### AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD S RULEMAKING NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY PUBLICATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to stakeholder requests for publication of rulemaking analyses conducted after the Notic e of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for a utomatic c ommercial i ce m aker (ACIM) energy conservation standards was published (79 FR 14845 (Mar. 17, 2014)) , the U.S

. Department of Energy (DOE) has compiled data and analyses for the l ife

- c ycle c ost (LCC) and
p ayback p eriod (PBP) analyses and for the n ational i mpact a nalysis (NIA).

O n April 14, 2014, DOE held a public meeting to present the NOPR results and proposals f

or amended standards for ACIM

. DOE held another public meeting on June 19, 2014 to demonstrate the modeling techniques to evaluate potential efficiency increases for ACIM. At these public meetings and in written comments, stakeholders provided feedback on the analyses and assumptions, and provided additional data for use in the analyses. As a result of the comments and additional data, DOE has revised the analyses presented in the NOPR. This release of data and analyses is intended to provide stakeholders w ith an opportunity to review and comment on these revisions. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide additional feedback during the comment period.

1. LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBA CK PERIOD ANALYSES

The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impact of potential standards on individual customers. The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing

, and operating an automatic commercial ice maker over its lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the LCC of an automatic commercial ice maker designed to meet pos sible new energy conservation standards with the LCC of an automatic commercial ice maker likely to be installed in the absence of new standards. DOE determines the LCC by considering the following :
(1) total installed cost to the customer (which consists of manufacturer selling price

, distribution chain markups, installation cost, and sales taxes);

(2) the annual energy consumption of automatic commercial ice makers that meet each of the efficiency levels considered as they are used in the field;

(3) the operating cost of automatic commercial ice makers ( including energy, water, repair

, and maintenance costs);

(4) the lifetime of automatic commercial ice maker s ; and

(5) a discount rate that reflects the real customer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present

- value term s.
The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the increase in purchase price of higher efficiency automatic commercial ice makers through savings in the operating cost. PBP

1

### is calculated by dividing the incremental increase in installed cost of the higher efficiency equipment, compared to the baseline equipment, by the annual savings in operating costs.

In response to stakeholder comments and data supplied by stakeholders, DOE revised the NOPR engineering analysis and subsequently the LCC/PBP analyses and NIA, as described in the following sections

. A major source of change is in the treatment of specific equipment classes with significant shipment volumes of 22

- inch

- wide units and where height increases in the cabinets were considered in DOE’ s NOPR engineering analysis

. In the engineering analysis revisions for the final rule , DOE examined design options and efficiency level improvements for 22

- inch units for three equipment classes under a scenario where no increase in equipment size

was cons idered , resulting in two separate cost

- efficiency curves (space constrained and non

space constrained) for each of these three classes (IMH

- A

- Small

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and IMH

W

- Small

- B). Each of these equipment classes is designed for mounting on bins, ice dispensers

, or fountain dispensers

, and in the case of dispensers, generally the combination is mounted on a counter or table. For the LCC/PBP analysis and the NIA, a major source of change was the integration of these two curves for these equipment classes . A related source of change was assessing whether the impact of equipment cabinet size increases impose additional installation
costs on customers.

Other revisions include the inclusion of additional installation costs for certain other efficiency improvements (drain water heat exchangers and larger co ndense rs in remote

co ndenser units), changes in the calculation of repair costs to explicitly identify labor and material components, changes to the efficiency distribution of equipment in the baseline market, and changes to the utilization factor used to determine electricity and water usage.

1.1 Installation Costs

Installation cost for equipment going into a non

- space

- constrained application is the sum of the base installation cos t ( materials and labor ) , and as

- required

, additional installation costs addressing two efficiency increments (represented by specific design options) as discussed below

. The base installation cost for each equipment class was arrived at based on conversati ons with ice maker installing vendors during the NOPR phase. The first efficiency increment was the inclusion of drain water heat exchangers (DWHEs)

— a n additional installation cost was added at the efficiency level at which a DWHE is added to the engineeri ng curve, and for all higher efficiency levels. The DWHE installation cost was calculated as the product of hourly labor cost for a n installer and the additional hours required to install the DWHE. Based on a review of DWHE literature

, DOE estimated the additional installation time for a DWHE in conjunction with the ice maker installation to be 0.75 hours

. Based on RS Means data 1 

### t he labor rate was estimated to be $ 75.65 per hour . For the NIA , the additional DWHE installation cost was applied to all insta llations including a DWHE throughout the 30

- year analysis period

.
For the two larger remote condensing equipment classes (RCU

- NRC

- Large

- B2 and RCU

- NRC

- Large

- B1)

, DOE included additional installation costs for efficiency levels

1 

### RS Means Company, Inc. 201 4 RS Means Construction Cost Data . 201 4 . Kingston, MA.

2

### incorporating increased cond enser size . Based on review of RS Means data 1 

### , for the RCU

- NRC

Large

- B1 equipment class, DOE estimated an additional 0.5 hours of labor to install the larger and heavier condenser but with no additional cost for materials . For the RCU

- NRC

- Large

- B2 equipmen t class, DOE estimated an additional 1.5 hours of labor to install the heavier condenser and an average of $40 in material s for modifications to the base mounting . The labor rate is $79.5 0 per hour. For the RCU

- NRC

- Large

- B2 equipment class, the additional material costs were assumed to apply to replacement of existing equipment, one time, while the labor costs for both classes were assumed to apply to all installation s with increased condenser size throughout the 30

- year analysis period.

For equipment class es where increased cabinet size was considered in the engineering curves and for which a portion of customers will face space constraints, additional installation costs were estimated. For the three IMH equipment classes with 22

- inch

, reduced

- footprint
equ ipment , for customers to “ go beyond ” the end of the 22

- inch space constrained engineering curve to the higher efficiency levels available in the non

- 22

- inch space constrained engineering

curve , a certain percentage of customers would likely need to retrofi t the existing space to make possible the installation of larger units. For the non

- 22

- inch products

, in equipment classes in which the engineering curve identified a necessary size increase, a smaller percentage of customers would also need to retrofit th e existing space to install the larger units. The installation costs for equipment classes with space constraints are the weighted average of the installation costs of the non

- space

- constrained and the space

- constrained units for the equipment class under consideration.

Calculation of the construction cost expense reflects the following assumptions and data :

• Additional construction costs to address space constraints is appli cable only to replacement shipments

• The relative shipment fraction of 22

- inch units in each of the three classes

• The percentage of customers buying 22

- inch units wh o have space constraints

• The percentage of customers buying non

- 22

- inch units w h o have space constraints

• The average construction cost for installation of the units where spa ce constraints exist (e.g., to raise a small area of a ceiling)

Some customers buying 22

- inch units would be able to purchase taller units, while others would incur construction costs to do so. T o merge the 22

- inch and non

- 22

- inch curves, the construction cost is introduced at the end of the 22

- inch engineering curve to “enable” space

constrained customers to buy bigger units. For customers of non

- 22

- inch units, space constraints occur when the design option is added that increases the cabinet size. All inp uts to the calculation for 22

- inch units are shown on Table 1

. 1 while the inputs for the calculation of non

22

- inch units are shown on Table 1

. 2

. The construction cost adders are one

- time adders, meaning that once a building is renovated one time the adder is no longer needed. Thus, for use in the NIA

, the installation cost adders a re eliminated after the base year stock is retired for the first time. For the LCC/PBP analysis, the total installation costs for all equipment classes are shown

on Table 1

. 3

. Note that on all of the tables showing assumptions by efficiency levels, levels 3A and 4A were added to denote the end of the 22

- inch engineering curves. Thus, for the IMH

- Air Batch

3

### product classes, a level 3A was added a t the end of the space

- c onstrained 22

- inch curve at an 18 percent efficiency improvement above the base line for the small units (IMH

- A

- Small

- B) and 16 percent above the base for the large units (IMH

- A

- Large

- B)

. Similarly

, a level 4A was added to reflect the end of the space constrained IMH

- W

- Small

- B curves. Above these levels the equipment class curves are merged, but with the additional construction costs added to the installation costs, as necessary, to remove space constraints. These 3A and 4A efficiency levels do not apply to the other classes. While not identified as having significant 22

- inch shipments in the NOPR comments, it is noted that a revised engineering curve for IMH

- A

- Small

- C also reflected increased size growth and was treated similarly to th e non

- 22 inch IMH

- A

- Small

- B equipment.

Table 1

. 1 Installation Cost Assumptions for 22

- Inch Units
IMH

- A

Small

- B IMH

- A

Large

- B

- 1 IMH

- W

Small

- B Replacement shipment fraction 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% Estimated construction cost for customers with size constraints $1,804.0 $1,804.0 $1,804.0

Total 22

- inch

- wide shipments 13.0% 5.0% 48.0% Estimated space

- constrained 22

- inch

- wide shipments 30.0% 35.0% 30.0% Efficiency level above which construction cost is added to merge curves 18.1% 15.6% 21.5%



### Table 1

. 2 Installation Cost Assumptions for Non

- 22

- Inch Units with Size Growth
IMH

- A

Small

- B IMH

- A

Large

- B

- 1 IMH

- W

Small

- B IMH

- A

Small

- C Replacement shipment fraction 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% Estimated construction cost for customers with size constraints $1,804.0 $1,804.0 $1,804.0 $1,804.0

Total non

- 22

- inch

- wide size shipments 87.0% 95.0% 52.0% 100.0% Estimated space

- constrained non

- 22

- inch wide shipments 10.0% 15.0% 10.0% 10.0% Efficiency level above which construction cost is added to merge curves 18.1% 19.2% 19.2% 18.8%



### Table 1

. 3 Total Average Installation Costs

Equipment Class Installation Cost 2013$ Level

1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3A Level 4 Level 4A Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 305 305 305 412 442 665 IMH

- W

- Med

- B 609 609 609 666 IMH

- W

- Large

- B 1,015 1,072

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 1,015 1,072 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 1,015 1,072 IMH

- A

- Small

- B 305 305 312 312 500 556 556 IMH

- A

- Large

- B 609 618 620 620 827 875 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 609 609 612 612 857 913 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 609 666 666 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 1,523 1,523 1,523 1,627 1,627 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 1,523 1,523 1,523 1,619 1,619

4RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 1,523 1,523 1,523 1,738 1,738 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 609 609 609 609 609 666 666 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 305 305 305 305 305 305 361 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 609 609 609 609 609 666 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 305 305 305 459 459 459 IMH

- A

- Large

- C 609 609 609 609 609 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 761 761 761 761 761 761 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 305 305 305 305 305 305



### 1.2 Annualized Repair Costs

Total repair cost for each efficiency level is calculated as the sum of the replacement component cost and the replacement labor cost for those components that would be repaired in the event of component failure . For automatic commercial ice makers, DOE identified the components prone to failure as compressors, fan motors

, and auger motors. The replacement component cost calculation uses manufacturer p roduct ion c ost (MPC ) values from the engineering analysis. A replacement product cost markup of 250 percent (2.5 times the MPC) and a probability of replacement of 25 percent for each component is used to estimate the lifetime repair cost at each efficiency level. The replac ement component cost calculation methodology has remained the same between the NOPR and the revised analysis.

The repair labor cost was calculated as the product of hourly labor cost for a refrigeration technician and the number of hours required to repla ce the failed component. Based on conversations with ice maker repair vendors, the repair labor hours for a compressor failure only,

a condenser fan motor failure only, and an auger motor failure only were estimated to be 4 hours, 2 hours, and 2 hours

, res pectively. Labor cost was estimated at $125 per hour based on discussions with compan ies repair ing ACIM equipment and consistent with NOPR comment

. The repair cost assumptions are summarized on Table 1

. 4

.
Table 1

. 4 Repair Cost Assumptions Compressors Fan Motors Auger Motors Repair Chain Markup 250% 250% 250% Probability of Replacement 25% 25% 25% Labor Required 4 hours 2 hours 2 hours Labor Rate ($/hr) $125 $125 $125



### Annualized repair costs for each efficiency level were then calculated by dividing the total repair cost at the considered level by the average lifetime of 8.5 years for batch and continuous type ice makers

. Total repair costs by equipment class and efficiency level are summarized on Table 1

. 5

. All equipment classes other than those with 22

- inch variants have a si ngle annualized repair cost curve. The equipment classes with 22

- inch variants have two repair cost curves, one each for the 22

- inch and the non

- 22

- inch units. Shipment data provided by AHRI were used to distribute the equipment under each of these classes and to merge the two annualized repair cost

curves and produce one single annualized repair cost curve for the equipment class

.

5

### Table 1

. 5 Repair Costs

Equipment Class Repair Cost 2013$/yr Level

1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3A Level 4 Level 4A Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 45.01 46.53 46.53 46.53 46.53 46.53 IMH

- W

- Med

- B 52.92 54.47 54.47 54.47 IMH

- W

- Large

- B 74.41 77.04

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 79.53 82.42 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 57.86 59.66 IMH

- A

- Small

- B 47.32 49.98 49.98 49.98 49.98 49.98 49.98 IMH

- A

- Large

- B 55.96 59.50 60.56 60.56 60.61 60.61 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 54.70 57.99 59.25 59.25 59.31 59.31 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 62.76 67.63 67.63 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 62.99 65.40 67.91 68.60 68.60 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 61.39 63.78 66.45 66.73 66.73 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 86.85 89.71 89.71 96.54 96.54 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 45.69 45.69 46.88 46.88 46.88 46.88 46.88 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 37.17 38.07 39.10 40.14 41.10 42.07 42.24 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 45.79 46.16 46.57 46.68 48.15 48.14 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 78.20 80.27 81.60 81.95 89.05 105.12 IMH

- A

- Large

- C 89.34 91.55 92.06 103.71 124.20 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 85.48 87.67 88.87 89.22 105.39 118.88 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 77.27 77.40 78.30 79.20 87.52 104.01



### 1.3 Equipment Distribution by Efficiency Level

In the LCC model, DOE employs distributions for certain inputs and allow s the se to vary to reflect variation in the market , rather than simply assuming each input is a fixed value. One input that is varied is the efficiency level selected by customers in t he base case. The LCC model uses Crystal Ball to run 10,000 simulations of the model, varying numerous inputs according to the distributions identified for each. When estimating the energy savings, the changes in the up

front cost of equipment, and the imp acts on operating and maintenance costs, DOE explicitly recognizes that not all ACIM equipment customers purchase equipment equivalent to the lowest available efficiency level. Rather, customers purchase equipment of varying efficiency levels

, from the lea st

- efficient to the most

- efficient ACIM equipment available. To capture this variability, DOE uses a distribution of equipment by efficiency levels. In comments on the NOPR, stakeholders provided an efficiency distribution for b atch

- type equipment classes based on actual shipments. Thus, for b atch

- type equipment classes, DOE for the final rule is using the shipments

- based distribution provided in comment . For c ontinuous

- type equipment classes, DOE for the final rule is updat ing the distribution based on a m ore current database of products available on the market. Information concerning product availability is collected from various sources such as the web sites of the Air

- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) , the California Energy Commis sion, and equipment manufacturers. The revised efficiency distribution of equipment for use in the LCC/PBP model as well as the NIA model is shown on Table 1

. 6

.

6

### Table 1

. 6 Market Shares by Efficiency Level, Base Case

Equipment Class Market Share by Efficiency Level Level

1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3A Level 4 Level 4A Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 37% 16% 45% 3% 0% 0% IMH

- W

- Med

- B 56% 20% 15% 9% IMH

- W

- Large

- B

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 87% 13% IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 87% 13% IMH

- A

- Small

- B 24% 30% 47% 0% 0% 0% 0% IMH

- A

- Large

- B IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 34% 28% 35% 0% 3% 0% IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 17% 22% 61% RCU

- ***

- Large

- B RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 43% 36% 19% 1% 0% RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 43% 36% 19% 1% 0% SCU

- W

- Large

- B 72% 1% 0% 22% 5% 0% 0% SCU

- A

- Small

- B 52% 15% 13% 8% 12% 0% 0% SCU

- A

- Large

- B 63% 15% 22% 0% 1% 0% IMH

- A

- Small

- C 31% 11% 19% 6% 19% 14% IMH

- A

- Large

- C 43% 22% 17% 9% 9% RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 28% 28% 33% 6% 0% 6% SCU

- A

- Small

- C 44% 9% 15% 18% 15% 0%



### 1.4 Electricity and Water Usage Estimates / Utilization Factors

The estimation of annual electricity (kilowatt

- hours, or kWh) and water usage (gallons) depend s on the estimated kWh/100 lb ice per day estimated in the engineering analysis, and a utilization factor. The utilization factor represents the actual ice made per year as a percentage of the total ice the machine could make. For the NOPR, DOE used a 50

- percent utilization factor. Su bsequent to the NOPR, stakeholders provided a data set of actual metered utilization factor data, with 80 observations. DOE identified an additional source with 8 observations. The average utilization factor for the 88 observations was 41.74 percent. DOE us ed this factor for the estimation of electricity and water usage values.

In the LCC model, DOE used Crystal Ball to allow the utilization factor to vary. The 88 observations were divided into bins based on 0 to 10 percent, 10 to 20 percent, etc. For each b in, the utilization factor was the average for the observations within the bin. The distribution is shown on the Table 1

. 7

.

7

### Table 1

. 7 Distribution Used For LCC Crystal Ball for U tilization Factor

Bin Upper Level Number o f Observations i n Bin Average Utilization Factor f or Observations i n Bin 10 .00 % 0 0% 19.99 % 2 16% 29.99 % 28 26% 39.99 % 23 35% 49.99 % 11 45% 59.99 % 9 54% 69.99 % 6 63% 79.99 % 5 76% 89.99 % 3 86%

100% 1 91%


### Electricity and water usage values are shown on Table 1

. 8 and Table 1

. 9

.
Table 1

. 8 Annual Electricity Usage by E fficiency Level

Equipment Class Annual Electricity Usage kWh Level

1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3A Level 4 Level 4A Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 2,832 2,551 2,411 2,270 2,227 2,162 IMH

- W

- Med

- B 6,040 5,439 5,138 4,891 IMH

- W

- Large

- B 10,750 9,891

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 9,166 8,405 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 15,868 14,693 IMH

- A

- Small

- B 3,535 3,184 3,009 2,901 2,833 2,658 2,640 IMH

- A

- Large

- B 8,078 7,272 6,931 6,895 6,622 6,411 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 7,350 6,617 6,251 6,209 5,885 5,636 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 11,999 10,802 10,591 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 12,118 10,908 10,304 9,699 9,503 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 11,679 10,514 9,931 9,348 9,154 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 18,671 16,807 15,874 14,942 14,720 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 3,499 3,151 2,978 2,804 2,630 2,457 2,372 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 2,177 1,962 1,854 1,747 1,639 1,532 1,473 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 3,011 2,713 2,563 2,414 2,265 2,141 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 4,299 3,872 3,658 3,445 3,231 3,074 IMH

- A

- Large

- C 8,270 7,445 7,033 6,621 6,348 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 7,737 6,966 6,580 6,195 5,809 5,688 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 3,416 3,077 2,907 2,738 2,568 2,450

8

### Table 1

. 9 Annual Water Usage by Efficiency Level

Equipment Class Annual Water Usage 1,000 g al/y r Level

1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3A Level 4 Level 4A Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 80.7 79.7 78.9 78.9 78.9 78.9 IMH

- W

- Med

- B 223.6 223.6 223.6 223.6 IMH

- W

- Large

- B 502.9 502.9

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 421.1 421.1 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 767.2 767.2 IMH

- A

- Small

- B 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.7 IMH

- A

- Large

- B 30.2 30.2 27.6 27.6 27.7 27.7 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 27.4 27.4 24.3 24.3 24.4 24.4 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 45.7 45.7 45.7 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 45.7 45.7 45.7 45.7 45.7 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 74.0 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 9.1 9.1 9.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 IMH

- A

- Large

- C 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0


### DOE developed an Excel spreadsheet model to analyze LCC and PBP, and the spreadsheet has been posted online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29

.
2. NATIONAL IMPACT ANAL YSIS

The NIA estimates the national energy savings ( NES ) and the net present value ( NPV ) of total customer costs and savings expected to result from potential new standards at each efficiency level . DOE calculated NES and NPV for each efficiency level as the difference between a base

- case forecast (without new standards) and the standards

- case forecast (with

s tandards). Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined for the lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers shipped during the analysis period. 2 

### Energy savings include the full

- fuel

- cycle energy savings ( i.e. , the energy needed to ext ract, process, and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity from those fuel sources). The NPV is the sum over time of the discounted net savings each year, which consist s of the difference between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed costs. NPV results are reported for discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent

. The aforementioned changes to inputs to the LCC/PBP analysis were also made in the NIA.

2 The standards analysis period for national benefits covers a 30

- year period, plus the life of equipment purchased during the period. In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30

- year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30

- year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the a pproach used for its national economic analysis.

9

### To calculate the NES and NPV, DOE projected future shipments and efficiency distributions for each ACIM equipment class . DOE recognizes the uncertainty in projecting important inputs , and as a result the NIA model includes options for examining several di fferent scenarios for each. The NIA model is posted online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29

.
3. LCC AND PBP RESULTS

In Table 3

. 1 through Table 3

. 4 , DOE provides the preliminary results for the LCC/PBP analysis.

Table 3

. 1 Mean LCC S avings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Standard Level* 2013$

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 IMH

- W

- Small

- B $185 $185 $229 $229 ($529) IMH

- W

- Med

- B $244 $244 $211 $211 ($102) IMH

- W

- Large

- B NA NA NA NA ($181)

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 NA NA NA NA ($214) IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 NA NA NA NA ($73) IMH

- A

- Small

- B $154 $80 $81 $81 ($389) IMH

- A

- Large

- B $387 $517 $363 $283 $63 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 $439 $593 $405 $310 $50 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 $108 $108 $137 $137 $137 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B $791 $791 $785 $408 $480 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 $765 $765 $762 $404 $476 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 $1,178 $1,178 $1,135 $457 $543 SCU

- W

- Large

- B $448 $604 $544 $176 $217 SCU

- A

- Small

- B $114 $163 $264 $264 ($124) SCU

- A

- Large

- B $151 $408 $470 $89 $89 IMH

- A

- Small

- C $247 $247 $301 $98 ($408) IMH

- A

- Large

- C $539 $539 $631 $631 $60 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C $498 $483 $538 $538 ($31) SCU

- A

- Small

- C $227 $287 $322 $322 ($224) Values in parentheses are negative values. * LCC results for IMH

- W

- Large

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and RCU

- ***

- Large

- B are a weighted average of the two sub

- equipment class level typical units shown on the table.

10

### Table 3

. 2 Median Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and TSL

Equipment Class Standard Level*,**
years TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 2.15 2.15 2.38 2.38 13.20 IMH

- W

- Med

- B 3.45 3.45 4.62 4.62 8.10 IMH

- W

- Large

- B NA NA NA NA 10.78

IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 NA NA NA NA 11.40 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 NA NA NA NA 8.80 IMH

- A

- Small

- B 2.85 4.45 4.39 4.39 11.60 IMH

- A

- Large

- B 2.12 2.28 2.18 3.74 5.51 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 1.19 1.39 1.38 3.22 5.33 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 7.10 7.10 6.52 6.52 6.52 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 0.71 0.71 0.91 3.78 3.79 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 0.69 0.69 0.88 3.74 3.75 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 1.01 1.01 1.42 4.42 4.37 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 1.07 1.63 1.79 5.26 5.12 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 1.95 2.28 3.03 3.03 8.51 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 2.41 1.61 1.81 6.35 6.35 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 1.41 1.41 1.45 4.56 12.16 IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 5.63 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 0.72 0.86 0.96 0.96 5.44 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 0.64 0.88 1.00 1.00 9.98 * Cells with values smaller than or equal to 3.0 are highlighted in green. ** PBP results for IMH

- W

- Large

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and RCU

- ***

- Large

- B are shown separately for the two sub

- equipment class level typical units.



### Table 3

. 3 Distribution of Custom er Impacts
Standard Level* Percentage of Customers (%) Category 

### TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5
IMH

- W

- Small

- B Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 96 No Impact (%) 63 63 47 47 0 Net Benefit (%) 37 37 52 52 4
IMH

- W

- Med

- B Net Cost (%) 2 2 20 20 67 No Impact (%) 44 44 24 24 9 Net Benefit (%) 53 53 55 55 25
IMH

- W

- Large

- B Net Cost (%) NA NA NA NA 68 No Impact (%) NA NA NA NA 13 Net Benefit (%) NA NA NA NA 19
IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 Net Cost (%) NA NA NA NA 71 No Impact (%) NA NA NA NA 13 Net Benefit (%) NA NA NA NA 16
IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 Net Cost (%) NA NA NA NA 58 No Impact (%) NA NA NA NA 13 Net Benefit (%) NA NA NA NA 29

11IMH

- A

- Small

- B Net Cost (%) 1 20 20 20 95 No Impact (%) 76 47 0 0 0
Net Benefit (%) 23 33 80 80 5
IMH

- A

- Large

- B Net Cost (%) 1 1 1 29 5 3 No Impact (%) 6 9 45 12 1 2 10 Net Benefit (%) 30 53 8 7 59 3 8
IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 33 61 No Impact (%) 66 38 3 3 0 Net Benefit (%) 34 62 97 64 39
IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 Net Cost (%) 9 9 8 8 8 No Impact (%) 83 83 61 61 61 Net Benefit (%) 8 8 31 31 31 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 37 3 4 No Impact (%) 56 56 20 1 0 Net Benefit (%) 4 4 4 4 80 6 2 66 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 37 33 No Impact (%) 56 56 20 1 0 Net Benefit (%) 44 44 80 62 67 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 46 43 No Impact (%) 56 56 20 1 0 Net Benefit (%) 44 44 80 53 57 SCU

- W

- Large

- B Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 46 43 No Impact (%) 28 28 5 0 0 Net Benefit (%) 72 72 94 54 57 SCU

- A

- Small

- B Net Cost (%) 0 1 8 8 75 No Impact (%) 48 20 0 0 0 Net Benefit (%) 52 79 92 92 25 SCU

- A

- Large

- B Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 52 52 No Impact (%) 37 1 1 0 0 Net Benefit (%) 62 99 99 48 48
IMH

- A

- Small

- C Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 30 79 No Impact (%) 69 69 58 39 14 Net Benefit (%) 31 31 42 31 7
IMH

- A

- Large

- C Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 52 No Impact (%) 57 57 35 35 9 Net Benefit (%) 43 43 65 65 39

12RCU

- ***

- Small

- C Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 61 No Impact (%) 72 44 11 11 6 Net Benefit (%) 28 56 89 89 33 SCU

- A

- Small

- C Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0 84 No Impact (%) 56 47 32 32 0 Net Benefit (%) 44 53 68 68 16 * LCC results for IMH

- W

- Large

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and RCU

- ***

- Large

- B are a weighted average of the two sub

- equipment class level typical units shown on the table.



### In Table 3

. 4 through Table 3

. 6 , DOE provides the preliminary results for the NIA.

Table 3

. 4 Cumulative National Energy Savings including Full

- Fuel

- Cycle

Equipment Class Standard Level*,** quads TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.009 IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.011 IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 0.001 IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 0.001 IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.011 0.024 0.038 0.038 0.073 IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.019 0.034 0.038 0.059 0.076 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 0.017 0.032 0.035 0.056 0.072 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 0.015 0.015 0.030 0.047 0.053 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 0.014 0.014 0.028 0.044 0.049 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.008 0.018 0.032 0.032 0.036 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 0.006 0.015 0.019 0.023 0.023 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.011 IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.006 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.005 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 0.006 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.027 Total 0.078 0.130 0.195 0.240 0.333 * National energy savings for IMH

- W

- Large

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and RCU

- ***

- Large

- B are the sum of the two sub

- equipment class level typical units shown in the table. The components may not always appear to match the totals due to rounding. ** Savings of 0.000 indicate savings of less than 0.0005 quads.

13

### Table 3

. 5 Cumulative NPV Results B ased on a 7

- percent Discount Rate ( b illion 2013$)

Equipme nt Class Standard Level*,** billion 2013$ TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 0.006 0.006 0.011 0.011 (0.046) IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 (0.010) IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.002) IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 (0.002) IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 (0.000) IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.019 0.018 0.036 0.036 (0.220) IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.040 0.104 0.113 0.107 0.022 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 0.040 0.104 0.111 0.105 0.020 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 0.041 0.041 0.074 0.038 0.046 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 0.038 0.038 0.070 0.036 0.044 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.002 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.016 0.035 0.074 0.074 (0.050) SCU

- A

- Large

- B 0.012 0.056 0.064 0.006 0.006 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.006 (0.028) IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.009 (0.000) RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.008 (0.002) SCU

- A

- Small

- C 0.018 0.026 0.038 0.038 (0.050) Total 0.173 0.311 0.446 0.341 (0.335)

* NPV results for IMH

- W

- Large

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and RCU

- ***

- Large

- B are the sum of the two sub

- equipment class level typical units shown in the table. ** NPV results of 0.000 indicate change of less than 0.0005 billion 2013$.

14

### Table 3

. 6 Cumulative NPV Results B ased on a 3

- percent Discount Rate ( b illion 2013$)

Equipment Class Standard Level*,** billion 2013$ TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 IMH

- W

- Small

- B 0.014 0.014 0.026 0.026 (0.071) IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.020 (0.012) IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.003) IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 1 (0.003) IMH

- W

- Large

- B

- 2 (0.000) IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.043 0.050 0.094 0.094 (0.345) IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.089 0.233 0.252 0.273 0.122 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 1 0.087 0.231 0.246 0.267 0.116 IMH

- A

- Large

- B

- 2 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.006 0.006 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B 0.089 0.089 0.161 0.103 0.122 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 1 0.083 0.083 0.151 0.097 0.115 RCU

- ***

- Large

- B

- 2 0.006 0.006 0.011 0.005 0.006 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.002 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.035 0.078 0.174 0.174 (0.060) SCU

- A

- Large

- B 0.027 0.126 0.143 0.035 0.035 IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.011 0.011 0.019 0.017 (0.046) IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.011 0.011 0.019 0.019 0.003 RCU

- ***

- Small

- C 0.005 0.010 0.017 0.017 (0.001) SCU

- A

- Small

- C 0.038 0.057 0.082 0.082 (0.083) Total 0.383 0.700 1.013 0.862 (0.338) * NPV results for IMH

- W

- Large

- B, IMH

- A

- Large

- B, and RCU

- ***

- Large

- B are the sum of the two sub

- equipment class level typical units shown in the table. ** NPV results of 0.000 indicate change of less than 0.0005 billion 2013$.

15