CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED ............................................................................ 5-2

5.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY METRICS .................................................................................. 5-5

5.4 EFFICIENCY LEVELS ...................................................................................................... 5-5

5.4.1 Representative Cooling Capacities......................................................................... 5-5

5.4.2 Baseline Units.......................................................................................................... 5-6

5.4.3 Incremental Efficiency Levels................................................................................ 5-7

5.5 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 5-9

5.5.1 Manufacturer Interviews....................................................................................... 5-10

5.5.2 Equipment Teardown ............................................................................................ 5-10

5.5.2.1 Selection of Units...................................................................................... 5-11

5.5.2.2 Generation of Bills of Materials............................................................... 5-11

5.5.2.3 Cost Structure of the Spreadsheet Models............................................... 5-12

5.5.3 Shipping Costs....................................................................................................... 5-13

5.5.4 Equipment Testing................................................................................................. 5-13

5.6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................... 5-14

5.6.1 Manufacturer Interviews....................................................................................... 5-14

5.6.2 Equipment Testing................................................................................................. 5-14

5.6.3 Equipment Teardown ............................................................................................ 5-18

5.6.4 Cost-Efficiency Results......................................................................................... 5-21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.2.1 Equipment Classes for PTACs and PTHPs................................................................ 5-3

Table 5.2.2 Equipment Classes Covered by this Rulemaking...................................................... 5-4

Table 5.4.1 Baseline Efficiency Levels........................................................................................... 5-7

Table 5.4.2 Incremental Efficiency Levels..................................................................................... 5-9

Table 5.5.1 Major Manufacturing Processes ............................................................................... 5-13

Table 5.6.1 PTAC and PTHP Test Units at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity............................................. 5-15

Table 5.6.2 PTAC and PTHP Test Units at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity........................................... 5-16

Table 5.6.3 Test Results of Selected PTAC and PTHP Units .................................................... 5-17

Table 5.6.4. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTACs at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity ....................... 5-24

Table 5.6.5. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTHPs at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity........................ 5-24

Table 5.6.6. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTACs at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity ..................... 5-25

Table 5.6.7. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTACs at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity ..................... 5-25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.4.1 COP versus EER for Standard Size PTHPs with 9,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity from 

2013 AHRI directory ................................................................................................ 5-8

5-i 
Figure 5.4.2 COP versus EER for Standard Size PTHPs with 15,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity 

from 2013 AHRI directory ....................................................................................... 5-8

Figure 5.5.1 Manufacturing Cost Assessment Stages.................................................................. 5-12

Figure 5.6.1 Baseline 9,000 Btu/h PTAC Full Production Cost Distribution............................. 5-19

Figure 5.6.2 Baseline 9,000 Btu/h PTAC Materials Cost Distribution....................................... 5-19

Figure 5.6.3 Baseline 15,000 Btu/h PTAC Full Production Cost Distribution .......................... 5-20

Figure 5.6.4 Baseline 15,000 Btu/h PTAC Materials Cost Distribution..................................... 5-20

Figure 5.6.5 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard Size PTACs 

with a Cooling Capacity of 9,000 Btu/h ................................................................ 5-21

Figure 5.6.6 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard Size PTHPs 

with a Cooling Capacity of 9,000 Btu/h ................................................................ 5-22

Figure 5.6.7 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard Size PTACs 

with a Cooling Capacity of 15,000 Btu/h .............................................................. 5-22

Figure 5.6.8 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard Size PTHPs 

with a Cooling Capacity of 15,000 Btu/h .............................................................. 5-23

Figure 5.6.9 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard Size PTACs 

and PTHPs with Cooling Capacities of 9,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h............... 5-23

5-ii
CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

After conducting the screening analysis, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

performed an engineering analysis based on the remaining design options. The 

engineering analysis consists of estimating the energy consumption and costs of products 

at various levels of increased efficiency. This section provides an overview of the 

engineering analysis (section 5.1), discusses proposed equipment classes (section 5.2), 

describes the efficiency metrics used for this equipment (section 5.3), establishes baseline 

unit specifications (section 5.4.2), discusses incremental efficiency levels (section 5.4.3), 

explains the methodology used during data gathering (section 5.5) and discusses the 

analysis and results (section 5.6) 

The primary inputs to the engineering analysis are baseline information from the 

market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of this technical support document (TSD)) 

and technology options from the screening analysis (chapter 4). Additional inputs 

include laboratory testing and reverse-engineering of representative equipment, and 

manufacturer interviews. The primary output of the engineering analysis is a set of costefficiency curves. In the subsequent markups analysis (chapter 6), DOE determined 

customer (i.e., equipment purchaser) prices by applying distribution markups, sales tax 

and contractor markups. After applying these markups and an assumed installation cost, 

the customer prices serve as the input to the building energy-use and end-use load 

characterization (chapter 7) and the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) 

analyses (chapter 8).

DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three 

methodologies. These are: (1) the design-option approach, which calculates the 

incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model that will improve 

its efficiency (i.e., lower its energy use); (2) the efficiency-level approach, which 

calculates the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without 

regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and/or (3) the 

reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) approach, which provides “bottom-up” 

manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, 

based on teardown analyses (or physical teardowns) providing detailed data on costs for 

parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels. A supplementary method called a catalog teardown uses 

published manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the 

major physical differences between a piece of equipment that has been physically 

disassembled and another piece of similar equipment for which catalog data are available 

to determine the cost of the latter equipment. Deciding which methodology to use for the 

engineering analysis depends on the product, the design options under study, and any 

historical data upon which DOE can draw.

To establish the industry cost-efficiency curves for PTAC and PTHP equipment, 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) used the efficiency-level approach and the reverse 

5-1 
engineering approach. DOE designated a baseline efficiency level equivalent to the 

minimum efficiency allowed by energy conservation standards.a

 DOE set efficiency 

levels at incremental steps above the baseline up to the maximum efficiency level that is 

technologically feasible using current technologies. 

To estimate the manufacturing production costs for equipment at each efficiency 

level, DOE reverse engineered a set of PTAC and PTHP equipment that was specifically 

selected to represent the range of efficiency levels. This reverse engineering involved the 

disassembly of units, analysis of the materials and manufacturing processes, and 

development of a spreadsheet cost model based on a clear and consistent manufacturing 

cost assessment methodology. DOE built a detailed cost assessment model that accurately 

estimates the manufacturing production cost (MPC) associated with producing a specific 

piece of equipment. The cost model reports those costs in aggregated form to maintain 

confidentiality of the data.

5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED

Existing Federal energy conservation standards (ECS), shown in Table 5 of 10 

CFR Part 431.97, divide PTACs and PTHPs into twelve equipment classes based on 

whether the equipment is an air conditioner or heat pump, the cooling capacity, and the 

equipment’s wall sleeve dimensions, which fall into two categories:

• Standard size (PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions greater 

than or equal to 16 inches high, or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide)

• Non-standard size (PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions less 

than 16 inches high and less than 42 inches wide)

The twelve equipment classes for PTACs and PTHPs are listed in Table 5.2.1, and 

correspond to those contained in ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013.

a

 DOE set the baseline level equivalent to the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 minimum for PTAC 

and PTHP equipment, since DOE is required to, at a minimum, adopt the ASHRAE levels as the Federal 

standard. (42 U.S.C. (a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)).

5-2 

 
Table 5.2.1 Equipment Classes for PTACs and PTHPs

Equipment Class

Equipment Category Cooling Capacity

PTAC

Standard Size*

<7,000 Btu/h

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h

>15,000 Btu/h

Non-Standard Size**

<7,000 Btu/h

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h

>15,000 Btu/h

PTHP

Standard Size*

<7,000 Btu/h

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h

>15,000 Btu/h

Non-Standard Size**

<7,000 Btu/h

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h

>15,000 Btu/h *

 Standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions greater than or equal to 16 

inches high, or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide. 

** Wall sleeve dimensions less than 16 inches high and less than 42 inches wide. 

DOE is not considering amended energy conservation standards for non-standard 

size PTAC and PTHP equipment in this rulemaking, because the non-standard size 

equipment classes represent a small and declining portion of the market, and because of a 

lack of adequate information to analyze non-standard size units. The shipments analysis 

conducted for the 2008 final rule projected that shipments of non-standard size PTACs 

and PTHPs would decline from about 30,000 units in 2012 (6.6% of the entire PTAC and 

PTHP market) to about 16,000 units in 2042 (2.4% of the entire PTAC and PTHP 

market).

b

For the purposes of this rulemaking, DOE analyzed the six standard size 

equipment classes for PTACs and PTHPs, presented in Table 5.2.2. 

b

 See DOE’s discussion regarding shipment projections for standard and non-standard PTAC and PTHP 

equipment and the results of shipment projections in TSD for the 2008 PTAC and PTHP energy 

conservation standard rulemaking at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012-0032 (Chapter 10, Section 

10.5). 

5-3 

 
Table 5.2.2 Equipment Classes Covered by this Rulemaking

Equipment Class

Equipment Category Cooling Capacity

PTAC Standard Size*

<7,000 Btu/h

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h

>15,000 Btu/h

PTHP Standard Size*

<7,000 Btu/h

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h

>15,000 Btu/h *

 Standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions greater than or equal to 16 

inches high, or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide. 

The current Federal energy conservation standards and the efficiency levels 

specified by ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 for PTAC and PTHP equipment

are a function of the equipment’s cooling capacity. Both standards have equations to 

calculate the efficiency levels for PTACs and PTHPs in the cooling capacity range 

between 7,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h for each equipment class. For equipment with 

cooling capacities below 7,000 Btu/h and above 15,000 Btu/h, current Federal energy 

conservation standards and ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 maintain a constant 

efficiency level equal to the value of the efficiency equation at either 7,000 Btu/h or 

15,000 Btu/h cooling capacity (e.g., the efficiency level for 6,000 Btu/h cooling capacity 

equipment equals the efficiency level for 7,000 Btu/h cooling capacity equipment, and 

the efficiency level for 16,000 Btu/h cooling capacity equipment equals the efficiency 

level for 15,000 Btu/h cooling capacity equipment). 

For the engineering analysis, DOE examined specific cooling capacities for 

standard size PTACs and PTHPs, which are referred to as “representative cooling 

capacities.” Interviews with manufacturers indicated that the majority of PTAC and 

PTHP shipments are in the classes with cooling capacity between 7,000 Btu/h to 15,000 

Btu/h. According to the certification data provided by the 2013 AHRI Directory of 

Certified Performance (2013 AHRI Directory), over 90 percent of standard-size PTAC 

and PTHP models available on the market are within the 7,000 Btu/h to 15,000 Btu/h 

cooling capacity range.1

 DOE focused its analysis on equipment with cooling capacities

in the range between 7,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h. 

5-4 
5.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY METRICS 

The current energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs are based on 

energy efficiency ratio (EER) for cooling efficiency and on coefficient of performance 

(COP) for PTHP heating efficiency. 10 CFR 431.97(c). The current Federal test 

procedure for PTACs and PTHPs incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI/CSA 310/380-

2004 Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps.

c

 

ANSI/AHRI/CSA 310/380-2004 defines EER as “the ratio of the produced cooling effect 

of an air conditioner or heat pump to its net work input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.”

COP is defined by ANSI/AHRI/CSA 310/380-2004 as “the ratio of the produced cooling 

effect of an air conditioner or heat pump (or its produced heating effect, depending on the 

mode of operation) to its net work input, when both the cooling (or heating) effect and 

the net work input are expressed in identical units of measurement.”

In conducting the engineering analysis, DOE only considered technologies and 

techniques that improve the EER and COP of PTAC and PTHP equipment. As 

mentioned in the screening analysis (Chapter 4 of this TSD), there are some technology

options and techniques that could reduce the annual energy consumption of the system, 

but that have little effect on EER. DOE did not consider technology options that have 

negligible effects on EER and COP.

5.4 EFFICIENCY LEVELS

5.4.1 Representative Cooling Capacities

Because there are large variations in equipment cooling capacity and performance 

in the standard size PTAC and PTHP equipment classes, DOE analyzed some of the 

cooling capacities individually. DOE selected representative cooling capacities and 

analyzed specific equipment to provide information representative of the entire 

equipment class. The representative cooling capacities allowed DOE to establish 

baseline units that are used throughout the rulemaking analyses. 

For standard-size PTAC and PTHP equipment classes, DOE identified two

representative cooling capacities: 9,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h. Both representative 

cooling capacities fall within the ≥7,000 and ≤15,000 Btu/h cooling capacity range. DOE 

selected the representative cooling capacity of 9,000 Btu/h because this capacity had the 

c

 DOE has incorporated by reference ANSI/AHRI/CSA Standard 310/380-2004 as the DOE test procedure 

at 10 CFR 431.97. 

5-5 

 
highest number of standard-size PTAC and PTHP models listed in the 2013 AHRI 

Directory. Chapter 3 of this TSD presents the distribution of models in the 2013 AHRI 

Directory at different capacity levels for standard-size PTAC and PTHP equipment. 

DOE selected the representative cooling capacity of 15,000 Btu/h because, according to 

several manufacturers interviewed, the 15,000 Btu/h cooling capacity represents the 

greatest technical hurdles for efficiency improvement, considering the size constraints of 

standard-size PTACs and PTHPs. 

DOE used the analytical results for the two representative cooling capacities to 

examine the slope of the energy-efficiency equation (i.e., EER as a function of cooling 

capacity). Chapter 9 of this TSD contains more details explaining how DOE extrapolates 

the proposed amended energy conservation standards for the representative cooling 

capacities to the entire range of cooling capacities.

5.4.2 Baseline Units

DOE selected baseline units as reference points for each equipment class, against 

which DOE measured changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. 

The baseline unit in each equipment class represents the basic characteristics of 

equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline unit is a unit that just meets current required 

energy conservation standards and provides basic consumer utility. DOE used the 

baseline units in the engineering analysis and the life-cycle-cost and payback-period 

analysis. 

The baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class are presented below in 

Table 5.4.1. These levels represent the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 

minimums for PTAC and PTHP equipment. These levels are used as the Baselines for 

PTAC and PTHP equipment since DOE is required to, at a minimum, adopt the 

ASHRAE levels as the Federal standard. (42 U.S.C. (a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)). The Baseline 

efficiency level is 1.8% higher than current Federal standard for PTAC equipment, but is

equal to current Federal standard for PTHP equipment. 

5-6 
Table 5.4.1 Baseline Efficiency Levels

Equipment 

Type

Equipment 

Class Baseline Efficiency Equation Cooling Capacity

Baseline 

Efficiency 

Level

PTAC Standard 

Size EER = 14.0 – (0.300 x Cap†

) 9,000 Btu/h 11.3 EER

15,000 Btu/h 9.5 EER

PTHP Standard 

Size

EER = 14.0 – (0.300 x Cap†

) 

COP = 3.7 – (0.052 x Cap†

) 

9,000 Btu/h 11.3 EER

3.2 COP

15,000 Btu/h 9.5 EER

2.9 COP

† Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95oF outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

5.4.3 Incremental Efficiency Levels

For the equipment classes presented in section 5.2, DOE analyzed several 

efficiency levels and obtained incremental cost data at each of these levels. Table 5.4.2

presents the efficiency levels for each equipment class.

As part of the NOPR analyses, DOE considered five efficiency levels beyond the 

baseline efficiency level for each equipment class. DOE selected these levels based on a 

review of the efficiency levels of available equipment. DOE indicated in the framework 

document for this rulemaking that it planned to consider a maximum efficiency level 

20% higher than the current Federal PTAC ECS, because PTAC rating data in the 2013 

AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance showed that this is a level attained by 

available equipment. 78 FR 12252. However, DOE’s testing of PTAC and PTHP 

equipment as part of this rulemaking shows that the highest efficiency level attained by a 

standard size PTAC or PTHP unit on the market is 18% above the current DOE PTAC 

standard level. Accordingly, DOE revised the maximum efficiency level for this analysis 

from 20% to 18% above the 2012 PTAC standard. 

For the PTHP equipment classes, DOE is proposing heating efficiency levels 

based on the variation of COP with EER, as discussed in the framework document for 

this rulemaking. 78 FR 12252. DOE evaluated AHRI data for PTHP equipment to 

develop the relationship between COP and EER and used this relationship to establish the 

proposed COP efficiency levels. Figure 5.4.1 and Figure 5.4.2 below show the COP and 

EER data and best-fit linear relationships for standard size PTHP units with 9,000 Btu/h 

or 15,000 Btu/h cooling capacity results. 

5-7 
Figure 5.4.1 COP versus EER for Standard Size PTHPs with 9,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity from 2013 AHRI directory

Figure 5.4.2 COP versus EER for Standard Size PTHPs with 15,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity from 2013 AHRI directory

COP = 0.241*(EER) + 0.480

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

COP (no unit)

EER (Btu/Wh)

COP = 0.261*(EER) + 0.374

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

COP (no unit)

EER (Btu/Wh)

5-8 
DOE established COP efficiency levels for PTHPs at 9,000 and 15,000 Btu/h 

using the EER values corresponding to the incremental cooling performance efficiency 

levels and the linear equations developed for the COP/EER relationships that are shown 

in the figures. The resulting incremental COP efficiency levels are shown for PTHP 

equipment in Table 5.4.2. 

Table 5.4.2 Incremental Efficiency Levels

Equipment 

Type

Cooling 

Capacity 

Efficiency 

Metric

Efficiency Levels (Percentages relative to 2012 PTAC ECS)

Current 

Federal 

PTAC 

ECS*

EL1, 

Baseline, 

1.8%** 

EL2, 

4%

EL3, 

8%

EL4, 

12% 

EL5, 

16% 

EL6, 18% 

(MaxTech)

PTAC, 

Standard Size

7,000-

15,000 

Btu/h

EER

13.8 -

(0.300 x 

Cap†

)

14.0 -

(0.300 x 

Cap†

)

14.4 -

(0.312 x 

Cap†

)

14.9 -

(0.324 x 

Cap†

)

15.5 -

(0.336 x 

Cap†

)

16.0 -

(0.348 x 

Cap†

)

16.3 -

(0.354 x 

Cap†

)

9,000 

Btu/h EER 11.1 EER 11.3 EER 11.5 EER 12.0 EER 12.4 EER 12.9 EER 13.1 EER 

15,000 

Btu/h EER 9.3 EER 9.5 EER 9.7 EER 10.0 EER 10.4 EER 10.8 EER 11.0 EER 

Equipment 

Type

Cooling 

Capacity

Efficiency 

Metric

Baseline, 

1.8%** 

EL1, 

4% 

EL2, 

8%

EL3, 

12%

EL4, 

16%

EL5, 18% 

(MaxTech)

PTHP, 

Standard 

Size

7,000-

15,000 

Btu/h

EER

14.0 -

(0.300 x 

Cap†

) 

14.4 -

(0.312 x 

Cap†

) 

14.9 -

(0.324 x 

Cap†

) 

15.5 -

(0.336 x 

Cap†

) 

16.0 -

(0.348 x 

Cap†

) 

16.3 -

(0.354 x 

Cap†

) 

7,000-

15,000 

Btu/h

COP 3.7 - (0.052 

x Cap†) 

3.8 -

(0.058 x 

Cap†

) 

4.0 - (0.064 

x Cap†) 

4.1 - (0.068 

x Cap†) 

4.2 -

(0.070 x 

Cap†

) 

4.3 - (0.073 

x Cap†

) 

9,000 

Btu/h

EER

COP

11.3 EER

3.2 COP 

11.5 EER

3.3 COP 

12.0 EER

3.4 COP 

12.4 EER

3.5 COP 

12.9 EER

3.6 COP 

13.1 EER

3.6 COP 

15,000 

Btu/h

EER

COP

9.5 EER

2.9 COP 

9.7 EER

2.9 COP 

10.0 EER

3.0 COP 

10.4 EER

3.1 COP 

10.8 EER

3.2 COP 

11.0 EER

3.2 COP 

* This level represents the current Federal minimum for PTAC equipment. 

** This level represents the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 minimum for PTAC and PTHP 

equipment. This level is used as the Baseline for PTAC and PTHP equipment since DOE is required to, at a 

minimum, adopt the ASHRAE levels as the Federal standard. (42 U.S.C. (a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)). DOE notes that 

the Baseline level is 1.8% higher than current Federal ECS for PTAC equipment, but is equivalent to 

current Federal ECS for PTHP equipment. For PTAC equipment, the Baseline level is also termed EL1. 

† Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95oF outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

5.5 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

In order to develop the cost-efficiency relationships for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE 

conducted testing and performed detailed equipment teardowns and reverse-engineering 

analyses on a sample of models spanning a range of rated efficiencies. DOE 

supplemented these analyses by conducting interviews with equipment manufacturers to 

5-9 
gain a better understanding of the design options and costs associated with achieving 

higher efficiency levels. 

5.5.1 Manufacturer Interviews

Throughout the rulemaking process, DOE seeks feedback and insight from 

stakeholders to improve the information used in the analyses. For the engineering 

analysis, DOE conducted confidential interviews with manufacturers of PTACs and 

PTHPs to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of technologies 

used to increase equipment efficiency and their associated manufacturing costs. DOE 

considered all the information manufacturers provided when refining the cost model. 

DOE incorporated confidential information (i.e., equipment and manufacturing process 

figures) into the analysis in the form of averages to avoid disclosing sensitive information 

about individual manufacturers’ equipment or manufacturing processes.

Before these interviews, DOE provided manufacturers with an engineering 

information package that included a spreadsheet with preliminary assumptions, estimates, 

and cost-efficiency curves, and a list of possible questions to be asked during the 

interview. DOE asked manufacturers to provide feedback if the data was representative 

of the market and to supply any data that could improve DOE’s estimates and 

assumptions. DOE’s questions included the following:

• Which design features affecting energy use are generally incorporated into 

“baseline” PTACs and PTHPs?

• What are the costs of attaining the individual efficiency levels selected? How 

do these efficiency levels correspond to the various design options listed? 

What other design options do you use to attain the various efficiency levels?

• Do the industry manufacturing costs calculated by DOE represent your firm’s 

costs for standard and size PTAC and PTHP?

DOE also requested information on a number of other factors that affect 

manufacturing cost and the incremental cost associated with attaining higher efficiency 

levels. 

5.5.2 Equipment Teardown 

Other than obtaining detailed manufacturing costs directly from a manufacturer, the 

most accurate method for determining the production cost of a piece of equipment is to 

disassemble the equipment piece-by-piece and estimate the material and labor cost of 

each component using a process commonly called a physical teardown. 

To calculate the manufacturing costs of the different components in PTACs and 

PTHPs, DOE disassembled multiple units into their component parts and used cost 

modeling techniques to estimate the cost of materials, labor, and capital required to 

fabricate and assemble the components into a complete piece of equipment. The 

teardown methodology is described in detail in section 5.5.2.1 through section 5.5.2.3.

5-10 
5.5.2.1 Selection of Units

DOE selected several standard-size PTAC and PTHP units to represent the 

market, and used these for teardown in the engineering analysis. The selected equipment 

exhibited the following five characteristics:

1. The selected equipment, taken together, cover the full range of efficiency 

levels considered in the analysis.

2. The selected equipment has cooling capacity corresponding to one of the 

selected representative cooling capacities (9,000 Btu/h or 15,000 Btu/h).

3. When possible, DOE selected one lower-efficiency unit and one higherefficiency unit from the same manufacturer. When possible, those units 

shared similar characteristics (e.g., both from the same product line).

4. The equipment tended to be from manufacturers with relatively large shares of 

the PTAC and PTHP markets, and thus was representative of typical design 

approaches.

5. The selected equipment included base units with few, if any, equipment

features or options that add cost without affecting equipment efficiency.

5.5.2.2 Generation of Bills of Materials

The end result of each teardown is a structured bill of materials (BOM). 

Structured BOMs describe each equipment part and its relationship to the other parts, in 

the estimated order of assembly. The BOMs describe each fabrication and assembly 

operation in detail, including the type of equipment needed (e.g., stamping presses, 

injection molding machines, spot-welders, etc.) and the process cycle times. The result is 

a thorough and explicit model of the production process, which includes space, conveyor, 

and equipment requirements by planned production level.

The BOMs incorporate all materials, components, and fasteners, classified as 

either raw materials or purchased parts and assemblies. The classification into raw 

materials or purchased parts is based on DOE’s previous industry experience, recent 

information in trade publications, and discussions with high- and low-volume original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs). 

For purchased parts, the purchase price is an estimate based on volume-variable 

price quotations and detailed discussions with suppliers. For fabricated parts, the price of 

intermediate materials (e.g., tube, sheet metal) and the cost of transforming them into 

finished parts are an estimate based on current industry pricing. DOE shared major 

assumptions and estimates with manufacturers during the engineering manufacturer 

interviews to gain feedback on the analysis, its methodology, and preliminary results.

5-11 
The cost of raw materials is determined using prices for copper, steel and 

aluminum from the American Metals Market.2

 Because DOE is using a 5-year average 

in material prices from 2009–2013, these price increases are normalized, which better 

represents long-term material prices.

5.5.2.3 Cost Structure of the Spreadsheet Models

The manufacturing cost assessment methodology used is a detailed, componentfocused technique for rigorously calculating the manufacturing cost of a product (direct 

materials, direct labor and some overhead costs.) Figure 5.5.1 shows the three major steps 

in generating the manufacturing cost.

Figure 5.5.1 Manufacturing Cost Assessment Stages

The first step in the manufacturing cost assessment is the creation of a complete 

and structured BOM from the disassembly of the units selected for teardown. The units 

are dismantled, and each part is characterized according to weight, manufacturing 

processes used, dimensions, material, and quantity. The BOM incorporates all materials, 

components, and fasteners with estimates of raw material costs and purchased part costs. 

Assumptions on the sourcing of parts and in-house fabrication are based on industry 

experience, information in trade publications, and discussions with manufacturers. 

Interviews and plant visits are also conducted with manufacturers to ensure accuracy on 

methodology and pricing.

Following the development of a detailed BOM, the major manufacturing 

processes are identified and developed for the spreadsheet model. These processes are 

listed in Table 5.5.1.

5-12 
Table 5.5.1 Major Manufacturing Processes

Fabrication Finishing Assembly/Joining Quality Control

Injection Molding Washing Adhesive Bonding Inspecting & Testing

Stamping/Pressing Powder Coating Spot Welding

Turret Punching De-burring Seam Welding

Brake Forming Polishing Brazing

Cutting and Shearing

Tube Forming

Fabrication process cycle times are estimated and entered into the BOM. For this 

analysis, $9.10 per hour was used as the average fully-burdened labor rate based on 

typical annual wages and benefits of industry employees. Labor rates for manufacturers 

of standard size PTACs and PTHPs are based on the weighted averages of foreign and 

domestic manufacturers. Certain large manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs make their 

equipment in foreign factories, where labor rates are significantly less than domestic 

rates. Foreign labor rates are based on engineering manufacturer interviews, internal 

expertise, and industry literature research. In the final step of the cost assessment, 

assembly times and associated direct labor costs are estimated. Once the cost estimate for 

each teardown unit is finalized, a detailed summary is prepared for relevant components, 

subassemblies and processes. The BOM thus details all aspects of unit costs. 

Design options used in units subject to teardown are noted in the summary sheet 

of each cost model and are cost-estimated individually. Thus, various implementations of 

design options can be accommodated, ranging from assemblies that are entirely 

purchased to units that are made entirely from raw materials. Hybrid assemblies, 

consisting of purchased parts and parts made on site are thus also accommodated. 

5.5.3 Shipping Costs

In addition to the MPC, DOE also considered the cost to ship the unit from the 

manufacturing facility to the first point on the distribution chain. In calculating the 

shipping costs, DOE first gathered estimates of the cost to ship a standard-size shipping 

container of manufactured equipment from China to the United States, and the cost to 

ship the equipment an average distance in the United States. The bulk of PTAC and 

PTHP shipments originate from factories in China, but one major manufacturer of 

standard size PTACs and PTHPs produces units in the United States. Using the relative 

market shares for standard size equipment manufacturers, DOE constructed a weighted 

average shipping cost to account for units produced domestically and overseas. DOE 

then used the representative unit sizes to calculate a volume for each unit. Along with the 

dimensions of a shipping container, DOE used this cost and volume information to 

develop an average shipping cost for each equipment class directly analyzed. 

5.5.4 Equipment Testing

DOE conducted equipment testing to verify the energy use of equipment and to 

develop a better understanding of the potential efficiency improvements associated with 

5-13 
various design options and to develop disaggregated efficiency data. DOE contracted 

with qualified third-party test laboratories to test the capacity, EER, and COP of the 

equipment using the DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs (see 10 CFR 431.96).

5.6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

DOE conducted the engineering analysis using the efficiency-level approach and 

the reverse-engineering approach, analyzing two specific cooling capacities to represent 

the range of standard-size PTACs and PTHPs available on the market. As discussed in 

section 5.6.1, DOE selected representative capacities of 9,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h, , 

5.6.1 Manufacturer Interviews

As previously discussed in section 5.5.1, DOE conducted confidential interviews 

with PTAC and PTHP manufacturers. From the manufacturers interviewed, DOE 

collected a general impression of PTAC and PTHP equipment on the market. Interviewed 

manufacturers indicated that all of the equipment covered in this rulemaking currently 

use rotary compressors, round-tube-and-fin heat exchangers, and R-410A refrigerant. 

Manufacturers employ different design strategies in terms of compressor 

selection, indoor and outdoor fan motor selection, and heat exchanger design. 

Manufacturers interviewed noted that selecting higher efficiency motors and compressors 

can increase system efficiency. Manufacturers also commented that increasing the size of 

the heat exchangers in a unit increases efficiency, though this use of this option is limited 

in larger capacity models (such as 15,000 Btu/h models) because of size constraints. 

Manufacturers noted that standard-size PTACs and PTHPs are limited in terms of case 

size because the units are typically installed in wall openings of 16 inches high by 42 

inches wide. These wall opening dimensions were standardized in buildings over the past 

25 years. DOE understood from manufacturers that altering existing wall sleeve openings 

could include extensive structural changes to a building, could be very costly, and is 

therefore rarely done. 

5.6.2 Equipment Testing

DOE conducted a market survey of PTAC and PTHP models and their features. 

DOE selected six 9,000 Btu/h and five 15,000 Btu/h PTAC models for testing and reverse 

engineering. The models were selected to develop a representative sample of the market 

at different efficiency levels. DOE selected the units based on the efficiency data 

available in the AHRI certification database. Where feasible, DOE selected models for 

reverse engineering with low and high capacities from a given manufacturer that are built 

on the same platform (i.e., with the same basic design and construction). DOE also 

selected five 9,000 Btu/h and four 15,000 Btu/h PTHP models to evaluate the differences 

between PTAC and PTHP units. Details about the key features of the tested units are 

presented in Table 5.6.1 and Table 5.6.2. 

5-14 
Table 5.6.1 PTAC and PTHP Test Units at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity

Feature

Test Unit Description

PTAC PTHP

Test 

Unit 1

Test 

Unit 2

Test 

Unit 3

Test 

Unit 4

Test 

Unit 5

Test 

Unit 6

Test 

Unit 7

Test 

Unit 8

Test 

Unit 9

Test 

Unit 10

Test 

Unit 11

Rated Cooling 

Capacity (Btu/h) 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,700 9,500 9,700 9,500 9,400 9,000 9,000 9,000

Rated EER (Btu/Wh) 11.3 11.5 11.3 12.1 12.7 12.1 12.9 12.7 11.3 11.3 11.5

Rated COP (unitless) - - - - - - 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.4

Outdoor 

Coil

Face Area 

(ft^2) 2.67 2.67 1.85 2.67 2.48 2.67 2.50 2.55 1.85 2.67 2.67

Fin Pitch 19 23 21 19 21 19 20 19 21 19 23

Tube Rows 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2

Tube OD 

(in.) 0.200 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.200 0.200

Outdoor 

Fan

Motor

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC PSC BLDC BLDC PSC PSC PSC

Power (hp) 0.054 0.040 0.028 0.037 0.067 0.037 0.067 0.060 0.028 0.054 0.040

Indoor 

Coil

Face Area 

(ft^2) 2.08 1.93 2.34 1.87 1.88 1.87 1.88 1.87 2.34 2.08 1.93

Fin Pitch 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 21 18 18 18

Tube Rows 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2

Tube OD 

(in.) 0.313 0.375 0.313 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.313 0.313 0.375

Indoor 

Fan

Motor

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC PSC BLDC BLDC PSC PSC PSC

Power (hp) 0.028 0.020 0.054 0.042 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.048 0.028 0.028 0.020

5-15 
Table 5.6.2 PTAC and PTHP Test Units at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity

Feature

Test Unit Description

PTAC PTHP

Test 

Unit 12

Test 

Unit 13

Test 

Unit 14

Test 

Unit 15

Test Unit 

16

Test 

Unit 17

Test 

Unit 18

Test 

Unit 19

Test 

Unit 20

Rated Cooling Capacity

(Btu/h) 15,000 14,400 15,000 15,000 14,200 15,100 14,400 15,000 14,200

Rated EER (Btu/Wh) 10.0 10.5 9.8 10.0 9.7 11.2 10.8 9.8 9.7

Rated COP (unitless) - - - - 3.0 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.0

Outdoor 

Coil

Face Area 

(ft^2) 2.53 2.44 2.41 2.53 2.56 2.48 2.55 2.41 2.56

Fin Pitch 24 19 18 24 20 20 19 18 20

Tube Rows 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2

Tube OD (in.) 0.200 0.250 0.325 0.200 0.375 0.250 0.250 0.325 0.375

Outdoor 

Fan

Motor

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC BLDC PSC PSC

Power (hp) 0.094 0.060 0.088 0.094 0.094 0.067 0.060 0.088 0.094

Indoor 

Coil

Face Area 

(ft^2) 2.08 1.87 1.85 2.08 1.79 1.83 1.87 1.85 1.79

Fin Pitch 18 19 19 18 18 19 21 19 18

Tube Rows 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3

Tube OD (in.) 0.375 0.250 0.313 0.375 0.313 0.375 0.250 0.313 0.313

Indoor 

Fan

Motor

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC BLDC PSC PSC

Power (hp) 0.034 0.042 0.030 0.034 0.034 0.040 0.048 0.031 0.034

5-16 
DOE conducted testing on each unit according to the current Federal test 

procedure for PTACs and PTHPs. Table 5.6.3 shows the test results of selected PTAC 

and PTHP units. DOE observed that the maximum deviation of tested and rated cooling 

capacity was +8.9 percent, and the maximum deviation of tested EER and rated EER was 

-7.1 percent.

Table 5.6.3 Test Results of Selected PTAC and PTHP Units

Parameter

Test 

Unit Type

Rated 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(Btu/h)

Rated 

EER 

(Btu/Wh)

Rated 

COP 

(unitless)

Tested 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(Btu/h)

Tested 

EER 

(Btu/Wh)

Tested 

COP 

(unitless)

1 PTAC 9,000 11.3 - 8,280 10.7 -

2 PTAC 9,000 11.5 - 8,849 10.9 -

3 PTAC 9,000 11.3 - 8,831 11.1 -

4 PTAC 9,700 12.1 - 9,537 12.0 -

5 PTAC 9,500 12.7 - 9,654 12.4 -

6 PTAC 9,700 12.1 - 9,737 12.3 -

7 PTHP 9,500 12.9 3.6 9,691 12.4 3.5

8 PTHP 9,400 12.7 3.8 9,673 12.9 3.6

9 PTHP 9,000 11.3 3.3 9,798 11.6 3.5

10 PTHP 9,000 11.3 3.3 9,298 11.5 3.3

11 PTHP 9,000 11.5 3.4 9,541 11.7 3.5

12 PTAC 15,000 10.0 - 15,037 10.0 -

13 PTAC 14,400 10.5 - 14,450 10.5 -

14 PTAC 15,000 9.8 - 15,635 10.3 -

15 PTAC 15,000 10.0 - 15,088 10.0 -

16 PTAC 15,100 11.2 3.1 14,871 10.4 -

17 PTHP 14,200 9.7 3.0 14,785 9.9 3.0

18 PTHP 14,400 10.8 3.3 14,590 11.0 3.3

19 PTHP 15,000 9.8 2.9 15,394 10.3 2.9

20 PTHP 15,100 11.2 3.1 * * *

* Testing on Test Unit 20 failed repeatedly due to frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger.

No test data is available for this unit.

5-17 
5.6.3 Equipment Teardown

As part of the reverse engineering analyses, DOE conducted physical teardowns 

on each test unit d to develop a manufacturing cost model and to evaluate and identify 

design details of key components (e.g., heat exchangers, compressors, fans and fan 

motors, control strategies, etc.) and the corresponding manufacturing cost of each unit.

Based upon product teardowns, DOE developed the following baseline production 

cost distributions and materials cost distributions for typical PTACs, shown in Figure 

5.6.1 through Figure 5.6.4. Production cost distributions include raw material, purchased 

parts, labor (assembly, fabrication, supervision, and indirect labor), depreciation 

(equipment, tooling, and building depreciation), and other overhead (indirect process, 

maintenance, utility, property tax, and insurance) costs. 

d

 For test units #6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20, DOE conducted a partial teardown, examining key components 

(heat exchangers, compressors, fans/motors, controls, etc.) and basic design construction without fully 

disassembling the unit. 

5-18 

 
Figure 5.6.1 Baseline 9,000 Btu/h PTAC Full Production Cost Distribution

Figure 5.6.2 Baseline 9,000 Btu/h PTAC Materials Cost Distribution

Labor

6%

Depreciation

5%

Other Overhead

7%

Raw Materials

34%

Purchased Parts

48%

Total Estimated MPC for Baseline 

9,000 Btu/h PTAC: $359.62

Packaging

5%

Final Assembly

21%

Outdoor HX

8%

Outdoor Fan Assy

5%

Indoor HX

12%

Indoor Fan Assy

5%

Controls

22%

Sealed System

22%

5-19 
Figure 5.6.3 Baseline 15,000 Btu/h PTAC Full Production Cost Distribution

Figure 5.6.4 Baseline 15,000 Btu/h PTAC Materials Cost Distribution

Labor

5%

Depreciation

5%

Other Overhead

6% Raw Materials

29%

Purchased Parts

55%

Total Estimated MPC for Baseline 

15,000 Btu/h PTAC: $428.99

Packaging

5%

Final Assembly

22%

Outdoor HX

8%

Outdoor Fan 

Assy

Indoor HX 7%

9%

Indoor Fan Assy

6%

Controls

14%

Sealed System

29%

5-20 
5.6.4 Cost-Efficiency Results

The reverse engineering analysis provides MPC data and tested efficiency data for 

the selected set of PTAC and PTHP units. DOE assembled this data into four groups, 

organized by cooling capacity (9,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h) and equipment type 

(PTAC and PTHP). DOE used the least squares method to fit second-order polynomial 

curves to the cost-efficiency data for each group. Figure 5.6.5 through Figure 5.6.8 show 

the four cost-efficiency curves in the form of EER versus MPC. These four cost curves 

are pictured together in Figure 5.6.9. 

Figure 5.6.5 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard 

Size PTACs with a Cooling Capacity of 9,000 Btu/h

MPC = 1.78*(EER)2 - 22.40*(EER) + 389.15

$300

$325

$350

$375

$400

$425

$450

$475

$500

9 10 11 12 13 14

Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) 

System EER (Btu/Wh)

Standard Size PTAC, 9,000 Btu/h

5-21 
Figure 5.6.6 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard 

Size PTHPs with a Cooling Capacity of 9,000 Btu/h

Figure 5.6.7 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard

Size PTACs with a Cooling Capacity of 15,000 Btu/h

MPC = 1.78*(EER)2 - 22.40*(EER) + 427.62

$300

$325

$350

$375

$400

$425

$450

$475

$500

9 10 11 12 13 14

Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) 

System EER (Btu/Wh)

Standard Size PTHP, 9,000 Btu/h

MPC = 12.19*(EER)2 - 208.96*(EER) + 1280.9

 $300

 $325

 $350

 $375

 $400

 $425

 $450

 $475

 $500

9 10 11 12 13 14

Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$)

System EER (Btu/Wh)

Standard Size PTAC, 15,000 Btu/h

5-22 
Figure 5.6.8 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard 

Size PTHPs with a Cooling Capacity of 15,000 Btu/h 

Figure 5.6.9 Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$) versus Efficiency for Standard 

Size PTACs and PTHPs with Cooling Capacities of 9,000 Btu/h and 

15,000 Btu/h

MPC = 12.19*(EER)2 - 208.96*(EER) + 1318.1

 $300

 $325

 $350

 $375

 $400

 $425

 $450

 $475

 $500

9 10 11 12 13 14

Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$)

System EER (Btu/Wh)

Standard Size PTHP, 15,000 Btu/h

 $300

 $320

 $340

 $360

 $380

 $400

 $420

 $440

 $460

 $480

 $500

9 10 11 12 13 14

Manufacturer Production Cost (2013$)

EER (Btu/Wh)

Standard Size PTAC, 15,000 Btu/h

Standard Size PTAC, 9,000 Btu/h

Standard Size PTHP, 9,000 Btu/h

Standard Size PTHP, 15,000 Btu/h

5-23 
The results show that the cost-efficiency curves are nonlinear. As efficiency 

increases, manufacturing becomes more difficult and more costly for manufacturers. A 

faster increase in the curve (i.e., a steeper slope) is evident for the standard size PTACs 

and PTHPs with 15,000 Btu/h cooling capacity compared to the standard size PTACs and 

PTHPs with 9,000 Btu/h cooling capacity. The increase in capacity between 9,000 Btu/h 

and 15,000 Btu/h causes an increase in the baseline unit MPC. Comparing otherwiseidentical PTAC and PTHP models (i.e., models with similar casing, controls, and fans, 

but where the PTHP has reverse cycle capability), DOE estimates that the typical PTHP 

unit has an additional $37-$38 of production costs compared with an otherwise-identical 

PTAC unit.

As stated above, the cost efficiency results from the engineering analysis are an 

input to subsequent LCC analyses that determine the customer price of PTACs and 

PTHPs (see chapter 8, life-cycle cost and payback period analyses). For these inputs, 

DOE used the cost-efficiency curves above to calculate the MPCs at each efficiency level 

considered. DOE used the curve-fit equations presented in Figure 5.6.5 through Figure 

5.6.8 to calculate the estimated MPC for each of the efficiency levels for PTACs and 

PTHPs. These results are shown in Table 5.6.4 through Table 5.6.7. 

Table 5.6.4. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTACs at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity

Efficiency Level

(Percentages relative

to 2012 PTAC ECS)

Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Shipping 

Cost (2013$) 

Baseline, EL1, 1.8% $359.62 - -

EL2, 4% $363.50 $3.88 -

EL3, 8% $367.55 $7.93 -

EL4, 12% $376.19 $16.57 -

EL5, 16% $385.52 $25.91 -

EL6, 18% (Max-Tech) $395.56 $35.94 -

Table 5.6.5. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTHPs at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity

Efficiency Level

(Percentages relative

to 2012 PTAC ECS)

Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Shipping 

Cost (2013$) 

Baseline, 1.8% $398.09 - -

EL1, 4% $401.97 $3.88 -

EL2, 8% $406.02 $7.93 -

EL3, 12% $414.66 $16.57 -

EL4, 16% $423.99 $25.91 -

EL5, 18% (Max-Tech) $434.03 $35.94 -

5-24 
Table 5.6.6. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTACs at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity

Efficiency Level

(Percentages relative

to 2012 PTAC ECS)

Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Shipping 

Cost (2013$) 

Baseline, EL1, 1.8% $391.78 - -

EL2, 4% $395.51 $3.73 -

EL3, 8% $400.08 $8.29 -

EL4, 12% $411.75 $19.96 -

EL5, 16% $426.79 $35.00 -

EL6, 18% (Max-Tech) $445.20 $53.42 -

Table 5.6.7. Cost-Efficiency Relationship for PTHPs at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity

Efficiency Level

(Percentages relative

to 2012 PTAC ECS)

Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Cost (2013$) 

Incremental Shipping 

Cost (2013$) 

Baseline $428.99 - -

EL1, 4% $432.72 $3.73 -

EL2, 8% $437.29 $8.29 -

EL3, 12% $448.96 $19.96 -

EL4, 16% $464.00 $35.00 -

EL5, 18% (Max-Tech) $482.41 $53.42 -

5-25 
REFERENCES 

1 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. Directory of Certified Product 

Performance. Available online at: 

https://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx (Last accessed July 

2014)

2

 American Metals Market. Available online at http://www.amm.com/. (Last accessed 

December 2012)

5-26