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

CUAC/CWAF ASRAC Working Group

Fourth Meeting

June 1 & 2, 2015

Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program
2

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
3

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

– Status Report

– Analysis Revisions

– Vote on standard levels

• Topics not part of working group scope

– Test procedures

– Certification and compliance
4

Schedule

Date Type Presentation/Discussion Topics

4/28 Tuesday In Person • Process, ground rules 

• Work plan for engineering and energy use

5/7 Thursday N/A • Updated shipments data provided to 

analytical team

5/11 Monday 

5/12 Tuesday (AHRI)

In Person • Present revised engineering/energy use/LCC 

for small and large classes.

• Stakeholder discussion

5/20 Wednesday

5/21 Thursday (L’Enfant)

In Person • Present revised engineering/energy use/LCC .

• Discuss shipments analysis methodology

6/1 Monday

6/2 Tuesday

In Person • Present revised shipments/NIA/MIA

• Initial negotiations of standard levels

6/9 Tuesday

6/10 Wednesday

In Person • Finalize standard levels

6/15 Monday N/A • Term sheet due: Recommended standard 

levels for all CUAC and CWAF equipment 

classes
5

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
6

Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

Update: Previously over counted models at 81% TE from AHRI certified directory.

CWAFs: LCC and PBP Analysis Revisions

EL Design Option Base Case Market Share 

in 2019 (%)

Gas-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace Outdoor Indoor

0 80% TE – Baseline 76 3.5

1 81% TE – Increased HX Area 23 93

2 82% TE – Increased HX Area 0 3.5

3 92% TE – Condensing (Max Tech) 1 0

Oil-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace

0 81% TE – Baseline 40

1 82% TE – Increased HX Area 60

2 92% TE – Condensing (Max Tech) 0

Note: Components may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Equipment Lifetime

Update: Now based on 22.6 average lifetime rather than the 26+ year value used 

previously.
7

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

LCC and PBP Analysis Results

Gas-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace

EL TE

Life-Cycle Cost (2014$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Average 

Installed Cost

Average 

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2013$)

% Buildings with

Net Cost No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

0 80% $2,087 $31,586 $33,673 N/A 0% 100% 0% N/A

1 81% $2,115 $31,248 $33,362 $224 4.4% 28.4% 67.2% 2.0 

2 82% $2,548 $30,920 $33,469 $117 55.8% 1.4% 42.9% 18.5 

3 92% $3,855 $28,274 $32,129 $1,438 47.0% 1.1% 51.9% 13.6 

EL TE

Life-Cycle Cost (2014$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Average 

Installed Cost

Average 

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2013$)

% Buildings with

Net Cost No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

0 81% $6,353 $66,612 $72,965 N/A 0% 100% 0% N/A

1 82% $6,406 $66,019 $72,425 $211 10.4% 60.2% 29.4% 2.8 

2 92% $7,868 $61,298 $69,166 $3,470 45.6% 0.0% 54.4% 7.7 

Oil-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace
8

Equipment Class Trial Standard Levels

1 2 3 4 5

Thermal Efficiency (TE)

Gas-Fired Commercial 

Warm Air Furnace 81% 81% 82% 82% 92%

Oil-Fired Commercial 

Warm Air Furnace 81% 82% 81% 82% 92%

National Impact Analysis

TSL Selection Criteria for each product class:

• TSL 5: Max-tech efficiency levels

• TSL 2-4: Combinations of intermediary efficiency levels

• TSL 1: Most common efficiency level above the baseline for gas-fired CWAF and at the baseline 

for oil-fired CWAF.

Trial Standard Levels (TSLs)
9

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Primary Energy 

Savings

Gas-fired CWAF 0.255 0.255 0.618 0.618 3.599

Oil-fired CWAF 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.029

Total 0.255 0.257 0.618 0.619 3.628

Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Energy Savings

Gas-fired CWAF 0.283 0.283 0.685 0.685 4.001

Oil-fired CWAF 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.034

Total 0.283 0.285 0.685 0.687 4.035

National Impact Analysis

National Energy Savings (quads)

Product Class Discount Rate TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Gas-fired CWAF

3%

1.277 1.277 1.521 1.521 11.296

Oil-fired CWAF 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.025 0.417

Total 1.277 1.302 1.521 1.546 11.713

Gas-fired CWAF

7%

0.462 0.462 0.565 0.565 4.115

Oil-fired CWAF 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.109

Total 0.462 0.470 0.565 0.574 4.224

Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit (billion 2014$)
10

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
11

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

RFI NOPR Final 

Rule
12

Engineering Analysis Status Overview

• Modest changes to performance correlations for some of the 

30-ton models.

• Developed curb adapter trend vs. EL for very large class. Slight 

revisions to curb adapter trend vs. EL for small and large classes.

• Developed draft elements of dual duct definition.

• Prepared and sent to the working group assessments of IEER 

differentials for “other” heat and heat pumps. 

• No changes to cost curves.
13

Curb adapter analysis for the very large class.

• Size trend review for key capacities of the equipment class.

– Very Large: 25, 27, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60

• Determine size-growth EL for each capacity for four major manufacturers 

with products spanning the efficiency range.

• Developed conversion curb distribution based on equal manufacturer 

market share and simple assumption for shipment distribution by capacity.

Curb Adapter Analysis for Very Large Class

Nominal

Capacity [ton] Percent

6 20.8%

7.5 18.2%

8.5 16.4%

10 13.8%

12.5 9.4%

15 5.0%

17.5 3.7%

20 3.3%

25 2.6%

27 2.3%

30 1.8%

35 1.1%

40 0.4%

45 0.4%

50 0.4%

55 0.4%

60 0.4%
14

Selected ELs for standard-forced size increase for 

manufacturer/capacity combinations.

• Consider size increase at EL2 or higher.

• When existing models show size increase when increasing one 

EL, select size increase to occur at the higher of these ELs.

• When existing models show size increase when increasing two 

or three ELs with no models at the intermediate ELs, size 

increase occurs at the lower intermediate EL.

• For size increase of four ELs with no intermediate-EL models, 

size increase at the median intermediate EL.

• At maximum EL for a manufacture/capacity combination, 

assume size increase for the next EL.

• Consideration of the sizes of other manufacturers’ models if 

there is no clear indication of appropriate EL for size increase.

• Rounding up no more than 0.1 IEER point.

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs
15

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 25-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL2

EL4

EL4

EL5

EL4
16

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 27-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL2

No Data

No Data

EL4

No Data
17

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 30-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL2

EL4

No Data

EL3

EL4
18

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 35-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL3

EL2.5

No Data

EL4

EL2.5
19

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 40-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL3

EL2.5

No Data

EL4

EL2.5
20

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 45-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

No Data

EL2

No Data

No Data

No Data
21

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 50-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL2

EL2

No Data

EL4

EL2.5
22

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 55-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL2.5

No Data

No Data

>Max

No Data
23

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Very large, 60-ton

Baseline 10.6

EL1 11.6

EL2 12.5

EL2.5 13.2

EL3 13.5

EL4 14.9

EL5

Maxtech 15.6

EL for Curb 

Adapters

EL3

No Data

No Data

>Max

EL5
24

Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Very Large 

Equipment.

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs
25

Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Small Equipment.

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs
26

Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Large Equipment.

Equipment Size Trends—Conversion Curbs
27

Dual Duct Units

DOE is considering separating so-called dual-duct 

units from the current analysis and discussion of 

efficiency levels.

• Dual duct units are installed within the building envelope, and use 

ductwork to transfer outdoor air to and from the outdoor unit. 

• These units would have added challenges in meeting increasedstringency energy conservation standards due to space constraints 

and added condenser fan power.

• Suggested approach:

– Develop definition to clearly identify these units.

– Exclude them from consideration of increased stringency levels in this 

rulemaking. 

– Retain existing EER standard levels.

– At an appropriate time, modify test procedures to adopt IEER and to 

accurately reflect typical operation (e.g. ducted condenser).

– Consider potential for improved efficiency levels in a future rulemaking.
28

Dual Duct Units

For the current discussion, DOE is limiting consideration to 

horizontal dual-duct units.

• DOE research shows that air-cooled/air-source units for buildinginterior installation are available in four different configurations:

– Horizontal unit as a single package

– Horizontal unit with split configuration (may be installed attached)

– Vertical unit as a single package

– Vertical unit with split configuration (may be installed attached)

• Horizontal units are installed in ceiling space, and have design 

limitations on the maximum allowable height.

• Single-package vertical units already have a separate class.

• Some horizontal units are for computer room cooling and already have 

a separate class.

• DOE is considering for this discussion both split and single-package 

horizontal units.

• Should additional consideration be given in this rulemaking to 

exclusion for split (or split-able) vertical units?
29

Dual Duct Units

Product literature shows that horizontal unit height does not 

exceed 34 inches.
30

Dual Duct Units

External Static Pressure for the Outdoor sections of Horizontal 

Units is at least 0.2 in wc in standard configurations.

Brand Product Line Model Number Outdoor Static Pressure Max Outdoor Static Pressure

CARRIER 50AH 50AH072 0.0-0.5 0.5

CARRIER 50AH 50AH096 0.0-0.5 0.5

JOHNSON CONTROLS DSH DSH096 0-0.6 1.2 with high static drive

Liebert MiniMate 2 MMD96E7AHELA 0.5 Higher motor available

SKIL-AIRE HORIZONTAL PWA-072-H4-ECX 0.2 2.0 with high static blower

SKIL-AIRE HORIZONTAL PWA-096-H4-ECX 0.2 2.0 with high static blower

SKIL-AIRE HORIZONTAL PWA-120-H4-ECX 0.2 2.0 with high static blower

SKIL-AIRE HORIZONTAL PWA-144-H4-ECX 0.2 2.0 with high static blower

SKIL-AIRE HORIZONTAL PWA-180-H4-ECX 0.2 2.0 with high static blower

UNITED COOL AIR C13-SERIES 6 0.25-1.00 1.25

UNITED COOL AIR C13-SERIES 8 0.25-1.00 1.25

UNITED COOL AIR C13-SERIES 6 0.25-1.00 1.25

UNITED COOL AIR C13-SERIES 8 0.25-1.00 1.25

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 6 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 8 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 10 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 12 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 15 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 6 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 8 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 10 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 12 0.1-1.0 1.0

UNITED COOL AIR C-SERIES 15 0.1-1.0 1.0
31

Dual Duct Units

Dual duct air conditioner or heat pump means air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that

1) may be a single package or split unit,

2) has an outdoor section with an outdoor air flow path from an inlet 

having provisions for duct connection on one face of the unit, through 

the unit, to an outlet also having provisions for duct connection on the 

same or another face of the unit,

3) has an outdoor air fan capable of overcoming an external static 

pressure of at least 0.2 inches of water column at the rated outdoor air 

flow rate, and

4) has a maximum height of 34 inches or has components each having a 

maximum height of 34 inches.

DOE developed a draft definition based on key distinguishing 

attributes of currently-available products.
32

IEER Differentials

Review of rated IEER levels may provide guidance on 

new standards for “other” heat units and heat pumps.

• The analysis was based on units with no heat or electric heat.

• The NOPR levels used IEER differentials identical to those of 

ASHRAE 90.1-2013

ASHRAE 90.1 

Before 1/1/16

ASHRAE 90.1 

As of 1/1/16

Data Review

Small—Other heat 0.2 0.2 0.15

 Heat Pump 0.2 0.7 0.16

Large—Other heat 0.2 0.2 0.12

 Heat Pump 0.5 0.8 0.26

Very Large—Other heat 0.2 0.2 0.18

 Heat Pump 1.0 1.0 0.13
33

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
34

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

RFI NOPR Final 

Rule
35

Revision Update – Energy Use Analysis

Issue Approach

Conversion Curb ESP Conversion curb ESP impacts now analyzed for all ELs. Fraction of 

installations impacted based on market shares developed in the 

Engineering Analysis.
36

7.5-ton Annual Energy Use Results: NOPR vs Rev (6/1/15)

EL IEER

NOPR Revised (June 1 2015)

Cooling Fan Total Cooling Fan Total

kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit

Base 1-stg 11.4 7,764 5,318 13,082 10,432 8,031 18,462 

Base 2-stg 11.4 - - - 9,620 7,761 17,381 

1-CAV 12.9 6,647 4,796 11,443 9,232 8,901 18,133 

1-VAV 12.9 - - - 9,667 6,812 16,479 

2-CAV 14.0 6,401 4,235 10,636 7,488 9,180 16,669 

2-VAV 14.0 - - - 8,778 6,382 15,160 

2.5 14.5 - - - 8,118 5,138 13,256 

3 14.8 4,899 1,833 6,732 7,751 4,834 12,585 

3.5 15.8 - - - 6,666 6,449 13,115 

4 19.9 2,481 1,029 3,511 5,827 6,532 12,360 

5 21.5 4,781 4,261 9,042 
37

15-ton Annual Energy Use Results: NOPR vs Rev (6/1/15)

EL IEER

NOPR Revised (June 1, 2015)

Cooling Fan Total Cooling Fan Total

kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit

Base 11.2 15,005 7,845 22,850 21,622 17,952 39,574 

1-CAV 12.2/12.4 13,785 7,151 20,936 18,562 14,474 33,036 

1-VAV 12.2/12.4 - - - 18,863 11,611 30,474 

2-CAV 13.2 11,955 6,645 18,600 17,649 15,891 33,540 

2-VAV 13.2 - - - 17,294 10,267 27,561 

2.5 14.5 - - - 16,804 11,270 28,075 

3 14.2 13,212 3,324 16,536 15,644 9,954 25,598 

3.5 15.0 - - - 14,590 9,139 23,729 

4 18.4/18.5 8,916 3,463 12,379 11,620 8,186 19,806 

5 20.1 - - - 9,921 9,552 19,473 
38

30-ton Annual Energy Use Results: NOPR vs Rev (6/1/15)

EL IEER

NOPR Revised (June 1, 2015)

Cooling Fan Total Cooling Fan Total

kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit

Base 10.1/10.6 26,067 27,404 53,471 40,898 22,595 63,493 

1-CAV 11.6 22,030 25,259 47,290 35,029 26,306 61,335 

1-VAV 11.6 - - - 37,405 15,054 52,458 

2-CAV 12.5 19,881 25,117 44,997 34,339 19,936 54,275 

2-VAV 12.5 - - - 34,312 17,681 51,992 

2.5-CAV 13.2 - - - 31,710 19,525 51,235 

2.5-VAV 13.2 - - - 32,073 17,245 49,318 

3 13.5 18,610 13,281 31,892 31,631 17,015 48,646 

4 15.5 17,264 9,110 26,373 27,489 14,851 42,340 

5 TBD - - - 23,949 17,287 41,236 
39

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
40

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

RFI NOPR Final 

Rule
41

Revision Update – LCC and PBP Analysis

Issue Approach

Conversion Curb Costs Conversion curb installed costs now occurring at all ELs based on 

market shares developed in the Engineering Analysis.

Base Case Efficiency 

Distribution

Based on AHRI market share data by efficiency. Formerly based 

on model availability data from AHRI certified directory.

CAV vs. SAV/VAV 

Buildings

Fraction of CAV and SAV/VAV buildings based on AHRI market 

share data. Formerly based on fractions determined from 2003 

CBECS.
42

LCC and PBP Analysis: Conversion Curb Costs

• Conversion Curb installation cost represents the labor and materials 

necessary to accommodate a unit with a footprint larger than the unit 

it is replacing

• Costs are a function of capacity.

- 7.5-tons = $1000; 15-tons = $1750; 30-tons = $4000

• Applied to all efficiency levels based on market shares developed in 

Engineering Analysis.

EL

7.5-ton 15-ton 30-ton

IEER Curb Cost IEER Curb Cost IEER Curb Cost

0 11.4 $308 11.2 $539 10.6 $1,232

1 12.9 $308 12.4 $539 11.6 $1,232

2 14.0 $406 13.2 $816 12.5 $1,776

2.5 14.5 $470 13.7 $910 13.2 $1,980

3 14.8 $602 14.2 $1,159 13.5 $2,172

3.5 15.8 $698 15.0 $1,279 - -

4 19.9 $731 18.5 $1,313 14.9 $3,008

5 21.5 $768 20.1 $1,349 15.6 $3,140
43

• Base case efficiency distributions define the percentage of products purchased at various efficiency 

levels.

• Separate efficiency distributions for CAV and VAV buildings.

• Data submitted by AHRI provides efficiency market share data for CAV and SAV/VAV equipment.

– CAV equipment assigned to CAV buildings; VAV/SAV equipment assigned to VAV buildings.

– Market share of VAV equipment at EL0 assigned to EL1 to be consistent with Engineering Analysis.

• VAV market share at EL0 that was moved to EL1: 7.5-tons = 9.3%; 15-tons = 16.9%; 30-tons = 11.2%

– Market share of CAV and VAV buildings adjusted to coincide with VAC and SAV/VAV shipments.

• VAV shipments market share: 7.5-tons = 6.0%; 15-tons = 19.2%; 30-tons = 34.6%

LCC and PBP Analysis: Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

Small CUAC:

≥65,000 Btu/h and < 135,000 Btu/h

Large CUAC:

≥135,000 Btu/h and < 240,000 Btu/h

Very Large CUAC: 

≥240,000 Btu/h and < 760,000 Btu/h

EL IEER

Market Share

IEER

Market Share

IEER

Market Share

NOPR

CAV

Bldg

VAV

Bldg NOPR

CAV

Bldg

VAV

Bldg NOPR

CAV

Bldg

VAV

Bldg

0 11.4 61% 69.2% 0.0% 11.2 78% 66.1% 0.0% 10.1/10.6 63% 69.5% 0.0%

1 12.9 39% 29.2% 23.3% 12.2/12.4 20% 17.5% 44.3% 11.6 24% 20.2% 45.3%

2 14.0 0% 1.6% 20.0% 13.2 2% 16.4% 12.4% 12.5 7% 5.1% 19.1%

2.5 14.5 n/a 0.0% 20.0% 13.7 n/a 0.0% 12.4% 13.2 n/a 5.1% 19.1%

3 14.8 1% 0.0% 24.5% 14.2 0% 0.0% 18.0% 13.5 4% 0.0% 12.1%

3.5 15.8 n/a 0.0% 12.2% 15.0 n/a 0.0% 9.0% n/a - - -

4 19.9 0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.4/18.5 0% 0.0% 3.8% 15.5/14.9 1% 0.0% 0.0%

5 21.5 n/a 0.0% 0.0% 20.1 n/a 0.0% 0.0% 15.6 n/a 0.0% 4.3%
44

7.5-ton LCC and PBP Results: NOPR vs Revised

EL IEER

NOPR Revised

Total 

Installed 

Cost

First Year

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Life-Cycle 

Cost

Simple 

Payback 

Period

years

Total 

Installed 

Cost

First Year

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Life-Cycle 

Cost

Simple 

Payback 

Period

years

Base 11.4 $7,689 $1,675 $20,356 $28,045 - $9,016 $2,210 $32,124 $41,141 -

1 12.9 $8,024 $1,506 $18,289 $26,312 2.0 $10,024 $2,142 $31,342 $41,366 14.9

2 14.0 $9,359 $1,412 $17,120 $26,479 6.4 $10,865 $1,992 $29,354 $40,219 8.5

2.5 14.5 - - - - - $11,263 $1,748 $25,983 $37,246 4.9

3 14.8 $9,689 $1,079 $13,051 $22,740 3.4 $11,564 $1,691 $25,216 $36,780 4.9

3.5 15.8 - - - - - $12,002 $1,706 $25,499 $37,501 5.9

4 19.9 $11,348 $785 $9,448 $20,796 4.1 $13,384 $1,626 $24,599 $37,984 7.5

5 21.5 - - - - - $14,848 $1,342 $20,845 $35,692 6.7

EL IEER

NOPR Revised

Average LCC

Savings

Percent of 

Consumers

with Net Cost

Average LCC

Savings

Percent of 

Consumers

with Net Cost

1 12.9 $1,059 0% -$210 48% 

2 14.0 $894 28% $870 25% 

2.5 14.5 - - $3,777 5% 

3 14.8 $4,616 0% $4,233 5% 

3.5 15.8 - - $3,517 13% 

4 19.9 $6,561 0% $3,035 25% 

5 21.5 - - $5,326 16% 
45

15-ton LCC and PBP Results: NOPR vs Revised

EL IEER

NOPR Revised

Total 

Installed 

Cost

First Year

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Life-Cycle 

Cost

Simple 

Payback 

Period

years

Total 

Installed 

Cost

First Year

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Life-Cycle 

Cost

Simple 

Payback 

Period

years

Base 11.2 $13,212 $2,703 $33,014 $46,226 - $16,249 $4,539 $69,389 $85,638 -

1 12.2/12.4 $14,078 $2,508 $30,622 $44,700 4.4 $17,011 $3,932 $60,455 $77,466 1.3

2 13.2 $15,695 $2,266 $27,641 $43,336 5.7 $17,892 $3,864 $59,597 $77,488 2.4

2.5 13.7 - - - - - $18,667 $3,528 $54,655 $73,322 2.4

3 14.2 $16,548 $2,101 $25,597 $42,145 5.5 $19,410 $3,320 $51,633 $71,044 2.6

3.5 15.0 - - - - - $19,809 $3,144 $49,047 $68,856 2.6

4 18.4/18.5 $17,748 $1,690 $20,563 $38,311 4.5 $20,707 $2,768 $43,581 $64,288 2.5

5 20.1 - - - - - $24,741 $2,700 $43,449 $68,190 4.6

EL IEER

NOPR Revised

Average LCC

Savings

Percent of 

Consumers

with Net Cost

Average LCC

Savings

Percent of 

Consumers

with Net Cost

1 12.2/12.4 $1,189 1% $3,997 0% 

2 13.2 $2,528 4% $3,728 10% 

2.5 13.7 - - $7,991 5% 

3 14.2 $3,713 4% $10,135 2% 

3.5 15.0 - - $12,266 1% 

4 18.4/18.5 $7,541 2% $16,803 1% 

5 20.1 - - $12,900 11% 
46

30-ton LCC and PBP Results: NOPR vs Revised

EL IEER

NOPR Revised

Total 

Installed 

Cost

First Year

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Life-Cycle 

Cost

Simple 

Payback 

Period

years

Total 

Installed 

Cost

First Year

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

Life-Cycle 

Cost

Simple 

Payback 

Period

years

Base 10.1/10.6 $23,740 $6,042 $73,931 $97,671 - $31,097 $7,263 $141,119 $172,215 -

1 11.6 $25,094 $5,418 $66,260 $91,353 2.2 $34,582 $6,661 $130,022 $164,605 5.8

2 12.5 $26,638 $5,173 $63,250 $89,888 3.3 $38,075 $6,262 $122,919 $160,993 7.0

2.5 13.2 - - - - - $39,107 $5,974 $117,513 $156,620 6.2

3 13.5 $27,584 $4,124 $50,381 $77,965 2.0 $41,510 $5,809 $114,885 $156,396 7.2

4 14.9 $29,156 $3,597 $43,894 $73,050 2.2 $42,406 $5,256 $104,351 $146,758 5.6

5 15.6 - - - - - $44,556 $5,131 $102,237 $146,793 6.3

EL IEER

NOPR Revised

Average LCC

Savings

Percent of 

Consumers

with Net Cost

Average LCC

Savings

Percent of 

Consumers

with Net Cost

1 11.6 $4,032 2% $1,547 7% 

2 12.5 $5,316 6% $4,777 13% 

2.5 13.2 - - $8,610 7% 

3 13.5 $16,571 2% $8,881 23% 

4 14.9 $21,416 3% $18,386 3% 

5 15.6 - - $18,338 6% 
47

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
48

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

RFI NOPR Final 

Rule
49

Shipments Results: CUAC 7.5 Ton
50

Shipments Results: CUAC 15 Ton
51

Current Analysis: CUAC 30 Ton
52

Shipments Results: CUHP 7.5 Ton
53

Shipments Results: CUHP 15 Ton
54

Current Analysis: CUHP 30 Ton
55

Cumulative Shipments by EL CUAC/CUHP (2019-2048)

CUAC CUHP

New Construction Existing Buildings Replacements New Construction Existing Buildings Replacements

65-135 kBtu/h

EL0 892,878 84,332 4,913,906 105,044 9,921 570,185 

EL1 892,878 79,346 4,684,213 105,044 9,347 544,438 

EL2 892,878 74,454 4,477,203 105,044 8,830 523,288 

EL2.5 892,878 72,868 4,411,739 105,044 8,640 515,651 

EL3 892,878 71,434 4,352,603 105,044 8,480 509,282 

EL3.5 892,878 69,273 4,264,095 105,044 8,253 500,231 

EL4 892,878 61,648 3,961,262 105,044 7,398 467,202 

EL5 892,878 53,936 3,669,572 105,044 6,543 435,568 

135-240 kBtu/h

EL0 396,544 56,925 1,962,396 22,153 3,180 109,568 

EL1 396,544 56,166 1,937,472 22,153 3,144 108,308 

EL2 396,544 54,337 1,889,869 22,153 3,053 105,947 

EL2.5 396,544 52,964 1,854,731 22,153 2,982 104,126 

EL3 396,544 51,794 1,825,078 22,153 2,921 102,575 

EL3.5 396,544 51,171 1,809,442 22,153 2,888 101,768 

EL4 396,544 49,871 1,777,029 22,153 2,821 100,095 

EL5 396,544 41,413 1,572,136 22,153 2,387 89,528 

240-760 kBtu/h

EL0 194,641 27,941 587,472 10,521 1,510 31,970 

EL1 194,641 26,306 560,105 10,521 1,430 30,577 

EL2 194,641 24,347 529,689 10,521 1,333 29,051 

EL2.5 194,641 23,846 522,022 10,521 1,306 28,637 

EL3 194,641 22,608 503,184 10,521 1,247 27,716 

EL4 194,641 22,245 497,745 10,521 1,229 27,438 

EL5 194,641 21,281 483,248 10,521 1,181 26,701 
56

CUAC Cumulative Shipments by EL (2019-2048)

 -

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

EL0EL1EL2

EL2.5

EL3

EL3.5

EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2

EL2.5

EL3EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2

EL2.5

EL3

EL3.5

EL4EL5

135-240 240-760 65-135

CUAC

Millions

Sum of Sr

Sum of Se

Sum of Sn
57

CUHP Cumulative Shipments by EL CUHP (2019-2048)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

EL0EL1EL2

EL2.5

EL3

EL3.5

EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2

EL2.5

EL3EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2

EL2.5

EL3

EL3.5

EL4EL5

135-240 240-760 65-135

CUHP

Millions

Sum of Sr

Sum of Se

Sum of Sn
58

Cumulative Shipments Results: Percent Drop by EL

CUAC 7.5 Ton 15 Ton 30 Ton

EL1 4.0% 1.1% 3.6%

EL2 7.6% 3.1% 7.6%

EL2.5 8.7% 4.6% 8.6%

EL3 9.7% 5.9% 11.1%

EL3.5 11.3% 6.6% -

EL4 16.6% 8.0% 11.8%

EL5 21.6% 16.8% 13.7%

CUHP 7.5 Ton 15 Ton 30 Ton

EL1 3.8% 1.0% 3.4%

EL2 7.0% 2.8% 7.0%

EL2.5 8.1% 4.2% 8.0%

EL3 9.1% 5.4% 10.3%

EL3.5 10.5% 6.0% -

EL4 15.4% 7.3% 10.9%

EL5 20.1% 15.4% 12.7%
59

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
60

Purpose

• Determine the projected national energy savings and customer national 

net present value.

Method

• Develop annual series of national energy and economic impacts.

• Use the shipments model to estimate the total stock of CUACs and 

CUHPs in service each year. 

• Aggregate the costs and energy use per unit in any given year.

• Report estimates for economic impact as change in consumer National 

Net Present Value (NPV) (in constant year dollars).

• Account for the time-value of money through defined discount rates.

National Impact Analysis
61

Shipments 

Model

National 

Energy 

Savings

National

Economic

Impacts

LCC 

Analysis 

Results and 

Other Inputs

National 

Energy Savings 

(Quads)

National 

Net Present Value 

(NPV)

(2014 US $, billion)

• National energy savings calculated for equipment shipped over the period 

from 2019 - 2048 (30 years of shipments).

• NPV calculated for equipment shipped over the period from 2019 - 2048 (30 

years of shipments).

• Total stock is constant across ELs. Each reduced shipment in the standards 

case is replaced by a longer-lived repaired unit.

National Impact Analysis: Process
62

National Impact Analysis: National Energy Savings Flow Diagram
63

National Impact Analysis: Consumer NPV Flow Diagram
64

Input Description

Total Installed Cost CUAC: Weighted-average per unit values as a function of efficiency level taken from the LCC 

analysis. 

CUHP: Baseline costs developed in Engineering Analysis and incremental costs for increased 

efficiency estimated to be the same as CUAC; installation costs same as CUAC.

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs

Maintenance costs taken from the LCC analysis; do not vary as a function of efficiency level;

estimated to be the same for CUHP as for CUAC.

Compressor repair costs estimated based on RS Means and Grainger; estimated to vary with 

efficiency; estimated to be the same for CUAC and CUHP. 

Non-compressor repair costs estimated based on RS Means; estimated to vary with 

efficiency; estimated to be the same for CUAC and CUHP. 

Annual Energy Use CUAC: Annual weighted-average per unit values as a function of efficiency level taken from 

LCC analysis.

CUHP: Cooling-side energy use same as CUAC; heating-side energy use taken from buildings 

using CUHPs in CBECS 2003; correlated COP and IEER based on AHRI database to 

obtain energy use as a function of efficiency level.

Annual UEC for new shipments and repaired units is a function vintage.

Base-Case Efficiencies Shipments-weighted efficiencies determined for the compliance year. Based on base-case 

efficiency distribution from LCC analysis. 

Standards-Case 

Projected Efficiencies

Projected by the Shipments Model.

Energy Prices Projected energy prices from EIA AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation to 2078.

Full Fuel Cycle Multiplier to convert site energy to full-fuel cycle energy.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4.

Present Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2015.

National Impact Analysis: Inputs
65

National Impact Analysis: Trial Standard Levels

Equipment Class Efficiency Level

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1 2 2.5 3 3 4 5

Small Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity

1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

Large Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

Very Large Commercial Packaged Heat 

Pumps ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

1 2 2.5 3 3 4 5
66

National Impact Analysis: National Energy Savings Results

Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings

Equipment Class quads

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1.3 4.3 6.8 7.3 7.0 8.1 11.4

Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

2.9 3.8 5.7 6.9 7.7 9.3 9.6

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1.7 3.2 3.8 4.6 4.6 5.5 5.8

Small Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity

0.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4

Large Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6

Very Large Commercial Packaged Heat 

Pumps ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

TOTAL 6.3 12.3 17.6 20.4 20.9 24.8 29.2
67

National Impact Analysis: National Energy Savings Results

National Net Present Value at 3% real discount rate

Equipment Class billion 2014$

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

4.8 17.3 26.7 28.3 27.3 30.3 43.4

Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

12.5 16.5 24.3 29.3 33.2 40.6 38.4

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

6.8 11.9 14.3 17.3 17.3 21.0 21.7

Small Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity

0.7 2.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.9 5.3

Large Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.3

Very Large Commercial Packaged Heat 

Pumps ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

0.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3

TOTAL 25.9 49.5 70.8 81.1 84.1 99.3 112.4
68

National Impact Analysis: National Energy Savings Results

National Net Present Value at 7% real discount rate

Equipment Class billion 2014$

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1.1 5.2 8.5 9.0 8.4 8.7 12.9

Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

4.4 5.6 8.2 9.9 11.2 13.8 11.8

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity

1.8 3.1 3.8 4.5 4.5 5.7 5.8

Small Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity

0.2 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.6

Large Commercial Packaged Heat Pumps

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7

Very Large Commercial Packaged Heat 

Pumps ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

TOTAL 7.8 15.0 22.3 25.4 26.1 30.4 33.1
69

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
70

Purpose: 

• Assess the impacts of potential energy conservation standards on 

manufacturers, including subgroups such as small manufacturers

• Examine the direct employment, manufacturing capacity, and cumulative 

regulatory impacts on the industry

Methodology:

• Use Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), a industry discounted cash 

flow model

– The primary output is Industry Net Present Value (INPV)

– By comparing the no-standards case INVP to the standards case INPV, DOE is able to estimate 

impacts to manufacturers

• Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, develop subgroup 

analyses, and address qualitative issues.

Manufacturer Impact Analysis
71

GRIM Overview
72

Changes from NOPR Analysis

Updated:

• Manufacturer Production Costs

• Shipments forecasts

No change:

• Financial Metrics

• Conversion Costs

• Markup Scenarios
73

Financial Metrics Used in GRIM

Tax Rate 26.2%

Discount Rate for NPV (real) 6.2%

Working Capital 6.2% % of revenue

Net Property, Plant & Equipment 19.0% % of revenue

Standard SG&A 13.5% % of revenue

Research and Development 1.9% % of revenue

Depreciation 1.9% % of revenue

Capital Expenditures 3.0% % of revenue

Financial Metrics

 Derived from SEC filings and refined based on manufacturer feedback
74

Conversion Costs

Industry 

Conversion 

Costs

Capital 

Conversion Cost 

($M)

Product 

Conversion 

Cost ($M)

Total 

Conversion 

Cost ($M)

Average Conversion 

Cost per Manufacturer 

($M)

TSL 1 15 39 54 4.9

TSL 2 39 59 98 8.9

TSL 3 106 121 226 20.6

TSL 4 113 211 324 29.5

In addition, DOE assumed that manufacture feedback did not include re-rating

costs for product that met the standard. DOE included an additional re-rating cost 

of $12.7M for the industry to cover those products.

Conversion costs based on manufacturer feedback scaled up to represent 

the industry:
75

Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

Change in manufacturer markup reflects the industry’s ability to increase 

prices as investment grow and MPCs increase

 High Scenario: Preservation of Gross Margin

• Manufacturers maintain the same markup before and after standards

 Low Scenario: Preservation of Operating Profit

• Manufacturers reduce markups 

Markups Scenarios
76

INPV ($M)

Base TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 2.5 TSL 3 TSL 3.5 TSL 4 TSL 5

High Scenario 1379 1424 1479 1532 1493 1510 1455 1542

Low Scenario 1379 1264 1160 1129 1011 998 845 622

GRIM: Results

% Change in Industry Value

Change in INPV ($M)

Base TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 2.5 TSL 3 TSL 3.5 TSL 4 TSL 5

High Scenario - 46 101 153 115 132 76 163

Low Scenario - -114 -218 -250 -367 -381 -534 -757

Base TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 2.5 TSL 3 TSL 3.5 TSL 4 TSL 5

High Scenario - 3.3% 7.3% 11.1% 8.3% 9.5% 5.5% 11.8%

Low Scenario - -8.3% -15.8% -18.1% -26.6% -27.6% -38.7% -54.9%
77

INPV Results

0%

2.7%

6.7%

10.5%

7.7% 8.9%

4.9%

11.2%

0%

-8.9% -16.4% -18.7%

-27.2% -28.2%

-39.3%

-55.5%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

No New

Standards

Case

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 2.5 TSL 3 TSL 3.5 TSL 4 TSL 5

% Change in INPV

Preservation of Gross Margin Preservation of Operating Profit
78

Key Issues from written comments

• Conversion Costs

• Alignment of CWAF and CUAC effective dates

• Employment numbers not reflective of industry
79

Agenda

1. Introduction and Background 

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Updates

7. CUAC National Impact Analysis

8. CUAC Manufacturer Impact Analysis

9. Wrap-Up
80

Next Steps

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

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