
Production Capacity (lb/h)
30
65
Days of Operation
363
359
Hours of Operation per Day
8
12
Pounds of Food Cooked per
Day
50
50
Tables 2 and 3 document the calculated energy use of the existing and replacement natural
gas fryer and the associated operating cost savings.
TABLE 2.
CALCULATED FRYER ENERGY USE: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing Fryer Calculated Annual
Energy Use (kWh)
Replacement Fryer Calculated Annual
Energy Use (therms)
7,085
448
22
TABLE 3.
FRYER OPERATING COSTS AND SAVINGS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing Fryer Annual
Operating Cost ($)
Replacement Fryer
Annual Operating Cost
($)
Replacement Fryer
Projected Annual
Operating Cost Savings
($)*
1,275
380
895
*Annual operating cost savings based on electric and natural gas utility rates of $0.18/kWh and $0.85/therm.
Convection Oven
Table 4 documents the oven life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the
energy use of both the existing and replacement ovens.
TABLE 4.
OVEN OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing Oven(s)
Assumptions
Replacement Oven(s)
Assumptions
Preheat Energy (Btu)
10,000
11,000
Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h)
10,000
12,300
(%)
15
50
40
86
Days of Operation
363
363
8
8
Day
50
50
Tables 5 and 6 document the calculated energy use if the existing and replacement natural
gas ovens, and the associated energy and operating cost savings.
TABLE 5.
CALCULATED OVEN ENERGY USE: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing Ovens’ Calculated Annual
Energy Use (therms)
Replacement Ovens’ Calculated Annual
Energy Use (therms)
1,150
926
23
TABLE 6.
OVEN ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Replacement Ovens’ Projected Annual
Energy Savings (therms)
Replacement Ovens’ Projected Annual
Operating Cost Savings ($)*
223
190
*Annual operating cost savings based on a natural gas utility rate of $0.85/therm.
Griddle
Table 7 documents the griddle life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the
energy use of the existing primary and secondary griddles and the replacement griddle.
TABLE 7.
GRIDDLE OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing
Primary Griddle
Assumptions
Existing Secondary
Griddle Assumptions
Replacement
Griddle Assumptions
Preheat Energy
(Btu)
60,000
60,000
15,000
Idle Energy Rate
(Btu/h)
60,000
60,000
31,056
Cooking-Energy
Efficiency (%)
NA
NA
40%
Production Capacity
(lb/h)
NA
NA
79
Days of Operation
363
52
363
Hours of Operation
per Day
8
8
8
Pounds of Food
Cooked per Day
50
50
50
Table 8 documents the calculated energy use of the existing primary and secondary
manually-controlled griddles, and the annual energy use of the replacement
thermostatically-controlled griddle. Table 9 documents the energy and operating cost
savings of replacing the existing primary and secondary manually-controlled griddles with
the replacement thermostatically-controlled griddle.
24
TABLE 8.
CALCULATED GRIDDLE ENERGY USE: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Existing Primary and Secondary Griddles’
Calculated Annual Energy Use (therms)
Primary
1,481
Secondary
212
Replacement Griddle Calculated
Annual Energy Use (therms)
912
TABLE 9.
GRIDDLE ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: VIC’S ALL-STAR KITCHEN
Replacement Griddle Calculated Annual
Energy Savings (therms)
Replacement Griddle Calculated Annual
Operating Cost Savings ($)
781
664
Figure 13 illustrates Vic’s cooking line before and after the equipment was replaced. The
existing line includes the range and conventional ovens, as well as the griddles.
Replacement equipment shown includes the double-stacked convection ovens and floor
griddle.
FIGURE 13. VIC’S COOKING LINE: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
The operator was satisfied with the revamped hot line. Increased productivity, especially
during the busy Sunday morning breakfast rush, was noted. With its significantly faster
cook times, the convection oven has enabled the operator to consolidate production into a
single oven, which will deliver additional energy savings. With one oven freed from
dedicated service for everyday menu demands, the operator has been able to expand his
menu offering to include prime rib, which requires many hours of roasting time.
The new griddle’s seamless cooking surface provides greater functionality to Vic’s cooking
staff, as they no longer have to work between two surfaces.
25
The fryer, too, delivers greater production. The operator did advise that the larger fryer vat
has increased his oil requirements, which has resulted in additional operating costs to Vic’s.
However, these costs do not outweigh the operating cost savings associated with new fryer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was a successful demonstration of the potential to replace an entire antiquated
cook line with modern, efficient appliances. The greatest benefit came from the replacement
of the manually controlled griddles, which are so common in small, independent
restaurants. This study should demonstrate the economic viability of replacing manuallycontrolled griddles with those that are thermostatically-controlled.
VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN SHOWCASE (9/25/2012)
The showcase was held at Vic’s on September 25th between the hours of 3:00 PM and 5:00
PM. The event was promoted through flyer distribution to vendor customers; to local FSTC
database contacts; to restaurant contacts in the Tri-Valley area; and to friends of the
restaurant owner. The event was also promoted on FSTC’s website (fishnick.com) and
Facebook site, as well as through the newsletters of both the GGRA and the Pleasanton
Chamber of Commerce. PG&E sent mailers and e-mails to restaurants in nearby zip codes,
and FSTC staff canvassed the area around the restaurant.
FIGURE 14. VIC’S SHOWCASE (9/25/2012)
Eleven guests attended the event, as well as ten representatives from seven vendors –
including the City of Pleasanton’s sustainability program. Five restaurants signed up for
onsite energy audits by FSTC energy analysts.
The layout for the Vic’s showcase included tables for vendors and for the FSTC; two digital
displays to illustrate Vic’s energy saving story; a storyboard and flyers for Vic’s case study;
and screenshots of Vic’s PG&E bill during the monitoring period to show how their energy
use had been reduced. Flyers for rebates, seminars, FSTC contacts, and estimated ROI as a
result of replacing existing equipment were also included, as were seminar calendars and
lists of qualifying foodservice equipment. Turbo Pots were featured as part of the event, and
18 pots were given away to guests and vendors.
The Vic’s case study can be found in Appendix A. A list of attendees for the Vic’s showcase
event can be found in Appendix D.3.
26
The majority of event attendees arrived at 3:00 PM, with a few arriving at 4:30 PM. The
room was set up in a U-shape, and while space was limited, it worked well for this event.
The showcase was featured at the back of the U-shape, and as a result, it received top
billing. The owner was excited to have the showcase on-hand at his restaurant, and
provided vendors and guests with a kitchen tour; an added benefit for the showcase.
Some feedback collected and insight gained from the Vic’s showcase included:

It was helpful to have Santino Bernazzani (the PG&E representative) on hand as he
was able to give attendees detailed info on their accounts.

Ruben Ramirez, PG&E’s Time Varying Pricing (TVP) specialist was able to inform
owners about TVP and answer questions/concerns

The green business and sustainability programs were good additions to the
showcase; in addition to highlighting energy efficiencies, attendees were provided
with information on how to green their restaurants.

The Tri-Valley Convention and Visitor’s Bureau was also a good addition to event;
attendees were educated on how to utilize the Bureau to promote their business.

The two digital displays worked really well; it set the stage for the event.

Balloons added a nice touch and made it feel like a special event.

The amount of energy that restaurants use compared to other buildings, and the
amount of energy that one appliance uses compared to a house, were great segues
into why the FSTC is needed.

Purchase stick-on handles for city locations to make it easier to carry the Turbo Pot
box.

Strengthen promotion and message on promotional piece for future events.

Make it clear that it is an Open House, and that attendees can come and go at their
leisure.

It is difficult to reach restaurant operators and owners, word of mouth seems best.

Try to canvass neighborhoods near the restaurant day before or day of event to help
bring in locals.
The Vic’s All Star Kitchen demonstration project was also a central element of the FSTC
booth at the annual US Foods Show in Pleasanton CA.
An overview of the research performed at Vic’s has been summarized in a one-page case
study, located in Appendix A.
COMAL (BERKELEY, CA)
TECHNICAL APPROACH
SITE DESCRIPTION
Comal Restaurant is a 7,500 square foot casual dining restaurant with a 54-seat dining
room, two 12-seat bars, and a 60-seat patio. Berkeley is a city located in the East Bay of
the San Francisco Bay Area. The restaurant has with an approximate population of 114,000.
27
The restaurant is new and has been in operation for approximately ten months. It occupies
a former retail space on a major downtown thoroughfare.
The kitchen hot line is comprised of four six-burner open range tops, two of which are built
into a customized suite with a thermostatically controlled griddle. Free-standing equipment
includes a countertop boilerless steamer, convection oven, 50-lb deep fat fryer, and a
manually-controlled comal (a high-temperature griddle commonly used for cooking
tortillas). Lastly, the kitchen has a solid-fuel rotisserie.
An FSTC energy analyst and PG&E account manager were involved in the build-out of the
restaurant, and participated in a design consultation to review equipment schedules and
mechanical drawings to help the owners mitigate energy use through the specification of
energy-efficient appliances and equipment.
SITE ASSESSMENT
After an energy audit/commissioning visit by an FSTC energy analyst shortly after the
restaurant opened, the originally-specified and installed fryer was identified as a candidate
for replacement. The convection oven and steamer were ENERGY STAR® and California Energy
Wise - qualified appliances. The remaining candidate – the griddles – were not a viable
candidate for replacement. The thermostatically controlled built in griddle, while a standardefficiency unit, could not be easily replaced due to its integration into the customized suite.
The high temperature, manually-controlled comal is a unique piece of equipment and
delivers a higher cooking surface temperature – 700°F – that is crucial to food preparation.
SITE OBJECTIVES
The objective the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production
performance associated with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified fryer.
To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient fryer, the existing unit
as well as the replacement model, was metered for energy use. Researchers utilized total
volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a period
of two weeks.
RESULTS
Fryer
Table 10 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use and
associated operating cost of the existing fryer and replacement fryer. Table 11 documents
the annual energy savings associated with the replacement fryer and the annual operating
cost savings.
28
TABLE 10. FRYER ENERGY USE AND OPERATING COSTS: COMAL
Appliance
Existing
Fryer
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Replacement
Fryer
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Existing Fryer
Projected
Annual
Energy
(therms)*
Replacement
Fryer
Projected
Annual
Energy
(therms)*
Fryer
3.9
2.25
1,422
821
*Annual energy use projections assumes 365 days of operation per year
TABLE 11. FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: COMAL
Appliance
Replacement Fryer Projected
Annual Energy Savings
(therms)
Annual Operating Cost
Savings ($)*
Fryer
601
511
Comal’s existing and replacement fryers are shown in Figure 15.
FIGURE 15. COMAL FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
The operator was satisfied with the fryer performance and noticed an immediate increase in
productivity due to the improved oil temperature recovery.
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
This site represented the ideal retrofit opportunity. Since the existing fryer was freestanding, the new unit of similar dimensions could be replaced with little required time and
effort.
COMAL SHOWCASE (10/4/2012)
The showcase was held at Comal on October 4th between the hours of 10:00 AM and noon.
The event was promoted through flyer distribution by the City of Berkeley to over 600
restaurants and foodservice establishments; to local FSTC database contacts; to vendor
customers; and to friends of the restaurant owner. The event was also promoted on FSTC’s
website (fishnick.com) and Facebook site, as well as through the newsletters of both the
GGRA and the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce. PG&E sent mailers and e-mails to
restaurants in nearby zip codes, and PG&E’s area representative canvassed the area on the
day of the event.
FIGURE 16. COMAL SHOWCASE (10/4/2012)
Twenty-nine guests attended the event, as well as 19 representatives from 12 vendors –
including the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Alameda County Green Business program,
and vendor representatives for energy-efficient lighting and ice making products. Five
restaurants signed up for onsite energy audits by FSTC energy analysts.
The layout for the Comal showcase included 12 tables for vendors and for the FSTC; two
digital displays to illustrate Comal’s energy saving story, as well as a storyboard and flyers
for the Comal case study; and screenshots of Comal’s PG&E bill during the monitoring
period to show how their energy use had been reduced. Flyers for rebates, seminars, FSTC
contacts, and estimated ROI as a result of replacing existing equipment were also included,
as were seminar calendars and lists of qualifying foodservice equipment. Turbo Pots were
featured as part of the event, and 46 pots were given away to guests and vendors.
30
The Comal case study can be found in Appendix A. A list of attendees for the Comal
showcase event can be found in Appendix D.2.
As with the showcase at Bridges, setup and breakdown for this event had to be quick;
Comal was busy with prep during the event and wanted to make sure that space was
available for dinner.
Some feedback collected and insight gained from the Comal showcase included:
 Using local organizations such as City of Berkeley to help promote was key to helping
drive attendance up.
 The room setup worked really well, the showcase used Comal’s back patio.
 Using Comal's bar to set up televisions worked well as the main focal point.
 Parking for the Comal event was challenging.
 One of the challenges of holding an event on location was that the showcase had to
work around the hours of the restaurant. In this case, the timeslot was hard for
Comal.
 As well as having a pre-registered attendee sign-in sheet, have registration forms
available for walk-ins in order to capture their contact info.
 In order to track who the Turbo Pots were given away to, make sure that those who
received Turbo Pots initialed for them on the sign-in sheet.
 Remember to include appliances when determining the layout of the showcase.
Include the appliances in the floor plan for the space reserved for the showcase, and
make sure to save enough room for the appliances to be displayed adequately.
The Comal demonstration project was also a central element of the FSTC booth at the
annual US Foods Show in Pleasanton CA.
BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR (DANVILLE, CA)
An overview of the research performed at Bridges Restaurant & Bar has been summarized in
a two-page case study, located in Appendix A.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
SITE DESCRIPTION
Bridges Restaurant & Bar is a 5,000-square-foot, fine dining restaurant with a 107-seat
dining room, 26-seat bar, and 48-seat patio. Danville is a city located in the East Bay of the
San Francisco Bay Area with an approximate population of 42,000. The restaurant has been
in operation for approximately 25 years and occupies a building that is several years older
and has had prior restaurants as tenants.
Several open burner range top suites with convention oven, a charboiler, double stacked
convection ovens and a single 50-lb deep fat fryer comprise the kitchen cooking line.
Bridges was selected as a study site after an energy audit conducted by Food Service
Technology Center energy analysts, which analyzed each of the facility’s energy using
systems.. Further, following the audit, restaurant management participated in 3rd party
31
partnership programs for lighting and refrigeration which upgraded older, inefficient
systems at small capital expense – less than $2,000.
SITE ASSESSMENT
The energy audit identified the kitchen’s aging fryer and two convection ovens as inefficient
models and candidates for replacement with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise
qualified models. The appliances are considered industry standards and found in many
similarly equipped kitchens. The other appliances on the hotline are not ENERGY STAR® and
California Energy Wise categories.
SITE OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study was to validate the energy savings and improved production
performance associated with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise qualified fryers and
convection ovens.
To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient convection ovens, the
existing units as well as the new models were each metered for energy use. Researcher
utilized total volume, utility-grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s)
over a period of two weeks.
The energy use of the existing and replacement fryer was determined through utilization of
the Food Service Technology Center’s online life cycle cost calculators which can be
customized to reflect specific appliance operating parameters such as hours of operation,
pounds of food cooked daily, cooking-energy efficiency and production capacity.
RESULTS
Convection Oven
Table 12 documents the measured daily energy, projected annual energy use, and
associated operating cost of the existing and replacement top and bottom convection ovens.
13 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement ovens and the
annual operating cost savings.
32
TABLE 12. OVEN ENERGY USE AND OPERATING COSTS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR
Appliance
Existing
Ovens’
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Replacement
Ovens’
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Existing
Oven’s
Projected
Annual
Energy
(therms)*
Replacement
Oven’s
Projected
Annual
Energy
(therms)*
Top Oven
1.99
0.84
714
302
Bottom Oven
1.72
0.38
618
136
TABLE 13. OVEN ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR
Appliance
Replacement Ovens’ Projected
(therms)
Replacement Ovens’
Projected Annual Operating
Cost Savings ($)*
Top Oven
412
350
Bottom Oven
482
409
Bridge’s existing and replacement ovens are shown in Figure 17.
FIGURE 17. BRIDGES OVENS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)
33
Fryer
The fryers’ energy use was calculated by using the FSTC’s web-based life cycle cost
calculators. The calculator effectively models the appliance energy use by referencing
performance data generated from the implementation of standard ASTM test methods.
Table 14 documents the fryer life cycle cost calculator assumptions used to determine the
energy use of both the existing and replacement fryer.
TABLE 14. FRYER OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR
Existing Fryer
Assumptions
Replacement Fryer
Assumptions
Preheat Energy (Btu)
16,000
15,000
Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h)
14,000
4,636
(%)
30
65
60
78
Days of Operation
359
359
12
12
Day
75
75
The fryer test method (ASTM F1361-07) determines fryer preheat time and energy, idle
measure of the amount of time and energy the fryer requires to reach a fully-operational set
point where the fry vat oil reaches 350°F. Time and energy is expressed in minutes and
Btu’s, respectively. The idle energy rate, Btu/hr, is the amount energy the fryer consumes
while in a standby condition, not cooking and maintaining the fry vat oil at 350°F. Cookingenergy efficiency is the calculated percentage of the energy to the appliance that is actually
transferred to the test food product; a three-pound load of shoestring French fries. Lastly,
production capacity (lb/h) is determined through the successive cooking of the standardized
loads of fries to a pre-determined done temperature. Production capacity is essentially a
measure of the fryers’ ability to recover to thermostat set point after each load of raw fries
are introduced into the cooking media.
Tables 15 and 16 document the calculated energy use of the existing and replacement
natural gas fryers, and the associated energy and operating cost savings.
34
TABLE 15. CALCULATED FRYER ENERGY USE: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR
Existing Fryer Calculated Energy Use Annual
Energy (therms)
Annual Energy (therms)*
1,097
470
TABLE 16. FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: BRIDGES RESTAURANT & BAR
Replacement Fryer Projected Annual Energy
Savings (therms)
Annual Operating Cost Savings
($)*
627
533
Bridge’s existing and replacement fryers are shown in Figure 18.
FIGURE 18. BRIDGES FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Both Bridges partner and executive chef as well as the dessert chef were very satisfied with
the replacement equipment – especially the convection ovens, which delivered significantly
higher production capacity. As a result of the significantly lower exhaust flow temperature
associated with high-efficiency fryers, Bridges chef also experienced lower radiant heat off
the hot line back wall once the replacement fryer was installed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The demonstration of these energy-efficient appliances was a success at Bridges, and
achieved the goal of showing the proprietor that energy-efficient cooking appliances not
35
only reduce operating costs, but deliver superior finished food product as well. The installed
equipment is well-suited for restaurant operations similar to Bridges, and since the chef has
a significant voice in the local fine dining community, there is a good chance that other local
restaurants will also choose to adopt these types of appliances.
Project managers learned that installation of foodservice appliances is a complicated process
that requires significant coordination of the appliance dealer group, installer, and restaurant
management. Of note was the almost immediate operational failure of the convection ovens
two days after installation. Fortunately, the appliances had simply come unplugged due to a
worn electrical receptacle and FSTC staff remedied the situation in short order. This
experience demonstrated the need for continuous follow-up for a period after installation to
ensure customer satisfaction with the operation of the new appliances – particularly if issues
with the new equipment are not communicated by the restaurant.
BRIDGES SHOWCASE (10/23/2012)
The showcase event was held at Bridges on October 23rd between the hours of 1:30 PM and
3:30 PM. The event was promoted through flyer distribution to vendor customers; to local
FSTC database contacts; to restaurant contacts in the Tri-Valley area; and to friends of the
restaurant owner. The event was also promoted on FSTC’s website (fishnick.com) and
Facebook site, as well as through the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA)
newsletter. PG&E sent mailers and e-mails to restaurants in nearby zip codes, and FSTC and
PG&E staff canvassed the Danville area on the day of the event.
FIGURE 19. BRIDGES SHOWCASE (10/23/2012)
Twenty-one guests attended the event, as well as 17 representatives from ten vendors –
including the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa County Green Business
program, Contra Costa County Environmental Health, and vendor representatives for
energy-efficient lighting and ice-making products. Twelve restaurants signed up for onsite
energy audits by FSTC energy analysts.
The event was held on a Tuesday to allow owner/operators the ability to have staff cover for
them on a slower day of the week. Most attendees came to the event either at the
beginning or towards the end of the showcase. Both setup and cleanup had to be quick to
avoid interfering with Bridge’s normal operations.
The layout for the Bridges showcase included tables for vendors, two digital displays to
illustrate Bridges’ energy saving story, and one TV display to highlight the rebate story. A
36
storyboard and flyers for the Bridges case study were included, as was the Bridges chef’s
bio. Flyers for rebates, seminars, FSTC contacts, and estimated ROI as a result of replacing
existing equipment were also included, as were seminar calendars and lists of qualifying
foodservice equipment. A 14" fryer was on display, and Turbo Pots were featured as part of
the event; 27 pots were given away to guests and vendors.
The Bridges case study can be found in Appendix A. A list of attendees for the Bridges
showcase event can be found in Appendix D.1.
Some feedback collected and insight gained from the Bridges showcase included:

The layout at Bridges worked well. Registration was set up outside, and patio doors
were used as the main entrance. It was a smaller space, but it made it feel like there
was more activity.

Feedback from attendees indicated that the Bridges display looked nice and was a
focal part of the event as people walked in. Vendors were very pleased with the
event and felt that it also gave them a better opportunity to understand the
programs offered to restaurants through PG&E, and how they could promote these
programs to help their customers/clients as well.
The Bridges demonstration project was also a central element of the FSTC booth at the
annual US Foods Show in Pleasanton, CA.
CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR (DANVILLE, CA)
TECHNICAL APPROACH
SITE DESCRIPTION
Chow Restaurant and Bar is a 3,000 square foot, fine dining restaurant with a 95-seat
dining room, 20-seat bar and 25-seat patio. Danville is a city located in the East Bay of the
San Francisco Bay Area with a population of approximately 42,000. The restaurant has been
in operation for five years and occupies a space in a multi-site commercial development.
Chow was chosen as a study site as a result of the FSTC’s relationship with the restaurant’s
director of operations. The director had attended FSTC seminars in the past, and had energy
audit performed at the restaurant by FNi’s energy analysts. The site also afforded the
opportunity to evaluate a best-in-class ENERGY STAR® fryer alongside a value-priced ENERGY
STAR® fryer. The two units are differentiated by not only their incremental cost difference,
approximately $2,500, but the technologies that make them efficient as well. The best-inclass fryer utilizes a multi-pass tube heat exchanger, whereas the value-priced unit employs
a simple deflector screen inserted into the straight-tube heat exchanger.
SITE ASSESSMENT
The main cook line consists of an integrated open-burner range and griddletop range suites,
a water bath rethermalizer, a solid-fuel pizza oven, and a natural gas 50-lb low-efficiency
fryer. A secondary grill line consists of another 50-lb low-efficiency fryer of the same model
as well as a char broiler.
37
SITE OBJECTIVES
performance associated with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise-qualified fryers.
To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient fryers, the existing
units, as well as the new models, were each metered for energy use. Researchers utilized
total volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a
period of two weeks.
RESULTS
associated operating cost of the existing main line fryer and replacement main line fryer.
Table 18 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement main line
fryer and the annual operating cost savings.
TABLE 17. MAIN LINE FRYER ENERGY USE: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR
Appliance
Existing Fryer
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Replacement
Fryer
Measured Daily
Energy
(therms)
Existing
Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Replacement
Fryer Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Main Line Fryer
3.59
1.26
1,288
453
TABLE 18. MAIN LINE FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR
Appliance
(therms)
($)*
Main Line Fryer
835
710
Chow’s existing and replacement main line fryers are shown in Figure 20.
38
FIGURE 20. CHOW’S MAIN LINE FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)
associated operating cost of the existing grill line fryer and replacement grill line fryer. Table
20 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement grill line fryer and
the annual operating cost savings.
TABLE 19. GRILL LINE FRYER ENERGY USE: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR
Appliance
Existing Fryer
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Replacement
Fryer
Measured Daily
Energy
(therms)
Existing Fryer
Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Replacement
Fryer Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Grill Line Fryer
2.76
1.6
990
573
TABLE 20. GRILL LINE FRYER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: CHOW RESTAURANT AND BAR
Appliance
(therms)
($)*
Grill Line Fryer
417
354
Chow’s existing and replacement grill line fryers are shown in Figure 21.
39
FIGURE 21. CHOW’S GRILL LINE FRYERS: EXISTING (LEFT) AND REPLACEMENT (RIGHT)
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
The customer was satisfied with the cooking performance of the new fryers and advised that
there was as appreciable decrease in cook times with each fryer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chow represented an ideal retrofit condition where the free-standing low-efficiency fryers
were removed from their respective cook lines and replaced with the energy-efficient
models.
CHOW SHOWCASE
While this site was an ideal candidate to host a showcase, unfortunately space limitations at
the restaurant prevented them from holding an event of that size at their restaurant.
MELON’S CATERING (SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA)
TECHNICAL APPROACH
SITE DESCRIPTION
Melon’s Catering is a 3,000-square-foot catering kitchen located in South San Francisco. The
business caters to a wide variety of events and serves a varied menu of fine-dining French
fusion cuisine. FSTC conducted an energy audit on Melon’s as a result of the owner’s
participation in the San Francisco County Green Business program, which requires an onsite
inspection systems, including cooking appliances, which make up a large quantity of
electricity use in the business.
40
SITE ASSESSMENT
Melon’s double-stack convection oven was identified as a candidate for replacement, as it
represented the base efficiency, industry standard convection oven commonly used in the
commercial foodservice industry.
SITE OBJECTIVES
performance associated with an ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise-qualified oven.
To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient oven, the existing
units as well as the new modes were metered for energy use. Researchers used total
volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btus) over a period
of two weeks.
RESULTS
associated operating cost of the existing and replacement top and bottom convection ovens.
Table 22 documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement ovens and
the annual operating cost savings.
TABLE 21. OVEN ENERGY USE: MELON’S CATERING
Appliance
Existing Oven
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Replacement
Oven Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Existing Oven
Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Replacement
Oven Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Top and
Bottom Oven
4.35
3.06
1,588
1,116
TABLE 22. OVEN ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: MELON’S CATERING
Oven
Replacement Oven Projected
(therms)
Replacement Oven Projected
($)*
Top and
Bottom Oven
472
401
41
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
The customer advised the FSTC that the oven performance is as good as, if not better than,
the replaced units.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For oven replacement, Melons represented an ideal retrofit condition; the open warehouse
floor plan of the facility allowed the free-standing stacked ovens to be easily removed from
the kitchen space.
MELON’S SHOWCASE
An event at Melons had been scheduled, but was subsequently cancelled, since the location
was too remote for an adequate attendance.
SLANTED DOOR (SAN FRANCISCO, CA)
TECHNICAL APPROACH
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Slanted Door is a 5,000-square-foot fine dining restaurant serving modern Vietnamese
cuisine located in the San Francisco Bay Area. The restaurant has a 125-seat dining room,
30-seat bar and 20-seat patio. San Francisco is the metropolitan center of the greater Bay
Area and has a population of just over 800,000. The restaurant is located in the
rehabilitated San Francisco Ferry Building which houses numerous restaurants, independent
food dealers and retailers in an open-air pavilion.
The cooking appliances at Slanted Door consist of numerous Chinese ranges, fryers,
convection ovens, and a steamer.
Slanted door was selected as a study site after an energy audit conducted by FSTC energy
analysts, which analyzed each of the facility’s energy-using systems. Afterwards, the
restaurant’s executive chef visited the FSTC to discuss energy-efficient appliances and what
energy-efficiency upgrades could be made to their hot line.
SITE ASSESSMENT
The energy audit identified the kitchen’s workhorse boiler-based steamer as one of the most
energy-intensive cooking platforms on Slanted Door’s hotline.
SITE OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to replace the existing boiler-based steamer with an ENERGY
STAR® and California Energy Wise model and demonstrate the energy savings associated
with it.
42
To determine the energy savings associated with the energy-efficient steamer, the existing
unit as well as the new model was metered for energy use. Researchers utilized total
volume, utility grade gas meters to measure natural gas consumption (Btu’s) over a period
of two weeks.
RESULTS
associated operating cost of the existing steamer and the replacement steamer. Table 24
documents the annual energy savings associated with the replacement steamer and the
annual operating cost savings.
TABLE 23. STEAMER ENERGY USE: SLANTED DOOR
Appliance
Existing
Steamer
Measured
Daily Energy
(therms)
Replacement
Steamer Fryer
Measured Daily
Energy
(therms)
Existing
Steamer
Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Replacement
Steamer
Projected
Annual Energy
(therms)*
Steamer
11.5
2.7
4,626
997
TABLE 24. STEAMER ENERGY AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS: SLANTED DOOR
Appliance
Replacement Steamer
Projected Annual Energy
Savings (therms)
Replacement Steamer
Projected Annual Operating
Cost Savings ($)*
Steamer
3,629
3,084
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Despite the significant operating cost savings associated with the steamer, the unit was
removed from service by the operator approximately four weeks after installation. The
operator advised that production was satisfactory during the first two weeks of operation,
but soon the door gaskets began to fail and allowed steam to escape from the cooking
compartment. This adversely impacted production and the steamer could no longer meet
menu demands. The existing steamer was returned to service instead.
FSTC researchers were not made aware of this problem until after the operator removed the
unit from service and placed it in storage at the company’s warehouse/commissary kitchen.
The operator advised that he was unhappy with the build quality of the replacement unit
43
and was not interested in trying to repair it. He further stated that he felt the manufacturer
of his existing steamer was of the best quality.
The operator had previously conducted testing at the FSTC on the ENERGY STAR® version of
the steamer model previously in use at Slanted Door. However, during that assessment, he
felt that the ENERGY STAR® version lacked adequate steam output to meet the restaurant‘s
menu demands. At that time, the operator had selected a different ENERGY STAR® unit for
replacement, one which he felt had adequate steaming capacity. Unfortunately, that
replacement model was ultimately removed from Slanted Door’s production line after the
door gaskets allowed steam to escape.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This customer’s dissatisfaction with the steamer highlights the challenges associated with
replacing cooking appliances in restaurant kitchens. Operators in some cases are wary of
changing appliances they are familiar with after having operated them successfully for many
years. Proven energy savings associated with ENERGY STAR® and California Energy Wise
models may not be enough to persuade an operator to replace an inefficient model as they
fear the new model, potential of a different manufacturer may not perform satisfactorily, as
was the case at the Slanted Door.
SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE AT US FOODS SHOW (10/16/2012)
The FSTC hosted a 10x10 booth at the US Foods Seminar and show on October 16th, 2012.
This showcase and seminar presentation promoted the monitoring work and subsequent
findings from the Vic’s, Comal, and Bridges case studies.
US Foods is a leading foodservice distributor in the US, with a client base that includes
restaurants, healthcare, hospitality facilities, government operations, and educational
institutions. Their event is heavily-attended by their customers (US Foods busses in their
customers from remote locations for this daylong event). While people attend the event to
learn about new products they are also hoping to find answers to questions regarding their
appliance needs, food safety, packaging, etc. So rather than trying to get the restaurant
operators/owners to carve time out of their day to come to us, they came to us at an event
they had already planned to attend.
The US Foods Show seminar and showcase event was a huge success. FSTC staff talked to
88 restaurant owners and operators at the showcase, three of whom signed up for an
energy audit. Approximately 40 attendees also attended the seminar, and each seminar
attendee received a Turbo Pot. Attendees were very receptive to the FSTC’s participation in
the event; the movement from the digital signs attracted the attention of show attendees to
the showcase, and allowed FSTC staff to spend 10-15 minutes with about half of them to
talk about PG&E programs and the FSTC, and to help answer questions and offer
suggestions. The US Foods Show proved to be a venue where the message of energyefficient appliances can effectively reach the SMB customer.
44
FIGURE 22. US FOODS SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE (10/16/2012)
45
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For each of the locations, appreciable energy savings was achieved through the installation
of energy-efficient cooking appliances. Further, the operators noted a dramatic increase in
productivity due to the shorter intervals required by the replacement appliances to recover
to thermostat set point temperatures after food product was introduced to the cooking
compartment, cooking surface or cooking media.
The measured pre- and post-installation energy use validates the FSTC’s life cycle cost
calculator analysis tools that accurately model appliance energy use. These tools are the
foundation of the energy-saving assumptions for the California statewide IOU Energy Wise
appliance incentive program. As a result of this Emerging Technology project, commercial
foodservice operators should feel confident that purchasing energy-efficient, utility rebate
qualified appliances will guarantee energy savings and lower operating costs.
The results from three of the six monitored sites are included as case studies to highlight
the energy and cost savings that were realized at each site. These case studies were
showcased at individual events hosted by the restaurant where the equipment was
replaced. On October 16, 2012, a seminar providing an overview of the ET project was
presented at the US Foods Show. Attendees at all these events received free Turbo Pots;
energy-efficient cookware designed to reduce open-range burner energy use when boiling or
simmering liquids. With the Turbo Pot’s advanced heat exchanger design, FSTC research
has measured a 48% percent increase in open-range burner efficiency (from 33.5% for a
standard pot to 49.6%).
Based on the subjective feedback from the operators, with the exception of one site, there
was a general level of satisfaction with the performance of the replacement appliances at
the restaurants where each was installed. The appliances in this study may be appropriate
for similar types of restaurants with similar production needs.
While the energy savings when replacing like-for-like appliances is relatively easy to
quantify, this study does call attention to the need for greater exploration of the real-world
energy use of non-thermostatic, manually controlled griddles or frytops. While researches
can model the energy use of this appliance type, there are subtle variances in usage
patterns and operating conditions affected by human operators that can dramatically impact
actual energy use and the savings associated with the installation of a thermostaticallycontrolled griddle. Appliance placement and space constraints did not allow for the sub
metering of the manual griddles at Vic’s All Star Kitchen, forcing researchers to model their
energy use based on rated input and control set points effected by the line cooks. Future
studies should identify sites where sub-metering a manual griddle is viable, in order to
validate calculated savings.
Operator satisfaction is paramount to the success of any appliance retrofit project. Removal
of the new energy-efficient steamer from service at the Slanted Door, for instance, was a
result of the operator having greater confidence in the build quality of the existing steamer
after the replacement unit’s door gaskets failed after minimal use. The operator’s brand
loyalty was strong enough that he placed the existing unit back in service, rather than
repairing the replacement unit, which was still under warranty.
Despite the inherent challenges associated with reaching the restaurant operators and
owners to promote utility resources, programs and incentives for energy efficiency upgrades
like California Energy Wise cooking appliances, the onsite demonstration showcase events
46
as well as the US Foods show were deemed successful. Given the time constraints placed on
most restaurant operators, the open timeframe adopted by the FSTC for the showcases
worked well for those who were able to attend. However, even within this open time format,
the three restaurants required that events be held at different times, days, and locations to
not hinder their normal operating schedules yet provide greater opportunities for operators
to attend the showcase events. This represents an ongoing challenge when trying to
develop such events for restaurant owner/operators – one that merits further exploration
and discussion, possibly through focus groups with local restaurateurs.
47
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES
VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN, PAGE 1
48
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES (CONTINUED)
VIC’S ALL STAR KITCHEN, PAGE 2
49
COMAL
50
BRIDGES RESTAURANT, PAGE 1
51
BRIDGES RESTAURANT, PAGE 2
52
APPENDIX B: APPLIANCE SPECIFICATIONS
PITCO VF 35 L10-347 GAS FRYER, PAGE 1
53
(CONT’D)
PITCO VF 35 L10-347 GAS FRYER, PAGE 2
54
(CONTINUED)
VULCAN 1VK45A GAS FRYER, PAGE 1
55
(CONTINUED)
VULCAN 1VK45A GAS FRYER, PAGE 2
56
(CONTINUED)
GARLAND MCO-GS-10 ESS, PAGE 1
57
(CONTINUED)
GARLAND MCO-GS-10 ESS, PAGE 2
58
(CONTINUED)
BLODGETT DFG-100 CONVECTION OVEN, PAGE 1
59
(CONTINUED)
BLODGETT DFG-100 CONVECTION OVEN, PAGE 2
60
(CONTINUED)
MARKET FORGE ETP-10G STEAM COOKER, PAGE 1
61
(CONTINUED)
MARKET FORGE ETP-10G STEAM COOKER, PAGE 2
62
APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR
SUPPORT PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES
C.1. US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR PRESENTATION, PAGE 1
63
(CONTINUED)
64
(CONTINUED)
65
(CONTINUED)
66
(CONTINUED)
C.2 US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE SUPPORT
PACKET, PAGE 1
67
APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND
SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKET AND LIST OF
ATTENDEES (CONTINUED)
C.2 US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND SHOWCASE SUPPORT
PACKET, PAGE 2
68
APPENDIX C: US FOODS SHOW SEMINAR AND
SHOWCASE SUPPORT PACKET AND LIST OF
ATTENDEES (CONTINUED)
C.3 US FOODS SHOW LIST OF ATTENDEES
TABLE A1. US FOODS SHOW GUESTS
First Name
Last Name
Company/Organization
Jose
Aguilar
Lone Tree Golf Course
Carol
Aladin
Buckhorn Grill San Francisco
Robin
Aldridge
Kaiser Santa Clara
Tom
Anderson
San Damiano Retreat
Silverio
Arteaga
Buckhorn Grill Napa
Marlen
Benitez
San Damiano Retreat
Gina
Berry
Healdsburg District Hospital
Bob
Boehm
Bobby's Place
Grace
Boehm
Bobby's Place
Pat
Cavanaugh
Carp Harmon
Henry
Chan
The Prolific Oven Bakery
Michael
Clark
Michael's on Main
Robbie
Clearie
Redding Tents & Events Inc.
Dani
Cline
Sabert
Kyle
Coffey
Pacific Connection Catering
Sam
Daniels
American Legion Post 31
Steve
De Parsia
De Parsia's
Jarrod
DeSoto
Bobby's Place
Robert
Donohoe
St. Mary's Medical Center
Rhiannon
Eddy
The Purple Orchid
Greg
Ellery
Radisson Hotel
Rommel
Esteybar
Pebble Beach Co.
Chris
Faurot
County of Sonoma Probation
Oscar
Flores
Buckhorn Grill San Francisco
Antonio
Gomez
Severinos Sea Cliff Inn
Rod
Goodman
Jenness Park
Shelly
Goodman
Jenness Park Christian Camp
Danny
Guadagnolo
D'bonis Pizza
Chris
Hampton
Handles Gastropub
69
First Name
Last Name
Marisol
Hernandez
Pacifica Senior Living
Russ
Hollett
Cattlemens
Thomas
Horton
Buckhorn Grill
Brian
Isaeff
US Foods
Chris
Jackson
Jackson Catering & Events
Jose
Jaquez
Faultline Brewing Co
Rocio
Keiser
Buckhorn Grill Embarcadero
Sharbari
Khanna
Kaiser Santa Clara
Jack
Lair
Woody
Karen
Lair
HVFM
Scott
Litteral
Il Forno Classico
Jesse
Lockwood
BW Yosemite Gateway
Debbie
Logan
Kaweah Delta West Campus
Celeste
Lusher
Crusco's Ristorante
Lorelie
Magalong
Veterans Home of CA
Eleni
Magoulas
Pete's Henny Pennys
Nikos
Maheras
Mezes
David
Maria
Buckhorn Grill
Corina
Matsuo
Five Ten Bistro
Rpbert
Matsuo
Bistro Bar Inc.
Ben
Mattman
JW Marriot San Francisco
Matthew
McKnight
The National Hotel
Tom
McLaughlin
Buckhorn Grill
Ian
Melnilsak
Danny's Roadside Kitchen
Steven
Miller
Buckhorn Grill Pleasanton
Aulely
Miranda
Barones Restaurant
Carlos
Orozco
Casa Orozco
Jesus
Orozco
Casa Orozco
Todd
Parent
Extreme Pizza
Randy
Peters
Randy Peters Catering
Lisa
Peters
Randy Peters Catering
Roger
Praph
La Gare
Paul
Punsalang
Buckhorn Grill Walnut Creek
Mark
Purnell
Afterfive Bar
Juan
R.
500 Club
Stan
Ramirez
Stannie's Place
David
Reich
Outpost
Christine
Reid
Berkeley Bowl Produce, Inc
Thomas
Rimpel
The Westin St. Fracncis
Branden
Rodgers
Jackson Fine Dining
70
First Name
Last Name
Bill
Rogers
State of CA
Stratis
Rozakeas
Mills-Peninsula Health Services
Juan
Ruiz
Buckhorn Emeryville
Ignacio
Ruiz
Cattlemens
Shaina
Sartor
Nexus
Eric
Schaetz
Chicago Fire
Jefferson
Seay
Chef's Pride
Cynthia
Sidrian
Gary
Stidham
Little Manuel's
Sun City Roseville Community Assoc.
Inc.
Nancy
Storm
US Foods
Kathy
Sweet
Pebble Beach Co.
Snehal
Tambe
Plum Tree Care Center
William
Wagner
Curtis
West
Buckhorn Grill Roseville
Jeff
Yao
The Westin St. Francis
Nazanin
Yasavolian
Amber Systems Technologies
71
APPENDIX D: APPLIANCE SHOWCASE SUPPORT
PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES
D.1.1 BRIDGES RESTAURANT SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1
72
PACKETS AND LIST OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED)
73
74
D.1.2 BRIDGES RESTAURANT LIST OF ATTENDEES
TABLE A2. BRIDGES GUESTS
First Name
Last Name
Company /Organization
Pete
Baria
Alameda County Probation
Matthew
Belasco
Pittsburg Unified School District
Waltraud
Charles
Autobahn Cafe
Brian
Chen
Wokkee Chinese Restaurant
Jeffrey
Collins
Antioch Unified School District
Gary
Dickeys Barbecue Pit
Javonito
Cooper
De La Cruz de
Morfulleda
Maribel
Delgado
Mi Oficina Computer Cafe
Ernie
Guerrero
La Tapatia Mexican Restaurants
Frieda
Hoffman
Local 123
Eric
Janssen
Amber Bistro
Bradly
Kaderabek
Round Hill Country Club
Lawrence
Kong
Minerva's Restaurant
Sherrylyn
Larkins
Jodie's Restaurant
Travis
Law
TriMark Economy Restaurant Fixtures
Eric
Lim
Dragon Terrace
Judy
Macaluso
PG&E
Steven
Myli
East Bay Regional Park District
Sheena
Nagpal
KGSM Inc.
Richard
Nidever
Everex Communications
Aryan
Omar
Aryana Afghan Cuisine
Reyes
Ramos
Agave
Jodie
Royston
Jodie's Restaurant
Michael
Stott
Bear Claw Bakery & Cafe
Martin
Thang
Manns Chinese Cuisine
Quang
Tran
Mrs. FieldsCookies Great Mall
Jeff
Yao
Westin St Francis
Joe
Buhowsky
Robby
Skog
Maria Maria
Kevin
Michel
ICF/PGE
Bryan
Harder
ICF/PGE
Lee
Huang
Eneron
Tam
Phung
GreenStar Hub
John
Kim
NAMA Restaurant
OB's Cafe
75
First Name
Last Name
Jose
Hernandez
Amici's Pizzeria
Payal
Shal
Rising Loafer
D.1.2 BRIDGES RESTAURANT LIST OF ATTENDEES
TABLE A3. BRIDGES VENDORS
First Name
Last Name
Martin
Sum
Contra Costa Environmental Health
Stewart
Bambino
San Ramon Chamber of Commerce
Michael
Panza
Biagio Artisan Meats
Henry
Ichinose
ABS Seafood
Claudia
Pingatore
Green Business Program
Paris
Greenlee
Stacey
Roth
TriValley CVB
Pete
Palm
Western Pacific Distributors
Charles
Bohlig
EBMUD
Rolando
Gonzalez
EBMUD
Mike
Palm
Western Pacific Distributors
Loretta
Broniak
Energy Retrofit Co.
Deborah
Casagrande
Energy Retrofit Co.
76
D.2.1.COMAL SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1
77
78
79
D.2.2. COMAL LIST OF ATTENDEES
TABLE A4. COMAL GUESTS
First Name
Last Name
Araceli
Barriguete
Taqueria Los Cerros
Arlene
Giordano
Le Bateau Ivre
Billi
Romain
City of Berkeley
Craig
Jones
Uncle Willie's BBQ & Fish
David
Lee
Cybelles
Eric
Lim
Dragon Terrace
Ernie
La Tapatia Mexican Restaurants
Javonito
Guerrero
De La Cruz de
Morfulleda
Jon
Lee
Stuffed Inn
Jon
Guhl
Little Star Pizza
Josh
Levine
Pepples Donuts Inc.
Karen
Bevels
SAML, Inc.
Marsha
Mcbride
Cafe Rouge
Nancy
Deming
Oakland Unified School District
Norman
Riffe
Jed Riffe Catering
Patty
Bonfilio
Pixar Animation Studios
Perry
Harmon
Loards
Pete
Baria
Alameda County Probation
Rebecca
Stevens
Pepples Donuts Inc.
Robert
Law
Oakland School District
Robert
Sill
Arden Wood Inc.
Shirley
Fudge-Mueller
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Susannah
Blumenstock
Little Star Pizza
Thanu
Chaichana
Tuk Tuk Thai cafe
Tina
Ferguson-Riffe
Smoke Berkeley
Travis
Law
TriMark Economy Restaurant Fixtures
OB's Cafe
80
First Name
Last Name
Judy
Chess
UC Berkeley
Monica
Rocchino
The Local Butcher Shop
Rick
Robinson
Gotts Roadside
Ken
Priest
Gotts Roadside
Kit
Dean
Mary's Place
Faranak
Shariati
Cyprus Restaurant
Don
Nguyen
Saigon Express
Simone
Arpaio
Almare Gelato
Alberto
Malvestio
Almare Gelato
Eric
LaPlante
Hotel Shattuck Plaza
Jake
Shrath
Hotel Shattuck Plaza
David
Lau
Asha Tea House
Jeanne
Boulet
PG&E
Mike
Benzen
Diablo Unified School District
Brian
Fritz
Diablo Unified School District
Quang
Tran
Mrs. Fields Cookies
Charles
Stevenson
UC Berkeley
Amy
Breshears
Comal
Omar
Huerta
Comal
TABLE A5. COMAL VENDORS
First Name
Last Name
Leila
Khatapoush
Nadia
Borisova
EBMUD
Doug
Sampson
PG&E
Joel
Everett
PG&E
Santino
Bernazzani
PG&E
Don
Logsdon
Energy Retrofit Co.
Lori
Broniak
Energy Retrofit Co.
Michelle
Jeffrey
Stopwaste.org
Cassie
Bartholomew
Stopwaste.org
Ruben
Ramirez
PG&E (TVP)
Jennifer
Cogley
City of Berkeley
Rolando
Gonzalez
EBMUD
81
First Name
Last Name
Charles
Bohlig
EBMUD
Andy
Downing
Greenleaf
Shelly
Haygood
Spindrift
Bradley
Mart
Fog Busters
Rosemary
Logsdon
Energy Retrofit Co.
Mike
Palm
WPD
Pete
Palm
WPD
82
D.3.1. VIC’S ALL STAR RESTAURANT SUPPORT PACKET, PAGE 1
83
84
85
D.3.2. VIC’S ALL STAR RESTAURANT LIST OF ATTENDEES
TABLE A6 VIC’S GUESTS
First Name
Javonito
Last Name
De La Cruz de Morfulleda
OB's Cafe
Babak
Tehrani
Pasta Primavera
Tim
Ludden
David
Darlington
Strizzi's Restaurants, Inc.
Livermore Valley Unified School
District
Nam
Do
Kim Huong
Maribel
Delgado
Mi Oficina Computer Cafe
David
Knudsen
Knudsen's Ice Creamery
Paul
DeJoy
Dickeys Barbecue Pit
Karen
Bevels
SAML, Inc.
Michael
Faria
PG&E
David
Spott
Burrito Shops, Inc.
Jeanne
Mancuso
Vinnie's Bar & Grill
Pete
Palm
WPD
Dalton
Parker
Vinnie's Bar & Grill
Enrique
Jas
Gomez
AulakhJasA
Mexxis Restaurant
Avtar Inc.
Son
Pham
Pho Huong
Tam
Len
Pho Huong - San Jose
TABLE A7. VIC’S VENDORS
First Name
Last Name
Stacey
Roth
Tri-Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau
Carlos
Luna
Carolina
Miranda
Vincent
Bitz
PG&E
Ruben
Ramirez
PG&E
Santino
Bernazzani
PG&E
Laura
Ryan
City of Pleasanton
86
APPENDIX E: REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (2011), Standard Test Method for Performance
of Griddles. ASTM Designation F1275-03. In annual book of ASTM Standards, West
Conshohocken, PA.
of Open Deep Fat Fryers. ASTM Designation F1361-07. In annual book of ASTM Standards,
West Conshohocken, PA.
of Convection Ovens. ASTM Designation F1496-99. In annual book of ASTM Standards, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Food Service Technology Center, Life-Cycle and Energy Cost Calculators (2012),
www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/tools/calculators/.
Sorensen, Greg, Zabrowski, David (May 2008), Eneron, Inc. Prototype Commercial Stock
Pot Testing. fishnick.com/publications/appliancereports/rangetops/Eneron_Pot_Testing.pdf.
Zabrowski, David. Mills, Lauren (April 2010), Characterizing the Energy Efficiency Potential
of Gas-Fired Commercial Foodservice Equipment. Commission Contract No. #500-06-028.
87

appendix d: appliance showcase support packets and list of attendees

Transcription

Similar documents

Restaurant Chez Dominique

Maggiano`s Little Italy.indd

Well-Traveled Wife

Deep fryer cooking

pacote careways Maio 2012final

Dog Meet and Greet! Saturday June 6th

Thomas heneage arT Books

restaurants - Harmon Sign

Lightning Fast Search Solutions for the Enterprise