1 | Building Technologies Office 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE

Energy Conservation Standards Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Furnaces

March 27, 2015Building TechnologiEnergy Efficiency & Department of Ener
2 | Building Technologies Office 

Welcome

• Introductions (around the room)• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules

– Speak one at a time.– Say your name for the record – there will be a complet

transcript of this meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air-time’.– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sideb

conversations.

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your h

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks
3 | Building Technologies Office 

Introduction

• Today’s presentation highlights key issues and area

DOE seeks feedback/discussion on with regard to thproposed rulemaking for certain furnaces.

• Interested parties are encouraged to bring up releva

for discussion.
4 | Building Technologies Office 

Purpose of the Public Meeting

• Present the procedural and analytical approaches to 

potential energy conservation standards (ECS) for fu

• Invite comment on the ECS notice of proposed rulem

(NOPR) and technical support document (TSD), inclDOE’s proposed standard levels.

• Invite participants to provide summary comments or 

statements and raise additional issues for discussion
5 | Building Technologies Office 

Issues for Discussion

The deadline for submitting comments is 6/10/2015.

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and informconcerning its proposed standards for furnaces. Issues which DOE seeks comment are highlighted in issue boxthroughout this presentation. Whether invited by an issuor not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s an
6 | Building Technologies Office 

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide openinremarks or statements at this time.
7 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
8 | Building Technologies Office 

Regulatory Authority

• Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. 

– Established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 

Other Than Automobiles, which covers furnaces.

• National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAE

L. 100-12 

– Amended EPCA to prescribe standards for furnaces– Directed DOE to conduct two further rulemakings to determin

amend these standards.

• Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 200

110-140 

– Amended EPCA to direct DOE to review standards for covere

at least once every 6 years

– Required new or amended standards promulgated after July 

address standby mode and off mode energy use. 
9 | Building Technologies Office 

• Initial standards established by NAECA, except for “small” f

– DOE published a final rule on November 17, 1989 to set initia

for “small” furnaces. 54 FR 47916.

• DOE published a final rule on November 19, 2007. 72 FR 6

– Amended standards for most classes of furnaces manufacture

after November 19, 2015. 

– Did not update standards for mobile home oil-fired furnaces a

weatherized oil-fired furnaces.

• DOE published a direct final rule on June 27, 2011. 76 FR 374

– Amended the AFUE standards for non-weatherized gas furna

home gas furnaces, and non-weatherized oil furnaces.

– Amended the compliance date (but left the existing standards 

for weatherized gas furnaces. 

– Established electrical standby/off mode standards for non-wea

gas furnaces, non-weatherized oil furnaces, and electric furna

Regulatory History
10 | Building Technologies Office 

• Following the June 2011 DFR, the American Public G

(APGA) filed a petition for review to invalidate the rule

– Only as it pertained to the non-weatherized gas and mo

gas product classes. 

• On April 24, 2014, the Court approved a DOE and AP

settlement. 

– DOE agreed to remand of the non-weatherized gas and 

home gas furnace portions of the June 2011 DFR to con

rulemaking.

– Court’s order vacated the June 2011 DFR standards rel

weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home gas furnace

Regulatory History (cont.)
11 | Building Technologies Office 

Current Energy Conservation Standards

• Current AFUE standards for non-weatherized gas fu

and mobile home gas furnaces were established by and effective in 1992 and 1990, respectively.

• The November 2007 final rule revised the AFUE sta

with compliance required starting on November 19, 

• Both the current AFUE standards and those for whic

compliance is required on November 19, 2015 are sthe table below:

Equipment Class Current Standard 

(AFUE)

November 1Standard (A

NWGF 78% 80%MHGF 75% 80%
12 | Building Technologies Office 

Criteria for Selecting Standard Levels

EPCA directs DOE to the maximum extent practicable to consider 

factors when setting energy conservation standards.

EPCA Factor DOE Analysis

1. Economic impact on consumers 

and manufacturers

Life-cycle Cost AnalysisManufacturer Impact Analysis

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle Cost Analysis3. Total projected energy savings National Impact Analysis 4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis

Engineering Analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of 

competition

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

6. Need for national energy 

conservation

National Impact Analysis

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant

Emissions Impact AnalysisUtility Impact AnalysisEmployment Impact Analysis
13 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
14 | Building Technologies Office 

Scope

• EPCA defines a furnace as a product which: 

– utilizes only single-phase electric current, or single-phase ele

current or DC current in conjunction with natural gas, propanheating oil;

– is designed to be the principal heating source for the living sp

residence;

– is not contained within the same cabinet with a central air con

whose rated cooling capacity is above 65,000 Btu per hour;

– is an electric central furnace, forced-air central furnace, or gr

central furnace; and

– has a heat input rate of less than 225,000 Btu per hour for fo

central furnaces, gravity central furnaces, and electric centra

(42 U.S.C. 6291(23))

– Based on the remand agreement, this rule only considers 2 c

• (1) non-weatherized gas furnaces (NWGF); and • (2) mobile home gas furnaces (MHGF).
15 | Building Technologies Office 

Engineering Analysis

Purpose• Determine the relationship between manufacturer sellin

increased efficiency in both active mode and standby/off operation of furnaces.

Method• Efficiency level approach and reverse engineering teardo

modeling.

• Information sources included:

– Product teardowns & manufacturing cost modeling– Manufacturer interviews– Product testing– Product literature– DOE product certification data
16 | Building Technologies Office 

Engineering Analysis (AFUE)

Physical 

and Catalog 

Teardowns/

BOMs

Selection of 

Efficiency 

Levels

Selection of 

Units for 

Teardown

MPCs for 

Units Torn 

Down 

(Physical and 

Catalog)

Manuf. Cost 

Estimate

Estimated 

Market Share 

by 

Manufacturer 

Manufactur

Markup

Industry 

Average 

MPCs

Industry 

Average 

MSPs

P

Model 

Information 

(from MTA)
17 | Building Technologies Office 

• For each equipment class, DOE selected AFUE efficiency 

for analysis at:

– The baseline efficiency level– Efficiency levels with a high number of models availab– Efficiency levels that represent substantial technologic

changes

– The max-tech efficiency level

Equipment Class

AFUE Efficiency Levels (%)

Baseline EL1 EL2 EL3 (MHGF max-tech) 

NWGF 80 90 92 95 

MHGF 80 92 95 97 

AFUE Efficiency Levels Analyzed 
18 | Building Technologies Office 

Selection of Units

• DOE selected units for teardown spanning the efficiency le

analyzed for NWGF and MHGF.

• Representative input capacity for analysis was 80,000 Btu

– Models chosen primarily at representative input, but also at 

and lower input ratings.

• DOE chose products from multiple manufacturers at each 

efficiency level. 

– Fabrication techniques, basic equipment design, and other f

differ across manufacturers. Due to these variations, the MPdifferent manufacturers to produce similar equipment designoften vary.

Number of Units Torn Down by Rated AFUEAFUE 80 90 91 92 93 94 95 No. units torn down 8 5 1 5 3 1 6 
19 | Building Technologies Office 

• The 2014 furnace fans final rule (79 FR 38129) set standa

the electrical energy consumption of the furnace blower.

– Compliance required by 2019 (i.e., prior to the likely 2021 c

date for this rule). 

• DOE assumed furnace fan standards will require the follow

technologies to be implemented in baseline furnaces:

• DOE accounted for these technologies in the baseline cos

higher efficiency levels, as applicable.

Product Class Indoor Blower Fan Motor 

Type

CombustioSystem Typ

NWGF Constant-torque BPM Two-stageMHGF Improved PSC Single-stage

Characteristics of Baseline NWGF and MHGF
20 | Building Technologies Office 

• Baseline Efficiency Level (80% AFUE)

– MPCs from baseline teardowns and manufacturer market sh

were used to calculate a market-share-weighted MPC at the 

• Condensing Efficiency Levels (90-95% AFUE)

– MPCs were compared to the baseline MPC for each manufa

individually and baseline cost subtracted to determine manuspecific incremental costs above baseline. 

– Incremental costs above baseline were subsequently aggreg

together to form a market-representative cost-efficiency curv

• Max-tech Efficiency Level (98% AFUE)

– Incremental cost to achieve max-tech was calculated as a m

share-weighted average of the difference in MPC between t98% efficiency levels for 2 manufacturers.

Cost-Efficiency Curves
21 | Building Technologies Office 

• For MHGF DOE tore down several models at various ELs 

the differences between MHGF and NWGF.

• MHGF and NWGF from the same manufacturer were com

– Manufacturer-specific design differences were used to deve

differential costs between MHGF and NWGF.

• Generally the incremental cost differences and cost-efficie

were similar. Observed design changes were also similar.

• These differential costs were added to the aggregate MPC

calculated for NWGF at each efficiency level to develop inrepresentative MPCs for MHGF.

Cost-Efficiency Curves
22 | Building Technologies Office 

Deriving MSPs

• Manufacturer selling price (MSP)

– The MSP is the price at which the manufacturer can recover 

production and nonproduction costs and earn a profit.

– MSP = MPC x manufacturer markup + shipping cost

• Manufacturer markup

– Initial estimate based on Securities and Exchange Commiss

10-K reports from publicly-traded manufacturers (examining costs of sales, and gross profit).

– Industry average markup calculated based on market-share – Industry average markup calibrated based on feedback rece

during manufacturer interviews. 

– DOE estimated the industry average manufacturer markup t

for NWGF and 1.27 for MHGF.
23 | Building Technologies Office 

NWGF MSPs

$400$450$500$550$600$650$700$750$800$850$900

75 80 85 90 95 

Manufacturer Selling Price (2013$)

Representative Unit AFUE (%)

AFUE MSP (2013$) Incr. MSP80 $492.95 -

90 $604.58 $111.63

92 $614.77 $121.82

95 $687.25 $194.30

98 $850.41 $357.46
24 | Building Technologies Office 

Engineering Analysis: Request for Comment

DOE seeks comments on any issues related to the methodology, assumptions, and results for the engineeranalysis for AFUE efficiency levels.
25 | Building Technologies Office 

• DOE analyzed a single standard for standby mode and off mode.

– Furnace blower is typically used with the cooling system during the n

season.

• DOE used a “design option” approach.

– Baseline design was established based on product test data and man

feedback.

– Standby energy consumption was tested before teardowns – Baseline efficiency levels were defined as the most energy-consump

combination of electrical components in tested furnaces

– Design options were applied to the baseline in order of cost-effectiven

Engineering Analysis (Standby Mode and Off Mode)

Component NWGF and MHGF Power 

Consumption (W)

Transformer 4BPM Blower Motor (includes controls) 3Controls/Other 4Total Baseline 11

Baseline Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption
26 | Building Technologies Office 

• DOE identified two design options for reducing standby m

off mode energy consumption that passed the screening a

– Low-loss transformer (LLTX)– Switching mode power supply

Engineering Analysis (Standby Mode and Off Mode)

Efficiency Level

Description Standby/Off Mode 

Power 

Consumption (W)

M

Baseline Linear power supply; Standard 

40VA transformer

11 

Efficiency Level 1

Linear power supply + LLTX 9.5 

Efficiency Level 2

Switching mode power supply 9.2 

Efficiency Level 3

Switching mode power supply + 

LLTX

8.5 
27 | Building Technologies Office 

Engineering Analysis: Request for Comment

DOE seeks comment on the efficiency levels analyzed fstandby mode and off mode, and on the assumption thastandby mode and off mode energy consumption (as deby DOE) would be equal. DOE also seeks comment and on what fraction, if any, consumers shut the furnace off dthe non-heating season.DOE seeks comment generally on any issue related to tmethodology, assumptions, or results for the standby moand off mode engineering analysis.
28 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
29 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Flowchart

EngineeringAnalysisMarkups to

DetermineProduct Price

Energy Use

Characterization

Baseline

Manufacturer

Cost

Std‐Level

Manufacturer

Cost

Manufacturer

Markup

Distributer &

Contractor

Markups

Sales Tax

Energy

Consumption

Energy

Prices

Consumer

Price

Installation

Cost

Total

Installed Cost

Incremental*

Annual

Energy Cost

Repair

Cost

Maintenance

Cost

Annual

Operating

Cost Savings*

Lifetime

Discount

Rate

Energy Price

Trend

Discou

Lifet

Oper

Cost Sa

Payb

Per

Prod

Switch

Base Case

Efficiency

* Differential between Standards Case and Base Case.** Product Switching methodology takes into account total installed cost and annual operating cost of proposed standard products in comparison to alternatives products.
30 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Purpose and Methodology

Purpose• Provide an economic evaluation from the consumer’s perspectiv• Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total consumer cost over the life of 

product.

• Payback Period (PBP) is the time required to recover the increa

purchase price of more energy-efficient products through reduceoperating costs.

Method• Use consumer samples developed in the energy use analysis.• Analysis models the uncertainty and variability of inputs using M

approach and probability distributions using Excel® with Crystal 

ൌ ܲܤܲ

ݐݏ݋ܥ	݈݈ܽ݁݀ݐݏ݊ܫ	݈ܽݐ݋ܶ∆

ݐݏ݋ܥ	݅݊݃ݐܽݎ݁݌ܱ	ݎܻ݁ܽ	ݐݏݎ݅ܨ∆

ݐݏ݋ܥ	݅݊݃ݐܽݎ݁݌ܱ	݅݉݁ݐ݂݅݁ܮ ൅ ݐݏ݋ܥ	݈݈ܽ݁݀ݐݏ݊ܫ	݈ܽݐ݋ܶ ൌ ܥܥܮ

௘௦஻௔ܥܥܮ െ ௌ௧ௗܥܥܮ ൌ ݏ݅݊݃ݒܵܽ	ܥܥܮ
31 | Building Technologies Office 

Input Purpose/Definition Method

Consumer Product Price

Manufacturing cost multiplied by markups, sales tax, and price trend factor.

Manufacturing cost from engineering analyMarkups and sales taxes: from markups anFuture price trend: historical PPI and shipm

Installation Costs

Labor and materials necessary to install appliance.

Higher costs for condensing furnace installadditional venting requirements and conde

Energy Use Determine field energy use. Based on RECS/CBECS energy use data 

factors.

Energy Prices

Develop average marginal monthly prices projected into the future.

Multiplied most current average annual ene

price factors and marginal price factors by Then multiplied by the projected annual en

Maintenance/Repair Costs

Cost of replacing or repairing failed components in furnace and routine cost to maintain.

Based on maintenance frequency, failure ylabor hours and cost, and material cost.

Discount Rates

Determine the present value of lifetime operating expenses.

Derived from various types of debt and equ

Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Fina

Lifetime Age when the product is retired. Based on national survey data and manufaBase Case Efficiency Distribution

Project market share of products at each efficiency level in the absence of standards.

Based on historical market share data, mostakeholder input.

Product Switching

Project product switching due to standards.

Based on consumer choice model that taketotal installed costs and operating costs.

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Input Summary
32 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Consumer Product Price

݅ܿ

ݎܲ ൈ ݏ݌ݑ݇ݎܽܯ ൈ ݐݏ݋ܥ	݅݊݃ݎݑݐ݂ܽܿݑܽ݊ܯ ൌ ݅ܿ݁ݎܲ	ݐܿݑ݀݋ݎܲ	ݎ݉݁ݑݏ݊݋ܥ

• Manufacturing production costs (MPCs) developed in engineering 

each efficiency level. 

• Markups derived from company direct costs, expenses, and profits

− Determine consumer price based on MSP for baseline and higher eff− Characterize NWGF and MHGF distribution channels.

• Price trend based on historical PPI data and shipment data.

• Default price trend: decreasing (by 16.5% over the 30 year analysis p• Sensitivity analysis considered alternative 

price trends (high decreasing and constant).
33 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Markups Analysis

Manufacturer Wholesaler Mechanical Contractor Consumer

ReplacementsNew Construction

Manufacturer Mobile Home Manufacturer Mobile Home Dealer MHGFs: Consu

Manufacture

r Wholesaler Mechanical Contractor General Contractor NWGFs: 

Note: The national account channel for NWGFs purchased for commercial installations includes manufacturer, w

Input Variable Data Source

Manufacturer U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports (see 

Wholesaler Firm income statements from the HARDI 2012 Profit Report.Mechanical Contractor

ACCA 2005 Financial Analysis report; US Census Bureau, 2007 Plu

Contractors sector.

General Contractor US Census Bureau, 2007 Commercial Building Construction sector

Mobile Home Manufacturer

US Census Bureau, 2007 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) ManOther Specialty Trade Contractors sectors.

Mobile Home Dealer US Census Bureau, 2007 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors sec

from mobile home dealer websites and other sources.

Sales Tax 2013 Sales Tax Clearinghouse Data.
34 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Markups Analysis

Baseline Markups

• Relate the MSP of baseline equipment to the consumer purcha• DOE applied baseline markups to the MSP of the baseline leve

Incremental Markups

• Relate the increase in MSP of more-efficient products to the inc

consumer purchase price 

• Cover only expenses that vary with MSP (e.g., operating expen

profit)

− Fixed costs such as overhead and labor do not scale with increased 

• DOE applied the incremental markups to the incremental differ

MSP at each level above the baseline.
35 | Building Technologies Office 

Average Markups for Market Participants (NWGF

Average Markups by Product Class

Market Participant Replacement New Constructio

Baseline Incr. Baseline Incr

Manufacturer 1.34 1.34Wholesaler 1.36 1.10 1.36 1.10Mechanical Contractor 1.53 1.23 1.43 1.14General Contractor - 1.46 1.33

Sales Tax 1.07 -Overall Markup 3.00 1.95 3.80 2.24National Account* 1.96 1.59 1.83 1.48

Product Class Baseline Markup Increm

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 3.20 Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 2.57 

* Includes manufacturer, wholesaler, and sales tax (for replacements).

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Markups Analysis
36 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis

Request for Comment

DOE invites comments and recommendations from interes

parties on any aspect relating to the Markups Analysis.
37 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Installation Cost

Purpose: Represent the labor and material costs necessary to instal

Sources:

• 2013 RS Means 

Residential Cost Data

• DOE’s 2007 Furnace 

and Boiler Final Rule Installation Model

• Manufacturer literature

Installation Location of Furnace

Orphaned

Water Heater 

(Replacement)

New PVC Venting

Chimney Relining 

(Replacement)

Metal Vent 

Modification 

(Replacement)

Ind

Bu

Inst

Non-Condensing Furnace

Condensing Furnace

New Metal Vent 

(New Owner/New 

Construction)

Combustion Air 

Direct Vent

Concealing Vent 

Pipe 

(Replacement)

Basic 

Installation 

Costs

Venting 

Installation

Costs

Condensate 

Withdrawal 

Install. Costs

• Puttin

furnac

• Gas p• Ductw• Electr

(therm

• Attic in• Permi

fees

• Condensate Pipe• Drip pan• Condensate 

pump

• Freeze protection• Electric outlet
38 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Installation Location Determination

Has 

Basement

?

RECS 2009 

House 

Sample

1) Conditioned 

Basement

Yes

Basement 

Finished?

2) Un-Conditioned 

Basement

No Yes

Has Attic 

and HH 

built after 

1980?

Attic 

Finished

?

Has 

Crawl 

Space? 

6) Conditioned 

Attic

7) UnConditioned Attic

No Yes

No

3) Cr

Spa

Yes

5) Indoor

No

No

Yes

Note: All NWGFs installed in commercial buildings and MHGFs were assumed to be in “indoor” locations
39 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: NWGF Installation Location Results

Garage

National: 10.0%

North: 3.5%

South: 17.3%

Crawl Space

National: 9.4%

North: 7.9%

South: 11.1%

Heated 

Basement

National: 29.3%

North: 48.7%

South: 7.4%

Unheated 

Basement

National: 11.1%

North: 16.6%

South: 4.9%

Indoor

National: 27.7%

North: 20.0%

South: 36.3%

Heated 

National: 0.8%

North: 0.1%

South: 1.6%

Unheated 

National:11.8%

North: 3.2%

South: 21.4%

Attic
40 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Basic Installation Costs

• Applicable to all installations and includes:

− trip charge (replacement only),− removal of existing furnace (replacement only),− putting in place and setting up the furnace (varies by input c− unit start-up, check, and clean up, − gas piping, − electrical hookup for the thermostat, − permit, removal or disposal fees, − when applicable, additional labor hours for an attic installatio− ductwork costs same for all installations.

Basic Installation Costs for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (201

Region

Average Cost 2013$

Replacement New Construction/New Owner

National $631 $626North $710 $708Rest of Country $545 $528
41 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: NWGF Venting Installation Cost

Category I Venting

Category IV Venting

Cost factors: Installation locatiotype (replacement or new constrmaterial type (metal or plastic); cdirect vent (two-pipe or concentr
42 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: NWGF Vent Pipe Length Determination

Horizontal 

Distance**

RECS 2009/CBECS 2003 Data

Vent Size* X 1.5 

= 6 feet

Distance from 

Furnace 

to Roof

Floor Height

Number of 

Floors Above 

Furnace

= Floor Height X # of Floors 

+ Floor Height – 4 ft+ 3 ft distance above roof+ Cathedral ceiling height installations

Cathedral 

Ceiling

High Ceiling

Applied to attic 

installations 

only

NAHB Floor Height Data

Number of 

Floors

H

Horizontal 

Distance

Vertical 

Distance†

Avg Wall to 

Horizontal 

Vent Length 

Ratio

Install. 

Location 

Square 

Footage

Assumed square box (average 

between diagonal and side lengths)

Average Wall 

Length

Vent Size X 1.5

= 3 feet + Floor 

Height (if basement or crawl space)

1) Basement of Crawl Space 

= # of Floors

2) Garage and 1⁄2 Indoor

= # of Floors – 1

3) Attic and 1⁄2 Indoor = 0

* Vent size of NWGF assumed to be 4”. size.** Only applied if NWGF is commonly ve† Only applied if NWGF is installed in ba
43 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Replacement: Non-Condensing to Non-Condensing

• Masonry chimney requires relining if:

– Household has a chimney, and– Furnace was installed before 1995 or building built before 1995 (based on the 

Gas Code (NFGC)).

• Venting resizing and vent connectors required if:

– Household has an existing natural draft NWGF <75% AFUE,

• Sources: RECS 2009 - furnace age vintage, with historical shipments existing AFUE f

– Last furnace replacement before 2020, and– Chimney does not need to be relined.

Existing 

NWGF

Replacement 

NWGF Installation Requirement Fraction Imp

<75% AFUE 80% AFUE

Replace Vent Connectors (North) 0.3% Replace Vent Connectors (Rest of Country) 0.5% 

<75% AFUE 80% AFUE Resizing Vent System (North) 0.1% 

Resizing Vent System (Rest of Country) 0.1% 

<75% AFUE 80% AFUE Chimney Relining (North) 0.5% 

Chimney Relining (Rest of Country) 0.1% 

Venting Type Northeast Midwest South WestMasonry 73% 53% 10% 27%Metal Vent 27% 47% 90% 73%

Fraction of Existing Masonry Chimney and Metal Vent Installations
44 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Replacement: Non-Condensing to Condensing

Installation Cost Considerations• Replacing metal vent with PVC flue vent:

– Furnace location– House ceiling height and number of floors– Furnace distance from wall or roof, vertical or horizontal vent– Wall type, which determines the cost of penetrating the wall– Vent terminations account for vertical and horizontal installations

• Combustion air vent for direct-vent installations:

– Vent length, which is the same as flue pipe length.– Vent installation fraction, which depends on the installation location.

• Concealing vent pipes in indoor installations:

– Assumed half of the indoor horizontally vented condensing NWGF installa

require vent pipe concealing (9% of all replacement non-condensing to coinstallations).

• Orphaned water heaters:

– Some installations need to reline the chimney and resize venting when a 

NWGF replaces an existing non-condensing NWGF that is commonly venwater heater.
45 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Replacement: Direct Vent (PVC)

• Fraction of direct vent installations for condensing NWGFs 

on furnace location

– Based on consultant report (2011 DFR TSD Appendix 8-B; EE

BT-STD-0011-0012)

– Direct vent length: same as flue pipe length

ID Installation Location

Fraction of 

Direct Vent 

Installations 

Fraction of Inst

North Rest o

Count

1 Basement (Conditioned) 67% 48.69% 7.40% 2 Basement (Unconditioned) 33% 16.64% 4.85% 3 Crawl Space 33% 7.91% 11.06% 4 Garage 100% 3.45% 17.27% 5 Indoor (Closet, Alcove, Utility Room) 67% 20.04% 36.42% 6 Attic (Conditioned) 67% 0.06% 1.62% 7 Attic (Unconditioned) 33% 3.21% 21.38% 

Total Fraction of Installations that are Direct Vent 58.7% 60.0% 
46 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Replacement: Concealing PVC Flue Vent

• Concealing Vent Pipes: putting in place structures to mask vents 

through living space

Installation Cost Criteria

Fraction of 

Installations 

Impacted

Concealing Vent Pipes

50% of indoor horizontal condensing NWGF installations

9% 

Description Crew Labor Hours Unit Bare Costs (2013$) Q

Materials Labor Total

Trip Charge 1 CARP* 0.5 Ea. $0.00 $15.73 $15.73 

Wallboard repair 8"-12" 1 CARP 0.5 C.L.F

.

$3.04 $15.73 $18.77 

Total 

* 1 CARP means a crew of 1 carpenter.

Concealing Ductwork Cost Example Using National Labor Cos
47 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Replacement Venting Summary

Existing 

Furnace

Replacement 

Furnace Installation Requirement

Frequency of 

applying 

requirements

Fr

Im

Chimney installed before 1990 80% AFUE Relining all unlined chimneys 100% Natural Draft 80 % AFUE

Installing New Vent Connectors (Converting from single-wall to Type B doublewall) 75% 

Natural Draft 80% AFUE Resizing Vent System 20% 

Non-Condensing to Condensing NWGF Installations

Existing NonCondensing 

Furnace

Replacement Installation Requirement

Frequency of 

applying 

requirements

Fra

Imp

Natural Draft Condensing 

Furnace

Convert Water Heater from single wall to Type B vent Connector 100% 0

Natural Draft Condensing 

Furnace

Resizing Orphaned Water Heater Chimney or upgrading Metal Vent 75% 0

Natural Draft or Fan Assisted 

Condensing Furnace

Reline all unlined chimneys for Orphaned Water Heater 100% 0

Fan Assisted Condensing 

Furnace

Resizing Orphaned Water Heater Chimney or upgrading Metal Vent 40% 1

Non-Condensing to Non-Condensing NWGF Installations
48 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:New Construction/New Owner Installations

• Installation costs of new venting systems are taken into accou

non-condensing and condensing furnaces, and for NWGFs commwith a water heater. 

– For non-condensing furnaces, a new metal flue vent is the only adde– For condensing furnaces, the adders include new flue vent (PVC), co

vent for direct vent installations (PVC), accounting for a commonly veheater (NWGF only), and condensate removal. 

• Commonly vented non-condensing NWGF and water heater i

venting costs are all assigned to the NWGF.

• Condensing NWGF venting cost for installations that originally 

install a non-condensing NWGF with a commonly vented gas watadded the venting system installation cost of the now-orphaned w
49 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Condensate Withdrawal Methodology

Drip Pan

Installation Location of Furnace

Condensate 

Pipe

Attic or Indoor 

above 1st floor C

Heat Tape

Condensate 

Pump

Has No

Central AC

Unconditioned 

Attic

Electrica

Outlet

All installations

All installations

C

N

Applied 

the time

50% of 

Applied 

the time

50% of 

= 1.5 ft pipe 

installations

applicable to all 

Applied 

the time

12.5% of 
50 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Condensate Removal Summary

Installation Fractions and Average Costs for Condensate Removal: Rep

Installation Cost Description Assumption 

Condensate Pipe Deposit condensate down drain. All installations Drip Pan Some building codes require a drip pan 

if furnace is installed above the 1st floor.

Attics or higher floor installations 

Condensate Pump If a drain is not near the furnace, then 

the condensate must be pumped to a remote drain. 

25% of installations without AC 

Heat Tape Protect condensate pipe from freezing 

temperatures.

50% of installations in unconditioned attic 

Electrical Outlet (add’l) Required for some installations to 

operate condensate pump or heat tape.

50% of installations requiring pump/heat tape 

Condensate Neutralizer Neutralizes condensate before disposal. 12.5% of all installations 

Installation Cost Description Assumption 

Condensate Pipe Deposit condensate down drain. All installations Drip Pan Some building codes require a drip pan 

if furnace is installed above the 1st floor.

Attics or higher floor installations 

Condensate Neutralizer Neutralizes condensate before disposal. 12.5% of all installations 

Installation Fractions and Average Costs for Condensate Removal: New Con
51 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Installation Cost by Market Segments
52 | Building Technologies Office 

Installation Fractions and Average Costs for Condensate Removal (Repl

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: MHGF Installation Costs

Condensing MHGF: Condensate Remov

Installation Cost Description Assumption 

Condensate Pipe Deposit condensate down drain. All installations 

Heat Tape Protect condensate pipe from freezing 

temperatures.

All replacement installations 

Electrical Outlet (add’l) Required for some installations to 

operate condensate pump or heat tape.

50% of installations requiring heat tape 

Condensate Neutralizer

Neutralizes condensate before disposal. 12.5% of all installations 

MHGF: Venting

• U.S. HUD code requires sealed combustion (direct vent) for all MH

installations.
53 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization:Purpose and Method

Purpose

• Determine annual energy consumption of NWGFs and MHGFs 

considered efficiency levels to find annual energy costs and sav

• Annual energy costs are inputs to Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Analysis.

Method

ݏܷ	ݕݐ݅ܿ݅ݎݐ݈݁ܿܧ ൅ ݁ݏܷ	݈݁ݑܨ ൌ ݁ݏܷ	ݕ݃ݎ݊݁ܧ	݈ܽݐ݋ܶ

• Fuel Use: Total fuel consumption as a result of space heating load.• Electricity Use: Electrical consumption of all electrical components, in

standby mode and off mode consumption. 
54 | Building Technologies Office 

RECS 

2009 

Sample 

No

Yes

Heated square footage ≤ 10,000? CBECS 2003 Sample No Fuel type Yes Other

Uses 

furnace 

for space 

heating?

Ga

Out of 

Sample

Out of 

Sample

Out of 

Sample

Product Class Count # of Bldgs, million

RECS 2009

NWGF 5700 53.7MHGF 195 2.5

CBECS 2003

NWGF 685 1.162MHGF 0 0

* Includes 

Energy Use Characterization: Building Sample Determination
55 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization: Building Sample Adjustments

• Households sharing a furnace: RECS 2009-reported weight is decrea

number of units sharing the furnace as follows:

• Buildings with multiple furnaces: RECS 2009-reported weight is incre

number of furnaces in a building

− Residential buildings over 5,000 square feet assumed to have two NWGFs .

• Projected growth of the number of furnaces by 2021 based on shipment• Historical Shipments: matched NWGF sample weights to AHRI furnac• Disaggregating NWGFs from WGFs RECS 2009: used AHRI shipmen

account for weatherized gas furnaces in RECS 2009 sample.

− About 10 percent of total furnace shipments are weatherized furnaces

− DOE multiplied the RECS 2009 weight for households with both a gas furnace a

conditioning (CAC) by 0.97 for the North region, 0.79 for the hot-dry Rest of Cou

0.82 for hot-humid Rest of Country region.

Single-family home: share furnace with 1 other unit

Multi-family home(2-4 units): share furnace with 3 other units

Multi-family home (5+ units): share furnace with # of units reported in bui
56 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization:Flowchart

RECS

2009/CBECS

2003 Data

Input Capacity of

Existing Furnace

Historical

Shipment and

Model Data

Constant Fan

Operating Hours

Burner Operating

Hours

Fuel Use

Electricity U

Building Heating

Load

RECS

2009/CBECS

2003 Data

Heating/Cooling

Load Adjustments

Constant

Fan

Operation

Field Data

Operating Hours

Useful Energy

Output

AFUE of Existing

Furnace

Useful Heat from

Blower

Adjustment Factors

RECS

2009/CBECS

2003 Age

Historical

Shipment

Data

Average Fan

Power

Power of Electrical

Components

Electricity Use of

Auxiliary Equipment

ASHRAE

Standard

103‐2007

Non‐Heating Fan

Electricity Use

Differential Cooling Operating

Hours

Standby

Electricity U
57 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use CharacterizationFuel Use Determination

• Input capacity of existing furnace based on household characteristics, hist

shipment data, and AHRI model directory data.

Burner Operating Hours• Useful Output is the output of the furnace and also includes useful heat fro

losses.

Building Heating Load in 2021• QYR: annual fuel consumption for heating based on RECS 2009 or CBECS 2003.

• AFUEex: AFUE of the existing furnace (based on age of furnace and historical ship

• BlowerHeat: useful heat from the blower; based on average fan power.

• AdjFactor:

− Adjusted energy use data for average climate conditions using most recent 10‐year N

− Adjusted for changes in building shell efficiency and climate change in 2021.

• FurnaceCount: number of furnaces used to fulfill the building heating load.

• NumberofUnitsServed: number of housing units served by each furnace.

݌ܽܥ	ݐݑ݌݊ܫ	݊ܽܿ݁ݎݑܨ ൈ	 ݏݎݑ݋ܪ	݅݊݃ݐܽݎ݁݌ܱ	ݎ݊݁ݎݑܤ	 ൌ ݁ݏܷ	݈݁ݑܨ

ݐݑ݌ݐݑܱ	݈ݑ݂݁ݏܷ ܽ݀݋ܮ	ݐ݁ܽܪ	݈݅݀݅݊݃ݑܤ ൌ ݏݎݑ݋ܪ	݅݊݃ݐܽݎ݁݌ܱ	ݎ݊݁ݎݑܤ

݂ܷ݊

݋ݎܾ݉݁ݑܰ ൈ ݐ݊ݑ݋ܥ݊ܽܿ݁ݎݑܨ ௥௢௧௔௖ி݆݀ܣ ൈ ݐ݁ܽܪݎ݁ݓ݋݈ܤ ൅ ௫௘ܧܷܨܣ ൈ ோ௒ܳ ൌ௥௡௔௖௘ ி௨ܮܪܤ
58 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization:Distribution of Fuel Use in Building Sample

Equipment 

Class

Average Heating Energy Use 

from RECS 2009/CBECS 

2003, MMBtu/yr (Median)

Average Estimated 

Energy Use in 2

Baseline, MMBtu/yr 

NWGF 50.5 (43.7) 42.7 (37.4)MHGF 39.7 (36.2) 33.3 (31.3)
59 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization Electricity Use

Active Mode• ElecPowerElecComp = power of multiple electrical components required du

operation (kW),

• OHElecComp = operating hours of the electrical components,

• ElecUseAux = electricity use of the auxiliary equipment, such as condens

and heat tape (kWh), and

• DiffElecUseFan = differential of electricity use of the furnace fan during co

continuous fan circulation, (kWh) (based on 2014 furnace fan final rule).

Standby Mode• StbyE = power consumption during standby (kW) (from engineering ana

• 8760 = hours in a year,• BOH = burner operating hours,• COH = cooling operating hours (based on RECS 2009/CBECS 2003-re

cooling energy use for households and buildings with a central air condi

• CFOH = continuous fan operating hours (based on field studies).

ܧ݈ܷ݁ܿݏ݁ ൌ ܧ݈ܷ݁ܿݏ݁௖஺௧௜௩௘ெ௢ௗ௘ ൅ ܧ݈ܷ݁ܿݏ݁ௌ௧௕௬

ܦ ൅ ௨௫஺݁ݏ݈ܷ݁ܿܧ ൅ ௣௠௢஼௖௘௟ாܪܱ ൈ௟௘௖஼௢௠௣ ாݎ݁ݓ݋݈݁ܿܲܧ ൌ௘ ௗ௢ெ௘௩௜௧஺௖݁ݏ݈ܷ݁ܿܧ

ሻܪܱܨܥ െ ܪܱܥ െ ܪܱܤ െ 8760ሺ ൈ	 ܧݕܾݐܵ ൌ ௬௕ௌ௧݁ݏ݈ܷ݁ܿܧ
60 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization: Results

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnace, AFUE Standards

EL AFUE Annual Fuel Use (MMBtu/yr) Annual Elec

Consumption 

Total Savings Total 

National

0 80% 42.8 - 349.0 1 90% 38.1 4.7 340.5 2 92% 37.3 5.5 335.1 3 95% 36.2 6.6 322.1 4 98% 34.8 7.9 349.7 

North

0 80% 54.3 - 397.3 1 90% 48.3 5.9 388.0 2 92% 47.3 7.0 381.5 3 95% 45.9 8.4 366.0 4 98% 44.2 10.1 398.4 

Rest of Country

0 80% 29.8 - 294.6 1 90% 26.6 3.3 287.0 2 92% 26.0 3.8 282.7 3 95% 25.2 4.6 272.5 4 98% 24.4 5.5 294.9 
61 | Building Technologies Office 

Energy Use Characterization

Request for Comment

DOE seeks input on the fraction of consumers that turn the

furnace off during the non‐heating season.

DOE invites comment and recommendations from interested

parties on any aspect relating to the Energy Use Characteriza
62 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Energy Prices

Purpose: Develop average marginal monthly prices by geographicaMethod: Multiply most current average annual energy prices by mofactors and marginal price factors. 

• 2012 average annual energy prices by geographical area based on

‒ Electricity: EIA’s 2012 Form 826 data

‒ Natural Gas: EIA’s 2012 Natural Gas Navigator monthly

‒ LPG: EIA’s 2012 State Energy Consumption, Price, and Exp

Estimates (SEDS)

• Monthly energy price factors by geographical area based on:

‒ Electricity: EIA’s 1993-2012 Form 826 monthly data

‒ Natural Gas: EIA’s 1993-2012 Natural Gas Navigator monthly ‒ LPG: EIA’s 2009 Short Term Energy Outlook 1995-2009 histor

• Marginal energy price factors for electricity and natural gas by 30 ge

areas and 10 Census regions based on EIA monthly data from 2003
63 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Energy Price Trends

• Method: applied to 2012 average monthly marginal energy price

geographical area to projected future annual energy prices

– 2020-2040: trends based on EIA’s AEO 2014 by census division– After 2040: trends based on Federal Energy Management Progr

guidelines 

National Residential Energy Price Forecasts
64 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Energy Prices Results

Summary of Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces Average and Marginal Pr

Energy Price Unit Energy Prices (2013$) Fractio

Average Marginal Sh

National

Natural Gas 2013$/MMbtu 11.2 10.0 LPG 2013$/MMbtu 26.0 26.0 Electricity 2013$/kWh 0.123 0.115 

North

Natural Gas 2013$/MMbtu 10.8 9.7 LPG 2013$/MMbtu 26.0 26.0 Electricity 2013$/kWh 0.126 0.114 

Rest of Country

Natural Gas 2013$/MMbtu 11.65 10.24 LPG 2013$/MMbtu 26.0 26.0 Electricity 2013$/kWh 0.119 0.117 
65 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analyses:Repair and Maintenance

• Repair Cost: Cost of replacing or repairing components in the furnace t

• Sources: 2013 RS Means Facilities Repair and Maintenance Data, m

literature, Decision Analysts 2008 American Home Comfort Study.

• Maintenance Cost: labor and materials required to maintain furnace.

• Sources: Decision Analysts 2008 American Home Comfort Study, 20

Facilities Repair and Maintenance Data. 

• Accounts for additional maintenance costs associated with condensa

system and condensate neutralizer.

Product Class Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2013$) Maintenance 

Annualized Incremental Annualized 

NonWeatherized

Gas Furnace

80% $19.80 - $38.20 90% $22.52 $2.72 $40.06 92% $22.52 $2.72 $40.06 95% $22.52 $2.72 $40.06 98% $22.52 $2.72 $40.06 

Mobile Home 

Gas Furnace

80% $8.84 - $37.79 92% $9.90 $1.05 $39.62 95% $9.90 $1.05 $39.62 97% $9.90 $1.05 $39.62 
66 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analyses: Lifetime

• Definition: Age when the furnace is retired from service.

• Method: Used national survey data and manufacturer ship

to calculate the distribution of lifetimes

Product Class Mean

Weibull Parameters

Alpha (scale) Beta (shape) Loc

(d

All Furnaces 21.5 22.9 3.37 
67 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analyses:Residential Discount Rates

• Purpose: Used to determine the present value of lifetime operatin• Method: Derived from various types of debt and equity using the F

Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.

• Primary data sources: Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consum

for the years 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.

Income Group Discount Rate (%)

1 4.852 5.123 4.754 4.045 3.806 3.57

Overall Average 4.49

Average real effective discount
68 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Base Case Efficiency Distribution

Purpose: Reflects projected market shares of products at different efficiency 

base case (in the absence of standards).

• Not all consumers purchase products at current minimum standard.• LCC analysis recognizes that consumers already purchasing products at efficiencie

equal to a prospective standard level are not impacted by the standard.

Method: Projected NWGF and MHGF efficiency market share in 2021 for eac

class based on historical shipment data and the share of models in each prodthe latest AHRI certification directory.Sources:

• Number of shipments disaggregated by non-condensing and condensing gas furna

(1978-1992, 1992-2009)

• AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance• ENERGY STAR® unit shipments for NWGFs from 2009-2012

Efficiency, 

AFUE 

2021 Market share in percent, NWGFs

National North, Repl North, New South, Repl 

80% 53.4% 33.0% 34.7% 77.6% 90% 5.2% 5.5% 8.8% 3.4% 92% 17.9% 15.8% 32.4% 13.9% 95% 23.0% 44.9% 23.6% 4.9% 98% 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.1% 
69 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Base Case Efficiency Distribution Chart

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Condensing market share

Historical, National Projected, NationalHistorical, North Projected, NorthHistorical, Rest of Country Projected, Rest of C
70 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Methodology

• In the face of high installation costs for a condensing NWG

consumers may choose to switch to electric space heating 

under a standards case.

• Switching options

– Space heating: non-condensing NWGF condensing NWGF

– Space cooling: CACCAC or AH + HP

– Water heating: GSWHGSWH or ESWH

• Inputs: total installed cost, first year operating cost, lifetime

prices of alternative space conditioning and water heating 

• Switching decision based on PBP of condensing NWGF re

alternative product

– 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2013 American Home Comfort Survey – average space conditioning energy cost determined from RE

RECS 2005, and RECS 2009 
71 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Options

Non-condensing 

NWGF

Condensing 

NWGF

Electric 

Furnace

Heat Pump

Central Air 

Conditioner

Central Air 

Conditioner

Air 

Handler/Heat 

Pump

Water Heating

Gas Water 

Heating

Electric Water 

Heating
72 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Options
73 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Options

Existing Product Combination New Space Heating New Water Heating 

(1) Non-Cond. NWGF Condensing NWGF N/A 

EF N/A 

(2) Non-Cond. NWGF + CAC

Condensing NWGF N/A 

EF N/A 

AH/EF N/A 

(3) Non-Cond. NWGF + HP Condensing NWGF N/A 

AH/EF N/A 

(4) Non-Cond. NWGF + GSWH

Condensing NWGF GSWH Condensing NWGF ESWH 

EF GSWH EF ESWH 

(5) Non-Cond. NWGF + GSWH 

+ CAC

Condensing NWGF GSWH Condensing NWGF ESWH 

EF GSWH EF ESWH 

AH/EF GSWH AH/EF ESWH 

(6) Non-cond. NWGF + GSWH + 

HP

Condensing NWGF GSWH Condensing NWGF ESWH 

AH/EF GSWH AH/EF ESWH 
74 | Building Technologies Office 

Existing Product Combination

Replacement New Con

National North Rest of Country National No

Non-Cond. NWGF 2.6% 4.0% 1.7% 2.7% 4.2Non-Cond. NWGF + CAC 10.2% 7.0% 12.3% 10.8% 12.Non-Cond. NWGF + HP 1.0% 0.2% 1.5% 0.9% 0.2Non-Cond. NWGF + GSWH 17.2% 27.3% 10.8% 7.4% 9.5Non-Cond. NWGF + GSWH + CAC 65.9% 59.5% 70.0% 72.7% 68.Non-cond. NWGF + GSWH + HP 3.1% 2.1% 3.7% 5.5% 4.9

LCC and Payback Period Analysis:Product Switching Options Statistics

Fraction of Installations of Product Combinations in 
75 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Decision Criteria

Year

Average Cost Consumers are 

Willing to Pay for 25% Higher 

Efficiency

Nominal $ 2013$

2006 $720 $ 831.992008 $832 $ 900.742010 $817 $ 872.832013 $564 $ 564.00Average $ 792.39

Year

Average 

Conditioning 

Nominal $ 

2001 $667 2005 $792 2009 $825 Average 

Maximum Product Price Consumers would Pay to Purchase 

Higher-Efficiency Products Based on AHCS (2006-2013) Average Space Conditioning Energy Co

from RECS 2001, 2005, 

ܲݎ݅ܿ݁	ெ௢௥௘ିா௙௙௜௖௜௘௡௧	௉௥௢ௗ௨௖௧

ݐݏ݋ܥ	ݕ݃ݎ݊݁ܧ	݊݅݊݃݋݅ݐ݊݀݅݋ܥ	ܽܿ݁݌ܵ	݂݋	25%

ൌ

$792

3.5 ൌ ݎ݁ܽݕ$906/ ൈ 25%
76 | Building Technologies Office 

Input Data Source

Product EFs CACs and HPs Product Price

Determined incremental cost compared to NWGFs based on RS Means 2013 data

2011 CAC and HP direct final rule

2010 herule

Future Price Trend

Same as NWGFs Historical PPI and 

shipment data (decreasing)

Assume

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs

RS Means 2013 Residential Cost Data, manufacturer literature

Energy Efficiency

• DOE furnace and 

boiler test procedure (98% AFUE)

• New: minimum efficiency 

under standards that took effect in 2015

• Existing: historical 

shipments

• New: m

efficienin 201

• Existin

standa1990 a

Lifetime Same as NWGFs Based on 2011 direct final rule Based o

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Data Inputs
77 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Product Switching Results

Percent of Product Switching for Replacement Units in Reside

Consumer Option

National Standard at:*

90% AFUE 92% AFUE 95% AFUE 

North Rest of Country North Rest of Country North Rest of Country 

Purchase NWGF at Standard Level 88.40% 79.99% 88.89% 80.02% 87.02% 75.08% 

Switch from Non-Cond. NWGF to EF** 3.08% 5.76% 2.76% 5.68% 3.08% 5.79% Switch from Non-Cond. NWGF to HP** 8.52% 14.26% 8.35% 14.30% 9.89% 19.12% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Switch from GSWH to ESWH 2.68% 2.56% 2.27% 2.71% 2.76% 3.04% 

* Components may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.**Includes households that also switch from a gas water heater to an electric water
78 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Results

Example: Non-Weatherized Gas Furnace

Efficiency 

Level AFUE

Average Costs 2013$ Sim

Pay

ye

Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC

National

0 80% $2,218 $642 $10,314 $12,533 1 90% $2,654 $589 $9,388 $12,042 82 92% $2,669 $579 $9,228 $11,897 73 95% $2,788 $565 $8,985 $11,773 74 98% $2,948 $554 $8,771 $11,718 8

North

0 80% $2,410 $807 $12,923 $15,333 1 90% $2,985 $737 $11,761 $14,746 82 92% $3,000 $724 $11,555 $14,556 73 95% $3,133 $706 $11,251 $14,385 74 98% $3,311 $690 $10,979 $14,290 7

Rest of Country

0 80% $2,003 $456 $7,374 $9,376 1 90% $2,280 $422 $6,714 $8,994 82 92% $2,295 $415 $6,606 $8,901 73 95% $2,398 $406 $6,430 $8,828 74 98% $2,539 $401 $6,281 $8,820 9
79 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Results

Example: Non-Weatherized Gas Furnace

Efficiency Level AFUE

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Net Cost Average Sa

National

0 80% 0% 1 90% 22% $2 92% 20% $3 95% 24% $4 98% 40% $

North

0 80% 0% 1 90% 11% $2 92% 10% $3 95% 14% $4 98% 37% $

Rest of Country

0 80% 0% 1 90% 33% $2 92% 31% $3 95% 35% $4 98% 43% $
80 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Results Comparison (Effect of Product Switching)

Comparison of Results With and Without Product Switching f

EL

Average LCC Savings Simple Payback Period % of Co

2013$ Years Experie

Without 

Switching

With 

Switching

Without 

Switching

With 

Switching

Without 

Switching

National

1 $164 $236 12.2 10.6 23% 2 $238 $305 9.0 7.7 20% 3 $311 $388 9.6 8.9 24% 4 $332 $441 12.9 12.0 41% 

North

1 $169 $208 9.6 8.8 12% 2 $244 $277 5.9 5.3 10% 3 $343 $374 8.0 7.8 14% 4 $435 $467 12.0 11.8 37% 

Rest of Country

1 $158 $267 13.8 11.8 35% 2 $232 $336 11.0 9.5 32% 3 $276 $404 11.3 10.1 36% 4 $215 $412 14.3 12.4 47% 
81 | Building Technologies Office 

AGA Analysis vs. DOE NOPR Analysis

AGA Case Study• Based on a simplified model to calculate impacts of potent

condensing (90% AFUE standard)

• Incorporates fuel switching results from 2013-2014 builder 

contractor product switching survey conducted by GTI

• Uses shipment data for a single year (2012)• Uses market data for 2013 (energy use, energy prices, sou

factors, emissions) for a single city or state to represent ea

• Results are presented for 10 regions and aggregated to na

AGA study conclusions• Increased energy costs ($44.91 million/yr)• Increased source energy use (0.0005 Quads/yr)• Increased CO2 emissions (350,000 tons/yr)
82 | Building Technologies Office 

AGA Analysis vs. DOE NOPR Analysis

Key differences• AGA impacts are not based on household specific economic crit

the individual households that are switching and their energy usprices:

Conclusions• AGA’s assumptions of higher heating load and higher electricity 

lower natural gas prices) for the households that switch leads to impacts of switching on national energy costs, source energy usemissions compared to DOE’s analysis.

Inputs AGA Analysis DOE NOPR A

Space Heating Load (Energy Use)

assumes that households that switch have same space heating 

load as those that do not switch

uses household specifshows that switching hlower space heating lo

Energy Prices

assumes that households that switch have same energy prices 

as those that do not switch

uses household specifshows that switching hto have lower electricit

higher natural gas pricthat don’t switch
83 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis: Consumer Subgroup Analysis

Purpose: Evaluate impacts on groups or customers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a proposed national energy conservati

– Subgroups: Low-income households and senior-only households. 

Example: Non-Weatherized Gas Furnace, Comparison

EL AFUE

Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings Simple Payback 

2013$ years

Senior-Only Low-Income All Consumers Senior-Only Low-Incom

National

1 90% $255 $176 $236 7.8 9.6 2 92% $326 $247 $305 6.8 8.3 3 95% $427 $330 $388 6.9 8.3 4 98% $542 $485 $441 7.5 8.5 

North

1 90% $223 $148 $208 7.9 9.1 2 92% $293 $228 $277 6.9 7.8 3 95% $405 $346 $374 6.7 7.6 4 98% $573 $624 $467 7.1 7.5 

Rest of Country

1 90% $293 $209 $267 7.5 10.8 2 92% $367 $269 $336 6.7 9.6 3 95% $454 $312 $404 7.3 10.0 4 98% $504 $321 $412 8.6 11.7 
84 | Building Technologies Office 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis

Request for Comment

DOE invites comments and recommendations from

interested parties on any aspect relating to Life‐Cycle Cos

and Payback Period Analysis.
85 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
86 | Building Technologies Office 

Shipments Analysis:Purpose and Methodology

Purpose

• Forecast the NWGFs and MHGFs that would be expected to be 

between 2021 and 2050 with and without energy conservation s

Method

• Shipment Projections: Estimate the number of NWGFs and M

shipped annually in the absence of new standards (base case) astandard cases between 2021 and 2050 regionally and by mark

‒ Replacements: Historical shipments used to generate product stoc

function based on product lifetime applied to stock. Demolished unfrom stock. 

‒ New Construction: New housing construction projections multiplied 

construction market saturations. Determined using new building coprojections and historical market shares.

‒ New Owners: Existing buildings that acquire a NWGF for the first ti

• Efficiency Projections: Projects the percent of shipments in ea

class at each efficiency level in the base case and for the standa
87 | Building Technologies Office 

Shipments Analysis:Methodology Flowchart

New Installations

Historical New Construction

Saturations

Projected New Housing Starts

Replacement

Shipments

Historical Annual Shipments

Retirement Function

New Owners Tota

Historical New Owner Shipments

Switching*

Demolitions**

* Switching to electric space conditioning and/or water heating products 

on product switching methodology.** Based on year‐to‐year changes to projected housing stock.
88 | Building Technologies Office 

Shipments Analysis:Data Sources

Input Sources

Historical Annual Shipments

• Appliance Magazine gas furnace shipments, 1961-2012• AHRI historical shipments, 1972-2005• AHRI historical shipments, combined NWGF and MHGF• Census MHGF new construction data, MHGF lifetime, A

Housing Survey (AHS) saturation data used to disaggreand MHGF historical shipments.

Retirement Function

Based on lifetime distribution (see TSD chapter 8).

Historical New Construction Market Saturations

• Saturations from Characteristics of New Housing data, 

Bureau.

• U.S. Census historical housing starts data.• RECS 2009 saturation data.

Projected New Construction Starts

EIA’s AEO 2014 projections.

Product Switching

Based on consumer choice model in LCC Analysis (see T8).
89 | Building Technologies Office 

Shipments Analysis:Historical and Projected Shipments

Historical and Projected Base Case Shipments for NWGFs 

0.01.02.03.04.05.0

Shipments (million)

Mobile Home Gas FurnacesNon-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

Historical Projected
90 | Building Technologies Office 

Projected NWGF Base Case Shipments

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0

Shipments (million)

North - New OwnersNorth - New ConstructionsNorth - Replacement UnitsRest of Country - New OwnersRest of Country - New ConstructionsRest of Country - Replacement Units

Shipments Analysis:Projected Shipments by Region and Market
91 | Building Technologies Office 

Shipments Analysis:Product Switching Fractions

Space Heating 

Option

NWGF AFUE 

Standard

Fraction of Shipments that Do Not 

North Re

Replacement New Const. Replacem

NWGF 80% 80% 100.0 100.0 100.0 NWGF 90% 90% 88.4 82.9 80.0 NWGF 92% 92% 88.9 83.1 80.0 NWGF 95% 95% 87.0 79.1 75.1 NWGF 98% 98% 84.7 73.3 65.4 

Fraction of Shipments that Switch to Ele

80% NWGF to Electric Furnace

80% 0.0 0.0 0.0 90% 3.1 5.1 5.8 92% 2.8 4.9 5.7 95% 3.1 5.6 5.8 98% 3.4 7.3 7.2 

80% NWGF to Heat Pump

80% 0.0 0.0 0.0 90% 8.5 12.0 14.3 92% 8.4 12.0 14.3 95% 9.9 15.4 19.1 98% 11.9 19.4 27.4 

Fuel Switching Impacts Due to NWGF Stand
92 | Building Technologies Office 

Shipments Analysis

DOE seeks input on the fraction of NWGFs and MHGFs t

used in commercial applications.

Request for Comment

DOE seeks input on the methodology and data sources u

projecting the future shipments of NWGFs and MHGFs in absence of amended energy conservation standards.

DOE seeks input on the potential impacts on product ship

related to fuel and product switching.
93 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

Purpose

• Estimate the national impacts of energy conservation sta

NWGFs and MHGFs shipped between 2021 and 2050.

− National Energy Savings (NES): Primary energy savings.

− Net Present Value (NPV): Difference between the present v

energy expenditures and the present value of annual equipmexpenditures.

Method

• For each product class in each standards case:

1. Calculate per-unit cost increase and per-unit energy savings2. Calculate number of units (stock) in use from 2021 to 2050.3. Combine the above to determine NES and NPV.
94 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

* Over lifetime of products shipped from 2021‐2050.

National Energy Savings

Standards‐Cas

Cumulative Ene

Use*

Base‐Case Annual Energy

Consumption

Shipments Analysis

Base‐Case Cumulative

Energy Use*

National Energy

Savings

Site to Source Energy

Conversion

Standards‐Case A

Energy Consump

Sta

Base‐Case

Projection
95 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

Net Present Value

Sta

Base‐Case

Projection

Cumulative To

Consumer Cost In

Energy Cost

Net Present

Value

Discount Rate Cumulative Operating Cost Savings*

Shipments Analysis

Maintenance and

Repair Cost

Total Installed

Cost Energy Cost Maintenance a

Repair Cost 

* Over lifetime of products shipped from 2021‐2050.
96 | Building Technologies Office 

Input Description

Annual Unit Energy Consumption

Function of product efficiency for each product class from LCC an

Shipments Projected shipments for each product class under the base case 

cases.

Product Stock Determined yearly stock using annual shipments and lifetimes fo

Rebound Effect 15%Base-Case Efficiencies

Developed a distribution of efficiencies in the base case for 2021 

8). In each standards case, “roll-up” scenario is used to establish distribution. Future trends are based on historical data and stake

Site-to-Power Plant Conversion Factor

Converts site energy into primary (power plant) energy consumpt

Full-Fuel-Cycle Account for energy used for resource extraction and distribution lTotal Installed Cost per Unit

Function of product efficiency for each product class based on LC

Calculated by vintage.

Total Operating Cost per Unit

Includes costs for energy, maintenance, and repair derived as a fefficiency for each product class based on LCC analysis. Calcula

Discount Rate Used to determine present value of future monetary values. 7% a

OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4.

National Impact Analyses:

Inputs

National Impact Analyses (NIA) Inputs
97 | Building Technologies Office 

Efficiency 

Level

Market Share for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

2021

Base Case

2021 Standards Case

1* 2* 3 4 5

Baseline 55% NA/76% NA/76%

1 5% 25%/4% NA/4%2 17% 34%/15% NA/15% 77%3 23% 40%/5% 99%/5% 23% 100%4 0% 1%/0% 1%/0% 0% 0% 100%

• Products below standard will “roll‐up” to comply with standards. Prod

above the standard will not be affected.

Base‐Case Efficiencies

National Impact Analyses

* Regional TSL (North/Rest of Country)

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

NWGF Market Share 

Projection of Base‐Case Efficiency Distribution for NWGFs
98 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

TSL Selection Criteria for each product class:• TSL 5: Max-tech efficiency levels

• TSL 4: Yields maximum NPV at 7% discount rate and for which the percen

winners is higher than the percentage of LCC losers

• TSL 3: 92-percent AFUE efficiency levels

• TSL 2: 95-percent efficiency level for the North and baseline non-condensin

level for the Rest of Country

• TSL 1: Baseline condensing efficiency level for the North and baseline non

efficiency level for the Rest of Country

Product Class AFUE (%) TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TS

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 90%/80% 95%/80% 92% 95Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 92%/80% 95%/80% 92% 95

Trial Standard Levels (TSLs) – AFUE Standards

TSL3 is Proposed TSL
99 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

TSL Selection Criteria for each product class:• TSL 3: Switching mode power supply with low-loss transformer

• TSL 2: Switching mode power supply

• TSL 1: Low-loss transformer

Product Class Power (Watts) TSL 1 TSL 2 TS

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 9.5 9.2 8Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 9.5 9.2 8

Trial Standard Levels (TSLs) – Standby Mode and Off Mode 

TSL3 is Pro
100 | Building Technologies Office 

Product Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TS

Primary Energy Savings

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 1.004 1.756 2.124 3.2

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.062 0.066 0.127 0.1Total* 1.066 1.821 2.251 3.3

Full-Fuel Cycle Energy Savings

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 1.222 2.054 2.638 3.9Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.069 0.073 0.141 0.1Total* 1.291 2.126 2.780 4.1

National Impact Analyses

National Energy Savings – AFUE Standards (qua

TSL3 is Proposed TSL

* Components may not sum to total due to rounding.
101 | Building Technologies Office 

Product Class Discount Rate TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TS

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

3%

8.1 13.5 15.1 20

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.6 0.7 1.0 1Total * 8.6 14.1 16.1 21Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

7%

1.9 3.3 2.8 3

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.2 0.2 0.3 0Total * 2.1 3.6 3.1 4

National Impact Analyses

Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit ‐ AFUE Stan

(billion 2013$)

TSL3 is Proposed TSL

* Components may not sum to total due to rounding.
102 | Building Technologies Office 

Product Class TSL 1 TSL 2 

Primary Energy Savings

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 0.147 0.176 Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.0002 0.0002 Total * 0.147 0.176 

Full-Fuel Cycle Energy Savings

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 0.154 0.184 Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.0002 0.0002 Total * 0.154 0.185 

National Impact Analyses

National Energy Savings – Standby Mode and Off 

Standards (quads)

TSL3 

* Components may not sum to total due to rounding.
103 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit ‐ Standby Mod

Mode Standards (billion 2013$)

Product Class Discount Rate TSL 1 TSL 2 

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

3%

2.1 2.0 

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.002 0.002 Total * 2.1 2.0 Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

7%

0.7 0.6 

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 0.001 0.001 Total * 0.7 0.6 

TS

* Components may not sum to total due to rounding.
104 | Building Technologies Office 

Purpose

• Investigate national impacts of non-regulatory alternatives to ma

amended energy conservation standards.

Method

• Used modified NIA spreadsheet to evaluate non-regulatory altern

proposed standards:

Results

• DOE identified 155 programs from 65 organizations offering reba

from $50 to $800 for the purchase of condensing furnaces.

• No alternative was found to be as beneficial as the proposed ene

conservation standards. (See chapter 17 of the TSD for methodoresults.)

Regulatory Impact Analysis

• No New Regulatory Action • Manufacturer Tax Credits• Consumer Rebates • Voluntary Energy Efficienc

Targets

• Consumer Tax Credits • Bulk Government Purchas
105 | Building Technologies Office 

National Impact Analyses

Request for Comment

DOE seeks input on the reasonableness of the value that 

used to characterize the rebound effect with higher-efficieNWGFs and MHGFs.
106 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
107 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: Overview

Purpose• To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers• To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer subgrou

may be more severely affected than the industry as a who

• To examine the direct employment, manufacturing capacit

cumulative regulatory impacts on the industry

Methodology• Analyze industry cash flow and industry net present value 

through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model 

• Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, dev

subgroup analyses, and address qualitative issues
108 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: Methodology

• Phase 1

– DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the ma

identify important issues that require further investigat

• Phase 2

– DOE prepares a draft industry cash flow model and an 

interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussiomanufacturers.

• Phase 3

– DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impa

standards both quantitatively (using the GRIM) and qu(impacts on employment, competition, manufacturing and regulatory burden).
109 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: Key Issues Raised by Manufacturers

• Replacement Market Installation Costs• Product Switching• Regional Enforcement• Reduced Product Differentiation
110 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: Methodology

• Upstream Inputs

– Market and Technology Assessment (MTA) Industry P– Engineering MPCs– Shipments

• MIA Inputs

– Markup Scenarios– Conversion Costs
111 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: Markup Scenarios

• DOE modeled three markup scenarios to capture a range 

potential financial impacts on the industry:

– Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario 

• Manufacturers pass through additional costs to their con

and maintain a gross margin percentage in the standard

– Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario 

• Manufacturers maintain the same total operating profit in 

dollars in the standards case as in the base case, despitlevel of investment. 

– Three Tier Markup Scenario

• Manufacturers reduce profit margins on high efficiency p

these products become the baseline, higher volume pro
112 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: INPV Results for Active Mode

Units Base Case

Trial Standard L

123

INPV (2013$ M) 1,055.13

990.91 

to

1,049.23

825.40

to 

1,063.76

972.99 

to 

1,064.35

Change in INPV (%) -

(6.09) 

to

(0.56)

(21.77) 

to

0.82

(7.79) 

to

0.87

Product Conversion Costs (2013$ M) - 15.77 23.00 16.47 Capital Conversion Costs (2013$ M) - 16.95 33.24 38.53 Total Conversion Costs (2013$ M) - 32.72 56.24 55.00 
113 | Building Technologies Office 

Cumulative Regulatory Burden• Furnace Fan and Furnace rules

– Rules impact design and manufacturing of same product– Rules occur in a similar timeframe– Design changes and conversion costs are largely additive 

DOE seeks comment on the impacts of the cumulative burden pthese rules and information on the potential for cost-reducing syterms of improving the energy efficiency of furnaces and furnace same time.

Effective Year MPC Increase

(NWGF / MHF)

Conv

Res. Furnaces TSL 4 2021 $145 / $154 Res. Furnaces TSL 3 2021 $91 / $98 Furnace Fans 2019 $68 / $6 
114 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: Small Business Impacts

• DOE identified three domestic small business manuf

of furnaces. 

– Small businesses were defined as having 750 employ

fewer based on SBA small business size standards (Ncode 333415).

• One domestic small business manufacturer of nonweatherized gas-fired furnaces.• Two domestic small business manufacturers of mob

gas-fired furnaces.

DOE requests comment on the number of small manufacturers of futhe potential impacts of amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers; and on the severity of those impacts.
115 | Building Technologies Office 

MIA: INPV Results for Standby Mode

Units Base Case

Trial Standard Le

12

INPV (2013$ M) 1,055.13 

1,053.41 

to 

1,054.61 

1,046.10

to

1,055.58 

Change in INPV (%) -

(0.16) 

to

(0.05)

(0.86) 

to

0.04

Product Conversion Costs (2013$ M) - 1.35 1.35 

Capital Conversion Costs (2013$ M) - --

Total Conversion Costs (2013$ M) - 1.35 1.35 
116 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
117 | Building Technologies Office 

Emissions Analysis

Purpose• Estimate emission reductions resulting from amended standards.

• Includes FFC emissions, including power plant and upstream emissions.• Includes fugitive methane emissions.

Method

• Used output from AEO 2014 reference and standard cases to estimate 

emission factors.

Results

Emission

AFUE 

Standards

(TSL 3)

Standby Mode and Off 

Mode Standards (TSL 3)

CO2 (million metric tons) 137.3 15.6

NOX (tons) 815.9 24.3

SO2 (tons) -202.6* 13.0

Hg (tons) -0.629* 0.040

* Negative values indicate an increase in emissions.
118 | Building Technologies Office 

Monetization of Emission Reductions

Purpose

• Estimate the monetary benefit of reduced emissions resulting from the pr

energy conservation standard.

Method

• Used the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values developed throu

interagency reviews.

– SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including but not limited to agricultural produ

human health effects, property damage from rising sea level, and changes in th

• Interagency estimates1 of the potential global benefits resulting from redu

emissions in 2015 are $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013

• DOE also monetized NOx emissions reductions resulting from amended st

– Estimates of monetary value range from $476 to $4,893 per short ton.

– DOE calculated monetary benefits using a medium value of $2,684 per short t

• DOE is still evaluating appropriate values to use to monetize avoided SO2 a

emissions.

1: Interagency Working Group, 2010 and 20132: OMB report to Congress, 2006
119 | Building Technologies Office 

Monetization of Emission Reductions

Results: FFC Emission Reductions Benefits (AFUE 

million 2013$

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

CO2 358.1 to 5,640 615.4 to 9,637 732.3 to 11,735 1,115 to 17,752 

NOX 3% discount rate 384 529.5 878.6 1,199 

NOX 7% discount rate 142.5 195 318.4 434.4 

TSL3 is Proposed TSL
120 | Building Technologies Office 

Emissions Impact Analysis

DOE seeks input on the approach for estimating monetary 

benefits associated with emission reductions.

Request for Comment

DOE seeks input on the approach for conducting the emis

analysis for NWGFs and MHGFs.
121 | Building Technologies Office 

Utility Impact Analysis

Purpose

• Assess impacts on electric installed capacity and generation resultin

adoption of potential energy conservation standards.

Method

• Modeled energy savings impacts from TSLs using AEO 2014 to gene

forecasts that deviate from the AEO reference case.

Results

• Changes in total electricity generation.

• Changes to the mix of electricity generation by fuel type.

• Changes to total installed capacity.

See chapter 15 of the TSD.
122 | Building Technologies Office 

Employment Impact Analysis

Purpose

• Assess the overall impact on indirect* national employment from the p

conservation standard that results from shifting consumer expenditures 

and services and changing product and energy costs.

Method

• DOE used the Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET) model for t

of indirect employment impacts.

Results

• DOE anticipates that net labor market impacts will be small over time d

magnitude of the short‐term effects. (See chapter 16 of the TSD.)

*Direct national employment impacts are discussed in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA
123 | Building Technologies Office 

Alternative Venting Technologies

• DOE is funding research in the area of venting.

− Momen, A. M., J. Munk, K. Biswas, and P. Hughes, Condensing Furnace 

The Issue, Prospective Solutions, and Facility for Experimental Evaluatio2014. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. <http://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/docs/Condensing-Furnace-Venting-Par

− Momen, A. M., J. Munk, and P. Hughes, Condensing Furnace Venting Pa

of Same-Chimney Vent Systems for Condensing Furnaces and Natural DHeaters, February 2015. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tenhttp://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/docs/Condensing-Furnace-Venting-Part2

• Retrofit solution for Type B metal chimneys approved by UL in Jan• LCC analysis is not based on this new technology, but DOE is hop

research shows promise for the future. If these technologies were tmarket proven, they would help mitigate potential impacts of this ru

Side Research

DOE seeks comment on the research and reports on alterna

venting technologies.
124 | Building Technologies Office 

Same-Chimney Vent Systems for Condensing Furnaces 

Draft Water Heaters Using M&G DuraVent Retrofit S

Side Research

In a Type B Metal Chimney In an unlined Masonry Chim

(already UL listed and for sale) Images 

New vent capNew flexible stainless steel liner (vent for condensing furnace)Pre-existing Type B vent

Vent for water heater(annular space)

New flexible aluminumliner (vent for waterheater)
125 | Building Technologies Office 

Side Research

DOE seeks comment on the research and reports on alterna

venting technologies.

Request for Comment
126 | Building Technologies Office 

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview2 Scope; Engineering Analysis3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Subgroup Analysis4 Shipments Model; NIA; RIA5 MIA6 Environmental; Employment; Side Research

7 Closing Remarks
127 | Building Technologies Office 

Closing Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide closinremarks at this time.
128 | Building Technologies Office 

How to Submit Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the furnace ru

by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for Furnaces– Docket Number: EERE–2014–BT–STD–0031– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN): 1904-AD20

• Email: ResFurnaces2014STD0031@ee.doe.gov

Postal Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Office

Mailstop EE‐5B1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20585‐0121

Courier:

Ms. Brenda EdwardU.S. Department of Building TechnologL’Enfant Plaza, S.WWashington, DC 2Telephone: (202) 5

• Comment period closes June 10, 2015 at 11:59 PM