8-i 

### CHAPTER 8. LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ................... 8-1 8.1.2 Overview of Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Inputs ...................................... 8-3 8.2 LIFE

- CYCLE COST INPUTS ........................................................................................... 8-7 8.2.1 Definition ................................................................................................................ 8-7 8.2.2 Total Installed

- Cost Inputs ...................................................................................... 8-8 8.2.2.1 Baseline Energy Consumption and Manufacturer Selling Price.............. 8-8 8.2.2.2 Candidate Standard -Level Energy Consumption and Manufacturer Selling Price Increases ...................................................................................................... 8-10 8.2.2.3 Overall Markup ...................................................................................... 8-12 8.2.2.4 Installation Cost ..................................................................................... 8-12 8.2.2.5 Weighted Average Total Installed Cost ................................................. 8-13 8.2.3 Operating

- Cost Inputs ........................................................................................... 8-16 8.2.3.1 Electricity Price Analysis ....................................................................... 8-16 8.2.3.2 Electricity Price Trend ........................................................................... 8-18 8.2.3.3 Repair Cost

................................ ............................................................. 8-19 8.2.3.4 Maintenance Cost

................................ ................................................... 8-19 8.2.3.5 Lifetime .................................................................................................. 8-20 8.2.3.6 Discount Rate ......................................................................................... 8-20 8.2.3.7 Compliance Date of Standard ................................................................ 8-23 8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUT S ......................................................................................... 8-23 8.3.1 Definition .............................................................................................................. 8-23 8.3.2 Inputs..................................................................................................................... 8-24 8.4 LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RE SULTS ......................................... 8-24 8.4.1 Life

- Cycle Cost Results ........................................................................................ 8-24 8.4.2 Payback Period Results ......................................................................................... 8-28 8.4.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period .............................................................. 8-31 8.5 DETAILED RESULTS .................................................................................................... 8-32 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 8-348- ii 

### L IST OF TABLES

Table 8.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life- Cycle Cost and Payback Period..................................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs ................................................................................. 8-8 Table 8.2 .2 Equipment Classes Evaluated for the Automatic Commercial Ice -Making Equipment Standard Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ..................................... 8-9 Table 8.2.3 Baseline Energy Consumption Levels and Estimated MSP Values for the Representative Automatic Commercial Ice -Making Equipment Units of All 21 Primary Equipment Classes ............................................................................... 8-10 Table 8.2.4 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Prices for Representative Automatic Commercial Ice

Making Equipment Units of the 21 Primary Equipment Classes and Incremental Manufacturer Selling Prices for All Efficiency Levels Within the Equipment Classes

................................ ................................ ................................................ 8-11 Table 8.2.5 Energy Consumption Values for Representative Automatic Commercial Ice- Making Equipment Units of the 21 Primary Equipment Classes and All Efficiency Levels Within the Equipment Classes ........................................................................... 8-12 Table 8.2.6 Installation Cost Indices (National Value = 100.0) ................................................ 8-13 Table 8.2.7 Costs and Markups for Determination of Weighted Average Total Installed Costs (IMH -A- Small

- B) .............................................................................................. 8-14 Table 8.2.8 Weighted Average Equipment Price, Installation Cost, and Total Installed Costs for IMH -A- Small -B at U.S. Average Conditions (2010$)* .................................... 8-15 Table 8.2.9 Inputs Used to Determine Operating Costs ............................................................ 8-16 Table 8.2.10 Commercial Electricity Prices by State (2010 cents/kWh) .................................. 8-17 Table 8.2.11 Derived National Average Commercial Electric ity Prices and Ratios by Business Type ................................................................................................................... 8-18 Table 8.2.12 Annualized Maintenance Costs by Equipment Class for Each Efficiency Level . 8-20 Table 8.2.13 Derivation of Typical Discount Rates by Building Type* ................................... 8-23 Table 8.4.1 LCC Savings Distribution Results for Equipment Class IMH-A- Small -B ............ 8-26 Table 8.4.2 Mean LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels ................. 8-27 Table 8.4.3 Median LCC Sa vings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels .............. 8-28 Table 8.4.4 Payback Period Distribution Results for IMH-A- Small -B ..................................... 8-29 Table 8.4.5 Mean Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels .............. 8-30 Table 8.4.6 Median Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels ........... 8-31 Table 8.4.7 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment Class

................................ ................................ ............................................................ 8-32 Table 8.5.1 Summary of Results of LCC and PBP Analysis for IMH-A- Small -B Equipment Class ................................................................................................................... 8-338- iii 

### LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period ................................................................................................................... 8-6 Figure 8.2.1 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 2045 ........................................ 8-19 Figure 8.4.1 LCC and Installed Cost Variation over Efficiency Levels for IMH-A- Small

- B Equipment Class ................................................................................................ 8-25Figure 8.4.2 Ranges of LCC Savings for All the Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class IMHA- Small -B .......................................................................................................... 8-26Figure 8.4.3 Mean Payback Period for All Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class IMH-ASmall -B .............................................................................................................. 8-298-1 

### CHAPTER 8. LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the analysis the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has carried out to evaluate the economic impacts of possible energy conservation standards developed for automatic commercial ice makers on individual commercial customers, henceforth referred to as

customers . The effect of standards on customers includes changes in operating costs (usually decreased) and change s in purchase costs (usually increased). This chapter describes two metrics used to determine the effect of standards on customers :

• 

### Life

- cycle cost (LCC) . The total customer cost over the life of the equipment is the sum of installed cost (purchase and installation cost) and operating costs (maintenance, repair,
water
, a 

### and energy costs). Future operating costs are discounted to the time of purchase, and summed over the lifetime of equipment.

• 

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

An efficiency improvement in automatic commercial ice mak ers that is financially attractive to a customer will typically have a low PBP and a low LCC associated with it

.

The remainder of this section outlines the general approach and provides an overview of the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis of automatic commercial ice makers . Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are discussed in detail in s ections 8.2 and 8.3

. Results for the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in s ections 8.4 and 8.5

. DOE performed the calculations discussed in this chapt er using a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets

, which are available at ( www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equi pment.html ). Appendix 8A includes instructions for using the spreadsheets. Appendix 8B presents the detailed results.

8.1.1 General Approach for L ife -C ycle Cost and P ayback Pe riod Analysis

This section summarizes DOE’s approach to the LCC and PBP analysis for automatic commercial ice makers

. As part of the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD)), DOE explored various efficiency levels based on increasing efficiency (decreased energy consumption) and, typically, increas ing manufacturer selling price ( MSP ) values. For the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE choose a maximum of seven levels , r eferred
to herein as efficiency levels

. DOE treats the efficiency levels as candidate standard levels , as each higher efficiency level represents a potential new standard level.

a Water costs, as used in this chapter, are the total of water and wastewater costs. Wastewater utilities tend to not meter customer wastewater flows, and base billings on water commodity billings. For this reason, water usage is used as the basis for both water and wastewater costs, and the two are aggregated in the LCC and PBP analysis.8-2 

### The first efficiency level (Level 1) in each equipment class is the least efficient and the least expensive equipmen t in that equipment class . T he higher efficiency levels (Level 2 and up ) have a progressive increase in efficiency and equipment cost from Level 1 . The highes t efficiency level in each equipment class corresponds to the max imum efficiency level obtainable with non-proprietary technology and without increasing the footprint of the equipment (see preliminary TSD chapter 5 for details).

The installed cost of equipment to a customer is the sum of the equipment purchase price and installation cost. The purchase price includes manufacturer production cost (MPC), to which a manufacturer markup is applied to obtain the MSP

. DOE calculated this value as part of the engineering analysis ( chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD ). DOE then applied additional markups to the equipment to account for the markups associated with the distribution channels for this type of equipment (chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD) . Installation costs vary by state depending on the prevailing labor rates.

Operating costs for automatic commercial ice makers are the sum of maintenance costs, repair costs

, energy costs , and water costs . Customers incur t hese costs over the life of the equipment. To facilitate cost comparisons, DOE discount ed operating costs to the discount year (2016, whi ch is the effective date of the standards that will be established as part of this rulemaking). The sum of the installed cost and the operating costs, discounted to reflect the present value, is termed the life

- cycle cost or LCC.

Generally, customers incur higher installed costs when they purchase higher efficiency equipment, and these c ost increments will be partially or wholly offset by savings in the operating costs over the lifetime of the equipment. Usually, the savings in operating costs are due to savings in energy costs because higher efficiency equipment uses less energy over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC of higher efficiency equipment can be lower compared to lower efficiency equipment. D OE calculated the change in LCC for each efficiency level of each equipment class.

DOE obtained the PBP of higher efficiency equipment by dividing the increase in the installed cost by the decrease in annual operating cost

, and compared each to the value of these parameters for the basel ine unit. For this calculation, DOE used the sum of the first year operating cost changes as the estimate of the annual decrease in operating cost, noting that some of the repair and mainten ance costs used herein are annualized estimates of costs. DOE calculated a PBP for each efficiency level of each equipment class

. Apart from MSP , installation costs, and maintenance and repair costs, other important inputs for the LCC and PBP analysis are distribution chain markups and sales tax, equipment
energy and water consumption, latest available electricity and water prices and future price trends, equipment lifetime, and discount rates.

DOE estimated m any inputs for the LCC and PBP analysis from the best available data

, and in some cases DOE used inputs th at are generally accepted values within the automatic commercial ice maker industry. In general, there is uncertainty associated with most of the inputs as it is often difficult to obtain a single representative value for a given input . Therefore, DOE

carr ie d out the LCC and PBP analys i s in the form of Monte Carlo simulations using range s of8-3 

### values and probability distributions for certain inputs that account for the uncertainties. DOE presents t he results of the LCC and PBP analys i s in the form of mean and median LCC savings ; percentages of customers experiencing net savings, net cost , and no impact in LCC; and median PBP . For each equipment class, DOE carried out 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations using Microsoft Excel and Crystal Ball, a commercially available Excel add -in for performing Monte Carlo simulations

.

DOE calculated LCC savings and PBP by comparing the installed costs and LCC values of a given standards scenario against those of the base

- case scenario

. The base

- case scenario is the scenario in which customers purchase equipment in the absence of the proposed energy conservation standard. A s tandards- case scenario is a scenario in which customers purchase equipment after the hypothetical energy conservation standard go es into effect. The number of standards scenarios for an equipment class is equal to one less than the total number of efficiency levels in that equipment class because each efficiency level above Efficiency Level 1 represents a potential new standard

. Usu ally, the market will offer equipment at various efficiencies. Therefore, for b oth the base

- case and the standards

- case scenarios in the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE calculates the market shares of the efficiency levels using a method described in preliminary TSD chapter 10.

Different types of buildings and industries face different energy prices , and apply different discount rates to purchase decisions. DOE analyzed variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations for seven ty pes of buildings: health care

, lodging

, foodservice, retail

, education , food sales, and offices

. There is a general consensus among industry stakeholders that the typical equipment lifetime is approximately 7 to 10 years with an average of 8.5 years. Ther e was no data or comment to suggest that lifetimes are unique to each equipment class. Therefore, DOE assumed a distribution of equipment lifetimes that is defined by Weibull survival functions, with an average value of 8. 5 years (s ee section 8.2.3.5 ).

Another important factor influencing the LCC and PBP analys i s is the location in which the automatic commercial ice maker is installed . Inputs that vary by location include installation costs, water and energy prices

, and sales tax (plus the associated distribution chain markups). At the national level, DOE explicitly modeled variability in water price

, electricity price , and markups using probability distributions based on the relative populations in all states.

Results of the LCC and PBP analysis are presented at the end of this chapter and in appendix 8B.

8.1.2 Overview of L ife -C ycle Cost and P ayback Period Inputs

DOE categorized i nputs to the LCC and PBP analys i s as: (1) inputs for establishing the total installed cost ; and (2) inputs for calculating operating costs.8-4 

### The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are:

• 

### Baseline manufacturer selling price: T he price charged by the manufacturer (when selling to either a wholesaler or customer ) for equipment meeting the baseline efficiency level

. The MSP includes a manufacturer’s markup, which converts the MPC to MSP

.

• 

### Price learning: A method of adjusting the MSP over time to account for increas in g cost efficiency in the production of automatic commercial ice

- making equipment. DOE assumed that , with time and experience, the real cost of producing equipment will decrease marginally.

• 

### Candidate standard l evel manufacturer selling price increase : T he incremental change in MSP associated with producing equipment at a given higher efficiency level.

• 

### Markups and sales tax: T he distribution chain markups and sales tax used to convert the MSP to a customer purchase price. Preliminary TSD chapter 6 presen ts t he methodology used to determine markups and sales taxes

.

• 

### Installation cost: The cost to the customer of installing the equipment, not including the equipment cost. DOE assumed the cost of installation as a one- time cost

, and it is intended to represent the cost of labor, overhead, and other miscellaneous materials and parts.

The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost s are:

• 

### Equipment energy consumption : The energy consum ed by an automatic commercial ice maker to produce 100 lb of ice, expressed in kilowatt -hours. DOE calculated t his value as part of the engineering analysis for each candidate standard level in each equipment class.

• 

### Equipment water consumption : T he amount of condenser water (used to cool refrigerant in the open-loop condenser system) and potable water ( used to form ice) to produce 100 lb of ice, expressed in gallons. DOE calculated t his value as part of the engineering analysis ( preliminary TSD c hapter 7) for each candidate standard level in each equipment class.

• 

### Electricity price : T he price per kilowatt -hour, in cents or dollars, paid by each customer for electricity. DOE used average commercial electricity prices in each s tate, as determined from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) form 861 data for 2009. DOE adjusted 2009 to 2010 dollars using price deflators from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011 1 

### ( AEO201 1) . DOE then adjusted the average commercial prices to reflect the fact that the seven types of businesses analyzed pay electricity prices that are different from average commercial prices. S ection 8.2.3.1 d etails the development of electricity prices and the data sources used

.

• 

### Water and wastew ater price s : DOE combined the prices for w ater and w astewater in dollars per 1,000 gallons. DOE used price data from the 2010 American Water Works Water and Wastewater Survey. 9 

### No data existed that disaggregated water prices for individual building types, so DOE varied prices by state only and not by building type within a state. S ection 8.2.3.1 d etails th e development of prices and the data sources used.8-5 

### • 

### Electricity price trends : DOE used t he EIA’s AEO20 11 to forecast electricity prices. For the results presented in this chapter, DOE used the regional prices from the AEO201 1 reference case to forecast future electricity prices

.

• 

### Water and w astewater price trends : DOE used the Consumer Price Index data for water related consumption (1970–2010) in developing a real growth rate for water and wastewater price forecasts.

• 

### Maintenance costs: DOE calculated m ai ntenance costs as an annual expense representing the estimated labor and materials costs associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment.

• 

### Repair costs : DOE calculated the cost for repairs as an annual expense, represent ing the estimated labor and materials costs associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed.

• 

### Equipment l ifetime : The typical age at which the automatic commercial ice -making equipment is retired from service.

• 

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

Figure 8.1.1 depicts the relationships between the installed cost and operating cost inputs for the calculation of the LCC and PBP and how those costs vary with increasing efficiency

. Table 8.1.1 summarizes the characteristics of the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis

, and lists the corresponding reference chapter in the preliminary TSD for details on the calculation of the inputs.8-6 

### Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price

Std

- Level Manufacturer Selling Price

Installation
Cost From Engineering Analysis (Price is a Function of Efficiency)

From Markups for Equipment Price Determination Analysis

Repair Cost

Maintenance
Cost Lifetime

Discount Rate s

Electricity and
Water Price

Trend s From Energy Use Analysis Energy and
Water Consumption

Electricity and Distributor

Markup

Sales Tax Mechanical
Contractor

Markup Customer Price

Data Inputs

Intermediate Analysis

Output Results Total Installed
Cost

Annual Operating Expense Lifeti me Operating Expense Payback Period Life

- Cycle Cost

Water Prices Annual Energy and Water Cost8-7 

### Table 8.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Input Description TSD Chapter Reference Total Installed Cost Primary Inputs Baseline MSP Varies with equipment class

. Chapter 5 Candidate s tandard level MSP increases Var y with equipment class and candidate standard level within a n equipment class

. Chapter 5

Markups and sales tax Markups v ar y with distribution channel and sales tax varies with location (state) where equipment is installed. Chapter 6

Installation price Vary with equipment class and state

. Chapter 8 Operating Cost Primary Inputs Equipment energy and
water consumption Varies with equipment class and candidate standard level within a n equipment class

. Chapter 5

Electricity and
water /wastewater prices Vary with location, building type

. Chapter 8

Electricity and
water /wastewater price trends Vary with location (regional) and price scenario

. Chapter 8

Maintenance costs Vary with equipment class and state

. Chapter 8 Repair costs Var y with equipment class and state

. Chapter 8 Lifetime Mean a ssumed to be 8.5 years for all equipment. Chapter s 3, 8 Discount rate Varies with type of business

. Chapter 8



### All of the inputs depicted in Figure 8.1.1 and summarized in Table 8.1.1 are discussed in

s ections 8.2 and 8.3

.

8.2 LIFE

- CYCLE COST INPUTS

8.2.1 Definition

Life

- cycle cost is the total customer cost over the life of a piece of equipment, including equipment cost , installation cost, and operating costs (energy and water costs, maintenance costs, and repair costs). DOE discounted f uture operat ing costs to the time of purchase and summed
costs over the lifetime of the equipment. Life -cycle cost is defined by the following equation:



# ∑

= 

### + += N

t t
t 

### r OC ICLCC

1 

### )1 /(

Eq. 8.1

W here :

LCC = life

- cycle cost ($)

, IC = total installed cost ($)

, N = lifetime of equipment (years) b



### , OC t 

### = operating cost ($) of the equipment in year t , r

= discount rate, and

t = year for which operating cost is being determined.

b Though the average equipment life is 8.5 years, the model uses a range of years to calculate the equipment lifetime.8-8 

### Because DOE gathered most of its data for the LCC analysis in 2010, DOE expresse d all costs in 2010$. Total installed cost, operating cost, lifetime, and discount rate are discussed in the following sections. In the LCC analysis, DOE assumed that the first year of equipment purchase is 2016, the presumed compliance date for standards set as a result of this rulemaking.

8.2.2 Total Installed- Cost Inputs

The following equation defines t he total installed cost:

INST EQP IC += 

### Eq. 8.2

W here :

EQP = customer purchase price for the equipment ($), and INST = installation cost or the customer price to install equipment ($).

DOE based t he equipment price on the distribution channel through which the c ustomer purchases the equipment, as discussed in preliminary TSD chapter 6.

The remainder of this section provides information about the variables DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for automatic commercial ice

- making equipment. Table 8.2.1 shows the inputs used to determine total instal led cost

.

Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs Baseline manufacturer selling price ($) Price l earning c oefficient Candidate s tandard l evel manufacturer selling price increases ($) Wholesaler markup Mechanical contractor markup National account markup Sales tax ($) Installation cost ($)



### 8.2.2.1 Baseline Energy Consumption and Manufacturer Selling Price

The baseline MSP is the price manufacturers charge for equipment just meeting the existing minimum efficiency (or baseline) standards or base

- case efficiency levels (for equipment classes with no standards). The MSP includes a markup that is applied to convert MPC to an MSP . DOE developed MSP values for the 21 primary equipment class es (see preliminary TSD chapter 5). Table 8.2.2 lists the 21 primary equipment classes that DOE evaluated during the preliminary analysis of the current rulemaking

.8-9 

### Table 8.2.2 Equipment Classes Evaluated for the Automatic Commercial Ice -M aking Equipment Standard Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Description (Equipment Family , Cooling Method, Size, Production Method ) Abbreviation Ice

- Making Head, Water

- Cooled, Small, Batch IMH

- W

- Small

- B Ice

- Making Head, Water

- Cooled , Medium, Batch IMH

- W

- Med

- B Ice

- Making Head, Water

- Cooled, Large, Batch IMH

- W

- Large

- B Ice

- Making Head, Air

- Cooled, Small, Batch IMH

- A

- Small

- B Ice

- Making Head, Air

- Cooled, Large, Batch IMH

- A

- Large

- B Remote

- Condensing Unit, Small, Batch RCU

- Small

- B Remote

- Condensing Unit, Large, Batch RCU

- Large

- B Self

- Contained Unit, Water

- Cooled, Small, Batch SCU

- W

- Small

- B Self

- Contained Unit, Water

- Cooled, Large, Batch SCU

- W

- Large

- B Self

- Contained Unit, Air

- Cooled, Small, Batch SCU

- A

- Small

- B Self

- Contained Unit, Air

- Cooled, Lar ge, Batch SCU

- A

- Large

- B Ice

- Making Head, Water

- Cooled, Small, Continuous IMH

- W

- Small

- C Ice

- Making Head, Water

- Cooled, Large, Continuous IHM

- W

- Large

- C Ice

- Making Head, Air

- Cooled, Small, Continuous IMH

- A

- Small

- C Ice

- Making Head, Air

- Cooled, Large, Continuous IMH

- A

- Large

- C Remote

- Condensing Unit, Small, Continuous RCU

- Small

- C Remote

- Condensing Unit, Large, Continuous RCU

- Large

- C Self

- Contained Unit, Water

- Cooled, Small, Continuous SCU

- W

- Small

- C Self

- Contained Unit, Water

- Cooled, Large, Continuous SCU

- W

- Large

- C Self

- Contained Unit, Air

- Cooled, Small, Continuous SCU

- A

- Small

- C Self

- Contained Unit, Air

- Cooled, Large, Continuous SCU

- A

- Large

- C



### Eleven of the equipment classes in Table 8.2.2 are subject to standards set by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ( EPCA ) as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( EPACT 2005), and the other ten primary equipment classes have not yet been subject to a standard se t by legislation or by DOE

. Table 8.2.3 presents the baseline energy consumption values and the baseline MSPs used in the LCC and PBP analysis for the representative sizes for each of the 21 primary equipment classes

. Preliminary T SD chapter 5 explains how energy use and MSP varies by harvest capacity. Table 8.2.3 also identifies whether DOE obtained the baseline from the engineering analysis , for equipment with no existing standards, or set it at the standards baseline, for equipment covered under existing standards, as explained in chapter 7 . As discussed in chapter 5, for new equipment on the market today that is not covered by existing U.S. standards, DOE set the baseline at levels approximating the least efficient equipment that could potentially be available. Baseline energy consumption values presented in this section provide energy use per 100 lb of ice produced. Chapter 7 discusses the methodology to calculate annual energy consumption using these values.8- 10 

### Table 8.2.3 Baseline E nergy C onsumption Levels and Estimated MSP V alues for the Representative Automatic Commercial Ice -M aking Equipment Units of A ll 2 1 P rimary E quipment C lasses

Equipment Class Baseline Energy C onsumption kWh/100 lb ice Manufacturer Selling Price $ Baseline Type

IMH

- W

- Small

- B 7.80 2,085 Standards Baseline
IMH

- W

- Med

- B 5.03 3,453 Standards Baseline
IMH

- W

- Large

- B 4.00 6,641 Standards Baseline
IMH

- A

- Small

- B 10.26 2,089 Standards Baseline
IMH

- A

- Large

- B 6.40 4,051 Standards Baseline RCU

- Small

- B 8.85 3,602 Standards Baseline RCU

- Large

- B 5.10 7,064 Standards Baseline SCU

- W

- Small

- B 11.40 2,258 Standards Baseline SCU

- W

- Large

- B 7.60 2,269 Standards Baseline SCU

- A

- Small

- B 18.00 2,258 Standards Baseline SCU

- A

- Large

- B 9.80 2,263 Standards Baseline
IMH

- W

- Small

- C 8.10 3,435 Engineering Baseline
IMH

- W

- Large

- C 5.10 4,849 Engineering Baseline
IMH

- A

- Small

- C 10.30 2,882 Engineering Baseline
IMH

- A

- Large

- C 6.30 4,849 Engineering Baseline RCU

- Small

- C 9.50 3,819 Engineering Baseline RCU

- Large

- C 5.50 5,704 Engineering Baseline SCU

- W

- Small

- C * 9.50 0 Engineering Baseline SCU

- W

- Large

- C 6.30 2,223 Engineering Baseline SCU

- A

- Small

- C 18.00 2,211 Engineering Baseline SCU

- A

- Large

- C 9.80 3,129 Engineering Baseline *DOE was not able to identify any existing products of the SCU

- W

- Small

- C equipment class in ice maker databases. Hence, this equipment class was not analyzed, directly or by extrapolation.



### 8.2.2.2 Candidate Standard

- Level Energy Consumption and Manufacturer Selling Price Increases

The candidate standard level MSP increase is the change in MSP associated with producing equipment at higher efficiency levels. DOE estimated i ncreases in MSP as a function of equipment efficiency for each of the 21 primary equipment classes c



### . The e ngineering analysis established a series of MSP increases for each standard level. Table 8.2.4 presents the increase in MSP corresponding to each efficiency level for each primary equipment class.

Table 8.2.5 presents the energy consumption of the representative units belonging to each of the 21 primary equipment classes that DOE selected for the engineering analysis.

c Available data shows there are no existing SCU -W-S mall

- C products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models; however, it is considered a valid equipment class and, to be consistent, is included as a primary equipment class.8- 11 

### Table 8.2.4 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Prices for Representative Automatic Commercial Ice -M aking Equipment Units of the 21 Primary Equipment Classes and Incremental Manufacturer Selling Prices for All Efficiency Levels Within the Equip ment Classes

Product Class Increase in MSP by Efficiency Level 2010$ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH

- W

- Small

- B $2,085 $40 $48

IMH

- W

- Med

- B $3,453 $31

IMH

- W

- Large

- B $6,641 $15 $23

IMH

- A

- Small

- B $2,089 $13 $30 $69

IMH

- A

- Large

- B $4,051 $15 $113 $158

RCU

- Small

- B $3,602 $15 $63 $85

RCU

- Large

- B $7,064 $20 $101 $129

SCU

- W

- Small

- B $2,258 $13 $34 $51 $69

SCU

- W

- Large

- B $2,269 $13 $25 $34 $43 $54 $84

SCU

- A

- Small

- B $2,258 $13 $39 $56 $70 $78

SCU

- A

- Large

- B $2,263 $21 $44 $58 $75

IMH

- W

- Small

- C $3,435 $6 $15 $25 $34 $98

IMH

- W

- Large

- C $4,849 $23 $35 $63 $156

IMH

- A

- Small

- C $2,882 $26 $44 $61 $79 $203

IMH

- A

- Large

- C $4,849 $31 $43 $54 $65 $158 $270

RCU

- Small

- C $3,819 $11 $85

RCU

- Large

- C $5,704 $13 $129

SCU

- W

- Small

- C $0

SCU

- W

- Large

- C $2,223 $5 $15 $25 $28

SCU

- A

- Small

- C $2,211 $30 $58 $64

SCU

- A

- Large

- C $3,129 $0 $46 $81 $123 $169 $419 * Blank cells imply there are no associated efficiency levels.8- 12 

### Table 8.2.5 Energy C onsumption V alues for R epresentative Automatic C ommercial Ice

M aking E quipment U nits of the 2 1 P rimary E quipment C lasses and A ll E fficiency L evels W ithin the E quipment C lasses

Product Class Total Energy Usage kWh/100 lb ice Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7
IMH

- W

- Small

- B 7.80 7.02 6.71
IMH

- W

- Med

- B 5.03 4.53
IMH

- W

- Large

- B 4.00 3.60 3.56
IMH

- A

- Small

- B 10.26 9.23 8.72 8.21
IMH

- A

- Large

- B 6.40 5.76 5.44 5.12 RCU

- Small

- B 8.85 8.05 7.52 7.39 RCU

- Large

- B 5.10 4.64 4.34 4.26 SCU

- W

- Small

- B 11.40 10.60 9.69 9.12 8.66 SCU

- W

- Large

- B 7.60 7.07 6.46 6.08 5.70 5.47 4.64 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 18.00 16.74 15.30 14.40 13.50 12.96 SCU

- A

- Large

- B 9.80 9.11 8.33 7.84 7.35
IMH

- W

- Small

- C 8.10 7.29 6.89 6.48 6.08 5.43
IMH

- W

- Large

- C 5.10 4.59 4.34 4.08 3.88
IMH

- A

- Small

- C 10.30 9.27 8.76 8.24 7.73 7.21
IMH

- A

- Large

- C 6.30 5.67 5.36 5.04 4.73 4.41 4.10 RCU

- Small

- C 9.50 8.81 7.93 RCU

- Large

- C 5.50 5.10 4.59 SCU

- W

- Small

- C 9.50 SCU

- W

- Large

- C 6.30 6.08 5.70 5.32 5.17 SCU

- A

- Small

- C 18.00 16.74 15.30 14.76 SCU

- A

- Large

- C 9.80 9.11 8.33 7.84 7.35 6.86 6.27 * Blank cells imply there are no associated efficiency levels.



### 8.2.2.3 Overall Markup

As discussed in preliminary TSD chapter 6, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE calculated overall markup and applied it to the equipment MSP to calculate the equipment purchase price for customers. DOE calculated baseline markups to convert baseline MSP to baseline customer purchase price and incremental markups to convert the increments in MSP into increments in customer purchase price. DOE used these markup values in the LCC and PBP analysis for calculation of baseline and higher efficiency equipment price to customers.

8.2.2.4 Installation Cost

Most automatic commercial ice makers are installed in fairly standard configurations, which helps in estimating the cost of installation. DOE defines installation cost as a one- time fixed cost that incorporates the labor and materials required to fully install an automatic commercial ice maker. DOE assume d that the installation cost do es not vary with efficiency levels in any equipment class. For the preliminary analysis, DOE assum ed that the engineering design options do not impact the installation cost within an equipment class and, therefore, within a given equipment class, the installation cost will not vary with efficiency level

. Installation cost may vary from one equipment class to another. If engineering design options change, DOE can vary installation cost with efficiency level if technologies warrant an adjustment. Because costs that do not vary with efficiency level do not affect the LCC, PBP, or national impact analysis res ults

, DOE estimated the installation cost in the preliminary analysis8- 13 

### very simply as a fixed percentage of the total MSP for the baseline efficiency level for a given equipment class, set at 10 percent for the preliminary analysis.

Table 8.2.6 shows installation cost indices for installation cost s in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia , and the weighted average for the entire United States. These are used to adjust t he national installation cost to reflect differences by s tate

. The state

- level data are based on data published by RS Means for major U.S. cities. 10 

### To arrive at an average index for each state, DOE first weighted the city indices in each state by their po pulation. DOE used state

level population weights for 2010 from the U.S. Census Bureau 4 

### to calculate a weighted

- average index for each state from the RS Means census data.

Table 8.2.6 Installation Cost Indices (National Value = 100.0)
State Index State Index State Index Alabama 58.7 Kentucky 81.4 North Dakota 57.9 Alaska 113.9 Louisiana 65.7 Ohio 96.9 Arizona 86.6 Maine 68.4 Oklahoma 58.8 Arkansas 62.2 Maryland 92.7 Oregon 106.8 California 131.0 Massachusetts 128.2 Pennsylvania 128.2 Colorado 83.9 Michigan 109.4 Rhode Island 116.8 Connecticut 122.0 Minnesota 126.3 South Carolina 40.2 Delaware 125.6 Mississippi 61.1 South Dakota 46.4 Dist. of Columbia 102.6 Missouri 105.4 Tennessee 76.9 Florida 73.5 Montana 78.0 Texas 63.6 Georgia 72.2 Nebraska 86.3 Utah 75.9 Hawaii 117.5 Nevada 108.4 Vermont 68.7 Idaho 72.4 New Hampshire 90.5 Virginia 73.9 Illinois 142.8 New Jersey 137.4 Washington 110.9 Indiana 87.5 New Mexico 75.5 West Virginia 92.2 Iowa 88.7 New York 170.1 Wisconsin 106.4 Kansas 77.4 North Carolina 40.3 Wyoming 60.4



### 8.2.2.5 Weighted Average Total Installed Cost

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

T he weighted average costs for the IMH -A- Small -B equipment class are presented below for the baseline level at national average markup rates and national average installation costs for illustration purposes. DOE used t he baseline MSP and the standard- level MSP increases as the starting points for determining the total installed cost (values are taken directly from Table 8.2.3 and Table 8.2.4 ). DOE used t he baseline and incremental markups, the sales tax, and installation cost to convert th e MSP s into total installed costs for case s where the incremental installation
cost is held flat. As an example, Table 8.2.7 summarizes the weighted average or mean costs and markups necessary for determining the weighted average baseline and standard

- level total installed costs

.8- 14 

### Table 8.2.7 Costs and Markups for De termination of Weighted Average Total Installed Costs ( IMH -A- Small -B)
Variable Weighted Average or Mean Value Baseline MSP $2,089.00 Standard

- Level MSP Increase (Efficiency Level 4) $68.75 Overall Markup Factor

– Baseline 1.879 Overall Markup Factor

– Incremental 1.301 Installation Cost

– Baseline $360 Installation Cost Factor, for U.S. Average 1.000 Price Learning Factor 0.983

* Installation cost appl ied to the baseline unit, with no incremental installation cost.



### The calculation below for the baseline (Level 1) and for a higher efficiency level (Level 4) IMH -A- Small

- B equipment class illustrate s how DOE derived the weighted average total installed cost based on the data shown in Table 8.2.7

. For the baseline product, DOE calculated the total installed cost at national average conditions as follows : d



### IC BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### = EQP BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### + INST BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### × ISTINDEX

= MFG BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### × Price Learning Coef Analysis Year


### × MU BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### × Sales Tax State 

### + INST BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### × ISTINDEX

= $ 2,089 x (0.983) x (1.75215 ) x (1.0726) + $ 360 x (1.00)

= $ 3,860 + $360

= $ 4,220 Eq. 8.3

W here :

IC BASE IMH -A- Small -B 

### = total installed cost of IMH -A- Small -B equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), EQP BASE IMH -A- Small -B 

### = equipment purchase price of IMH -A- Small -B equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), INST BASE IMH -A- Small -B 

### = installation cost of IMH -A- Small -B equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), MFG BASE IMH -A- Small -B 

### = MSP of IMH -A- Small -B equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), MU BASE IMH -A- Small -B 

### = overall baseline markup for equipment class IMH -A- Small -B, and ISTINDEX = location dependent multiplier on installation cost; approximately 1.0 at a national
average.

DOE calculat ed the total installed cost for the higher efficiency level ( E fficiency L evel 4) using a n incremental MSP

. DOE applied an incremental markup factor to the incremental

d Note that the numbers shown in Eq. 8.3 have been rounded and do not exactly match the numbers in the analysis.8- 15 

### increases in MSP. The Level 4 price is equal to the baseline price calculated above, plus t he MSP increment for a higher efficiency level

, multiplied by the incremental markup.

As an example, DOE calculated the national average , Level 4

, total installed cost ( IC IMH

A- Small -B LEVEL4 

### ) as follows: e



### IC IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4



### = EQP IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4 

### + INST IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4 

### × ISTINDEX

= MFG BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### × Price Learning Coef Analysis Year 

### × MU BASE IMH −A− Small −B 

### + ∆ MFG IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4 

### × Price Learning Coef Analysis Year 

### × MU IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4 

### × Sales Tax State 

### + INST IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4 

### × ISTINDEX

= $2,054 x (1. 75215) x 1.0726 + $ 68 x (1.21329 ) + $ 360 x (1.000) = $ 4,308 Eq. 8.4

W here :

IC IMH -A- Small -B LEVEL4 

### = total installed cost of IMH -A- Small

- B equipment at Efficiency Level 4 ($)

, EQP IMH -A- Small -B LEVEL4 

### = equipment price of IMH -A- Small

- B equipment at Efficiency Level 4 ($)

, INST IMH -A- Small -B LEVEL4 

### = installation cost of IMH -A- Small

- B equipment at Efficiency Le vel 4 ($)

, Δ MFG IMH -A- Small -B LEVEL4 

### = i ncremental increase in MSP of IMH -A- Small

- B equipment at Efficiency Level 4 compared to equipment at baseline efficiency level ($)

, and MU IMH -A- Small -B LEVEL4 

### = i ncremental markup for equipment class IMH -A- Small -B.

Table 8.2.8 presents the weighted a verage equipment price, installation cost, and total installed costs for the IMH -A- Small -B equipment class es at the baseline level and each higher efficiency level examined

.

Table 8.2.8 Weighted Average Equipment Price, Installation Cost, and Total Installed
Costs for IMH -A- Small -B at U.S. Average Conditions (2010$)*
Efficiency Level Equipment Price (MSP) Installation Cost Total Installed Cost

1 (Baseline) $2,053.92 $359.88 $4,219.97
2 $2,066.21 $359.88 $4,235.97
3 $2,083.41 $359.88 $4,258.36
4 $2,121.51 $359.88 $4,307.94 *Numbers provided in this table are taken directly from the LCC analysis, and thus differ from those provided above in the text due to rounding.

e The numbers shown in Eq. 8.4 have been rounded and do not exactly match the numbers used in the analysis.8- 16 

### 8.2.3 Operating

- Cost Inputs

DOE defines the operating cost as the sum of energy cost, water cost, repair cost, and maintenance cost, or:

OC = EC+ WC+ RC+ MC Eq. 8.5

W here :

OC = operating cost ($)

, EC = energy cost ($)

, WC= water cost ($), RC = repair cost ($)

, and MC = maintenance cost ($)

.

The remainder of this section describes the variables that DOE used to calculate operating cost s for automatic commercial ice makers

. Table 8.2.9 shows the inputs used to determin e operatin g costs.

Table 8.2.9 Inputs U sed to D etermine Operating Costs Electricity price ( cents /kWh ) Water/wastewater price ($/1

, 000 gallons) Electricity and water price trend s Repair cost ($) Maintenance cost ($) Lifetime (y ears ) Discount rate (%) Effective date of standard Baseline electricity consumption (kWh/ 100 lb ice ) Baseline water consum p tion (gallons of water/100 lb ice) Standard case electricity consumption (kWh/ 100 lb ice ) Standards water consum p tion (gallons of water/100 lb ice)



### 8.2.3.1 Electricity Price Analysis

This section describes the electricity price analysis used to develop the energy portion of the annual operating costs (price multiplied by electricity consumption) for automatic commercial ice makers used in various commercial building types

. Subdivision of the Country

. Because of the wide variation in electricity consumption patterns, wholesale costs, and retail rates across the country, DOE consider ed regional differences in electricity prices. DOE divided the United States into the 50 states and the District of Columbia. DOE used average effective commercial electricity prices at the state level from the EIA web page entitled Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price

. 2 

### At the time DOE developed the LCC/PBP model, t he latest available prices from this source were for the calendar
year 2009 in 2009$. DOE adjusted t hese to represent 2010$ prices using the gross domestic product ( GDP ) price deflator from AEO201 1

. 3 

### Table 8.2.10 provides the adjusted electricity prices.8- 17 

### Table 8.2.10 Commercial Electricity Prices by State (20 1 0 cents/k Wh)
State Commercial Electricity Price cents/kWh State Commercial Electricity Price cents/kWh State Commercial Electricity Price cents/kWh Alabama 10.14 Kentucky 7.70 North Dakota 6.87 Alaska 14.59 Louisiana 7.76 Ohio 9.74 Arizona 9.44 Maine 12.66 Oklahoma 6.82 Arkansas 7.63 Maryland 12.08 Oregon 7.56 California 13.54 Massachusetts 15.51 Pennsylvania 9.63 Colorado 8.22 Michigan 9.32 Rhode Island 13.79 Connecticut 17.01 Minnesota 7.99 South Carolina 8.82 Delaware 12.09 Mississippi 9.59 South Dakota 7.21 Dist. of Col. 13.08 Missouri 7.02 Tennessee 9.70 Florida 10.87 Montana 8.40 Texas 9.75 Georgia 9.02 Nebraska 7.40 Utah 7.02 Hawaii 22.06 Nevada 10.74 Vermont 13.05 Idaho 6.55 New Hampshire 14.68 Virginia 8.13 Illinois 9.07 New Jersey 13.96 Washington 7.02 Indiana 8.40 New Mexico 8.48 West Virginia 6.83 Iowa 7.62 New York 15.65 Wisconsin 9.66 Kansas 7.94 North Carolina 8.05 Wyoming 7.35



### DOE recognized that different kinds of businesses typically use electricity in different amounts at different times of the day, week, and year, and therefore experience different effective prices. To make this adjustment, DOE used the 2003 Commercial Building s Energy Consumption Survey ( CBECS ) data set to identify the average prices paid by the seven kinds of businesses in this analysis compared with the average prices paid by all commercial customers. Because it isn’t explicitly recognized as a CBECS building type, DOE identified multi

- line retail by identifying retail stores for which the data suggest the presence of walk -in refrigeration and other commercial refrigeration equipment. f 

### Eq. 8.6 shows how DOE calculated t he prices paid by the seven types of businesses in each state or district :

EPRICE COM BLDGTYPE STATE 2010 

### = EPRICE COM STATE 2010 

### × � E PRICE BLDGTYPE US 2003 EPRICE COM US 2003 

### �

Eq. 8.6

W here :

EPRICE COM BLD G TYPE STATE 20 10 

### = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific building type ( such as health care

, food sales, and foodservice ) in a specific state in 20 10, EPRICE COM STATE 20 10 

### = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific state in 20 10, EPRICE BLDG TYPE US 2003 

### = national average commercial

- sector electricity price in a specific building type in 2003 CBECS, and EPRICE COM US 2003 

### = national average commercial sector electricity price in 2003 CBECS

.

Table 8.2.11 shows the resulting commercial building electricity price ratios.

f Automatic commercial ice makers are not explicitly captured by the CBECs database, so commercial refrigeration is used as a proxy for buildings of interest to this analysis.8- 18 

### Table 8.2.11 Derived National Average Commercial Electricity Price s and Ratios by Business Type Business Type Electricity Price dollars/ kWh Ratio of Elec tricity Price to Average Price for all Commercial Buildings HealthCare $ 0.07222 0.91 0 Lodging $ 0.08583 1.082 Food Service $ 0.07722 0.973 Retail $ 0.07262 0.915 Education $ 0.07962 1.003 Food Sales $ 0.08467 1.067 Office $ 0.07664 0.966 All commercial buildings $ 0.07936 1.000
Source: CBECS 2003.



### The derived ratio equates commercial electricity prices by building type to the overall average commercial building price . DOE then combined the derived ratio with state

- by

- state commercial rates to derive a series of prices for each state and for each building type. DOE forecast future prices as described in section 8.2.3.2 . To obtain a weighted avera ge national price, DOE weighted the prices paid by each business in each state by the 20 10 population in each state

. 4



### 8.2.3.2 Electricity Price Trend

The electricity price trend provides the relative change in electricity prices through the
year 2045. Estimating future electricity prices is difficult, especially considering that there are efforts in many states throughout the country to restructure the electricity supply industry.

DOE applied a projected trend in national average electricity prices to each customer’s energy prices based on the AEO20 11 price scenarios. The discussion in this chapter refers to the 2010 reference price scenario. In the LCC analysis, DOE can analyze the following four scenarios:

1. Constant (real) energy prices at 20 10 values ( i.e. , a c onstant index of 1.0)

2. AEO20 11 , High Economic Growth (“ AEO201 1 High Growth ” in Figure 8.2.1 )

3. AEO20 11 , Reference Case (“AEO20 11 Reference” in Figure 8.2.1 )

4. AEO 2011 , Low Economic Growth (“AEO201 1 Low Growth ” in Figure 8.2.1 )

Figure 8.2.1 shows the trends for the AEO20 11 reference case, high growth, and low growth price projections

. DOE extrapolated the values for the later years, after 2035— the last year of the AEO20 11 forecast. DOE used the price trend from 2025 to 2035 of each forecast scenario to establish prices for the years 2036 to 2045.8- 19 

### Figure 8.2.1 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 2045

The default electricity price trend scenario used in the LCC analysis is the trend from the AEO 2011 Reference Case, shown in Figure 8.2.1 . T he LCC model spreadsheets have the capability to analyze the AEO 2011 High Growth

, AEO 2011 Low Growth price trends, and constant energy prices for additional sensitivity analysis

.

8.2.3.3 Repair Cos t

The repair cost is the average annual cost to the customer for replacing or repairing components in the automatic ice maker that ha ve failed. In the absence of available data for the preliminary analysis, DOE has approximated the repair costs as a 3- percent fixed percentage of the total baseline MSP for each equipment class and assumed the repair costs stay constant within an equipment class for all efficiency levels. Forthcoming analyses of the engineering design options may indicate for specific technologies used, marginal repair and replacement costs for higher efficiency levels may be warranted.

8.2.3.4 Maintenance Cost

The maintenance cost is the cost to the customer of ensuring proper equipment operation even if there are no specific equipment failures ( e.g. , checking and maintaining refrigerant levels, replacing filters , checking water distribution lines for leaks, cleaning , sanitizing, and descaling ). The maintenance cost does not include the cost s associated with the replacement or repair of component s that have failed (as discussed above).

DOE approximated annualized maintenance costs for automatic commercial ice makers

as a 3- percent fixed percentage of the total MSP for each equipment class. B ecause data were not available to indicate how maintenan ce costs vary with equipment efficiency level

, DOE used a 3- percent preventative maintenance costs that remain constant across all equipment efficiency levels

. Table 8.2.12 shows the annualized maintenance costs by equipment class for each efficiency level. 0.089 0.091 0.093 0.095 0.097 0.099 0.101 0.103 0.105

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045US Weighted Average Real Cost/kWh (2010$)



### Year 

## Electricity Price Projections

AEO 2011 Low Growth AEO 2011 Reference AEO 2011 High Growth8- 20 

### Table 8.2.12 Annualized Maintenance Costs by Equipment Cla ss for Each Efficiency Level

Equipment Class Annualized Maintenance Costs for LCC by Efficiency Level $/yr

IMH

- W

- Small

- B $107.76

IMH

- W

- Med

- B $178.46

IMH

- W

- Large

- B $343.22

IMH

- A

- Small

- B $107.96

IMH

- A

- Large

- B $209.36

RCU

- Small

- B $186.16

RCU

- Large

- B $365.08

SCU

- W

- Small

- B $116.70

SCU

- W

- Large

- B $117.27

SCU

- A

- Small

- B $116.70

SCU

- A

- Large

- B $116.96

IMH

- W

- Small

- C $177.53

IMH

- W

- Large

- C $250.61

IMH

- A

- Small

- C $148.95

IMH

- A

- Large

- C $250.61

RCU

- Small

- C $197.37

RCU

- Large

- C $294.79

SCU

- W

- Small

- C $0.00

SCU

- W

- Large

- C $114.89

SCU

- A

- Small

- C $114.27

SCU

- A

- Large

- C $161.71



### 8.2.3.5 Lifetime

As discussed in s ection 8.1.2

, DOE defines lifetime as the age at which a typical automatic commercial ice maker is retired from service. DOE estimated equipment lifetime based on discussions with industry experts, and co ncluded that a typical lifetime of 8.5 years is appropriate for most automatic commercial ice mak ers

. Because some equipment has remaining useful life , there is a market for equipment that has been removed from service. DOE understands, however, that the salvage value to the original purchaser is generally very low, and thus has not taken this into account in the LCC.

8.2.3.6 Discount Rate

The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to establish their present value. DOE derived discount rates for the automatic commercial ice maker analysis by estimating the cost of capital for the types of companies that purchase automatic commercial ice makers

. The cost of capital is commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from for a project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their overall cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the company of equity and debt financing.

DOE estimated the cost of equity financing by using the C apital A sset P ricing Model (CAPM)

. 5 

### The CAPM, among the most widely used of models that estimate the cost of equity financing, assumes that the cost of equity is proportional to t he amount of systematic risk associated with a particular company. The cost of equity financing tends to be high when a8- 21 

### company faces a large degree of systematic risk and it tends to be low when the company faces a small degree of systematic risk.

DOE det ermined the cost of equity financing by using several variables, including the risk coefficient of a company

, 

## β ( beta), the expected return on “risk free” assets ( R

f 

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

. The risk coefficient of a company

, 

## β

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

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

k

e 

### = R f 

### + (β x ERP) Eq. 8.7

W here :

k

e 

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

f 

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

## β = the risk coefficient , and ERP = the expected equity risk premium (%)

.

DOE defined the risk

- free rate as the 40- year geometric average yield on long- term government bonds. DOE calculated t he risk

- free rate using Federal Reserve data for the period 1971 to 2010, 6 

### with a resulting rate of 6. 74 percent. DOE used a 3.23- percent estimate for the ERP based on a calculation with data downloaded from the Damodaran Online 7 

### site (discussion forthcoming).

The cost of debt financing ( k d



### ) is the interest rate paid on money a company borrows. DOE estimated t he cost of debt by adding a risk adjustment factor ( R a 

### ) to the risk

- free rate.

afd 

## RRk += , Eq. 8.8

Where:

k

d 

### = the cost of debt financing for each firm (%), R

f 

### = the expected return on risk- free assets (%), and

a 

## R = the risk adjustment factor to risk

- free rate for each firm (%)

.
The risk adjustment factor depends on the variability of stock returns represented by standard deviations in stock prices—DOE took values from Damodaran Online individual
company cost of capital worksheets (discussion forthcoming). 88- 22 

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

k =k e 

### x w e 

### + k d 

### x w d 

### Eq. 8.9

W here :

k = the (nominal) cost of capital (%), k

e 

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

d 

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

w e 

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

w d 

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

The cost of capital is a nominal rate, because it includes anticipated future inflation in the expected returns from stocks and bonds. The real discount rate or WACC deducts expected inflation ( r ) fro m the nominal rate. DOE calculated expected inflation ( 3.83 percent) over the

same 1971–2010 historical period used for the other data calculations

.

To estimate the WACC of automatic commercial ice mak er purchasers, DOE used a data
set of companies involved in each of the building types being analyzed, drawn from a database of U.S. companies given on the Damodaran Online individual company worksheet cited earlier

. Th e Damodaran database includes most of the publicly traded companies in the U nited S tates.

DOE divided the companies into categories according to their type of activity ( e.g. , foodservice or food sales). DOE used financial information for all of the firms in the Damodaran database that would be likely to utilize one of the sev en building types in the use of an automatic commercial ice maker . DOE used all observations from the Damodaran data set for which complete data were available. One building type, education, was not identifiable in the list of publicly traded companies in Damodara n ’s database and , therefore, DOE calculated WACC using an approach explained below.

Table 8.2.13 outlines the building type and ownership categories as well as the number of companies used for determining discount rates. For five of the seven building categories, there is a mixture of large companies with stock traded on major U.S. stock exchanges, and smaller companies that are not publicly tra ded

— e.g. , single- store or small, local chains of convenience
stores or restaurants. The cost of capital for small, independent grocers, convenience store franchisees, gasoline station owner-operators, and others with more limited access to capital is

more difficult to determine than for publicly traded companies. Individual credit worthiness varies considerably, and some franchisees have access to the financial resources of the franchising corporation. During research leading up to the 2009 commercial refri geration equipment rulemaking, DOE contacted a sample of commercial bankers regarding cost for debt financing and the contacts yielded an estimate for the small operator weighted cost of capital of about 200 to 300 basis points (2 to 3 percent) above the r ates for large grocery chains

. DOE adopted t he average value of 2.5 percent for use for small operators across all seven building types

.8- 23 

### Table 8.2.13 Derivation of Typical Discount Rates by Building Type *

Building Type

Description Major Chain Local or Non

- Chain Governmental No. Obs.* * WACC Percent of Stock Small Firm Premium Percent of Stock Muni Bond Rate Percent of Stock Discount Rate

HealthCare 8.09% 68% 2.50% 0% 2% 32% 3.82% 5 Lodging 11.07% 50% 2.50% 50% 2% 0% 5.26% 46 Foodservice 9.00% 50% 2.50% 50% 2% 0% 5.61% 50 Retail 8.17% 75% 2.50% 25% 2% 0% 4.06% 12 Education 3.70% 25% 2.50% 0% 2% 75% 2.05% 21 Food Sales 7.69% 80% 2.50% 20% 2% 0% 3.37% 25 Office 8.99% 25% 2.50% 50% 2% 25% 4.64% 913
Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) WACC calculations applied to firms sampled from the Damodaran Online web site. Assumptions for weighting factors for convenience and food service reflect lack of reliable data sources. *In the preliminary stage , DOE evaluated only major chain and governmental firms. In the NOPR stage , DOE will calculate the discount rates as shown above. ** Obs. a re the number of observations that DOE used in calculating discount rate data.



### For buildings with an education application

, DOE identified little representative data in the Damodaran database. Data in the Damodaran database is representative of privately operated schools, but the database lack s data on cost of capital for public schools. DOE used d ata from representative 10

- year AA municipal bonds as a proxy for the Damodaran data. 11

, g



### 8.2.3.7 Compliance Date of Standard

The compliance date is the future date when a new standard will become operative ( i.e.

, the date on which manufacturers must be compliant with the new DOE standard). Under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d )( 2 )( B ), the compliance date of any new energy conservation standard for automatic commercial ice makers will be 3 years after the final rule is published. DOE calculated the LCC for all customers as if they each would purchase a new automatic commercial ice maker in the year the standard takes effect. Consistent with its published regulatory agenda, DOE assumed that the final rule would be issued in 2013 and that, therefore, the new standards would take effect in 201 6, and used these dates in the preliminary analysis . For the LCC analysis, the year of equipment purchase is 2016. H owever, all dollar values are expressed in 2010$.

8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUT S

8.3.1 Definition

As previously stated in s ection 8.1 , the PBP is the amount of time it takes the c ustomer to recover the higher purchase price of more energy efficient equipment th rough lower operating
costs. Numerically, the PBP is the ratio of the increase in purchase cost to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type of calculation is known as a “simple” payback period because it does not take into account changes in operating cost over time or the time value of money, that is, the calculation is done at an effective discount rate of zero percent.

g DOE realizes the education data in the preliminary analysis is not a robust set of data and will refine the data during the NOPR stage.8- 24 

### The equation for PBP is:

PBP =∆ IC/ ∆O C Eq. 8.10

W here :

PB P

= payback period in years, ∆ IC = difference in the total installed cost between the more efficient standard level and the baseline equipment, and 

## ∆ OC = difference in annual (first year) operating costs.

PBPs greater than the life of the product mean that the increas ed total installed cost of the

more energy efficient equipment is not recovered in reduced operating costs over the life of the equipment, even when no discount rate is applied.

8.3.2 Inputs

The data inputs to PBP are the total installed cost of the equipment to the customer for each efficiency level and the annual (first year) operating costs for each efficiency level

. The inputs to the total installed cost are the customer’s equipment price and the installation cost. The inputs to the operating costs are the an nual energy and water cost s, the annual repair cost, and the annual maintenance cost. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis described in section 8.2 , except that electricity price trends and discount rates are not required because the PBP is a “simple” (undiscounted) payback and the required electricity and water price s are only for the y ear in which a new efficien cy standard is to take effect

— in this case, the year 2016. The electricity price used in the PBP calculation of electricity cost was the price projected for 2016, expressed in 2010$. Discount rates are not used in the PBP calcula tion.

8.4 LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

The results of the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in this section. Mean values of LCC savings and PBP are presented along with a summary of the distribution of these values.

8.4.1 Life

- Cycle Cost Results

Figure 8.4.1 shows the change in LCC over the four efficiency levels for the IMH -ASmall -B equipment class. The LCC values on this chart are mean values obtained from the LCC analysis. This curve is presented here as an example to illustrate the typical relationship between installation cost and LCC values over all the efficiency level s in an equipment class

. The installed costs increase steadily from the b aseline to the highest possible efficiency level and the LCC s decrease from Level 1 to t he highest possible efficiency level

.8- 25 

### Figure 8.4.1 LCC and I nstalled C ost Variation over E fficiency L evels for IMH -A- Small -B E quipment Class

As stated earlier, DOE calculated the LCC savings for a range of building types, WACCs, and geographic locations. Figure 8.4.2 illustrates an example of the ranges of LCC savings for the IMH -A- Small

- B equipment class . Appendix 8B includes s imilar plots of LCC savings for all equipment classes analyzed. Table 8.4.1 presents the numerical values associated with Figure 8.4.2

. Figure 8.4.2 illustrates the mean and median values on the plot using red and blue markers , respectively

. The elongated

, large rectangular box repre sent s the 25 th 

### and 75 th 

### percentile values. The lower edge of the elongated rectangle represents 25 th 

### percentile , which means that 25 percent of the customers would experience LCC savings of $291 or less if the standard were set at Level 2 , $319 or less in LCC savings if the stan dards were set at Level 3, and so on. The m edian value of LCC savings is equal to the 50 th 

### percentile. The upper edge of the elongated rectangle represents the 75 th 

### percentile. The two ends of the vertical black line for each efficiency level represent the 5 th 

### percentile (lower end) and 95 th 

### percentile (upper end). Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Life Cycle Cost $10,437.80 $10,067.13 $9,896.20 $9,752.46

Installed Cost $4,222.26 $4,238.26 $4,260.66 $4,310.26 $- $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 

### IMH

- Air Cooled, Small, Batch: Life Cycle and Installed Costs8- 26 

### Figure 8.4.2 Ranges of LCC Savings for A ll the E fficiency L evels for the E quipment Class IMH -A- Small -B

Table 8.4.1 LCC Savings D istribution R esults for E quipment C lass IMH -A- Small -B Efficiency Level 2 3 4LCC Savings2010$ Mean $372.16 $462.01 $524.15 Median (50th Percentile) $348.07 $460.47 $521.70 5th Percentile $226.31 $126.57 $106.88 25th Percentile $291.39 $318.79 $268.25 75th Percentile $441.73 $599.79 $711.57 95th Percentile $578.60 $828.82 $1,036.61



### Table 8.4.2 and Table 8.4.3 summarize the m ean and median LCC savings , respectively, for all equi pment classes analyzed. $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

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

Efficiency Level

Mean Median `8- 27 

### Table 8.4.2 Mean LCC Savings for All Equipment 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) * 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 shows there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

- Continuous products available, so this class is not currently defined in the models.8- 28 

### Table 8.4.3 Median LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Median LCC Savings 2010$ * Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7
IMH

- W

- Small

- B 226.28 275.43

IMH

- W

- Med

- B 466.08

IMH

- W

- Large

- B 688.76 750.19

IMH

- A

- Small

- B 348.07 460.47 521.70

IMH

- A

- Large

- B 585.86 677.26 853.14
RCU

- Small

- B 640.06 843.71 904.41
RCU

- Large

- B 788.03 1,045.99 1,082.80
SCU

- W

- Small

- B 88.27 133.98 161.54 196.34
SCU

- W

- Large

- B 173.39 373.85 453.34 449.88 329.55 562.37
SCU

- A

- Small

- B 148.38 205.33 307.10 406.73 443.57
SCU

- A

- Large

- B 135.71 210.18 312.52 393.65

IMH

- W

- Small

- C – 369.77 458.61 513.17 690.54

IMH

- W

- Large

- C

– – 267.18 154.46

IMH

- A

- Small

- C 340.61 430.28 314.08 325.66 219.38

IMH

- A

- Large

- C – – 359.31 526.71 802.95 1,030.05
RCU

- Small

- C

– 632.06
RCU

- Large

- C

– 755.36 SCU

- W

- Small

C **
SCU

- W

- Large

- C

– – 123.55 173.92
SCU

- A

- Small

- C – – – SCU

- A

- Large

- C – – – 122.16 168.64 (75.06)
* 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 purcha sing 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 shows there are no existing SCU

- Water

- Small

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



### 8.4.2 Payback Period Results

Figure 8.4.3 presents the distribution of the PBP results for e fficiency l evels above the baseline for the equipment class IMH -A- Small -B. Table 8.4.4 presents the numerical values associated with this plot. The red marker represents the mean and the blue marker represents the median PBP for each efficiency level. The lower edge of the elongated rectangu lar box represents the 25 th 

### percentile , which means that 25 percent of the customers would experience a PBP of 0.27 years o r less if the energy conservation standard were set at Level 2 , 0.43 years or less if the energy conservation standard were set at Level 3, and so on. T he upper edge of the rectangular box represents the 75 th 

### percentile. The two ends of the vertical line represent the 5 th 

### percentile (lower end) and 95 th 

### percentile (upper end). Table 8.4.5 and Table 8.4.6 summarize the

mean and median PBPs , respectively, for all efficiency levels for all the analyzed equipment classes.8- 29 

### Figure 8.4.3 Mean Payback P eriod for A ll E fficiency L evels for the E quipment Class IMH

A- Small -B

Table 8.4.4 Payback P eriod D istribution R esults for IMH -A- Small -B Efficiency Level 2 3 4PaybackPeriodyears Mean 0.33 0.53 0.90 Median (50th Percentile) 0.33 0.52 0.90 5th Percentile 0.22 0.36 0.61 25th Percentile 0.27 0.43 0.74 75th Percentile 0.37 0.60 1.03 95th Percentile 0.45 0.72 1.25

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 `8- 30 

### Table 8.4.5 Mean Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Mean P ayback P eriod
years * Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7
IMH

- W

- Small

- B 1.38 1.17
IMH

- W

- Med

- B 0.59
IMH

- W

- Large

- B 0.20 0.28
IMH

- A

- Small

- B 0.33 0.53 0.90
IMH

- A

- Large

- B 0.24 1.19 1.24
RCU

- Small

- B 0.22 0.54 0.67
RCU

- Large

- B 0.23 0.71 0.83
SCU

- W

- Small

- B 1.15 1.45 1.65 1.85
SCU

- W

- Large

- B 0.63 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.76 SCU

- A

- Small

- B 0.73 1.06 1.15 1.14 1.13
SCU

- A

- Large

- B 1.25 1.20 1.19 1.24
IMH

- W

- Small

- C 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.37
IMH

- W

- Large

- C 0.36 0.37 0.50 1.03
IMH

- A

- Small

- C 0.67 0.74 0.78 0.80 1.71
IMH

- A

- Large

- C 0.40 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.67 0.99
RCU

- Small

- C 0.19 0.63
RCU

- Large

- C 0.17 0.77
SCU

- W

- Small

- C **
SCU

- W

- Large

- C 0.61 0.68 0.69 0.65
SCU

- A

- Small

- C 1.75 1.57 1.45
SCU

- A

- Large

- C ±

- 0.85 1.12 1.35 1.55 3.20 * Blank cells imply there are no associated efficiency levels. ** Data available to DOE shows 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

.8- 31 

### Table 8.4.6 Median Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Median payback period
year s * 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 * Blank cells imply there are no associated efficiency levels. ** Data available to DOE shows 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

.



### 8.4.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

EPCA establ ish es a rebuttable presumption for automatic commercial ice -making equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 631 3(d)(4)) The rebuttable presumption states that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the
customer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the customer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure

. This rebuttable presumption test is an alternative path to establishing economic justification.

To e valuate the rebuttable presumption, DOE estimated the additional cost of purchasing more efficient, standard s-compliant equipment, and compared this cost to the value of the energy saved during the first year of operation of the equipment. DOE interprets t hat the increased cost of purchasing standards-compliant equipment includes the cost of installing the equipment for use by the purchaser. DOE calculated the rebuttable presumption payback period (RPBP), or the ratio of ( a) the increase in installed cost a bove the baseline efficiency level , to ( b) the first year energy cost savings. When RPBP is less than 3 years, the rebuttable presumption is satisfied; when RPBP is equal to or more than 3 years, the rebuttable presumption is not satisfied. This8- 32 

### PBP calcul ation does not include other components of the annual operating cost of the equipment ( i.e. , maintenance costs and repair costs). The RPBPs calculated can thus be different from the PBPs calculated in section 8.4.2

.

DOE calculated the RPBPs for the range of installed costs and energy prices discussed in section s 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 , which are representative of the same seven building types and all 50

s tates plus the District of Columbia

. DOE c alculated the RPBP for each higher efficiency level within each equipment class

.

Table 8.4.7 shows the nationally averaged RPBP s calculated for all equipment classes and efficiency levels.

Table 8.4.7 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Peri ods by Efficiency Level and Equipment Class

Equipment Class Rebuttable Payback Period
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 * Blank cells indicate that there are no associated efficiency levels. ** Data available to DOE shows 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

.



### 8.5 DETAILED RESULTS

Appendix 8B presents detailed results f rom the LCC analysis. Plots similar to Figure 8.4.2 and Figure 8.4.3 are presented in the appendix for all equipment class es. In addition, summary tables with all the necessary data in one table for each equipment class are presented.8- 33 

### Table 8.5.1 is the summary table for IMH -A- Small

- B equipment class

. This table presents the mean values of installed costs, annual operating costs, LCC, LCC savings, and media n 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 range of efficiency choices. In the base case, DOE does not assume that all customers buy equipment at the baseline efficiency ( Level 1). DOE assumes that some are buying at higher efficiency levels. The LCC savings is an average of the savings achieved by custome rs who, in the base case, were buying less efficient equipment than the efficiency level examined. DOE assumed that c ustomers with no impact in the base case

are already buying more efficient equipment, so the efficiency level in question would not affect those customers.

Table 8.5.1 Summary of R esults of LCC and PBP Analysis for IMH -A- Small -B E quipment Class

Efficiency

Level Number Efficiency Level kWh/yr Life

- Cycle Cost, All Customers Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback Period,
y ears 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 5639 4222 6216 10438 0 NA NA NA NA 2 5078 4238 5829 10067 372 0 41 59 0.33 3 4797 4261 5636 9896 462 0 24 76 0.52 4 4516 4310 5442 9752 524 0 8 92 0.908- 34 

### REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 . 2011. Washington D.C. DOE/EIA -0383(2011 ).

2. U.S. Department of Energy– Energy Information Administrati on. Form EIA -861 data from the EIA web page Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price. Last accessed May 10, 2011. www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/index.cfm

3. U. S. Department of Energy —Energy Information Administration. 2011 Annual Energy Outlook . Table 20. Macroeconomic Indicators. 2011. (Last accessed August 30, 2011.) www.eia.gov/forecasts/a eo/topic_macroeconomic.cfm

.

4. U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates 2010 . All Races. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico. (Last accessed May 18, 2011.) http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

.

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

6. U.S. Federal Reserve

. H.15: Selected Interest Rates

. (Last accessed June 27, 2011 )

< www.federalreserve.gov/rele ases/h15/data.htm .>

7. Damodoran Online. Papers and Research

. Equity Risk Premiums (ERP): Determinants, Estimation and Implications – The 2010 Edition. 2010. (Last accessed July 18, 2011.)

< http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/papers.html >

8. Damodoran Online. The Data Page . 2011. (Last accessed July 18, 2011.)

< http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/data.html > The data used herein was the individual company data for the United States.

9. American Water Works Association. 2010 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey . Rep. no. 54005. 2011 ed.

10. RS Means 2011. City Cost Indexes, RJ103 -010 Building Systems . RS Means Construction Publishers & Consultants, Kingston, MA

11. Yahoo Finance. Bonds Center . 2011. (Last accessed September 22, 2011.)

< http://finance.yahoo.com/bonds/composite_bond_rates >