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 Nati onal 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 Cos ts ......................................................................... 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 ........................................................................................................................ 10-2410

- 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 Com mercial 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

L IST OF FIGURES

Figure 10.4.1 National Annual Costs and Savings for Efficiency Level 4 .............................. 10-2110 -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 en ergy con sumption and savings, monetary value of energy savings to the n ation as a result of standard s, increase d 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 definition s and the inputs to NES and NPV, respectively. Section 10.4 presents the result of the NIA. DOE perfo rmed all calculations using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which i s 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 SAVI NGS

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 ).

NES t 

### = AEC base

, t 

### − AEC standards

, t 

### Eq. 10.1

Where:

NES t 

### = n ational e nergy savings in the year t ( quadrillion British thermal units (quads))

, AEC base ,t 

### = annual national energy consumption in the year t in the base case scenario (quads ), and AEC standards,t 

### = annual national energy consumption in the year t in a standards case scenario (quads).

DOE calculates cumulative NES as the sum of a nnual 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 

### NES cum 

### = ∑ NES tt 

### 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 :

AEC t 

### = ∑ ( STOCK V 

### × UEC V 

### ) × V 

### src

_ co nv t 

### Eq. 10.3

Where:

AEC t 

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

, STOCK V 

### = stock of automatic commercial ice mak ers (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), U

EC V 

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

, src_conv t 

### = t ime -dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy to source energy (Btu/kWh), and

t = y ear 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 sensiti vity analyses during the notice of proposed rulemaking ( NOPR ) stage of the rulemaking to analyze the impact of higher prices on shipment. In the e xecutive s ummary of this preliminary TSD

, DOE request s comment on the potential impacts on future shipments in standard s- 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 u nit e nergy c onsumption ( UEC ) Shipments Equipment s tock ( STOCKV ) Site

- to

- s ource c onversion f actor ( 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 mak er 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 estimate d the market share s based on the number of available ice maker models of each equipment class with energy use cons istent 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 create d a shipment-weighted distribution of units by equipment class and efficiency level.

T he 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 among10 -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 th at efficiency level because the engineering analysis indicated th at 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 L evel 1 efficiency. If Level 1 is eliminated, those shipments would roll up into L evel 2. For each equipment cl ass, DOE used the roll-up method to calculate shipment

- weighted average AEC fo r 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 th at 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 A nalysis

.

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 p reliminary a nalysis

, 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 th e automatic commercial ice makers ). DOE then calculated primary energy consumption by10 -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 m ultiplicative 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 f inal r ule stages of the efficiency standards rulemaking process, DOE performs a u tility i mpact analysis. As part of the utility impact analysis, DOE uses the energy savings estimated in the NIA to model the savings us in g 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 t imes and in quantities that are unique. Thus, at the NOPR and f inal r ule 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 sp ecific 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 N EMS

. 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 Refrigerator

Freezers without Doors; and Remote Condensing Commercial Refrige rators, Freezers, and Refrigerator

- Freezers. Chapter 11: National Impact Analysis, and a ppendix 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

W here :

PVS = present value of operating cost savings (electricity, water a



### , 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 = ∑ OCS t 

### × DF t t 

### Eq. 10.5

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

### PVC = ∑ TIC t 

### × DF t t 

### Eq. 10.6

W here :

OCS t 

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

, TIC t 

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

, DF t 

### = 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 t he contribution
to PVS for each year, from the effective date of the standard (201 6 ) to the year when units purchased in 2045 would be retire d ( estimated to be 2055 b 

### ). DOE calculated costs and savings as the difference between a standards case and a base case. DOE calculated a d iscount 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 savin gs.

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 a nnual i nstalled c ost ( TICt) Total a nnual o perating c ost s avings ( OCSt) Discount f actor Present v alue of c osts ( PVC ) Present v alue of s avings ( 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 cost s. (S ee preliminary TSD chapter 8 for a discussion of the development of installed cost.) Table 10.3.2 shows the avera ge total installed costs per unit for each of the equipment classes of automatic commercial ice makers by e fficiency 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 engineeri ng 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 n otice o f d ata a vailability (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 (s ee 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 learnin g.

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 a ll

-10

- 10 

### c ommercial equipment price index extracted from NEMS price data. DOE developed t he 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 inclu de 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% 96.3 7% 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% 9 6.18% 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 t he results

.

Table 10.3.4 Shipment

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

Equipment Class Shipment

- Weighted Ave ra g e 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 s hipments 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. T he 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, L ife -C ycle Cost and Payback P eriod Analysis, DOE calculated annual electricity costs based on average

s tate

- 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 forecast10

- 13 

### year at each efficiency level

. To calculate annual energy costs , DOE multipl ied the weighte d 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 nation al 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 a verage state

- level commercial wate r/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 ( l evel 2 and higher ) from the national water costs at the baseline level ( l evel 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 report ing water o r 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 percentage s 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. F or th is p reliminary a nalysis, DOE assume d 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, D OE 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 e fficiency 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−t p � 

### Eq. 10.7

W here :

r = discount rate,

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

t p 

### = 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 t hese 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 20 11 for the p reliminary a nalysis

.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 d ifference 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 summ ed 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 decrease s in total operating costs (including electricity , water
, repair, and maintenance) assoc iated 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 N ATIONAL E NERGY S AVINGS AND N ET P RESENT V ALUE RESULTS

DOE used the NES spreadsheet model to estimate the NES and NPV associated with various efficiency levels. S ections 10.2.2 and 10.3.2 discuss t he inputs to the NES spreadsheet. T he NES spreadsheet model is available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equip ment.html . Appendix 10A provides d etails and inst ructions for using th e model.

10.4.1 National E nergy Savings and N et P resent 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 d ate of s tandard 2016 Base

- c ase e fficiencies Distribution of base

- case shipments by efficiency level. Standards

- c ase e fficiencies 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 e nergy and w ater

c onsumption per u nit Annual weighted average values are a function of efficiency level (established in the engineering analysis, preliminary TSD chapter 5). Total i nstalled c ost per u nit Annual weighted average values of installed cost are a function of efficiency level (see preliminary TSD chapter 8). Repair c ost per u nit Annual weighted average values of repair costs are constant with efficiency level (see preliminary TSD chapter 8). Maintenance c ost per l inear f oot Annual weighted average values of maintenance costs are constant with efficiency level (see preliminary TSD chapter 8). Escalation of e lectricity p rices 2011 E nergy I nformation A dministration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO2011 ) forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2036 and beyond (see preliminary TSD chapter 8). Escalation of w ater p rices Historic Consumer Price Index for water

- related expenditures extrapolated out to 2055. Electricity s ite

- to

- s ource

c onversion Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE’s version of the EIA NEMS 1 program (a time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses). Discount r ate 3 and 7 percent real. Present y ear 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 20 45, and are shown as primary energy savings in quads. DOE based i nputs 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 discu ssion 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
q uads*,**
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
q uads*,** 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 N ES 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
q uads*,**
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 f inal 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 L evel 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. Th e 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 equipment10

- 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 AEO20 11 r eference c ase 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 t he 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 decrease s 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, multipl ied 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 a nalysis 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 AEO20 11 r eference c ase. 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 60.0000Millions 2010$

Year 

### Net Savings

Undiscounted Total O&M Cost Savings Undiscounted Annual Equipment Costs Savings Discounted Total Net Annual Impact10

- 22 

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

.

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

Equipment Class Cumulative NPV at 7% b illion 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 b lank 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 calcu lated 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 AEO20 11 Reference Case. Appendix 10B of this preliminary TSD provides detailed results s howing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and national ope rating costs based on a 3- percent discount rate.10

- 23 

### Table 10.4.6 Cumulative NPV Results Based on a 3-P ercent Discount Rate

Equipment Class Cumulative NPV at 3% b illion 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 b lank 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 f or 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 Impac t 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 >