8-i



### CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

TAB LE OF CONTENTS

8.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis................ 8-1 8.1.2 Overview of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Inputs................................... 8-2 8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS ............................................................................................ 8-5 8.2.1 Definition............................................................................................................. 8-5 8.2.2 Total Installed Cost Inputs................................................................................... 8-5 8.2.2.1 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price .................................................... 8-6 8.2.2.2 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases.......................... 8-8 8.2.2.3 Overall Markup..................................................................................... 8-9 8.2.2.4 Installation Cost .................................................................................. 8-10 8.2.2.5 Weighted-Average Total Installed Cost.............................................. 8-11 8.2.3 Operating Cost Inputs........................................................................................ 8-14 8.2.3.1 Electricity Price Analysis.................................................................... 8-15 8.2.3.2 Electricity Price Trend ........................................................................ 8-18 8.2.3.3 Repair Cost.......................................................................................... 8-19 8.2.3.4 Maintenance Cost................................................................................ 8-20 8.2.3.5 Lifetime............................................................................................... 8-23 8.2.3.6 Discount Rate...................................................................................... 8-23 8.2.3.7 Effective Date of Standard.................................................................. 8-25 8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS.......................................................................................... 8-27 8.3.1 Definition........................................................................................................... 8-27 8.3.2 Inputs ................................................................................................................. 8-27 8.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS ......................................... 8-27 8.4.1 Life-Cycle Cost Results..................................................................................... 8-27 8.4.1.1 Life-Cycle Cost Breakdown Based on Average Input Values............ 8-288.4.1.2 Differences in Life-Cycle Cost Between Baseline and StandardLevel Equipment................................................................................. 8-29 8.4.2 Payback Period Results...................................................................................... 8-31 8.4.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period........................................................... 8-35 8.5 LCC SENSITIVY STUDIES ............................................................................................ 8-36 8.5.1 Sensitivity to Fuel Escalation Rate.................................................................... 8-36 8.5.2 Sensitivity to Baseline Efficiency Level............................................................ 8-38 8.5.3 Sensitivity to LED Lighting Costs..................................................................... 8-40 8.6 DETAILED RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 8-42 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 8-438-ii 

### LIST OF TABLES

Tabl e 8.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost

and Payback Period.............................................................................................. 8-4 Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs............................................................................ 8-6 Table 8.2.2 Products Evaluated for the Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standard

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis .................................................... 8-7 Table 8.2.3 Baseline Efficiency Levels for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Considered in the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis....................... 8-7 Table 8.2.4 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Prices per Unit.................................................... 8-8 Table 8.2.5 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases (Price Increases

Relative to the Price of Level 1 Equipment)........................................................ 8-9 Table 8.2.6 Installation Costs for Baseline Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Units.... 8-11 Table 8.2.7 Installation Cost Indices (National Value = 100.0) ........................................... 8-12 Table 8.2.8 Costs and Markups for Determination of Weighted-Average Total

Installed Costs for Supermarkets (Vertical Open, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature Case)* ............................................................................ 8-12 Table 8.2.9 Weighted-Average Equipment Price, Installation Cost, and Total Installed

Costs for Vertical Open Refrigerated Display Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature in a Supermarket at U.S. Average Prices (2007$)* ....... 8-14 Table 8.2.10 Inputs for Operating Costs................................................................................. 8-15 Table 8.2.11 Estimated Commercial Electricity Prices by State (2007 cents/kWh)............... 8-16 Table 8.2.12 Derived Average Commercial Electricity Price by Business Type ................... 8-17 Table 8.2.13 Frequency of Component Replacement............................................................. 8-19 Table 8.2.14 Annualized Lighting Maintenance Costs for Each Efficiency Level

Addressed in the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (2007$) ......................................... 8-22 Table 8.2.15 Annualized Maintenance Costs for Baseline Efficient Commercial

Refrigeration Equipment (2007$)...................................................................... 8-22 Table 8.2.16 Discount Rates by Company and Ownership Category....................................... 8-26 Table 8.4.1 Distribution of Life-Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 1)

by Efficiency Level for VOP.RC.M .................................................................. 8-31 Table 8.4.2 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from Baseline Level (Level 1) by

Efficiency Level and Equipment Class.............................................................. 8-32 Table 8.4.3 Summary of Payback Period Results for Vertical Open Display Case,

Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature, Efficiency Level 4 ...................... 8-34 Table 8.4.4 National Average Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment

Class................................................................................................................... 8-35 Table 8.4.5 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and

Equipment Class ................................................................................................ 8-36 Table 8.5.1 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 1) by

Efficiency Level and Equipment Class – EIA Low Growth Scenario............... 8-37 Table 8.5.2 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 1) by

Efficiency Level and Equipment Class – EIA High Growth Scenario.............. 8-38 Table 8.5.3 Sensitivity of Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings and Payback Period to

Selection of Baseline Efficiency Level --VCT.RC.L Equipment Class ............ 8-398-iii



### Table 8.5.4 LED Lighting System Cost Reduction Necessary to Provide Equivalent

LCC Savings for TSL 4 and TSL 5 for VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M......................................................... 8-41 Table 8.5.5 LED Lighting System Cost Reduction Necessary to Provide Equivalent

LCC Savings for TSL 4 and TSL 5 Assuming 50 Percent Cost Reduction for Future LED Lighting Replacements ............................................................ 8-42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and

Payback Period..................................................................................................... 8-4 Figure 8.2.1 Cumulative Probability Distribution Showing the Electricity Prices Paid

by Grocery Store/Food Market Sector (2007$) ................................................. 8-17 Figure 8.2.2 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 2042 .................................... 8-18 Figure 8.4.1 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Life-Cycle Cost for Vertical

Open Display Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature in Supermarkets (2007$) at Average U.S. Conditions (Level 1 is the Baseline Level). ................................................................................................................ 8-29 Figure 8.4.2 Cumulative Chart of Life-Cycle Cost Savings for Vertical Open Display

Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature: Efficiency Level 4 ........... 8-30 Figure 8.4.3 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Payback Period for Vertical

Open Display Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature, in Supermarkets at Average U.S. Conditions (Level 1 is the Baseline Level). ..... 8-33 Figure 8.4.4 Cumulative Chart of Payback Period for Vertical Open Display Case,

Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature: Efficiency Level 4 ..................... 8-34 Figure 8.5.1 Sensitivity of Payback Period to Baseline Efficiency Level – VCT.RC.L

Equipment Class ................................................................................................ 8-408-1



### CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

8.1 IN TRODUCTION

This chapter describes the analysis the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has carried out to evaluate the economic impacts on individual customers of possible energy efficiency standards developed for commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE). The effect of standards on individual customers includes a change in operating cost (usually decreased) and a change in purchase cost (usually increased). This chapter describes two metrics used in the customer analysis to determine the effect of standards on individual commercial customers:

• Life-cycle cost (LCC) . The total customer cost over the life of an appliance or equipment, including purchase costs and operating costs (which in turn include maintenance, repair, and energy costs). Future operating costs are discounted to the time of purchase, and summed over the lifetime of the appliance or equipment.

• Payback period (PBP) . The amount of time it takes customers to recover the assumed higher purchase price of more energy efficient equipment through lower operating costs.

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment are discussed in sections 8.2 and 8.3, respectively. Results for each metric are presented in sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.2, respectively. Key variables and calculations are presented for each metric. The calculations discussed here were performed with a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets which

ar e accessible over the Internet (http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ commercial _products.html).

Details and instructions for using the spreadsheets are discussed in Appendix E. A more complete set of results is presented in Appendix G.

8.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Recognizing that each commercial building that uses the commercial refrigeration equipment is unique, DOE analyzed variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations detailed here for two prototype commercial buildings (stores) and four types of businesses (two types of businesses for each prototype store). The first store prototype is a “large” grocery store, which encompasses (1) supermarkets and (2) wholesaler/retailer multi-line stores, such as “big-box,” “warehouse,” and “supercenters.” The second prototype is a “small” store, which encompasses (1) convenience and small specialty stores, such as meat markets, wine, beer, and liquor stores; and (2) convenience stores associated with gasoline stations. Within a given prototype of stores, one CRE unit of various types can serve the store’s refrigeration needs. The LCC and PBP model was developed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

As i de from the relationship between increasing selling price and increasing energy efficiency, the most important factors influencing the LCC and PBP analysis are related to the State to which each CRE unit is shipped. These factors include energy prices, installation cost, markup, and sales tax. The LCC analysis presented here used the predicted energy consumption based on the engineering analysis and reviewed in chapter 7, Energy Use Characterization.8-2



### Energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment calculated using this approach is not

sen sitive to climatic conditions, so energy consumption in the LCC analysis is not assumed to vary by geographical location. Analysis presented in chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, and chapter 7, Energy Use and Load Characterization, explores variation in energy consumption for commercial refrigeration equipment by climate. At the national level, the spreadsheets explicitly modeled variability in the model inputs for electricity price and markups using probability distributions based on the shipment of units to different states and business types.

The LCC and PBP results are displayed as distributions of impacts compared to the baseline conditions, which for purposes of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) are the Level 1 efficiency level (see section 8.2.2.1 for a description of the efficiency levels). Results are presented at the end of this chapter and in Appendix G of the technical support document (TSD). A variety of graphic displays can be created to illustrate the implications of the analysis. Examples of graphic displays are a cumulative probability distribution showing the percentage of CRE units in U.S. commercial buildings that would experience a net savings at each efficiency level, and a frequency chart depicting variation in life-cycle cost for each CRE efficiency level considered.

8.1.2 Overview of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Inputs

The LCC is the total customer cost over the life of the equipment, including purchase cost and operating cost (including energy cost). Future operating costs are discounted to the time of purchase and summed over the lifetime of the equipment. The PBP is the change in purchase cost due to an increased efficiency standard divided by the change in annual operating cost that results from the standard. It represents the number of years it will take the customer to recover the increased purchase cost through decreased operating costs. In the calculation of PBP, future costs are not discounted.

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as follows: inputs for establishing the purchase cost, otherwise known as the total installed cost; and inputs for calculating the operating cost (i.e., energy, maintenance, and repair costs).

The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are:

• Baseline manufacturer selling price : Baseline manufacturer selling price is the price charged by the manufacturer to either a wholesaler or customer for equipment meeting existing minimum efficiency (or baseline) standards. The manufacturer selling price includes a markup that converts the cost (i.e., the manufacturer cost) to a manufacturer selling price.

• Standard-level manufacturer selling price increase : Standard-level manufacturer selling price increase is the incremental change in manufacturer selling price associated with producing equipment at each of the higher standard levels.

• Markups and sales tax : Markups and sales tax are the markups and sales tax associated with converting the manufacturer selling price to a customer price. The markups and sales tax are described in detail in chapter 6, Markups for Equipment Price Determination.8-3



### • Installation price : Installation price is the cost to the customer of installing the equipment. The installation price represents all costs required to install the equipment but does not include the marked-up customer equipment price. The installation price includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, the total installed cost equals the customer equipment price plus the installation price.

The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost are:

• Equipment energy consumption : The equipment energy consumption is the site energy use associated with the use of the commercial refrigeration equipment. Although there are potentially some interactive effects on the overall heating and cooling of the building, for purposes of the ANOPR the LCC analysis includes only the use of electricity by the equipment itself. This approach is consistent with most other DOE equipment efficiency rulemakings. Analysis results from whole building simulation of supermarkets suggest that the overall impact of the design options for the refrigerated cases when taken together did not significantly affect the HVAC energy consumption. Details on the refrigeration equipment energy use simulations and their results are provided in chapter 7, Energy Use Characterization.

• Electricity prices : Electricity prices used in the analysis are the price per kilowatt-hour in cents or dollars (e.g., $/kWh) paid by each customer for electricity. Electricity prices are determined using average commercial electricity prices in each State, as determined from Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for 2006. These prices were then estimated for 2007 using the EIA national commercial electricity reference price forecasts for 2006 and 2007. The 2007 average commercial prices derived were modified to reflect the fact that the four types of businesses analyzed pay prices that on average are either slightly higher or lower than the average commercial prices. Details on the development of electricity prices and the data sources used are found in Section 8.2.3.1.

• Electricity price trends : The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007 1 

### (AEO 2007) is u sed to forecast electricity prices. For the results presented in this chapter, DOE used the AEO 2007 reference case to forecast future electricity prices.

• Maintenance costs : The labor and materials costs associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment (e.g., cleaning heat exchanger coils, checking refrigerant charge levels, lamp replacement).

• Repair costs : The labor and materials costs associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed.

• Lifetime : The age at which the commercial refrigeration equipment is retired from service.

• Discount rate : The rate at which future costs are discounted to establish their present value.

Figure 8.1.1 graphically depicts the relationships between the installed cost and operating cost inputs for the calculation of the LCC and PBP. Table 8.1.1 summarizes the values for the various inputs to the calculation of the LCC and PBP. As noted earlier, most of the inputs are characterized by probability distributions that capture variability in the input. The values8-4



### provided in Table 8.1.1 are the weighted-average values from the distribution that is being used
to c haracterize the input. Also listed in Table 8.1.1 are chapters in the TSD where more detailed information on the input can be found.

Installation Costs Installation Costs

Repair Costs Repair Costs Lifetimes Lifetimes Annual Maintenance Electricity Consumption Electricity Consumption Manufacturer Base Price

Total Installed Cost (Std i –Base) Manufacturer Base Price

Contractor Markups
Markups Wholesaler/
Distributor Markup

Electricity Prices National Account Markup Equipment Prices

Sales Tax Manufacturer Base Price

Installation Costs Manufacturer Std 1 Base Price Manufacturer Std 1 Base Price Manufacturer Price

Standard i= 1...n

Electricity Consumption Annual Energy Costs

Annual Maintenance

Repair Costs Annual Operating Cost (Std i - Base)

Payback Period

Discount Rate

Lifetimes Lifetime Operating Cost (Std i – Base) Lifecycle Cost

Annual Maintenance Costs Installation Costs Installation Costs

Repair Costs Repair Costs Lifetimes Lifetimes Annual Maintenance Electricity Consumption Electricity Consumption Manufacturer Base Price

Total Installed Cost (Std i –Base) Manufacturer Base Price

Contractor Markups
Markups Wholesaler/
Distributor Markup

Electricity Prices National Account Markup Equipment Prices

Sales Tax Manufacturer Base Price

Installation Costs Manufacturer Std 1 Base Price Manufacturer Std 1 Base Price Manufacturer Price

Standard i= 1...n

Electricity Consumption Annual Energy Costs

Annual Maintenance

Repair Costs Annual Operating Cost (Std i - Base)

Payback Period

Discount Rate

Lifetimes Lifetime Operating Cost (Std i – Base) Lifecycle Cost

Annual Maintenance Costs



### Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and

Payback Period

Table 8.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and

Payback Period

Factor We ig hted-Average Value TSD Reference Section Total Installed Cost Primary Inputs Baseline manufacturer selling price Varies with product Chapter 5 Standard-level manufacturer selling price increases Varies with product and efficiency level Chapter 5

Markups and sales tax Varies with product, distribution channel, and location Chapter 6

Installation price Varies with location Chapter 8 Operating Cost Primary Inputs Equipment energy consumption Varies with product Chapter 7 Electricity prices Vary with location, building type Chapter 8 Electricity price trends Vary with price scenario Chapter 8 Maintenance costs Varies with product Chapter 8 Repair costs Varies with product Chapter 8 Lifetime Varies with type of business Chapters 3, 8 Discount rate Varies with type of business Chapter 8


### All of the inputs depicted in Figure 8.1.1 and summarized in Table 8.1.1 are discussed in sections 8.2 and 8.3.8-5



### 8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS

8.2 .1 Definition

Life-cycle cost is the total customer cost over the life of a piece of equipment, including purchase cost and operating costs (which are comprised of energy costs, maintenance costs, and repair costs). Future operating costs are discounted to the time of purchase and summed over the lifetime of the equipment. Life-cycle cost is defined by the following equation:


# ∑

= 

### + += N

t t

t 

### r OCICLCC

1 

### ) 1/( 

### Eq. 8.1

wher e

LCC

= life-cycle cost ($), IC = total installed cost ($), ∑ = sum over the lifetime, from year 1 to year N, where N = lifetime of equipment (years), OC = operating cost ($),

r = discount rate,
t = year for which operating cost is being determined.

DOE cost data for the LCC analysis was collected over the 2006-2007 time frame and where necessary the ratio of an appropriate gross domestic product price deflator from 2006 to 2007 was used to provide cost estimates in 2007$. DOE expresses all the costs in 2007$ for the LCC analysis. Total installed cost, operating cost, lifetime, and discount rate are discussed in the following sections. In the LCC analysis, the year of equipment purchase is assumed to be 2012.



### 8.2.2 Total Installed Cost Inputs

T h e total installed cost to the customer is defined by the following equation:

INST EQPIC + = 

### Eq. 8.2 wher e
EQP



### = equipment price (i.e., customer price for the equipment only) ($),

INS T 

### = installation price or the customer price to install equipment (i.e., the cost for labor and materials), ($).

The equipment price is based on the distribution channel through which the customer purchases the equipment. As discussed in chapter 6, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE defined three types of distribution channels to describe how the equipment passes from the manufacturer to the customer: the manufacturer sells the equipment to a wholesaler, who in turn sells it to the consumer; the manufacturer sells the equipment to a wholesaler/distributor, who sells to a mechanical contractor, who purchases the equipment on8-6



### behalf of the consumer; and the manufacturer sells the equipment directly to the consumer thr ough a national account.

The remainder of this section provides information about the variables DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for commercial refrigeration equipment. Table 8.2.1 shows inputs for the determination of total installed cost.



### Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs
Baseline manufacturer selling price ($) Standard-level manufacturer selling price increases ($)

Wholesaler markup Mechanical contractor markup National accounts markup Sales tax ($) Installation price ($)



### 8.2.2.1 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price

The baseline manufacturer selling price is the price charged by manufacturers to either a whol esaler/distributor or a very large customer for equipment meeting existing minimum efficiency (or baseline) standards. The manufacturer selling price includes a markup that converts the cost to manufacture (i.e., the manufacturing cost) to a manufacturer selling price. DOE developed the baseline manufacturer selling prices through an efficiency level analysis supplemented by certain design option considerations. Refer to chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. DOE developed manufacturer selling prices for equipment classes within ten possible equipment families, with two possible modes of CRE operation (remote condensing and self-contained) and three possible rating temperatures. Not all possible equipment classes have significant actual shipments (see chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment). The LCC and PBP have been carried out on a set of 15 equipment classes identified in chapter 5. Table 8.2.2 shows the set of 15 equipment classes that DOE evaluated.

DOE wa s not able to identify a voluntary or industry standard that provided a minimum baseline efficiency requirement or maximum energy consumption level for commercial refrigeration equipment. Although it has been informally reported by the industry that the actual shipments of commercial refrigeration equipment for many of the equipment classes cover a range of efficiencies, no data were identified or made available to DOE. DOE does not have actual shipment data for the various equipment classes by efficiency level and therefore could not define a baseline efficiency level that accurately reflects shipments that may occur across all efficiency levels. Comments received on the ANOPR did not provide further detail on the typical or average equipment efficiencies shipped today, although they did suggest modifications of the engineering baseline. Industry representatives stated that they believed use of the engineering baseline was acceptable. a 

### Accordingly, for the NOPR, DOE selected the lowest eff iciency equipment (Level 1) from the engineering analysis and designated it as the baseline efficiency for the life-cycle cost analysis (Table 8.2.3). The design options incorporated in the Level 1 efficiency level reflected input from CRE manufacturer interviews.

a ARI, No. 18 at p. 58-7



### Table 8.2.2 Products Evaluated for the Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standard

Lif e-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Description (Equipment Family. Operating Mode. Temperature) Sym bol * Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Medium Temperature VOP.RC.M Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Low Temperature VOP.RC.L Vertical Open.Self Contained.Medium Temperature VOP.SC.M Vertical Closed Transparent.Remote Condensing.Medium Temperature VCT.RC.M Vertical Closed Transparent.Remote Condensing.Low Temperature VCT.RC.L Vertical Closed Transparent.Self Contained.Ice Cream Temperature VCT.SC.I Vertical Closed Solid.Self Contained.Ice Cream Temperature VCS.SC.I Semi-Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Medium Temperature SVO.RC.M Semi-Vertical Open.Self Contained.Medium Temperature SVO.SC.M Service Over Counter.Remote Condensing.Medium Temperature SOC.RC.M Horizontal Open.Remote Condensing.Medium Temperature HZO.RC.M Horizontal Open.Remote Condensing.Low Temperature HZO.RC.L Horizontal Open.Self Contained.Medium Temperature HZO.SC.M Horizontal Open.Self Contained.Low Temperature HZO.SC.L * Equipment class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order separated by periods) of a equipment family code (VOP=vertical open, SVO=semivertical open, HZO=horizontal open, VCT=vertical transparent doors, VCS=vertical solid doors, HCT=horizontal transparent doors, HCS=horizontal solid doors, or SOC=service over counter), an operating mode code (RC=remote condensing or SC=self-contained), and a rating temperature code (M=medium temperature (38°F), L=low temperature (0°F), or I=ice-cream temperature (-15°F)). For example, "VOP.RC.M refers to the "vertical open, remote condensing, medium temperature" equipment class. See chapter 3, market and technology assessment, for a more detailed explanation of the equipment class terminology


### Table 8.2.3 Baseline Efficiency Levels for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

Con sidered in the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Equipment Type Bas eline Energy Consumption (kWh/day) Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Medium (VOP.RC.M) 57.9 Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Low (VOP.RC.L) 133.6 Vertical Open.Self Contained.Medium (VOP.SC.M) 39.6 Vertical Closed Transparent.Remote Condensing.Medium (VCT.RC.M) 33.2 Vertical Closed Transparent.Remote Condensing.Low (VCT.RC.L) 69.3 Vertical Closed Transparent.Self Contained. Ice Cream (VCT.SC.I) 45.6 Vertical Closed Solid.Self Contained.Very Low (VCS.SC.I) 27.1 Semi-Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Medium (SVO.RC.M) 43.6 Semi-Vertical Open. Self Contained.Medium (SVO.SC.M) 33.1 Service Over Counter.Remote Condensing.Medium (SOC.RC.M) 31.7 Horizontal Open.Remote Condensing.Medium (HZO.RC.M) 19.6 Horizontal Open.Remote Condensing.Low (HZO.RC.L) 38.4 Horizontal Open.Self Contained.Medium (HZO.SC.M) 19.2 Horizontal Open.Self Contained.Low (HZO.SC.L) 38.7 Horizontal Closed Transparent.Self Contained.Ice Cream (HCT.SC.I) 7.2


### Table 8.2.4 shows baseline manufacturer selling prices as developed in the engineering analysis. DOE designated the highest-energy-use equipment as Level 1, and selected this as the baseline equipment.8-8



### 8.2.2.2 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases

Th e standard-level manufacturer selling price increase is the change in manufacturer sel ling price associated with producing equipment at higher efficiency levels associated with higher standards. DOE developed manufacturer selling price increases associated with increases in equipment efficiency levels through a combination of efficiency level and design option analyses. Refer to chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Manufacturer selling price increases as a function of equipment efficiency were developed for each of the 15 equipment classes. Although DOE’s engineering analysis produced up to 11 efficiency levels, depending on equipment type, only up to eight selected efficiency levels were used in the LCC and PBP analysis. Appendix F discusses the selection of efficiency levels for the LCC and PBP analysis.



### Table 8.2.4 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Prices per Unit

Equipment Type Ba s eline Manufacturer Selling Price (2007$) Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Medium (VOP.RC.M) $4,217 Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Low (VOP.RC.L) $6,410 Vertical Open.Self Contained.Medium (VOP.SC.M) $2,175 Vertical Closed Transparent.Remote Condensing.Medium (VCT.RC.M) $6,710 Vertical Closed Transparent.Remote Condensing.Low (VCT.RC.L) $7,356 Vertical Closed Transparent.Self Contained. Ice Cream (VCT.SC.I) $3,504 Vertical Closed Solid.Self Contained.Very Low (VCS.SC.I) $2,082 Semi Vertical Open.Remote Condensing.Medium (SVO.RC.M) $3,804 Semi Vertical Open. Self Contained.Medium (SVO.SC.M) $1,778 Service Over Counter.Remote Condensing.Medium (SOC.RC.M) $7,465 Horizontal Open.Remote Condensing.Medium (HZO.RC.M) $4,265 Horizontal Open.Remote Condensing.Low (HZO.RC.L) $4,307 Horizontal Open.Self Contained.Medium (HZO.SC.M) $1,586 Horizontal Open.Self Contained.Low (HZO.SC.L) $1,849 Horizontal Closed Transparent.Self Contained.Ice Cream (HCT.SC.I) $1,036


### The engineering analysis established a distribution of manufacturer selling price increases for each standard level. Table 8.2.5 summarizes the estimated manufacturer selling price increases for CRE standard levels considered in the LCC and PBP analysis.8-9



### Table 8.2.5 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases (Price Increases Relative

to t he Price of Level 1 Equipment)

Inc rease in Manufacturer Selling Price by Efficiency Level Equipment Type Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M $34.10 $116.35 $201.73 $451.40 $504.58 $2,678.11 NA VOP.RC.L $79.57 $271.49 $565.43 $602.02 $655.20 $1,586.71 NA VOP.SC.M $23.74 $68.21 $152.41 $224.67 $499.41 $1,211.44 $1,264.61 VCT.RC.M $28.42 $96.96 $1,108.01 $1,161.19 $1,979.90 $2,046.23 NA VCT.RC.L $28.42 $96.96 $1,380.84 $1,434.01 $2,252.72 $2,364.54 NA VCT.SC.I $29.22 $108.93 $279.55 $793.10 $804.47 $1,213.82 $1,294.42 VCS.SC.I $11.37 $25.54 $52.96 $79.31 $176.66 $229.84 $257.25 SVO.RC.M $22.74 $77.57 $138.55 $312.61 $1,865.13 $1,918.31 NA SVO.SC.M $17.32 $36.71 $101.06 $136.44 $346.41 $857.67 $910.85 SOC.RC.M $22.74 $77.57 $138.55 $202.14 $1,754.67 $1,807.84 $2,112.76 HZO.RC.M $22.74 $77.57 $155.67 $208.85 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L $22.74 $77.57 $173.72 $226.90 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M $8.16 $13.84 $33.23 $67.66 $179.99 $193.69 $246.87 HZO.SC.L $15.98 $21.67 $95.12 $100.80 $295.73 $309.44 $362.61 HCT.SC.I $8.36 $14.04 $121.03 $134.74 $187.92 NA NA * NA means that no efficiency level was designated; e.g., VOP.RC.M had only seven efficiency levels and HZO.RC.L had only five.



### 8.2.2.3 Overall Markup

Fo r a given distribution channel, the overall markup is the value determined by mul tiplying all the associated retail markups and the applicable sales tax markup together to arrive at a single overall distribution chain markup value. The overall markup in turn is multiplied by the baseline or standard-level manufacturer selling price to arrive at the price paid by the customer. Because there are baseline and incremental markups associated with the wholesaler and mechanical contractor, the overall markup is also composed of a baseline markup (i.e., a markup used to convert the baseline manufacturer selling price into a customer price) and an incremental markup (i.e., a markup used to convert a standard-level manufacturer selling price increase due to an increase in rated efficiency into an incremental customer price).

As discussed in chapter 6, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE based overall markups on one of three distribution channels, as well as whether the equipment is being purchased for the new construction or the replacement market. DOE based a distribution channel on whether equipment is purchased either through a wholesaler/distributor, mechanical contractor, or national account.

Based on input received by DOE during the ANOPR comment period, approximately 15 percent of remote-condensing equipment purchased by end-use customers is from wholesaler/distributors, 15 percent is from mechanical contractors, and 70 percent is through national accounts. For self-contained equipment approximately 35 percent of remote-condensing equipment purchased by end-use customers is from wholesaler/distributors, 35 percent is from mechanical contractors, and 30 percent is through national accounts. DOE’s understanding is that most existing equipment replacements are done through store remodels (as opposed to equipment failure), and that the distribution channels and installation process are similar for the new and replacement markets. DOE has assumed that the fraction of equipment purchased through the distribution channels is the same for new and replacement equipment. With three distribution channels, there are a total of six overall baseline and incremental markups possible for remote-condensing equipment and an additional six overall baseline and incremental8-10



### markups for self-contained equipment. Chapter 6 presented the overall weighted average

mar kups and their associated components for the baseline and incremental markups for bothremote-condensing and self-contained equipment for supermarkets. The overall weightedaverage baseline markup for supermarkets equals 1.490 for remote-condensing equipment and 1.742 for self-contained equipment. The overall weighted-average incremental markup equals 1.183 for remote-condensing equipment and 1.260 for self-contained equipment. DOE calculated similar markups for the three other building types.



### 8.2.2.4 Installation Cost

M o st refrigerated display cases are installed in fairly standard configurations, which help in estimating the cost of installation. For example, supermarkets commonly configure such display cases as part of a “line-up” of similar cases. Horizontal open cases are commonly installed as single units placed in appropriate store locations. Self-contained cases are used for portable or temporary product displays, or sometimes used as end-caps of aisles.

Typical steps in the installation of refrigerated display cases in a lineup are as follows: 2



### • 

### Move new case to lineup position in store;

• 

### Position case in lineup, providing shims for vertical spacing as needed;

• 

### Caulk or seal adjacent cases together;

• 

### Bolt adjacent cases together;

• 

### Trim cases together for good visual look (installing bumpers and covering seams);

• 

### Braze refrigerant lines as necessary to system piping (already in place);

• 

### If hot gas defrost is used, braze hot gas defrost refrigerant lines as necessary to defrost pi p ing (already in place);

• 

### Provide electrical conduit and tie-in electrical connections to case;

• 

### Install display lamps; and

• 

### Set refrigerant and defrost control settings.

Not e that final operational testing of cases is undertaken after initial installation of all cases in a lineup and refrigerant is piped to each case.

The installation cost is the price to the customer of labor and materials (other than the actual equipment) needed to install the refrigeration equipment. Estimated installation costs for remote-condensing and for self-contained equipment were provided by stakeholders during the ANOPR review period. The majority of the installation price is captured by cost-based labor rates. Labor rates vary significantly from region to region of the country and the RS Means 

### data
pro vide the necessary information to capture this regional variability. RS Means 

### provides cost ind ices that reflect the labor rates for 295 cities in the United States. Several cities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia are identified in the RS Means 

### data. DOE incorporated th e se cost indices into the analysis to capture variation in installation cost, depending on the location of the customer.8-11



### Since data were not available to indicate how installation costs actually vary with CRE typ e or efficiency level, DOE considered two scenarios where installation costs either varied in direct proportion to the cost of the equipment, or remained flat (not varying with cost of the equipment). DOE did not however find a basis for the former view, and stakeholder comment during the ANOPR comment period suggested that a flat installation cost was most representative and thus a flat installation price forms the basis of DOE’s LCC calculations. The LCC spreadsheet however, retains the ability to analyze the alternative scenario—that the installation price increases with higher efficiency levels—implemented in the LCC spreadsheet by providing for an installation price that varies in proportion to increased manufacturer cost above the baseline level.

Table 8.2.6 summarizes the national average installation price used by DOE.



### Table 8.2.6 Installation Costs for Baseline Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Units

System Type To t al Installation Price Remote Condensing Equipment $2,000 Self-Contained Equipment $750


### Table 8.2.7 summarizes the cost indices for installations in each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, used to vary the nationally representative installation costs in Table 8.2.6.

To arrive at an average index for each state, DOE first weighted the city indices in each state by their population within the state. DOE used population weights for the year 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau to calculate a weighted-average index for each state from the R.S. Means 

### data. For each business type (e.g., supermarkets) being examined, these state indices are then

ren ormalized based on the proportion of sales to each state for a given business type.



### 8.2.2.5 We i ghted-Average Total Installed Cost

As presented in Eq. 8.2, the total installed cost is the sum of the equipment price and the ins tallation price. DOE derived the customer equipment price for any given standard level by multiplying the baseline manufacturer selling price by the baseline markup and adding to it the product of the incremental manufacturer selling price and the incremental markup. Because manufacturer selling prices, markups, and the sales tax all can take on a variety of values, depending on location, the resulting total installed cost for a particular standard level will not be a single-point value, but rather a distribution of values.

As an example, the weighted-average costs for the VOP.RC.M equipment class are presented for the baseline level at national average markup rates and national average installation costs. The section also applies the corresponding incremental values to provide an indication of the increase in the total installed cost due to an increase in rated energy efficiency.8-12



### Table 8.2.7 Installation Cost Indices (National Value = 100.0)

State Ind ex State Index State Index Alabama 65.4 Kentucky 73.2 North Dakota 67.0 Alaska 117.1 Louisiana 60.9 Ohio 103.0 Arizona 79.1 Maine 76.9 Oklahoma 67.3 Arkansas 53.7 Maryland 92.1 Oregon 115.3 California 123.8 Massachusetts 123.1 Pennsylvania 128.5 Colorado 88.3 Michigan 112.3 Rhode Island 120.9 Connecticut 111.7 Minnesota 122.8 South Carolina 42.6 Delaware 125.1 Mississippi 41.6 South Dakota 40.1 Dist. of Columbia 97.7 Missouri 104.0 Tennessee 75.2 Florida 64.8 Montana 80.9 Texas 66.7 Georgia 67.3 Nebraska 83.7 Utah 76.6 Hawaii 126.6 Nevada 113.1 Vermont 73.6 Idaho 78.5 New Hampshire 91.9 Virginia 70.8 Illinois 129.1 New Jersey 132.3 Washington 109.8 Indiana 91.7 New Mexico 78.3 West Virginia 93.5 Iowa 85.6 New York 166.3 Wisconsin 99.3 Kansas 75.0 North Carolina 46.4 Wyoming 56.4


### Derivation of the total installed cost is straightforward. The baseline manufacturer selling price and the standard-level manufacturer selling price increases are the starting points for determining the total installed cost (values are taken directly from Table 8.2.4 and Table 8.2.5).

DOE used the baseline and incremental markups, the sales tax, and installation costs to convert the manufacturer selling prices into total installed costs for a case where the incremental installation costs are held flat. Table 8.2.8 summarizes the weighted average or mean costs and markups necessary for determining the weighted-average baseline and standard-level total installed costs for supermarkets as an example.



### Table 8.2.8 Costs and Markups for Determination of Weighted-Average Total Installed

Co s ts for Supermarkets (Vertical Open, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature Case)*

Variable Weig hted Average or Mean Value Baseline Manufacturer selling price $4,217 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increase (Efficiency Level 4) $202 Overall Markup Factor–Baseline 1.490 Overall Markup Factor–Incremental 1.183 Installation Cost–Baseline $2,000 Installation Cost Factor 0.99 **

* Incremental installation costs held flat. ** National incremental cost index on a sales-weighted national basis is not quite equal to 1.00.



### To illustrate the derivation of the weighted-average total installed cost shown in Table 8.2.8, DOE presents the calculation below for the baseline (Level 1) and for a higher efficiency level (Level 4) vertical open remote-condensing medium temperature equipment class (VOP.RC.M). For the baseline product, the calculation of the total installed cost at national average conditions is as follows:8-13 

### IC BASE VOP.RC.M 

### = EQP BASE- VOP.RC.M



### +INST

BASE- VOP.RC.M 

### x ISTINDEX 

### Eq. 8.3

= M FG BASE- VOP.RC.M x 

### MU BASE- VOP.RC.M 

### + INST BASE-VOP.RC.M 

### x ISTINDEX


### = $4,217 x (1.490) + $2,000 x (0.99)

= $ 6,283 + $2,000 x (0.99)

= $8,263 where

IC 

### = total installed cost ($), EQP 

### = equipment price ($), INST 

### = installation cost or the customer price to install equipment ($), MFG 

### = manufacturer selling price ($), MU 

### = markup.

In this specific example, MFG 

### is the national average baseline manufacturer selling price for the VOP.RC



### . M equipment class and MU 

### is the overall baseline markup. The calculation of the higher efficiency Level 4 total installed cost includes the use of a manufacturer selling price adder. In addition, DOE derived an incremental markup.

In view of incremental equipment price changes, DOE based the derivation of the Level 4 total installed cost on determining the change in equipment price over the baseline equipment price. The manufacturer selling price increment for a higher efficiency level is multiplied times the incremental markup.

DOE calculated the Level 4 total installed cost ( IC VOP.RC.M LEVEL4 

### ) as follows:

IC VOP.RC.M LEVEL4 

### = EQP VOP.RC.M LEVEL1 

### + ∆EQP VOP.RC.M LEVEL4 

### + INST VOP.RC.M LEVEL4 

### Eq. 8.4

= MFG BASE VOP.RC.M 

### x MU BASE VOP.RC.M 

### + ∆MFG VOP.RC.M LEVEL4


### x MU VOP.RC.M LEVEL4 

### + INST 

### x ISTINDEX



### = $ 4,217 x (1.490) + $202 x (1.183) + $2,000 x (0.99) = $8,502 where

IC 

### = total installed cost ($), EQP 

### = equipment price ($), INST 

### = installation cost or the customer price to install equipment ($), MFG 

### = manufacturer selling price ($), MU 

### = markup, ISTINDEX 

### = location dependent multiplier on installation costs, but approximately 1.0 at

a n ational average.8-14



### Table 8.2.9 presents the weighted-average equipment price, installation costs, and total ins talled costs for the VOP.RC.M equipment classes at the baseline level and each higher efficiency level examined.



### Table 8.2.9 Weighted-Average Equipment Price, Installation Cost, and Total Installed

Cos ts for Vertical Open Refrigerated Display Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature in a Supermarket at U.S. Average Prices (2007$)*

Efficiency Level Equipment Pr ic e Installation

Cost Total Installed

Cost 1 (Baseline) $6,281 $1,980 $8,259 2 $6,322 $1,980 $8,300 3 $6,419 $1,980 $8,397 4 $6,520 $1,980 $8,498 5 $6,815 $1,980 $8,793 6 $6,878 $1,980 $8,856 7 $9,450 $1,980 $11,428 8 NA NA NA *Details do not add to total due to rounding error, Total is exact.



### 8.2.3 Operating Cost Inputs

DOE b ased the operating cost for the LCC analysis on energy consumption data dev eloped from whole-building simulations on a sample of buildings from the 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). 3 

### After the LCC analysis was performed, DOE
gen erated a distribution of LCC differences (i.e., the LCC difference between the baseline equipment and equipment with a higher efficiency level) to determine the mean LCC difference, as well as the percentage of buildings analyzed that had LCC savings associated with more efficient equipment.

DOE defined the operating cost by the following equation:

OC = EC+ RC+ MC 

### Eq. 8.5 whe r e

OC



### = operating cost ($), EC 

### = energy cost associated with operating the equipment ($), RC 

### = repair cost associated with component failure ($), MC 

### = service cost for maintaining equipment operation ($).

The remainder of this section provides information about the variables that DOE used to calculate the operating cost for commercial refrigeration equipment.

Table 8.2.10 shows the inputs for the determination of operating costs. The lifetime, discount rate, and effective date of the standard are required for determining the operating cost and for establishing the operating cost present value. The electricity consumption for the baseline (which by definition is efficiency Level 1 for the ANOPR) and the other efficiency levels examined (efficiency levels 2, 3, etc.) define the efficiency levels of interest for comparing standards’ life operating costs.8-15



### Table 8.2.10 Inputs for Operating Costs

Electricity price ($) Electricity price trend Repair cost ($) Maintenance cost ($) Lifetime (years) Discount rate (percent) Effective date of standard Baseline electricity consumption (kWh/day) Standard case electricity consumption (kWh/day)



### 8.2.3.1 Electricity Price Analysis

Introduction to the analysis of electricity prices . This section describes the electricity pri ce (cents/kWh) analysis used to develop the energy portion of the annual operating costs (price times electricity consumption) for commercial refrigeration equipment in the grocery
sector.


### Subdivision of the Country . Because of the wide variation in electricity consumption pat terns, wholesale costs, and retail rates across the country, it is important to consider regional differences in electricity prices. For this reason, DOE divided the continental U.S. into the 50 states and the District of Columbia. DOE used reported average effective commercial electricity prices at the state level from the EIA publication State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS). 4 

### The latest available prices from this source are for the cal endar year 2006. These were adjusted to represent 2007$ prices using the forecasted ratio between 2007 and 2006 national commercial retail electricity prices from the 2007 Annual Ene rgy Outlook



### .
EPRICE COM STATE 2007



### = EPRICE COM STATE 2006



### x (EPRICE COM AEO FORECAST 2007 

### /EPRICE COM AEO FORECAST 2006 

### )



### Eq. 8.6 whe r e

EPRICE COM STATE YEAR 

### =commercial sector average electricity price in a state or United Sta tes (US) in a particular year (cents/kWh),

EPRICE COM AEO FORCAST YEAR 

### = commercial sector reference case national average forecasted ele ctricity price in a specific year from the 2007 Annual Energy Outlook 

### (cents/kWh).

Tab le 8.2.11 provides data on the adjusted electricity prices.8-16



### Table 8.2.11 Estimated Commercial Electricity Prices by State (2007 cents/kWh)

State Comm ercial

Electricity Price State Commercial Electricity Price State Commercial Electricity Price Alabama 8.00 Kentucky 6.38 North Dakota 6.20 Alaska 11.56 Louisiana 8.83 Ohio 8.35 Arizona 7.77 Maine 12.20 Oklahoma 7.13 Arkansas 6.70 Maryland 10.13 Oregon 6.89 California 12.92 Massachusetts 15.57 Pennsylvania 8.73 Colorado 7.37 Michigan 8.62 Rhode Island 13.31 Connecticut 13.61 Minnesota 6.92 South Carolina 7.53 Delaware 10.72 Mississippi 8.91 South Dakota 6.34 Dist. of Col. 10.80 Missouri 6.01 Tennessee 7.88 Florida 9.71 Montana 7.40 Texas 9.58 Georgia 7.78 Nebraska 6.10 Utah 6.05 Hawaii 21.10 Nevada 9.95 Vermont 11.52 Idaho 5.04 New Hampshire 13.58 Virginia 6.09 Illinois 7.87 New Jersey 11.65 Washington 6.45 Indiana 7.11 New Mexico 7.53 West Virginia 5.50 Iowa 7.21 New York 13.38 Wisconsin 8.28 Kansas 6.78 North Carolina 7.06 Wyoming 6.15


### Furthermore, DOE recognized that different kinds of businesses typically use electricity in different amounts at different times of the day, week, and year, and therefore face different effective prices. To make this adjustment, DOE used the 2003 CBECS data set to identify the average prices paid by the four kinds of businesses in this analysis compared with the average prices paid by all commercial customers. Equation 8.7 shows the ratios of prices paid by the four types of businesses were used to increase or decrease the average commercial prices.

EPRICE COM BLD I STATE 2006 

### = EPRICE COM STATE 2006 

### x (EPRICE BLDG I US 2003 

### /

EPRICE COM US 2003 

### ) 

### Eq. 8.7

whe r e

EPRICE COM BLD I STATE 2006 

### = average commercial sector electricity price in building type I (su permarkets) in a specific state in 2006 (cents/kWh), EPRICE COM STATE 2006



### = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific state in 200 6 (cents/kWh), EPRICE BLDG I US 2003 

### = national average commercial sector electricity price in building typ e I in 2003 CBECS (cents/kWh), EPRICE COM US 2003 

### = national average commercial sector electricity price in 2003 CBECS (ce nts/kWh).

Table 8.2.12 shows the derivation of the EPRICE ratios from CBECS.8-17



### Table 8.2.12 Derived Average Commercial Electricity Price by Business Type

Business Type Gro cery

Store/Food Market Convenience

Store* Convenience

Sto re with Gas Station Other

Food Sales** All

Foo d Sales All Commercial Buildings Electricity Price (cents/kWh) 7.2 8.6 7.7 8.2 7.6 7.8 Ratio of Electricity Price to Average Price for all Commercial Buildings 0.928 1.109 0.993 1.057 0.980 1.000

* This group is assumed to include convenience stores without gas stations, specialty stores (such as meat markets), and beer, wine, and liquor
stores. ** This group is assumed to include mainly large multi-line retailers and super centers that sell both grocery and non-grocery items. Source : CBECS 2003


### Once the electricity prices for the four commercial building types (stores) were adjusted, DOE u sed the resulting prices in the analysis to represent 2007 electricity prices. Future prices are forecasted as described in section 8.2.3.2. To obtain a weighted-average national price, DOE weighted the prices paid by each business in each state by the estimated sales of CRE units in each state to each prototype building. 5,6,7,8 

### The state/building type weights are the probabilities tha t a given CRE unit shipped will be operated with a given price. For evaluation purposes, the prices and weights can be depicted as a cumulative probability distribution. The effective prices range from approximately 5 cents per kWh to approximately 20 cents per kWh. Figure 8.2.1 illustrates the results for the grocery store and food market sector.



### Electricity Prices Faced by CREs Sold to Supermarkets

0% 10 % 2 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Cents per kWhCumulative Percent of ElectricityPrices

Electricity Price



### Figure 8.2.1 Cumulative Probability Distribution Showing the Electricity Prices Paid by

Gro cery Store/Food Market Sector (2007$)8-18



### 8.2.3.2 Electricity Price Trend

The electricity price trend provides the relative change in electricity prices for future
yea rs out to the year 2030. Estimating future electricity prices is difficult, especially considering that there are efforts in many states throughout the country to restructure the electricity supply industry.

DOE applied a projected trend in national average electricity prices to each customer’s energy prices. The discussion in this chapter uses the AEO 2007 

### reference price scenario. In the LC C analysis, the following four scenarios can be analyzed:

1. Constant (real) energy prices at 2007 values (Constant index of 1.0 in Figure 8.2.2)

2. A EO 2007 

### , High Economic Growth (“High” in Figure 8.2.2)

3. A EO 2007 

### , Reference Case (“AEO 2007” in Figure 8.2.2)

4. A EO 2007 

### , Low Economic Growth (“Low” in Figure 8.2.2)

Fig ure 8.2.2 shows the trends for the three AEO 2007 

### price projections where prices are

ass umed to change. DOE extrapolated the values in later years (i.e., after 2030) from their relative sources because AEO 2007 

### does not forecast beyond 2030. To arrive at values for these lat er years, DOE used the price trend from 2020 to 2030 of the forecast to establish prices in the years 2030 to 2042. This method of extrapolation is in line with methods currently used by the EIA to forecast fuel prices for the Federal Energy Management Program.

Gas Price Index Projections

0. 7 0 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

YearIndex (2007=1.00) AEO 2007

High Growth
Low Growth



### Figure 8.2.2 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 20428-19



### The default electricity price trend scenario used in the LCC analysis is the trend from the AEO 2007 

### Reference Case, shown in Figure 8.2.2. Spreadsheets used in calculating the LCC hav e the capability to analyze the other electricity price trend scenarios, namely, the AEO 2007 

### High Growth and the AEO 2007 

### Low Growth price trends and constant energy prices.



### 8.2.3.3 Repair Cost

The repair cost is the cost to the consumer for replacing or repairing components in the

co m mercial refrigeration equipment that have failed. In its ANOPR analysis, DOE based the annualized repair cost for baseline energy consumption commercial refrigeration equipment (i.e., the cost the customer pays annually for repairing the equipment) on the following expression:

RC= k x EQP/LIFE 

### Eq 8.8 where

RC



### = repair cost ($), k 

### = fraction of the equipment price (a value of 0.5 was assumed), EQP 

### = equipment price (customer price for the equipment only) ($), LIFE 

### = average lifetime of the equipment in years (a value of 10.0 years was assumed).

Bec ause data were not available to indicate how repair costs vary with equipment efficiency level, DOE considered two scenarios for the ANOPR: repair costs that varied in direct proportion with the manufacturer selling price of the equipment, and repair costs that were kept constant (i.e., did not increase with higher efficiency levels). The latter was accomplished by holding EQP at the baseline equipment price. DOE used repair costs that are constant with manufacturer selling price (the second scenario above) as the default annualized repair cost scenario in the LCC and PBP analysis. Comments received during the ANOPR were that repair costs would likely increase for higher efficiency equipment but a simply proportional cost was likely inappropriate. For the NOPR analysis, DOE contacted CRE users to assess typical equipment failure rates in the field and used replacement cost estimates to augment the baseline repair cost from the ANOPR.

Key equipment components that might be replaced over the equipment life and for which higher efficiency components are examined in the engineering analysis are shown in Table 8.2.13 along with estimates of the relative frequency of replacement b 

### . Replacement fr e quencies were annualized for use in the LCC analysis. Costs for replacement components in the field were estimated as 250 percent of the OEM cost for each component in 2007$ as established in the engineering analysis. 

### Table 8.2.13 Frequency of Component Replacement

Component Est imated Replacement Rate (over 10 year period) Evaporator Fans 50% Condenser Fans 25% Compressors 25% Coils 5% Doors 5%

b Estimates for replacement frequencies were based on personal conversation with Jim Vannon, Engineering Man ager for Albertsons, October 26, 20078-20



### 8.2.3.4 Maintenance Cost

The maintenance cost is the cost to the consumer of maintaining equipment operation. The maintenance cost is not the cost associated with the replacement or repair of components that unexpectedly have failed (as discussed above). Rather, it is the cost associated with general maintenance (e.g., checking and maintaining refrigerant charge levels, cleaning heat exchanger coils).

DOE took annualized maintenance costs for commercial refrigeration equipment from data in RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data. 9 

### RS Means 

### provides estimates on th e person-hours, labor rates, and materials required to maintain commercial refrigeration equipment. RS Means 

### specifies preventative maintenance activities for commercial display cases
exp ected to occur on a semi-annual basis as including the following actions: cleaning evaporator coils, drain pans, fans and intake screens; lubricating motors; inspecting door gaskets and seals, and lubricating hinges; cleaning condenser coils; checking refrigerant pressures and compressor oil as necessary; checking starter panels and controls; and checking defrost system operation. DOE did not break out these activities into separate line-item maintenance activities. Instead, DOE used a single figure of $156/yr (2007$) for preventative maintenance activities for all CRE classes.

Because data were not available to indicate how maintenance costs vary with equipment efficiency level, DOE decided to use preventative maintenance costs that remain constant as equipment efficiency is increased.

DOE considered lamp replacements and other lighting maintenance activities as required maintenance for commercial refrigeration equipment, and apart from preventative maintenance. Thus, DOE did not itemize them in the preventative maintenance activities described by RS Me a ns 

### . Different CRE classes have different numbers of lamps (and ballasts), and many of the eff iciency options DOE considered in its design option engineering analysis involved changes to the lighting configuration (lamp, ballast, or use of light emitting diode (LED) lighting systems). Because the lighting configurations can vary by efficiency level, DOE estimated the relative maintenance costs for lighting by each case type for which DOE performed a design option analysis. DOE's methodology was to estimate the frequency of failure and replacement of individual lighting components, to estimate the cost of replacement in the field, and to develop an annualized maintenance cost based on the sum of the total lighting maintenance costs (in 2007$) over the estimated life of the equipment divided by the estimated life of the equipment.

Lifetime estimates for particular components were as follows:

• 

### Fluorescent lamps would be replaced every 24 months in a preventative fashion.

• 

### Fluorescent lamp ballasts would be replaced once over the estimated 10-year life of the
equ ipment based on a typical ballast life of 80,000 hours.

• 

### LED lamps would be replaced once over the estimated 10-year life of the equipment bas ed on a typical fixture life of 50,000 hours (GE 2007). 10



### DOE b a sed cost estimates for fluorescent lamp and ballast replacements on review of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) costs used in the engineering analysis, RS Means8-21



### estimates and cost data from Grainger


### , 11 

### and previous studies. The final approach taken was to
est imate the costs of field replacement using labor cost hours from RS Means Electrical Cost Dat a 12 

### for typical lamp or ballast replacement for other lighting fixtures, and to provide a 150 -percent multiplier on OEM costs for lamps and ballasts (provided in the engineering analysis spreadsheets) to reflect retail pricing.

Fluorescent lamp and ballast technology is mature. Available information suggests that there would be no change in inflation adjusted costs for these components. However, because of rapid technological improvement, costs for LED lamps are declining. DOE’s estimate for the ANOPR was that costs for replacing LED lighting fixtures (which would occur first in approximately 2018, or six years after the target date of the rule) would be 140 percent of the OEM cost of LED case lighting fixtures today (in 2007$). DOE recognizes that both life and cost assumptions for LED replacement are speculative and believes it has taken a conservative approach to estimating price reduction over time for this technology. DOE did not consider overhead and profit factors from RS Means.

The total costs for lamp, ballast or LED fixture replacement were annualized by dividing the total estimated replacement costs over the CRE lifetime as shown in Eq. 8.9.



# ∑        

× + × + ×+× =

Life OEM Ballast Bulb OEM LEDFixture Labor NBallast Labor NBulb Ballast Bulb Life enance

LightingMa Annualized

%140 %150 & 1 int 

### Eq. 8.9

wher e
Annualized Lighting Maintenance 

### = Annualized Lighting Maintenance Cost (2007$), Life 

### = CRE lifetime (years), Bulb & Ballast OEM



### = OEM Costs for bulb and ballast from engineering analysis ($), LED Fixture OEM



### = OEM Installed costs for LED fixtures from engineering analysis ($), N Bulb 

### = Number of bulbs in particular CRE class analyzed, N Ballast 

### = Number of ballasts in particular CRE class analyzed, Labor Bulb 

### = Labor cost to replace one bulb ($), Labor Ballast 

### = Labor cost to replace one ballast ($).

Th e Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute provided cost-energy-consumption curves for certain equipment classes, but without maintenance costs for lighting components. For such equipment classes, DOE calculated a nominal lighting maintenance cost for all levels on the basis that T8 lamp lighting represented the current market. 13



### Tab le 8.2.14 shows the annualized lighting maintenance costs for each efficiency level addressed in the LCC analysis.8-22



### Table 8.2.14 Annualized Lighting Maintenance Costs for Each Efficiency Level Addressed

in t he Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (2007$)
Annualized Lighting Maintenance Costs ($/yr) Equipment Type Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 104.37 104.37 104.37 140.12 140.12 140.12 262.95 NA VOP.RC.L 44.73 44.73 44.73 44.73 60.05 60.05 112.69 NA VOP.SC.M 38.64 38.64 38.64 38.64 50.86 50.86 87.65 87.65 VCT.RC.M 98.27 98.27 98.27 98.27 98.27 110.26 110.26 NA VCT.RC.L 98.27 98.27 98.27 98.27 98.27 110.26 110.26 NA VCT.SC.I 49.14 49.14 49.14 49.14 49.14 49.14 55.13 55.13 VCS.SC.I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVO.RC.M 74.55 74.55 74.55 100.08 100.08 187.82 187.82 NA SVO.SC.M 26.77 26.77 26.77 26.77 35.44 35.44 62.61 62.61 SOC.RC.M 74.55 74.55 74.55 100.08 100.08 187.82 187.82 187.82 HZO.RC.M 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HZO.SC.L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HCT.SC.I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA *NA means that no efficiency level was designated; e.g., VOP.RC.M had only seven efficiency levels and HZO.RC.L had only five.


### Total annualized maintenance costs are the sum of the preventative maintenance and the lig hting maintenance costs. Table 8.2.15 summarizes the nationally representative annualized maintenance costs for baseline refrigeration equipment.



### Table 8.2.15 Annualized Maintenance Costs for Baseline Efficient Commercial

Ref rigeration Equipment (2007$)

Annualized Lighting Maintenance Costs for LCC ($/yr) Equipment Type Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 260.79 260.79 260.79 296.54 296.54 296.54 419.37 NA VOP.RC.L 201.15 201.15 201.15 201.15 216.47 216.47 269.11 NA VOP.SC.M 195.06 195.06 195.06 195.06 207.28 207.28 244.07 244.07 VCT.RC.M 254.69 254.69 254.69 254.69 254.69 266.68 266.68 NA VCT.RC.L 254.69 254.69 254.69 254.69 254.69 266.68 266.68 NA VCT.SC.I 205.56 205.56 205.56 205.56 205.56 205.56 211.55 211.55 VCS.SC.I 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 SVO.RC.M 230.97 230.97 230.97 256.50 256.50 344.24 344.24 NA SVO.SC.M 183.19 183.19 183.19 183.19 191.86 191.86 219.03 219.03 SOC.RC.M 230.97 230.97 230.97 256.50 256.50 344.24 344.24 344.24 HZO.RC.M 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 HZO.SC.L 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 HCT.SC.I 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 156.42 NA NA *NA means that no efficiency level was designated; e.g., VOP.RC.M had only seven efficiency levels and HZO.RC.L had only five.8-23



### 8.2.3.5 Lifetime

DOE defines lifetime as the age when a CRE unit is retired from service. DOE based
equ ipment lifetime on discussions with industry experts, and concluded that a typical lifetime of 10 years is appropriate for commercial refrigeration equipment used in large grocery and multiline retail business types. Based on comments received during the ANOPR, DOE used 15 year life for commercial refrigeration equipment used in small grocery/convenience stores. Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, contains a discussion of equipment life and tabulates estimates from various sources used in assessing equipment life. CRE units are typically replaced when stores are renovated—about every 10 years for large grocery chains 14



### — whi c h is before the CRE units would have physically worn out. Because of this, there is a usedequipment market for commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE understands, however, that the salvage value to the original purchaser is very low and thus this has not been taken into account in the LCC.



### 8.2.3.6 Discount Rate

The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to establish their
pre sent value. DOE derived the discount rates for the CRE analysis by estimating the cost of capital for companies that purchase commercial refrigeration equipment. The cost of capital is commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the company of equity and debt financing.

DOE estimated the cost of equity financing by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). 15 

### The CAPM, among the most widely used models to estimate the cost of equity fi n ancing, assumes that the cost of equity is proportional to the amount of systematic risk associated with a company. The cost of equity financing tends to be high when a company faces a large degree of systematic risk and it tends to be low when the company faces a small degree of systematic risk.

DOE determined the cost of equity financing by using several variables, including the risk coefficient of a company, (beta), the expected return on “risk free” assets ( R f 

### ), and the add itional return expected on assets facing average market risk, also known as the equity risk premium or ERP 

### . The risk coefficient of a company, , indicates the degree of risk associated with a given firm relative to the level of risk (or price variability) in the overall stock market. Risk coefficients usually vary between 0.5 and 2.0. A company with a risk coefficient of 0.5 faces half the risk of other stocks in the market; a company with a risk coefficient of 2.0 faces twice the overall stock market risk.8-24



### The following equation gives the cost of equity financing for a particular company:

k e 

### = R f 

### + (β x ERP) 

### Eq. 8.10

wher e

k

e 

### = the cost of equity for a company ($), R f 

### = the expected return of the risk free asset ($), = the risk coefficient



### , ERP 

### = the expected equity risk premium ($).

DOE d efined the risk-free rate as the yield (January 2007) on long-term government bonds. DOE used a 4.8-percent estimate for the ERP 

### based on data from the Damodaran Onli ne 16 

### site.

The cost of debt financing is the yield or interest rate paid on money borrowed by a

com pany (for example, by selling bonds). As defined here, the cost of debt includes compensation for default risk (the risk that a firm will go bankrupt) and excludes deductions for taxes. DOE estimated the cost of debt for companies by adding a risk adjustment factor to the current yield on long term corporate bonds (the risk free rate). It used this procedure to estimate current (and future) company costs to obtain debt financing. It based the adjustment factor on indicators of company risk, such as credit rating or variability of stock returns.

The weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) of a company is the weighted-average cost of debt and equity financing:

k =k e 

### x w e 

### + k

d 

### x w d 

### Eq. 8.11 whe r e

k 

### = the (nominal) cost of capital ($), k e 

### = the expected rate of return on equity ($), k d 

### = the expected rate of return on debt ($),

w e 

### = the proportion of equity financing in total annual financing,

w d 

### = the proportion of debt financing in total annual financing.

The cost of capital is a nominal rate, because it includes anticipated future inflation in the expected returns from stocks and bonds. The real discount rate or WACC deducts expected inflation ( r 

### ) from the nominal rate. DOE calculated expected inflation (2.2 percent) from the

ave rage of the projected change in gross domestic product (GDP) prices in the Economic Report of the President



### (February 2006). 17



### To estimate the WACC of CRE purchasers, DOE used a sample of companies involved in groceries and multi-line retailing drawn from a database of 7,319 U.S. companies given on the Damodaran Online 

### website. This database includes most of the publicly-traded companies in the United States.8-25



### DOE divided the companies into the three ownership categories shown in Tab le 8.2.16according to their type of activity (small grocery, in the last line of the table covers convenience stores with and without gasoline stations). DOE sought financial information for all of the firms in the full sample involved in the two lines of business. This resulted in a sample of about 22 firms. In cases where one or more of the variables needed to estimate the discount rate was missing or could not be obtained, DOE discarded the firm from the analysis. Overall, it discarded about 22 percent of the firms in the full database for this reason.

Table 8.2.16 describes the economic sectors represented in each of the ownership categories as well as the number of companies used for determining discount rates.

Ultimately, DOE used a sample of 17 companies to represent the purchasers of

co m mercial refrigeration equipment. For each company in the sample, DOE derived the cost of deb t, percent debt financing, and systematic company risk from information provided at the Damodaran Online 

### website. It estimated the cost of debt financing from the long-term
gov ernment bond rate (4.39 percent) and the standard deviation of the stock price. Table 8.2.16 shows the weighted-average values for the cost of debt, percent debt financing and systematic firm risk for each category of the sample companies. The cost of capital for small, independent grocers, convenience store franchisees, gasoline station owner-operators and others with more limited access to capital is more difficult to determine. Individual credit-worthiness varies considerably, and some franchisees have access to the financial resources of the franchising corporation. However, personal contacts with a sample of commercial bankers yielded an estimate for the small operator weighted cost of capital of about 200 to 300 basis points (2 percent to 3 percent) above the rates for large grocery chains. A central value equal to the weighted average of large grocery chains, plus 2.5 percent, was used for small operators.

Deducting expected inflation from the cost of capital provides the estimates of the real discount rate by ownership category shown in Table 8.2.16. The average after-tax discount rate, weighted by the percentage shares of total CRE purchases, is 5.87 percent for large grocery, 5.11 percent for multi-line retailers and 8.37 percent for convenience stores and convenience stores associated with gasoline stations.



### 8.2.3.7 Effective Date of Standard

The effective date is the future date when a new standard becomes operative. Under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(c), the effective date of any new energy conservation standard for commercial refrigeration equipment will be three years after the final rule is published. DOE calculated the LCC for all customers as if they each would purchase a new CRE unit in the year the standard takes effect. Consistent with its published regulatory agenda, DOE assumed that the final rule would be issued in 2009 and that, therefore, the new standards would take effect in 2012 and used these dates in the ANOPR analyses. It based the cost of the equipment on this year; however, all dollar values are expressed in 2007$. DOE considered annual energy for the life of the commercial refrigeration equipment. For the LCC analysis, the year of equipment purchase is 2012._ 8-26Table 8.2.16 Discount Rates by Company and Ownership CategoryCompanyCompanyValue(millions $)ValueLine BetaCost ofEquity (E) E/(D+E)Std DevinStockCost ofDebt (D)EffectiveTax RateAfterTax Costof DebtMarketDebt toCapital(D/(D+E)Cost ofCapitalA $ 25,042 1.45 11.35% 66.33% 23.70% 4.89% 13.19% 4.24% 33.67% 8.96%B $ 389 0.6 7.27% 99.56% 33.37% 5.39% 40.61% 3.20% 0.44% 7.25%C $ 1,361 0.9 8.71% 88.38% 25.77% 5.14% 35.85% 3.30% 11.62% 8.08%D $ 1,281 0.7 7.75% 56.56% 23.42% 4.89% 37.45% 3.06% 43.44% 5.71%E $ 23,380 1.2 10.15% 69.07% 21.55% 4.89% 37.18% 3.07% 30.93% 7.96%F $ 1,184 1.2 10.15% 48.87% 45.83% 5.64% 0.00% 5.64% 51.13% 7.84%G $ 1,503 0.85 8.47% 88.42% 20.90% 4.89% 36.22% 3.12% 11.58% 7.85%H $ 21,819 1.05 9.43% 70.86% 23.48% 4.89% 34.41% 3.21% 29.14% 7.62%I $ 715 0.9 8.71% 84.74% 39.00% 5.39% 36.74% 3.41% 15.26% 7.90%J $ 775 0.75 7.99% 93.79% 55.96% 5.89% 42.97% 3.36% 6.21% 7.70%K $ 302 0.65 7.51% 88.92% 22.06% 4.89% 41.81% 2.85% 11.08% 6.99%L $ 1,084 0.8 8.23% 100.00% 16.67% 4.64% 36.14% 2.96% 0.00% 8.23%M $ 6,647 0.95 8.95% 99.72% 32.50% 5.39% 39.44% 3.26% 0.28% 8.93%N $ 598 1.15 9.91% 71.22% 65.26% 6.39% 15.16% 5.42% 28.78% 8.62%Large GroceryWeighted Average1.180510.06%72.24%24.68%4.97%29.04%3.52%27.76%8.20%Inflation-Adjusted5.87%U$25,715 0.8 8.23% 97.0% 19.86% 4.64% 37.0% 2.92% 2.99% 8.07%V$58,915 19.19% 83.2% 21.26% 4.89% 37.8% 3.04% 16.76% 8.16%W$230,590 0.75 7.99% 83.2% 15.89% 4.64% 34.7% 3.03% 16.83% 7.15%Large Multi-LineRetailers andWholesalersWeighted Average0.8008 8.23% 84.31% 17.22% 4.69% 35.47% 3.02% 15.69% 7.42%Inflation-Adjusted5.11%Small Grocery, Inflation Adjusted8.37%E=equity; D=debtSource: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) calculations applied to firms sampled from the Damodaran Online website.8-27



### 8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS

8.3.1 Definition

The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the assumed hig her purchase cost of more energy-efficient equipment as a result of lower operating costs. Numerically, the PBP is the ratio of the increase in purchase cost (i.e., from a less efficient design to a more efficient design) to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type of calculation is known as a “simple” payback period, because it does not take into account changes in operating cost over time or the time value of money, that is, the calculation is done at an effective discount rate of zero percent.

The equation for PBP is:

PBP =∆IC/∆OC 

### Eq. 8.12 where

PBP 

### = payback period (years), ∆IC 

### = difference in the total installed cost between the more efficient standard level,
eq u ipment (efficiency Levels 2, 3, etc.) and the baseline (efficiency Level 1) equipment ($), 

### ∆ OC 

### = difference in annual operating costs ($).

Pay back periods are expressed in years. Payback periods greater than the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost of the more efficient equipment is not recovered in reduced operating costs over the life of the equipment.



### 8.3.2 Inputs
The data inputs to PBP are the total installed cost of the equipment to the customer for

eac h efficiency level and the annual (first year) operating costs for each efficiency level. The inputs to the total installed cost are the equipment price and the installation cost. The inputs to the operating costs are the annual energy cost, the annual repair cost, and the annual maintenance cost. The PBP uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis described in section 8.2, except that electricity price trends and discount rates are not required. Since the PBP is a “simple” (undiscounted) payback, the required electricity cost is only for the year in which a new efficiency standard is to take effect—in this case, the year 2012. The electricity price used in the PBP calculation of electricity cost was the price projected for 2012, expressed in 2007$, but not discounted to 2007. Discount rates are not used in the PBP calculation.



### 8.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

8.4.1 Life-Cycle Cost Results

This section presents LCC results for the higher efficiency levels specified in the

en g ineering analysis (chapter 5) and also presented in section 8.2.2.2, Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases. The results presented here are based on annual operating8-28



### costs calculated from average annual electricity prices developed for each business type. Sec tion 8.2 presents the electricity price inputs as well as all other LCC inputs.

Because the values of most inputs are variable in this analysis, DOE represents them as a distribution of values rather than a single point-value. Thus, DOE represents the LCC results as a distribution of values. Before proceeding with the presentation of the distribution of LCC results, DOE presents average values for total installed costs, annual operating costs, and LCC to show how these costs vary with efficiency level for each of the commercial refrigeration equipment classes.



### 8.4.1.1 Life-Cycle Cost Breakdown Based on Average Input Values

Figure 8.4.1 shows how, on an average basis, the total installed costs and LCC vary with eff iciency level for a given building type. Similar figures for other equipment classes are provided in appendix G.

DOE separated the figures for total installed cost into equipment price and installation cost. It separated the figures for annual operating cost into annual electricity, repair, and maintenance costs. It separated the figures for LCC into total installed cost and lifetime operating cost. Although these figures show only mean or average values rather than distributions of LCC results, they demonstrate how the various inputs impact LCC. In view of the total installed cost results for both equipment classes, the equipment price is the largest contributor to increased total cost since the installation cost remains relatively constant across efficiencies.

Annual electricity cost is the largest contributor to the overall operating cost at any efficiency level. As efficiency is increased, electricity cost decreases.

The LCC results reveal that as efficiency is increased, the lifetime operating cost has more of an impact on the LCC than the total installed cost. In other words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs offsets the increase in total installed cost that occurs with an increase in rated efficiency. As a result, the LCC at all efficiency levels is lower than that for the baseline level (Level 1).

Again, the results shown in Figure 8.4.1 are based on average input values rather than input distributions and are depicted for only one building type. Thus, one can observe how the various inputs impact LCC and, in turn, how the resulting LCC changes with an increase in efficiency level in this example. Conclusions, however, should also take into account the distribution of LCC results discussed in section 8.4.1.2.8-29 Installed Cost-LCC Tradeoff

$22,500 $2 3 ,000 $23,500 $24,000 $24,500 $25,000 $25,500 $26,000 $26,500

$8,259 $8,300 $8,397 $8,498 $8,793 $8,856 $11,428 #N/A

Leve l 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8
Installed CostLife Cycle Cost Installed Cost-LCC Tradeoff Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=Medium (M), Fuel Price=AEO 2007 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012



### Figure 8.4.1 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Life-Cycle Cost for Vertical Open

Dis play Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature in Supermarkets (2007$) at Average U.S. Conditions (Level 1 is the Baseline Level).

8.4.1.2 Differences in Life-Cycle Cost Between Baseline and Standard-Level

Equipment

DOE’s first step in developing LCC results was to establish the baseline LCC for each of the commercial refrigeration equipment classes. Unlike many recent DOE rulemakings, commercial refrigeration equipment has no pre-existing Federal standard, voluntary standard (e.g., ASHRAE), or other convenient reference standard available to serve as a baseline. As discussed in section 8.2.2.1, DOE’s baseline energy efficiency level for the ANOPR analysis is Level 1.8-30 Cumulative LCC Savings at Level 4

0% 10 % 2 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 LCC Savings (2007$)Cumulative Probability

Cumulative LCC Savings at

Level 4 Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=Medium (M), Fuel Price=AEO 2007 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012



### Figure 8.4.2 Cumulative Chart of Life-Cycle Cost Savings for Vertical Open Display Case,

Rem ote Condensing, Medium Temperature: Efficiency Level 4

This section presents the differences in the LCC of standard level equipment relative to the baseline commercial refrigeration equipment. The LCC differences are depicted as a distribution of values. DOE presents the results in a cumulative chart showing the cumulative distribution of LCC differences along with the corresponding probability of occurrence for each given efficiency level. In each figure, DOE provides the mean LCC difference along with the percent of the population for which the LCC will decrease. In the case of commercial refrigeration equipment, the population is the number of CRE units in commercial buildings (grocery and convenience stores) that utilize commercial refrigeration equipment.

Figure 8.4.2 presents the LCC results for the case of efficiency Level 4 in the VOP.RC.M equipment class across all building types. Similar figures for other efficiency levels are found in appendix G for all equipment classes. In Figure 8.4.2, the 50-percent line shows the median change in LCC (a savings of $1,040 in this example). Half of the purchasers of this commercial refrigeration equipment would save more than $1,040, while half would save less than $1,040. The “0” horizontal line is the minimum savings value, which in this example is $284 savings due to the increased efficiency at efficiency level 4 compared to the baseline efficiency level (Level 1). The maximum LCC savings is $3,667.

Appendix G contains the cumulative charts for all the efficiency levels considered for all commercial refrigeration equipment classes. These charts provide more complete information, but DOE provides a summary of the change in LCC from the baseline by percentile groupings (i.e., of the distribution of results) for each of the equipment classes in Table 8.4.1. Table 8.4.1 also shows the mean LCC savings and the percent of LCCs that are reduced for a standard set at each efficiency level.8-31



### Table 8.4.1 Distribution of Life-Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 1) by

Eff iciency Level for VOP.RC.M

Decrease in LCC from Baseline (Level 1) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results (2007$)EfficiencyLevel

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mean Savings Percent

of Units with LCC Savings Level 2 $250 $365 $404 $438 $477 $530 $565 $659 $737 $780 $1,483 $566 100% Level 3 $490 $748 $837 $910 $1,000 $1,120 $1,201 $1,411 $1,586 $1,684 $3,269 $1,201 100% Level 4 $284 $596 $701 $779 $903 $1,049 $1,142 $1,387 $1,618 $1,739 $3,667 $1,143 100% Level 5 $337 $773 $929 $1,031 $1,205 $1,414 $1,552 $1,907 $2,217 $2,390 $5,129 $1,551 100% Level 6 $303 $746 $909 $1,009 $1,187 $1,400 $1,542 $1,905 $2,221 $2,398 $5,197 $1,540 100% Level 7 -$2,240 -$1,566 -$1,249 -$1,124 -$837 -$466 -$233 $347 $899 $1,225 $5,988 -$234 35% Level 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA



### As an example of how to interpret the information in Table 8.4.1, here is a review of the results for the VOP.RC.M equipment class. The Level 4 efficiency level in Table 8.4.1 (row 3) shows that the change in LCC in the zero-percentile column is a minimum saving of $284. This means that the 100 percent of the market are estimated to have LCC savings of $284. For 90 percent of the cases studied (90 th 

### percentile), the change in LCC for Level 4 is a LCC red uction of $1,739 or less compared with the base case. Consequently, 10 percent of the cases have LCC savings of greater than $1,739. The largest reduction in LCC for Level 4 is $3,667 at the 100 th 

### percentile. The mean change in LCC is a net savings of $1,143. The last column shows tha t 100 percent of the sample has LCC savings (i.e., reductions in LCC greater than zero) when compared to the baseline efficiency level.

Table 8.4.2 provides the national average life cycle cost savings calculated for each efficiency level when compared to the baseline (Level 1) for all product categories. Review of Table 8.4.2 shows that every efficiency level analyzed generated national average life cycle cost savings compared with the baseline.



### 8.4.2 Payback Period Results

This section presents PBP results for each of the higher efficiency levels defined in

sec tion 8.2.2.2. The results presented here are based on annual operating costs calculated from state average commercial electricity prices. Section 8.2 describes the tariff-based electricity price inputs as well as all other PBP inputs.

Similar to LCC, the analysis provides an estimate of the simple payback period at different ranges of energy prices, sales taxes, and installation costs that prevail across the country for each efficiency level and each building (store) type. Figure 8.4.3 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from Level 1 (the baseline), for VOP.RC.M equipment class in supermarkets at U.S. national average energy prices, sales taxes, and installation costs.8-32



### Table 8.4.2 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from Baseline Level (Level 1) by Efficiency

Lev el and Equipment Class

National Average LCC Savings (2007$) Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0 566 1,201 1,143 1,551 1,540 -234 NA VOP.RC.L 0 1,461 3,132 4,005 3,983 4,089 3,364 NA VOP.SC.M 0 523 758 1,020 1,065 1,342 748 703 VCT.RC.M 0 286 581 1,106 1,107 900 867 NA VCT.RC.L 0 326 676 3,594 3,662 3,575 3,546 NA VCT.SC.I 0 879 1,723 2,305 3,806 3,818 3,841 3,818 VCS.SC.I 0 324 640 990 1,191 1,527 1,554 1,565 SVO.RC.M 0 386 810 782 1,106 -153 -170 NA SVO.SC.M 0 416 527 738 756 988 567 516 SOC.RC.M 0 363 759 741 819 -386 -421 -673 HZO.RC.M 0 376 792 942 917 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0 285 593 927 971 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0 241 312 414 551 747 759 721 HZO.SC.L 0 532 610 1,073 1,094 1,576 1,585 1,559 HCT.SC.I 0 146 192 692 710 693 NA NA Percent of Units with Positive LCC Savings Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 35% NA VOP.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA VOP.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 84% 81% VCT.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 99% 99% 81% 79% NA VCT.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA VCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% VCS.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SVO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 35% 35% NA SVO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 82% SOC.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 30% 27% 26% HZO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% HZO.SC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% HCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA8-33 Installed Cost-Payback Tradeoff

0.0 1. 0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

$8,259 $8,300 $8,397 $8,498 $8,793 $8,856 $11,428 #N/A

Lev el 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8
Installed CostPayback Period (Years)

Installed Cost-Payback Period Tradeoff Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=Medium

(M), Fuel Price=AEO 2007 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012



### Figure 8.4.3 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Payback Period for Vertical

Ope n Display Case, Remote Condensing, Medium Temperature, in Supermarkets at Average U.S. Conditions (Level 1 is the Baseline Level).

Similar to the LCC differences, DOE depicted PBP results as a distribution of values. Th u s, it presents the results as a cumulative probability chart showing the distribution of PBPs with the corresponding cumulative probability of occurrence. Each chart provides the mean PBP.

Figure 8.4.4 is an example of a cumulative probability chart showing the distribution of payback periods for each of the higher efficiency levels analyzed for the VOP.RC.M equipment class. Appendix G contains the frequency charts for all the efficiency levels considered for all commercial refrigeration equipment in this analysis. In Figure 8.4.4, the y-axis shows cumulative percent of all VOP.RC.M units (“Probability” at left y-axis). The x-axis is the PBP of a higher efficiency level (in this example, Level 4) relative to the baseline efficiency level (Level 1). In Figure 8.4.4, a Level 4 efficiency level provides commercial refrigeration units in this equipment class with a median PBP of 1.4 years, a mean payback period of 1.5 years, and a payback period range from just greater than 0.4 years to approximately 3.3 years depending on the placement of the unit. (Note that these cannot be read with precision from the chart; rather, the analysis output data provides these values in a statistical summary.)8-34 Cumulative Payback Period at Level 4

0% 10 % 2 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
YearsCumulative Probability Cumulative Payback at Level 4 Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=Medium (M), Fuel Price=AEO 2007 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012



### Figure 8.4.4 Cumulative Chart of Payback Period for Vertical Open Display Case,

Rem ote Condensing, Medium Temperature: Efficiency Level 4

Table 8.4.3 summarizes the PBP results for each of the VOP.RC.M equipment class eff iciency levels. Results are summarized for PBP by percentile groupings (i.e., percentile of the distribution of results). The table also shows the mean PBP for each efficiency level.



### Table 8.4.3 Summary of Payback Period Results for Vertical Open Display Case,

Re m ote Condensing, Medium Temperature, Efficiency Level 4

Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Efficiency Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mean Level 2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.6 Level 3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.9 Level 4 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 3.3 1.5 Level 5 0.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.1 4.5 2.2 Level 6 0.7 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 4.9 2.4 Level 7 2.5 5.4 5.8 7.0 8.5 9.0 10.1 11.9 12.9 14.8 27.5 9.7 Level 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


### Table 8.4.4 provides the national average payback calculated for each efficiency level when compared to the baseline (Level 1) for all equipment classes. Table 8.4.4 also shows the percentage of units reporting payback periods of less than 3 years.8-35



### Table 8.4.4 National Average Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment Class

National Average Payback Period (Years) Equipment Type Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M NA 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.2 2.4 9.7 NA VOP.RC.L NA 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 3.0 NA VOP.SC.M NA 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.7 5.7 5.9 VCT.RC.M NA 0.9 1.4 4.5 4.6 6.0 6.1 NA VCT.RC.L NA 0.8 1.2 2.6 2.6 3.5 3.7 NA VCT.SC.I NA 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.5 VCS.SC.I NA 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.4 SVO.RC.M NA 0.5 0.8 1.5 2.1 9.7 9.7 NA SVO.SC.M NA 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.6 2.6 5.6 5.9 SOC.RC.M NA 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.9 11.4 11.5 12.6 HZO.RC.M NA 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.8 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L NA 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.8 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M NA 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.9 2.0 2.5 HZO.SC.L NA 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.9 HCT.SC.I NA 0.6 0.7 1.5 1.6 2.1 NA NA Percent of Units with Payback Period Less than 3 Years Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 88% 80% 0% NA VOP.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 51% NA VOP.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 99% 68% 2% 1% VCT.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 10% 8% 1% 1% NA VCT.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 70% 68% 33% 31% NA VCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 79% VCS.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SVO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 99% 90% 0% 0% NA SVO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 70% 4% 1% SOC.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 99% 92% 0% 0% NA HZO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 99% NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 99% NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 95% 79% HZO.SC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% HCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% NA NA



### 8.4.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

Sections 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 345(e)(1)(A) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)(A)), establish a rebuttable presumption for commercial refrigeration equipment. The rebuttable presumption states that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that “the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy ... savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure ...” This rebuttable-presumption test is an alternative path to establishing economic justification.

To evaluate the rebuttable presumption, DOE estimated the additional cost of purchasing more efficient, standard-compliant equipment, and compared this cost to the value of the energy saved during the first year of operation of the equipment as determined by ARI 1200-2006. DOE interprets that the increased cost of purchasing standard-compliant equipment includes the cost of installing the equipment for use by the purchaser. DOE calculated the rebuttable presumption payback period (RPBP), or the ratio of the value of the increased installed price above the baseline efficiency level to the first year’s energy cost savings. When this payback period is less than three years, the rebuttable presumption is satisfied; when this payback period8-36



### is equal to or more than three years, the rebuttable presumption is not satisfied. Note that this
pay back period calculation does not include other components to the annual operating cost of the equipment (i.e., maintenance costs and repair costs). The rebuttable presumption payback periods calculated can thus be different from the payback periods calculated in section 8.4.2.

DOE calculated the rebuttable presumption payback periods for the distribution of installed costs and energy prices discussed in sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 representative of the same four types of businesses and all 50 States. The baseline efficiency level for the rebuttable presumption calculation is the Level 1 baseline efficiency. The rebuttable presumption payback period was calculated for each higher efficiency level within each equipment class.

Table 8.4.5 shows the nationally-averaged rebuttable presumption payback periods calculated for all equipment classes and efficiency levels. The highest efficiency level with a rebuttable presumption payback period of less than three years is also shown in Table 8.4.5 for each equipment class.



### Table 8.4.5 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and

Eq u ipment Class

Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period (Years) Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M NA 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.9 5.9 NA VOP.RC.L NA 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 2.5 NA VOP.SC.M NA 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.5 2.3 4.4 4.6 VCT.RC.M NA 0.8 1.2 4 4.1 5.3 5.4 NA VCT.RC.L NA 0.7 1.1 2.4 2.4 3.2 3.3 NA VCT.SC.I NA 0.3 0.6 1 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.3 VCS.SC.I NA 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 1.2 1.3 SVO.RC.M NA 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.7 5.8 5.9 NA SVO.SC.M NA 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.3 2.2 4.3 4.6 SOC.RC.M NA 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 6.2 6.4 7.1 HZO.RC.M NA 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L NA 0.6 1 1.4 1.6 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M NA 0.3 0.4 0.7 1 1.8 1.9 2.3 HZO.SC.L NA 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.7 HCT.SC.I NA 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.5 2 NA NA



### 8.5 LCC SENSITIVY STUDIES

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate how the LCC and PBP results change with changes in fuel escalation rate and baseline efficiency level. The results of these are discussed in sections 8.5.1 and 8.5.2



### 8.5.1 Sensitivity to Fuel Escalation Rate

Sensitivity to fuel escalation rate was examined using the escalation rates provided in the AEO 2007



### high growth and low growth scenarios. Table 8.5.1 and Table 8.5.2 examine the
nat ional average LCC savings for the AEO 2007 

### low growth scenario and AEO 2007 

### high
gro wth scenarios respectively. For the high growth scenario, while the average LCC savings is increased for all efficiency levels above the baseline when compared with the reference case, there are no changes in the level showing the highest LCC savings when compared with the results using AEO 2007



### reference case. For the low growth scenario, the average LCC savings8-37



### is reduced for all efficiency levels above the baseline when compared with the reference case (se e Table 8.4.2). Two equipment classes, VCT.RC.M and VCT.SC.I show a change in the efficiency level with the maximum LCC savings. Under the AEO 2007 

### low growth scenario for VCT. RC.M, the level with the maximum LCC savings is Level 4, compared to Level 5 in the AEO 2007



### reference case. The difference in LCC between these levels is $2 in the AEO 2007 

### low growth scenario. For VCT.SC.I, the level with the maximum LCC savings is Level 6 under the AEO 2007



### low growth scenario, compared to Level 7 in the AEO reference case.

Pay back period is calculated based on first year energy savings and thus is insensitive to fuel escalation rate scenarios.



### Table 8.5.1 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 1) by

Ef f iciency Level and Equipment Class – EIA Low Growth Scenario

National Average LCC Savings (2007$) Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0 534 1,128 1,054 1,424 1,411 -453 NA VOP.RC.L 0 1,378 2,944 3,753 3,724 3,821 3,056 NA VOP.SC.M 0 494 713 956 988 1,231 608 561 VCT.RC.M 0 269 541 974 972 721 685 NA VCT.RC.L 0 307 632 3,316 3,378 3,240 3,205 NA VCT.SC.I 0 831 1,626 2,166 3,554 3,564 3,558 3,530 VCS.SC.I 0 306 605 934 1,123 1,435 1,457 1,465 SVO.RC.M 0 364 761 721 1,016 -307 -327 NA SVO.SC.M 0 393 497 692 704 909 465 414 SOC.RC.M 0 343 713 682 752 -521 -557 -816 HZO.RC.M 0 354 744 881 853 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0 268 555 865 904 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0 228 295 390 517 696 705 666 HZO.SC.L 0 504 577 1,011 1,030 1,473 1,481 1,453 HCT.SC.I 0 138 181 648 663 644 NA NA Percent of Units with Positive LCC Savings Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% NA VOP.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA VOP.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 71% VCT.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 98% 98% 71% 70% NA VCT.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA VCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% VCS.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SVO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% 32% NA SVO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 71% SOC.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 27% 26% 11% HZO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% HZO.SC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% HCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA8-38



### Table 8.5.2 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 1) by

Eff iciency Level and Equipment Class – EIA High Growth Scenario

National Average LCC Savings (2007$) Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0 591 1,256 1,210 1,646 1,638 -70 NA VOP.RC.L 0 1,524 3,274 4,195 4,178 4,290 3,595 NA VOP.SC.M 0 545 792 1,069 1,123 1,424 854 809 VCT.RC.M 0 299 610 1,206 1,209 1,035 1,004 NA VCT.RC.L 0 341 709 3,803 3,876 3,827 3,802 NA VCT.SC.I 0 914 1,796 2,410 3,995 4,008 4,055 4,035 VCS.SC.I 0 338 666 1,032 1,243 1,597 1,627 1,640 SVO.RC.M 0 403 847 829 1,173 -37 -53 NA SVO.SC.M 0 433 550 772 796 1,048 643 593 SOC.RC.M 0 379 794 786 870 -285 -319 -565 HZO.RC.M 0 392 828 988 964 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0 298 622 973 1,021 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0 251 325 433 576 786 799 762 HZO.SC.L 0 554 635 1,120 1,142 1,652 1,663 1,638 HCT.SC.I 0 152 201 725 744 729 NA NA Percent of Units with Positive LCC Savings Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 37% NA VOP.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA VOP.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 86% VCT.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 99% 99% 85% 83% NA VCT.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA VCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% VCS.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SVO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 38% 37% NA SVO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 86% SOC.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 34% 32% 27% HZO.RC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% HZO.SC.L 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% HCT.SC.I 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA



### 8.5.2 Sensitivity to Baseline Efficiency Level

Sensitivity to the baseline efficiency level was carried out using the LCC analysis
spr eadsheet to calculate LCC Savings and Payback Period for each efficiency level using alternative efficiency levels (e.g., Level 2) selected as the baseline level. The analysis was first carried out for a single equipment class (VCT.RC.L) and summing over all business types and fuel costs. The results of this analysis, assuming baseline levels at Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 are shown in Table 8.5.3. For this product and business type, it is clear that as the assumed baseline level moves from Level 1 to Level 4, the average LCC savings calculated for each level higher than the baseline are reduced, and the average payback period calculated for each higher efficiency level increases. The maximum life cycle cost savings is achieved at Level 5. Payback periods to reach a given efficiency level (e.g., Level 7) increase as higher baseline levels are assumed. For Level 7, the PBP was 3.7 years calculated with a Level 1 baseline. PBP is increased to 8.7 years for a Level 4 baseline.8-39



### Table 8.5.3 Sensitivity of Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings and Payback Period to

Sel ection of Baseline Efficiency Level --VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

Average LCC Savings (2007$) Baseline Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 1 0 326 676 3,594 3,662 3,575 3,546 NA Level 2 NA 0 350 3,268 3,336 3,249 3,219 NA Level 3 NA NA 0 2,918 2,986 2,899 2,870 NA Level 4 NA NA NA 0 68 -19 -48 NA Average Payback Period (Years) Level 1 NA 0.8 1.2 2.6 2.6 3.5 3.7 NA Level 2 NA 0.0 1.6 2.7 2.7 3.7 3.8 NA Level 3 NA 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.9 3.9 4.0 NA Level 4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 8.5 8.7 NA


### Table 8.5.3 results are for one equipment class and one business type using national average electricity rates. The behavior of other equipment classes is qualitatively similar, i.e., the LCC savings is reduced and the payback period is increased when higher efficiency levels are assumed as the baseline level. However, the degree of change in LCC or payback depends on the relative shape of the cost-efficiency curves. To examine the impact of baseline level on a national basis, the LCC spreadsheet was exercised for all business types and equipment classes and state-by-state electricity prices. The resulting LCC savings and payback periods were aggregated to national average values. These results are found in appendix G. Figure 8.5.1 illustrates the impact on PBP for VCT.RC.L. The data points along each line of the chart indicate the calculated PBP for the efficiency level indicated for the line assuming the baseline level shown on the horizontal axis. The variation in the height of points along a given line (each line representing a specific target efficiency level) indicates the sensitivity of that level to the choice of baseline. Figure 8.5.1 shows the PBP for the VCT.RC.L equipment class is sensitive to the choice of baseline level, and that the overall PBP to reach Level 5 varies by approximately 1.3 years depending on the baseline level assumed for Levels 1 – 4. PBP to reach Level 6 or Level 7 vary significantly depending on the choice of baseline level.8-40 National Average Payback Period versus Baseline Level Selection

VCT.RC.L Equipment Class

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Lev el 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Assumed Baseline LevelPayback Period (years) PBP to Level 7

PBP to Level 6

PBP to Level 5

PBP to Level 4

PBP to Level 3 PBP to Level 2



### Figure 8.5.1 Sensitivity of Payback Period to Baseline Efficiency Level – VCT.RC.L

Equ ipment Class

8.5.3 Sensitivity to LED Lighting Costs

As discussed in section 8.2.3.4, the base LCC analysis uses current (2007) cost data for LED lighting both for the development of customer cost data as well as for replacement LED fixtures. LED lighting costs are expected to decline rapidly over the next decade (See Appendix B discussion of LED and LED fixture cost projections). DOE projects that the cost of LED fixtures could decline by as much as 50% by 2012, the effective date of the rule.

DOE performed two analyses of the effect of possible cost reductions in LED lighting systems on LCC and LCC savings. These analyses involved five equipment classes: VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M. In the first of these analyses, DOE determined the percentage reduction in LED system cost by 2012 necessary to offset the increases in national average LCC between selected levels incorporating fluorescent lighting and LED lighting systems found in the base LCC analysis. As these sensitivity analyses were done in the NOPR stage of the rulemaking, the specific efficiency levels select for this analysis were Trial Standard Levels (TSLs) selected in the NOPR stage of the rulemaking. A mapping between efficiency levels and TSLs is provided in chapter 9. In particular, DOE analyzed the reduction in LED system cost necessary to offset the increases in LCC between TSL 4 (also equivalent to TSL 3, the efficiency level with maximum LCC for these equipment classes) and TSL 5.8-41



### Ta

ble 8.5.4 shows the total increase in installed cost between TSL 4 and TSL 5 by each design change incorporated as well as the difference in LCC between these TSLs. In addition Table 8.5.4 shows the total cost of LED lighting including total cost for LED lighting systems for TSL 5 as well as the value of future LED lighting system replacements. Future LED lighting systems replacements were discounted to the year 2012 using the shipment-weighted average discount rate for all business types used in the LCC analysis. DOE then calculated the percentage reduction in these total LED lighting system costs that would be necessary to offset any increase in LCC between TSL 5 and the baseline. DOE also calculated the percentage reduction in LED system costs necessary to offset the difference in LCC between TSL 4 and TSL 5. This analysis indicates that reductions in LED system costs of between 37 and 44 percent would be sufficient to offset the LCC difference between TSL 4 and TSL 5, providing equivalent LCC savings at both levels

. 

### Table 8.5.4 LED Lighting System Cost Reduction Necessary to Provide Equivalent LCC

Sa v ings for TSL 4 and TSL 5 for VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, SVO.RC.M, SVO.SC.M, and SOC.RC.M.

Equipment Class VOP .RC.M VOP.SC.M SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M

2012 Net LED Lighting Cost (No Reduction to LED Costs Assumed) $2,571 $897 $1,837 $644 $1,837

Additional Insulation $63 $67 $63 $67 $63
High Efficiency Doors - - - - $361Total Installed CostIncrease from TSL4 toTSL5

2018 LED Field Replacement Costs (One Replacement After 6 Years) $1,922 $641 $1,373 $458 $1,373 Baseline LCC $26,592 $17,005 $22,039 $14,380 $26,638 LCC Savings TSL4 $1,551 $1,342 $1,106 $988 $819 LCC Savings TSL5 -$234 $703 -$170 $516 -$673 Delta LCC (TSL4 – TSL5) $1,785 $639 $1,276 $472 $1,492 LED Gross Costs (Total First Cost + Replacements Discounted to Present Value) $4,771 $1,590 $3,408 $1,136 $3,408 Minimum % LED Cost Reduction Needed for Positive LCC Savings at TSL5 Compared to Baseline 4.9% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 19.8% Minimum % LED Cost Reduction Needed for Equivalent LCC Savings at TSL5 Compared to TSL4 37.4% 40.2% 37.4% 41.6% 43.8%


### In the second sensitivity analysis, DOE presumed that the cost for replacement LED fixtures in 2018 would be reduced by 50 percent of the cost assumed in the base LCC analysis, DOE then calculated the percent reduction in LED system cost necessary by 2012 to reduce the average LCC for TSL 5 to a level that provided equivalent LCC savings as TSL 4. These results are shown in Table 8.5.5. DOE determined that under this scenario an LED system cost reduction ranging from 29 percent to 40 percent, depending on equipment class, would provide an LCC at TSL 5 equivalent to that at TSL 4.8-42



### Table 8.5.5 LED Lighting System Cost Reduction Necessary to Provide Equivalent LCC

Sav ings for TSL 4 and TSL 5 Assuming 50 Percent Cost Reduction for Future LED Lighting Replacements

Equipment Class VOP .RC.M VOP.SC.M SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M

2012 Net LED Lighting Cost (No Reduction to LED Costs Assumed) $2,571 $897 $1,837 $644 $1,837

Additional Insulation $63 $67 $63 $67 $63
High Efficiency Doors - - - - $361Total Installed CostIncrease from TSL4 toTSL5

2018 LED Field Replacement Costs (One Replacement After 6 Years) $961 $320 $686 $229 $686 Baseline LCC $26,592 $17,005 $22,039 $14,380 $26,638 LCC Savings TSL4 $1,551 $1,342 $1,106 $988 $819 LCC Savings TSL5 $727 $1,023 $516 $745 $13 Delta LCC (TSL4 – TSL5) $824 $318 $589 $243 $806 LED Gross Costs (Total First Cost + Replacements Discounted to Present Value) $3,810 $1,270 $2,721 $907 $2,721 Minimum Percent LED System Cost Reduction Needed for Positive LCC Savings at TSL5 Compared to Baseline 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Minimum Percent LED System Cost Reduction Needed for Equivalent LCC Savings at TSL5 Compared to TSL4 28.9% 33.5% 29.0% 35.9% 39.6%


### Based on these analyses, DOE concluded that a reduction in LED system costs of approximately 45 percent (with no further cost reductions over the life of the equipment) would be sufficient to result in the maximum LCC savings for all five equipment classes occurring at TSL 5, and a reduction of 40 percent would make TSL 5 the maximum LCC savings level for VOP.RC.M, VOP.SC.M, and SVO.RC.M. Assuming a trajectory of continuous LED cost reduction through 2018─to a point where LED system replacement costs are 50 percent of current costs─would result in a somewhat lower LED system cost reduction (40 percent by 2012) necessary to make TSL 5 the maximum LCC savings for these five equipment classes.



### 8.6 DETAILED RESULTS

DOE presents more detailed results and supporting data for the LCC analysis in Appe ndix G.8-43 

### REFERENCES

1. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. DOE/EIA0383(2006). U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington D.C.

2 Hill PHOENIX. 2001. Frozen Food/Ice Cream Handbook Installation & Operation. P061173B Cases. Models: OMZD. ORIGIN2 Installation and Operation Handbook. Hill PHOENIX, Colonial Heights, Virginia. <http://www.hillphoenix.com/information/manuals/pdfs/omzd.pdf> (Last Accessed November 14, 2006)

3 Energy Information Administration. 2003. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2003. 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Public Use Data, Micro-data files on EIA website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/public_use_2003/cbecs_pudata2003.html (Accessed October 11, 2006).

4 Energy Information Administration. 2006. State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS), Prices, All States, 2003, Data through 2003 released: October 24, 2006. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html>. Accessed October 31, 2006.

5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2002 Economic Census, Geographic Area Series, Retail Trade. <http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/EC02_44.HTM>. Accessed October 31, 2006.

6 U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Food and Beverage Stores: 2002. 2002 Economic Census Retail Trade Industry Series. EC02-44I-07.

7 U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Gasoline Stations: 2002. 2002 Economic Census Retail Trade Industry Series. EC02-44I-14.

8 U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. General Merchandise Stores: 2002. 2002 Economic Census Retail Trade Industry Series. EC02-44I-11.

9 R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2006. Means Costworks 2006: Facility Maintenance & Repair Cost Data. Kingston, Massachusetts.

10 General Electric Company (GE) 2006. GE LED Refrigerated Reach-In Case Display Light Specification, Publication No. SP005070706. http://www.gelcore.com/literature/RefrigSpecSheetWEB7_7_06.pdf (Accessed December 2, 2006).

11 Grainger 2005. 2004-2005 Industrial Supply Catalog No. 395, W.W. Grainger, Inc. Lake Forest, IL.8-44



### 12 R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2005. 2005 RS Means Electrical Cost Data. Kingston, Massachusetts.

13 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2004. Analysis of Standards Options for Open Case Refrigerators and Freezers. Prepared for PG&E by Davis Energy Group.

14 Food Marketing Institute. 2005. Facts and Figures: Supermarket Facts: Marketing Costs. Available at http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/MarketingCosts.pdf. Accessed December 2005

15 Harris, Robert S., "Applying the Capital Asset Pricing Model". UVA-F-1456 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=909893

16 Damodaran Online. Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University: <http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/data.html>. Accessed January, 2006.

17 Executive Office of the President. 2006. 2006 Economic Report of the President, Washington, DC