1 |EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyeere.energy.govEnergyConservationStandards:NoticeofProposedRulemakingforAutomaticCommercialIceMakersApril14,2014ApplianceStandardsDepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesOfficeEERE‐2012‐STD‐0037ACIM‐2010‐STD‐0037@ee.doe.gov2Welcome•Introductions(aroundtheroom)•RoleoftheFacilitator•GroundRules–Speakoneatatime.–Sayyournamefortherecord– therewillbeacompletetranscriptofthismeeting.–Beconcise– sharethe“air‐time.”–Keepthefocushere– cellphonesonsilent;limitsidebarconversations.–Webinarparticipantsturnphoneonmute;“raiseyourhand”toberecognizedtospeak.•HousekeepingItems•AgendaReview•OpeningRemarks3Agenda•9:00– 9:20amWelcome,Introductions,OpeningStatements•9:20– 10:15amOverview,Scope,MarketandTechnologyAssessment,ScreeningAnalysis•10:15– 10:30amBreak•10:30– 11:30amEngineeringAnalysis•11:30– 12:00amMarkupAnalysis,EnergyUse,Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis•12:00pm– 1:00pmLunch•1:00am– 1:30pmShipments,NationalImpactAnalysis,RegulatoryImpactAnalysis•1:30– 1:45pmManufacturerImpactAnalysis•1:45– 2:00pmEmissionsAnalysis,UtilityImpactAnalysis,EmploymentAnalysis•2:00– 2:15pmBreak•2:15– 2:45pmProposedStandard•2:45– 3:00pmClosingRemarks4ListeningViatheWebcast•TheDepartmentisbroadcastingthismeetingliveovertheInternet.•DOEisprovidingthewebcasttoaccommodatestakeholderswhoareunabletoattendthepublicmeetinginperson.•Thewebcastallowsstakeholderstolisteninandviewtheslides.•Allstakeholdersareencouragedtosubmitwrittencommentsafterthepublicmeeting.5PurposeofthePublicMeeting•Presenttheproceduralandanalyticalapproachestoevaluateenergyconservationstandardsforautomaticcommercialicemakers(ACIM).•Invitecommentontheenergyconservationstandardsnoticeofproposedrulemaking(NOPR).•Discussnextstepsintherulemaking.•Inviteparticipantstoprovidesummarycommentsorstatementsandraiseadditionalissuesfordiscussion.6IssuesforDiscussion•Issue“boxes”correspondtothelistofissuesforwhichtheDepartmentseekscomments.•ThelistofissuesisintheNOPRdocument,availableat:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE‐2010‐BT‐STD‐0037‐0062.•ThedeadlineforsubmittingcommentsisMay16,2014.Issue Box:DOE welcomes comments, data, and informationconcerning its proposed standards for ACIM equipment. Issuesthat correspond to those raised in DOE’s published materialwill be numbered in accordance with that material. Whetherinvited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on anypart of DOE’s analysis.7HowtoSubmitWrittenCommentsInallcorrespondence,pleaserefertotheACIMrulemakingby:– StandardsforAutomaticCommercialIceMakers– DocketNumberEERE‐2012‐STD‐0037– RegulationIdentificationNumber(RIN)1904‐AC39Email:ACIM‐2010‐STD‐0037@ee.doe.govPostal:CourierMs.BrendaEdwardsMs.BrendaEdwardsU.S.DepartmentofEnergyU.S.DepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgram,BuildingTechnologiesProgramMailstopEE‐2J950L’EnfantPlazaSW,Suite6001000IndependenceAvenue,SWWashington,DC20024Washington,DC20585‐0121Tel:202586‐2945CommentperiodclosesMay16,2014,11:59PMET8OpeningRemarksMeetingparticipantsareinvitedtoprovideopeningremarksorstatementsatthistime.9PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards10RegulatoryHistory•EnergyPolicyandConservationActof1975(EPCA)P.L.94‐163–AmendedbyNationalEnergyConservationPolicyActof1978,P.L.95‐619,toestablishthe“EnergyConservationProgramforCertainIndustrialEquipment.”•EnergyPolicyActof2005(EPACT)P.L.109‐58–AmendedEPCAtoaddcoverageforcubetypeautomaticcommercialicemakersbetween50and2,500poundsoficeper24hours.–GrantedDOEauthoritytosetstandardsforadditionaltypesofACIMequipmentthatarenotcoveredinEPCA(includesflakeandnuggeticemakersandbatchtypeicemakersnotincludedintheoriginalEPCAdefinition).–RequiredDOEtocompleteonerulemakingcycletodeterminewhethertofurtheramendACIMstandards.–FinalrulerequirednolaterthanJanuary1,2015.11DefinitionofCoveredProducts•EPACTdefinesautomaticcommercialicemakersasfollows:Theterm“automaticcommercialicemaker”meansafactory‐madeassembly(notnecessarilyshippedinonepackage)that—(A)consistsofacondensingunitandice‐makingsectionoperatingasanintegratedunit,withmeansformakingandharvestingice;and(B)mayincludemeansforstoringice,dispensingice,orstoringanddispensingice.12DOETestProcedure•PursuanttoEPCA,onDecember8,2006,DOEpublishedafinalrulethatadoptedarevisedmethodforcalculatingenergyusebasedontheexistingARIandASHRAEstandards.•DOEpublishedatestprocedurefinalruleonJanuary11,2012.77FRat1591.–ThetestprocedurebecamemandatoryforallACIMtestingstartingJanuary7,2013.–Thetestprocedureincludedthefollowingrevisions:•UpdatedtheindustrytestprocedurereferencestoAHRI810‐2007andANSI/ASHRAE29‐2009.•Expandedthescopeofthetestproceduretoincludeequipmentwithcapacitiesfrom50to4,000lboficeper24hours.•Providedtestmethodsforcontinuoustypeicemakers.13RulemakingProcessOverview•Neworamendedstandardsmustbedesignedtoachievethemaximumimprovementinenergyefficiencythatistechnologicallyfeasibleandeconomicallyjustified. (42U.S.C.6295(o)(2)(A))•DOEperformsthefollowinganalysestodeterminetechnologicalfeasibility:EPCARequirement Corresponding DOEAnalysesTechnologicalFeasibilityMarketandTechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysis14RulemakingProcessOverview•42U.S.C.6295(o)(2)(B)(i)directsDOEtoconsidersevenfactorswhensettingenergyconservationstandards:EPCA Factor DOE Analysis1. Economic impact on consumers andmanufacturers• Life-cycle cost analysis• Manufacturer impact analysis2. Lifetime operating cost savings • Life-cycle cost analysis3. Total projected energy savings • National impact analysis4. Impact on utility or performance• Engineering analysis• Screening analysis5. Impact of any lessening of competition • Manufacturer impact analysis6. Need for national energy conservation • National impact analysis7. Other factors the Secretary considersrelevant• Emissions analysis• Utility impact analysis• Employment impact analysis15EnergyConservationStandards‐RulemakingTimeline2010ECS FrameworkDocument PublicMeetingDecember 16, 2010ECS PreliminaryAnalysisPublic MeetingFebruary 16, 2012ECS NOPRPublic MeetingApril 14, 2014201220152016Proposed EnergyConservationStandard FinalRule EffectiveDateTo Be DeterminedTP NOPRPublic MeetingApril 29, 2011201116PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards17NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR18MarketAssessment•Method–CharacterizetheACIMindustryandmarket.–Gatherhistoricalshipmentsandotherrelevantdata.–Determineappropriateequipmentclasses.–Identifytechnologyoptionsforimprovingefficiency.•Adetaileddescriptionofmethodologyandresultsiscontainedinchapter3oftheNOPRtechnicalsupportdocument(TSD).19EquipmentClasses•EPCA,asamendedbyEPACT2005,prescribedstandardsfor13coveredclassesforicemakers.(42U.S.C.6313(d)(1))–Thesestandardscoveredcubetypemakers.–Thesestandardscoveredcapacitiesfrom50to2,500lb/24hr.•InthisNOPR,DOEisconsidering25coveredclasses.–Theproposedstandardscoverbothbatchandcontinuousicemakers.–Theproposedstandardscovercapacitiesfrom50to4,000lb/24hr.•Thetestprocedurefinalruleestablishednewdefinitionsandtestproceduresforbatchandcontinuousicemakertypes.77FR1591(Jan.11,2012).From10CFR431.132:Batchicemaker– anicemakerhavingalternatefreezingandharvestingperiodsContinuousicemaker– anicemakerthatcontinuallyfreezesandharvestsiceatthesametime20ProposedEquipmentClasses(BatchType)EquipmentTypeTypeofCoolingHarvestCapacityRatelb/24hrTypeofIceMakerEquipmentClassNomenclatureIce‐MakingHead(IMH)Water≥50and<500 Batch IMH‐W‐Small‐B≥500and<1,436 Batch IMH‐W‐Medium‐B≥1,436and≤4,000 Batch IMH‐W‐Large‐B1Air≥50and<450 Batch IMH‐A‐Small‐B≥450and<875 Batch IMH‐A‐Large‐B≥875and<2,210 BatchIMH‐A‐Extended‐B≥2,210and<2,500 BatchIMH‐A‐Extended‐B≥2,500and≤4,000 BatchIMH‐A‐Extended‐BRemoteCondensing(RCU)(butnotremotecompressor)Air≥50and<1,000 Batch RCU‐NRC‐Small‐B≥1,000and≤4,000 Batch RCU‐NRC‐Large‐BRemoteCondensing(RCU)andRemoteCompressorAir≥50and<934 Batch RCU‐RC‐Small‐B≥934and≤4,000 Batch RCU‐RC‐Large‐BSelf‐ContainedUnit(SCU)Water≥50and<200 Batch SCU‐W‐Small‐B≥200and≤4,000 Batch SCU‐W‐Large‐BAir≥50and<175 Batch SCU‐A‐Small‐B≥175and≤4,000 Batch SCU‐A‐Large‐BDOE’sproposedbatchequipmentclassesincludesnewIMH‐A‐Bequipmentclassestocreateaconstantefficiencylevelatthehighestcapacities,whileconformingtoEPCAanti‐backslidingprovisions.21ProposedEquipmentClasses(ContinuousType)EquipmentTypeTypeofCoolingHarvestCapacityRatelb/24hrTypeofIceMakerEquipmentClassNomenclatureIce‐MakingHead(IMH)Water≥50and<900 Continuous IMH‐W‐Small‐C≥900and≤4,000 Continuous IMH‐W‐Large‐CAir≥50and<700 Continuous IMH‐A‐Small‐C≥700and≤4,000 Continuous IMH‐A‐Large‐CRemoteCondensing(RCU)(butnotremotecompressor)Air≥50and<850 Continuous RCU‐NRC‐Small‐C≥850and≤4,000 Continuous RCU‐NRC‐Large‐CRemoteCondensing(RCU)andRemoteCompressorAir≥50and<850 Continuous RCU‐RC‐Small‐C≥850and≤4,000 Continuous RCU‐RC‐Large‐CSelf‐ContainedUnit(SCU)Water≥50and<900 Continuous SCU‐W‐Small‐C≥900and≤4,000 Continuous SCU‐W‐Large‐CAir≥50and<700 Continuous SCU‐A‐Small‐C≥700and≤4,000 Continuous SCU‐A‐Large‐CForwater‐cooledequipmentsubjecttomaximumcondenserwaterusestandards,DOE’sproposalwouldadoptaconstantmaximumwaterconsumptionforwatercooledicemakerswithharvestcapacityrategreaterthan2,500lb/24hr.Thiswouldcreateadditionalcapacity‐range‐definedequipmentclasses.22ACIMDatabaseUpdates•DuringtheNOPRanalysis,DOEupdateditsACIMdatabasewithnewdatafrom:–Manufacturerwebsites–TheAHRIdirectory(includingnewicehardnessdata)–Otherregulatoryprograms•DOEupdatedthemax‐availableproductlevelsbasedonthisnewinformation:–Batchequipmentclasses:Insomecases,themaximumavailableequipmentusedtechnologiesthatDOEscreenedoutofitsanalysis.–Continuousequipmentclasses:IntheNOPRanalysis,DOEconsideredonlyproductratingswithaccompanyingicehardnessdata.23BaselineEfficiencyLevelsEquipmentTypeTypeofCoolingHarvestCapacityRatelb/24hrNOPR BaselineEnergyUsekWh/100lbice*Ice‐MakingHeadWaterSmall(<900) 8.1–0.00333HLarge(≥900) 5.1AirSmall(<700) 11.0–0.00629HLarge(≥700) 6.6RemoteCondensingAirSmall(<850) 10.2–0.00459HLarge(≥850) 6.1Self‐ContainedUnitWaterSmall(<900) 9.1–0.00333HLarge(≥900) 6.1AirSmall(<700) 11.5–0.00629HLarge(≥700) 7.1*H=Harvestcapacityinlb/24hours.•Forbatchicemakerequipmentclasses,DOEusedthecurrentstandardlevelasthebaselineefficiencylevel(extendedto4,000lb/24hr).•Forcontinuousicemakerequipmentclasses,DOEreconsideredthebaselineefficiencylevelsbasedontheNOPRdatacollectionandthepublishedAHRIDirectorydataforcontinuousunits.24BaselineEfficiencyLevelsforContinuousIceMakersSCU‐A‐CUnitsIMH‐A‐CUnits•DOEfittedtheNOPRbaselinelevelsascloselytothemarketaspossible.25TechnologyAssessment•DOEidentifiedtechnologyoptionsfrom:–Literaturereview–Manufacturerbrochuresandspecificationsheetsfromcommerciallyavailableequipment–Commentsandinputfromstakeholders–Manufacturerinterviews•DOEcollectedupdatedinformationontechnologyoptioncostsandpotentialefficiencyimpactsduringtheNOPRphase.•DOEconsideredalternativerefrigerants,butdidnotfindanyacceptablealternativesthathavebeenapprovedbytheEPA’sSignificantNewAlternativesProgram(SNAP).•Chapter3oftheNOPRTSDcontainsadetaileddescriptionoftheidentifiedtechnologies.26TechnologyAssessment•DOEidentifiedthefollowingtechnologyoptionsforicemakers:TechnologyOptionsBatchIceMakersContinuousIceMakersNotesCompressorImprovedcompressorefficiency√ √Part‐loadoperation√ √CondenserIncreasedsurfacearea√√Enhancedfinsurfaces√ √Air‐cooledonlyIncreasedairflow√ √Air‐cooledonlyIncreasedwaterflow√ √Water‐cooledonlyBrazedplatecondenser√ √Water‐cooledonlyMicrochannel condenser√ √Air‐cooledonlyFansandFanMotorHigherefficiencycondenserfansandfanmotors√ √Air‐cooledonlyOtherMotorsImprovedaugermotorefficiency√Improvedpumpmotorefficiency√Controls SmartTechnologies√ √EvaporatorIncreasedsurfacearea√ √Designoptionswhichreduceenergylossduetoevaporatorthermalcycling√Designoptionswhichreduceharvestmeltageorreduceharvesttime√Insulation Improvedorthickerinsulation√ √RefrigerationLine Largerdiametersuctionline√ √PrimarilyremotecompressorequipmentPotableWaterReducedpotablewaterflow√Drainwaterthermalexchange√27ScreeningAnalysis•DOEscreenedouttechnologyoptionsbasedonfailuretomeetfourcriteria:–Technologicalfeasibility–Practicabilitytomanufacture,install,andservice–Impactsonequipmentutilityorequipmentavailability–Adverseimpactsonhealthorsafety•DOEdidnotconsidertechnologieswithoutenergysavingsorwereproprietarytechnology.•Chapter4 oftheNOPRTSDcontainsdescriptionsofwhycertaintechnologieswerescreenedout.28ScreeningAnalysisItem 4:DOE requests comment on the screening analysisand, specifically, the designoptions DOE screened out of therulemaking analysis. Further details are available in chapter 4of the NOPR TSD.•DOEincorporatedthefollowingtechnologyoptionsintotheengineeringanalysis:TechnologyOptionsBatchIceMakersContinuousIceMakersNotesCompressor Improvedcompressorefficiency√ √CondenserIncreasedsurfacearea√√Increasedwaterflow*√ √Water‐cooledonlyFansandFanMotorHigherefficiencycondenserfanmotors√ √Air‐cooledonlyOtherMotorsImprovedaugermotorefficiency√Improvedpumpmotorefficiency√Evaporator Increasedsurfacearea√ √PotableWaterReducedpotablewaterflow√Drainwaterthermalexchange√* DOE determined that this design option wasnot cost-effective in the engineering analysis.29PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards30NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR31EngineeringAnalysisPurpose•Characterizemanufacturerproductioncostversusefficiencyforhigher‐efficiencyACIMequipment.DownstreamAnalysis• Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis• NationalImpactAnalysis• ManufacturerImpactAnalysisManufacturerProductionCost–EfficiencyRelationship

Manufacturer Production CostEfficiencyLevel32EngineeringDataCollection•FortheNOPRanalysis,DOEconductedtestingandreverse‐engineeringon22additionalmodels(41totalforallanalyses).–Themodelswereselectedtoallowdevelopmentofengineeringanalysisusingtheefficiency‐levelapproach.–DOE’sselectedmodelsrepresentedbaselineandmaximumavailableefficiencyforkeyequipmentclasseswithdesignsnotusingproprietarytechnology.–Thenewmodelsextendedrepresentationtoequipmentclassesnotanalyzedduringthepreliminaryanalyses.•DOEconductedadditionaltestsonthreeofthesemodelstoinformtheanalysis:–Energyuseversuscondenserwateruse–Energysavingsofacommerciallyavailabledrainwaterheatexchanger33PurchasedUnitsfortheEngineeringAnalysisEquipmentClassNomenclaturePurchasedForPreliminaryAnalysis(NumberofEnergyTests)PurchasedforNOPRAnalysis(EnergyTests onAllUnits)IMH‐W‐Small‐B 03IMH‐W‐Medium‐B 02IMH‐W‐Large‐B2(1)0IMH‐A‐Small‐B2(2) 1IMH‐A‐Large‐B4(1) 1RCU‐***‐Small‐B 02RCU‐***‐Large‐B3(1) 1SCU‐W‐Small‐B0 0SCU‐W‐Large‐B1(1)0SCU‐A‐Small‐B2(1) 1SCU‐A‐Large‐B 02IMH‐W‐Small‐C 01IMH‐W‐Large‐C0 0IMH‐A‐Small‐C3(1)0IMH‐A‐Large‐C 02RCU‐***‐Small‐C 02RCU‐***‐Large‐C1(1) 0SCU‐W‐Small‐C 01SCU‐W‐Large‐C0 0SCU‐A‐Small‐C 01SCU‐A‐Large‐C1(1)0TOTAL 19(10) 22(22)34EngineeringAnalysis•DOE’spreliminaryengineeringanalysisusedadesign‐optionapproachbasedonanenergy‐usemodeldevelopedfortherulemakingandcostanalysisbasedonreverseengineering.•DOEconsideredalternativeapproachesfortheNOPRengineeringanalysis:–Revisionofthepreliminaryengineeringanalysistoaccountforissuesraisedbystakeholders.–Efficiency‐levelanalysisbasedonperformanceratings,testresults,andmanufacturingcostanalysisbasedonreverse‐engineering.–Developmentofthecost‐efficiencyrelationshipbasedonretailpricesandenergyefficiencyratings.•DOEconcludedthatthereviseddesignoptionanalysiswastheonlyviableapproachtodevelopingmeaningfulresults.35SummaryofAlternativeEngineeringApproaches•DOEinvestigatedanefficiency‐level(empirical)analysisapproachbasedontestingandreverseengineering.–DOEstudied9differentequipmentclassesusingthismethod.–Akeyissuewiththisapproachwashowtodistinguishbetweencostimpactsassociatedwithharvestcapacityasopposedtoefficiency.–Forseveraloftheequipmentclasses,theanalysisindicatedthathigher‐efficiencymodelscostlessthanbaselinemodels.•DOEalsoinvestigatedaretailcostanalysisbasedonenergyefficiencyratingsandlistprices.–DOEcollectedenergyandpricedatafor470models.–Theanalysisshowednosignificanttrendinpriceversusincreasedenergyefficiency.36•ThepreliminaryanalysisapproachwasadjustedintheNOPRphaseinresponsetotestingandfeedback.•Adjustmentstotheenergy‐modelincluded:–Adjustmentstoaccountforhigherharvestenergyuseforlowercondensingtemperatures–Adjustmentstothecompressorcoefficientmodelparameterstocalibratewithtestresults–Adjustmentstocomponentenergyusebasedonenergytesting•DOEalsomadecostadjustmentsbasedondiscussionswithmanufacturersandcomponentmanufacturers.SummaryoftheNOPRDesignOptionApproach37FlowDiagramEnergy TestingManufacturerInterviewsReverseEngineeringVendor InterviewsManufacturing CostModelsIncremental CostEstimatesCost-EfficiencyCurvesEnergy ModelsEnergy ModelDevelopment38DesignOptionsConsideredintheEngineeringAnalysisDesignOption Air‐Cooled? Water‐Cooled? Batch‐Type? Continuous‐Type?CompressorEfficiency√√√√Increased CondSurfaceArea√√√√Increase CondWaterFlow**√√√HigherEfficiencyCondMotors√ √√HigherEfficiencyPumpMotors√√√HigherEfficiencyAugerMotors√√ √IncreasedEvapSurface*√√√√BatchWaterFill√√√DrainWaterHeatExchanger*√√√* Not considered in the preliminary analysis** Analysis showed this option was not cost-effective39DesignOptionNotes•DrainWaterHeatExchangers–DOEbasedtheefficiencyincreaseduetodrainwaterheatexchangersontestingoficemakerswithacommercialmodelinstalled.•IncreasedCondenserWaterFlow–DOEperformedanLCCanalysisofthecombinedwaterandenergycosts,basedontestresultsatdifferentcondenserwaterflows,anddeterminedthatincreasingcondenserwaterflowisnotcosteffective.1•IncreasedWater‐CooledCondenserSurfaceArea–DOEusedincreasesincondensersurfaceareainsteadofincreasesincondenserwaterflow,aslongasthespaceintheicemakerallowedforcondensergrowth.•ChassisSizeIncreases–DOEusedchassissizeincreasesincaseswheretherepresentativebaselinehadroomtogrowrelativetocommerciallyavailableunitsofhighefficiencythatdon’tuseproprietarytechnology.1Analysisbasedonnational averagesforwaterandelectricitycostsanda50/50splitinonce‐throughandcoolingtowerinstallations.40DesignOptionNotes•HeatExchangerSizeIncreases–DOEbasedtheheatexchangersizeincreasesonthesizedifferencesseenintheinspectionsofthebaselineandhigh‐efficiencyunits,aspermittedbythespaceavailableinthechassis.•CompressorsEfficiencyImprovements–DOEbasedcompressorefficiencyimprovementsonthecurrentoptionsforcompressorsavailablefromcomponentmanufacturers.DOElimitedtheanalyzedcompressorlevelstocompressorsthatmanufacturersidentifiedasacceptableforuseinicemakers.•MotorEfficiencyImprovements–Motorefficiencyimprovementswerebasedonreductionstothepowerinputfromthebaselinemotor.DOEperformedmeasurementsofmotorinputpowerofbaselinemotorsintestedicemakers,andmadeadjustmentstotheanalysisbasedontheefficienciesofavailablemotortypes.41EngineeringAnalysis:DesignOptionsItem 18:DOE requests comment and data on the efficiencygains associated with each set of design options.Item 14:DOE requests comment and data on any utilityimpacts associated with each set of design options, such aspotential ice-style changes.42EfficiencyLevelsforBatchMachinesDesignation*Harvest CapacityRangelb/dayEL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 Max. TechMax.Available*IMH-W-Small-B< 500 10% 15% 20% 25% 29%22%IMH-W-Med-B≥500 and < 1,436 10% 15% 20% 21%16%IMH-W-Large-B≥1,436 10% 15% 17%8%IMH-A-Small-B< 450 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31%24%IMH-A-Large-B≥450 and < 1,600 10% 15% 20% 25% 29%21%IMH-A-Extended-B**≥1,600 10% 15% 20% 20%17%**RCU-***-Small-B< 1,000 / < 934 9% 15% 20% 21%25%RCU-***-Large-B≥1,000 /≥934 9% 15% 20% 21%16%SCU-W-Small-B< 200Not Analyzed22%SCU-W-Large-B≥200 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 30%28%SCU-A-Small-B< 175 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 39%27%SCU-A-Large-B≥175 7% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%30%* Max-available, not considering units with proprietary technology or tube ice configurations.** Max-available is based on the max-available unit greater than 1,200 lb/24 hr that does not use a tube-ice configuration orproprietarytechnology.43EfficiencyLevelsforContinuousMachinesDesignation*Harvest CapacityRangelb/dayEL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6Max.TechMax.Available*IMH-W-Small-C< 900Not Analyzed17%IMH-W-Large-C≥900Not Analyzed12%IMH-A-Small-C< 700 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31%25%IMH-A-Large-C≥700 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 30%17%RCU-Small-C< 850Not Analyzed18%RCU-Large-C≥850Not Analyzed19%SCU-W-Small-C< 900Not Analyzed34%SCU-W-Large-C≥900Not AnalyzedNone**SCU-A-Small-C< 700 7% 15% 20% 25% 28%24%SCU-A-Large-C≥700Not AnalyzedNone***Max-available based on units in theAHRI directory (as of 11-16-2012) with a rated ice hardness factor.** DOE was unable to find any products onthe market in this proposed equipment class, as of 11-16-2012.44Cost‐EfficiencyResults– BatchIceMakersEquipmentClassMax AvailableRepresentativeHarvestCapacitylb/24 hrEL2*EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6Max TechLevel CostIMH-W-***-B 10% 15% 20% 25%30%Small25% 300$20 $37 $72 $13629% $370Medium16% 850$26 $53 $27921% $288Large8% 1,500$46 $35917% $4028% 2,600$64 $52015% $524IMH-A-***-B 10% 15% 20% 25%30%Small24% 300$26 $45 $64$86 $31631% $324Large21%800$24 $39 $78$12129% $35617%1,500$35 $118$42920% $429RCU-***-***-B 9% 15% 20% 25%30%Small25% 700Not Directly AnalyzedLarge15% 1,500$28 $76 $38621% $40716% 2,400$89 $198 $70121% $719SCU-W-***-B 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small22% 110Not Directly AnalyzedLarge28% 300$30 $48 $62 $88 $30430% $305SCU-A-***-B 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small27% 110$14 $32 $44 $56$9039% $340Large26% 200$19 $40 $68 $79$11835% $333* EL = efficiency level; EL1 is thebaseline efficiency level while EL2 throughEL6 represent increased efficiency levels.45Cost‐EfficiencyResults– ContinuousIceMakersEquipment ClassMaxAvailableRepresentativeHarvest Capacitylb/24 hrEL2**EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6Max TechLevel CostIMH-W-***-C 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small 17% 800Not Directly AnalyzedLarge12% 1,000Not Directly Analyzed9%1,800Not Directly AnalyzedIMH-A-***-C10% 15% 20%25% 30%Small 25% 310 $26 $39 $57 $190 $495 31% $525Large17% 820 $30 $46 $61 $98 $500 30% $5018% 1,800Not Directly AnalyzedRCU-***-***-C 7% 17% 22% 26% 30%Small18% 700Not Directly AnalyzedLarge18% 1,500Not Directly AnalyzedSCU-W-***-C 3% 10% 16%20% 25%Small23% 300Not Directly AnalyzedLargeNA*Not Directly AnalyzedSCU-A-***-C 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%Small 24% 110 $10 $28$45 $36228% $372Large NA*Not Directly Analyzed* DOE was unable to find any products on the market in this proposed equipment class, as of 11-16-2012.** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the baseline efficiency level while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.46PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards47NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR48DOEappliesmarkupstoequipmentmanufacturersellingprice(MSP)todeterminethecustomerpurchasepriceofanalyzedequipment.•DOEusedbaselinemarkups,appliedtotheMSPinthebasecase,andincrementalmarkups,appliedtotheincrementaldifferenceinMSPineachstandardscase.•DOEusedstatelevelsalestaxvaluesintheLCCanalysisanda7.2percentnationalaveragesalestaxrateintheNIA.•DOEusedtwodistributionchains:2‐partyand3‐party.•DOEdidnotuseamanufacturer‐directchain.MarkupAnalysis49WholesalerDealer(IncludesWholesaler)NationalAccountOverall WeightedAverage Markup, AllACIM EquipmentDistributionChannelMarkup1.36/1.102.00/1.31NA/NA1.76/1.23Markup(Incl. Sales Tax)1.45/1.182.14/1.40NA/NA1.88/1.32Weighted-Average Markups (Baseline/ Incremental)MarkupAnalysis50•PresentedindetailinTSDchapter6.Item 6:DOE welcomes comment on the assumptions andvalues used for the markups analysis.MarkupAnalysis51NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR52•DOEengineeringanalysisbasedontestprocedureincombinationwithenergyconsumptionmodelpresentedintheengineeringdiscussion.•Engineeringanalysisestimatesenergyandwaterusageper100lb/24hr.•LCCandNIAmodelsrequirekilowatt‐hourusageandgallonsofwaterusedperyear.•DOEassumedtheequipmentrunsat50percentofcapacity(orhalfofthetime).•DOEassumedcondenserwaterisusedinsingle‐pass(openloop)installations.•DOEassumedastandbypowerdrawof5wattsduringperiodswhenmachinesarenotmakingice.EnergyUseAnalysis53Item 2:DOE welcomes input on the assumptions underlying theenergy and water usage calculations.•PresentedindetailinTSDchapter7.EnergyUseAnalysis54PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards55NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR56Purpose•Estimatelife‐cyclecost(LCC)savingsandpaybackperiod(PBP)forhigher‐efficiencyequipmentcomparedtothebaseline.Methodology•UsedMonteCarlosimulationtoestimatethelife‐cyclecostsforapopulation(10,000trials),implementedinanExcelspreadsheetusingCrystalBall.•LCC:Equipment‐installedpricepluslifetimeoperatingcosts.•LCCsavings:Base‐caseLCCminusstandards‐caseLCC.•PBP:Equipment‐incrementalinstalledpricedividedbyfirst‐yearoperatingcostsavings.•LCCisdiscounted;PBPisnotdiscounted(“simple”PBP).Life‐CycleCost&PaybackPeriodAnalysis57LCCandPBPAnalysis:AnalysisFlowchartBaselineManufacturerSelling PriceStd-LevelManufacturerSelling PriceDistributorMarkupContractorMarkupSalesTaxEnergy andWaterConsumptionElectricity andWater PricesFromEngineeringAnalysis(Price is aFunction ofEfficiency)From Markupsfor EquipmentPriceDeterminationAnalysisFrom EnergyUse AnalysisInstallationCostCustomerPriceTotal InstalledCostRepairCostMaintenanceCostAnnual Energyand Water CostLifetimeDiscountRatesAnnualOperatingExpenseElectricity andWater PriceTrendsPaybackPeriodLife-CycleCostLifetimeOperatingExpenseData InputsIntermediate AnalysisOutput ResultsEquipment PriceTrends58•InstallationCosts–BasedonconversationswithinstallingvendorsandRSMeansdata.–Variedmainlybysizeofmachinewithsmallmachinessetat$300andverylargemachinessetat$1,500.–VariedbystatebasedonanindexdevelopedusingRSMeansdata.•AnnualRepairCosts–Estimatedbasedoncomponentsinstalledintheequipment,andthatwouldberepairedintheeventofcomponentfailure(ratherthansimplyreplacingthemachine).–Variedbyequipmentclassandefficiencylevels.•AnnualMaintenanceCosts–BasedonconversationswithinstallingvendorsandRSMeansdata.–Rangedfromalowof$400toahighof$1,050.–Variedbyequipmentclass;didnotincreasewithefficiencylevels.LCCInputs59ElectricityandWaterPrices•Baseyear(2012)electricitypricesbasedonEnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)Form826data‐specifictostateandsector.•GrowthratesbasedonEIA’s2013AnnualEnergyOutlook(AEO2013).•EnergypricesextendedtobuildingtypeusingCommercialBuildingEnergyConsumptionSurveydata.•CurrentwaterandwastewaterpricesbasedonAmericanWaterWorksAssociationratesurvey.•Waterandwastewaterpricegrowthbasedonconsumerpriceindexforwaterutilitycosts.60•ExperientiallearningwasintroducedtocapturehistoricallyobserveddecreasesinMSP.•FortheLCCandPBPanalysis,MSPwasadjustedfromthecurrentyeartotheyearwhenthestandardstakeeffect(approximately0.38percentdecline,totalfortheinterveningperiod).Experiential(Price)Learning61DiscountRates•Basedonweightedaveragecostofcapital.•Differentratesbyestablishmenttype:Lodging,HealthCare,FoodSales,Foodservice,Retail,Education,andOffice.EquipmentLifetime•Lifetime‐averagelifetimeof8.5yearsusedforallequipment.•Modeledasadistribution,from4to12years,averaging8.5yearsthroughtheprobabilityofselection.Documentation•InputsandanalysespresentedindetailinTSDchapter8.OtherInputs62•UsedMonteCarloanalysestovarykeyinputs:–Installationcosts–Markups–Electricitycosts–Discountrate–Equipmentlifetimes–Base‐caseefficiencyleveldistributionUncertaintiesinInputValues63Item 8:DOE welcomes stakeholder input and additionalinformation to improve these estimates of installation costs.Item 7:DOE welcomes further input on the average equipmentlifetimes for the LCC analysis and NIA.Item 20:DOE welcomes stakeholder input and additionalinformation to improve these estimates of maintenance andrepair costs.LCCInputValues64•ForACIM,DOEpresents5compositetrialstandardlevels(TSLs):-TSL5:Themax‐techefficiencylevel-TSL4:Intermediatelevelbetweenthemax‐techlevelandthemaximumcustomerNPVlevel,subjecttotherequirementthattheTSL4NPVat7%mustbepositive-TSL3:HighestNPVpossibleata7%discountrate-TSL2:IntermediatelevelbetweenTSL3andTSL1-TSL1:2012ENERGYSTARlevelforeachcoveredbatchequipmentclass,andsimilarlevelssetfornon‐coveredequipment(7‐10%)•ThebaselineefficiencylevelwouldbeTSL0.TrialStandardLevels65Equipment ClassStandard Level2012$*TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5IMH-W-Small-B$199 $215 $328 $328 $49IMH-W-Med-B$464 $464 $587 $405 $460IMH-W-Large-B$833 $833 $833 $550 $582IMH-W-Large-B-1$701 $701 $701 $583 $607IMH-W-Large-B-2$1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $442 $500IMH-A-Small-B$254 $259 $396 $170 $198IMH-A-Large-B$648 $633 $1,127 $994 $994IMH-A-Large-B-1$590 $572 $1,168 $1,062 $1,062IMH-A-Large-B-2$960 $960 $908 $627 $627RCU-***-Large-B$875 $875 $983 $870 $897RCU-***-Large-B-1$847 $847 $963 $857 $882RCU-***-Large-B-2$1,298 $1,298 $1,277 $1,070 $1,123SCU-W-Large-B$483 $687 $694 $143 $149SCU-A-Small-B$103 $198 $396 $106 $106SCU-A-Large-B$140 $522 $502 $240 $240IMH-A-Small-C$315 $314 $391 $307 ($237)IMH-A-Large-C$660 $744 $1,026 $524 $500SCU-A-Small-C$93 $140 $146 $146 ($441)* LCC savings for IMH-W-Large-B, IMH-A-Large-B, and RCU-***-Large-B are weighted averages ofthe two sub-equipment class level typical units.SummaryofLCCSavingsbyEquipmentClass66Equipment ClassStandard Level*yearsTSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5IMH-W-Small-B 1.07 1.26 2.27 2.27 5.42IMH-W-Med-B 0.63 0.63 0.85 3.33 3.22IMH-W-Large-B 0.69 0.69 0.69 3.59 3.60IMH-W-Large-B-1 0.72 0.72 0.72 3.75 3.77IMH-W-Large-B-2 0.58 0.58 0.58 3.10 3.02IMH-A-Small-B 1.07 1.22 1.42 4.32 4.24IMH-A-Large-B 0.46 0.49 0.84 2.16 2.16IMH-A-Large-B-1 0.46 0.50 0.82 2.08 2.08IMH-A-Large-B-2 0.42 0.42 0.94 2.58 2.58RCU-***-Large-B 0.41 0.41 0.65 2.39 2.44RCU-***-Large-B-1 0.38 0.38 0.62 2.37 2.42RCU-***-Large-B-2 0.75 0.75 1.00 2.70 2.70SCU-W-Large-B 0.67 0.76 1.00 3.01 3.00SCU-A-Small-B 1.40 1.52 1.56 4.79 4.79SCU-A-Large-B 1.37 1.17 1.49 3.72 3.72IMH-A-Small-C 0.90 0.90 0.97 2.59 6.83IMH-A-Large-C 0.52 0.53 0.69 3.25 3.24SCU-A-Small-C 1.13 1.53 1.85 1.85 19.12* PBP results for IMH-W-Large-B, IMH-A-Large-B, andRCU-***-Large-B are shown separately for the two subequipment class level typical units. The class-level results are weighted averages of the typical units.SummaryofPaybackPeriodsbyEquipmentClass67Life‐CycleCostSubgroupAnalysis•ThecustomersubgroupanalysisevaluatesimpactsonidentifiablegroupsofcustomersofACIMequipmentwhomaybedisproportionatelyaffectedbyamendedstandards.•DOEexaminedsmallfoodserviceandlodgingbusinesses.Foodserviceexperiencehigherelectricitypricesandhighercapitalcoststhanthenationalaverage.Lodgingfacedthehighestcapitalcostsofthebusinessesstudied.•DOEfoundthedifferenceinLCCsavingsbetweenthenationalaverageandthefoodservicesubgroupistypicallyafewpercent,whilethelodgingsubgroupLCCsavingswere9to13percentlowerforTSLs1– 3.Theproposedstandardremainscost‐effectiveforbothsubgroups.•DocumentedinTSDchapter11.68PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview6ShipmentsAnalysis,NIA,RIA,andMIA3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis2MarketandTechnologyAssessment7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards69NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR70Purpose• EstimatefuturestockandshipmentsofACIMequipmentbyequipmentclass.• Estimateefficiencymixofstockoverthe30yearanalysisperiod.Methodology•DOEestimatedhistoricalshipmentsdatafortheyear2010using:–Shipmentsfor2010submittedbyAHRIforthisrulemaking–U.S.CensusBureauCurrentIndustrialReports–NorthAmericanAssociationofFoodEquipmentManufacturers(NAFEM)2010report•FutureshipmentsarebasedonhistoricalshipmentsandgrowthratesarebasedoncommercialfloorspaceconstructionforecastfromAEO2013.Documentation•Detailsoftheshipmentanalysiscanbefoundinchapter9oftheTSD.Shipments:BackgroundandDataSources71Percentageofshipments,byequipmentclasses,basedonratiosdevelopedfrom2010AHRIshipmentsdata:EquipmentClassPercentageofShipmentsEquipmentClassPercentageofShipmentsIMH‐W‐Small‐B 4.54% SCU‐W‐Large‐B 0.22%IMH‐W‐Med‐B 2.90% SCU‐A‐Small‐B 13.85%IMH‐W‐Large‐B 0.00% SCU‐A‐Large‐B 6.56%IMH‐W‐Large‐B1 0.37% IMH‐W‐Small‐C 0.68%IMH‐W‐Large‐B2 0.11% IMH‐W‐Large‐C 0.17%IMH‐A‐Small‐B 27.08% IMH‐A‐Small‐C 3.53%IMH‐A‐Large‐B 0.00% IMH‐A‐Large‐C 1.07%IMH‐A‐Large‐B‐1 13.61% RCU‐Small‐C 0.83%IMH‐A‐Large‐B‐2 2.53% RCU‐Large‐C 0.87%RCU‐Small‐B 5.43% SCU‐W‐Small‐C 0.15%RCU‐Large‐B 0.00% SCU‐W‐Large‐C 0.00%RCU‐Large‐B‐1 5.80% SCU‐A‐Small‐C 8.75%RCU‐Large‐B‐2 0.27% SCU‐A‐Large‐C 0.00%SCU‐W‐Small‐B 0.68% Total 100.00%Shipments:BreakdownbyEquipmentClass72Shipments:AnnualShipmentsforSelectedYears•Totalcumulativeshipmentsof6,677,548throughouttheanalysisperiod.•Totalstockin2018wasestimatedas1.44millionunits.‐50,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,0002018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2047NewReplacements73NationalImpactAnalysis(NIA)Purpose• Toassesstheimpactsatthenationallevelateachefficiencylevelasmeasuredby:– NationalEnergySavings(NES)– NetPresentValue(NPV)oftotalcustomereconomicimpactsMethod• Foreachyear,forboththebasecaseandstandardscases,DOEcalculates:– Nationalenergyconsumption(energyuseperunitmultipliedbytotalstock)– Totalcustomerexpendituresonautomaticcommercialicemakers:•Nationalequipmentexpenditures•Nationaloperationandmaintenancecosts•ElectricitySite‐to‐SourceFull‐FuelCycleConversionFactors.•DifferencebetweenbasecaseandstandardscasesineachyeargivesNESandNPVofcustomereconomicimpacts.Documentation• Detailsofthenationalimpactanalysiscanbefoundinchapter10oftheTSD.74•NIAdistributesshipmentsacrossefficiencylevelsbasedonanalysesofmodelavailability.•Efficiencydistributionsforstandardscasesarebasedonroll‐upscenarios.EquipmentClassMarketSharebyEfficiencyLevelLevel1 Level2 Level3 Level4 Level5 Level6 Level7IMH‐W‐Small‐B39.1% 26.1% 23.9% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0%IMH‐W‐Med‐B69.0% 16.7% 11.9% 0.0% 2.4%IMH‐W‐Large‐BIMH‐W‐Large‐B‐171.4% 0.0% 4.8% 23.8%IMH‐W‐Large‐B‐233.3% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7%IMH‐A‐Small‐B37.0% 31.5% 25.9% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%IMH‐A‐Large‐BIMH‐A‐Large‐B‐141.5% 43.9% 7.3% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0%IMH‐A‐Large‐B‐233.3% 26.7% 26.7% 13.3%RCU‐***‐Large‐BRCU‐***‐Large‐B‐142.9% 39.3% 8.9% 0.0% 8.9%RCU‐***‐Large‐B‐227.3% 45.5% 9.1% 0.0% 18.2%SCU‐W‐Large‐B28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 14.3%SCU‐A‐Small‐B17.1% 40.0% 5.7% 11.4% 14.3% 11.4% 0.0%SCU‐A‐Large‐B28.6% 35.7% 0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 7.1% 0.0%IMH‐A‐Small‐C22.9% 22.9% 14.3% 8.6% 17.1% 2.9% 11.4%IMH‐A‐Large‐C35.0% 20.0% 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0%SCU‐A‐Small‐C26.7% 20.0% 16.7% 13.3% 3.3% 20.0%NIA:EfficiencyDistributions75NIA:ShipmentsDataInputsItem 21:DOE welcomes information from stakeholders thatwould aid in improving estimated market shares of efficiencylevels.Item 10:DOE’s shipments forecast is based on a singlesnapshot of shipments bythe type of equipment. DOEwelcomes information indicating how the mix of shipments byequipment class mix might change over time.Item 17:DOE requests comment and supporting dataon the overall market share ofthese units designed for use withcompressor racks and any expected market trends.76•DOEdevelopedprojectionsoffutureequipmentpricetrendsovertheanalysisperiod.–ThereferencewasderivedusinginflationadjustedhistoricalequipmentpriceindexfromtheBureauofLaborStatistics,PPIseriesRefrigeration,AirConditioning,andWarmAirHeatingEquipment.Furtherinformationisprovidedinappendixes8Dand10BoftheTSD.Issue 22:DOE invites comment on methods to improve itsequipment price forecasting, as well as any data supportingalternative methods.NIA:PriceTrends0.9000.9200.9400.9600.9801.0002018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043

Price Factor IndicesYearReferencePriceConstantPrice77OtherInputs•DiscountFactor–Used7percentand3percentrealdiscountratesfromtheOfficeofManagementandBudget’sRegulatoryAnalysisGuidelineA‐4.–Futureexpensesarediscountedto2013.•ElectricitySite‐to‐SourceConversionFactors–Usedtoconverton‐siteenergyconsumptiontoprimary(orsource)energygeneration.–ForNOPR,anewanalysiswasperformedtodevelopfactorsbasedonNEMS.78NIA:CumulativeNationalEnergySavingsResultsNational Energy Savings for Equipment Purchased in 2018-2047EquipmentClassNationalEnergySavingsbyTSLFFCenergyquadsTSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5IMH‐W‐Small‐B0.0020.0040.0100.0100.013IMH‐W‐Med‐B0.0060.0060.0090.0140.015IMH‐W‐Large‐B0.0010.0010.0010.0020.003IMH‐W‐Large‐B‐10.0010.0010.0010.0020.002IMH‐W‐Large‐B‐20.0000.0000.0000.0010.001IMH‐A‐Small‐B0.0170.0330.0770.1000.107IMH‐A‐Large‐B0.0250.0450.0960.1240.124IMH‐A‐Large‐B‐10.0200.0410.0870.1080.108IMH‐A‐Large‐B‐20.0050.0050.0090.0160.016RCU‐Large‐B0.0130.0130.0300.0460.048RCU‐Large‐B‐10.0130.0130.0290.0440.045RCU‐Large‐B‐20.0010.0010.0020.0030.003SCU‐W‐Large‐B0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000SCU‐A‐Small‐B0.0020.0130.0250.0380.038SCU‐A‐Large‐B0.0020.0100.0180.0220.022IMH‐A‐Small‐C0.0020.0030.0060.0080.012IMH‐A‐Large‐C0.0010.0030.0060.0080.008SCU‐A‐Small‐C0.0010.0040.0070.0070.012Total 0.0730.1360.2860.3800.40179NIA:CumulativeNetPresentValueResultsEquipmentClassNetPresentValuebyTSLbillon2012$TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5IMH‐W‐Small‐B0.0130.0230.0570.0570.010IMH‐W‐Med‐B0.0340.0340.0540.0420.047IMH‐W‐Large‐B0.0090.0090.0090.0070.008IMH‐W‐Large‐B10.0070.0070.0070.0060.006IMH‐W‐Large‐B20.0020.0020.0020.0010.002IMH‐A‐Small‐B0.0940.1760.3940.1630.190IMH‐A‐Large‐B0.1520.2750.6530.5960.596IMH‐A‐Large‐B10.1230.2450.6020.5460.546IMH‐A‐Large‐B20.0300.0300.0510.0500.050RCU‐Large‐B0.0810.0810.1780.1740.179RCU‐Large‐B10.0780.0780.1690.1650.170RCU‐Large‐B20.0040.0040.0090.0090.009SCU‐W‐Large‐B0.0010.0020.0020.0010.001SCU‐A‐Small‐B0.0090.0640.1900.0620.062SCU‐A‐Large‐B0.0100.0860.1180.0620.062IMH‐A‐Small‐C0.0090.0190.0310.027(0.028)IMH‐A‐Large‐C0.0090.0160.0340.0180.018SCU‐A‐Small‐C0.0080.0210.0300.030(0.114)Total 0.4300.8061.7511.2381.032NPV at a 3-percent Discount Ratefor Equipment Purchased in 2018-204780NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR81RegulatoryImpactAnalysis•Purpose–Toinvestigatethenationalimpactsofnon‐regulatoryalternativestomandatoryamendedenergyconservationstandards.–Thenon‐regulatoryalternativesthatmaybeconsideredincludenonewregulatoryaction,earlyreplacement,prescriptivestandards,customertaxcredits,manufacturertaxcredits,customerrebates,voluntaryefficiencytargets,andbulkgovernmentprocurement.•Method–TheNIAspreadsheetmodelismodifiedtoconsiderdifferentscenarios.–Thevariablesthatmaybemodifiedincludeenergypricesandescalationfactors,implicitmarketdiscountrates,customerpurchasepriceandoperatingcost,incomeelasticities,andequipmentstockdata.•Output–NESandNPVforthenon‐regulatoryalternatives.82RegulatoryImpactAnalysis‐Results•Forthisanalysis,DOEestimatedthebenefitsassociatedwithconsumertaxcreditsandrebates,targetinganefficiencythresholdequaltoTSL3.–Forrebates,DOEassumed60percentofshipmentswouldmeetorexceedtheefficiencythreshold.–Fortaxcredits,DOEassumed48percentofshipmentswouldmeetorexceedtheefficiencythreshold(80percentoftherebateresponse).–Forthisanalysis,DOEassumedamarket‐drivenproductionshiftwouldoccur,giventhatasmallpercentageofcurrentlyavailablemachinesmeetTSL3levels.•Theresultsshowtheenergysavingsequivalentto52percentofthestandards‐caseenergysavingsforataxcreditprogramand64percentforrebateprograms.NPVsarealsoreducedforboththerebateandthetaxcreditprograms.83NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpact AnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR84•Purpose–Assesstheimpactsofstandardsonmanufacturers.–Identifyandestimateimpactsonmanufacturersubgroupsthatmaybemoreseverelyaffectedthantheindustryasawhole.–Examinethedirectemployment,competition,manufacturingcapacity,andcumulativeregulatoryimpactsontheindustry.•Methodology–Analyzeindustrycashflowandindustrynetpresentvalue(INPV)usingtheGovernmentRegulatoryImpactModel(GRIM).–InterviewmanufacturerstorefineinputstotheGRIM,developsubgroupanalyses,andaddressqualitativeissues.MIA:Overview85•Phase1–DOEcreatesanindustryprofiletocharacterizethemarketandidentifyimportantissuesthatrequirefurtherinvestigation.•Phase2–DOEpreparesanindustrycashflowmodelandaninterviewquestionnairetoguidesubsequentdiscussionswithmanufacturers.•Phase3–DOEinterviewsmanufacturersandrefinesitsanalysis,assessingtheimpactofstandardsbothquantitatively(usingtheGRIM)andqualitatively(examiningimpactsonemployment,competition,manufacturingcapacity,andregulatoryburden).MIA:MethodologyIndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIMDevelopinterviewguideInterviews& industrysubgroupanalysesAssess impacton employment,competition,capacity, ®ulatoryburdensPhase 2Phase 3Phase 186•PriceSensitivity–Manufacturerscharacterizedthemarketasextremelypricesensitive,assertingthatnewandamendedstandardswillresultindecreasedprofitmarginsastheywillbeunabletopassthroughcostsrelatingtostandardscompliance.Manufacturerswentontoreportthatwhileenergyefficiencyisimportant,itisnotafeatureforwhichcustomerswouldpayapremium.•Enforcement–Severaldomesticmanufacturersexpressedconcernabouttheenforcementofanamendedenergyefficiencystandardforautomaticcommercialicemakersproducedoverseas.Manufacturersbelievethatinsufficientenforcementwillleadtomarketdistortions,ascompaniesthatdomakethenecessaryinvestmentstomeetamendedstandardswouldbeatadistinctpricingdisadvantagerelativetothosethatdonotcomply.•ReliabilityImpacts–Manufacturersexpressedconcernsthatfutureenergyconservationstandardswouldadverselyaffectreliability,whichtheybelievetobeoneofthemostimportantfeaturesoftheirproducts.MIA:KeyIssues(1of2)87•ImpactsonInnovation–Severalmanufacturersexpressedconcernsovertheimbalanceofinternalengineeringresourcesbroughtaboutbytheregularrevisionandintroductionofenergyconservationstandards.Asenergyusehasbecomeincreasinglyregulated,manufacturershavehadtoshiftengineeringandsupportresourcesawayfromotherinitiatives,adverselyaffectingproductinnovationoutsideofenergyefficiency.WheretheR&Deffortrequiredforcomplianceisintermittent,innovationisimpactedwithoutaddingtooverallemployment.MIA:KeyIssues(2of2)Item 11:DOE requests additional comment on the magnitudeof investment in R&D efforts directed at compliance withenergy conservation standards.88•DOEmodeledtwomarkupscenarios:–PreservationofGrossMargin(PercentageofRevenues)–PreservationofEarningsBeforeInterestandTaxes(EBIT)ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:MarkupScenariosLowerBoundProfitabilityScenario(MostSevereforManufacturers)UpperBoundProfitabilityScenario(LeastSevereforManufacturers)PreservationofEBITMarkupScenario PreservationofGrossMarginScenario89ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:IndustryINPVResultsSummaryofTSL3:•ExpectedINPVchangeof‐23.5percent.•Conversioncoststotal$42.2Mfortheindustry.•Over90percentofconversioncostsatTSL3canbeattributedtonon‐capitalinvestments.Assuch,thelackofsignificantrecapitalizationatTSL3mitigatestheriskofdisruptiontomanufacturingcapacityleadinguptothestandardscompliancedate.SummaryofResultsUnits BaseCaseTrialStandardLevel1 2345INPV2012$Millions $101.8$93.1to$93.4$88.2to$89.0$77.9to$80.9$71.3to$82.2$69.2to$81.9ChangeinINPV2012$Millions‐$(8.4)to$(8.7)$(12.8)to$(13.6)$(20.9)to$(23.9)$(19.6)to$(30.5)$(19.9)to$(32.6)(%)‐(8.2)%to(8.5)%(12.6)%to(13.4)%(20.5)%to(23.5)%(19.2)%to(30.0)%(19.5)%to(32.0)%TotalConversionCosts2012$Millions‐$17.4$26.6$42.2$51.2$54.290•TheSmallBusinessAdministration(SBA)hassetasizethresholdof750employeesorlessforthecategory“Air‐ConditioningandWarmAirHeatingEquipmentandCommercialandIndustrialRefrigerationEquipmentManufacturing,”whichincludesice‐makingmachinerymanufacturing.•DOEsearchedseveralpubliclyavailabledatabasestoidentifyanypotentialdomesticsmallbusinessmanufacturers.–SBA,DOE’sComplianceCertificationManagementSystem(CCMS),varioustradeassociationlists,andHoovers.•DOEidentifiedsevendomesticsmallbusinessmanufacturersofACIM.ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:SmallBusinessImpacts91•UsingtheGRIM,DOEmodeledtheimpactsonsmallbusinessmanufacturers.–ExpectedINPVchangeofupto‐78.6percent(‐23.5percentforthewholeindustry).–Drivenbylowershipmentvolumesrelativetoinvestments.–Theestimatedimpactonsmallbusinessmanufacturersisoffsetbythefactthatenergyconservationstandardsregulationsonlyaffecttheportionofsmallbusinessrevenuesattributedtocoveredequipment.Wheremostsmallbusinessesareprimarilyengagedintheproductionofindustrialicemakingequipment,whichfallsoutsidethescopeofthisrulemaking,thelevelofimpactontotalsmallbusinessrevenuesisexpectedtobelower.ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:SmallBusinessImpacts92ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:SmallBusinessImpactsItem 13:DOE requests comment on the magnitude of potentialimpacts of amended standards on small businessmanufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers.Item 13:DOE requests comment on estimated capital andequipment conversion costs for small business manufacturersof automatic commercial ice makers.Item 13:DOE requests comment on estimated shipments ofautomatic commercial ice makers produced by small businessmanufacturers.93•AtTSL3,thevastmajorityofdesignoptionsconsistofcomponentswaps.DOEdoesnotexpectanysignificantchangeinemploymentiftotalindustryshipmentsremainstable.Asaresult,DOEexpectsminimalchangeinemployment.ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:EmploymentImpactsSummaryofResultsUnitsBaseCaseTrialStandardLevel12345DomesticProductionEmploymentin2018(#)268 268 268 269 269 269Item 23:DOE requests comment on the estimated impact ondomestic production employment for manufacturers ofautomatic commercial ice makers.94PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards95NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR96EmissionsAnalysis•DOEestimatesthecumulativeemissionsreductionsresultingfromamendedenergyconservationstandards.DOEconsidersfull‐fuel‐cycleemissions.Thus,bothpowerplantemissionsand“upstream”emissionsareincludedintheanalysis.•EmissionsanalysisdetailcanbefoundinTSDchapter13.EmissionsTSL12 3 4 5CO2(millionmetrictons)3.72 6.94 14.57 19.37 20.43NOx(thousandtons)2.22 4.14 8.69 11.56 12.19Hg(tons)0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03N2O(thousandtons)0.08 0.15 0.32 0.42 0.45CH4(thousandtons)19.36 36.09 75.77 100.75 106.27SO2(thousandtons)5.35 9.98 20.95 27.86 29.3897EmissionsAnalysis:Monetization•DOEusesthemostcurrentSocialCostofCarbon(SCC)valuesdevelopedbyinteragencyprocess.–SCCisintendedtobeamonetarymeasureoftheincrementaldamageresultingfromgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions,includingbutnotlimitedtoagriculturalproductivityloss,humanhealtheffects,propertydamagefromrisingsealevel,andchangesintheecosystem.•Themostrecent(2013)U.S.governmentinteragencyestimatesoftheSCCforemissionsin2015are$11.8,$39.7,$61.2,and$117.0permetrictonavoided(2012dollars).–TheSCCinconstantdollarsincreasesovertime.•DOEalsomonetizestheNOxemissionsreductionsresultingfromamendedstandards.Themediumestimateis$2,639pertonofNOx.•EmissionsMonetizationAnalysisdetailscanbefoundinTSDchapter14.98EmissionsAnalysis:MonetizationItem 16:DOE solicits comment on the application of the newSCC values used to determine the social benefits of CO2emissions reductions over the rulemaking analysis period.(The rulemaking analysis period covers from 2018 to 2047plus the appropriated number of years to account for thelifetime of the equipmentpurchased between 2018 and 2047.)In particular, the agency solicits comment on the agency’sderivation of SCC values after 2050 where the agency appliedthe average annual growth rate of the SCC estimates in2040−2050 associated with each of the four sets of values.99EmissionsMonetizationResultsGlobalPresentValueofCO2Reduction(million2012$)*Foreachofthefourcases,thecorrespondingSCCvalueforemissionsin2015is$11.8,$39.7,$61.2,and$117.0permetricton(2012$).TSLSCCCase*5%discountrate,average*3%discountrate,average*2.5%discountrate,average*3%discountrate,95thpercentile*Million2012$126.1 118.2 187.4 364.5248.7 220.4 349.3 679.53102.3 462.6 733.2 1,426.34136.0 615.1 974.9 1,896.45143.4 648.8 1,028.3 2,000.4100EmissionsMonetizationResultsPresentValueofNOxReduction(million2012$)Note:Basedonmediumestimate:$2639pertonTSL3%discountrate 7%discountrateMillion2012$12.5 0.824.6 1.439.6 3.0412.8 4.0513.5 4.3101NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR102UtilityImpactAnalysis•Purpose–ToestimatethechangesinelectricinstalledcapacityandgenerationthatresultforeachTSL.•Method–TheNESisusedtoprovideastreamofenergysavingsovertheanalysisperiod.–NEMSismodifiedtorepresenttheimpactsofDOE’sstandardsprogram(modifiedcodeisknownasNEMS‐BT).•Output–Reductionsintotalelectricitygeneration.–Reductionsinprimaryfuel(coal,naturalgas,etc.)consumption.–Changestothemixofelectricitygenerationbyfueltype.–Changestototalinstalledcapacity.•UtilityanalysisdetailscanbefoundinTSDchapter15.103UtilityImpactAnalysis‐ResultsTSL123 4 5InstalledCapacityReductionMW2020 4 7 14 19 202025 16 30 63 83 882030 27 51 107 142 1502035 41 76 159 211 2232040 69 128 269 358 377ElectricityGenerationReductionGWh2020 100 186 391 520 5492025 271 504 1,059 1,408 1,4852030 277 516 1,083 1,440 1,5192035 285 530 1,114 1,481 1,5622040 294 548 1,150 1,529 1,613104NOPRRulemakingStageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmissionsImpactAnalysisFinalRuleFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPR105EmploymentAnalysisPurpose•Toestimatethenetjobscreatedoreliminatednationallyasaconsequenceofamendedenergyconservationstandards.Thisincludesdirectandindirectemploymentimpacts.Method•UsestheImSET(ImpactofSectorEnergyTechnologies)modelfortheevaluationofindirectemploymentimpacts.•Thechangesinequipmentandenergyexpendituresaretakenfromthenationalimpactanalysis.•DirectemploymentimpactstotheACIMindustryaredevelopedinthemanufacturerimpactanalysis(TSDchapter12).Output•Changetocommercialandenergysectoremploymentasaconsequenceofamendedenergyconservationstandards.106EmploymentAnalysis‐ResultsNetShort‐TermChangesinEmployment2018and2022*Compliancedateofstandardlevelsis2018.Documentation•EmploymentanalysisdetailscanbefoundinTSDchapter16.TrialStandardLevel 2018* 20221 19to20100to1012 36to40192to1963 75to87431to4424 44to91506to5525 34to90518to572107PublicMeetingTopics1RegulatoryHistory,TestProcedures,andOverview2MarketandTechnologyAssessment3EngineeringAnalysis4MarkupsandEnergyUseAnalysis5Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis6Shipments,NIA,RIA,andMIAAnalysis7Emissions,Utility,andEmploymentImpacts8ResultsandProposedStandards108TrialStandardLevels•TSLsareorderedintermsofenergysavings.•ForACIMequipment,DOEpresents5compositeTSLs.–TSL5:Themax‐techefficiencylevel–TSL4:Intermediatelevelbetweenthemax‐techlevelandthemaximumcustomerNPVlevel,subjecttotherequirementthattheTSL4NPVat7%mustbepositive–TSL3:HighestNPVpossibleata7%discountrate–TSL2:IntermediatelevelbetweenTSL3andTSL1–TSL1:2012ENERGYSTARlevelforeachcoveredbatchequipmentclass,andsimilarlevelssetfornon‐coveredequipment(7‐10%)•ThebaselineefficiencylevelwouldbeTSL0,againstwhichTSLs1through5aremeasured.109TSLtoEfficiencyLevelMappingEquipment Class Baseline TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5IMH-W-Small-B Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 Level 5 Level 6IMH-W-Med-B Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5IMH-W-Large-B*IMH-W-Large-B-1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4IMH-W-Large-B-2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4IMH-A-Small-B Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7IMH-A-Large-B*IMH-A-Large-B-1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 Level 6 Level 6IMH-A-Large-B-2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4RCU-***-Large-B*RCU-***-Large-B-1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5RCU-***-Large-B-2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5SCU-W-Large-B Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7SCU-A-Small-B Level 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 6 Level 7 Level 7SCU-A-Large-B Level 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 6 Level 7 Level 7IMH-A-Small-C Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 7IMH-A-Large-C Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7SCU-A-Small-C Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4 Level 6*Standards were based on efficiency improvements at the level of the typical units.110TSL/DesignOptionMappingEquipment Class Baseline TSL1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5Design Options for Each TSL (options are cumulative – TSL5 includes all preceding options)IMH-W-Small-BNo BW Fill,PSC PMIncrease CompEER, IncreaseCondSame as previousIncrease Cond, BWFillBW Fill, IncreaseEvap, ECM PMECM PM, DWHXIMH-W-Med-BBW Fill, PSCPMIncrease CompEERSame as previousIncrease Comp EER,Increase CondIncrease CompEER, ECM PM,DWHXDWHXIMH-W-Large-B1BW Fill, PSCPMIncrease CompEER, IncreaseCondSame as previous Same as previousIncrease Cond, ECMPM, DWHXDWHXIMH-W-Large-B2BW Fill, PSCPMIncrease CompEER, IncreaseCondSame as previous Same as previous ECM PM, DWHX DWHXIMH-A-Small-BBW Fill, PSCPM, SPM FMIncrease CompEER, IncreaseCond, IncreaseEvapIncrease EvapIncrease Evap, PSCFM, ECM FM,Increase CondIncrease Cond, ECMPM, DWHXDWHXIMH-A-Large-B1BW Fill, PSCPM, SPM FMPSC FM, CompEERIncrease CompEERIncrease Comp EER,BW Fill, ECM PM,ECM FM, IncreaseCondIncrease Cond,DWHXDWHXIMH-A-Large-B2BW Fill, PSCPM, SPM FMIncrease CompEER, PSC FMSame as previousPSC FM, IncreaseCondECM FM, ECM PM,DWHXECM FM, ECMPM, DWHXSPM = Shaded Pole MotorPSC = Permanent Split Capacitor MotorECM = Electronically Commutated MotorFM = Fan Motor (Air-Cooled Units)PM = Pump Motor (Batch Units)BW Fill = Batch Water Fill Option IncludedIncrease Cond = Increase in Condenser SizeIncrease Evap = Increase in Evaporator SizeIncrease Comp EER = Increase in CompressorEERDWHX = Addition of Drainwater HeatExchangerAM = Auger Motor (Continuous Units)111TSL/DesignOptionMappingEquipment Class Baseline TSL1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5Design Options for Each TSL (options are cumulative – TSL5 includes all preceding options)RCU-Large-B1 BW Fill, PSCPM, PSC FMIncrease CompEERSame as previous Increase Comp EER,Increase Cond, ECMFMECM FM, IncreaseCond, ECM PM,DWHXDWHXRCU-Large-B2 BW Fill, PSCPM, PSC FMIncrease CompEER, IncreaseCondSame as previous ECM PMIncrease CondIncrease Cond,ECM FM, DWHXDWHXSCU-W-Large-B No BW Fill,PSC PMBW Fill BW Fill, IncreaseComp EER,Increase CondIncrease Cond, ECMPMECM PM, DWHX DWHXSCU-A-Small-B No BW Fill,PSC PM, SPMFMPSC FM,Increase CondIncrease Cond,Increase CompEERIncrease Comp EER,BW FillBW Fill, ECM PM,ECM FM, DWHXSame aspreviousSCU-A-Large-B No BW Fill,PSC PM, SPMFMIncrease CompEERIncrease CompEER, IncreaseCond, BW FillBW Fill, PSC FM,ECM FM, ECM PMECM PM, DWHX Same aspreviousIMH-A-Small-C PSC AM, SPMFMPSC FM,Increase CompEERPSC FM, IncreaseComp EERIncrease Comp EER,Increase Cond, ECMFMECM FM, ECM AM ECM AMIMH-A-Large-C PSC AM, SPMFMIncrease Cond,Increase CompEERIncrease CompEERIncrease Comp EER,PSC FM, ECM FMECM FM, ECM AM ECM AMSCU-A-Small-C PSC AM, SPMFMIncrease Cond Increase Cond,Increase CompEERIncrease Comp EER,PSC FMSame as previous ECM FM, ECMAMSPM = Shaded Pole MotorPSC = Permanent Split Capacitor MotorECM = Electronically Commutated MotorFM = Fan Motor (Air-Cooled Units)PM = Pump Motor (Batch Units)BW Fill = Batch Water Fill Option IncludedIncrease Cond = Increase in Condenser SizeIncrease Evap = Increase in Evaporator SizeIncrease Comp EER = Increase in CompressorEERDWHX = Addition of Drainwater Heat ExchangerAM = Auger Motor (Continuous Units)112TSL/DesignOptionMappingItem 18:Section V.A.1 of the NOPR discusses the designoptions associated with each TSL, for each analyzed productclass. DOE requests comment anddata related to the requiredequipment size increases associated with the design optionsat each TSL levels. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains fulldescriptions of the design options and DOE’s analyses for theequipment size increase associated with the design optionsselected. DOE also requests comments and data on theefficiency gains associated with each set of design options.Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains DOE’s analyses of theefficiency gains for each design option considered. Finally,DOE requests comment and data on any utility impactsassociated with each set of design options, such as potentialice-style changes.113ProposedStandardsforBatchTypeEquipmentEquipmentTypeType ofCoolingHarvest Ratelb ice/24 hrMaximum Energy Usekilowatt-hours (kWh)/100lb ice*Maximum CondenserWater Usegal/100 lb ice**Ice-MakingHeadWater <500 5.84 – 0.0041H 200-0.022H≥500 and <1,436 3.88 – 0.0002H 200-0.022H≥1,436 and<2,5003.6 200-0.022H≥2,500 and<4,0003.6 145Ice-MakingHeadAir <450 7.70 – 0.0065H NA≥450 and <875 5.17 – 0.0008H NA≥875 and <2,210 4.5 NA≥2,210 and<2,5006.89 – 0.0011H≥2,500 and<4,0004.1RemoteCondensing(but not remotecompressor)Air <1,000 7.52 – 0.0032H NAAir≥1,000 and<4,0004.3 NARemoteCondensingand RemoteCompressorAir <934 7.52 – 0.0032H NAAir≥934 and <4,000 4.5 NASelf-Contained Water <200 8.55 – 0.0143H 191-0.0315H≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191-0.0315H≥2,500 and<4,0005.7 112Self-Contained Air <175 12.6 – 0.0328H NA≥175 and <4,000 6.9 NA* H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the wateror energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d).** Water use is for the condenser only and does not includepotable water used to make ice.114ProposedStandardsforIMH‐A‐BEquipment115ProposedStandardsforContinuousTypeEquipmentEquipment TypeType ofCoolingHarvest Ratelb ice/24 hrMaximum Energy UsekWh/100 lb ice*Maximum Condenser WaterUsegal/100 lb ice**Ice-Making HeadWater <900 6.08 – 0.0025H 160-0.0176H≥900 and <2,500 3.8 160-0.0176H≥2,500 and<4,0003.8 116Ice-Making HeadAir <700 9.24 – 0.0061H NA≥700 and <4,000 5.0 NARemoteCondensing (butnot remotecompressor)Air <850 7.5 – 0.0034H NA≥850 and <4,000 4.6 NARemoteCondensing andRemoteCompressorAir <850 7.65 – 0.0034H NA≥850 and <4,000 4.8 NASelf-ContainedWater <900 7.28 – 0.0027H 153-0.0252H≥900 and <2,500 4.9 153-0.0252H≥2,500 and<4,0004.9 90Self-ContainedAir <700 9.2 – 0.0050H NA≥700 and <4,000 5.7 NA* H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the wateror energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d).** Water use is for the condenser only and does not includepotable water used to make ice.116HowtoSubmitWrittenCommentsInallcorrespondence,pleaserefertotheACIMrulemakingby:– NOPRforEnergyConservationStandardsforAutomaticCommercialIceMakers– DocketNumberEERE‐2010‐BT‐STD‐0037– RegulationIdentificationNumber(RIN)1904‐AC39Email:ACIM‐2010‐STD‐0037@ee.doe.govPostal:CourierMs.BrendaEdwardsMs.BrendaEdwardsU.S.DepartmentofEnergyU.S.DepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgram,BuildingTechnologiesProgramMailstopEE‐2J950L’EnfantPlazaSW,Suite6001000IndependenceAvenue,SWWashington,DC20024Washington,DC20585‐0121Tel:202586‐2945CommentperiodclosesMay16,2014,11:59PMET117SupportingSlidesSUPPORTINGSLIDES118TechnologyAssessment– AlternativeRefrigerants•MostACIMequipmentusesR‐404Arefrigerant(withafewselfcontainedunits(SCU)usingR‐134A);DOEconducteditsanalysisusingR‐404Ainitsmodels.•Stakeholderscommentedonwhetherhydrocarbonrefrigerantscanbeconsideredadesignoption,butDOEnotesthattheserefrigerantshavenotbeenapprovedbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencySNAPprogramandcannotbeconsidered.•DOEacknowledgestherearegovernment‐wideeffortstoreduceemissionsofhydrofluorocarbons,andsuchactionsarebeingpursuedthroughbothinternationaldiplomacyanddomesticactions.119TechnologyAssessment– AlternativeRefrigerantsItem 24:To the extent that there has been experience withinthe industry, domestically or internationally, with the use ofalternative low global warming potential refrigerants, DOErequests any available information, specifically cost andefficiency information relating to use of alternative refrigerants.