# TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

COMMERCIAL HEATING, AIR

- CONDITIONING, AND WATER

HEATING EQUIPMENT

February 2014

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Washington, DC 20585CHAPTER 1

. INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUM ENT

................................ ................................ ................. 1

- 1

1.2 PROCESS FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ASHRAE EQUIPMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ . 1

- 1

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS DO CUMENT

................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 2

1

- iCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUM ENT

This technical support document (TSD) is a standalone report that provides the technical analysis and results supporting the information presented in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE ) Standard 90.1

- 2013 equipment.

1.2 PROCESS FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

ASHRAE EQUIPMENT

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94163, as amended,

set s forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part C a of Title III created the energy conservation program for “Certain Industrial Equipment.” (42 U.S.C. 63116317) Of particular relevance for this rulemaking is 42 U.S.C 6313(a)(6) which dir ects the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) , in the event that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended for certain types of commercial and industrial equipment, to adopt that efficiency level unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adopting a more stringent level would produce significant additional energy savings and is technologically feasible and economically justified.

On October 9, 201 3 , ASHRAE officially released the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE/Illuminating E ngineering Society (IES) Standard 90.1

- 2 01 3 (hereinafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 ), which addressed efficiency levels for certain categories of commercial heating, ventilating

, and air

- conditioning (HVAC) and water heating equipment covered by EPCA. The new ASHRAE Standard 90.1 revised the efficiency levels of the existing ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 for certain equipment, such as three

- phase

air

- cooled air conditioning and heating equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h, water source heat

pumps, pac kaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical units, and oil

- fired storage

water heaters

.

The NODA that this TSD accompanies is the first step in fulfilling DOE’s obligations as set forth by the language in EPCA and its amendments. The NODA i dentifies the equipment for which the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amended its efficiency levels and presents the analysis of the potential energy savings at those levels as well as more stringent levels. This TSD provides a detailed description of the ana lyses performed in support of the NODA.

a This Part was subsequently redesignated as Part A1 for editorial reasons after Part C of Title III of EPCA was repealed by Pub. L. 10958.

1

- 11.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS DO CUMENT

This NODA TSD outlines the analytical approaches used in this rulemaking. The TSD consists of 4 chapters:

Chapter 1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the process to amend energy conservation standards for ASHRAE equipment and outlines the structure

of the document.

Chapter 2 Market Assessment: Characterizes the market for three

- phase air

- cooled

a ir

- conditioning and heating equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical units, and oil

- fired storage water heaters

.

Chapter 3 Energy Use Characterization: Discusses the process used for generating energy use estimates for three

- phase air

- cooled air

- conditioning and heating equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical units, and oil

fired storage water heaters

.

Chapter 4 National Energy Savings Analysis : Discusses the methodology and inputs for estimating the potential energy savings of various potential amended

standard levels.

1

- 2CHAPTER 2

. MARKET ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

2.1 BACKGROUND

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 1

2.1.1 Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Commercial Air

- Conditioning and Heating Equipment

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2

- 1

2.1.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 2

2.1.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

................................ ................................ ... 2

- 2

2.1.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

................................ 2

- 3

2.1.5 Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters

................................ ................................ ......... 2

- 4

2.1.6 Federal Energy Conservation Standards

................................ .............................. 2

- 4

2.1.7 ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 Efficiency Levels

................................ ................ 2

- 6

2.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 7

2.2.1 Trade Associations

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

- 7

2. 2.2 Manufacturers

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 8

2.2.3 Market Performance Data

................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 11

2.2.3.1 Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners

................................ ................................ .... 2

- 11

2.2.3.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 15

2.2.3.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

................................ ....................... 2

- 19

2.2.3.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

.................... 2

- 20

2.2.3.5 Commercial Water Heaters

................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.1 Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air Conditioning, Heating, and Water Heating Equipment

Classes with Increased Standard Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 5

Table 2.1.2 Equipment Classes with Updated Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE

Standard 90.1

- 2013

................................ ................................ ........................ 2

- 6

Table 2.2.1 Manufacturers of Commercial Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Equipment <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ 2

- 9

Table 2.2.2 Manufacturers of Commercial WSHP, PTAC, SPVU, and OSWH Equipment

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2

- 10

LIST OF FIGURE S

Figure 2.2.1 SEER Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ ......... 2

- 12 Figure 2.2.2 SEER Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 13

2

- iFigure 2.2.3 HSPF Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 13 Figure 2.2.4 SEER Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 14 Figure 2.2.5 HSPF Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Split System Heat Pumps

<6 5,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 14 Figure 2.2.6 EER Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

.................... 2

- 15 Figure 2.2.7 COP Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

.................... 2

- 16 Figure 2.2.8 EER Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000

– <65,000

Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 17 Figure 2.2.9 COP Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000

– <65,000

Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 17 Figure 2.2.10 EER Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 Btu/h

– <135,00 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 18 Figure 2.2.11 COP Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 Btu/h

– <135,00 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 18 Figure 2.2.12 EER Histogram of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 7,00 0

– 15,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 19 Figure 2.2.13 EER Histogram of SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................ 2

- 20 Figure 2.2.14 EER Histogram of SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................. 2

- 21 Figure 2.2.15 COP Histogram of SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................ 2

- 21 Figure 2.2.16 Et Histogram of Commercial O il

- Fired Storage Water Heaters

.................. 2

- 22

2

- iiCHAPTER 2. MARKET ASSESSMENT

2.1 BACKGROUND

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air

- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) released an updated version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE/Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Standard 90.1 (hereinafter ref erred to

as ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 ) on October 9, 201 3 . ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 included increased efficiency levels for three

- phase air

- cooled air

- conditioning and heating equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal a ir conditioners, single package vertical units, and oil

- fired storage water heaters (triggering a review by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) of the minimum standard s for these equipment classes).

2.1.1 Three

- Phase Air

- Co oled Commercial Air

- Conditioning and He ating Equipment

Three

- phase a ir

- cooled air conditioners and heat pumps are part of a subset of commercial package air

- conditioning and heating equipment. The Energy Policy and

Conservation Act ( EPCA ) defines “commercial package air conditioning and heatin g equipment”

as “air

- cooled, water

- cooled, evaporatively

- cooled, or water

- source (not including ground wate r

source) electrically operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps for commercial application.” (42 U.S.C. 631 1(8)(A))

Air conditioners use a refrigeration cycle to cool an indoor space by moving heat from the cold location to a hotter location by means of evaporating and condensing a fluid, typically a refrigerant. An air conditioner typically has four major c omponents: a compressor, condensing coil, expansion valve, and an evaporator coil. The compressor turns the refrigerant from a low pressure gas into a high pressure gas, which raises the temperature of the gas. At the next step, the condensing coil convect s the heat from the hot refrigerant, which condenses into a liquid, still at a high temperature and high pressure. This liquid refrigerant then goes through an expansion valve that lowers its pressure and temperature before entering the evaporator coil. Th e evaporator coil cools the indoor air by transferring heat from the indoor air to the low temperature refrigerant. Heat pumps can reverse the refrigeration cycle to draw heat from cooler external air and release it into the indoor space to heat it.

The Federal energy conservation standards for air

- cooled air conditioners and heat pumps are differentiated based on the cooling capacity ( i.e., small, large, or very large). For small equipment, there is an additional disaggregation into: (1) equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h and (2) equipment greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE

Standard 90.1

- 2013 also differentiates the equipment that is less than 65,000 Btu/h into split system and single package subcategories

. In the pa st, DOE has followed the same disaggregation

. However, when the Energy Independence and Security Act ( EISA ) of 2007 increased the efficiency levels to identical levels across single package and split system equipment, effective in 2008, DOE combined the equipment classes in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ), resulting in only two equipment classes, one for air conditioners and one for heat pumps. Because ASHRAE has increased the standard for only single package air conditioners, and has increased the heating seasonal performance factor ( HSPF ) level to a more

2

- 1stringent level for split system heat pumps than for single package heat pumps, and DOE is obligated to adopt, at a minimum, the increased level in ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 for that equipment class, DOE pr oposes to re

- create separate equipment classes for single package and split system equipment in the overall equipment classes of small commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps ( three

- phase air

- cooled) less than 65,000 Btu/h.

2.1.2 Water Source Heat Pum ps

Water source heat pumps are also part of a subset of commercial package air

conditioning and heating equipment as defined by EPCA

. However, EPCA does not further define this equipment.

According to the ASHRAE Handbook, “A water

- source heat pump is a single

- package

reverse

- cycle heat pump that uses water as the heat source for heating and as the heat sink for cooling. The main components are a compressor, refrigerant

- to

- water heat exchanger, refrigerant

- to

- air heat exchanger, refrigerant expansion dev ices, and refrigerant reversing

valve....A water

- loop heat pump uses a circulating water loop as the heat source and heat sink. When loop water temperature exceeds a certain level during cooling, a cooling tower dissipates heat from the water loop into the atmosphere. When loop water temperature drops below a prescribed level during heating, heat is added to the circulating loop water, usually with a

boiler. ” 1 Decentralized systems using multiple water source heat pumps on a shared circulating water loop ar e common. Water loop heat pumps systems are popular in multi

- room buildings such as office buildings, where heat gains can be redistributed from interior to perimeter zones. Water source heat pumps are manufactured in both horizontal and vertical configurations. 1

EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 both further divide this equipment into three categories based on cooling capacity ranges: (1) <17,000 Btu/h ; (2) ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h;

and (3) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 changed the name of this equipment class from “water source” to “water to air, water loop.” DOE believes this to be an editorial change only and that this new nomenclature refers to the same water source heat pump equipment covered by Federal energy conservation standards. ASHRAE also changed the descriptor for this equipment from

COP to COP H . DOE believes this is also an editorial change to cl arify the difference between COP for refrigeration and COP for heat pumps.

2.1.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

EPCA defines a “packaged terminal air conditioner” as “a wall sleeve and a separate unencased combination of heating and cooling assemblies speci fied by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall. It includes a prime source of refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or electricity.” (42 U.S.C. 6311 (10)(A) ; 10 CFR 431.92)

Packaged t erminal a ir c onditioners (PTAC s ) are mainly used for cooling and heating

hotel s and motels, hospitals, elderly care centers, and small enclosed office s

. As the enclosed

2

- 2spaces typically repeat throughout these buildings and require individualized space conditioning, the building’s central hot water or steam may be used as alternatives to electric heating. Although this equipment is typically sized in cooling capacities si milar to products used in residential applications, they are subject to different operational cycles and operating hours than are typically encounter ed in residential applications.

EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 do not differentiate this equipment i nto classes based on capacity. However, standards are set based on capacity, and

, in setting standards for these equipment, both specify that

, if a unit has a capacity of less than 7,000 Btu/h, then 7,000 Btu/h shall be used in the calculation, and that si milarly, if a unit has a capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h, then 15,000 Btu/h should be used in the calculation. This results in essentially three equipment classes, as shown in the CFR: (1) <7,000 Btu/h ; (2) ≥7,000 and ≤ 15,000Btu/h ; and (3) >15,000 Btu/h

.

2.1.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps are also a subset of commercial package air

- conditioning and heating equipment as defined by EPCA. EPCA further defines single package vertic al air conditioners as “air

- cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that (1) Is factory

- assembled as a single package that

— (i) Has major components that are arranged vertically; (ii) Is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating components; and (iii) Is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) Is powered by a single

- or 3

- phase current; (3) May contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, variou s ventilation options, indoor free air discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (4) Has heating components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating means.” (4 2 U.S.C. 6311(23))

EPCA also defines single package vertical heat pump as “a single package vertical air conditioner that (1) uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may include secondary supplemental heating by means of ele ctrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(24)) ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 also defines both of these terms in the

same way.

Single package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and single package vertical heat

pumps (SPVHPs) are mainly used for cooling and heating classrooms, modular buildings, telecommunication shelters, and portable buildings. Although this equipment is typically sized in cooling capacities similar to products used in residential applications, they are subject to

diffe rent operational cycles and operating hours than are typically encountered in residential applications. The types of buildings in which SPVACs and SPVHPs are installed all have high internal loads stemming from a large number of occupants and heat sources when the building is in use. Also, because these buildings are usually high density buildings, floor space is at a

2

- 3premium; thus, having the components for these units arranged in a vertical fashion allows them to be placed in closets or mounted through th e wall in order to minimize the amount of floor space occupied by the equipment.

EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 both divide SPVACs and SPVHPs into three size categories based on cooling capacity: (1) <65,000 Btu/h ; (2) ≥65,000 Btu/h and < 135,000

Btu/h ; and (3) ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

2.1.5 Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters

EPCA defines “storage water heater” as a water heater that heats and stores water within the appliance at a thermostatically controlled temperature for delivery on demand and that is industrial equipment. This term does not include units with an input rating of 4,000 Btu/h or more per gallon of stored water. (42 U.S.C. 6311(12)(A); 10 CFR Part 431.102)

Storage water heaters transfer heat from a burner to water in an insulated tank. Oil

- fired storage water heaters comprise an oil

- fired burner, storage tank, outer jacket, and controls in a single unit. 2 Commercial models come in various input ratings and tank sizes. The market for

oil

- fired storage water heaters is small and the choice of oil as the fuel type for water heating is frequently determined by the non

- availability of natural gas in the location. On average, oil

- fired storage water heaters are expected to have a lower lifetime than gas

- fired or electric storage

water he aters primarily due to the impact of the sulfur content in the oil fuel on the combustion system and the heat exchanger surfaces.

EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 both divide commercial storage water heaters based on fuel type

− electric, gas

- fired, and oil

- fired. In addition, the CFR divides commercial oil

fired storage water heaters by capacity: (1) ≤155,000 Btu/h and (2) >155,000 Btu/h. However, both capacities have the same federal energy conservation standards for both thermal efficiency and standby loss. ASHRAE sets thermal efficiency and standby loss standards only for oil

- fired storage water heaters >105,000 Btu/h . Both EPCA and ASHRAE are consistent i n exempting units with an input rating of 4

, 000 (Btu/h)/gal or more.

2.1.6 Federal Energy Conservation S tandards

On January 12, 2001, DOE published in the Federal Register a final rule promulgating

the current standards for all three equipment classes of water source heat pumps and all equipment classes of gas

- fired and oil

- fired storage and instantaneous commercial water heating equipment , including the oil

- fired storage water heaters relevant to this rulemaking . 66 FR 3336.

This final rul e adopted the energy conservation standards set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 1999.

On October 7, 2008, DOE published in t he Federal Register a final rule promulgating the

current standards for all three equipment classes of standard size packaged terminal air

conditioners. 73 FR 58772

. This final rul e adopted energy conservation standards more stringent than those set by ASH RAE Standard 90.1

- 1999.

2

- 4The existing energy conservation standards for all classes of air

- cooled three

- phase air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h and for all classes SPVACs and SPVHPs were established by the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA . These standards were codified by DOE in a Technical Amendment published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2009. 74 FR

12058.

Table 2.1.1 shows the current F ederal energy conservation levels for equipment classes

where ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 incr eased the standard levels in comparison to the federal

levels.

Table 2.1

. 1 Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air Conditioning, Heating, and Water Heating Equipment

Classes with Increased Standard Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013

Equipment Type Cooling Capacity Subcategory Federal Standard

Small Commercial Packaged Air

Conditioning and Heating Equipment, Air

- cooled 3

- Phase <65,000 Btu/h AC 13.0 SEER

HP 13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

Small Commercial Package d Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, Water S ource <17,000 Btu/h HP 11.2 EER

4.2 COP

≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h HP 12.0 EER

4.2 COP

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h HP 12.0 EER

4.2 COP

Packaged Terminal Air

Conditioners <7,000 Btu/h Standard Size EER = 11.7

≥7,000 and ≤ 15,000Btu/h Standard Size EER = 13.8

– (0.300 x Cap◊)

> 15,000 Btu/h Standard Size EER = 9.3

Single Package Vertical

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h AC 9.0 EER

HP 9.0 EER

3.0 COP

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h AC 8.9 EER

HP 8.9 EER

3.0 COP

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h AC 8.6 EER

HP 8.6 EER

2.9 COP

Oil

- F ired Storage Water

Heaters All

- 78% Et; Q/800 + 110 V1⁄2 SL

2

- 52.1.7 ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 Efficiency Levels

Table 2.1

. 2 shows the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 efficiency level for the updated equipment classes along with the currently applicable Federal minimum efficiency standards for comparison.

Table 2.1

. 2 Equipment Classes with Updated Efficiency Levels in ASH RAE Standard

90.1

- 2013

ASHRAE Equipment Type Size Category Subcategory ASHRAE Standard

90.1

- 2013 Federal Minimum Energy Conservation

Standards

Air conditioners,

air

- cooled <65,000 Btu/h Single package 14.0 SEER (as of 1/1/2015) 13.0 SEER

Heat pumps, air

cooled <65,000 Btu/h Split System 14.0 SEER

8.2 HSPF (as of 1/1/2015) 13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

Single package 14.0 SEER

8.0 HSPF (as of 1/1/2015) 13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

Heat pump, w ater to air, water loop <17,000 Btu/h N/A 12.2 EER

4.3 COP 11.2 EER

4.2 COP

≥17,000 and
<65,000Btu/h N/A 13.0 EER

4.3 COP 12.0 EER

4.2 COP

≥65,000 and
<135,000Btu/h N/A 13.0 EER

4.3 COP 12.0 EER

4.2 COP

PTAC standard size All capacities N/A EER = 14.0

– (0.300 x Cap◊) (as of 1/1/2015) EER = 13.8

– (0.300 x Cap◊)

SPVAC < 65,000 Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER 9.0 EER

≥65,000 and <135,000Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER 8.9 EER

≥135,000 and
<240,000Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER 8.6 EER

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER ( 3.0 COP ) 9.0 EER ( 3.0 COP )

≥65,000 and <135,000Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER ( 3.0 COP ) 8.9 EER ( 3.0 COP )

≥135,000 and
<240,000Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER

3.0 COP 8.6 EER

2.9 COP

Oil storage water

heaters >105,000 Btu/h <4,000 (Btu/h)/gal 80% Et; ( Q/799 + 16.6 V1⁄2 SL *) 78% Et; ( Q/800 + 110 V1⁄2 SL )
◊ “Cap” means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95oF outdoor dry

- bulb temperature. If the unit’s capacity is less than 7000 Btu/h, use 7000 Btu/h in the calculation. If the unit’s capacity is greater than 15,000 Btu/h, use 15,000 Btu/h in

the calculation. *DOE believes that this update was made in error related to a mix

- up between SI and IP units. Note: metrics in italics and parentheses have not been updated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013, but they are shown for sake of completeness of describing the relevant standards.

2

- 6ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 raised the efficienc y level in comparison to the current Federal minimum energy conservation standards for three air

- cooled air

- condition ing and heat pump equipment classes, three water source heat pump equipment classes, three PTAC equipment classes, six SPVAC and SPVHP equi pment classes , and one water heating equipment

class

. DOE assessed the current market and performed a potential energy savings analysis for each equipment class. The market assessment is described in the sections that follow, while the energy use character ization and assessment of the potential energy savings are described in detail in chapters 3 and 4 of this TSD, respectively.

2.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT

The following market assessment identifies the manufacturer trade associations and

domestic and international m anufacturers of commercial air source air conditioners and heat

pumps, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, and commercial water heaters . The market assessment also

summarizes the relevant market performance data for each equipment class where such data a re available.

2.2.1 Trade Associations

DOE researched various trade groups who represent manufacturers, distributors, and installers of the various types of equipment being analyzed in this rulemaking. The Air

Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) is one of the largest trade associations for manufacturers of space

- heating

, cooling , and water

- heating equipment, representing more than 90% of the residential and commercial air

- conditioning, space

- heating, water

- heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment manufactured in the U nited States

. 3 AHRI also develops and publishes test procedures standards for residential and commercial heating, ventilati ng , and air

co nditioning (HVAC) equipment and coordinates with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to help harmonize U

. S

. standards with international standards, if feasible.

AHRI also maintains the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance th at lists all the products and equipment that have been certified by AHRI.

Heating, Air

- conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) is a trade association that represents over 450 wholesale heating, ventilati ng , air

- conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) companies plus over 300 manufacturing associates and nearly 140 manufacturing representatives. HARDI estimates that 80% of the revenue of HVACR systems goes through its members. 4

Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) is another trade association whose members include over 4,000 contractors and 60,000 professionals. ACCA provides contractors technical, legal, and market resources, helping to promote good practices and to keep buildings safe, clean, and affordable. 5

2

- 72.2.2 Manufa cturers

DOE reviewed data for commercial, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical units, and oil

- fired storage water heaters currently on the market by examining the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performa nce 6 and for certain products

, as available, the California Energy Commission ’s (CEC ’s ) Appliance Efficiency

Database. 7

DOE identified 19 parent companies ( comprising 56 manufacturers ) of small three

- phase

air

- cooled air conditioners and heat pumps

, 15 parent companies ( comprising 18 manufacturers )

of water source heat pumps

, 18 parent companies ( comprising 19 manufacturers ) of packaged terminal air conditioners, 7 manufacturers of single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, and 4 parent companies ( comprising 5 manufacture r s ) of oil

- fired storage water heaters

. The manufacturers for each equipment class are listed in Table 2.2

. 1 and Table 2.2

. 2

.

2

- 8Table 2.2

. 1 Manufacturers of Commercial Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Equipment <65,000 Btu/h

Air

- Cooled Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Manufacturer s

Aaon, Inc. Ecotemp Kenmore Rheem Sales Company, Inc

• Rheem Manufacturing

• United Refrigeration

Inc

– Thermal Zone

Air Green Corporation Gd Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd. Klimaire Products Inc. United Technologies Corportation

• Airquest

• Arcoaire

• Bryant Heating And Cooling Systems

• Carrier Air Conditioning

• Comfortmaker

• Day & Night

• Grandaire

• Heil

• Icp Commercial

• Keeprite

• Maratherm

• Payne Heating And Cooling

• Tempstar

Bard Manufacturing Company Heat Controller, Inc. Lennox International

• Airease

• Armstrong Air Conditioning, Inc

• Concord

• Ducane

• Lennox Industries, Inc. Xenon

Daikin Industries

• AAF International

• Daikin

• Daikin Americas

• Goodman Manufacturing Ingersoll

- Rand

• American Standard

• Trane Msh Legacy

– Maintenance Supply Headquarters LP Zamil Air Conditioners & Home Appliances Co. (L.L.C.)

– Zamil Industrial

Eair Llc Johnson Controls

• Coleman

• Evcon

• Fraser

• Guardian

• Johnson Controls

• Luxaire

• York Nordyne

• Broan

• Frigidaire

• Gibson

• Kelvinator

• Mammoth, Inc.

• Maytag

• Miller

• Nordyne

• Nutone

• Philco

• Tappan

• Westinghouse

2

- 9Table 2.2

. 2 Manufacturers of Commercial WSHP, PTAC, SPVU, and OSWH Equipment

Water

- Source Heat Pump Manufacturers Packaged Terminal Air

Conditioner

Manufacturers Single Package Vertical

Air Conditioner and Heat Pump

Manufacturers Commercial Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heater

Manufacturers

Bard Manufacturing Company Air

- Con International,

Inc. Airxcel, Inc.

• Marvair A.O. Smith Water

Products

• GSW

• State Water Heaters

United Technologies Corporation

• Carrier Air Conditioning Cold Point Corporation Bard Manufacturing Company Bock Water Heaters

Climate Master, Inc. Comitale National Emerson

• Liebert Bradford White

Coldflo Inc. Daikin

• Goodman

• McQuay International Modine Manufacturing Company PVI Industries

Daikin

• McQuay International EAir LLC National Coil Company

Enertech Global,Llc. ECR International

• Retroaire Systemair

• Changeair

Robert Bosch GMBH

• Fhp Manufacturing Electrolux Home Products, Inc. Temspec Incorporated

First Operations Lp, Dba

First Co. Evergreen

Geomaster, Llc. Friedrich Air Conditioning Co.

Geosmart Energy Inc. General Electric Company

Ingersoll

- Rand

• American Standard

• Trane Gree Electric Appliances

Inc. of Zhuhai

Johnson Controls, Inc.

• Johnson Controls

• York Haier America

Rheem Manufacturing Heat Controller, Inc.

Wfi Industries

• Geostar

• Waterfurnace International, Inc. Ice Air

The Whalen Company Islandaire

LG Electronics, Inc.

Prem Sales, LLC

YMGI Group LLC

2

- 102.2.3 Market Performance Data

For each equipment class analyzed, DOE began by gathering market data to characterize the efficiency and performance of models currently on the market. As noted earlier, DOE gathered information from the AHRI directory . DOE also reviewed the CEC appliance database;

however

, for most of the equipment categories, that database does not provide enough information to isolate the relevant equipment classes. As a result, DOE relied primarily on the

AHRI directo ry to compile databases for each equipment category of models with available efficiency data, separated into the equipment classes by capacity and other relevant

characteristics.

2.2.3.1 Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners

Single Package Air Conditioners

. Small

, three

- phase air

- cooled single package air conditioners have a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h and include the condenser and evaporator in the same cabinet. The Federal energy conservation standard for this equipment is

13.0 S EER (seasonal energy efficiency r atio ) ( 10 CFR 431.97 ). ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 changes the efficiency rating to 14.0 SEER as of January 1, 2015

. DOE analyzed the distribution

of S EER values for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.1 ) . The average S EER value for this equipment class is 14.3 . Of the models identified by DOE, 1

, 450 ( 45 percent of the total models)

have S EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels.

2

- 1 1Figure 2.2.1 SEER Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Air

Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

Single Package Heat Pumps

. Small, three

- phase air

- cooled single package heat pumps have a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h and include the condenser and evap orator in the same cabinet. The Federal energy conservation standard for this equipment is 13.0 SEER and

7.7 HSPF ( 10 CFR 431.97 ). ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 changes the efficiency rating s to 14.0

SEER and 8.0 HSPF as of January 1, 2015 . DOE analyzed the distribution s of SEER and HSPF

value s for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.2 and Figure 2.2.3 ) . The average SEER value for this equipment class is 14. 0 . Of the models identified by DOE, 653 ( 54 percent of the total models)

have SEERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 levels. The average HSPF value for this equipment cla ss is 7.9. Of the models identified by DOE, 632 (52% of the total models) have

HSPFs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 levels. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

13 13.1 -

13.5 13.6 -

14 14.1 -

14.5 15.6 -

15 15.1 -

15.5 15.6 -

16 16.1 -

16.5 16.6 -

17 17.1 -

17.5 17.6 -

18 18.1 -

18.5 18.6 -

19.15Frequency

SEER

2

- 12Figure 2.2.2 SEER Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Figure 2.2.3 HSPF Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Split System Heat Pumps

. Small, three

- phase air

- cooled split system heat pumps have a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h . The outdoor cabinet contains the compressor and condenser, while the indoor cabinet contains the evaporator . The Federal energy conservation

standard for this equipment is 13.0 SEER and 7.7 HSPF ( 10 CFR 431.97 ). ASHRAE Standard

90.1

- 2013 changes the efficiency rating s to 14.0 SEER and 8.2 HSPF as of January 1, 2015

. DOE analyzed t he distribution s of SEER and HSPF values for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.4

and Figure 2.2.5 ) . The average SEER value for this equipment class is 13.7 . Of the models identified by DOE, 30,009 ( 64 percent of the total models) have SEERs rated below the 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

13 13. 1 - 14 14.1 - 15 15.1 - 16 16.1 - 17 17.1 - 18.05Frequency

SEER

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

7.7 7.75 - 8 8.05 - 8.3 8.35 - 8.6 8.65 - 8.9 8.95 - 9.2 9.25 - 9.3Frequency

HSPF

2

- 13ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 levels. The average HSPF for this equipment cl ass is 7.9. Of the models identified by DOE, 36,902 (79% of the total models) have HSPFs rated below the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 levels.

Figure 2.2.4 SEER Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Figure 2.2.5 HSPF Histogram of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

13 13.1 - 13.5 13.6 - 14 14.1 - 14.5 14.6 - 15 15.1 - 15.5 15.6 - 16.2Frequency

SEER

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

7.7 7.75 -

7.95 8.0 - 8.2 8.25 -

8.45 8.5 - 8.7 8.75 -

8.95 9.0 - 9.2 9.25 -

9.45 9.5 - 9.7Frequency

HSPF

2

- 142.2.3.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h . Small water source heat pumps are individual packaged units that transfer heat using a water loop. The Federal energy conservation

standard s for water source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h are 11. 2

EER (energy efficiency ratio) and 4.2 COP (coefficient of performance ) (10 CFR 431.97 ).

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 changes the efficiency rating s to 12. 0 EER and 4.3 COP . DOE analyzed the distribution of EERs and COPs for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.6 and Figure

2.2.7 ) . The average EER value for this equipment class is 13.8 . Of the models identifie d by
DOE, 34 ( six percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels. The average COP value for this equipment class is 4 .7 . Of the models identified by DOE, 30 ( f ive percent of the total models) have COPs rated below t he ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels.

Figure 2.2.6 EER Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

11.2 11.25 - 12.2 12.3 - 13.2 13.3 - 14.2 14.3 - 15.2 15.3 - 16.2 16.3 - 17.2 17.3 - 18.1Frequency

EER

2

- 15Figure 2.2.7 COP Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 17,000

– < 65,000 Btu/h

. The Federal energy conservation

standard s for w ater source heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 17,000

Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h are 12.0 EER and 4.2 COP (10 CFR 431.97 ). ASHRAE

Standard 90.1

- 2013 changes the efficiency ratings to 1 3 .0 EER and 4.3 COP. DOE analyzed the

distrib ution of EERs and COPs for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.8 and Figure 2.2.9 ) . The average EER value for this equipment class is 15 .2 . Of the models identified by DOE, 72 ( two percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels. The average COP value for this equipment class is 4.9 . Of the models identified by DOE, 13 3 ( four percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3

levels. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Frequency

COP

2

- 16Figure 2.2.8 EER Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 17,000

– < 65,000 Btu/h

Figure 2.2.9 COP Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 17,000

– < 65,000 Btu/h 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

12 12.1 - 13 13.1 - 14 14.1 - 15 15.1 - 16 16.1 - 17 17.1 - 18 18.1 - 19 19.1- 20 20.1 - 21 21.1 -

21.6Frequency

EER

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Frequency

COP

2

- 17Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 65,000 Btu/h

– < 135,0 0 0 Btu/h

. The Federal energy

conservation standard s for water source heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135 ,000 Btu/h are 12.0 EER and 4.2 COP (10 CF R 431.97 ).

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 changes the efficiency ratings to 1 3 .0 EER and 4.3 COP. DOE analyzed the distribution of EERs and COPs for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.10 and Figure

2.2.11 ) . The average EER value for this equipment class is 14. 7 . Of the models identified by
DOE, five ( one percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels. T he average COP value for this equipment class is 4.8. Of the models identified by
DOE, two ( 0.5 percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels.

Figure 2.2.10 EER Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 65,000 Btu/h

– < 135,00

Btu /h

Figure 2.2.11 COP Histogram of Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 65,000 Btu/h

– < 135,00

Btu/h 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

12 12.1 - 13 13.1 - 14 14.1 - 15 15.1 - 16 16.1 - 17 17.1 - 17.2Frequency

EER

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

4.2 4.21 -

4.30 4.31 -

4.40 4.41 -

4.50 4.51 -

4.60 4.61 -

4.70 4.71 -

4.80 4.81-

4.90 4.91 -

5.00 5.01 -

5.10 5.11 -

5.20 5.21 -

5.30 5.31 -

5.40 5.41 -

5.50 5.51 -

5.60Frequency

COP

2

- 182.2.3.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

PTACs have Federal energy conservation standard s of 11.7, 11.1, and 9.3 EER for the <7,000 Btu/h; 7,000

- 15,000 Btu/h; and >15,000 Btu/h equipm ent classes, respectively. a

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 changes the efficiency rating to 11.9, 11.3, and 9.5 EER for the same equipment classes, respectively. DOE analyzed the distribution of EERs for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.12 ) . The average EER value for PTACS 7,000

- 15,000 Btu/h is 10.9 . Of the

models in the AHRI directory

, 27 ( ten percent of total models) h ave EERs rated below the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 levels , and of these, five are also below the Federal energy

conservation standards

.

Figure 2.2.12 EER Histogram of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 7,000

– 15,000

Btu/h

DOE identified two PTAC models with capacities less than 7,000 Btu/h, both of which have an EER of 12.2; there are no models in this equipment class with EER values below the

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 levels. DOE identified 1 3 PTAC models with capacities of 15,000 Btu/h or greater; all of these models have an EER value of 9.3, which is below the ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013

level.

a Technically the Federal Standard for PTACS 7,000 to 15,000 Btu/h is based on an equation that is a function of capacity. Here we are referring to the Federal Standard for the representative capacity of 9,000 Btu/h. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

<11.09 11.1-11.29 11.3-11.49 11.5-11.99 12.0-12.39 12.4-12.89 12.9-13.29 >13.3Frequency

EER

2

- 192.2.3.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Single P ackage V ertical A ir C onditioners

. EISA 2007 divided single package vertical air conditioners into three equipmen t classes and set the efficiency level for each class. SPVACs with a cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h have a F ederal conservation standard of 9.0 EER. SPVACs with a cooling capacity ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h have a F ederal conservation

standard of 8.9 EER. SPVACs with a cooling capacity ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h have

a F ederal conservation standard of 8.6 EER (10 CFR 431.97). ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 raised the efficiency levels for this equipment to 10.0 EER for all cooling capacities. Using the AHRI directory and manufacturers’ websites, DOE identified 274 models with an input capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h (250 of which ha ve efficiency data) and 13 with a cooling capacity of greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (7 of which ha ve efficiency data)

. The mean efficiency for SPVAC units under 65,000 Btu/h is 9.8 EER. Figure 2.2.13 shows the distribution of EER values. There

were 134 models ( 54 percent of the to tal models) with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000

Btu/h that have EER values below the ASHRAE 90 .1

- 2013 levels . Of t he seven models with a n input capacity that is greater than 65,000 Btu/h and that have efficiency data, two had an EER of
9.0, three of 9.5 and two of 10. 0. DOE did not find any large SPVACs (with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h).

Figure 2.2.13 EER Histogram of SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h

Single P ackage V ertical H eat P umps

. EISA 2007 divided single package vertical heat pumps into three equipment classes and set the efficiency level for each class. SPVHPs with a cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h have a F ederal conservation standard of 9.0 EER and 3.0 COP. SPVHPs with a cooling capacity ≥65,000 Bt u/h and <135,000 Btu/h have a F ederal conservation standard of 8.9 EER and 3.0 COP. SPVHPs with a cooling capacity ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h have a F ederal conservation standard of 8.6 EER and 2.9 COP (10 CFR 431.97).

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 raised the ef ficiency levels for this equipment to 10.0 EER and 3.0 COP for all cooling capacities. Using the AHRI directory and manufacturers’ websites, DOE identified

270 SPVHP models , of which 252 have efficiency data . All of them have a cooling capacity of

less tha n 65,000 Btu/h. The mean efficiency is 10.2 EER

, and the mean COP is 3.15. Figure

2.2.14 and Figure 2.2.15 show the distributions of EER and COP, respectively. Of the models

identified with efficiency data

, 101 ( 40 percent of the total) have EER values below the

2

- 20ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 levels . There are no models with a COP below 3.0 , which is both the

F ederal conservation standard and the efficiency level in ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013.

Figure 2.2.14 EER Histogram of SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h

Figure 2.2.15 COP Histogram of SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h

2.2.3.5 Commercial Water Heaters

The Federal energy conservation standard (thermal efficiency) for commercial oil

- fired storage water heaters is 78%. ( 10 CFR 431. 110 ). ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 changes the efficiency rating to 80% . DOE analyzed the distribution of thermal efficiencies for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.16 ) . The average thermal efficiency value for this equipment class is 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Number of Models

EER

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9Number of Models

COP

2

- 2179.4% . Of the models identified by DOE, 20 ( 53 percent of the total models) have thermal

efficiencies rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 levels.

Figure 2.2.16 Et Histogram of Commercial Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

78 79 80 81 82Frequency

Thermal Efficiency (%)

2

- 22REFERENCES

1 2012 ASHRAE Handbook, Heating, Ven tilating, and Air

- Conditioning Systems and Equipment

. ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA. Chapter s 9 and 49.

2 201 1 ASHRAE Handbook, Heating, Ventilating, and Air

- Conditioning Applications . ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA. Chapter 50

.

3 Air

- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration I nstitute Website. About Us . 2013. (Last accessed February 10, 2014 .) < www.ahrinet.org/about+us.aspx >

4 Heating, A ir

- conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International Website. About HARDI.

201 4 . (Last accessed February 10, 2014 .) < www.hardinet.org/about

- hardi

- 0 >

5 Air Conditioning Contractors of America Website. About ACCA. 201 4 . (Last accessed February 10, 2014 .) < www.acca.org/acca >

6 AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance . 201 3 . (Last accessed November 11, 2013 .)

< www.ahridirectory.org >

7 California Energy Commission Website. Appliance Efficiency Database . 201 4 . (Last

accessed February 7, 2014 .) < www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/QuickSearch.aspx >

2

- 23CHAPTER 3

. ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 1

3.2 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE

................................ .................. 3

- 1

3.2.1 Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners

................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 1

3.2.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 4

3.2.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 5

3.2.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

................................ 3

- 8

3.2.4.1 Simulation Tool Description

................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 9

3.2.4.2 Building Models

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 9

3.2.4.3 Equipment Modeling

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 12

3.2.4.4 Simulated Climates and Weather Data

................................ ..................... 3

- 14

3.2.4.5 Energy Use Extraction and Aggregation to State Level Data

.................. 3

- 14

3.2.4.6 Calculation of Gas Heating Impact

................................ .......................... 3

- 17

3.2.4.7 Energy Use Analysis Results

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 17

3.2.5 Commercial Water Heaters

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.2.1 UECs for Air

- Cooled Single

- Phase Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

........... 3

- 2

Table 3.2.2 Cooling UECs for Air

- Cooled Single

- Phase Heat Pumps <65,000

Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 3

Table 3.2.3 Heating UECs for Air

- Cooled Single

- Phase Heat Pumps <65,000

Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 4

Table 3.2.4 2000 Cooling UECs for Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ...... 3

- 5

Table 3.2.5 2008 National Average UECs for PTACs

................................ ..................... 3

- 6

Table 3.2.6 Development of SPVU Condenser

- Only COP Values by Efficiency

Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 14

Table 3.2.7 Calculation of SPVAC (3

- ton) UEC for Office Building in Atlanta,

GA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 16

Table 3.2.8 National UEC and Shipments (1999) of Gas

- fired Commercial Storage Water Heaters by Input Capacity

................................ ................................ . 3

- 19

Table 3.2.9 UEC of Commercial Water Heaters by Fuel Type Derived from

CBECS 2003

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

- 19

LIST OF FIGURE S

Figure 3.2.1 UECs at the considered EERs for PTACs ≥7,000 and ≤15,000 Btu/h

......... 3

- 6 Figure 3.2.2 UECs at the considered EERs for PTACs <7,000 Btu/h

.............................. 3

- 7 Figure 3.2.3 UECs at the considered EERs for PTACs >15,000 Btu/h

............................ 3

- 8

3

- iFigure 3.2.4 SPVU Baseline National Unit Energy Consumption Estimates by Building Type

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 18

3

- iiCHAPTER 3. ENERGY USE CHARACTER IZATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The national energy savings analysis described in chapter 4 of the technical support document (TSD) requires determination of the energy savings c ustomer s would realize from the

establishment of standards at the levels set forth in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air

- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1

- 2013 for specific classes of equipment analyzed as well as for more energy efficient standards.

This chapter describe s the energy use analysis for commercial air

- cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, and oil

- fired storage water heaters. These equipment types are described in separate subsections of this chapter that detail the analysis and the determination of baseline annual per unit energy consumption (UEC) estimates for specific equipmen t classes within each of the five equipmen t types examined. This chapter also describes the development of UEC estimates for more efficient equipment, up to the max

- tech levels defined in chapter 4 of this TSD.

For each of these equipment types, the Federal standard is expressed in terms of an efficiency metric or met rics: energy efficiency ratio (EER) or seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) for cooling efficiency ; coefficient of performance (COP) or heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) for heating efficiency ; and thermal efficiency (Et) for water heating

. For each equipment class, this chapter describes how an estimate of the UEC is developed corresponding to different rated efficiencies.

3.2 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE

3.2.1 Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners

To estimate the UEC for each class of small commercial p ackaged air

- conditioning and heating equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h (air

- cooled, three

- phase)

, the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) began with the cooling UECs for single

- phase equipment installed in commercial buildings as presented in the national impact analysis associated with the 201 0 notice of public meeting and availability of preliminary technical support document for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps

. 1 Table 3.2

. 1 and Table 3.2

. 2 show these cooling UECs for the

U nited States

. In the 2010 analysis, the cooling UECs for split and single packag e systems were very similar, but UECs were available for higher efficiency levels for split systems tha n for single package equipment. As a result, DOE used the 201 0 UECs for split systems for all equipment classes analyzed for t he notice of data availabil ity ( NODA ) , including both split and single package systems.

3

- 1Table 3.2

. 1 UECs for Air

- Cooled Single

- Phase Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h
Elec. Comm. Cooling U.S. (kWh/yr)

SEER Split AC

- Blower

Coil Split AC

- Coil Only Packaged

13.0 2408.1 2384.8 2387.0

13.5 2378.6 2355.8 2358.0

14.0 2349.1 2326.8 2329.0

14.5 2293.1 2271.1 2273.3

15.0 2237.0 2215.5 2217.6

15.5 2181.0 2159.8 2162.0

16.0 2124.9 2104.2 2106.3

16.5 2112.0 2091.5 2091.0

17.0 2099.1

- -

18.0 2073.2

- -

19.0 2047.3

- -

20.0 2021.4

- -

21.0 1995.5

- -

22.0 1969.6

- - Source: U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Central Air Conditioners National Impact Analysis. Note: UECs for new units were used, and these values were very similar to the UECs for replacement units.

3

- 2Table 3.2

. 2 Cooling UECs for Air

- Cooled Single

- Phase Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
Elec. Comm. Cooling U.S. (kWh/yr)

SEER Split Packaged

13.0 2417.8 2407.2

13.5 2402.1 2391.7

14.0 2386.5 2376.2

14.5 2334.1 2324.0

15.0 2281.7 2271.7

15.5 2229.3 2219.5

16.0 2176.9 2167.2

16.4

- 2156.5

17.0 2149.9

-

18.0 2123.0

-

19.0 2096.0

-

19.5 2082.5

- Source: U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Central Air Conditioners National Impact Analysis

.

DOE used the 201 0 values for split systems directly in its analysis for t his NODA for the efficiency levels of 13, 1 4, 15, and 16 SEER for both air conditioners and heat pumps . For the heat pump efficiency level of 18.05 SEER, DOE used the 2011 value for 18.0 SEER, and for the

air conditioner efficiency level 19.15, DOE used the efficiency level of 19.0 SEER. For the ai r conditioner efficiency level of 17.5 SEER, DOE used the average of the values for 17.0 and 18.0

SEER. The final cooling UECs are found in c hapter 4.

Although ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 increased the HSPF levels for this equipment, DOE did not include heating UE Cs in this analysis. Table 3.2

. 3 shows that f or commercial installations in

the 201 0 analysis, the heating UECs did not scale proportionally with HSPF. Based on thes e data, DOE has preliminarily determined that increasing HSPF for small commercial air conditioners will not result in significant energy savings.

3

- 3Table 3.2

. 3 Heating UECs for Air

- Cooled Single

- Phase Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

SEER HSPF Elec. Comm. Heating U.S.

(kWh/yr)

Split Packaged Split Packaged

13.0 8.0 7.7 464.3 477.6

13.5 8.1 7.9 463.1 476.5

14.0 8.3 8.1 462.0 475.3

14.5 8.4 8.3 462.9 476.3

15.0 8.5 8.4 463.9 477.3

15.5 8.6 8.6 464.9 478.3

16.0 8.7 8.8 465.8 479.3

16. 4

- 9.0

- 478.5

17.0 9.0

- 463.7

-

18.0 9.2

- 461.6

-

19.0 9.4

- 459.4

-

19.5 9.7

- 458.4

- Source: U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Central Air Conditioners National Impact Analysis

.

3.2.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

To estimate the UEC for each class of water source heat pump, DOE began with the data provided for water source heat pumps published in Appendix D of the 2000 Screening Analysis for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT). 2 Table 3.2

. 4 shows the input capacity an d national average full load equivalent operating hours (FLEOH) for each equipment class and efficiency level. The UEC equals the input capacity times the FLEOH.

3

- 4Table 3.2

. 4 2000 Cooling UECs for Water Source Heat Pumps

WSHP

<17 ,000

Btu/h EER 9.3 11.2 12.5 13.1 14 15.8

Input Capacity (kW) 1.29 1.071 0.96 0.916 0.857 0.759

National Avg FLEOH 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5

UEC (kwh/year) 2

, 093 1

, 738 1

, 558 1

, 486 1

, 390 1

, 231

WSHP

≥ 17 ,000

-

< 65 ,000

Btu/h EER 9.3 12 12.5 13.1 14 15.2

Input Capacity (kW) 3.871 3 2.88 2.748 2.571 2.368

National Avg FLEOH 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5 1

, 622.5

UEC (kwh/year) 6

, 281 4

, 868 4

, 673 4

, 459 4

, 171 3

, 842

WSHP

≥ 65 ,000

-

< 135 ,000

Btu/h EER 10.5 12 12.5 13 14

Input Capacity (kW) 8.571 7.5 7.2 6.923 6.429

National Avg FLEOH 1

, 537.1 1

, 537.1 1

, 537.1 1

, 537.1 1

, 537.1

UEC (kwh/year) 13

, 174 11

, 528 11

, 067 10

, 641 9

, 882

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Screening Analysis for EPACT

- Covered Commercial HVAC and Water

- Heating Equipment.

Volume 1

– Main Report . 2000.

Where identical efficiency levels were available, DOE used the input capacity and

FLEOH directly from the screening analysis. For additional efficiency levels, DOE used the same FLEOH (as it does not differ by efficiency level) and scaled the input capacities based on the ratio of EER, as was done in the original anal ysis and shown in the following equation:

InputCapacity B = EER A
EER B x InputCapacity A
Eq. 3.1 DOE then multiplied the FLEOH by the scaled input capacity to calculate the UEC for each additional efficiency level. The cooling UECs for each efficiency level considered in this analysis are shown in c hapter 4.

Although ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 increased the COP levels for this equipment, DOE did not include heating UEC in this analysis as a result of lack of information regarding the heati ng

mode energy use of this equipment.

3.2.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

Unit energy consumption (UEC) data was obtained from the analyses performed for the 2008 Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTACs) and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps (PTHPs). 3 In the rulemaking, building characteristics, equipment data, equipment load and occupancy profiles, and weather data were inputs into whole

- building simulations to model the yearly energy consumption of the building and equipment.

3

- 5The resultant annual cooling, heatin g, and fan energy for standard

- size 9,000 Btu/h and 12,000 Btu/h PTACs were outputted as per

- unit energy consumption for each State and for each

of the six efficiency levels analyzed in the previous rul emaking. For the current analysis, DOE developed n ationally representative energy consumption by weighting the energy consumption for each State by the estimates of the 2012 State population , released by the U.S. Census

Bureau. 4 The national average UECs f or PTACs are shown in Table 3.2

. 5 , along with the EERs as employed in the whole

- building simulations.

Table 3.2

. 5 2008 National Average UEC s for PTACs

PTAC

– 9,000

Btu/h EER 10.6 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.5 12.0

UEC 1058 1038 1025 1013 1001 974

PTAC

– 12,000

Btu/h EER 9.9 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.5

UEC 1331 1308 1292 1278 1264 1218

DOE’s market assessment determined that the 9,000 Btu/h capacity has the highest sales

volume in the PTAC ≥ 7

, 000 and ≤ 15

, 000 Btu/h equipment class . Therefore, this capacity was the representative capacity of that class. DOE developed a linear trend of UECs across the available EERs for the 9,000 Btu/h capacity and obtained UECs at the considered EERs. These trends and

the considered EERs are shown in Figure 3.2.1

.

Figure 3.2.1 UECs at the considered EERs for PTACs ≥ 7

, 000 and ≤ 15

, 000 Btu/h UEC =

- 63.367 x EER + 1781.1
R2 = 0.9983

920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120

10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5Unit Annual Energy Consumption

EER

Considered EERs Previous EERs

3

- 6A similar methodology was used to scale UECs for the <7,0 00 Btu/h and the >15,000

Btu/h equipment classes , but instead of one linear trend across EERs, DOE developed two types

of linear tr ends. The first trends are across EER at the constant capacities of 9,000 and 12,000 Btu/h. DOE used these trends to derive UECs at the considered EER levels for each equipment class. For each considered EER, DOE linearly interpolated the UECs at 9,000 an d 12,000 Btu/h to calculate the UECs at 7,000 or 15,000 Btu/h. Figure 3.2.2 and Figure 3.2.3 show this scaling

for the <7,0 00 Btu/h and >15,000 Btu/h equipment classes , respectively.

Figure 3.2.2 UECs at the considered EERs for PTACs < 7

, 000 Btu/h

3

- 7Figure 3.2.3 U ECs at the considered EERs for PTACs >15

, 000 Btu/h

T he UEC estimates for the cu rrent Federal baseline levels, the proposed ASHRAE levels, and for the higher efficienc y levels are available in c hapter 4 for all PTAC equipment classes.

3.2.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

The analysis to assess the UEC s of single package vertical air conditioner ( SPVAC ) and single package vertical heat pump ( SPVHP ) equipment began with a review of the existing market and applications for the various classes of equipment. The market assessment for this equipment indicated that for s ingle package vertical unit ( SPVU ) equipment, the market is primarily modular buildings characterized as education ( i.e., modular classrooms), modular offices, or what are commonly referred to as technical or telecommunication shelters

— small,

self

- containe d building structures housing electronic equipment but not intended for occupants. DOE analyzed the energy consumption of SPVU equipment using a building simulation approach for three classes of commercial buildings: modular classrooms, modular offices, an d telecommunication shelters. To estimate the energy use of SPVAC and SPVHP equipment in these building types, DOE developed building simulation models for use with DOE’s EnergyPlus software. 5 In each case, the building construction ( e.g., footprint, windo w

- wall ratio, envelope construction, and general building form factor and design) were developed to be representative of typical building designs within the general class of building being modeled. The building simulation models were configured to use heat ing, ventilating, and air

- conditioning (HVAC) systems representing SPVAC or SPVHP equipment and were modeled in a diverse set of climates and for the range of efficiency levels developed in the engineering analysis.

3

- 8Heating, cooling, and supply blower e nergy use from each simulation was scaled by the ratio of representative cooling capacities analyzed in the rulemaking to the simulated equipment capacities for each building modeled. This provides climate

- specific UEC statistics for the representative coo ling capacities developed in the engineering analysis (36,000 Btu/h and 72,000 Btu/h) for each building type. These climate

- specific energy use results were weighted to provide

state

- level UEC estimates by building type and equipment class , and then rolled up into national

averages.

3.2.4.1 Simulation Tool Description

DOE used the EnergyPlus version 5.0 software for the energy use analysis. EnergyPlus predicts the energy use of a building given hourly weather file data, a description of the building and the operati on of the building, estimated internal loads, and a characterization of the building HVAC equipment. Energy use results for the building can be readily extracted for different time steps and at detailed subcomponent levels if necessary. EnergyPlus is an in tegrated software tool, where both the building loads and how those loads are served by equipment are solved iteratively. EnergyPlus has a separate, but robust, ground heat transfer model, which is particularly useful in the simulation of smaller buildings . DOE is currently using EnergyPlus as

the basis for most of its whole

- building energy simulation research, and the tool and its ongoing development are actively supported within DOE.

3.2.4.2 Building Models

A prototypical building model was developed for each bui lding type and is described by the building footprint, general building size and design, and internal gains and operating schedules. A description of each building model is provided in this section , with further details, including operation schedules, foun d in appendix 4 A. These three building models (modular classroom, modular office, telecommunication shelters) were used to establish the energy usage of SPVAC and SPVHP equipment used in the education, office, and telecommunication shelters building market s.



### Modular Classroom Simulation Model

To estimate the energy consumption of SPVAC and SPVHP equipment in a classroom application, DOE developed a 1,568 ft 2 wood

- frame modular classroom simulation model. The

modular classroom wa s based on a double

- wide, single story, modular building design with 1,568 ft 2 of floor area (56 ft by 28 ft) . Wood

- frame construction was chosen because it is consistent with known modular classroom design. A crawlspace was used to represent the above

ground floor level constructi on characteristic of these buildings. A window

- to

- wall area fraction of 15 percent was used as representative of typical modular classroom construction. Envelope performance characteristics were established using the requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA a

90.1

- 2004 to approximate a mix of existing stock and new construction. 6 Schedules and load profiles were taken from classroom

- space building zones in the DOE primary school commercial

a ANSI is the American National Standards Institute; ASHRAE is the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,

and Air

- Conditioning Engineers; IESNA is the Illuminating Engineering Society of North Am erica.

3

- 9prototype building models. 7 These schedules represent a building used as a classroom effectively 10 months of the year, with light (but daily) usage during a 2

- month summer period. Internal loads for receptacle (plug) loads were based on direct equipment power (watts per square foot) figures for the DOE primary school commer cial prototype building model and were set to 1.4

W/ft 2 peak. Occupancy loads were also developed from the DOE primary school commercial prototype building and were set to 25 persons per 1,000 ft 2 . Lighting power and internal loads

were based on ASHRAE 90. 1

- 2004 lighting power density levels for classroom space at 1.4

W/ft 2 peak, which was selected to be representative of a mix of existing classroom lighting power in the building stock and in recent construction. Ventilation levels were based on the require ments of ASHRAE Standard 62.1

- 2004, which reflects current ventilation requirements in many building codes and would be appropriate for most new or replacement equipment. Mechanical ventilation was set at 0.37 cubic feet per minute (cfm)/ft 2 for the classr oom based on

ASHRAE 62.1

- 2004 requirements. The HVAC equipment was scheduled to operate the supply fan 14 hours a day during weekdays to provide both ventilation and circulation during occupied periods. It was scheduled off during weekends and holidays.

In filtration was modeled using the EnergyPlus Airflow Network model, which provides

for a wind

- and temperature

- based estimate of infiltration during the year that also responds to the operation of the HVAC system operation. An equivalent leakage area for th e building was first established using an overall air exchange rate of 7 air changes per hour (ACH) under a 50

- pascal indoor

- outdoor pressure difference. This equivalent leakage area was then spread evenly among the walls, floor, and ceiling components. Th e 7 ACH value was selected as generally representative of the range of reported ACH values from different studies. 8

, 9

, 10

Economizer requirements by location were established consistent with those in ASHRAE

90.1

- 2004 for equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h, and separately for equipment greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, with both sets of economizer requirements being simulated to help establish the typical energy use per ton for equipment in these different size categories.



### Modular Office Simulation Model

T o estimate SPVU energy use in an office type application, DOE developed a 1,568 ft 2

(56 ft by 28 ft) wood

- frame modular office simulation model similar in general design to the modular classroom model. A principal difference between the models is in the u se of office

- type load and usage profiles for the modular office application. Schedules and load profiles as well as internal load estimates were all based on DOE’s small office commercial prototype building

model. 7 Internal receptacle loads were set to 0.63 W/ft 2 peak. Peak scheduled occupancy was set to 5.6 persons per 1,000 ft 2 . Lighting power requirements were based on ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 requirements for office space, selected to be representative of a mix of ligh ting power in the building stock and in recent construction, at 1.0 W/ft 2 peak. Air

- side economizer requirements

were established consistent with those in ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 for SPVU equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h, and separately for SPVU equipment greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, with both sets of requirements being simulated to help establish the typical energy use per ton for SPVU equipment in both size categories. The HVAC equipment was scheduled to operate the supply fan 13 hours a day during wee kdays and 12 hours on Saturday during occupied periods. It was scheduled off Sundays and holidays.

3

- 10

### Telecommunication Shelter Simulation Model

Telecommunication cabinets are used to house electronic components like phone switches, optical fiber networking e quipment , transmitters

, and receivers in remote locations

from a central telecommunication office . These shelters protect the equipment from humidity, dust, solar overheating, and physical damage. As the housed electronic equipment generate s heat during op eration, there is a need to maintain the air temperature inside the cabinets within certain

limits. To estimate SPVAC energy use in a typical technical/telecommunication shelter, DOE developed a small telecommunication shelter model in the form of a 240 ft 2 precast concrete wall

and roof shelter ( 12 ft by 20 ft)

. b The telecom shelter used continuous interior R

- 10 foam insulation in roof, floor, and wall assemblies. The pre

- fab building was mounted on a concrete slab in all climates simulated as is typical commercial practice.

For the telecommunication shelter, DOE did not identify a source for typical representative internal electronic loads as a function of building size, nor did it find substantial information on representative internal gain profiles. Ho wever, based on discussions with shelter retailers, DOE used a 10.55 kW (36,000 Btu/h) maximum internal load to reflect internal design

load in the shelter

. DOE determined that

, on average over the year, this internal load ran at a constant 65 percent of p eak internal load, reflecting estimates for computer server

environments. 11 A study of options for improving energy efficiency in the telecommunications ( e.g., cellular phone) network notes that power consumption for electronics in many shelters is

often fa irly stable from day to night and largely independent of phone traffic. However, an available operating strategy consists of turning certain radio transmitters and receivers off when

the call traffic decreases , which can provide up to a 40 percent reductio n in power consumption during these periods. 12 Lacking further detail, DOE used a constant average thermal load of 6.86 kW (23,400 Btu/h), which did not change with time of day. However, equipment sizing was based on the maximum internal load level plus des ign day environment loads in each climate. DOE did not add an additional cooling sizing factor for the telecommunication shelter model as this was reflected in the underlying computer server data defining the average internal load. Lighting power was not e xplicitly modeled as its use would be expected to be minimal.

The high internal load density, coupled with the insulated building envelope in the

telecom shelter

, result in year

- round cooling loads. To reduce energy consumption, air side economizers repres ent a means to reduce the cooling load in telecommunication shelters. Discussion with different shelter retail and manufacturing firms indicated that there was wide variation in whether economizers are typically specified by the individual telecom firm

cus tomers. While some shelter manufacturer/retailers indicated that there was climate variation in how these are specified, c

, d others suggested it is often driven more by individual corporate user specifications

. b A v oluntary standard for telecommunication site development, Motorola R

56, suggests that all wall

- mount HVAC units should be equipment with economizers. 13

However, discussion with manufacturer contacts during the engineering analysis suggested that

overall on ly approximately 45 percent of SPVU equipment is shipped with an economizer option

b Typical shelter and peak equipment load based on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) communication with staff at Midwest Surplus, a retailer of new and refurbished communication shelters (May 18, 2012).

< http://www.midwestsurplusinc.com/contactus.php >

c Discussion between PNNL staff and Thermobond staff (July 3, 2012). < http://www.thermobond.com >

d Phon e discussion with PNNL and CellXion staff (Aug 1, 2012). < http://sabrebuildingsystems.com >

3

- 11for the telecom market. Th e s e data were not available by equipment capacity. As a consequence, DOE simulated the telecom building in each location with and without an econom izer option and appropriately sampled them in the national average using the estimated market fraction with and

without an economizer.

The HVAC equipment is scheduled to operate in a fan cycling mode during all hours. In this mode, the fan will operate on ly for the duration of time that the SPVAC compressor operates to serve the space

- conditioning loads or in the event that the load is met through economizer cooling.

3.2.4.3 Equipment Modeling

Equipment performance characteristics used in modeling are shown in appendix 4 A

. Each building model was simulated using one HVAC unit for the building, responding to a single space thermostat. In the case of the telecommunication shelter, redundant identical air conditioners with alternating usage during the year were assumed when establishing average annual energy consumption per unit. The use of redundant air

- conditioning units was consistent with industry practice based on communication with shelter manufacturers b

, c as well as the

Motorola R

- 56 guideline. To provide for this, the energy use per unit established for the equipment serving telecommunication shelters was calculated by dividing the energy use per ton

for the simulated build ings by 2 and then multiplying by the representative capacity in tons for each equipment class.

Simulations were done for the buildings using SPVAC equipment with electric resistance heating, and then a separate set of simulations was done for buildings wi th SPVHP equipment. For each equipment class and building type combination, DOE simulated each efficiency level identified in the engineering analysis. Supply air fan/blower power at the baseline efficiency

level was based on a review of manufacturer liter ature and reported blower motor voltage and

current data for 3

- ton SPVAC equipment at a 9.0 EER level and using a permanent

- split capacitor (PSC) motor. 14 The fan power data was not available, so a power factor of 0.9 was

used to convert available blower m otor volt

- amps to watts. The corresponding fan power was estimated to be 154.4 watts per cooling ton (W/ton). T he energy analysis used PSC motors at this power level for EER values of 9. 0 . Electronically commutated supply air fan motors were

assumed for e quipment with an EER of 10.0 and higher. Direct fan power data was not available from manufacturer literature for fans using electronically commutated (brushless DC) motors (ECM s ). An estimate of the fan power for systems using an ECM was made based on the ratio of typical motor efficiency for fractional (1/3) horsepower (hp) PSC motors and ECM s

. e The resulting ECM horsepower was estimated at 1 13.6 W /ton. Fan motors were assumed to run at constant speed and constant power while operating and did not reduce speed as a function of

thermal load. f

e Nominal PSC motor efficiency estimated at 0.54 and nominal ECM fan motor efficiency estimated at 0.725. Adjusting f or the benefit of the fan heat reduction and greater net capacity yielded a supply fan power per ton ratio of 0.737 and an equivalent 113.6 W/ton for system with ECM blower.

f While certain high efficiency equipment on the market today may utilize the bene fits of variable speed fan operation, it was assumed that this would not be a required feature for equipment built to meet a standard with a full

load ( e.g. , EER) efficiency rating metric.

3

- 12Equipment cooling EER and heating COP were converted to corresponding condenser

only cooling COP and condenser

- only heating COP simulation inputs for each efficiency level

simulated for the nominal 95 °F and 47 °F o utdoor temperature rating conditions, respectively. Each of these latter two metrics is used as an input to the EnergyPlus simulation model and represents the performance of the cooling equipment’s refrigeration component without the supply fan power and c orresponding heat gain into the supply air stream. They are calculated by backing out the estimated supply fan power at nominal rating conditions from the rated energy consumption while simultaneously accounting for the effect of fan heat. This is done for the

condenser

- only cooling COP and condenser

- only heating COP using the following equations:

COP CU

_ Cool = CAP C

3

. 413 + AHRIFanPower

CAP C

EER − AHRIFanPower

Eq. 3.2

COP CU

_ Heat = CAP h

3

. 413 − AHRIFanPower

C AP h

COPx 3

. 413 − AHRIFanPower

Eq. 3.3

Where :

COP CU_Cool = condenser

- only cooling COP,

COP CU_Heat = condenser

- only heating COP,

CAP

c = cooling capacity at Air

- Conditioning , Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) rating conditions (Btu/h),

CAP h = heating capacity at A H RI rating conditions (Btu/h),

EER = rated energy efficiency ratio (Btu/W) at AHRI rating conditions,

COP = heating rated coefficient of performance at AHRI rating conditions, and

AHRIFanPower = supply fan power at AHRI rating condi tions.

The estimated AHRIFanPower for equipment with PSC and ECM blower motors, in conjunction with the nominal rating conditions for SPVAC and SPVHP equipment

, as discussed previously , were used to develop the condenser

- only cooling and heating COP values . The

calculated COP CU_Cool and COP CU_Heat are shown in Table 3.2

. 6 for each EER and COP combination developed in the engineering analysis.

3

- 13Table 3.2

. 6 Development of SPVU Condenser

- Only COP Values by Efficiency Level

Efficiency Level EER COP* AHRIFanPower ( W/ton ) COP CU_Cool COP CU_Heat *

Baseline 9.0 3.0 154.4 3.113 3.303

1 10.0 3.0 113.6 3.341 3.214

2 ** 10.5 3.2 113.6 3.526 3.453

3 ** 11.0 3.3 113.6 3.714 3.574

4 ** 11.75 3.9 113.6 3.999 4.317

5 ** 12.3 3.9 113.6 4.211 4.317

* Heat pumps only. ** Efficiency Level applies to SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h and SPVHP < 65,000 Btu/h equipment classes only.

Capacity and efficiency performance curves as a function of indoor and outdoor conditions representative of SPVAC and SPVHP equipment were developed for this simulation analysis and are provided in appendix 4 A

.

3.2.4.4 Simulated Climates and Weather Data

DOE use d typical meteorological year (TMY3) weather data for each of 237 locations for the EnergyPlus simulations. 15 The locations correspond to 237 U.S. climate locations for which DOE had previously generated state weighting factors. DOE sized equipment for each building simulation using a design

- day sizing approach incorporating the design data found in the EnergyPlus design

- day weather data files for each location. g DOE also incorporated an additional cooling sizing factor of 1.1 for the equipment used in the modular office and modular classroom simulations, reflective of the typical sizing adjustment needed to account for discrete available equipment capacities in SPVAC and SPVHP equipment. As stated earlier, DOE did not incorporate additional sizing factors f or the telecommunication equipment.

3.2.4.5 Energy Use Extraction and Aggregation to State Level Data

From the annual simulation results for buildings using SPVAC and SPVHP equipment in each climate, DOE extracted the condenser energy use for cooling, the supply a ir blower energy use for both heating and cooling hours, the electric resistance heating energy, and the equipment capacity for each building type, climate, and efficiency level. DOE developed corresponding normalized annual cooling energy per cooling ton and annual blower energy per cooling ton for the SPVAC equipment at the efficiency simulated by dividing the annual energy use data for

each end

- use by the total building cooling capacity in tons. In addition, the normalized electrical heating energy per t on was calculated by dividing the electrical heating energy use by the total building cooling capacity in tons for the building. In the case of SPVAC equipment, this per

- ton

g EnergyPlus TMY3

- based weather data files and design day data file s available at:

< http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_about.cfm >

3

- 14heating energy use was based on electric resistance heating. In the case of SPVHP equipment, this per

- ton heating energy was based on the sum of the compressor heating energy and the electrical resistance heating energy provided.

The per

- ton cooling, fan, and heating energy use were then individually aggregated to

state

- level estimates . For each state, relative weighting factors associated with each TMY location were used based on previously developed climate weights. DOE used population

- based weighting factors developed for each of 237 TMY climate s based on detailed population

statisti cs from the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) Populated Places dataset to weight each climate in each state. The development and documentation of these weighting factors is found in appendix 4 B. The original weighting factors were developed based on 239 TMY2 16 locations. As DOE used the more recent TMY3 weather files for the energy simulations, DOE first identified all TMY2 locations with a corresponding TMY3 weather file. For almost all cases, the same geographic location was used for both TMY2 and TMY3 data, a lthough in some cases the actual weather station used (determined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) number for the represented weather station) may have changed. h DOE did not include the TMY2 island locations of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Guam in the development of state

- level data, which reduced the location data set to 237 for this analysis.

For each combination of equipment class, building type, climate, and efficiency level, DOE developed per

- ton cooling, blower, and heating annual energy c onsumption values for each simulation by location

. DOE then aggregated these to corresponding state values using the previously discussed weighting factors to establish the contribution of each climate to each state. Once developed at the state level, these per

- ton energy end

- use estimates were multiplied by the

re presentative cooling capacity estimated for the equipment class being modeled (3 or 6 tons). This provided state

- average cooling, blower, and heating annual energy consumption for both equipment sizes.

To be consistent with the energy uses typically associated with air

- conditioning equipment and reported in other rulemaking analyses, DOE based the energy use for SPVAC equipment on cooling and fan energy only and did not include total heating energy in the overall UEC. However, the analysis indicated t hat

, where fan power was reduced for higher efficiency levels (10 EER and above), there was a corresponding non

- trivial increase in the amount of heating required in each climate to make up for the loss of heat energy imparted into the supply

air stream th rough the use of the more

- efficient supply air blower during the heating season. The scale of this impact was climate dependent, with little heating impact in warm climates and greater heating impact in cold climates where space

- heating requirements domina te during the year. To account for this heating energy impact, for each climate, DOE calculated a heating “take back” effect for higher efficiency levels as a deviation from the baseline heating energy use per ton for each SPVAC equipment capacity and effi ciency level. The final SPVAC energy consumption estimates were then based on the calculated cooling and supply blower energy uses plus this heating “take back,” which allowed the differential energy savings estimates to

h Due to modeling issues with the Rock Springs, Wyoming TMY3 weather file prov ided with EnergyPlus , DOE used weather data for Rawlins, Wyoming as a proxy for the Rock Springs station.

3

- 15correctly account for the heating e nergy increase during the year that occurs at certain high efficiency levels when using higher efficiency blower motors

.

An example of the impact of the heating take back for a modular office in Atlanta, Georgia

, for a 3

- ton SPVAC unit at efficiency level 1 is shown in Table 3.2

. 7

.

Table 3.2

. 7 Calculation of SPVAC (3

- ton) UEC for Office Building in Atlanta, GA
Cooling E nergy ( kWh/yr

- ton ) Blower Energy ( kWh/yr

- ton ) Heating Energy ( kWh/yr

- ton ) Total Energy ( kWh/yr

- ton )

Level 0 (Baseline) 1,082 603 4,122 5,806

Level 1 984 457 4,191 5,633

Level 1 Heating

Take Back 69

UEC_SPVAC i,j = (Cooling_energy_per_ton i,j + Blower_energy_per_ton i,j + Heating_takeback _per_ton i,j ) * Representative Capacity (tons) Eq. 3.4

Where :

Cooling_energy_per_ton i,j = Cooling_energy_per_ton for climate i at efficiency level j, Blower_energy_per_ton i,j = Blower_energy_per_ton for climate i at efficiency level j, and Heating_takeback_per_ton i,j = Heating_energy_per_ton for climate i at efficiency level j

– Heating_energy_per_ton for climate i at the baseline efficiency level.

Using Eq. 3.4 , the SPVAC UEC for 3

- ton co oling equipment used in modular offices in

Atlanta at the baseline and at level 1 is as follows.

UEC_SPVAC Atlanta , level 1 = [984 kWh/yr

- ton + 457 kWh/yr

- ton + (4191 kWh/yr

- ton

– 4122 kWh/yr

- ton)] × 3 tons

UEC_SPVAC Atlanta , level 1 = 4530 kWh/yr Eq. 3.5

The analysis method for SPVHP equipment included the heating energy (compressor heating and electric resistance backup) directly from the simulation results in developing the UEC by climate, and thus DOE did not separately calculate a heating take back effect.

The results of the steps described previously , taken for each building type and equipment class, provided the annual expected energy consumption for each SPVAC or SPVHP class for each combination of building type, climate, and efficiency level.

National average UEC estimates for each equipment class and efficiency were also established based on population

- based weighting across states and shipment weights to the different building types. With regard to the latter, while DOE established shipment weights f or

3

- 16SPVAC equipment to three building types (education, office, and telecommunication), DOE determined that SPVHP equipment was not used to a significant extent in telecommunication facilities and thus only allocated shipments of SPVHP equipment to two buil ding types:

education and office.

3.2.4.6 Calculation of Gas Heating Impact

Based on discussions with manufacturers in the engineering model development, it was estimated that approximately five percent of the market for the class of SPVAC s less than 65,000

Btu/h utilizes gas furnace heating, and thus the corresponding heating take back is an effect on gas heat consumption. To account for this, DOE multiplied the heating take back for the simulated SPVAC equipment, based on electric resistance heat, by the ratio o f the electric resistance heat generation efficiency (assumed 100 percent) to an assumed gas heating efficiency. The gas heating efficiency was based on an estimated 81 percent furnace annual fuel utilization efficiency. The gas heating take back was then converted to annual thousand British thermal units (kBtu) of natural gas for monetizing the purchases in the life

- cycle cost ( LCC ) analysis

.

3.2.4.7 Energy Use Analysis Results

Figure 3.2.4 shows the national average baseline UEC estimates for each equipment class by building type

, assuming electric heat and based on the state population weights. The UEC s for SPVAC equipment includes cooling energy and supply fan energy onl y. The UEC s for SPVHP equipment includes cooling, supply fan, and heating energy consumption. SPVHP heating energy use results in much higher UEC figures than those for SPVAC equipment for both

modular classrooms and offices. For the telecommunication shel ters modeled, internal gains provide essentially all the heating energy needed for the buildings within the defined control temperature range. As such, no heating energy use is seen in the models

, and SPVAC and SPVHP UEC figures are the same for the same c apacity equipment. In addition, for modular offices and classrooms, the 6

- ton equipment uses slightly less than twice the energy as the 3

- ton equipment at the baseline efficiency level for both equipment types. While 6

- ton baseline units

have a lower EER t han 3

- ton baseline units (8.5 vs. 8.9), they also benefit from greater use of economizers in the analysis. By contrast, the UEC estimate for baseline 6

- ton units serving the telecommunication shelters is slightly more than twice that of the 3

- ton telecommu nication unit due only to the difference in baseline EER for the two sizes.

3

- 17Figure 3.2.4 SPVU Baseline National Unit Energy Consumption Estimates by Building Type

T he national average annual UEC estimates for the current Federal baseline levels, the proposed ASHR AE levels, and for the higher efficienc y levels are available in c hapter 4. These

estimates are weighted across building types, states, and heating fuel types. These estimates presume shipments for SPVAC equipment to education, office, and telecommunicatio n sectors at 35 percent, 30 percent, and 30 percent, respectively, of the entire market for SPVAC equipment. For SPVAC, DOE also included an average gas heating take back of 53 ,000 Btu/year for all efficiency levels above the b aseline. For SPVHP equipment, DOE presumed that heating energy needs were such that telecom shelter manufacturers would not purchase SPVHP equipment. As such, shipment weightings for SPVHP equipment were apportioned only to the education and office building use cat egories at 54 percent and 46 percent, respectively.

3.2.5 Commercial Water Heaters

To provide an estimate of the energy use of commercial oil

- fired storage water heaters,

DOE began with the estimated UEC of commercial gas

- fired storage water heaters by input

c apacity from a previous DOE study

. 2 DOE calculated the capacity

- weighted average UEC of

gas

- fired commercial storage water heaters using shipments estimates from the same study.

Table 3.2

. 8 shows the initial and capacity

- weighted values. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Education Office TelecomUEC (kWh/yr) 

### SPVAC (3 Ton)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

Education Office TelecomUEC (kWh/yr) 

### SPVAC (6 Ton)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Education Office TelecomUEC (kWh/yr) 

### SPVHP (3 Ton)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000

Education Office TelecomUEC (kWh/yr) 

### SPVAC (6 Ton)

3

- 18Table 3.2

. 8 National UEC and Shipments (1999) of Gas

- fired Commercial Storage

Water Heaters by Input Capacity
Input Capacity (kBtu/h) Estimated UEC (MMBTU) Shipments (1999)

120 79 21

, 083

199 129 42

, 166

360 227 42

, 166

Shipment weighted 158

DOE then estimated the UEC of oil

- fired commercial storage water heaters using the

ratio of UEC of oil

- fired to gas

- fired commercial water heaters (storage and instantaneous combined) from the water heating information derived from the Energy Information Administration’s 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS 2003). 17

The estimated UE Cs of water heaters are the weighted average energy consumed for water heating in commercial buildings with water heaters. Table 3.2

. 9 shows the values from CBECS

200 3.

Table 3.2

. 9 UEC of Commercial Water Heaters by Fuel Type Derived from CBECS

2003

UEC (MMBtu/year)

Gas WH 224.5

Oil WH 186.0

DOE applied this ratio to the capacity

- weighted UEC calculated from the previous study,

as shown in the following equation:

UEC OSWH = UEC GSWH X UEC OWH
UEC GWH Eq. 3.6

The calculated capacity

- weighted UEC of oil

- fired commercial storage water heater s is 131 MMBtu/year. DOE assumes this represents a baseline efficiency level. DOE developed estimates of the UEC for each efficiency level beyond the baseline by scaling the UEC at the baseline with

the ratio of thermal efficiency at the baseli ne and the specific efficienc y level, as shown in the following equation:

UEC EL = UEC Baseline X Et Baseline
Et EL Eq. 3.7

T he UEC estimates for the current Federal baseline levels, the proposed ASHRAE levels, and for the higher efficien c y levels are available in c hapter 4.

3

- 19REFERENCES

1 U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2010

- 04

- 22 Central Air Conditioners National Imapct Analysis

. < http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2008

- BT

- STD

- 0006

- 0056 >

2 U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Screening Analysis for EPACT

- Covered Commercial HVAC and Water

- Heating Equipment. Volume 1

– Main Report . 2000. < http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2006

- STD

0098

- 0015 >

3 U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat Pump Energy Conservation Standards.

< http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE

- 2007

- BT

- STD

- 0012 >

4 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Population for the

United St ates, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (NST

EST2012

- 01). < http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html >

5 U.S. Department of Ene rgy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software V 5.0 . (Last accessed April 24, 2013.)

< http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings >

6 ASHRAE. 2004

. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1

- 2004 , Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low

- Rise Residential Buildings

. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia.

7 U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficienc y and Renewable Energy. C ommercial

prototype building models as EnergyPlus input files

. < http://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/90.1_models >

8 Washington State Unive rsity

. Northwest Portable Classroom Project

- Final Report

. 2003. Washington State Univ ersity Extension Energy Program, Olympia, WA. Report No.

WSUCEEP03

- 60. < http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/wsuceep03

- 060/wsuceep03

- 060.pdf >

9 Thomas

- Rees, S., D. Parker

, and J. Sherwin. FSEC Preliminary Evaluation of Performance

Enhanced relocatable classroom in three climates . 2004. Florida Solar Energy Center.
Cocoa, FL. Report No. FSEC

- PF

- 382

- 04.

< http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSEC

- PF

- 382

- 04.pdf >

10 Raper, G

. M

. North Carolina Performance Enhanced Relocatable Classroom Project: An Evaluation of Design Changes to a Typical Relocatable Classroom . 2005. M.Sc

. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

< http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstrea m/1840.16/712/1/etd.pdf >

3

- 2011 EnergyConsult Pty Ltd. Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact Statement Consultation Draft: Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for

Close Control Air Conditioners . 2008. Jindivick, VIC , Australia. Report No 2008/11

. < http://www.energyrating.gov.au/wp

- content/uploads/2011/04/200811

- ris

- ccac1.pdf >

12 Lubritto, C. et al. Telecommunication power systems: Energy saving, renewable source s and environmental monitoring, Telecommunications Energy Conference, 2008. INTELEC 2008

. IEEE 30th International , pp.1

- 4, 14

- 18

, Sept ember 2008

.

13 Motorola

, Inc

. R

- 56 Standards and Guidelines for Communication Sit es . 2005. Schaumberg,

IL. Document No. 68P81089E50

- B

. < http://www.radioandtrunking.com/downloads/motorola/R56_2005_manual.pdf >

14 Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc

. BARD Wa ll Mount Air Conditioners

- 9.0 EER

, 60HZ)

. Bryan, OH. Form No. S3397

- 712

. < http://www.bardhvac.com/digcat/S3364_TechDoc_CD/TechDoc

- PDF/S3397.pdf >

15 Wilcox S. and W. Marion

. Users Manual for TMY3 Data Sets

. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO., Report No. NREL/TP

- 581

- 43156 (2008).

16 TMY2S National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Typical Meteorological Years Derived from

the 1961

- 1990 National Solar Radiation Database . 1995. Golden, CO

17 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2003 CBECS Survey Data.

< http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/ >

3

- 21APPENDIX 3A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MODULAR CLASSROOM , MODULAR OFFICE, AND TEL E COMMUN I CATION SHELTER MODEL S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3A.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3A

- 1

3A.2 BUILDING MODEL DESCRIPTIONS

................................ ................................ .......... 3A

- 1

3A.3 SPVAC AND SPVHP EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE CURVES

............................ 3A

- 14

REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 3A

- 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3A.2.1 Description of DOE Modular Office Building Model

................................ ........ 3A

- 2 Table 3A.2.2 Key Schedules for DOE Modular Office Building Model

................................ . 3A

- 5 Table 3A.2.3 Description of DOE Modular Classroom Building Model

................................ . 3A

- 6 Table 3A.2.4 Key Schedules for DOE Modular Classroom Building Model

.......................... 3A

- 9

Table 3A.2.5 Descr iption of DOE Telecommunication Shelter Model

................................ .. 3A

- 11 Table 3A.2.6 Key Schedules for DOE Telecommunication Shelter Model

........................... 3A

- 13 Table 3A.3.1 Performance Curves Used in SPVAC and SPVHP Modeling

.......................... 3A

- 15

3A

- iA PPENDIX 3 A

. CHARACTERISTICS OF MODULAR CLASSROOM, MODULAR OFFICE, AND TELECOMMUNICATION SHELTER MODELS

3A.1 INTRODUCTION

The analysis of baseline energy consumption for single package vertical air conditioners (SPVAC) and single package vertical heat pumps (SPVHP) discussed in chapter 3 were based on EnergyPlus simulation data for th ree building models : a modular office building, a modular classroom, and a telecommunication shelter. This appendix provides key characteristics of the

three building model s that formed the basis of this data.

3A.2 BUILDING MODEL DESCR IPTION S

Table 3A.2

. 1 provides a high level description of the modular office building model.

Table 3A.2

. 2 provides the U.S. Department of Energy’s ( DOE’s ) key schedules for the model.

Table 3A.2

. 3 provides a high level description of the modular classroom building model. Table

3A.2

. 4 provides DOE’s key schedules for modular classroom model. Table 3A.2

. 5 provides a high level description of the telecommunication shelter building model. Table 3A.2

. 6 provides DOE’s key schedules for telecommunication shelter model.

3A

- 1Table 3A.2

. 1 Description of DOE Modular Office Building Model

Item Description Program

Available F uel T ypes E lectricity Building Type (Principal Building Function) OFFICE Building Prototype M odular Office

Form Total Floor Area ( ft 2 ) 1,568 ( 56 ft x 28 ft) Building S hape

Aspect Ratio 2.0

Number of Floors 1

Window Fraction (Window

- to

- Wall Ratio) 15 %

Window Locations E ven distribution among all four sides Shading Geometry N one
Azimuth E

- W Thermal Zoning 1 Zone

Floor to C eiling H eight (feet) 7.5

3A

- 2Item Description

Architecture

Exterior W alls

Construction Wood

- Frame Walls

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) and/or

R

- value (h * ft 2 * °F / Btu) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Walls, Above

- Grade, Wood

- Framed

Roof

Construction Attic Roof

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) and/or

R

- value (h * ft 2 * °F / Btu) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Roofs, Attic and Other

Window

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Vertical Glazing SHGC (all) Operable A rea 0

Foundation

Foundation Type Crawlspace

Construction Wood Frame

Thermal P roperties for G round L evel F loor

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Floors Wood Frame& Other

Infiltration

Infiltration EnergyPlus Airflow Network with Equivalent Leakage Area based on 7 ACH

HVAC System Type

Heating T ype Electric Furnace or Single Package Vertical Heat Pump Cooling T ype Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioning or Heat Pump HVAC Sizing Air Conditioning A utosized to design day Heating A utosized to design day

HVAC Control

Thermostat Setpoint 75°F Cooling/70°F Heating

Thermostat Setback 85 °F Cooling/60°F Heating

Economizers Various by climate location and cooling capacity if > 65,000 Btu/h

Per ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004

Ventilation ASHRAE Ventilation Standard 62.1

- 2004

0. 1 cfm/sf Supply Fan

Fan S chedules See under HVAC Operation Schedules , Below

3A

- 3Item Description

Supply Fan Total Power 9

- 9.5 EER: 154 W/ton

>=10 EER: 113.6 W/ton

Internal Loads & Schedules Lighting Average Power D ensity (W/ft 2 ) 1. 0

Schedule See under Schedules , Below Plug load Average Power D ensity (W/ft 2 ) 0.63

Schedule See under Schedules , Below Occupancy

Average P eople (5 .6 persons/1000 sf)

Schedule See under Schedules , Below

3A

- 4Table 3A.2

. 2 Key Schedules for DOE Modular O ffice Building Model

Schedule Type Through Day of Week 1 am 2 am 3 am 4 am 5 am 6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 am 11 am Noon

Internal Loads Schedules
BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WeekDay 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.42 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Weekend 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 WinterDesignDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesignDay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WeekDay 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Weekend 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 WinterDesignDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesignDay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WeekDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.21 1 1 1 1

Weekend 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WinterDesignDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesignDay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

HVAC Schedules HVACOperationSchd on/off Through 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Fan Schedule) Sat, WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sun, Hol, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 pm 11 pm Mid

Internal Loads Schedules
BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WeekDay 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.61 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.18

Weekend 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 WinterDesignDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesignDay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WeekDay 0.94 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Weekend 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 WinterDesignDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesignDay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WeekDay 0.53 1 1 1 1 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05 0

Weekend 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WinterDesignDay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesignDay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

HVAC Schedules HVACOperationSchd on/off Through 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 (Fan Schedule) Sat, WinterDesign 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sun, Hol, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A

- 5Table 3A.2

. 3 Description of DOE Modular Classroom Building Model

Item Description Program

Available Fuel T ypes E lectricity Building Type (Principal Building Function) Education Building Prototype M odular Classroom

Form Total Floor Area ( ft 2 ) 1,568 ( 56 ft x 28 ft) Building S hape

Aspect Ratio 2.0

Number of Floors 1

Window Fraction (Window

- to

- Wall Ratio) 15%

Window Locations E ven distribution among all four sides Shading Geometry None

3A

- 6Item Description

Azimuth E

- W Thermal Zoning 1 Zone Floor to Ceiling H eight (feet) 7.5

Architecture

Exterior walls

Construction Wood

- Frame Walls

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) and/or

R

- value (h * ft 2 * °F / Btu) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Walls, Above

- Grade, Wood

- Framed

Roof

Construction Attic Roof

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) and/or

R

- value (h * ft 2 * °F / Btu) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Roofs, Attic and Other

Window

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Vertical Glazing SHGC (all) Operable A rea 0

Foundation

Foundation Type Crawlspace

Construction Wood Frame Thermal Properties for Ground Level F loor

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004 Requirements Nonresidential; Floors Wood Frame& Other

Infiltration

Infiltration EnergyPlus Airflow Network with Equivalent Leakage Area based on 7 ACH

HVAC System Type

Heating T ype Electric Furnace or Single Package Vertical Heat Pump Cooling T ype Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioning or Heat Pump HVAC Sizing Air Conditioning A utosized to design day Heating A utosized to design day

HVAC Control

Thermostat Setpoint 75°F Cooling/70°F Heating

Thermostat Setback 85°F Cooling/60°F Heating

Economizers Various by climate location and cooling capacity if > 65,000 Btu/h

Per ASHRAE 90.1

- 2004

Ventilation ASHRAE Ventilation Standard 62.1

- 2004

0.37 cfm/sf

3A

- 7Item Description Supply Fan

Fan S chedules See under HVAC Operation Schedules, Below

Supply Fan Total Power 9

- 9.5 EER: 154 W/ton

>=10 EER: 113.6 W/ton

Internal Loads & Schedules Lighting Average Power D ensity (W/ft 2 ) 1.4

Schedule See under Schedules, Below Plug load Average Power D ensity (W/ft 2 ) 1.4

Schedule See under Schedules, Below Occupancy

Average P eople (25 persons/1000 sf)

Schedule See under Schedules, Below

3A

- 8Table 3A.2

. 4 Key Schedules for DOE Modular Classroom Building Model

Schedule Type Through Day of Week 1 am 2 am 3 am 4 am 5 am 6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 am 11 am Noon

Internal Loads Schedules

BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction 1/1

- 6/15

9/16

– 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

6/16

- 9/15 WD, SummerDesign 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction 1/1

- 6/15

9/16

– 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

6/16

- 9/15 WD, SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction 1/1

- 6/15

9/16

– 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WD, SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6/16

- 9/15 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HVAC Schedules HVACOperationSchd on/off Through 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Fan Schedule) Sat, WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sun, Hol, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 pm 11 pm Mid

Internal Loads Schedules

BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction 1/1

- 6/15

9/16

– 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.18 0.18 0.18
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

6/16

- 9/15 WD, SummerDesign 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

3A

- 9BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction 1/1

- 6/15

9/16

– 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

6/16

- 9/15 WD, SummerDesign 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction 1/1

- 6/15

9/15

– 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0 0 0
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WD, SummerDesign 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0 0 0
Sat, Sun, Hol, WinterDesign, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6/16

- 9/15 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HVAC Schedules HVACOperationSchd on/off Through 12/31 WD, SummerDesign 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 (Fan Schedule) Sat, WinterDesign 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sun, Hol, Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A

- 10Table 3A.2

. 5 Description of DOE Telecommunication Shelter Model

Item Description Program

Available F uel T ypes E lectricity Building Type (Principal Building Function) Telecom Building Prototype Telecommunication Shelter

Form

Total Floor Area (ft 2 ) 240 ( 20 ft x 1 2 ft) Building shape

Aspect Ratio 1.67

Number of Floors 1

Window Fraction (Window

- to

- Wall Ratio) 0 %

Window Locations None Shading Geometry None

Azimuth E

- W Thermal Zoning 1 Zone Floor to Ceiling H eight (feet) 8.5

Architecture

Exterior walls

Construction Masonry Walls

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) and/or

R

- value (h * ft 2 * °F / Btu) R

- 10 Continuous Ins.

Roof

Construction Masonry

3A

- 11Item Description

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft 2 * °F) and/or

R

- value (h * ft 2 * °F / Btu) R

- 10 Continuous Ins.

Foundation

Foundation Type Slab On Grade

Construction Thermal Properties for Ground Level F loor

U

- factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) R

- 10 Continuous Ins above Slab

Infiltration

Infiltration EnergyPlus Airflow Network with Equivalent Leakage Area based on 1.0 ACH

HVAC System Type

Heating T ype Electric Furnace Cooling T ype Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioner HVAC Sizing Air Conditioning A utosized to design day Heating A utosized to design day

HVAC Control

Thermostat Setpoint 75°F Cooling/60 °F Heating

Thermostat Setback No setback

Economizers Modeled both with and without economizer. Economizer electronic enthalpy economizer, non

- integrated, 72 F high limit, ElectronicEnthalpyCurveA

Ventilation 0.0 cfm/sf Supply Fan

Fan S chedules See under HVAC Operation Schedules, Below

Supply Fan Total Power 9

- 9.5 EER: 154 W/ton

>=10 EER: 113.6 W/ton

Internal Loads & Schedules Lighting Average Power D ensity (W/ft 2 ) Not Modeled

Schedule See under Schedules, Below Plug load Average power D ensity (W/ft 2 ) 44

Schedule See under Schedules, Below Occupancy

Average people (0 persons)

Schedule See under Schedules, Below

3A

- 12Table 3A.2

. 6 Key Schedules for DOE Telecommunication Shelter Model

Schedule Type Through Day of Week 1 am 2 am 3 am 4 am 5 am 6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 am 11 am Noon

Internal Loads Schedules
BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WD, Sat, Sun, Hol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WD, Sat, Sun, Hol 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 SummerDesign 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WD, Sat, Sun, Hol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HVAC Schedules HVACOperationSchd on/off Through 12/31 All 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 pm 11 pm Mid

Internal Loads Schedules
BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WD, Sat, Sun, Hol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WD, Sat, Sun, Hol 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 SummerDesign 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction Through 12/31 WD, Sat, Sun, Hol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SummerDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WinterDesign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HVAC Schedules HVACOperationSchd on/off Through 12/31 All 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3A

- 133A.3 SPVAC AND SPVHP EQUIPMENT PERF ORMANCE CURVES

Table 3A.3

. 1 provides performance curves used in modeling SPVAC and SPVHP condenser performance. Performance curves were generated from examination of manufacturer’s

data for SPVAC and SPVHP equipment where available and fitting performance curves of the format shown, usable in EnergyPlus, to that data.

3A

- 14Table 3A.3

. 1 Performance Curves Used in SPVAC and SPVHP Modeling

Type Performance Curve Equation Curve Coefficients

a b c d e f

SPVAC Total Cooling Capacity Function of Temperature Curve

ODB WB f ODB e ODB d WB c WB b a FT CAP COOL

× × + × + × + × + × + =

− −

2 2 0.258637 0.102735

- 0.000897

- 0.024854 0.000343

- 0.000687

Total Cooling Capacity Function of Flow Fraction Curve

2 FF c FF b a FF CAP COOL × + × + =

− − 0.525 0. 725

- 0.25 NA NA NA

Energy Input Ratio Function of Temperature Curve

ODB WB f ODB e ODB d WB c WB b a FT EIR COOL

× × + × + × + × + × + =

− −

2 2 0.464816 0.021310

- 0.000623 0.002048 0.000260

- 0.000049

Energy Input Ratio Function of Flow Fraction Curve

2 FF c FF b a FF EIR COOL × + × + =

− − 1.5 578

- 0. 7241 0. 16628 NA NA NA

Cooling Part Load Fraction Correlation Curve

2 PLR c PLR b a PLR EIR COOL × + × + =

− − 0. 81 0. 19 0.0 NA NA NA

SPVHP Heating Capacity Function of Temperature Curve

2 ODB c ODB b a FT CAP HEAT × + × + =

− − 0.741102 0.024257 0.000311 NA NA NA

Heating Capacity Function of Flow Fraction Curve

2 ODB c ODB b a FF CAP HEAT × + × + =

− − 0.97465 0.02535 0.00000 NA NA NA

Heating Energy Input Ratio Function of Temperature Curve

3 2 ODB c ODB c ODB b a FT EIR HEAT × + × + × + =

− − 1.254425

- 0.03009 0.000984

- 0.000039 NA NA

Heating Energy Input Ratio Function of Flow Fraction

Curve

2 FF c FF b a FF EIR HEAT × + × + =

− − 1. 5578

- 0. 7241 0.16628 NA NA NA

Heating Part Load Fraction Correlation Curve

2 PLR c PLR b a FPLR EIR HEAT × + × + =

− − 0.81 0.19 0.0 NA NA NA

3A

- 15Where:



### FT CAP COOL

− − = t otal cooling capacity function of temperature

, 

### FF CAP COOL

− − = t otal cooling capacity function of flow fraction curve

, 

### FT EIR COOL

− − = e nergy input ratio function of temperature

, 

### FF EIR COOL

− − = e nergy input ratio function of flow fraction

, 

### FPLR EIR COOL

− − = t otal cooling part load fraction correlation curve name

, 

### FT CAP HEAT

− − = h eating capacity function of temperature curve name

, 

### FF CAP HEAT

− − = h eating capacity function of flow fraction curve name

, FT EIR HEAT

− − = h eating energy input ratio function of temperature curve name

, FF EIR HEAT

− − = h eating energy input ratio function of flow fraction curve name

, FPLR EIR HEAT

− − = h eating part load fraction correlation curve name

, WB = e ntering evaporator coil wet

- bulb temperature ( °F),

O DB = o utside dry

- bulb temperature ( °F), and

PLR = p art load r atio (cooling load/steady

- state capacity).

Normalized performance curves for the SPVAC and SPVHP condensing units were developed based on manufacturers ’ catalog data for Bard Manufacturing Company SPVAC and SPVHP equipment ( B ard W30A1 (Cap) and WH48 (EIR) ) for cooling performance and ( Bard

W36H1 ) equipment for heating performance as a function of coi l entering temperature

conditions

. 1

, 2

, 3 Manufacturer’s data to develop equipment performance curves as a function of air flow were not readily available . P erformance curves for a irflow and part load correlation based on

other small single compressor packa ge equipment. Nomenclature used for left hand side of each performance curve equation is based on DOE2.1E descriptors for these parameters and is not normally found in the EnergyPlus documentation.

3A

- 16REFERENCES

1

. Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc. The Wall

- Mount  Air Conditioners

- 9.0 EER, (60HZ)

. 2012. Bryan, OH. Form No. S3397.

< www.bardhvac.com/digcat/S3364_TechDoc_CD/TechDoc

- PDF/S3397.pdf >

2

. Apte, M.G., W.J. Fisk, and L. Rainer. High Performance Commercial Building Systems, Report on Initial Energy Simulations, Element 6

– Indoor Environmental Quality, Project

2.1

– Energy Simulations and State

- Wide Energy Savings . 2002. Prepared by Davis Energy Group

, Inc

. f or Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. Report No. HPCBS

#E6P2.1T1b. < http://btus.lbl.gov/HPCBS/pubs/E6P21T1b.pdf >

3

. Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc. The Wall

- Mount  Heat Pumps

- (60HZ) . 2012. Bryan,

OH. Form No. S3398. < www.bardhvac.com/digcat/S3364_TechDoc_CD/TechDoc

PDF/S3398.pdf >

3A

- 17APPENDIX 3B. TYPICAL METEOROLOGICAL YEAR ASSIGNMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3B.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... B

- 1

3B.1.1 Purpose and Intent

................................ ................................ ........................... 3 B

- 1

3B.1.2 Issues

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3 B

- 1

3B.2 APPROAC H

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3 B

- 1

3B.2.1 Additional Data Sets

................................ ................................ ....................... 3 B

- 1

3B.2.2 Mapping Approach

................................ ................................ ......................... 3 B

- 3

3B .2.3 Calculating State

- by

- State Weighting Factors

................................ ................ 3 B

- 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3B.2.1 . Locations of TMY2 Stations Superimposed on Heating Degree

- Day

Contours

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 B

- 2 Figure 3B.2.2. Locations of 4,775 NOAA Stations

................................ ................................ ... 3 B

- 3 Figure 3B.2.3. Locations of Populated Places

................................ ................................ ........... 3 B

- 3 Figure 3B.2.4. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Iowa Showing a Predominance of Nearest

Location Mappings

................................ ................................ ...................... 3 B

- 5 Figure 3B.2.5. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Washington State Showing Some Distant Mappings in Mountainous Regions

................................ ............................. 3 B

- 5 Figure 3B.2.6. NOAA→TMY2 Mappings

................................ ................................ ................ 3 B

- 7

3 B

- iAPPENDIX 3 B

. TYPICAL METEOROLOGICAL YEAR ASSIGNMENTS

3B.1 I NTRODUCTION

3B.1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT

This appendix describes the methodology by which weighting factors were developed to

scale the influence of each typical meteorological year ( TMY2 ) weather station on each state’s

results. The intent is to ensure that the cost

- effectiveness calculations pr operly reflect the geographic distribution of buildings in which the heating, ventilati ng, and air

- conditioning ( HVAC ) systems under analysis will be used. State

- level aggregate results need to be most heavily influenced by the climates having the most bui ldings.

3B.1.2 ISSUES

The 230 + TMY2 stations in the United States are distributed throughout the country to provide good coverage of the climatic variation in the United States. Unfortunately for this study,

the TMY2 stations are not distributed so as to match th e distribution of buildings. It is therefore necessary to identify a reasonable mapping between the climate

- based (TMY2) simulation results and the geographical distribution of buildings in each state. Although TMY2 data give good climatic coverage, they d o not give sufficient detailed geographical coverage.
Detailed data on the geographical/climatic distribution of buildings were not readily available for this task. However, data on the geographical distribution of persons (population data) can serve as a reasonable surrogate for buildings data, and are available from a number of

sources. The challenge facing this study was match ing up population data, which are available in great geographical detail but not matched to climate indicators, with TMY2 data, wh ich characterize climate quite well but are not connected to any population indicators.

3B.2 APPROACH

Figure 3 B.2

. 1 shows the locations of the 239 TMY2 stations superimposed on a contour map showing heating degree

- days. It is clear that the geographic distribution of the TMY2 stations is too sparse to capture many of the climate variations that occur over relatively sh ort distances, especially in mountainous regions. It is therefore not feasible to develop weighting factors based solely on the TMY2 stations within a state.

3B.2.1 ADDITIONAL DATA SETS

To develop weighting factors, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified two data sets (in addition to the TMY2 data set) that provide a connection between detailed population

d istribution and TMY2 stations. These are as follows :

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) Climate Stations

– The

National Climatic Dat a Center ’ s (NCDC ’s ) “CLIM81” database contains summary statistics from a large number of climate stations in the United States. DOE used the

1961

– 1990 period of record (POR), which corresponds to the POR used to define the TMY2 weather tapes, for which 4

, 7 75 climate stations are represented (see http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/documentlibrary/clim81supp3/clim81.html ). Each NOAA station is characterized by its location (latitude/ longitude), annual heating and cooling degree

- days, elevation, and various other metrics.

3 B

- 1Figure 3 B.2

. 1 . Locations of TMY2 Stations Superimposed on Heating Degree

- Day Contours

• United States Geological Survey ( USGS ) Populated Places

– The USGS, in its Geographic Names Information System, maintains a detailed database of cities, towns, and other important features. (For the latest version of this data set, see http://geonames.usgs.gov/stategaz/00README.html

. ) DOE’s analysis used a version of this data set from the early 1990s, making it contemporaneous with the TMY2 and NOAA data sets.) Of interest to this task are the features known as “popul ated places” (PPL), which are generally cities and towns, but also include large housing subdivisions, trailer parks, and other places where people may live. For many of these populated places, the USGS has a population estimate. The PPL data give excellent geographical cove rage. The version of the data set used here has over 22,000 entries that include a population estimate out of more than 164,000 total. 1 Each PPL location is characterized by its location (latitude/longitude), elevation, population, and various

other metric s.

The NOAA data are important because they contain climate summary information that can be mapped to the TMY2 stations, greatly increasing DOE’s geographical coverage. Figure

3 B.2

. 2 shows the locations of the 4

, 775 NOAA stations. The PPL database is used to make the final link between the climate information in the mapped NOAA/TMY2 stations and the geographical distribution of population. Figure 3 B.2

. 3 shows the PPL locations.

1 Locations without USGS population estimates tend to be those with very little population. DOE has kept these

smaller sites in its mapping analysis by assigning each a population estimate of one. This gives them negligible influence against the more populous locations but allows the mapping procedure to work even in very sparsely populated regions of some states.

3 B

- 2Figure 3 B.2

. 2

. Locations of 4

, 775 NOAA Stations

Figure 3B.2

. 3

. Locations of Populated Places

3B.2.2 MAPPING APPROACH

DOE’s approach to generating TMY2 weighting factors involves three major steps:

1. Map each PPL location in the United States to a best

- representative NOAA station. This gives each location some summary c limate metrics (chiefly, heating and cooling degree

- days) that facilitate further mapping.

3 B

- 32. Map each NOAA station to a best

- representative TMY2 station. This completes the link between the geographic population estimates (PPL data) and the TMY2 stations.

3. Fo r each state, compute the fraction of the total PPL population that “points” (via its PPL→NOAA→TMY2 mappings) to each TMY2 station.

These are described in order below.

3B.2.2.1 Mapping Populated Places Locations to NOAA Stations

Mapping each of the 164,000+ PPL loc ations to a best

- representative NOAA station is a mostly straightforward process. Because there is no climate information in the PPL database, the only metrics available to associate each PPL location with a NOAA station are location (latitude/longitude) a nd elevation (although elevation is not known for all PPL locations). The mapping algorithm is as follows.

1. For each PPL location, identify the nearest NOAA station. Distances between PPL/NOAA pairs are calculated using the latitudes and longitudes of the t wo locations and simple spherical geometry. If the elevation of the nearest NOAA station

is within 300 feet of the PPL location or if the elevation of the PPL location is unknown, then the nearest NOAA station is the final mapping.

2. If the nearest NOAA stat ion differs in elevation from the PPL location by more than

300 feet:

a) Identify the 20 closest NOAA stations to the PPL location.

b) Choose, from among the 20, the NOAA station that is nearest in elevation to the

PPL location.

This algorithm is imperfect in many situations, but was designed by trial and error to give reasonable mappings in a large majority of cases. In locations with relatively flat terrain and fairly dense population, the algorithm almost always maps to the clo sest NOAA station. Figure

3 B.2

. 4 shows the mappings in the state of Iowa as an example. Each plotted point on the graphic is one NOAA station; the “hairs” are drawn outward to the various PPL locations mapped to that

station . In mountainous terrain or in locations with large distances between PPL locations ( e.g. , Alaska), the second part of the algorithm does a reasonable job of identifying a representative NOAA station, even if that station is some distance from the PPL loca tion. Figure

3 B.2

. 5 shows the mappings for Washington State as an example. Note that many of the PPL locations (the ends of the hairs) are mapped to distant NOAA stati ons.

3 B

- 4Figure 3 B.2

. 4

. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Iowa Showing a Predominance of Nearest

Location Mappings

Figure 3 B.2

. 5 . PPL→NOAA Mappings for Washington State Sho wing Some Distant Mappings in Mountainous Regions

3 B

- 53B.2.2.2 Mapping NOAA Stations to TMY2 Stations

Having mapped each PPL location to a best

- representative NOAA station, the next step is to map each NOAA station to a best representative TMY2 station. Because the NOA A and TMY2 data sets provide less dense geographical coverage and because both data sets contain climate information, this mapping process relies less on spatial proximity and more on similarity of climate. Proximity remains important, though. In finding a best TMY2 mapping for a NOAA station, DOE hope s for similarity in a number of climate variables: temperature ( heating and

c ooling degree

- days ), solar and wind characteristics, rainfall and humidity characteristics, snowfall, etc. The NOAA data set support s direct comparison only of heating and cooling degree

- days, but DOE relies on spatial proximity to ensure similarity in the other variables.

The NOAA

- to

- TMY2 mapping algorithm is as follows.

1. For each NOAA station, identify the nearest TMY2 station. If the elevation of the nearest TMY2 station is within 300 feet of the NOAA station, then the nearest TMY2 station is the final mapping.

2. If the nearest TMY2 station differs in elevation from the NOAA station by more than

300 feet, then select instead the TMY2 st ation that has the minimum “combined

distance” from the NOAA station. The combined distance is defined as the sum of the literal distance (miles) between the two stations and an “equivalent latitude miles”

value that accounts for known differences in heati ng and cooling degree

- days and elevation. This latter metric requires some explanation (see below).

The equivalent latitude miles metric was developed as a means to characterize temperature ( heating and cooling degree

- days ) and elevation in the same units as literal distance ( i.e. , miles). By casting heating and cooling degree

- days and elevation effects into units of miles,

DOE is able to simply sum the literal distance between two locations with the equivalent heating and cooling degree

- days and elevation distance to give the two values equal weight in assigning

a best

- representative TMY2 station to each NOAA station.

The equivalent latitude miles values are based on several related observations. First, differences in both heating and cooling degree

- days co rrelate with differences in latitude. Second, those same degree

- day differences also correlate with differences in elevation. Combining these observations, DOE discovered that differences in north

- south distances ( i.e.

, latitude miles) can be characterized in terms of differences in heating degree

- days, cooling degree

- days , and elevation. That is, as one moves northward (increasing latitude) and upward (increasing elevation), heating degree

- days tend to increase and cooling degree

- days tend to
decrease. A r egression analysis of these correlations allows DOE to cast heating and cooling degree

- days , and elevation differences into units of distance (miles). A linear regression on NOAA/TMY2 station pairs within 300 miles of each other gives the following result.

3 B

- 6

### Elev CDD HDD I d equiv 

### ∆ × + × + ∆ × + = γ β α
Eq. 3B .1

Where:

d

equiv = equivalent latitude distance (miles),

Δ

HDD = difference in heating degree

- days (base

- 65 °F),

Δ C DD = difference in cooling degree

- days (base

- 65 °F),

Δ Elev = difference in elevation (feet),

I =

- 6.8938

,

α = 0.1061

, β =

- 0.0149 , and

γ =

- 0.0718

.

The best representative TMY2 station for each NOAA station was selected as the one with the minimum sum of actual distance and equivalent latitude distance. Figure 3 B.2

. 6 shows the final NOAA→TMY2 mappings for the continental United States. Each plotted point is a TMY2 station, from which lines are drawn outward to the NOAA stations mapped to it.

Figure 3 B.2

. 6

. NOAA→TMY2 Mappings

3B.2.3 CALCULATING STATE

- BY

- STATE WEIGHTING FACT ORS

Weighting factors were developed for each U.S. state that express the fraction of that state’s population that is represented by each TMY2 station. These weigh ting factors are based directly on the PPL→NOAA→TMY2 mappings described above. The weighting factor for a TMY2 station is defined as the summed population of all PPL locations in the state that point to that TMY2 station divided by the summed population of all PPL locations in the state. Thus, the sum of all the TMY2 weighting factors for a state is 1.0.

3 B

- 7CHAPTER 4

. NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

- 1

4.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS CALCULATION

................................ .................... 4

- 2

4.3 INPUTS TO THE NATION AL ENERGY SAVINGS CA LCULATION

...................... 4

- 5

4.3.1 Shipments

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

- 5

4.3.1.1 Commercial Air

- Cooled Equipme nt

................................ .......................... 4

- 5

4.3.1.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 9

4.3.1.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

................................ ....................... 4

- 13

4.3.1.4 Sin gle Package Vertical Units

................................ ................................ .. 4

- 18

4.3.1.5 Commercial Water Heaters

................................ ................................ ...... 4

- 31

4.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption

................................ ................................ ............ 4

- 32

4.3.2.1 Unit Electricity Consumption per EER, SEER, or Et

.............................. 4

- 32

4.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares and Market Weighted Averag e UEC

................................ ................................ ........................... 4

- 37

4.3.3 Equipment Lifetime

................................ ................................ ........................... 4

- 43

4.3.4 Conversion of Site Energy Savings

................................ ................................ ... 4

- 43

4.3.5 Compliance Dates and Analysis Period

................................ ............................. 4

- 44

4.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS RESULTS

................................ ............................. 4

- 45

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.3.1 Historical Shipments of Commercial Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................ 4

- 6

Table 4.3.2 Census Shipments of Air

- Cooled Equipment <65,000 Btu/h (Including Both Single

- and Three

- Phase Equipment)

................................ .................... 4

- 6

Table 4.3.3 Projected Shipments of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Equipment <65,000 Btu/h (2011

- 2046)

................................ ................................ .......................... 4

- 8

Table 4.3.4 Census Shipments of Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ........ 4

- 10

Table 4.3.5 1999 Shipments of Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ............ 4

- 11

Table 4.3.6 Projected WSHP Shipments by Equipment Class (2011

- 2044)

.................. 4

- 12

Table 4.3.7 Historical and Projected New Construction (million sf) for PTAC Shipments Model

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 14

Table 4.3.8 Historical PTAC and PTHP Shipments with New Construction Floor Space Values Used to Calculate Saturation

................................ ................. 4

- 14

Table 4.3.9 PTAC and PTHP Equipment Class Shipment Distribution

......................... 4

- 16

Table 4.3.10 Historic and Projected PTAC Shipments by Equipment Class

................... 4

- 17

Table 4.3.11 Historical SPVU Shipment Data

................................ ................................ .. 4

- 19

Table 4.3.12 MBI Data and DOE Estimates Used to Produce Historical SPVU Shipments

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4

- 20

Table 4.3.13 Historical SPVU Shipments

................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 22

Table 4.3.14 2005 SPVU New Construction Shipments

................................ .................. 4

- 23

4

- iTable 4.3.15 Historical and Projected New Construction (million sf) for SPVU Shipments Model

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 24

Table 4.3.16 Saturation of SPVUs in New Construction Floor Space

............................. 4

- 25

Table 4.3.17 Historical and Projected Telecom Establishments for SPVU Shipments

Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

- 26

Table 4.3.18 SPVU Equipment Class Shipment Distribution

................................ .......... 4

- 27

Table 4. 3.19 Projected SPVU Shipments by Equipment Class

................................ ........ 4

- 29

Table 4.3.20 Projected Shipments of Commercial Gas

- and Oil

- Fired Storage Water

Heaters

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 32

Table 4.3.21 UECs: Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Equipment (5 ton representative capacity)

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 33

Table 4.3.22 UECs: Water Source Heat Pumps

................................ ................................ 4

- 34

Table 4.3.23 UECs: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

................................ ............... 4

- 35

Table 4.3.24 UECs: Single Package Vertica l Units

................................ .......................... 4

- 36

Table 4.3.25 UECs: Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters (Capacity

- Weighted)

................... 4

- 37

Table 4.3.26 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Air Conditioners <65,000

Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

- 38

Table 4.3.27 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Heat Pum ps <65,000 Btu/h

........ 4

- 38

Table 4.3.28 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Spl it System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

............ 4

- 39

Table 4.3.29 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

................................ ................... 4

- 39

Table 4.3.30 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

Water Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000

– < 65,000 Btu/h

................................ . 4

- 40

Table 4.3.31 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000

– <135,000 Btu/h

................................ 4

- 40

Table 4.3.32 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Case s for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners <7,000 Btu/h

................................ .... 4

- 41

Table 4.3. 33 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners ≥7,000

– ≤15,000 Btu/h

................... 4

- 41

Table 4.3. 34 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners >15,000 Btu/h

................................ .. 4

- 42

Table 4.3.35 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for SPVAC and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ............................ 4

- 42

Table 4.3.36 Distribu tion of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for SPVAC ≥65,000

– <135,000 Btu/h

................................ ............................. 4

- 42

Table 4.3.37 Distribution of Effi ciencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

Commercial Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters >105,000 Btu/h and <4,000 Btu/h/gal

................................ ................................ .......................... 4

- 43

Table 4.3.38 Upstream Energy Multipliers (Based on AEO 2013)

................................ .. 4

- 44

Table 4.4.1 Potential Energy Savings for Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Single Package Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

................................ .................... 4

- 45

Table 4.4.2 Potential Energy Savings for Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ............................ 4

- 46

4

- iiTable 4.4.3 Potential Energy Savings for Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ............................. 4

- 46

Table 4.4.4 Potential Energy Savings for Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

.... 4

- 46

Table 4.4.5 Potential Energy Savings for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ .............................. 4

- 47

Table 4.4.6 Potential Energy Savings for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 47

Table 4.4.7 Potential Energy Savings for PTAC <7,000 Btu/h

................................ ...... 4

- 48

Table 4.4.8 Potential Energy Savings for PTAC ≥7,000 and ≤15,000 Btu/h

................. 4

- 48

Table 4.4.9 Potential Energy Savings for PTAC >15,000 Btu/h

................................ .... 4

- 49

Table 4.4.10 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h

................. 4

- 49

Table 4.4.11 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for SPVHP<65,000 Btu/h

.................. 4

- 50

Table 4.4.12 Potential Energy S avings Estimates for SPVAC ≥65,000 and <135,000

Btu/h

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

- 50

Table 4.4.13 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for Commercial Oil

- Fire d Storage Water Heaters >105,000 Btu/h and <4,000 Btu/h/gal

................................ . 4

- 50

LIST OF FIGURE S

Figure 4.2.1 Flow Diagram of National Energy Savings Calculation

................................ 4

- 3 Figure 4.3.1 Air

- Cooled Equipment Shipment Trends 1999

- 2010

................................ .... 4

- 7 Figure 4.3.2 Water Source Heat Pump Shipment Trends 1990

- 2010

............................ 4

- 11 Figure 4.3.3 PTAC Survival Function

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 15 Figure 4.3.4 Historical and Projected PTAC Shipments by Equipment Class

................. 4

- 16 Figure 4.3.5 Projected PTAC Shipments 2013

- 2046

................................ ....................... 4

- 18 Figure 4.3.6 MBI Trend Used to Develop Floor Space Production for Historical SPVU Shipments

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 21 Figure 4.3.7 County Business Pattern Establishment Data for NAICS 237130

Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction (For SPVU Shipments Model)

................................ ................................ ..... 4

- 25 Figure 4.3.8 SPVU Survival Function

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 28 Figure 4.3.9 Projected SPVU Shipments by Equipment Class

................................ ........ 4

- 29 Figure 4.3.10 Projected SPVU Shipments 2005

- 2046

................................ ..................... 4

- 31

4

- iiiCHAPTER 4. NATIONAL ENER GY SAVINGS ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the national energy savings (NES) analysis for commercial air

cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners, single package vertical units, and oi l

- fired storage water heaters. Each subsection of this chapter discusses each of these equipment categories in separate sections.

The NES for all equipment considers the ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 standard level as well as several higher efficiency standard levels. The effective date of a standard depends upon the standard selected. For purposes of this analysis, DOE assumed the effective date of such a standard would be 2015 (for water source heat pumps, single package vertical units, and oil storage water heaters under the ASHRAE standard), 2017 (for packaged terminal air

conditioners and commercial air

- cooled air conditioners and heat pumps under the ASHRAE standard), or 2020 (for all equipment under standards higher than ASHRAE).

DOE analyzed the National Energy Savings (NES) of amended energy conservation

standards for:

• three equipment classes of small air

- cooled , three

- phase commercial packaged air

conditioning and heati ng equipment: (1) single package air conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h, (2) single package heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, and (3) split system heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h;

• three equipment classes of small commercial water source heat pumps: (1) less than 17,000 Btu/h, (2) 17,000 to less than 65,000 Btu/h, and (3) 65,000 to less than 135,000 Btu/h;

• three equipment classes of standard size packaged terminal air conditioners ( PTACs ) : (1) less than 7,000 Btu/h, (2) 7,000 to 15,000 Btu/h, and (3) gr eater than 15,000 Btu/h;

• three equipment classes of single package vertical units ( SPVUs ) : (1) single package

vertical air conditioners ( SPVACs ) less than 65,000 Btu/h, (2) single package vertical heat pumps ( SPVHPs ) less than 65,000 Btu/h, and (3) SPVACs 65,000 to less than 135,000 Btu/h; and

• one equipment class of commercial water heating equipment: (1) oil

- fired storage water

heaters.

DOE examined various standard levels for each class of equipment, including the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 201 3 efficiency le vel, the max tech level (the highest efficiency level of equipment currently on the market), and several levels between. The baseline for each level is

the current F ederal energy conservation standard.

4

- 14.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS CALCULATION

Figure 4.2.1 illustrates the inputs, intermediate values, and outputs of the NES calculation. The NES is the difference between the national energy consumption in the base case ( i .e., the case without amended energy conservation standards) and the standards case ( i.e., the case with amended energy conservation standards). DOE developed spreadsheet models to calculate the NES from equipment standards for the 13 equipment classes of interest to this analysis.

4

- 2NES Inputs

Calculated Values

NES Output Historical Shipments

Equip

. Class Market

Shares

Equipment Lifetime

Baseline Unit Energy

Consumption

Unit Energy
Consumption ( at

each EER / SEER / Et

under

consideration )

Site to Primary and
Upstream Energy

Conversion

Analysis Period Base Case UEC

Market Shares

Standards Case UEC

Market Shares Projected Shipments

Projected Shipments by
Equip

. Class

Base Case Unit
Energy
Consumption

Standards Case

Unit Energy
Consumption

Annual
Energy
Savings

National
Energy Savings

Figure 4.2.1 Flow Diagram of National Energy Savings Calculation

4

- 3For each equipment class and standards case, DOE calculated the total energy savings using a stock accounting method. DOE projected shipments into the future based on available information for each equipment class. The number of new shipments in any given year is assumed to remain in the commercial building stock for a total of the assumed lifetime of the equipmen t, at which point tha t entire year’s shipments disappear from existing stock. In this way, the total stock, or number of surviving units, in any given year is the sum of that year’s shipments plus the shipments from the previous (lifetime minus 1) years

.

The annual base tota l energy use in any given year is the sum product of the shipments for that year and the previous (lifetime minus 1) years and the market weighted average base unit energy consumption ( UEC a ) in each relevant year (multiplied by primary and upstream

convers ion factor s ).

Annual Base Total Energy Use year = n

= � S h ipments year × Base UEC year n

year = n

− lifetime

− 1 Eq. 4.1 As currently modeled, the base UEC remains constant throughout time. As a result, in the previous calculation, Base UEC year could be moved outside the summation terms as Base UEC

.

The annual standards case total energy use in any given year is the sum product of the shipments for that year and the previous (lifetime minus 1) years and the market weighted average standards case UEC b in each relevant year (multiplied by primary and up stream
conversion factor s ).

Annual Standards Case Total Energy Use year = n

= � S h ipments year × Standards UEC year n

year = n

− lifetime

− 1 Eq. 4.2 Prior to the analysis period, the S tandards C ase UEC is equal to the Base UEC, as standards have not yet become effective. Therefore, in the earlier part of the analysis period, energy savings accrue from only the newer units in the building stock. Later in the analysis period, all units in the build ing stock will have the lower standards UEC (as they were all shipped within the analysis period) and will be providing energy savings.

a As will be discussed later, the market weighted average base UEC is based on the distribution of efficiencies under the current federal standards (base case). It includes equipment both meeting and exceeding the current federal minimum efficiency. It is n ot the UEC for a product at a specified EER, SEER, or Et.

b The market weighted average standards UEC is based on the distribution of efficiencies under a given amended federal standards scenario. It may include equipment both meeting and exceeding the giv en amended federal standards level (with the exception of the Max Tech scenario, in which it is assumed that no equipment exceeds the amended federal standards level). It is not the UEC for a product at a specified EER, SEER, or Et.

4

- 4The annual energy savings is the difference between the base case total energy use and the standards case total energ y use.

Annual Energy Savings year = n

= Annual Base Total Energy Use year = n

− Annual Standards Case Total Energy Use year = n Eq. 4.3 DOE calculated the cumulative energy savings over the analysis period by summing the annual energy savings for each year in the analysis period. The analysis period differs by equipment , as discussed in the next section.

Cumulative Energy Savings = � Annual Energy Savings year x + 29

year = x Eq. 4.4 For the ASHRAE standard, the cumulative energy savings are presented as above. For higher efficiency levels, DOE uses the ASHRAE UEC instead of the Base UEC to calculate the annual total energy use that the annual sta ndards case total energy use is compared to. This is

because the ASHRAE standard is the presumed default.

4.3 INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS CALCULATION

The following sections discuss and document the inputs to the calculation of the NES.

4.3.1 Shipments

4.3.1.1 C ommercial Air

- Cooled Equipment

DOE previously estimated shipments of three

- phase air

- cooled equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h by equipment class for the year 1999 as part of the 2000 Screening Analysis for the Energy Policy Act ( EPACT )

. 1 Table 4.3

. 1 shows these data. DOE used U.S. Census data for similar equipment, including both single

- and three

- phase, from 1999 to 2010, 2 shown in Table

4.3

. 2 , to extrapolate DOE’s 1999 estimated sh ipments data from 2000 to 2010 ; for each year from 2000 to 2010, DOE multiplied the 1999 shipments by the indexed value for the releva nt year from the census data. DOE then used the estimated shipments from 1999 to 2010 to establish a trend from which to project shipments beyond 2010. Figure 4.3.1 shows the shipment values and trends for each equipment class. For heat pumps, DOE used a linear trend, which is slightly decreasing for single package units and increasing for split systems. However, for single package air conditioners, the trend i s prec ipitously declining. As a result, for single package air conditioners for the years after 2010, DOE used the average value from 1999 to 2010.

4

- 5Table 4.3

. 3 shows the full time series of projected shipments.

Table 4.3

. 1 Historical Shipments of Commercial Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
Equipment Class 1999

Single Package AC 213,728

Single Package HP 27,773

Split System HP 11,903

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Screening Analysis for EPACT

- Covered Commercial HVAC and Water

- Heating Equipment.

Volume 1

– Main Report . 2000.

Table 4.3

. 2 Census Shipments of Air

- Cooled Eq uipment <65,000 Btu/h (Including Both Single

- and Three

- Phase Equipment )

Year Single Package AC Single Package HP Split System HP

Shipments Index (to 1999) Shipments Index (to 1999) Shipments Index (to 1999)

1999 666,314 1.00 202,608 1.00 1,011,525 1.00

2000 686,448 1.03 204,324 1.01 1

, 041

, 287 1.03

2001 611,636 0.92 220,716 1.09 1

, 159

, 308 1.15

2002 553,728 0.83 180,521 0.89 1

, 159

, 507 1.15

2003 602,282 0.90 205,301 1.01 1

, 345

, 671 1.33

2004 614,937 0.92 214,886 1.06 1

, 634

, 521 1.62

2005 607,981 0.91 236,189 1.17 1

, 849

, 512 1.83

2006 575,916 0.86 232,762 1.15 1

, 873

, 980 1.85

2007 551,675 0.83 244,256 1.21 1

, 578

, 409 1.56

2008 453,055 0.68 197,024 0.97 1

, 530

, 443 1.51

2009 364,616 0.55 169,317 0.84 1

, 581

, 241 1.56

2010 330,965 0.50 172,816 0.85 1

, 571

, 177 1.55

Source: U.S.Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air Heating Equipment, MA333M.

4

- 6Figure 4.3.1 Air

- Cooled Equipment Shipment Trends 1999

- 2010 y =

- 8738.8x + 2E+07
R2 = 0.7655

y =

- 185.13x + 399431
R2 = 0.0397

y = 720.37x

- 1E+06
R2 = 0.5542

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 CUAC <65 single

CUHP <65 single

CUHP <65 split

Linear (CUAC <65 single)

Linear (CUHP <65 single)

Linear (CUHP <65 split)

4

- 7Table 4.3

. 3 Projected Shipments of Air

- Cooled Three

- Phase Equipment <65,000

Btu/h ( 2011

- 2046 )

Year Single Package AC Single Package HP Split System HP

2011 176,942 27,134 21,683

2012 176,942 26,949 22,403

2013 176,942 26,764 23,124

2014 176,942 26,579 23,844

2015 176,942 26,394 24,564

2016 176,942 26,209 25,285

2017 176,942 26,023 26,005

2018 176,942 25,838 26,725

2019 176,942 25,653 27,446

2020 176,942 25,468 28,166

2021 176,942 25,283 28,887

2022 176,942 25,098 29,607

2023 176,942 24,913 30,327

2024 176,942 24,728 31,048

2025 176,942 24,542 31,768

2026 176,942 24,357 32,488

2027 176,942 24,172 33,209

2028 176,942 23,987 33,929

2029 176,942 23,802 34,649

2030 176,942 23,617 35,370

2031 176,942 23,432 36,090

2032 176,942 23,246 36,811

2033 176,942 23,061 37,531

2034 176,942 22,876 38,251

2035 176,942 22,691 38,972

2036 176,942 22,506 39,692

2037 176,942 22,321 40,412

2038 176,942 22,136 41,133

2039 176,942 21,951 41,853

2040 176,942 21,765 42,574

2041 176,942 21,580 43,294

2042 176,942 21,395 44,014

2043 176,942 21,210 44,735

2044 176,942 21,025 45,455

2045 176,942 20,840 46,175

2046 176,942 20,655 46,896

4

- 84.3.1.2 Water Source Heat Pumps

The U .S. Census published historical (1980, 1983

- 1994, 1997

- 2006, and 2008

- 2010) water source heat pump shipment data. 2 Table 4.3

. 4 exhibits the complete available time series

. DOE analyzed data from t he years 1990

- 2010 to establish a trend from which to project shipments beyond 2010. DOE used a linear trend , as shown in Figure 4.3.2 . Because the Census data do not distinguish between equipment capacity, DOE used the shipment data by equipment class provided by the Air

- conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ( A HRI ) in 1999 and published in the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACT, 1 to distribute the total water source heat pumps shipments to individual equip ment classes. Table 4.3

. 5 exhibits the shipment data provided for 1999. Table 4.3

. 6 shows t he projected shipments for each equipment class.

4

- 9Table 4.3

. 4 Census Shipments of Water Source Heat Pumps

Year Product Code: 333415E181

1980 48,783

1981 N/A

1982 N/A

1983 69,280

1984 86,165

1985 119,164

1986 103,970

1987 142,033

1988 149,795

1989 157,080

1990 139,864

1991 111,746

1992 99,236

1993 105,159

1994 99,321

1995 N/A

1996 N/A

1997 112,052

1998 120,080

1999 120,545

2000 133,654

2001 130,351

2002 114,336

2003 123,974

2004 135,769

2005 141,410

2006 202,234

2007 N/A

2008 223,636

2009 180,101

2010 170,788

Source: U.S.Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air Heating Equipment, MA333M.

4

- 10Figure 4.3.2 Water Source Heat Pump Shipment Trends 1990

- 2010

Table 4.3

. 5 1999 Shipments of Water Source Heat Pumps
Equipment Class Shipments Percent

<17

, 000 Btu/h 41,000 31%

≥17,000

- < 65

, 000 Btu/h 86,000 65%

≥ 65

, 000

- 135

, 000 Btu/h 5,000 4%

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Screening Analysis for EPACT

- Covered Commercial HVAC and Water

- Heating Equipment.

Volume 1

– Main Report . 2000. y = 4135.8x

- 8E+06
R2 = 0.5483

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

4

- 11Table 4.3

. 6 Projected WSHP Shipments by Equipment Class (2011

- 2044)

Total <17,000 Btu/h ≥17,000

- <65,000 Btu/h ≥65,000

- 135,000 Btu/h

2011 181,937 56,511 118,535 6,892

2012 186,073 57,795 121,229 7,048

2013 190,209 59,080 123,924 7,205

2014 194,344 60,365 126,618 7,362

2015 198,480 61,649 129,313 7,518

2016 202,616 62,934 132,007 7,675

2017 206,752 64,218 134,702 7,832

2018 210,887 65,503 137,396 7,988

2019 215,023 66,788 140,091 8,145

2020 219,159 68,072 142,785 8,301

2021 223,295 69,357 145,480 8,458

2022 227,430 70,641 148,174 8,615

2023 231,566 71,926 150,869 8,771

2024 235,702 73,210 153,563 8,928

2025 239,838 74,495 156,258 9,085

2026 243,974 75,780 158,952 9,241

2027 248,109 77,064 161,647 9,398

2028 252,245 78,349 164,342 9,555

2029 256,381 79,633 167,036 9,711

2030 260,517 80,918 169,731 9,868

2031 264,652 82,203 172,425 10,025

2032 268,788 83,487 175,120 10,181

2033 272,924 84,772 177,814 10,338

2034 277,060 86,056 180,509 10,495

2035 281,195 87,341 183,203 10,651

2036 285,331 88,626 185,898 10,808

2037 289,467 89,910 188,592 10,965

2038 293,603 91,195 191,287 11,121

2039 297,739 92,479 193,981 11,278

2040 301,874 93,764 196,676 11,435

2041 306,010 95,049 199,370 11,591

2042 310,146 96,333 202,065 11,748

2043 314,282 97,618 204,759 11,905

2044 318,417 98,902 207,454 12,061

4

- 124.3.1.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

PTAC shipments are driven primarily by the two market segments of new construction and replacements. For shipments to new construction, DOE combined new construction forecasts with a constant market saturation of the equipment in new construc tion. DOE estimated replacements using an equipment retirement function that it developed based on equipment lifetimes. DOE designed its shipments model for PTACs by developing a single model for

PTAC s and packaged terminal heat pumps ( PTHP s) and disaggregating the shipments into six equipment classes , including the three PTAC classes relevant to this rulemaking

.



### Historical Shipments

DOE received confidential historical shipments from AHRI for the years 2005

- 2012 . In addition, AHRI provided 1 998

- 2004 data that were published in the 2008 PTAC and PTHP rulemaking. 3 The average of the historical shipments (1998

- 2012) was used as the constant value for shipments for the years 1993

- 2012 to build up the initial stock in 2013.



### Markets

T he market for PTACs comprises replacement units for equipment that has been retired

and units for new construction. Total PTAC shipments are represented by the following equation:

) ( ) ( ) ( j NI j Rpl j Ship PTAC PTAC PTAC + = Eq. 4.5 The following sections discuss both the new construction and r eplacement markets in

further detail.

New Construction

To develop shipments to new construction

, DOE combined new construction floor space

forecasts with a constant market saturation of the equipment in new construction. DOE used new

construction floor s pace forecasts for the healthcare, lodging , and small office sector s from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Annual Energy Outlook 20 13 ( AEO20 13 ) for 20 13

– 20 40

. 4 Table 4.3

. 7 presents these forecasts. The data for 2041 through 2046 are based on an extrapolation of the trend from 2 0 3 0 through 20 4 0

.

4

- 13Table 4.3

. 7 Historical and Projected New Construction (million sf) for PTAC Shipments Model

Year Healthcare Lodging Small

Office Year Healthcare Lodging Small

Office

2013 66 147 97 2030 71 150 144

2014 66 138 110 2031 71 161 148

2015 67 144 136 2032 71 168 158

2016 67 148 166 2033 72 185 174

2017 68 162 190 2034 72 192 192

2018 67 164 208 2035 73 207 210

2019 66 172 222 2036 74 216 224

2020 65 178 228 2037 74 214 229

2021 63 181 230 2038 75 208 227

2022 62 183 226 2039 76 200 219

2023 61 187 219 2040 76 190 207

2024 61 186 210 2041 77 187 198

2025 63 181 199 2042 78 184 189

2026 65 171 185 2043 78 181 181

2027 67 165 172 2044 79 177 173

2028 69 155 158 2045 80 174 165

2029 71 152 148 2046 81 171 158

Source: AEO 2013; data for 2041

- 2046 are extrapolated.

To derive the saturation of PTACs and PTHPs (combined) in new construction , DOE used data on shipments to new construction and new construction floor space provided in the 2008 rulemaking

, 3 as shown in Table 4.3.8 . DOE divided the new construction shipments by the

total new construction floor space and used this saturation as the constant saturation for the analysis period.

Table 4.3

. 8 Historical PTAC and PTHP Shipments with New Construction Floor Space Values Used to Calculate Saturation

Year Health care ( million s.f.) Lodging ( million s.f.) Smal l Office ( million s.f.) Total ( million s.f.) New

Construction Shipments Saturation ( units/

million s.f.)

2000 68 172 179 419 66,407 6,315

Source s : DOE 2008 PTAC and PTHP Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking.

4

- 14Replacements

To determine shipments to the replacement market, DOE used an accounting method that tracks the total stock of units by vintage. DOE estimated a stock of PTACs and PTHPs by using

the ave rage of the available historical shipments (1998

- 2012) as the constant value for shipments for the years 1993

- 2012. Over time, some units are retired and removed from the stock, triggering the shipment of a replacement unit. Depending on the vintage, a cer tain percentage of units will fail and need to be replaced. To estimate how long a unit will function before failing, DOE used a survival function based on the distributions of equipment lifetime. The survival function that DOE used had an average lifetime of 10 years and a maximum lifetime of 20 years, consistent with the lifetime used in the previous rulemaking

. Figure 4.3.3 shows the survival function DOE used to estimate replacement shipments.

Figure 4.3.3 PTAC Survival Function



### Shipments Used in the Analysis

For each year in the analysis period, DOE distributed total PTAC and PTHP shipments into the individual equipment classes using the average of the 1998

- 2004 shipments by equipment class provided by AHRI for the previous rulemaking

. Table 4.3

. 9 shows the split. Only the PTAC shipments are relevant to this notice of data availability ( NODA )

.

4

- 15Table 4.3

. 9 PTAC and PTHP Equipment Class Shipment Distribution

PTAC PTHP

<7,000

Btu/h ≥7,000

- ≤15,000

Btu/h >15,000

Btu/h <7,000

Btu/h ≥7,000

- ≤15,000

Btu/h >15,000

Btu/h

1998

- 2004 Average Shipments 12

, 898 205

, 355 15

, 407 7

, 702 168

, 068 13

, 534

Percent 3% 48.5% 3.7% 1.8% 39.8% 3.2%

Figure 4.3.4 shows the projected shipments of PTACs by equipment class and the historical shipments DOE used to develop the initial stock that drove the replacement shipment projection

. Table 4.3

. 10 lists average historic shipments (1993 to 2012) and the projected shipments starting in 20 13

. Figure 4.3.5 shows total shipments (aggregated from individual equipment classes) broken into new construction and replacement shipments. This figure starts in

20 13 , as historical shipments are not disaggregated into new c onstruction and replacements.

Figure 4.3.4 Historical and Projected PTAC Shipments by Equipment Class

4

- 16Table 4.3

. 10 Historic and Projected PTAC Shipments by Equipment Class

Year <7,000 Btu/h ≥7,000

- ≤15,000 Btu/h > 15,000 Btu/h

1993

- 2012 13,340 212,844 16,026

2013 14,829 236,611 17,815

2014 14,852 236,967 17,842

2015 15,010 239,501 18,033

2016 15,190 242,358 18,248

2017 15,393 245,601 18,492

2018 15,537 247,904 18,665

2019 15,709 250,646 18,872

2020 15,868 253,183 19,063

2021 16,028 255,734 19,255

2022 16,196 258,410 19,456

2023 16,388 261,475 19,687

2024 16,582 264,575 19,921

2025 16,761 267,435 20,136

2026 16,910 269,815 20,315

2027 17,066 272,294 20,502

2028 17,188 274,251 20,649

2029 17,333 276,550 20,822

2030 17,497 279,168 21,019

2031 17,745 283,126 21,317

2032 18,005 287,283 21,630

2033 18,327 292,413 22,017

2034 18,623 297,139 22,372

2035 18,953 302,411 22,769

2036 19,236 306,925 23,109

2037 19,432 310,048 23,344

2038 19,573 312,290 23,513

2039 19,684 314,067 23,647

2040 19,781 315,619 23,764

2041 19,934 318,064 23,948

2042 20,103 320,750 24,150

2043 20,284 323,638 24,368

2044 20,473 326,659 24,595

2045 20,665 329,719 24,825

2046 20,853 332,721 25,051

4

- 17Figure 4.3.5 Projected PTAC Shipments 2013

- 2046

4.3.1.4 Single Package Vertical Units

SPVU s hipments are driven primarily by the two market segments of new construction and replacements. DOE used two approaches to estimate shipments driven by new construction depending on the commercial building type. For shipments to the office and educati on sectors, DOE combined new construction forecasts with a constant market saturation of the equipment in new construction. For shipments to the telecom sector, DOE projected future shipments based on an extrapolated and indexed growth trend in the telecom sector. DOE estimated replacements using an equipment retirement function that it developed based on equipment lifetimes.

DOE designed its shipments model for SPVUs by developing a single model for all SPVACs and a single model for all SPVHPs. DOE then disaggregated the shipments into the equipment classes within each broader category. While this section describes shipments of SPVAC and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h disaggregated into 1 phase and 3 phase equipment based on available data, the Federal standards an d ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 levels do not differentiate the equipment by phase. As a result, the shipments for these equipment classes are summed across single

- phase and three

- phase before calculating National Energy Savings. - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043Total Units Shipped

Year

New Construction Shipments Replacement Shipments

4

- 18

### Historical Shipments

DOE used data on historical shipments and industry trends to develop initial stock for the shipments model. It relied on two sources to establish historical shipments: (1) shipments data AHRI provided to DOE for 2005 5 and (2) floor space production data from the Modular

Bu ilding Institute (MBI) for 1994 to 2005. 6

DOE began with historical shipments data for only one year, 2005, for four out of five equipment classes modeled. DOE used a manufacturer

- provided estimate of the market share for units greater than 65,000 Btu/h (3%) to estimate the 2005 shipments for the fifth equipment

class. Table 4.3

. 11 shows these data. Note that DOE does not set different standards for the one

phase an d three

- phase equipment, but they are disaggregated here owing to historical precedent

and difference s in shipments.

Table 4.3

. 11 Historical SPVU Shipment Data
Equipment Class 2005 Shipments

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h 1 Phase 31,976

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h 3 Phase 14,301

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h 1 Phase 13,125

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h 3 Phase 6,129

SPVAC ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h 1,966*
*Estimated based on 3% market share for this equipment class. Source: AHRI (2006 TSD)

In order to develop historical shipments prior to 2005, DOE examined historical modular building floor space production data and expanded the historical trend. Each step is described

here and shown in Table 4.3

. 12 :

• Produced Floor Space Reported to MBI : The MBI reports show the produced floor space as reported to MBI for 1994 to 2004. Only a fraction of the industry reports to MBI.

• Total Produced Floor Space Estimated by MBI : The MBI reports show the estimated total floor space produced by the entire industry based on the fraction of manufacturers reporting and the average floor space they report, for 1997 through 2005.

• Total Produced Floor Space Estimated by DOE :

o For 1994 to 1997, DOE used the produced floor space reported to MBI and the average percent of industry reporting from 1997 to 2004 (14%) to estimate total floor space production.

o For 1981 to 1993, DOE extrapolated the trend derived from plotting estimates of total floor space produced from 1994 to 2005. (See Figure 4.3.6 .)

• Floor Space Production Trend Index : DOE set 2005 estimated total floor space production to 1.0 an d indexed all the preceding estimates of total floor space production.

4

- 19DOE applied the index to the 2005 shipments data to construct historical shipments from 1981 to 2004 (see Table 4.3

. 13 ).

Table 4.3

. 12 MBI Data and DOE Estimates Used to Produce Historical SPVU Shipments

Year Produced Floor Space Reported to

MBI (million s.f.) Total Produced Floor Space Estimate by MBI (million s.f.) Total Produced Floor Space Estimated by DOE (million s.f.) Floor Space

Production Trend

Index

1981 37.8 0.42

1982 39.4 0.44

1983 41.0 0.46

1984 42.6 0.48

1985 44.2 0.50

1986 45.8 0.51

1987 47.4 0.53

1988 49.0 0.55

1989 50.6 0.57

1990 52.1 0.59

1991 53.7 0.60

1992 55.3 0.62

1993 56.9 0.64

1994 7.0 50.7 0.57

1995 8.8 63.7 0.72

1996 9.0 65.4 0.73

1997 12.4 49.5 0.56

1998 10.4 97.2 1.09

1999 9.7 58.1 0.65

2000 8.8 74.8 0.84

2001 12.4 67.5 0.76

2002 6.7 61.2 0.69

2003 4.3 54.8 0.62

2004 7.2 77.3 0.87

2005 89 1.00

Source: MBI; DOE estimates

4

- 20Figure 4.3.6 MBI Trend Used to Develop Floor Space Production for Historical SPVU Shipments y = 1.5953x

- 3122.5
R2 = 0.151

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006MBI Estimated New Floor SpaceProduced (million square feet)

Year

4

- 21Table 4.3

. 13 Historical SPVU Shipments

Year SPVAC

<65 ,000 Btu/h

1 Phase SPVAC

<65 ,000 Btu/h

3 Phase SPVHP

<65 ,000 Btu/h

1 Phase SPVHP

<65 ,000 Btu/h

3 Phase SPVAC

≥ 65 ,000

-

< 135 ,000

Btu/h

1981 13

, 577 6

, 072 5

, 573 2

, 602 835

1982 14

, 150 6

, 329 5

, 808 2

, 712 870

1983 14

, 723 6

, 585 6

, 043 2

, 822 905

1984 15

, 296 6

, 841 6

, 279 2

, 932 940

1985 15

, 870 7

, 098 6

, 514 3

, 042 976

1986 16

, 443 7

, 354 6

, 749 3

, 152 1

, 011

1987 17

, 016 7

, 610 6

, 984 3

, 262 1

, 046

1988 17

, 589 7

, 867 7

, 220 3

, 371 1

, 081

1989 18

, 162 8

, 123 7

, 455 3

, 481 1

, 117

1990 18

, 735 8

, 379 7

, 690 3

, 591 1

, 152

1991 19

, 309 8

, 636 7

, 925 3

, 701 1

, 187

1992 19

, 882 8

, 892 8

, 161 3

, 811 1

, 222

1993 20

, 455 9

, 148 8

, 396 3

, 921 1

, 258

1994 18

, 202 8

, 140 7

, 471 3

, 489 1

, 119

1995 22

, 882 10

, 234 9

, 392 4

, 386 1

, 407

1996 23

, 480 10

, 501 9

, 638 4

, 501 1

, 444

1997 17

, 784 7

, 954 7

, 300 3

, 409 1

, 093

1998 34

, 922 15

, 619 14

, 334 6

, 694 2

, 147

1999 20

, 874 9

, 336 8

, 568 4

, 001 1

, 283

2000 26

, 874 12

, 019 11

, 031 5

, 151 1

, 652

2001 24

, 251 10

, 846 9

, 954 4

, 648 1

, 491

2002 21

, 974 9

, 828 9

, 019 4

, 212 1

, 351

2003 19

, 689 8

, 806 8

, 081 3

, 774 1

, 211

2004 27

, 772 12

, 421 11

, 400 5

, 323 1

, 708

2005 31

, 976 14

, 301 13

, 125 6

, 129 1

, 966
Note: 2005 data for equipment classes less than 65,000 Btu/h are from AHRI (2006 TSD).



### Markets

As described previously , the market for SPVUs comprises replacement units for equipment that has been retired and units for new construction. Total SPVU shipments are represented by the following equation:

4

- 22) ( ) ( ) ( j NI j Rpl j Ship

spvu spvu spvu + = Eq. 4.6 The following sections discuss both the new co nstruction and replacement markets in

further detail.

New Construction

SPVUs are shipped to three primary market sectors : small office, education, and telecom. DOE used two different approaches to project shipments

− one for the office and education

sector s, and one for the telecom sector.

DOE allocated the 2005 new construction shipments c into market sectors based on information provided by manufacturers regarding the overall market share of the office, education, and telecom sectors. However, DOE assume d that SPVHPs were not shipped to the telecom industry, as telecom structures would be unlikely to require heating. As a result, DOE developed separate estimates of shipments to each industry sector for SPVACs and SPVHPs. The overall percentage of SPVAC an d SPVHP shipments (71% vs. 29%) is based on the 2005 AHRI shipment data. Table 4.3

. 14 shows the market shares and shipments breakdowns.

Table 4.3

. 14 2005 SPVU New Construction Shipments

Market Share New Construction Shipments

Small

Office Education Telecom Small

Office Education Telecom Total

SPVAC 71% 23% 27% 49% 5,645 6,586 11,891 24,122

SPVHP 29% 46% 54% 0% 4,443 5,184

- 9,627

Overall 100% 30% 35% 35% 10,088 11,770 11,891 33,749

Office and Education

As described previously, to develop shipments to the office and education sectors, DOE combined new construction forecasts with a constant market saturation of the equipment in new

construction. DOE used the new construction forecasts for the small office and education sectors

from the EIA’s AEO201 3 for 2005

– 2040. 4 Table 4.3

. 15 presents these forecasts. The data for 2041 through 2046 are based on an extrapolation of the trend from 2030 through 2040.

c In 2012, manufacturer s reported that shipments were approximately 50% new construction and 50% replacement. DOE originally adjusted that split for 2005 until the result from the shipments model was 50/50 in 2012. This resulting 2005 split was 84% new construction and 16% repla cement. However, this led to a steep shipments increase in the model from 2005 to 2006. Instead, DOE used the 50/50 split directly in 2005, which resulted in a much steadier shipments trend. Therefore, 2005 new construction shipments are derived using 50% of the total 2005 historical shipments.

4

- 23Table 4.3

. 15 Histo rical and Projected New Construction (million sf) for SPVU Shipments Model

Year Small Office Education Year Small Office Education

2005 144.70 350.81 2026 185.15 167.53

2006 159.03 355.67 2027 171.67 169.44

2007 167.22 374.33 2028 158.09 174.50

2008 173.25 359.43 2029 148.11 181.98

2009 165.77 352.15 2030 144.31 190.54

2010 116.60 336.50 2031 147.58 199.24

2011 97.38 277.00 2032 158.30 207.96

2012 107.54 270.11 2033 173.52 214.79

2013 96.56 247.20 2034 191.96 222.27

2014 110.20 232.60 2035 209.82 228.13

2015 135.69 222.37 2036 224.04 234.03

2016 166.40 215.84 2037 229.34 238.76

2017 189.67 211.66 2038 226.91 243.11

2018 207.90 208.30 2039 218.88 247.80

2019 221.59 204.19 2040 207.37 252.34

2020 227.85 197.01 2041 215.03 259.53

2021 230.20 189.76 2042 222.97 266.92

2022 226.08 183.01 2043 231.20 274.53

2023 218.86 176.27 2044 239.74 282.35

2024 210.09 172.40 2045 248.59 290.39

2025 198.82 169.16 2046 257.77 298.67

Source: AEO 201 3 ; data for 2041

- 2046 are extrapolated.

Table 4.3

. 16 shows the saturation of SPVUs in new construction, derived by dividing the 2005 new construction shipments by the 2005 new construction floor space. DOE then applied the saturation to the new construction forecasts starting in 2006 to create projections of shipments through 2046.

4

- 24Table 4.3

. 16 Saturation of SPVUs in New Construction Floor Space

SPVAC SPVHP

Small Office Education Small Office Education

2005 New Construction Shipments (units) 5,645 6,586 4,443 5,184

2005 New Construction Floor Space (million sf) 145 351 145 351

Saturation (units per million sf) 39.0 18.8 30.7 14.78

Telecom

For the telecom industry, DOE used County Business Pattern data on total establishments

from 2003 to 2009 7 to develop a trend (see Figure 4.3.7 ) that it extrapolated through 2046. DOE then indexed the total establishments to 2005 (see Table 4.3

. 17 ) and used this index to project new construction telecom shipments based on shipments to telecom in 2005.

Figure 4.3.7 County Business Pattern Establishment Data for NAICS 237130 Power

and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction (For SPVU Shipment s Model) y = 70.571x

- 135995
R2 = 0.6595

5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Total Establishments

Year

4

- 25Table 4.3

. 17 Historical and Projected Telecom Establishments for SPVU Shipments

Model

Year Total Telecom

Establishments Index Year Total Telecom

Establishments Index

2005 5

, 527 1.0 2026 6

, 982 1.26

2006 5

, 750 1.04 2027 7

, 052 1.28

2007 5

, 729 1.04 2028 7

, 123 1.29

2008 5

, 629 1.02 2029 7

, 194 1.30

2009 5

, 853 1.06 2030 7

, 264 1.31

2010 5

, 923 1.07 2031 7

, 335 1.33

2011 5

, 994 1.08 2032 7

, 405 1.34

2012 6

, 064 1.10 2033 7

, 476 1.35

2013 6

, 135 1.11 2034 7

, 546 1.37

2014 6

, 206 1.12 2035 7

, 617 1.38

2015 6

, 276 1.14 2036 7

, 688 1.39

2016 6

, 347 1.15 2037 7

, 758 1.40

2017 6

, 417 1.16 2038 7

, 829 1.42

2018 6

, 488 1.17 2039 7

, 899 1.43

2019 6

, 558 1.19 2040 7

, 970 1.44

2020 6

, 629 1.20 2041 8

, 040 1.45

2021 6

, 700 1.21 2042 8

, 111 1.47

2022 6

, 770 1.22 2043 8

, 182 1.48

2023 6

, 841 1.24 2044 8

, 252 1.49

2024 6

, 911 1.25 2045 8

, 323 1.51

2025 5

, 750 1.04 2046 8

, 393 1.52
Note: All establishments starting in 2010 are estimated based on the trend from 2003

- 2009.

Overall

DOE totaled shipments for SPVACs for each year (office, education, and telecom) and distributed them into the individual equipment classes using the 2005 split. DOE did the same for SPVHPs (office and education only). Table 4.3

. 18 shows the splits.

4

- 26Table 4.3

. 18 SPVU Equipment Class Shipment Distribution

SPVAC SPVHP

SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h 1

Phase SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h 3

Phase SPVAC ≥65,000

- <135,000

Btu/h SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h

1 Phase SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h

3 Phase

2005 Shipments 31,976 14,301 1,966 13,125 6,129

Percent 66% 30% 4% 68% 32%

Replacements

To determine shipments to the replacement market, DOE used an accounting method that tracks the total stock of units by vintage. DOE estimated a stock of SPVUs by vintage by integrating estimated historical shipments starting from 1981. Over time, some uni ts are retired and removed from the stock, triggering the shipment of a replacement unit. Depending on the vintage, a certain percentage of units will fail and need to be replaced. To estimate how long a unit will function before failing, DOE used a surviv al function based on the distributions of equipment lifetime. The survival function that DOE used had an average lifetime of 15 years.

DOE based equipment lifetime on a review of available online literature and studies and concluded that a typical lifet ime of between 10 and 25 years with an average of 15 years is appropriate for most SPVU equipment. While references to service life were found in online literature, most documents found appeared to reference ASHRAE generally and cited equipment

life estima tes for similar equipment. ASHRAE indicates about a 15

- year service life for a variety of similar heating, ventilat i n g , and air

- conditioning (HVAC) equipment in the ASHRAE Handbook, 8 but appears to have no data specific to SPVU equipment. A 2005 ASHRAE stu dy on equipment service life found that the median age for 25 air

- to

- air heat pump units still in operation was 16 years, with the oldest at 17 years. In the same study, the maximum age at which 136 units were replaced was 17 years. For a sample of package d direct

- expansion (DX)

air

- conditioning units, out of 32 units operating the mean age was 11 years and the maximum age was 24 years. No information was available on the end of life, as the study did not have end

of

- life information. 9 An Australian study e stimated the average life at 10 years for non

- ducted

air

- conditioning equipment and 14 years for ducted air

- conditioning equipment with a standard deviation of 3 years. 10 Based on the range of service life information available, DOE established

the 10

– 25 ye ar range and 15

- year average service life estimates for this analysis. Figure 4.3.8 shows the survival function DOE used to estimate replacement shipments.

4

- 27Figure 4.3.8 SPV U Survival Function



### Shipments Used in the Analysis

Figure 4.3.9 shows the projected shipments of SPVU s and the historical shipments DOE used to develop the initi al stock that drove the replacement shipment s projection. Table 4.3

. 19 shows the actual shipments starting in 2006. Figure 4.3.10 shows total shipments (aggregated from individual equipment classes) broken into new construction and replacement shipments. This figure starts in 2005, as historical shipments are not disagg regated into new construction and replacements. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50SPVU

Years % Surviving

% Retiring

4

- 28Figure 4.3.9 Projected SPVU Shipments by Equipment Class

Table 4.3

. 19 Projected SPVU Shipments by Equipment Class

Year SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h 1 Phase SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h 3 Phase SPVHP <65,000

Btu/h 1 Phase SPVHP <65,000

Btu/h 3 Phase SPVAC ≥65,000

- <135,000

Btu/h

2006 35,761 15,994 14,735 6,881 2,199

2007 36,871 16,490 15,353 7,169 2,267

2008 37,158 16,619 15,471 7,225 2,285

2009 37,845 16,926 15,698 7,331 2,326

2010 37,576 16,806 14,872 6,944 2,310

2011 37,361 16,709 14,249 6,654 2,297

2012 38,364 17,158 14,690 6,860 2,358

2013 38,251 17,107 14,374 6,713 2,351

2014 38,408 17,177 14,466 6,755 2,361

2015 39,069 17,473 14,908 6,961 2,402

2016 40,369 18,055 15,685 7,325 2,482

2017 42,145 18,849 16,596 7,749 2,591

2018 44,326 19,824 17,637 8,236 2,726

2019 46,659 20,868 18,700 8,732 2,869

2020 48,819 21,834 19,603 9,154 3,002

2021 50,696 22,674 20,304 9,482 3,117

2022 52,090 23,297 20,668 9,652 3,203

4

- 29Year SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h 1 Phase SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h 3 Phase SPVHP <65,000

Btu/h 1 Phase SPVHP <65,000

Btu/h 3 Phase SPVAC ≥65,000

- <135,000

Btu/h

2023 53,097 23,748 20,789 9,708 3,264

2024 53,795 24,060 20,737 9,683 3,308

2025 54,200 24,240 20,526 9,586 3,332

2026 54,411 24,335 20,242 9,453 3,346

2027 54,648 24,441 20,037 9,357 3,360

2028 55,017 24,606 19,966 9,323 3,382

2029 55,711 24,916 20,139 9,405 3,425

2030 56,842 25,422 20,612 9,625 3,495

2031 58,433 26,133 21,378 9,983 3,593

2032 60,452 27,037 22,403 10,461 3,717

2033 62,709 28,046 23,542 10,993 3,856

2034 65,094 29,113 24,726 11,547 4,002

2035 67,376 30,134 25,795 12,045 4,143

2036 69,408 31,043 26,657 12,449 4,267

2037 70,983 31,747 27,168 12,687 4,364

2038 72,122 32,256 27,366 12,779 4,434

2039 72,912 32,609 27,332 12,763 4,483

2040 73,462 32,855 27,152 12,680 4,516

2041 74,479 33,310 27,393 12,792 4,579

2042 75,547 33,788 27,700 12,936 4,645

2043 76,764 34,332 28,134 13,138 4,720

2044 78,207 34,977 28,734 13,418 4,809

2045 79,915 35,742 29,517 13,784 4,913

2046 81,888 36,624 30,472 14,229 5,035

4

- 30Figure 4.3.10 Projected SPVU Shipments 2005

- 2046

4.3.1.5 Commercial Water Heaters

DOE derived the shipments from the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACT 1 and the

AHRI model database. 11 The 2000 study estimated 105,415 shipments of gas

- fired storage water

heaters in 1999. DOE estimated that the shipments in 2000 are the same as the shipments in 1999, and then applied a 1% per year growth rate after 2000. To derive the shipments of oil

- fired storage water heaters, DOE calculated the ratio of oil

- versus gas

- fired storage water heaters using the number of models in the AHRI model database, which wa s 3.3% (38 models to 1

, 153 models) . DOE multiplied this ratio by the shipments of gas

- fired storage water heaters to calculate the shipments of oil

- fired storage water heaters. Table 4.3

. 20 summarizes the projected shipments of gas

- and oil

- fired storage commercial water heater in the period 2 000

– 2044

.

4

- 31Table 4.3

. 20 Projected Shipments of Commercial Gas

- and Oil

- Fired Storage Water

Heaters

Year Gas

- fired Storage WH Oil

- fired Storage WH Year Gas

- fired Storage WH Oil

- fired Storage WH

2000 105,415 3,474 2023 129,987 4,284

2001 106,490 3,510 2024 131,045 4,319

2002 107,566 3,545 2025 132,103 4,354

2003 108,641 3,581 2026 133,161 4,389

2004 109,717 3,616 2027 134,219 4,424

2005 110,792 3,651 2028 135,277 4,458

2006 111,923 3,689 2029 136,335 4,493

2007 113,053 3,726 2030 137,393 4,528

2008 114,183 3,763 2031 138,451 4,563

2009 115,313 3,800 2032 139,509 4,598

2010 116,444 3,838 2033 140,567 4,633

2011 117,290 3,866 2034 141,625 4,668

2012 118,348 3,900 2035 142,683 4,702

2013 119,406 3,935 2036 143,742 4,737

2014 120,464 3,970 2037 144,800 4,772

2015 121,522 4,005 2038 145,858 4,807

2016 122,580 4,040 2039 146,916 4,842

2017 123,638 4,075 2040 147,974 4,877

2018 124,696 4,110 2041 149,032 4,912

2019 125,755 4,145 2042 150,090 4,947

2020 126,813 4,179 2043 151,148 4,981

2021 127,871 4,214 2044 152,206 5,016

2022 128,929 4,249

4.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption

4.3.2.1 Unit Electricity Consumption per EER, SEER, or Et

For air

- cooled and water source equipment, the references used by DOE to develop UECs were based on specific representative capacities. For PTACs, DOE identified represen t ative capacities for ea ch equipment class by identifying the capacity of the equipment that has the

4

- 32highest sales volume on the market. For SPVU s , DOE identified representative capacities for each equipment class by reviewing its database of models and selecting the size of the most common model size offering in each equipment class. For commercial water heaters, DOE developed UECs based on a capacity

- weighted average.

The UEC data are shown in Table 4.3

. 21 through Table 4.3

. 25 . The UECs are from the energy use analysis (Chapter 3) and represent the energy use of an equipment class at a specified

energy efficiency r atio ( EER )

, seasonal energy efficiency r atio ( SEER ) , or thermal efficiency ( Et )

.

For SPVHPs, the Department determined heating UECs for the heating coefficients of performance ( COPs ) that correspond to the EER of each efficiency level examined. In order to select the COP level corresponding to each EER level, DOE analyzed the correlation of COP and

EER of models in its database of SPVHPs and selected the median COP for each EER.

Tabl e 4.3

. 21 UECs: Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Equipment ( 5 ton representative capacity)

Small Three

- Phase

Air

- Cooled Single Package Air

Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h Small Three

- Phase

Air

- Cooled Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h Small Three

- Phase

Air

- Cooled Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level (SEER)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 13.0 13.0 13.0

ASHRAE Level (1) 14.0 14.0 14.0

Efficiency Level 2 15.0 15.0 15.0

Efficiency Level 3 16.0 16.0 16.0

Efficiency Level 4 17.5

- - Efficiency Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 19.15 18.05 18.05

Cooling UEC (kwh/year)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 2,408 2,418 2,418

ASHRAE Level (1) 2,349 2,387 2,387

Efficiency Level 2 2,237 2,282 2,282

Efficiency Level 3 2,125 2,177 2,177

Efficiency Level 4 2,086

- - Efficiency Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 2,047 2,123 2,123

4

- 33Table 4.3

. 22 UECs: Water Source Heat Pumps

Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h Water Source Heat Pumps

≥ 17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h Water Source Heat Pumps

≥ 65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

Representative Capacity (tons)

1 3 7.5

Efficiency Level (SEER)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 11.2 12.0 12.0

ASHRAE Level (1) 12.2 13.0 13.0

Efficiency Level 2 13.0 14.6 14.0

Efficiency Level 3 14.0 16.6 15.0

Efficiency Level 4 15.7 18.0 16.0

Efficiency Level 5 16.5 19.2

- Efficiency Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 18.1 21.6 17.2

Cooling UEC (kwh/year)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 1,738 4,868 11,528

ASHRAE Level (1) 1,595 4,493 10,641

Efficiency Level 2 1,497 4,001 9,881

Efficiency Level 3 1,390 3,519 9,223

Efficiency Level 4 1,240 3,245 8,646

Efficiency Level 5 1,180 3,042

- Efficiency Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 1,075 2,704 8,043

4

- 34Table 4.3

. 23 UECs: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

PTAC <7,000 Btu/h PTAC ≥7,000 and ≤15,000

Btu/h PTAC >15,000 Btu/h

Representative Capacity (Btu/h)

7,000 9,000 15,000

Efficiency Level (EER)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 11.7 11.1 9.3

ASHRAE Level (1) 11.9 11.3 9.5

Efficiency Level 2 12.2 11.5 9.7

Efficiency Level 3 12.6 12.0 10.0

Efficiency Level 4 13.1 12.4 10.4

Efficiency Level 5 13.6 12.9 10.8

Efficiency Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 14.0 13.3 11.2

Cooling UEC (kwh/year)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 849 1,026 1,607

ASHRAE Level (1) 838 1,014 1,591

Efficiency Level 2 824 1,000 1,577

Efficiency Level 3 799 973 1,547

Efficiency Level 4 773 946 1,517

Efficiency Level 5 748 919 1,487

Efficiency Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 723 892 1,458

4

- 35Table 4.3

. 24 UECs: Single Package Vertical Units

SPVAC <65,000

Btu/h SPVHP <65,000

Btu/h SPVAC ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

Representative Capacity (tons)

3 3 6

Efficiency Level (EER)

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 9.0 9.0 / 3.0 COP 8.9

ASHRAE Level (1) 10.0 10.0 / 3.0 COP 10.0

Efficiency Level 2 10.5 10.5 / 3.2 COP

- Efficiency Level 3 11.0 11.0 / 3.3 COP

- Efficiency Level 4 11.8 11.8 / 3.9 COP

- Efficiency Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 12.3 12.3 / 3.9 COP

-

UEC (kwh/year) *

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 6,814 20,222 13,604

ASHRAE Level (1) 6,113 19,689 12,119

Efficiency Level 2 5,864 19,236

- Efficiency Level 3 5,638 18,951

- Efficiency Level 4 5,335 18,115

- Efficiency Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 5,136 17,977

-

* Includes both cooling and heating UECs for SPVHP. SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h at Efficiency Level 1 and higher also have a gas heating "take back" of 53 kBtu/yr.

4

- 36Table 4.3

. 25 UECs: Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters ( Capacity

- Weighted )

Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heating Equipment >105,000

Btu/h and <4,000 Btu/h/gal

Efficiency Level (Et)

Baseline

– Federal Standard 78%

ASHRAE Level (1) 80%

Efficiency Level 2 81%

Efficiency Level 3

– “Max

- Tech”

– 82%

UEC (MMBtu/year)

Baseline

– Federal Standard 131.05

ASHRAE Level (1) 127.77

Efficiency Level 2 126.20

Efficiency Level 3

– “Max

- Tech”

– 124.66

4.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares and Market Weighted

Average UEC

The UECs associated with the base case and standards case scenarios

– or market weighted average UECs

– are dependent on the market shares of equipment at each efficiency

level and the UECs for equipment at each effic iency level (shown in the previous section). In the NES, the market shares are based on model distributions as a proxy for shipment distributions.

DOE reviewed manufacturer interview data (for SPVUs) or the AHRI certified products directory for relevant e quipment classes (for all other equipment) 11

, 12 to determine the distribution of efficiency levels for commercially available models within each equipment class analyzed in t he NODA. DOE assumed that this base case market share remained the same throughout the analysis period.

For the standards cas e for all equipment in t his NODA, DOE assumed shipments at lower efficiencies were most likely to roll up into higher efficiency levels in response to more stringent energy conservation standards. For each efficiency level analyzed within a given equipment class, DOE used a “roll

- up” scenario to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the year that standards would become effective ( e.g., 2015, 2017, or 2020). DOE estimated that the efficiencies of equipment in the base case that did not meet the standard level under consideration would roll up to meet the standard level. Available information also suggests that all equipment efficiencies in the base case that were above the standard level under consideration

would not be affected.

DOE calculat ed the market weighted average UEC values for each standards scenario using the distribution of efficiencies as well as the UECs for each EER, SEER, or Et being

4

- 37analyzed. The market weighted average UEC value represents the average energy use of the total units shipped under a specified amended standard level. DOE used the market weighted average UEC values to calculate the annual energy use of the equipment class at a given amended

standard level. For each standards case scenario:

Mkt Wtd Avg UE C = � Market S h are Level × UEC Level Max Tec h

Level = Baseline

Eq. 4.7

Table 4.3

. 26 through Table 4.3

. 37 show the distribution of efficiencies within the base case and the rollup scenarios to establish the distribution of efficiencies in the standards cases for each equipment class. In addition, the marke t weighted average UEC (based on the rollup distribution) is shown for each standard case under consideration. Efficiency distributions do not change over time except from base case to standards case on the relevant compliance date.

Table 4.3

. 26 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Air

Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

SEER

Market Weighted Average UEC 13.0 (13.0

- 13. 49 ) 14.0 (13.5

- 14.49) 15.0 (14.5

- 15.49) 16.0 (15.5

- 16.74) 17.5 (16.75

- 18.19) 19.15 (18.2

- 19.15)

Base Case 42% 18% 22% 8% 9% 0.5% 2

, 305

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 60% 22% 8% 9% 0.5% 2

, 281

Efficiency Level 2 82% 8% 9% 0.5% 2

, 213

Efficiency Level 3 90% 9% 0.5% 2

, 121

Efficiency Level 4 99.5% 0.5% 2

, 086

Max Tech 100% 2

, 047

Table 4.3

. 27 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Air

Cooled Three

- Phase Single Package Heat Pumps < 65,000 Btu/h

SEER Market Weighted Average UEC (kWh/yr) 13.0 (13.0

- 13.49) 14.0 (13.5

- 14.59) 15.0 (14.6

- 15.59) 16.0 (15.6

- 17.09) 18.05 (17.1

- 18.05)

Base Case 42% 36% 12% 9% 1% 2

, 365

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 78% 12% 9% 1% 2

, 352

Efficiency Level 2 90% 9% 1% 2

, 271

Efficiency Level 3 99% 1% 2

, 177

Max Tech 100% 2

, 123

4

- 38Table 4.3

. 28 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Air

Cooled Three

- Phase Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

SEER Market Weighted Average UEC (kWh/yr) 13.0 (13.0

- 13.54) 14.0 (13.55

- 14.39) 15.0 (14.4

- 15.49) 16.0 (15.5

- 16.99) 18.05 (17.0

- 18.05)

Base Case 52% 37% 11% 1% 0% 2

, 390

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 88% 11% 1% 0% 2

, 374

Efficiency Level 2 99% 1% 0% 2

, 281

Efficiency Level 3 100% 0% 2

, 177

Max Tech 100% 2

, 123

Table 4.3

. 29 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted Average UEC (kWh/yr) 11.2 (11.2

- 11.69) 12.2 (11.7

- 12.59) 13.0 (12.6

- 13.49) 14.0 (13.5

- 14.89) 15.7 (14.9

- 16.09) 16.5 (16.1

- 17.29 ) 18.1 ( 17.3

- 18.1 )

Base Case 1% 20 % 29% 22% 20% 5% 2% 1

, 4 18

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 21% 29% 22% 20% 5% 2% 1

, 417

Efficiency Level 2 50% 22% 20% 5% 2% 1

, 396

Efficiency Level 3 72% 20% 5% 2% 1

, 342

Efficiency Level 4 93% 5% 2% 1

, 233

Efficiency Level 5 9 8 % 2% 1

, 177

Max Tech 100% 1

, 075

4

- 39Table 4.3

. 30 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 17,000

– < 65,000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted Average UEC (kWh/yr) 12.0 (12.0

- 12.49) 13.0 (12.5

- 13.79) 14.6 (13.8

- 15.59) 16.6 (15.6

- 17.29) 18.0 (17.3

- 18.59) 19.2 (18.6

- 20.39 ) 21.6 ( 20.4

- 21.6 )

Base Case 0. 4 % 18% 45% 25% 9% 2% 1% 3

, 868

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 18% 45% 25% 9% 2% 1% 3

, 866

Efficiency Level 2 63% 25% 9% 2% 1% 3

, 777

Efficiency Level 3 88% 9% 2% 1% 3

, 475

Efficiency Level 4 97% 2% 1% 3

, 235

Efficiency Level 5 99% 1% 3

, 03 9

Max Tech 100% 2

, 704

Table 4.3

. 31 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥ 65,000

– < 135,000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted Average UEC (kWh/yr) 12.0 (12.0

- 12.49) 13.0 (12.5

- 13.49) 14.0 (13.5

- 14.49) 15.0 (14.5

- 15.49) 16.0 (15.5

- 16.59) 17.2 (16.6

- 17.2)

Base Case 0% 13% 21% 44% 20% 2% 9

, 410

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 13% 21% 44% 20% 2% 9

, 410

Efficiency Level 2 34% 44% 20% 2% 9

, 312

Efficiency Level 3 78% 20% 2% 9

, 087

Efficiency Level 4 98% 2% 8

, 636

Max Tech 100% 8

, 043

4

- 40Table 4.3

. 32 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners <7

, 000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted

Average

UEC (kWh/yr) 11.7 (11.7

- 11.89) 11.9 (11.9

- 12.1 9 ) 12.2 (12.2

- 12. 59 ) 12.6 (12.6

- 13.09) 13.1 (13.1

- 13.5 9 ) 13.6 (13.6

- 13.99 ) 14.0 (>14.0)

Base Case 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 824

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 824

Efficiency Level 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 824

Efficiency Level 3 100% 0% 0% 0% 799

Efficiency Level 4 100% 0% 0% 773

Efficiency Level 5 100% 0% 748

Max Tech 100% 723

Table 4.3

. 33 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners ≥ 7

, 000

– ≤ 15,000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted

Average

UEC (kWh/yr) 11.1 (11.1

- 11.29) 11.3 (11.3

- 11. 49 ) 11.5 (11.5

- 11.9 9 ) 12.0 (12.0

- 12. 39 ) 12.4 (12.4

- 12.8 9 ) 12.9 (12.9

- 13. 29 ) 13.3 (>13.3)

Base Case 8 % 46% 39% 3% 2% 1% 0 .3 % 1,005

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 54% 39% 3% 2% 1% 0.3% 1,004

Efficiency Level 2 93% 3% 2% 1% 0.3% 996

Efficiency Level 3 96% 2% 1% 0.3% 971

Efficiency Level 4 99% 1% 0.3% 946

Efficiency Level 5 99.7 % 0.3% 919

Max Tech 100% 892

4

- 41Table 4.3

. 34 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners >15, 000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted

Average

UEC (kWh/yr) 9.3 (9.3

-

9.49) 9.5 (9.5

- 9.6 9 ) 9.7 (9.7

- 9.99 ) 10.0 (10.0

- 10. 39 ) 10.4 (10.4

- 10.7 9 ) 10.8 (10.8

- 11.1 9 ) 11.2 (>11.2)

Base Case 100 % 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1,607

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1,591

Efficiency Level 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1,577

Efficiency Level 3 100% 0% 0% 0% 1,547

Efficiency Level 4 100% 0% 0% 1,517

Efficiency Level 5 100% 0% 1,487

Max Tech 100% 1,458

Table 4.3

. 35 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for SPVAC and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted Average

UEC (kWh/yr)

9.0 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.75 12.3 SPVAC SPVHP

Base Case 89% 8% 1.5% 1.0% 0.1% 0% 6

, 731 20

, 150

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 97% 1.5% 1.0% 0.1% 0% 6

, 103 19

, 673

Efficiency

Level 2 99% 1.0% 0.1% 0% 5

, 861 19

, 232

Efficiency

Level 3 99.9% 0.1% 0% 5

, 637 18

, 950

Efficiency

Level 4 100% 0% 5

, 335 18

, 115

Max Tech 100% 5

, 136 17

, 977

Table 4.3

. 36 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

SPVAC ≥ 65,000

– < 135,000 Btu/h

EER Market Weighted Average UEC (kWh/yr) 9.0 10.0

Base Case 89% 11% 13

, 447

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 100% 12

, 119

4

- 42Table 4.3

. 37 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for

Commercial Oil

- Fired Storage Water Heaters >105,000 Btu/h and <4,000 Btu/h/gal

Thermal Efficiency (%) Market Weighted Average UEC

(MMBtu/yr) 78 (78

- 79) 80 (80) 81 (81) 82 (82)

Base Case 53 % 24% 11 % 13% 129

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 Standard 76% 11 % 13% 127

Efficiency Level 2 87 % 13% 126

Max Tech 100% 125

4.3.3 Equipment Lifetime

DOE defines “equipment lifetime” as the age when a unit is retired from service. DOE reviewed available literature to establish typical equipment lifetimes. For air

- cooled equipment, water source heat pumps, and commercial storage water heaters, DOE used the estimated equipment lifetimes from the 2000 screening analysis. 1 The average lifetime for air

- cooled equipment is 15 years, for water source equipment 19 years, and for water heaters 7 years.

For PTAC s, DOE used an average lifetime of 10 years as used in the 2008 Final Rule for

PTACs. 3 For SPVUs, DOE used an average of 15 years based on a review of a range of packaged cooling equipment lifetime estimates found in published studies and online documents.

4.3.4 Conversion of Site Energy Savings

DOE converted the annual site energy savings into the annual amount of energy saved at the source of electric generation ( i.e., prim ary energy) using annual multiplicative factors

calculated from the AEO2013 projections. d For electricity, the conversion factors vary over time because of projected changes in generation sources ( i.e., the types of power plants projected to provide elect ricity to the country).

The full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) measure includes point

- of

- use (site) energy, the energy losses associated with generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, and the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transportin g or distributing primary fuels. To complete the full

fuel

- cycle by encompassing the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels, which we refer to as “upstream” activities, DOE developed FFC multipliers e using the data and projections generated by the National Energy Modeling System ( NEMS ) used for AEO201 3

. T he AEO provide s extensive information about the energy system, including projections of future oil, natural gas and coal supply, energy use for oil and gas field and refinery operations, and fuel consumption and emissions related to electric power

d AEO 201 3 can be accessed at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo13/index.cfm

.

e FFC multipliers discussed in this chapter relate to the ups tream part of the FFC process.

4

- 43production. This inform ation can be used to define a set of parameters representing the energy intensity of energy production.

Table 4.3

. 38 shows the energy multipliers used to calculate the upstream component of

the FFC for selected years. The method used to calculate the multipliers is described in A ppendix

4

- A.

Table 4.3

. 38 Upstream Energy Multipliers (Based on AEO 2013)

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Electricity 0 .042 0 .041 0 .040 0 .040 0 .041 0 .041

Natural Gas 0.102 0.103 0.100 0.099 0.098 0.097

Petroleum Fuels 0.142 0.146 0.153 0.163 0.172 0.181

4.3.5 Compliance Dates and Analysis Period

If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards at the efficiency

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ( EPCA ) states that compliance with any such standard is required on or after a date that is two or three years (depending on equi pment type or size) after the effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard ( i.e., ASHRAE

Standard 90.1

- 2013). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) All equipment for which analysis was performed in this NODA falls into the two

- year category. For all PTACs and air

- cooled equipment in this rulemaking, the effective date in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 is January 1, 2015. Thus, if DOE decides to adopt the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013, the rule would apply t o PTACs and air

- cooled equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2017, which is two years from the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013. For all water source heat pumps, SPVUs, and commercial water heaters in this rulemaking, ASHRAE

S tandard 90.1

- 2013 did not specify an effective date, so the publication date of October 9, 2013 is assumed. Thus, if DOE decides to adopt the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013, the rule would apply to water source heat pumps, SPVUs, and commercial water heaters manufactured on or after October 9, 2015, which is two years from the effective date specified in ASHRAE

Standard 90.1

- 2013.

If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards higher than the efficiency levels contained in AS HRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013, under EPCA, compliance with any such standard will be required for equipment manufactured four years after the date of publication in the Federal Register . (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) Thus, for equipment for which DOE might adopt a level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency level, the rule would apply to equipment manufactured on or after a date which is four years from the date of publication of the final rule adopting standards higher than the ASHRAE efficiency levels (30 mon ths after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which was October 9, 2013). Under this timeline, compliance with such more stringent standards would be required no later than April 9,

2020.

4

- 44For purposes of calculating the NES for water source heat pumps, SPVUs, and commercial water heaters, DOE used an analysis period of 2015 (the assumed compliance date if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE levels as Federal standards for this equipment) through 2044.

For PTACs and air

- cooled equipment, DOE used an analysis period of 2017 (the assumed compliance date if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE levels as Federal standards for this equipment) through 2046. This is the standard analysis period of 30 years that DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. While the ana lysis periods remain the same for assessing the energy savings of Federal standard levels higher than the ASHRAE levels, those energy savings would not begin accumulating until 2020 (the assumed compliance date if DOE were to determine that

standard levels more stringent than the ASHRAE levels are justified).

4.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS RESULTS

Table 4.4

. 1 through Table 4.4

. 13 summarize the NES due to new energy conservation

standards for the 13 equipment classes examined

. Recall that all levels higher than ASHRAE are shown as net of ASHRAE savings.

Table 4.4

. 1 Potential Energy Savings for Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Single Package Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 14 SEER 0.02 0.02

Level 2

– 15 SEER 0.04 0.04

Level 3

– 16 SEER 0.10 0.10

Level 4

– 17.5 SEER 0.12 0.12

Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 19.15 SEER 0.14 0.15
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

4

- 45Table 4.4

. 2 Potential Energy Savings for Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 14 SEER 0.001 0.001

Level 2

– 15 SEER 0.007 0.007

Level 3

– 16 SEER 0.014 0.014

Level 4

– “Max

- Tech”

– 18.05 SEER 0.018 0.019
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

Table 4.4

. 3 Potential Energy Savings for Small Three

- Phase Air

- Cooled Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savin gs Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 14 SEER 0.002 0.002

Level 2

– 15 SEER 0.012 0.012

Level 3

– 16 SEER 0.026 0.026

Level 4

– “Max

- Tech”

– 18.05 SEER 0.033 0.033
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

Table 4.4

. 4 Potential Energy Savings for Water Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 12.2 EER 0.001 0.001

Level 2

– 13 EER 0.007 0.007

Level 3

– 14 EER 0.02 5 0.02 6

Level 4

– 15.7 EER 0.06 3 0.06 4

Level 5

– 16.5 EER 0.0 82 0.08 3

Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 18.1 EER 0.1 16 0. 118
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

4

- 46Table 4.4

. 5 Potential Energy Savings for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate * (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 13 EER 0.001 0.001

Level 2

– 14.6 EER 0.0 64 0.0 65

Level 3

– 16.6 EER 0.2 80 0.2 84

Level 4

– 18 EER 0. 451 0. 459

Level 5

– 19.2 EER 0.5 91 0. 601

Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 21.6 EER 0. 831 0. 844
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

Table 4.4

. 6 Potential Energy Savings for Water Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 13 EER

- **

- **

Level 2

– 14 EER 0.004 0.004

Level 3

– 15 EER 0.013 0.014

Level 4

– 16 EER 0.032 0.033

Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 17.2 EER 0.057 0.058
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

** There are no potential savings for this Level because all models currently on the market exceed this efficiency level, and thus woul d not be affected by a standard set at this level.

4

- 47Table 4.4

. 7 Potential Energy Savings for PTAC <7,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 11.9 EER

- **

- **

Level 2

– 12.2 EER

- **

- **

Level 3

– 12.6 EER 0.001 0.001

Level 4

– 13.1 EER 0.002 0.002

Level 5

– 13.6 EER 0.003 0.003

Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 14.0 EER 0.004 0.004
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

** There are no potential savings for this Level because all mo dels currently on the market exceed this efficiency level, and thus would not be affected by a standard set at this level.

Table 4.4

. 8 Potential Energy Savings for PTAC ≥7,000 and ≤15,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Le vel Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 11.3 EER 0.001 0.001

Level 2

– 11.5 EER 0.005 0.005

Level 3

– 12.0 EER 0.02 2 0.02 3

Level 4

– 1 2.4 EER 0.0 40 0.0 40

Level 5

– 12.9 EER 0.05 8 0.05 8

Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 13.3 EER 0.07 6 0.07 7
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

4

- 48Table 4.4

. 9 Potential Energy Savings for PTAC >15,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 9.5 EER 0.000 9 0.000 9

Level 2

– 9.7 EER 0.000 7 0.000 7

Level 3

– 10.0 EER 0.00 22 0.00 23

Level 4

– 10.4 EER 0.00 37 0.00 38

Level 5

– 10.8 EER 0.00 5 3 0.00 53

Level 6

– “Max

- Tech”

– 11.2 EER 0.00 68 0.00 69
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

Table 4.4

. 10 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

- 10 EER 0.21 0.21

Level 2

– 10.5 EER 0.07 0.07

Level 3

– 11 EER 0.14 0.14

Level 4

– 11.8 EER 0.22 0.2 3

Level 4

– “Max

- Tech”

– 12.3 EER 0.28 0.2 9
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

4

- 49Table 4.4

. 11 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for SPVHP<65,000 Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate*,** (Quads) FFC Energy Savings Estimate*,** (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

- 10 EER 0.06 0.06

Level 2

– 10.5 EER 0.05 0.05

Level 3

– 11 EER 0.08 0.08

Level 4

– 11.8 EER 0.17 0.1 8

Level 4

– “Max

- Tech”

– 12.3 EER 0.19 0.19
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted. ** For SPVHPs, the energy savings estima tes are based on both cooling savings (EER) and heating savings (COP).

Table 4.4

. 12 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for SPVAC ≥65,000 and <135,000

Btu/h

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate

(Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 10.0 EER 0.02 0.02

Table 4.4

. 13 Potential Energy Savings Estimates for Commercial Oil

- Fired Storage

Water Heaters >105,000 Btu/h and < 4,000 Btu/h/gal

Efficiency Level Primary Energy Savings Estimate* (Quads) FFC Energy Savings

Estimate* (Quads)

Level 1

– ASHRAE

– 80% Et 0.00 2 0.00 2

Level 2

– 81% Et 0.00 1 0.00 1

Level 3

– “Max

- Tech”

– 82% Et 0.00 2 0.00 2
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result

if ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2013 standards were adopted.

4

- 50REFERENCES

1 U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Screening Analysis for EPACT

- Covered Commercial HVAC and Water

- Heating Equipment. Volume 1

– Main Report . 2000. < http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2006

- STD

0098

- 0015 >

2 U.S.Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm

Air H eating Equipment, MA333M.

< http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma333m/index.html >

3 U.S. Department of Energy

– Office of Energy Efficiency and Re newable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat Pump Energy Conservation Standards.

< http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE

- 2007

- BT

- STD

- 0012 >

4 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration. 2013. Annual Energy Outlook

2013 . DOE/EIA0383(2013), DOE/EIA, Washington, D.C.

5 U.S. Department of Energy, Tech nical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air

Conditioning, and Water Heating Equipment Including Packaged Terminal Air

- Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pu mps, Small Commercial Packaged Boiler, Three

- Phase Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and Single

- Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single

- Package Vertical Heat Pumps < 65,000 Btu/h , March 2006. Washington, DC.

6 Modular Building Institute

. Commercial Modular Construction Reports

.
< http://www.modular.org/HtmlPage.aspx?name=analysis >

7 U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns. < http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html >

8 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air

- Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE Handbook: 2011 Heating, Ventilating, and Air

- Conditioning Applications . 2011. Atlanta,

GA.

9 Abramson. Interactive Web

- based Owning and Operating Cost Database, Final Report ASHRAE Research Project RP

- 1237. 2005. Atlanta, GA.

10 Energy Efficient Strategies Pty Ltd. Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact S tatement Consultation Draft. Revision to the Energy Labelling Algorithms and Revised MEPS levels and Other Requirements for Air Conditioners . Report No 2008/09. 2008. Warragul, Victoria, Australia. < http://www.energyrating.gov.au/wp

content/uploads/2011/02/200809

- ris

- ac.pdf >

11 AHRI Directory. Directory of Certified Product Performance . 201 3 . (Last accessed May 29,

2013 .) < www.ahridirectory.org > [For commercial water heaters]

4

- 5112 AHRI Directory. Directory of Certified Product Performance . 201 3 . (Last accessed November 11, 2013 .) < www.ahridirectory.org > [For water source heat pumps, commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, and PTAC.]

4

- 52FULL

- FUEL

- CYCLE MULTIPLIERS APPENDIX 4A.

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

4A.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4A

- 1

4A.2 METHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4A

- 1

4A.3 FULL

- FUEL

- CYCLE ENERGY MULTIPL IERS

................................ ...................... 4A

- 3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4A.2.1 Dependence of FFC Parameters on AEO Inputs

................................ ........ 4A

- 3

Table 4A.3.1 Upstream Energy Multipliers (Based on AEO 2013)

................................ . 4A

- 3

4 A

- iFULL

- FUEL

- CYCLE MULTIPLIERS APPENDIX 4A.

4A.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix summarizes the methods used to calculate full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) energy savings expected to result from potential standard s

. The FFC measure includes point

- of

- use (site) energy, the energy losses associated with generation, transmission, and distribution of elect ricity, and the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels. DOE’s traditional approach encompas sed only site energy and the energy losses associated with generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity . Per DOE’s 2011 Statement of Policy for Adopting Full Fuel Cycle Analyses

, DOE now uses FFC measures of energy use and

emissions in its ene rgy conservation standards analyses. 1 This appendix summarizes the methods

used to incorporate the full

- fuel

- cycle impacts into the analysis.

This analysis uses several different terms to reference energy use. The physical sources of energy are the p rima ry f uels such as coal, natural gas, liquid fuels, etc . Primary energy is equal to the heat content ( B t u ) of the primary fuels used to provide an end

- use service

. Site energy use is defined as the energy consumed at the point

- of

- use in a building o r industrial process . Where natural gas and petroleum fuel s are consumed at the site (for example in a furnace) , site energy is identical to primary energy, with both equal to the heat content of the primary fuel consumed

. For electricity, site energy is mea sured in kWh . In this case the primary energy is equal to the quads of primary energy required to generate and deliver the site electricity. This p rimary energy

is calculated by multiplying the site kWh times the site

- to

- power

- plant conversion factor , give n in c hapter 1 2

. For the FFC analysis, the u pstream energy use is defined as the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels. FFC energy use is the

sum of primary plus upstream energy use

.

Both primary fuels and electricity are used in upstream activities. The treatment of electricity in fuel cycle analysis must distinguish between electricity generated by fossil fuels and uranium, and electricity generated from renewable fluxes (wind, solar and hydro). For the former, the upstream fuel cycle impacts are derived from the amount of fuel consumed at the power plant. For the latter, no fuel per se is used, so there is no upstream component.

4A.2 METHODOLOGY

The mathematical approach is discussed in the paper A Mathematical Analysis of Full Fuel Cycle Energy Use

, 2 and details on the fuel production chain analysis are presented in the

paper Projections of Full Fuel Cycle Energy and Emissions Metrics 3 The text b elow provides a brief summary of the methods used to calculate FFC energy

.

When all energy quantities are normalized to the same units, the FFC energy use can be represented as the product of the primary energy use and an FFC multiplier

. The FFC multipli er is defined mathematically as a function of a set of parameters representing the energy intensity and material losses at each production stage. The se parameters depend only on physical data, so

4 A

- 1the calculations do not require any assumptions about prices or other economic data

. While in

gener al these p arameter values may vary by geographic region , for this analysis national averages are used.

In the notation below, the indices x and y are used to indicate fuel type, with x=c for coal, x=g

for natu ral gas, x=p for petroleum fuels, x=u for uranium and x=r for renewable fluxes. The fuel cycle parameters are:

• a x is the quantity of fuel x burned per unit of electricity output, on average, for grid electricity. The calculation of a

x includes a factor to account for transmission and distribution system losses.

• b y is the amount of grid electricity used in production of fuel y, in MWh per physical unit of fuel y.

• c xy is the amount of fuel x consumed in producing one unit of fuel y.

• q x is the heat content o f fuel x (MBtu/physical unit) a

• z x (s) is the emissions intensity for fuel x (mass of pollutant s per physical unit of x)

The parameters are calculated as a function of time with an annual time step ; h ence, a time series of annual values is used to estim ate the FFC energy and emissions savings in each year of the analysis period. Fossil fuel quantities are converted to energy units using the heat

content factors q x . To convert electricity in kWh to primary energy units, on

- site electricity consumption is multiplied by the s ite

- to

- power

- plant conversion factor indicated in chapter 1 2

. The s ite

- to

- power

- plant conversion factor is defined as the ratio of the total primary energy consumption by the electric power sector (in quadrillion B tu ) divided by the total electricity

consumed in each year.

The FFC multiplier is a dimensionless number denoted μ (mu). The upstream component of the energy savings is proportional to (μ

- 1). A separate multiplier is calculated for each fuel

used on site. The fuel type is denoted by a subscript on the multiplier μ. A multiplier is also calculated for electricity reflecting the fuel mix used in its generation.

For DOE’s appliance standards energy savings estimates, the fuel cycle analysis methodology is designed to make use of data and projections published in the Annual Energy

Outlook ( AEO )

. Table 4 A.2

. 1 provides a summary of the AEO data used as input s to the diff erent
parameter calculation s. The AEO does not provide all the info rmation needed to estimate total

e nergy use in the fuel production chain. Reference 3 describes the additional data sources used to complete the analysis. However, the time dependence in th e FFC multipliers arises exclusively

from variables taken from the AEO

. The FFC analysis for this preliminary analysis used data

from AEO 201 3

. 4

a Where MBtu = 1000 Btu.

4 A

- 2Table 4 A .2

. 1 Dependence of FFC Parameters on AEO Inputs

Parameter Fuel AEO Table Variables

q x all Conversion Factors MBtu per physical unit

a x all Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Generation by fuel type Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source Electric power sector energy consumption

b

c , c nc , c pc coal Coal Production by Region and Type Production by coal type and

sulfur content

b p , c n p , c p p petroleum Refining Industry Energy Consumption Refining only energy use
Liquid Fuels Supply and Disposition Crude supply by source International Liquids Supply and Disposition Crude oil imports
Oil and Gas Supply Crude oil domestic production

c nn natural

gas Oil and Gas Supply US dry gas production Natural Gas Supply, Disposition and

Prices Pipeline, lease and plant fuel

z x all Electricity Supply

, Disposition

, Prices and Emissions Power sector emissions

4A.3 FULL

- FUEL

- CYCLE ENERGY MULTIPL IERS

FFC upstream energy m ultipliers are presented in Table 4A.3

. 1 for selected years. To extend the analysis period beyond 2035, the last year in the AEO 201 3 projection, the years 2020

to 2035 are used to define a linear trend to 2040 , which is then extrapolated to the final year of the analysis period. The multiplier for electricity reflects the shares of various primary fuels in total electricity generation over the forecast period.

Table 4 A .3

. 1 Upstream Energy M ultipliers (Based on AEO 2013 )

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Electricity 0 .042 0 .041 0 .040 0 .040 0 .041 0 .041

Natural Gas 0 .102 0 .103 0 .100 0 .099 0 .098 0 .097

Petroleum Fuels 0 .142 0 .146 0 .153 0 .163 0 .172 0 .181

4 A

- 3REFERENCES

1 United States. Office of the Federal Re gister

. Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 160, August 18, 2011, Pages 512 81

- 51868 . Washington D.C.. UNT Digital Library.

2 Coughlin, K., A Mathematical Analysis of Full Fuel Cycle Energy Use

. Energy , 2012. 37(1): pp. 698

- 708 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544211006803

3 Coughlin, K. 2 013. Projections of Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Energy and Emissions Metrics. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Report Number LBNL

- 6025E.

4 U.S. Department of Energy

- Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook

2013 with Projections to 2040

. June 2013 . Washington, D.C. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

4 A

- 4