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 Pa yback 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 INPUT S ...................................................................................... 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

L IST OF TABLES

Table 6.1.1 Summary Information of Inputs for the Determination of Life- Cycle Cost and Payback Peri od..................................................................................................... 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 I nstalled 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 ................................... 6-116- 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 E quipment 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

LI ST 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 H istoric al Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Integral Horsepower

Motor s and Generators Manufacturing ................................................................ 6-9 Figure 6.2 .2 H istorical Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Copper Smelting, Stee l Mills

Manuf acturing 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 ............................................................................................................ 6-306-1 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 a ir 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 perio d (PBP ) . Payback period is the estimated amount of time it takes

cu stomers 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 L CC.

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 s ecti ons 6.2 and 6.3

. Results for the LCC and PBP analysi s are presented in s ections 6.4 and 6.5

.

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

Excel spreadsheets 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 L ife -C ycle Cost and P ayback 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, increas ing 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 e fficiency levels

.

Because the LCC analysis of CRAC equipmen t 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 equipment6-2 class . T he higher efficiency levels (Level 1 and up ) have a progressive increase in efficiency and equipment cost from the ASHRAE level . The highes t efficiency level in each equipment class corresponds to the max imum 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 th e 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 standard s 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 l ess 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 hig her 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. P BP 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 median6-3 PBP . For each equipment class, 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations were carried out. The

simulati ons 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 th e 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 conservat ionstandards, 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 dist ribution 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

anal yzed 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 CRA C 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 lif etime s 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 st ates 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 L ife -C ycle Cost and P ayback 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 t he price charged by the manufactu rer to either a wholesaler or customer for equipment meeting baseline efficiency level

. The MSP

includes a manufacturer’s markup, which convert s 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-l evel manufacturer selling price increase is t he incremental change in MSP associated with producing equipment at each of the higher efficiency

levels (e fficiency l evels above the baseline).

• Markups and sales tax are the distribution channel markups and sales tax associated with converting the MSP to a customer pur chase 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.

• Installa tion cost is t he 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 o verhead, and other miscellaneous materials and parts are considered in the distribution channel markups..

The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost s 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 kilowatt

hour in cents or dollars paid by each customer for electricity. Electricity prices are determined using average commercial electricity prices in each s tate, as determined

from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for 2010. The 2010 average commercial prices d erived were modified to reflect the fact that the three types of

bu sinesses 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 s ection 6.2.3.1 .1.

• Electric ity price trends : The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011 1 ( AEO20 11) is used to forecast electricity prices. For the results presented in this chapter, DOE used the regional prices from the AEO201 1 reference case to forecast future electricity prices

.

• Mainten ance 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 repr esent the labor and materials costs associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed.

• Equipment l ifetime : 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 t h e weighted average cost of capital for each of the three types of business es assumed to have the computer rooms cooled by CRAC equipment.

Figure 6.1.1 depicts the rela tionships 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 correspondin g 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 standard

level MSP increases Vary 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 cl ass 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 lo cation. 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

Costs6-6 All of the inputs depicted in Figure 6.1.1 and summarized in Table 6.1.1 are discussed in

s ections 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. E ach 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 ) dire cts 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 efficien cy 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. 6 313(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 efficien cy 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 20 13 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 efficie ncy 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 standa rd” 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 S tandard 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

A SHRAE Standard 27,406

Level 1 25,293

Level 2 23,506

Level 3 21,973

Level 4 20,646

6.2 LIFE

- CYCLE COST INPU TS

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 ov er the lifetime of the equipment.

LCC is defined by Eq. 6.1 :



## ∑

= + += N

t t

t r OC ICLCC

1 )1 /(

Eq. 6.1

W here :

LCC = life

- cycle cost ($)

, IC = total installed cost ($)

, N = lifetime of equipment (years)

, OC t = 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 installe d 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 :

INST EQP IC += Eq. 6.2

W here :

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

INST = installation cost or the customer price to install equipment ($).6-8 The e quipment 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 instal led cost

.

Table 6.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs
Baseline manufacturer selling pri ce ($)

Price l earning c oefficient

Candidate s tandard

- l evel 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 manufact urers and distributors for CRAC equipment f or 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 Coo led 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

Wate r 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 > 2406-9 DOE’s LCC analysis typically includes an allowance for equipment prices to change as experience is gained with manufacturing. To derive a price trend forcomputer room airconditioners, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Ind ex (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 -conditionin g 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 R 2

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 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0Defkated PPI (2010=1)Nominal PPI (1989=100)

Year Nominal All Other

Misc. Refrigeration &
Air-Conditioning

Equipments

Deflated All

Other Misc.
Refrigeration &
Air-Conditioning

Equipments6-10 parameter, which indicates quality of the fit, was relatively low, indicating a poor fit to the da ta. 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 effic iency 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 Air

Conditioning 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 adjust ment 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 b aseline was set at the

ASHRAE standard baseline, as explained in s ection 6.1.2

. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Deflated Commodity Price Index (2010=1)

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 E nergy C onsumption L evels and MSP V alues for the Representative

CRAC Equipment Units of A ll 15 P rimary E quipment C lasses

Equipment Class Baseline Energy Consumption kWh/yr Manufacturer Selling Price

2011 $

Air Cooled < 65 kB tu 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

W ater 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 wit h 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 (2,70 5) (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 en gineering analysis.

Table 6.2.5 Energy C onsumption V alues for R epresentative CRAC E quipment U nits of the

15 CRAC E quipment C lasses and A ll E fficiency L evels w ithin the E quipment C lasses

Product Class Annual En ergy 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 C ooled 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 Gly col 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 181,776 168,036 156,540 146,7 79 138,388

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 baseli ne 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 re present 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 2011 2 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 in s tallation cost functions by size for the three CRAC equipment cooling methods

are as follows:

INST Air = 690

. 13 × Cap 0

. 6538

INST Glycol = 1017 .8 × Cap 0

. 5407

INST Water = 702

. 45 × Cap 0

. 5161

Where capacity is measured in t ons (multiple s 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. T he 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 dat a 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 es timate 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 U nited States

, which are used to adjust the nationally representa tive installation costs for each s tate . 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 20 10 from the U.S. Census Bureau 3 to c alculate 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

installati on cost. DOE derived the customer equipment price for any given standard level by multiplying the baseline MSP by the baseline markup and adding to it the product of the

incremental MSP and the incremental markup. Because MSP s, markups, and the sales tax a ll 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 nece ssary for6- 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 Stat e 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 Texa s 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 Clas s*

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 l evel ) 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 IC BASE AC< 65 = EQP BASE AC< 65 + INST BASE AC< 65 × ISTINDEX

= MFG BASE AC< 65 × Price Learning Coef Analysis Year × MU BASE AC< 65 × Sales Tax State

+ INST BA SE 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

W here :

IC BASE AC < 65 -B = total installed cost of AC < 65 equipment at baseline efficiency level ($), EQP BASE AC < 65 -B = equipment purchase price of AC < 65 equipment at baseline efficiency level ($),

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

MFG BASE AC < 65 B = MSP of AC < 65 -B eq uipment at baseline efficiency level ($),

MU BASE AC < 65 B = 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 Coef Analysis Year = price learning coefficient value for the year in which the unit is being purchased (=1.0 in 2011)

The calculation of the higher E fficiency L evel 4 total insta lled cost includes the use of an

MSP increment

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

MSP. The L evel 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 t otal installed cost ( IC IMH-ASmall -B LEVEL4 ) as follows: d

IC AC< 65 −B LEVEL 4 = EQP AC< 65 LEVEL 4 + INST AC< 65 LEVEL 4 × ISTINDEX

= MFG BASE AC< 65 × Price Learning Coef Analysis Year × MU BASE AC< 65 + ∆ MFG AC< 65 LEVEL 4 ×

Price Learning Coef Analysis Year × MU IMH −A− Small −B LEVEL 4 × Sales Tax State +

INST AC< 65 LEVEL 4 × 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

W here :

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

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

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

, Δ MFG AC<65 LEVEL4 = i ncremental increase in MSP of AC<65 equipment at Efficiency Level 4 compared to equipme nt at baseline efficiency level ($)

, and

MU IMH -A- Small -B LEVEL4 = i ncremental markup for equipment class AC<65

.

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

installed cos ts 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 C onditions (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 we re 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

W here :

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 ref rigeration 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 )

Elec tricity price trend s Repair cost ($) Maintenance cost ($)

Lifetime (y ears )

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 S tates 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 AEO201 1

. 5 Table 6.2.10 provides data on the adjusted elec tricity prices.6- 18 Table 6.2.10 Commercial Electricity Prices by State ( 2011 cents/k Wh)

State Commercial Electricity Price

cents/kWh State Commercial Electricity Price

cents/kWh State Commercial Electricity

Pric e 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 Mich igan 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 Caroli na 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 show s t he ratio s of prices paid by the three types of businesses were used to increase or decrease the average commercial prices.

EPRICE COM BLDGTYPE STATE 2010 = EPRICE COM STATE 2010 × � EPRICE BLDGTYPE US 2003

EPRICE COM US 2003 �

Eq. 6.6

W here :

EPRICE COM BLD G TYPE STATE 2010 = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific building type ( such as health care

, education , and office) in a specific state in 20 10,

EPRICE COM STATE 20 10 = average commercial sector electricity price in a specific state in 20 10,

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

type in 2003 CBECS, and

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

.

Table 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 A ll Commercial Buildings

HealthCare 0.07222 0.91 0

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 ove rall 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 20 10 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 AEO20 11 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. AEO20 11 , High Economic Growth (“ AEO201 1 High Growth ” in Figure 6.2.3 )

3. AEO20 11 , Reference Case (“AEO20 11 Reference” in Figure 6.2.3 )

4. AEO 2011 , Low Economic Growth (“ AEO201 1 Low Growth ” in Figure 6.2.3 )

Figure 6.2.3 shows the trends for the three AEO20 11 price projections where prices are assumed to change. DOE extrapolated the values in later years ( i.e. , after 2035— the last year of

the AEO20 11 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 203 6 to 2045.6- 20 Figure 6.2.3 Electricity Price Trends for Commercial Rates to 2045

The default electricity price trend scenario s used in the LCC analysis are the trend s at the

Census division level from the AEO 2011 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 AEO 2011 High Growth and the AEO 2011 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 replacin g or repairing components in the CRAC equipment that have failed. Available data from c hapter 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 2045US Weighted Average Real Cost/kWh (2011$)

Year 

### Electricity Price Projections

AEO 2011 Low Growth AEO 2011 Reference AEO 2011 High Growth6- 21 RC BASE = K CAP × ( EQP OEM )/ LIFE Eq . 6.7

W here :

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

, K

CAP =percentage of original equipmen t price from manufacturer for a given equipment capacity EQP OEM = estimate of raw original equipment price for one major repair ($), and

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

K

CAP = 0. 0373 × Cap + 0. 0749 Eq . 6.8

K CAP 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 :

RC STD = RC MATERIAL BASE × EQP OEM STD
EQP OEM BASE + RC LABOR BASE Eq . 6.9

As the components used for higher efficiency equipment have a higher original equipment manufacturer cost, t he above equatio n yields an increasing repair cost s 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 unit s respectively

, or evaporator components. However, these parts are assumed to be th e 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 discuss ed above). Rather, it is the cost associated with general maintenance ( e.g. , checking and maintaining refrigerant levels, replacing filters

, checking coolant distribution

line s 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 Costworks6- 22 data. RS Means provides estimates on the person-hours, labor rates, and materials required to

maintain commercial re frigeration equipment. RS Means specifies preventative maintenance

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

actions: c leaning evaporator coils

, lubricat ing motors, clean ing condenser coils

, checking

refr igerant pressures as necessary

, and similar activit ies . DOE did not break out t hese 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

.

D ata were not available to indicate how maintenance costs vary with equipment efficiency level . In addition, although prevent ative 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 1 02

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 Gly col 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 whic h 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 cite d equipment life estimates of 15 years

, 7 15- 25 years

, 8

, 9 or 10–25 years. 10 ASHRAE publishes service life

e stimates 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 2 0 years , but did not have

end of life information. 12 An Australian study estimated the life at 10 years. 13 Based on the range6- 23 of service life information available, DOE established the 10–25 year range and 15- year average service life estimates for this anal ysis.

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 CR AC 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 C apital A sset P ricing Model (CAPM)

. 14 The CAPM, among the most widely used models to estimate the cost of equity financing, as sumes 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 ( R

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

. The risk coefficient of a company

, 

### β

, indicates the degree of risk associated

w ith 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 wit h 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:

k

e = R f + (β × ERP) Eq. 6.10

W here :

k

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

R

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

### β = the risk coefficient , and

ERP = the expected equity risk premium (%)

.

DOE defined the risk

- free rate as the 40- year geometric average yield on long- term government bonds. 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 f or the

ERP based on data from Damodaran Online. 16

The cost of debt financing ( k d

) is the interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company. The cost of debt is estimated by adding a risk adjustment factor ( R

a ) to the risk

- free rate.6- 24 , Eq. 6.11

Where:

k

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

R

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

a 

### R = the risk adjustment factor to risk

- free rate for each firm (%)

.

The risk adjustment factor depends on the variability of stock returns represented by standard deviations in stock prices 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

we ighted

- average cost of debt and equity financing:

k =k

e × w e + k d × w d Eq. 6.12

W here :

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

k

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

k

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

w e = the proportion of equity financing in total annual financing, and

w d = the proportion of debt financing in total annual financing.

The cost of capital is a nominal rate, because it includes anticipated future inflation in the expected returns from stocks and bonds. The real discount rate or WACC deducts expected inflation ( r ) 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 o f 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.

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

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

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

bu il dings 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. afd 

### RRk +=6- 25 Table 6.2.13 Derivation of Real Discount Rates by Bu siness Ty pe

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% 4.1 0% 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 weighti ng factors in offices are based on civil i an 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. H owever, all dollar values are expressed in 2011$.

6.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUT S

6.3.1 Definition

P BP 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 i t 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/ ∆O C Eq. 6.13

W here :

PB P = payback period in years,

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



### ∆ OC = difference in annual operating costs.6- 26 P BP s are expressed in years. P BPs 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. N egative payback s 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 occu rr ed 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 insta lled 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 analysi s 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 i n which a new efficien cy 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 t he LCC analysis. Th is curve is presented here as an example to illustrate the typical relationship between installation cost and LCC values over all the efficiency

level s in an equipment class

. The installed costs increase steadily from the baseline to the highest possible e fficiency level and the life

- cycle costs decrease from ASHRAE standard level ( baseline ) to t he highest possible efficiency level (Level 4).6- 27 Figure 6.4.1 LCC and I nstalled C ost Variation over E fficiency L evels for Air Cooled

<65 kBtu E quipment 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 6 B 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 elongate d large rectangular box is used to repre sent the 25 th and 75 th 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 50 th percentile. The upper edge of the elongated rectangle represents

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

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

Mean and median LCC savings for all equipment class es 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 Cost6- 28 Figure 6.4.2 LCC Savings D istribution for A ll the E fficiency L evels for the E quipment

Class A ir Cooled <65 kBtu

Table 6.4.1 LCC Savings D istribution R esults for E quipment C lass A ir Cooled <65 kBt u (2011$)LCC Savings*2011$ Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4

Mean 809 212 (587) (1,761)

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

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

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

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

95 th 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 4Life-cycle Cost Savings($)

Efficiency Level Mean Median

`

National6- 29 Table 6.4.2 Mean LCC Savings for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class Mean LCC Savings

201 1$ *

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 21,71 1 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

Wate r 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 > 2 40 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 re presents the 25 th percentile , which means that 25 percent of the customers will experience a PBP of 6.7 years o r 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. T he upper edge of the rectangular box represents the 75 th percentile. The two ends of the vertical line represent the 5 th percentile (lower end) and 95 th percentile (upper end). Table 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 M ean Payback P eriod for A ll E fficiency L evels for the E quipment Class Air

Cooled <65 kBtu

Table 6.4.4 Payback P eriod D istribution R esults for Air Cooled <65 kBtuPayback periodyears Efficiency Level Level 1 L evel 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 4Payback Period (years)

Efficiency Level Mean Median National6- 31 Table 6.4.5 Mean Payback Period for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class Mean P ayback P eriod *

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 > 24 0 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 P eriod for All Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Product Class Median P ayback P eriod *

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 (2 8.2) (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 parenthese s 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 that6- 32 “the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy

con servation 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 i s an alternative path to establishing economic justification.

To evaluate the rebuttable presumption, DOE estimated the additional cost of purchasing more efficient, standard s-compliant equipment, and compared this cost to the value of the energy saved during the first year of operation of the equipment. DOE interprets 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 fro m the PBPs calculated in section 6.4.2

.

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

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

and all 50 s tates 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 RPBP s calculated for all equipment classes and efficiency levels.

Table 6.4.7 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods by Efficiency Level an d Equipment

Class

Product Class R ebuttable P ayback P eriod *

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 f rom the LCC analysis in appendix 6B. Plots similar to Figure 6.4.2 and Figure 6.4.3 are presented in the appendix f or 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 equi pment 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 ben efit. 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 th e 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 R esults of LCC and PBP Analysis for Air Cooled <65 kBtu

E quipment Class

Efficiency

Level

Number Life

- Cycle Cost, All Customers Life

- Cycle Cost Savings

Payback Period, Median

y ears Installed

Cost

201 1$ Total

Discounted Operating

Cost

201 1 $ LCC,

All

Customers

201 1$ Affected

Customers'

Average Savings

201 1 $ % of Customers t hat 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 14.56- 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 Reve nue 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 Electricit y C onsumption and Expenditure Intensities for All Buildings (Including Malls), 2003 (Last Accessed March 8, 2011) < http://ww w.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set15/2003html/c14a

.html >

7. I nternational 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/coo ling

- 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. A merican 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://pa ges.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

p reliminary analysis was last accessed in May 27, 2010.