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

CUAC/CWAF ASRAC Working Group

First Meeting

April 28, 2015

Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program
2

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-Up
3

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 1996
7

 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 Role
9

• A group of potentially impacted stakeholders, using a consensusbased 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 Register
12

• 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 Facilitator
13

• 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 Facilitator
14

• Guide the Discussions

• Coach

• Moderator

• Help clarify issues and 

interests

• Assist in generating options

• Private discussions

The Role of the Facilitator
15

• Watch for people backing away from tentative consensus

• When substance breaks down, move to process

• When process breaks 

down, move to substance

Facilitating the Meeting
16

• 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 Neutral
17

Negotiated Rulemaking: 

The Participants
18

• 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 Parties
19

The 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 Rule
20

Negotiating the Rule

• The First Meeting

– Setting the Stage

– Training

– Negotiating the Protocols

• Subsequent Meetings

• Between Meetings

• Using Smaller Working

Groups, if needed
21

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 Meeting
22

Committee Participation

 Members

 Responsibilities

 Attendance

 Alternatives

– Observers

• Adding Members

• Support staff

• Withdrawal/removal procedures

Negotiating the Protocols
23

Decision Making

• Consensus

• Tentative consensus

• Caucuses

• Work Groups

Negotiating the Protocols

Objective of Committee

 Purpose of Rule
24

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 Protocols
25

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 Protocols
26

• 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 Meetings
27

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?

• Evaluation
28

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-Up
29

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 15
30

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 analysis
32

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-Up
33

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 sheet
34

• 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 create a solution that can be supported by everyone

• Aim for a solution that considers the INTERESTS of 

everyone

Consensus Guidelines
36

• Ask Questions

• Raise Valid Doubts

• Offer Alternatives

• Don't Compete for 

Individual Ideas

Consensus Guidelines
37

• Agree Completely

• Acceptable

• Can Live with the Decision

• Do Not agree - But Won’t 

Block and will support

• Do Not Agree & Will Block

Consensus Ladder
38

 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” Responsibility
39

• Temperature Check

• Consensus Confirmation (Final)

39

How to Gauge for Consensus
40

• §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 Consensus
41

• §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 Consensus
42

• 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 Consensus
43

• 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 Consensus
44

• Super-majority*

• Daily numbers

44

Consensus Confirmation
45

• If committee fails to reach consensus, the process should 

narrow the issues in dispute, rank priorities and identify 

potentially acceptable solutions

The Role of Consensus
46

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-Up
47

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 compliance
48

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 classes
49

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-Up
50

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 aircooled 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 COP
52

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 issues
54

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

RFI NOPR Final 

Rule
55

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. dualcircuit for 7.5 ton 

baseline and EL1

Moved to dual-circuit. Consider mix of 

single- and dualcompressor?

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.

None
56

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.

None
57

Summary of Analysis Approach Revisions--Equipment

Issue Approach Additional Input 

Required

Microchannel 

vs. Round Tube

Comparable 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.

None
58

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 CD at highest stage of operation 

rather than setting CD equal to 1.

Implement methodology for treating units in a single 

building separately – i.e., not running at same load.

None

Indoor 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.

None
59

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 noneconomized buildings to implement economizing.

Preferred method

External 

static 

pressure

Consider revising fan pressure from rated conditions 

to field conditions

Working group 

input
60

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 results
61

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 cost 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 failure
63

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-Up
64

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) ZP34
68

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*.33
69

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 2
70

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*1
72

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 10
73

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 manufacturers
74

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) 1,107 414
77

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 31.4 167 112
78

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.

PPcc =

∆PPcccccccc + ∆PPdd dd dddddddddd × CCCCCC × 00. 111111

ηηmm mm ηηff ff
79

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 14.18
82

Examples of Performance Correlations

• 1st 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 21.00
83

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 19.68
84

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 curve
86

Cost Results

• 15-ton cost-efficiency curve
87

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-Up
89

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 loads and hours of use.

• Annual operating cost: energy use and electricity price.

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

89
90

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.

90
91

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.).

91
92

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 loads 
93

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.

93
94

Floorspace Distribution 2013

94

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-20131700-19801981-19992000-2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.1 9.2

Floor space in 2011, million square feet

Region and vintage 

warehouse

other

office-small

office-large

mercantile

lodging

health care

food service

education

assembly
95

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.

95
96

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 0.62
97

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 HumidityOutdoor Air < Abs HumidityIndoor Air Design

2. Outdoor Tempdry-bulb < Indoor Tempdry-bulb

• If above conditions are met, then economize

• Reduced cooling load based on: 

– LoadEcon = CFMCUAC units * 1.08 * (75 – TDB)
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 4.44
101

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 90 100

Building 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 90 100

Building 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 Btus
102

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 90 100

Building 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 90 100

Building Load (Btu)

Dry-Bulb Temp ('F)

Memphis: Small Retail, 20,000 sq.ft.

Econ applied, Oversizing = 1.164165

Total Cooling Load = 1.01 billion Btus
103

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 90 100

Building 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 90 100

Building Load (Btu)

Dry-Bulb Temp ('F)

Houston: School, 50,000 sq.ft.

Econ applied, Oversizing = 1.168654

Total Cooling Load = 1.50 billion Btus
104

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 90 100

Building 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 90 100

Building Load (Btu)

Dry-Bulb Temp ('F)

Baltimore: Large Retail, 35,000 sq.ft.

Econ applied, Oversizing = 1.114521

Total Cooling Load = 1.02 billion Btus
105

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 80 100 Building 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 80 100 Building Load (Btu)

Dry-Bulb Temp ('F)

Chicago: Large Office, 65,000 sq.ft.

Econ applied, Oversizing = 1.084295

Total Cooling Load = 1.31 billion Btus
106

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 90 100

Building 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 90 100

Building 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 Btus
107

Energy Code Adoption

Source: www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states
108

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 onsite)

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 

85% The proportion of all energy code al 2012

requirements, averaged

across all sampled buildings that are in 

compliance
109

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-Up
110

Next Steps

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

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