10-i

CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 10-1

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS .................................................................................. 10-1

10.2.1 National Energy Savings Definition ..................................................................... 10-1

10.2.2 National Energy Savings Inputs............................................................................ 10-2

10.2.2.1 Annual Unit Energy Consumption......................................................... 10-3

10.2.2.2 Shipments ............................................................................................... 10-5

10.2.2.3 Equipment Stock .................................................................................... 10-5

10.2.2.4 National Annual Energy Consumption .................................................. 10-5

10.2.2.5 Site-to-Source Conversion Factor .......................................................... 10-6

10.3 NET-PRESENT VALUE.................................................................................................. 10-7

10.3.1 Net-Present Value Definition ................................................................................ 10-7

10.3.2 Net Present Value Inputs ...................................................................................... 10-8

10.3.2.1 Total Annual Installed Cost ................................................................... 10-8

10.3.2.2 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings ................................................. 10-12

10.3.2.3 Discount Factor .................................................................................... 10-15

10.3.2.4 Present Value of Costs ......................................................................... 10-16

10.3.2.5 Present Value of Savings ..................................................................... 10-16

10.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS ........... 10-16

10.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary ...................... 10-16

10.4.2 National Energy Savings Results ........................................................................ 10-17

10.4.3 National Water Impacts ...................................................................................... 10-20

10.4.4 Annual Costs and Savings .................................................................................. 10-20

10.4.5 Net Present Value Results ................................................................................... 10-21

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 10-24
10-ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 10.2.1 National Energy Saving Inputs ............................................................................. 10-2

Table 10.2.2 Shipment-Weighted Market Shares by Efficiency Level, Base Case ................... 10-3

Table 10.2.3 Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level ................................................... 10-4

Table 10.2.4 Shipment-Weighted Average Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level .... 10-5

Table 10.2.5 Projected Site-to-Source Conversion Factors ....................................................... 10-7

Table 10.3.1 Net Present Value Inputs ...................................................................................... 10-8

Table 10.3.2 Average Total Installed Cost per Unit by Efficiency Level ................................. 10-9

Table 10.3.3 Experience (Price) Learning Scenarios ............................................................... 10-11

Table 10.3.4 Shipment-Weighted Average Total Installed Cost per Unit, by Efficiency 

Level ................................................................................................................ 10-12

Table 10.3.5 Average Annual Repair Cost per Unit ................................................................ 10-14

Table 10.3.6 Average Annual Maintenance Cost per Unit ...................................................... 10-15

Table 10.4.1 NES and NPV Inputs .......................................................................................... 10-17

Table 10.4.2 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

(2016-2045)...................................................................................................... 10-18

Table 10.4.3 Cumulative National Energy Savings, Discounted 7 Percent (2016-2045)........ 10-19

Table 10.4.4 Cumulative National Energy Savings, Discounted 3 Percent (2016-2045)........ 10-20

Table 10.4.5 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 7-Percent Discount Rate ......................... 10-22

Table 10.4.6 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 3-Percent Discount Rate ......................... 10-23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 10.4.1 National Annual Costs and Savings for Efficiency Level 4 .............................. 10-21
10-1

CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the method for estimating the magnitude and net present value 

(NPV) of future national energy savings (NES) from candidate efficiency levels for automatic 

commercial ice-making (ACIM) equipment energy conservation standards. Results of the 

national impact analysis (NIA) described in this chapter include national energy consumption 

and savings, monetary value of energy savings to the nation as a result of standards, increased 

total installed costs to the nation as a result of standards, and the NPV of energy savings (the 

difference between the present monetary value of energy savings and increased total installed 

costs). 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) determined both the NPV and NES for each

candidate standard level it considered for each of the 21 primary equipment classes of automatic 

commercial ice makers examined in this rulemaking. Sections 10.2 and 10.3 present the 

definitions and the inputs to NES and NPV, respectively. Section 10.4 presents the result of the 

NIA. DOE performed all calculations using a Microsoft Excelspreadsheet, which is available at 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ commercial_products.html. Details and 

instructions for using the spreadsheet are discussed in appendix 10A of this preliminary technical 

support document (preliminary TSD). Detailed results are available in appendix 10B of this 

TSD. 

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

10.2.1 National Energy Savings Definition

DOE calculates annual NES for a given year as the difference between two scenarios: a 

base case without new energy conservation standards and a standards case with new energy 

conservation standards. Positive values of NES correspond to net energy savings (i.e., national 

annual energy consumption (AEC) with standards is less than AEC in the base case). 

NESt = AECbase,t − AECstandards,t 

Eq. 10.1 

Where:

NESt = national energy savings in the year t (quadrillion British thermal units (quads)), 

AECbase,t = annual national energy consumption in the year t in the base case scenario (quads),

and

AECstandards,t = annual national energy consumption in the year t in a standards case scenario 

(quads). 

DOE calculates cumulative NES as the sum of annual NES from each year, starting with 

the year in which the standards that are the subject of this rulemaking become effective (2016), 

and through the end of the study period (2045). As discussed below, the NES also includes 

energy savings for equipment purchased in the final study year, and through the year in which 

the final year purchases are retired. Cumulative NES is explained by Eq. 10.2. 
10-2

NEScum = ∑ NEStt 

Eq. 10.2

DOE calculated the AEC for base-case and standards-case scenarios by multiplying the 

number or stock of automatic commercial ice makers (by vintage) by the unit energy 

consumption (UEC) (also by vintage), as shown by Eq. 10.3: 

AECt = ∑ (STOCKV × UECV V ) × src_convt 

Eq. 10.3

Where:

AECt = national annual energy consumption in the year t (quads), summed over vintages of 

ACIM stock, 

STOCKV = stock of automatic commercial ice makers (millions of units) of vintage V surviving 

in the year for which DOE calculated annual energy consumption (vintages range from 1 to 

approximately 14 years), 

UECV = annual unit energy consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) for equipment of vintage V, 

src_convt = time-dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy to source energy 

(Btu/kWh), and

t = year of forecast.

The ACIM stock depends on annual shipments and equipment lifetime. DOE

acknowledges that the shipment projections under the standards cases could be lower than those 

in the base case because the higher installed costs could cause some customers to forego or delay

discretionary equipment purchases. DOE calculated an average impact factor of -0.625, -6.25 

percent for a 10-percent price increase, based on an average of input received during 

manufacturer interviews. This information was compiled after DOE completed the work 

underlying this preliminary TSD. DOE will consider performing sensitivity analyses during the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) stage of the rulemaking to analyze the impact of higher 

prices on shipment. In the executive summary of this preliminary TSD, DOE requests comment 

on the potential impacts on future shipments in standards-case scenarios.

10.2.2 National Energy Savings Inputs

Table 10.2.1 lists the inputs for the determination of NES.

Table 10.2.1 National Energy Saving Inputs 

Input

Annual unit energy consumption (UEC)

Shipments

Equipment stock (STOCKV)

Site-to-source conversion factor (src_conv)
10-3

10.2.2.1 Annual Unit Energy Consumption 

The annual UEC is the site energy consumed by an automatic commercial ice maker in a 

given year. As described in the following paragraphs, DOE forecasted annual shipment-weighted 

average equipment efficiencies that, in turn, enabled the determination of shipment-weighted 

AEC values.

Table 10.2.2 provides estimated shipment-weighted market shares, by efficiency level, 

for each of the equipment classes analyzed in this rulemaking. To estimate these market shares, 

DOE used 2010 automatic commercial ice maker shipments by equipment class developed from 

information provided by the industry and from published sources (see preliminary TSD 

chapter 3). 

Table 10.2.2 Shipment-Weighted Market Shares by Efficiency Level, Base Case

Equipment Class Market Share by Efficiency Level

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 50.9% 21.8% 27.3%

IMH-W- Med -B 73.8% 26.2%

IMH-W-Large-B 82.1% 0.0% 17.9%

IMH-A-Small-B 59.3% 16.7% 16.7% 7.4%

IMH-A-Large-B 68.5% 21.3% 7.9% 2.2%

RCU-Small-B 57.1% 29.8% 1.2% 11.9%

RCU-Large-B 55.2% 24.0% 6.3% 14.6%

SCU-W-Small-B 37.5% 37.5% 18.8% 0.0% 6.3%

SCU-W-Large-B 40.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

SCU-A-Small-B 32.3% 48.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7% 9.7%

SCU-A-Large-B 33.3% 44.4% 0.0% 5.6% 16.7%

IMH-W-Small-C 0.0% 3.2% 6.5% 12.9% 35.5% 41.9%

IMH-W-Large-C 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 18.8% 75.0%

IMH-A-Small-C 3.9% 2.0% 3.9% 5.9% 7.8% 76.5%

IMH-A-Large-C 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 81.8%

RCU-Small-C 0.0% 13.6% 86.4%

RCU-Large-C 0.0% 15.0% 85.0%

SCU-W-Small-C* 100.0%

SCU-W-Large-C 0.0% 0.0% 77.3% 0.0% 22.7%

SCU-A-Small-C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

SCU-A-Large-C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 5.3% 23.7% 65.8%

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; 

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* Data available to DOE shows there are no existing SCU-Water-Small-Continuous products available, so this class 

is not currently defined in the models.

DOE estimated the market shares based on the number of available ice maker models of 

each equipment class with energy use consistent with the defined efficiency levels (i.e., the 

model has energy use no greater than its assigned efficiency level, but not as low as the next 

higher efficiency level). Using the computed breakout of currently available models along with 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) shipment data, DOE created a 

shipment-weighted distribution of units by equipment class and efficiency level. 

The market share for each equipment class by efficiency level is defined as the efficiency 

level share. Because DOE had no information regarding future changes in market shares among
10-4

equipment classes, DOE assumed the market share for a particular equipment class to be 

constant over time. 

Table 10.2.3 provides the annual UEC values for each efficiency level for all 21 primary 

equipment classes. The annual UEC is the amount of energy used by an individual ice maker at 

each of the specified efficiency levels, in kWh/unit/year. 

Table 10.2.3 Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Equipment Class

Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

kWh/year*,**

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 4,292 3,865 3,695

IMH-W- Med -B 7,825 7,044

IMH-W-Large-B 10,972 9,877 9,767

IMH-A-Small-B 5,639 5,078 4,797 4,516

IMH-A-Large-B 9,366 8,432 7,964 7,497

RCU-Small-B 11,328 10,310 9,632 9,462

RCU-Large-B 13,983 12,727 11,889 11,680

SCU-W-Small-B 2,310 2,150 1,967 1,853 1,761

SCU-W-Large-B 4,183 3,892 3,559 3,351 3,143 3,018 2,560

SCU-A-Small-B 3,635 3,382 3,093 2,913 2,732 2,624

SCU-A-Large-B 3,599 3,349 3,062 2,884 2,705

IMH-W-Small-C 11,848 10,665 10,074 9,483 8,891 7,945

IMH-W-Large-C 9,329 8,399 7,933 7,468 7,096

IMH-A-Small-C 5,849 5,266 4,975 4,684 4,392 4,101

IMH-A-Large-C 11,519 10,370 9,795 9,220 8,645 8,070 7,495

RCU-Small-C 12,158 11,272 10,156

RCU-Large-C 15,078 13,979 12,594

SCU-W-Small-C ** 0

SCU-W-Large-C 3,471 3,350 3,143 2,933 2,850

SCU-A-Small-C 3,635 3,382 3,093 2,985

SCU-A-Large-C 5,387 5,012 4,583 4,314 4,046 3,778 3,456

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; 

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* Blank cells indicate that UEC was not calculated for that efficiency level because the engineering analysis 

indicated that the efficiency level is not viable.

** SCU-W-Small-C represents a viable equipment class, but DOE found no evidence of shipments within this class.

For subsequent calculations, DOE developed shipment-weighted average AEC values for 

the base-case efficiency distribution and for standards-case distributions. To develop standardscase distributions, DOE used the so-called “roll-up” method of aggregating shipments. In the 

roll-up method, when a standard is contemplated that eliminates from the market equipment 

below a specific efficiency level, all shipments below the candidate standard level roll up into the 

lowest efficiency level available under the candidate standard. For example, as Table 10.2.2

shows, in the base case, 50.9 percent of IMH-W-Small-B machines were shipped at Level 1 

efficiency. If Level 1 is eliminated, those shipments would roll up into Level 2. For each 

equipment class, DOE used the roll-up method to calculate shipment-weighted average AEC for 

the efficiency distribution at each efficiency level. Table 10.2.4 shows the resulting shipmentweighted average AEC values. 
10-5

Table 10.2.4 Shipment-Weighted Average Unit Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Equipment Class

Shipment-Weighted Average Unit Energy Consumption

kWh/year*,**

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 4,036 4,004 3,985

IMH-W- Med -B 7,620 7,534

IMH-W-Large-B 10,756 10,621 10,608

IMH-A-Small-B 5,322 5,272 5,240 5,201

IMH-A-Large-B 9,014 8,918 8,855 8,787

RCU-Small-B 10,783 10,696 10,607 10,585

RCU-Large-B 13,215 13,111 13,012 12,985

SCU-W-Small-B 2,152 2,143 2,122 2,106 2,093

SCU-W-Large-B 3,629 3,612 3,592 3,576 3,555 3,538

SCU-A-Small-B 3,328 3,315 3,280 3,259 3,237 3,222

SCU-A-Large-B 3,299 3,286 3,253 3,232 3,210

IMH-W-Small-C 8,704 8,704 8,702 8,693 8,673 8,591

IMH-W-Large-C 7,218 7,218 7,218 7,213 7,199

IMH-A-Small-C 4,284 4,280 4,278 4,273 4,267 4,256

IMH-A-Large-C 7,861 7,861 7,861 7,853 7,838 7,822 7,806

RCU-Small-C 10,308 10,308 10,285

RCU-Large-C 12,802 12,802 12,771

SCU-W-Small-C** 0

SCU-W-Large-C 3,077 3,077 3,077 3,052 3,043

SCU-A-Small-C 2,985 2,985 2,985 2,985

SCU-A-Large-C 3,608 3,608 3,608 3,608 3,606 3,602 3,585

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; 

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* Blank cells indicate that UEC was not calculated for that efficiency level because the engineering analysis 

indicated that the efficiency level is not viable.

** SCU-W-Small-C represents a viable equipment class, but DOE found no evidence of shipments within this class.

10.2.2.2 Shipments

DOE forecasted shipments for all years in the analysis period. These results are presented 

in preliminary TSD chapter 9, Shipments Analysis. 

10.2.2.3 Equipment Stock 

The ACIM stock in a given year is the total number of units that are in use in that year.

The NES spreadsheet model keeps track of the total number of automatic commercial ice makers

shipped each year. For the NES and NPV calculations in the preliminary analysis, DOE

estimated that approximately 11.8 percent of the existing automatic commercial ice makers are 

retired in each year (based on an 8-1⁄2 -year average lifetime) and that, for units shipped in 2045, 

any units still remaining at the end of 2055 will be replaced. 

10.2.2.4 National Annual Energy Consumption 

The national AEC is the product of the annual UEC and the stocks of automatic 

commercial ice makers of each vintage, as shown in Eq. 10.3. 

DOE initially calculated the AEC at the site (i.e., electricity in kilowatt-hours consumed 

by the automatic commercial ice makers). DOE then calculated primary energy consumption by 
10-6

applying a conversion factor to account for losses associated with the generation, transmission, 

and distribution of electricity. 

10.2.2.5 Site-to-Source Conversion Factor 

The site-to-source conversion factor is the multiplicative factor used for converting site 

energy consumption, expressed in kilowatt-hours, into primary or source energy consumption, 

expressed in Btu or quadrillion Btu (quads). The site-to-source conversion factor accounts for 

national average losses in electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. 

At the NOPR and final rule stages of the efficiency standards rulemaking process, DOE 

performs a utility impact analysis. As part of the utility impact analysis, DOE uses the energy 

savings estimated in the NIA to model the savings using the National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) (see preliminary TSD chapter 9 for a description of NEMS). DOE then analyzes the 

impact on the generation equipment needed to meet projected national demand and the marginal 

site-to-source conversion factors arising from the generation portfolio. Because each type of 

residential appliance or commercial equipment has a different energy usage profile, each type 

will cause the electric utility grid to provide energy at times and in quantities that are unique. 

Thus, at the NOPR and final rule stages, DOE explicitly models the energy savings to identify 

this electric system-level impact. One output of this analysis is a calculated set of site-to-source 

conversion factors specific to the energy usage profile of the appliance/equipment.

For this preliminary analysis, DOE used annual site-to-source conversion factors specific 

to the commercial refrigeration usage profile, calculated from the results of detailed modeling 

using NEMS. Table 10.2.5 shows the conversion factors used in this analysis. DOE intends to 

update the NEMS model and analyze the site-to-source conversion factors at the NOPR stage of 

the current rulemaking, based on the results of the NIA for the efficiency standards that will be 

proposed at that time. 
10-7

Table 10.2.5 Projected Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

Year

Site-to-Source 

Conversion Factor

Btu/kWh

Year

Site-to-Source 

Conversion Factor 

Btu/kWh

2016 9,115 2036 9,990

2017 9,207 2037 9,990

2018 9,529 2038 9,990

2019 10,128 2039 9,990

2020 10,347 2040 9,990

2021 10,200 2041 9,990

2022 9,834 2042 9,990

2023 9,854 2043 9,990

2024 10,060 2044 9,990

2025 10,093 2045 9,990

2026 10,020 2046 9,990

2027 9,932 2047 9,990

2028 9,920 2048 9,990

2029 9,990 2049 9,990

2030 9,990 2050 9,990

2031 9,990 2051 9,990

2032 9,990 2052 9,990

2033 9,990 2053 9,990

2034 9,990 2054 9,990

2035 9,990 2055 9,990

Source: Final Rule TSD: Energy Efficiency Standards For Commercial And Industrial Equipment: 

Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers; Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers without Doors; and Remote Condensing Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and 

Refrigerator-Freezers. Chapter 11: National Impact Analysis, and appendix H. December 31, 2008. 

10.3 NET-PRESENT VALUE

10.3.1 Net-Present Value Definition

The NPV is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. The NPV is 

given by: 

NPV = PVS – PVC 

Eq. 10.4

Where: 

PVS = present value of operating cost savings (electricity, watera, repair, and maintenance costs),

and

PVC = present value of increased total installed costs (equipment purchase price and installation

cost).

DOE determined the PVS and PVC according to the following expressions: 

PVS = ∑t OCSt × DFt 

Eq. 10.5

 

a DOE combined water and wastewater prices into a single value.
10-8

PVC = ∑t TICt × DFt 

Eq. 10.6

Where: 

OCSt = total annual operating cost savings in the year t ($), 

TICt = total annual installed cost increases in the year t ($), 

DFt = discount factor for the year t, and

t = year (PVS is summed over 2016−2055, and PVC is summed over 2016−2045). 

DOE determined the contribution to PVC for each year, from the effective date of the

standard (2016) to the year 2045, discounted to the year 2011. DOE determined the contribution 

to PVS for each year, from the effective date of the standard (2016) to the year when units 

purchased in 2045 would be retired (estimated to be 2055b). DOE calculated costs and savings as 

the difference between a standards case and a base case. DOE calculated a discount factor from 

the discount rate and the number of years between the “present” (i.e., year to which the sum is 

being discounted) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. DOE calculated the NPV as

the sum over time of the discounted net savings.

10.3.2 Net Present Value Inputs

Table 10.3.1 summarizes the inputs to the NPV calculation.

Table 10.3.1 Net Present Value Inputs

Input

Total annual installed cost (TICt)

Total annual operating cost savings (OCSt)

Discount factor

Present value of costs (PVC)

Present value of savings (PVS)

10.3.2.1 Total Annual Installed Cost 

The increase in the total annual installed cost is equal to the annual change in the per-unit 

installed cost (difference between base case and standards case) multiplied by the shipments 

forecasted in the standards case. The total installed cost includes the manufacturer selling price, 

markups for wholesale and distribution chains, and installation costs. (See preliminary TSD 

chapter 8 for a discussion of the development of installed cost.) Table 10.3.2 shows the average 

total installed costs per unit for each of the equipment classes of automatic commercial ice

makers by efficiency level. 

 

b DOE assumes all equipment has a useful life of 8-1⁄2 years. During DOE’s analyses to estimate equipment 

shipments and stock, equipment life was allowed to vary. This is discussed in chapter 9, in the discussion of the 

Weibull function. In the analysis, after 2045, DOE’s models assume all purchases of equipment cease, and as 

equipment is retired stock goes to zero. The bulk of the stock is retired by 2052 but the retirement stretches out to 

2055 at the higher end of the Weibull distribution.
10-9

Table 10.3.2 Average Total Installed Cost per Unit by Efficiency Level

Equipment Class

Average Total Installed Cost per Unit

2010$*

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B $4,179 $4,230 $4,240

IMH-W- Med -B $6,922 $6,961

IMH-W-Large-B $13,312 $13,331 $13,341

IMH-A-Small-B $4,188 $4,203 $4,226 $4,275

IMH-A-Large-B $8,120 $8,139 $8,263 $8,320

RCU-Small-B $7,220 $7,239 $7,300 $7,328

RCU-Large-B $14,160 $14,186 $14,289 $14,323

SCU-W-Small-B $4,526 $4,542 $4,569 $4,591 $4,614

SCU-W-Large-B $4,548 $4,564 $4,580 $4,591 $4,602 $4,617 $4,655

SCU-A-Small-B $4,526 $4,542 $4,575 $4,598 $4,615 $4,625

SCU-A-Large-B $4,536 $4,563 $4,592 $4,609 $4,631

IMH-W-Small-C $6,886 $6,894 $6,905 $6,917 $6,928 $7,009

IMH-W-Large-C $9,720 $9,749 $9,764 $9,799 $9,918

IMH-A-Small-C $5,777 $5,810 $5,833 $5,855 $5,877 $6,034

IMH-A-Large-C $9,720 $9,760 $9,774 $9,788 $9,803 $9,920 $10,063

RCU-Small-C $7,655 $7,670 $7,763

RCU-Large-C $11,434 $11,450 $11,597

SCU-W-Small-C ** $0

SCU-W-Large-C $4,456 $4,462 $4,475 $4,488 $4,491

SCU-A-Small-C $4,432 $4,470 $4,505 $4,513

SCU-A-Large-C $6,272 $6,272 $6,331 $6,375 $6,428 $6,486 $6,804

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; 

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* A value of $0 indicates that there is no associated cost for this efficiency level. A blank cell indicates the 

engineering analysis found no further efficiency options to make the efficiency level a viable level.

** SCU-W-Small-C represents a viable equipment class, but DOE found no evidence of shipments within this class.

In prior energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE estimated the total installed 

costs per unit for equipment, and then assumed that costs remain constant throughout the 

analysis period. This assumption is conservative because installed costs tend to decrease over 

time. In 2011, DOE issued a notice of data availability (NODA) titled Equipment Price 

Forecasting in Energy Conservation Standards Analysis. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011) In the 

NODA, DOE proposed a methodology for analyzing whether equipment prices have trended 

downward in real terms. The methodology examines so-called experiential learning, wherein, 

with ever-increasing experience with the production of a product, manufacturers are able to 

reduce their production costs through innovations in technology and process. 

To account for increased efficiency in the automatic commercial ice maker

manufacturing process over time, DOE will use a price forecast methodology based on 

experiential learning (see appendix 8C for more information on experiential learning). To project 

the manufacturer selling price of a unit, DOE will multiply the selling price for the first year of 

the analysis period by a coefficient specific to the year of purchase relative to the dollar year 

used (2010$). The coefficient will account for the effects of experiential learning.

Table 10.3.3 summarizes five learning scenarios that DOE developed. The first scenario, 

constant prices, is consistent with the analyses DOE historically performed. In this scenario, 

prices are held constant, so the learning multiplier is 1.00. The second scenario is an all-
10-10

commercial equipment price index extracted from NEMS price data. DOE developed the 

remaining three scenarios–the high, reference, and low learning scenarios–for this rulemaking

from historical ice maker shipments and Producer Price Index data. Appendix 8C of this TSD 

documents the development of the price learning scenarios. For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

used the historically derived reference scenario. The total cost values reported in Table 10.3.2

include the effects of experiential learning. The other scenarios will be used for further 

sensitivity analysis in the NOPR stage. DOE requested comment on the use of experiential 

learning in the executive summary of this preliminary TSD. 
10-11

Table 10.3.3 Experience (Price) Learning Scenarios

Year Constant Prices Commercial

Equipment Price Index* 

Historically Derived Changes

High Change Reference Change Low Change

2010 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

2011 100.00% 100.26% 99.55% 99.70% 99.85%

2012 100.00% 100.34% 99.12% 99.41% 99.71%

2013 100.00% 100.76% 98.70% 99.13% 99.56%

2014 100.00% 100.73% 98.29% 98.85% 99.42%

2015 100.00% 100.29% 97.89% 98.58% 99.29%

2016 100.00% 99.95% 97.49% 98.32% 99.15%

2017 100.00% 99.30% 97.11% 98.06% 99.02%

2018 100.00% 98.60% 96.74% 97.81% 98.90%

2019 100.00% 97.85% 96.37% 97.56% 98.77%

2020 100.00% 96.98% 96.01% 97.32% 98.65%

2021 100.00% 96.00% 95.66% 97.09% 98.53%

2022 100.00% 95.04% 95.32% 96.85% 98.41%

2023 100.00% 94.06% 94.99% 96.63% 98.29%

2024 100.00% 93.10% 94.66% 96.40% 98.18%

2025 100.00% 92.12% 94.33% 96.18% 98.07%

2026 100.00% 91.17% 94.02% 95.97% 97.96%

2027 100.00% 90.00% 93.71% 95.76% 97.85%

2028 100.00% 88.88% 93.40% 95.55% 97.74%

2029 100.00% 87.74% 93.11% 95.35% 97.64%

2030 100.00% 86.63% 92.81% 95.15% 97.54%

2031 100.00% 85.39% 92.53% 94.95% 97.44%

2032 100.00% 84.27% 92.24% 94.75% 97.34%

2033 100.00% 83.08% 91.96% 94.56% 97.24%

2034 100.00% 81.89% 91.69% 94.38% 97.14%

2035 100.00% 80.64% 91.42% 94.19% 97.05%

2036 100.00% 80.64% 91.16% 94.01% 96.95%

2037 100.00% 80.64% 90.90% 93.83% 96.86%

2038 100.00% 80.64% 90.64% 93.66% 96.77%

2039 100.00% 80.64% 90.39% 93.48% 96.68%

2040 100.00% 80.64% 90.14% 93.31% 96.59%

2041 100.00% 80.64% 89.90% 93.14% 96.50%

2042 100.00% 80.64% 89.66% 92.98% 96.42%

2043 100.00% 80.64% 89.42% 92.81% 96.33%

2044 100.00% 80.64% 89.19% 92.65% 96.25%

2045 100.00% 80.64% 88.96% 92.49% 96.16%

* Price index applicable to all commercial equipment, derived from AEO2011 data files.

DOE developed base-case and standards-case energy efficiency scenarios as discussed in 

section 10.2.2.1. For both the base-case and standards-case energy efficiency scenarios, DOE 

calculated annual shipment-weighted average efficiencies. For each annual shipment-weighted 

average efficiency value, DOE assigned a total installed cost, based on the shipment-weighted 

total installed cost for all efficiency levels. DOE based the relationship between efficiency and 

total installed cost for each ACIM class on the “reference change” scenario in Table 10.3.3. 
10-12

Using the shipment-weighted average efficiencies and the data in Table 10.2.4, DOE estimated 

the shipment-weighted installed cost. Table 10.3.4 shows the results. 

Table 10.3.4 Shipment-Weighted Average Total Installed Cost per Unit, by Efficiency Level 

Equipment Class Shipment-Weighted Average Total Installed Cost per Unit *

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B $4,207 $4,233 $4,240

IMH-W- Med -B $6,932 $6,961

IMH-W-Large-B $13,317 $13,333 $13,341

IMH-A-Small-B $4,203 $4,212 $4,229 $4,275

IMH-A-Large-B $8,140 $8,153 $8,264 $8,320

RCU-Small-B $7,240 $7,251 $7,303 $7,328

RCU-Large-B $14,198 $14,212 $14,294 $14,323

SCU-W-Small-B $4,546 $4,552 $4,572 $4,593 $4,614

SCU-W-Large-B $4,578 $4,584 $4,590 $4,596 $4,604 $4,617

SCU-A-Small-B $4,552 $4,557 $4,584 $4,602 $4,616 $4,625

SCU-A-Large-B $4,568 $4,577 $4,599 $4,613 $4,631

IMH-W-Small-C $6,958 $6,958 $6,959 $6,960 $6,962 $7,009

IMH-W-Large-C $9,886 $9,886 $9,886 $9,889 $9,918

IMH-A-Small-C $5,989 $5,990 $5,991 $5,994 $5,997 $6,034

IMH-A-Large-C $10,011 $10,011 $10,011 $10,013 $10,015 $10,037 $10,063

RCU-Small-C $7,750 $7,750 $7,763

RCU-Large-C $11,575 $11,575 $11,597

SCU-W-Small-C** $0

SCU-W-Large-C $4,479 $4,479 $4,479 $4,489 $4,491

SCU-A-Small-C $4,513 $4,513 $4,513 $4,513

SCU-A-Large-C $6,686 $6,686 $6,686 $6,686 $6,689 $6,695 $6,804

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; 

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* A value of $0 indicates that there is no associated cost for this efficiency level. A blank cell indicates the 

engineering analysis found no further efficiency options to make the efficiency level a viable level.

** SCU-W-Small-C represents a viable equipment class, but DOE found no evidence of shipments within this class.

The results in Table 10.3.4 depend on the forecasted annual shipments by efficiency 

level. If a standard were set at Level 1, customers would select equipment from all of the 

available levels. If the standard were set at Level 2, customers would select from equipment at 

Level 2 or higher. As the standard levels increase, the range of available efficiency levels is 

reduced. The average shipment-weighted average cost depends on the equipment costs shown in 

Table 10.3.2 and the estimated shipments at each level.

10.3.2.2 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings 

The national average annual operating cost savings equal the change in the annual 

operating costs (difference between base case and standards case) per unit multiplied by the 

stock forecasted in the standards case. The annual operating cost includes electricity, water, 

repair, and maintenance costs.

Annual Electricity Cost Savings. As described in preliminary TSD chapter 8, Life-Cycle 

Cost and Payback Period Analysis, DOE calculated annual electricity costs based on average 

state-level commercial electricity prices. To calculate annual energy cost savings for a particular 

equipment class in a given year, DOE first calculated the annual energy costs in each forecast 
10-13

year at each efficiency level. To calculate annual energy costs, DOE multiplied the weighted 

average energy consumption at each efficiency level from Table 10.3.4 by the number of units in 

the equipment class in each year, and then by the sales-weighted national average electricity 

prices for the seven building types in chapter 8. To determine energy savings, DOE then 

subtracted the national energy costs at each efficiency level (Level 2 and higher) from the 

national energy costs at the baseline level (Level 1).

Annual Water Cost Savings. DOE used average state-level commercial water/wastewater 

prices to calculate water/wastewater cost savings. To calculate annual water/wastewater cost 

savings for a particular equipment class in a given year, DOE first calculated the annual 

water/wastewater costs in each forecast year at each efficiency level by multiplying the weighted

average consumption at each efficiency level by the number of units in the equipment class in 

each year. To determine cost savings, DOE subtracted the national water costs at each efficiency 

level (level 2 and higher) from the national water costs at the baseline level (level 1). For the 

preliminary analysis, DOE did not analyze any design options that result in changes in water 

usage. As a result, DOE is not reporting water or water-cost savings during the preliminary 

analysis phase. Chapter 8 discusses in more detail the process of defining water/wastewater 

prices for each product class and year.

Annual Repair Costs. DOE calculated the average annual repair costs as fixed 

percentages of the value of the ACIM equipment (see chapter 8). Table 10.3.5 shows the average 

repair costs per unit for the equipment classes analyzed. The NES spreadsheet provides the 

capability to allow repair costs to differ by the price of the automatic commercial ice maker, and 

therefore by energy consumption level. For this preliminary analysis, DOE assumed the repair 

costs will not increase with the increases in efficiency of the equipment. 
10-14

Table 10.3.5 Average Annual Repair Cost per Unit 

Equipment Class Average Annual Repair Cost 

2010$

IMH-W-Small-B $108

IMH-W- Med -B $178

IMH-W-Large-B $343

IMH-A-Small-B $108

IMH-A-Large-B $209

RCU-Small-B $186

RCU-Large-B $365

SCU-W-Small-B $117

SCU-W-Large-B $117

SCU-A-Small-B $117

SCU-A-Large-B $117

IMH-W-Small-C $178

IMH-W-Large-C $251

IMH-A-Small-C $149

IMH-A-Large-C $251

RCU-Small-C $197

RCU-Large-C $295

SCU-W-Small-C $0

SCU-W-Large-C $115

SCU-A-Small-C $114

SCU-A-Large-C $162

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained 

unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous 

Annual Maintenance Costs. For the preliminary analysis, DOE determined average 

annual maintenance costs as a fixed percentage of the total installed cost, initially estimated as 

3 percent of total base-case scenario installed cost. DOE also assumed that maintenance costs do 

not increase with efficiency level. Table 10.3.6 shows the resulting annual maintenance costs per 

unit by efficiency level. 
10-15

Table 10.3.6 Average Annual Maintenance Cost per Unit

Equipment Class Average Annual Maintenance Cost 

2010$

IMH-W-Small-B $108

IMH-W- Med -B $178

IMH-W-Large-B $343

IMH-A-Small-B $108

IMH-A-Large-B $209

RCU-Small-B $186

RCU-Large-B $365

SCU-W-Small-B $117

SCU-W-Large-B $117

SCU-A-Small-B $117

SCU-A-Large-B $117

IMH-W-Small-C $178

IMH-W-Large-C $251

IMH-A-Small-C $149

IMH-A-Large-C $251

RCU-Small-C $197

RCU-Large-C $295

SCU-W-Small-C $0

SCU-W-Large-C $115

SCU-A-Small-C $114

SCU-A-Large-C $162

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained 

unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; C: Continuous

10.3.2.3 Discount Factor 

DOE multiplied monetary values in future years by a discount factor to determine the 

present value of costs and savings. The discount factor (DF) is:

DF = 1

(1+r)�t−tp�

 

Eq. 10.7

Where: 

r = discount rate,

t = year in which the cost or savings are realized, and 

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

DOE estimated national impacts using two scenarios—a 3-percent and a 7-percent real 

discount rate—for the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy.

DOE used these discount rates in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, 

September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein. 

DOE defined the present year as 2011 for the preliminary analysis. 
10-16

10.3.2.4 Present Value of Costs 

The present value of increased installed costs is the annual installed cost increase in each

year (i.e., the difference between the standards case and base case) discounted to 2011 and 

summed for the time period over which DOE is considering the installation of ACIM equipment 

(i.e., from the effective date of standards, 2016, to the year 2045).

The increase in total installed cost refers to both equipment cost and installation cost 

associated with the higher energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers purchased in 

the standards case compared to the base case. DOE calculated annual installed costs as the 

difference in total installed cost for new equipment purchased each year, multiplied by the 

shipments in the standards case.

10.3.2.5 Present Value of Savings 

The present value of the operating cost savings is the annual operating cost savings 

(i.e., the difference between the base case and standards case) discounted to 2011, and summed 

over the period from the effective date of the standard, 2016, to the time when the last unit 

installed in 2045 is retired from service. Savings result from decreases in total operating costs 

(including electricity, water, repair, and maintenance) associated with the higher energy 

efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the standards case compared to the 

base case. Total annual operating cost savings are the savings per unit multiplied by the number 

of units of each vintage surviving in a particular year. Equipment consumes energy and water

over its entire lifetime. For example, for units purchased in 2045, the present value of savings 

includes energy and water consumed after 2045 until the unit is retired from service at the end of 

its useful life.

10.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS

DOE used the NES spreadsheet model to estimate the NES and NPV associated with

various efficiency levels. Sections 10.2.2 and 10.3.2 discuss the inputs to the NES spreadsheet. 

The NES spreadsheet model is available at

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equip

ment.html. Appendix 10A provides details and instructions for using the model. 

10.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary

Table 10.4.1 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model. For each input, the 

table provides a brief description of the data source. 
10-17

Table 10.4.1 NES and NPV Inputs

Input Data Description

Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model (see preliminary TSD 

chapter 9, “Shipments Analysis”).

Effective date of standard 2016

Base-case efficiencies Distribution of base-case shipments by efficiency level.

Standards-case efficiencies Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each standards 

case. Standards case annual market shares by efficiency level 

remain constant over time for the base case and each standards 

case.

Annual energy and water

consumption per unit

Annual weighted average values are a function of efficiency level 

(established in the engineering analysis, preliminary TSD chapter 

5).

Total installed cost per unit Annual weighted average values of installed cost are a function of

efficiency level (see preliminary TSD chapter 8).

Repair cost per unit Annual weighted average values of repair costs are constant with 

efficiency level (see preliminary TSD chapter 8).

Maintenance cost per linear foot Annual weighted average values of maintenance costs are constant 

with efficiency level (see preliminary TSD chapter 8).

Escalation of electricity prices 2011 Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO2011) forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2036 

and beyond (see preliminary TSD chapter 8).

Escalation of water prices Historic Consumer Price Index for water-related expenditures 

extrapolated out to 2055.

Electricity site-to-source 

conversion

Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE’s version of the 

EIA NEMS1 program (a time series conversion factor; includes 

electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses).

Discount rate 3 and 7 percent real.

Present year Future costs are discounted to year 2011.

10.4.2 National Energy Savings Results

The following section provides NES results for each energy consumption level 

considered for the 21 primary equipment classes of automatic commercial ice makers that DOE 

has analyzed. Results are cumulative to 2045, and are shown as primary energy savings in quads. 

DOE based inputs to the NES spreadsheet model on weighted average values, yielding results 

that are discrete point values, rather than a distribution of values as in the life-cycle cost analysis

(see discussion of uncertainty in preliminary TSD chapter 8). 

Table 10.4.2 shows the NES results for the efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment 

class of automatic commercial ice-making equipment. Table 10.4.3 and Table 10.4.4 present 

NES results for the efficiency levels and for each equipment class, with the quantities discounted 

using 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively.
10-18

Table 10.4.2 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

(2016-2045) 

Equipment Class

National Energy Savings by Standard Level 

quads*,**

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.006 0.010

IMH-W- Med -B 0.011

IMH-W-Large-B 0.003 0.003

IMH-A-Small-B 0.057 0.094 0.139

IMH-A-Large-B 0.066 0.109 0.155

RCU-Small-B 0.020 0.040 0.045

RCU-Large-B 0.027 0.052 0.059

SCU-W-Small-B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002

SCU-W-Large-B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

SCU-A-Small-B 0.007 0.028 0.040 0.053 0.062

SCU-A-Large-B 0.003 0.013 0.019 0.025

IMH-W-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004

IMH-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

IMH-A-Small-C 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005

IMH-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

RCU-Small-C 0.000 0.001

RCU-Large-C 0.000 0.001

SCU-W-Small-C†

SCU-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled;

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* Blank means no energy savings were calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated 

that the efficiency level is not viable. 

** 0.000 indicates savings round to less than 0.001 quadrillion Btu.

† Data available to DOE shows there are no existing SCU-Water-Small-Continuous products available, so this class 

is not currently defined in the models.
10-19

Table 10.4.3 Cumulative National Energy Savings, Discounted 7 Percent (2016-2045) 

Equipment Class

National Energy Savings by Standard Level 

quads*,**

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.002 0.002

IMH-W- Med -B 0.003

IMH-W-Large-B 0.001 0.001

IMH-A-Small-B 0.014 0.023 0.035

IMH-A-Large-B 0.016 0.027 0.039

RCU-Small-B 0.005 0.010 0.011

RCU-Large-B 0.007 0.013 0.015

SCU-W-Small-B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-W-Large-B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Small-B 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.013 0.015

SCU-A-Large-B 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.006

IMH-W-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

IMH-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

IMH-A-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

IMH-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

RCU-Small-C 0.000 0.000

RCU-Large-C 0.000 0.000

SCU-W-Small-C†

SCU-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled;

B: Batch; C: Continuous 

* A blank value means that no NES was calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis 

indicated that the efficiency level is not viable. 

** 0.000 indicates savings round to less than 0.001 quadrillion Btu. † Data available to DOE shows there are no existing SCU-Water-Small-Continuous products available, so this class 

is not currently defined in the models.
10-20

Table 10.4.4 Cumulative National Energy Savings, Discounted 3 Percent (2016-2045) 

Equipment Class

National Energy Savings by Standard Level 

quads*,**

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.003 0.005

IMH-W- Med -B 0.006

IMH-W-Large-B 0.001 0.002

IMH-A-Small-B 0.030 0.049 0.072

IMH-A-Large-B 0.034 0.057 0.081

RCU-Small-B 0.010 0.021 0.024

RCU-Large-B 0.014 0.027 0.031

SCU-W-Small-B 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

SCU-W-Large-B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Small-B 0.004 0.014 0.021 0.028 0.032

SCU-A-Large-B 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.013

IMH-W-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

IMH-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

IMH-A-Small-C 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003

IMH-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

RCU-Small-C 0.000 0.001

RCU-Large-C 0.000 0.000

SCU-W-Small-C†

SCU-W-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Small-C 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Large-C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

IMH: ice-making head; RCU: remote condenser unit; SCU: self-contained unit; A: Air cooled; W: Water cooled; B: Batch; 

C: Continuous 

* A blank value means that no NES was calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated that the 

efficiency level is not viable. 

** 0.000 indicates savings round to less than 0.001 quadrillion Btu.

† Data available to DOE shows there are no existing SCU-Water-Small-Continuous products available, so this class is not 

currently defined in the models.

10.4.3 National Water Impacts 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed no design options that resulted in changes in 

water usage. If this changes at the NOPR and final rule phases, DOE will present national water 

impacts in this section of the report.

10.4.4 Annual Costs and Savings 

As a prelude to providing the NPVs for each standard level in each equipment class, this 

section presents the annual equipment cost (or total installed cost) increases and annual operating 

cost savings at the national level.

Figure 10.4.1 shows the changes over time of the non-discounted annual equipment price 

increases and the non-discounted operating cost savings at Level 4 for an example equipment 

class (the small air-cooled ice-making head, batch, (IMH-A-Small-B) equipment class). The total 

net annual impact is the discounted value of the difference between annual installed costs and 

annual operating costs at a 7-percent discount rate. The figure also shows the net annual impact, 

which is the difference between the savings and costs for each year. The annual equipment price 

change is the increase in equipment price between base and standards cases for equipment 
10-21

purchased each year over the period 2016–2045. The annual operating savings are the savings in 

operating costs for equipment purchased but not retired for each year over the time period 

2016−2055. DOE determined the annual costs and savings based on the AEO2011 reference case

electricity prices.

2

 The NPV is the difference between the cumulative annual discounted savings 

and the cumulative annual discounted costs. Appendix 10B of this TSD shows comparable 

figures for other efficiency levels and other equipment classes. 

Figure 10.4.1 National Annual Costs and Savings for Efficiency Level 4 

10.4.5 Net Present Value Results

The following section provides NPV results for the candidate standards levels considered 

for the equipment classes of automatic commercial ice makers. Results are cumulative and are 

shown as the discounted value of these savings. DOE based the inputs to the NES spreadsheet 

model on weighted average values yielding results that are discrete point values, rather than a 

distribution of values as in the life-cycle cost analysis (see preliminary TSD chapter 8). The 

present value of increased total installed costs is the total installed cost increase (i.e., the 

difference between the standards case and base case) discounted to 2011 and summed over the 

time period in which DOE evaluated the impact of standards (i.e., from the effective date of 

standards, 2016, to the year 2055).

Savings result from decreases in operating costs (including electricity, water, repair, and 

maintenance) associated with the higher energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration units 

purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. Total operating cost savings are the 

savings per unit, multiplied by the number of units of each vintage (i.e., the year of manufacture) 

that remain in operation in a particular year. The operating cost includes energy and water 

consumed and maintenance and repair costs incurred until all units purchased during the analysis 

period (2016–2045) are retired from service.

Table 10.4.5 shows the NPV results for the standard levels considered for automatic 

commercial ice makers based on a 7-percent discount rate. DOE based all results on electricity 

price forecasts from the AEO2011 reference case. Appendix 10B of this preliminary TSD

Product Class: IMH-A-Small-B

Efficiency Level 4 at a 7% Discount Rate

-10.0000

0.0000

10.0000

20.0000

30.0000

40.0000

50.0000

60.0000

Millions 2010$

Year

Net Savings

Undiscounted Total O&M Cost Savings

Undiscounted Annual Equipment Costs Savings

Discounted Total Net Annual Impact
10-22

provides detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and 

national operating costs. 

Table 10.4.5 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 7-Percent Discount Rate

Equipment Class

Cumulative NPV at 7% 

billion 2010$ *,**,†

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.012 0.020

IMH-W- Med -B 0.024

IMH-W-Large-B 0.006 0.007

IMH-A-Small-B 0.132 0.209 0.285

IMH-A-Large-B 0.153 0.211 0.301

RCU-Small-B 0.047 0.089 0.098

RCU-Large-B 0.062 0.112 0.124

SCU-W-Small-B 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003

SCU-W-Large-B 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

SCU-A-Small-B 0.016 0.056 0.080 0.106 0.124

SCU-A-Large-B 0.007 0.026 0.037 0.049

IMH-W-Small-C — 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.008

IMH-W-Large-C — — 0.000 0.000

IMH-A-Small-C 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.007

IMH-A-Large-C — — 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

RCU-Small-C — 0.002

RCU-Large-C — 0.001

SCU-W-Small-C‡

SCU-W-Large-C — — 0.000 0.000

SCU-A-Small-C — — —

SCU-A-Large-C — — — 0.001 0.002 (0.003)

* A blank cell means no NPV was calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated that 

the efficiency level is not viable. 

** 0.000 indicates NPV rounds to less than $0.001 billion.

† A value of “—” means that there were no shipments calculated for that efficiency level within that equipment class.

‡ SCU-W-Small-C represents a viable equipment class, but DOE found no evidence of shipments within this class.

Table 10.4.6 provides the NPV results based on the 3-percent discount rate and electricity 

price forecasts from the AEO2011 Reference Case. Appendix 10B of this preliminary TSD

provides detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and 

national operating costs based on a 3-percent discount rate.
10-23

Table 10.4.6 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 3-Percent Discount Rate

Equipment Class

Cumulative NPV at 3%

billion 2010$*,**,†

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

IMH-W-Small-B 0.026 0.043

IMH-W-Med-B 0.050

IMH-W-Large-B 0.013 0.014

IMH-A-Small-B 0.278 0.442 0.610

IMH-A-Large-B 0.323 0.455 0.650

RCU-Small-B 0.099 0.188 0.208

RCU-Large-B 0.132 0.238 0.264

SCU-W-Small-B 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.006

SCU-W-Large-B 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004

SCU-A-Small-B 0.033 0.119 0.172 0.228 0.266

SCU-A-Large-B 0.015 0.055 0.080 0.106

IMH-W-Small-C — 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.017

IMH-W-Large-C — — 0.000 0.000

IMH-A-Small-C 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.015 0.017

IMH-A-Large-C — — 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001

RCU-Small-C — 0.005

RCU-Large-C — 0.003

SCU-W-Small-C‡

SCU-W-Large-C — — 0.001 0.001

SCU-A-Small-C — — —

SCU-A-Large-C — — — 0.001 0.004 (0.003)

* A blank cell means no NPV was calculated for this efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated that

the efficiency level is not viable.

**0.000 indicates NPV rounds to less than $0.001 billion.

†

 A value of “—” means that there were no shipments calculated for that efficiency level within that equipment

class.

‡ SCU-W-Small-C represents a viable equipment class, but DOE found no evidence of shipments within this class.
10-24

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Final Rule 

Technical Support Document (TSD). Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: Commercial Ice-Cream Freezers; Self-Contained Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers without Doors; and Remote Condensing 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers. Chapter 11: National Impact 

Analysis, and Appendix H. December 31, 2008. Washington, D.C. 

<www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrigeration_equipment.

html> 

2. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 

2011. 2011. Washington D.C. DOE/EIA-0383. 

<www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2011).pdf>