Vending Energy Tests: EVA EMP 3.1a, EMP 3.1b or IEC 63252?

An energy-test reference in a vending quotation needs its full name and version. EVA EMP 3.1a and EMP 3.1b have different histories and machine scopes. Treating both as simply “EMP tested” can hide a material difference when reviewing a refrigerated cabinet alongside a hot drinks machine.

What happened to EMP 3.1a?

In its August 2019 withdrawal notice, the European Vending and Coffee Service Association said that it withdrew EMP 3.1a for refrigerated vending machines as an industry protocol on 1 July 2019. The notice identifies European standard EN 50597 as its replacement.

The notice also explains a source of confusion in older brochures: the voluntary EMP comparison scale ran from A++ to G, whereas the new EU energy label used A to G. An old EMP class therefore cannot simply be relabelled as the same class under the EU scheme. If an archived brochure supplies the only energy claim, request current evidence for the exact model being offered.

The notice discusses a transition ending in March 2021. Its statements about what could be communicated during that transition describe that historical period; they should not be presented as a current ban on energy labels.

Was EMP 3.1b withdrawn too?

No. The same notice explicitly states that EMP 3.1b for hot drinks machines remained valid and was outside that withdrawal. EVA’s current technical standards overview continues to support EMP 3.1b for hot and cold drinks machines and identifies IEC 63252 for refrigerated vending machines. Its download list describes EMP 3.1b as the protocol for hot drinks machines.

Do not choose the test route solely from the word “cold” in a product description. Ask the supplier to identify the equipment category, the complete protocol or standard designation and the edition actually used in its report. A machine preparing drinks and a refrigerated cabinet selling packaged drinks need a clear scope explanation before their figures are placed in one comparison.

How should a buyer handle mixed evidence?

Keep an old EMP 3.1a brochure separate from a current refrigerated-machine test report. Ask for the report supporting the proposed model and configuration, and have the supplier explain the applicable method. A change of method is a reason to clarify the comparison; it is not enough to infer an efficiency improvement or deterioration from a changed letter.

For a hot drinks proposal citing EMP 3.1b, request that version in the supporting documentation rather than rejecting it because a refrigerated-machine EMP protocol was withdrawn. For a refrigerated proposal citing IEC 63252, request the complete report reference and model identity. This article explains the publicly stated distinction; it does not reproduce test conditions from the full protocols.

Once the evidence uses an appropriate and explained basis, compare the reported configuration, included equipment and measurement conditions. Our vending energy comparison guide covers those separate checks. A laboratory result still needs context before being used to estimate a site’s electricity bill.

What should go into the quotation request?

Send the intended machine format, products, target country and any tender requirement. Ask for the test standard and edition, the report’s model designation and the supporting result. Identify an old EMP class as an unresolved evidence item until the supplier provides an appropriate current explanation.

No specific WEIMI model’s energy test or certification is established by the association’s general guidance. Include your documentation requirements when requesting the equipment proposal: Get My Custom Quote.