### CHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

......................................................................................................... 11-1 11.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

............................................................................... 11-1 11.2.1 National Energy Savings Definition

.................................................................. 11-1 11.2.2 National Energy Savings Inputs

......................................................................... 11-2 11.3 NET PRESENT VALUE

............................................................................................... 11-8 11.3.1 Net Present Value Definition

............................................................................. 11-8 11.3.2 Net Present Value Inputs

................................................................................... 11-9 11.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND N ET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS

........ 11-14 11.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary

................... 11-14 11.4.2 National Energy Savings Results

..................................................................... 11-14 11.4.3 Annual Costs and Savings

............................................................................... 11-16 11.4.4 Net Present Value Results

................................................................................ 11-17 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................................... ... 11-20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 11.2.1 National Ener gy Saving Inputs

.......................................................................... 11-2 Table 11.2.2 Risk Premiums by Risk Class (j ) in the NEMS Commercial Model

................. 11-4 Table 11.2.3 Shipment-Weighted Market Shares by Efficiency Level, Base Case

................ 11-5 Table 11.2.4 Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

................................................. 11-6 Table 11.2.5 Shipment-Weighted Average Annual Energy Consumption per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level

............................................................................. 11-6 Table 11.2.6 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

.................................................................... 11-8 Table 11.3.1 Net Present Value Inputs

................................................................................... 11-9 Table 11.3.2 Average Total Installed Cost per Li near Foot by Efficiency Level (2007$)

... 11-10 Table 11.3.3 Shipment-Weighted Average Total Installed Cost per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level (2007$)

.................................................................................... 11-10 Table 11.3.4 Average Annual Repair Co st per Linear Foot (2007$)

.................................... 11-11 Table 11.3.5 Shipment-Weighted Average Annual Repair Cost per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level (2007$)

.................................................................................... 11-12 Table 11.3.6 Average Annual Maintenance Cost per Linear Foot by Efficiency Level (2007$)

............................................................................................................. 11-12 Table 11.3.7 Shipment-Weighted Average Annua l Maintenance Cost per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level (2007$)

...................................................................... 11-13 Table 11.4.1 NES and NPV Inputs

....................................................................................... 11-15 Table 11.4.2 Cumulative National Energy Sa vings for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (2012-2042)

................................................................................... 11-15 Table 11.4.3 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a Seven-Percent Discount Rate

................ 11-18 Table 11.4.4 Cumulative NPV Results based on a Three-Percent Discount Rate

................. 11-19

11-i

### LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 11.4.1 National Annual Costs and Savings for Trial Standard Level 3 (Efficiency Level 5) ............................................................................................................ 11-17

11-ii

### CHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the method for estimating the magnitude and net present value (NPV) of future national energy savings (NES) to customers from possible trial standards levels (TSLs) for commercial refrigera tion equipment (CRE). Results of the national impact analysis (NIA) described here include national energy consumption and savings, monetary value of energy savings to the Nation as a result of standards, increased total installed costs to the Nation as a result of standards, and the NPV of energy savings (the difference between the present monetary values of energy savings and the increased total installed costs).

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) dete rmined both the NPV and the NES for each candidate standard level it considered for each of the 15 equipment classes of commercial refrigeration equipment it examined. DOE considered five TSLs for each equipment class.

DOE performed all calculations using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is accessible on the Internet at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildi ngs/appliance_standards / commercial_products.html. Details and instructions for usin g the spreadsheet are discussed in Appendix H of the Technical Support Document (T SD). A more detailed set of results is available in Appendix I of the TSD. The important facets of national energy consumption for each equipment class of commercial refrigerat ion equipment include shipments, stock or inventory, national average electricity consumption, and the site-to-source conversion factor that is used to translate the amount of electricity cons umed at the site where it is used into the amount of energy that must be consumed at the source where that electricity was produced. Chapter 10, Shipments Analysis, provides a detailed description of the shipments analysis that DOE used to forecast future purchases of commer cial refrigeration equipment.

DOE was not able to obtain information that quantified how voluntar y energy efficiency programs affect equipment efficiencies on a na tional basis, although vol untary programs may increase the share of energy efficient equipmen t prior to the implementation date of any new standards. Consequently, DOE did not explicitly incorporate the impact of market-based initiatives into the shipments forecasts detailed in Chapter 10 of this TSD.

11.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

11.2.1 National Energy Savings Definition

DOE calculates annual national energy savings as the difference between two scenarios: a base case (without new standards) and a standa rds case (with new standards). Positive values of NES correspond to net energy savings, i.e., national annual energy c onsumption (AEC) with standards is less than AEC in the base case.

NES t 

### =AEC base - AEC standard Eq. 11.1

Cumulative energy savings are the sum over a defined time period from the implementation of a standard forward (from 201 2 to 2042) of the annual national energy savings.

11-1

### NES cum 

### = ∑ t 

### NES t 

### Eq. 11.2

DOE calculated the AEC by multiplying the number or stock of commer cial refrigeration equipment (by vintage) by the unit energy cons umption (also by vintage) as shown by the following equation:

AEC = STOCK
V 

### x UEC
V 

### x src_conv t 

### Eq. 11.3

For the above expressions, DOE defined the following quantities:

AEC = Annual national energy consumption each y ear in quadrillion British thermal units (quads), summed over vintages of comm ercial refrigeration equipment stock, STOCK
V 

### ,
NES = Annual national energy savings (quads),

STOCK
V 

### = Stock of commercial refrigeration eq uipment (millions of linear feet) of vintage V surviving in the year for which DOE calculated annual energy consumption.
Vintages range from seven years to appr oximately 20 years, a consequence of an assumed 10-year average lifetime of the equipment for equipment sold to large grocery chains, and an assumed 15-year average lifetime for equipment sold to small, independent grocery outlets,

UEC
V 

### = Annual unit energy consumpti on in kilowatt hours (kWh),

src_conv t 

### = Time-dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy (kWh) to source energy (quads) (Btu/kWh),

V = Year in which the commercial refrigerati on equipment was purchased as a new unit,

t = Year in the forecast (e.g., 2012 to 2042).

The stock of commercial refrigeration equi pment is dependent on annual shipments and the lifetime of the equipment. DOE believes th at the shipment projections under the standards cases could be lower than those in the base ca se projection because the higher installed costs would cause some customers to forego new equipment purchases. However, DOE has no information that would allow a calculation of this effect. For the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the total shipments projecti ons are the same in both the base case and standards cases.

11.2.2 National Energy Savings Inputs

Table 11.2.1 lists the inputs for the determination of NES.

Table 11.2.1 National Energy Saving Inputs

Input Annual Unit Energy Consumption ( UEC ) (quads) Shipments Equipment Stock ( STOCK V ) Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ( src_conv ) (quads) (Btu/kWh)

11-2

### 11.2.2.1 Annual Unit Energy Consumption

The annual unit energy consumption (UEC) is th e site energy consumed by a commercial refrigeration unit per year. UEC is directly tied to the efficiency of the unit. Thus, knowing the efficiency of a commercial refrigeration unit de termines the corresponding UEC. Because the equipment classes analyzed represent equipment so ld across a range of sizes, DOE’s “unit” in the NES is actually expressed as a linear foot of equipment in an equipment class and not an individual unit of commercial re frigeration equipment of a specifi c size. As described below, DOE determined annual forecasted shipment-weight ed average equipment efficiencies that, in turn, enabled a determinati on of shipment-weighted annua l energy consumption values.

DOE did not have data on the market shares within each of the equipment classes by efficiency level. DOE used the 2005 comme rcial refrigeration equipment shipments by equipment class provided by the industry to deve lop future market shares by equipment class. DOE used these market shares and the estimates of future shipments for all commercial refrigeration equipment to develop projections of shipments by equipment class. It then adapted a cost-based method used in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate market shares within each equipment class by efficiency le vel. DOE then extrapolated future scenarios of the equipment efficiency both for a base case (i.e., without new sta ndards) and for various standards-cases (i.e., with new st andards) using the same cost-based method. The difference in equipment efficiency between the base case and st andards case was the basis for determining the reduction in UEC resulting from new standards.

The market share for each equipment cl ass by efficiency level is defined as EFF_Level_Share(i,y) , for each equipment class, y , at each efficiency level, i . Because the lifetime of each equipment class is presumed to be the same, and because DOE had no information regarding future changes in market shares between equipment classes, DOE assumed the market share for a particular equi pment class to be constant over time. DOE calculated the EFF_Level_Share(i,y) for each efficiency level i using the formula below, based on the relative annualized cost of each efficiency level. ⎛ r ⎞

− v j 

### ⎜ ⎟

IC × + OC ( i

, y )

− n ( i

. y ) 

### ⎟

m 

### ⎜ 1

− (1 + r ) ⎝ j 

### ⎠ EFF

_ Level

_ Share ( i

, y ) = 

# ∑ b j 

### ×

− v 

### Eq. 11.4

j = 1 k 

### ⎛ r ⎞ j 

# ∑ ⎜ ⎜ IC ( i

, y ) 

### ×

− n 

### + OC ( i

. y ) 

### ⎟ ⎟

i = 1 

### 1

− (1 + r j 

### ) ⎝ ⎠



### where EFF_Level_Share(i,y) = the market share of equipment class y at TSL i

, IC(i, y) = installed costs of equipment class y at TSL i

, i =1 to k ($),
OC(i,y) = annual operating cost (maintenance, repair, and energy cost) of equipment class y at TSL i ($),

r j 

### = private, risk-adjusted disc ount rate for risk class j . Derived by adding a “time preference premium” to the risk -free real rate of return in the marketplace (4.39 percent

11-3

### long-term Treasury bond rate, minus the estim ated long-term inflation rate of 2.2 0 percent = 2.39 percent)

b

j 

### = market share of equipmen t users with risk class j

, j =1 to m ,

v = risk penalty factor (also known as a measure of market heterogeneity),

n = equipment lifetime (years).

The components for IC and OC came from the same inputs as the life-cycle cost analysis (see chapter 8, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis). The annualization factor (r

j 

### /(1-(1+r j 

### ) -n 

### ) converts installed cost into its annual e quivalent, so that mark et shares are based on the relative annual costs of each energy consump tion level, with (gener ally) higher annualized costs of higher energy consumption levels leadin g to lower relative market shares. This is consistent with the approaches used in the En ergy Information Administration’s (EIA) National Energy Modeling System 1 

### (NEMS) and in the Canadian In tegrated Modeling System (CIMS) 2 a



### . The calibration constants are the private risk-based discount rates by risk class r j 

### , taken from the NEMS commercial model as shown in Table 11.2.2

, the default value of v = 10, taken from the CIMS, and the equipment lifetime of 7–20 years.
Table 11.2.2 Risk Premiums by Risk Cl ass (j) in the NEMS Commercial Model
Percentage of Users in Class Time Preferen ce Premium Implied Real Discount Rate 1% 0.0% 2.14% 2% 13.6% 15.79% 10% 19.9% 22.09% 15% 30.9% 33.09% 20% 55.4% 57.59% 25% 152.9% 155.09% 27% 1000.0% 1002.19% 100% Source: NEMS Commercial Model


### Table 11.2.3 provides estimated base-case mark et shipment-weighted shares for each of the 15 equipment classes analy zed in this rulemaking.

To project changes in weighted-average e fficiency as standards above the base-case efficiency are introduced, DOE assumed that market shares below the minimum permitted efficiency level would be reassigned to the new TSL level. For example, if a TSL 2 standard (equivalent to efficiency Leve l 4 for this piece of equipment) were imposed in 2012 on the VOP.RC.M equipment class, then the market shar es for Levels 1, 2, and 3 would be assigned to Level 4, which would result in a market share of 70.8% = (17.4% +18.1% +18.4% +16.9%) from the first four columns of th e first row in Table 11.2.3) for Level 4, beginning in 2012.

The market shares for Levels 5–8 would not be affected, since the market already has made a choice of that equipment with Level 4 equi pment also available. It was assumed that the standard (efficiency Level 4) would not affect the relative a ttractiveness of equipment with efficiencies higher than the standard level.

a The CIMS Model was originally known as the Canadian Integrated Modeling System, but because the model is now being applied to other countries, the acronym is now used as its proper name.

11-4

### Table 11.2.3 Shipment-Weighted Market Shares by Efficiency Level, Base Case
Equipment Class * Level 1 Shipment-Weighted Market Sha res by Efficiency Level **, § Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I 17.4% 15.2% 16.1% 19.9% 19.2% 14.3% 11.7% 17.1% 15.5% 17.6% 19.6% 20.1% 13.0% 12.8% 17.3% 18.1% 18.4% 16.9% 14.6% 14.0% 0.6% 16.1% 16.4% 15.0% 14.7% 14.4% 8.2% 17.2% 16.7% 15.4% 13.9% 10.0% 9.2% 20.0% 19.7% 14.8% 8.8% 8.6% 8.2% 19.3% 19.0% 12.0% 10.5% 10.3% 9.8% 15.3% 15.4% 13.7% 11.3% 10.3% 10.3% 12.3% 12.9% 13.5% 13.6% 12.8% 11.8% 17.7% 18.0% 16.9% 15.1% 14.3% 0.9% 16.6% 16.4% 15.3% 14.3% 10.6% 9.6% 18.0% 18.2% 17.5% 17.0% 4.2% 4.1% 20.5% 21.0% 20.0% 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 20.5% 20.5% 19.9% 19.1% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 13.9% 13.8% 13.4% 11.3% 11.0% 13.9% 14.0% 13.6% 13.6% 11.2% 10.9% 17.9% 17.9% 16.8% 16.3% 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 11.3%

0.0% 1.8% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7% 10.0%

0.0%

* Equipment class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order separated by periods) of a equipment family code ( VOP=vertical open, SVO=semivertical open, HZO=hor izontal open, VCT=vertical transparent doors, VCS=vertical solid doors, HCT=horizontal transparent doors, HCS=horizontal solid doors, or SOC=service over count er), an operating mode code ( RC=remote condensing or SC=self-c ontained),

and a rating temperature code (M=medium temperature (38°F), L=low temperature (0°F), or I=ice-cream temperature (-15°F)). For example, "VOP.RC.M refers to the "vertical open, remote condensing, me dium temperature" equipment class. See Chapter 3, Market and Technology

Assessment, of the TSD for a more detaile d explanation of the equipment class terminology **A value of 0.0% means that no market share was calculated for th is efficiency level. For example, the VOP.RC.M equipment cla ss only had seven possible efficiency levels, so no ma rket share was allotted to efficiency level 8. §Shares may not add to 100% exactly due to rounding.


### As stated earlier, annual energy consumption valu es are tied directly to the efficiency of the equipment. Table 11.2.4 presents the UEC va lues according to annual electricity use per linear foot per year (kWh/linear foot/year). Electricity use per linear foot is how DOE expressed the annual energy per unit in the NES spreadsheet model. Because projections of grocery refrigeration and freezer space (expre ssed in linear feet) are the primary drivers used to estimate future CRE shipments, DOE calculated the national refrigeration equipment energy expense by expressing the per-unit annual energy use on a linear-footage basis.

For the annual shipment-weighted efficiency levels specified in the base case and standards case efficiency scenarios, DOE calcu lated the shipment weighted UEC values shown in Table 11.2.5. For each equipment class, the va lue shown for a given efficiency level is the shipment-weighted average UEC for each standard level from chapter 10 (Shipments Analysis), after taking into account the non- availability of equipment at efficiency levels below the minimum standard efficiency level shown.

11-5

### Table 11.2.4 Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Equipment Class Annual Energy Consumption per Line ar Foot (kWh/linear foot/year) Level 1 (Base Case) Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M 1,761 1,681 1,581 1,542 1,450 1,444 1,331 NA VOP.RC.L 4,064 3,860 3,603 3,445 3,428 3,407 3,297 NA VOP.SC.M 3,614 3,401 3,280 3,138 3,046 2,802 2,793 2,676 VCT.RC.M 952 911 861 690 476 469 464 NA VCT.RC.L 1,986 1,940 1,883 1,344 1,150 1,135 1,123 NA VCT.SC.I 3,873 3,547 3,206 2,831 1,985 1,806 1,797 1,766 VCS.SC.I 2,303 2,181 2,063 1,921 1,837 1,672 1,638 1,619 SVO.RC.M 1,325 1,271 1,204 1,174 1,105 1,101 1,022.16 NA SVO.SC.M 3,021 2,853 2,798 2,685 2,634 2,440 2,433 2,349 SOC.RC.M 964 913 849 818 798 647 644 627 HZO.RC.M 597 544 478 447 442 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L 1,167 1,126 1,074 1,016 1,003 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M 1,755 1,660 1,628 1,576 1,507 1,375 1,362 1,351 HZO.SC.L 3,530 3,321 3,287 3,071 3,059 2,778 2,766 2,750 HCT.SC.I 774 704 680 395 377 355 NA NA *A value of NA means that no energy use was calculated for this efficiency level. For example, the VOP.RC.M only had seven poss ible efficiency levels.



### Table 11.2.5 Shipment-Weighted Average Annua l Energy Consumption per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level

Equipment Class Shipment-Weighted UEC per Linear Foot (k Wh/linear foot/year) Level 1 (Base Case) TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I 1,584 1,535 1,513 1,449 1,449 3,612 3,500 3,425 3,398 3,297 3,199 3,125 2,993 2,799 2,799 764 756 735 469 464 1,621 1,590 1,280 1,133 1,123 2,739 2,423 1,927 1,794 1,766 1,905 1,862 1,768 1,619 1,619 1,200 1,168 1,152 1,104 1,104 2,720 2,676 2,589 2,437 2,437 842 833 811 780 780 502 492 465 446 442 1,078 1,049 1,014 1,003 1,003 1,541 1,520 1,461 1,361 1,351 3,095 3,059 2,965 2,764 2,750 558 538 386 374 355 1,331 3,297 2,676 464 1,123 1,766 1,619 1,022 2,349 627 442 1,003 1,351 2,750 355



### 11.2.2.2 Shipments

DOE forecasted shipments for the base case and all standards cases (see chapter 10, Shipments Analysis).

11.2.2.3 Equipment Stock

The CRE stock in a given year is the total linear footage of comm ercial refrigeration equipment shipped from earlier years that surviv e in the given year. The NES spreadsheet model keeps track of the total linear footage of commercial refrigera tion units shipped each year. For

11-6

### purposes of the NES and NPV analyses, DOE assu med that existing CRE units in large grocery chains and multi-line retailers are retired by foll owing a Weibull distribution with an average lifetime of 10 years; CRE units in small conve nience stores and similar outlets are retired following a Weibull distribution wi th an average lifetime of 15 y ears. The Weibull distribution shows that approximately 1 per cent of the existing units are retired from 2012 to 2019 (i.e., by year 7), retire rapidly through year 18, and then tail off gradually to less than 10 percent per year by year 20. Retired units are replaced until 2042. For units shipped in 2042, any units still remaining at the end of 2062 are replaced.

11.2.2.4 National Annual Energy Consumption

The national AEC is the product of the annual UEC and the stocks of CRE units of each vintage. This approach accounts for differences in unit energy consumption from year to year. Equation 11.3 above was used for determining the national annual energy consumption of CRE equipment.

DOE initially calculated the AEC at the site (i.e., electricity in kWh consumed by the CRE units). DOE then calculated primary ener gy consumption from site energy consumption by applying a conversion factor to account for losse s associated with the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity.

11.2.2.5 Site-to-Source Conversion Factor

The site-to-source conversion factor is the mu ltiplicative factor used for converting site energy consumption, expressed in kWh, into primary or source energy consumption, expressed in quads. The site-to-source conversion factor accounts for losses in electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. DOE used annua l site-to-source marginal conversion factors based on a detailed analysis contained in appendix H of the TSD. Theses factors take into account the fact that energy savi ngs that would occur as a resu lt of adopting more efficient equipment standard for commercial refrigera tion equipment would be most likely to reduce demand for energy from power plants used for pe aking power and load following, and that have heat rates lower than the U.S. average values . As shown in Table 11.2.6, the conversion factors vary over time because of projected changes in electricity generation sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide el ectricity to the country). Detailed discussion on calculations of marginal site-to-source conversion factors can be found in Appendix H.

11-7

### Table 11.2.6 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

Site-to-Source Conversion Factor Year Btu/kWh 2012 9,587 2013 9,587 2014 9,587 2015 9,331 2016 9,115 2017 9,207 2018 9,529 2019 10,128 2020 10,347 2021 10,200 2022 9,834 2023 9,854 2024 10,060 2025 10,093 2026 10,020 2027 9,932 2028 9,920 2029 9,990 2030 9,990 2031 9,990 2032–2062 9,990 For details, see Appendix H of the TSD.



### 11.3 NET PRESENT VALUE

11.3.1 Net Present Value Definition

The NPV is the value in the present of a tim e series of costs and savings. The NPV is given by the equation:

NPV = PVS – PVC Eq. 11.5 where

PVS = present value of operating cost savi ngs (including electr icity, repair, and maintenance costs) ($), PVC = present value of increased total installed costs (including equipment and installation) ($).

The PVS and PVC are determined according to the following expressions:

PVS 

### = 

# ∑ OCS t 

### x 

### DF t 

### Eq. 11.6

PVC 

### = 

# ∑ TIC t 

### x 

### DF t 

### Eq. 11.7

11-8

### where

OCS = total annual operating cost savings ($), TIC = total annual installed cost increases ($), DF = discount factor,

t = year ( PVS is summed over 2012-2062, and PVC is summed over 2012-2042).

DOE determined the contribution to PVC for each year, from the effective date of the standard (2012) to the year 2042, discounted fo r the ANOPR analysis, to the year 2008. The contribution to PVS was determined for each year, from the effective date of the standard (2012) to the year when units purchased in 2042 retire (assumed to be 2062). DOE calculated costs and savings as the difference between a standards case and a base case (i.e., without new standards). DOE calculated a discount factor from the disco unt rate and the number of years between the “present” (i.e., year to which th e sum is being discounted) and th e year in which the costs and savings occur. DOE calculated the NPV as th e sum over time of the discounted net savings (which is equivalent to the a pproach shown in Equations 11.5–11.7).

11.3.2 Net Present Value Inputs
Table 11.3.1 summarizes the inputs to the NPV calculation.
Table 11.3.1 Net Present Value Inputs
Input Total Annual Installed Cost ( TIC t ) ($) Total Annual Operating Cost Savings ( OCS t ) ($) Discount Factor Present Value of Costs ( PVC ) ($) Present Value of Savings ( PVS ) ($)



### 11.3.2.1 Total Annual Installed Cost

The increase in the total annual installed cost is equal to th e annual change in the per-unit total installed cost (difference between base case and standards case) multiplied by the shipments forecasted in the standards case. The total inst alled cost includes both the equipment cost and the installation price. DOE based average equi pment costs on average manufacturer prices (see chapter 8, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis) multiplied by average overall markup values also shown in chapter 8). DOE based average installation prices on nationally representative values for each equipment class (see chapter 8). Table 11.3.2 shows the resulting average total installed costs pe r linear foot for each of the e quipment classes of commercial refrigeration units by efficiency level.

DOE developed base case and standards case en ergy efficiency scenarios as discussed in section 11.2.2.1. For both the base case and stan dards case energy efficiency scenarios, DOE calculated annual shipment-weighted average e fficiencies. Associated with each annual shipment-weighted average efficiency value, DOE assigned a total installed cost, based on shipment-weighted total installed cost for all efficiency levels. DOE based the relationship between efficiency and total inst alled cost for each CRE class on the data in Table 11.3.2. As shown in Table 11.3.3, DOE estimated the shipments- weighted installed cost. DOE determined

11-9

### forecasted average shipments-weighted total in stalled costs based on the annual shipments by efficiency level.
Table 11.3.2 Average Total Installed Cost per Li near Foot by Efficiency Level (2007$)
Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M $672 $676 $684 $692 $717 $722 $1,093 NA VOP.RC.L $936 $943 $962 $992 $995 $1,001 $1,098 NA VOP.SC.M $1,096 $1,103 $1,117 $1,144 $1,167 $1,254 $1,271 $1,662 VCT.RC.M $916 $919 $925 $978 $1,073 $1,078 $1,084 NA VCT.RC.L $988 $991 $997 $1,117 $1,170 $1,175 $1,186 NA VCT.SC.I $1,536 $1,545 $1,568 $1,629 $1,781 $1,831 $1,834 $1,858 VCS.SC.I $983 $987 $991 $999 $1,007 $1,035 $1,051 $1,059 SVO.RC.M $623 $625 $630 $636 $654 $659 $929 NA SVO.SC.M $930 $936 $942 $962 $973 $1,040 $1,057 $1,342 SOC.RC.M $1,062 $1,064 $1,070 $1,076 $1,082 $1,280 $1,285 $1,316 HZO.RC.M $678 $680 $686 $693 $699 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L $683 $685 $691 $700 $706 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M $850 $852 $854 $860 $871 $907 $911 $928 HZO.SC.L $959 $965 $966 $990 $991 $1,053 $1,058 $1,074 HCT.SC.I $725 $728 $730 $770 $775 $795 NA NA
*A value of NA means that no installed cost was calculated for th is efficiency level. For exam ple, the VOP.RC.L only had seven possible

efficiency levels.


### Table 11.3.3 Shipment-Weighted Average Total In stalled Cost per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level (2007$)

Equipment Class Level 1 (Base Case) TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M $694 $698 $702 $720 $720 $1,093 VOP.RC.L $981 $988 $1,002 $1,008 $1,098 $1,098 VOP.SC.M $1,158 $1,164 $1,192 $1,261 $1,261 $1,662 VCT.RC.M $969 $970 $972 $1,078 $1,084 $1,084 VCT.RC.L $1,063 $1,066 $1,135 $1,176 $1,186 $1,186 VCT.SC.I $1,674 $1,710 $1,799 $1,837 $1,858 $1,858 VCS.SC.I $1,013 $1,015 $1,022 $1,059 $1,059 $1,059 SVO.RC.M $640 $642 $645 $657 $657 $929 SVO.SC.M $975 $978 $995 $1,047 $1,047 $1,342 SOC.RC.M $1,097 $1,097 $1,099 $1,107 $1,107 $1,316 HZO.RC.M $687 $688 $690 $694 $699 $699 HZO.RC.L $693 $696 $701 $706 $706 $706 HZO.SC.M $876 $877 $885 $913 $928 $928 HZO.SC.L $1,002 $1,003 $1,014 $1,059 $1,074 $1,074 HCT.SC.I $752 $753 $774 $778 $795 $795



### 11.3.2.2 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings

The annual operating cost saving s to the Nation are equal to the change in the annual operating costs (difference between base case and standards case) per unit multiplied by the shipments forecasted in the standards case.

The annual operating cost includes electri city, repair, and maintenance costs.

11-10

### Annual Electricity Cost Savings. As described in chapter 8, DOE calculated annual electricity costs based on average State-level co mmercial electricity prices . To calculate annual energy cost savings for a particular equipment cl ass in a given year, DOE first calculated the annual energy costs in each forecast year at each standard level by multiplying the weighted-average energy consumption at each e fficiency level from Table 11.2.6 times the linear feet of equipment stock in the equipment class in each year, and then times the sales-weighted national average electricity prices for the four building types in Chapter 8. To determine energy savings, the national energy costs at each efficiency level (Levels 2–8) were then subtracted from the national energy costs at the baseline level (Lev el 1). Because projections of the stock of commercial refrigeration equipment (expressed in linear feet) are the primary drivers used to estimate future CRE shipments, DOE calculate d the national energy co st more readily by expressing the AEC on a linear-footage basis.

Annual Repair Costs. DOE based average annual repa ir costs on the value of the commercial refrigeration equipment (see chapter 8) . Table 11.3.4 shows the average repair costs per linear foot for the equipment classes of comm ercial refrigeration units. The NES spreadsheet provides the capability to allow repair costs to di ffer by the price of the commercial refrigeration equipment, and, therefore, by TSL. For the pur poses of this NOPR analysis, DOE assumed the repair costs to increase in each equipment cla ss as the manufacturer selling price increases, as shown in Table 11.3.4. Table 11.3.5 provides repair costs per lin ear foot by TSL. Table 11.3.4 Average Annual Repair Cost per Linear Foot (2007$)

Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M $26.60 $26.87 $27.52 $27.52 $27.72 $27.72 $27.72 NA VOP.RC.L $40.91 $41.54 $43.05 $43.29 $43.29 $43.29 $43.29 NA VOP.SC.M $50.54 $50.96 $51.81 $52.01 $52.49 $53.14 $53.14 $53.14 VCT.RC.M $40.41 $40.62 $41.13 $41.13 $41.88 $41.88 $41.93 NA VCT.RC.L $44.50 $44.71 $45.22 $46.17 $46.17 $46.17 $46.25 NA VCT.SC.I $76.11 $76.56 $77.27 $77.27 $78.41 $78.78 $78.91 $79.21 VCS.SC.I $44.92 $45.17 $45.32 $45.93 $45.99 $46.30 $46.30 $46.60 SVO.RC.M $23.71 $23.89 $24.32 $24.32 $24.46 $24.46 $24.46 NA SVO.SC.M $41.12 $41.39 $41.78 $41.93 $42.09 $42.59 $42.59 $42.59 SOC.RC.M $46.01 $46.19 $46.62 $46.62 $46.67 $46.67 $46.67 $46.91 HZO.RC.M $26.28 $26.46 $26.89 $26.95 $26.95 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L $26.54 $26.72 $27.15 $27.22 $27.22 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M $35.97 $36.07 $36.21 $36.60 $36.68 $36.95 $37.11 $37.11 HZO.SC.L $43.56 $43.75 $43.88 $44.35 $44.41 $44.88 $45.04 $45.04 HCT.SC.I $28.41 $28.52 $28.60 $28.90 $29.09 $29.09 NA NA
*A value of NA means that no installed cost was calculated for th is efficiency level. For exam ple, the VOP.RC.L only had seven possible

efficiency levels.



### Annual Maintenance Costs. DOE determined average annual maintenance costs in two parts: a preventative maintenance cost of $160/y ear per unit, regardless of cooling capacity or efficiency level; and a lighting maintenance cost that varied with efficiency level or when decreased energy consumption level was due to particular types of lighting measures (see Chapter 8). Table 11.3.6 shows the resultin g annual maintenance co sts per linear foot by efficiency level. Table 11.3.7 shows the corr esponding shipments-weighted annual maintenance cost per linear foot by TSL.

11-11

### Table 11.3.5 Shipment-Weighted Average Annual Re pair Cost per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level (2007$)

Equipment Class Baseline TSL 1 Standard Level TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I $27.30 $42.60 $51.86 $41.08 $45.39 $77.63 $45.81 $24.18 $41.86 $46.46 $26.70 $26.97 $36.54 $44.31 $28.75 $27.58 $43.17 $52.21 $41.12 $45.63 $77.91 $45.88 $24.36 $42.03 $46.49 $26.74 $27.18 $36.59 $44.37 $28.80 $27.58 $27.72 $27.72 $43.29 $43.29 $43.29 $52.63 $53.14 $53.14 $41.33 $41.89 $41.93 $46.18 $46.18 $46.25 $78.57 $78.94 $79.21 $46.13 $46.60 $46.60 $24.36 $24.46 $24.46 $42.20 $42.59 $42.59 $46.64 $46.68 $46.68 $26.91 $26.95 $26.95 $27.22 $27.22 $27.22 $36.80 $37.11 $37.11 $44.60 $45.04 $45.04 $28.96 $29.09 $29.09 $27.72 $43.29 $53.14 $41.93 $46.25 $79.21 $46.60 $24.46 $42.59 $46.91 $26.95 $27.22 $37.11 $45.04 $29.09



### Table 11.3.6 Average Annual Maintenance Cost per Linear Foot by Efficiency Level (2007$)

Equipment Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Leve l 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 VOP.RC.M $21.73 $21.73 $21.73 $24.71 $24.71 $24.71 $48.77 NA VOP.RC.L $16.76 $16.76 $16.76 $16.76 $18.04 $18.04 $22.88 NA VOP.SC.M $48.76 $48.76 $48.76 $48.76 $51.82 $51.82 $51.82 $74.84 VCT.RC.M $20.02 $20.02 $20.02 $18.87 $18.87 $18.87 $18.87 NA VCT.RC.L $19.99 $19.99 $19.99 $19.99 $18.85 $18.85 $18.85 NA VCT.SC.I $47.80 $47.80 $47.80 $44.21 $44.21 $44.21 $44.21 $44.21 VCS.SC.I $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 SVO.RC.M $19.25 $19.25 $19.25 $21.38 $21.38 $21.38 $39.02 NA SVO.SC.M $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $47.96 $47.96 $47.96 $65.09 SOC.RC.M $19.25 $19.25 $19.25 $21.38 $21.38 $32.63 $32.63 $32.63 HZO.RC.M $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 NA NA NA HZO.RC.L $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 NA NA NA HZO.SC.M $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 HZO.SC.L $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 HCT.SC.I $45.74 $45.74 $45.74 $45.74 $45.74 $45.74 NA NA
*A value of NA means that no maintenance cost was calculated for this efficiency level. For ex ample, the VOP.RC.M only had seve n possible

efficiency levels.

11-12

### Table 11.3.7 Shipment-Weighted Average Annual Maintenance Cost per Linear Foot by Trial Standard Level (2007$)

Equipment Class Baseline TSL 1 Standard Level TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I $23.25 $17.63 $50.14 $19.55 $19.64 $45.83 $36.38 $20.42 $46.88 $21.54 $13.03 $13.03 $39.11 $39.11 $45.74 $23.25 $17.63 $50.14 $19.55 $19.64 $44.21 $36.38 $20.42 $46.88 $21.54 $13.03 $13.03 $39.11 $39.11 $45.74 $24.85 $24.85 $24.85 $17.63 $18.43 $22.88 $52.14 $52.14 $52.14 $19.55 $18.87 $18.87 $19.64 $18.85 $18.85 $44.21 $44.21 $44.21 $36.38 $36.38 $36.38 $21.54 $21.54 $21.54 $48.26 $48.26 $48.26 $21.54 $22.69 $22.69 $13.03 $13.03 $13.03 $13.03 $13.03 $13.03 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $39.11 $45.74 $45.74 $45.74 $48.77 $22.88 $74.84 $18.87 $18.85 $44.21 $36.38 $39.02 $65.09 $32.63 $13.03 $13.03 $39.11 $39.11 $45.74



### 11.3.2.3 Discount Factor

DOE multiplied monetary values in future year s by the discount factor to determine the present value. The discount factor ( DF ) is described by the equation:



### 1 DF = Eq. 11.8
t

− tp 

### (1 + r )
where

r = discount rate (percent),

t = year of the monetary value,

t p 

### = year in which the present value is being determined.

DOE estimated national impacts with both a 3 percent and a 7 percent real discount rate as the average real rate of re turn on private investment in th e U.S. economy. These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on the developm ent of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Be nefits and Costs,” therein. DOE defined the present year as 2008 for the NOPR analysis.

11.3.2.4 Present Value of Costs



### The present value of increased installed costs is the annual installed cost increase in each year (i.e., the difference between the standards case and the base case), discounted to the present, and summed for the time period over which DOE is considering the installation of commercial refrigeration equipment (i.e., from the effectiv e date of standards, 2012, to the year 2042).

The increase in total installed cost refers to both equipment cost and installation cost associated with the higher energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration units purchased in the

11-13

### standards case compared to the base case. DOE calculated annual installed costs as the difference in total installed cost for new equipment purchased each year, multiplied by the shipments in the standards case.

11.3.2.5 Present Value of Savings



### The present value of operating cost savings is the annual ope rating cost savings (i.e., the difference between the base case and standards case) discounted to the year 2008, and summed over the period from the effective date of the standard, 2012, to the time when the last unit installed in 2042 is retired from service (assumed to be 2062). Savings represent decreases in operating costs (including electric ity, repair, and maintenance) a ssociated with the higher energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration units purch ased in the standards case compared to the base case. Total annual operating cost savings is the savings per linear foot multiplied by the number of linear feet of each vi ntage surviving in a particular year. Equipment consumes energy over its entire lifetime, and for units purchased in 2042, the PVS includes energy consumed until the last unit is retired from service at the end of 2062.

11.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS



### The NES spreadsheet model provides estimates of the NES and NPV due to various efficiency levels. The inputs to the NES sp readsheet have been discussed earlier in sections 11.2.2 (National Energy Savings Inputs) and 11.3.2 (Net Present Value Inputs). DOE generated the NES and NPV re sults using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is accessible on the Internet at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/build ings/appliance_standards/comm ercial/refrigeration_equipmen t.html . Details and instructions for using the spre adsheet are discussed in Appendix H of the TSD.

11.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary



### Table 11.4.1 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model. For each input, a brief description of the data source is given.

11.4.2 National Energy Savings Results



### The following section provides NES results for each trial standard level considered for the 15 equipment classes of commercial refr igeration equipment analyzed. Results are cumulative to 2042 and are shown as primary en ergy savings in quads. Inputs to the NES spreadsheet model are based on weighted-average va lues, yielding results that are discrete point values, rather than a distribution of values as in the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis.

Table 11.4.2 shows the NES results for the effi ciency levels analyzed for each equipment class of commercial refrigeration equipment.

11-14

### Table 11.4.1 NES and NPV Inputs
Input Data Description Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model (see chapter 10, Shipments Analysis). Effective Date of Standard 2012 Base-Case Efficiencies Distribution of ba se-case shipments by efficiency level. Standards-Case Efficiencies Distribution of shipments by efficien cy level for each standards case. Standards-case annual market shares by efficiency level remain constant over time for base case and each standards case. Annual Energy Consumption per Linear Foot Annual weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (Established from the Engineering Analysis, chapter 5). Converted to a per linear foot basis. Total Installed Cost per Linear Foot Annual weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level (see chapter 8, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis). Converted to a per linear foot basis. Repair Cost per Linear Foot Annual weighted-average values are constant with efficiency level (see chapter 8). Converted to a per linear foot basis. Maintenance Cost per Linear Foot Annual weighted-average value equals $160 (see chapter 8), plus lighting maintenance cost. Converted to a per linear foot basis. Escalation of Electricity Prices 2008 EIA Annual Energy Outlook forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation for beyond 2030 (see chapter 8). Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/EIA’s NEMS* program (a time series conversion factor; includ es electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses). Discount Rate 3 and 7 percent real. Present Year Future costs ar e discounted to year 2008.

* Chapter 14 on the utility impact analysis and Chapter 15 on th e environmental assessment provide more detail on NEMS.



### Table 11.4.2 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (2012-2042)

Equipment Class National Energy Savings (quads*) by Trial Standard Level TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I Total 0.057 0.082 0.157 0.157 0.294 0.006 0.011 0.012 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.016 0.031 0.031 0.041 0.001 0.002 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.035 0.392 0.561 0.574 0.574 0.009 0.023 0.027 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.029 0.043 0.085 0.085 0.157 0.005 0.015 0.033 0.033 0.043 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.014 0.048 0.001 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.013 0.028 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.016 0.017 0.019 0.019 0.168 0.645 1.013 1.035 1.298

* 0.000 indicates savings are le ss than 0.0005 quadrillion Btu.

11-15

### 11.4.3 Annual Costs and Savings



### As a prelude to providing the NPVs for each standard level in each equipment class, this section presents the annual equipment cost (or to tal installed cost) increas es and annual operating cost savings at the national level.

Figure 11.4.1 shows the change s over time of the non-discount ed annual equipment price increases and the non-discounted operating co st savings for TSL 3 (and TSL 4) for the VOP.RC.M equipment class, which corresponds to efficiency Level 5. The total net annual impact is the discounted value of the differen ce between annual equipment purchases and annual operating costs at a 7 percent di scount rate. Appendix I of the TSD shows comparable figures for other efficiency levels and other equipment classes. Each figure also shows the net annual impact, which is the difference between the savings and costs for each year. The annual equipment price change is the increase in equi pment price for equipment purchased each year over the period 2012–2042. The annual operating savi ngs is the savings in operating costs for equipment purchased, and which have not been re tired, for each year over the time period 2012– 2062. DOE determined the annual costs and savings presented in each figure based on the AEO 2008 Reference Case. 3 

### The NPV is the difference between the cumulative annual discounted savings and the cumulative annual discounted costs.

11-16Efficiency Level
Level 5 Trial Standard Level TSL 3,4

Net Savings

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

2012 2016 2 020 202 4 20 28 2032 2036 20 40 2044 2048 2052 2 056 206 0

YearBillion 2007$

Undiscounted Total Annual Operating Savings Undiscounted Annual Equipment Purchase Savings Discounted Total Net Annual Impact



### Figure 11.4.1 National Annual Costs and Saving s for Trial Standard Level 3 (Efficiency Level 5)



### Figure 11.4.1 initially shows smaller annual operating cost savings compared to the increased equipment price costs (shown on Figure 11.4.1 as operating savings). For efficiency levels up through Level 7, operating cost savings increase with time, as more and more equipment meeting the efficiency level comprises the CRE stock.

11.4.4 Net Present Value Results



### The following section provides NPV results for the trial standard levels considered for the equipment classes of commercial refrigeration units. Results are cumulative and are shown as the discounted value of these savings in dollar te rms. The inputs to the NES spreadsheet model are based on weighted-average values yielding results that are discrete point values, rather than a distribution of values as in the LCC analysis. The present value of increased total installed costs is the total installed cost increase (i.e., the di fference between the standards case and base case),

11-17

### discounted to 2008, and summed over the time peri od in which DOE evaluates the impact of standards (i.e., from the effective date of the standards, 2012, to the year 2062).

Savings are decreases in operati ng costs (including electricit y, repair, and maintenance) associated with the higher energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration units purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. To tal operating cost savings are the savings per unit multiplied by the number of units of each vintage (i.e., the year of manufacture) surviving in a particular year. Commercial refrigeration equi pment consumes energy and must be maintained over its entire lifetime. For units purchase d in 2042, the operating cost includes energy consumed and maintenance and repa ir costs incurred until the last un it is retired from service in 2062.

Table 11.4.3 shows the NPV results for the st andard levels considered for commercial refrigeration equipment based on a 7 percent disc ount rate. DOE based all results on electricity price forecasts from the AEO 2008 Reference Case. Detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and natio nal operating costs are provided in Appendix I of the TSD.

Table 11.4.3 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a Seven-Percent Discount Rate

Equipment Class TSL 1 Trial Standard Level (Billion 2007$) * TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I Total $0.12 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.07 $0.02 $0.00 $0.06 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33 $0.10 $0.20 $0.20 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.02 $0.04 $0.04 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.60 $0.84 $0.83 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.05 $0.11 $0.11 $0.02 $0.04 $0.04 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.98 $1.45 $1.41 ($2.04) $0.01 ($0.12) $0.02 $0.83 $0.05 $0.00 ($1.14) ($0.14) ($0.16) $0.01 $0.05 $0.00 $0.01 $0.03 ($2.59)

* 0.00 indicates savings ar e less than $0.005 billion.

11-18

### Table 11.4.4 provides the NPV resu lts based on the 3 percent discount rate and electricity price forecasts from the AEO 2008 Reference Case. As with the NPV results based on a 7 percent discount rate, detailed results s howing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and national operating costs based on a 3 percen t discount rate are provided in Appendix I.

11-19

### Table 11.4.4 Cumulative NPV Results based on a Three-Percent Discount Rate

Equipment Class TSL 1 Trial Standard Level (Billion 2007$) * TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 VOP.RC.M VOP.RC.L VOP.SC.M VCT.RC.M VCT.RC.L VCT.SC.I VCS.SC.I SVO.RC.M SVO.SC.M SOC.RC.M HZO.RC.M HZO.RC.L HZO.SC.M HZO.SC.L HCT.SC.I Total $0.29 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.16 $0.05 $0.00 $0.14 $0.03 $0.01 $0.01 $0.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.83 $0.27 $0.54 $0.54 $0.05 $0.06 $0.03 $0.06 $0.10 $0.10 $0.01 $0.07 $0.07 $1.62 $2.31 $2.29 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.14 $0.30 $0.30 $0.06 $0.11 $0.11 $0.03 $0.04 $0.04 $0.02 $0.04 $0.03 $0.13 $0.14 $0.14 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $2.60 $3.97 $3.93 ($3.80) $0.03 ($0.19) $0.07 $2.29 $0.12 $0.01 ($2.14) ($0.21) ($0.26) $0.03 $0.14 $0.01 $0.03 $0.08 ($3.79)

* 0.00 indicates savings ar e less than $0.005 billion.

11-20

### REFERENCES

1 

### Energy Information Administration (EIA). National Energy Modeling System Commercial

Model (2004 Version).

2 

### ERG/MKJ. Energy Research Group & M.K. Jacc ard & Associates. 2000. Integration of GHG

Emissions Reduction Options using CIMS. <<http://www.emrg .sfu.ca/reports/Rollup.pdf>> (05 June 2001).

3 

### U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Informa tion Administration (DOE/EIA), Annual Energy

Outlook 2008, June 2008. Washington, D.C. DOE/EIA-0383(2008).

11-21