TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT: 

COMMERCIAL HEATING, AIR-CONDITIONING, AND WATERHEATING 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 20585
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PROCESS FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

ASHRAE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT .......................................................................... 1-2

1-i
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

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, 

sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part Ca 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 directs 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, 2013, ASHRAE officially released the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE/Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Standard 90.1-2013

(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, packaged 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 identifies 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 analyses 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.

1-1

 
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

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 

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 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 oilfired 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.

1-2
CHAPTER 2. MARKET ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 FIGURES

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-i
Figure 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 

<65,000 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 7,000 –

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 Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters.................. 2-22

2-ii
CHAPTER 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 referred to 

as ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013) on October 9, 2013. 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 air 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 standards for these equipment classes).

2.1.1 Three-Phase Air-Cooled Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

Three-phase air-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 heating equipment” 

as “air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water-source (not including ground watersource) electrically operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 

pumps for commercial application.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(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 components: 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 convects 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. The 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 past, 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 

2-1
stringent 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 proposes 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 Pumps

Water source heat pumps are also part of a subset of commercial package airconditioning 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 devices, 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 are 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 COPH. DOE believes this is also an editorial change to clarify 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 specified 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 terminal air conditioners (PTACs) are mainly used for cooling and heating 

hotels and motels, hospitals, elderly care centers, and small enclosed offices. As the enclosed 

2-2
spaces 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 similar to products used in 

residential applications, they are subject to different operational cycles and operating hours than 

are typically encountered in residential applications.

EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 do not differentiate this equipment into 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 similarly, 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 vertical 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, various 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.” (42 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 electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or 

gas.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(24)) ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 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 

different 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 

2-3
premium; thus, having the components for these units arranged in a vertical fashion allows them 

to be placed in closets or mounted through the 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 heaters 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 oilfired 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 in exempting 

units with an input rating of 4,000 (Btu/h)/gal or more.

2.1.6 Federal Energy Conservation Standards

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 rule adopted the energy conservation standards set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999. 

On October 7, 2008, DOE published in the 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 rule adopted energy conservation standards more stringent 

than those set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999.

2-4
The 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 Federal energy conservation levels for equipment classes 

where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 increased 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 AirConditioning and Heating 

Equipment, Air-cooled 3-

Phase

<65,000 Btu/h

AC 13.0 SEER

HP 13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

Small Commercial 

Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment, Water Source

<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-Fired Storage Water 

Heaters All - 78% Et;Q/800 + 110 V1⁄2 SL

2-5
2.1.7 ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 Efficiency Levels

Table 2.1.2 shows the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 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 ASHRAE 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, aircooled <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, water 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 EER4.3 COP

12.0 EER

4.2 COP

≥65,000 and 

<135,000Btu/h N/A 13.0 EER4.3 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 EER3.0 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.

2-6
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 raised the efficiency level in comparison to the current 

Federal minimum energy conservation standards for three air-cooled air-conditioning and heat 

pump equipment classes, three water source heat pump equipment classes, three PTAC 

equipment classes, six SPVAC and SPVHP equipment 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 characterization 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 manufacturers 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 are

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 AirConditioning, 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 United States.

3 AHRI also develops and 

publishes test procedures standards for residential and commercial heating, ventilating, and airconditioning (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 that 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, ventilating, 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

2-7
2.2.2 Manufacturers

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 Performance6 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 manufacturers) of oil-fired storage water heaters.

The manufacturers for each equipment class are listed in Table 2.2.1 and Table 2.2.2.

2-8
Table 2.2.1 Manufacturers of Commercial Air-Cooled Three-Phase Equipment 

<65,000 Btu/h

Air-Cooled Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Manufacturers

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

2-9
Table 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

2-10
2.2.3 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 directory 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 SEER (seasonal energy efficiency ratio) (10 CFR 431.97). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013

changes the efficiency rating to 14.0 SEER as of January 1, 2015. DOE analyzed the distribution 

of SEER values for this equipment (see Figure 2.2.1). The average SEER value for this 

equipment class is 14.3. Of the models identified by DOE, 1,450 (45 percent of the total models) 

have SEERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels. 

2-11
Figure 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 evaporator 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 ratings to 14.0 

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

values 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 class 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 -

19.15

Frequency

SEER

2-12
Figure 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 ratings to 14.0 SEER and 8.2 HSPF as of January 1, 2015. 

DOE analyzed the distributions 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 - 18.05

Frequency

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 - 9.3

Frequency

HSPF

2-13
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels. The average HSPF for this equipment class 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 - 16.2

Frequency

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 - 9.7

Frequency

HSPF

2-14
2.2.3.2 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

standards 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 90.1-2013 changes the efficiency ratings 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 identified by 

DOE, 34 (six percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

2013 levels. The average COP value for this equipment class is 4.7. Of the models identified by 

DOE, 30 (five percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

2013 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 - 18.1

Frequency

EER

2-15
Figure 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 

standards for water 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 13.0 EER and 4.3 COP. DOE analyzed the 

distribution 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 90.1-2013 levels. 

The average COP value for this equipment class is 4.9. Of the models identified by DOE, 133

(four percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013

levels.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Frequency

COP

2-16
Figure 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 -

21.6

Frequency

EER

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Frequency

COP

2-17
Water Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 Btu/h – <135,000 Btu/h. The Federal energy 

conservation standards 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 CFR 431.97). 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 changes the efficiency ratings to 13.0 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-

2013 levels. The 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-

2013 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 - 17.2

Frequency

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 -

5.60

Frequency

COP

2-18
2.2.3.3 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners

PTACs have Federal energy conservation standards 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 equipment 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) have 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 13 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 >13.3

Frequency

EER

2-19

 
2.2.3.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners. EISA 2007 divided single package vertical 

air conditioners into three equipment classes and set the efficiency level for each class. SPVACs 

with a cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h have a Federal conservation standard of 9.0 EER. 

SPVACs with a cooling capacity ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h have a Federal conservation 

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

a Federal 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 have efficiency data) and 13 with a cooling capacity of greater 

than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (7 of which have 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 total models) with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 

Btu/h that have EER values below the ASHRAE 90.1-2013 levels. Of the seven models with an

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 Package Vertical Heat Pumps. 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 Federal conservation standard of 9.0 EER and 3.0 COP. 

SPVHPs with a cooling capacity ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h have a Federal 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 Federal conservation standard of 8.6 EER and 2.9 COP (10 CFR 431.97). 

ASHRAE 90.1-2013 raised the efficiency 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 than 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 

2-20
ASHRAE 90.1-2013 levels. There are no models with a COP below 3.0, which is both the 

Federal 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 90.1-2013 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

50

Number 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 3.9

Number of Models

COP

2-21
79.4%. Of the models identified by DOE, 20 (53 percent of the total models) have thermal 

efficiencies rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 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 82

Frequency

Thermal Efficiency (%)

2-22
REFERENCES

1 2012 ASHRAE Handbook, Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems and Equipment. 

ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA. Chapters 9 and 49.

2 2011 ASHRAE Handbook, Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Applications. ASHRAE, 

Atlanta, GA. Chapter 50.

3 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Website. About Us. 2013. (Last accessed 

February 10, 2014.) <www.ahrinet.org/about+us.aspx>

4 Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International Website. About HARDI. 

2014. (Last accessed February 10, 2014.) <www.hardinet.org/about-hardi-0>

5 Air Conditioning Contractors of America Website. About ACCA. 2014. (Last accessed 

February 10, 2014.) <www.acca.org/acca>

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

<www.ahridirectory.org>

7 California Energy Commission Website. Appliance Efficiency Database. 2014. (Last 

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

2-23
CHAPTER 3. ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 FIGURES

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-i
Figure 3.2.4 SPVU Baseline National Unit Energy Consumption Estimates by 

Building Type .............................................................................................. 3-18

3-ii
CHAPTER 3. ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The national energy savings analysis described in chapter 4 of the technical support 

document (TSD) requires determination of the energy savings customers 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 describes 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 

equipment classes within each of the five equipment 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 metrics: 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 packaged 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 2010 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 

United States. In the 2010 analysis, the cooling UECs for split and single package systems were 

very similar, but UECs were available for higher efficiency levels for split systems than for 

single package equipment. As a result, DOE used the 2010 UECs for split systems for all 

equipment classes analyzed for the notice of data availability (NODA), including both split and 

single package systems. 

3-1
Table 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.

3-2
Table 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 2010 values for split systems directly in its analysis for this NODA for the 

efficiency levels of 13, 14, 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 air 

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 chapter 4.

Although ASHRAE 90.1-2013 increased the HSPF levels for this equipment, DOE did 

not include heating UECs in this analysis. Table 3.2.3 shows that for commercial installations in 

the 2010 analysis, the heating UECs did not scale proportionally with HSPF. Based on these 

data, DOE has preliminarily determined that increasing HSPF for small commercial air 

conditioners will not result in significant energy savings. 

3-3
Table 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 and national 

average full load equivalent operating hours (FLEOH) for each equipment class and efficiency 

level. The UEC equals the input capacity times the FLEOH.

3-4
Table 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 analysis and shown in the following equation:

InputCapacityB = EERA

EERB

x InputCapacityA

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 chapter 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 heatingmode 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. 

3-5
The resultant annual cooling, heating, 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 rulemaking. For the current analysis, DOE 

developed nationally 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 for 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 UECs 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 13.5

Unit Annual Energy Consumption

EER

Considered EERs Previous EERs

3-6
A similar methodology was used to scale UECs for the <7,000 Btu/h and the >15,000 

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

of linear trends. 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 and 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 <7,000 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

3-7
Figure 3.2.3 UECs at the considered EERs for PTACs >15,000 Btu/h

The UEC estimates for the current Federal baseline levels, the proposed ASHRAE levels, 

and for the higher efficiency levels are available in chapter 4 for all PTAC equipment classes.

3.2.4 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

The analysis to assess the UECs 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 single 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-contained 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, and 

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, window-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 heating, 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. 

3-8
Heating, cooling, and supply blower energy 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 cooling 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 operation 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 integrated 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 building 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, found in appendix 4A. 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 markets.

Modular Classroom Simulation Model

To estimate the energy consumption of SPVAC and SPVHP equipment in a classroom 

application, DOE developed a 1,568 ft2 wood-frame modular classroom simulation model. The 

modular classroom was based on a double-wide, single story, modular building design with 

1,568 ft2 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 aboveground floor level construction 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/IESNAa

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 America.

3-9

 
prototype 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 commercial prototype building model and were set to 1.4 

W/ft2 peak. Occupancy loads were also developed from the DOE primary school commercial 

prototype building and were set to 25 persons per 1,000 ft2. Lighting power and internal loads 

were based on ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lighting power density levels for classroom space at 1.4 

W/ft2 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 

requirements 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)/ft2 for the classroom 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.

Infiltration 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 the 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. The 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

To estimate SPVU energy use in an office type application, DOE developed a 1,568 ft2

(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 use 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/ft2 peak. Peak scheduled occupancy was set 

to 5.6 persons per 1,000 ft2. Lighting power requirements were based on ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

requirements for office space, selected to be representative of a mix of lighting power in the 

building stock and in recent construction, at 1.0 W/ft2 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 weekdays 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 equipment, 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 generates heat

during operation, 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 ft2 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. However, 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 peak 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 fairly 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 reduction 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 design 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 explicitly 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 represent 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 

customers. 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 voluntary standard for telecommunication site development, Motorola R56, 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 only 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 Phone discussion with PNNL and CellXion staff (Aug 1, 2012). <http://sabrebuildingsystems.com>

3-11

 
for the telecom market. These data were not available by equipment capacity. As a consequence, 

DOE simulated the telecom building in each location with and without an economizer 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 only 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 4A. 

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 manufacturersb,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 buildings 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 with 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 literature 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 motor volt-amps to watts. The corresponding fan power was 

estimated to be 154.4 watts per cooling ton (W/ton). The energy analysis used PSC motors at this 

power level for EER values of 9.0. Electronically commutated supply air fan motors were 

assumed for equipment 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 

(ECMs). 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 ECMs.

e

 The 

resulting ECM horsepower was estimated at 113.6 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 for 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 benefits 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 fullload (e.g., EER) efficiency rating metric.

3-12

 
Equipment cooling EER and heating COP were converted to corresponding condenseronly cooling COP and condenser-only heating COP simulation inputs for each efficiency level 

simulated for the nominal 95 °F and 47 °F outdoor 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 corresponding 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: 

COPCU_Cool =

CAPC

3.413

+ AHRIFanPower

CAPC

EER − AHRIFanPower

Eq. 3.2

COPCU_Heat =

CAPh

3.413 − AHRIFanPower

CAPh

COPx3.413 − AHRIFanPower

Eq. 3.3

Where:

COPCU_Cool = condenser-only cooling COP,

COPCU_Heat = condenser-only heating COP,

CAPc = cooling capacity at Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) rating 

conditions (Btu/h),

CAPh = heating capacity at AHRI 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 conditions.

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 COPCU_Cool and COPCU_Heat are shown in Table 3.2.6 for each EER and COP 

combination developed in the engineering analysis. 

3-13
Table 3.2.6 Development of SPVU Condenser-Only COP Values by Efficiency Level

Efficiency Level EER COP*

AHRIFanPower

(W/ton) COPCU_Cool COPCU_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 4A.

3.2.4.4 Simulated Climates and Weather Data

DOE used 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 for 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 air 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 ton 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 files available at: 

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

3-14

 
heating 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 climates based on detailed population 

statistics 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 4B. The original weighting factors were developed based on 239 TMY216 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, although 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 consumption 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 

representative 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 that, 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 through 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 dominate 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 efficiency 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 provided with EnergyPlus, DOE 

used weather data for Rawlins, Wyoming as a proxy for the Rock Springs station.

3-15

 
correctly account for the heating energy 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 Energy 

(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_SPVACi,j = (Cooling_energy_per_toni,j + Blower_energy_per_toni,j 

+ Heating_takeback _per_toni,j) * Representative Capacity (tons) 

Eq. 3.4

Where:

Cooling_energy_per_toni,j = Cooling_energy_per_ton for climate i at efficiency level j,

Blower_energy_per_toni,j = Blower_energy_per_ton for climate i at efficiency level j, and

Heating_takeback_per_toni,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 cooling equipment used in modular offices in 

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

UEC_SPVACAtlanta, level 1 = [984 kWh/yr-ton + 457 kWh/yr-ton + (4191 kWh/yr-ton –

4122 kWh/yr-ton)] × 3 tons

UEC_SPVACAtlanta, 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 for 

3-16
SPVAC 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 building 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 SPVACs 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 of 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 UECs for 

SPVAC equipment includes cooling energy and supply fan energy only. The UECs 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 shelters 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 capacity 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 than 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 telecommunication unit 

due only to the difference in baseline EER for the two sizes. 

3-17
Figure 3.2.4 SPVU Baseline National Unit Energy Consumption Estimates by 

Building Type 

The national average annual UEC estimates for the current Federal baseline levels, the 

proposed ASHRAE levels, and for the higher efficiency levels are available in chapter 4. These 

estimates are weighted across building types, states, and heating fuel types. These estimates 

presume shipments for SPVAC equipment to education, office, and telecommunication 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 baseline. 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 categories 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 

capacity 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 Telecom

UEC (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 Telecom

UEC (kWh/yr)

SPVAC (6 Ton)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Education Office Telecom

UEC (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 Telecom

UEC (kWh/yr)

SPVAC (6 Ton)

3-18
Table 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 UECs 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 

2003. 

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:

UECOSWH = UECGSWHX

UECOWH

UECGWH

Eq. 3.6

The calculated capacity-weighted UEC of oil-fired commercial storage water heaters 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 baseline and the specific efficiency level, as shown in the 

following equation:

UECEL = UECBaselineX

EtBaseline

EtEL

Eq. 3.7

The UEC estimates for the current Federal baseline levels, the proposed ASHRAE levels, and for 

the higher efficiency levels are available in chapter 4.

3-19
REFERENCES

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-STD0098-0015>

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 States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (NSTEST2012-01). <http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html>

5 U.S. Department of Energy – 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 AirConditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia.

7 U.S. Department of Energy – Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Commercial 

prototype building models as EnergyPlus input files.

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

8 Washington State University. Northwest Portable Classroom Project-Final Report. 2003.

Washington State University 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/bitstream/1840.16/712/1/etd.pdf>

3-20
11 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 sources and 

environmental monitoring, Telecommunications Energy Conference, 2008. INTELEC 2008. 

IEEE 30th International , pp.1-4, 14-18, September 2008.

13 Motorola, Inc. R-56 Standards and Guidelines for Communication Sites. 2005. Schaumberg, 

IL. Document No. 68P81089E50-B. 

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

14 Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc. BARD Wall 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/>

3-21

 
APPENDIX 3A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MODULAR CLASSROOM, MODULAR 

OFFICE, AND TELECOMMUNICATION SHELTER MODELS

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 Description 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-i
APPENDIX 3A. 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 three building models: a modular office building, a modular 

classroom, and a telecommunication shelter. This appendix provides key characteristics of the 

three building models that formed the basis of this data.

3A.2 BUILDING MODEL DESCRIPTIONS

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-1
Table 3A.2.1 Description of DOE Modular Office Building Model 

Item Description

Program

Available Fuel Types Electricity

Building Type (Principal Building Function) OFFICE

Building Prototype Modular Office

Form

Total Floor Area (ft2) 1,568

(56 ft x 28 ft)

Building Shape 

Aspect Ratio 2.0

Number of Floors 1

Window Fraction

(Window-to-Wall Ratio) 15%

Window Locations Even distribution among all four sides

Shading Geometry None

Azimuth E-W

Thermal Zoning 1 Zone

Floor to Ceiling Height (feet) 7.5

3A-2
Item Description

Architecture 

Exterior Walls

 Construction Wood-Frame Walls

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) and/or

 R-value (h * ft2 * °F / Btu)

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Requirements

Nonresidential; Walls, Above-Grade, Wood-Framed

Roof

 Construction Attic Roof 

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) and/or

 R-value (h * ft2 * °F / Btu)

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Requirements

Nonresidential; Roofs, Attic and Other

Window

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Requirements

 SHGC (all) Nonresidential; Vertical Glazing

 Operable Area 0

Foundation 

Foundation Type Crawlspace

 Construction Wood Frame

 Thermal Properties for Ground Level Floor

 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 Type Electric Furnace or Single Package Vertical Heat Pump

 Cooling Type Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioning or Heat Pump

HVAC Sizing

 Air Conditioning Autosized to design day

 Heating Autosized 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 Schedules See under HVAC Operation Schedules, Below

3A-3
Item Description

 Supply Fan Total Power 9-9.5 EER: 154 W/ton

>=10 EER: 113.6 W/ton

Internal Loads & Schedules 

Lighting 

 Average Power Density (W/ft2) 1.0

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

Plug load

 Average Power Density (W/ft2) 0.63

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

Occupancy

 Average People (5.6 persons/1000 sf)

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

3A-4
Table 3A.2.2 Key Schedules for DOE Modular Office 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-5
Table 3A.2.3 Description of DOE Modular Classroom Building Model 

Item Description

Program

Available Fuel Types Electricity

Building Type (Principal Building Function) Education

Building Prototype Modular Classroom

Form

Total Floor Area (ft2) 1,568

(56 ft x 28 ft)

Building Shape 

Aspect Ratio 2.0

Number of Floors 1

Window Fraction

(Window-to-Wall Ratio) 15%

Window Locations Even distribution among all four sides

Shading Geometry None

3A-6
Item Description

Azimuth E-W

Thermal Zoning 1 Zone

Floor to Ceiling Height (feet) 7.5

Architecture 

Exterior walls

 Construction Wood-Frame Walls

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) and/or

 R-value (h * ft2 * °F / Btu)

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Requirements

Nonresidential; Walls, Above-Grade, Wood-Framed

Roof

 Construction Attic Roof

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) and/or

 R-value (h * ft2 * °F / Btu)

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Requirements

Nonresidential; Roofs, Attic and Other

Window

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Requirements

 SHGC (all) Nonresidential; Vertical Glazing

 Operable Area 0

Foundation 

Foundation Type Crawlspace

 Construction Wood Frame

 Thermal Properties for Ground Level Floor

 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 Type Electric Furnace or Single Package Vertical Heat Pump

 Cooling Type Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioning or Heat Pump

HVAC Sizing

 Air Conditioning Autosized to design day

 Heating Autosized 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-7
Item Description

Supply Fan

 Fan Schedules 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 Density (W/ft2) 1.4

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

Plug load

 Average Power Density (W/ft2) 1.4

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

Occupancy

 Average People (25 persons/1000 sf)

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

3A-8
Table 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-9
BLDG_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-10
Table 3A.2.5 Description of DOE Telecommunication Shelter Model 

Item Description

Program

Available Fuel Types Electricity

Building Type (Principal Building Function) Telecom

Building Prototype Telecommunication Shelter

Form

Total Floor Area (ft2) 240

(20 ft x 12 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 Height (feet) 8.5

Architecture 

Exterior walls

 Construction Masonry Walls

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) and/or

 R-value (h * ft2 * °F / Btu)

R-10 Continuous Ins.

Roof

 Construction Masonry

3A-11
Item Description

 U-factor (Btu / h * ft2 * °F) and/or

 R-value (h * ft2 * °F / Btu) R-10 Continuous Ins.

Foundation 

Foundation Type Slab On Grade

 Construction

 Thermal Properties for Ground Level Floor

 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 Type Electric Furnace

 Cooling Type Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioner

HVAC Sizing

 Air Conditioning Autosized to design day

 Heating Autosized 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 Schedules 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 Density (W/ft2) Not Modeled

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

Plug load

 Average power Density (W/ft2) 44

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

Occupancy

 Average people (0 persons)

 Schedule See under Schedules, Below

3A-12
Table 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-13
3A.3 SPVAC AND SPVHP EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE 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-14
Table 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

e ODB f WB ODB

COOL CAP FT a b WB c WB d ODB

+ × + × ×

− − = + × + × + ×

2

2

0.258637 0.102735 -0.000897 -0.024854 0.000343 -0.000687

Total Cooling Capacity Function of Flow Fraction Curve 

2 COOL −CAP − FF = a + b× FF + c× FF

0.525 0.725 -0.25 NA NA NA

Energy Input Ratio Function of Temperature Curve

d ODB e ODB f WB ODB

COOL EIR FT a b WB c WB

+ × + × + × ×

− − = + × + ×

2

2

0.464816 0.021310 -0.000623 0.002048 0.000260 -0.000049

Energy Input Ratio Function of Flow Fraction Curve 

2 COOL − EIR − FF = a + b× FF + c× FF

1.5578 -0.7241 0.16628 NA NA NA

Cooling Part Load Fraction Correlation Curve

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

0.81 0.19 0.0 NA NA NA

SPVHP Heating Capacity Function of Temperature Curve

2 HEAT − CAP − FT = a + b ×ODB + c ×ODB

0.741102 0.024257 0.000311 NA NA NA

Heating Capacity Function of Flow Fraction Curve

2 HEAT − CAP − FF = a + b ×ODB + c ×ODB

0.97465 0.02535 0.00000 NA NA NA

Heating Energy Input Ratio Function of Temperature Curve

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

1.254425 -0.03009 0.000984 -0.000039 NA NA

Heating Energy Input Ratio Function of Flow Fraction 

Curve

2 HEAT − EIR − FF = a + b× FF + c× FF

1.5578 -0.7241 0.16628 NA NA NA

Heating Part Load Fraction Correlation Curve

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

0.81 0.19 0.0 NA NA NA

3A-15
Where:

COOL − CAP − FT = total cooling capacity function of temperature, 

COOL −CAP − FF = total cooling capacity function of flow fraction curve, 

COOL − EIR − FT = energy input ratio function of temperature, 

COOL − EIR − FF = energy input ratio function of flow fraction, 

COOL − EIR − FPLR = total cooling part load fraction correlation curve name,

HEAT − CAP − FT = heating capacity function of temperature curve name,

HEAT −CAP − FF = heating capacity function of flow fraction curve name,

HEAT − EIR − FT = heating energy input ratio function of temperature curve name, 

HEAT − EIR − FF = heating energy input ratio function of flow fraction curve name,

HEAT − EIR − FPLR = heating part load fraction correlation curve name,

WB = entering evaporator coil wet-bulb temperature ( °F),

ODB = outside dry-bulb temperature ( °F), and

PLR = part load ratio (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 (Bard W30A1 (Cap) and WH48 (EIR)) for cooling performance and (Bard

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

conditions.

1,2,3 Manufacturer’s data to develop equipment performance curves as a function of air 

flow were not readily available. Performance curves for airflow and part load correlation based on 

other small single compressor package 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-16
REFERENCES

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. for 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/TechDocPDF/S3398.pdf>

3A-17
APPENDIX 3B. TYPICAL METEOROLOGICAL YEAR ASSIGNMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3B.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................B-1

3B.1.1 Purpose and Intent...........................................................................................3B-1

3B.1.2 Issues...............................................................................................................3B-1

3B.2 APPROACH ..................................................................................................................3B-1

3B.2.1 Additional Data Sets.......................................................................................3B-1

3B.2.2 Mapping Approach .........................................................................................3B-3

3B.2.3 Calculating State-by-State Weighting Factors................................................3B-7

LIST OF FIGURES

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

Contours.......................................................................................................3B-2

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

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

Figure 3B.2.4. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Iowa Showing a Predominance of NearestLocation Mappings ......................................................................................3B-5

Figure 3B.2.5. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Washington State Showing Some Distant 

Mappings in Mountainous Regions.............................................................3B-5

Figure 3B.2.6. NOAA→TMY2 Mappings................................................................................3B-7

3B-i
APPENDIX 3B. TYPICAL METEOROLOGICAL YEAR ASSIGNMENTS

3B.1 INTRODUCTION

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 properly reflect the 

geographic distribution of buildings in which the heating, ventilating, 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 buildings.

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 the 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 do 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 matching up population data, which are available in 

great geographical detail but not matched to climate indicators, with TMY2 data, which 

characterize climate quite well but are not connected to any population indicators.

3B.2 APPROACH

Figure 3B.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 short 

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 

distribution and TMY2 stations. These are as follows:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Stations – The 

National Climatic Data 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 4,775 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.

3B-1
Figure 3B.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 “populated 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 coverage. 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 metrics.

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 

3B.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 3B.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.

3B-2

 
Figure 3B.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 climate metrics (chiefly, heating and cooling 

degree-days) that facilitate further mapping.

3B-3
2. 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. For 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 locations 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) and 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 two 

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 station 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 closest NOAA station. Figure 

3B.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 location. Figure 

3B.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 stations.

3B-4
Figure 3B.2.4. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Iowa Showing a Predominance of NearestLocation Mappings

Figure 3B.2.5. PPL→NOAA Mappings for Washington State Showing Some Distant 

Mappings in Mountainous Regions

3B-5
3B.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 NOAA 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 hopes for similarity in a number of climate variables: temperature (heating and 

cooling degree-days), solar and wind characteristics, rainfall and humidity characteristics, 

snowfall, etc. The NOAA data set supports 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 station 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 heating 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 correlate 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 regression 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.

3B-6
d I HDD CDD Elev equiv = +α ×∆ + β × + γ ×∆

Eq. 3B.1

Where: 

dequiv = equivalent latitude distance (miles),

ΔHDD = difference in heating degree-days (base-65 °F),

ΔCDD = difference in cooling degree-days (base-65 °F),

ΔElev = 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 3B.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 3B.2.6. NOAA→TMY2 Mappings

3B.2.3 CALCULATING STATE-BY-STATE WEIGHTING FACTORS

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 weighting 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. 

3B-7
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION.................................................... 4-2

4.3 INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION...................... 4-5

4.3.1 Shipments............................................................................................................. 4-5

4.3.1.1 Commercial Air-Cooled Equipment .......................................................... 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 Single 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 

Average 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 SAVINGS 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-i
Table 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 Vertical 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 Pumps <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 Split 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 Cases 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 Distribution 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 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 .......................................................................................... 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-ii
Table 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 Savings Estimates for SPVAC ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h............................................................................................................. 4-50

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 ................................. 4-50

LIST OF FIGURES

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-iii
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the national energy savings (NES) analysis for commercial aircooled air conditioners and heat pumps, water source heat pumps, packaged terminal air 

conditioners, single package vertical units, and oil-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 airconditioning and heating 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) greater 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 90.1-2013 efficiency level, 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 Federal energy conservation standard.

4-1
4.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS 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. 

4-2
NES 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

4-3
For 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 

equipment, at which point that 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 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 base unit 

energy consumption (UECa) in each relevant year (multiplied by primary and upstream

conversion factors). 

Annual Base Total Energy Useyear=n

= � Shipmentsyear × Base UECyear

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 UECyearcould 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 UECb in each relevant year (multiplied by primary and upstream

conversion factors). 

Annual Standards Case Total Energy Useyear=n

= � Shipmentsyear × Standards UECyear

n

year=n−lifetime−1

Eq. 4.2

Prior to the analysis period, the Standards Case 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 building 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 not 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 given 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.

4-4

 
The annual energy savings is the difference between the base case total energy use and 

the standards case total energy use.

Annual Energy Savingsyear=n

= Annual Base Total Energy Useyear=n

− Annual Standards Case Total Energy Useyear=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 Savingsyear

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 standards case total energy use is compared to. This is 

because the ASHRAE standard is the presumed default. 

4.3 INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION

The following sections discuss and document the inputs to the calculation of the NES. 

4.3.1 Shipments

4.3.1.1 Commercial 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 shipments data from 2000 to 2010; for each year 

from 2000 to 2010, DOE multiplied the 1999 shipments by the indexed value for the relevant 

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 is precipitously declining. As a result, for single package air 

conditioners for the years after 2010, DOE used the average value from 1999 to 2010. 

4-5
Table 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 Equipment <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.

4-6
Figure 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)

4-7
Table 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 

4-8
4.3.1.2 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 the 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 (AHRI) in 1999 and 

published in the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACT,1 to distribute the total water source heat 

pumps shipments to individual equipment classes. Table 4.3.5 exhibits the shipment data 

provided for 1999. Table 4.3.6 shows the projected shipments for each equipment class. 

4-9
Table 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.

4-10
Figure 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

4-11
Table 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 

4-12
4.3.1.3 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 construction. 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 

PTACs and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) 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 1998-2004 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

The 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: 

Ship ( j) Rpl ( j) NI ( j) PTAC = PTAC + PTAC

Eq. 4.5

The following sections discuss both the new construction and replacement 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 space forecasts for the healthcare, lodging, and small office sectors from the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013) for 2013–

2040.

4 Table 4.3.7 presents these forecasts. The data for 2041 through 2046 are based on an 

extrapolation of the trend from 2030 through 2040.

4-13
Table 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.)

Small 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

Sources: DOE 2008 PTAC and PTHP Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking.

4-14
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 PTACs and PTHPs by using 

the average 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 certain 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).

4-15
Table 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 2013. Figure 4.3.5 shows total shipments (aggregated from individual 

equipment classes) broken into new construction and replacement shipments. This figure starts in 

2013, as historical shipments are not disaggregated into new construction and replacements. 

Figure 4.3.4 Historical and Projected PTAC Shipments by Equipment Class

4-16
Table 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 

4-17
Figure 4.3.5 Projected PTAC Shipments 2013-2046

4.3.1.4 Single Package Vertical Units

SPVU shipments 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 education 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 and 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 2043

Total 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 20055 and (2) floor space production data from the Modular 

Building 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 onephase and three-phase equipment, but they are disaggregated here owing to historical precedent 

and differences 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 and indexed all the preceding estimates of total floor space production.

4-19
DOE 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

4-20
Figure 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 2006

MBI Estimated New Floor Space 

Produced (million square feet)

Year

4-21
Table 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
Ship ( j) Rpl ( j) NI ( j) spvu = spvu + spvu

Eq. 4.6

The following sections discuss both the new construction 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 

sectors, and one for the telecom sector.

DOE allocated the 2005 new construction shipmentsc into market sectors based on 

information provided by manufacturers regarding the overall market share of the office, 

education, and telecom sectors. However, DOE assumed 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 and 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 AEO2013 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, manufacturers 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% replacement. 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.

4-23

 
Table 4.3.15 Historical 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 2013; 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. 

4-24
Table 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 20097 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 Shipments Model)

y = 70.571x - 135995

R2 = 0.6595

5000

5200

5400

5600

5800

6000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Establishments

Year

4-25
Table 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.

4-26
Table 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 units 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 survival 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 lifetime 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 estimates for similar equipment. ASHRAE indicates about a 15-year service life for a variety 

of similar heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment in the ASHRAE 

Handbook,8 but appears to have no data specific to SPVU equipment. A 2005 ASHRAE study 

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 packaged 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 endof-life information.9 An Australian study estimated 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 year 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. 

4-27
Figure 4.3.8 SPVU Survival Function

Shipments Used in the Analysis

Figure 4.3.9 shows the projected shipments of SPVUs and the historical shipments DOE 

used to develop the initial stock that drove the replacement shipments 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 disaggregated 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 50

SPVU

Years

% Surviving

% Retiring

4-28
Figure 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 

4-29
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

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 

4-30
Figure 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 EPACT1 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 was 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 2000 – 2044.

4-31
Table 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 representative 

capacities for each equipment class by identifying the capacity of the equipment that has the 

4-32
highest sales volume on the market. For SPVUs, 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 ratio (EER), seasonal energy efficiency ratio (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.

Table 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

4-33
Table 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

4-34
Table 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

4-35
Table 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.

4-36
Table 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 efficiency 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 equipment classes (for all other equipment)11,12 to determine the 

distribution of efficiency levels for commercially available models within each equipment class 

analyzed in the NODA. DOE assumed that this base case market share remained the same 

throughout the analysis period.

For the standards case for all equipment in this 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 calculated 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 

4-37
analyzed. 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 UEC = � Market ShareLevel × UECLevel

Max Tech

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 market 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 AirCooled 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 AirCooled 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

4-38
Table 4.3.28 Distribution of Efficiencies in the Base Case and Standards Cases for AirCooled 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% 1,418

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 98% 2% 1,177

Max Tech 100% 1,075

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

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% 3,039

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

4-40
Table 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-

12.19)

12.2 

(12.2-

12.59)

12.6 

(12.6-

13.09)

13.1 

(13.1-

13.59)

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-

11.99)

12.0 

(12.0-

12.39)

12.4 

(12.4-

12.89)

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

4-41
Table 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-

9.69)

9.7 (9.7-

9.99)

10.0 

(10.0-

10.39)

10.4 

(10.4-

10.79)

10.8 

(10.8-

11.19)

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

4-42
Table 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 PTACs, 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., primary 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 electricity 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 transporting or distributing primary fuels. To complete the fullfuel-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 

multiplierse using the data and projections generated by the National Energy Modeling System

(NEMS) used for AEO2013. The AEO provides 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 2013 can be accessed at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo13/index.cfm. e FFC multipliers discussed in this chapter relate to the upstream part of the FFC process.

4-43

 
production. This information 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 Appendix 

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 equipment 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 to 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 

Standard 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 ASHRAE 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 months 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.

4-44
For 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 analysis 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 SAVINGS 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.

4-45
Table 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 Savings 

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 0.025 0.026

Level 4 – 15.7 EER 0.063 0.064

Level 5 – 16.5 EER 0.082 0.083

Level 6 – “Max-Tech” – 18.1 EER 0.116 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.

4-46
Table 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 0.064 0.065

Level 3 – 16.6 EER 0.280 0.284

Level 4 – 18 EER 0.451 0.459

Level 5 – 19.2 EER 0.591 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 would not be affected by a standard set at this level.

4-47
Table 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 models 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 Level

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 0.022 0.023

Level 4 – 12.4 EER 0.040 0.040

Level 5 – 12.9 EER 0.058 0.058

Level 6 – “Max-Tech” – 13.3 EER 0.076 0.077

* 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.

4-48
Table 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 0.0009 0.0009

Level 2 – 9.7 EER 0.0007 0.0007

Level 3 – 10.0 EER 0.0022 0.0023

Level 4 – 10.4 EER 0.0037 0.0038

Level 5 – 10.8 EER 0.0053 0.0053

Level 6 – “Max-Tech” – 11.2 EER 0.0068 0.0069

* 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 0.23

Level 4 – “Max-Tech” – 12.3 EER 0.28 0.29

* 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.

4-49
Table 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 0.18

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 estimates 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 0.002 0.002

Level 2 – 81% Et 0.001 0.001

Level 3 – “Max-Tech” – 82% Et 0.002 0.002

* 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.

4-50
REFERENCES

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-STD0098-0015>

2 U.S.Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm 

Air Heating Equipment, MA333M. 

<http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma333m/index.html>

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. 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, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, AirConditioning, and Water Heating Equipment Including Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial Packaged Boiler, Three-Phase AirConditioners 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 Statement 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/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/200809-ris-ac.pdf > 

11 AHRI Directory. Directory of Certified Product Performance. 2013. (Last accessed May 29, 

2013.) <www.ahridirectory.org> [For commercial water heaters]

4-51
12 AHRI Directory. Directory of Certified Product Performance. 2013. (Last accessed 

November 11, 2013.) <www.ahridirectory.org> [For water source heat pumps, commercial 

air conditioning and heating equipment, and PTAC.]

4-52
APPENDIX 4A. FULL-FUEL-CYCLE MULTIPLIERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4A.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4A-1

4A.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 4A-1

4A.3 FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY MULTIPLIERS ...................................................... 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

4A-i
APPENDIX 4A. FULL-FUEL-CYCLE MULTIPLIERS

4A.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix summarizes the methods used to calculate full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy 

savings expected to result from potential standards. The 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 transporting or distributing primary 

fuels. DOE’s traditional approach encompassed 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 energy 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 primary fuels such as coal, natural gas, liquid fuels, etc. Primary energy is equal to 

the heat content (Btu) 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 or industrial process. Where 

natural gas and petroleum fuels 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 measured 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 primary energy 

is calculated by multiplying the site kWh times the site-to-power-plant conversion factor, given

in chapter 12. For the FFC analysis, the upstream 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 Metrics3 The text below 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 multiplier 

is defined mathematically as a function of a set of parameters representing the energy intensity 

and material losses at each production stage. These parameters depend only on physical data, so

4A-1
the calculations do not require any assumptions about prices or other economic data. While in 

general these parameter 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 natural gas, x=p for petroleum fuels, x=u for uranium and x=r for renewable fluxes. The fuel 

cycle parameters are:

• ax is the quantity of fuel x burned per unit of electricity output, on average, for grid 

electricity. The calculation of ax includes a factor to account for transmission and 

distribution system losses. 

• by is the amount of grid electricity used in production of fuel y, in MWh per physical unit 

of fuel y.

• cxy is the amount of fuel x consumed in producing one unit of fuel y.

• qx is the heat content of fuel x (MBtu/physical unit)a

• zx(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; hence, a 

time series of annual values is used to estimate 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 qx. To convert electricity in kWh to primary energy units, on-site electricity 

consumption is multiplied by the site-to-power-plant conversion factor indicated in chapter 12. 

The site-to-power-plant conversion factor is defined as the ratio of the total primary energy 

consumption by the electric power sector (in quadrillion Btu) 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 4A.2.1 provides a summary of the AEO data used as inputs to the different 

parameter calculations. The AEO does not provide all the information needed to estimate total 

energy use in the fuel production chain. Reference 3 describes the additional data sources used to 

complete the analysis. However, the time dependence in the FFC multipliers arises exclusively 

from variables taken from the AEO. The FFC analysis for this preliminary analysis used data 

from AEO 2013.

4

a Where MBtu = 1000 Btu.

4A-2

 
Table 4A.2.1 Dependence of FFC Parameters on AEO Inputs

Parameter Fuel AEO Table Variables 

qx all Conversion Factors MBtu per physical unit

ax all

Electricity Supply, Disposition, 

Prices, and Emissions Generation by fuel type

Energy Consumption by Sector and 

Source

Electric power sector energy 

consumption

bc, cnc, cpc coal

Coal Production by Region and 

Type

Production by coal type and 

sulfur content

bp, cnp, cpp 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

cnn

natural 

gas

Oil and Gas Supply US dry gas production

Natural Gas Supply, Disposition and 

Prices Pipeline, lease and plant fuel

zx all

Electricity Supply, Disposition,

Prices and Emissions Power sector emissions

4A.3 FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY MULTIPLIERS

FFC upstream energy multipliers are presented in Table 4A.3.1 for selected years. To 

extend the analysis period beyond 2035, the last year in the AEO 2013 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 4A.3.1 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

4A-3
REFERENCES

1 United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 160, 

August 18, 2011, Pages 51281-51868. 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. 2013. 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/

4A-4