AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS RULEMAKING

NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY PUBLICATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to stakeholder requests for publication of rulemaking analyses conducted 

after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for automatic commercial ice maker (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 life-cycle cost (LCC) and 

payback period (PBP) analyses and for the national impact analysis (NIA).

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

for 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 with 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 PAYBACK 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 possible 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 makers; and 

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

present-value terms. 

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 considered, resulting in two separate cost-efficiency curves (space constrained and nonspace constrained) for each of these three classes (IMH-A-Small-B, IMH-A-Large-B, and IMHW-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 condensers in remote 

condenser 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 cost (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 conversations 

with ice maker installing vendors during the NOPR phase. The first efficiency increment was the 

inclusion of drain water heat exchangers (DWHEs)—an additional installation cost was added at 

the efficiency level at which a DWHE is added to the engineering curve, and for all higher 

efficiency levels. The DWHE installation cost was calculated as the product of hourly labor cost 

for an 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 data1 the labor rate was 

estimated to be $75.65 per hour. For the NIA, the additional DWHE installation cost was applied 

to all installations 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. 2014 RS Means Construction Cost Data. 2014. Kingston, MA.

2

 
incorporating increased condenser size. Based on review of RS Means data1

, for the RCU-NRCLarge-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 

equipment class, DOE estimated an additional 1.5 hours of labor to install the heavier condenser 

and an average of $40 in materials for modifications to the base mounting. The labor rate is 

$79.50 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 installations with increased condenser size throughout 

the 30-year analysis period.

For equipment classes 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

equipment, 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 retrofit 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 the 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 applicable 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 who have space constraints 

• The percentage of customers buying non-22-inch units who have space constraints

• The average construction cost for installation of the units where space 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. To 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” spaceconstrained 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 inputs to the 

calculation for 22-inch units are shown on Table 1.1 while the inputs for the calculation of non22-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 are 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 at the end of the space-constrained 22-inch curve at an 18

percent efficiency improvement above the baseline 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 the non-22 inch IMH-A-Small-B 

equipment.

Table 1.1 Installation Cost Assumptions for 22-Inch Units

IMH-ASmall-BIMH-ALarge-B-1IMH-WSmall-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-ASmall-BIMH-ALarge-B-1IMH-WSmall-BIMH-ASmall-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 

4
 RCU-***-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 production cost (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 replacement 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 replace 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, respectively. Labor cost was estimated at $125 per hour based on 

discussions with companies repairing 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 single 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 allows these 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 the 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 upfront cost of equipment, and the impacts 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 least-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 batch-type equipment classes based 

on actual shipments. Thus, for batch-type equipment classes, DOE for the final rule is using the 

shipments-based distribution provided in comment. For continuous-type equipment classes, DOE

for the final rule is updating the distribution based on a more 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 Commission, 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) 

depends 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. 

Subsequent to the NOPR, stakeholders provided a dataset 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 used 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 bin, 

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 Utilization Factor

Bin

Upper 

Level

Number of 

Observations 

in Bin

Average 

Utilization

Factor for 

Observations 

in 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 Efficiency 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 gal/yr

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 ANALYSIS

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 

standards). 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 extract, 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 consists 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 approach 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 different 

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 Savings 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 Customer 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

11
IMH

-A-Small-B

Net Cost (%)

1 20 20 20 95

No Impact (%) 76 47000

Net Benefit (%) 23 33 80 805

IMH-A-Large-B

Net Cost (%)

1

11 2953

No Impact (%)69 45 1212 10

Net Benefit (%) 30 5387 5938

 IMH-A-Large-B-1

Net Cost (%)

0

00 33 61

No Impact (%) 66 38330

Net Benefit (%) 34 62 97 64 39

 IMH-A-Large-B-2

Net Cost (%)

9

9888

No Impact (%) 83 83 61 61 61

Net Benefit (%)88 31 31 31

RCU-***-Large-B

Net Cost (%)

0

00 3734

No Impact (%) 56 56 2010

Net Benefit (%)4444 8062 66

 RCU-***-Large-B-1

Net Cost (%)

0

00 37 33

No Impact (%) 56 56 2010

Net Benefit (%) 44 44 80 62 67

 RCU-***-Large-B-2

Net Cost (%)

0

00 46 43

No Impact (%) 56 56 2010

Net Benefit (%) 44 44 80 53 57

SCU-W-Large-B

Net Cost (%)

0

00 46 43

No Impact (%) 28 28500

Net Benefit (%) 72 72 94 54 57

SCU-A-Small-B

Net Cost (%)

0

188 75

No Impact (%) 48 20000

Net Benefit (%) 52 79 92 92 25

SCU-A-Large-B

Net Cost (%)

0

00 52 52

No Impact (%) 371100

Net Benefit (%) 62 99 99 48 48

IMH-A-Small-C

Net Cost (%)

0

00 30 79

No Impact (%) 69 69 58 39 14

Net Benefit (%) 31 31 42 317

IMH-A-Large-C

Net Cost (%)

0

000 52

No Impact (%) 57 57 35 359

Net Benefit (%) 43 43 65 65 39

12
RCU-***-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 Based on a 7-percent Discount Rate (billion 2013$)

Equipment 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 Based on a 3-percent Discount Rate (billion 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