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 Program2 

# 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

- Up3 

# 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 compliance4 

# 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

classes5 

# 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

- Up6 

# 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 Furnace8 

### 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

- Up11 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule12 

# 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 Curbs15 

# 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

EL416 

# 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 Data17 

# 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

EL418 

# 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

EL2.519 

# 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

EL2.520 

# 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 Data21 

# 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

EL2.522 

# 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 Data23 

# 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

EL524 

# Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Very Large
Equipment. Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs25 

# Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Small Equipment. Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs26 

# Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Large Equipment. Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs27 

# 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 increased

stringency 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 building

interior 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 1.031 

# 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) h as 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) h as 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 0.1333 

# 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

- Up34 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule35 

# 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 9,04237 

# 1 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 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 19,47338 

# 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 41,23639 

# 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

- Up40 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule41 

# 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 $3,14043 

### • 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 

# 1 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 11.2 $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

- Up48 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule49 

# Shipments Results: CUAC 7.5 Ton50 

# Shipments Results: CUAC 15 Ton51 

# Current Analysis: CUAC 30 Ton52 

# Shipments Results: CUHP 7.5 Ton53 

# Shipments Results: CUHP 15 Ton54 

# Current Analysis: CUHP 30 Ton55 

# 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 26,70156 

# CUAC Cumulative Shipments by EL (2019

- 2048)

- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7EL0EL1EL2EL2.5EL3EL3.5EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2EL2.5EL3EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2EL2.5EL3EL3.5EL4EL5

135-240 240-760 65-135

CUACMillions

Sum of Sr

Sum of Se

Sum of Sn57 

# CUHP Cumulative Shipments by EL CUHP (2019

- 2048)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8EL0EL1EL2EL2.5EL3EL3.5EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2EL2.5EL3EL4EL5EL0EL1EL2EL2.5EL3EL3.5EL4EL5

135-240 240-760 65-135

CUHPMillions

Sum of Sr

Sum of Se

Sum of Sn58 

# Cumulative Shipments Results: P ercent 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

- Up60 

# 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 Analysis61 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: Process62 

# National Impact Analysis: National Energy Savings Flow Diagram63 

# National Impact Analysis: Consumer NPV Flow Diagram64 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: Inputs65 

# 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 4 566 

# 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 29.267 

# 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 99.3 112.468 

# 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 33.169 

# 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

- Up70 

# 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 Analysis71 

# GRIM Overview72 

# Changes from NOPR Analysis

Updated:

• Manufacturer Production Costs

• Shipments forecasts

No change:

• Financial Metrics

• Conversion Costs

• Markup Scenarios73 

# 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 feedback74 

# 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 Scenarios76 

# 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 Profit78 

# Key Issues from written comments

• Conversion Costs

• Alignment of CWAF and CUAC effective dates

• Employment numbers not reflective of industry79 

# 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

- Up80 

# Next Steps

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

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