Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

ANOPR Public Meeting 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Building Technologies Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

August 23, 2007 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
ANOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

Framework 

Document ANOPR NOPR Final Rule 

Energy Use

ization 

Technology

Analysis 

Analysis 

Price 

PaybackPeriod Analysis 

Shipments Analysis 

Character

Market and Assessment 

Screening 

Engineering 

Markups to Determine Equipment

Life-Cycle Cost and 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Purpose 

 Energy Use Characterization 

• To develop electrical energy consumption savings estimates for s

equipment efficiency levels. 

• To validate the energy savings estimates from the engineering an

refrigerant system and whole building modeling for a diverse set o

 Markups to Determine Equipment Price 

• To characterize the channels for how equipment is distributed fro

manufacturer to the customer. 

• To determine prices paid by customers based on manufacturer se

for baseline and higher efficiency equipment. 

 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 

• To develop the customer life-cycle cost savings and payback peri

efficiency equipment. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
ANOPR Issues for Public Comment 

 Display Case Lighting Operating Hours (Issue #6) Operation and Maintenance Practices (Issue #7) Equipment Lifetime (Issue #8) Life-Cycle Cost Baseline Level (Issue #9)

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Energy Use Characterization 

 DOE used the engineering estimates of energy consumption base

ARI 1200 Test Procedure “Performance Rating of Commercial RefDisplay Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 2006” 

 ARI 1200 Test Procedure accounts for 

• Direct energy consumption (evaporator fan motors, lighting, anti-s

heaters, defrost and drain heaters, and condensate pan heaters in equipment and compressor energy consumption) in self-contained 

• Indirect energy consumption (compressor energy consumption) in 

condensing equipment. 

 ARI 1200 does not account for 

• Variation in building temperature or humidity from rating conditions • The impact of outdoor air temperature on remote compressor/con• Subsequent building HVAC impacts of improved CRE efficiency. 

 DOE validated the engineering estimates using whole-building an

energy simulation incorporating interactive refrigeration system m(DOE 2.2R) for seven classes of remote condensing equipment. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Select 

Classes and 

Translate 

Characteristics 

Define Remote 

Condensing 

Develop 

Model and 

Select Climates 

Equipment 

Levels for 

Analysis 

Display Case 

to DOE2.2R 

System 

Supermarket 

Whole Building Simulation Approach 

3⁄4 Single 45,000 ft2 supermarket. 16 hour/day operatin

HVAC: Unitary AC/ gas heat. Lighting: 1.5 W/sf. Mis

Five U.S. Climates (Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Loand Memphis) 

3⁄4 Seven equipment classes analyzed: VOP.RC.M, SVO

VCT.RC.M, HZO.RC.M, SOC.RC.M, VOP.RC.L, VCT.Ranalytically derived efficiency levels per class. 

3⁄4 Equipment characteristics derived from engineering 

3⁄4 Refrigeration rack compressors were based on sam

performance used for ARI 1200. Air-cooled condensfloating- head pressure presumed. Separate compreby equipment class were used 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
0 

70 

Energy Use C

Sample Results (VOP.RC.M) 

 Case refrigeration load, overall energy consumption (direct 

indirect), overall refrigeration energy savings from baselineoverall building energy savings from baseline. 

VOP.RC.M-Baltimore VOP.RC.M 

i i

i i

i i

i i

Ef f l

l

i

Annual 

Sim. 

Eng neer ng 

Annual 

Sim. 

Eng neer ng 

Annual 

Sim. 

Eng neer ng 

Annual 

Sim. 

Eng neer ng 

f Level AD1 Ef Leve AD3 Eff Level AD5 Eff Level AD6 

CompE ec CaseD rElec 

25 

Energy Savings (kWh/Day)

Energy Consumption (kWh/Day) 60 50 Annual Sim._Baltimore Annual Sim._Chicago Annual Sim._Houston Annual Sim._Los Angeles Annual Sim._Memphis Engineering 20 40 30 15 20 10 10 

5 0 

Eff Level AD1 Eff Level AD3 Eff Le

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Comparison of Refrigeration System Savings to 

Building Savings 

Energy Savings for Baltimore 

( ) 

0 

500 

1000 1500 2000 2500 

(

l

Ref. System versus Whole Building

Energy Savings MBtu) Ref. System Who e Building 

Level B Level C Level D

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Key Observations 

 Simulated case refrigeration loads are less than the case refrigeratio

calculated in the engineering analysis--believed due to simulated buhumidity being less on average during the year than that used in the condition. 

 While simulated refrigeration loads are lower but compressor energy 

approximately the same as calculated by ARI 1200 for most equipme

• Note: Simulation program accounts for additional refrigerant superheat occurrin

supermarket refrigeration piping to provide the presumed suction gas temperatcompressors. 

 Reductions in case heat load reduce total refrigerant mass flow need

case, which generally results in less total “additional superheat” loacompressor and lead to greater energy savings benefits to a design not taking this additional superheat load into account. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Key Observations (cont.) 

 Averaged over the five climates, the simulated refrigeration system e

savings was between 4% and 9% higher at the highest efficiency lev

than was determined by the engineering analysis 

 Warm and humid climates (Houston and Memphis) have slightly gre

savings than relatively cooler and drier climates (Baltimore, Chicago Angeles). 

 The difference in energy savings, between the refrigeration system o

whole building, is less than 10% at all levels and is a function of the 

option analyzed. When the highest efficiency levels were considereddifference was on the order of 1%. 

 The interaction between the display case modifications and the build

system is small. Whole-building energy savings are mostly attributaenergy savings of the CRE system. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Case Lighting Operating Hours 

(Issue #6) 

 The engineering analysis assumed a 24-hour operation of the display

lighting. 

 DOE conducted a lighting sensitivity study of the relative energy sav

function of display-case lighting operating hours per day

120% 100% 

80% 60% 40% 20% 

0% 

HZO.RC.L SVO.RC.M VCT.RC.L VOP.RC.M 

(

ii

Relative Energy Savings from Baseline Level 1) i 24 hour l ghting 20 hour l ghting 16 hour l ghting 

DOE invites comments on the assumption of 24-hours for dislighting operation. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Energy Use C

Operation and Maintenance Practices 

(Issue #7) 

DOE invites comments on operation and maintenance practic

• Additional O&M practices for CRE or buildings using CRE 

differ from standardized conditions, such as those representest procedure 

• The frequency that such factors come in to play in energy u

field 

• Whether and how DOE might account for these factors in a

the overall impacts of the candidate standards levels for C

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Markups to Determine E

Markups to Determine Equipment Price 

Purpose, Inputs, and Output 

 Purpose 

• To determine customer prices under a standards scenario based on

manufacturer costs

• Characterize equipment distribution channels and market segments • Describe equipment distributing company direct costs, expenses, an

 Inputs 

• Firm balance sheets 

– Wholesalers: HARDI’s 2005 Profit Planning Report 

– Mechanical Contractors: U.S. Census Bureau Financial Data for Plumbing

Air-Conditioning Contractors, 2002 

 Output 

• Baseline and incremental markups 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Distribution Channels 

Markups to Determine E

 Estimated Fraction of Equipment Shipments by Distribution Chan

Manufacturer 

National Account 

Customer 

Mechanical Contractor 

(New Construction or Replace

Customer Customer 

Wholesaler or Wholesale Distribution 

86% 7% 7%

• DOE assumed the same market shares by distribution channel for replace

and new construction 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Markups to Determine E

Baseline and Incremental Markups 

 Markups relate customer price to cost of goods sold (COG

 Baseline markups relate price to cost prior to a change in e

• Baseline markups indicate a customer price that covers all of a who

contractor’s expenses plus profit 

• Direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental and occupancy) are inclu

 Incremental markups relate the incremental change in cus

to the incremental change in COGS beyond baseline 

• Some distribution costs remain constant with COGS increases • Incremental markups cover only expenses that vary with COGS – i

expenses that increase due to an increase in equipment efficiency 

– For example, direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental and occupancy) 

efficiency-induced changes in COGS 

• DOE assumes other operating costs and profit will scale proportion

COGS 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Markups to Determine E

Distribution Expenses and Markups (cont.

 Wholesaler markup estimated from HARDI Financial Data  National Account Markups 

• DOE derived an average national account markup, assuming that the result

price increase was one half of that realized from a distribution through the wchannel (before application of sales tax). 

 Mechanical contractor markup indices were developed based on S

census data and applied to average mechanical contractor marku

 Sales tax is applied based on each specific State’s tax data. 

 National average estimates for sales tax and mechanical contracto

require estimates of relative shipments of commercial refrigeratioequipment by State. 

 Since relative shipments at a State level are unknown, DOE used c

data for refrigerated and frozen food sales by State as a proxy for shipment. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Markups to Determine E

Distribution Expenses and Markups (cont.

 Resulting Average Baseline Markups 

Mechanical National Overall 

Wholesaler 

Contractor 

(Includes 

Wholesaler) 

Account 

(Mfg 

Direct) 

Weighted 

Average 

Markup 

Distributor(s) 1.436 2.182 1.218 1.301 

Markup 

Sales Tax 

Multiplier 

1.068 1.068 1.068 1.068 

Overall 1.533 2.330 1.300 1.389 

Markup 

 Resulting Average Incremental Markups

Mechanical 

Contractor National 

Wholesaler 

(Includes 

Wholesaler) 

Account 

(Mfg Direct) Overall 

Distributor(s) 1.107 1.362 1.054 1.079 

Markup 

Sales Tax 

Multiplier 

1.068 1.068 1.068 1.068 

Overall 1.182 1.454 1.125 1.152 

Markup 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

 Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) equals customer price plus the sum of ann

operating costs discounted to a particular base year 

 Economic evaluation from the customer perspective 

 Analysis implemented in an Excel® spreadsheet 

 Results are expressed as LCC difference (baseline minus standar

 Simple payback (in years) is also calculated and reported in this a

Combine 

Changes 

in Costs 

LC

First Cost 

Operating Expenses 

Present 

Value 

(Consumer Price + Installation Cost) 

Convert to 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

From 

Engineering 

Analysis 

(Price is a 

Function of 

Efficiency) 

From Markups 

for Equipment 

Price 

Determination 

Analysis 

From Energy 

Use 

Characterization 

Analysis 

(Energy Use as a 

Function of 

Efficiency) 

LCC Calculation Flowchart 

Cost 

Expense 

Cost 

Annual 

Energy Expense Expense

Markup 

Markup 

Price 

Cost 

Baseline 

Manufacturer 

Price 

Std-Level 

Manufacturer 

Price 

Total Installed 

Electricity 

Prices 

Annual Energy 

Repair Cost 

Maintenance 

Operating 

Lifetime 

Discount Rate 

Electricity 

Price Trend 

Lifetime 

Operating 

Payback 

Period 

Consumption 

Distributor 

Sales Tax 

Mechanical 

Contractor 

Consumer 

Installation 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Selection of Efficiency Levels for Analysis 

 Up to 11 efficiency levels were examined for equipment in 

engineering analysis; only up to 8 efficiency levels selecteLCC analysis to reduce analysis complexity. 

 Where 8 or fewer efficiency levels existed in the engineerin

analysis, all were included in the LCC analysis. 

 Where more than 8 efficiency levels were examined in the 

engineering analysis, 8 levels were selected, spanning the of efficiency levels from the engineering analysis (removinthat were at approximately the same cost-efficiency point appeared less cost-effective than adjacent levels). 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Electricity Prices 

 Analysis was based on State-by-State average electricity pby four business classes using CRE equipment.  Electricity prices by business class were developed using of average price in 2003 CBECS by business class to commeaverage price.  These ratios are then applied to the State-by-State average prices projected for 2012 and out years by EIA. 

Business Type 

Grocery 

Store/Food 

Market 

Convenience 

Store 

Convenience 

Store with Gas 

Station 

Multi-line 

Retailers 

and Other 

Food Sales 

All 

Comme

Buildin

Ratio of Electricity Price to Average Price for all Commercial 

Buildings 

0.928 1.109 0.993 1.057 1.00 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Electricity Prices (cont.) 

 Example distribution of 

electricity prices (2006$) for supermarkets/large grocery stores. 

 Electricity price projections 

0% 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

El

Electricity Prices Faced by CREs Sold to Su

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 

100% 

Cents per kWh 

Cumulative Percent of Electricity 

Prices 

ect

Electricity Price Index Projections 

based on EIA/AEO reference 1.10 High Growth 

AEO 2006 case for commercial sector. 1.05 Low Growth 

1.00 

 AEO High Growth and Low 0.95 

Growth cases can be run as a 0.90 sensitivity. 0.85 

0.80 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

Index (2006=1.00) 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Other Inputs 

 Installation Costs 

• Based on RS Means data: $295 for remote condensing equipment 

for self-contained equipment classes. 

• Installation costs assumed not to vary with equipment price or effic

 Discount Rates 

• Derived from estimates of the cost of capital of companies that pur

commercial refrigeration equipment by business class. 

• Cost of capital is calculated from the weighted-average cost of cap

the firm to obtain equity and debt financing. 

• Weighted-average value equals 4.76% (real) for large grocery reta

for multi-line retailers, and 7.26% for small grocery and conveniencand without gasoline stations). 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Other Inputs (con’t) 

 Equipment Lifetime 

• Used average age of 10 years based upon literature survey and in

average age at replacement. 

• Used-equipment market not considered in analysis. 

 Repair Costs 

• Annualized repair costs based on fraction (0.5) of customer equipm

divided by equipment lifetime. 

• Repair costs were not assumed to increase with costs of design op

 Maintenance Costs 

• Based on RS Means data (2006) for commercial refrigeration equi• DOE used a flat $156/yr for preventative maintenance activities for 

classes and efficiency levels. 

• Lighting maintenance costs calculated separately based on 2-year 

cycle for fluorescent bulbs, ballast replacement once over the 10-y

life, and LED fixture replacement once over the 10-year equipmen

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Equipment Lifetime 

(Issue #8) 

DOE invites comments on the lifetime of CRE and whether, this is a significant issue and whether DOE should perform sensitivity analysis of this variable in the LCC and NES ana

• How long these units are typically maintained in service, on 

either for all equipment covered under this rulemaking or by equipment class and store type 

• The existence and significance of a used equipment market 

and the importance of considering such a market in its analy

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Life-Cycle Cost Baseline Level 

(Issue #9) 

 DOE did not receive data from industry concerning the average ene

efficiency of CRE currently being shipped or historical shipments, these data provided in further discussion with manufacturers. 

 An analysis of the literature suggests little data on the energy 

characteristics of display cases in the general market is available. 

 DOE used the Level 1 (minimum energy efficiency level) establishe

engineering analysis as the baseline for the LCC analysis. 

DOE invites comments on the selection of Level 1 as the baseline in 

analysis. 

• Whether a distribution of efficiencies should be used in the LCC analy

baseline (instead of a single efficiency level), and if so, what data couused to populate this distribution 

• If more detailed data to develop a distribution of efficiencies in the bas

cannot be provided, DOE seeks input on how a sensitivity analysis to alternative baselines could best be used to inform the LCC and NES a

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
U.S. Average Basis)

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Example of LCC Results for VOP.RC.M 

( Installed Cost-LCC Tradeoff 

 Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=Medium (M

Fuel Price=AEO 2006 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012 

Life Cycle Cost 

$22,500 $22,000 $21,500 $21,000 $20,500 $20,000 $19,500 $19,000 $18,500 $18,000 $17,500 

Installed Cost-LCC Tradeoff

$5,778 $6,170 $6,332 $6,512 $6,937 $7,193 $7,484 $7,894 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 

Installed Cost 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
U.S. Average Basis)

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Example of LCC Results for VCT.RC.M 

( Installed Cost-LCC Tradeoff 

 Equipment= Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), 

Temperature=Medium (M), Fuel Price=AEO 2006 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012 

Life Cycle Cost 

$22,000 $21,500 $21,000 $20,500 $20,000 $19,500 $19,000 $18,500 $18,000 

Installed Cost-LCC Tradeoff

$9,396 $9,444 $9,478 $9,560 $9,638 $10,850 $11,831 #N/A 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 

Installed Cost 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Example of LCC Savings Results -VOP.RC.M 

Cumulative LCC Savings at Level 4 

 Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=M

Fuel Price=AEO 2006 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012 

100% 

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 

0% 

CumulatLevel 4

ive LCC Savings at 

Cumulative Probability 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

LCC Savings (2006$) 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Example of Payback Period Results – VOP.RC

Installed Cost-Payback Tradeoff 

 Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), 

Temperature=Medium (M), Fuel Price=AEO 2006 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012 

3.50 3.00 2.50 

Payback Period (Years) 2.00 1.50 1.00 

0.50 0.00 

Installed Cost-Payback Period Tradeoff

$5,778 $6,170 $6,332 $6,512 $6,937 $7,193 $7,484 $7,894 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 

Installed Cost 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Payback Period (Years) 

Example of Payback Period Results – VCT.RC

Installed Cost-Payback Tradeoff 

 Equipment= Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), 

Temperature=Medium (M), Fuel Price=AEO 2006 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012 

4.50 4.00 3.50 

#N/A 

i

1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 

$9,396 $9,444 $9,478 $9,560 $9,638 $10,850 $11,831 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 

Installed Cost-Payback Per od Tradeoff 1.00 

0.50 0.00 

Installed Cost 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Example of Payback Period Results 

(VOP.RC.M) 

Cumulative Payback Period at Level 4

 Equipment= Vertical Open (VOP), Operating Mode=Remote Condenser (RC), Temperature=Mediu

Price=AEO 2006 - Reference Case, Start Year= 2012

0% 

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 

100% 

Cumulative Probability Cumulative Payback at Level 4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 

Years 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

National Average LCC Savings by Equipment C

Equipment Class 

National Average LCC Savings (2006$) 

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

VOP.RC.M 0 485 871 1239 1910 2203 2459 

VOP.RC.L 0 1209 2604 3512 3470 3443 NA 

VOP.SC.M 0 759 883 1006 1265 1328 1487 

VCT.RC.M 0 1046 1309 1596 1750 2362 1925 VCT.RC.L 0 1179 1650 2105 2949 3333 3684 

VCT.SC.I 0 1371 2581 3020 3285 5313 5613 

VCS.SC.I 0 398 961 1383 1451 1559 1619 SVO.RC.M 0 227 500 758 1000 1223 1458 

SVO.SC.M 0 552 588 644 824 841 1200 

SOC.RC.M 0 835 1779 1718 1901 1868 1540 HZO.RC.M 0 208 435 490 NA NA NA 

HZO.RC.L 0 234 591 935 1267 1459 NA 

HZO.SC.M 0 66 286 354 381 445 466 

HZO.SC.L 0 68 555 1071 1136 1155 1448 

HCT.SC.I 0 250 315 731 809 835 NA 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

National Average Payback Period by Equipment 

Equipment Type 

National Average Payback Period (Years) 

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

VOP.RC.M NA 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 

VOP.RC.L NA 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.2 2.0 NA 

VOP.SC.M NA 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 2.0 

VCT.RC.M NA 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 2.7 3.9 VCT.RC.L NA 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 

VCT.SC.I NA 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.5 

VCS.SC.I NA 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 

SVO.RC.M NA 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 

SVO.SC.M NA 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.8 

SOC.RC.M NA 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.4 3.1 3.9 

HZO.RC.M NA 0.8 1.2 1.5 NA NA NA 

HZO.RC.L NA 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 NA 

HZO.SC.M NA 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 HZO.SC.L NA 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 

HCT.SC.I NA 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.4 1.4 NA 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

Life-Cycle Cost Baseline Level Sensitivity Ana

 LCC sensitivity analyses were performed for AEO High Gr

and Low Growth fuel escalation rate scenarios. 

• The choice of fuel escalation rate scenario impacted the life-cycle 

for all equipment classes. 

• The minimum life-cycle cost efficiency level (maximum life-cycle c

savings level) differed from the AEO reference case for only two equipment classes, VOP.SC.M and SOC.RC.M and only when the Growth scenario was examined. 

 Sensitivity of the LCC Savings and Payback Period to assu

baseline level was also examined. 

• The minimum life-cycle-cost level is unaffected by choice of basel

efficiency level, but the magnitude of the savings is affected. 

• PBP is affected, with PBP generally increasing when higher basel

efficiency levels are assumed. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5
Other Issues 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback P

DOE invites comments and recommendations from stakeholany other aspects related to the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.5