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 Analyzed ....................................................... 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-32
ES-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-2

Figure ES.3.1 LCC Savings Results for All the Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class IMHA-Small-B ........................................................................................................ ES-14

Figure ES.3.2 Payback Period Results for All Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class IMHA-Small-B ........................................................................................................ ES-15
ES-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 analysis 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 issues 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 energy 

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 TSD 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 

analytical 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 practicable 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 equipment 

(chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD). 

• Life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis, which calculates, 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 national impacts of standards on energy consumption, the net present value 
ES-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: 

• An LCC analysis for subgroups, which evaluates the effects of energy conservation 

standards on various national subgroups of the population (chapter 11 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 performancerelated features that affect efficiency that DOE determines justify a different standard. Table

ES.3.1 lists the equipment classes being considered in this rulemaking. These consist of two 

subsets of equipment: (1) automatic commercial ice makers for which standards were 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 hoursb), 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 process 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 capacities 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/24 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 commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities 

between 50 and 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 Commercial Ice Maker Equipment Classes

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 Remote Compressor

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

≥1,000 and <4,000

Air ≥50 and <1000

≥1,000 and <4,000

Remote Condensing (RCU)

(but not remote compressor) Air ≥50 and <1000

≥1,000 and <4,000

Remote Condensing (RCU)

and Remote Compressor

Air ≥50 and <1000

≥1,000 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 makers 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 information 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 preliminary 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 levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list 

of technologies to be considered. 

DOE developed its list of technologies for automatic commercial ice makers 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 commercial 

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

automatic commercial ice makers (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 standards 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 makers 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 makers. The 

preliminary engineering analysis is based on the direct analysis of 19 units from 9 equipment 

classes. These are the 19 units 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 standards based on extension of the direct engineering analyses of the first 

9 equipment classes. 

The characteristics of the 19 reverse-engineered units are summarized in Table ES.3.2. 

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

additional 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 Makers Equipment Type Tested? Ice Type Harvest Rate lb/24 hours Rated Energy Use kWh/ 100 lb* DOE Energy Standard kWh/100 lb* Potable Water Use gal/100 lb Condenser Water Use gal/100 lb*

Dimensions 

(W × D × H) 

inches

Weight

lb**

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: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained 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 makers. ** 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 manufactured 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 makers. 
ES-9 

ES.3.3.3 Energy Consumption Model

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

model. This 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 experienced 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 components 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 produced 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 use reduction from baseline energy 

consumption, MPC, and MSP results as well as the ordering of design options for this 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 Air-Cooled IMH 

Batch Ice Machines with Capacities 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 compressor 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 motor 
ES-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, manufacturer markups convert the MPC 

into MSP. These additional markups are applied to the MSP based on the distribution channel 

through which customers purchase the equipment. DOE identified that automatic commercial ice 

makers 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. DOE 

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 

distribution channel. 

Chapter 6 and appendix 6A of the preliminary TSD provide additional details for the 

markups analysis. Chapter 2 addresses comments received following the public release of the 

Framework document. As noted in chapters 2 and 6 of the preliminary TSD, DOE seeks input on 
ES-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 1.3624 2.0086 1.1812 1.7522

Sales Tax 1.0726 1.0726 1.0726 1.0726

Overall Markup 1.4613 2.1544 1.2670 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 1.0913 1.2925 1.0456 1.2133

Sales Tax 1.0726 1.0726 1.0726 1.0726

Overall Markup 1.1705 1.3863 1.1216 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 makers, DOE calculated the energy consumption of the equipment as part of the 

engineering analysis using an energy 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 assumptions 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 analysis. DOE suggested that

the analysis 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 annual 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. 

Interested parties commented during the Framework public meeting that air-cooled selfcontained equipment may have an 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 square 
ES-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 significant 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 makers. The effect of standards 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). Typically, the initial cost of more efficient equipment is higher than the 

baseline equipment, but the annual operating costs are lower, mainly due to lower energy 

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

wastewater treatment system. While DOE recognizes that some automatic 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 commercial 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 makers: health care, lodging, foodservice, retail, education, food sales, 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 results 

from 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 labor 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 Calculations

Equipment Energy 

Consumption

Energy used by equipment in kilowatt-hours per 100 lb of ice (obtained from energy

analysis).

Electricity Prices Vary by state and building type.

Equipment Water

Consumption

Water used by equipment in gallons (obtained from energy analysis). All watercooled 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 costs for preventative maintenance. Currently estimated as a

percentage of the MSP, approximated at 3 percent in the preliminary analysis.

Assumed 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 average 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 varies 

with building type.

The LCC and PBP analysis 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 efficiency 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 analysis, for batch machine classes, the energy 

consumption of the baseline level is assumed to equal the standard prescribed by EPACT 2005 

for the 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 information, see the discussion in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD

(engineering analysis). For continuous type machines, the baseline level of the equipment was 
ES-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 is unable 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 2005 standard levels as the baseline standard level for batch 

process equipment, including equipment covered by those standards as well as equipment for 

which there are no existing standards (i.e., batch process equipment that makes 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. Experiential learning captures 

the effect of learning as producers 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 

analysis, DOE applied a one-time adjustment to MSP to account for experiential learning. DOE 

also applied 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 air-cooled IMH batch type ice machines with capacities 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 

25th and 75th percentile LCC savings or PBP (lower and upper edges of the elongated 

rectangular box, respectively), and 5th and 95th 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 7

Life-cycle Cost Savings($)

Mean Median Efficiency Level

`
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 the 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 values 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 7

Pay Back Period (Years)

Median Mean Efficiency Level

`
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 Median Payback Period for All Product Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class

Median Payback Period*,**

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 makers 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 makers 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 historical 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 calculated 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 2010 

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: Continuous
ES-20

Table ES.3.13 Forecasted Shipments of New and Replacement Automatic Commercial Ice 

Makers 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

Foodservice

– 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 Shipments for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 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 

manufacturer 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 impacts 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 efficiency 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 Efficiency 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 DOE’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

efficient 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 would “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 results for the NIA.

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

cumulative NES is presented in Table 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.

Experiential Learning-based MSP 

Changes

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, thereby decreasing production costs.

Repair Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are constant with efficiency level, 

expressed per unit.

Maintenance Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average maintenance cost, expressed per unit.

Escalation of Electricity Prices 2011 EIA AEO forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2036 and beyond.

Water/wastewater Price Escalation 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 2011. 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 blank 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 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-26

Table ES.3.19 Cumulative NPV Results Based 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 indicated 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 manufacturers. DOE 

examined both quantitative and qualitative impacts that may lead to changes in manufacturing 

practices for automatic commercial ice makers. 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 identified several key issues relevant to the MIA for 

automatic commercial ice makers. 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: 

• establishing separate equipment classes for batch and continuous ice makers; 
ES-27

• variation in ice hardness of different continuous ice makers; 

• alternatives to ice makers, such as purchasing bagged ice; 

• conversion costs; 

• testing burden; 

• customer impact; and

• potential 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 dictated 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 should 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 ice maker efficiency is affected by potable water use. However, 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 the minimums 

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 suggested 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 comment on the following approaches for development of energy 

standards 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 range 

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 setting 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 considering setting standards based on the 

modified interim efficiency level description for this harvest capacity 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 consider selecting 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 markup 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 which relevant patents are still active, and what other forms of intellectual 

property ownership might be associated with such designs. DOE also seeks input on whether 

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 

water 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 also 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 sources 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: one 

scenario holds prices constant, one scenario is consistent with a commercial sector price index 

used in the National Energy Modeling System, and the 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 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 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 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 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 Lifetimes

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 parties 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’ 

comments 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 

annual 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 the 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 equipment 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 analysis, 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 chapters. 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>