Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov1BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAMEnergy Conservation StandardsPreliminary Analysis PublicMeeting for Automatic CommercialIce MakersCharles LlenzaDepartment of EnergyEnergy Efficiency & Renewable EnergyACIM-2010-STD-0037@ee.doe.govFebruary 16, 2012Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov2• Introductions• Role of the facilitator• Ground rules (norms)– Listen as an ally– Use short, succinct statements/keep to the point– Hold sidebar conversations outside the room– Focus on issues, not personalities– One person speak at a time (raise hand to be recognized; stateyour name for the record)– Set cell phones to silent/vibrate• Housekeeping itemsWelcome & IntroductionsBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov3Agenda9:00 am – 9:30 am9:30 am – 9:40 am9:40 am – 10:40 am10:40 am – 11:20 am11:20 am – 11:50 am11:50 am – 12:05 pm12:05 pm – 1:00 pm1:00 pm – 1:30 pm1:30 pm – 2:00 pmWelcomeOverview & Test Procedure Final RuleMarket/Technology, Screening & Engineering AnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback AnalysisShipments Analysis & National Impact AnalysisManufacturer Impact AnalysisLunchNotice of Proposed Rulemaking AnalysesNext Steps & Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov4Request for CommentIssue Box: DOE welcomes comment regarding the Notice ofPublic Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary TechnicalSupport Document. Throughout this presentation, specificissues will be raised for discussion in yellow issue boxes.However, comments concerning any part of the document orpresentation are welcome.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov5Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis5Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses64Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2Market/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysis7Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov6Purpose of this Public Meeting– To inform all interested parties and to facilitate this rulemakingprocess– Present the procedural and analytical approaches to evaluateenergy conservation standards (ECS) for automatic commercialice makers (ACIM)– Provide a forum for public discussions and comments on therulemaking issues and rulemaking presentation– Encourage interested parties tosubmit data, information, andwritten commentsOverview & Test Procedure Final RuleBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov7ACIM Regulatory History• Energy Policy Act (EPACT) 2005 amended the EnergyPolicy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to:– Prescribe standards for cube ice makers with capacities between50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours, effective January 1, 2010– Authorize DOE to issue standardsfor other types of automaticcommercial ice makers that are not covered by the cube icestandards– Direct DOE to issue a final rule, that is technologically feasibleand economically justified, no later than January 1, 2015• Test Procedure Final Rule published 77 FR 1591– Federal Register Publication on January 11, 2012– Effective date of this rule is February 10, 2012– Mandatory for all ACIM testing starting January 7, 2013Overview & Test Procedure Final RuleBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov82010ECS FrameworkDocument PublicMeetingDecember 16, 2010ECS PreliminaryAnalysisPublic MeetingFebruary 16, 2012ECS NOPRPublic MeetingPlanned - Winter 20122014201220132016Proposed EnergyConservationStandard Final RuleEffective DateSummer, 2016ACIM Rulemaking TimelineTP NOPRPublic MeetingApril 29, 20112011Overview & Test Procedure Final RuleBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov9Market andTechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisEnergy UseAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisPreliminaryManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisOverview & Test Procedure Final RuleBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov10Overview & Test Procedure Final RuleAt this time DOE welcomes opening remarks on the preliminaryanalysis for automatic commercial ice makers.Interested Parties’ Opening StatementsBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov11Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis54Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2Market/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysisNotice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses67Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov12Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisMarket Assessment• Purpose– Characterize the ACIM equipment market and manufacturers– Determine scope of coverage– Determine appropriate equipment classes• Method– Identify manufacturers of ACIM equipment and their productofferings by conducting a study of the ACIM market– Use available shipment data to characterize market trends– Develop appropriate equipment classes to classify coveredequipment• A detailed description of methodology and results iscontained in chapter 3 of the preliminary technicalsupport document (TSD)Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov13Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisEquipment Classes• EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, prescribed standards forautomatic commercial ice makers, effective January 1, 2010(42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1))– Thirteen covered classes for ice makers that produce cube-type ice• Four equipment families: ice-making head (IMH), self-contained unit (SCU),and remote condensing unit (RCU) with and without remote compressors• Air or water cooled• Two to three divisions by ice-making capacity, from 50 to 2,500 lb/day– Continuous ice makers were not covered by standards• For this rulemaking, DOE is considering a total of 25 coveredclasses forbatchandcontinuousice makers up to 4,000 lb/day– The test procedure rule established new definitions for batch andcontinuous ice maker types (77 FR 1591)– Preliminary TSD chapter 3 contains a full listing of equipment classesBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov14Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisAutomatic Commercial Ice Maker Equipment ClassesEquipment TypeType ofCoolingHarvest Capacity Ratelb/24 hoursType of IceMakerEquipment ClassNomenclatureIce-Making Head (IMH)Water≥50 and <500 Batch IMH-W-Small-B≥500 and <1,436 Batch IMH-W-Medium-B≥1,436 and≤4,000 Batch IMH-W-Large-BAir≥50 and <450 Batch IMH-A-Small-B≥450 and≤4,000 Batch IMH-A-Large-BRemote Condensing (RCU)(but not remote compressor)Air≥50 and <1,000 Batch RCU-NRC-Small-B≥1,000 and≤4,000 Batch RCU-NRC-Large-BRemote Condensing (RCU) andRemote CompressorAir≥50 and <934 Batch RCU-RC-Small-B≥934 and≤4,000 Batch RCU-RC-Large-BSelf-Contained Unit (SCU)Water≥50 and <200 Batch SCU-W-Small-B≥200 and≤4,000 Batch SCU-W-Large-BAir≥50 and <175 Batch SCU-A-Small-B≥175 and≤4,000 Batch SCU-A-Large-BIce-Making Head (IMH)Water≥50 and <1000 Continuous IMH-W-Small-C≥1,000 and≤4,000 Continuous IMH-W-Large-CAir≥50 and <1000 Continuous IMH-A-Small-C≥1,000 and≤4,000 Continuous IMH-A-Large-CRemote Condensing (RCU)(but not remote compressor)Air≥50 and <1000 Continuous RCU-NRC-Small-C≥1,000 and≤4,000 Continuous RCU-NRC-Large-CRemote Condensing (RCU) andRemote CompressorAir≥50 and <1000 Continuous RCU-RC-Small-C≥1,000 and≤4,000 ContinuousRCU-RC-Large-CSelf-Contained Unit (SCU)Water≥50 and <175 Continuous SCU-W-Small-C≥175 and≤4,000 Continuous SCU-W-Large-CAir≥50 and <175 Continuous SCU-A-Small-C≥175 and≤4,000 Continuous SCU-A-Large-CBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov15Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 3: Equipment ClassesDOE seeks comment regarding the suggested equipmentclasses.Item A: Equipment ClassesDOE would like to know if there are different types ofequipment with significant annual shipments that do not fallunder any of the equipment classes considered for thepreliminary analysis.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov16Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisTechnology Assessment• Purpose– To develop a preliminary list oftechnology options that couldimprove the efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers• Method– DOE identified technology options from:• Literature review• Manufacturer brochures and specification sheets for commerciallyavailable equipment• Comments and input from stakeholders• All technology options are described in chapter 3 of thepreliminary TSDBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov17Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisTechnology OptionsBatchIce MakersContinuousIce MakersNotesCompressorImproved compressor efficiency√ √Part-load operation√ √CondenserIncreased surface area√ √Enhanced fin surfaces√ √Air-cooled onlyIncreased air flow√ √Air-cooled onlyIncreased water flow√ √Water-cooled onlyBrazed plate condenser√ √Water-cooled onlyFans and Fan MotorHigher efficiency condenser fansand fan motors√ √Air-cooled onlyOther MotorsImproved auger motor efficiency√Improved pump motor efficiency√EvaporatorIncreased surface area√ √Design options which reduceenergy loss due to evaporatorthermal cycling√Design options which reduceharvest meltage or reduceharvest time√Insulation Improved or thicker insulation√ √Refrigeration Line Largerdiameter suction line√ √Primarily remote compressorequipmentPotable WaterReduced potable water flow√Drain water thermal exchange√Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice MakersBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov18Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem B: TechnologiesDOE asks interested parties to comment on othertechnologies that DOE should consider.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov19Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisScreening Analysis• Purpose– To determine technology options considered in downstreamanalyses by screening out options if they• Are not technologically feasible• Are not practicable to manufacture, install, and service• Have adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability tocustomers• Have adverse impacts on health or safety• DOE also removed from consideration technologies thatdo not affect calculated energy consumption asmeasured by the DOE test procedure• The methodology and results are presented in detail inchapter 4 of the preliminary TSDBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov20Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisTechnologiesRemoved fromConsiderationDesign OptionEPCA Criteria for Screening OutNot Considered in the Analysisfor Other Reasons

Technological Feasibility Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service Adverse Impacts on Product Utility Adverse Impacts on Health and Safety No Energy Savings or Savings not Measurable Test Procedure Efficiency Metric does not capture Savings Proprietary TechnologyCompressor Part Load Operation√ √Increased Surface Area for WaterCooled Condensers in Batch IceMakers√ √Enhanced Fin Surfaces√Increased Condenser Water Flow√Brazed Plate Condenser√Increased Evaporator Surface Area(Batch Ice Makers)√Technology Options to ReduceEvaporator Thermal Cycling√Technology Options Which ReduceHarvest Meltage or Reduce HarvestTime√Improved or Thicker Insulation√Larger Diameter Suction Line√Reduced Potable Water Flow√Drain Water Thermal Exchange√Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov21Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 8: Proprietary Evaporator DesignsDOE requests information regarding the proprietary status oflow-thermal-mass evaporator designs, such as the designsfound in Hoshizaki batch ice makers. Specifically, DOE seeksinput on which relevant patents are still active, and what otherforms of intellectual property ownership might be associatedwith such designs. DOE also seeks input on whetherproprietary status is the keyreason that other manufacturerswould not be able to adopt such designs.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov22Engineering Analysis• Purpose– To establish cost-efficiency curves, or the relationship betweenthe manufacturer production cost and energy consumptionassociated with each efficiency level in each equipment classMarket/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov23Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisEngineering Analysis• Methods– Conduct reverse engineering on equipment currently being sold in themarket: 19 different ice makers belonging to 9 different equipment classes– Conduct energy testing per the DOE testprocedure; tested 10 of the 19 icemakers– Determine the baseline configuration for each equipment class– Use results from reverse engineering and energy testing to develop andcalibrate energy consumption modelsfor automatic commercial ice makers– Determine the impacts of design options on efficiency and cost to developthe cost-efficiency curves– Extrapolate results to the full set of equipment classes• The methodology and results are presented in detail inchapter 5 of the preliminary TSDBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov24Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisEngineering Approach• DOE used a combined design-option/ efficiency-level/manufacturing-cost approach to estimate the effect ofimplementing advanced technologies– For a baseline unit, DOE first calculated:• Energy consumption to produce 100 pounds of ice• Cost– DOE added advanced technologies to the baseline andcalculated:• Reduction in energy consumption to produce 100 pounds of ice• Incremental cost– Finally, DOE sorted the technologies in order from most to leastcost-effective and evaluated costs at preselected efficiencylevels• Result: Cost-Efficiency Curves, as described earlierBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov25Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisFlow Diagram of Engineering Analysis MethodologyEnergy TestingManufacturerInterviewsReverseEngineeringVendor InterviewsManufacturingCost ModelsIncremental CostEstimatesCost-EfficiencyCurvesEnergy ModelsEnergy ModelDevelopmentBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov26Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisBaseline Efficiency Levels• Baseline Efficiency Levels for Batch Ice Makers– Currently covered ice makers: equal to current DOE standards– Harvest capacity 2,500 to 4,000 lb/day: constant energy use atcurrent DOE standard level for harvest capacity of 2,500 lb/dayBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov27Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisBaseline Efficiency Levels, Continued• Baseline Efficiency Levels for Continuous Ice Makers– Energy use with ice hardness adjustment consistent with the testprocedure– Harvest capacity “break points” consistent with CEE Tier 2 criteria• 1,000 lb/day for IMH and RCU equipment• 175 lb/day for SCU equipment (both air- and water-cooled)– Baseline energy use levels selected that are met by nearly all products– Evaluation based on available energy use data (as of June 2011) andassumptions of ice hardness: 70% for flake; 85% for nugget– No distinction within the RCU class based on compressor location– Efficiency level equations are presented in chapter 5 of the TSD, andthey are plotted with ice maker data in chapter 3Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov28Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisDesignation*Harvest CapacityRange (lb/day)EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 Max. TechMax.AvailableIMH-W-Small-B< 500 10% 14% 25%IMH-W-Med-B≥500 and < 1,436 10% 10% 22%IMH-W-Large-B≥1,436 10% 15% 11% 23%IMH-A-Small-B< 450 10% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 20% 24%IMH-A-Large-B≥450 and < 1,600 10% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 20% 21%IMH-A-E-B**≥1,600 10% (E-STAR) 15% 20% N/A N/ARCU-NRC-Small-B< 1,000 9% (E-STAR) 15% 16.5% 20%RCU-NRC-Large-B≥1,000 9% (E-STAR) 15% 16.5% 27%RCU-RC-Small-B< 934 9% (E-STAR) 15% 12%RCU-RC-Large-B≥934 9% (E-STAR) 15% 15%SCU-W-Small-B< 200 7% 15% 20% 24% 25%SCU-W-Large-B≥200 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 39% 28%***SCU-A-Small-B< 175 7% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 25% 28% 32%SCU-A-Large-B≥175 7% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 25% 25% 31%*ENERGY STAR and CEE labels apply to air-cooled cubemachines at the efficiency levels indicated.** See additional detail on the following slide.*** This is the max available for “undercounter” self-contained equipment.Incremental Efficiency Levels (EL, % energyuse less than baseline) for Batch MachinesBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov290246810120 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs)HarvestRate(lbs/day)DOEStandard(EfficiencyLevel1)IncrementalEfficiencyLevel2IceMakerPerformanceData1,600lb/day4.6kWh/100lbs2,080lb/day4.6kWh/100lbs2,500lb/day4.1kWh/100lbsMarket/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisIncremental Efficiency LevelsSuggested efficiency levels for IMH-A-Extended-B ice makers have constantenergy use above harvest capacities of 1,600 lb/day and 2,500 lb/day, withnon-constant intermediate level energy use to avoid backsliding.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov30Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 5: Remote Condensing Unit Equipment ClassesThe current DOE standards for RCU cube ice makers includedifferent energy use levels for equipment with remotecompressors and equipment without remote compressors.DOE’s initial analysis of the energy use impact of the remotecompressor suggests that the 0.2 kWh/day differential forlarge-capacity remote compressor ice makers is appropriate(see the discussion on this topic inchapter 5 of the preliminaryTSD). DOE requests comment on this analysis and on DOE’sintent to maintain separate equipment classes for largecapacity RCU equipment (eitherbatch or continuous) usingthis same differential. DOE requests data and informationshowing that this, or an alternative energy use differential, isappropriate.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov31Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 6: Large Batch Ice Maker Efficiency LevelsDOE requests comment on the following approaches for development of energy standardsfor large-capacity batch ice makers in the harvest capacity range from 2,500 to 4,000 lb/24hours.•For batch ice makers for which the currentstandard in the highest harvest capacity rangeis a flat standard that is not dependent on harvest capacity, extend the harvest capacityrange up to 4,000 lb/24 hours. DOE is considering setting a standard for the extendedrange that is equal to the future standard selected for equipment in the current highestcapacity equipment class. This applies to batch ice makers of types IMH-W, RCU, andSCU.•For batch ice makers of type IMH-A, DOEis considering setting standards based on themodified interim efficiency level descriptionfor this harvest capacity range discussed inchapter 5 of the preliminary TSD andillustrated in a previous slide.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov32Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisDesignation*Harvest CapacityRange (lb/day)EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6Max.TechMax.AvailableIMH-W-Small-C< 1,000 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 33% 35%IMH-W-Large-C≥1,000 10% 15% 20% 24% 20%IMH-A-Small-C< 1,000 10% (E-STAR)15% 20% 25% 30% 42% 37%IMH-A-Large-C≥1,000 10% (E-STAR)15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 32%RCU-Small-C< 1,000 BatchBaseline10% lessthan EL216.5% 26%RCU-Large-C≥1,000 7% 17% 16.5% 42%SCU-W-Small-C< 175 20% lessthan batchbaseline25% lessthan batchbaseline30% lessthan batchbaselineN/A N/ASCU-W-Large-C≥175 3% 10% 16% 18% 15%SCU-A-Small-C< 175 7% 15% 18% 11%SCU-A-Large-C≥175 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 36% 39%*ENERGY STAR and CEE labels apply to air-cooled cubemachines at the efficiency levels indicated.Incremental Efficiency Levels (EL , % energy use less than baseline)for Continuous MachinesBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov33Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 4: Efficiency LevelsDOE requests comment on the suggested efficiency levels tobe used in the analysis for all of the equipment classes. DOErequests comment on the baseline efficiency levels forcontinuous ice machines. DOE also requests comment onusing the EPACT 2005 standards for cube type equipment asthe baseline for all batch equipment. In addition, DOErequests comment on the interim efficiency levels andmaximum technology levels for all analyzed equipmentclasses.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov34Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisIce MakerTypeEquipment Class Compressor Upgrade Condenser Fan Motors Pump Motors Auger Motors Air-Cooled Condensers Harvest Assist Batch FillBatch IMH-W-***-B * *IMH-A-***-B RCU-***-***-B SCU-W-***-B SCU-A-***-B Continuous IMH-W-***-C IMH-A-***-C RCU-***-***-C SCU-W-***-C SCU-A-***-C *Used in a few limited cases wherethis design option was applicable.Design Options by Equipment ClassBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov35Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 1: Ice Maker SizeIce maker efficiency could be improved in some cases by increasingthe size of heat exchangers (condensers and/or evaporators). Otherdesign options also may require more space within a given ice maker,including some compressor replacements and consideration of drainwater heat exchangers. DOE did not consider design options thatincrease package size in the preliminary analysis, because of thelimited space available in many applications for larger products, andbecause of the importance of the replacement market, for which spacerestrictions may be dictated by the size of the replaced equipment.This restriction did not extend to remote condensing units, for whichend users are expected to have greater flexibility for fitting largerdesigns. DOE requests comment on whether ice maker package sizeincrease should be considered in this rulemaking. If so, DOE requestscomment on how to select reasonable maximum sizes for ice makersin the analysis.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov36Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 2: Potable Water Use Minimum for Batch Ice MakersBatch ice maker efficiency is affected by potable water use.However, interested parties have pointed out that very lowpotable water use increases scaling of wet surfaces in the icemaker, leading to increased maintenance costs and potentiallyhigher energy use in the field. To help DOE determine whetherpractical energy conservation opportunities associated withpotable water use reduction exist, DOE requests input onwhat levels of potable water use can be consideredreasonable minimums for consideration in the analysis,whether the minimums depend on equipment class, and, if so,what this relationship is.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov37Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisIncrease of Condenser Water Use• Maximum allowable condenser water use is prescribed for currentlycovered water-cooled ice makers• Condenser water use is currentlynot regulated for continuous icemakers and batch ice makers with harvest capacity above2,500 lb/24 hours• Increasing condenser water use could save energy• DOE will consider increase of condenser water use for all icemakers addressed by this rulemaking– Potential increase of maximum allowable condenser water use incurrently-covered ice makers– DOE may use this approach to set condenser water use levels for icemakers that are not yet covered– New levels must be cost-effective, including water useBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov38Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisIncrease of Condenser Water Use, Continued• DOE plans to develop new condenser water use levels byconsidering the cost-effective balance of energy and water costs inthe engineering analysis– Calculate average life-cycle cost (LCC) using representative values forwater cost, electricity cost, discount rate, and equipment life– Consider increase of condenser water use at a given efficiency level if itis more cost effective (based on average LCC) than the remainingalternative design options– Consistent with the LCC approach,the analysis will assume all watercooled ice makers are installed in open loop (or single-pass)configuration.• This approach avoids development of multiple cost-efficiency curvesfor multiple condenser water flows, and selection of the most costeffective condenser water flow in the downstream analysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov39Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 9: Balance of Condenser Water Use and Energy Use in theAnalysesDOE requests comment on its suggested approach to includeconsideration of condenser wateruse increase as a design optionin the analysis (see chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD). Thisapproach uses estimates of LCC in the engineering analysis toevaluate the cost effectiveness ofdesign options that affect bothenergy and water use. DOE also requests comment on its intent touse such an approach to developcondenser water use standardsfor continuous ice machines.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov40Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisManufacturer Markup• Manufacturer selling price is the output of theengineering analysis– A manufacturer markup of 1.25 was applied to arrive atmanufacturer selling price.•Direct material•Direct labor•Factory overhead•Depreciation•Sales & marketing•Research & development•Shipping paid bymanufacturer•Interest•ProfitManufacturerProductionCost (MPC)ManufacturerMarkup=ManufacturerSelling Price(MSP)Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov41Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisItem 7: Manufacturer MarkupsDOE requests comment on whether the proposed markupfactor of 1.25 to mark up between MPC and MSP isappropriate, too high, or too low.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov42Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisEquipmentClassMax AvailableRepresentativeHarvestCapacitylb/24hoursEL2**EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6Max TechLevel CostIMH-W-***-B 10% 15% 20%Small25% 300$3214% $38Medium22% 850$2510% $25Large23% 1,500$1211% $188% 2,600 3% $12IMH-A-***-B10% 15% 20%Small24% 300$10 $24 $5520% $55Large21% 800$10 $29 $12620% $1261,500$12 $9015% $90RCU-***-***-B 9% 15% 20% 25%Small20% 700$12 $5016.5% $68Large40% 1,500$16 $8116.5% $10327% 2,400$14714% $204SCU-W-***-B 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small25% 110$10 $27 $4124% $55Large28% 300$10 $20 $27 $34 $4339% $67SCU-A-***-B 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small32% 110$10 $31 $45 $5628% $62Large31% 200$17 $35 $46 $6025% $60** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the baseline efficiency level while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.Cost-Efficiency Curve Results: Incremental MPC Results for Batch Ice MakersBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov43Market/Technology, Screening &Engineering AnalysisCost-Efficiency Curve Results: Incremental MPC Results for Continuous Ice MakersEquipment ClassMaxAvailableRepresentativeHarvest Capacitylb/24 hoursEL2**EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6Max TechLevel CostIMH-W-***-C 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small35% 800 $5 $12 $20 $27 $78 33% $78Large20% 1,000 $16 $24 $38 24% $751,800 $18 $28 $50 24% $125IMH-A-***-C10% 15% 20%25% 30%Small37% 310 $21 $35 $49 $63 $162 30% $162820 $10 $20 $28 $36 $44 42% $138Medium32% 1,000 $18 $25 $33 $41 $94 35% $1361,800 $25 $34 $43 $52 $126 35% $216RCU-***-***-CBatchStd.(7%)EL2-10%(17%)EL2-15%(22%)EL2-20%(26%)EL2-25%(30%)Small26% 700 $9 $68 16.5% $68Large42% 1,500 $10 $103 16.5% $103SCU-W-***-CBatchStd.-20%(3%)BatchStd.-25%(10%)BatchStd.-30%(16%)SmallNA*Large15% 300 $4 $12 $20 18% $22SCU-A-***-C 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small11% 110 $24 $46 18% $51Large39% 300 $- $17 $30 $46 $62 36% $162670 $- $37 $65 $98 $135 36% $335*No products of this equipment class wereidentified in product databases. ** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the baseline efficiency levelwhile EL2 through EL6 representincreased efficiency levels.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov44Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis54Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2Market/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysisNotice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses67Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov45Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisMarkups Analysis•Purpose–Determine the baseline and incremental price markups for translatingmanufacturers sales price into customer prices–Determine the market share weighting factor of each distribution channelDistribution ChannelsManufacturerCustomer CustomerManufacturerCustomerManufacturerWholesaler (Distributor)Wholesaler (Distributor)Dealer ChannelNational Account ChannelWholesaler ChannelDealer/ContractorBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov46Distribution ChannelWeighting FactorsSource: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007Economic SurveyMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem 11(a): Markup AssumptionsDOE requests interested parties’ comments on the sharevalues for the three major distribution channels through whichcommercial ice-making equipment is purchased by the enduser.NationalAccountChannel6.0%WholesalerChannel32.0%DealerChannel62.0%Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov47Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisMarkups Inputs• Industry balance sheets from HARDI for wholesalers profit data• U.S. Census Bureau data for mechanical contractor profit dataMarkups Methodology• Contractor and wholesaler expenses and markups:–Cost of goods sold–Labor expenses (salaries and benefits)–Occupancy expenses (rent, maintenance, utilities)–Other operating expenses (depreciation, advertising, insurance)–Profit• Express expenses and profit in terms of per dollar cost of goods soldand sum up the resulting numbers to obtain a baseline markup• Assumption for incremental markups: labor and operating expensesare fixed, and other operating expenses and profit scale withmanufacturer selling price (cost of goods sold)• National account markup is assumed to be half of the wholesalermarkupBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov48Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisPreliminary Weighted-Average Markups(Baseline/Incremental)WholesalerDealer(IncludesWholesaler)NationalAccountOverall WeightedAverage Markup, AllACIM EquipmentDistributionChannelMarkup1.36/1.092.01/1.301.18/1.051.75/1.21Markup(Incl. Sales Tax)1.46/1.172.15/1.391.27/1.121.88/1.30Sales Tax Multiplier1.07Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov49Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem 11(b): Markup Data SourcesDOE also requests additional data or data sources to use tocharacterize the costs of the localcontractor or dealer segment of thedealer/contractor channel.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov50Energy Use Analysis• Purpose– To determine the energy use of automatic commercial ice makers inreal-world conditions• Automatic commercial ice makers also use water, so the energy useanalysis was expanded to include water analysis• DOE analysis based on test procedure in combination with energyconsumption model presented in the engineering discussion• Engineering analysis estimates energy and water usage per100 lb/24 hours; subsequent DOE analyses require kilowatt-hourusage and gallons of water used per year• DOE assumed the equipment runs at50 percent of capacity (or halfof the time)• DOE assumed condenser water is used in single-pass (open loop)installationsMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov51Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem 14: Single-Pass ConfigurationDOE requests comment on the modeling of condenser waterusage assuming all ice makers are installed in a single-passconfiguration.Item 13: Utilization FactorsDOE seeks information on utilization factors or potential datasources that can be used to improve upon the currentassumption of 50-percent utilization factors.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov52Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisLCC and PBP Analysis Purpose• Estimate financial impacts on individual (commercial)customers by calculating–Life-cycle cost savings–Payback periodLCC and PBP Analysis Methodology• Life-cycle cost: Equipment-installed price + operatingcosts over the equipment lifetime–LCC savings: Base-case LCC minus standards-case LCC• Payback period: Equipment-incremental installed price /first-year operating cost savings• LCC is discounted; PBP is not discounted (“simple” PBP)Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov53Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisExperientialLearninginputBaselineManufacturerSelling PriceStd-LevelManufacturerSelling PriceInstallationCostFrom Engineering Analysis(price is a function ofefficiency)From Markups forEquipment PriceDetermination AnalysisRepair CostMaintenanceCostLifetimeDiscount RateElectricityand WaterPrice TrendsFrom Energy Use AnalysisEnergy andWaterConsumptionElectricityand WaterPricesDistributorMarkupSales TaxMechanicalContractorMarkupCustomerPriceData InputsIntermediateAnalysisOutput ResultsTotal InstalledCostAnnualEnergy andWater CostAnnualOperatingExpenseLifetimeOperatingExpensePaybackPeriodLife-CycleCostBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov54Experiential (Price) Learning• Experiential learning was introduced to capturehistorically observed decreases in MSP• Theory is that as manufacturers produce ever increasingnumbers of units, production costs decline asmanufacturers find better production methods• For the LCC and PBP analysis, MSP was adjusted fromthe current year to the year when the standards takeeffect (approximately 2 percent decline)Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem 12: Experiential (Price) LearningDOE seeks comment about the use of experiential learning toadjust MSP for expected future price changes.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov55Efficiency Levels – Effect of Current Standards• Standards set by EPACT 2005 went into effect on January 1,2010• For most batch equipment between 50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours,EPACT 2005 standards define the baseline efficiency levels• For continuous machines and for batch machines not coveredby EPACT 2005 standards, estimated current market baselineefficiency levels were obtained from the engineering analysis.Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem C: Baseline Efficiency LevelsDOE seeks comments on the methodology used to determinebaseline efficiency levels for the preliminary analysis.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov56Electricity and Water Prices• Current electricity prices based on EIA form 861 data–Specific to state and sector• Growth rates based on EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook(AEO 2011)–Specific to sector and region of the country• Both will be updated for the NOPR analysis• Energy prices extended to building type using CBECs data–Time-of-use pricing or marginal pricing were not used• Current water and wastewater prices based on AmericanWater Works Association rate survey– Specific to state and sector• Water and wastewater price growth based on CPI for waterutility costsMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov57• Installation costs– Estimated as a fixed percentageof the base (level 1) MSP– Average: $859 for remote condensing, $404 for SCU and $649 for IMH– Varied by state based on a state-level index developed using RSMeans data• Annual Repair costs– Estimated as a fixed percentage ofthe base (level 1) customerequipment cost– Average: $258 per year for remote condensing, $121 per year for SCUand $195 per year for IMH– Varied by equipment class; did not increase with efficiency levels• Annual Maintenance costs– Preventative maintenance: estimated as a percentage of the base(level 1) customer equipment cost– Average: $258 per year for remote condensing, $121 per year for SCUand $195 per year for IMH– Varied by equipment class; did not increase with efficiency levelsMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov58Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem 16: Installation, Maintenance and Repair CostsInstallation Cost: DOE assumes that higher efficiency equipment would notincur any additional installation costs when compared to the baselineequipment. DOE requests interested parties’ comments about thisassumption and specific information, ifappropriate, for DOE to consider inthis approach.Maintenance Cost: DOE assumes that manufacturers prescribe routineannual or bi-annual preventative maintenance procedures for commercialice-making equipment. DOE requests input from interested parties onmaintenance costs, and the relationship between maintenance costs andthe type and size of equipment.Repair Cost: DOE is currently modeling the repair cost for equipment as asimple percentage of the baseline selling price of the equipment. DOErequests comment on this approach and specific information, if appropriate,for DOE to reconsider this approach.General: The technology options underconsideration for the rulemaking arepresented in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. DOE requests input frominterested parties concerning the effect that these technology options haveon the installation, maintenance, and repair costs.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov59Discount Rates• Based on weighted average cost of capital• Different rates by establishment type: Lodging, HealthCare, Food Sales, Food Service, Retail, Education, andOfficeEquipment Lifetime• Lifetime - average lifetime of 8.5 years was used for allequipment– Modeled as a distribution, from 4to 12 years, averaging 8.5 yearsthrough the probability of selectionMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov60Uncertainties in Input Values• Used Monte Carlo analyses to vary key inputs– State, which changes• Installation costs• Markups• Electricity costs– Building type, which changes• Discount rate• Electricity cost– Equipment lifetimes (Weibull survival functions)– Base-case efficiency level distributionMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem 15: LCC/Payback Assumptions and Uncertainty AnalysisDOE welcomes input from interested parties on theseassumptions.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov61Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisSummary of LCC and PBP analysis results for all the efficiencylevels for the IMH, Air-cooled, Small, Batch Equipment ClassEfficiencyLevelNumberEfficiencyLevelkWh/yrLife-Cycle Cost, All CustomersLife-Cycle Cost SavingsPaybackPeriod,MedianyearsInstalledCost2010$TotalDiscountedOperatingCost2010$LCC,AllCustomers2010$AffectedCustomers’AverageSavings2010$% of Customers thatExperienceNetCost%NoImpact%NetBenefit%15,6394,2226,21610,4380NANANANA25,0784,2385,82910,067372041590.3334,7974,2615,6369,896462024760.5244,5164,3105,4429,75252408920.90Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov62Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle &Payback AnalysisItem D: LCC and Payback Period Analysis, General CommentsDOE seeks comments about the analyses, assumptions, anddata sources. DOE welcomes suggestions for additional datasources for input assumptions.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov63Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis54Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2Market/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysisNotice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses67Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov64Shipments Analysis Methodology• Future shipments are based on historical shipments and growthrates are based on commercial floor space construction forecastfrom Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)2011• DOE estimated historical shipments data for the year 2010 using:– Shipments for 2010 submitted by AHRI for this rulemaking– U.S. Census Bureau Current Industrial Reports (CIR)– North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers’(NAFEM) 2010 report• Equipment stock was estimated based on the 2010 shipments dataShipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisShipments Analysis Purpose• Estimate future stock and shipments of ACIM equipment by equipmentclass• Estimate efficiency mix of stock over timeBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov65Shipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisPercentage of shipments, by equipment classes, based on ratiosdeveloped from 2010 AHRI shipments dataEquipment ClassPercentage ofShipments Equipment ClassPercentage ofShipmentsIMH-W-Small-B 4.5% IMH-W-Small-C 0.8%IMH-W- Med -B 2.9% IMH-W-Large-C 0.1%IMH-W-Large-B 0.5% IMH-A-Small-C 4.4%IMH-A-Small-B 27.1% IMH-A-Large-C 0.2%IMH-A-Large-B 16.1% RCU-Small-C 1.2%RCU-Small-B 5.4% RCU-Large-C 0.5%RCU-Large-B 6.1% SCU-W-Small-C 0.0%SCU-W-Small-B 0.7% SCU-W-Large-C 0.1%SCU-W-Large-B 0.2% SCU-A-Small-C 4.6%SCU-A-Small-B 13.9% SCU-A-Large-C 4.1%SCU-A-Large-B 6.6%Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov66Shipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisAnnual Shipments for Selected Years• Total cumulative shipments of 8,818,414 throughout theanalysis period-50,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,0002016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045NewReplacementBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov67Shipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisNational Impact Analysis Purpose• To assess the impacts at the national level at each efficiency level asmeasured by–National Energy Savings (NES)–Net Present Value (NPV) of total customer economic impactsNational Impact Analysis Method• For each year, for both the base case and standards cases, DOEcalculates:–National energy consumption (energy use per unit multiplied by totalstock)–Total customer expenditures on automatic commercial ice makers:• National equipment expenditures• National operation and maintenance costs• Difference between base case and standards cases in each year givesNES and NPV of customer economic impacts.• Dollar values are discountedBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov68National Impact Analysis: Key Inputsfrom Upstream Analyses• Stock and shipments (Shipments Analysis)– NIA distributes shipments across efficiency levels based on analysesof model availability– For standards cases, efficiency distributions for standards cases basedon roll-up scenarios• Additional cost/energy use inputs (LCC and PBP Analysis)– Annual electricity costs per ACIM unit– Installed cost per unit– Annual operating and maintenance costs other than energy costs perunit, including water and wastewater costs• Experiential learning factors were applied to equipment costs ineach year of the analysisShipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov69National Impact Analysis: Other Inputs• Discount Factor– Used 7 percent and 3 percent realdiscount rates from the Officeof Management and Budget’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4– Future expenses are discounted to present year (2011)• Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Factors– Used to convert on-site energy consumption to primary (orsource) energy generation– The preliminary analysis used a factor developed for the 2009Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Rulemaking using theEIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)– For NOPR, a new analysis will be performed using NEMSShipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov70Shipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisEquipment ClassNational Energy Savings by Standard Levelquadrillion British thermal units (quads)Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7IMH-W-Small-B0.006 0.010IMH-W- Med -B0.011IMH-W-Large-B0.003 0.003IMH-A-Small-B0.057 0.094 0.139IMH-A-Large-B0.066 0.109 0.155RCU-Small-B0.020 0.040 0.045RCU-Large-B0.027 0.052 0.059SCU-W-Small-B0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002SCU-W-Large-B0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001SCU-A-Small-B0.007 0.028 0.040 0.053 0.062SCU-A-Large-B0.003 0.013 0.019 0.025IMH-W-Small-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004IMH-W-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000IMH-A-Small-C0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005IMH-A-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000RCU-Small-C0.000 0.001RCU-Large-C0.000 0.001SCU-W-Small-CSCU-W-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000SCU-A-Small-C0.000 0.000 0.000SCU-A-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov71Shipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisEquipment ClassCumulative Net Present Value by Standard LevelAt 7% Discount Rate (Billions of 2010 Dollars)Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7IMH-W-Small-B0.012 0.020IMH-W- Med -B0.024IMH-W-Large-B0.006 0.007IMH-A-Small-B0.132 0.209 0.285IMH-A-Large-B0.153 0.211 0.301RCU-Small-B0.047 0.089 0.098RCU-Large-B0.062 0.112 0.124SCU-W-Small-B0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003SCU-W-Large-B0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002SCU-A-Small-B0.016 0.056 0.080 0.106 0.124SCU-A-Large-B0.007 0.026 0.037 0.049IMH-W-Small-C0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.008IMH-W-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000IMH-A-Small-C0.001 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.007IMH-A-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001RCU-Small-C0.000 0.002RCU-Large-C0.000 0.001SCU-W-Small-CSCU-W-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000SCU-A-Small-C0.000 0.000 0.000SCU-A-Large-C0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 (0.003)Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov72Shipments Analysis & NationalImpact AnalysisItem 17: Shipments Data DifferencesDOE seeks industry support in determining the differencesbetween the historical shipment data provided by AHRI anddata derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current IndustrialReports. The Census Bureau data consistently showed highershipments of automatic commercial ice makers than the AHRIdata over a 10-year historical period.Item 18: Efficiency DistributionsDOE seeks industry support in determining whether the basecase equipment efficiency distribution correctly captures allequipment currently available for purchase by customers ofice-making equipment. DOE also seeks input about the impactof higher equipment purchase prices on shipments instandards cases.Item E: Shipments/Equipment Stock Data SourcesDOE welcomes comments or suggestions on additional datasources related to equipment stocks and shipments.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov73Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis54Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2Market/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysisNotice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses67Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov74Manufacturer Impact AnalysisOverview•The purpose of the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) is to identify theimpacts of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers.•The key quantitative outputs of theMIA are the change in industry netpresent value (INPV) due to amended standards and the direct impacton manufacturing employment.The MIA is conducted in three phases:IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIMDevelopinterviewguideInterviews&industrywide /subgroupanalysesAssess directemployment,competition,& cumulativeburdenPhase 2Phase 3Phase 1Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov75Manufacturer Impact AnalysisOverview: Phase 1•DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and identifyimportant issues that require consideration.Overview: Phase 2•DOE prepares the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) as aframework for analyzing industry cash-flow and prepares an interviewquestionnaire to guide subsequent discussions and collect key data.Overview: Phase 3•DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of amendedstandards both quantitatively (using the GRIM) and qualitatively, examiningimpacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatoryburden.IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIMDevelopinterviewguideInterviews&industrywide /subgroupanalysesAssess directemployment,competition,& cumulativeburdenPhase 2Phase 3Phase 1Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov76Manufacturer Impact AnalysisKey issues identified during the Preliminary MIA•New energy standards for ice makers may not be cost-effective•Separate equipment classes should be established for batch andcontinuous ice makers•Amended standards should account for the varying hardness of iceproduced by different continuous ice makers•Higher product costs could prompt customers to purchase bagged ice asan alternative to purchasing ice makers•Conversion costs•Testing burden•Potential customer impact•Potential threat to domestic manufacturing jobsBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov77Manufacturer Impact AnalysisItem 10: Manufacturer ImpactAs part of the NOPR, DOE will seek further comments frommanufacturers about their potential loss of market share,changes in the efficiency distribution of covered equipmentwithin each industry, and the total change in equipmentshipments at each energy conservation standard level, amongother topics. DOE will then estimate the impacts on theindustry quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE seeks furthercomment about the impact of standards on domesticmanufacturers.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov78Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis45Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis2Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final RuleMarket/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysisNotice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses67Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov79Notice Of Proposed RulemakingAnalysesEmissionAnalysis andMonetizationLife-CycleCostSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov80Notice Of Proposed RulemakingAnalyses•LCC Subgroup Analysis– Effects on various national consumer subgroups•Manufacturer Impact Analysis– Continue work begun in the preliminary MIA•Utility Impact Analysis– Effects on generation capacity of utilities•Employment Impact Analysis– Indirect effects on national employment•Emissions Analysis and Monetization– Effects on airborne pollutant emissions•Regulatory Impact Analysis– Potential for non-regulatory approachesBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov81Public Meeting AgendaManufacturer Impact Analysis54Shipments Analysis & National ImpactAnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & PaybackAnalysis31Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2Market/Technology, Screening & EngineeringAnalysisNotice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses67Closing RemarksBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov82Closing RemarksItem 19: General Comments on Analyses or AssumptionsDuring each stage of the preliminary analysis, DOE madeassumptions related to key parameters of the analytical process onthe premises that the assumed parameters reflect the actualconditions that automatic commercial ice maker experiences. Theseassumptions are described in the respective TSD chapters. DOEwelcomes comments on these assumptions.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov83Closing RemarksDOE welcomes any closing remarks from interested parties.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov84Contact Information for FeedbackIn all correspondence, please refer to the Automatic Commercial Ice Making(ACIM) Equipment Energy Conservation Standards rulemaking by:– Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Rulemaking,– Docket NumberEERE-2010-BT-STD-0037, and– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)1904-AC39Email: ACIM-2010-STD-0037@ee.doe.govPostal:Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies ProgramMailstop: EE-2J, Room 1J-0181000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0121Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, 6th Floor950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: 202-586-2945Comment period ends March 9, 2012Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov85Relevant Webpages•DOE Appliance Standards–http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/•Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Rule–http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equipment.html•Contact Charles Llenza, Project Manager, from the Appliance StandardsProgram for additional information:–Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov–202.586.2192•Contact John Cymbalsky, Supervisor, from the Appliance StandardsProgram for additional information:–John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov–202.287.1692Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov86Backup SlidesBuilding Technologies Programeere.energy.gov87List of Requests for CommentItem 1DOE requests comment on whether icemaker package size increase should beconsidered in this rulemaking. If so,DOE requests comment on how to selectreasonable maximum sizes for ice makers in the analysis.Item 2DOE requests input on what levels ofpotable water use can be consideredreasonable minimums for consideration inthe analysis, whether the minimumsdepend on equipment class, and, if so, what this relationship is.Item 3DOE seeks comment regarding the suggested equipment classes as outlined in theexecutive summary and chapter3 of the preliminary TSD.Item 4DOE requests comment on the suggested efficiency levels to be used in the analysisfor all of the equipment classes. DOE requests comment on the baseline efficiencylevels for continuous ice machines. DOEalso requests comment on using the EPACT2005 standards for cube type equipment as the baseline for all batch equipment. Inaddition, DOE requests comment on the interim efficiency levels and maximumtechnology levels for all analyzed equipment classes.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov88List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)Item 5DOE’s initial, brief analysis of the energy use impact of the remote compressorsuggests that the 0.2 kWh/day differentialfor large-capacity remote compressor icemakers is appropriate (see chapter 5 ofthe preliminary TSD). DOE requestscomment on this analysis and on DOE’s intent to maintain separate equipmentclasses for large-capacity RCU equipment (either batch or continuous) using thissame differential. DOE requests data andinformation showing that this, or analternative energy use differential, is appropriate.Item 6DOE requests comment on its approaches for development of energy standards forlarge-capacity batch ice makers in theharvest capacity range from 2,500 to 4,000lb/24 hoursItem 7DOE requests comment on whether the proposed markup factor of 1.25 to mark upbetween MPC and MSP is appropriate, too high, or too low.Item 8DOE requests information regarding the proprietary status of low-thermal-massevaporator designs, such as the designsfound in Hoshizaki batch ice makers.Specifically, DOE seeks input on which relevant patents are still active, and whatother forms of intellectual property ownership might be associated with such designs.DOE also seeks input on whether proprietary status is the key reason that othermanufacturers would not be able to adopt such designs.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov89List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)Item 9DOE requests comment on its suggestedapproach to include consideration ofcondenser water use increaseas a design option in theanalysis (see chapter 2 ofthe preliminary TSD). This approach usesestimates of LCC in the engineeringanalysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness ofdesign options that affect both energyand water use. DOE also requests commenton its intent to use such an approach todevelop condenser water use standardsfor continuous ice machines.Item 10DOE seeks further comment about the impact of standards on domesticmanufacturers. See chapter 12 of thepreliminary TSD for more details.Item 11DOE requests interested parties’ comments onthe share values for the three majordistribution channels through which commercial ice-making equipment is purchasedby the end user. DOE also requests additional data or data sources to use tocharacterize the costs of the local contractor or dealer segment of the contractorchannel.Item 12DOE seeks comment about the use of experiential learning to adjust MSP forexpected future price changes.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov90Item 13DOE seeks information on utilization factors or potential data sources that canbe used to improve upon the current assumption of 50-percent utilizationfactors.Item 14DOE requests comment on the modeling of condenser water usage assumingall ice makers are installed in a single-pass configuration.Item 15Based on the data from available sources, DOE proposes to use an equipmentlifetime value of 8.5 years for all equipment classes in all building types. DOEused Weibull survival functions to represent the equipment lifetime values inthe LCC and PBP analysis and shipments analysis. DOE welcomes input frominterested parties on these assumptions.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov91List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)Item 16DOE assumes that higher efficiency equipment would not incur any additionalinstallation costs when compared tothe baseline equipment. DOE requestsinterested parties’ comments about this assumption and specific information, ifappropriate, for DOE to consider in this approach.With respect to maintenance cost, DOEassumes that manufacturers prescriberoutine annual or bi-annual preventativemaintenance procedures for commercialice-making equipment. DOE requests inputfrom interested parties on maintenancecosts, and the relationship between maintenance costs and the type and size ofequipment.DOE is currently modeling the repair costfor equipment as a simple percentage ofthe baseline selling price of the equipment. DOE requests comment on thisapproach and specific information, if appropriate, for DOE to reconsider thisapproach.The technology options underconsideration for the rulemaking are presented inchapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. DOErequests input from interested partiesconcerning the effect that these technology options have on the installation,maintenance, and repair costs.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov92List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)Item 17DOE seeks industry support in determiningthe differences between the historicalshipment data provided by AHRI and dataderived from the U.S. Census Bureau’sCurrent Industrial Reports. The CensusBureau data consistently showed highershipments of automatic commercial ice makers than the AHRI data over a 10-yearhistorical period.Item 18DOE seeks industry support in determining whether the base-case equipmentefficiency distribution correctly captures all equipment currently available forpurchase by customers of ice-making equipment. DOE also seeks input about theimpact of higher equipment purchase prices on shipments in standards cases.Item 19During each stage of the preliminary analysis, DOE made assumptions related tokey parameters of the analytical process on the premises that the assumedparameters reflect the actual conditionsthat automatic commercial ice makerexperiences. These assumptions are described in the respective TSD chapters.DOE welcomes comments on these assumptions.Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov93Item A: Equipment ClassesDOE would like to know if there are differenttypes of equipment with significant annualshipments that do not fall under any ofthe equipment classes considered for thepreliminary analysis.Item B: TechnologiesDOE asks interested parties to commenton other technologies that DOE shouldconsider.Item C: Baseline Efficiency LevelsDOE seeks comments on the methodology used todetermine baseline efficiency levelsfor the preliminary analysis.Item D: LCC and Payback Period Analysis, General CommentsDOE seeks comments about the analyses, assumptions, and data sources. DOEwelcomes suggestions for additional data sources for input assumptions.Item E: Shipments/Equipment Stock Data SourcesDOE welcomes comments or suggestionson additional data sources related toequipment stocks and shipments.List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)