3

- i CHAPTER 3. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 1 3.2 E QUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED

................................ ................................ .......... 3

- 2 3.3 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

................................ ................................ .................... 3

- 3 3.3.1 Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 3 3.3.2 Selection of Representative Sensible Cooling Capacities

................................ ... 3

- 4 3.3.3 Pricing Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 5 3.3.4 Construction of Price

- Efficiency C urves

................................ ............................. 3

- 6 3.3.5 Selection of Baseline Efficiency Levels

................................ .............................. 3

- 9 3.3.6 Identification of Efficiency Levels for Analysis

................................ ................ 3

- 10 3.4 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF RESULTS

................................ .......... 3

- 11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engine ering Analysis and Their Representative Capacities

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 5 Table 3.3.2 Baseline SCOP Efficiency Levels for Computer Room Air Conditioners

............... 3

- 9 Table 3.3.3 Efficiency Levels for Analysis of Computer Room Air Conditioners

................... 3

- 10 Table 3.4.1 Price

- Efficiency Points for Air

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners

.......... 3

- 11 Table 3.4.2 Price

- Efficiency Points for Water

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners

...... 3

- 11 Table 3.4.3 Price

- Efficiency Points Water

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners with a Fluid Economizer

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 12 Table 3.4.4 Price

- Efficiency Points for Glycol

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners

..... 3

- 12 Ta ble 3.4.5 Price

- Efficiency Points for Glycol

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners with a Fluid Economizer

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.3.1 Flow Chart of the Extrapola tion of the Price

- Efficiency Curves

............................ 3

- 83

- 1 3.1 INTRODUCTION

Th is engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the cost and the energy efficiency of computer room air conditioners. This relationship serves as the basis for cost

benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. The engineering analysis identifies the representative baseline equipment, which is the starting point for analyzing possible energy efficiency improvements

. The engine ering analysis also identifies higher efficiency levels and the corresponding increase in price associated with achieving those higher efficiency levels. Using this cost

- efficiency relationship and the resul ts of the downstream analysis (m ark

- up analysis, life

- cycle costs, payback period analysis), DOE can estimate customer prices resulting from amended energy conservation standards . DOE then examines the costs and benefits associated with each increased efficiency level.
In the NODA, DOE performed a potent ial energy savings analysis on all six classes
water

- cooled air conditioners (small (<65,000 Btu/h) with no heating or electric resistance heating, small with other types of heating, large ( ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) with no heating or electric resi stance heating, large with other types of heating, very large ( ≥ 240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h) with no heating or electric resistance heating, and very large with other types of heating) and on two very large evaporatively

- cooled air conditioners (with either no heating or electric resistance heating and with other types of heating) . For small and large evaporatively

- cooled air conditioners, DOE could not find any models on the market and could not perform a potential energy savings analysis or an engine ering analysis for this class. As discussed in the NOPR, w here DOE did perform a potential energy savings analysis
, DOE determined that the potential energy savings were very low and that more stringent standards than ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 were not war ranted ; t herefore, DOE did not perform an engineering analysis on this equipment. For water

- source VRF heat pumps, DOE could not find any models on the market with a cooling capacity < 17,000 Btu/h and, therefore, also could not perform a potential energy s avings analysis on this equipment. DOE performed a potential energy savings analysis on this equipment with a cooling capacity ≥ 135,000 Btu/h and also determined that the potential energy savings were very low and that more stringent standards than ASHRAE were not justified. Thus, DOE did not perform an engineering analysis for water

source VRF heat pumps.

However, DOE did perform an engineering analysis on computer room air conditioners which is the subject of this chapter. To develop the engineering analysis for computer room air conditioners, DOE used an efficiency

- level approach in conjunction with a pricing survey to develop t he price

- efficiency relationships. DOE discusses the equipment classes it analyzed; the identification of representative capacities for analysis, baseline efficiency levels, and the efficiency levels above the baseline; the process for collecting pricing d ata ; and the methodology for developing the price

- efficiency results. The engineering analysis produces a set of price

-3

- 2 efficiency results that represents the average incremental contractor cost of increasing energy efficiency levels above the baseline for computer room air conditioners.

3.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED
As mentioned in chapter 2 of this TSD (Market Assessment) , computer room air conditioners were previously an uncovered product by DOE. ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 separates computer room air conditio ners into 30 equipment classes based upon its heat rejection method (air

- cooled, water

- cooled, or glycol

- cooled), sensible cooling capacity (<65,000 Btu/h, ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, or ≥ 240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h), orientation (upflow or down flow), and whether or not a fluid economizer is used. However, due to a lack of data and a small number of models for certain equipment classes, DOE could not analyze each of the 30 equipment classes. DOE instead focused its efforts on the equipment classe s with the largest number of models on the market and extrapolate d that analysis to the other equipment classes.
In the market assessment analysis, DOE noted that upflow and downflow units were treated as the same in the California Energy Commission’s (CE C) database and in most manufacturers’ product literature. DOE found that all upflow models in its database also had a corresponding downflow model in which the interior components were arranged in a different manner within the same exterior shell

. DOE ass umed that both orientations have the same major components and that the prices and incremental costs for increasing efficiency for both orientations would be nearly the same. Therefore, DOE only analyzed downflow units in the engineering analysis, where mo re data was available. Since the downflow results would have been similar to the upflow results, DOE did not extrapolate the downflow results to the upflow equipment class in the engineering analysis

. For the 15 downflow equipment classes analyzed in the engineering analysis , DOE focused the analysis on the four equipment classes where the largest number of models was available on the market and where DOE received enough pricing information to generate a trend : small ( i.e. , sensible capacity < 65,000 Btu/h) air

- cooled, large ( i.e. , sensible capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and < 240,000 Btu/h) air

- cooled, small ( i.e. , sensible capacity < 65,000 Btu/h) water

- cooled, and large ( i.e. , sensible capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and < 240,000 Btu/h) water

- cooled . For the other 11 equipm ent classes, DOE extrapolate d the results from these four primary equipment classes. An explanation of how the results were extrapolated to the equipment classes that were not directly analyzed is in section 3.3.4 below

. To sta rt its analysis DOE gathered as much information possible about small (<65,000 Btu/h) 1 , large (≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h),

1 The small and large definitions for computer room air conditioners in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 are slightly different from the definitions of small and large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment in3

- 3 very large (≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h) air

- cooled, water

- cooled, and glycol

- cool ed computer room air conditioners currently available on the market , which is discussed in chapter 2 of this TSD ( M arket A ss essment)

. The information obtained in the market assessment informed decisions made for the engineering analysis and other downstream analyses.

3.3 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
This section describes the analytical methodology DOE used in the engineering analysis. The results of the engineering analysis are a set of price

- efficiency relationship s , which are used as the basis for the cost

- benefit analyses.

3.3.1 Approach
DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three methodologies. These are: (1) the de sign

- option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model; (2) the efficiency

- level approach, which calculates the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and/or (3) the reverse engineering or
cost

- assessment approach, which involves a “bottom

- up” manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill of materials derived from teardowns of the pr oduct being analyzed. Deciding which methodology to use for the engineering analysis depends on the product, the design options under study, and any historical data that DOE can draw on.
For this rulemaking
, DOE used an efficiency

- level approach with a pri cing survey in order to estimate the cost of achieving different SCOP levels. With the efficiency level approach, DOE could focus on the relative price difference of the units at different SCOP ratings but still capture a variety of design options availabl e on the market. The efficiency levels used in the engineering analysis were representative of computer room air conditioners available on the market at the time of this analysis. DOE obtained pricing data from equipment distributors of three 2 major comput er room air conditioner manufacturers , which was used to develop the price

efficiency relationship for computer room air conditioners.

EPC A, which defines small equipment as having cooling capacities <135,000 Btu/h and large equipment as having cooling capacities ≥ 135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
2 Of the five major manufacturers of computer room air conditioners, DOE found that efficiency information needed to estimate the SCOP rating was only available from three of the manufacturers. Thus, DOE obtained pricing information for all manufacturers where efficiency information was available.3

- 4 3.3.2 Selection of Representative Sensible Cooling Capacities
Equipment prices can vary significantly depending upon differenc es in sensible cooling capacity . To help limit th e variation in equipment prices from cooling capacity , DOE analyzed a range of sensible cooling capacities for each equipment class that was representative of that class . Using a representative sensible cool ing capacity allows DOE to analyze specific equipment in detail that can provide information representative of the entire equipment class and also allows DOE to perform analysis at the baseline efficiency level as well as higher efficiency levels. The base line units are discussed further in section 3.3.5 of this analysis

. DOE chose a representative capacity for analysis f or each of the three size categories of computer room air conditioners in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 ( i.e. , <6 5,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ). DOE selected t he representative capacity in each equipment class using the average sensible capacity of all the models DOE found on the market in a given equipment class
, rounded to the nearest ton of cooling

. This representative capacity also generally corresponded to the sensible cooling capacity that contained the highest number of models with efficiency information for that equipment class.

For air

- cooled
, water

- cooled , and glycol

- cooled computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE selected 36,000 Btu/h (3 tons) as the representative capacity for analysis

. For air

- cooled, water

- cooled, and glycol

- cooled computer room air conditioners w ith a sensible cooling capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE selected 132,000 Btu/h (11 tons) as the representative capacity for analysis

. For air

- cooled, water

- cooled, and glycol

- cooled computer room air conditioners with a s ensible cooling capacity greater than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE selected 288,000 Btu/h ( 24 tons) as the representative capacity for analysis. For the small and large product classes, DOE focused its data collection efforts on units near the representative capacit y. For the very large product class, DOE collected data for all five of the units with efficiency data in these equipment classes. ( These were the only units in the database that had efficiency information at this size. ) For the equipment classes with flui d economizers, DOE selected the same representative capacities as the equipment classes without the fluid economizer. Due to the limited amount of data available for the very large equipment DOE did not analyze them explicitly but rather extrapolated the

a nalysis from the large equipment classes to apply it to the very large classes, as explained below. Also, DOE extrapolated the analysis for the glycol

- cooled equipment class from the
water

- cooled equipment class.

Table 3.3

. 1 shows the computer room equipment classes and the representative sensible cooling capacities at which DOE collected information for the engineering analysis.3

- 5 Table 3.3

. 1 Equipment Classes Ana lyzed in the Engineering Analysis and Their Representative Capacities

Equipment Class Size Category (Btu/h) Representative Sensible Cooling Capacity

(Btu/h)

Air

- Cooled <65,000 36,000 ≥65,000 and <240,000 132,000 >240,000 288,000

Water

- Cooled <6 5,000 36,000 ≥65,000 and <240,000 132,000 >240,000 288,000
Water

- Cooled with a

Fluid Economizer <65,000 36,000 ≥65,000 and <240,000 132,000 >240,000 288,000
Glycol Cooled <65,000 36,000 ≥65,000 and <240,000 132,000 >240,000 2 88,000 Glycol Cooled with a

Fluid Economizer <65,000 36,000 ≥65,000 and <240,000 132,000 >240,000 288,000

3.3.3 Pricing Data
After selecting the representative capacity for each equipment class, DOE selected units for which it would obtain pricing i nformation. The units selected represented a variety of technologies and SCOP ratings. The selections were limited to models for which DOE had SCOP information

. Due to the limited amount of data available, DOE collect ed pricing data for all units near the representative capacity. To simulate a typical request from a contractor that would install computer room air conditioners, DOE requested the pricing information for individual models in quantities of 10 to be shipped to Oakland, California. DOE chose Oakl and as the shipping destination for a central location

. Although the shipping cost was not broken out as a separate aspect of the purchase price ( i.e. , all price quotes were total price for the units plus shipping) and since all three manufactures are base d in California, DOE assumed that shipping prices would be similar between the manufacturers

. DOE received pricing information for 32 models total: 6 small air

- cooled units, 6 large air

- cooled units, 2 very large air

- cooled units, 5 small water

- cooled unit s, 7 large water

- cooled units, 1 very large water

- cooled unit, 2 small glycol

- cooled units, 1 large glycol

- cooled unit, and 2 very large glycol

- cooled units (one with a fluid economizer and one without one). DOE only received pricing information for one un it with a fluid economizer because that was the only unit with efficiency information that was near the representative capacity. DOE then used the pricing information along with the estimated SCOP information ( derived from EER as described in chapter 2) to build price

- efficiency curves.3

- 6 3.3.4 Construction of Price

- Efficiency Curves
Once DOE aggregated all the pricing information with their corresponding efficiency information, DOE normalized the prices to the representative capacity for each equipment class by c alculating the price per Btu/h of sensible cooling capacity and adjusting it to the representative capacity. Then, DOE did an initial assessment of the normalized pricing information for the equipment classes where it was able to collect data.

From the ini tial assessment, DOE noticed that the prices for ceiling mount units were usually lower than fl oor mount units with a similar sensible cooling capacity; so in order for the analysis t o compare as similar units as possible, DOE omitted the pricing data for the 5 ceiling mount units it had gathered (1 small air

- cooled unit, 2 small water

- cooled units, and 2 large
water

- cooled units). Then, DOE took the remaining 27 data points and plotted them on graphs of their corresponding equipment class and used an expon ential regression analysis to fit a curve that best defined the data trend. DOE used an exponential regression curve because typically the price

- efficiency relationship for appliances follows an exponential fit , and in this case, DOE found that an exponent ial

- curve fit best represented the data that was collected

. DOE only had enough data points to adequately form exponential regression curve for four equipment classes: small air

- cooled, large air

- cooled, small

- water cooled, and large

- water cooled. For the remaining equipment classes, DOE extrapolated the analysis based on the results , SCOP differences in ASHRAE, and price differences from the four primary equipment classes. DOE decided to use the SCOP differences in ASHRAE because there wasn’t enough SCOP d ata in DOE’s database
to determine the changes in SCOP between equipment classes. DOE assumed that the differences in the SCOP level s in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 approximate the industry average SCOP differences between equipment classes.
For the very lar ge air

- cooled and water

- cooled equipment classes, DOE did not have enough data to develop the price

- efficiency relationship and extrapolated the results from the price

- efficiency curves for the large air

- cooled and water

- cooled equipment classes

. For very large air

- cooled equipment, DOE shifted the large price

- efficiency curve down by 0.20 SCOP (the difference in SCOP levels between large and very large air

- cooled equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010). Then, DOE calculated the average percent difference i n price between large and very large units in the same model line in order to determine the average percent difference in price between the large and very large air

- cooled equipment class. DOE found that the average difference of models for which data was collected was a 44

- percent increase in price for the very large air

- cooled equipment class as compared to the large air

- cooled equipment class

. Thus, DOE multiplied the prices in the price

- efficiency curve by 1.44 to approximate the average increase in pri ce between the large and very large air

- cooled equipment class. For very large water

- cooled equipment, DOE shifted the large price

- efficiency curve down by 0.10 SCOP (the difference in SCOP as noted by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010). Then, DOE calculated the3

- 7 a verage percent difference in price between a large and very large unit in the same water

- cooled model line, which DOE found to be 90 percent . DOE multiplied the prices in the large water

cooled equipment class price

- efficiency curve by 1.90 to estimate the average price

- efficiency relationship for the very large water

- cooled equipment class.
For the small, large, and very large glycol

- cooled equipment classes, DOE was unable to obtain enough price and efficiency data to generate a price

- efficiency relation ship ; as a result, DOE extrapolat ed the price

- efficiency relationship based on the information from the water

cooled equipment class. DOE found that in both of the instances where DOE had pricing information for a model that was optionally water

- cooled or glycol

- cooled, the glycol

- cooled unit was the same exact price as its corresponding water

- cooled unit. (For the remaining three glycol

- cooled models for which DOE had obtained pricing information, DOE did not have pricing information for a similar model wa ter

- cooled unit for comparison. ) Based on this information , DOE modeled the glycol units as having the same prices as water

- cooled units at the same representative capacity ; but DOE shifted the SCOP of glycol

- cooled units down by 0.1 for the small class, 0 .35 for the large class, and 0.3 for the very large class (which were the SCOP differences according to ASHRAE).

For the six equipment classes with a fluid economizer ( i.e. , small, large, and very large
water

- cooled and small, large, and very large glycol

- cooled), DOE translated the price

- efficiency curves from the corresponding water

- cooled and glycol

- cooled equipment classes without a fluid economizer. Because a fluid economizer adds additional static pressure for the blower to overcome, DOE believes tha t these units will require more fan energy and thus have a lower SCOP rating then those models without a fluid economizer. Thus, DOE shifted the price

efficiency curves down by 0.05 SCOP, which was the difference as specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 b etween units with and without a fluid economizer . DOE was only able to collect pricing data for one unit with a fluid economizer (a very large glycol

- cooled unit). DOE compared th e price of the unit with the fluid economizer to the price of the same unit w ithout a fluid economizer to determine the price increase associated with the addition of a fluid economizer

. DOE found that the percentage difference of the price of a model with a fluid economizer versus the price of a model without a fluid economizer wa s 5.82 percent . DOE assumed that this percentage difference of adding a fluid economizer would hold true for the small and large equipment classes, so DOE multiplied the prices in the price

- efficiency curves for those classes without a fluid economizer by 1.0582 to generate the price

- efficiency curves for the equipment classes with a fluid economizer.
Figure 3.3

. 1 shows a visual summary of how DOE extrapolated the data . The boxes in green are the four primary equipment classes whi ch DOE had enough data to analyze directly, and the boxes in blue are the equipment classes to which DOE extrapolated the data. The arrows connecting t he boxes show how the price

- efficiency data was extrapolated to the equipment3

- 8 classes in the blue boxes. The arrows have equations next to them to show how the SCOP and the price were adjusted for each extrapolation.

Figure 3.3

. 1 Flow Chart of the Extrapolation of the P rice

- Efficiency Curves Small Air

- Cooled Computer Room AC Large Air

- Cooled Computer Room AC Very Large Air

Cooled Computer Room AC

Very Larger Water

Cooled Computer Room AC Large Water

Cooled Computer Room AC Small Water

Cooled Computer Room AC

Small Water

Cooled Computer Room AC with a Fluid Economizer Large Water

Cooled Computer Room AC with a Fluid Economizer Very Large Water

Cooled Computer Room AC with a Fluid Economizer

Very Large Glycol

Cooled Computer Room AC Large Glycol

Cooled Computer Room AC Small Glycol

Cooled Computer Room AC

Small Glycol

Cooled Computer Room AC with a Fluid Economizer Large Glycol

Cooled Computer Room AC with a Fluid Economizer Very Large Glycol

Cooled Computer Room AC with a Fluid EconomizerSCOP–0.05Pricex 1.0582 SCOP

– 0.10

Price x 1.90 SCOP

– 0.20

Price x 1.44SCOP–0.05Pricex 1.0582SCOP–0.05Pricex 1.0582SCOP–0.05Pricex 1.0582SCOP–0.05Pricex 1.0582SCOP–0.05Pricex 1.0582SCOP–0.1SCOP–0.35SCOP–0.303

- 9 3.3.5 Selection of Baseline Efficiency Level s DOE selected baseline efficiency levels as reference points for each equipment class, against which it measured changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE defi ned the baseline efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners in the engineering analysis as reference points to compare the energy savings and cost of equipment with higher energy efficiency levels. Typically, units at the baseline efficiency leve l just meet Federal energy conservation standards and provide basic consumer utility. However, computer room air conditioners are newly covered equipment by DOE and, therefore, have no Federal energy conservation standards. Also, since EPCA directs that DO E must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that the adoption of a more stringent level would produce significant additional energy s avings and be technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
, DOE cannot consider any energy conservation standards below the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010

. Therefore, for the engineering analys is DOE set the baseline efficiency level for each equipment class of computer room air conditioners equal to the efficiency level in ASHRAE. The baseline model in each equipment class generally contains the typical features and technologies of equipment in that class. Table 3.3

. 2 shows the baseline efficiency level for each equipment class of computer room air conditioners.

Table 3.3

. 2 Baseline SCOP Efficiency Le vels for Computer Room Air Conditioners

Equipment Class Size Category (Btu/h) ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 Efficiency Level (SCOP)

Air

- Cooled <65,000 2.2 ≥65,000 and <240,000 2.1 >240,000 1.9

Water

- Cooled <65,000 2.6 ≥65,000 and <240,000 2.5 >2 40,000 2.4
Water

- Cooled with a

Fluid Economizer <65,000 2.55 ≥65,000 and <240,000 2.45 >240,000 2.35
Glycol Cooled <65,000 2.5 ≥65,000 and <240,000 2.15 >240,000 2.1 Glycol Cooled with a

Fluid Economizer <65,000 2.45 ≥65,000 and <240,0 00 2. 1 >240,000 2.05
1 As noted in Section 3.2 , DOE focused its analysis on downflow only models.3

- 10 3.3.6 Identification of Efficiency Levels for Analysis
In the engineering analysis, DOE identified efficiency levels for each equip ment class based on an extensive review of the database DOE compiled from the CEC database and manufacturers’ product literature. DOE converted the EER information provided in these sources ( which was determined using the ASHRAE 127

- 2001 test procedure ) in to the SCOP, the new efficiency metric used in the updated ASHRAE 127

- 2007 test procedure . ASHRAE 127

- 2007 contains a “rule of thumb” formula to convert from the ASHRAE 127

- 2001 EER rating to the ASHRAE 127

- 2007 SCOP rating, which DOE used to estimate SCOP ratings , as described in chapter 2 of this TSD. As previously noted , DOE only had enough data to directly analyze four equipment classes, small air

- cooled, large air

- cooled, small wat er

- cooled, and large water

cooled

. For each of these four equipment clas ses, DOE identified the baseline efficiency level ( as noted in the previous section ) and the max tech efficiency level and chose three additional evenly spaced effici ency levels in between the baseline and max

- tech levels for a total of five efficiency lev els . For the other eleven equipment classes where DOE did not have enough efficiency data, DOE selected efficiency levels based on the efficiency differences between the SCOP of the different equipment classes as specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2010 in t he same manner which DOE extrapolated price

- efficiency curves (See Figure 3.3

. 1 ) . DOE analyzed the efficiency levels in Table 3.3

. 3 , which span the entire efficiency range of computer room air conditioner efficiency levels found in DOE’s models database

.
Table 3.3

. 3 Efficiency Levels for Analysis of Computer Room Air Conditioners

Equipment Class Efficiency Levels (SCOP) Baseline Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Air

- Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 Air

- Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.10 2.35 2.60 2.85 3.10 Air

- Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 1.90 2.15 2.40 2.65 2.90 Water

- Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 Water

- Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 Water

- Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 Water

- Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15 3.35

Water

- Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25

Water

- Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15
Glycol

- Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 Glycol

- Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.15 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 Glycol

- Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90 Glycol

- Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25
Glycol

- Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.903

- 11 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h Glycol

- Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.05 2.25 2.45 2.65 2.85

3.4 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The result of the engineering analysis is a set of price

- efficiency relationships . Creating the price

- efficiency relationship involved four steps: (1) plo tting the distributor prices versus SCOP for the four equipment classes that were directly analyzed , (2) using a regression analysis to fit a curve that best defines the aggregated data , (3) extrapolating the results to the other eleven equipment classes, and (4) calculating the price at each efficiency level for analysis

. Table 3.4

. 1 through Table 3.4

. 5 show the price

- efficiency results in the form of total price of the uni t versus SCOP efficiency

. Note t hat the only equipment classes in which DOE had enough information to run a regression analysis were the small air

- cooled class, the large air

- cooled class, the small water

- cooled class, and the large water

- cooled class. In the rulemaking process, the resu lts from the engineering analysis are used in the life

- cycle cost (LCC) analysis to determine customer prices for computer room air conditioners.

Table 3.4

. 1 Price

- Efficiency Points for Air

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners Small (<65,000 Btu/h) Large ( ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) Very Large ( ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price

2.20 $6,681.0 9 2.10 $22,621.45 1.90 $32,574.89 2.40 $7,853.51 2.35 $24,383.30 2.15 $35,111.96 2.60 $9,231.68 2.60 $26,282.38 2.40 $37,846.62 2.80 $10,851.69 2.85 $28,329.36 2.65 $40,794.28 3.00 $12,755.99 3.10 $30,535.77 2.90 $43,971.50

Table 3.4

. 2 Price

- Efficiency Points for Water

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners Small (<65,000 Btu/h) Large ( ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) Very Large ( ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price

2.60 $14,232.84 2.50 $12,883.01 2.40 $24,453.25 2.80 $11,527.69 2.70 $17,315.28 2.6 0 $32,863.52 3.00 $9,336.69 2.90 $23,272.43 2.80 $44,166.35 3.20 $7,562.12 3.10 $31,279.07 3.00 $59,356.59 3.40 $6,124.84 3.30 $42,040.32 3.20 $79,771.253

- 12 Table 3.4

. 3 Price

- Efficienc y Points Water

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners with a Fluid Economizer Small (<65,000 Btu/h) Large ( ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) Very Large ( ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price

2.55 $15,061.82 2.45 $13,633.37 2.35 $25,877.51 2.75 $12,199.11 2.65 $18,323.79 2.5 5 $34,777.62 2.95 $9,880.50 2.85 $24,627.91 2.75 $46,738.77 3.15 $8,002.57 3.05 $33,100.89 2.95 $62,813.76 3.35 $6,481.57 3.25 $44,488.92 3.15 $84,417.45

Table 3.4

. 4 Price

- Efficienc y Points for Glycol

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners Small (<65,000 Btu/h) Large ( ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) Very Large ( ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price

2.50 $14,232.84 2.15 $12,870.13 2.10 $24,453.25 2.70 $11,527.69 2.35 $17,296.59 2.3 0 $32,863.52 2.90 $9,336.69 2.55 $23,245.45 2.50 $44,166.35 3.10 $7,562.12 2.75 $31,240.31 2.70 $59,356.59 3.30 $6,124.84 2.95 $41,984.87 2.90 $79,771.25

Table 3.4

. 5 Price

- Efficienc y Points for Glycol

- Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners with a Fluid Economizer Small (<65,000 Btu/h) Large ( ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) Very Large ( ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price Efficiency Level (SCOP) Price

2.45 $15,061.82 2.10 $13,619.74 2.05 $25,877.51 2.65 $12,199.11 2.30 $18,304.01 2.2 5 $34,777.62 2.85 $9,880.50 2.50 $24,599.36 2.45 $46,738.77 3.05 $8,002.57 2.70 $33,059.87 2.65 $62,813.76 3.25 $6,481.57 2.90 $44,430.24 2.85 $84,417.45

These results represent the average industry price for achieving certain efficiency levels and do not take into account the cost for specific design improvements. The price s in the tables above do not represent any single manufacturer

. DOE found that among individual manufacturers there was no discernable relationship between pricing and efficiency ; h owever, when manufacturer prices were aggregated
, trends between price and efficiency appear ed

. The3

- 13 data collected by DOE indicated that there are manufacturers who s ell lower price, less efficien t units and manufacturers who s ell higher price, more effici en t units.

DOE notes the results for small water

- cooled computer room air conditioner s with and without a fluid economizer and small glycol

- cooled computer room air conditioners with and without a fluid economizer have a negative correlation between pric e and efficiency ( i .e. , as the efficiency of the unit increases, the price for that unit decreases ) . This result is counter

- intuitive because other similar equipment which DOE has analyzed have previously shown that an increase in efficiency will also resu lt in an increase in manufacturer costs, which are then reflected in increased c u s to mer prices. DOE believes that more data points could reveal a different trend than resulted from its pricing analysis

.
DOE also found no common trend when looking at resul ts from individual manufacturers within each product class. Oftentimes, the most efficient unit offered by a particular manufacturer also happened to be the manufacturer’s least expensive model. DOE believes that it is likely that manufacturers base the pr icing of their units on factors other than energy efficiency. For example, factors such as how competitive the market is for certain equipment could cause manufacturers to apply different markups to their different product lines

. As a result, more

popular equipment might have a lower price (either due to lower markup or higher manufacturing volumes) and less

- popular equipment might be more expensive

. Additionally manufacturers may charge a premium for other factors that are unrelated to efficiency, such as longer warranties, improved user controls, or a myriad of other factors. Accordingly, it follows that an alternative approach, such as a reverse

- engineering or design option approach which attempts to estimate the equipment cost at the point of manufacturer (rather than the purchase price from the distributor) might yield different results from those discovered in this analysis.