6-i 

CHAPTER 6. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ................ 6-1

6.1.2 Overview of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Inputs ................................... 6-3

6.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS ........................................................................................ 6-7

6.2.1 Definition ............................................................................................................. 6-7

6.2.2 Total Installed Cost Inputs ................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.2.1 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price ....................................................... 6-8

6.2.2.2 Candidate Standard Level Energy Consumption and Manufacturer Selling 

Price Increases ................................................................................................... 6-11

6.2.2.3 Overall Markup ...................................................................................... 6-12

6.2.2.4 Installation Cost ..................................................................................... 6-12

6.2.2.5 Weighted-Average Total Installed Cost................................................. 6-13

6.2.3 Operating Cost Inputs ........................................................................................ 6-17

6.2.3.1 Electricity Price Analysis ....................................................................... 6-17

6.2.3.2 Electricity Price Trend ........................................................................... 6-19

6.2.3.3 Repair Cost............................................................................................. 6-20

6.2.3.4 Maintenance Cost................................................................................... 6-21

6.2.3.5 Lifetime .................................................................................................. 6-22

6.2.3.6 Discount Rate ......................................................................................... 6-23

6.2.3.7 Compliance Date of Standard ................................................................ 6-25

6.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS ...................................................................................... 6-25

6.3.1 Definition ........................................................................................................... 6-25

6.3.2 Inputs.................................................................................................................. 6-26

6.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS ...................................... 6-26

6.4.1 Life-Cycle Cost Results ..................................................................................... 6-26

6.4.2 Payback Period Results ...................................................................................... 6-30

6.4.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period ........................................................... 6-31

6.5 DETAILED RESULTS ................................................................................................. 6-33

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 6-34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period..................................................................................................... 6-5

Table 6.1.2 Electricity Use in Air Cooled <65 kBtu/hr CRAC Equipment by Efficiency Level 6-7

Table 6.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs ................................................................................. 6-8

Table 6.2.2 Equipment Classes Evaluated for the CRAC Equipment Standard Life-Cycle Cost 

and Payback Period Analysis ............................................................................... 6-8

Table 6.2.3 Baseline Energy Consumption Levels and MSP Values for the Representative CRAC 

Equipment Units of All 15 Primary Equipment Classes ................................... 6-11
6-ii

Table 6.2.4 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases (Price Increases Relative to the 

Price of Baseline Equipment, Including Learning) ............................................ 6-11

Table 6.2.5 Energy Consumption Values for Representative CRAC Equipment Units of the 15 

CRAC Equipment Classes and All Efficiency Levels within the Equipment 

Classes................................................................................................................ 6-12

Table 6.2.6 Installation Cost Indices (National Value = 100.0) ................................................ 6-14

Table 6.2.7 Costs and Markups for Determination of Weighted-Average Total Installed Costs, 

Air Cooled <65 kBtu Equipment Class* ........................................................... 6-14

Table 6.2.8 Weighted-Average Equipment Price, Installation Cost, and Total Installed Costs for 

Air Cooled <65 kBtu at U.S. Average Conditions (2011$) ............................... 6-16

Table 6.2.9 Inputs for Operating Costs ...................................................................................... 6-17

Table 6.2.10 Commercial Electricity Prices by State (2011 cents/kWh) .................................. 6-18

Table 6.2.11 Derived Average Commercial Electricity Price by Business Type ...................... 6-19

Table 6.2.12 Annualized Maintenance Costs by Equipment Class for Each Efficiency Level . 6-22

Table 6.2.13 Derivation of Real Discount Rates by Business Type .......................................... 6-25

Table 6.4.1 LCC Savings Distribution Results for Equipment Class Air Cooled <65 kBtu 

(2011$) ............................................................................................................... 6-28

Table 6.4.2 Mean LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels ................. 6-29

Table 6.4.3 Median LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels .............. 6-29

Table 6.4.4 Payback Period Distribution Results for Air Cooled <65 kBtu .............................. 6-30

Table 6.4.5 Mean Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels .............. 6-31

Table 6.4.6 Median Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels ........... 6-31

Table 6.4.7 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment Class

............................................................................................................................ 6-32

Table 6.5.1 Summary of Results of LCC and PBP Analysis for Air Cooled <65 kBtu Equipment 

Class ................................................................................................................... 6-33

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period ................................................................................................................... 6-5

Figure 6.2.1 Historical Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Integral Horsepower 

Motors and Generators Manufacturing ................................................................ 6-9

Figure 6.2.2 Historical Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Copper Smelting, Steel Mills 

Manufacturing and All Other Miscellaneous Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 

Equipment .......................................................................................................... 6-10

Figure 6.2.3 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 2045 ........................................ 6-20

Figure 6.4.1 LCC and Installed Cost Variation over Efficiency Levels for Air Cooled <65 kBtu 

Equipment Class ................................................................................................ 6-27

Figure 6.4.2 LCC Savings Distribution for All the Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class Air 

Cooled <65 kBtu ................................................................................................ 6-28

Figure 6.4.3 Mean Payback Period for All Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class Air Cooled 

<65 kBtu ............................................................................................................ 6-30
6-1 

CHAPTER 6. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the analysis that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has carried 

out to evaluate the economic impacts of possible energy conservation standards developed for 

computer room air conditioning (CRAC) equipment on individual commercial customers, 

henceforth referred to as customers. The effect of standards on customers includes a change in 

operating cost (usually decreased) and a change in purchase cost (usually increased). This 

chapter describes two metrics used to determine the effect of standards on customers: 

• Life-cycle cost (LCC). The total customer cost over the life of the equipment is the 

sum of installed cost (purchase and installation costs) and operating costs 

(maintenance, repair, and energy costs). Future operating costs are discounted to the 

time of purchase, and summed over the lifetime of equipment. 

• Payback period (PBP). Payback period is the estimated amount of time it takes 

customers to recover the assumed higher purchase price of more efficient equipment 

through lower operating costs. 

An efficiency improvement to CRAC equipment that is financially attractive to a 

customer will typically be associated with a low PBP and a low LCC. 

This chapter is organized as follows. The remainder of this section outlines the general 

approach and provides an overview of the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis of CRAC

equipment. Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are discussed in detail in sections 6.2 and 6.3. 

Results for the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in sections 6.4 and 6.5. 

The calculations discussed in this chapter were performed with a series of Microsoft 

Excelspreadsheets available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ashrae_products_docs_

meeting.html. Instructions for using the spreadsheets are included in appendix 6A. Detailed

results are presented in appendix 6B. 

6.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

This section summarizes DOE’s approach to the LCC and PBP analysis for CRAC 

equipment. 

As part of the engineering analysis, various efficiency levels are ordered on the basis of 

increasing efficiency (decreased energy consumption) and, typically, increasing manufacturer 

selling price (MSP) values. For the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE chooses a maximum of five

levels, henceforth referred to as efficiency levels, from the list of engineering efficiency levels. 

Because the LCC analysis of CRAC equipment is being conducted to help determine if 

DOE should adopt an efficiency standard more stringent than the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard level discussed in earlier 

chapters, the baseline efficiency level is the ASHRAE standard for each equipment class (also 

see section 6.1.2). It is the least efficient and the least expensive equipment in that equipment 
6-2 

class. The higher efficiency levels (Level 1 and up) have a progressive increase in efficiency and 

equipment cost from the ASHRAE level. The highest efficiency level in each equipment class 

corresponds to the maximum efficiency level obtainable with non-proprietary technology (see 

preliminary technical support document (TSD) chapter 3 for details). DOE treats the efficiency 

levels as candidate standard levels, as each higher efficiency level represents a potential new 

standard level. 

The installed cost of equipment to a customer is the sum of the equipment purchase price 

and installation costs. The purchase price includes manufacturer production cost (MPC), to 

which a manufacturer markup, distributor’s cost, and cost of delivery to the job site is applied to 

obtain the MSP. This value is calculated as part of the engineering analysis (chapter 3 of the 

TSD). DOE then applies additional markups to the equipment in order to account for the 

markups associated with the distribution channels for this type of equipment (chapter 5 of the 

TSD). Installation costs vary by state depending on the prevailing labor rates. 

Operating costs for CRAC equipment are a sum of maintenance costs, repair costs, and 

energy costs. These costs are incurred over the life of the equipment and are, therefore, 

discounted to the year 2017, which is the effective date of the standards that will be established 

as part of this rulemaking. The sum of the installed cost and the operating cost, discounted to 

reflect the present value, is termed the life-cycle cost or LCC.

Generally, customers incur higher installed costs when they purchase higher efficiency 

equipment, and these cost increments will be partially or wholly offset by savings in the 

operating costs over the lifetime of the equipment. Usually, the savings in operating costs are due 

to savings in energy costs because higher efficiency equipment uses less energy over the lifetime 

of the equipment. Often, the LCC of higher efficiency equipment is lower compared to lower

efficiency equipment. LCC savings are calculated for each efficiency level of each equipment 

class.

The PBP of higher efficiency equipment is obtained by dividing the increase in the 

installed cost by the decrease in annual operating cost. For this calculation, DOE uses the sum of 

the first year operating cost changes as the estimate of the decrease in operating cost, noting that 

some of the repair and replacement costs used herein are annualized estimates of costs. PBP is 

calculated for each efficiency level of each equipment class. 

Apart from MSP, installation costs, and maintenance and repair costs, other important 

inputs for the LCC and PBP analysis are markups and sales tax, equipment energy consumption, 

electricity prices and future price trends, equipment lifetime, and discount rates.

Many inputs for the LCC and PBP analysis are estimated from the best available data in 

the market, and in some cases the inputs are generally accepted values in the refrigeration 

equipment industry. In general, there is uncertainty associated with most of the inputs because it 

is difficult to obtain one accurate representative value for some inputs. Therefore, DOE carries 

out the LCC and PBP analysis in the form of Monte Carlo simulations in which certain inputs are 

provided a range of values and probability distributions that account for the uncertainties. The 

results of the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in the form of mean and median LCC savings, 

percentages of customers experiencing net savings, net cost, and no impact in LCC, and median 
6-3 

PBP. For each equipment class, 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations were carried out. The 

simulations were conducted using Microsoft Excel and Crystal Ball, a commercially available 

Excel add-in for doing Monte Carlo simulations 

LCC savings and PBP are calculated by comparing the installed costs, operating costs, 

and LCC values of a standards-case scenario against those of base-case scenario. The Base-case 

scenario is the scenario in which equipment is assumed to be purchased by customers in the 

absence of the proposed energy conservation standards. Because the purpose of this analysis is to 

determine whether efficiency levels beyond the level adopted by ASHRAE are economically 

justified, the Base-case scenario is the ASHRAE level. Standards-case scenarios are scenarios in 

which equipment is assumed to be purchased by customers after the energy conservation 

standards, determined as part of the current rulemaking, go into effect. The number of standardscase scenarios for an equipment class is equal to one less than the total number of efficiency 

levels in that equipment class because each efficiency level above the ASHRAE level represents 

a potential new standard. Usually, the equipment available in the market will have a distribution

of efficiencies. Therefore, for both base-case and standards-case scenarios in the LCC and PBP 

analysis, DOE assumes a distribution of efficiencies in the market and the distribution is 

assumed to be spread over the first few efficiency levels in the LCC and PBP analysis (see TSD 

chapter 8). 

Recognizing that each commercial building that uses CRAC equipment is unique, DOE 

analyzed variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations for three types 

of buildings: (1) health care; (2) education; and (3) offices. Different types of businesses face 

different energy prices and also exhibit differing discount rates that they apply to purchase 

decisions. 

Equipment lifetime for CRAC equipment is another input that does not justify usage of 

one single value for each equipment class. Therefore, for purposes of the LCC analysis, DOE 

assumes a distribution of equipment lifetimes between 10 and 25 years that are defined by

Weibull survival functions, with an average value of 15 years. 

Another important factor influencing the LCC and PBP analysis is the state in which the 

CRAC equipment is installed. Inputs that vary based on this factor include energy prices and 

sales tax. At the national level, the spreadsheets explicitly modeled variability in the model 

inputs for electricity price and markups using probability distributions based on the relative 

populations in different states and business types. 

Results of the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in section 6.4 and in appendix 6B. 

6.1.2 Overview of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Inputs

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as follows: (1) inputs for establishing 

the total installed cost; and (2) inputs for calculating the operating cost.

The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are as follows: 
6-4 

• Baseline manufacturer selling price is the price charged by the manufacturer to either 

a wholesaler or customer for equipment meeting baseline efficiency level. The MSP

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

• Price learning is a method of adjusting the MSP across time to account for increased 

efficiency in the production of CRAC equipment. It is generally assumed in DOE 

LCC analyses that with time and experience, the real cost of producing equipment 

will decrease marginally. 

• Candidate standard-level manufacturer selling price increase is the incremental 

change in MSP associated with producing equipment at each of the higher efficiency

levels (efficiency levels above the baseline). 

• Markups and sales tax are the distribution channel markups and sales tax associated 

with converting the MSP to a customer purchase price. Figure 6.1.1 depicts these 

generically. Only the contractor markups and sales taxes apply to CRAC equipment. 

The methodology to determine markups and sales taxes is presented in TSD chapter 

5. 

• Installation cost is the cost to the customer of installing the equipment. The cost for 

installation is estimated as a one-time cost and is intended to represent the cost of 

labor. Installation overhead, and other miscellaneous materials and parts are 

considered in the distribution channel markups.. 

The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are as follows: 

• Equipment energy consumption: Consumption is the total annual energy consumed by

CRAC equipment in kilowatt-hours. This value is calculated as part of the 

engineering analysis for each candidate standard level in each equipment class. 

• Electricity prices: Electricity prices used in the analysis are the price per kilowatthour in cents or dollars paid by each customer for electricity. Electricity prices are 

determined using average commercial electricity prices in each state, as determined 

from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for 2010. The 2010 average 

commercial prices derived were modified to reflect the fact that the three types of 

businesses analyzed pay electricity prices that are different from the average 

commercial prices. Details on the development of electricity prices and the data 

sources used are found in section 6.2.3.1.1. 

• Electricity price trends: The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 20111

 (AEO2011) is used 

to forecast electricity prices. For the results presented in this chapter, DOE used the 

regional prices from the AEO2011 reference case to forecast future electricity prices. 

• Maintenance costs: Estimated as an annual expense, equal to a percentage of the total 

MSP, representing the labor and materials costs associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. Maintenance includes activities such as cleaning heat 

exchanger coils, checking refrigerant charge levels, and replacing filters, and other 

routine measures to keep the equipment running efficiently. 

• Repair costs: The cost for repairs is estimated as an annual expense, equal to a 

percentage of the total MSP, derived to represent the labor and materials costs 

associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed. 

• Equipment lifetime: The age at which the CRAC equipment is retired from service.
6-5 

• Discount rate: The rate at which future costs are discounted to establish their present 

value. It is calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for each of the three 

types of businesses assumed to have the computer rooms cooled by CRAC 

equipment. 

Figure 6.1.1 depicts the relationships between the installed cost and operating cost inputs 

for the calculation of the LCC and PBP. Table 6.1.1 summarizes the characteristics of the inputs 

to the LCC and PBP analysis and lists the corresponding reference chapter in the TSD for details 

on the calculation of the inputs. 

Figure 6.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period

Table 6.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period

Input Description TSD Chapter 

Reference

Total Installed Cost Primary Inputs

Baseline MSP Varies with equipment class. Chapter 3

Candidate standardlevel MSP increasesVary with equipment class and candidate standard level within an 

equipment class. Chapter 3 

Markups and sales tax Vary with location (state) where equipment is installed. Chapter 5

Installation price Varies with equipment class location (state) where equipment is installed. Chapter 6

Operating Cost Primary Inputs

Equipment energy 

consumption

Varies with equipment class and candidate standard level within an 

equipment class. Chapter 4 

Electricity prices Vary with location, building type. Chapter 6

Electricity price trends Vary with location (regional) and price scenario. Chapter 6

Maintenance costs Vary with location. Chapter 6

Repair costs Vary with equipment class, candidate standard level within equipment 

class and location. Chapter 6 

Lifetime Assumed in a range of 10 to 25 years with an average value of 15 years. Chapters 3, 6

Discount rate Varies with type of business. Chapter 6

Installation Costs Installation Costs

Repair Costs Repair Costs Lifetimes Lifetimes

Annual Maintenance

Electricity 

Consumption Electricity 

Consumption

Manufacturer Base 

Price

Total Installed Cost 

(Std i –Base)

Manufacturer Base 

Price

Contractor Markups

Markups

Wholesaler/ 

Distributor Markup

Electricity Prices

National Account 

Markup

Equipment Prices

Sales Tax

Manufacturer Base 

Price

Installation Costs

Manufacturer Std 1 

Base Price

Manufacturer Std 1 

Base Price

Manufacturer Price

Standard i= 1...n

Electricity 

Consumption Annual Energy Costs

Annual Maintenance

Repair Costs

Annual Operating 

Cost (Std i - Base)

Payback 

Period

Discount Rate

Lifetimes

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost (Std 

i – Base)

Lifecycle 

Cost

Annual Maintenance 

Costs

Installation Costs Installation Costs

Repair Costs Repair Costs Lifetimes Lifetimes

Annual Maintenance

Electricity 

Consumption Electricity 

Consumption

Manufacturer Base 

Price

Total Installed Cost 

(Std i –Base)

Manufacturer Base 

Price

Contractor Markups

Markups

Wholesaler/ 

Distributor Markup

Electricity Prices

National Account 

Markup

Equipment Prices

Sales Tax

Manufacturer Base 

Price

Installation Costs

Manufacturer Std 1 

Base Price

Manufacturer Std 1 

Base Price

Manufacturer Price

Standard i= 1...n

Electricity 

Consumption Annual Energy Costs

Annual Maintenance

Repair Costs

Annual Operating 

Cost (Std i - Base)

Payback 

Period

Discount Rate

Lifetimes

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost (Std 

i – Base)

Lifecycle 

Cost

Annual Maintenance 

Costs
6-6 

All of the inputs depicted in Figure 6.1.1 and summarized in Table 6.1.1 are discussed in 

sections 6.2 and 6.3. 

ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, on October 29, 2010. Each time ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1is amended with respect to such equipment for each type of equipment, the Energy 

Policy Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6311–6316; EPCA) directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

is amended,a DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency 

level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination 

that adoption of a more stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce 

significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the efficiency 

levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not 

later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a more stringent standard is appropriate, DOE must 

establish an amended standard not later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)), and that such standard goes into effect not later than 

four years after publication in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D))

Standards set by this rulemaking are scheduled to go into effect on October 29, 2013 if 

DOE adopts the revised ASHRAE standard and April 29, 2017 if DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation standards higher than the efficiency levels contained in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. EPCA requires that DOE publish a final rule adopting more 

stringent standards than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 within 30 months of ASHRAE 

action (i.e., by April 2013). Thus, four years from April 2013 would be April 2017, which 

would be the anticipated effective date for DOE adoption of more stringent standards. For 

purposes of this LCC analysis of comparing different efficiency levels, it is assumed that the year 

of sale for the CRAC equipment is 2017. 

Table 6.1.2 shows the five efficiency levels for CRAC equipment class Air Cooled 

<65 kBtu/hr equipment class, obtained from the engineering analysis (ASHRAE plus four 

additional levels). This table represents the current (2011) technology levels modeled for Air 

Cooled <65 kBtu/hr equipment on the market. As previously explained, DOE assumed that the 

ASHRAE standard would represent the minimum efficiency level of the market for this unit and 

that it would remain so. In order to approximate this state of market technology, DOE assumed 

the efficiency levels shown in Table 6.1.2 for Air Cooled <65 kBtu CRAC equipment in U.S. 

average climate conditions. 

 

a Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 

provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on March 7, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the March 2007 final rule). 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE 

stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is for 

ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313 

(a)(6)(A)(i)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type. Id. at 10042. In other words, if the 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to the 

level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a 

rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A).
6-7 

Table 6.1.2 Electricity Use in Air Cooled <65 kBtu/hr CRAC Equipment by Efficiency 

Level

Efficiency Level Electricity Consumption 

kWh/yr

ASHRAE Standard 27,406

Level 1 25,293

Level 2 23,506

Level 3 21,973

Level 4 20,646

6.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS

6.2.1 Definition

LCC is the total customer cost over the life of a piece of equipment, including purchase 

cost and operating costs (energy costs, maintenance costs, and repair costs). Future operating 

costs are discounted to the time of purchase and summed over the lifetime of the equipment.

LCC is defined by Eq. 6.1: 

∑=

+= +

N

t

t

t ICLCC OC r

1

/( )1

Eq. 6.1 

Where: 

LCC = life-cycle cost ($), 

IC = total installed cost ($), 

N = lifetime of equipment (years), 

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

r = discount rate, and

t = year for which operating cost is being determined.

Because DOE gathered most of its data for the LCC analysis in 2011, DOE expresses all 

costs in 2011$. Total installed cost, operating cost, lifetime, and discount rate are discussed in 

the following sections. In the LCC analysis, the first year of equipment purchase is assumed to 

be 2017. 

6.2.2 Total Installed Cost Inputs

The total installed cost to the customer is defined by Eq. 6.2: 

IC EQP += INST

Eq. 6.2 

Where: 

EQP = customer purchase price for the equipment ($), and

INST = installation cost or the customer price to install equipment ($).
6-8 

The equipment price is based on the distribution channel through which the customer 

purchases the equipment, as discussed in TSD chapter 5. 

The remainder of this section provides information about the variables DOE used to 

calculate the total installed cost for CRAC equipment. Table 6.2.1 shows inputs for the 

determination of total installed cost. 

Table 6.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs 

Baseline manufacturer selling price ($)

Price learning coefficient

Candidate standard-level manufacturer selling price increases ($)

Mechanical contractor markup

Sales tax ($)

Installation cost ($)

6.2.2.1 Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price

The baseline MSP is the price charged by manufacturers and distributors for CRAC 

equipment for existing efficiency levels (for equipment classes with no standards). The MSP

includes manufacturer markup, distributor cost, and costs of delivery to the job site that are 

applied to convert the MPC to an MSP. DOE developed MSP values for the 15 primary 

equipment classes (see TSD chapter 3). Table 6.2.2 shows the set of 15 primary equipment 

classes that DOE evaluated during the preliminary analysis of the current rulemaking. 

Table 6.2.2 Equipment Classes Evaluated for the CRAC Equipment Standard Life-Cycle 

Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

Description (Cooling Method, Size) Abbreviation

Air Cooled < 65 kBtu AC < 65

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu AC 65–240

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu AC > 240

Water Cooled < 65 kBtu WC < 65k

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu WC 65–240

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu WC > 240

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu WC w/FE < 65k

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu WC w/FE 65–240

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu WC w/FE > 240

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu GC < 65k

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu GC 65–240

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu GC >240

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu GC w/FE < 65k

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu GC w/FE 65–240

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu GC w/FE > 240
6-9 

DOE’s LCC analysis typically includes an allowance for equipment prices to change as 

experience is gained with manufacturing. To derive a price trend for computer room airconditioners, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for all other 

miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment spanning the time period 1990-2010 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS).b DOE used PPI data for all other miscellaneous 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment as representative of computer room air-conditioners 

because PPI data specific to computer room air-conditioners are not available. The PPI data 

reflect nominal prices, adjusted for product quality changes. An inflation-adjusted (deflated) 

price index for all other miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment was 

calculated by dividing the PPI series by the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price Index (see 

Figure 6.2-1).

Figure 6.2.1 Historical Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Integral 

Horsepower Motors and Generators Manufacturing 

 From 1990 to 2004, the deflated price index for all other miscellaneous refrigeration and 

air-conditioning equipment showed a downward trend. Since then, the index has risen sharply, 

primarily due to rising prices of copper and steel products that go into computer room airconditioners (see Figure 6.2-2). The rising prices for copper and steel products were primarily a 

result of strong demand from China and other emerging economies. Given the slowdown in 

global economic activity in 2011, DOE believes that the extent to which the trends of the past 

couple of years will continue is very uncertain. DOE performed an exponential fit on the deflated 

price index for all other miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, but the R2

 

b

 Series ID PCU3334153334159; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ 

0.8

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Defkated PPI (2010=1)

Nominal PPI (1989=100)

Year

Nominal All Other

Misc.

Refrigeration &

Air-Conditioning

Equipments

Deflated All

Other Misc.

Refrigeration &

Air-Conditioning

Equipments
6-10 

parameter, which indicates quality of the fit, was relatively low, indicating a poor fit to the data. 

DOE also considered the experience curve approach, in which an experience rate parameter is 

derived using two historical data series on price and cumulative production, but the time series 

for historical shipments was not available. 

 

 Given the above considerations, DOE decided to use a constant price assumption as the 

default price factor index to project future computer room air conditioner prices in 2017. Thus, 

prices forecast for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to the 2011 values for each efficiency 

level in each equipment class.

Figure 6.2.2 Historical Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Copper Smelting, Steel Mills 

Manufacturing and All Other Miscellaneous Refrigeration and AirConditioning Equipment 

Table 6.2.3 presents the baseline energy consumption values and the baseline MSPs used 

in the LCC and PBP analysis for the representative sizes for each of the 15 primary equipment 

classes (see chapter 3). Table 6.2.3 includes the adjustment for cost reduction due to accumulated 

manufacturing experience, which in the case of CRAC equipment is determined to be zero. 

Because the analysis in this chapter is designed to help determine whether efficiency levels

beyond the ASHRAE standard would be economically justified, the baseline was set at the 

ASHRAE standard baseline, as explained in section 6.1.2. 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Deflated Commodity Price Index (2010=1)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Primary Copper Smelting PPI

Iron and Steel Mills PPI

Misc. Refrigeration & air-conditioning Annual Real PPI (deflated with GDP)
6-11

Table 6.2.3 Baseline Energy Consumption Levels and MSP Values for the Representative 

CRAC Equipment Units of All 15 Primary Equipment Classes

Equipment Class Baseline Energy Consumption 

kWh/yr

Manufacturer Selling Price

2011$

Air Cooled < 65 kBtu 27,406 6,681

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 102,742 22,621

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 245,964 32,575

Water Cooled < 65 kBtu 24,724 14,233

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 92,114 12,883

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 208,707 24,453

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 15,413 15,062

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 57,426 13,633

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 129,533 25,878

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu 24,668 14,233

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 101,829 12,870

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 227,064 24,453

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 19,786 15,062

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 81,553 13,620

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 181,776 25,878

6.2.2.2 Candidate Standard Level Energy Consumption and Manufacturer 

Selling Price Increases

The candidate standard level MSP increase is the change in MSP associated with producing 

equipment at higher efficiency levels. Increases in MSP as a function of equipment efficiency 

were developed for each of the 15 primary equipment classes. The engineering analysis 

established a series of MSP increases for each standard level. Table 6.2.4 presents the increase in 

MSP corresponding to all efficiency levels for each primary equipment class, including cost 

reductions due to accumulated manufacturing experience between 2011 and 2017. 

Table 6.2.4 Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases (Price Increases Relative 

to the Price of Baseline Equipment, Including Learning) 

Equipment Class

Baseline 

(ASHRAE) 

MSP

MSP Increase by Efficiency Level

2011$*

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 6,681 1,172 2,551 4,171 6,075 

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 22,621 1,762 3,661 5,708 7,914 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 32,575 2,537 5,272 8,219 11,397 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu 14,233 (2,705) (4,896) (6,671) (8,108)

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 12,883 4,432 10,389 18,396 29,157 

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 24,453 8,410 19,713 34,903 55,318 

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 15,062 (2,863) (5,181) (7,059) (8,580)

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 13,633 4,690 10,995 19,468 30,856 

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 25,878 8,900 20,861 36,936 58,540 

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu 14,233 (2,705) (4,896) (6,671) (8,108)

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 12,870 4,426 10,375 18,370 29,115 

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 24,453 8,410 19,713 34,903 55,318 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 15,062 (2,863) (5,181) (7,059) (8,580)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 13,620 4,684 10,980 19,440 30,810 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 25,878 8,900 20,861 36,936 58,540 

*Values in parentheses are negative values.
6-12

Table 6.2.5 presents the annual energy consumption of the representative units belonging to each 

of the 15 primary equipment classes that were selected for the engineering analysis.

Table 6.2.5 Energy Consumption Values for Representative CRAC Equipment Units of the 

15 CRAC Equipment Classes and All Efficiency Levels within the Equipment Classes

Product Class

Annual Energy Consumption 

kWh/yr

Baseline 

(ASHRAE) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 27,406 25,293 23,506 21,973 20,646

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 102,742 92,645 84,489 77,764 72,124

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 245,964 219,349 198,279 181,184 167,037

Water Cooled <65 kBtu 24,724 23,090 21,674 20,435 19,341

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 92,114 85,816 80,386 75,657 71,501

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 208,707 193,842 181,099 170,056 160,394

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 15,413 14,576 13,852 13,220 12,664

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 57,426 54,191 51,410 48,993 46,874

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 129,533 121,882 115,344 109,693 104,759

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu 24,668 22,989 21,542 20,282 19,174

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 101,829 93,813 87,055 81,280 76,288

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 227,064 208,770 193,404 180,314 169,029

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 19,786 18,536 17,462 16,529 15,710

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 81,553 75,540 70,490 66,188 62,479

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 181,776 168,036 156,540 146,779 138,388

6.2.2.3 Overall Markup

As discussed in chapter 5, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE calculated 

overall markups to calculate the equipment purchase price to customers from the equipment 

MSP. DOE calculated baseline markups to convert baseline MSP to baseline customer purchase 

price and incremental markups to convert the increments in MSP into increments in customer 

purchase price. DOE used these markup values in the LCC-PBP analysis for calculation of 

baseline and higher efficiency equipment price to customers. 

6.2.2.4 Installation Cost 

Although much CRAC equipment is not installed in standard configurations, which 

complicates estimating the cost of installation, some standardized estimates do exist. The 

estimated installation cost is designed to represent a one-time fixed cost, to incorporate the labor 

and materials required to fully install CRAC equipment of various capacities to serve a computer 

room. DOE utilized RS Means installation cost data from RS Means CostWorks 20112

 to derive 

installation cost curves by size of unit for the base efficiency unit. Installation cost was also 

derived as a percentage of equipment cost at each of several unit sizes for each equipment class, 

and this percentage was used to estimate installation cost increase for more efficient equipment. 
6-13

The installation cost functions by size for the three CRAC equipment cooling methods 

are as follows: 

INSTAir = 690.13 × Cap0.6538

INSTGlycol = 1017.8 × Cap0.5407

INSTWater = 702.45 × Cap0.5161

Where capacity is measured in tons (multiples of 12 kBtu/hr). 

For the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) analysis, DOE is assuming that the 

engineering design options do not significantly affect installation labor within an equipment 

class, and therefore, within a given equipment class the installation cost will not vary with 

efficiency levels, though installation cost may still vary from one equipment class to another. If 

installation costs do not vary with efficiency levels, they do not impact the LCC, PBP, or 

national impact analysis results. The installation costs in the NOPR analysis are estimated very 

simply as a fixed value for each equipment class. To allow for the possibility that installation 

cost could increase as a function of increased efficiency within an equipment class, installation 

cost was also derived as a percentage of equipment cost at each of several unit sizes for each 

equipment class using the RS Means CostWorks 2011 data and the average percentage in each 

case (9.4, 9.2, and 7.7 percent for air-cooled, water-cooled, and glycol-cooled units, respectively) 

was recorded. The percentages are available to estimate installation cost as a function of 

equipment efficiency. DOE designed the LCC spreadsheet such that installation costs can be 

varied by efficiency level, but has modeled installation cost as constant across efficiency levels 

for the NOPR analysis.

Table 6.2.6 shows installation cost indices for installations in each of the 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and weighted-average for the entire United States, which are used to adjust 

the nationally representative installation costs for each state. To arrive at an average index for 

each state, DOE first weighted the city indices in each state by their population within the state. 

DOE used state-level population weights for 2010 from the U.S. Census Bureau3

 to calculate a 

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

6.2.2.5 Weighted-Average Total Installed Cost 

As presented in Eq. 6.2, the total installed cost is the sum of the equipment price and the 

installation cost. DOE derived the customer equipment price for any given standard level by 

multiplying the baseline MSP by the baseline markup and adding to it the product of the 

incremental MSP and the incremental markup. Because MSPs, markups, and the sales tax all can 

take on a variety of values, depending on location, the resulting total installed cost for a 

particular standard level will not be a single-point value, but rather a distribution of values. 

DOE used the baseline and incremental markups, the sales tax, and installation costs to 

convert the MSPs into total installed costs for a case where the incremental installation costs are 

held flat. Table 6.2.7 summarizes the weighted average or mean costs and markups necessary for 
6-14

determining the weighted-average baseline and standard-level total installed costs for office 

buildings as an example.

Table 6.2.6 Installation Cost Indices (National Value = 100.0) 

State Index State Index State Index

Alabama 58.7 Kentucky 81.4 North Dakota 57.9

Alaska 113.9 Louisiana 65.7 Ohio 96.9

Arizona 86.6 Maine 68.4 Oklahoma 58.8

Arkansas 62.2 Maryland 92.7 Oregon 106.8

California 131.0 Massachusetts 128.2 Pennsylvania 128.2

Colorado 83.9 Michigan 109.4 Rhode Island 116.8

Connecticut 122.0 Minnesota 126.3 South Carolina 40.2

Delaware 125.6 Mississippi 61.1 South Dakota 46.4

Dist. of Columbia 102.6 Missouri 105.4 Tennessee 76.9

Florida 73.5 Montana 78.0 Texas 63.6

Georgia 72.2 Nebraska 86.3 Utah 75.9

Hawaii 117.5 Nevada 108.4 Vermont 68.7

Idaho 72.4 New Hampshire 90.5 Virginia 73.9

Illinois 142.8 New Jersey 137.4 Washington 110.9

Indiana 87.5 New Mexico 75.5 West Virginia 92.2

Iowa 88.7 New York 170.1 Wisconsin 106.4

Kansas 77.4 North Carolina 40.3 Wyoming 60.4

Table 6.2.7 Costs and Markups for Determination of Weighted-Average Total Installed 

Costs, Air Cooled <65 kBtu Equipment Class* 

Variable Weighted Average or Mean 

Value

Baseline MSP $6,681 

Standard-Level MSP Increase (Efficiency Level 4) $6,075 

Overall Markup Factor–Baseline 1.572

Overall Markup Factor–Incremental 1.263

Installation Cost–Baseline $1,415 

Installation Cost Factor, for U.S. Average 1.000

*Installation costs apply to the baseline unit, with no incremental installation costs.

To illustrate the derivation of the weighted-average total installed cost based on the data 

shown in Table 6.2.7, DOE presents Eq. 6.3 for the baseline (ASHRAE standard level) and for a 

higher efficiency level (Level 4) Air Cooled <65 kBtu equipment class. For the baseline product, 

the calculation of the total installed cost at national average conditions is as follows:c

 

c Note that the numbers shown in Eq. 6.3 have been rounded and do not exactly match the numbers in the analysis.
6-15

ICBASEAC<65 = EQPBASE AC<65 + INSTBASE AC<65 × ISTINDEX

= MFGBASE AC<65 × Price Learning CoefAnalysis Year × MUBASE AC<65 × Sales TaxState

+ INSTBASE AC<65 × ISTINDEX

= $6,681 × 1.000 × (1.4743 × (1.0726) + $1,415 × (1.00) 

= $10,565 + $1,415 

 × (1.000) 

= $11,980 

Eq. 6.3 

Where: 

ICBASE AC < 65-B = total installed cost of AC < 65 equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), 

EQPBASE AC < 65-B = equipment purchase price of AC < 65 equipment at baseline efficiency 

level ($),

INSTBASE AC < 65 = installation cost of AC < 65 equipment at baseline efficiency level ($),

MFGBASE AC < 65B = MSP of AC < 65-B equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), 

MUBASE AC < 65B = overall baseline markup for equipment class AC < 65, 

ISTINDEX = location dependent multiplier on installation costs; approximately 1.0 at a national 

average, and 

Price Learning CoefAnalysis Year = price learning coefficient value for the year in which the unit is 

being purchased (=1.0 in 2011) 

The calculation of the higher Efficiency Level 4 total installed cost includes the use of an 

MSP increment. DOE uses an incremental markup factor that applies to incremental increases in 

MSP. The Level 4 price is equal to the baseline price calculated above, plus the MSP increment 

for a higher efficiency level multiplied by the incremental markup. 
6-16

As an example, DOE calculated the national average Level 4 total installed cost (ICIMH-ASmall-BLEVEL4) as follows:d

ICAC<65−B LEVEL4 = EQPAC<65 LEVEL4 + INSTAC<65 LEVEL4 × ISTINDEX

=

MFGBASE AC<65 × Price Learning CoefAnalysis Year × MUBASE AC<65 + ∆MFGAC<65 LEVEL4 ×

Price Learning CoefAnalysis Year × MUIMH−A−Small−B LEVEL4 × Sales TaxState +

INSTAC<65LEVEL4 × ISTINDEX 

= $6,681 x 1.000 x (1.4743) x 1.0726 + $6,075 x 1.000 x (1.1844) x 1.0726+ $1,415 x (1.000)

= $19,698 

Eq. 6.4 

Where: 

ICAC<65 LEVEL4 = total installed cost of AC < 65 equipment at Efficiency Level 4($), 

EQP AC<65LEVEL4 = equipment price of AC < 65 equipment at Efficiency Level 4 ($), 

INST AC<65LEVEL4 = installation cost of AC<65 equipment at Efficiency Level 4 ($), 

ΔMFG AC<65LEVEL4 = incremental increase in MSP of AC<65 equipment at Efficiency Level 4 

compared to equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), and

MU IMH-A-Small-BLEVEL4 = incremental markup for equipment class AC<65. 

Table 6.2.8 presents the weighted-average equipment price, installation costs, and total 

installed costs for the Air Cooled <65 kBtu equipment classes at the baseline level and each 

higher efficiency level examined. 

Table 6.2.8 Weighted-Average Equipment Price, Installation Cost, and Total Installed 

Costs for Air Cooled <65 kBtu at U.S. Average Conditions (2011$)e

Efficiency Level Equipment Price (MSP) Installation Cost Total Installed Cost

Baseline (ASHRAE) 10,565 1,415 11,980 

Level 1 12,055 1,415 13,470 

Level 2 13,805 1,415 15,221 

Level 3 15,863 1,415 17,279 

Level 4 18,283 1,415 19,698 

 

d Note that the numbers shown in Eq. 6.4 have been rounded and do not exactly match the numbers in the analysis. e Figures shown in the table were taken straight from the LCC analyses, and thus can differ from those shown above 

in the text due to the rounding issue mentioned in footnotes b and c.
6-17

6.2.3 Operating Cost Inputs

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

cost, as shown in the following equation: 

OC = EC+ RC+ MC

Eq. 6.5 

Where: 

OC = operating cost ($), 

EC = energy cost ($), 

RC = repair cost ($), and

MC = maintenance cost ($). 

The remainder of this section provides information about the variables that DOE used to 

calculate the operating cost for commercial refrigeration equipment. Table 6.2.9 shows the inputs 

for the determination of operating costs. 

Table 6.2.9 Inputs for Operating Costs 

Electricity price (cents/kWh)

Electricity price trends

Repair cost ($)

Maintenance cost ($)

Lifetime (years)

Discount rate (%)

Effective date of standard

Baseline electricity consumption (kWh/yr)

Standard case electricity consumption (kWh/yr)

6.2.3.1 Electricity Price Analysis

This section describes the electricity price (cents/kWh) analysis used to develop the 

energy portion of the annual operating costs (price multiplied by electricity consumption) for 

commercial refrigeration equipment used in different commercial building types. 

Subdivision of the Country. Because of the wide variation in electricity consumption 

patterns, wholesale costs, and retail rates across the country, it is important to consider regional 

differences in electricity prices. For this reason, DOE divided the United States into the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia. DOE used reported average effective commercial electricity prices 

at the state level from the EIA publication Form EIA-826 Database Monthly Electric Utility 

Sales and Revenue Data.

4 The latest available prices from this source are for the calendar year 

2010. These were adjusted to represent 2011$ prices using the gross domestic product price 

deflator from AEO2011.

5 Table 6.2.10 provides data on the adjusted electricity prices.
6-18

Table 6.2.10 Commercial Electricity Prices by State (2011 cents/kWh) 

State

Commercial 

Electricity Price 

cents/kWh

State

Commercial 

Electricity Price 

cents/kWh

State

Commercial 

Electricity

Price 

cents/kWh

Alabama 10.27 Kentucky 7.80 North Dakota 6.96

Alaska 14.78 Louisiana 7.86 Ohio 9.86

Arizona 9.55 Maine 12.82 Oklahoma 6.91

Arkansas 7.73 Maryland 12.23 Oregon 7.65

California 13.71 Massachusetts 15.71 Pennsylvania 9.75

Colorado 8.33 Michigan 9.44 Rhode Island 13.97

Connecticut 17.23 Minnesota 8.09 South Carolina 8.93

Delaware 12.24 Mississippi 9.71 South Dakota 7.30

Dist. of Col. 13.24 Missouri 7.11 Tennessee 9.82

Florida 11.01 Montana 8.50 Texas 9.87

Georgia 9.14 Nebraska 7.49 Utah 7.11

Hawaii 22.34 Nevada 10.87 Vermont 13.21

Idaho 6.63 New Hampshire 14.87 Virginia 8.24

Illinois 11.56 New Jersey 14.13 Washington 7.11

Indiana 8.50 New Mexico 8.58 West Virginia 6.92

Iowa 7.72 New York 15.85 Wisconsin 9.78

Kansas 8.04 North Carolina 8.15 Wyoming 7.44

DOE recognized that different kinds of businesses typically use electricity in different 

amounts at different times of the day, week, and year, and therefore face different effective 

prices. To make this adjustment, DOE used the 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS)

6 data set to identify the average prices paid by the three kinds of 

businesses in this analysis compared with the average prices paid by all commercial customers.

Eq. 6.6 shows the ratios of prices paid by the three types of businesses were used to increase or 

decrease the average commercial prices.

EPRICECOM BLDGTYPE STATE 2010 = EPRICECOM STATE 2010 × �

EPRICEBLDGTYPE US 2003

EPRICECOM US 2003

� 

Eq. 6.6

Where: 

EPRICECOM BLDGTYPE STATE 2010 = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific building 

type (such as health care, education, and office) in a specific state in 2010, 

EPRICE COM STATE 2010 = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific state in 2010, 

EPRICE BLDGTYPE US 2003 = national average commercial sector electricity price in a specific building 

type in 2003 CBECS, and

EPRICE COM US 2003 = national average commercial sector electricity price in 2003 CBECS. 

Table 6.2.11 shows the derivation of the EPRICE ratios from CBECS. 
6-19

Table 6.2.11 Derived Average Commercial Electricity Price by Business Type 

Business Type Electricity Price 

cents/kWh

Ratio of Electricity Price to Average 

Price for All Commercial Buildings

HealthCare 0.07222 0.910

Education 0.07962 1.003

Office 0.07664 0.966

All commercial buildings 0.07936 1.000

Source: CBECS 2003

The derived ratio of commercial electricity prices by building type to the overall average 

commercial building price was then combined with state-by-state commercial rates to derive a 

series of prices for each state and for each building type. Future prices are forecasted as 

described in section 6.2.3.2. To obtain a weighted-average national price, DOE weighted the 

prices paid by each business in each state by the 2010 population in each state.

6.2.3.2 Electricity Price Trend

The electricity price trend provides the relative change in electricity prices for future

years out to the year 2045. Estimating future electricity prices is difficult, especially considering 

that there are efforts in many states throughout the country to restructure the electricity supply 

industry. 

DOE applied a projected trend in national average electricity prices to each customer’s 

energy prices based on the AEO2011 price scenarios. The discussion in this chapter refers to the 

2011 reference price scenario. In the LCC analysis, the following four scenarios can be analyzed: 

1. constant (real) energy prices at 2011 values (i.e., a constant index of 1.0 in Figure 6.2.3) 

2. AEO2011, High Economic Growth (“AEO2011 High Growth” in Figure 6.2.3) 

3. AEO2011, Reference Case (“AEO2011 Reference” in Figure 6.2.3) 

4. AEO2011, Low Economic Growth (“AEO2011 Low Growth” in Figure 6.2.3) 

Figure 6.2.3 shows the trends for the three AEO2011 price projections where prices are 

assumed to change. DOE extrapolated the values in later years (i.e., after 2035—the last year of 

the AEO2011 forecast). To arrive at values for these later years, DOE used the price trend from 

2025 to 2035 of each forecast scenario to establish prices for the years 2036 to 2045. 
6-20

Figure 6.2.3 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 2045 

The default electricity price trend scenarios used in the LCC analysis are the trends at the 

Census division level from the AEO2011 Reference Case, the national average of which is 

shown in Figure 6.2.3. Spreadsheets used in calculating the LCC have the capability to analyze 

the other electricity price trend scenarios, namely, the AEO2011 High Growth and the AEO2011 

Low Growth price trends and constant energy prices. 

6.2.3.3 Repair Cost

The repair cost is the average annual cost to the consumer for replacing or repairing 

components in the CRAC equipment that have failed. Available data from chapter 3 as well as 

data on repair costs from RS Means suggest that replacement parts used in repair increase as the 

size and the efficiency of CRAC units increases. 

0.085

0.090

0.095

0.100

0.105

0.110

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

US Weighted Average Real Cost/kWh (2011$)

Year

Electricity Price Projections

AEO 2011 Low Growth AEO 2011 Reference AEO 2011 High Growth
6-21

RCBASE = KCAP × (EQPOEM)/LIFE 

 Eq. 6.7

Where: 

RCBASE = annual repair cost for a baseline efficiency unit (including labor, overhead and profit) 

($), 

KCAP=percentage of original equipment price from manufacturer for a given equipment capacity

EQPOEM = estimate of raw original equipment price for one major repair ($), and 

LIFE = average lifetime of the equipment in years, assumed to be 15 years. 

KCAP = 0.0373 ×Cap + 0.0749 

Eq. 6.8 

KCAP increases according to equation 6.8 through capacities of 15 tons capacity (Cap), and is 

constant thereafter for larger sizes. This is in recognition of the observation that repair labor costs 

in the RS Means database are essentially constant for large capacities and the main increases 

occur as a result of equipment costs. 

For repair costs at higher efficiency levels as a result of standards, the materials 

component of repair costs is assumed to increase proportionately with the cost of the more 

efficient equipment, while labor component is assumed involve approximately the same activity 

at each level of efficiency and is held constant as efficiency increases: 

RCSTD = RCMATERIAL BASE × EQPOEM STD

EQPOEM BASE

+ RCLABOR BASE

Eq. 6.9 

As the components used for higher efficiency equipment have a higher original 

equipment manufacturer cost, the above equation yields an increasing repair costs scenario for 

higher efficiency equipment. 

There are other parts of the units that typically require repair, such as water distribution 

components, control modules, fan motors or water pumps for air- or water-cooled units 

respectively, or evaporator components. However, these parts are assumed to be the same for all 

efficiency levels, so the repair costs for these parts remain constant for all efficiency levels. 

Therefore, these additional repair costs were not taken into consideration for the analysis. 

6.2.3.4 Maintenance Cost

The maintenance cost is the cost to the consumer of maintaining equipment operation. 

The maintenance cost is not the cost associated with the replacement or repair of components 

that have failed (as discussed above). Rather, it is the cost associated with general maintenance 

(e.g., checking and maintaining refrigerant levels, replacing filters, checking coolant distribution 

lines for leaks, cleaning, sanitizing, and descaling). 

DOE estimated annualized preventative maintenance costs for CRAC equipment as a 

percentage of the total MSP for each equipment class from data in the RS Means Costworks 
6-22

data. RS Means provides estimates on the person-hours, labor rates, and materials required to 

maintain commercial refrigeration equipment. RS Means specifies preventative maintenance 

activities for CRAC equipment expected to occur on an annual basis as including the following 

actions: cleaning evaporator coils, lubricating motors, cleaning condenser coils, checking 

refrigerant pressures as necessary, and similar activities. DOE did not break out these activities 

into separate line-item maintenance activities. Instead, DOE used a single figure of $83.98 per 

year (2011$) for preventative maintenance activities for all CRAC equipment classes between 3 

tons and 24 tons capacity and $102.10 per year (2011$) for CRAC equipment classes of larger 

capacity. 

Data were not available to indicate how maintenance costs vary with equipment 

efficiency level. In addition, although preventative maintenance activities may vary by size of 

the unit, they are about the same regardless of efficiency level. Therefore, DOE decided to use 

preventative maintenance costs that remain constant as equipment efficiency is increased. 

Table 6.2.12 Annualized Maintenance Costs by Equipment Class for Each Efficiency Level

Equipment Class

Annualized Maintenance Costs for LCC by Efficiency Level

$/yr

Baseline 

(ASHRAE) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 102 102 102 102 102 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 102 102 102 102 102 

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 102 102 102 102 102 

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 102 102 102 102 102 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 84 84 84 84 84 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 102 102 102 102 102 

6.2.3.5 Lifetime

DOE defines lifetime as the age at which CRAC equipment is retired from service. DOE

based equipment lifetime on review of available online literature and studies and concluded that 

a typical lifetime of between 10 and 25 years with an average of 15 years is appropriate for most 

CRAC equipment. While references to service life were found in online CRAC equipment 

literature, most documents found appeared to reference ASHRAE generally, and cited equipment 

life estimates of 15 years,

7

 15-25 years,

8,9

 or 10–25 years.10 ASHRAE publishes service life 

estimates for a variety of equipment in the ASHRAE Handbook,11 but appears to have little data 

specific to CRAC equipment. A 2005 ASHRAE study on equipment service life found a median 

age for 92 CRAC units still in operation at 12 years, with the oldest at 20 years, but did not have 

end of life information.12 An Australian study estimated the life at 10 years.13 Based on the range 
6-23

of service life information available, DOE established the 10–25 year range and 15-year average 

service life estimates for this analysis. 

6.2.3.6 Discount Rate

The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to establish their 

present value. DOE derived the discount rates for the CRAC equipment analysis by estimating 

the cost of capital for companies that purchase CRAC equipment. The cost of capital is 

commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company 

project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so 

their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the company of equity and debt 

financing. 

DOE estimated the cost of equity financing by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model 

(CAPM).

14 The CAPM, among the most widely used models to estimate the cost of equity 

financing, assumes that the cost of equity is proportional to the amount of systematic risk 

associated with a company. The cost of equity financing tends to be high when a company faces 

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

systematic risk.

DOE determined the cost of equity financing by using several variables, including the 

risk coefficient of a company, β (beta), the expected return on “risk free” assets (Rf), and the 

additional return expected on assets facing average market risk, also known as the equity risk 

premium or ERP. The risk coefficient of a company, β, indicates the degree of risk associated 

with a given firm relative to the level of risk (or price variability) in the overall stock market.

Risk coefficients usually vary between 0.5 and 2.0. A company with a risk coefficient of 

0.5 faces half the risk of other stocks in the market; a company with a risk coefficient of 

2.0 faces twice the overall stock market risk.

Eq. 6.10 gives the cost of equity financing for a particular company: 

ke = Rf + (β × ERP)

Eq. 6.10 

Where: 

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

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

β = the risk coefficient, and 

ERP = the expected equity risk premium (%). 

DOE defined the risk-free rate as the 40-year geometric average yield on long-term 

government bonds. The risk free rate was calculated using Federal Reserve data for the period 

1971 to 2010,15 with a resulting rate of 6.74 percent. DOE used a 3.23-percent estimate for the 

ERP based on data from Damodaran Online.16

The cost of debt financing (kd) is the interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company. 

The cost of debt is estimated by adding a risk adjustment factor (Ra) to the risk-free rate. 
6-24

, 

Eq. 6.11 

Where:

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

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

Ra = the risk adjustment factor to risk-free rate for each firm (%). 

The risk adjustment factor depends on the variability of stock returns represented by 

standard deviations in stock prices and was taken from Damodaran Online individual company 

cost of capital worksheets.17 The weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) of a company is the 

weighted-average cost of debt and equity financing: 

k =ke × we+ kd × wd 

Eq. 6.12 

Where: 

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

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

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

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

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

The cost of capital is a nominal rate, because it includes anticipated future inflation in the

expected returns from stocks and bonds. The real discount rate or WACC deducts expected 

inflation (r) from the nominal rate. DOE calculated expected inflation (3.83 percent) over the 

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

To estimate the WACC of CRAC equipment purchasers, DOE used a sample of 

companies involved in each of the three building types being analyzed, drawn from a database of 

U.S. companies given on the Damodaran Online individual company worksheet cited earlier. 

The Damodaran database includes most of the publicly traded companies in the United States.

DOE divided the companies into categories according to their type of activity. DOE used 

financial information for all of the firms in the Damodaran database in the three classes of 

buildings likely to use CRAC equipment. Three occupant categories were also used in the 

analysis: private companies, state and local government (including K-12 schools, colleges, and 

universities), and Federal government. 

Table 6.2.13 outlines the building type and ownership categories as well as the number of 

companies used for determining real discount rates. 

+= RRk afd
6-25

Table 6.2.13 Derivation of Real Discount Rates by Business Type

Business Type 

Description

Private Federal Government* State and Local 

Government* Wtd 

No. 

Obs.* WACC Percent 

of Stock

Federal 

Risk-Free 

Rate

Percent 

of Stock

Muni 

Bond 

Rate

Percent 

of Stock

Discount 

Rate

Health Care 4.10% 100% 2.80% 0% 2.05% 0% 4.10% 5

Education 4.26% 25% 2.80% 0% 2.05% 75% 2.68% 20

Office 4.96% 83% 2.80% 5% 2.05% 12% 4.51% 913

Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) WACC calculations applied to firms sampled from the 

Damodaran Online website. Assumptions for weighting factors in offices are based on civilian employment in office 

and administrative occupations and reflect lack of reliable data sources on the distribution of computer rooms.

*No Damodaran observations available for governments.

Data in the Damodaran database was representative of the privately operated schools, but 

lacked data on cost of capital for public schools. Data from representative 10-year AA municipal 

bonds were used as a proxy for the Damodaran data for public schools. There are both Federal 

government agencies and state and local government agencies with computer rooms outfitted 

with CRAC equipment in the offices category. The Federal risk-free rate was used for the 

discount rate for Federal offices; the same average AA municipal bond rate was used for state 

offices as for public education. 

6.2.3.7 Compliance Date of Standard 

As discussed in section 6.1.2, DOE assumed that the final rule would be issued in 2013 

and, therefore, that the new standards would take effect in 2017. For the LCC analysis, the year 

of equipment purchase is 2017. However, all dollar values are expressed in 2011$. 

6.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS 

6.3.1 Definition

PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the higher purchase cost of 

more energy efficient equipment as a result of lower operating costs. Numerically, the PBP is the 

ratio of the increase in purchase cost to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type 

of calculation is known as a “simple” PBP because it does not take into account changes in 

operating cost over time or the time value of money, that is, the calculation is done at an 

effective discount rate of zero percent.

The equation for PBP is: 

PBP =∆IC/∆OC 

Eq. 6.13

Where: 

PBP = payback period in years, 

∆IC = difference in the total installed cost between the more efficient standard level and the 

baseline equipment, and

∆OC = difference in annual operating costs.
6-26

PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs greater than the life of the product mean that the 

increased total installed cost of the more efficient equipment is not recovered in reduced 

operating costs over the life of the equipment. Negative paybacks were observed for certain 

equipment classes. Some of these negative paybacks occurred because the available data 

indicated that higher efficiency equipment had a lower initial cost than less efficient equipment 

just meeting the ASHRAE standard. DOE regards this as likely to be a data quality issue rather

than reflective of real first cost savings due to higher standards. A smaller group of negative 

paybacks occurred because the increase in annualized repair and maintenance cost at higher 

efficiencies was greater than the energy cost savings, resulting in negative operating gains going 

from ASHRAE to the higher standard, and thus negative paybacks. Although technically 

possible, this outcome would also mean LCC losses. An efficiency level with LCC losses would 

not be chosen as an efficiency standard. 

6.3.2 Inputs

The data inputs to PBP are the total installed cost of the equipment to the customer for 

each efficiency level and the annual (first year) operating costs for each efficiency level. The 

inputs to the total installed cost are the consumer’s final equipment price and the installation 

cost. The inputs to the operating costs are the annual energy cost, the annual repair cost, and the 

annual maintenance cost. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis 

described in section 6.2, except that electricity price trends and discount rates are not required

because the PBP is a “simple” (undiscounted) payback and the required electricity price is only 

for the year in which a new efficiency standard is to take effect—in this case, the year 2017. The 

electricity price used in the PBP calculation of electricity cost was the price projected for 2017, 

expressed in 2011$. Discount rates are not used in the PBP calculation.

6.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

The results of the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in this section. Mean values of 

LCC savings and PBP are presented along with a summary of the distribution of these values. 

6.4.1 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Figure 6.4.1 shows the change in LCC over the ASHRAE baseline and the four higher 

efficiency levels for the Air Cooled <65 kBtu equipment class. The LCC values on this chart are 

mean values obtained from the LCC analysis. This curve is presented here as an example to 

illustrate the typical relationship between installation cost and LCC values over all the efficiency 

levels in an equipment class. The installed costs increase steadily from the baseline to the highest 

possible efficiency level and the life-cycle costs decrease from ASHRAE standard level 

(baseline) to the highest possible efficiency level (Level 4). 
6-27

Figure 6.4.1 LCC and Installed Cost Variation over Efficiency Levels for Air Cooled 

<65 kBtu Equipment Class 

As stated earlier, the LCC savings output obtained from the LCC analysis are in the form 

of distributions. LCC savings distributions are illustrated here with the example of Air Cooled 

<65 kBtu equipment class as shown in Figure 6.4.2. Similar plots of LCC savings distribution 

are presented in appendix 6B for all equipment classes analyzed. Table 6.4.1 presents the 

numerical values associated with the plot in Figure 6.4.2. Figure 6.4.2 illustrates the mean and 

median values on the plot with the help of red and blue markers, respectively. The elongated 

large rectangular box is used to represent the 25th and 75th percentile values. The lower edge of 

the elongated rectangle represents 25th percentile, which means that 25 percent of the customers 

will experience LCC savings of $49 or less if the standard were to be set at Level 1, minus $ 471 

or below in LCC savings if the standards were set at Level 2, and so on. The median value of 

LCC savings is equal to the 50th percentile. The upper edge of the elongated rectangle represents 

the 75th percentile. The two ends of the vertical black line for each efficiency level represent the

5th percentile (lower end) and 95th percentile (upper end). 

Mean and median LCC savings for all equipment classes analyzed are summarized in 

Table 6.4.2 and Table 6.4.3, respectively.

$0 

$5,000 

$10,000 

$15,000 

$20,000 

$25,000 

$30,000 

$35,000 

$40,000 

$45,000 

$50,000 

Baseline 

(ASHRAE)

1 2 3 4

Installed Cost Life Cylce Cost
6-28

Figure 6.4.2 LCC Savings Distribution for All the Efficiency Levels for the Equipment 

Class Air Cooled <65 kBtu 

Table 6.4.1 LCC Savings Distribution Results for Equipment Class Air Cooled <65 kBtu 

(2011$) LCC Savings* 2011$

Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4

Mean 809 212 (587) (1,761)

Median (50th Percentile) 513 (67) (757) (1,821)

5th Percentile (991) (939) (1,850) (3,456)

25th Percentile 49 (471) (1,099) (2,542)

75th Percentile 1,255 522 (300) (1,216)

95th Percentile 3,493 2,443 1,118 137 

* Values in parenthesis are negative numbers. These are efficiency levels for which the installed cost increases 

cannot be recovered through savings in operating costs.

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1 2 3 4

Life-cycle Cost Savings($)

Efficiency Level

Mean Median

`

National
6-29

Table 6.4.2 Mean LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class

Mean LCC Savings 

2011$*

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 809 212 (587) (1,761)

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 9,334 6,406 5,895 6,437 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 27,198 19,713 19,071 22,152 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu 5,455 7,389 8,003 10,213 

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu (672) (5,118) (12,844) (25,278)

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 2,133 (5,292) (18,696) (40,964)

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 4,759 6,459 6,960 8,832 

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu (4,439) (10,105) (19,437) (33,672)

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu (6,568) (16,717) (33,664) (59,831)

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu 5,540 7,501 8,117 10,350 

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 594 (3,901) (11,921) (25,047)

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 4,429 (3,308) (17,633) (41,761)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 5,295 7,159 7,717 9,808 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu (1,802) (7,200) (16,388) (30,857)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu (891) (10,569) (27,375) (54,306)

*Values in parentheses are negative values.

Table 6.4.3 Median LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class

Median LCC Savings 

2011$*

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 513 (67) (757) (1,821)

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 7,360 5,326 4,501 4,755 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 21,711 16,697 14,952 17,644 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu 5,185 8,045 7,505 9,659 

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu (1,471) (5,372) (12,960) (25,805)

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 199 (6,824) (18,417) (42,143)

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 4,545 7,488 6,592 8,459 

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu (5,277) (8,904) (20,107) (35,165)

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu (8,478) (15,610) (34,827) (61,505)

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu 5,268 8,192 7,608 9,792 

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu (324) (4,589) (11,596) (25,577)

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 2,404 (5,538) (18,020) (43,148)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu 4,957 8,061 7,174 9,218 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu (3,117) (7,788) (17,301) (32,251)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu (3,950) (12,720) (28,790) (57,297)

*Values in parentheses are negative values.
6-30

6.4.2 Payback Period Results 

Figure 6.4.3 presents the distribution of the PBP results for Efficiency Level 1 to 

Efficiency Level 4 of the equipment class Air Cooled <65 kBtu. The numerical values associated 

with this plot are presented in Table 6.4.4. The red marker represents the mean and the blue 

marker represents the median PBP for each efficiency level. The lower edge of the elongated 

rectangular box represents the 25th percentile, which means that 25 percent of the customers will 

experience a PBP of 6.7 years or lower if the energy conservation standard were to be set at the 

ASHRAE standard (Level 1), 7.9 years or lower if the energy conservation standard were to be 

set at Level 2, and so on. The upper edge of the rectangular box represents the 75th percentile.

The two ends of the vertical line represent the 5th percentile (lower end) and 95th percentile 

(upper end). Table 6.4.5 and Table 6.4.6 summarize the mean and median PBPs, respectively, for 

all efficiency levels for all the analyzed equipment classes.

 Figure 6.4.3 Mean Payback Period for All Efficiency Levels for the Equipment Class Air 

Cooled <65 kBtu 

Table 6.4.4 Payback Period Distribution Results for Air Cooled <65 kBtu Payback period years

Efficiency Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Mean 8.6 10.3 12.4 14.8

Median (50th Percentile) 8.5 10.2 12.1 14.5

5th Percentile 5.5 6.5 7.7 9.1

25th Percentile 6.7 7.9 9.5 11.2

75th Percentile 9.9 11.9 14.2 17.0

95th Percentile 12.3 14.8 17.8 21.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4

Payback Period (years)

Mean Median Efficiency Level National
6-31

Table 6.4.5 Mean Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class

Mean Payback Period*

years

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 8.6 10.3 12.4 14.8 

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 2.6 3.1 3.5 4.0 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu (21.3) (20.7) (20.1) (19.5)

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 16.4 25.3 45.6 105.8 

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 11.5 16.4 25.1 43.2 

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu (43.6) (42.6) (41.6) (40.6)

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 68.9 73.0 (153.4) (84.2)

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu (565.1) 522.0 (37.8) 12.3 

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu (20.3) (19.8) (19.3) (18.8)

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 12.9 20.3 40.4 252.8 

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 9.7 14.4 24.0 (9.4)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu (28.9) (28.3) (27.6) (26.9)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 30.0 56.4 198.0 (38.9)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 21.0 32.6 (119.4) 6.4 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. Either there are savings in installed costs or repair and maintenance 

cost increases outweigh energy savings as efficiency levels are compared with the baseline (ASHRAE) standard 

level.

Table 6.4.6 Median Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class

Median Payback Period*

years

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 8.5 10.2 12.1 14.5 

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu (21.5) (20.9) (20.3) (19.7)

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 15.4 22.4 35.9 64.6 

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 11.1 15.4 22.4 36.0 

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu (40.3) (39.3) (38.3) (37.3)

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 41.5 34.1 (66.1) (75.0)

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 30.5 40.7 43.1 (57.8)

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu (20.2) (19.7) (19.2) (18.6)

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 11.9 17.8 29.1 50.4 

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 9.2 13.2 20.2 35.1 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu (28.2) (27.6) (26.9) (26.3)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 21.0 33.4 40.8 22.4 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 15.4 23.3 32.3 34.8 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. Either there are savings in installed costs or repair and maintenance cost increases 

outweigh energy savings as efficiency levels are compared with the baseline (ASHRAE) standard level.

6.4.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

Sections 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 345(e)(1)(A) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 

42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)(A)) establish a rebuttable presumption for CRAC equipment. The 

rebuttable presumption states that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
6-32

“the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during 

the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure ...” This rebuttable presumption test is an alternative path to 

establishing economic justification.

To evaluate the rebuttable presumption, DOE estimated the additional cost of purchasing 

more efficient, standards-compliant equipment, and compared this cost to the value of the energy 

saved during the first year of operation of the equipment. DOE interprets that the increased cost 

of purchasing standard-compliant equipment includes the cost of installing the equipment for use 

by the purchaser. DOE calculated the rebuttable presumption payback period (RPBP), or the 

ratio of the value of the increased installed price above the baseline efficiency level to the first 

year’s energy cost savings. When RPBP is less than 3 years, the rebuttable presumption is 

satisfied; when RPBP is equal to or more than 3 years, the rebuttable presumption is not 

satisfied. Note that this PBP calculation does not include other components to the annual 

operating cost of the equipment (i.e., maintenance costs and repair costs). The RPBPs calculated 

can thus be different from the PBPs calculated in section 6.4.2. 

DOE calculated the RPBPs for the distribution of installed costs and energy prices 

discussed in sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, which are representative of the same three building types 

and all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The RPBP was calculated for each higher 

efficiency level within each equipment class. 

Table 6.4.7 shows the nationally averaged median RPBPs calculated for all equipment 

classes and efficiency levels. 

Table 6.4.7 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level and Equipment

Class

Product Class

Rebuttable Payback Period*

years

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Air Cooled <65 kBtu 7.6 8.9 10.4 12.2 

Air Cooled 65–240 kBtu 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.5 

Air Cooled > 240 kBtu 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 

Water Cooled <65 kBtu (22.5) (21.8) (21.2) (20.5)

Water Cooled 65–240 kBtu 9.6 12.1 15.2 19.3 

Water Cooled > 240 kBtu 7.7 9.7 12.3 15.6 

Water Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu (46.5) (45.2) (43.8) (42.5)

Water Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 19.7 24.9 31.4 39.8 

Water Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 15.8 20.0 25.3 32.2 

Glycol Cooled <65 kBtu (21.9) (21.3) (20.7) (20.1)

Glycol Cooled 65–240 kBtu 7.5 9.6 12.2 15.5 

Glycol Cooled > 240 kBtu 6.3 8.0 10.2 13.0 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE <65 kBtu (31.2) (30.3) (29.5) (28.7)

Glycol Cooled w/ FE 65–240 kBtu 10.6 13.5 17.2 22.0 

Glycol Cooled w/ FE > 240 kBtu 8.8 11.3 14.4 18.4 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. Either there are savings in installed costs as efficiency levels are 

compared with the baseline (ASHRAE) standard level..
6-33

6.5 DETAILED RESULTS

DOE presents detailed results from the LCC analysis in appendix 6B. Plots similar to 

Figure 6.4.2 and Figure 6.4.3 are presented in the appendix for all equipment classes. In addition, 

summary tables with all the necessary data in one table for each equipment class are presented. 

Table 6.5.1 is a reproduction of the summary table for Air Cooled <65 kBtu equipment class. 

This table presents the mean values of installed costs, annual operating costs, LCC, LCC savings, 

and median PBP values for all the efficiency levels. It also presents the percentage of customers 

who experience net cost, no impact, and net benefit. The average LCC savings and the 

percentage of customers experiencing a net benefit or cost are based on a distribution of 

efficiency choices. In the base case, not all customers are assumed to be buying equipment at the 

baseline efficiency. Some are assumed to be buying at higher efficiency levels. The LCC savings 

is an average of the savings achieved by customers who, in the base case, were buying less 

efficient equipment than the efficiency level examined. Customers with no impact were assumed 

in the base case to be already buying more efficient equipment, so the efficiency level in 

question would not affect them. 

Table 6.5.1 Summary of Results of LCC and PBP Analysis for Air Cooled <65 kBtu 

Equipment Class 

Efficiency 

Level 

Number

Life-Cycle Cost, All Customers Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period, Median 

years

Installed

Cost

2011$

Total

Discounted

Operating

Cost

2011$

LCC,

All 

Customers

2011$

Affected

Customers'

Average

Savings

2011$

% of Customers that 

Experience

Net

Cost

%

No 

Impact

%

Net

Benefit

%

Baseline 

(ASHRAE)

11,982 32,039 44,021 — — — — — 

1 13,471 29,822 43,294 809 3 89 8 8.5 

2 15,222 28,140 43,362 212 17 68 14 10.2 

3 17,281 26,756 44,037 (587) 65 23 12 12.1 

4 19,700 25,623 45,323 (1,761) 90 5 6 14.5 
6-34

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 

2011. 2011. Washington D.C. DOE/EIA-0383(2011). (Last Accessed November 11, 

2011)<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm> 

2. RS Means. 2011. CostWorks 2011. Reed Construction Data, Inc. 

http://www.meanscostworks.com/securedsite/login.aspx. (Last accessed October 5, 2011).

3. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census of Population. Table DP-1. Profile of General 

Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 . (Last accessed May 19, 2011.) 

<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml> 

4. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-826 Database 

Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Data (EIA-826 Sales and Revenue 

Spreadsheets). (Last accessed July 15, 2010.) 

<www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia826.html> 

5. U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 

2011. Table A20. Macroeconomic Indicators. 2011. (Last accessed November 17, 2011.) 

<http://www.eia.gov/analysis/projection-data.cfm#annualproj> 

6. U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey 2003. Table C-14A Electricity Consumption and Expenditure 

Intensities for All Buildings (Including Malls), 2003 (Last Accessed March 8, 2011) <

http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set15/2003html/c14a

.html >

7. International Facility Management Association. Sustainability How To Series: Turning 

Data Centers Green. (Last accessed October 7, 2011.) 

<www.ifmafoundation.org/documents/public/DataCenters.pdf> 

8. Nextrade International Pvt Limited. Your Guide to IT Equipment Cooling. (Last accessed 

October 7, 2011.) <www.nextradeintl.com/GUIDE.doc> 

9. Beaty, D. Cooling Health-Care Technology. HPAC. 2009. (Last accessed November 7, 

2011.) <http://hpac.com/air-conditioning/cooling-healthcare-technology-0709> 

10. Beaty, D. Data Center Cooling Energy Basics. Newslink. 2007. (Last accessed November 

9, 2011.) <www.7x24exchange.org/downloads/7x24Newslink_Fall07.pdf> 

11. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE 

Handbook: 2011 Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Applications. 2011. Atlanta, 

GA.

12. Abramson. Interactive Web-based Owning and Operating Cost Database, Final Report 

ASHRAE Research Project RP-1237. 2005. Atlanta, GA.
6-35

13. Energy Consult Pty Ltd. Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact 

Statement Consultation Draft: Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Alternative 

Strategies for Close Control Air Conditioners. Report No 2008/11. September 2008. 

<www.energyrating.gov.au>

14. Harris, R.S. Applying the Capital Asset Pricing Model. UVA-F-1456. Available at SSRN: 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=909893

15. U.S. Federal Reserve. H.15: Selected Interest Rates. (Last accessed June 27, 2011.) 

<www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm.> 

16. Damodoran Online. Papers and Research. Equity Risk Premiums (ERP): Determinants, 

Estimation and Implications – The 2010 Edition. 2010. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

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

17. Damodoran Online. The Data Page. 2011. (Last accessed March 16, 2011.) 

<http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/data.html> The data used herein 

was the individual company data for the U.S. for January 2010. Data used for this 

preliminary analysis was last accessed in May 27, 2010.