Project Number: 649293

Project Acronym: ProCold

Project title: Empowering stakeholders to deliver highly energy efficient professional cold
products

Periodic Technical Report

Part B

Period covered by the report: from 01/08/2016 to 31/01/2018

Periodic report: 3rd

Project website: www.topten.eu/procold and www.pro‐cold.eu

1. Explanation of the work carried out by the beneficiaries and
overview of the progress
1.1 Objectives
The ProCold project targeted the professional plug‐in cold products, aimed to refrigerate or cool
foodstuff and beverages. It aimed to support the most efficient models (at the same time using
climate friendly refrigerants) by their identification and recognition, and by educating both the
supply and demand side of the market. The general objective of the project was to empower private
stakeholders and public authorities in adapting and enforcing EU and national energy efficiency
policies in the sector of professional cold products.

A specific objective was to ensure that more energy efficient professional cold products enter the EU
market and increase their market shares, thereby contributing to the EU’s energy efficiency goals and
policies.
Plug‐in refrigerated Ice‐cream Beverage Minibars Refrigerated Wine Refrigerated
display cabinets freezers coolers vending machines coolers storage cabinets

Table 1: Professional cold equipment

The product groups concerned related to products for cooling, refrigerating or freezing foodstuff and
drinks on professional premises – from public buildings, to hotels, retailers, and canteens. These
represent significant energy consumption (at least 30,000 GWh/year1), important differences exist
between various models of the same product category (saving potentials of 50‐60%, see below), but,
due to lack of clear regulation and lack of information, the potential for more energy efficient models
remains largely untapped.

The specific legislation concerned is the one regulating Ecodesign requirements (minimum energy
performance standards and mandatory product information) and energy labelling, as well as public
procurement activities (notably Article 6 of the Energy Efficiency Directive and its transposition in
national laws). The project benefited from a relatively good timing because new energy efficiency
legislation (Ecodesign and energy labelling) regarding most of these product groups were being
decided. However, the delay of Lot 12 regulations generated uncertainties for economic operators,
which put a dampener on energy efficiency developments.
Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Date when label / product
Equipment legislation information is mandatory
Minibars (and wine coolers intended for
In force Mandatory
households but used in the Professional sector)
Refrigerated storage cabinets (Lot 1) In force Mandatory (since 1st July 2016)
Drafts expected by the end of 2018
Refrigerated display cabinets and counters, (whereas at the beginning of the
Expected for 2020
beverage coolers, ice‐cream freezers, vending project they were expected in 2016),
machines (Lot 12) entering force expected in 2020
Table 2: Overview on energy efficiency legislation covering the product groups in scope (as of January
2018)

1
EU stock consumption data from Ecodesign legislation preparatory studies (data is for 2006 or 2008 and incomplete for
some product groups, therefore real energy consumption can be expected to be well over 30,000 GWh/year).

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐2

Target groups of this project were threefold: empowering public authorities in implementing
effective policies on energy efficiency of professional cold products; motivating product
manufacturers and suppliers in delivering more efficient models to the market; and working with the
food industry, retailers, building operators, and other stakeholders in demanding and procuring more
efficient professional cold products.

Achievements during the reporting period are explained in each of the WPs below.

1.2 Explanation of the work carried per WP

1.2.1 WP1 – Administration and project management

WP Leader – ADEME

1.2.1.1 Activity description

During this reporting period, within WP1 a number of activities were undertaken by the coordinator
in order to ensure a successful project and a smooth cooperation between partners:

 Maintenance of two internal systems to share information between partners: a secured site
managed by ADEME where to share important documents, working documents and final
deliverables and a dedicated directory on Google Drive allowing to report progress in the
various WPs and logbooks to understand who is managing which contacts at which level.
 Internal administrative management including contract preparation for each partner and
interim payment.
 Internal presentations of the project.
 Continued interaction with the EASME: understanding the new H2020 rules and conveying
questions from partners, dealing with the Sygma portal to upload deliverables work on the
interim report and on the contract amendments (with still some difficulties, see Chapter 5).
 Organisation of 3 project meetings (in Gothenburg, Luxemburg and Milano) together with
the hosting partner: agenda elaboration, team and discussion leading during the meetings,
overview presentation checking out the work programme against the timeline, elaboration of
the minutes including an action list.
 Participation in the ProCold product competition award ceremony at the Euroshop fair (see
WP5 below) in March 2017. ADEME hold a presentation.
 Participation in a meeting at GRAM's and Liebherr's headquarters to exchange about
technical developments (see WP3 below) in August 2017.
 Participation in the ProCold event at the HOST fair in Milano in October 2017.
 Strict quality control of all the deliverables, which are, discussed upstream with relevant WP
leaders at the time of their planning or when thinking of the structure of their monitoring,
then thoroughly red and commented before they were considered as finalised.
 Final report coordination and preparation including grant agreement amendments to satisfy
specific needs from specific partners.
 Final publishable report coordination and preparation, including involvement of a graphic
designer.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐3

1.2.1.2 Support by national teams
National teams were supportive in reacting to the content proposals for meetings, participating in
the meetings, in the reporting activities and amendments. There is no specific difficulty to report.

1.2.2 WP2 – Status quo and monitoring of market development

WP Leader –ADEME, in collaboration with Bush Energie

1.2.2.1 Activity description

Reviewing market developments in the top performing segment was a key topic for all ProCold tasks
over the whole project duration. Accordingly, this was a focus of work for WP2, updating the product
lists, updating the selection criteria when necessary, and assisting national teams in implementing
those updates at the national level. Best Available Technology Products (BAT products) were
identified in the most relevant categories of commercial and professional cold appliances, published
on topten.eu, on national Topten websites, and revised continuously.

1.2.2.1.1 Contacts with manufacturers

In this reporting period, new contacts with manufacturers were established and as more
manufacturers started to develop efficient technologies with climate‐friendly refrigerants, products
from more manufacturers could be included in the lists. Ten updates of the product lists were
undertaken between August 2016 and January 2018 (making it 26 updates over the entire ProCold
project duration), which involved contacting manufacturers, collecting and checking all necessary
information, uploading the products, evaluating the market changes and tightening selection criteria
if necessary as well as informing manufacturers and dealers ahead of time. All teams have
implemented the changes on their national Topten platforms.

Several manufacturers and dealers also started labelling their Topten products with the Topten logo
on their websites, in catalogues and on trade fairs. The introduction of the energy label for
professional refrigerated storage cabinets had a positive impact on the market: standardised product
data became increasingly available (though it is not yet available for all products). Due to the novelty
of the label, some uncertainties remained in our exchanges with manufacturers about the correct
interpretation of the test norm and the implementation of the label. To prevent errors and to
substantiate the quality of the product data listed on the Topten database, manufacturers continue
to supply ProCold with confidential test reports for all professional and commercial appliances that
are to be included in the BAT product database. In some cases, small inconsistencies were found and
manufacturers were willing and motivated to adapt the product labels not only for the listing on
Topten but also on their own websites.

Case study 12: for the manufacturer Sagi s.p.a., a mix‐up in their database was responsible for
the incorrect declaration of the yearly energy consumption on the label of a 2‐door storage
freezer that they had sent for listing on the Topten database. When notified about the
mistake, they immediately corrected the values on the product energy label and uploaded the
new label to their own website the same day.

2
Several case studies are presented in this report: to fully inform EASME we have quoted the names of brands but these
illustrations should be treated confidentially.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐4

 Old label New label

Illustration 1 – Example of a corrected energy label after a notification from Topten

One issue of high concern to all manufacturers is the reliability of declared product data on the
European market for commercial and professional refrigeration appliances. Correct product
declaration is also the cornerstone of the most important European policy instruments covering
products, i.e. the “Energy Labelling” and “Ecodesign” Directives, as well as key for any informed
purchase decisions and any platforms comparing products like Topten. ProCold has elaborated a
memo on correct product declaration for commercial and professional refrigeration products listed
on Topten (see Appendix 1). It describes several constructive channels of communication in case of a
conflict between two manufacturers, as well as recommends involvement of manufacturers’
associations and/or surveillance bodies of various European countries. As such, the memo on correct
product declaration and national market surveillance is of high importance for manufacturers and
buyers to support a fair and transparent European market.

Case study 2: Porkka is a Finnish

manufacturer of professional
refrigeration equipment that during the
first half of the ProCold project was
present on the Topten lists, with models
ranking among the best ones. Several 1‐
door refrigerators and freezers were
listed on Topten, ranking first, with class
A refrigerators and class A and B
freezers. Several competitors contacted
Topten with the claim that they had
tested the Porkka appliances themselves
and that the results differed significantly
from the declared values. The best class
A refrigerator was also submitted for the
ProCold competition “Best European
Product” in the category vertical chilled
storage cabinets. It was tested by an

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐5

 independent laboratory, and resulted in a class B classification (the test was repeated by a
second independent laboratory with the same results). ProCold asked Porkka for updated test
reports for all other Porkka products listed on Topten in order so substantiate the product
data. In absence of an answer, all Porkka products were removed from the Topten website.
Furthermore, the Swiss dealer of Porkka products, Alpiq, advertised the 1‐door refrigerator
that had been tested in the context of the ProCold as a class A++ product and as such a world
first. When contacted by ProCold about this, Alpig explained the misdeclaration was a
communication mistake on their side and corrected the data.
This case study showcases that during the initial phase of the new energy label, errors still
occurred frequently and that the regulation alone does not guarantee the publication of
correct standardised product data for professional refrigeration cabinets on the European
market. Increased market surveillance and Q&A papers published by CEN/CENELEC about test
standards and mandatory labelling would lead to a better implementation.

While the EU 2015/1094 (labelling and standard product information) for professional refrigerated
storage cabinets makes the energy label mandatory for all products covered in its scope, a large part
of the market is lagging behind with regards to its implementation. ProCold performed an
evaluation in November 2016 (747 products by 21 manufacturers) and September 2017 (1 914
models by 23 manufacturers) on whether product declaration requirements for professional
refrigerators and freezers were present online3. The results showed that in 2016 58% of the
appliances were non compliant and that in September 2017 – more than one year after the
introduction of the energy label – still 56% of storage refrigeration models did not disclose the
energy efficiency class of the product. The results show that market surveillance is strongly needed
but the results can also be partly explained by some shortcomings in the regulation that should be
tackled in the next revision – such as the adaptation of the regulation to B2B markets as well as
clearing‐up last ambiguities in the scope.

Storage Refrigerators: Use of labels Storage Refrigeration: Use of labels

on brands' homepages on brands' homepages
747 models from 21 brands 1 914 models from 23 brands
Source: Topten.eu (November 2016) Source: Topten.eu (September 2017)
Topten
7% Topten
3%

EU EU
Energy energy
No label label
No
Label 42% 44%
Label
58% 56%

*EU Label in % incl. Topten models

Illustration 2 – Presence of the label on‐line for professional cabinets

Obtaining standardised product data for commercial appliances continues to be extremely

challenging because the regulation for these products was not passed and was significantly
delayed. When the adoption of the regulation seemed imminent in 2016, manufacturers became

3
http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/Declaration_Overview_of_Storage_refrigerators.pdf

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐6

increasingly willing to test their products according to the official EN standards and to supply the
data to ProCold. However, after the regulation was postponed (and several times), many
manufacturers argued that with a later implementation of the regulation and long‐time discussions
with many stakeholders, changes to the test standards during the final adaptation process of the new
regulation would become much more likely. Hence, they stopped testing according to official test
standards because they did not want to risk having to re‐test their entire product range one or two
years later – testing all products, even if only one product category, can take several months for large
manufacturers and involve significant time and monetary resources.

As a major success, ProCold has managed to establish good contacts with many key manufacturers
for commercial cooling appliances that supply standardised product data in order to be listed on
Topten. The details in the test reports strongly suggest that most of the tests are explicitly done in
order to be included in the Topten database of best products in Europe. On the manufacturers'
websites, these efficient products are still declared according to manufacturers' own measurement
protocols in order to be comparable to the rest of the manufacturer’s product range. The ProCold
rebate programmes in Switzerland and Austria (see 1.1.2.2 Support by National Teams) are one of
the main motivators for manufacturers of commercial refrigerated display cabinets to invest in the
additional tests according to official norms.

Case study 3: Liebherr is one of the main manufacturers of efficient beverage coolers and ice‐
cream freezers in Europe and also manufactures supermarket chests and professional storage
appliances. After a discussion about details of the test reports for the Topten listed products,
we figured out that the data was measured according to their own measurement protocol
instead of the official EN. Models that were tested according to both EN 16902 for beverage
coolers and Liebherr’s own measurement protocols normally show a difference of around only
1 EEI point (in either direction). However, a fair declaration of product data on Topten is only
possible if all products are measured according to the same test standards. Liebherr was given
a time period to deliver the product data according to official test standards but due to
previously scheduled testing they were not able to test the commercial appliances according
to the official norm. As a result, 4 ice‐cream freezers, 7 beverage coolers and 3 horizontal
supermarket freezers were removed from the Topten database on January 2018. Intensive
contacts between Liebherr and ProCold have since resulted in multiple beverage coolers and
ice‐cream freezers scheduled for testing until summer 2018 at Liebherr's and at independent
laboratories and in the successful testing and listing in February 2018 of 6 new horizontal
supermarket freezers on Topten.

Contact with manufacturers not only includes the exchange of product information but also
discussions about best available technologies, technological developments and test standards. As
such, representatives of ProCold were invited and in 2017 visited the R&D and production sites of
Carrier in Mainz, Germany, and of Gram in Vojens, Denmark. Carrier focuses on commercial display
cabinets and won the ProCold competition (see WP5 below) in the category vertical supermarket
refrigerated display cabinet. Gram develops and manufactures highly efficient professional storage
cabinets and was the winner of the ProCold competition in the category refrigerated chilled storage
cabinets. Both visits provided valuable insights into the technological developments and the
manufacturers’ positions on existing and future energy efficiency legislation.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐7

1.2.2.1.2 Market development for BAT products

Technological developments are also reflected in the market development for BAT products that
could be observed in the Topten product list during the course of the ProCold project. Product lists
have progressed significantly, which is an indicator of a positive impact of ProCold on the market:
there were 85 models from 10 brands at the start of the project, 136 models from 25 brands after
the first reporting period, and there are now 170 models from 30 brands. The selection criteria were
tightened in July 2016, in July 2017 and once again in November 2017; despite the numerous
tightening of selection criteria, the number of BAT products has doubled since the start of the project
while the number of participating manufacturers has almost tripled.

For professional refrigerated storage cabinets, the introduction of EU regulations triggered a jump in
best available technology which is still on‐going (see graph below).

No. of Storage Refrigeration Appliances in Topten Database 2015‐2018

25
20
15
10
5
0
Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan
15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18
refrigerators refrigerators 1‐ refrigerators 2‐ freezers counter freezers 1‐door freezers 2‐doors refrigerator‐
counter door doors freezers

D C B A A+

Illustration 3 – Number and energy class of Storage refrigeration appliances in the Topten Data base
between 2015 and 2018

Even before the regulations came into force, new models were introduced on the market that
reached the best energy efficiency classes A, B and C. Positive developments have occurred
especially in the product groups with the highest demand on the market: 1‐door refrigerators and 1‐
door freezers as well as counter refrigerators. The first A+ storage appliance on the market – a
storage counter refrigerator by Adande Refrigeration, a manufacturer from the UK – was listed at the
beginning of 2017.

The number of storage BAT products was rather stagnant from the start of the ProCold project in
2015 until January 2016 ‐ half a year before the EU labelling and Ecodesign regulations came into
effect. Taking into account the time needed from development and testing of new products to their
release on the market, it is obvious that the adoption of the regulations in May 2015 triggered
significant technological advancements. This development is illustrated by the example of 1‐door
storage refrigerators in the graph below, and still on‐going.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐8

 No. of Storage Refrigerators 1-door by Energy Class

20

10

0
Feb 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 Jul 16 Jan 18

A B C total

Illustration 4 – Number and energy class of 1‐door Storage Refrigerators in the Topten database
between 2015 and 2018

For refrigerator‐freezers – exempt from the label for professional refrigeration appliances – no
technological development has taken place. After two products available on the market had been
identified, no further models could be listed.

Minibars and wine coolers are covered by the EU regulation EN 1060/2010. As such, standardised
energy data is available and a product comparison with regards to energy efficiency and life cycle
cost is possible. The Topten database includes three compression type minibars (classes A+++ and
A++) and two thermoelectric minibars (class A+), and the Topten selection criteria remained
unchanged. Possible reasons for the lack of new technologies and products are persisting
uncertainties of hotel managers about sensor installations for compressor type minibars and a
starting trend to install vending machines on hotel floors instead of individual minibars in each guest
room.

The number of efficient models for wine coolers has increased and better products have entered the
market in the form of 4 A+ wine coolers with multiple temperature zones and 5 A++ wine coolers
with one temperature zone. The products listed in the Topten database include models with glass
doors and models with solid doors. Both restaurants and households use these appliances. Inclusion
of models with both door types into the scope of the new regulation for household refrigeration, as it
is currently intended, is strongly advisable, because at the moment only the household appliances
are strictly covered by an energy label. Otherwise, it is at the discretion of manufacturers and dealers
to apply labelling and Ecodesign requirements or to omit product information for products intended
for professional use.

There is not yet much standardised product information available for commercial refrigerated
display cabinets, as the EU labelling and Ecodesign regulations for this group are still in preparation4.
The latest working documents are the draft Energy Label and draft Ecodesign Regulation from DG
Energy for Refrigerated Commercial Display Cabinets from 2014 (the EC's policy priorities indicate
that work on LOT 12 is planned to be resumed in the second half of 2018).

4
All references to EEIs in this section about commercial refrigerated display cabinets mean an EEI calculated with the
categories and M and N values from the 2014 consultation forum working documents.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐9

 No. of Refrigerated Display Cabinets in Topten Database 2015‐2018 by
draft EEI
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan Jul Jul Jul Jan
15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18
Beverage Ice‐cream Horizontal Vertical Display Vertical Display Vertical Chilled Vending
Coolers freezers Display Freezers Freezers Freezers (large) Display Cabinets Machines
(medium)

≤ 75 ≤ 50 ≤ 30 ≤ 10

Illustration 5 – Number of Refrigerated Display cabinets in the Topten Data base between 2015 and
2018, by Energy Efficiency Index (according to draft regulations)

While standardised data on best available technology is very sparse, the slowly growing numbers of
models listed in the Topten‐product lists show that data availability has improved since 2015. This is
in part due to growing awareness for energy efficiency as sales argument and procurement criterion,
and in part due to projects like ProCold and Topten that specifically help the market for high‐
efficiency products to develop: in the absence of relevant regulation, an important motivation for
manufacturers to provide standardised product information have been the rebate programmes for
energy efficient commercial and professional refrigeration appliances in Switzerland and Austria
(organised by ProCold).

Most beverage coolers and ice‐cream freezers listed on Topten were tested by manufacturers
according to official EN standards with the purpose of being included in the Topten lists. On their
own websites and the regular market, manufacturers test and declare their commercial refrigeration
cabinets according to their own measurement protocols. This makes well‐informed purchase
decisions by end‐users difficult.

After a growing number of beverage coolers with an EEI  50 (according to draft regulations) could
be observed from 2015 to 2016, a significant rise of even more efficient products with an EEI  30
happened in 2017 and 2018 ‐ when the first beverage cooler (horizontal) with an EEI < 10 was listed.

After a very slow shift from ice‐cream freezers with an EEI  75 to EEI  50 between 2015 and 2016,
2017 resulted in a sudden increase of more efficient products. The ProCold competition winner in
March 2017 has since been significantly surpassed by more energy efficient products.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐10

 Despite the appearance of the first horizontal display freezers with an EEI  30 (according to draft
standards) at the end of 2015, the market development for this category was very slow until 2017
when the label for commercial refrigeration appliances was scheduled to be finalized and adopted.
At this time, new technology doubled the number of models with an EEI  50 within a short time
frame and increased the number of models with an EEI  30 from 1 to 3 models, totalling 22 efficient
horizontal display freezers by 5 manufacturers in the Topten database by July 2017. Despite the
delay in regulation, the procurement
Horizontal Display Freezers by EEI guidelines and demand from several food
30
and beverage companies that value energy
20 efficiency combined with the ProCold
10 rebate programmes in Austria and
0
Switzerland have triggered a market
Feb 15 Jul 15 Jul 16 Jul 17 Jan 18 development for energy efficient beverage
≤ 30 ≤ 50 total coolers.

Illustration 6 – Number of horizontal display freezers in the Topten database between 2015 and 2018,
by Energy efficiency Index (according to draft regulations)

As a result of the competition between supermarkets and discounters, demand for vertical display
refrigerators and freezers has increased significantly, resulting in rapid market development.
Supermarkets focus traditionally on high product diversity and large display areas while discounters
place more importance on low prices and less importance on presentation and display areas;
however, in order to reach more customers, discounters have been increasing their display area by
adding more vertical refrigeration appliances in addition to the horizontal refrigerator and freezer
chests. ProCold developed selection criteria for efficient vertical display freezers and the first
efficient products could be listed in February 2017. The number of efficient vertical chilled cabinets
has also started increasing since mid 2017.

Altogether, it can be said that, for professional refrigerated storage cabinets, the adoption and entry
into force of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign regulations has proven very effective given the jump
in best available technology that was triggered. Further significant saving potential could be achieved
with increased market surveillance on the effective implementation of the regulations.

For commercial refrigerated display cabinets, the delay in the regulation for LOT 12 leads to 34 TWh
of missed savings each year by 2024 (ProCold calculations based on JRC estimates; see Appendix 2),
meaning that the regulation would lead to more purchases of efficient products over the years,
accumulating increasing energy savings. Emerging highly efficient technologies show a significant
potential for energy savings that can only be achieved with the help of a regulation that makes the
declaration with standardised product information mandatory – making it possible for buyers to
identify the most efficient products. A more detailed analysis of the market development can be
found in D2.5 “Reviewing market developments in the top‐performing segment ‐ BAT product lists”.

ProCold has helped manufacturers communicate their BAT products not only online but also at
several trade fairs, especially EuroShop (07.03.2017 in Düsseldorf, Germany, award ceremony for
ProCold competition, HOST (20.10.2017 in Milano, Italy) and IGEHO (11.2017 in Basel, Switzerland).

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐11

In order to support other European projects and stakeholders with the results of accumulated
technical knowledge and the results of the study about online declaration of energy classes for
professional storage appliances, ProCold presented all relevant information at the kick‐off meeting of
the EEPLIANT2 work group for professional refrigeration in November 2017 in Brussels.

As a performance indicator, the direct savings that can be directly attributed to the actions of the
ProCold project were calculated. Details are described below in section 1.3 “Impact” (see also
Appendices 3A and 3B on the project's savings).

1.2.2.2 Support by national teams

National teams provided valuable information on market development, enabled contacting new
manufacturers and spotted new BAT products. Each team contacted stakeholders that had been
identified for WP3 and WP4 at the European and national level. ProCold Portugal established and
maintained very active contacts with Portuguese manufacturers ArcaBoa, Fricon and Mercatus. The
Italian ProCold team not only successfully established contacts to Italian manufacturers such as Sagi
and Friulinox, they also led a field measurement projects in cooperation with the manufacturer Sagi
(see Appendix 4 Report on the ProCold Measurement campaigns in Italy). Switzerland concluded
their first rebate programme for efficient commercial and professional refrigeration with 6 000
supported BAT products sold instead of regular appliances; the rebate programme had a volume of
1.2 Mio Swiss francs and achieved energy savings of 55 GWh through the 6 000 BAT products. A new
three‐year rebate programme started in Switzerland in January 2018. Austria started their own 3‐
year rebate programme after the model of the Swiss ProCold rebate programme in January 2017 and
has successfully supported the purchase of more than 1 000 BAT products by January 2018.

The Austrian Energy Agency continued to monitor the evolution of relevant legislation and policies at
the EU level. To support the development of harmonized standards and directives for commercial
cooling equipment – covered by Lot 12 – policy recommendations were send to CEN. Comments on
the draft regulations for Lot 12 were discussed and collected with national stakeholders.

Concerning the regulations for professional refrigeration, the Austrian Energy Agency is currently
leading the relevant work package of a H2020 market surveillance project (EEPLIANT2). This project
started in September 2017 and will carry on the work of ProCold in this area.

1.2.3 WP3 & WP4 – Empowering market players at central level and support for policy
design & Empowering market players at the national levels
WP3 Leader – Bush Energie and WP4 Leader – SEVEn

Note: Deliverables are organised by type of stakeholder and cover relevant tasks undertaken within
WP3 and WP4 (i.e. covering both European and national levels), combining the achievements for
each specific stakeholder group in two documents: one public summary and one full confidential
report. The reason for that was that a number of companies and organisations act on international
level, or at least cover several national markets. Therefore such contacts were shared, used and
multiplied by the project partners in order to benefit from the European level and nature of the
project. We report on these WPs together to avoid repetitions (For more details, see the individual
deliverables, structured by the target group categories).

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐12

1.2.3.1 Activity description
Activities are described in detail in the corresponding specific deliverables on the involvement of the
relevant stakeholders (see for 2nd project period full confidential reports D4.4, D3.6, D3.10, D4.8,
D3.14 and public summaries D4.2, D3.4, D3.8, D4.6, D3.12). In total, during the whole project, 1 195
contacts have been established (786 fully, 409 partly5, beyond the target of the 1 000 contacts
planned in the grant agreement – 5 000 people assuming 5 individuals within each stakeholder).

"Fully" contacted "Partly "contacted Fully + Partly

Project period 1st 2nd 1st+2nd 1st 2nd 1st+2nd 1st 2nd 1st+2nd
Manufacturers 121 97 218 48 21 69 169 118 287

Food and beverage comp. 47 57 104 26 47 73 73 104 177

Retailers and direct users 47 71 118 35 64 99 82 135 217

Public authorities 86 31 117 26 39 65 112 70 182

Service companies 9 36 45 2 26 28 11 62 73

Other 86 98 184 26 49 75 112 147 259

Total 396 390 786 163 246 409 559 636 1195

Table 3: Number and type of stakeholders identified and contacted during the ProCold project

It should be noted that establishing those contacts – whatever the stakeholder group – was
extremely time consuming, involving a lot of preparatory work: desk research on institutions and
companies, identifying responsible individual managers, contacting and phoning a lot of persons
(who are sometimes reluctant because not familiar with the topic) in order to find the proper contact
(this identification can be very complex in the case of large multinational companies and
organisations), reaching the person, presenting the project, motivating for a meeting or further
discussion, preparing a targeted discourse, etc. Overall number of established contacts exceeded the
project goal. However, the number of established contacts is not the same for every stakeholder
group. Some groups were easier to establish and manage (manufacturers, public authorities), some
were much more difficult to establish in comparison to existing total number of stakeholders (food
and beverage companies, retailers and direct users). Service companies and intermediaries were very
difficult too. The focus of the work was to reach a collaboration in which measures for more energy
efficiency would be taken, such as labelling of Topten products, adaption of procurement criteria
according to ProCold specification, using more green refrigerants, favour closed cabinets, etc.

5
“Fully” and “Partly” are gradations of an established contact (e.g. if a stakeholder would have been identified but not
contacted, it would not appear in either of these categories). “Fully” means the team established contact to a suitable
person within the target organisation and informed about ProCold and its goals and benefits for stakeholders. First
achievements and cooperation have been achieved. "Partly" means that the team contacted and informed a suitable
person within the target organisation.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐13

1.1.3.1.1 ‐ Public Authorities

This stakeholder group was important in two ways. Firstly, on EU and national levels, ProCold
monitored the policy development and offered market feedback. Secondly, on national level,
ProCold served as procurement and awareness network.
During the reporting period, at the European level (WP3), the European Commission (EC) was the
most important public authority for the ProCold project. With the regulations on energy labelling,
Ecodesign and F‐gas phase‐out, the EC creates the basis for a transparent appliance market,
comparable product information on energy use and minimum product standards. The ProCold team
provided input for DG Grow that may be used in the framework of the upcoming review of the
Ecodesign regulation and EN testing standards. Information was also provided to DG Energy with
support for the finalisation of regulation documents on commercial cold products, assumptions on
savings and contacts of stakeholders. In addition, the ProCold team gave specific input to JRC (Joint
Research Centre) regarding GPP criteria for food and catering services. At the EU level, the ProCold
team also provided procurement information on cooling products at several other occasions, such as
stakeholder meetings, events, group discussions: e.g. International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives, WWF, Cool products for a cool planet campaign, Shecco.

At the national level (WP4) 70 contacts were established with public authorities. ProCold’s national
partners shared experiences with the relevant ministries and other governmental and public
stakeholders on green procurement of cooling products. As a major success, in Austria, the rebate
programme was created to cover all ProCold’s products, starting from 1/1/2017. About 1 000
products were funded thanks to this programme. In Switzerland, a national rebate programme
continued and about 6 000 energy efficient cooling appliances were funded under the Swiss rebate
programme, saving about 55 GWh. Other examples of procurement using ProCold’s information
include: minimum energy classes and use of natural refrigerants set for catering in public companies
in Italy; the French team will review the energy efficient cooling products submitted to the central
national buying agency for public procurers; in Czech Republic, the ProCold’s procurement criteria
were presented on the official website of the State Environmental Fund. Another important
achievement is a raised awareness about the energy labelling of professional cooling products
(through local events, press releases, articles, individual negotiations) among both the suppliers and
professional public users.

1.1.3.1.2 ‐ Manufacturers

Since Ecodesign and labelling regulations for professional cooling products were not yet
implemented at the beginning of the project, energy efficiency of professional cooling products was
not an issue at all. Therefore the involvement of manufacturers (WP3) was crucial for the project's
success. One of the key achievements is that at the end of the project, 30 manufacturers were
represented and published in the Topten lists, with a total of 170 products in 11 sub‐categories (in
comparison to 25 manufacturers and 136 products at the mid‐term of the project). Due to the
combination of the evolving legislation and the ProCold awareness activities, we could witness
manufacturers improving their models continuously and project criteria could be even tightened
several times during project period. The list of manufacturers displayed on Topten lists at the end of
the project is the following:

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐14

  Beverage coolers: Frigoglass, Gamko, Vestfrost
 Ice cream freezers: AHT, AHT/Unilever, Liebherr
 Horizontal display freezers: AHT, ArcaBoa, Carrier, Novum
 Vertical chilled display Cabinets: Carrier, Docriluc, Fogal Refrigeration
 Vertical display freezers: AHT, Carrier
 Storage refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator‐freezers: Adande, Alpeninox, Angelo Po, Cool
Compact, Coreco, Desmon, Efficold, Electrolux, Gemm, Gram, Ilsa, Liebherr, Mercatus, Sagi
 Minibars: Dometic, Indel B, ISM
 Wine coolers: Eurocave, Liebherr
 Refrigerated vending machines: Sielaff

Manufacturers carried out strong efforts to get on the Topten lists or to reach best rankings within
the lists. Many manufacturers and especially national importers label their products with Topten logo
to push the sales of the energy efficient products. In addition, ProCold maintained good exchange
with the manufacturers’ associations such as EFCEM (with which an event was co‐organised at the
HOST fair in Milano in October 2017) and the project was presented at several professional fairs.

Illustration 7: ArcaBoa model displaying Topten/ProCold sticker (left), Swiss rebate sticker (right)

Another important achievement with manufacturers is the successful ProCold product competition
which boosted and highlighted the most efficient technologies and technological advances available
on the European market. The results of this product competition have shown that manufacturers are
willing and able to produce very energy efficient cooling products. Winning models (which were also
tested in laboratories, see WP5) were presented at the EuroShop fair in March 2017. There were 4
winning manufacturers in five product categories (vertical supermarket refrigerated display cabinet,
beverage coolers, ice‐cream freezers, vertical chilled display cabinets, refrigerated glass fronted
vending machines).

At the national level (WP4), the ProCold teams looked for manufacturers and importers for these
efficient models, brought support to them (acting as a neutral party while they had commercial
discussions with clients on energy efficiency) and broadly raised awareness and interest of
manufacturers and distributors by informing them about the ProCold‐project, the EU labelling
regulation, the F‐gas regulation, the project product competition and the Topten‐lists. Several
national manufacturers’ associations were addressed too as well as several national fairs were
attended.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐15

To our knowledge (because feedback from economic operators is sometimes difficult to get), at the
end of the project, 13 manufacturers and importers label their Topten‐products on their websites
and/or in promotional material with the Topten‐label (in comparison to 8 manufacturers at the mid‐
term of the project).

1.1.3.1.3 – Food and beverage Industry

The food and beverage industry was a very important target group because the majority of all
beverage coolers and ice cream freezers is procured by a handful of large food and beverage
companies. 104 contacts were established with food and beverage companies.

If one of these companies can be motivated to improve its procurement and product specifications,
the energy savings are multiplied thousand‐fold because they make the specifications, manufacture
themselves or choose the manufacturers, deliver and install the cabinets that are usually branded for
their food and beverage products at retailers, kiosks, take‐aways etc. The main stakeholder types
include:

 Food and beverage industry for cooled or frozen products (dominated by the two global
players Nestlé and Unilever)
 Beverage industry (e.g. Coca‐Cola, Pepsico, Red Bull and local brands)
 Beer industry (e.g. Heineken, Ottakringer and other breweries)

ProCold followed a bottom‐up approach with coordinated activities with national branches of the
food and beverage industry. The national (WP4) and European (WP3) actions had a strong
interaction (national improvements might influence the general decisions). At national level, ProCold
partners informed the most important beverage and food companies about the energy efficiency of
cooling products, their benefits, the ProCold project itself and its numerous activities, and invited
them for cooperation.

Experiences showed that reaching relevant representatives from food and beverage companies was
time consuming and very difficult. Several partners visited industry fairs and published articles in
appropriate media, in order to attract attention of the relevant stakeholders.

The rebate programme in Switzerland led to significant increase in number of energy efficient cooling
products available on the market and was appreciated by Unilever and Nestlé. In Austria, the rebate
programme led mainly to large procurement requests by beverage companies.

The persistent difficulty observed (landlord ‐ tenant type) was that food and beverage stakeholders
do not save directly from investments into efficient models and they do not pay the electricity bills.
Hence – besides the rebate programme – the motivation was mainly based on the image of the
company, the CSR policy of the company and the personal interest of the person in charge.

1.1.3.1.4 – Retailers and Direct Users

The stakeholder group of retailers and direct users was very wide and diverse and consisted of many
types of users of refrigeration appliances such as retailers (supermarkets and stores), hotels,
restaurants and pubs, fast‐food chains, catering companies. Addressing large retailers and retailer

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐16

chains showed to be efficient but had to be done mainly on national level (WP4) as the retailers are
rather nationally organised – 135 contacts were established with retailers and other direct users.

At European level (WP3) the ProCold team informed several stakeholders, especially EuroCommerce.
The team mainly followed a bottom‐up approach with coordinated activities with national branches
of retailers and national direct users at national level. Individual project partners chose different
strategies to approach individual stakeholders, since contacting local hotels and restaurants, grocery,
take‐aways, bakeries, caterers was very time consuming. Some partners addressed hotel and
restaurants chains, grocery chains and wide national businesses. Several partners also published
articles in industry media (specialised media for restaurants, hotels, retailers etc.).

The ProCold procurement tools (see WP6) were made available to several direct users and number of
retailers, restaurants and hotels declared their intention to use ProCold procurement tools for future
purchases. For example Coop, one of the biggest retailers in Switzerland, revised its procurement
criteria and adopted the Topten energy efficiency criteria; The Professional Association for
Gastronomy and Industrial Kitchen Equipment in Germany intends to use the ProCold’s tool as well.

Some partners presented procurement criteria in appropriate industry media. For example, the
Czech article in Hotels&Gastronomy (Svět HG) magazine:

Illustration 8: Example of publication on the ProCold project in the professional press in Czech
Republic
1.1.3.1.4 – Service companies

Service companies and service providers, like vending machine providers, minibar services, water
dispenser providers, but also installers, kitchen planners and consulting firms advise different types
of end‐users. They were targeted to make sure they would include the ProCold information in their
advice to their customers.

Although EU level was not covered by the project for this stakeholder group, the ProCold team had
good and regular contacts with the European Vending Association (EVA) that disseminated ProCold’s
information to its members, particularly regarding the ProCold product competition. Refrigerated
vending machines was one of five competition's categories and also became a new Topten‐product
list category. However, the current Topten‐product list on vending machines displays only one

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐17

product. The number of products with green refrigerants on the market is still very limited and,
usually, the vending machine appliance data was not presented in accordance to the European
standard (during the course of this project).

At national level, 62 contacts with service companies were established.

In Austria and Switzerland, the rebate programme will probably expand, covering a growing database
including more product categories. Hence, it may also cover vending machines – which could lead to
a similar positive effect as for the categories already covered by the rebate programme. Some other
partners have established collaboration with their national vending industry, sharing project
experience, knowledge and encouragement to promote efficient products on the market. For
example, a successful cooperation was implemented with a consulting company focusing on
refrigeration solutions for hotels and restaurants in Austria; the "German Green Music Initiative"
focusing on energy efficiency in music clubs cooperated with ProCold actively.

It is also worth noting that the meetings held with service companies and especially consulting firms
also showed and confirmed that ProCold and Topten fulfil a mission that no‐one else is undertaking
(analysing the details of energy consumption related information for specific products) but that
others are using (and eventually selling) – and therefore enabling a leverage effect for the efficient
models in the efforts to transform the market.

1.2.3.2 Support by national teams

WP3 was focused on the EU level. The work was coordinated and mainly carried‐out by the Swiss
team (Bush Energie) with significant assistance from the French Partner Guide Topten (who
organised 3 missions to Brussels over the whole project to meet European institutions). The
competition tasks were mainly organised by the Oeko Institut and AEA, with the support from
ADEME, Bush Energie and Guide Topten. Also Politecnico di Milano and Guide Topten coordinated
the final event at the HOST fair. In addition, stakeholders' contacts were shared among partners
when relevant.

WP4 was designed as an action implemented by the project partners at the national level. National
partners have been active in identifying the suitable contacts among the individual stakeholder
groups (initial stages), in establishing and maintaining contacts, and in organising individual
cooperation – e.g. linked to dissemination, energy label use, direct measurement of electricity
consumption, ProCold’s criteria use, etc., as described above and in the Deliverables (see for 2nd
project period full confidential reports D4.4, D3.6, D3.10, D4.8, D3.14 and public summaries D4.2,
D3.4, D3.8, D4.6, D3.12)

In addition, during each of the project meetings, and electronically during the course of the project,
national partners have shared the knowledge and experience in engaging individual companies and
types of stakeholders. This has allowed sharing tips on more effective ways of engaging with several
specific stakeholders in the various participating countries. In some cases, the specific contacts were
mutually exchanged among countries (relevant for multinational companies).

Actions undertaken, lessons learned and results achieved in the other WPs, such as WP2 on market
and regulatory evolutions and WP5 on the product competition and WP6 on dissemination and CSR
tools, have also been used by the national partners for their work in WP3 and WP4.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐18

Each national team contacted many stakeholders and provided support based on the project
guidelines and the Topten lists of BAT professional and commercial cold appliances. The following
table summarizes the number of contacts made and results achieved throughout the project:

Declaration of Topten
Contact Procurement Green Closed
Country Topten labelling
established with Topten refrigerants cabinets
products online
EU 145 16 0 3 18 8
AT 175 0 0 0 0 0
CH 154 29 22 9 27 10
CZ 100 0 3 0 7 30
DE 161 18 5 0 7 5
FR 111 2 0 2 5 0
IT 113 8 5 0 27 21
PT 147 2 0 1 8 6
SE 89 1 3 0 0 0
Total 1 195 76 38 15 99 80
Table 4: Contacts and type of actions reached in the various participating countries

Glossary:

Figures The figures show the sum of “achieved” + “partly achieved”.

Contact established “Fully” and “Partly” are gradations of an established contact (e.g. if a stakeholder would have been
identified but not contacted, it would not appear in either of these categories). “Fully” means the
team established contact to a suitable person within the target organisation and informed about
ProCold and its goals and benefits for stakeholders. First achievements and cooperation have been
achieved. "Partly" means that the team contacted and informed a suitable person within the target
organisation.
Declaration of Manufacturers or retailers tell us which models comply with Topten.
Topten products Procurers tell us which of their procured models comply with Topten.
Procurement with Procurement favours Topten models
Topten
Topten labelling Manufacturers or retailers label corresponding models with Topten on line / at fairs
online
Green refrigerants Stakeholders favour models with green refrigerants
Closed cabinets Stakeholders favour models with closed doors

The project performance indicator is 5 000 people with increased capacity/skills/competencies. This
means 1000 stakeholder organisations, assuming 5 individuals within each stakeholder (according to
the grant agreement).

The table reflects specific concrete results leading to energy savings – actually going far beyond the
objective of just increasing skills/capability/competencies. With 1 195 stakeholders, the team has
achieved the goal and exceeded the 1 000 stakeholder organisations (5 000 people).

The ProCold team organised a successful competition for the most energy efficient plug‐in
professional and commercial cooling and freezing appliances. This competition was the first of this
kind and a number of manufacturers expressed interest and joined the competition.

One of the most striking successes is the prolongation of the Swiss rebate programme and the
development of the new Austrian rebate programme focused on cooling products according to the
Topten‐list.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐19

In general, the ProCold project operated as informational base providing customised information to
targeted stakeholders groups on energy efficiency of professional cooling products. The ProCold
team has provided support regarding regulatory work, procurement in public authorities,
procurement among users and beverage and food companies – while at the same time motivating
manufacturers to enlarge the variety of supply for such products.

1.2.4 WP5 – Product competition for most efficient professional cold models on the
European market
WP5 Leader – Öko‐Institut

1.2.4.1 Activity description

In the following we first present a technical description of the activities undertaken for WP5 and then
a summary of the competition and the testing activities.

The ProCold product competition served several important objectives within the overall ProCold
project:

 To enable a fair comparison based on defined measurement standards.

 To encourage early uptake of new and upcoming Ecodesign regulations.
 To increase the number of efficient models in the Topten lists and generally drive the market
towards improved energy efficiency.

It aimed to achieve this by:

 Identifying the professional and commercial cold products with the highest energy efficiency
(and climate friendly refrigerant use).
 Highlighting and increasing visibility of such products among professional buyers and other
stakeholders.
 Promoting their further market uptake, and
 Motivating the development and offer of increasingly efficient energy‐using products in the
European market.

A core element of the ProCold product competition was the independent testing of refrigeration
equipment submitted by manufacturers based on clearly defined measurement rules (and not e. g. a
jury).

In the first reporting period the competition rules were drafted and published, a call for offers for the
testing conceived and sent to six European laboratories (DTI, IMQ, RD&T, Re/genT, Tuev Sued and
VDE) and manufacturers approached to inform and motivate about the ProCold competition.

In the second reporting period, the following activities were implemented:

1. Continued motivation of manufacturers to participate in the competition ‐ Manufacturers

and their associations were contacted by Oeko‐Institut and the national teams to inform
about and motivate for the competition and answer questions.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐20

 2. Publication of a Q&A document on the competition and competition rules and update of
competition rules ‐ On 5 September 2016 a Q&A document (see D5.1 Supplement to the
competition rules) was published, which clarified potential questions with regard to specific
provisions of the competition rules.
3. Supplements to the competition rules ‐ To facilitate submission of appliances for the
competition and subsequent selection for testing two additional supplements to the
competition rules to be used with each submission were created: a checklist and a
submission form (see D5.1 Supplement to the competition rules).
4. Selection of laboratories for testing of the nominated appliances ‐ Based on a best value for
money principle, two laboratories (DTI from Denmark and Re/genT from the Netherlands)
were selected to do the testing of appliances submitted to the ProCold competition (see D5.4
Analysis and overview of laboratory reports). Contracts for testing were arranged with each
laboratory.
5. Selection of submitted appliances for testing ‐ All submissions were first checked for general
compliance with the competition rules and then preliminary ranked according to reported
energy performance to select the top ranking products for independent testing. In cases
were two appliances had similar EEIs, both appliances were sent to be tested.
6. Testing of appliances and evaluation of test reports ‐ Seven appliances were tested across
the five product categories defined for the competition to identify a clear winner in each
category. This step included managing selection of appliances from manufacturer facilities
and delivery to test laboratories. Also, based on testing outcomes, decisions on
disqualification of entries and testing of second best places appliances based on preliminary
ranking were made (see D5.4).
7. Identification of winning products ‐ Based on test reports for each appliance, the winning
products were confirmed within the ProCold consortium and manufacturers informed.
8. Testing of two additional appliances (outside of competition) ‐ Two additional tests of an ice
cream freezer and a beverage cooler were performed according to the same provisions as
the competitions entries. These were not official submissions to the competition. These were
known from the Topten lists and the tests had the purpose to see how they performed
compared to the officially submitted appliances.
9. Planning and arrangement of the award ceremony ‐ A partner for the competition award
ceremony was found (Ecopark Forum at Euroshop) and the award ceremony prepared,
including drafting the programme, coordination of participating manufacturers, design and
manufacturing of the awards, certificates, logo for use with winning products and stickers.
10. Award ceremony at Euroshop 2017 ‐ The ProCold competition award ceremony took place
on 7 March 2017 at Euroshop, Germany with all of the winning manufacturers and part of
the ProCold team present.
11. Compilation of competition results ‐ As one of the work package deliverables the
competition results were compiled in a separate document (see D5.2 ‐ Product competition
results).

It was possible to implement the competition at lower third‐party costs than expected. Hence, it was
decided to implement additional testing to improve knowledge around specific issues that have been
raised throughout the project. This additional testing required some additional activities, i.e.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐21

 12. Defining the tests objectives, including definition of product categories and specifying the
test to be performed ‐ Several interrelated tests and objectives were defined to provide
additional insights on particular issues: beverage cooler glass door vs. solid door, older still
used vs. newer test norms, performance of household refrigerator vs. commercial
refrigerator and performance of static cabinet in comparison to similar forced‐air cabinets.
13. Selection of laboratories for testing ‐ The top three laboratories from the product
competition were asked to provide offers for this additional testing. Based on price and
available capacity DTI in Denmark and Re/genT in the Netherlands were again selected for
testing.
14. Purchase and testing of appliances ‐ Testing took place in December 2017 and January 2018.
15. Report on results of this additional test ‐ A report summarizing the test and conclusions was
prepared (see Appendix 5: ProCold Additional Testing Report).

1.2.4.2 Support by national teams

National teams supported the various implementation steps of the ProCold product competition.
Besides motivating their national manufacturers to submit product to the competition, national
teams were involved in the following activities:

 Providing feedback on the competition documents;

 Selecting laboratories based on a best value for money principle. The selection was
confirmed by the entire ProCold team;
 The selection of appliances for testing was discussed with all ProCold national teams to
ensure that the rules set at the outset of the competition were properly implemented and a
proper preliminary ranking established;
 Individual national teams assisted in the selection of appliances for testing; Topten
Switzerland (managed by Bush Energie) made the necessary arrangements with the
companies providing two appliances for the additional tests outside of the competition;
 The general concept for the award ceremony was discussed among all ProCold members; the
ceremony itself was attended and run by representatives from AEA, ADEME and Topten
Switzerland, who each prepared presentations (a representative from Oeko‐Institut was not
available on the most suitable day during Euroshop due to other non‐changeable
commitments);
 Providing feedback on the competition results documents, in particular AEA, Topten
Switzerland and Guide Topten;
 Preparation of the additional tests was done in close cooperation with Topten Switzerland;
the general approach was discussed with members from all national teams;
 Feedback on the report on additional testing was received from Guide Topten and Topten
Switzerland.

1.2.4.3 Overall summary of product competition

The competition was originally timed to coincide with the introduction of EU energy labels for
professional and commercial refrigeration cabinets. As the energy label for commercial refrigeration
display cabinets was delayed (and still not in effect today) the ProCold competition had to be
adapted. In particular, product categories, underlying test norms and calculation procedures had to
be carefully defined – in absence of finalized specifications for each. Draft versions available close to
the submission deadline were used. It was, however, conceded that a competition for the most

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐22

efficient products in Europe would serve a very useful purpose even or especially in absence of
strong and clear regulatory mechanisms for the promotion of energy efficient commercial
refrigeration.

One of the main competition principles was that the winner would be identified based on actual and
independent energy consumption tests and not, e.g. a jury. Manufacturers were invited to submit
their most efficient products in any of five clearly defined product categories (see Table ): Vertical
chilled storage cabinets, beverage coolers, small ice cream freezers, vertical supermarket refrigerator
cabinets and refrigerated glass fronted vending machines.

Category Applicable current Size and type Refrigerant Temperature EEI determination
or future Ecodesign class
regulation
Vertical Ecodesign 1‐door, 400‐700 Refrigerant M1 according At 30°C/55% RH based
chilled Regulation (EU) litres net volume with global to EN on measurements
storage 2015/1095 of 5 calculated warming 16825:2016 according to EN
cabinets May 2015 according to EN potential (approved) (‐ 16825:2016 (approved)
16825:2016 (GWP) below 1°C to +5°C) and EEI calculation
(approved) 150 (e.g. R290, according to Ecodesign
R600a, CO2) Regulation (EU)
2015/1095
Beverage (draft) European 250 – 550 litres K1 according to At 25°C/60% RH based
coolers Ecodesign net volume FprEN 16902 on measurements
Regulation for calculated (under according to FprEN
refrigerated according to approval) (0°C 16902 (under approval)
commercial display FprEN 16902 to +7°C, ø <= and EEI calculation
cabinets as (under approval), +3.5°C) according to applicable
available on 31 vertical cabinet (draft) European
August 2016 with one Ecodesign Regulation
transparent door
Small ice 150 – 500 litres C1 according to At 30°C/55% RH based
cream net volume FprEN 16901 on measurements
freezers calculated (under according to FprEN
according to approval) (‐ 16901 (under approval)
FprEN 16901 18°C) and EEI calculation
(under approval), according to applicable
with transparent (draft) European
lids Ecodesign Regulation
Vertical Total display area M1 (‐1°C to + At 25°C/60% RH based
supermarket (TDA) between 5°C) according on measurements
refrigerator 0.5 and 3 m² to EN ISO according to EN ISO
cabinets calculated 23953:2015 23953‐2:2015 and EEI
according to EN calculation according to
ISO 23953‐2:2015 applicable (draft)
European Ecodesign
Regulation
Refrigerated Category 2 Category 2 At 25°C/60%* RH based
glass “Refrigerated machine type on measurements
fronted glass fronted can (12°C) according to EN
vending and bottle, 50597:2015 and EEI
machines confectionery & calculation according to
snack ma‐chines” applicable (draft)
according to EN European Ecodesign
50597:2015 Regulation
Table 5: Definition of product categories eligible for the ProCold product competition 2017 (draft test
norms have been finalized and approved by the end of the project; the table shows the norms as they
were valid for the competition)

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐23

The comparison and confirmation were done based on independently performed energy
consumption measurements according to the latest available measurement norms and calculation
procedures as described in Table . Further criteria were the use of refrigerants with a Global
Warming Potential (GWP) below 150 and the availability of the product for purchase on the
European market as per the submission deadline (“no prototypes”).

1.2.4.3.1.1 Winner identification

Products in each product category were assessed according to the defined measurement standards
and test conditions. The Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) was the core performance criterion based on
which the winner in each category was determined. EEI calculation and test conditions were as much
as possible based on existing (in the case of professional storage cabinets) or expected (in the case of
commercial refrigeration cabinets) energy labelling regulations.

Due to budget constraints, it was clear from the outset that not all submitted appliances could be
tested. Instead, as part of their submission, manufacturers were required to report energy
consumption and EEI and include the underlying test report. Appliances submitted to the
competition were then preliminary ranked according to reported EEI.

Based on submission information and reported energy performance, the most efficient appliance in
each category was selected for independent testing. Independent tests were performed by two
internationally recognised and carefully selected laboratories: Re/genT in the Netherlands and DTI in
Denmark.

In categories in which two appliances had similar reported energy performance, two independent
tests were performed (this was the case in the vertical chilled storage cabinet category). As one of
the tested cabinets did not meet reported performance, this approach proofed helpful for timely
winner identification. In cases in which testing repeatedly failed (one case in the vertical supermarket
refrigerator category), the candidate appliance with second best performance was additionally
tested.

Two additional appliances were tested (one each in the two categories beverage coolers and ice
cream freezers), which were not officially submitted to the competition but for which the ProCold
consortium expected high efficiency or was interested in better understanding their comparative
performance. These were not officially part of the competition (as they were not formally submitted)
but were tested to gain a better understanding of market development and top performing products
in these categories. For beverage coolers, the EEI of the additionally tested appliance was higher (less
efficient) than the EEI of the model winning the ProCold competition in this category. For ice cream
freezers, however, the additionally tested appliance indeed had a lower EEI than the winning model
in this category, albeit within tolerance margins of <10%. Of course, participation in the competition
was voluntary and submission based. Hence, there was no guarantee that the competition would
identify the most efficient product in absolute terms in each category. The result of the additional
appliance testing indicates that the market might provide even more efficient refrigerating
equipment compared to the benchmarks set by the competition.

A winning product was determined in each category based on confirmed energy performance. The
winners of the ProCold Product Competition 2017 are:

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐24

Category Winners
Vertical chilled storage cabinets Gram Superior Plus K 72 G
Beverage coolers Liebherr FKDPv 4503
Small ice cream freezers Liebherr GTEP 3302
Vertical supermarket refrigerator cabinets Carrier Optimer 0948LG R290
Refrigerated glass fronted vending machines Sielaff GF Robimat XM
Table 6: Winning products in the 5 categories of the ProCold product competition

1.2.4.3.1.2 Winner recognition

Winning products were first announced and awarded at the international EuroShop fair on 7 March
2017 in Düsseldorf, Germany, with Euroshop being the biggest international fair for the retail sector
and, hence, of particular interest for equipment manufacturers. The award ceremony took place
within the programme of the Ecopark Forum and embedded in several presentations on energy
efficiency in plug‐in refrigeration equipment also with regard to potential EU Ecodesign and energy
label regulation. All winning manufacturers were present and received recognition for their winning
models (see figures below).

Illustration 9: Examples of award, certificate and award logo given to each manufacturer of a winning
product

Illustration 10: Picture of ProCold Product Competition award ceremony with manufacturer
representatives and ProCold team members

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐25

Manufacturers were encouraged to use the ProCold logo in the context of the promotion of their
winning products (see figure 3 for an example). Winning products were also highlighted in the
regularly updated Topten lists of the most efficient products in Europe.

Illustration 11: Examples of manufacturer Liebherr using the ProCold award for promotion of their
products at Euroshop and Internorga trade fairs
Manufacturers also used other opportunities to promote their most efficient products using the
recognition received by ProCold, e.g. in presentations, e‐mail signatures and online activities (see
WP6 below).

1.2.4.3.1.3 Additional testing

It was possible to use the remaining budget that was not used for the testing of products submitted
to the competition to perform additional independent energy consumption tests (see Appendix 5
ProCold Additional Testing Results). These were designed to help advance understanding of available
test norms, differences in product categories and general efficiency improvement potentials. Four
appliances were tested: Two beverage coolers (with and without glass door), one household
refrigerator, and one professional static storage cabinet (freezer). The tests had several objectives
and results:

 Document the direct differences in energy efficiency between otherwise comparable glass door
and solid door beverage coolers. The ProCold tests show a significant improvement in energy
consumption of more than 40% for solid door cooler versus a glass door equivalent cooler.
Wherever not otherwise necessary closed‐door beverage coolers should be preferred.
 Understand the implications in outcome in applying a previously used test norm (EN ISO 23953‐
2:2015) for beverage coolers to the most recent one proposed for the future Ecodesign
regulation (EN 16902:2016). Manufacturers may report energy consumption according to
different test norms: understanding the differences is important to compare declared energy
efficiency.
The ProCold test shows that tests of beverage coolers according to EN 16902 may significantly

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐26

 underestimate actual use energy consumption as the test norm does not include a required
door opening sequence. In the future this could be confirmed by additional energy consumption
measurements in actual use. Sometimes the older EN ISO 23953:2015 is used for testing energy
consumption of beverage coolers. As EN ISO 23953:2015 includes a 12h door opening sequence,
beverage coolers that display low energy consumption according to this norm will likely show
even lower energy consumption when tested against EN 16902. However, EEI calculations cannot
be compared directly between the two norms, as EN 16902 uses net volume as the basis for
calculation, while in EN ISO 23953:2015 Total Display Area (TDA) is used. As net volume
measurement is not part of EN ISO 23953:2015 an important figure is missing to derive
comparable EEI values.
 Explore possible differences in achieved energy efficiency of household refrigerators compared
to professional / commercial refrigerators. The ProCold tests indicate that significant
improvement potentials are still present in commercial and professional refrigeration cabinets.
The major differences in energy consumption cannot be explained by the different test
standards. Instead, the different performance may primarily stem from the fact that commercial
appliances may have major unexploited efficiency potentials as compared to household
refrigeration equipment for which an energy label and Ecodesign requirements have been in
effect for a while.
 Gain a principle understanding of professional static cabinet energy performance in relation to
forced air cabinets, as static cabinets are – as of January 2018 – exempted from all current and
proposed Ecodesign regulations.
The ProCold tests indicate that static cabinets can achieve high energy efficiency compared to
forced‐air cabinets. They seem particularly suitable for use‐cases for which the extra opening of
the drawers does not constitute a significant burden (e.g. when the freezer is only opened
sparingly). For the future, it is recommended to include static cabinets in the Ecodesign and
Energy Labelling regulation to allow for such direct comparison of energy performance.

1.2.4.3.1.4 Conclusions and recommendations

The ProCold product competitions helped to provide recognition to energy efficient products in
professional and commercial refrigeration. It also set a benchmark in several product categories to
encourage manufacturers to develop even more efficient products in the future. Indeed, in some
product categories we already see newer more efficient models available in the market.

In two categories (beverage coolers, small ice cream freezers) appliances were introduced to the
market for the ProCold competition. In addition, the awarded refrigerated vending machine
submitted by manufacturer Sielaff is the first commercially available using CO2 as a refrigerant,
potentially setting a base case for other manufacturers to follow and top.

Winning products across product categories demonstrate that energy efficient products with natural
refrigerants are available today, providing significant energy and cost savings to users. Results in all
test categories confirmed or exceeded highest known energy performance (as listed on the Topten
portals at the time of the competition).

In the storage cabinet category (for which energy label and Ecodesign regulations are in place) one
competition entry had to be disqualified as it did not meet displayed energy performance. It is
unclear if this is just an exception or representative of a more widespread phenomenon and raises
the question if and how market surveillance should be intensified to identify deviations from
labelled values. However, the low number of tests in the competition does not merit a definitive
answer to this question.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐27

Net volume and total display areas (TDA) of cabinets have a substantial influence on EEI calculations
and results. However, interpretation of test standards may not be unambiguous. In particular, in the
supermarket refrigerator cabinet category manufacturers treated glass windows on the side of the
cabinet differently. Including or not including side windows greatly influences total display area and
hence EEI (in one case this changed EEI from 34 to 46). The ProCold consortium had to take a
decision, after consulting with experts, on which basis EEI should be compared and decided not to
take side windows into account. Net volume calculations also deviated in other categories, albeit
within tolerance margins. Future revisions of test standards should ensure that net volume and TDA
calculations are unambiguously defined. Also, rating plates of display cabinets, e. g. for beverage
coolers, showed net volumes much higher than according to latest test norms. However,
manufacturers are not required to display volume according to specific test norms as no regulation is
yet in place.

The competition exemplified the value of independent testing of energy performance. Two of the
tested cabinets were either not meeting performance requirements or had significantly higher EEI
compared to reported energy performance. Possibly, only such independent testing can reveal such
cases.

Setting up of cabinets for testing can take time, in particular when cabinets are very sensitive to
changing environmental conditions. As this preparation time is presumably not available when
cabinets are set up in practice for actual use, there is a risk that appliances only achieve nominal
performance in artificial test settings and would show much higher energy consumption in real
settings. To bring test energy consumption closer to real use energy consumption, test standards
should require cabinets to maintain performance in changing environmental conditions and/or
define a maximum number of changes of controls within which expected performance has to
achieve.

For the tested vending machine, the movement of parts within the appliance impeded the placement
of temperature sensors for testing, thus slightly modified software had to be used for testing to limit
movement of parts. This might open loopholes for possible circumvention, if the software identifies
the specific testing situation and allows for performance adjustments (there is no indication that that
was the case here). In future generations of refrigeration appliances, software will likely play a
more important role, providing a range of specific functions, e.g. monitoring of cabinet status or
adaptation to current performance requirements. This raises questions with regard to the “default”
settings that must be used for testing. Test norms and Ecodesign regulation should take this into
account, e.g. by defining unambiguous “default” settings for testing.

1.2.5 WP6 – Dissemination, know‐how transfer to procurers and users on why and how
commercial refrigeration can improve
WP6 Leader – AEA

Work package 6 covered the project dissemination activities and the promotion of the product
competition. It was designed to deliver targeted promotion of energy efficient and climate friendly
professional and commercial cold products.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐28

1.2.5.1 Activity description
All activities in this WP can be described according to the following tasks according to the Grant
Agreement in full detail.

T6.1 Cooperation with Topten portals

Throughout the whole project period the cooperation with topten.eu was continuous. All project
partners used their national websites to present the product lists and to disseminate content of the
project in their national language. Some examples are given in the pictures below. A full
documentation of the cooperation with the Topten portals is available in the public deliverable D6.1.
As central international websites www.topten.eu/pro‐cold and http://www.pro‐cold.eu/ were used.
Alongside with the national Topten websites of the ProCold partners, a cooperation was also
organised with Topten in Luxembourg, the UK and in Lithuania.

Illustration 12: Screenshots of national Topten websites, examples of the Czech, French and Italian websites

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐29

The following table gives an overview of the different national and international websites.

Country Website
Europe www.topten.eu/procold
Austria www.b2b.topprodukte.at
Czech Republic http://www.uspornespotrebice.cz/komercni‐chladnicky/
France http://www.guidetopten.fr/home/topten_pro/froid‐commercial‐et‐professionnel.html
Germany https://www.ecotopten.de/professioneller‐einkauf
Italy https://topten.it/business
Portugal http://www.topten.pt/index.php?page=sobre_o_procold
Sweden http://www.toptensverige.se/produkter/foretag/forvaringskyl
Switzerland https://www.topten.ch/business/article/procold‐pm‐fr
Table 7: URLs of the 8 national and 1 European platform displaying the Topten and ProCold
information

T6.2 Calculation tool

The first version of the ProCold calculator (D6.2) was created at the beginning of the project. This
Excel based tool was designed to calculate the possible monetary and CO2 savings of efficient
professional and commercial cold products. The tool is able to compare the performance of the
user´s product with a similar topten.eu listed product. To compare products with a similar volume,
the EEI was used. Potential buyers can insert the purchase price of the products, which allows a
calculation of the total life‐time costs of the appliances.
The tool was used by the ProCold partners during meetings with stakeholders to estimate and
underline possible energy savings. Therefore different language versions, reflecting national
currencies and country specific CO2 values (if applicable) were created.
To reflect the regular updates of the Topten‐product lists, the calculation tool was also updated
regularly.
The following picture shows the central input and output parameters of the calculation tool.

Illustration 13: Data input fields of the ProCold calculation tool

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐30

 Total energy costs ‐ topten
product(s) vs. actual product(s)
6000
purchase price
‐ product(s)
5000
Energy costs

4000
in €

3000

2000

1000

0
Your product(s) Topten product(s)

Illustration 14: Comparison of the user’s product (left) with a Topten listed product (right)

T6.3 CSR Tools

During meetings with the stakeholders also the non‐financial benefits of energy efficient cold
products have been highlighted. Stakeholders were invited to use the Topten logo – therefore a
specific guideline has been created. Throughout the whole project period, the project partners used
brochures specifically designed for the main stakeholder groups. These brochures carried customised
messages pointing out the benefits of using the most efficient cold products.
For the ProCold award ceremony, a specific logo for the winning products as well as a trophy have
been designed. This logo was used in some of the manufacturers' Email signatures, positively
highlighting the project.

Illustration 15: Email Signature with ProCold logo 6 Illustration 16: ProCold Brochure (eg. rom AT)

6
Contact name and direct phone number removed due to data protection

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐31

T6.4 Press releases, articles and press coverage
During the whole project period a constant dissemination via several media channels took place. The
target was to address the general media as well as more specialized magazines. Articles were
published online, printed and also social media channels were used to spread ProCold information.
This task started in month 6 and was then continuous. The general public was addressed through
printed articles, website articles, online articles and press releases. The minimum goals were one
project press release in every country, one article printed and several online articles published in
professional media and at least 3 articles printed or published online targeting the general public.
These goals have been achieved and exceeded, and further details and pictures are presented below.

In total 29 press releases have been issued by the project partners altogether, 19 during the second
reporting period. This number includes the joint press release, which was made on the 7.3.2017 to
specifically highlight the competition results. The press releases have been sent out to media
partners directly, were published online on the partner’s websites or were spread via national media
servers. An English draft version of each press release has been created by the WP leader and was
translated by the national partners. This way, full media attention was ensured, especially from the
professional press.

In terms of media coverage each partner chose different channels and dissemination activities.
Examples are ranging from information letters to stakeholder groups (2 500 restaurants have been
addressed in Sweden), to video spots (Portugal), tweets (Czech Republic, France) and interviews
(Italy). During the project period more than 100 (717) website articles, 40 (33) printed articles and 24
(9) social media postings have been made. Various examples form different dissemination activities
are presented below.

Illustration 17: Newspaper article from France (left) and from Sweden (right)

7
The numbers in brackets show the effort of the second reporting period

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐32

Illustration 18: A printed article in an Italian magazine (left) and Online Article from Austria (right)

Illustration 19: A printed article in a professional magazine from Belarus (left) + Website article from
Austria (right)

T6.5 Disseminating product competition

In cooperation with WP5 the ProCold product competition was publicised. To draw attention on the
results, a special joint press released was published on March 7th 2017 parallel to the award
ceremony at the EUROSHOP fair in Dusseldorf. The fact that the product competition was vendor
independent was a very positive argument in the press coverage. In the weeks after the event,
several journalist requests were answered and several articles published.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐33

Illustration 20: Social Media dissemination by H2020 communication (left) and Liebherr (right)

Illustration 21: Website article about the ProCold Award

Illustration 22: Article by coolingpost.com covering the completion and the Award

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐34

T6.6 Presentation on national and international events

Each partner participated in national events such as fairs, workshops, stakeholder events etc. The
following list reflects where specific ProCold content was presented and disseminated.

Country Event Description

Project presentation at a national retail

Austria 5.4.2016: Alles für den Gast
fair.
Stakeholder visits and booth presentation
14.11.2017: Gastmesse Salzburg
with Liebherr.
Czech
05.10.2017: Gastro & Hotel Public Presentation
Republic
25.10.2017: EVVO conference ProCold information stall
26.10.2017: 5th Expert Conference ProCold information stall
France 16.09.2016: SIFA trade show Project presentation
October 2016: Pôle Christal Project presentation
Project presentation, and filmed
January 2017: SIRHA
conference
28.06.2016: Forum für
Germany Stakeholder Workshop
Gemeinschaftsgastronomie & Catering

10.11.2016: Green Club Index Workshop Project presentation

Three presentations at the Federal

Project presentation
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Italy 11.11.2016: GPP event ProCold criteria were presented
20.10.2017: HOST Milano Project presentation
5.7.2017 Chamber of commerce Project presentation

25.11.2017: VIII Congresso da Fundação

Portugal Information stall and project presentation
Portuguesa do Pulmão

25.01.2018: Forum on Education,

Project presentation
Development and Citizenship

A day about energy efficiency in hotels

Sweden Project presentation
and conference businesses
Nordic minister council and energy
Project presentation
agencies
Youth section of Swedish Green Party Project presentation
Switzerland 01.11.2015: IGEHO 2015 Project presentation
Meeting Gruppe Gewerbekälte (3x) Project presentation

17.‐21.11.2017: IGEHO 2017 Information stall

European
March 2017: EUROSHOP 2017 Düsseldorf Project presentation + Award ceremony
Events (All)

October 2017: HOST Milano Project presentation

Table 8: List of events at which the ProCold project was presented

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐35

T6.7 Website
On the ProCold websites (www.topten.eu/procold and www.pro‐cold.eu) general information about
the project, the developed tools and product lists were presented throughout the whole project
period. Public deliverables have been made accessible on pro‐cold.eu and will remain online after the
end of the project.

1.2.5.2 Citations on the ProCold project

Though it is not a Deliverable, one of the performance indicators of the ProCold project was a
number of citation from governance bodies (from various stakeholders) acknowledging the
usefulness of the project. Altogether, we have gathered 32 citations (they are available for EASME on
request) and quote the following ones as examples.

“The European initiative ProCold has successfully implemented it´s goals: The market share
of efficient professional cold appliances was improved. The initiative also raised awareness
of the topics energy efficiency and natural refrigerants for professional cold appliances.”
Bernhard Gut, city of Luzern, is summarizing the results of ProCold
“Within the framework of a B2B sector such as the one of the professional refrigerators,
ProCold analysis represents a valuable source of information on technical feature of
products, market penetration of energy efficient ones, areas of potential improvement for
the policy. This analysis could be used e.g. as background information to prepare the
review of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures for professional refrigerators.” DG
Grow underlining the importance of ProCold´s work for policy development
“…vending machine manufacturers can still submit their machines to be ranked on the
www.topten.eu website…EVA would like to see manufacturers taking advantage of this
platform, submitting their machines and demonstrating their efforts in energy saving
technologies.” Vending Europe encourages its members to submit products for
topten.eu.

“If you are uncertain which product you should choose for your cooling system, the
international initivatie ProCold has the goal of helping procurers to select professional
plugged‐in cold products.” Gregor Sinnhuber, Austrian professional consultant,
recommends procurement based on ProCold criteria

“The ProCold project together with the Swiss Agency for Energy Efficiency S.A.F.E
supported Swiss businesses in reducing electricity use for refrigeration. Their
communications facilitated the introduction of the first energy label for professional cold
equipment. We are pleased that Swiss initiatives like the rebate program for energy
efficient commercial refrigerators and freezers spread to other countries during the
ProCold project “Kurt Bisang, Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), about the
international snowball effect of national ProCold initiatives

1.2.5.3 Support by national teams

All partners monitored their dissemination efforts and made use of the provided dissemination
material: project presentation, brochures, calculation tool, drafts of press releases as well as fact
sheets.

All national teams provided their input to reach the overall dissemination goals of WP6. Each team
participated in country specific events and addressed the local media as extensively as possible. In

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐36

terms of monitoring the effort and the impact, the provided WP6 logbook files were filled in on a
regular basis. The provided dissemination material – project presentation, brochures, calculation
tool, drafts of press releases as well as fact sheets – was used and national versions were created
when needed.

Milestones
Milestone 1 "Delivery of a market situation report" was completed on time during the first reporting
period.

Milestone 2 “Involvement of central level market” was completed on time and grew in the second
half of the project. Many central level manufacturers collaborate with ProCold, deliver product
declarations and improve their range of products, which showed in the growing lists displayed on
Topten. Also the involvement of food and beverage industry grew.

Milestone 3 “Involvement of national level market players” was completed on time and grew in the
second half of the project. The fulfilment differed according to the stakeholder type, depending on
the role of individual stakeholder types in the national economy (e.g. service companies are not
always active in recommending new products or public authorities do not always rent space for
ProCold type of appliances). Partners in 8 countries have contacted and involved the most important
players manufacturing or using professional and commercial plug‐in cold products. Overall 1 195
organisations were contacted.

Milestone 4 "Product competition" was completed. Manufacturers proposed competing products

for each of the 5 product categories open to the competition, laboratories were selected, tests were
undertaken and a winning appliance was identified in each category.

Milestone 5 "Stakeholders awareness raising" was completed on time and grew in the second half of
the project especially with the start of the product competition. All partners have contributed to the
dissemination, participating in fairs, presenting the ProCold project, contacting the professional press
and succeeding ion being published.

Final review of deliverables

Delivery
Deliverable Leader partners Month On time Why

D.2.5 BAT product lists Bush Energie 36 yes Await end of action to include all results

Empowering public
D3.2 authorities Bush Energie 20 Yes

Report on negotiating
D3.3 with manufacturers Bush Energie 36 No Await end of action to include all results
Report on negotiating
with food and beverage
D3.5 industry Bush Energie 36 No Await end of action to include all results
Report on negotiating
with retailers and large
D3.7 direct users Bush Energie 36 No Await end of action to include all results

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐37

 National involvement of
public authorities public SEVEn &
D4.2 summary partners 36 No Await end of action to include all results
National involvement of
public authorities SEVEn &
D4.4 confidential full report partners 36 No Await end of action to include all results
National involvement of
service companies public SEVEn &
D4.6 summary partners 36 No Await end of action to include all results
National involvement of
service companies full SEVEn &
D4.8 confidential report partners 36 No Await end of action to include all results

Due to the initial delay of the competition

(mostly due to postponed legislation) and
OEKo OEKO and decision to do award ceremony at
ADEME, Euroshop. Winners were announced on
D5.2 Competition results BushEnergie 26 No time; detailed report delayed.
Due to the initial delay of the competition
(mostly due to postponed legislation) and
decision to do award ceremony at
OEKO and Euroshop the whole competition timeline
Analysis and overview of ADEME, was moved backwards. Lab reports were
D5.4 lab reports BushEnergie 24 No evaluated in month 25; report delayed.

D6. Press releases AEA 36 No

Due to the initial delay of the competition,
Specific competition he whole competition timeline was moved
D6.5 dissemination AEA & OEKO 26 No backwards
National events ( 2 per
D6.6 country) AEA and partners 36 No Await end of action to include all results
D6.7 International events AEA and partners 36 No Await end of action to include all results
It is impossible to write the publishable
Yes – in a report before the end of the project
certain Constraint of Sygma: only deadlines within
6.9 Final publishable report ADEME 36 way the project duration are accepted

1.3 Impact
Savings' calculations below and presented in Appendices 3A and 3B in detail are based on the savings
per product over its operation period and the estimated amount of sales where best available
technology (BAT) models were chosen over standard models thanks to ProCold activities. Technical
innovations and advancements caused by project activities were taken into account, whereas – due
to difficulty in appraisal – the savings due to project policy recommendations that impacted
regulations were not considered (though they for sure play a role in the overall improvements).
Policy recommendations are presented in Appendix 6.

The calculations show that between 2015 and 2017 approximately 37 573 additional BAT models
were sold instead of standard models because of ProCold activities. This equals to 355 GWh energy
savings for the same time period over the operation phase of the products. With a conversion from
electric energy to primary energy, this is the equivalent of yearly primary energy savings triggered by
the project of 296 GWh.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 2‐38

2 Update of the plan for exploitation and dissemination of result (if
applicable)
Not applicable.

3 Update of the data management plan (if applicable)

Not applicable.

4 Follow‐up of recommendations and comments from previous

review(s) (if applicable)
Unfortunately, the final version of the second amendment request was submitted 1 day after the
project end because of a misunderstanding of the rules. For this reason it was impossible to "Change
(from) the maximum grant amount" back to the initial amount (i.e. before the 1st amendment).
Subcontracting costs of POLIMI should have gone back under staff costs, which should have
increased the total budget by 25% on staff cost proportionally.

As requested by the financial officer the request of amendment was cancelled and POLIMI will make
the usually budget shifts justified and explained back to the initial budget (see chapter 5.2)

Please address the below comments for the specified deliverables when submitting the next periodic
report.

 D2.1: EASME requests that the excel tables containing the calculations made in Table 3 are
sent to us.
 The excel sheet is added as an appendix of D2.1 as requested
 D3.5: For the 2nd version of this deliverable, please report further on efforts to contact
manufacturers that have only partly taken place (no answer has been received from 28% of
all contacts with manufacturers, as stated in the deliverable).
 The definition of the "partly" and "fully" contacted stakeholders has been detailed in WP3
and WP4 above (both actually mean the good / qualified contact was reached).
 D3.7: Please clarify why reference is made to 5 food and beverage industry at EU‐level (4
fully, 1 partly), while in D3.9 it is stated that no meetings have taken place. If rectification is
needed in D3.7, let me know and I'll reopen it in the portal.
 This was due to an interval between the writing of the Deliverable and the writing of the
interim report. The numbers in this report are synchronised with the numbers in the
deliverables covering stakeholders.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 4‐39

5 Deviations from Annex 1 and Annexe 2
5.1 Tasks
All tasks are fully implemented. There were only some tasked shifted within the timeline (see
explanations hereunder)

Work Package 1 ‐ ADEME

 Task 1.1. Administrative and Financial Management: The 2nd report (interim) was delayed due to
a need of several amendments because of unforeseen changes in the national and EC rules
 Task 1.2. Internal Communications: No deviation.
 Task 1.3. Organisation of Project Meetings: No deviation.

Work Package 2 ‐ Bush Energie

 Task 2.3. Monitoring of market developments: The report was postponed until the end of action
to make it possible to include all actions until taken within the ProCold project period.

Work package 3 ‐ Bush Energie

 Task 3.1.Empowering public authorities: No deviation.

 Task 3.2. Manufacturers and offers of products: No deviation.
 Task 3.3. Food and beverage industry – large‐scale procurement: No deviation.
 Task 3.4. Retailers and other large direct users – how to demand more efficient models: No
deviation.

Work Package 4 ‐ SEVEn

 Task 4.1. Public authorities – empowering and adapting strong policies: No deviation.
 Task 4.2. Manufacturers – motivating to offer even more efficient models: No deviation.
 Task 4.3. Food and beverage industry – procuring and using efficient models: No deviation.
 Task 4.4. Service providers – increasing the role in efficient model selection: No deviation.
 Task 4.5. Retailers and other direct users (hotels and restaurants) – how to demand more
efficient models: No deviation.

Work Package 5 – OEKO and AEA

 Task 5.1. Organisation of the product competition, defining categories and inviting
manufacturers (OEKO): No further deviation (other than reported in interim report).
 Task 5.2. Product testing for compliance verification (AEA): No deviation. Additional tests were
performed a) to complement testing of officially submitted models and b) help answer additional
questions; the latter test was implemented towards the end of the project based on the budget
still available for testing.
 Task 5.3 And the winner is … (OEKO): No deviation.

Work Package 6 – AEA and ADEME

 Task 6.1. Transferring technical knowledge (AEA): No deviation.

 Task 6.4. Press releases, articles and press coverage (AEA): No deviation.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐40

 Task 6.5. Dissemination product competition (AEA): No deviation.
 Task 6.6. Presentation on national and international events (AEA): No deviation.
 Task 6.7. Website (AEA and ADEME): No deviation.
 Task 6.8. Publishable report (ADEME): No deviation.

5.2 Use of resources

ADEME

ADEME remained in the frame of the foreseen person‐month per WP except for:

WP1
ADEME spent 0,71 more person‐months than planned on WP 1. The interim report turned out to be
extremely time consuming due to need of several amendments. Rules changed on both sides:
partner (Italy) and commission (SME). The process (amendments and possible re‐submission of the
report) was only completed nearly 10 months after the initial deadline. In total four amendments
were needed.

WP4 & WP6

The expert working part time, has led to a lower number of activities ‐the meetings and discussion
with the various stakeholders as initially planned. Therefore, ADEME underspent slightly the number
of person‐months by on WP 4 (‐0,04) and WP6 ( (‐0,07).
ADEME Valbonne office is decentralized in France; therefore, travel budget was required to meet
stakeholders. For this reason, the travel budget was overspent and therefore the budget of other
costs by 2 272,12 €.
A minor adjustment to travel costs of the first reporting period was made due to a modification of
the internal rules.

AEA

WP1
0,74 person‐months more than intended were spent on WP1. After the project lead was transferred
from Bernd Schäppi to Christof Horvath (joint AEA in July 2015), knowledge transfer and specific
guidance over the total project period were continuously practiced to constantly improve the high
quality. Internal meetings and double checking of the produced documents ensured the good quality
work.

WP4
The deviation of 1,13 person‐months can be explained by the initiation of the Austrian rebate
programme. This was not foreseen at the beginning of the project and was developed fully based on
ProCold inputs and content. To ensure that the start and the first year of the rebate programme
were successful, extra effort was spent on this issue. AEA received many rebate requests, which had
to be worked on in parallel to the regular project work. The outcome of this extra effort resulted in

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐41

1.000+ additional sales of Best Available Technology (BAT) products in the year 2017 (first year of the
rebate programme), which significantly affected the Austrian market in a positive way.
WP6
Alongside with the efforts of WP4, where the rebate programme was implemented and supported
with technical expertise, within WP6 extra efforts were spent on providing the best dissemination
support for the rebate programme on a national level. Together with the national institution
financing the rebate programme, a factsheet was produced which was spread through the AEA
network to reach as many stakeholders as possible. Together with the WP4 activities, this ensured
the successful start of the rebate programme in Austria.

Bush Energie

WP1: Administration and Project Management

0.54 person‐months more were invested than foreseen in the budget. The reason is that
coordination needed more efforts than initially expected.

WP2: Status quo and monitoring of market development

3.11 person‐months more were invested than foreseen in the budget. The reason is that the
monitoring of market developments requires comprehensive research in order to identify the most
energy efficient appliances on the market that were then promoted on the platforms www.pro‐
cold.eu, www.topten.eu and on all national Topten sites. These product lists are the basis for a
successful implementation of the project as all work with stakeholders is based on these lists of most
energy efficient products. It is valuable for the European Commission when defining BAT values (Best
Available Technology), it is valuable for procurers as it helps them choose the best products and it
encourages manufacturers to develop better products in order to benefit from Topten. We thus
concluded that additional investment in this work package strongly enhances the success of the
project.

WP3: Empowering market players at central level and support for policy design
An additional 1.63 person‐months more than foreseen in the budget were invested in involving
market players at a central level and providing support for policy design. The reason is that it proved
more difficult than expected to find good contacts in international companies and to establish a good
exchange and relationship in order to support them in energy efficiency measures.

WP4: Empowering market players at a national level

A little bit more (0.27 person months more) than foreseen in the budget was invested.

WP5: Product competition for most efficient professional cold models on the European market
0.46 person‐months less than foreseen in the budget were invested. The reason is that the
differentiation between general technical research and technical support for the product
competition was not clearly possible. These 0.46 person months are included in the over investment
of WP2 (+3.11 person month).

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐42

WP6: Dissemination
About 0.07 person‐months more than foreseen in the budget were invested, i.e. nearly in accordance
with the budget.

Guide Topten

Over the whole project duration, Guide Topten accumulated less staff costs than planned in the
contract, mainly because it enlisted the specialized services of a sub‐contractor to approach
stakeholders.

Concerning this reporting period:

 The is a slight overspending for WP1 that takes into account the reporting hours used for
both the first and this second interim report.
 There is a slightly lower investment in WP2: logically, the main work was done during the
first period of the project and less hours were needed to implement the updates of the
product lists on‐line (except towards the end of the contract because a change in the website
was necessary – which also shows in the distribution of other costs).
 There is no deviation concerning WP3 as Guide Topten was active in maintaining contacts
with European stakeholders, especially institutional ones.
 Less hours were used for WP4 because Guide Topten decided to use the services of a sub‐
contractor to identify and qualify further stakeholders at the national level – which turned
out to be a much more difficult and time consuming activity than expected.
 There is a slight overspending for WP5. Because Guide Topten has experience in organizing
product competitions and events, it provided support and advice to Oeko‐Institut and AEA.
 There is a slight deviation concerning WP6 as the communication goals could be reached
with less hours planned and with the help of the PR agency.

Please note that even if the hours used are less than planned in the contract (2 110 hours instead of
2 210 hours), the amount in Euros for the staff cost is higher (76 149,9€) than the one planned in the
contract (70 269). This is explained by an error made in the budget's proposal concerning the hourly
rate of Guide Topten as an SME owner without salary. EASME has agreed, at the moment of the first
interim report, to raise this hourly rate to 36,09 Euros (which corresponds to the accepted scale for
France).

A large part of the budget planned for travels was not used (3 746,98€ spent out of 8 550€ planned).
This and the fewer hours used compensate a great share of the described difference in hourly rate
and the use of a subcontractor (see below).

However, it does not fully compensate the difference; as a result, the total cost declared is slightly
higher than the one projected in the contract (117 547,35€ spent against 114 273,75€ planned) ; it
conveys the real expenses engaged in this project.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐43

Oeko‐Institut

Actual time spent on the project exceeds the originally planned time by about 20% (19.1 instead of
15.54 person‐months; given a lower hourly rate of personnel on the project than foreseen in the
proposal, this effectively resulted in additional direct personnel costs of 5 862,07 EUR). The extra
time is mostly due to additional effort required to implement the ProCold product competition.
Several factors contributed to the additionally required effort:

1) As described in the first interim report, the delayed Ecodesign regulation for commercial
refrigeration influenced the timeline and implementation of the ProCold Product
Competition. Product definitions and test conditions could not be directly taken from the
regulation text and finalized test norms. However, a careful definition was crucial for a fair
and unequivocal competition. Hence, a more thorough consultation with the ProCold team
and stakeholders was necessary (e.g. preliminary rules with the possibility for external
stakeholders to provide feedback) and the timeline had to be adapted. Also, status and
timeline of test norms had to be researched and considered.
2) Additional tests outside the direct competition were performed with two appliances; these
required extra handling of appliances (e.g. also cross‐border movements with customs
requirements) as well as agreements and arrangements with test laboratories.
3) Another additional test with four additional appliances was implemented towards the end of
the project, which required new contractual arrangements with laboratories. New
quotations and contracts with test laboratories had to be set up, test objectives and
conditions defined, communication with laboratories maintained and results evaluated (e.g.
an extra report compiled).
Some of the activities related to the competition did contribute to work packages 3 and 4, e. g.
communication with manufacturers and laboratories and were considered there. As a result,
however, less time was available for the actual work of meeting stakeholders in WP3 and 4. This had
two implications: Work in WP3 and WP4 focussed on reaching stakeholders via e‐mail and phone
with less physical meetings taking place. Fewer meetings in turn caused less travel expenses than
originally budgeted. Beyond the lower than expected travel costs, other specific costs were less than
originally foreseen as well (e.g. a partnership with Ecopark Forum at Euroshop resulted in reduced
costs for the competition award ceremony).

Given the increased effort necessary to implement the project, especially the product competition,
we are requesting a budget shift of the unused travel and other specific costs to personnel cost in the
amount of 5 862,07 EUR, which is about 65% of the unused budget for travel and other specific costs.

Polimi

The amendment originally submitted was caused by a restrictive interpretation of art. 6 of the
“model grant agreement” regarding the personnel costs declared for staff working under the
“assegni di ricerca” contract. The document was published by the EC “Common Legal Support
Service” in mid‐October 2015. After the changes made in February 2017 in Article 6.2.A.2 of the
“model grant agreement”, the declaration of this specific workforce contracts is allowed, as also

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐44

stated in the new “Guidance on List of issues applicable to particular countries”, Version 1.4 26
October 2017.

For the above‐mentioned reasons, and as requested by the financial officer, the request for the
amendment was cancelled and POLIMI uses the initial budget as basis for the cost declaration.

Politecnico di Milano, compared with the original budget, spent more time than expected (2,9
person‐months). A detailed explanation is provided below. The staff cost corresponded to the
original budget, due to slightly lower personnel rates

‐ WP1: increased effort (+0,35 person‐months). In the first reporting period ProCold had 3 of
the 5 project meetings. The extra hours spent are due to the different effort between the
two periods, compared to a linear planning. In the second period another project meeting
was hosted by Politecnico in Milan.
‐ WP2: small deviation (overall) due to first period activities. In the first period the D2.5 “Good
practice guidance” was translated and redesigned internally. This activity was originally
budgeted as external cost (as Other direct costs in Other goods and services).
‐ WP3: small deviation (overall) due to first period activities. Extra effort in the first project
period was caused by the many activities at international level, such as:
 Several meetings and calls with EFCEM secretary general and president;
 Meeting with DG GROW representative, 23.10.2015, in Milan;
 Meeting with Eurovent representatives F. Scuderi and others, 25.10.2016;
 Project presentation c/o the E.V.A (European vending association) board, 3.5.2016;
 Calls with ICLEI ‐ Local Governments for Sustainability regarding the inclusion of the
ProCold criteria in the international GPP guidelines;
 with IKEA for including the ProCold criteria in the company procurement guidelines
‐ WP4: increased effort due to activities in both periods (+ 0.97 MP). Politecnico contacted and
met several of the EU and national stakeholders since the first half of the project. Especially
with Italian public administrations, this activity is time consuming and could lead to extra
effort for reaching the right person, organizing personal meetings, for data exchange and
detailed explanations. The extra effort in the first project period was also due to some of the
activities at national level, apart from normal contacts and calls:
 Meeting in Rome with the Ministry of Environment for the inclusion of professional
refrigerators in green public procurement decree (successful);
 Meeting in Rome with the Ministry of Industry promoting a national incentive
scheme for professional refrigeration (unsuccessful try);
 Project presentation to the board of the National association of municipalities, in
Milan;
 Project presentation to the national central procurer (CONSIP) in Rome;
 Conference calls with manufacturers (EPTA group, Fogal) regarding ProCold criteria;
 Two visits to fairs: HOST in October 2015, Venditalia in May 2016
 Official agreement signed between Politecnico and the Regional Association of
Municipalities, regarding the use and promotion of ProCold criteria in local
procurement (most of the time spent in legal check and contractual issues).

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐45

  In month 12, February 2016, the preparation for an event on GPP for Municipalities
started, that took place in November 2016. Among other activities, Politecnico
submitted a request to a private foundation, Fondazione Cariplo, in order to receive
external funding for supporting this activity (the funds received covered external
personnel and buffet).

In the second period, the activities planned and prepared in the first period were carried out:
the GPP event with ANCI and Topten, a workshop with the Chamber of Commerce, the work
with the Ministry of the Environment (conferences) for the finalisation of the MEP in food
preparation.

‐ WP5: (+0.23 person‐months) due to the communication with professional stakeholders and
associations regarding the competition, for a better definition of products and rules
‐ WP6: (+0.6 MP) justified by the number of events, articles, online articles and press releases
significantly higher (5 national events instead of 2, 1 international event, 25 between press
releases, articles, …)

Furthermore, an additional and unforeseen task was carried out by Politecnico in the last months of
the project: the metering of cold professional appliances before and after the replacement with
more efficient models, thanks to the cooperation with two of the main stakeholders at national level.
An additional deliverable was produced for dissemination, describing the work and detailing the
results.

SEVEn

SEVEn has underspent its time resources by about 1% which is considered within normal deviation of
the work carried out, as all achievements, both in terms of national activities, and the WP4
leadership, have been delivered.

SEVEn has also underspent some travel and other specific costs, due to the national costs for
preparation of documents, organization and participation to events etc., this was possible in a more
economic manner than expected.

SSNC

SSNC did not deviate from original person‐months per work package by any noticeable amount of
months/hours. Its hourly rate is lower than the one used when calculating the original budget, which
explains the negative deviation in personnel costs, compared to original budget.
Some budget posts have turned out to cost slightly less then originally budgeted and no funds have
been used for translation, which has been done in‐house when necessary.
WP4 Subcontracting for analysis of national market: spent 8 500€ instead of budget 10 000€.

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐46

Quercus

Overall, the total amount of hours worked was slightly higher than planned. Small deviations
occurred in WP4 and WP6 due to the efforts expended on relevant stakeholders involvement, which
was particularly successful for manufacturers and in dissemination activities.

Quercus actual hourly rate is lower than the one used on the original budget, therefore the
personnel costs are lower than provided for in the budget.
The amount foreseen for traveling was underspent because almost all meetings were scheduled
together with Topten meetings, which allowed splitting the costs between the two projects. On the
other hand, extra efforts were employed on dissemination, communication and on the website
updates, which consumed the amount not spent on travelling.

BushEnergie, ADEME and Guide Topten overspent their budget and we ask for a transfer of budget
between partners. The overall budget stayed in the limits of the planed budget.

5.2.1 Unforeseen subcontracting

Guide Topten decided to use the services of a sub‐contractor to identify and qualify further
stakeholders at the national level – which was a much more difficult and time consuming activity
than expected, even in the second period of the project. As Guide Topten has no employee, it was
necessary to have some help and the use of a subcontractor allowed for professional help on
qualifying contacts and making the first contacts with stakeholders that could be potentially
interested in ProCold.

ADEME overspent the number of person‐month for the administrative coordination ( see also the
various problems with Sygma mentioned in the interim report ) and more support was needed to
keep up the high quality of the project. Therefore, subcontracting assistance for the technical
coordination was higher than foreseen. The taskes performed by the subcontractor were the same as
foreseen. The subcontractor has been selected ensuring the best value for money according to
ADEME’s internal rules due to its experience in this task and with knowledge of Topten. Any other
competitor would have spent a lot of time and money to reach this level of performance.

5.2.2 Unforeseen use of in kind contribution from third party against payment or free of charges (if
applicable)
Not applicable

HISTORY OF CHANGES

VERSION PUBLICATION DATE CHANGE

1.0 15.07.2015 Initial version

1.1 08.08.2016 Corrections for MSCA.

1.2 27.03.2017 Modification of Part B for Research Infrastructures (RI) actions to include a
table with the resources used to provide access to RI.
2.1 (version 19.12.2017 Update of part B of the template to include explanations on adjustments to
of full financial statements declared on previous periods.
template)

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293 5‐47

 6. Appendix
A1 – Topten Memo on correct product declaration

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

Memo on product declaration to Topten

Date: 07 March 2018

From: Eric Bush, Maike Hepp and Sophie Attali

Correct product declaration is the cornerstone of the most important European policy
instruments covering products: “Energy Labelling” and “Eco‐Design”. It is key for any
informed purchase decisions of private consumers or professional procurers and any
platforms comparing products like Topten.
Topten displays product data published by manufacturers and puts them in direct
comparison. Topten is aware of its responsibility to provide correct data and considers it a
key task to display information of the best possible quality.
This memo discusses possible sources of discrepancies in declarations and how to
proceed in case of questionable declarations.

Sources of product information

Topten uses product information declared by manufacturers, either on their websites or
upon request. Topten specifies in its “Selection Criteria pages” which information has to
be provided according to which standards. In the great majority of cases (and otherwise
specified) Topten follows European, and when necessary national, legislation and
international standards.
This is in line with the procedure of the European Energy labelling (self‐declaration by
manufacturers).
When screening product data, Topten may encounter discrepancies within the values
declared, that raise a doubt on the energy efficiency level.
Discrepancies can be explained by simple printing mistakes. In this case, Topten asks
manufacturers to correct such errors immediately – which they usually do as it is a
support for them to fulfil their legal duty.
Discrepancies may be explained by different understandings of standards or of EU
Regulations: for example, technical complexity may lead to different ways of applying
measurement standards and to conflicts (e.g. on defining net volumes). For this type of
discrepancies, standards bodies regularly publish amendments to the standards that
specify in more detail how standards should be implemented. Likewise, European bodies
also regularly produce FAQ documents on Regulations. Topten cannot play an official role
with this respect. It however contributes to improve the knowledge about these
difficulties and alerts official bodies on inconsistencies, unclear specifications and details.
Discrepancies may occur because declarations on the energy label and the product fiche
are not correct or that test reports seem inconsistent in some points. The responsibility
for controlling these declarations falls on the European Member States who assign it to
their respective surveillance bodies. Anyone spotting mistakes can report to these
surveillance bodies who can officially take measures depending on their national laws:
urge manufacturers to correct the data, fine manufacturers, order a ban of the product,
etc.

In this context, Topten:

a. Systematically checks the plausibility of product data
b. May request test reports (according to international protocols and standards) for
critical product categories or specific products
c. May undertake spot testing. However, testing on a systematic basis of all
products is out of scope and far too expensive for Topten. This is the
responsibility of official surveillance bodies and manufacturers' associations that
want to contribute to levelling the playing field.

It may happen that manufacturers claim some of their competitors declare wrong values
with respect to the energy label / product fiche or product information declared by the
manufacturer. In this case Topten cannot assume a role of referee or fund testing to clear
the issue. However:
 Topten asks the accused manufacturers for his position and offers to correct any
mistakes
 In case of disagreement, Topten motivates involved manufacturers to resolve the
problem between themselves
 If not successful, Topten may inform manufacturers' associations and/or surveillance
bodies of various European countries

Conclusion
Topten supports all efforts of all stakeholders from standard makers and policy makers,
associations, manufacturers, test institutes and surveillance bodies to improve correct
declarations and fair play on the market. Topten cooperates with projects aiming to
improve verification and enforcement activities such as the EEPLIANT project
(www.eepliant.eu). Topten does not bear any official or legal responsibility and relies on
the existing European regulatory framework based on self‐declared product data.
A2 ‐ LOT12 savings lost ProCold calculation EXCEL

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

 ProCold cost calculation of delaying Lot 12 regulations
SAVINGS
base case additional policies 1 additional policies 2
yearly cumulated yearly cumulated yearly cumulated
lifetime of Label MEPS + MEPS Label MEPS + MEPS Label MEPS + MEPS Label MEPS + MEPS Label MEPS + MEPS Label MEPS +
appliances year MEPS only only label only only label only only label only only label only only label only only label
The original entry in force of 2016 1 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
the regulation was 2016 2017 2 1 1,8 2,8 3,3 1,8 2,8 3,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,8 1,0 0,5 0,8 1,0
(year 0) 2018 3 2 3,5 5,5 6,5 5,3 8,3 9,8 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,8 1,1 1,0 1,6 1,9 1,5 2,4 2,9
2019 4 3 5,3 8,3 9,8 10,5 16,5 19,5 0,5 0,8 1,1 1,1 1,7 2,1 1,5 2,4 2,9 3,0 4,8 5,7
2020 5 4 7,0 11,0 13,0 17,5 27,5 32,5 0,7 1,1 1,4 1,8 2,8 3,5 2,0 3,2 3,8 5,0 8,0 9,5
2021 6 5 9,2 13,3 15,8 26,7 40,8 48,3 0,9 1,4 1,7 2,7 4,1 5,2 2,7 3,9 4,7 7,7 11,9 14,2
2022 7 6 11,4 15,6 18,6 38,1 56,4 66,9 1,2 1,6 2,0 3,9 5,7 7,2 3,4 4,6 5,5 11,0 16,5 19,7
2023 8 7 13,6 17,9 21,4 51,7 74,3 88,3 1,4 1,9 2,3 5,3 7,6 9,5 4,0 5,3 6,4 15,1 21,9 26,1
after year 8, lifetime end for 2024 9 8 15,8 20,2 24,2 67,5 94,5 112,5 1,7 2,1 2,6 7,0 9,8 12,1 4,7 6,0 7,2 19,8 27,9 33,3
old appliances 2025 10 9 18,0 22,5 27,0 85,5 117,0 139,5 1,9 2,4 2,9 8,9 12,2 15,0 5,4 6,8 8,1 25,2 34,7 41,4
2026 11 10 20,2 24,8 29,8 105,7 141,8 169,3 2,1 2,7 3,2 11,0 14,8 18,2 6,1 7,5 9,0 31,3 42,1 50,4
2027 12 11 22,4 27,1 32,6 128,1 168,9 201,9 2,4 2,9 3,5 13,4 17,7 21,7 6,8 8,2 9,8 38,0 50,3 60,2
2028 13 12 24,6 29,4 35,4 152,7 198,3 237,3 2,6 3,2 3,8 16,0 20,9 25,5 7,4 8,9 10,7 45,5 59,2 70,9
2029 14 13 26,8 31,7 38,2 179,5 230,0 275,5 2,9 3,4 4,1 18,9 24,4 29,6 8,1 9,6 11,5 53,6 68,8 82,4
2030 15 14 29,0 34,0 41,0 208,5 264,0 316,5 3,1 3,7 4,4 22,0 28,1 34,0 8,8 10,3 12,4 62,4 79,1 94,8
In red source data, see Notes
In green cumulated savings lost in 2020 and 30, if the regulation started in 2016

SAVINGS per year base+additional1 in 2024 (after 8 years)

17,5 22,3 26,8
base+additional2 in 2024
20,5 26,2 31,4
base +add1+add2 in 2024
22,2 28,4 34,0 = 1,7 times the total electric consumption of Paris (see Notes for source)
Or 8 510 000 of dwellings consuming 4'000 kWh
Or 4 600 000 of per capita energy consumption of french inhabitants

1 TWh 1'000'000'000 kWh

1100 909091 yearly domestic consumption per person
4000 250000 dwellings
7400 135135 overall consumption per capita
Data taken from updated JRC study, page 139
As you can see, the expected savings are calculated as yearly savings in 2020 and 2030
Source: Ecodesign for Commercial Refrigeration
Hans Moons, Alejandro Villanueva, Maria Calero, Fulvio Ardente, Fabrice Mathieux, Nicola Labanca, Paolo Bertoldi, Oliver Wolf
Preparatory study update, Final report, 2014

Assumptions made in this model:

The average lifetime is 8 years (as suggested by colleagues)
The stock is renewed with a constant rate, so every year we save the same amount of new products (inbetween now‐>2020 and 2021‐>2030)

Ville de Paris consumption data

total 43,9 TWh/y
electric 46%
20,2 TWh/y
source http://api‐site‐cdn.paris.fr/images/71122
cells in yellow are JRC data
red is saving losses (lifetime 8 years)

base additional 1 additional 2

yearly cumulated yearly cumulated yearly cumulated
pot sav / year pot sav / year lifetime year MEPS only Label only M+L MEPS only Label only M+L year MEPS only Label only M+L MEPS only Label only M+L year MEPS only Label only M+L MEPS only Label only M+L
2016 2017 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 2018 2 1 1,8 2,8 3,3 1,8 2,8 3,3 1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,4 1 0,5 0,8 1,0 0,5 0,8 1,0
2018 2019 3 2 3,5 5,5 6,5 5,3 8,3 9,8 2 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,8 1,1 2 1,0 1,6 1,9 1,5 2,4 2,9
2019 2020 4 3 5,3 8,3 9,8 10,5 16,5 19,5 3 0,5 0,8 1,1 1,1 1,7 2,1 3 1,5 2,4 2,9 3,0 4,8 5,7
2020 2021 5 4 7 11 13 17,5 27,5 32,5 4 0,7 1,1 1,4 1,8 2,8 3,5 4 2 3,2 3,8 5,0 8,0 9,5
2021 2022 6 5 9,2 13,3 15,8 26,7 40,8 48,3 5 0,9 1,4 1,7 2,7 4,1 5,2 5 2,7 3,9 4,7 7,7 11,9 14,2
2022 2023 7 6 11,4 15,6 18,6 38,1 56,4 66,9 6 1,2 1,6 2,0 3,9 5,7 7,2 6 3,4 4,6 5,5 11,0 16,5 19,7
2023 2024 8 7 13,6 17,9 21,4 51,7 74,3 88,3 7 1,4 1,9 2,3 5,3 7,6 9,5 7 4,0 5,3 6,4 15,1 21,9 26,1
2024 2025 9 8 15,8 20,2 24,2 67,5 94,5 112,5 8 1,7 2,1 2,6 7,0 9,8 12,1 8 4,7 6,0 7,2 19,8 27,9 33,3
2025 2026 10 9 18,0 22,5 27,0 85,5 117,0 139,5 9 1,9 2,4 2,9 8,9 12,2 15,0 9 5,4 6,8 8,1 25,2 34,7 41,4
2026 2027 10 20,2 24,8 29,8 105,7 141,8 169,3 10 2,1 2,7 3,2 11,0 14,8 18,2 10 6,1 7,5 9,0 31,3 42,1 50,4
2027 2028 11 22,4 27,1 32,6 128,1 168,9 201,9 11 2,4 2,9 3,5 13,4 17,7 21,7 11 6,8 8,2 9,8 38,0 50,3 60,2
2028 2029 12 24,6 29,4 35,4 152,7 198,3 237,3 12 2,6 3,2 3,8 16,0 20,9 25,5 12 7,4 8,9 10,7 45,5 59,2 70,9
2029 2030 13 26,8 31,7 38,2 179,5 230,0 275,5 13 2,9 3,4 4,1 18,9 24,4 29,6 13 8,1 9,6 11,5 53,6 68,8 82,4
2030 2031 14 29 34 41 208,5 264,0 316,5 14 3,1 3,7 4,4 22,0 28,1 34,0 14 8,8 10,3 12,4 62,4 79,1 94,8

45 350

40
300
35
250
30

25 yearly MEPS only 200 cumulated MEPS only

20 yearly Label only cumulated Label only

150
yearly M+L cumulated M+L
15
100
10
50
5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A3A – Project Savings final

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

DIRECT SAVINGS IN ENERGY
CONSUMPTION THROUGH THE
PROCOLD PROJECT

Work package WP2: Energy savings realized through the ProCold project

Task 2.1: Saving Potentials

Maike Hepp, Bush Energie GmbH, Switzerland

31 January 2018
Project Partners

This ProCold project has received funding from the

European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No
649293.

The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does
not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor
the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the
information contained therein.

2
TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Content ....................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................. 4

Savings Realized by Project Actions ........................................... 6

Summary ................................................................................ 10

Additional facts about ProCold ................................................ 11

References .............................................................................. 12

3
INTRODUCTION
About this project
ProCold is a European project in the framework of Horizon 2020, supporting the
development and market penetration of energy efficient commercial refrigeration
equipment. The project aims at stimulating both the supply and demand side market
for environmentally friendly efficient technology by various market oriented
services, including among others a web-based product database for efficient
products, procurement guidelines and tools and a product competition. The project
is implemented in 8 countries (DE, FR, CH, IT, CZ, PT, SE, AT).

This document calculates the direct savings that can be directly contributed to the
actions of the ProCold project. Calculations are based on the savings per product
over its operation period and the estimated amount of sales where best available
technology models (BAT models) were chosen over standard models because of
ProCold activities. Taken into account are technical innovations and advancements
caused by ProCold activities. Not taken into account – due to difficulty in appraisal –
are savings due to ProCold policy recommendations that impacted regulations.

OVERVIEW PRODUCT CATEGORIES, SALES, CONSUMPTION

Table 1 shows the sales for six main product categories in the EU and in the
combined 8 ProCold partner countries. These numbers are used to estimate the
minimal savings that were brought by the ProCold project. ProCold triggered almost
40’000 additional BAT sales (BAT – best available technology – meaning energy
efficient products with climate-friendly refrigerant). The biggest number of
optimized procurement was achieved by working together with the beverage
industry (13’000 additional units that meet the ProCold criteria).

Product group All Sales All Sales All Sales All Sales All Sales 0.85%- 0.16% Additio-
EU 2015 EU 2016 EU 2017 EU 2015- in Project 0.87% of of nal BAT
2017 Countries Sales in Sales Sales
2015-2017 Project Rest of due to
Countries EU ProCold
units units units units units units units units

Plug-in refrigerated
display cabinets1 218'604 219'129 219'655 657'389 324'823 2'783 532 3’315

Beverage coolers 872'409 879'039 885'720 2'637'168 1'303'054 11'163 2135 13’298

Ice cream freezers 373'549 377'074 379'422 1'130'044 558'368 4'784 915 5’699
Refrigerated
vending machines 163'502 159'716 155'877 479'095 236'726 670 126 796
Refrigerated
storage cabinets 424'521 427'663 430'805 1'282'989 633'939 5’431 1039 6’470

Minibars 344'586 347'205 349'844 1'041'635 514'684 4'409 843 5’252

Wine storage
appliances 180'000 181'368 182'746 544'114 268'853 2'303 440 2’743

Sum 7'772'434 3'840'447 37'573

100% 49% 0.5%

1 including supermarket, serve-over and self-service cabinets

4
 Table 1: Sales of seven product categories in the EU for 2015-2017 and focus on the
ProCold project (table from Grant Agreement, updated with data for wine storage
appliances and % of sales)

Data reliability: The eight participating countries (Austria, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) account for 49% of EU28+CH
population (Eurostat for year 2013). We assume that EU sales distribute
proportional to countries’ population.

In the grant agreement an increase of 0.8% of sales in BAT models chosen over
standard models because of ProCold activities was anticipated in the participating
countries and 0.15% in other EU countries due to targeted actors operating
internationally. Measured results have exceeded expectations significantly. In
Switzerland alone – the smallest of the participating countries – almost 6000 BAT
product sales due to ProCold were registered within the scope of the Swiss rebate
programme for energy efficient commercial and professional refrigeration
appliances, resulting in almost 55 GWh of energy savings over their operation
phase. Within this highly successful rebate programme that was initiated as part of
ProCold, ProKilowatt from the Swiss Federal Office of Energy adopted the Topten
selection criteria and thus strengthened the effect of the project. Initially projected
savings were exceeded by 30%, showing how eagerly the market has taken to
increased efficiency in technologies. This in turn influenced the entire Swiss market
as manufacturers developed new efficient technologies in order to be admitted in
the rebate programme – technologies that are not only spreading across Switzerland
but all over Europe. This results in further sales of BAT products in Switzerland – a
spill-over effect that improved the market in general but could not be declared and
measured in the rebate programme – and all of Europe.
Austria copied the Swiss rebate programme as an action within the ProCold project
and started their own rebate programme in January 2017; this again strengthened
the influence on the European product range. As a result, calculations in table 1
reflect this positive development by applying the factors 0.85% for 2015 and 2016
(Swiss rebate programme which stated at the beginning of ProCold), 0.87% for
2017 (Swiss and Austrian rebate programmes) and 0.16% for the rest of Europe for
all three years (Swiss rebate programme since the beginning of ProCold and
Austrian rebate programme since January 2017).

The list for vending machines on Topten was published at the beginning of 2017. As
such, an influence on sales of vending machines for all countries was only assumed
for 2017 and the total number adjusted accordingly. Here the ProCold competition
“Best European Product” winner in March 2017 has brought technical innovation to
the market – to cite the manufacturer “ In order to avoid cold and heat transfer, the
sealing of the complete chilled area in the Robimat XM has been improved. By
changing the refrigerant to R744 (CO2) with a GWP-value of 1.0, the efficiency of
the cooling has been increased by 5 %, which is relatively an improvement by 8.9
% (when compared to using R134a). Furthermore, the Robimat XM also
demonstrates exceptional recycling capability. ”

In addition to the categories listed in the Grant Agreement, wine storage appliances
with one and multiple temperature zones were added, meaning more product
categories were covered by ProCold activities and more efficient models were listed
and sold.

5
Original values for the column “0.15 % of Sales rest of EU” in the table in the Grant
Agreement were undervalued due to a calculation error 2. The correct values
adjusted to 0.16 % are shown above in table 1.

SAVINGS REALIZED BY PROJECT ACTIONS

Table 2 shows the calculation of saving potentials for each product group for each
year. Increase in BAT sales are based on sales of products in the EU listed in table
1, applying the same assumptions to distribution between the ProCold countries and
rest of EU, as well as the assumptions about the percentage of additional BAT sales
due to ProCold as listed in table 1:

 49 % of sales in project countries

 Sales due to ProCold actions for project countries 0.85 % (for 2015/16) / 0.87 % (for
2017) of sales for project countries and 0.16 % for rest EU
 Vending machines on Topten since 2017

Energy savings for a single product (reference model vs. BAT model) are taken from
table 3 taking into account tightening of the Topten selection criteria over the
duration of the project.

Additional
Energy savings BAT vs. Energy savings
BAT sales
Product category Ref. for a single due to additional
due to
product BAT sales
ProCold

units GWh/
kWh/
product operation
operation phase3
phase3
2015 1’095 31.8
Plug-in refrigerated display
2016 29’024 1’098 31.9
cabinets
2017 1’122 32.6
2015 10’952 4’370 47.9
Beverage coolers 2016 10’952 4’403 48.2
2017 15’336 4’524 69.4
2015 2’642 1’871 4.9
Ice cream freezers 2016 2’642 1’889 5.0
2017 5’284 1’938 10.2
2015 0 0
Refrigerated vending machines 2016 5’506 0 0
2017 796 4.4
2015 8’060.8 2’127 17.1
Refrigerated storage cabinets 2016 9’209.5 2’142 19.7
2017 9’491.6 2’201 20.9
2015 1’726 2.5
Minibars 2016 1’470 2’739 2.6
2017 1’787 2.6
2015 902 1.2
Wine storage appliances 2016 1’320 909 1.2
2017 933 1.2

Sum 37’573 355.3

Table 2: Calculation of savings per product category for all three years

2 Due to a small error in the factor for the calculation of the “0.15% of Sales in the Rest of
the EU”, the overall BAT sales due to ProCold were slightly underestimated in the original
table (in the Grant Agreement)

3 cf. table 3 for length of operation phase for each product category

6
The table shows that between 2015 and 2017 approximately 37’573 additional BAT
models were sold instead of standard models because of ProCold activities. This
equals to 355 GWh energy savings for the same time period over the operation
phase of the products (8 to 10 years depending on the product category as shown
in table 3).

Initial calculations in the Grant Agreement projected electricity savings of 331 GWh
for 31’283 BAT additional BAT models. The final post-project calculations reflect an
additional 20% of sales for BAT units and 7% higher electricity savings, indicating
that not only were the total savings caused by ProCold initially underestimated but
the savings per category were initially overestimated. This difference stems from
the discrepancy between original assumptions and real developments and will be
explained for each category below. A detailed description of the realized savings for
each product category is added to table 3.

Energy
Energy Annual
Reference savings for
efficiency energy
models a single
index consumption
product
Total
Net Saving Operation BAT vs.
Product category Display Ref. BAT4 Ref. BAT
Volume potential phase5 Ref.
Area
kWh/
kWh/ kWh/
litres m2 years operation
year year
phase
2015
Plug-in refrigerated
2016 1.4 100 50 7'256 3'628 50% 8 29’024
display cabinets
2017
2015 50 1'369 50% 10’952
Beverage coolers 2016 500 100 50 2'738 1’369 50% 8 10’952
2017 30 821 70% 15’336
2015 75 991 25% 2’642
Ice cream freezers 2016 291 100 75 1'321 991 25% 8 2’642
2017 50 661 50% 5’284
2015
Refrigerated vending
2016 750 100 75 2'591 1’943 25% 8.5 5’506
machines
2017
2015 60 1'511 40% 8’060.8
Refrigerated storage
2916 450 100 54.3 2'519 1’368 46% 8 9’209.5
cabinets
2017 52.9 1’333 47% 9’491.6
2015
Minibars 2016 40 100 42 254 107 58% 10 1’470
2017
2015
Wine storage
2016 200 100 55 292 160 45% 10 1’320
appliances
2017
Table 3: Calculation of saving potentials for each product group
(table from Grant Agreement updated to include minibars, wine storage appliances and
to reflect developments in the Topten selection criteria over project duration)

Projected energy savings in the Grant Agreement were calculated based on sales
data from EC's preparatory studies 6, labelling formulas according to the current EU

4 Taking into account the tightening of Topten selection criteria over the project duration

5 Operation phases for each product category are conservative estimates

6 Preparatory study update (LOT 12), Final report, Ecodesign for Commercial Refrigeration,

JRC, 2014. Preparatory study (LOT 1), Final report, Refrigerating and freezing equipment,
BIO IS, 2011. Preparatory study (LOT 12), Final report, Commercial refrigerators and
freezers, BIO IS, 2007.
7
policy documents (adapted or most recent draft available as of late May 2014) and
current test standards of the same time. Final post-project calculations reflect the
current EU policy documents and test standards (as of February 2018). Resulting
changes due to different calculations for EEI or different measurements of test
standards are one reason for discrepancies between projected savings per product
category.

A second factor are the Topten selection criteria and availability of best available
technology on the market. While for some categories the energy efficiency index
(EEI) for BAT products turned out to be too optimistic – scarce availability on the
market -, some selection criteria were tightened during the project, leading to
increased energy savings for the categories. Product categories where saving
potentials were initially overestimated are ice-cream freezers, refrigerated vending
machines and refrigerated storage cabinets. For plug-in refrigerated display
cabinets, minibars and wine storage appliances the projected savings were accurate
while for beverage coolers the selection criteria could be tightened even further,
resulting in higher savings starting in 2017.

Ice-cream freezers: EN 16901:2016 became available in December 2016 and

officially replaced prEN 16901:2015. While data did not significantly differ from
prEN to EN, the availability of BAT models on the market with a draft EEI 7 of 40
predicted in the Grant Agreement turned out to be overly optimistic. Best products
on the market 2015 and 2016 lead to an adjustment of the selection criteria to draft
EEI=75; the energy savings potential for a single product of this product category
was reduced accordingly. Due to technical advancements, the selection criteria
could be tightened to draft EEI=50 in 2017, but realized savings stayed behind
expectations from the Grant Agreement.

Refrigerated Vending Machines: Energy consumption, reference model and savings

in the initial calculations were based on data according to the voluntary EVA label
for vending machines and predicted a saving potential of 60%. The list published on
Topten in 2017 contains data based on EN 50597:2015, resulting in different energy
consumption and draft EEI values for reference and BAT models. Combined with the
availability of BAT models on the market this resulted in energy savings of 25% for
this list. Projected energy savings in this category are also reduced because the
Topten list for vending machines was published in 2017 (no savings effect for 2015
and 2016).

Refrigerated storage cabinets: the EEI of the BAT models is calculated as average
from the selection criteria for the 7 subcategories counter refrigerators,
refrigerators 1-door, refrigerators 2-doors, counter freezers, freezers 1-door,
freezers 2-doors and refrigerator-freezers. In May 2015, the final versions of the EU
labelling and ecodesign regulations for professional refrigeration storage cabinets
were adopted and on 1 st July 2016 the EU energy label and the first stage of
minimum requirements came in effect. An overestimation for BAT products at the
start of ProCold resulted in a too high calculation of the projected saving potential.
The introduction of the regulation triggered a rapid development in efficient
technologies as a result of which the Topten selection criteria could be tightened
several times in the duration of the project. This way the saving potential for
refrigerated storage cabinets increased from 40% in 2015 to 47% in 2017. By
November 2017 the selection criteria could be tightened once again, resulting in a
saving potential of 52.1% by the end of the project. Since 01.01.2018 the second

7 All references to EEIs with regards to commercial refrigerated display cabinets (ice-cream

freezers, beverage coolers, plug-in refrigerated display cabinets, vending machines) mean a
draft EEI as calculated with the categories and M and N values from the 2014 working
documents

8
stage of minimum requirements is in effect, banning all class G products (EEI>95)
except for heavy-duty products from the market. Until then, models with an EEI up
to 115 were allowed on the market.

Plug-in refrigerated display cabinets: while EN ISO 23953 was updated in 2015, no
significant change in available product data resulted. Policy for ecodesign and
labelling regulation for commercial refrigerated display cabinets did not move
forward from 2015 to 2017 and selection criteria remained constant.

Minibars and wine coolers: covered under EU regulation No 1060/2010 regarding

energy labelling of household refrigerating appliances. Minibars and wine coolers for
non-household use fall into a gap between the scopes of EU regulation for
commercial and household products. As a consequence, it is at the discretion of
manufacturers and dealers to apply labelling and ecodesign requirements, or to omit
product information for products intended for professional / commercial use. The
projected saving potentials were realistic and selection criteria remained constant in
the process duration.

Beverage coolers: available EN 16902:2016 data does not significantly differ from
prEN16902:2015 product data. BAT models increased in efficiency in 2016 and 2017
so that the selection criteria for beverage coolers could be tightened in 2017 from
draft EEI 50 to draft EEI 30, resulting in higher energy savings for this product
category.

As a consequence, the electricity savings due to ProCold are only 7% higher than
projected while the number of additional BAT sales instead of regular product sales
due to ProCold is 20% higher than originally projected.

As a project performance indicator, primary energy savings within one year

triggered by ProCold actions are calculated in table 4. The post-project analysis and
calculation document yearly primary energy savings triggered by ProCold of 296
GWh instead of the 276 GWh/year assumed before the project.

Electricity savings Primary energy Primary energy

triggered within savings savings
project duration triggered within triggered within
calculated over the project duration one year
Product category operation phase of calculated over
(calculated over
the product the operation
the operation
phase of the
product phase of the
product)

GWh/ GWh GWh/year

Plug-in refrigerated display cabinets 96 241 80

Beverage coolers 165 414 138

Ice cream freezers 20 50 17

Refrigerated vending machines 4 11 4

Refrigerated storage cabinets 58 144 48

Minibars 8 19 6

Wine storage appliances 4 9 3

Sum 355 888 296

Table 4: Overview of calculated primary energy savings triggered by ProCold (conversion
from electric energy to primary energy with default coefficient of 2.5)

9
The ProCold Grant Agreement lists 1’181’780 € as estimated eligible costs of the
ProCold action. With the primary energy savings triggered within one year listed in
table 4, this results in 250.6 GWh/year per million € over the operation phase of
the products.

SUMMARY
Table 5 shows a summary of the results for BAT sales and energy savings triggered
by ProCold, comparing the projected data from 2014 and the actual results
calculated in the post-project period.

# BAT sales Energy Primary energy Primary energy

triggered savings for savings savings
by project additional BAT triggered triggered
(units) sales (GWh) within project within one year
duration (GWh) (GWh)

Projected 31’283 331 828 276

2014

Realized 37’573 355 888 296

2018

Table 5 Differences in BAT Products, Manufacturers and Categories from the Beginning
to End of the ProCold Project

In general, the savings are calculated very conservatively considering that the
savings in Switzerland – the smallest of all project countries - due to the rebate
programme alone account for 1/6 of all calculated savings in BAT sales and energy
savings and that not even all savings triggered in Switzerland were covered by the
data documented with the rebate programme: only product purchases registered for
the rebate programme were documented, while companies adopting Topten
selection criteria into their procurement criteria and the spill-over effect of
manufacturers developing new efficient technologies for the rebate programme and
thus improving the market in general was not included in those numbers. The real
number of BAT sales triggered and energy savings likely exceeds these calculation
results significantly.

10
ADDITIONAL FACTS ABOUT PROCOLD
ProCold is a European project designed to support the market development for
energy efficient commercial refrigeration equipment. The project is funded in the
framework of the Horizon 2020 programme.

Project Coordination:

ADEME, French Agency for Environment and Energy Management

Project Partners:

Austria: Austrian Energy Agency, AEA

Czech Republic: The Energy Efficiency Center, SEVEn

France: Guide Topten

Germany: Oeko-Institut e.V.

Italy: Politecnico di Milano

Portugal: Quercus

Sweden: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

Switzerland: Bush Energie GmbH

Project duration:

01.02.2015 – 31.01.2018

11
REFERENCES
[1] Draft energy label and Ecodesign regulation DG ENER Lot 12 refrigerated
commercial display cabinets (September 2015); detailed graphs for
different product types showing the label classes, Tier 1 and Tier 2.

[2] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1060/2010 of 28 September

2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household refrigerating
appliances

[3] Commission Regulation (EC) No 643/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing

Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with
regard to ecodesign requirements for household refrigerating appliances

[4] Interim report, Ecodesign & Labelling Review Household Refrigeration, June
2015, prepared by VHK and ARMINES for the European Commission,
www.ecodesign-fridges.eu

[5] Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2015/1094 of 5 May 2015

supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council with regard to the energy labelling of professional refrigerated
storage cabinets

[6] Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1095 of 5 May 2015 implementing

Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with
regard to ecodesign requirements for professional refrigerated storage
cabinets, blast cabinets, condensing units and process chillers

[7] Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 842/2006

[8] ProCold website www.topten.eu/pro-cold

o Product lists ‘Professional Refrigerators’ with top-efficient commercial
and professional products using green refrigerants

12
A3B – Project savings Excel

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

2015 cf. Sheet "BAT sales per year"
Reference models Energy efficiency index Annual energy consumption Energy savings Primary Energy savings triggered Primary energy savings
Additional BAT sales 2015 due to Energy savings due to Energy savings due to additional
Total Display Saving Operation BAT vs. Ref. For All Sales EU 2015 Electricity savings triggered Primary energy savings Primary energy savings triggered by ProCold with
Net Volume Ref. BAT Ref. BAT ProCold additional BAT sales (in kWh) BAT sales (in GWh)
Product cateogory Area potential phase* a single product within project duration triggered within project triggered within one year 1181780 € project funding
litres m2 kWh/year kWh/year CHECK years with % units units kWh/operation phase GWh/operation phase GWh/product operation phase GWh/3 years* GWh/year*
GWh/year per million €
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 1,4 100 50 7256 3628 50% 8 29024 218604 1095 31781280 31,8 96 241 80
Beverage coolers 500 100 50 2738 1369 50% 8 10952 872409 4370 47860240 47,9 165 414 138
Ice cream freezers 291 100 75 1321 991 25% 8 2642 373549 1871 4943182 4,9 20 50 17
Refrigerated vending machines 750 100 75 2591 1943 25% 8,5 5505,9 163502 0 0 0,0 4 11 4
Refrigerated storage cabinets 450 100 60 2519 1511 40% 8 8060,8 424521 2127 17145321,6 17,1 58 144 48
Minibars 40 100 42 254 107 58% 10 1470 344586 1726 2537220 2,5 8 19 6
Wine storage appliances 200 100 55 292 160 45% 10 1320 180000 902 1190640 1,2 4 9 3
Table 2: Sales of seven product categories in the EU and target ofthe
Table 4: Specifications of reference and BAT models (table from Grant Agreement updated for minibars and wine ProCold project (table from Grant Agreement updated with data for
storage appliances wine storage appliances) 105,5 355 888 296 250,6

2016 * calculated over the operation phase of the products

Reference models Energy efficiency index Annual energy consumption Energy savings
Additional BAT sales 2016 due to Energy savings due to Energy savings due to additional
Total Display Saving Operation BAT vs. Ref. For All Sales EU 2016
Net Volume Ref. BAT Ref. BAT ProCold additional BAT sales (in kWh) BAT sales (in GWh)
Product cateogory Area potential phase* a single product
litres m2 kWh/year kWh/year CHECK years with % units units kWh/operation phase GWh/operation phase
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 1,4 100 50 7256 3628 50% 8 29024 219129 1098 31868352 31,9
Beverage coolers 500 100 50 2738 1369 50% 8 10952 879039 4403 48221656 48,2
Ice cream freezers 291 100 75 1321 991 25% 8 2642 377074 1889 4990738 5,0
Refrigerated vending machines 750 100 75 2591 1943 25% 8,5 5505,875 159716 0 0 0,0
Refrigerated storage cabinets 450 100 54,3 2519 1368 46% 8 9209,464 427663 2142 19726671,89 19,7
Minibars 40 100 42 254 107 58% 10 1470 347205 1739 2556330 2,6
Wine storage appliances 200 100 55 292 160 45% 10 1320 181368 909 1199880 1,2
Table 2: Sales of seven product categories in the EU and target ofthe
Table 4: Specifications of reference and BAT models (table from Grant Agreement updated for minibars and wine ProCold project (table from Grant Agreement updated with data for
storage appliances wine storage appliances) 108,6

2017
Reference models Energy efficiency index Annual energy consumption Energy savings
Additional BAT sales 2017 due to Energy savings due to Energy savings due to additional
Total Display Saving Operation BAT vs. Ref. For All Sales EU 2017
Net Volume Ref. BAT Ref. BAT ProCold additional BAT sales (in kWh) BAT sales (in GWh)
Product cateogory Area potential phase* a single product
litres m2 kWh/year kWh/year CHECK years with % units units kWh/operation phase GWh/operation phase
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 1,4 100 50 7256 3628 50% 8 29024 219655 1122 32564928 32,6
Beverage coolers 500 100 30 2738 821 70% 8 15336 885720 4524 69380064 69,4
Ice cream freezers 291 100 50 1321 661 50% 8 5284 379422 1938 10240392 10,2
Refrigerated vending machines 750 100 75 2591 1943 25% 8,5 5506 155877 796 4382676,5 4,4
Refrigerated storage cabinets 450 100 52,9 2519 1333 47% 8 9491,6 430805 2201 20890993,99 20,9
Minibars 40 100 42 254 107 58% 10 1470 349844 1787 2626890 2,6
Wine storage appliances 200 100 55 292 160 45% 10 1320 182746 933 1231560 1,2
Table 2: Sales of seven product categories in the EU and target ofthe
Table 4: Specifications of reference and BAT models (table from Grant Agreement updated for minibars and wine ProCold project (table from Grant Agreement updated with data for
storage appliances wine storage appliances) 141,3

SUM 355,3
*
conservative
estimate
 All Sales in 0.8% of Sales in Sum without
All Sales EU All Sales EU All Sales EU All Sales EU All Sales Rest EU Sales in Project 0.15% of Sales
Project Countries Project adjustments*
2015 2016 2017 2015‐17 Countries in % Rest of EU*
Product cateogory 2015‐17 Countries*
units units units units units units units units
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 218604 219129 219655 657388 332565 324823 49,41 2599 499 3097
Beverage coolers 872409 879039 885720 2637168 1334114 1303054 49,41 10424 2001 12426
Ice cream freezers 373549 377074 379422 1130045 571677 558368 49,41 4467 858 5324
Refrigerated vending machines 163502 159716 155877 479095 242369 236726 49,41 1894 364 2257
Refrigerated storage cabinets 424521 427663 430805 1282989 649050 633939 49,41 5072 974 6045
Minibars 344586 347205 349844 1041635 526951 514684 49,41 4117 790 4908
Wine storage appliances 180000 181368 182746 544114 275261 268853 49,41 2151 413 2564

Sum 7772434 3931987 3840447 49,41 30724 5898 36622

* With original data from Grant Agreement. Changes calculated below

Additional BAT Sales due to ProCold (by year) over all three ProCold years
All Sales in All Sales 0.85% of Sales in Total of Additional BAT Additional BAT
All Sales EU 0.16% of Sales Additional BAT Difference new calculations to original
Project Rest EU Project Additional BAT Sales in Project sales due to
2015 Rest of EU sales rest EU predictions
Product cateogory Countries 2015 2015 Countries sales (2015) Countries project
units units units 2783 532 3315 original prediction:
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 218604 108012 110592 918 177 1095 11163 2135 13298 GWh 331
Beverage coolers 872409 431057 441352 3664 706 4370 4784 915 5698 units 31283
Ice cream freezers 373549 184571 188978 1569 302 1871 670 126 796
Refrigerated vending machines 163502 80786 82716 687 132 819 5431 1039 6469 realized savings: Difference:
Refrigerated storage cabinets 424521 209756 214765 1783 344 2127 4409 843 5252 GWh 355 7,3 %
Minibars 344586 170260 174326 1447 279 1726 2303 440 2744 units 37573 20,1 %
Wine storage appliances 180000 88938 91062 756 146 902 SUM: SUM: SUM:
12910 31543 6030 37573

All Sales in All Sales 0.85% of Sales in Total of

All Sales EU 0.16% of Sales
Project Rest EU Project Additional BAT
2016 Rest of EU
Product cateogory Countries 2016 2016 Countries sales (2016)
units
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 219129 108272 110857 920 177 1098
Beverage coolers 879039 434333 444706 3692 712 4403
Ice cream freezers 377074 186312 190762 1584 305 1889
Refrigerated vending machines 159716 78916 80800 671 129 800
Refrigerated storage cabinets 427663 211308 216355 1796 346 2142
Minibars 347205 171554 175651 1458 281 1739
Wine storage appliances 181368 89614 91754 762 147 909
12980

All Sales in All Sales 0.87% of Sales in Total of

All Sales EU 0.16% of Sales
Project Rest EU Project Additional BAT
2017 Rest of EU
Product cateogory Countries 2017 2017 Countries sales (2017)
units
Plug‐in refrigerated display cabinets 219655 108532 111123 944 178 1122
Beverage coolers 885720 437634 448086 3807 717 4524
Ice cream freezers 379422 187472 191950 1631 307 1938
Refrigerated vending machines 155877 77019 78858 670 126 796
Refrigerated storage cabinets 430805 212861 217944 1852 349 2201
Minibars 349844 172858 176986 1504 283 1787
Wine storage appliances 182746 90295 92451 786 148 933
13302
Sum 7772434
SUM 39192
A4 ‐ ProCold Measurement projects in Italy

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

National involvement of manufacturers and retailers

Field metering campaign for professional cold appliances

Project coordinator: ADEME France

Lead authors for the document: Politecnico di Milano

Date: February 2018

This ProCold project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 649293.The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with
the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the
European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Summary

The general objective of the ProCold project is to empower private stakeholders and public
authorities so that they can enforce and implement EU and national energy efficiency policies in
the sector of professional cold products.
A specific objective is to ensure more energy efficient professional cold products enter the EU
market and increase their market shares, thereby contributing to the EU's energy efficiency
goals and policies.
The product groups relate to products cooling, refrigerating or freezing foodstuff and drinks in
commercial and professional premises – from public buildings, to hotels, retailers and canteens.
They consume a significant amount of energy, important differences exist between various
models of the same product category, but, due to lack of clear regulation for some of the product
categories and/or lack of information, the potential for more energy efficient models remains
untapped.
The legislation concerned is the one regulating the minimum energy performance standards
(Ecodesign) and energy labelling, as well as public procurement activities. The ProCold project
benefited from a good timing, since a number of the above-mentioned product groups recently
had an energy efficiency regulation in place and the project would therefore contribute to the
knowledge of direct users, public authorities and policy makers on the specific performance
characteristics of these product groups.
The work with manufacturers and retailers for supporting more efficient and sustainable
appliances should be positively supported with more evidence. The field measurement
described in this document brought elements supporting:
- The quality of the products in real conditions
- The consistency of the data reported on the EU energy label
- The positive activities of the ProCold team in terms of research and promotion of the
project's outcomes.
The task started from December 2017, thanks to the cooperation with two of the main
stakeholders at national level: one manufacturer (with products listed on Topten/Procold) and a
retailer as direct user.
More information on the ProCold project: www.topten.eu/pro-cold

We kindly thank for their cooperation:

2
 ProCold: Field metering campaign

Evaluation of the savings' potential related to the replacement

of refrigerated cabinets and freezers

Objective: evaluate and highlight the economic, energy and environmental advantages of the
most efficient professional cold products through a brief campaign measuring electricity
consumption before and after the replacement of the appliances.

PARTNERS

Sagi Spa, designs, manufactures and markets refrigerated cabinets, refrigerated bases, blast
chillers and rapid temperature freezers, pizza counters and refrigerated display cabinets since
1980. Sagi SpA is part of Marmon Food, Beverage & Water Technologies, a US holding company
Berkshire Hathaway Inc, and operates worldwide. Sagi offers efficient and sustainable products,
available on the Topten list1, and managed to convince its client for the measurements, before
and after the substitution of appliances.

Gruppo Gabrielli, a leading company operating in the Italian retail sector with three brands to
which three different distribution formats correspond: OASI for the Superstore, Tigre for the
Supermarkets and Tigre Amico for the Superette. Gruppo Gabrielli kindly offered the possibility
to install the meters.

Politecnico di Milano, national partner of ProCold, a project funded by the European Union's
Horizon 2020 programme, which supports the dissemination of efficient, professional and
commercial plug-in refrigerators and freezers, and the increase in use of natural and sustainable
refrigerants2. The end-use Energy Efficiency Research Group, active in the Energy Department of
the Politecnico has wide experience in measurement campaigns and was interested in
comparing test/declared data and real consumption data.

1Topten product lists, available at www.topten.eu

2Politecnico provided the methodology and tools for the measurement campaign, installed the metering system and
has carried out the verification inspection

3
 1 Professional storage freezer

The first task took place at the company canteen of Sagi Spa, operational from Monday to Friday,
with an average production of 60 meals for lunch and dinner.

F IGURE 1: LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE NEW MODEL , CANTEEN ’ S KITCHEN

1.1 Storage freezer - metering phases

- First phase: 3 weeks of energy consumption measurement of the existing installed

refrigerated cabinet, brand SAGI model Shine New HD70BT-0P14S3, S/N
14551246001, with the following features:
o Storage temperature range: -20/-10°C
o Net volume: 420 l
o Climate class: 5
o Energy efficiency class: F, 3351 kWh/year declared
o Refrigerant gas: R404A
o Internal rack structure AISI 304 stainless steel, suitable to
accommodate GN 2/1 trays / grids.

- Second phase: one week of measurement of consumption, following the installation of the
new SAGI model X-Treme XE70B-0P14 freezer cabinet4, S/N
80282644201, with the following features:
o Storage temperatures: -22/-15°C
o Net volume: 444 l
o Climatic class 5
o Energy efficiency class: C, 1394 kWh/year declared
o Refrigerant gas: R290
o Internal side structure molded in stainless steel AISI 304
suitable to accommodate GN 2/1 trays / grids

3 equivalent to the model Sagi FD70BT, which differs from the tested one only for the construction material and
equivalent to the models of the affiliate Angelo Po EX70BT and EF70BT, that differ from Sagi models only for aesthetic
details related to the customization of the product.
4 equivalent to the Angelo Po XL70B model

4
 1.2 Results and conclusions

Thanks to the data collected it is possible to calculate the average daily consumption of the two
products. For the old appliance the average consumption is 8.5 kWh/daily (equal to 3100
kWh/year). For the new single-door freezer cabinet, with sustainable refrigerant and in energy
class C, which replaces the previous one in class F, an average daily consumption of 3.4 kWh (1240
kWh/year) was measured, saving 60% of energy. For a 450-liter freezer, the replacement means
an annual saving of almost 2000 kWh, almost the annual electricity consumption of an average
household in Italy (equal to about 2700 kWh/year), or € 4000 savings in 10 years5!

5 Considering an energy cost of 0,2€/kWh

5
 2 Professional storage refrigerators

The measurement took place at the Al Battente shopping center, inside the OASI
supermarket6, in the kitchen area used to prepare fresh deli dishes ready for retail sale.

F IGURE 2: INSTALLATION PLACE , SUPERMARKET KITCHEN

2.1 Refrigerated cabinets - metering phases

- First phase: 3 weeks of measurement of the energy consumption of refrigerated cabinets,

produced in the years 2000/2001 and corresponding to the Sagi models 65X e 135NNX
(two doors and one common compressor unit) with serial numbers in picture:
o Storage temperature: -2/+8 °C
o Climatic class 5
o Energy efficiency class (estimated) F and D
o Refrigerant gas: R134a

6 OASI is a shopping center of the Gabrielli SpA group, a food distribution group operating in Italy

6
o Internal rack structure in plastic, suitable to accommodate GN 2/1 trays / grids
o (The declared energy consumption could not be traced back)

F IGURE 3: STORAGE REFRIGERATOR 65X AND 135NNX, WITH S / N

F IGURE 4: METERING APPLIANCES INSTA LLED IN OASI SUPERMARK ET

7
- Second phase: one week measurement of the energy consumption, following the
installation of 3 energy efficient cabinets brand SAGI model XE70-0P147, s/n 75282295001
– 75282295002 – 75282295003, with the following features:

o Storage temperatures: -2/+8°C

o Net volume: 444 l
o Climate class 5
o Energy efficiency class: A, 321 kWh/year declared
o Refrigerant gas: R290
o Internal side structure molded in stainless steel AISI 304
suitable to accommodate GN 2/1 trays / grids

F IGURE 5: NEW INSTALLED STO RAGE REFRIGERATO RS INSTALLED IN OASI SUPERMARKET KITCHEN , SAGI MODEL XE70-0P14

2.2 Results and conclusion

For the existing appliances was measured an average consumption of 7.3 kWh / day (equal to
2628 kWh / year). For the 3 new single-door refrigerated cabinets, with sustainable refrigerant
and in energy class A, which replaced the previous ones with the same total net volume, was
measured an average daily consumption of 1.9 kWh per day (694 kWh / year), with an energy
saving higher than 70%. The replacement, for each 450-liter refrigerator, offers an annual
savings of almost 640 kWh, corresponding to about € 1300 in 10 years, 3900 € for all the
refrigerators replaced!

7 model equivalent to the product Angelo Po XL70L-0PR0

8
General conclusions

From the data collected it is possible to determine the high energy saving potential provided by
the new efficient equipment: 60% for the storage freezer, about 70% for the refrigerated
cabinets.

The measurements, carried out on the installed refrigerated storage cabinets "in real life", show
an average daily consumption lower than the one declared on the label (according to the
standardized measurement protocol). For the new installed products, a daily average
consumption of 0.65 kWh was measured, compared to a figure reported in the EU energy label
of 0.88 kWh. This difference is probably caused by the operating temperatures, also detected
during the measurements campaign, which are more favorable than those prescribed in the tests
(22.3 ° C and 34% of detected r.h., compared to 30 ° C and 55% of r.h. of the climatic class 4 used
in the test room). From the data available in literature, it is known that each degree of difference
in ambient temperature causes a variation in the consumption of about 2.5%. In the case in
question, the difference is 27%, slightly more than 20%, estimated on the basis of the figures
reported in the aforementioned studies.
For the measured freezer cabinets, the metered consumption is slightly lower than the figure
reported on the EU energy label (-7% for the replaced appliance, -11% for the new one). It was
impossible to collect the thermo-hygrometric data in the canteen’s kitchen, the installation site
of the new freezer cabinet.

The results of the measurement campaign show that:

- The consumption values reported in the EU energy label is in line with the real consumption
of the equipment. The estimated consumption reported in the label is a reliable basis for
comparison between models.
- In-depth analysis is needed to assess whether climate class 4 correctly represents the
average climatic conditions in the environments where the equipment is installed
- Additional measurements could be useful to evaluate the correct relationship between
changes in indoor thermo-hygrometric conditions and energy consumption.

Milano, 28th of February 2018, Andrea Roscetti

9
A5 – ProCold Additional testing results

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

 ProCold Appliance Testing
Professional and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
– Additional Testing –
– Results, January 2018 –

With support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme the
ProCold project (www.topten.eu/pro-cold) assessed the energy consumption of selected professional,
commercial and household refrigeration appliances according to different test norms for energy con-
sumption. Four appliances were tested:

• Two beverage coolers (with and without glass door)

• One household refrigerator

• One professional static storage cabinet (freezer)

The tests had several objectives:

a) Document the direct differences in energy efficiency between otherwise comparable glass door
and solid door beverage coolers.

b) Understand the implications in outcome in applying a previously used test norm (EN ISO
23953-2:2015) for beverage coolers to the most recent one proposed for future Ecodesign reg-
ulation (EN 16902:2016). Manufacturers may report energy consumption according to different
test norms. Understanding the differences is important to compare declared energy efficiency.

c) Explore possible differences in achieved energy efficiency of household refrigerators compared

to professional / commercial refrigerators.

d) Gain a principle understanding of professional static cabinet energy performance in relation to

forced air cabinets as static cabinets are – as of January 2018 – exempted from all current and
proposed Ecodesign regulations.
 ProCold Testing Results, page 2/5

Test design and tested products for the different objectives

Energy consumption tests as presented in Table 1 were performed among the two independent test
laboratories Re/genT in the Netherlands and DTI in Denmark on behalf of ProCold. Default test norms
for the given appliances are shaded in grey. No default test methods are given in Table 1 for static
counter freezers, as these are currently neither covered nor proposed for Ecodesign / Energy Label
regulations.

Data measured against different test standards cannot be compared directly and any results must be
carefully interpreted. To facilitate comparison and interpretation two similar beverage coolers, with the
main difference being solid door vs. glass door were tested against the three test norms EN
16902:2016, EN ISO 23953:2015 and EN 62552:2013 and a similarly sized household refrigerator was
tested against test norms EN 16902:2016 and EN 62552:2013.

Table 1: Tested appliances and applied test norms for energy consumption
EN 16902:2016 EN ISO EN 62552:2013 EN 16825:2016
23953:2015
Commercial Household re- Refrigerated
beverage cool- Refrigerated frigerating ap- storage cabi-
ers display cabinets pliances nets

Beverage cooler
(solid door) X X X
(BC-SD)

Beverage cooler
(glass door) X X X
(BC-GD)

Household re-
frigerator X X
(HR)

Static counter
freezer X X
(SF)

The beverage coolers and household refrigerator were chosen to be roughly equal in size to allow for
meaningful comparison of energy consumption. The main characteristics of the appliances are sum-
marized in the following table:

Table 2: Characteristics of tested appliances

Volume / Total Refrigerant Solid / glass Cooling
Display Area door

Beverage cooler 319 litres

R600a Solid Forced-air
(solid door) (EN 16902)

Beverage cooler 327 litres R600a Glass Forced-air

 ProCold Testing Results, page 3/5

(glass door) (EN 16902)

Household re- 288 litres

R600a Solid Static
frigerator (EN 62552)

Static counter 107 litres

R600a Solid Static
freezer (EN 16825)

Test conditions were foremost determined by the test norms themselves. Tests for beverage coolers
according to EN ISO 23953:2015 were done at ambient conditions of 25°C / 60% relative humidity to
increase comparability of test results (instead of testing at rated climate class of cabinet). Specific pa-
rameters and requirements of the test norms for the refrigeration appliances are provided in Table 3.
Several parameters, such as required average temperature, door opening sequence and duration of
lighting may have a noteworthy influence on energy consumption and need to be carefully reflected in
the interpretation of results.

Table 3: Comparison of test parameters according to EN 16902, EN 62552 and EN ISO 23953 for
tests of beverage coolers and household refrigerator
Standard EN 16902:2016 EN 62552:2013 EN ISO 23953:2015
Commercial beverage Household refrigerat- Refrigerated display
coolers ing appliances cabinets
1
Ambient conditions 25°C / 60% rH 25°C 25°C / 60% rH
Tested appliances BC-SD, BC-GD, HR BC-SD, BC-GD, HR BC-SD, BC-GD
Reference tempera- Average temperature:
tures ≤ 3.5°C; Maximum temperature:
Maximum temperature: Average temperature: ≤ 7.0°C;
≤ 7.0°C; 5.0°C Minimum temperature:
Minimum temperature: ≥ - 1.0°C
≥ 0.0°C
Interpolation used to
determine the energy No Yes No
consumption
Door opening se- Yes, each door is
quence opened 10 times per
No No hour for a period of 12
hours (door is opened for
a total of 15 seconds)
Internal lights on/off On, for the complete test On, during the 12 hour
On, for the first 12 hours
(if available) period door opening sequence
Test period Minimum of 24 hours
24 hours with complete operating 24 hours
cycles
Product load 330 ml cans None Tylose packages
Distance between Cabinet is positioned Cabinet is positioned
100mm 2 2
rear and back wall against the back wall against the back wall

The test for the static storage freezer is separate from the other tests as in that it was obviously per-
formed at lower freezer temperatures of between -15 and-18 °C. Professional “static” cabinets are cur-

1
It was agreed between Oeko-Institut and Re/genT to test at 25°C / 60% rH, while according to the standard the cabinet
must be tested at the rated climate class. This decision was made because under these circumstances it is easier to
compare the resulting data if they were measured at the same climate class. Otherwise, of course, a test at higher ambi-
ent temperature typically requires more energy.
2
The standard describes to install the cabinet as specified by the manufacturer, or if this is not the case the cabinet shall be
positioned against the back wall.
 ProCold Testing Results, page 4/5

rently not covered in any of the regulations for professional and household refrigeration appliances.
Hence, also no specific test norm is “prescribed”. To gain a principle understanding of their perfor-
mance as compared to similar appliances test norms for professional storage cabinets (EN 16825) and
for commercial refrigerated display cabinets (EN ISO 23953) were performed. Table 4 gives an over-
view of the relevant testing parameters of these two standards, in particular differences in the door
opening sequence.

Table 4: Comparison of test conditions for static storage freezer EN 16825 and EN ISO 23953
EN 16825:2016 EN ISO 23953:2015
Standard
Refrigerated storage cabinets Refrigerated display cabinets
Ambient conditions 30°C 30°C
Highest temperature: ≤ -15°C; Highest temperature: ≤ -15°C;
Reference temperatures
lowest temperature: ≤ -18°C lowest temperature: ≤ -18°C
Initial door opening of 30 sec- Initial door opening of 180 sec-
onds, followed by a 4 hour period onds, followed by a 12 hour peri-
with door openings six times per od with door openings six times
hour and an opening time of 7 per hour and an opening time of 6
seconds each. Then the door is seconds each. The remaining 12
kept closed for 4 hours, again hours of the 24 hours period it is
Door opening sequence
followed by a 4 hour period with kept closed.
door openings six times per hour
with opening time of 7 seconds
each. The remaining 12 hours of
the 24 hours period the door is
kept closed.

Due to the nature of the cross comparison of appliances for different purposes and a small sample size
the results can at best give an indication with regard to the stated objectives. For robust results tests
should be repeated with several appliances and ideally multiple test runs.
 ProCold Testing Results, page 5/5

Test results and observations

a) Objective 1: Energy efficiency of glass door vs. solid door beverage cooler
Beverage coolers were tested against EN 16902 (the now default test norm for beverage coolers) as
well as EN ISO 23953 and EN 62552. When tested against EN 16902, the version with glass door
consumes about 40 % more energy than the version with solid door, 1.295 kWh/day vs. 0.922
kWh/day. Testing against the other standards provides similar relative differences. (Figure 1)

The slightly higher net volume of the glass door beverage cooler (327 litres vs. 319 litres or about 3 %
according to EN 16902) does not in itself explain this difference. The lighting of the glass door bever-
age cooler likely also has an effect on energy consumption, though to a much lesser degree than the
overall reduced insulation.

Figure 1: Test results for beverage coolers (BC-SD: commercial beverage cooler with solid
door, BC-GD: commercial beverage cooler with glass door, HR: house-
hold refrigerator)

2,0 1,92

1,8
1,6
1,436
1,4 1,295 1,34

1,2
kWh/day

BC-SD
1,0 0,922 0,905
BC-GD
0,8
HR
0,6
0,4 0,261 0,222
0,2
0,0
EN 16902 EN 62552 EN ISO 23953

For the specific appliance tested, a significant improvement in energy consumption of more
than 40% can be registered for solid door cooler versus a glass door equivalent cooler. This is
consistent with previous estimates. Wherever not otherwise necessary closed door beverage
coolers should be used.

b) Objective 2: Differences in energy consumption of beverage coolers based on different test norms
Tested against EN ISO 23953:2015 both solid and glass door beverage cooler display higher daily
energy consumption by about 45 %. Given the difference in test conditions this can mostly be attribut-
ed to the 12h door opening sequence employed as compared to the other test norms. According to the
test norm, the doors must be opened ten times per hour for a period of 12 hours during the 24h test
cycle, while EN 16902 does not have any door opening requirements (cf. Table 3). The thermal energy
that enters the beverage cooler during each door opening needs to be compensated by additional
cooling effort.

Regular door openings as included in EN ISO 23953 lead to significantly higher energy con-
sumption. It could be argued that regular door openings during an energy consumption test
better reflect actual use conditions and thereby “real world” energy consumption. Results ac-
cording to EN 16902 (without such a door opening sequence) may therefore significantly un-
derestimate later actual use energy consumption. Energy consumption results according to EN
 ProCold Testing Results, page 6/5

16902 may, hence, also provide a lower limit of actual expected energy consumption. In the
future this could be confirmed by additional energy consumption test in actual use.

Tests of beverage coolers according to EN ISO 23953:2015 with 12h door opening sequence
employed will, hence, not systematically produce lower energy consumption and favour an ap-
pliance as compared to EN 16902. If beverage coolers display low energy consumption accord-
ing to EN ISO 23953:2015 they will likely show even lower energy consumption when tested
against EN 16902.

However, EEI calculations cannot be compared directly, as EN 16902 uses net volume as the
basis for calculation, while in EN ISO 23953:2015 Total Display Area (TDA) is used. As net vol-
ume measurement is not part of EN ISO 23953:2015 an important figure is missing to derive
comparable EEI values!

Hence, for the use in Topten-lists EN ISO 23953:2015 may still be used, provided that a door
opening sequence was clearly part of the test and EEI calculations are based on net volume
measurements according to the newer EN 16902.

c) Objective 3: Performance of household refrigerator in comparison to professional and commercial

appliances
Tested against both the beverage cooler test norm EN 16902 as well as the household appliance test
norm EN 62552 the household refrigerator displays less than one third of the energy consumption of
the tested solid door beverage cooler. (see Figure 1) This could be indicative of a much higher
achieved energy efficiency of household refrigeration equipment in general.

Indeed, household refrigerators listed on Topten.eu achieve much lower energy consumption: The top
3 household refrigeration models on Topten.eu with net volume between 300 and 400 litres as of Jan-
uary 2018 have an average reported energy consumption of 74 kWh/year. This compares to
626 kWh/year for the top 3 (albeit glass door) beverage coolers with a net volume between 300 and
400 litres or more than 8 times as much.

The fact that the solid door beverage cooler registers about the same energy consumption (2 % lower
at 2 % uncertainty of the measurement) when measured against the household refrigerator test norm
indicates that the much lower energy consumption of household refrigerators is not simply due to dif-
ferent test norms.

Consequently, the major differences in energy consumption cannot be explained by the different test
standards. Instead, the different performance may primarily stem from the fact that commercial appli-
ances may have major unexploited efficiency potentials as compared to household refrigera-
tion equipment for which an energy label and ecodesign requirements have been in effect for a
while.

The main argument against this conclusion is the difference in performance requirements for beverage
coolers, which must be able to draw down the temperature of loaded cans and for this purpose employ
forced-air technology.

However, on the other hand, the presumably lower performance requirements of the household refrig-
eration test norm EN 62552 do not result in lower energy consumption of the solid door beverage
cooler. This indicates that further significant performance improvements are possible for bever-
age coolers, e. g. by adapting performance of the compressor to actual performance require-
ments.

d) Objective 4: Static cabinet energy performance compared to forced-air cabinets

 ProCold Testing Results, page 7/5

No direct comparison with a forced-air cabinet was done. The main purpose of the test was, hence,
to see if a static storage cabinet can generally be compared to forced-air cabinets by employing
the respective test norms and how its energy consumption would compare to reported energy con-
sumption of Topten-listed forced air cabinets.

The chosen static storage freezer was tested against both EN 16825:2016, the test norm for pro-
fessional storage cabinets, and EN ISO 23953:2016, the test norm for refrigerated display cabi-
nets.

Figure 2 shows the measured energy consumption in both cases. Energy consumption measured
according to EN 16825:2016 is 1.25 kWh/day, energy consumption according to EN ISO
23953:2015 is 1.31 kWh/day. (cf. Figure 2) The higher energy consumption of the test norm for
refrigerated display cabinets can be explained by the more demanding and longer door opening
sequence. (cf. Table 4)

To fulfil the required temperature (-15 to -18 °C) the thermostat settings had to be changed to -
22 °C and both drawers had to be in place. Effective net volume was hence measured at a re-
duced 107 litres. The required temperature could not be met without the drawers in place.

For purposes of comparison also average energy consumption of forced-air counter freezers listed
on Topten.eu as of January 2018 is included. These freezers have an average net volume of 74
litres and an energy consumption of 2.33 kWh/day. The tested static counter freezer, hence, has a
45 % lower absolute energy consumption compared to Topten-listed forced-air cabinets. This is
achieved at a higher net volume. However, the performance cannot directly be compared to
forced air cabinets as the door opening sequence was not applied to the two drawers that
had to be in place to achieve the required temperature. Ideally, the door opening sequence
would allow for opening the main door and the drawers. This would require a very elaborate
test set-up that is currently not foreseen in the test norms.

Figure 2: Test results for static counter freezer

2,50 2,33

2,00

1,50 1,31 Static storage counter

kWh/day

1.25 freezer

1,00 Average forced air

counter freezers on
topten.eu
0,50

0,00
EN 16825:2016 EN ISO
23953:2015

The test of the static storage counter freezer indicates that static cabinets can achieve a
high energy efficiency compared to forced-air cabinets, while meeting the required tempera-
ture performance requirements. They seem particularly suitable for use-cases for which the
 ProCold Testing Results, page 8/5

extra opening of the drawers does not constitute a significant burden (e.g. when the freezer
is only opened sparingly).

For the future, it is recommended to include static cabinets in ecodesign and energy label
regulation to allow for such direct comparison of energy performance. Given the signifi-
cantly lower energy consumption it is conceivable that static cabinets could also meet per-
formance demands of full door openings while still displaying improved or similar energy
consumption characteristics. However, when this is not the case a direct comparison is
limited and should be avoided or the use-case (drawers required) clearly marked.

Of course, when installing refrigeration cabinets, settings have to be carefully adjusted to

meet all temperature demands (in this case a lower thermostat setting was required).

More information

For more information on the ProCold project, please visit

topten.eu/pro-cold

ProCold is implemented by:

ADEME – Agence De l’Environment et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie (France), AEA – Austrian Energy

Agency (Austria), Bush Energie (Switzerland), Guide Topten (France), Oeko-Institut – Institute for Ap-
plied Ecology (Germany), Politecnico Milano – Dipartimento di Energia (Italy), Quercus – National As-
sociation for Nature Conservation (Portugal), SEVEn (Czech Republic), and SSNC – Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation (Sweden)
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and inno-
vation programme under grant agreement No 649293. The sole responsibility for the content of
this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European
Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may
be made of the information contained therein.
A6 ‐ Policy recommendations final

3rd Periodic Report PRO COLD 649293

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

ProCold Policy Recommendations for Professional and Commercial Cold products

Maike Hepp, Bush Energie GmbH, Switzerland

14 March 2018
Project Partners

This ProCold project has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No 649293.

The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the
opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use
that may be made of the information contained therein.

2
TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Content ....................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................. 4

Professional Refrigerated Storage Cabinets (LOT 1) .................... 4

Commercial Refrigerated Display Cabinets (LOT 12) .................. 7

Conclusion ............................................................................... 9

Additional facts about ProCold ................................................. 10

References .............................................................................. 11

3
INTRODUCTION

About the ProCold project

ProCold is a European project in the framework of Horizon 2020, supporting the development and
market penetration of energy efficient commercial and professional refrigeration equipment. The
project aims at stimulating both the supply and demand side market for environmentally friendly
efficient technology by various market oriented services, including among others a web‐based
product database for efficient products, procurement guidelines and tools and a product
competition. The project is implemented in 8 countries (DE, FR, CH, IT, CZ, PT, SE, AT).

The services and tools provided by the project are based on long‐term experience with the specific
technologies and market in the different countries. The position concerning the draft legislation
documents for commercial display refrigeration and regulation review for professional storage
refrigeration summarised here therefore is based both on long‐term experience in this field and on
work from the initial stage of the ProCold project.

The goal of ProCold is to support public authorities in designing and updating current and future
European regulations.

OVERVIEW INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC AUTORITIES AND POLICY

STAKEHOLERS
In the member states of the EU 12 times more household refrigerators and freezers exist than
professional cold products, but the household sector only uses two times more energy – for
household 84 TWh vs. commercial/professional 43 TWh (2015). Regulation for household
refrigeration appliances has led to tremendous technical innovations and energy savings while the
regulation for professional and commercial refrigerators is still in its early stages.

ProCold has supported not only the development and market penetration of energy efficient
commercial and professional refrigeration equipment. ProCold has also continuously supported
public authorities and key stakeholders for the development, implementation and improvement of
relevant legislation. The main meetings and stakeholders as well as the resulting ProCold policy
recommendations are presented in this document.

PROFESSIONAL REFRIGERATED STORAGE CABINETS (LOT 1)

In May 2015, the EU labelling and eco‐design regulations for professional refrigerated storage
cabinets were adopted and since 1st July 2016 the EU energy label and the first tier of minimum
requirements are in effect. On January 2018, the second tier came into effect and models of
efficiency class G were banned from the market with the exception of heavy‐duty cabinets 1.

In a market survey about product labelling online, ProCold established that in September 2017, 56
% of products displayed online were still not declared with a label. For this survey, ProCold
accessed the websites of manufacturers of storage refrigerators and freezers and verified if the
information pertaining to the devices’ energy class was clearly declared. For each manufacturer,
the data was collected from one national website that was representative of the European market
for that brand. This internet overview included 1914 models by 23 manufacturers and was
compared to a similar survey from November 2016 (747 models from 21 brands) where 58 % of

1
‘ Heavy-duty cabinet’ means a professional refrigerated storage cabinet capable of continuously maintaining
chilled or frozen operating temperature in all its compartment(s) in ambient conditions corresponding to climate
class 5 (40 °C, 40 % RH) but where energy consumption is measured at climate class 4 (30 °C, 55 % RH).

4
products did not show a label from the manufacturer. The very slight reduction of 2% in one year
shows that there is still significant need for improvement and increased market surveillance.

Market surveillance (levelling the playing field for all market players) is one of the biggest concerns
of manufacturers. The EU Member States (being responsible for market surveillance) will strongly
influence the acceptance and efficacy of the new rules, depending on how much resources they can
put to check on their national market and to provide to manufacturers a process to deal with
doubts about competitors, as well as providing clear outlines about labelling requirements.

During the online survey and subsequent talks with manufacturers and buyers 2, it was established
that in order to help market players to adapt the EU labelling and eco‐design regulations, public
authorities can provide support especially by:

 Proactive communication about existing and coming EU energy labels and rules to eliminate
uncertainties regarding test methods and scope of the regulations
 Tackling some shortcomings of the regulation in the next revision
o Adaptation of the regulation is needed to eliminate ambiguities in the scope
o Adaptation to match with B2B (business to business) market conditions

The scope of the regulation is not absolutely clear with regards to the definition of “food
processing” and “thawing” 3 (especially as many more sophisticated freezers may, through their
digital and remote controls, increase the temperature to allow the thawing process as the certain
time). Requirements prescribing the product declaration on the internet were formulated without
taking fully into account the fundamental differences between B2C and B2B markets. Making the
label mandatory near the presence of price‐related or energy‐related information on advertising
materials is not sufficient to guarantee that the energy efficiency class is shown on‐line because
many manufacturers do not mention this information in the first place. Trade fairs should also be
explicitly listed as “point of sale” as high sales volumes are generated especially during trade fairs. 4

The review process of the Ecodesign Directive for professional refrigerated storage cabinets will
start in July 2018. Since the introduction of the Ecodesign and Labelling regulations, several
positive impacts have already been achieved:

 The first A+ model is already available on the market (counter refrigerator from Adande Refrigeration)
 Various class A products are available on the market for all refrigeration types (counter, 1‐door, 2‐doors)
 Class B products are available on the market for counter and 1‐door freezers
 The classes A+, A++ and A+++ are defined to welcome future products (i.e. efficiency can continue to be
highlighted)
 Declaration of energy consumption is mandatory for refrigerator‐freezers and blast cabinets, even if they
are exempt from labelling and Ecodesign requirements. As such, it is now possible to consider also energy
cost, and not only purchase price, when comparing products

These are the ProCold recommendations for the upcoming review of the regulations for
professional refrigerated storage cabinets:

1. Minimum requirements should be stricter: min. class D (EEI < 75) should be the first tier implemented
because total annual electricity consumption of professional refrigeration keeps increasing despite
expected and realized label and Ecodesign savings; BAT products on Topten show that enough products
would still be available on the market and exceptions could be planned for special product categories if
absolutely necessary.

2
The results and conclusions of this market survey were communicated to more than 300
stakeholders in a Topten Focus notification.
3
The Label does not apply if more than 20% of the volume of the refrigerator is dedicated to food
processing or if more than one compartment is specifically designed for thawing frozen foodstuffs in
a controlled manner.
4 http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/Declaration_Overview_of_Storage_refrigerators.pdf

5
2. Remove exemption for heavy‐duty cabinets from minimum requirements in the Ecodesign: "heavy‐duty"
cabinets are at the moment exempt from the Ecodesign requirements for energy efficiency after the first
trier in 2016 (EEI < 115). This might be because in the initial phase they were measured in climate class 5
(40°C, 40% RH). However, energy consumption and EEI for heavy‐duty cabinets is currently measured in
class 4 (30°C, 50% RH) and the Topten database shows that most of the best available technology (BAT)
models on the European market are currently heavy duty. Therefore, exempting heavy‐duty cabinets from
the minimum requirements is not justified anymore and the regulation should be adapted accordingly.

3. Refrigerator‐freezers should be included in the label as the declaration of energy consumption has been
mandatory since 1. July 2016. A clear instruction for testing of the different compartments is strongly
advised to avoid different interpretations.

4. Static‐air storage cabinets should be included in the revision of the Lot 13 household Ecodesign
regulation together with commercial wine coolers and minibars; if there is a risk that this would
unintentionally ban specialized types of static‐air cabinets for non‐household use, they could have
different minimum energy efficiency requirements, but should still be covered by product information
requirements and energy labelling. Otherwise, static‐air storage cabinets should be covered by product
information requirements in the regulation for professional refrigeration. Currently there is a gap in
product information as it is at the discretion of suppliers and dealers to decide whether a product is
intended for household or professional purposes and therefore should or should not be labelled.
The ProCold tests showed that static cabinets can achieve a high energy efficiency compared to forced‐air
cabinets, while meeting the required temperature performance requirements. They seem particularly
suitable for use‐cases for which the extra opening of the drawers does not constitute a significant burden
(e.g. when the freezer is only opened sparingly).

5. Showcase products using green refrigerants on the EU energy label: In the original regulation, this chance
was missed. The F‐gas ban in 2022 is coming and there are still barriers to switch to green refrigerants.
Further activities to support the switch are needed to avoid any more sales of products using old, climate‐
damaging refrigerants. We recommend mandatory display of the refrigerant on the EU energy label to be
implemented in the upcoming review. We also suggest the Commission to clearly define “green”
refrigerants to prevent harmful artificial substances entering the market.

6. Mandatory labelling online, in print and at trade fairs without limitation to when price and energy
information is also displayed (as described above).

7. Ice‐machines should be included in the scope of the regulation for Ecodesign and labelling. The market for
ice‐machines is bigger than for blast cabinets and saving potentials are substantial. At least a mandatory
declaration for energy and water consumption should be added to the Ecodesign documents to provide
data that can be used as basis for the introduction of an energy classification in the next review; as no
international test standard currently exists, we recommend that CEN /CENELEC are given a mandate to
develop a test procedure.

8. Include mandatory declaration of energy data for remote systems: remote systems are currently not
covered by Ecodesign and labelling. The information currently available on the market does not allow
procurers to know if the implementation of a remote system or an assortment of plug‐in appliances for
their requirements would be the more efficient solution. The regulation should make it possible for buyers
to make informed decisions.

9. ProCold strongly encourages CEN/CENELEC to eliminate grey areas in definitions and test standards
(example: placement of m‐packages during the testing for energy consumption now that the area behind
pillars is officially part of the net volume) and to proactively communicate about existing and coming EU
energy labels and rules. Discussions with manufacturers have shown that further support is needed in

6
 interpreting the new EN5 testing standards. Ideally questions and answers should be officially
communicated by the EC or CEN/CENELEC. Topten will help to spread know‐how to manufacturers.

While the introduction of the regulation for professional refrigerated storage cabinets has already
lead to great technical improvements, there are still large untapped saving potentials that could be
achieved if the above policy recommendations would be included in the upcoming review.

Topten will continue providing technical input to prepare the review study which will start mid
2019.

COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATED DISPLAY CABINETS (LOT 12)

EU labelling and eco‐design regulations for this group of products are still in preparation after a
stagnant phase between 2015‐2017. The latest working documents are the Draft Energy Label and
Draft Ecodesign Regulation from DG Energy for Refrigerated Commercial Display Cabinets dates
back to 2014. Policy priorities for 2018 indicate that a resumption of the work on this LOT (LOT 12)
is planned for the second half of 2018, with adoption and possible coming into effect in 2019.

While many manufacturers have delayed measuring and declaring their products according to
official test standards due to uncertainties regarding possible changes that may come during the
next consultation forum, the slowly growing numbers of models listed in the Topten database show
that data availability improved since 2015. This is due in part to growing awareness on energy
efficiency as sales argument and procurement criterion, as a result of the EU regulations in
preparation and also due to projects like ProCold and Topten that specifically help the market for
high‐efficiency products develop. In the absence of relevant regulation, an important motivation
for manufacturers to provide standardised product information have been the rebate programmes
for energy efficient commercial and professional refrigeration appliances in Switzerland and
Austria (set‐up by national ProCold teams).

According to ProCold calculations based on JRC estimates, the delay in regulation has led to annual
savings lost of 34 TWh by 2024, meaning that the regulation would lead to more purchases of
efficient products over the years, accumulating more and more energy savings. A swift resumption
of the regulation process is of high importance.

ProCold recommends the following aspects to be included in the new regulation to ensure its
efficiency:

1. It is very good, that the energy label should reserve the two top classes (B and A) for future innovation
and that best available technology on the market should be at best in class C at the time of adoption.

2. the energy efficiency index (EEI) formula should be transparent: it should avoid correction factors and
take into account only minimal product segmentation. To preserve a certain comparability of total energy
consumption in relation to net volume / display area, it is better to introduce separate minimum
requirements and label classes for critical types such as serve‐over counters and roll‐in cabinets instead of
creating a separate EEI calculation. An example is the risk of a bonus for beverage coolers intended for
warmer climates: The precedence with household refrigerators shows that practically all refrigerators sold
in Europe are marked for climate classes up to tropical, because they get a 20% bonus for it. However, this
means that their components are over‐dimensioned and not at optimal efficiency.

3. Commission a new study to provide new M and N values for EEI calculation: already some beverage
coolers reach EEI < 10. If this would delay the implementation of the regulation, the study should take
place after the implementation and provide information for the first review (it is more important to have a
label to start with than to delay it again).

5 EN 16825:2016

7
4. The second tier of minimum requirements should trigger significant market development: within 3‐4
years after the formal adoption of the Ecodesign and energy labelling regulations, in the second tier all
open freezers should be banned and all open refrigerators should be top‐efficient by today’s standard.

5. Total display area (TDA) is not the best parameter to calculate the EEI. There is a risk that cabinets with
glass sides will have an unintended advantage over better insulated cabinets. One possible solution would
be to consider only the area of the main glass side (front for vertical cabinets, top for chests) instead of the
total display area.

6. All minibars, wine coolers and static‐air display cabinets should be included in the revision of the Lot 13
household Ecodesign regulation; if there is a risk that this would unintentionally ban specialized types of
static‐air cabinets for non‐household use, they could have different minimum energy efficiency
requirements, but should still be covered by the same product information requirements and energy
labelling. Otherwise they should be covered by product information requirements in the regulation for
commercial refrigeration (including absorption and thermoelectric based systems). Currently there is a gap
in product information as it is at the discretion of suppliers and dealers to decide whether a product is
intended for household or professional purposes and therefore should or should not be labelled.

7. Detail how to deal with special categories like roll‐in cabinets, semi‐vertical cabinets and serve‐over
counters. ProCold strongly recommends that MEPS are less tight for these categories but that they are
based on the same EEI calculations as the energy label instead of further segmentation in the EEI
calculation because with increased segmentation transparency would be lost.

8. Mandatory labelling online, in print and at trade fairs without limitation to proximity to price and energy
information as described above for professional refrigeration to adapt to the B2B market.

9. Stipulate consistent instructions on testing of products' series: a controversial issue for testing and
declaration of energy data are the high variety of different configurations possible for each model. If not
each model is tested separately, the regulation should stipulate a general rule for worst‐case testing or
adjustment calculations where possible.

Testing for saving potentials: While it is known that considerable saving potentials can be realized
by increasing energy efficiency for non‐household refrigeration cabinets, a direct comparison to
the efficient (and long regulated) household refrigeration appliances is difficult because the
difference in efficiency must be contributed to three main factors:

 the higher energy consumption of commercial and professional refrigerators due to higher technical
requirements (ambient temperature, number of door openings, food safety, sound warning systems)
 the different test standards that make comparing results difficult to impossible
 the different efficiency of the products themselves

In order to clarify the second of those factors, ProCold tested 2 beverage coolers (1 glass door, 1
solid door) and one household refrigerator (A+++) by both the EN 16902:2016 for beverage coolers
and the EN 62552:2013 for household refrigerating appliances. The results show that no matter
which norm was applied, the beverage cooler with a solid door consumed 4 times as much energy
as the household refrigerator of a comparable size and the beverage cooler with glass door
consumed 5 to 6 times as much energy as the household refrigerator. While a factor of 2 could be
explained by the higher technical requirements, this still leaves a factor of 3 – 5 pure efficiency
potential. For appliances without door, an additional factor of estimated 6 would have to be added
to take into account the "pure" inefficiency of open appliances.

This example conveys the tremendous efficiency potential that is not being realized in the absence
of regulation for commercial refrigeration appliances.

Because of the delays in the EU policy process for Lot12 and the new EN standards, uncertainty
regarding product declaration remains. Identification of best products, green procurement
guidelines etc. will be far easier when the EU energy label and related MEPS is finalised.

8
CONCLUSION
For professional refrigerated storage cabinets, many class A and even the first A+ class appliances
were available on the market not even one year after the coming into effect of the Ecodesign and
labelling regulations for Lot 1. With the introduction of an EU energy label for Lot 12, the same
rapid development could easily be realized for commercial appliances as well.

Many European manufacturers support the introduction of an energy label for commercial
refrigerated display cabinets as it enables them to show the true advantages of their technical
innovations on a fair market.

Market surveillance (and fair play of all market players) is one of the biggest concerns of
manufacturers. The EU Member States (being responsible for market surveillance) will strongly
influence the acceptance and efficacy of the new rules, depending on how much resources they can
put to level the playing field on their national market and to provide to manufacturers a process to
deal with doubts about competitors. This is valid for both professional and commercial
refrigeration appliances.

We are aware that there are some technical issues to be clarified – such as a new study to obtain
current M and N values for EEI calculation or defining how to test products’ series – but that
should not slow down the general process as even a label that is not as effective as it could be
under perfect circumstances is still much more efficient than no label at all.

9
ADDITIONAL FACTS ABOUT PROCOLD
ProCold is a European project designed to support the market development for energy efficient
commercial refrigeration equipment. The project is funded in the framework of the Horizon 2020
programme.

www.topten.eu/pro‐cold

Project Coordination:

ADEME, French Agency for Environment and Energy Management

Project Partners:

Austria: Austrian Energy Agency, AEA

Czech Republic: The Energy Efficiency Center, SEVEn

France: Guide Topten

Germany: Oeko‐Institut e.V.

Italy: Politecnico di Milano

Portugal: Quercus

Sweden: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

Switzerland: Bush Energie GmbH

Project duration:

01.02.2015 – 31.01.2018

10
REFERENCES
[1] Draft energy label and Ecodesign regulation DG ENER Lot 12 refrigerated commercial
display cabinets (September 2015); detailed graphs for different product types showing
the label classes, Tier 1 and Tier 2.

[2] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1060/2010 of 28 September 2010

supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with
regard to energy labelling of household refrigerating appliances

[3] Commission Regulation (EC) No 643/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive

2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign
requirements for household refrigerating appliances

[4] Interim report, Ecodesign & Labelling Review Household Refrigeration, June 2015,
prepared by VHK and ARMINES for the European Commission, www.ecodesign‐fridges.eu

[5] Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2015/1094 of 5 May 2015 supplementing Directive
2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the energy
labelling of professional refrigerated storage cabinets

[6] Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1095 of 5 May 2015 implementing Directive

2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign
requirements for professional refrigerated storage cabinets, blast cabinets, condensing
units and process chillers

[7] Ecodesign for Commercial Refrigeration, Preparatory study update Final report, 2014 by
the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC).
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/comrefrig/index.html

[8] Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April
2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006

[9] European Standard (EN) 16825:2016, for classification, requirements and test conditions
of refrigerated storage cabinets and counters for professional use

[10] European Standard (EN) 16901:2016, for classification, requirements and test conditions
of ice‐cream freezers

[11] European Standard (EN) 16902:2016, for classification, requirements and test conditions
of commercial beverage coolers

[12] European Standard (EN) ISO 23953‐2:2015, for classification, requirements and test
conditions of refrigerated display cabinets

[13] ProCold website www.topten.eu/pro‐cold

o Product lists ‘Professional Refrigerators’ with top‐efficient commercial and
professional products using green refrigerants
o Policy recommendations for commercial and professional refrigeration products
o Procurement guidelines for storage refrigerators and freezers, minibars and wine
coolers and water coolers

11