Building Technologies Program 1 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary Analysis Public Meeting for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Charles LlenDepartment Energy EfficiencACIM-2010-STD-

February 16, 2012
Building Technologies Program 2 

• 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 recogniz

your name for the record)

– Set cell phones to silent/vibrate

• Housekeeping items

Welcome & Introductions
Building Technologies Program 3 

Agenda

9:00 am – 9:30 am9:30 am – 9:40 am9:40 am – 10:40 am

10:40 am – 11:20 am11:20 am – 11:50 am11:50 am – 12:05 pm12:05 pm – 1:00 pm

1:00 pm – 1:30 pm1:30 pm – 2:00 pm

WelcomeOverview & Test Procedure Final RuleMarket/Technology, Screening & EngineerinMarkups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Shipments Analysis & National Impact AnalyManufacturer Impact AnalysisLunchNotice of Proposed Rulemaking AnalysesNext Steps & Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 4 

Request for Comment

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comment regarding the NotiPublic Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary TechniSupport Document. Throughout this presentation, speciissues will be raised for discussion in yellow issue boxesHowever, comments concerning any part of the documepresentation are welcome.
Building Technologies Program 5 

Public Meeting Agenda

5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses4 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis 3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2 Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 6 

Purpose of this Public Meeting

– To inform all interested parties and to facilitate this rule

process

– Present the procedural and analytical approaches to e

energy conservation standards (ECS) for automatic coice makers (ACIM)

– Provide a forum for public discussions and comments 

rulemaking issues and rulemaking presentation

– Encourage interested parties to submit data, informati

written comments

Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule
Building Technologies Program 7 

ACIM Regulatory History

• Energy Policy Act (EPACT) 2005 amended the E

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to:

– Prescribe standards for cube ice makers with capacitie

50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours, effective January 1, 2010

– Authorize DOE to issue standards for other types of au

commercial ice makers that are not covered by the custandards

– Direct DOE to issue a final rule, that is technologically 

and economically justified, no later than January 1, 20

• Test Procedure Final Rule published 77 FR 159

– Federal Register Publication on January 11, 2012– Effective date of this rule is February 10, 2012– Mandatory for all ACIM testing starting January 7, 201

Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule
Building Technologies Program 8 

2010

ECS Framework 

Document Public 

Meeting

December 16, 2010

ECS Preliminary 

Analysis

Public Meeting

February 16, 2012

EC

Pub

Planne

2014 2012 2013 

ACIM Rulemaking Timeline

TP NOPR 

Public Meeting

April 29, 2011

2011

Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule
Building Technologies Program 9 

Market and Technology Assessment

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination

ShipmentsAnalysis

Energy Use Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

NOPR Final Rule Framework Document Preliminary Analysis

Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule
Building Technologies Program 10 

Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule

At this time DOE welcomes opening remarks on the prelimanalysis for automatic commercial ice makers. 

Interested Parties’ Opening Statement
Building Technologies Program 11 

Public Meeting Agenda

5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis4 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis 3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule

2 Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 12 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Market Assessment

• Purpose

– Characterize the ACIM equipment market and manufa– Determine scope of coverage– Determine appropriate equipment classes

• Method

– Identify manufacturers of ACIM equipment and their p

offerings by conducting a study of the ACIM market

– Use available shipment data to characterize market tre– Develop appropriate equipment classes to classify cov

equipment

• A detailed description of methodology and resul

contained in chapter 3 of the preliminary technicsupport document (TSD)
Building Technologies Program 13 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Equipment Classes

• EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, prescribed standard

automatic commercial ice makers, effective January 1, 20(42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1))

– Thirteen covered classes for ice makers that produce cube-t

• Four equipment families: ice-making head (IMH), self-contained 

and remote condensing unit (RCU) with and without remote co

• Air or water cooled• Two to three divisions by ice-making capacity, from 50 to 2,500 

– Continuous ice makers were not covered by standards

• For this rulemaking, DOE is considering a total of 25 cove

classes for batch and continuous ice makers up to 4,000 

– The test procedure rule established new definitions for batch 

continuous ice maker types (77 FR 1591)

– Preliminary TSD chapter 3 contains a full listing of equipmen
Building Technologies Program 14 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Equipment C

Equipment Type Type of Cooling Harvest Capacity Rate lb/24 hours Type of Ice Maker 

Ice-Making Head (IMH)

Water

≥50 and <500 Batch 

≥500 and <1,436 Batch 

≥1,436 and 

≤4,000 Batch 

Air

≥50 and <450 Batch 

≥450 and 

≤4,000 Batch 

Remote Condensing (RCU)(but not remote compressor) Air

≥50 and <1,000 Batch 

≥1,000 and 

≤4,000 Batch 

Remote Condensing (RCU) and Remote Compressor Air

≥50 and <934 Batch 

≥934 and 

≤4,000 Batch 

Self-Contained Unit (SCU)

Water

≥50 and <200 Batch 

≥200 and 

≤4,000 Batch 

Air

≥50 and <175 Batch 

≥175 and 

≤4,000 Batch 

Ice-Making Head (IMH)

Water

≥50 and <1000 Continuous 

≥1,000 and 

≤4,000 Continuous 

Air

≥50 and <1000 Continuous 

≥1,000 and 

≤4,000 Continuous 

Remote Condensing (RCU)(but not remote compressor) Air

≥50 and <1000 Continuous 

≥1,000 and 

≤4,000 Continuous 

Remote Condensing (RCU) and Remote Compressor Air

≥50 and <1000 Continuous 

≥1,000 and 

≤4,000 Continuous 

Self-Contained Unit (SCU)

Water

≥50 and <175 Continuous 

≥175 and 

≤4,000 Continuous 

Air

≥50 and <175 Continuous 

≥175 and 

≤4,000 Continuous 
Building Technologies Program 15 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 3: Equipment ClassesDOE seeks comment regarding the suggested equipmeclasses. Item A: Equipment Classes

DOE would like to know if there are different types of equipment with significant annual shipments that do not under any of the equipment classes considered for the preliminary analysis.
Building Technologies Program 16 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Technology Assessment

• Purpose

– To develop a preliminary list of technology options tha

improve the efficiency of automatic commercial ice ma

• Method

– DOE identified technology options from:

• Literature review• Manufacturer brochures and specification sheets for com

available equipment

• Comments and input from stakeholders

• All technology options are described in chapter 3 

preliminary TSD
Building Technologies Program 17 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Technology Options Batch Ice Makers Continuous Ice Makers 

Compressor Improved compressor efficiency √ √

Part-load operation √ √

Condenser

Increased surface area √ √

Enhanced fin surfaces √ √ Air-coole

Increased air flow √ √ Air-cooleIncreased water flow √ √ Water-co

Brazed plate condenser √ √ Water-co

Fans and Fan Motor Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan motors √ √ Air-cooleOther Motors Improved auger motor efficiency √ Improved pump motor efficiency √

Evaporator

Increased surface area √ √

Design options which reduce energy loss due to evaporator thermal cycling

√

Design options which reduce harvest meltage or reduce harvest time

√

Insulation Improved or thicker insulation √ √Refrigeration Line Larger diameter suction line √ √ Primarily 

equipme

Potable Water Reduced potable water flow √ Drain water thermal exchange √

Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice M
Building Technologies Program 18 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item B: TechnologiesDOE asks interested parties to comment on other technologies that DOE should consider.
Building Technologies Program 19 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Screening Analysis

• Purpose 

– To determine technology options considered in downs

analyses 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 

customers

• Have adverse impacts on health or safety

• DOE also removed from consideration technolog

do not affect calculated energy consumption as measured by the DOE test procedure

• The methodology and results are presented in d

chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD
Building Technologies Program 20 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Technologies Removed from ConsiderationDesign Option

EPCA Criteria for Screening Out Not Considered 

for Other 

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 

Compressor Part Load Operation √ Increased Surface Area for WaterCooled Condensers in Batch Ice Makers

√ √

Enhanced Fin Surfaces

√

Increased Condenser Water Flow

√

Brazed Plate Condenser

√

Increased Evaporator Surface Area (Batch Ice Makers)

√

Technology Options to Reduce Evaporator Thermal CyclingTechnology Options Which Reduce Harvest Meltage or Reduce Harvest Time

√

Improved or Thicker Insulation

√

Larger Diameter Suction Line

√

Reduced Potable Water Flow

√

Drain Water Thermal Exchange

√
Building Technologies Program 21 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 8: Proprietary Evaporator DesignsDOE requests information regarding the proprietary statlow-thermal-mass evaporator designs, such as the desifound in Hoshizaki batch ice makers. Specifically, DOE input on which relevant patents are still active, and whaforms of intellectual property ownership might be assocwith such designs. DOE also seeks input on whether proprietary status is the key reason that other manufactwould not be able to adopt such designs.
Building Technologies Program 22 

Engineering Analysis

• Purpose

– To establish cost-efficiency curves, or the relationship 

the manufacturer production cost and energy consumpassociated with each efficiency level in each equipme

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis
Building Technologies Program 23 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Engineering Analysis 

• Methods

– Conduct reverse engineering on equipment currently being sold in 

market: 19 different ice makers belonging to 9 different equipment 

– Conduct energy testing per the DOE test procedure; tested 10 of th

makers

– Determine the baseline configuration for each equipment class– Use results from reverse engineering and energy testing to develo

calibrate energy consumption models for automatic commercial ice 

– Determine the impacts of design options on efficiency and cost to d

the cost-efficiency curves

– Extrapolate results to the full set of equipment classes

• The methodology and results are presented in detail in 

chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD
Building Technologies Program 24 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Engineering Approach

• DOE used a combined design-option/ efficiency

manufacturing-cost approach to estimate the effimplementing 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 an

calculated:

• Reduction in energy consumption to produce 100 pound• Incremental cost

– Finally, DOE sorted the technologies in order from mo

cost-effective and evaluated costs at preselected efficlevels

• Result: Cost-Efficiency Curves, as described ea
Building Technologies Program 25 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Flow Diagram of Engineering Analysis Metho

Energy Testing Manufacturer Interviews Reverse Engineering Vendor 

Manuf

Cost 

Increme

Esti

Cost-Efficiency 

Curves

Energy Models Energy Model Development
Building Technologies Program 26 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Baseline Efficiency Levels

• Baseline Efficiency Levels for Batch Ice Makers

– Currently covered ice makers: equal to current DOE s– Harvest capacity 2,500 to 4,000 lb/day: constant ener

current DOE standard level for harvest capacity of 2,5
Building Technologies Program 27 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Baseline Efficiency Levels, Continued

• Baseline Efficiency Levels for Continuous Ice Makers

– Energy use with ice hardness adjustment consistent with the 

procedure

– Harvest capacity “break points” consistent with CEE Tier 2 c

• 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 a– Evaluation based on available energy use data (as of June 2

assumptions of ice hardness: 70% for flake; 85% for nugge

– No distinction within the RCU class based on compressor lo– Efficiency level equations are presented in chapter 5 of the T

they are plotted with ice maker data in chapter 3
Building Technologies Program 28 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Designation* Harvest Capacity Range (lb/day) EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 M

IMH-W-Small-B < 500 10% 

IMH-W-Med-B ≥ 500 and < 1,436 10% 

IMH-W-Large-B ≥ 1,436 10% 15% 

IMH-A-Small-B < 450 10% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 

IMH-A-Large-B ≥ 450 and < 1,600 10% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 

IMH-A-E-B** ≥ 1,600 10% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 

RCU-NRC-Small-B < 1,000 9% (E-STAR) 15% 

RCU-NRC-Large-B ≥ 1,000 9% (E-STAR) 15% 

RCU-RC-Small-B < 934 9% (E-STAR) 15% 

RCU-RC-Large-B ≥ 934 9% (E-STAR) 15% 

SCU-W-Small-B < 200 7% 15% 20% 

SCU-W-Large-B ≥ 200 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 

SCU-A-Small-B < 175 7% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 25% 

SCU-A-Large-B ≥ 175 7% (E-STAR) 15% 20% 25% 

*ENERGY STAR and CEE labels apply to air-cooled cube machines 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, % energy use less than baseline) for B
Building Technologies Program 29 

02468

1012

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs)

Harvest Rate (lbs/day)

DOE Standard (Efficiency Level 1)Incremental Efficiency Level 2Ice Maker Performance Data

1,600 lb/day4.6 kWh/100 lbs 2,080 lb/day

4.6 kWh/100 lbs 2,500 lb/day

4.1 kWh/100 lbs

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Incremental Efficiency Levels

Suggested efficiency levels for IMH-A-Extended-B ice makers have energy use above harvest capacities of 1,600 lb/day and 2,500 lb/dnon-constant intermediate level energy use to avoid backsliding.
Building Technologies Program 30 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 5: Remote Condensing Unit Equipment ClassesThe current DOE standards for RCU cube ice makers indifferent energy use levels for equipment with remote compressors and equipment without remote compressoDOE’s initial analysis of the energy use impact of the recompressor suggests that the 0.2 kWh/day differential folarge-capacity remote compressor ice makers is approp(see the discussion on this topic in chapter 5 of the prelTSD). DOE requests comment on this analysis and on Dintent to maintain separate equipment classes for largecapacity RCU equipment (either batch or continuous) usthis same differential. DOE requests data and informatioshowing that this, or an alternative energy use differentiappropriate.
Building Technologies Program 31 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 6: Large Batch Ice Maker Efficiency LevelsDOE requests comment on the following approaches for development of enefor large-capacity batch ice makers in the harvest capacity range from 2,500 hours.• For batch ice makers for which the current standard in the highest harves

is a flat standard that is not dependent on harvest capacity, extend the harange up to 4,000 lb/24 hours. DOE is considering setting a standard for trange that is equal to the future standard selected for equipment in the cucapacity equipment class. This applies to batch ice makers of types IMH-WSCU.

• For batch ice makers of type IMH-A, DOE is considering setting standard

modified interim efficiency level description for this harvest capacity range chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD and illustrated in a previous slide. 
Building Technologies Program 32 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Designation* Harvest Capacity Range (lb/day) EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

IMH-W-Small-C < 1,000 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 

IMH-W-Large-C ≥ 1,000 10% 15% 20% 

IMH-A-Small-C < 1,000 10% (E- STAR) 15% 20% 25% 30% 

IMH-A-Large-C ≥ 1,000 10% (E- STAR) 15% 20% 25% 30% 

RCU-Small-C

< 1,000 Batch 

Baseline

10% less 

than EL2

RCU-Large-C ≥ 1,000 7% 17% 

SCU-W-Small-C

< 175 20% less 

than batch 

baseline

25% less 

than batch 

baseline

30% less 

than batch 

baseline

SCU-W-Large-C ≥ 175 3% 10% 16% 

SCU-A-Small-C < 175 7% 15% 

SCU-A-Large-C ≥ 175 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 

*ENERGY STAR and CEE labels apply to air-cooled cube machines at the efficiency levels indicated.

Incremental Efficiency Levels (EL , % energy use less tha

for Continuous Machines
Building Technologies Program 33 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 4: Efficiency LevelsDOE requests comment on the suggested efficiency levbe used in the analysis for all of the equipment classes. requests comment on the baseline efficiency levels for continuous ice machines. DOE also requests comment using the EPACT 2005 standards for cube type equipmethe baseline for all batch equipment. In addition, DOE requests comment on the interim efficiency levels and maximum technology levels for all analyzed equipment classes.
Building Technologies Program 34 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Ice Maker Type Equipment Class

Compressor 

Upgrade

Condenser Fan 

Motors

Pump Motors

Auger Motors

Air-Cooled 

Condensers

Batch 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 where this design option was applicable.

Design Options by Equipment Class
Building Technologies Program 35 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 1: Ice Maker SizeIce maker efficiency could be improved in some cases by increthe size of heat exchangers (condensers and/or evaporators). design options also may require more space within a given ice including some compressor replacements and consideration owater heat exchangers. DOE did not consider design options tincrease package size in the preliminary analysis, because of tlimited space available in many applications for larger productsbecause of the importance of the replacement market, for whicrestrictions may be dictated by the size of the replaced equipmThis restriction did not extend to remote condensing units, for wend users are expected to have greater flexibility for fitting largdesigns. DOE requests comment on whether ice maker packaincrease should be considered in this rulemaking. If so, DOE recomment on how to select reasonable maximum sizes for ice min the analysis. 
Building Technologies Program 36 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 2: Potable Water Use Minimum for Batch Ice MakeBatch ice maker efficiency is affected by potable water uHowever, interested parties have pointed out that very lopotable water use increases scaling of wet surfaces in tmaker, leading to increased maintenance costs and pothigher energy use in the field. To help DOE determine wpractical energy conservation opportunities associated wpotable water use reduction exist, DOE requests input owhat levels of potable water use can be considered reasonable minimums for consideration in the analysis, whether the minimums depend on equipment class, andwhat this relationship is.
Building Technologies Program 37 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Increase of Condenser Water Use

• Maximum allowable condenser water use is prescribed fo

covered water-cooled ice makers

• Condenser water use is currently not regulated for continu

makers and batch ice makers with harvest capacity above 2,500 lb/24 hours

• Increasing condenser water use could save energy• DOE will consider increase of condenser water use for all 

makers addressed by this rulemaking

– Potential increase of maximum allowable condenser water u

currently-covered ice makers

– DOE may use this approach to set condenser water use lev

makers that are not yet covered

– New levels must be cost-effective, including water use
Building Technologies Program 38 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Increase of Condenser Water Use, Continu

• DOE plans to develop new condenser water use levels by 

considering the cost-effective balance of energy and watethe engineering analysis

– Calculate average life-cycle cost (LCC) using representative 

water cost, electricity cost, discount rate, and equipment life

– Consider increase of condenser water use at a given efficien

is more cost effective (based on average LCC) than the remalternative design options

– Consistent with the LCC approach, the analysis will assume 

cooled ice makers are installed in open loop (or single-pass) configuration.

• This approach avoids development of multiple cost-efficie

for multiple condenser water flows, and selection of the meffective condenser water flow in the downstream analysis
Building Technologies Program 39 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 9: Balance of Condenser Water Use and Energy Use AnalysesDOE requests comment on its suggested approach to incluconsideration of condenser water use increase as a design in the analysis (see chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD). This approach uses estimates of LCC in the engineering analysevaluate the cost effectiveness of design options that affecenergy and water use. DOE also requests comment on its use such an approach to develop condenser water use stafor continuous ice machines.
Building Technologies Program 40 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Manufacturer Markup

• Manufacturer selling price is the output of the 

engineering analysis

– A manufacturer markup of 1.25 was applied to arrive a

manufacturer selling price.

• Direct material• Direct labor• Factory overhead• Depreciation

• Sales & marketing• Research & development• Shipping paid by 

manufacturer

• Interest• Profit

Manufacturer 

Production 

Cost (MPC)

Manufacturer

Markup =

Manufactu

Selling Pri

(MSP)
Building Technologies Program 41 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Item 7: Manufacturer MarkupsDOE requests comment on whether the proposed markfactor of 1.25 to mark up between MPC and MSP is appropriate, too high, or too low.
Building Technologies Program 42 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Equipment 

Class Max Available

Representative 

Harvest 

Capacity lb/24 

hours

EL2** EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6

IMH-W-***-B 10% 15% 20%Small 25% 300 $32 Medium 22% 850 $25 Large

23% 1,500 $12 

8% 2,600 

IMH-A-***-B 10% 15% 20%Small 24% 300 $10 $24 $55 Large

21% 800 $10 $29 $126 

1,500 $12 $90 

RCU-***-***-B 9% 15% 20% 25%Small 20% 700 $12 $50 Large

40% 1,500 $16 $81 

27% 2,400 $147 

SCU-W-***-B 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small 25% 110 $10 $27 $41 Large 28% 300 $10 $20 $27 $34 $43 SCU-A-***-B 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small 32% 110 $10 $31 $45 $56 Large 31% 200 $17 $35 $46 $60 

** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the baseline efficiency level while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency lev

Cost-Efficiency Curve Results: Incremental MPC Results for Batch I
Building Technologies Program 43 

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

Cost-Efficiency Curve Results: Incremental MPC Results for Continuou

Equipment Class Max Available Representative Harvest Capacity lb/24 hours EL2** EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

IMH-W-***-C 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small 35% 800 $5 $12 $20 $27 $78 Large 20% 1,000 $16 $24 $38 

1,800 $18 $28 $50 

IMH-A-***-C 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Small 37% 310 $21 $35 $49 $63 $162 

820 $10 $20 $28 $36 $44 

Medium 32% 1,000 $18 $25 $33 $41 $94 

1,800 $25 $34 $43 $52 $126 

RCU-***-***-C

Batch 

Std.

(7%)

EL2

-10%

(17%)

EL2

-15%

(22%)

EL2

-20%

(26%)

EL2

-25%

(30%)

Small 26% 700 $9 $68 Large 42% 1,500 $10 $103 SCU-W-***-C

Batch 

Std.

-20%

(3%)

Batch 

Std.

-25%

(10%)

Batch 

Std.

-30%

(16%)

Small NA*Large 15% 300 $4 $12 $20 SCU-A-***-C 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small 11% 110 $24 $46 Large 39% 300 $- $17 $30 $46 $62 

670 $- $37 $65 $98 $135 

*No products of this equipment class were identified in product databases. ** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the baseli

while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.
Building Technologies Program 44 

Public Meeting Agenda

5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis4 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis 3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule2 Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 45 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Markups Analysis 

• Purpose

– Determine the baseline and incremental price markups for tra

manufacturers sales price into customer prices

– Determine the market share weighting factor of each distribu

Distribution Channels

Manufacturer

Customer Customer

Manufact

Custom

Manufacturer

Wholesaler (Distributor) Wholesaler (Distributor)

Dealer Channel Wholesaler Channel National Acco

Dealer/Contractor
Building Technologies Program 46 

Distribution ChannWeighting FactorsSource: U.S. Census BureauEconomic Survey

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item 11(a): Markup AssumptionsDOE requests interested parties’ comments on the share values for the three major distribution channels through commercial ice-making equipment is purchased by the euser. 

National

AccountChannel

6.0%

Wholesaler

Channel

Dealer 32.0%

Channel

62.0%
Building Technologies Program 47 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Markups Inputs• Industry balance sheets from HARDI for wholesalers profit • U.S. Census Bureau data for mechanical contractor profit d

Markups 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, insuranc– Profit

• Express expenses and profit in terms of per dollar cost of g

and sum up the resulting numbers to obtain a baseline mar

• Assumption for incremental markups: labor and operating e

are fixed, and other operating expenses and profit scale wit

manufacturer selling price (cost of goods sold)

• National account markup is assumed to be half of the whole

markup 
Building Technologies Program 48 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Preliminary Weighted-Average Markups (Baseline / Incr

Wholesaler

Dealer

(Includes 

Wholesaler)

National 

Account 

Overall 

Average M

ACIM Eq

Distribution ChannelMarkup

1.36/1.09 2.01/1.30 1.18/1.05 1.75

Markup(Incl. Sales Tax) 1.46/1.17 2.15/1.39 1.27/1.12 1.88

Sales Tax Multiplier 1.07
Building Technologies Program 49 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item 11(b): Markup Data SourcesDOE also requests additional data or data sources to use to characterize the costs of the local contractor or dealer segmdealer/contractor channel.
Building Technologies Program 50 

Energy Use Analysis

• Purpose

– To determine the energy use of automatic commercial ice m

real-world conditions

• Automatic commercial ice makers also use water, so the e

analysis was expanded to include water analysis

• DOE analysis based on test procedure in combination wit

consumption model presented in the engineering discuss

• Engineering analysis estimates energy and water usage p

100 lb/24 hours; subsequent DOE analyses require kilowausage and gallons of water used per year

• DOE assumed the equipment runs at 50 percent of capac

of the time)

• DOE assumed condenser water is used in single-pass (op

installations

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis
Building Technologies Program 51 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item 14: Single-Pass ConfigurationDOE requests comment on the modeling of condenseusage assuming all ice makers are installed in a singleconfiguration. 

Item 13: Utilization FactorsDOE seeks information on utilization factors or potentiasources that can be used to improve upon the current assumption of 50-percent utilization factors.
Building Technologies Program 52 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

LCC and PBP Analysis Purpose

• Estimate financial impacts on individual (commer

customers by calculating 

– Life-cycle cost savings– Payback period

LCC and PBP Analysis Methodology

• Life-cycle cost: Equipment-installed price + oper

costs over the equipment lifetime

– LCC savings: Base-case LCC minus standards-case L

• Payback period: Equipment-incremental installed 

first-year operating cost savings

• LCC is discounted; PBP is not discounted (“simpl
Building Technologies Program 53 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Experiential 

Learning 

input

Baseline 

Manufacturer 

Selling Price

Std-Level 

Manufacturer 

Selling Price

Installation 

Cost

From Engineering Analysis

(price is a function of efficiency)

From Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination Analysis 

Repair Cost

Maintenance 

Cost

Lifetime

Discount Rate

Electricity 

and Water 

Price Trends

From Energy Use Analysis

Energy and 

Water 

Consumption

Electricity 

and Water 

Prices

Distributor 

Markup

Sales Tax

Mechanical 

Contractor 

Markup

Customer 

Price

D

IAO

Total Installed 

Cost

Annual 

Energy and 

Water Cost

Annual

Operating

Expense

Lifetime 

Operating 

Expense

Payback 

Period
Building Technologies Program 54 

Experiential (Price) Learning

• Experiential learning was introduced to capture 

historically observed decreases in MSP

• Theory is that as manufacturers produce ever in

numbers of units, production costs decline as manufacturers find better production methods

• For the LCC and PBP analysis, MSP was adjust

the current year to the year when the standards effect (approximately 2 percent decline)

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item 12: Experiential (Price) LearningDOE seeks comment about the use of experiential learnadjust MSP for expected future price changes. 
Building Technologies Program 55 

Efficiency Levels – Effect of Current Stand

• Standards set by EPACT 2005 went into effect on Ja

2010

• For most batch equipment between 50 and 2,500 lb/

EPACT 2005 standards define the baseline efficienc

• For continuous machines and for batch machines no

by EPACT 2005 standards, estimated current markeefficiency levels were obtained from the engineering 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item C: Baseline Efficiency LevelsDOE seeks comments on the methodology used to detebaseline efficiency levels for the preliminary analysis. 
Building Technologies Program 56 

Electricity 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 CBEC

– Time-of-use pricing or marginal pricing were not used

• Current water and wastewater prices based on Ame

Water Works Association rate survey

– Specific to state and sector

• Water and wastewater price growth based on CPI fo

utility costs

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis
Building Technologies Program 57 

• Installation costs

– Estimated as a fixed percentage of the base (level 1) MS– Average: $859 for remote condensing, $404 for SCU and – Varied by state based on a state-level index developed u

Means data

• Annual Repair costs

– Estimated as a fixed percentage of the base (level 1) cus

equipment cost 

– Average: $258 per year for remote condensing, $121 pe

and $195 per year for IMH

– Varied by equipment class; did not increase with efficienc

• Annual Maintenance costs

– Preventative maintenance: estimated as a percentage of 

(level 1) customer equipment cost 

– Average: $258 per year for remote condensing, $121 pe

and $195 per year for IMH

– Varied by equipment class; did not increase with efficienc

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis
Building Technologies Program 58 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item 16: Installation, Maintenance and Repair Costs Installation Cost: DOE assumes that higher efficiency equipment wincur any additional installation costs when compared to the baselequipment. DOE requests interested parties’ comments about this assumption and specific information, if appropriate, for DOE to conthis approach. Maintenance Cost: DOE assumes that manufacturers prescribe roannual or bi-annual preventative maintenance procedures for comice-making equipment. DOE requests input from interested parties maintenance costs, and the relationship between maintenance costhe type and size of equipment. Repair Cost: DOE is currently modeling the repair cost for equipmesimple percentage of the baseline selling price of the equipment. Drequests comment on this approach and specific information, if apfor DOE to reconsider this approach.General: The technology options under consideration for the rulempresented in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. DOE requests inpuinterested parties concerning the effect that these technology optioon the installation, maintenance, and repair costs.
Building Technologies Program 59 

Discount Rates 

• Based on weighted average cost of capital • Different rates by establishment type: Lodging, H

Care, Food Sales, Food Service, Retail, EducatioOffice

Equipment Lifetime

• Lifetime - average lifetime of 8.5 years was used 

equipment

– Modeled as a distribution, from 4 to 12 years, averaging 

through the probability of selection

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis
Building Technologies Program 60 

Uncertainties 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 distribution

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item 15: LCC/Payback Assumptions and Uncertainty AnalyDOE welcomes input from interested parties on these assumptions.
Building Technologies Program 61 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Summary of LCC and PBP analysis results for all the effi

levels for the IMH, Air-cooled, Small, Batch Equipment C

Efficiency 

Level 

Number 

Efficiency 

Level 

kWh/yr

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers Life-Cycle Cost Savin

Installed

Cost 

2010$

Total 

Discounted

Operating

Cost 

2010$

LCC, 

All 

Customers

2010$

Affected 

Customers’

Average 

Savings 

2010$

% of Custome

Experien

Net

Cost

%

No 

Impact

%

1 5,639 4,222 6,216 10,438 0 NA NA 2 5,078 4,238 5,829 10,067 372 0 41 3 4,797 4,261 5,636 9,896 462 0 24 4 4,516 4,310 5,442 9,752 524 0 8 
Building Technologies Program 62 

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

Item D: LCC and Payback Period Analysis, General ComDOE seeks comments about the analyses, assumptionsdata sources. DOE welcomes suggestions for additional sources for input assumptions.
Building Technologies Program 63 

Public Meeting Agenda

5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis4 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis 3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule

2 Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 64 

Shipments Analysis Methodology• Future shipments are based on historical shipments and gr

rates are based on commercial floor space construction forfrom Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011

• DOE estimated historical shipments data for the year 2010 

– Shipments for 2010 submitted by AHRI for this rulemak– U.S. Census Bureau Current Industrial Reports (CIR)– North American Association of Food Equipment Manufa

(NAFEM) 2010 report

• Equipment stock was estimated based on the 2010 shipme

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Shipments Analysis Purpose• Estimate future stock and shipments of ACIM equipment by 

class 

• Estimate efficiency mix of stock over time
Building Technologies Program 65 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Percentage of shipments, by equipment classes, based on radeveloped from 2010 AHRI shipments data

Equipment Class

Percentage of 

Shipments Equipment Class

Percenta

Shipme

IMH-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 Program 66 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Annual Shipments for Selected Years

• Total cumulative shipments of 8,818,414 throughou

analysis period

 -

 50,000

 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 20

New Replacement
Building Technologies Program 67 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

National Impact Analysis Purpose• To assess the impacts at the national level at each efficienc

measured by

– National Energy Savings (NES)– Net Present Value (NPV) of total customer economic impacts

National Impact Analysis Method• For each year, for both the base case and standards cases

calculates:

– National energy consumption (energy use per unit mult

stock)

– Total customer expenditures on automatic commercial i

• National equipment expenditures• National operation and maintenance costs

• Difference between base case and standards cases in eac

NES and NPV of customer economic impacts.

• Dollar values are discounted
Building Technologies Program 68 

National Impact Analysis: Key Inputs 

from Upstream Analyses 

• Stock and shipments (Shipments Analysis)

– NIA distributes shipments across efficiency levels based on 

of model availability 

– For standards cases, efficiency distributions for standards c

on 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 

unit, including water and wastewater costs

• Experiential learning factors were applied to equipment c

each year of the analysis

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis
Building Technologies Program 69 

National Impact Analysis: Other Inputs

• Discount Factor

– Used 7 percent and 3 percent real discount rates from 

of Management and Budget’s Regulatory Analysis Gu

– Future expenses are discounted to present year (2011

• Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

– Used to convert on-site energy consumption to primar

source) energy generation

– The preliminary analysis used a factor developed for t

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Rulemaking usinEIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)

– For NOPR, a new analysis will be performed using NE

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis
Building Technologies Program 70 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Equipment Class

National Energy Savings by Standard Level

quadrillion British thermal units (quads)

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.006 0.010IMH-W- Med -B 0.011IMH-W-Large-B 0.003 0.003IMH-A-Small-B 0.057 0.094 0.139IMH-A-Large-B 0.066 0.109 0.155RCU-Small-B 0.020 0.040 0.045RCU-Large-B 0.027 0.052 0.059SCU-W-Small-B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002SCU-W-Large-B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001SCU-A-Small-B 0.007 0.028 0.040 0.053 0.062SCU-A-Large-B 0.003 0.013 0.019 0.025IMH-W-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004IMH-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000IMH-A-Small-C 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005IMH-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000RCU-Small-C 0.000 0.001RCU-Large-C 0.000 0.001SCU-W-Small-CSCU-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000SCU-A-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000SCU-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004
Building Technologies Program 71 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Equipment Class

Cumulative Net Present Value by Standard Level

At 7% Discount Rate (Billions of 2010 Dollars)

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.012 0.020 IMH-W- Med -B 0.024 IMH-W-Large-B 0.006 0.007 IMH-A-Small-B 0.132 0.209 0.285 IMH-A-Large-B 0.153 0.211 0.301 RCU-Small-B 0.047 0.089 0.098 RCU-Large-B 0.062 0.112 0.124 SCU-W-Small-B 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 SCU-W-Large-B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 SCU-A-Small-B 0.016 0.056 0.080 0.106 0.124 SCU-A-Large-B 0.007 0.026 0.037 0.049 IMH-W-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.008 IMH-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IMH-A-Small-C 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.007 IMH-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.00RCU-Small-C 0.000 0.002 RCU-Large-C 0.000 0.001 SCU-W-Small-CSCU-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCU-A-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCU-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 (0.003
Building Technologies Program 72 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Item 17: Shipments Data DifferencesDOE seeks industry support in determining the differencbetween the historical shipment data provided by AHRI data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current IndReports. The Census Bureau data consistently showed shipments of automatic commercial ice makers than the data over a 10-year historical period.Item 18: Efficiency DistributionsDOE seeks industry support in determining whether the case equipment efficiency distribution correctly captures equipment currently available for purchase by customerice-making equipment. DOE also seeks input about the of higher equipment purchase prices on shipments in standards cases.Item E: Shipments/Equipment Stock Data Sources DOE welcomes comments or suggestions on additionasources related to equipment stocks and shipments.
Building Technologies Program 73 

Public Meeting Agenda

5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis4 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis 3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule

2 Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 74 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Overview

• The purpose of the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) is 

impacts of amended energy conservation standards on ma

• The key quantitative outputs of the MIA are the change in 

present value (INPV) due to amended standards and the don manufacturing employment.

The MIA is conducted in three phases:

Industry profile

Develop straw-man GRIM

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrywide / subgroupanalyses

Assess direemploymencompetitio& cumulatiburden 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Building Technologies Program 75 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Overview: Phase 1• DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and 

important issues that require consideration.

Overview: Phase 2• DOE prepares the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM

framework for analyzing industry cash-flow and prepares an interquestionnaire to guide subsequent discussions and collect key d

Overview: Phase 3• DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of ame

standards both quantitatively (using the GRIM) and qualitatively, impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, anburden.

Industry profile

Develop straw-man GRIM

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrywide / subgroupanalyses

Assess diremploymecompetitio& cumulatiburden 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Building Technologies Program 76 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Key issues identified during the Preliminary 

• New energy standards for ice makers may not be cost-effec• Separate equipment classes should be established for batc

continuous ice makers

• Amended standards should account for the varying hardnes

produced by different continuous ice makers

• Higher product costs could prompt customers to purchase b

an alternative to purchasing ice makers

• Conversion costs• Testing burden• Potential customer impact• Potential threat to domestic manufacturing jobs
Building Technologies Program 77 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Item 10: Manufacturer ImpactAs part of the NOPR, DOE will seek further comments fmanufacturers about their potential loss of market sharechanges in the efficiency distribution of covered equipmwithin each industry, and the total change in equipment shipments at each energy conservation standard level, other topics. DOE will then estimate the impacts on the industry quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE seeks furthcomment about the impact of standards on domestic manufacturers. 
Building Technologies Program 78 

Public Meeting Agenda

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

45

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis

2

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule

Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 79 

Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

Emission Analysis and Monetization

Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Utility Impact Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis

Revise

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR

Final 

Rule

FrameworkDocument

Preliminary Analysis
Building Technologies Program 80 

Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

• 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 approaches
Building Technologies Program 81 

Public Meeting Agenda

5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis

4 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Markups, Energy Use, Life-Cycle & Payback Analysis 3

1 Overview & Test Procedure Final Rule

2 Market/Technology, Screening & Engineering Analysis

6 Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
Building Technologies Program 82 

Closing Remarks

Item 19: General Comments on Analyses or AssumptionsDuring each stage of the preliminary analysis, DOE made assumptions related to key parameters of the analytical procthe premises that the assumed parameters reflect the actuaconditions that automatic commercial ice maker experiencesassumptions are described in the respective TSD chapters. welcomes comments on these assumptions.
Building Technologies Program 83 

Closing Remarks

DOE welcomes any closing remarks from interested pa
Building Technologies Program 84 

Contact Information for Feedback

In all correspondence, please refer to the Automatic Commercia(ACIM) Equipment Energy Conservation Standards rulemaking b

– Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Rulemaking,– Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037, and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC39

Email: ACIM-2010-STD-0037@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies ProgramMailstop: EE-2J, Room 1J-0181000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Progr950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: 202-586-2945

Comment period ends March 9, 2012
Building Technologies Program 85 

Relevant 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/co

utomatic_ice_making_equipment.html

• Contact Charles Llenza, Project Manager, from the Appliance S

Program for additional information: 

– Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov– 202.586.2192

• Contact John Cymbalsky, Supervisor, from the Appliance Stan

Program for additional information: 

– John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov– 202.287.1692
Building Technologies Program 86 

Backup Slides
Building Technologies Program 87 

List of Requests for Comment

Item 1 DOE requests comment on whether ice maker package size increase 

considered in this rulemaking. If so, DOE requests comment on how treasonable maximum sizes for ice makers in the analysis. 

Item 2 DOE requests input on what levels of potable water use can be cons

reasonable minimums for consideration in the analysis, whether the mdepend on equipment class, and, if so, what this relationship is.

Item 3 DOE seeks comment regarding the suggested equipment classes as 

executive summary and chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD.

Item 4 DOE requests comment on the suggested efficiency levels to be used 

for all of the equipment classes. DOE requests comment on the baselevels for continuous ice machines. DOE also requests comment on u2005 standards for cube type equipment as the baseline for all batch addition, DOE requests comment on the interim efficiency levels and technology levels for all analyzed equipment classes.
Building Technologies Program 88 

List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)

Item 5 DOE’s initial, brief analysis of the energy use impact of the remote co

suggests that the 0.2 kWh/day differential for large-capacity remote c

makers is appropriate (see chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD). DOE recomment on this analysis and on DOE’s intent to maintain separate eclasses for large-capacity RCU equipment (either batch or continuoussame differential. DOE requests data and information showing that thalternative energy use differential, is appropriate.

Item 6 DOE requests comment on its approaches for development of energy 

large-capacity batch ice makers in the harvest capacity range from 2,lb/24 hours

Item 7 DOE requests comment on whether the proposed markup factor of 1

between MPC and MSP is appropriate, too high, or too low.

Item 8 DOE requests information regarding the proprietary status of low-ther

evaporator designs, such as the designs found in Hoshizaki batch ice Specifically, DOE seeks input on which relevant patents are still activeother forms of intellectual property ownership might be associated witDOE also seeks input on whether proprietary status is the key reason manufacturers would not be able to adopt such designs. 
Building Technologies Program 89 

List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)

Item 9 DOE requests comment on its suggested approach to include consi

condenser water use increase as a design option in the analysis (se

the preliminary TSD). This approach uses estimates of LCC in the eanalysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of design options that affeand water use. DOE also requests comment on its intent to use sucdevelop condenser water use standards for continuous ice machine

Item 10 DOE seeks further comment about the impact of standards on dome

manufacturers. See chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD for more deta

Item 11 DOE requests interested parties’ comments on the share values for 

distribution channels through which commercial ice-making equipmeby the end user. DOE also requests additional data or data sources characterize the costs of the local contractor or dealer segment of thchannel.

Item 12 DOE seeks comment about the use of experiential learning to adjus

expected future price changes.
Building Technologies Program 90 

Item 13 DOE seeks information on utilization factors or potential data sourc

be used to improve upon the current assumption of 50-percent utifactors.

Item 14 DOE requests comment on the modeling of condenser water usag

all ice makers are installed in a single-pass configuration.

Item 15 Based on the data from available sources, DOE proposes to use a

lifetime value of 8.5 years for all equipment classes in all building tused Weibull survival functions to represent the equipment lifetime the LCC and PBP analysis and shipments analysis. DOE welcomeinterested parties on these assumptions.
Building Technologies Program 91 

List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)

Item 16 DOE assumes that higher efficiency equipment would not incur any 

installation costs when compared to the baseline equipment. DOE reinterested parties’ comments about this assumption and specific infoappropriate, for DOE to consider in this approach. With respect to maintenance cost, DOE assumes that manufacturerroutine annual or bi-annual preventative maintenance procedures foice-making equipment. DOE requests input from interested parties ocosts, and the relationship between maintenance costs and the type equipment. DOE is currently modeling the repair cost for equipment as a simple the baseline selling price of the equipment. DOE requests comment 

approach and specific information, if appropriate, for DOE to recons

approach.The technology options under consideration for the rulemaking are pchapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. DOE requests input from interesteconcerning the effect that these technology options have on the inst

maintenance, and repair costs.
Building Technologies Program 92 

List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)

Item 17 DOE seeks industry support in determining the differences between 

shipment data provided by AHRI and data derived from the U.S. CenCurrent Industrial Reports. The Census Bureau data consistently sho

shipments of automatic commercial ice makers than the AHRI data ohistorical period. 

Item 18 DOE seeks industry support in determining whether the base-case e

efficiency distribution correctly captures all equipment currently availapurchase by customers of ice-making equipment. DOE also seeks inimpact of higher equipment purchase prices on shipments in standar

Item 19 During each stage of the preliminary analysis, DOE made assumptio

key parameters of the analytical process on the premises that the asparameters reflect the actual conditions that automatic commercial icexperiences. These assumptions are described in the respective TSD DOE welcomes comments on these assumptions. 
Building Technologies Program 93 

Item A: Equipment ClassesDOE would like to know if there are different types of equipment with signifishipments that do not fall under any of the equipment classes considered fopreliminary analysis. Item B: TechnologiesDOE asks interested parties to comment on other technologies that DOE shconsider.Item C: Baseline Efficiency LevelsDOE seeks comments on the methodology used to determine baseline efficfor the preliminary analysis.Item D: LCC and Payback Period Analysis, General CommentsDOE seeks comments about the analyses, assumptions, and data sources. welcomes suggestions for additional data sources for input assumptions.Item E: Shipments/Equipment Stock Data Sources DOE welcomes comments or suggestions on additional data sources relateequipment stocks and shipments.

List of Requests for Comment (Cont.)