1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

## CUAC/CWAF ASRAC Working Group First Meeting

April 28, 2015 Department of Energy Building Technologies Program2 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues /Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up3 

# Introduction

• The purpose of today’s meeting is

– Overview of ASRAC

– Brief discussion of rulemaking backgrounds

– Overview of the negotiation process

– Establishment of ground rules

– Identification of discussion issues for future meetings

– Establishment of schedule of meetings

– Presentation of proposed revisions to the engineering analysis [if time allows]

– Presentation of the proposed revisions to the energy use analysis [if time allows]4 

# Introduction

• DOE formed the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in 2012 to further improve the DOE process of establishing efficiency standards.

• ASRAC is an advisory committee chartered by DOE.

• ASRAC is solely advisory in nature, with focus on appliance standards rulemaking issues and solutions.

• Committee tasks originate from discussions between DOE and ASRAC members , defining clear goals, timeframe for task completion, and target date for presenting the Committee’s formal recommendations to DOE.5 

# Introduction

• As needed, ASRAC will vote to form working groups to investigate each task in detail and gather additional input from stakeholders.

– In such cases where ASRAC votes to form a working group, DOE will publish a Federal Register notice soliciting nominations for members.

– Working group efforts are presented to ASRAC, and ASRAC deliberates and forms recommendations to DOE (working groups never present recommendations directly to DOE ).

• DOE may withdraw a task from ASRAC at any time.

• In the event a consensus recommendation is not reached for a particular task within a given timeframe, ASRAC will let DOE know that no recommendations will be made and it is determined to withdraw task or give the working group

more time.

– Without a consensus recommendation from the working group and affirmation from ASRAC, DOE will proceed with its “normal” rulemaking activities.6 

# Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

 

## Statutory Authorities

 

### Labor

- Management Relations Act of 1947
 

### ADR Act of 1990/1996
 

### Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 19967 

# FMCS Experience and History with Negotiated Rulemaking

• FMCS has facilitated over 50 Negotiated Rulemakings and Public Policy discussions for a wide variety of agencies and issues

• 1982 : ACUS recommends agencies experiment with technique (Recommendation 82

- 4);

• 1983 : FAA and US EPA initiate pilot rulemakings; and FMCS facilitates first ever Negotiated Rulemaking with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)8 

## • 1990 : Congress enacts Negotiated Rulemaking Act

• 1996 : Congress permanently authorizes the Negotiated Rulemaking Act as part of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996.

• 2014: Most recent example, FMCS provides mediation/facilitation for Manufactured Housing Negotiated Rule

- making Working Group of ASRAC of U.S. Department of Energy 

# The History of Negotiated Rulemaking and FMCS’s Role9 

### • A group of potentially impacted stakeholders, using a consensus

based process, are assembled to work to develop a recommended ‘proposed rule;

• Proposed rule posted for public comment

• Final rule posted

• Rule may be contested or uncontested in court 

# What is Negotiated Rulemaking?10 

# Negotiated Rulemaking in Context

• Augments, do not replace, the Agency’s rulemaking process

• Rule must still go through normal Agency and administration review processes

• Rule must still comply with other applicable statutes and executive order

• Rule still is subject to public comment per the Administrative Procedures Act

• If agreement is not reached, agency proceeds with its own rule.11 

# The Statutory Framework of Negotiated Rulemaking

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

• Negotiated Rulemaking Act 1996 (NRA )

• Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA)

• The Federal Register12 

### • Section 562(4): Definition

– A “facilitator” is defined as “a person who impartially aids in the discussions and negotiations among members of the negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a proposed rule” 

# The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996 and the Facilitator13 

### • Section 566(c ) Provides that Agency nominates a facilitator subject to Committee approval



### • Section 566(d) provides that facilitator’s duties:

• (1) chair the meetings of the committee in an impartial manner;

• ( 2) impartially assist the members of the committee in conducting discussions and negotiations; and

• ( 3) manage the keeping of minutes and records as required under section 10(b) and (c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, except that any personal notes and materials of the facilitator or of the members of a committee shall not be subject to section 552 of this title. 

# The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996 and the Facilitator14 

## • Guide the Discussions

• Coach

• Moderator

• Help clarify issues and interests

• Assist in generating options

• Private discussions 

# The Role of the Facilitator15 

## • Watch for people backing away from tentative consensus

• When substance breaks down, move to process

• When process breaks down , move to substance 

# Facilitating the Meeting16 

## • By entering into the process, the neutral obligates themselves to the parties to provide a fair and impartial problem solving process which seeks to address the interests of all involved 

# A Fundamental Principle: The Obligation of the Neutral17 

# Negotiated Rulemaking: The Participants18 

### • By entering into the process, the parties commit themselves to a problem solving approach which inherently seeks to maintain a focus on working with each other to solve problems 

# A Fundamental Principle: The Obligation of the Parties19The Committee

The Mediator/Facilitator Technical Advisors

Stakeholders: Present Stakeholders:

Not Present Committee members have full right of the floor. Decisions by Consensus and every member has a veto 

# Negotiating the Rule20 

# Negotiating the Rule

• The First Meeting

– Setting the Stage

– Training

– Negotiating the Protocols



### • Subsequent Meetings

• Between Meetings

• Using Smaller Working Groups, if needed21 

### Setting the Stage

• Introductory remarks by host agency and others

– Expectations of committee by agency



### • Committee member introductions

• Overview of the Negotiated

- Rulemaking process

• History of the issues

• Negotiating Ground rules and Protocols 

# The First Meeting22 

## Committee Participation
 

## Members
 

### Responsibilities
 

### Attendance
 

### Alternatives

– Observers



## • Adding Members

• Support staff

• Withdrawal/removal procedures 

# Negotiating the Protocols23 

## Decision Making

• Consensus

• Tentative consensus

• Caucuses

• Work Groups 

# Negotiating the Protocols

Objective of Committee
 

## Purpose of Rule24 

## Agreements

• End result of Negotiated Rulemaking Process

• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

• Ground Rules for Implementation of Rule, if any

• Additional meetings after NPRM ? 

# Negotiating the Protocols25 

## Safeguards for the Parties (Good faith requirements )

• Providing information

• Procedures

• Information Flow Outside Meetings Relations with the Press

• Speaking for other committee members 

# Negotiating the Protocols26 

## • Touch base with Committee Members

• Develop Agenda

• Send out meeting summary with cover letter stating progress to date, any relevant issues and
next steps

• Required notices 

# Between Meetings27 

# Concluding the Negotiations

• Report of the Committee

– With Consensus

– Without Consensus

– With Partial Consensus



### • Committee continuing status or release

• Required Federal Register postings

• Any Follow

- Up?

• Evaluation28 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues /Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up29 

# Negotiation Process: Overview

• As provided in the notice of intent, the following are the basic underlying issues and concerns

– DOE’s need for full compliance with statutory mandates. Congress has mandated that DOE establish minimum energy efficiency standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified

– Stakeholders strongly support a consensual rulemaking effort



### • To the maximum extent possible consistent with legal obligations, DOE will consider the consensus of the working group as the basis for the rulemaking moving forward

• A key principle is consensus by all interests

• Good faith negotiation required

• Participants will need to provide DOE with data and an analytic framework to support deliberations

• DOE is committed to performing much of the same analysis as it would during a normal standards rulemaking process and to providing information and technical support to the working group

• Must be completed by June 1530 

# Negotiation Process: Key Issues

• Additional data that could be considered by the Working Group in potentially revising the analytical tools that DOE used for the proposed rules;

• Additional methodology assumptions that could be considered by the Working Group in potentially revising the analytical tools that DOE used for the proposed rules;

• Synergies gained by combining the rulemaking and potential compliance dates for two covered products; and

• Consideration of energy conservation standards.31 

# EPCA Requirements for Standards Rulemakings

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DOE to the maximum extent practicable to consider seven factors when setting energy conservation standards



### .

EPCA Factor DOE Analysis

1. Economic impact on consumers and manufacturers Life

- cycle cost analysis Manufacturer impact analysis

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life

- cycle cost analysis

3. Total projected energy savings National impact analysis

4. Impact on utility or performance Screening analysis Engineering analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer impact analysis

6. Need for national energy conservation National impact analysis

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant Environmental assessment Utility impact analysis Employment impact analysis32 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues /Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up33 

# Ground Rules

• Key items to resolve:

– Alternate working group members

• Are they allowed? Can they vote?



### – Participation

• Working group members may call on members of the public?



### – Quorum

• What is it?



### – Consensus

• Must be unanimous unless unanimously agree to a different definition

• For example, how many negative votes would the group allow as part of a consensus?



## • Real

- time mark

- up of draft ground rules sheet34 

### • A process for group decision making, in which:



##  Everyone has been heard,

 The decision may not be every person’s first choice, but

 They can live with and support the decision 

# “con.sen.sus”35 

### • Try to c reate a solution t hat c an b e s upported b y e veryone

• Aim for a solution that considers the INTERESTS of
everyone 

# Consensus Guidelines36 

### • Ask Questions

• Raise Valid Doubts

• Offer Alternatives

• Don't Compete for Individual Ideas 

# Consensus Guidelines37 

### • Agree Completely

• Acceptable

• Can Live with the Decision

• Do Not agree

- But Won’t Block and will support

• Do Not Agree & Will Block 

# Consensus Ladder38 

###  

## Explain why your thumb is down

 

### Spaced out

 

### Not sure of question

 

### Will Block
 

## Blocker(s) Responsibility

 

### Explain what the concern is

 

### Offer an alternative 

# “Blocker” Responsibility39 

### • Temperature Check

• Consensus Confirmation (Final)

39 

# How to Gauge for Consensus40 

## • § 566. Conduct of committee activity

(a) Duties of Committee.

- Each negotiated rulemaking committee established under this subchapter shall consider the matter proposed by the agency for consideration and shall attempt to reach a consensus concerning a proposed rule with respect to such matter and any other matter the committee determines is relevant to the proposed rule. 

# The Statutory Role of Consensus41 

## • § 562 (2 )

“ consensus” means unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee established under this subchapter, unless such committee

- ( A) agrees to define such term to mean a general but not unanimous concurrence; or

(B) agrees upon another specified definition ; 

# The Statutory Role of Consensus42 

### • A mutually acceptable agreement that takes into consideration the interests of all concerned parties.

• Consensus is a way of making decisions which aims to include everyone in the decision making process and resolve any objections. 

# The Role of Consensus43 

## • Committee members agree to use consensus decision making

• If consensus is reached agency agrees to publish it in the Federal Register as a “Notice of Proposed Rule.” 

# The Role of Consensus44 

### • Super

- majority*

• Daily numbers

44 

# Consensus Confirmation45 

## • If committee fails to reach consensus, the process should narrow the issues in dispute, rank priorities and identify potentially acceptable solutions 

# The Role of Consensus46 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues /Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up47 

# Topics to Cover in Meetings

• CUAC

– Engineering Revisions

– Energy Use Revisions

– Shipments Revisions

– Present new analytical results (LCC, NIA, MIA)

–  Vote on standard levels



## • CWAF

– Issues to Discuss?



## • Topics not part of working group scope

– Test procedures

– Certification and compliance48 

# Potential Proposed Schedule

Date Type Presentation/Discussion Topics 4/28 In Person • Process, ground rules

• Work plan for engineering and energy use 5/7 N/A • Updated shipments data provided to analytical team Week of 5/11 In Person • Present revised engineering/energy use/LCC

• Stakeholder discussion Week of 5/18 Webinar • Present preliminary shipments/NIA/MIA revisions Week of 5/25 In Person • Discussion of revised shipments/NIA/MIA

• Initial negotiations of standard levels Week of 6/8 In Person • Finalize standard levels 6/15 N/A • Term sheet due

• Recommended standard levels for all CUAC equipment classes

• Recommended standard levels for all CWAF equipment classes49 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues/Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up50 

# CUAC Background

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. L. No. 109

- 58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended EPCA to prescribe standards for small, large, and very large air

cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment (CUAC and CUHP).

• AEMTCA amended EPCA to require DOE to initiate a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for any covered equipment as to which more than 6 years has elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule establishing or amending a standard as of the date of AEMTCA’s enactment, December 18, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi )) [Six

- year look

- back]

• AEMTCA required DOE to issue either a notice of determination that the current standards do not need to be amended or a NOPR containing proposed standards.

• On Feb. 1, 2013, DOE published a request for information (RFI) and notice of document availability to solicit information to help DOE determine whether

more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified for CUACs and CUHPs.

• On Sept. 30, 2014, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for CUACs and CUHPs.51 

# CUAC Background: Standards

Equipment Class Heating Type Current Federal Standard IEER chosen to correspond to Current Federal Standard Proposed Federal Standard

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioners and Heat Pump (Air

- Cooled)

– ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity AC Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating 11.2 EER 11.4 IEER 14.8 IEER

All Other Types of Heating 11.0 EER 11.2 IEER 14.6 IEER

HP Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating 11.0 EER 3.3 COP 11.2 IEER 3.3 COP 14.1 IEER 3.5 COP

All Other Types of Heating 10.8 EER 3.3 COP 11.0 IEER 3.3 COP 13.9 IEER 3.4 COP

Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioners and Heat Pump (Air

- Cooled)

– ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity AC Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating 11.0 EER 11.2 IEER 14.2 IEER

All Other Types of Heating 10.8 EER 11.0 IEER 14.0 IEER

HP Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating 10.6 EER 3.2 COP 10.7 IEER 3.2 COP 13.4 IEER 3.3 COP

All Other Types of Heating 10.4 EER 3.2 COP 10.5 IEER 3.2 COP 13.2 IEER 3.3 COP

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioners and Heat Pump (Air

- Cooled)

– ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity AC Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating 10.0 EER 10.1 IEER 13.5 IEER

All Other Types of Heating 9.8 EER 9.9 IEER 13.3 IEER

HP Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating 9.5 EER 3.2 COP 9.6 IEER 3.2 COP 12.5 IEER 3.2 COP

All Other Types of Heating 9.3 EER 3.2 COP 9.4 IEER 3.2 COP 12.3 IEER 3.2 COP52 

# CWAF Background and Standards

• The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Pub. L . 102− 486 (Oct. 24, 1992) amended EPCA to add Commercial Warm Air Furnace (CWAF) as a type of covered equipment and set initial energy conservation standards.

• The “six

- year look

- back” requirements in AEMTCA also apply to CWAF.

• On May 2, 2013, DOE published a request for information (RFI) regarding energy conservation standards for commercial warm air furnaces.

• On Feb. 4, 2015, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for CWAFs.



## CWAF Standards
Equipment Class Current Federal Standards Proposed Federal Standards

Thermal Efficiency Thermal Efficiency

Gas

- Fired CWAF 80% 82%
Oil

- Fired CWAF 81% 82%53 

# Negotiation Background

• Following the issuance of the CUAC and CWAF NOPRs, DOE determined that a negotiated process may be more effective for these rulemakings.

• The ASRAC approved the formation of a WG and a notice of intent was issued March 24, 2015 to announce the group and solicit members, and the first meeting date.

• Stakeholders initiated informal working group meetings while the formation of the formal ASRAC working group was underway

– Several meetings were held to flesh out analytical issues54 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final Rule55 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions

-- Equipment

Issue Approach Revisions Additional Input Required Test IEERs higher than rated IEERs Analysis based on ratings, not test results. Component wattage profiles based on specific models with target efficiency levels. None

Low Indoor Fan Power Fan shaft power from product literature, smallest motor/drive listed with sufficient power, EPCA

- compliant motors. None

Low Condenser Fan Power Fan power input based on product literature, pressure estimates, typical motor and fan efficiencies. None

Single

- circuit vs. dual

circuit for 7.5 ton baseline and EL1 Moved to dual

- circuit. Consider mix of single

- and dual

compressor? Staged air flow for lower ELs

— but many existing buildings have CAV air distribution Dual

- path analysis for lower ELs, both staged air and CAV. Consider costs for upgrade of air distribution when lower stage air flow is less than 60% of full

- load air flow. None56 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions

-- Equipment

Issue Approach Revisions Additional Input Required
Baseline units with EER lower than current standards Analysis basis on existing models which meet the standard. None

Conversion curbs: Cost and performance impact Will consider incorporating into analysis, will make reasonable assumptions unless good information is provided regarding appropriate parameters. Input on conversion curb pressure drop and cost.
Smooth

- tube Coil Designer Analysis Updated Coil Designer now has rifled tube. None

Constant Subcooling Adjust subcooling consistent with condensing/ambient differential. None

Head pressure control Assume head pressure control below 65  ̊F ambient. None

Capacity/EER trends vs. ambient Evaluate performance for broader ranges of ambient to develop performance correlations in engineering analysis. Confirm correlations reproduce the correct IEERs. None57 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions

-- Equipment

Issue Approach Additional Input Required
Microchannel vs. Round Tube C omparable costs for these technologies, i.e. no significant advantage for either for a given performance level. None

Variation in designs result in inconsistent cost growth with EL Decoupling of the analyses of cost

- IEER relationship and component wattage profile

- IEER relationship. None

Additional efficiency levels Added max tech with variable

- speed compressor for 15 and 30 tons. NOPR

- phase EL4 redesignated as EL3.1. None

Coil circuiting for staged air design New analysis uses intertwined circuits for indoor coils to limit the performance impacts of airflow reductions for lower stage operation

— this is consistent with product literature descriptions of equipment. None58 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions

-- Buildings

Issue Revised Approach Additional Input Required Design Temperature for System Sizing Revised from 95 ° F to 1% Cooling Dry

- Bulb Design Temperature. Generally reduces the number of units serving the building. None

Load Factor (LF) for determining Cyclic Degradation Corrected to calculate LF based on the highest stage of operation. Corrected to use C D at highest stage of operation rather than setting C D equal to 1. Implement methodology for treating units in a single building separately

– i.e., not running at same load. None

In door Fan Speed for Space

- Heating Revised from low speed to high speed. None

Indoor Fan for Space

- Cooling Revised from being dependent on dry

- bulb temperature to equipment stage. LF used to determine fan energy use in upper stages of operation. None59 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions

-- Buildings

Issue Revised Approach Additional Input Required
Treatment of economizing A. Verify BLAST simulation of economizers is sufficient. B. Post

- processing of BLAST output for non

economized buildings t o implement economizing. Preferred method

External static pressure Consider revising fan pressure from rated conditions to field conditions Working group input60 

# Analytical Update Approach

• Because of limited time, resources, and data, not all possible revisions can be considered in this negotiation

• The following process will be used to narrow the approach



# 1 • Identify methodology to use in revised analysis

• Determine which revisions are quantifiable



# 2 • Conduct sensitivity analysis on proposed revisions

• Determine most important revisions



# 3 • Implement important revisions

• Present updated analytical results61 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions

-- LCC

Issue Approach Additional Input Required Design Paths Multiple design paths to be addressed based on system type in building, i.e., Constant Air Volume (CAV) buildings assigned CAV equipment designs and Variable Air Volume (VAV) buildings assigned VAV designs. Manufacturer info on CAV/VAV shipments to complement CBECS data
SAV and VAV Costs Additional installed costs for replacing diffusers and adding controls (e.g., thermostats) in CAV buildings to accommodate Staged Air Volume (SAV) and VAV equipment designs. Input on c ost of diffusers

Conversion Curb Costs Additional installed costs starting at EL3 for conversion curbs to accommodate equipment designs with large footprints. Input on conversion curb pressure drop and cost.62 

# Parking Lot Issues

• Single

- and dual

- compressor designs for 7.5 ton baseline units?

• External Static Pressure

• Conversion Curb External Static Pressure

• Economizers

– BLAST vs. post

- processing

– General analytical approach

– Treatment of failure63 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues/Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up64 

# Description of Units used for revised 15

- ton Analysis

• Path

- 1: EL1 and EL2 constant air volume (CAV) units.

• Path

- 2: EL1 and EL2 staged air flow (SAV) units.

Unit Rating Compressor

Path

- 1 EL Target IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity (IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

Baseline 11.2 11.2/11 176,000 (5,750/12,000 ) 2 (2Stages) ZP76 EL1 12.4 12.2/11 176,000 ( 5,300/11,000 ) 2 (2Stages) ZP103+ZP49 EL2 13.2 13.2/12.2 174,000 ( 4,900 ) 2 (2Stages) ZP76 EL3 14.2 14.2/12 172,000 ( 5,300/11,700 ) 2 (3Stages) ZP90+ZP49 EL3.1 18.5 18.5/12.6 174,000 ( 4,875 ) 2 (3Stages) ZP90+ZP49 (1circuit)

EL4 Maxtech 20.1 20.1/12.7 172,000 ( 5,250/11,700 ) 1VS+2FixSpd ZPV34+2*ZP44

Unit Rating Compressor

Path

- 2 EL Target IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity (IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

EL1 12.4 12.6/11 174,000 ( 5,250 ) 2 (2Stages) ZP76 EL2 13.2 13.2/11 176,000 ( 5,300/11,000 ) 2 (2Stages) ZP103+ZP49



### • The OD and ID heat exchanger designs of the EL1 units have been adjusted using CoilDesigner / VapCyc to match the IEER targets.65 

# 15

- ton Units: Outdoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

OD HX OD Fan

Path

- 1 EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Row *# Speed+Type #*hp

Baseline 11.2 41.4 (23) 1

- MCHX FixedSpeed+PSC 3*0.33

EL1 12.4 35.2 (20) 1

- MCHX adjusted to 36.8 (23) 1 ** FixedSpeed+PSC 2*0.5

EL2 13.2 21.4 (17) 2*2

- TFHX FixedSpeed+PSC 3*0.25

EL3 14.2 42.6 (20) 1

- MCHX FixedSpeed+PSC 2*0.5

EL3.1 18.5 29.6 (18 ) 2*2

- TFHX Staged+ECM 4*0.33

EL4 Maxtech 20.1 42.6 (20) 1

- MCHX VS+ECM 2*0.5

OD HX OD Fan

Path

- 2 EL IEER FA(FPI)Row*# Speed+Type #*hp

EL1 12.4 23.1(17 ) 2*2

- TFHX adjusted to 22.2 (15) 2*2 ** FixedSpeed+PSC 3*0.25

EL2 13.2 35.2 (23) 1

- MCHX FixedSpeed+PSC 2*0.5 **Adjusted using CoilDesigner / VapCyc to match the IEER targets.66 

# 15

- ton Units : Indoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

ID HX ID Fan

Path

- 1 EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Rows Speed+Type hp Baseline 11.2 18.6 (14) 3 FixedSpeed+Belt 3

EL1 12.4 26 (15) 3 adjusted to 26.4 (17) 3 ** FixedSpeed+Belt 3

EL2 13.2 22 (15) 4 FixedSpeed+Belt 2.2 EL3 14.2 31.42 (15) 3 Staged+Belt 3 EL3.1 18.5 26 (15) 4 Staged+Belt 2.9

EL4 Maxtech 20.1 31.4 (15) 4 Staged+Belt 3

ID HX ID Fan

Path

- 2 EL IEER FA(FPI)Row Speed+Type hp

EL1 12.4 17.5 (15) 3 adjusted to 17.2 (14) 3 ** Staged+Belt 2.9

EL2 13.2 26 (15) 3 Staged+Belt 3
**Adjusted using CoilDesigner / VapCyc to match the IEER targets.67 

# Description of Units for revised 7.5

- ton Analysis

• Path

- 1: EL1 and EL2 constant air volume (CAV) units.

• Path

- 2: EL1 and EL2 staged air flow (SAV) units.

Unit Rating Compressor

Path

- 1 EL Target IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity (IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

Baseline 11.4 11.5/11.3 88,000 (3,000/7,200 ) 2 (2stage) ZP38 EL1 12.9 13/12.7 90,000 (3,000/8,800 ) 2 (2stage) ZP34 EL2 14.0 14.0/13.0 92,000 (2,600/8,000 ) 2 (2stage) ZP36 EL3 14.8 15/12.6 89,000 (2,625/6,800 ) 2 (3stage) ZP49+ZP28 EL3.1 19.9 19.9/13.1 89,000 (2,625 ) 2 (3stage ) ZP49+ZP28

EL4 Maxtech 21.5 21.5/13.9 92,000 (2,800/10,250 ) 2 (2stage) ZP34

Unit Rating Compressor

Path

- 2 EL Target IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity (IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

EL1 12.9 (13/11.2) 83,000 (2,250 ) 2 (2stage) ZP38 EL2 14.0 (14/12.7) 90,000 (2,800/8,800 ) 2 (2stage) ZP3468 

# 7.5

- ton Units: Outdoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

OD HX OD Fan

Path

- 1 EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Row *# Speed+Type #*hp

Baseline 11.4 28.8 (27) 2*1 TFHX FixedSpeed+PSC 2*.25

EL1 12.9 29.33 (20) 3 TFHX*1 FixedSpeed+PSC 2*.33

EL2 14.0 27 (23) 1 MCHX*1 FixedSpeed+PSC 2*.33

EL3 14.8 20.7(23) 1Micro*1 FixedSpeed+PSC 1*.75

EL3.1 19.9 36.1 (18) 2*1 TFHX Staged+ECM 3*.33

EL4 Maxtech 21.5 40.8 (20) 2*1 TFHX Staged+ECM 3*.33

OD HX OD Fan

Path

- 2 EL IEER FA(FPI)Row*# Speed+Type #*hp

EL1 12.9 20.5 (17) 2*1 TFHX FixedSpeed+PSC 2*.25

EL2 14.0 29.33 (20) 3*1 TFHX FixedSpeed+PSC 2*.3369 

# 7.5

- ton Units : Indoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

ID HX ID Fan

Path

- 1 EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Rows Speed+Type hp Baseline 11.4 8.9 (16) 4 FixedSpeed+Belt 1.5

EL1 12.9 12.78 (14) 4 FixedSpeed+Belt 1.5

EL2 14.0 13.5 (15) 3 FixedSpeed+Belt 2 EL3 14.8 12.36 (16) 4 Staged+Direct 3.75 EL3.1 19.9 17.5 (15) 4 Staged+Belt 1.7

EL4 Maxtech 21.5 13.54 (14) 4 Staged+Direct 3.75

ID HX ID Fan

Path

- 2 EL IEER FA(FPI)Row Speed+Type hp
EL1 12.9 8.9 (15) 3 Staged+Belt 1.7
EL2 14.0 12.78 (14) 4 Staged+Belt 270 

# Description of Units for revised 30

- ton Analysis

• Preliminary selections

— still to be confirmed.

• Path

- 1: EL1 and EL2 constant air volume (CAV) units.

• Path

- 2: EL1 and EL2 VAV units. Unit Rating Compressor

Path

- 1 EL Target IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity (IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

Baseline 10.1 11.1 /10.3 334,000 (9,000 ) 2 (2Stage) ZP154 EL1 11.6 11.5/10.8 354,000 (9,600/21,500 ) 4 (2Stage) ZP76 EL2 12.5 12.5/10.6 336,000 (9,000/25,800 ) 3 (2Stage) ZP72*2+ZP120 EL3 13.5 13.5/10.8 354,000 (9,600/21,500 ) 4 (2Stage) ZP76 EL3.1 14.9 14.9/11 338,000 (8,700 /?) 2 (2Stage) ZP137

EL4 Maxtech 15.5 EL3.1 with VS Compr

. 338,000 (8,700 /?) VS+Fixed Speed VS+FixedSpeed

Unit Rating Compressor

Path

- 2 EL Target IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity (IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

EL1 11.6 11.5/10.3 334,000 (9,000 ) 2 (2Stage) ZP154 EL2 12.5 12.4/10.1 308,400 (8,250 ) 4 (2Stage) ZP72 Baseline IEER may be raised to 11.1 for 30

- ton units because 10.1

- IEER units are not major

- manufacturer units, and little information is available for them.71 

# 30

- ton Units: Outdoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

OD HX OD Fan

Path

- 1 EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Row *# Speed+Type #*hp

Baseline 11.1 33.3(20)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 2*1

EL1 11.6 68.3(23)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- PSC 6*0.33

EL2 12.5 49.9(20)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 3*1.1

EL3 13.5 68.3(23)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- PSC 6*0.33

EL3.1 14.9 58(25)2*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 3*1

EL4 Maxtech 15.5 58(25)2*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 3*1

OD HX OD Fan

Path

- 2 EL IEER FA(FPI)Row*# Speed+Type #*hp

EL1 11.6 33.3(20)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 2*1

EL2 12.5 33.3(15)4*1 TFHX Fixed

- 3Phase 2*172 

# 30

- ton Units : Indoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

ID HX ID Fan

Path

- 1 EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Rows Speed+Type hp

Baseline 11.1 32.1(15)3 FixedSpeed/Stage +Belt 7.5

EL1 11.6 31.4(14)4 FixedSpeed+Belt 5

EL2 12.5 31.7(15)4 FixedSpeed+Belt 7.5 EL3 13.5 31.4(14)4 VS+Belt 5 EL3.1 14.9 25.5(14)5 VS+Belt 5

EL4 Maxtech 15.5 25.5(14)5 VS+Belt 5

ID HX ID Fan

Path

- 2 EL IEER FA(FPI)Row Speed+Type hp
EL1 11.6 32.1(15)3 VS+Belt 7.5
EL2 12.5 31.7(15)4 VS+Belt 1073 

# Cooling Capacity and Compressor Power Cooling capacity and compressor power consumption at different operating conditions were calculated using University of Maryland modeling tools. Modeled cooling capacity was matched with manufacturer published rating.

• CoilDesigner: segment by segment heat exchanger modeling tool

• VapCyc : refrigeration cycle modeling program that integrates CoilDesigner heat exchanger model and 10

- coefficient
compressor models from compressor manufacturers74 

# Indoor Fan Power

-- Constant Air Volume Blower Indoor fan power calculations are based on fan performance tables in product literature and motor efficiency.

• Shaft power based on rated air flow, test ESP, and product literature.

• Motor efficiency calculations address off

- nameplate horsepower operation consistent with the fan rulemaking.75 

# Indoor Fan Power

-- Staged/Variable Air Volume Calculation of indoor fan power for SAV and VAV units also considers ESP variation with air flow and VFD losses.

• Lower

- stage air flow typically 67% for SAV units.

• ESP proportional to the square of air flow, per AHRI 340/360.

• Shaft power using product literature fan performance tables.

• Motor/VFD efficiency calculation consistent with the pumps rule.76 

# Indoor Fan Power Example

— 15

- ton EL3 (SAV)

• Rated CFM: 5,300

• Motor size: 3 hp

• Interpolation of fan performance table for shaft power: 1.12 hp

• Motor efficiency based on DOE motor standards 89.5%

*121e31dsad Full

- Load Part

- Load Air Flow (cfm) 5,300 3,551 ESP (in wc ) 0.35 0.16 Shaft Power ( hp ) 1.12 0.31
Full Load Loss ( hp ) 0.351 0.351 Loss ( hp ) 0.360 0.240 Efficiency 76% 56% Power Input (W) 1,107 41477 

# Indoor Coil Face Air Velocity

— 15 ton units

Indoor

CFM Face Area [ sq ft ] Face Velocity [ ft /min] Part Load Face Velocity [ ft /min] Baseline 5,750 18.6 309 NA
Path

- 1

- EL

- 1 CAV 5,300 26 204 NA

Path

- 1

- EL

- 2 CAV 4,900 22 223 NA

Path

- 2 EL1 SAV 5,250 17.5 300 201
Path

- 2 EL2 SAV 5,300 26 204 137
EL

- 3 5,300 31.42 169 113

EL3.1 4,875 26 188 113@60 %, 75@40%
EL

- 4 5,250 31.4 167 11278 

# Outdoor fan power

• Power input equation:

• Air flow reported in product literature or reasonable assumption.

• Motor efficiency trend vs. size based on small motor rule.

• Fan discharge loss equal to velocity pressure at exit.

• Coil pressure drop (including loss to turn air upwards towards fans) proportional to face velocity square, correlated based on known condenser examples from product literature and test data.

• Variable outdoor fan operation based on power law with exponent equal to 2.3 (developed from literature data).

• Fan power variation with outdoor temperature using correlations developed from test data.

• Below 65  ̊F, head pressure control operation, linear trend in power from 65  ̊F to 10% power at 35  ̊F. PP cc 

### = ∆ PP cccccccc 

### + ∆ PP dd dd dddddddddd 

### × CCCCCC × 00

. 111111
ηη mm mm 

### ηη ff ff79 

# Outdoor Coil Face Air Velocity

— 15

- ton units

Outdoor CFM Face Area [ sq ft ] Face Velocity [ ft /min] Baseline 12,000 41.4 290 Path

- 1

- EL

- 1 CAV 11,000 35.2 313 Path

- 1

- EL

- 2 CAV 10,500 42.8 245

Path

- 2 EL1 SAV 10,500 46.2 227 Path

- 2 EL2 SAV 11,000 35.2 313 EL

- 3 11700 42.6 275 EL

- 3.1 13,600 59.2 230

EL

- 4 11,700 42.6 275
* Highlighted CFMs are estimated based on tested fan power and/or motor and fan information from product literature. Other CFMs are directly taken from product literature.80 

# Part

- Load Performance and Correlations

• Inputs from product literature for key metrics: capacity, EER, IEER.

• Calculation of indoor and outdoor fan power as described.

• Controls power input consistent with lab measurements.

• CoilDesigner / VapCyc models built to match key performance metrics.

• Develop component wattage profile to confirm match of rated IEER.

• Calculate unit performance for each stage over the range of ambient conditions (65  ̊F, 75  ̊F, 85  ̊F, 95  ̊ F)

• Develop correlations for performance.

• Check correlations to verify the reproduce the correct IEERs.

• Fan

- based head pressure control for ambient below 65  ̊F

– No further change in compressor performance.

– Condenser fan power reduction.81 

# Component Wattage Profile Example

– 15 ton EL3
NOPR

Revision

Stage Ambient Actual % Load Net Cap Cmpr (Pc) Cond (Pcf) Indoor (Pif) Control (Pct) EER Cd LF °F Net Cap Btu/h W W W W Btu/W
3 95 100% 171,963 12,085 1,097 1,108 32 12.01 2 78.3 69.1% 118,753 7,258 1,119 414 24 13.47 75% Interpolation 13.19 1 65.3 44.8% 77,014 2,911 1,136 414 24 17.17 50% Interpolation 16.38 1 65 44.9% 77,127 2,902 1,136 414 24 17.23 25% Adjusted for Cyclic Performance 15.26 1.058 0.557

IEER 14.1882 

# Examples of Performance Correlations

• 1 st 

## Stage

Baseline-Stage-1 Baseline-Stage-2 P1-EL1-Stage-1 P1-EL1-Stage-2 NetCapcity-CoeffcientA -418.7841385 -673.5129793 -504.3280607 -769.859114 NetCapcity-CoeffcientB 123721.4049 239633.327 164309.3997 250510.6909 Cmpr-CoeffcientA 60.59160823 119.0770194 88.84238907 137.2219404 Cmpr-CoeffcientB 1161.46799 1759.799629 581.4532074 496.4948912 Cond Fan Coefficient -0.001186551 -0.001186551 -0.001186551 -0.001186551 Cond Fan Power @ 95F [W] 1100.00 1100.00 1177.00 1177.00 Indoor Fan [W] 1534.00 1534.00 1140.00 1140.00 Control [W] 16.00 21.00 16.00 21.0083 

# Conversion Curbs

• Initial Conversion curb assumptions (replacement units):

– 0.2 in wc conversion curb pressure drop at full air flow. Revised capacity and indoor fan power correlations for building model calculations.

– Conversion curb cost adds 10% to unit installed cost.

– Curb size increase at EL3



## • Modeled results of conversion curb impact on performance

– EL3:

• EER reduced from 12.01 to 11.73

• IEER reduced from 14.18 to 13.92



### – MaxTech

• EER reduced from 12.73 to 12.43

• IEER reduced from 20.08 to 19.6884 

# Cost Results

• NOPR incremental manufacturing production costs (MPC) were based on energy modeled units at each efficiency level.

• After the NOPR, DOE made additional revisions to the manufacturing cost model:

– Updated raw materials and purchased parts costs based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and American Metal Market data.

– Reviewed cost estimates with manufacturers and refined its analysis based on all data and feedback provided.

– Cost model reflects estimates for manufacturer labor and production factors (e.g., assembly/fabrication shifts per day, labor costs, annual production volume, purchasing volumes, etc.).



## • Revised cost estimates based on physical and catalog teardown models using IEER ratings for each airflow design pathway.

– DOE developed incremental MPCs for each manufacturer individually, then averaged results.

– Interpolated/extrapolated costs where IEER values did not match exactly with proposed efficiency levels.85 

# Cost Results

• 7.5

- ton cost

- efficiency curve86 

# Cost Results

• 15

- ton cost

- efficiency curve87 

# Cost Results

• Design changes from 15

- ton EL3 to EL3.1:

– Increased cabinet height by 16% and width by 11%.

– Increased outdoor HX face area by 38%.

– Higher hp and added outdoor fan motors, change from PSC to ECM.

– Change from two refrigerant circuits to single refrigerant circuit.

– Increased indoor HX face area by 18%.

– Higher hp indoor fan motor.88 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues/Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up89 

# Generalized Building Sample

• LCC requires a sample of buildings to provide the additional inputs needed for the energy use and operating cost calculations.

• One row of the LCC sample represents one CUAC unit.

• Total of 10,000 units are modeled in the LCC.

• Some inputs are chosen from distributions, others are assigned based on building characteristics.

• Energy use: internal load s and hours of use.

• Annual operating cost: energy use and electricity price.

• Lifetime operating cost: AOC, lifetime and discount rate.

8990 

# Building Survey Data

• Use floorspace to weight the relative frequency of different relevant building characteristics.

• CBECS 2003 is most recent complete survey.

– Change to survey definitions of the “mall” category between 1995, 1999 and 2003 make it hard to estimate product saturations.



## • Best option is to start with the AEO2014 commercial building stock projections.

9091 

# Building Characteristics (1)

• Internal loads depend on building activity, envelope, occupancy, climate.

• Operating hours depend on climate, schedule.

• Electricity price depends on location, tariff tier.

• Relevant building characteristics:

– Location (including climate zone),

– Building activity,

– Building electricity load size (tariff tier), and

– Building vintage (proxy for envelope etc.).

9192 

# Building Characteristics (2)

92 

## • Region  climate and electricity price

• Building activity  occupancy, schedule, internal loads

• Electric load size  the tier for electricity prices

• Vintage  envelop characteristics and internal loads93 

# Adjustments to AEO

• AEO provides total floorspace by activity and census division starting in 1999.

– Use CBECS to define floorspace distribution in 2003.

– Use AEO to add new floorspace for years 2004

- 2013.

– Incorporate same retirement scheme as AEO.

– Subdivide nine census divisions using population estimates.



## • Use estimated saturations to scale to floorspace using covered equipment.

• Use fixed distribution by electric load size.

9394 

# Floorspace Distribution 2013

94 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,0001700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.1 9.2Floor space in 2011, million square feet

Region and vintage warehouse

other

office-small office-large

mercantile lodging

health care

food service

education assembly95 

# Link to Building Simulations

• CB1995 provided the building info for the 1033 sample.

• Aggregate the 1033 buildings by:

– Region,

– Building activity,

– Vintage, and

– Electric load size.



## • Assign each member of the generalized building sample one of these aggregate energy use profiles.

• For each capacity include only buildings large enough to use at least one unit.

• Incorporate AEO cooling load factors for recent vintages.

9596 

## New Construction Cooling Load Correction Factors (2004

- 13 avg )

96 Census Division Assembly Education Food Sales Food Service Health Care Lodging Large Office Small Office Mercan tile Other

1 0.97 0.96 0.97 1.05 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.05 0.81

2 0.89 0.60 0.94 1.03 0.97 0.98 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.87
3 0.98 0.96 1.00 1.04 0.99 1.03 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.82

4 0.93 0.91 0.96 1.01 0.97 1.03 0.97 0.95 1.04 0.85

5 0.89 0.87 1.00 1.02 0.94 0.95 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.85
6 0.87 0.75 0.83 1.02 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.85 0.91 0.86

7 0.78 0.81 0.92 1.01 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.87 0.91 0.81
8 0.91 0.92 0.98 1.03 1.00 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.76
9.1 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.02 0.87 0.98 0.79 0.86 0.80 0.62
9.2 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.02 0.87 0.98 0.79 0.86 0.80 0.6297 

# Economizing Analysis Issues

• BLAST vs. post

- processing.

• Treatment of economizer failure.

• 80/67 return condition less representative of performance.

• Ignoring infiltration, interior latent loads, moisture level dynamics.

• Ignoring economizer pressure drop.

• Economizer control adaptation to region?

• Ignoring coil frosting potential and heat re

- addition to avoid it

– This issue increases in importance if considering single

- compressor units.98 

# Implementing Economizing

• Select BLAST simulated buildings that do not have economizers

• Calculate absolute humidity of hourly weather data for the buildings’ climate

• Assume that indoor conditions are maintained at 75 ° F with a design 50% RH.

• Determine on an hourly basis whether:

1. Abs Humidity Outdoor A ir 

### < Abs Humidity Indoor Air Design 

### 2. Outdoor Temp dry

- bulb 

### < Indoor Temp dry

- bulb



## • If above conditions are met, then economize

• Reduced cooling load based on:

– Load Econ 

### = CFM CUAC units 

### * 1.08 * (75

– T DB 

### )99 

# Coil

- Frosting Avoidance with Economizing

Potential approach to consider avoidance of coil frosting:

• Determine load associated with cooling outdoor air to 45  ̊F

– Assume 45  ̊F / 90% RH exit condition if there is sufficient moisture in the outdoor air.



## • Compare with capacity of lowest compressor stage at full air flow.

• If low stage capacity is greater, add back heat equal to the difference between this capacity and the outdoor

- to

- 45 ̊F load.100 

# Economizing: BLAST results

• Building sample indicates economizers are in larger buildings with higher cooling loads

• BLAST modeling indicates buildings with economizers have a lower cooling load per square foot

No Economizers Economizers Region Bldg Count Cooling Load Cooled Sq.Ft

. Bldg Count Cooling Load Cooled Sq.Ft

. 1 30 5,204,388 1,415,002 20 13,685,060 3,510,665 2 44 9,155,178 1,874,390 54 83,138,277 15,869,210 3 72 10,515,225 2,342,842 73 39,368,389 9,525,582
4 26 5,271,610 1,031,048 29 25,558,661 5,123,788
5 143 77,914,039 10,469,962 54 45,021,546 8,782,958 6 71 11,894,768 2,374,520 12 17,765,808 3,534,285
7 120 27,949,578 4,517,300 24 48,430,355 7,038,677 8 33 4,326,557 724,770 18 8,240,009 2,013,725 9.1 12 2,859,237 689,040 21 13,299,083 3,964,556 9.2 113 14,251,792 3,187,404 64 15,667,900 3,560,513 Total 664 169,342,373 28,626,278 369 310,175,088 62,923,959

Cooling Load per cooled sq.ft

. Region No Econ Econ
1 3.61 3.36 2 5.27 4.41 3 4.25 4.22
4 4.54 4.24
5 6.44 5.22 6 5.79 5.76
7 6.70 6.86 8 6.23 4.04 9.1 4.14 3.07 9.2 4.38 3.89 National 5.50 4.44101 

# Implementing Economizing

- Results

• West Palm Beach, Large Retail

-1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) West Palm Beach: Large Retail, 250,000 sq.ft. No Econ, Oversizing = 1.088344

Total Cooling Load = 12.97 billion Btus

-1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) West Palm Beach: Large Retail, 250,000 sq.ft. Econ applied , Oversizing = 1.088344

Total Cooling Load = 12.50 billion Btus102 

# Implementing Economizing

- Results

• Memphis, Small Retail

-200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Memphis: Small Retail, 20,000 sq.ft. No Econ, Oversizing = 1.164165

Total Cooling Load = 1.22 billion Btus

-200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Memphis: Small Retail, 20,000 sq.ft.

Econ applied , Oversizing = 1.164165

Total Cooling Load = 1.01 billion Btus103 

# Implementing Economizing

- Results

• Houston, School

-500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Houston: School, 50,000 sq.ft.

No Econ, Oversizing = 1.168654

Total Cooling Load = 1.63 billion Btus

-500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Houston: School, 50,000 sq.ft. Econ applied , Oversizing = 1.168654

Total Cooling Load = 1.50 billion Btus104 

# Implementing Economizing

- Results

• Baltimore, Large Retail

-100,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 900,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Baltimore: Large Retail, 35,000 sq.ft. No Econ, Oversizing = 1.114521

Total Cooling Load = 1.44 billion Btus

-100,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 900,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Baltimore: Large Retail, 35,000 sq.ft. Econ applied , Oversizing = 1.114521

Total Cooling Load = 1.02 billion Btus105 

# Implementing Economizing

- Results

• Chicago, Large Office

-500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Chicago: Large Office, 65,000 sq.ft. No Econ, Oversizing = 1.084295

Total Cooling Load = 1.83 billion Btus

-500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) Chicago: Large Office, 65,000 sq.ft.

Econ applied , Oversizing = 1.084295

Total Cooling Load = 1.31 billion Btus106 

# Implementing Economizing

- Results

• El Paso, Small Office

-50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) El Paso: Small Office, 12,500 sq.ft. No Econ, Oversizing = 1.067514

Total Cooling Load = 0.26 billion Btus

-50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Building Load (Btu)

Dry

- Bulb Temp ('F) El Paso: Small Office, 12,500 sq.ft. No Econ, Oversizing = 1.067514

Total Cooling Load = 0.20 billion Btus107 

# Energy Code Adoption

Source: www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states108 

# Energy Code Compliance

State Survey Year Compliance Rate Compliance Rate Notes Building Sample Source

California 2007 0%

- 56% Average compliance with each of 4 components (lighting and duct related); Each building receives score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each measure 400 records (100 on

site) Khawaja et al 2007

Minnesota 1994 50% Percent of buildings that complied with lighting measures in code 38 on

- site Czershin et al 1994 Mass. 2012 83% On average buildings perform 17% worse than code; No building was 100% in compliance 75 on

- site DNV KEMA et al 2012 New York 2011 36% Percent of buildings passing 26 on

- site Harper et al 2012 85% The proportion of all energy code requirements, averaged across all sampled buildings that are in compliance109 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. Negotiation Process

3. Ground Rules

4. Establishment of Meetings

5. CUAC/CWAF Issues/Planned Analytical Updates

6. Engineering Analysis Details [If time allows]

7. Energy Use Analysis Details [If time allows]

8. Wrap

- Up110 

## Next Steps

• Revisions to proposed schedule based on today’s progress?

• Other issues to consider during the next Working Group meeting?