ES -i 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

................................... ES -1

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

............................................................................................. ES -3

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

........................................................................ ES -4

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

............................................................. ES -4

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

................................ ......................................................... ES -7

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis ..................................................................................... ES -7

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Ana lyzed

....................................................... ES -7

ES.3.3.2 Manufacturing Cost Assessment

.................................................. ES -8

ES.3.3.3 Energy Consumption Model ........................................................ ES -9

ES.3.4 Markups to Determine Equipment Price ...................................................... ES -10

ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis

.................................................................................... ES -11

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

............................................ ES -12

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis ...................................................................................... ES -18

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

............................................................................. ES -22

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................................. ES -26

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

....................................... ES -27

ES.4.1 Ice Maker Size

............................................................................................. ES -27

ES.4.2 Potable Water Use Minimum for Batch Ice Makers

.................................... ES -27

ES.4.3 Equipment Classes ....................................................................................... ES -27

ES.4.4 Efficiency Levels

......................................................................................... ES -28

ES.4.5 Remote Condensing Unit Equipment Classes ............................................. ES -28

ES.4.6 Large Batch Ice Maker Efficiency Levels

................................................... ES -28

ES.4.7 Manufacturer Markups................................................................................. ES -29

ES.4.8 Proprietary Evaporator Designs ................................................................... ES -29

ES.4.9 Balance of Condenser Water Use and Energy Use in the Analyses

............ ES -29

ES.4.10 Manufacturer Impact

.................................................................................... ES -29

ES.4.11 Markups to Determine Price

........................................................................ ES -29

ES.4.12 Experiential Learning

................................ ................................................... ES -30

ES.4.13 Energy Usage in Life- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

................ ES -30

ES.4.14 Condenser Water Usage in Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses ES -30

ES.4 .15 Equipment Lifetimes

.................................................................................... ES -30

ES.4.16 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs ................................................ ES -30

ES.4.17 Shipments of Ice Makers ............................................................................. ES -31

ES.4.18 Base

- Case Equipment Efficiency Distribution

............................................ ES -31

ES.4.19 General Analytical Assumptions

................................................................. ES -31

REFERENCES

....................................................................................................................... ES -32ES

- ii 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table ES.3.1 Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Equipment Classes

...................................... ES -6

Table ES.3.2 Reverse- Engineered Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

................................... ES -8 Table ES.3.3 Manufacturing Cost and Energy Consumption Data for Air- Cooled IMH Batch Ice Machines with Capacities less than 450 lb/24 hours .......................................... ES -9 Table ES.3.4 Shipment Percentage by Distribution Channel ................................................. ES -10 Table ES.3.5 Baseline Markups by Distribution Channel and Overall Weighted Average Markup, Including the Weighted Average Sales Tax Multiplier

.................................... ES -11 Table ES.3.6 Incremental Markups by Distribution Channel and Overall Weighted Average Markup, Including the Weighted Average Sales Tax Multiplier ..................... ES -11 Table ES.3.7 Inputs for LCC and PBP Analysis .................................................................... ES -13 Table ES.3.8 Summary of Results of LCC and PBP Analysis for the IMH-A- Small -B Equipment

Class

................................................................................................................. ES -16 Table ES.3.9 Mean LCC Savings for All Product Classes and Efficiency Levels

................. ES -16 Table ES.3.10 Median Payback Period for All Product Classes and Efficiency Levels ........ ES -17 Table ES.3.11 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment

Class

................................................................................................................. ES -18 Table ES.3.12 Percentage of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Shipped in the Year 2010 ES -19 Table ES.3.13 Forecasted Shipments of New and Replacement Automatic Commercial Ice Makers by Building Type, 2016–2045 ............................................................. ES -20 Table ES.3.14 Forecasted Shipments for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers by Equipment Class, 2016–2045 ............................................................................................. ES -21

Table ES.3.15 Base- Case Equipment Efficiency Distribution

............................................... ES -22 Table ES.3.16 NES and NPV Inputs ...................................................................................... ES-23 Table ES.3.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings for All Efficiency Levels in All Equipment Classes Analyzed for Preliminary Analysis (2016

− 2045) ............................... ES -24

Table ES.3.18 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 7- Percent Discount Rate

...................... ES -25

Table ES.3.19 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 3- Percent Discount Rate

...................... ES -26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Rulemaking

Process

................................................................................................................ ES -2Figure ES.3.1 LCC Savings Results for All the Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class IMHA- Small -B ........................................................................................................ ES -14Figure ES.3.2 Payback Period Results for All Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class IMHA- Small -B ........................................................................................................ ES -15ES -1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) , as amended

, requires the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6313(d)(4). This executive summary provides an overview of the activities associated with the preliminary analysis that DOE conducted as part of

the current rulemaking to set energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice

makers

. The executive summary describes the preliminary a nalysis activities and summarizes key results from DOE’s analyses. Detailed analysis methodologies and results are presented in the preliminary technical support document ( preliminary TSD). Additionally, the executive summary identifies and lists the issue s on which DOE requests comment from interested parties.

These issues are also highlighted in the public meeting presentation.

Figure ES.1 .1 presents a summary of the DOE rulemaking phases and the key analyses that constitute each phase. The rulemaking process typically begins with a framework document, which is followed by a preliminary analysis . DOE then publishes and seeks comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) . After considering these comments and other relevant data and information, DOE publishes a final rule establishing any amended standards. The figure presents the major analyses in each phase in rectangular boxes. Core analyses for the rulemaking are lined in the center column of the figure, and they provide a logical sequence that DOE follows in carrying out the rulemaking process. Inputs to the analyses are shown with arrows pointing toward their respective analysis boxes , and outputs are shown with arrows directed away from their respective analysis boxes. Many outputs also form inputs for the downstream analyses. DOE obtains data for the inputs from various sources including, but not limited to, technical publications , market -survey reports, trade publications, interested parties’ comments, industry experts and consultants, interagency guidance, and interactions with end users and the manufacturers. Key outputs from the analyses form the basis for setting the new energ y conservation standards.ES -2 

### Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Rulemaking Process Utility Impact Analysis

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Market and Technology

Assessment

Screening Analysis

Engineering Analysis

Markups for

Product Price
Determination Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

National Impact Analysis Energy Use

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Life

- Cycle Cost
Sub

- Group Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis

Revise Analyses • Product Classes

• Technology Options

• Industry Cash Flow

• Sub

- Group Cash

- Flow

• Direct Employment Impacts

• Competitive Impacts

• Cumulative Regulatory Burden • Cost

- Efficiency Relationship

• Life

- Cycle Costs and Savings

• Payback Periods

• National Energy Savings

• Net Present Values

• National Employment Impacts

• Revised Results • Market Segmentation

• Non

- Regulatory Programs Framework Document

• Energy Prices

• Installation Costs

• Maintenance & Repair Costs

• Historic shipments

New construction forecast •

• Stakeholder Comments

• Demographics

• Emission Rates

• National Energy Savings

• Stakeholder Comments • Identify Firms/Products

• Historical Shipments

• Manufacturer Prices

• Average Costs

• Manufacturer Financial Data Design Options Product Classes

Retail Prices Design Energy

Preliminary Analysis • Efficiency/Performance • Manufacturing Cost

Candidate
Standard

Levels

Environmental
Assessment

Regulatory Impact Analysis Technology Options

• Emission Estimates • Utility Load Factors

• National Energy Savings

• Non

- Regulatory
Alternatives • Design Options

• Energy Price Forecasts

• Site

- to

- Source Factors • Energy

- Efficiency Levels

Direct Employment Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• National Product Costs

• National Operating Costs • Utility Impacts • Life

- Cycle Costs

• Payback Periods • Installation Costs

• Maint Costs

• Repair Costs • UEC

• Energy
Prices • Unit Energy Consumption

(UEC)

Preliminary

Manufacturer Impact Analysis • Manufacturer Prices

• Average Costs • Conversion Capital Expenditures

• Direct Employment Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• Net Present Values • Trial Standard Levels ( TSLs )

TSLs • Product Prototypes

Energy

- Efficiency

Levels

• Department of Justice Review

Final Rule • Industry profit data

Distribution channel shares •ES -3 

### ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

For the preliminary analysis, DOE publishes a notice of public meeting (NOPM) in the Federal Register , which announces the availability of the preliminary TSD, the date and place of the public meeting, and presentation materials interested parties may review before the public meeting. In addition, the NOPM highlights the major analyses DOE developed in the preliminary analysis.

The preliminary T SD describes each preliminary analysis in detail, providing thorough descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD provides an overview of each preliminary analysis, the comments received in response to the

a nalytical approaches DOE described in the Framework document, and DOE’s responses to those comments. The following chapters of the preliminary TSD address the preliminary analysis performed by DOE. These include:

• A market and technology assessment (MTA)

, which characterizes the relevant equipment markets and technology options, including prototype designs (chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD).

• A screening analysis

, which reviews each technology option to determine whether it is technologically feasible; is p racticable to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely affect equipment utility or equipment availability; or would have adverse impacts on health and safety (chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD).

• An engineering analysis

, which develops cost-efficiency relationships that show a manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency. DOE uses manufacturer markups to convert manufacturer production cost (MPC) to manufacturer selling price (MSP) (chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD).

• A markups analysis, which converts the MSP derived from the engineering analysis to consumer equipment prices based on distribution chain markups (chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD).

• An energy use analysis

, which determines the annual energy use of the equ ipment (chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD).

• Life

- cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analys is, which calculate s , at the consumer level, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment, compared to any increase in the equipment’s installed cost likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard (chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD).

• A shipments analysis, which forecasts shipments of equipment, which are then used to

calculate the nat ional impacts of standards on energy consumption, the net present valueES -4 

### (NPV) of consumer costs and savings, and future manufacturer cash flows (chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD).

• A national impact analysis (NIA) , which assesses the cumulative national energy savings (NES) from standards , national water impacts

, a 

### and the NPV of consumer costs and savings associated with standards at different efficiency levels (chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD).

• A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis ( preliminary MIA ), which assesses the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers, such as effects on expenditures for capital conversion, marketing costs, shipments, and research and development costs (chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD).

The remaining chapters of the preliminary TSD address the analyses to be performed for the NOPR stage , including:

• A n LCC analysis for subgroups, which evaluates the effects of energy conservation standards on various national subgroups of the population (chapter 1 1 of the preliminary TSD).

• A utility impact analysis , which examines impacts of energy conservation standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities (chapter 13 of the preliminary TSD).

• An employment impact analysis , which examines the effects of energy conservation standards on national employment (chapter 14 of the preliminary TSD).

• An environmental assessment, which examines the effects of energy conservation standards on various airborne emissions and other environmental factors (chapter 15 of the preliminary TSD).

• A regulatory impact analysis

, which examines the national impacts of non-regulatory alternatives to mandatory energy conservation standards (chapter 16 of the preliminary TSD).

ES.3 KEY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

The following sections describe in detail the key analyses DOE performed in support of the preliminary TSD.

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

When initiating an analysis of potential energy efficiency standards for commercial equipment, DOE develops information for that equipment based on the present and past industry

a In the preliminary analysis, no design options were analyzed that cause changes in water usage. As discussed in chapter 4 (screening) and chapter 5 (engineering), in the NOPR stage such options will be analyzed. Because there were no water impacts, national water impacts are not discussed further.ES -5 

### structure and market characteristics. This activity assesses industries and equipment both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into classes based on the type of energy used, capacity, and/ or other performance

related feature s that affect efficiency that DOE determines justif y a different standard

. Table

ES.3.1 l ist s the equipment classes being considered in this rulemaking. These consist of two subsets of equipment: (1) automatic commercial ice makers for which standards wer e set by Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) amendments to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)); and (2) new classes of automatic commercial ice makers for which standards are being considered in this rulemaking . The former group includes cube type ice makers with harvest capacities from 50 to 2,500 pounds of ice per 24-hour period (lb/24 hours b 

### ), where cube type ice is as defined in

10 CFR 431.132. In the preliminary analysis, DOE expects to define a new family of equipment consisting of all machines operating in a batch mode ( i.e. , machines like cube and tube machines that have alternating freezing and harvesting cycles). Automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice will be included in this new batch process equipment family , as well as batch proc ess automatic commercial ice makers that produce ice that does not fit the definition of cube type ice, as defined in 10 CFR 431.132. New equipment for which DOE is considering standards in this rulemaking include batch process ice makers with harvest capa cities above 2,500 lb/24 hours up to 4,000 lb/24 hours, batch process ice makers that produce other than cube type ice with harvest capacities between 50 and 4,000 lb/24 hours, and continuous process ice makers with harvest capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb/2 4 hours. Continuous process ice makers differ from batch process ice makers in that they freeze and harvest ice at the same time and typically produce flake and nugget ice. Although in this rulemaking DOE is considering revised

standards for automatic comm ercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities

between 50 an d 2,500 lb/24 hours and new standards for other types of batch process equipment, the existing standards still only apply to automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours.

b The term “pounds of ice per 24

- hour period” is abbreviated herein as lb/24 hours for brevity.ES -6 

### Table ES.3.1 Automatic C ommercial Ice M aker Equipment C lasses

Type of Ice Maker Equipment Type Type of Cooling Harvest Capacity

Rate

lb/24 hours

Batch Ice

- Making Head (IMH) Water ≥50 and <500

≥500 and <1

, 436

≥1

, 436 and ≤ 4,000

Air ≥50 and <450

≥450 and ≤ 4,000
Remote Condensing (RCU) (but not remote compressor) Air ≥50 and <1

, 000

≥1

, 000 and ≤ 4,000 Remote Condensing (RCU)

and R emote C ompressor Air ≥50 and <934

≥934 and ≤ 4,000

Self

- Contained Unit (SCU) Water ≥50 and <200

≥200 and ≤ 4,000

Air ≥50 and <175

≥175 and ≤ 4,000

Continuous Ice

- Making Head (IMH) Water ≥50 and < 1000

≥ 1,0 00 and < 4,000

Air ≥50 and < 1000

≥ 1,0 00 and < 4,000 Remote Condensing (RCU) (but not remote compressor) Air ≥50 and < 1000

≥ 1,0 00 and < 4,000 Remote Condensing (RCU)

and R emote C ompressor Air ≥50 and < 1000

≥ 1,0 00 and < 4,000

Self

- Contained Unit (SCU) Water ≥50 and < 175

≥ 175 and < 4,000

Air ≥50 and < 175

≥ 175 and < 4,000



### For the automatic commercial ice maker s addressed by this rulemaking, DOE examined (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics; (2) existing regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives for improving equipment efficiency; and (3) trends in equipment characteristics and

retail markets. This i nformation provided data and resource material throughout the analysis.

DOE reviewed literature and interviewed manufacturers to develop an overall understanding of the automatic commercial ice maker industry in the United States. Chapter 3 of the prelimin ary TSD describes the market analysis.

DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to attain higher energy efficiency lev els. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list of technologies to be considered.

DOE developed its list of technologies for automatic commercial ice maker s after examining various documents ( e.g. , trade publications, technical papers, and manufacturer literature) and consulting with manufacturers. Because existing equipment contains many technologies for improving equipment efficiency, equipment literature and direct examination provided additional information.ES -7 

### ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

In the screening analysis, DOE, in consultation with interested parties, examined the technologies identified in the MTA. DOE first examined whether it was possible to test the energy efficiency of these technologies using the DOE test procedure for automatic com mercial

ice makers

. DOE is conducting a separate rulemaking to amend the current test procedure for

automatic commercial ice maker s ( Docket No. EERE -2010- BT

- TP -0036). DOE expects that any

amended test procedure would be used to determine compliance with any revised energy

conservation standards. In April 2011, DOE published a NOPR proposing to amend the current DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers . 76 FR 18428 (April 4, 2011). The screening analysis for the energy conservation standard s used the proposed test procedure to assess which technologies could be quantified by the test procedure. At this time, DOE is not further considering those technologies whose impact on energy efficiency cannot be measured using the proposed test procedure and data available to DOE

.

Second, DOE evaluated the technologies using four screening criteria. Technologies are removed from further consideration if they (1) are not technologically feasible; (2) are not practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have an adverse impact on equipment utility or availability; and/or (4) have adverse impacts on health and safety. In the subsequent engineering analysis, DOE further examines the technology options that are not removed from

consideration in the screening analysis.

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD), DOE establishes the relationship between the cost of manufacturing automatic commercial ice maker s and the energy consumption of this equipment. This relationship serves as the basis for calculating costs and benefits of modified equipment designs for consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD describes the equipment classes that DOE analyzed, the representative

baseline units, the efficiency levels DOE considered, the methodology that DOE used to develop the manufacturing production cost and energy consumption models, and the cost- efficiency

results.

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed

DOE is considering 25 equipment classes for automatic commercial ice maker s. The preliminary engineering analysis is based on the direct analysis of 19 unit s from 9 equipment

classes. These are the 19 unit s that DOE purchased for reverse engineering . DOE also conducted energy testing for a subset of 10 of these units. For the remaining 16 equipment classes, DOE expects to develop standard s based on extension of the direct engineering analyses of the first

9 equipment classes.

The characteristics of th e 19 reverse- engineered unit s are summarized in Table ES.3 .2

. The table also indicates which products were tested. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD includes

additiona l details on the representative equipment classes and the cost

- efficiency curves developed as part of the engineering analysis.ES -8 

### Table ES.3.2 Reverse

- Engineered Automatic Commercial Ice MakersEquipmentTypeTested?Ice TypeHarvest Ratelb/24 hoursRated EnergyUsekWh/ 100 lb*DOE EnergyStandardkWh/100 lb*Potable WaterUsegal/100 lbCondenserWater Usegal/100 lb*Dimensions(W×D×H)inchesWeightlb**

IMH

- A Y Cube 257 8.0 8.1 20.0 NA 30 × 24.5 × 16.5 136

IMH

- A Y Cube 324 5.8 7.5 22.6 NA 22 × 24 × 24 161

IMH

- A Cube 780 5.7 6.0 20.5 NA 30 × 24 × 26 230

IMH

- A Cube 844 5.0 6.0 18.4 NA 30 × 24 × 29 235

IMH

- A Cube 1

, 460 5.0 5.3 20.0 NA 48 × 24.5 × 29.5 317

IMH

- A Y Cube 1

, 560 4.1 5.2 18.8 NA 48 × 27 × 36 415

IMH

- W Cube 851 4.4 4.6 19.7 153 30 × 24 × 29 235

IMH

- W Y Cube 2

, 619 3.9 4.0 18.4 174 48 × 31 × 36 501

RCU

- A Cube 1

, 510 4.6 5.1 20.0 NA 48 × 24.5 × 29.5 324

RCU

- A Y Cube 1

, 694 3.8 5.1 18.1 NA 36 × 40 × 36 415

RCU

- A Cube 2

, 350 4.6 5.3 19.7 NA 48 × 31 × 36 423

SCU

- A Y Cube 121 8.4 12.3 17.8 NA 23.5 × 28 × 32.5 155

SCU

- A Cube 112 11.8 12.8 34.0 NA 24 × 24 × 33 160

SCU

- W Y Cube 285 5.5 7.6 18.0 180 30 × 30 × 33 200

IMH

- A Nugget 310 7.4 NA

Note † NA 22 × 27.4 × 21.9 175

IMH

- A Nugget 822 5.4 NA NA 30 × 24.5 × 26.5 260

IMH

- A Y Flake 845 3.4 NA NA 21 × 24 × 27 215

RCU

- A Y Flake 1

, 780 2.5 NA NA 42 × 24 × 27 395

SCU

- A Y Nugget 280 5.7 NA NA 23.5 × 16.1 × 32.5 199

IMH: i ce -m aking h ead; RCU: r emote c ondenser u nit; SCU: s elf -c ontained unit ; A: air

- cooled; W: water

- cooled

* Using current DOE energy test (not proposed test) for cube ice makers, American Heating and Refrigeration Institute ( AHRI )

810

- 2007 with Addendum 1 for flake and nugget ice m akers.

** Does not include condenser for RCU ice makers.

† Potable water use is assumed to be 12 gallons per 100 lb for continuous ice makers.



### ES.3.3.2 Manufacturing Cost Assessment

DOE estimated the manufacturing costs associated with each engineering efficiency level for all of the equipment classes analyzed. The assessment used information gained during

manufacturer site visits and manufacturer interviews ; information gathered by DOE in previous energy conservation standard rulemakings covering equipment manufa ctured using similar manufacturing methods; and a detailed cost model. Using aggregated manufacturer data, DOE developed the manufacturing cost model to estimate the MPC for various design option configurations. DOE obtained additional input from interested parties on the manufacturing cost model inputs. DOE also estimated the manufacturer markup and the MSP, which includes the shipping cost (the cost of shipping the equipment from the manufacturer to the distributor or customer). DOE calculated the MSP as the product of the MPC and the manufacturer markup. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD includes information on the inputs used to determine the manufacturing cost, including material, labor, and overhead costs. Chapter 5 also includes information on the various components and features incorporated into designs for automatic

commercial ice maker s.ES -9 

### ES.3.3.3 Energy Consumption Model

The complementary analysis to the manufacturing cost model is the energy consumption

model. Th is model includes separate energy consumption models for batch process machines and

continuous process machines. Both models calculate compressor energy use based on refrigeration system operating conditions. However, the batch model calculates energy use for the range of operating conditions experien ced by the product as the ice layer builds up on the evaporator, whereas the continuous model examines just one operating state. Energy use of the compressor and ice production rate are based on thermal models for the evaporator and condenser, which influence the compressor suction and discharge pressures. Additional energy

use associated with c omponent s such as fan motors, pump motors, and auger motors is included in the overall product energy use calculation. The energy consumption model calculates energy

use per hundred pounds of ice produced based on a given design option configuration and numerical specification of the conditions at which a unit would be physically tested.

DOE’s engineering analysis produce d cost- efficiency curves for the equipment classes represented by the 19 reverse

- engineered ice makers

. The cost

- efficiency curves are described by (1) the energy consumption values determined by the energy consumption model for the corresponding equipment configuration; and (2) the increase in MPC and MSP associated with each of the calculated levels. An example of a cost

- efficiency curve is illustrated in Table ES.3.3

for air

- cooled ice

- making head ( IMH ) batch machines with capacities less than 450 lb/24 hours (IMH -A- Small

- B) , which is a high -shipment equipment class used in many applications. The

table presents the energy consumption, percent energy us e reduction from baseline energy consumption, MPC, and MSP results as well as the ordering of design options for th is equipment

class . Cost- efficiency curves for all directly analyzed equipment classes can be found in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. The cost -efficiency curves based on specific design option changes were converted to curves based on the selected efficiency levels for use in the downstream analyses.

Table ES.3.3 Manufacturing Cost and Energy Consumption Data for A ir -C ooled IMH

B atch Ice M achines with Capacit ies less than 450 lb/24 hours

Energy Consumption

kWh/ 100 lb Percent Energy

Use Reduction Manufacturer

Production Cost Manufacturer Selling Price Design Options Successively Added

8.04 0% $1,671 $2,089 Baseline

7.46 7.2% $1,678 $2,097 Increase c ompressor EER

from 4.86 to 5.25

7.27 9.6% $1,680 $2,100 2

- inch wider condenser

7.08 12.0% $1,686 $2,108 PSC condenser fan motor

6.94 13.7% $1,690 $2,113 ECM condenser fan motor

6.82 15.2% $1,696 $2,119 Additional 2

- inch wider

condenser

6.69 16.8% $1,702 $2,127 ECM pump motor

6.26 22.1% $1,727 $2,158 Harvest assist

kWh = kilowatt

- hours ; EER = energy efficiency ratio; PSC = permanent split capacitor; ECM = electronically commutated motorES

- 10 

### ES.3.4 Markups to Determine Equipment Price

Distribution channel markups are multipliers that convert the MSP into customer purchase price. As noted, in the engineering analyses, m anufacturer markups convert the MPC

into MSP. These a dditional markups are applied to the MSP based on the distribution channel through which customers purchase the equipment. DOE identified that automatic commercial ice

maker s are purchased by the customers (end users) through three major distribution channels:

Manufacturer  Wholesaler  Contractor  Customer ( Contractor Channel )

Manufacturer  Wholesaler  Customer ( Wholesaler Channel )

Manufacturer  Customer ( National Account Channel )

Table ES.3.4 shows the percentage of automatic commercial ice maker shipments that are purchased through each distribution channel

.

Table ES.3.4 Shipment Percentage by Distribution Channel

National

Account

Channel Wholesaler

Channel Contractor

Channel

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers, All 6 % 32 % 62 %
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Sector 42: EC0742SXSB01: Wholesale Trade: Subject Series

- Misc Subjects: Sales by Class of Customer for the United States: 2007, data for NAICS code 423740, Refrigeration equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers. Downloaded March 4, 2011

.



### The three distribution channels can also be viewed as a single

- step (national accounts) channel, a two

- step (wholesaler) channel , and a three or more step (contractor) channel

. There is one markup value associated with each step in a distribution channel. The product of all the markups in one distribution channel gives the overall markup of that channel. For example, the wholesaler channel markup is the product of the national account markup and the wholesaler markup.

DOE obtained one average markup value for each level of a distribution channel to calculate the overall markup. These values were then weighted by the respective distribution channel shares to obtain an overall markup. DOE calculated separate markups called “baseline markups” that are applied to the baseline equipment price and “incremental markups” that are applied to cost increments in the MSP for higher efficiency equipment.

Sales tax is one additional markup that is applicable to all the distribution channels. DO E calculated a weighted national average sales tax rate of 7.25 percent by applying the population of a state as the weight to its combined state and local tax rate. Table ES.3 .5 and Table ES.3 .6 present calculated overall weighted markups as well as individual markups for each level in a

distributio n channel.

Chapter 6 and appendix 6A of the preliminary TSD provide additional details for the markups analysis. Chapter 2 addresses comment s received following the public release of the Framework document. As noted in chapters 2 and 6 of the preliminary T SD , DOE seeks input onES

- 11 

### additional or better data sources that can be used to characterize the costs associated with the third step in the contractor channel.

Table ES.3.5 Baseline Markups by Distribution Channel and Overall Weighted Average Markup, Including the Weighted Average Sales Tax Multiplier

Wholesaler Contractor National

Account Overall Markup Markup 1.362 4 2.00 86 1.181 2 1. 7522

Sales Tax 1.07 26 1.07 26 1.07 26 1.07 26 Overall Markup 1.461 3 2.15 44 1.267 0 1. 8794



### Table ES.3.6 Incremental Markups by Distribution Channel and Overall Weighted Average Markup, Including the Weighted Average Sales Tax Multiplier

Wholesaler Contractor National

Account Overall Markup
Markup 1.091 3 1. 2925 1.04 5 6 1.2133

Sales Tax 1.07 26 1.0 726 1.07 26 1.0726 Overall Markup 1.17 05 1.3 863 1.12 16 1.3014



### ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis

Energy use analysis is generally carried out for appliance standards rulemakings to calculate the energy consumption or efficiency of the equipment being analyzed

. For automatic

commercial ice maker s , DOE calculated the energy consumption of the equipment as part of the engineering analysis using an ene rgy consumption model. The result of the DOE energy consumption model is an estimate of an ice maker’s energy efficiency in terms of kilowatt -hours

per 100 lb of ice. To translate the engineering results into annual energy usage, DOE needed to develop assu mptions regarding annual utilization factors of automatic commercial ice makers

.

In the Framework document, DOE suggested a set of annual utilization factors for each of the building types being explicitly studied in the LCC and PBP analysi s. DOE suggested t hat the analys is would assume a 50-percent utilization factor for all building types, for all equipment classes. Interested parties were invited to comment on this set of assumptions. While numerous interested parties questioned the assumed annu al utilization factors, none supplied DOE with superior data or better estimates , and DOE has retained the assumed 50-percent utilization factors. DOE seeks comments on utilization factors, or potential data sources for said factors.

I nterested parties com mented during the Framework public meeting that air -cooled self

contained equipment may have a n impact on the building’s heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) loads because, unlike the ice makers connected to a remote condensing unit or using water cooling in the condenser , this equipment rejects heat inside the conditioned building space . In another rulemaking, DOE performed building energy simulations for commercial refrigeration equipment, evaluating the impacts of improved efficiency of the equipment on building space conditioning energy use. In that study, when the study accounts for the positive impacts on cooling energy, the negative impacts on heating energy, and the fact that

the variable of interest is the incremental change , not the total or absolute impacts, DOE found the HVAC impacts to be insignificant. 1 

### DOE expects the impact of self -contained commercial refrigeration equipment on HVAC loads to be larger than that for automatic commercial ice

makers because there are typically fewer automatic commercial ice makers installed per squareES

- 12 

### foot of conditioned space than pieces of self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment. 2 

### As

such

, DOE believes the impact of incremental increases in efficiency of ice makers will not have a signifi cant or measurable impact on building HVAC loads.

ES.3.6 Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE performs the LCC and PBP analysis to estimate the impact of standards on the customers (end users) of automatic commercial ice maker s. The effect of standa rds on individual customers includes a change in operating cost and a change in purchase cost. LCC is the total customer cost of the equipment over the entire lifetime of the equipment. It includes installed cost (purchase price and installation costs) and operating cost (maintenance, repair, energy , and

water/wastewater costs). T ypically, t he initial cost of more efficient equipment is higher than the baseline equipment, but the annual operating costs are lower, mainly due to lower ene rgy consumption. PBP for higher efficiency equipment (compared to baseline equipment) can be calculated by dividing the installed cost increment by the annual operating cost savings. In other words, PBP is the amount of time (in years) required to offset the initial increase in installed costs through annual savings in operating costs.

In conducting the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE analyzed up to six efficiency levels

. The MSP and equipment energy and water consumption values , in kilowatt-hours and gallons per 100 lb of ice , were obtained from the engineering analysis. Inputs for the LCC and PBP analysis

are summarized in Table ES.3.7 . To account for the uncertainty associated with many of the inputs in the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE carried out the analysis in the form of Monte Carlo

simulations that use a distribution of values for certain inputs, instead of assuming one average value. Equipment lifetime is assumed to be represented by Weibull distributions with an average value of 8. 5 years. Building type and the state where the equipment is installed is another

variable in the simulations.

DOE modeled condenser water as if all water -cooled equipment is installed in a single

pass configuration. This means that condenser water is used one time and rejected to a

wastewater treatment system. While DOE recognizes that some aut omatic commercial ice

makers are installed on closed -loop cooling systems, DOE lacks data regarding the percentage of ice makers installed on this type of system or the cost of a closed -loop cooling system that could

be attributed to the automatic commerci al ice maker. DOE seeks input on this assumption or data

on which to base further analysis that would account for both a single- pass and closed -loop cooling configuration.ES

- 13 

### Table ES.3.7 Inputs for LCC and PBP Analysis

Input Description Building Type Discount rates and electricity prices will vary by building type in which the equipment is installed. Seven building types are assumed for automatic commercial

ice maker s : health care

, lodging

, foodservice

, retail

, education , f ood s ales

, and

office.
Inputs for Installed Cost Calculations

Baseline MSP MSP of baseline equipment (obtained from engineering analysis)

. Experiential Learning

- Based MSP Adjustment One

- time adjustment made to MSP to reflect the fact that MSP was estimated using

current (2011) prices, and MSP would be expected to decline between 2011 and

2016

— the first year when standards might be in effect. The price decline result s f rom experiential learning. Efficiency Level MSP

Increases Difference between baseline MSP and MSP of higher efficiency level (obtained from engineering analysis)

. Markups and Sales Tax Converts MSP to customer purchase price (obtained from markups analysis)

. Installation Price Material and l abor cost to install the equipment. Currently an estimated percentage

of the MSP , approximated at 10 percent in the preliminary analysis. Assumed constant for all efficiency levels within an equipment class. Varies by state. Inputs for Operating Cost Calc ulations Equipment Energy Consumption Energy used by equipment in kilowatt

- hours per 100 lb of ice (obtained from en ergy analysis)

. Electricity Prices Vary by state and building type

. Equipment Water Consumption Water used by equipment in gallons (obtained from energy analysis). All water

cooled units are assumed to be on a single

- pass cooling system in the preliminary analysis period of this rulemaking.

Water/Wastewater Prices Vary by state

. Maintenance Costs Material and labor cost s for preven tative maintenance

. Currently estimated as a percentage of the MSP, approximated at 3 percent in the preliminary analysis.

As sumed constant for all efficiency levels within an equipment class , except as
otherwise noted in the LCC and PBP analysis ( chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD)

. Repair Costs Material and labor cost to repair and replace failed components in the equipment. Currently an estimated percentage of the MSP , approximated at 3 percent in the preliminary analysis

. Equipment Lifetime Assumed av erage lifetime of the equipment: 8.5 years for all equipment classes and building types . Actual lifetimes used in the LCC analysis represented by Weibull

distributions.

Discount Rate Rate at which future costs are discounted to establish their present value. This v aries with building type.



### The LCC and PBP analys i s is based on the differences between base conditions without new standards and conditions after setting new standards. DOE notes that manufacturers recently

needed to comply with the efficienc y levels set by EPACT 2005 for cube type machines with harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours, which went into effect on January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) In the LCC and PBP analys i s, for batch machine classe s, t he energy consumption of the b aseline level is assumed to equal the standard prescribed by EPACT 2005

for th e corresponding equipment class because this represents the least efficient equipment that

can be sold for cube type machines , with one exception. For IMH, air-cooled, batch machines, the large class baseline has been revised from the EPACT 2005 standard to account for issues arising from applying the current standard to equipment with harvest rates in excess of 1,500 lb/24 hours. For more info rmati on, see the discussion in c hapter 5 of the preliminary TSD (engineering analysis ). For continuous type machine s , the baseline level of the equipment wasES

- 14 

### established using engineering analyses to determine the least efficient products that could potentially be available. For more information, see the discussion in chapter 5.

DOE notes that it i s un able to identify equipment currently being sold that corresponds to the base efficiency levels , so DOE is not able to check this assumption. As such, DOE requests comment on setting the standards baseline for continuous type equipment. DOE also requests comment on using the EPACT 20 05 standard levels as the baseline standard level for batch

process equipment, including equipment covered by those standards as well a s equipment for which there are no existing standards ( i.e. , batch process equipment that make s other than cube type ice and batch process equipment with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 lb/24 hours).

As noted in Table ES.3 .7 , DOE applied an experiential learning factor to the MSP to reflect that prices are expected to decline between 2011 and 2016. E xperiential learning captures the effect of learning as producer s manufacture more of their products. Over time, manufacturers uncover ways to reduce production costs and in turn reduce selling prices. In the LCC and PBP analys is, DOE applied a one- time adjustment to MSP to account for experiential learning . DOE

also a pplied experiential learning time trends to manufacturer sales prices in the NIA , covering

the 2016

– 2045 analysis period. DOE seeks comment on the use of experiential learning in the estimation of equipment prices.

The output of the Monte Carlo simulations for the LCC and PBP analysis are in the form of distributions. The LCC savings and PBP results for all the efficiency levels in each equipment class are presented in the preliminary TSD (appendix 8B) and shown here as an example for equipment class a ir -c ooled IMH b atch type i ce machines with c apacities less than

450 lb/24 hours (IMH -A- Small

- B) in Figure ES.3 .1 and Figure ES.3 .2 , respectively. The plots in both figures present the mean (red marker) and median (blue marker) LCC savings or PBP, the

25 th and 75 th percentile LCC savings or PBP (lower an d upper edges of the elongated rectangular box, respectively), and 5 th 

### and 95 th 

### percentile LCC savings or PBP (lower and upper ends of the vertical black line, respectively).

Figure ES.3.1 LCC Savings Results for All the Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class

IMH -A- Small -B $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

2 3 4 5 6 7Life-cycle CostSavings($)

Efficiency Level

Mean Median `ES

- 15 

### Figure ES.3.2 Payback Period Results for All Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class

IMH -A- Small -B

Appendix 8B also contains summary tables for each equipment class, similar to Table

ES.3 .8 for IMH -A- Small -B (presented here as an example). This table presents the mean values of installed costs, annual operating costs, LCC, LCC savings, and median PBP values for all the efficiency levels. It also presents the percentage of customers who experience net cost, no impact, and net benefit. The average LCC savings and th e percentage of customers experiencing a net benefit or cost are based on a distribution of efficiency choices. In the base case, not all customers are assumed to be buying equipment at the baseline efficiency level (Level 1). Some are assumed to be buying at higher efficiency levels. The LCC savings is an average of the savings achieved by customers who, in the base case, were buying less efficient equipment than the efficiency level examined. Customers who experienced no impact were assumed in the base case to be already buying more efficient equipment, so the efficiency level in question would not

affect them.

Table ES.3 .9

, Table ES.3.10 , and Table ES.3.11 present the mean va lues of LCC savings, median PBP, and median “rebuttable presumption payback period” (RPBP) results for each efficiency level in each equipment class. RPBP is a special PBP case calculated to determine whether the rebuttable presumption set forth in EPCA is satisfied. RPBP values are calculated by dividing the installed cost increment of higher efficiency equipment by only the first- year energy savings (unlike total operating cost savings for PBP). EPCA provides that if the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product compliant with any amended standard is less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such standard is economically justified

. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6313(d )( 4 )) However, in addition to presenting the RPBP values , DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those affecting the customer, manufacturer, nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d )( 4 ). DOE anticipates conducting all of these analyses as part of the rulemaking to set

and amend standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

2 3 4 5 6 7Pay Back Period (Years)

Efficiency Level Median Mean `ES

- 16 

### Table ES.3.8 Summary of Results of LCC and PBP Analysis for the IMH -A- Small -B Equipment Class

Efficiency

Level

Number Efficiency

Level kWh/yr Life

- Cycle Cost, All Customers Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period,

Median

years Installed

Cost
2010$ Total

Discounted Operating

Cost
2010$ LCC,

All

Customers
2010$ Affected

Customers’

Average Savings
2010$ % of Customers that Experience

Net

Cost

% No Impact

% Net

Benefit

%

1 5

, 639 4

, 222 6

, 216 10

, 438 0 NA NA NA NA

2 5

, 078 4

, 238 5

, 829 10

, 067 372 0 41 59 0.33

3 4

, 797 4

, 261 5

, 636 9

, 896 462 0 24 76 0.52

4 4

, 516 4

, 310 5

, 442 9

, 752 524 0 8 92 0.90



### Table ES.3.9 Mean LCC Savings for All Product Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Mean LCC Savings * , **
2010$

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 243.76 278.98

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 498.73

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 735.46 801.32

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 372.16 462.01 524.15

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 625.28 675.10 883.14

RCU

- Small

- B 683.77 856.93 933.54

RCU

- Large

- B 842.31 1,062.49 1,092.62

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 94.85 146.25 173.65 214.35

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 185.35 399.47 450.19 453.86 425.55 659.02

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 158.97 229.31 331.49 438.47 456.83

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 146.05 231.09 336.82 416.00

IMH

- W

- Small

- C

– 399.60 528.44 618.43 813.26

IMH

- W

- Large

- C

– – 286.81 204.51

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 367.90 427.57 425.33 442.86 333.04

IMH

- A

- Large

- C

– – 384.30 570.01 848.66 1,101.70

RCU

- Small

- C

– 678.35

RCU

- Large

- C

– 810.55

SCU

- W

- Small

- C **

SCU

- W

- Large

- C

– – 132.25 186.12

SCU

- A

- Small

- C

– – – SCU

- A

- Large

- C

– – – 132.44 188.73 (39.92)

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* A value of “–” means that there are no affected customers at this efficiency level. Values on this table represent LCC savings for customers affected by the standard, and a “– ” means that in the base

- case efficiency distribution, all customers are expected

to be purchasing equipment that is more efficient. Blank cells mean no LCC savings were calculated for this efficiency level because design options were unavailable to constitute an additional efficiency level.

** Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.ES

- 17 

### Table ES.3.10 Me di an Payback Period for All Product Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Median P ayback P eriod * , **

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 1.37 1.16

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.59

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.20 0.27

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.33 0.52 0.90

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.23 1.17 1.23

RCU

- Small

- B 0.22 0.54 0.67

RCU

- Large

- B 0.23 0.71 0.82

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 1.14 1.44 1.64 1.83

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.68 0.76

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.72 1.05 1.14 1.13 1.12

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 1.24 1.19 1.18 1.23

IMH

- W

- Small

- C 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.37

IMH

- W

- Large

- C 0.35 0.37 0.49 1.02

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.66 0.73 0.77 0.79 1.70

IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.67 0.98

RCU

- Small

- C 0.19 0.62

RCU

- Large

- C 0.17 0.76

SCU

- W

- Small

- C**

SCU

- W

- Large

- C 0.61 0.67 0.68 0.65

SCU

- A

- Small

- C 1.74 1.55 1.43

SCU

- A

- Large

- C

- † 0.84 1.11 1.34 1.53 3.17

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water

cooled ; B: Batch; C: Continuous * Blank cells mean no payback period was calculated for this efficiency level because design options were unavailable to constitute an efficiency level. ** Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.

† The “

- ” value for Level 2 indicates that the first efficiency level improvement has a $0 capital cost

.

.ES

- 18 

### Table ES.3.11 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment Class

Equipment Class Payback Period Under Rebuttable Presumption * , **

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 1.25 1.06

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.54

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.18 0.25

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.30 0.48 0.82

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.21 1.07 1.13

RCU

- Small

- B 0.20 0.49 0.61

RCU

- Large

- B 0.21 0.65 0.75

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 1.04 1.31 1.50 1.67

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.62 0.69

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.66 0.96 1.04 1.04 1.02

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 1.13 1.09 1.07 1.12

IMH

- W

- Small

- C 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.33

IMH

- W

- Large

- C 0.32 0.34 0.45 0.94

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.72 1.55

IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36

RCU

- Small

- C 0.17 0.57

RCU

- Large

- C 0.15 0.69

SCU

- W

- Small

- C**

SCU

- W

- Large

- C 0.55 0.61 0.62 0.59

SCU

- A

- Small

- C 1.59 1.42 1.31

SCU

- A

- Large

- C

- † 0.77 1.01 1.22 1.40 2.90

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* Blank cells mean no RPBP value was calculated for this efficiency level because design options were unavailable to constitute an efficiency level. ** Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.

† The “

- ” value for Level 2 indicates that the first efficiency level improvement has a $0 capital cost

.



### ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

DOE carries out the shipments analysis to estimate the equipment stock and annual shipments of automatic commercial ice maker s in the years following the compliance date of the

standard. These data are then used as inputs into the NIA, to calculate the NES and NPV of future savings, and the MIA, to calculate the industry NPV.

Shipments of automatic commercial ice maker s are split into two categories: (1) equipment for new construction; and (2) equipment for replacements. In the first scenario, equipment for new construction is the equipment that is being purchased for newly constructed commercial space during a year. DOE calculated new shipments based on the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (

AEO ) forecast of new construction of

floor space in seven building types: (1) health care; (2) lodging; (3) foodservice; (4) retail; (5) education; (6) food sales; and (7) office. Equipment for replacements is the equipment that is purchased to replace existing equipment that either has failed or is replaced for other reasons. In each year of the analysis, DOE calculates the probability of equipment failure and replacement by using a Weibull distribution based survival function, with mean values of 8.5 years for all equipment classes and building types.ES

- 19 

### DOE uses historic al shipment data to estimate the share of each equipment class in the total shipments in a year. Table ES.3.12 shows the percentage of automatic commercial ice

makers shipped by equipment class based on 2010 shipment data, which was cal culated using

data from American Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) submitted to DOE for use in this rulemaking . Future market share of each equipment class is assumed to remain the same as

shown in Table ES.3.12 . Forecasted new and replacement shipments are presented in Table

ES.3 .13 from 2016 to 2045. Table ES.3.14 presents the forecasted shipments for each equipment

class from 2016 to 2045.

Table ES.3.12 Percentage of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Shipped in the Year 20 10

Equipment Class Percentage of Shipments

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 4.54%

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 2.92%

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.46%

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 27.08%

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 16.14%

RCU

- Small

- B 5.43%

RCU

- Large

- B 6.08%

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 0.68%

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.22%

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 13.85%

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 6.56%

IMH

- W

- Small

- C 0.78%

IMH

- W

- Large

- C 0.08%

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 4.45%

IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.16%

RCU

- Small

- C 1.22%

RCU

- Large

- C 0.48%

SCU

- W

- Small

- C 0.00%

SCU

- W

- Large

- C 0.15%

SCU

- A

- Small

- C 4.61%

SCU

- A

- Large

- C 4.14%

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit;

SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: ContinuousES

- 20 

### Table ES.3.13 Forecasted Shipments of New and Replacement Automatic C ommercial I ce
M aker s by Building Type, 2016–2045

Building

Sector Units

2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Total

Health Care

– New 11,800 12,074 12,441 12,753 13,184 14,160 15,120 392,180

– Replacement * 90,163 78,604 100,308 97,093 106,814 112,089 114,283 2,987,182 Lodging

– New 8,317 8,236 8,767 8,974 9,309 9,928 10,542 274,548

– Replacement* 50,861 44,240 56,999 56,216 61,839 66,529 67,715 1,727,652

Food s ervice

– New 4,937 5,073 5,500 5,716 6,001 6,393 6,791 173,677

– Replacement* 32,366 28,186 36,470 35,571 39,521 42,081 43,265 1,099,160

Retail

– New 2,859 2,908 3,190 3,386 3,591 3,843 4,104 102,628

– Replacement* 20,807 18,102 23,127 22,506 24,804 26,401 27,007 694,632

Education

– New 1,610 1,719 1,689 1,801 1,904 1,987 2,078 54,878

– Replacement* 18,495 16,080 19,779 19,120 20,406 21,367 21,317 582,985

Food Sales

– New 1,417 1,454 1,577 1,637 1,716 1,827 1,939 49,716

– Replacement* 9,247 8,053 10,426 10,168 11,301 12,033 12,372 314,225

Office

– New 1,424 1,720 1,654 1,662 1,680 1,784 1,879 51,282

– Replacement* 9,247 8,026 10,053 10,451 11,077 12,279 12,235 313,669

Total

– New 32,365 33,184 34,819 35,928 37,386 39,921 42,453 1,098,909

– Replacement* 231,187 201,292 257,162 251,126 275,762 292,779 298,195 7,719,505

– Total 263,552 234,476 291,981 287,055 313,147 332,700 340,648 8,818,414

* Replacement includes equipment replaced from original stock (installed before standards) and the standards level equipment replaced in subsequent years.ES

- 21 

### Table ES.3.14 Forecasted Shipment s for Automatic C ommerc ial I ce M aker s by Equipment Class, 2016–2045

Equipment Class Units by Year and Equipment Class

2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Cumulative

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 11,966 10,646 13,257 13,033 14,218 15,106 15,467 400,387

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 7,693 6,844 8,522 8,379 9,140 9,711 9,943 257,392

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 1,215 1,081 1,347 1,324 1,444 1,534 1,571 40,669

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 71,357 63,484 79,054 77,720 84,785 90,079 92,230 2,387,589

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 42,530 37,838 47,118 46,323 50,533 53,689 54,971 1,423,049

RCU

- Small

- B 14,306 12,728 15,849 15,582 16,998 18,060 18,491 478,681

RCU

- Large

- B 16,016 14,249 17,743 17,444 19,029 20,218 20,701 535,879

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 1,789 1,592 1,982 1,949 2,126 2,258 2,312 59,862

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 570 507 632 621 678 720 737 19,084

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 36,510 32,482 40,448 39,765 43,380 46,089 47,190 1,221,605

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 17,290 15,382 19,155 18,831 20,543 21,826 22,347 578,506

IMH

- W

- Small

- C 2,056 1,829 2,277 2,239 2,442 2,595 2,657 68,779

IMH

- W

- Large

- C 200 178 221 218 237 252 258 6,688

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 11,721 10,428 12,985 12,766 13,926 14,796 15,149 392,177

IMH

- A

- Large

- C 422 376 468 460 502 533 546 14,136

RCU

- Small

- C 3,204 2,851 3,550 3,490 3,807 4,045 4,142 107,219

RCU

- Large

- C 1,256 1,118 1,392 1,368 1,492 1,586 1,624 42,029

SCU

- W

- Small

- C * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SCU

- W

- Large

- C 392 348 434 427 465 494 506 13,103

SCU

- A

- Small

- C 12,151 10,811 13,462 13,235 14,438 15,340 15,706 406,585

SCU

- A

- Large

- C 10,908 9,705 12,085 11,881 12,961 13,770 14,099 364,992

Total 263,552 234,476 291,981 287,055 313,147 332,700 340,648 8,818,414

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.



### DOE based the forecast on data provided by AHRI and also on data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports. The Census Bureau data consistently showed higher shipments of automatic commercial ice makers than the AHRI data over a 10

- year historical period. DOE seeks industry help in determining the differences between these data

sets.

DOE acknowledges that the shipment projections under the standards cases could be lower than those in the base-case projection, because the higher installed costs could cause some customers to forego or delay discretionary equipment purchases. Based on input received during

manufac turer interviews, DOE calculated an average impact factor of -0.625. In other words, the

interviews indicated a linear shipments

- to -price relationship hypothesizing a 6.25- percent reduction in shipments for a 10- percent price increase . This information was compiled after DOE completed the work underlying this preliminary TSD. DOE will consider performing sensitivity analyses during the NOPR stage of the rulemaking to analyze the impact of higher prices on shipments. DOE requests comment on the potential imp acts of higher installed costs on future shipments in standards- case scenarios.ES

- 22 

### ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

DOE estimates the national impacts of the future energy conservation standards by calculating NES and NPV of future energy savings. Both NES and NPV are estimated by calculating the difference in energy consumption between the standards

- case scenario and the

base -case scenario that would exist if the current proposed standards were not promulgated. The

base

- case distribution of efficiencies by efficien cy level is shown in Table ES.3 .15 . For the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed up to six efficiency levels . As part of the calculation of NPV, DOE also calculated the total national installed cost increases and total national operating cost savings at each efficiency level.

Table ES.3.15 Base

- Case Equipment Efficie ncy Distribution

Equipment Class Efficiency Level

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 50.9% 21.8% 27.3%

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 73.8% 26.2%

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 82.1% 0.0% 17.9%

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 59.3% 16.7% 16.7% 7.4%

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 68.5% 21.3% 7.9% 2.2%

RCU

- Small

- B 57.1% 29.8% 1.2% 11.9%

RCU

- Large

- B 55.2% 24.0% 6.3% 14.6%

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 37.5% 37.5% 18.8% 0.0% 6.3%

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 40.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 32.3% 48.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7% 9.7%

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 33.3% 44.4% 0.0% 5.6% 16.7%

IMH

- W

- Small

- C 0.0% 3.2% 6.5% 12.9% 35.5% 41.9%

IMH

- W

- Large

- C 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 18.8% 75.0%

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 3.9% 2.0% 3.9% 5.9% 7.8% 76.5%

IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 81.8%

RCU

- Small

- C 0.0% 13.6% 86.4%

RCU

- Large

- C 0.0% 15.0% 85.0%

SCU

- W

- Small

- C* 100.0%

SCU

- W

- Large

- C 0.0% 0.0% 77.3% 0.0% 22.7%

SCU

- A

- Small

- C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

SCU

- A

- Large

- C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 5.3% 23.7% 65.8%

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.



### DOE seeks input on the information contained on Table ES.3 .15 . The distribution is based on available products identified from AHRI, the California Energy Commission ( CEC ), Natural Resources Canada ( NRCan ), and manufacturer websites. From the available data, DOE was not able to identify currently manufactured models falling within some energy efficiency levels for some equipment classes. DOE seeks input as to whether this is correct, or whether other sources of data may lead to a more complete picture of the range of equipment that is

available.ES

- 23 

### A key component of DO E’s estimates of NES and NPV is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the base case and each of the standards cases represented by the efficiency levels.

To forecast the base

- case efficiency for each equipment class, DOE assumed that the least

effi cient level analyzed in the engineering analysis currently prevails in the marketplace. To

determine the standards

- case efficiency distributions, DOE assumed that product efficiencies in

the base case that are below the standard level under consideration w ould “roll up” to meet the new standard level in 2016. The market share of the product efficiencies higher than the standard level under consideration would remain the same as the base case. Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD has detailed description and re sults for the NIA.

The inputs for NES and NPV calculations are summarized in Table ES.3.16 . The

cumulative NES is presented in T able ES.3 .17 for each efficiency level in each equipment class for the equipment shipped from 2016 to 2045. Table ES.3 .18 and Table ES.3.19 present the cumulative NPV results with discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent, respectively.

Table ES.3.16 NES and NPV Inputs

Input Description Forecasted Shipments Forecasted annual shipments from shipments analysis. Potential Compliance Date of

Standard 2016

Base

- Case Efficiencies Distribution of base

- case shipments by efficiency level. Annual Energy Consumption per

Unit Unit energy consumption per 100 lb of ice for each efficiency level in each equipment class is obtained from engineering analysis. This is converted into annual weighted

- average kilowatt

- hour values for each efficiency

level

. Annual Water Consumption per Unit Unit water consumption for condenser water and potable water per 100 lb of ice for each efficiency level in each equipment class is obtained from engineering analysis. This is converted into annual weighted

- average water

usage for each efficiency level. Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted

- average values are a function of efficiency level, expressed per unit

. Expe riential Learning

- based MSP

C hanges Annual adjustment to MSP and to total installed cost per unit are applied to reflect estimated price decreases as manufacturers improve production efficiencies over time, thereb y decreasing production costs. Repair Cost per Unit Annual weighted

- average values are constant with efficiency level, expressed per u nit

. Maintenance Cost per Unit Annual weighted

- average maintenance cost, expressed per unit

. Escalation of Electricity Prices 201 1 EIA AEO forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2036 and beyond.

Water/wastewater P rice E scalation American Water Works Association (AWWA) data and escalation of

water

- related price indexes. Electricity Site

- to

- Source Conversion Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE’s version of the EIA National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) program (a time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses).

Discount Rate 3 and 7 percent real, per U.S. Office of Management and Budget guidance.

Present Year 201 1 . Future costs are discounted to the present year.ES

- 24 

### Table ES.3.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings for All Efficiency Levels in All Equipment Classes Analyzed for Preliminary Analysis (2016

− 2045)

Equipment Class National Energy Savings by Standard Level * , ** quadrillion British thermal units (quads)

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 0.006 0.010

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.011

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.003 0.003

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.057 0.094 0.139

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.066 0.109 0.155

RCU

- Small

- B 0.020 0.040 0.045

RCU

- Large

- B 0.027 0.052 0.059

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.007 0.028 0.040 0.053 0.062

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 0.003 0.013 0.019 0.025

IMH

- W

- Small

- C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004

IMH

- W

- Large

- C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005

IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

RCU

- Small

- C 0.000 0.001

RCU

- Large

- C 0.000 0.001

SCU

- W

- Small

- C †

SCU

- W

- Large

- C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU

- A

- Small

- C 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU

- A

- Large

- C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* A b lank cell means no energy savings were calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated that the efficiency level is not viable. ** 0.000 indicates savings round to less than 0.001 quads

. † Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.ES

- 25 

### Table ES.3.18 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 7- Percent Discount Rate

Equipment Class Cumulative NPV at 7%
billion 2010$

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 0.012 0.020

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.024

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.006 0.007

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.132 0.209 0.285

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.153 0.211 0.301

RCU

- Small

- B 0.047 0.089 0.098

RCU

- Large

- B 0.062 0.112 0.124

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.016 0.056 0.080 0.106 0.124

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 0.007 0.026 0.037 0.049

IMH

- W

- Small

- C

- 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.008

IMH

- W

- Large

- C

- - 0.000 0.000

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.007

IMH

- A

- Large

- C

- - 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

RCU

- Small

- C

- 0.002

RCU

- Large

- C

- 0.001

SCU

- W

- Small

- C †

SCU

- W

- Large

- C

- - 0.000 0.000

SCU

- A

- Small

- C

- - - SCU

- A

- Large

- C

- - - 0.001 0.002 (0.003)

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* A value of “-” means that there are no shipments at this efficiency level, so there is no NPV impact. A blank value means that no NPV was calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated that the efficiency level is not viable.

** 0.000 i ndicates savings round to less than $ 0.001 billion. Negative savings mean a net cost to

the nation.

† Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.ES

- 26 

### Table ES.3.19 Cumulative NPV Results B ased on a 3- Percent Discount Rate

Equipment Class Cumulative NPV at 3%
billion 2010$

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

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 0.026 0.043

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.050

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.013 0.014

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.278 0.442 0.610

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.323 0.455 0.650

RCU

- Small

- B 0.099 0.188 0.208

RCU

- Large

- B 0.132 0.238 0.264

SCU

- W

- Small

- B 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.006

SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004

SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.033 0.119 0.172 0.228 0.266

SCU

- A

- Large

- B 0.015 0.055 0.080 0.106

IMH

- W

- Small

- C

- 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.017

IMH

- W

- Large

- C

- - 0.000 0.000

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.015 0.017

IMH

- A

- Large

- C

- - 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001

RCU

- Small

- C

- 0.005

RCU

- Large

- C

- 0.003

SCU

- W

- Small

- C †

SCU

- W

- Large

- C

- - 0.001 0.001

SCU

- A

- Small

- C

- - - SCU

- A

- Large

- C

- - - 0.001 0.004 (0.003)

IMH: ice

- making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self

- contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

* A value of “-” means that there are no shipments at this efficiency level, so there is no NPV impact. A blank value means that no NPV was calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicat ed that the efficiency level is not viable. ** 0.000 indicates savings round to less than $ 0.001 billion. Negative savings mean a net cost to

the nation.

† Data available to DOE show there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.



### ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The purpose of the preliminary MIA is to identify and quantify the likely impact of energy conservation standards on automatic commercial ice maker manufacture r s. DOE

examine d both quantitative and qualitative impacts that may lead to changes in manufacturing practices for automatic commercial ice maker s. DOE conducted the preliminary MIA by first identifying equipment, methods, and practices used in the automatic commercial ice maker industry. Next, DOE determined how energy efficiency improvements affect cost, production, and various other manufacturing metrics. Finally, DOE interviewed manufacturers for feedback

on these issues.

Through these interviews, DOE iden tified several k ey issue s relevant to the MIA for

automatic commercial ice maker s . One issue raised by manufacturers is that it is unclear whether more stringent standards will be cost effective or will result in significant benefits. Other key

issues include:

• e stablishing s eparate equipment c lasses for b atch and continuous i ce m akers ;ES

- 27 

### • v ariation in i ce h ardness of d ifferent continuous i ce m akers ;

• a lternatives to i ce m akers

, such as p urchasing bagged i ce ;

• conversion costs ;

• testing burden;

• c ustomer impac t; and

• p otential threat to U.S. jobs.

In addition to identifying these key issues , DOE also examined any additional effects on competition, manufacturing capacity, direct employment, and the cumulative burden of other regulations affecting manufacturers

. DOE adjusted the analysis, as appropriate, based on the feedback received during these interviews. Chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD provides additional details on this and other aspects of the preliminary MIA.

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues.

ES.4.1 Ice Maker Size

Ice maker efficiency could be improved in some cases by increasing the size of heat exchangers (condensers and/or evaporators). Other design options also may require more space within a given ice maker, including some compressor replacements and consideration of drain water heat exchangers. DOE did not consider design options that increase package size in the preliminary analysis, because of the limited space available in many applications for larger products, and because of the importance of the replacement market, for which space restrictions may be dictate d by the size of the replaced equipment. This restriction did not extend to remote condensing units, for which end users are expected to have greater flexibility for fitting larger designs. DOE requests comment on whether ice maker package size increase sh ould be considered in this rulemaking. If so, DOE requests comment on how to select reasonable

maximum sizes for ice makers in the analysis.

ES.4.2 Potable Water Use Minimum for Batch Ice Makers

Batch i ce maker efficiency is affected by potable water use. Howeve r, interested parties have pointed out that very low potable water use increases scaling of wet surfaces in the ice maker, leading to increased maintenance costs and potentially higher energy use in the field. To help DOE determine whether practical energy conservation opportunities associated with potable

water use reduction exist, DOE requests input on what levels of potable water use can be considered reasonable minimums for consideration in the analysis, whether th e minimum s depend on equipment class, and, if so, what this relationship is

.

ES.4.3 Equipment Classes

DOE seeks comment regarding the suggested equipment classes as outlined in this executive summary as well as in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD.ES

- 28 

### ES.4.4 Efficiency Levels

DOE requests comment on the suggest ed efficiency levels to be used in the analysis for all of the equipment classes. DOE requests comment on the baseline efficiency levels for continuous ice machines. DOE also requests comment on using the EPACT 2005 standards for cube type equipment as the baseline for all batch equipment. In addition, DOE requests comment on the interim efficiency levels and maximum technology levels for all analyzed equipment

classes.

ES.4.5 Remote Condensing Unit Equipment Classes

The current DOE standards for remote condensing unit ( RCU ) cube ice makers include different energy use levels for equipment with remote compressors and equipment without remote compressors. DOE’s initial

, brief analysis of the energy use impact of the remote compressor suggests that the 0.2 kWh/day differential for large

- capacity remote compressor ice

makers is appropriate (see the discussion on this topic in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD ). DOE requests comment on this analysis and on DOE’s intent to maintain separate equipment

classes for large -capacity RCU equipment (either batch or continuous) using this same differential. DOE requests data and information showing that this, or an alternative energy use differential, is appropriate.

ES.4.6 Large Batch Ice Maker Efficiency Levels

DOE requests co mment on the following approaches for development of energy standard s for large

- capacity batch ice makers in the harvest capacity range from 2,500 to 4,000 lb/24 hours.

• For batch ice makers for which the current standard in the highest harvest capacity ra nge is a flat standard that is not dependent on harvest capacity, extend the harvest capacity range up to 4,000 lb/24 hours . DOE is considering set ting a standard for the extended range that is equal to the future standard selected for equipment in the current highestcapacity equipment class. This applies to batch ice makers of types IMH-W, RCU, and

SCU.

• For batch ice makers of type IMH

- A, DOE is consider ing setting standards based on the modified interim efficiency level description for this harvest capa city range discussed in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. Briefly, such a standard would be as follows:

1. Starting at 1,600 lb/24 hours harvest capacity, the standard would level out so that it is not dependent on harvest capacity.

2. If, for harvest capacity between 1,600 lb/24 hours and 2,500 lb/24 hours, the current standard is more stringent than a standard described by number 1, the current standard must take precedence to avoid backsliding.ES

- 29 

### 3. If the situation described in number 2 occurs, DOE would consid er select ing a standard for equipment with harvest capacity greater than 2,500 lb/24 hours equal to the current standard for equipment with harvest capacity equal to 2,500 lb/24 hours.

ES.4.7 Manufacturer Markups

DOE requests comment on whether the proposed marku p factor of 1.25 to mark up between MPC and MSP is appropriate, too high, or too low.

ES.4.8 Proprietary Evaporator Designs

DOE requests information regarding the proprietary status of low- thermal

- mass evaporator designs, such as the designs found in Hoshizaki batch ice makers. Specifically, DOE seeks input on w hich relevant patents are still active, and what other forms of intellectual property ownership might be associated with such designs. DOE also seeks input on whet her proprietary status is the key reason that other manufacturers would not be able to adopt such designs.

ES.4.9 Balance of Condenser Water Use and Energy Use in the Analyses

DOE requests comment on its suggested approach to include consideration of condenser

w ater use increase as a design option in the analysis (see chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD ). This approach uses estimates of LCC in the engineering analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of design options that affect both energy and water use. DOE als o requests comment on its intent to use such an approach to develop condenser water use standards for continuous ice machines.

ES.4.10 Manufacturer Impact

As part of the NOPR, DOE will seek further comments from manufacturers about their potential loss of market share, changes in the efficiency distribution of covered equipment within each industry, and the total change in equipment shipments at each energy conservation standard level. DOE will then estimate the impacts on the industry quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE seeks further comment about the impact of standards on domestic manufacturers. See chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD for more details

.

ES.4.11 Markups to Determine Price

DOE identified three major distribution channels through which commercial ice

- making equipment is purchased by the end user: (1) manufacturer to end user (direct channel); (2) manufacturer to wholesale distributor to end user (wholesaler channel); and (3) manufacturer to

distributor to dealer or contractor to end user (contractor channel). DOE requests interested parties’ comments on the share values for these three distribution channels. DOE also requests

additional data or data sou rces to use to characterize the costs of the local contractor or dealer segment of the contractor channel.ES

- 30 

### ES.4.12 Experiential Learning

DOE developed five different scenarios representing how MSP changes over time: o ne scenario holds prices constant, o ne scenario is consistent with a commercial sector price index used in the National Energy Modeling System, and t he other three scenarios were developed from historical data on automatic commercial ice maker shipments and producer prices. DOE seeks comment about the use of experiential learning to adjust MSP for expected future price changes

.

ES.4.13 Energy Usage in L ife -C ycle C ost and Payback P eriod Analyses

DOE seeks information on utilization factors or potential data sources that can be used to improve upon the current assumption of 50- percent utilization factors.

ES.4.14 Condenser Water Usage in L ife -C ycle Cost and Payback P eriod Analyses

DOE requests comment on the modeling of condenser water usage assuming all ice makers are installed in a single -pass configuration.

ES.4.15 Equipment L ifetimes

Based on the data from available sources, DOE proposes to use an equipment lifetime

value of 8.5 years for all equipment classes in all building types . DOE used Weibull survival functions to represent the equipment lifetime values in the LCC and PBP analysis and shipments analysis. DOE welcomes input from interested partie s on these assumptions.

ES.4.16 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs

DOE assumes that higher efficiency equipment would not incur any additional

installation costs when compared to the baseline equipment. DOE requests interested parties’

comment s about this assumption and specific information , if appropriate, for DOE to consider in

this approach.

With respect to maintenance cost, DOE assumes that manufacturers prescribe routine

ann ual or bi- annual preventative maintenance procedures for commercial ice

- making equipment.

DOE requests input from interested parties on maintenance costs , and the relationship between

maintenance costs and the type and size of equipment.

DOE is currently modeling the repair cost for equipment as a simple percentage of the baseline selling price of the equipment

. DOE requests comment on this approach and specific

information , if appropriate, for DOE to reconsider this approach.

The technology options under consideration for the rulemaking are presented in chapter 5

of th e preliminary TSD . DOE requests input from interested parties concerning the effect that these technology options have on the installation, maintenance, and repair costs.ES

- 31 

### ES.4.17 Shipments of Ice Makers

DOE seeks industry support in determining the differences between the historical shipment data provided by AHRI and data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports. The Census Bureau data consistently showed higher shipments of automatic

commercial ice makers than the AHRI data over a 10 -year historical period.

ES.4.18 Base- Case Equipment Efficiency Distribution

DOE seeks industry support in determining whether the base

- case equipment efficiency distribution correctly captures all equip ment currently available for purchase by customers of

ice -making equipment. DOE also seeks input about the impact of higher equipment purchase prices on shipments in standards cases.

ES.4.19 General Analytical Assumptions

During each stage of the preliminary analy sis, DOE made assumptions related to key parameters of the analytical process on the premises that the assumed parameters reflect the

actual conditions that automatic commercial ice maker experiences. These assumptions are described in the respective TSD c hapters. DOE welcomes comments on these assumptions.ES

- 32 

### REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Commercial Refrigeration Equipment, Chapter 2: Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses. March 2011. Washington, D.C.

< http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_pa_tsd_ ch2_analytical_framework.pdf >

2. Navigant Consulting , Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration, Final Report . 2009. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C.

< http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/commercial_refrig_rep ort_10-09.pdf >