Commercial Foodservice Holding Bins

Holding bins are popular appliances for Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) franchisees and chains. These bins are designed to hold cooked food at preset temperatures for extended periods of time, facilitating flexibility and food safety. SCE estimated there were nearly 34,000 restaurant customer service accounts in its service territory alone, accounting for more than 3,000 GWh of annual electric energy use. The 2006 Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) data indicated restaurants were the second-highest electric energy-intensive building type (40.20 kWh/ft2-yr) of all commercial buildings.[1] Cooking equipment alone accounted for approximately 25% of that electric-energy intensity (10.38 kWh/ft2-yr) in commercial restaurants. Project Goals: Our goals were to conduct a lab assessment comparison of baseline and new High-Performance Holding Bins (HPHBs), and to develop a new statewide deemed HPHB measure offering. Expected Outcomes: Presumably, if this lab assessment were to verify energy savings, the outcome would be to create an engineering workpaper for commercial foodservice holding bins. Additionally, this information would ideally help SCE prioritize activities and efforts to accelerate holding bin adoption into SCE’s Energy Efficiency (EE) rebate and incentive program offerings that also support electrification and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. Alignment with Statewide Goals: This lab assessment aligns with several statewide goals and regulatory and policy compliance mandates, including Assembly Bill 802 (AB 802), because the HPHB technology significantly reduces energy use (~42%) from existing equipment use conditions occurring across several large commercial QSR franchisees. Findings: The largest QSR chains in SCE’s service territory use approximately 3,500 standard efficiency holding bins, totaling over 15.6 GWh and 1.9 MW of annual electric use and peak demand, respectively. If HPHB technology successfully replaced all 3,500 units, savings would be over 6.68 million kWh (6,678 MWh) and 0.8 MW, respectively. SCE’s 2020 Sustainability Report estimates 512 pounds of CO2 is emitted for every MWh of electricity delivered through SCE’s generation mix. If all 3,500 holding bins were replaced with HPHBs, it would prevent more than 3.4 million pounds of GHG emissions, or more than 1,500 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e). Lab testing savings produced a Total Resource Cost (TRC) of 3.17, indicating HPHBs are a cost-effective measure (TRC was not calculated for field testing results, as field unit costing was not available). Recommendations: The CPUC’s EE Policy Manual Version 6 specifically states ratepayer-funded EE activities must focus on EE efforts to keep the cost of EE as an energy resource as low as possible. EE cost effectiveness is determined using a TRC cost-benefit test. A TRC above 1.0 indicates the proposed measure provides more benefit compared to its cost, and a TRC below 1.0 indicates the proposed measure provides less benefit compared to its cost. However, CPUC Decision (D.18-05-041) recently modified the portfolio requirements to include a 1.25 ex-ante TRC by 2023, with an ex-ante TRC of 1.0 during the ramp years of 2020-2022. As shown in Table-ES 2, the HPHB measure is cost effective because the TRC is 3.17, above the current 1.0 and future 1.25 thresholds. Therefore, an engineering workpaper should be created for both ex-ante claimed savings and deemed rebate consideration, based on this report’s results and findings.   Footnote: [1] Commercial End Use Survey, ITRON. 2006.