CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5-0

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW.................................................................................... 5-0

5.3 PRODUCT CLASSES..................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3.1 Furnaces............................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps........................................................... 5-3

5.4 EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED............................................................................ 5-4

5.4.1 Baseline................................................................................................................ 5-4

5.4.2 Intermediate Efficiency Levels............................................................................ 5-5

5.4.3 Max-tech Efficiency Levels............................................................................... 5-10

5.5 TEARDOWN ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 5-12

5.5.1 Selection of Units............................................................................................... 5-12

5.5.2 Generation of Bill of Materials.......................................................................... 5-16

5.6 COST MODEL.............................................................................................................. 5-18

5.6.1 Cost Model Overview........................................................................................ 5-19

5.6.2 Cost Model Assumptions................................................................................... 5-20

5.7 MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE ........................................................................ 5-23

5.7.1 Manufacturer Markup ........................................................................................ 5-23

5.7.2 Shipping Costs................................................................................................... 5-24

5.7.3 MSP in the Downstream Analyses .................................................................... 5-31

5.8 NICHE PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................... 5-31

5.8.1 Small Duct High Velocity.................................................................................. 5-31

5.8.2 Space-Constrained Products .............................................................................. 5-34

5.9 INDUSTRY COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIPS................................................ 5-37

5.9.1 Furnaces............................................................................................................. 5-37

5.9.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps......................................................... 5-39

5.10 EXPANSION OF ANALYSES TO ADDITIONAL CAPACITIES............................. 5-48

5.10.1 Furnaces........................................................................................................ 5-48

5.10.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps................................................... 5-48

5.11 STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE......................................................................... 5-48

5.11.1 Identification and Characterization of Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Components................................................................................................................... 5-50

5.11.2 Baseline Model............................................................................................. 5-50

5.11.3 Cost-Power Consumption Results................................................................ 5-51

5.12 MISCELLANEOUS CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER AND HEAT PUMP SYSTEM 

CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................... 5-54

5.12.1 Investigation of the Relationship Between SEER and HSPF....................... 5-54

5.12.2 Calculation of System Weights .................................................................... 5-58

5.13 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 5-60

5.13.1 Furnaces........................................................................................................ 5-60

5.13.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps................................................... 5-61
LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.4.1 Baseline Unit AFUE for Residential Furnaces......................................................... 5-5

Table 5.4.2 Efficiency Levels for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces ............................................ 5-6

Table 5.4.3 Efficiency Levels for Mobile Home Gas Furnaces .................................................. 5-6

Table 5.4.4 Efficiency Levels for Non-Weatherized Oil Furnaces ............................................. 5-7

Table 5.4.5 Efficiency Levels for Blower Coil Split System Air Conditioners .......................... 5-8

Table 5.4.6 Efficiency Levels for Coil Only Split System Air Conditioners.............................. 5-8

Table 5.4.7 Efficiency Levels for Split System Heat Pumps....................................................... 5-9

Table 5.4.8 Efficiency Levels for Packaged Systems.................................................................. 5-9

Table 5.4.9 Efficiency Levels for SDHV Systems.................................................................... 5-10

Table 5.4.10 Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for Furnaces ........................................................... 5-11

Table 5.4.11 Split System Max-Tech Efficiency Levels by SEER for Central Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps ......................................................................................................................... 5-11

Table 5.4.12 Packaged System and Niche Product Max-Tech Efficiency Levels by SEER for 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps................................................................................. 5-11

Table 5.4.13 Max-Tech Efficiency Levels by HSPF for Heat Pumps....................................... 5-11

Table 5.5.1 Characteristics of Representative Residential Furnaces......................................... 5-13

Table 5.6.1 Cost Model Categories and Descriptions................................................................ 5-18

Table 5.6.2 Purchased Central Air Conditioner, Heat Pump, and Furnace Components.......... 5-21

Table 5.6.3 Factory Parameter Assumptions............................................................................. 5-22

Table 5.7.1 Shipping Costs for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces............................................... 5-25

Table 5.7.2 Shipping Costs for Mobile Home Gas Furnaces .................................................... 5-25

Table 5.7.3Shipping Costs for Oil-Fired Furnaces.................................................................... 5-25

Table 5.7.4 Shipping Dimensions for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces (60 kBtu/h and 80 kBtu/h 

Input Capacity)........................................................................................................................... 5-25

Table 5.7.5 Shipping Dimensions for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces (100 kBtu/h and 120 

kBtu/h) ....................................................................................................................................... 5-26

Table 5.7.6 Shipping Dimensions for Mobile Home Furnaces (80 kBtu/h Input Capacity) ..... 5-26

Table 5.7.7 Shipping Dimensions for Oil-Fired Furnaces (105 kBtu/h Input Capacity)........... 5-26

Table 5.7.8 Shipping Costs for Split System Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps......... 5-26

Table 5.7.9 Shipping Costs for Single Package Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps and 

SDHV Systems .......................................................................................................................... 5-27

Table 5.7.10 2 Ton Split System Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions.................................. 5-27

Table 5.7.11 2 Ton Split System Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions......................................... 5-28

Table 5.7.12 3 Ton Split System Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions.................................. 5-28

Table 5.7.13 3 Ton Split System Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions......................................... 5-29

Table 5.7.14 5 Ton Split System Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions.................................. 5-29

Table 5.7.15 5 Ton Split Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions...................................................... 5-30

Table 5.7.16 Single Package Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions........................................ 5-30

Table 5.7.17 Single Package Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions ............................................... 5-30

Table 5.7.18 SDHV Shipping Dimensions*.............................................................................. 5-31

Table 5.9.1 Additional Cost to Switch from PSC to ECM Blower Motor for Furnaces........... 5-39

Table 5.11.1 Baseline Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Consumption by Component for 

Furnaces..................................................................................................................................... 5-51
Table 5.11.2 Non-weatherized Gas, Mobile Home Gas, and Electric Furnace Standby Mode and 

Off Mode Power Consumption and Cost................................................................................... 5-52

Table 5.11.3 Oil-fired Furnace Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Consumption and Cost.. 5-53

Table 5.11.4 Split System Blower Coil, Packaged, and Space Constrained Air Conditioner Off 

Mode Power Consumption and Cost ......................................................................................... 5-53

Table 5.11.5 Coil Only Split System Air Conditioner Off Mode Power Consumption and Cost. 5-

53

Table 5.11.6 Split System, Packaged and Space Constrained Heat Pump Off Mode Power 

Consumption and Cost............................................................................................................... 5-54

Table 5.12.1 Comparison of Three Ton HSPF Standard Levels with Available Products........ 5-55

Table 5.12.2 Prevalence of HSPF Ratings by SEER Level for Three Ton Split System Heat 

Pumps with Impacts of Suggested HSPF Standards.................................................................. 5-56

Table 5.12.3 SEER/HSPF Relationship for Two and Five Ton Split Heat Pumps ................... 5-56

Table 5.12.4 HSPF Standard Levels for Single Package Heat Pumps...................................... 5-57

Table 5.12.5 Median HSPF Levels for SDHV Heat Pumps...................................................... 5-58

Table 5.12.6 Calculated Typical Split-System Air Conditioner Unit Weights.......................... 5-58

Table 5.12.7 Calculated Typical Split-System Heat Pump Unit Weights................................. 5-59

Table 5.12.8 Calculated Typical Packaged Air Conditioner Unit Weights............................... 5-59

Table 5.12.9 Calculated Typical Packaged Heat Pump Unit Weights ...................................... 5-60

Table 5.12.10 Calculated Typical SDHV Unit Weights*.......................................................... 5-60

Table 5.13.1 Cost-Efficiency Data for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces with a PSC Blower Motor

.................................................................................................................................................... 5-60

Table 5.13.2 Cost-Efficiency Data for Mobile Home Gas Furnaces (80 kBtu/h Input Capacity) 

with a PSC Blower Motor.......................................................................................................... 5-61

Table 5.13.3 Cost-Efficiency Data for Oil-Fired Furnaces (105 kBtu/h Input Capacity) with a 

PSC Blower Motor..................................................................................................................... 5-61

Table 5.13.4 Cost-Efficiency Data for Two Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Blower-Coil5-61

Table 5.13.5 Cost-Efficiency Data for Three Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Blower-Coil . 5-

63

Table 5.13.6 Cost-Efficiency Data for Five Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Blower-Coil 5-63

Table 5.13.7 Cost-Efficiency Data for Two Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only ... 5-64

Table 5.13.8 Cost-Efficiency Data for Three Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only . 5-64

Table 5.13.9 Cost-Efficiency Data for Five Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only ... 5-65

Table 5.13.10 Cost-Efficiency Data for Two Ton Split-System Heat Pumps........................... 5-65

Table 5.13.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for Three Ton Split-System Heat Pumps......................... 5-66

Table 5.13.12 Cost-Efficiency Data for Five Ton Split-System Heat Pumps........................... 5-66

Table 5.13.13 Cost-Efficiency Data for Single-Package Air Conditioners............................... 5-67

Table 5.13.14 Cost-Efficiency Data for Single-Package Heat Pumps....................................... 5-67

Table 5.13.15 Cost Efficiency Data for SDHV Systems........................................................... 5-67

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.2.1 Engineering Analysis Methodology........................................................................ 5-2

Figure 5.5.1 Efficiencies of Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces Selected for Teardown ............... 5-14

Figure 5.5.2 Efficiencies of Split-System Outdoor Units Selected for Teardown..................... 5-15

Figure 5.5.3 Illustration of System Combinations for Split Systems ........................................ 5-16
Figure 5.5.4 Example of BOM Spreadsheet .............................................................................. 5-18

Figure 5.6.1 Cost Model Methodology...................................................................................... 5-19

Figure 5.7.1 Components of Manufacturer Selling Price .......................................................... 5-23

Figure 5.9.1 Illustration of Four Manufacturers’ Absolute Cost versus SEER Relationship.... 5-41

Figure 5.9.2 Illustration of System Cost Translation Process.................................................... 5-42

Figure 5.9.3 Illustration of Cost Trends..................................................................................... 5-43
5-0

CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between manufacturer selling price 

(MSP) and energy-efficiency (i.e., annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) for furnaces, 

seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) for the residential central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, and heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) for heat pumps) for the products 

covered in this rulemaking. The cost-efficiency relationship serves as the basis for subsequent 

cost/benefit calculations for individual customers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining 

this relationship, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the increase in the 

manufacturer selling price associated with technological changes that reduce the energy 

consumption of the baseline models.

The primary inputs to the engineering analysis are data from the market and technology 

assessment (chapter 3 in the TSD), input from manufacturers, baseline specifications, and 

production cost estimates developed using a cost model. The primary output of the engineering 

analysis is a set of cost-efficiency relationships that represent the average incremental cost of 

increasing product efficiency above the baseline levels. In the subsequent markups analysis 

(chapter 6 in the TSD), DOE determines customer prices by applying distribution markups, sales 

tax, and contractor markups to the manufacturer sales prices (MSPs) developed in the 

engineering analysis. After applying these markups, the data serve as inputs to the energy use 

characterization (chapter 7 in the TSD) and the life-cycle cost and payback period analyses 

(chapter 8 in the TSD). 

In this chapter, DOE discusses: (1) the identification of representative baseline units for 

each product class, (2) the methodology used to develop bills of materials (BOMs) and MSPs, 

(3) the process for constructing the industry cost-efficiency relationships, (4) the development of

an engineering examination of niche product classes of central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

(5) the cost-efficiency relationship outputs, (6) the scaling of the representative analysis to other 

capacities, (7) the development of an engineering examination for analysis of standby mode and 

off mode energy consumption, and (8) the results of the engineering analysis.

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

This section describes the analytical methodology used in the engineering analysis. In 

this rulemaking, DOE adopted a combination of an efficiency-level approach (to identify 

incremental improvements in efficiency for each product class) and a cost-assessment approach 

(to develop a cost for each efficiency level) for the analysis of the AFUE, SEER, and HSPF 

efficiency levels, which estimates the incremental cost of increasing product efficiency. (The 

standby and off mode analysis was performed using a design option approach, which is 
5-1

discussed further in section 5.11 of this chapter). In combination with the efficiency-level 

approach, the cost-assessment approach allowed DOE to determine the manufacturing 

production cost (MPC) at each efficiency level identified for analysis. 

The cost-assessment is based on teardown data and was validated by manufacturer input. 

First, DOE used information gathered from manufacturers and/or data from the market and 

technology assessment and screening analysis to identify baseline units and representative 

models and selected a set of units at the baseline and higher efficiencies for teardown analysis. 

The baseline unit serves as a starting point for the analysis, and the units selected for teardown 

analysis span a range of manufacturers, functionality, and efficiencies for commercially available 

products. A teardown analysis was also conducted for several units outside the representative

capacities determined by DOE, so DOE could accurately scale its analysis at the representative 

capacity to other capacities. DOE developed a unit cost estimate for the each of the units selected 

for teardown by disassembling each unit, developing a bill of materials, and inputting the results 

into a manufacturing cost model, which calculated the MPC. 

To determine the MSP of a unit at each efficiency level, DOE applied derived 

manufacturer markups and added the estimated shipping cost to the MPC. To derive the 

manufacturer markup, DOE added a typical profit to the fully absorbed cost of production by 

using publicly available industry financial data and manufacturer feedback. DOE developed 

shipping costs for each product based on the product’s shipping dimensions and the size and cost 

of a typical trailer. DOE added the shipping costs to the marked-up MPC to get the total MSP. 

The results of the engineering analysis are a set of cost-efficiency relationships, in the form of 

MSP versus energy-efficiency, for each product class. The methodology for the engineering 

analysis is a logical, concise, and reproducible process, as illustrated in Figure 5.2.1.
5-2

Figure 5.2.1 Engineering Analysis Methodology

5.3 PRODUCT CLASSES

5.3.1 Furnaces

The rulemaking analysis plan (RAP) for furnaces

• Gas furnaces (weatherized and non-weatherized), 

outlined seven classes of 

furnaces: 

• Oil-fired furnaces (weatherized and non-weatherized), 

• Mobile home furnaces (gas-fired and oil-fired), and

• Electric furnaces.

Based on the market and technology assessment (MTA, chapter 3), screening analysis

(chapter 4), and stakeholder comments in the November 2007 rule, DOE maintained the same 

scope of analysis that was used in the previous rulemaking for its analysis of amended AFUE 

standards. DOE maintained that due to very low shipment volumes (essentially zero), mobile 

home oil-fired furnaces and weatherized oil-fired furnaces have a low potential for energy 

savings; and DOE excluded those products from consideration in this analysis. Further, DOE 

Cost Model

Manufacturer

Markup

Analysis

Cost-Efficiency 

Relationship

(Efficiency vs 

MPC)

Engineering 

Manufacturer 

Interviews

Physical

Teardown

Analysis

Virtual

Teardown

Analysis

BOMs

Selling PriceEfficiency 

Relationship

(Efficiency vs 

Baseline unit, MSP)

Efficiency levels, 

Representative 

Products

Market and Tech 

Assessment

(chapter 3)

Screening Analysis

(chapter 4)

Shipping Cost
5-3

determined that electric furnaces on the market already approach the maximum possible 

efficiency for those products, and thus, there is little potential for energy savings from those 

products as well. (DOE found that the reports of furnace manufacturers to the FTC list the 

efficiency for electric furnaces with a low and a high value of 100-percent AFUE.) Lastly, 

when considering weatherized gas furnaces, DOE determined in the market assessment that no 

furnaces on the market currently exceed the standard set by the November 2007 final rule of 

81-percent AFUE. In addition, during the technology assessment and screening analysis, DOE 

did not find any viable technologies or prototype designs that allow weatherized gas furnaces to 

exceed 81-percent AFUE. Therefore, because these products already approach the max-tech 

efficiency, DOE did not analyze amended AFUE standards for those products

DOE analyzed amended AFUE standards for the following products: (1) nonweatherized gas furnaces, (2) mobile home gas furnaces, and (3) non-weatherized oil-fired 

furnaces. Additionally, DOE analyzed new standby and off mode requirements for the three 

product classes listed above, as discussed in section 5.11 of this chapter. DOE also considered 

standby mode and off mode standards for electric furnaces. DOE did not separately consider

new standby and off mode standards for weatherized gas furnaces because those products are 

always sold as part of a single package air conditioner or heat pump system, and thus, the 

standby and off mode energy consumption are already accounted for as part of SEER and the 

off mode standards analysis performed for central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE did 

not analyze standby and off mode standards for mobile home oil-fired furnaces and 

weatherized oil-fired furnaces for the same reasons it did not analyzed amended AFUE 

standards, described above.

5.3.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

As discussed in the MTA (chapter 3 of the TSD), DOE identified the following product 

classes for its analysis of central air conditioners and heat pumps.

• Split-system air conditioners

• Split-system heat pumps

• Single-package air conditioners

• Single-package heat pumps

• Small duct, high velocity systems

• Space-constrained air conditioners

• Space-constrained heat pumps

Conventional products include the first four classes (split-system air conditioners, splitsystem heat pumps, single-package air conditioners, and single-package heat pumps). Niche 

products include the last three classes (small duct, high velocity systems, space-constrained air

conditioners, and space-constrained heat pumps). The space-constrained product classes are 

assumed to include through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pumps (both split and single 
5-4

package), because through-the-wall products no longer exist after January 23, 2010.a

5.8

Therefore, 

DOE did not consider those two product classes separately. The niche product classes are 

discussed separately and in further detail in section .

5.4 EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED

DOE analyzed multiple efficiency levels for each product class presented in section 5.3

and estimated the manufacturer production costs at those levels. The following subsections 

provide the full efficiency range from the baseline to maximum technologically feasible (“maxtech”) efficiency for each product class. DOE identified the highest efficiency level by reviewing 

product literature for commercially available products.

5.4.1 Baseline

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

changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards could be measured. The 

baseline unit in each product class displays the basic characteristics of products in that class. 

Typically, a baseline unit is a unit that just meets, but does not exceed current Federal energy 

conservation standards and provides basic consumer utility. 

DOE used the baseline units for comparison in several analyses, including the 

engineering analysis, life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, payback period (PBP) analysis, and national 

impacts analysis (NIA). To determine energy savings that will result from an amended energy 

conservation standard, DOE compared energy use at each of the higher energy efficiency levels 

to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the 

consumer that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compared the 

price of a baseline unit to the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level.

The identification of baseline units requires establishing the baseline efficiency level. In 

cases where there is an existing standard, DOE defines baseline units as units with efficiencies 

equal to the current Federal energy conservation standards. 

5.4.1.1 Furnaces

The current Federal energy conservation standards for residential furnaces, as measured 

by AFUE, became effective on January 1, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)). However, the November 

2007 final rule for furnaces and boilers amended those standards with a compliance date of 

November 19, 2015. Due to EPCA’s anti-backsliding clause, DOE is prohibited from adopting 

levels below those previously adopted in the November 2007 final rule. As a result, DOE used 

a As defined in 10 CFR 430.2, the through-the-wall product class applies only to products manufactured prior to 

January 23, 2010. This provision eliminates through-the-wall units as a separate product class after this date.
5-5

those levels as the baseline efficiency levels in the analysis. Table 5.4.1 presents the baseline 

unit’s AFUE for each product class of residential furnaces.

Table 5.4.1 Baseline Unit AFUE for Residential Furnaces

Product Class Minimum AFUE Rating

%

Non-weatherized Gas 80

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 80

Oil-fired Non-weatherized Furnaces 82

In order to derive incremental MPCs for intermediate efficiency levels, DOE first 

identified baseline units, which meet, but do not exceed, the baseline level. Typically, the 

baseline units are representative of the minimum technology and lowest cost product that 

manufacturers can produce. In the teardown analysis (see section 5.5) the baseline units were a 

reference point for determining the cost-efficiency relationship of units with higher energy 

efficiencies. DOE compared the design features incorporated into products at the baseline 

efficiency to units with higher energy efficiencies to determine the change in manufacturing, 

installation, and operating costs (chapter 8).

5.4.1.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

The identification of baseline for central air conditioners and heat pumps units required 

establishing both a minimum efficiency level (minimum SEER rating) and capacity which best 

represented the span of capacities of commercially available products. Currently, the standards 

for conventional central air conditioners and heat pumps (split-system air conditioners, splitsystem heat pumps, single-package air conditioners, and single-package heat pumps) are set at 

13 SEER/7.7 HSPF. Thus, conventional units that attain only the minimum efficiency rating of 

13 SEER/7.7 HSPF will be considered baseline units for those product classes. DOE selected a 

model or models meeting the existing minimum Federal energy efficiency standards that are 

currently offered for sale as baseline products. 

5.4.2 Intermediate Efficiency Levels

DOE established intermediate energy efficiency levels for each product class. The 

intermediate efficiency levels are representative of the most common efficiency levels available 

on the market that manufacturers achieve by employing different technologies that will maintain 

cost-effective designs while increasing energy efficiency. DOE reviewed AHRI’s product 

certification directories,

1

5.13

manufacturer catalogs, and other publicly available literature to 

determine which efficiency levels are the most prevalent for each product class. For each of the 

representative products, DOE analyzed multiple efficiency levels and estimated manufacturer 

production costs at each efficiency level. Section contains cost efficiency data for the full 

efficiency level range that DOE analyzed from the baseline efficiency level to the max tech

efficiency level for each product class. 
5-6

5.4.2.1 Furnaces

For non-weatherized gas furnaces, DOE analyzed three efficiency levels in addition to 

the baseline and the max-tech. The efficiency levels were determined by the most commonly 

shipped furnace AFUEs, and representative units at each efficiency level have the most 

commonly used efficiency-related technologies and characteristics. DOE chose each of these 

efficiency levels because the incremental gains in efficiency correspond to common techniques 

and technologies manufacturers use to increase energy efficiency. For non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, manufacturers use a condensing, secondary heat exchanger to reach efficiency levels 1 

and higher. To improve the efficiency further manufacturers increase the surface area of the heat 

exchangers (primarily of the secondary heat exchanger), which allows manufacturers to achieve 

efficiency levels 2 and 3. At efficiency level 3, the heat exchanger size is generally maximized to 

the point that the cabinet begins to constrain further enlargement; and as a result, manufacturers 

use modulation to achieve the max-tech efficiency level. As described in the market and 

technology assessment (chapter 3 of this TSD), modulation allows products to match the actual 

heating load more closely. To achieve modulation, manufacturers must implement several 

components, including a modulating gas valve, multi-speed inducer fan, and additional controls. 

Table 5.4.2 Efficiency Levels for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

Efficiency Level AFUE

%

0 – Baseline 80

1 90

2 92

3 95

4 – Max-tech 98

For mobile home gas furnaces, DOE selected four efficiency levels between the baseline 

and max-tech levels. At and above efficiency level 1, manufacturers incorporate a condensing, 

secondary heat exchanger into the furnace design. Efficiency levels above efficiency level 1 are 

typically achieved by use of larger or more effective heat exchangers.

Table 5.4.3 Efficiency Levels for Mobile Home Gas Furnaces

Efficiency Level AFUE

%

0 – Baseline 80

1 90

2 92

3 – Max-tech 96
5-7

For oil-fired furnaces, DOE analyzed three efficiency levels between the baseline and 

max-tech. Manufacturers increase energy efficiency of oil-fired furnaces primarily by improving 

the heat exchanger design. To achieve the max-tech efficiency level, manufacturers must 

incorporate a condensing secondary heat exchanger made from corrosion-resistant materials.

Table 5.4.4 Efficiency Levels for Non-Weatherized Oil Furnaces

Efficiency Level AFUE

%

0 – Baseline 82

1 83

2 84

3 85

4 – Max-tech 97

5.4.2.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

For split system air conditioners, DOE analyzed up to thirteen efficiency levels in 

addition to the baseline and the max-tech depending on the nominal cooling capacity. The 

efficiency levels were determined by the most commonly shipped SEER values with

representative units at each efficiency level have the most commonly used efficiency-related 

technologies and characteristics. For split system air conditioners, manufacturers increase the 

surface area of the heat exchangers to reach efficiency levels 1 and higher. To improve the 

efficiency further manufacturers increase the use of modulating equipment as efficiency levels 

increase. As described in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of this TSD), 

modulation allows products to match the actual cooling load more closely. To achieve 

modulation, manufacturers must implement several components, including a multi stage 

compressor, variable speed fan motors, and additional controls.
5-8

Table 5.4.5 Efficiency Levels for Blower Coil Split System Air Conditioners 

SEER

Efficiency Level 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

0 – Baseline 13 13 13

1 13.5 13.5 13.5

2 14 14 14

3 14.5 14.5 14.5

4 15 15 15

5 15.5 15.5 15.5

6 16 16 16

7 16.5 16.5 16.5

8 17 17 17

9 18 18

10 19 19

11 20 20

12 21 21

13 22

14 23

15- Max Tech 24.5 22 18

To improve from the baseline efficiency level, coil only units follow a similar path to the 

blower coil units and DOE analyzed up to 8 levels in addition to the baseline and max tech. 

However, because coil only units do not have an indoor fan, these units are not capable of 

achieving the same high efficiency levels as for blower coil units. Additionally, because 

improving the indoor fan is not an option, manufacturers tend to increase the size of the coil at a 

faster rate for coil only units than for the blower coil units. 

Table 5.4.6 Efficiency Levels for Coil Only Split System Air Conditioners 

SEER

Efficiency Level 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

0 – Baseline 13 13 13

1 13.5 13.5 13.5

2 14 14 14

3 14.5 14.5 14.5

4 15 15 15

5 15.5 15.5 15.5

6 16 16

7 16.5 16.5

8 17
5-9

9-Max Tech 18 17 16

For split system heat pumps, the pathway of efficiency improvements is also similar to 

the split system blower coil air conditioners. First, the surface area of the heat exchangers is 

increased, followed by improvements to fan motors (i.e. ECM motors) and modulating 

equipment. However, heat pumps have additional losses associated with the reversing valve, 

which enables the heat pump to provide both heating and cooling and also with trying to 

optimize for both heating and cooling, instead of just cooling. For split system heat pumps, DOE 

analyzed up to twelve additional efficiency levels depending on the cooling capacity.

Table 5.4.7 Efficiency Levels for Split System Heat Pumps 

SEER

Efficiency 

Level 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

0 – Baseline 13 13 13

1 13.5 13.5 13.5

2 14 14 14

3 14.5 14.5 14.5

4 15 15 15

5 15.5 15.5 15.5

6 16 16 16

7 16.5 16.5 16.5

8 17 17 17

9 18 18

10 19 19

11 20 20

12 21

13 – Max Tech 22 21 18

Packaged systems have slightly different constraints from split systems because all 

components must fit within a single package. This requirement places a premium on space and 

also creates additional losses which prevent units from achieving the same efficiency levels as 

split system units, and therefore, there six analyzed efficiency levels between the baseline and 

max tech. 

Table 5.4.8 Efficiency Levels for Packaged Systems
5-10

Packaged AC Packaged Heat Pump

Efficiency Level SEER SEER

0 – Baseline 13 13

1 13.5 13.5

2 14 14

3 14.5 14.5

4 15 15

5 15.5 15.5

6 16 16

7 – Max Tech 16.6 16.4

As discussed in chapter 5 of this TSD, SDHV units are matched with an outdoor unit 

from a conventional manufacturer, and SDHV systems achieve higher efficiency by pairing with 

a higher efficiency outdoor unit. However, the unique operating characteristics of these systems 

prevent them from achieving the same incremental efficiency increases that conventional 

systems do (i.e. increasing the outdoor unit efficiency by one SEER does not improve the SEER 

of the combined SDHV system by one SEER) and lead to only two efficiency levels in addition 

to the baseline and the max tech. 

Table 5.4.9 Efficiency Levels for SDHV Systems

Efficiency Level SEER

0 - Baseline 13

1 13.5

2 14

3 – Max Tech 14.3

5.4.3 Max-tech Efficiency Levels

As part of the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 

feasible improvement in energy efficiency for the covered products, as required by section 

325(o) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) In the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of this 

TSD), DOE conducted a survey of the markets for the covered products and their supporting 

research areas. The max-tech product in each product class was the highest efficiency product 

and no working products or prototypes are currently available at efficiency levels above that of 

the max-tech product. 

5.4.3.1 Furnaces

The max-tech levels identified for furnaces are shown in Table 5.4.10. For nonweatherized gas furnaces, DOE identified a max-tech efficiency level design with a condensing 

secondary heat exchanger and modulating operation, resulting in an AFUE of 98 percent. For 
5-11

mobile home gas furnaces, DOE identified the max-tech efficiency level as 96 percent AFUE, 

which can be reached using a condensing secondary heat exchanger, along with an increased 

heat exchanger area. For oil-fired furnaces, DOE identified the max-tech efficiency level as 97 

percent AFUE. Manufacturers are able to achieve this efficiency level by incorporating 

condensing heat exchanger technology into the oil furnace. 

Table 5.4.10 Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for Furnaces

Product Class

Representative Input 

Capacity

(Btu/h)

Max-Tech

Efficiency Level 

(AFUE)

Non-Weatherized 

Gas 75,000 98

Mobile Home Gas 80,000 96

Non-Weatherized Oil 105,000 97

5.4.3.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

The highest efficiency level in each of the seven product classes was identified through a 

review of products listed in the AHRI certified directories, manufacturer catalogs, and other 

publicly available documents. The max-tech efficiency levels are shown in Table 5.4.11, Table 

5.4.12, and Table 5.4.13.

Table 5.4.11 Split System Max-Tech Efficiency Levels by SEER for Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Split AC: Blower-coil Split AC: Coil-onlyb Split HP

2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

Max Tech

Efficiency Level 24.5 22 18 18 17 16 22 21 18

Table 5.4.12 Packaged System and Niche Product Max-Tech Efficiency Levels by SEER for 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Packaged 

AC

Packaged 

HP

Space-Constrained 

AC

Space-Constrained 

HP SDHV

Max Tech 

Efficiency Level 16.6 16.4 12 12 14.3

Table 5.4.13 Max-Tech Efficiency Levels by HSPF for Heat Pumps

b Blower-coil and coil-only split air conditioners are contained within a single product class, split air conditioners.
5-12

Split HP Packaged 

HP

SDHV

2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton 3 Ton 3 Ton

Max Tech 

Efficiency Level 10.30 10.70 9.75 9.00 8.90

In the preliminary analysis of split system air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE only 

examined products at the representative three-ton capacity. For the final rule, DOE performed 

additional analyses for two- and five- ton products. Therefore, the efficiency levels analyzed for 

split system products were expanded to include the relevant efficiency levels at the additional 

cooling capacities. For single package central air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as SDHV 

systems, the efficiency levels did not change from the preliminary analysis.

For space-constrained products, the AHRI certification directory listings and 

manufacturer catalogs only contain units rated at a single efficiency level. DOE defined the 

baseline for space-constrained products as the baseline efficiency on the market (i.e., 12 SEER).

However, this baseline SEER value coincided with the max-tech value; therefore, the standards 

cannot be raised above the current level of 12 SEER. Further discussion on this topic is 

contained in section 5.8.2.

5.5 TEARDOWN ANALYSIS

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

accurate method for determining the production cost of a product is to disassemble it piece-bypiece, compile a bill of materials (BOM), and estimate the material and labor cost of each 

component. DOE refers to this practice as a physical teardown. A supplementary method, called 

a catalog teardown (or “virtual teardown”), uses published manufacturer product literature and 

supplementary component data to estimate the major physical differences between the catalog 

teardown unit and a similar physical teardown unit. One alternative to the teardown method is to 

conduct price surveys to determine the production cost instead, but this price survey approach 

only provides insight into costs under the current standards, whereas the teardown approach 

provides insight into how products may change due to amended energy conservation standards. 

Units selected for physical teardowns were dismantled, and each part was characterized 

according to weight, manufacturing processes, dimensions, material, and quantity, in order to 

facilitate the creation of a complete BOM for the product. Bills of materials for catalog 

teardowns are generated by modifying the BOM of a similar unit that has been physically torn 

down to reflect major physical differences. These modifications are based on data taken from 

manufacturer specification sheets and supplementary component data.

5.5.1 Selection of Units
5-13

5.5.1.1 Furnaces

For the teardown analysis of furnaces, DOE included 39 physical teardowns and 31 

additional virtual teardowns. DOE identified and selected representative units across the entire 

range of efficiencies that are currently available to consumers. To the extent possible, all major 

efficiency levels and technologies were captured in the selection of models for teardown 

analysis. Each product class was considered separately. 

Teardown units must be representative of the product class, and as such the input 

capacities and characteristics of the teardown units were chosen as close as possible to the 

representative input capacity and characteristics for each respective product class shown in Table 

5.5.1. DOE also required that teardown units be manufactured in considerable volume, be 

commonly available, and have the most popular features. 

Table 5.5.1 Characteristics of Representative Residential Furnaces

Product 

Class

Input 

Capacity 

Btu/h

Blower 

Capacity

cfm

Configuration

Heat 

Exchanger 

Type

Ignition Draft

NonWeatherized 

Gas Furnaces

80,000 1200 Upflow Clamshell/

Tubular

Hot 

Surface Induced

Mobile Home 

Gas Furnaces 80,000 1200 Downflow Clamshell/Tubular

Hot 

Surface Natural

NonWeatherized 

Oil Furnaces

105,000 1200 Upflow Drum Intermittent 

Ignition Forced

DOE also adopted more specific criteria to guide the selection process. In order to 

understand incremental manufacturing costs in improving efficiency, products chosen for 

teardowns were taken from the same manufacturer and product series to the extent possible. This 

minimized the cost effects of non-efficiency-related design differences between models. The 

manufacturers that were chosen have large market shares of the particular product class. DOE 

made an exception to this criterion for the highest efficiency product (or max-tech product) in 

each product class; as such, the max-tech products for teardown were chosen irrespective of 

manufacturer. The teardown selections used for the analysis of amended AFUE standards also 

minimized the occurrence of non-efficiency-related premium features, which could inflate the 

incremental manufacturing cost of achieving higher-efficiency levels. However, for 

consideration in the standby and off mode analysis, DOE did analyze several furnaces with 

premium features because these features impact the standby and off mode power consumption.

DOE surveyed the residential furnaces industry and identified products available to 

consumers as well as prototypes developed by manufacturers’ research efforts. DOE then applied 

the aforementioned criteria and selected baseline, intermediate, and max-tech units that were as 
5-14

close to the representative characteristics as possible, met the energy efficiency levels being 

analyzed, and included the most prevalent technologies on the market. In several cases, DOE 

substituted a virtual teardown in the place of a physical teardown. For example, if two furnaces 

differed only by an extra heat exchanger tube, one was physically torn down and the additional 

material and manufacturing costs (e.g., extra sheet metal, additional burner orifice, additional 

heat exchanger tube) were added to the cost of the physically torn down model to determine the 

MPC of the virtually torn down model.

Because the large majority of residential furnace shipments fall into the non-weatherized 

gas product class, DOE focused its teardown analysis heavily on non-weatherized gas-fired 

furnaces. As a result, DOE selected units for teardown that include 25 non-weatherized gas-fired 

furnaces, 6 mobile home gas-fired furnaces, and 8 non-weatherized oil-fired furnaces. The 

furnaces selected spanned the range of efficiency levels from baseline to max-tech being 

analyzed for each product class. Figure 5.5.1 shows the efficiencies of products analyzed for the 

non-weatherized gas furnace analysis. DOE examined products with both PSC and ECM blower 

motors, as well as single stage, two stage, and fully modulating burner operation. Lastly, DOE 

conducted physical teardowns of a unit at an input capacity both above and below the 

representative input capacity to allow the analysis to be accurately scaled to the full range of 

input capacities analyzed. DOE did not identify the model number or manufacturer of the units 

examined during the teardown analysis because this could expose sensitive information about 

individual manufacturers’ products.

Figure 5.5.1 Efficiencies of Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces Selected for Teardown

5.5.1.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
5-15

The teardown analysis performed for the central air conditioners and heat pumps

engineering analysis includes a total of 24 physical teardowns, including 12 outdoor units (see 

Figure 5.5.2), 8 indoor units, and 3 evaporator coils. The 12 outdoor units consisted of one 13 

SEER/8.2 HSPF heat pump and 11 air conditioners of varying efficiency levels. It also included 

7 catalog teardowns for indoor units. Regarding the representative capacity, this rulemaking 

applies to units with capacities below 65,000 Btu/h. For conventional and SDHV product classes, 

36,000 Btu/h (i.e., three-tons) was selected as the representative capacity for analysis because 

units at this capacity are ubiquitous across manufacturers, have high sales volumes, and span a 

relatively large range of efficiencies. Baseline units serve as a starting point for the engineering 

analysis and guide the selection process for the teardown analysis. DOE acknowledges, however, 

that manufacturers tend to optimize residential central air conditioner and heat pump systems 

around the three-ton capacity. DOE performed additional engineering analyses on two- and fiveton capacity products to account for potential capacity-related impacts on the cost-efficiency 

relationship (see section 5.10). 

Figure 5.5.2 Efficiencies of Split-System Outdoor Units Selected for Teardown

The collection of products selected for teardown is intended to closely represent the 

market and expose the incremental cost of increasing product efficiency. To accomplish this, 

DOE selected the products for physical teardown and catalog teardown based on the following 

guidelines:

The selected products, taken together, cover the full range of efficiency levels considered 

in the analysis with emphasis placed on efficiencies in the 13-16 SEER range. Figure 5.5.3
5-16

illustrates how indoor and outdoor units from a single manufacturer can be combined to provide 

multiple ratings.

 OUTDOOR UNIT SEER INDOOR UNIT

Figure 5.5.3 Illustration of System Combinations for Split Systems

From most manufacturers, DOE selected at least one low-efficiency product and one highefficiency product, preferably sharing similar characteristics (e.g., same product line). The 

selected products are produced by manufacturers that have relatively large market shares in the 

residential central air conditioning market, and thus are representative of typical design 

approaches. The selected products have minimal product features or options that add cost 

without affecting product efficiency. For split-systems, indoor products were selected based on 

universality (ability to be paired with selected outdoor units) to maximize the number of systems 

that could be modeled.

5.5.2 Generation of Bill of Materials

The end result of each teardown is a structured BOM, describing each product component 

and its relationship to the other parts in the estimated order in which manufacturers assembled 

them. The BOMs describe each fabrication and assembly operation in detail, including the type 

of product needed (e.g., presses, drills) and the process cycle times. The result is a thorough and 

explicit model of the production process. The BOMs incorporate all materials, components, and 

fasteners classified as either raw materials or purchased parts and assemblies. The classification 

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

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

manufacturers (OEMs). DOE also visited several manufacturing plants to reinforce its 

understanding of the industry’s current manufacturing practices. Information was gathered to 

account for product designs specific to furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps and 

ensure that the teardown analysis methodology and pricing were accurate. For purchased parts, 

OUTDOOR UNIT-A

OUTDOOR UNIT-B

OUTDOOR UNIT-C

INDOOR UNIT-A

INDOOR UNIT-C

INDOOR UNIT-B

13

14

16

18

20
5-17

the purchase price is an estimate based on high-volume price quotations and detailed discussions 

with suppliers and manufacturers. For fabricated parts, the price of intermediate materials (e.g., 

tube, sheet metal) and the cost of transforming them into finished parts is an estimate based on 

current industry pricing. For a continued discussion of the cost details and assumptions, refer to 

section 5.6.2.

The BOM for a catalog teardown is identically structured and provides a description in 

equal detail to the BOM of a physical teardown. However, it is generated using a slightly 

different methodology. As stated previously, BOMs for catalog teardowns are generated by 

modifying the BOM of a similar unit that has been physically torn down. These modifications 

reflect the major physical differences between the units. Specific to this engineering analysis, 

the catalog teardown methodology was employed to generate bills of materials for evaporator 

coils and air handlers for the central air conditioner and heat pump analysis. DOE physically tore 

down three evaporator coils and eight air handlers. Based on these physical teardowns, DOE 

executed four supplementary evaporator coil catalog teardowns and seven supplementary air 

handler catalog teardowns. In addition, catalog teardowns were used to provide additional data 

for the scaling of the cost-efficiency relationship to additional input capacities for furnaces. DOE 

physically tore down a unit at an input capacity above and below the representative input 

capacity and relied on information from those two physical teardowns and the catalog teardowns 

to scale the analysis to other input capacities.

Figure 5.5.4 below shows an example of a section of a BOM spreadsheet. Each row of 

the spreadsheet represents a single part of the unit assembly and includes a description of the 

part, a material type, initial and final dimensions, and weight. These rows also include 

placeholders for the type and number or duration of fabrication processes (stamping, drilling, 

etc.) required to create that part. From this information, a part cost is generated, and the part 

costs are summed across the sheet to create a cost estimate for the entire unit. While the 

teardown analysis only considers technologies in observed in the today’s units, DOE does not 

believe that the implementation of technologies would differ based on amended standards 

because manufacturers of these products generally already incorporate the most cost-effective 

methods for improving efficiency into their products. 
5-18

Figure 5.5.4 Example of BOM Spreadsheet

5.6 COST MODEL

The cost model is a detailed, component-focused, activity-based tool for estimating the 

manufacturing cost of a product. Once teardowns were completed, DOE implemented a cost 

model that could translate the physical information from the BOMs into manufacturing costs. 

The cost model is based on production activities and divides factory costs into materials, labor, 

depreciation, and overhead. DOE defines the cost inputs of these broader categories in Table 

5.6.1.

Table 5.6.1 Cost Model Categories and Descriptions

Major Category Sub-Category Description

Material Costs

Direct Raw materials (e.g., coils of sheet metal) and 

purchased parts (e.g., fan motors, compressors)

Indirect Material used during manufacturing (e.g., welding 

rods, die oil, release media)

Manufacturing 

Labor

Assembly Part/unit assembly on manufacturing line

Fabrication Conversion of raw material into parts ready for 

assembly

Indirect

Fraction of overall labor not associated directly with 

product manufacturing (e.g., forklift drivers, quality 

control)

Supervisory Fraction of indirect labor that is paid a higher wage 

Depreciation Equipment, Straight line depreciation over expected life
5-19

Conveyor, Building

Tooling Cost is allocated on a per-use basis or obsolescence, 

whichever is shorter

Other Overhead

Utilities A fixed fraction of all material costs meant to cover 

electricity and other utility costs

Maintenance Based on installed equipment and tooling investment

Property Tax and 

Insurance

A fixed fraction based on total unit costs

DOE input the cost data from all the BOMs—whether they were obtained through 

physical teardowns or catalog teardowns—into the cost model. The cost model analysis created 

cost estimates for each of the products analyzed in the teardown analysis. The cost model uses 

specific assumptions to provide cost estimates; the following sections describe these 

assumptions.

5.6.1 Cost Model Overview

This section provides a general overview of the process by which the cost model converts 

the physical information in each product’s BOM into cost information. After gathering 

component information through physical teardowns and organizing it into BOMs, the resulting 

data were used as inputs for the cost model spreadsheet. To determine the costs, DOE followed 

one of two different paths, depending on whether a subassembly was purchased (out-sourced) or 

produced in-house. For purchased parts, DOE gathered price quotations from major suppliers at 

different production volumes. For parts produced in-house, DOE reconstructed manufacturing 

processes for each part using modeling software based on internal expertise. For example, for an 

access panel, DOE deduced the time required for setup, handling, changeover, and punching 

holes, as well as the number of holes and hits. By repeating this process, DOE was able to assign 

labor time, equipment utilization, and other important factors to each subassembly in each of the 

units considered for this analysis. The last step was to convert the information into dollar values. 

To perform this task, DOE collected information on such factors as labor rates, tooling 

depreciation, and costs of purchased raw materials. DOE assumed values for these parameters 

using internal expertise and confidential information available to its contractors. Figure 5.6.1

provides an illustration of the cost model methodology.

Figure 5.6.1 Cost Model Methodology

Purchased Parts

Bill of

Materials

Fabrication

Processes

Assembly

Processes

Teardown 

Observation

Production 

 Cost

Raw

Materials

Finished

Materials
5-20

In sum, DOE assigned costs of labor, materials, and overhead to each part, including coils, 

whether purchased or produced in-house. DOE then aggregated single-part costs into major 

assemblies (e.g., for central air conditioners and heat pumps this would include the cabinet 

assembly, condensing unit, evaporator unit, controls, packaging, condenser coil assembly, and 

evaporator coil assembly) and summarized these costs in a spreadsheet. DOE repeated this same 

process for each unit in the engineering analysis, representing a specific efficiency level at the 

chosen capacity and mapped the resulting cost-efficiency points to use as a basis for developing 

the cost-efficiency relationships.

5.6.2 C

Assumptions about manufacturer practices and cost structure play an important role in 

estimating the final cost of the products. DOE used assumptions regarding the manufacturing 

process parameters, (e.g., equipment use, labor rates, tooling depreciation, and cost of purchased 

raw materials) to determine the value of each component. It then summed the values of the 

components into assembly costs and, finally, the total MPC for the product. The MPC includes 

the material, labor, depreciation, and overhead costs associated with the manufacturing facility. 

The material costs include both raw materials and purchased part costs. The labor costs include 

fabrication, assembly, and indirect and overhead (burdened) labor rates. The depreciation costs 

include equipment depreciation, tooling depreciation, and building depreciation. The overhead 

costs include indirect process costs, utilities, equipment and building maintenance, and rework. 

The following sections describe the cost model assumptions related to material prices, purchased 

parts and factory parameters.

ost Model Assumptions

5.6.2.1 Material Prices

DOE determined the cost of raw materials by using prices for copper, steel, and 

aluminum from the American Metals Market.2

 DOE noted that there have been drastic 

fluctuations in metal prices over the last few years. To account for these large fluctuations, DOE

used prices of metals that reflect a five-year average of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer 

Price Indices (PPIs) spanning 2004 to 2009.3 DOE used the PPIs for steel mill products and 

copper rolling, drawing, and extruding, and adjusted to 2009$ using the gross domestic product 

implicit price deflator.4

5.6.2.2 Fabricated Parts and Purchased Parts

DOE characterized parts based on whether manufacturers fabricated them in-house or 

purchased them from outside suppliers. For fabricated parts, DOE estimated the price of 

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

For purchased parts, DOE estimated the purchase price for OEMs based on discussions with the 

manufacturers. Whenever possible, DOE obtained price quotes directly from suppliers of the 

manufacturers of the units being analyzed. DOE assumed that the components in Table 5.6.2

were purchased from outside suppliers.
5-21

Table 5.6.2 Purchased Central Air Conditioner, Heat Pump, and Furnace Components

Assembly Purchased Sub-Assemblies

Central Air Conditioner and Heat 

Pump Condensing Unit

Compressor

Condenser Fan Blade

Condenser Fan Motor

Filter/Dryer

Hi/Low Pressure Switch

Accumulator

Reversing/Shutoff Valve

Plastic Parts

Central Air Conditioner and Heat 

Pump Evaporating Unit

Evaporator Blower

Evaporator Fan Motor

TXV/EEV/Orifice

Plastic Parts

Furnace

Gas Valve 

Oil Burner Assembly 

Hot Surface Igniter

Furnace Blower Fan Blade

Furnace Blower Fan Motor

Draft Inducer Assembly

Controls (for all product types)

Control Boards

Capacitors, transformers, contactors,

switches, etc.

Variability in the costs of purchased parts can account for large changes in the overall 

MPC values calculated. The purchased part prices utilized in this study were typical values based 

on estimated production volumes and other factors. In actuality, purchased part costs can vary 

significantly based on the quantities desired and the component suppliers chosen. The role of 

purchase part prices in the MPC calculation is further magnified because these parts comprise 

significant portions (e.g., roughly 50-60 percent for air conditioners) of these systems by cost. 

Additionally, some parts, such as molded plastic components, may be produced in-house by 

some manufacturers and purchased by others. The choice between these options would result in 

changes to the calculated overall system costs. Manufacturer feedback was solicited on these 

costs and used to further calibrate the numbers prior to conducting the final rule analyses to 

minimize the uncertainty caused by the variability in costs. 

5.6.2.3 Factory Parameters

Certain factory parameters, such as fabrication rates, labor rates, and wages, also affect 

the cost of each unit produced. DOE factory parameter assumptions were based on internal 

expertise and manufacturer feedback. Table 5.6.3 below lists the factory parameter assumptions 
5-22

used in the cost model. These factory parameters are independent of the efficiency level of the 

unit produced and do not vary between the major central air conditioner and heat pump product 

classes analyzed in the engineering analysis. This assumption is consistent with the fact that all 

major manufacturers produce units in all of these product classes and across a range of efficiency 

levels. The annual production volume assumed for furnaces varies from that estimated for central 

air conditioners and heat pumps due to the lower shipment volumes for these products. Nonweatherized gas furnaces and mobile home gas furnaces are assumed to have the same 

production volumes because major manufacturers produce these units, which generally use the 

same components as non-weatherized gas furnaces. However, because oil-fired furnace 

manufacturers are typically only focused on oil-fired furnace products, the production volume 

for those manufacturers was assumed to be even lower due to the significantly smaller market for 

oil-fired furnaces. Additionally, these assumptions are generalized to represent typical 

production and are not intended to model a specific factory. 

Table 5.6.3 Factory Parameter Assumptions

Parameter Central Air 

Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps 

Estimate

Nonweatherized Gas 

Furnaces 

Estimate*

Oil-fired

Furnace 

Type 

Estimate

Actual Annual Production Volume 

(units/year)

1,250,000 500,000 40,000

Work Days Per Year (days) 250 250 250

Assembly Shifts Per Day (shifts) 2 2 2

Fabrication Shifts Per Day (shifts) 2.5 2.5 2.5

Fabrication Labor Wages ($/h) 16 16 16

Assembly Labor Wages ($/h) 16 16 16

Length of Shift (hrs) 8 8 8

Average Equipment Installation Cost (% 

of purchase price)

10% 10% 10%

Fringe Benefits Ratio 50% 50% 50%

Indirect to Direct Labor Ratio 33% 33% 33%

Average Scrap Recovery Value 30% 30% 30%

Building Cost ($/ft2) 177 177 177

Worker Downtime 10% 10% 10%

Building Life (in years) 30 30 30

Burdened Assembly Labor Wage ($/h) 24 24 24

Burdened Fabrication Labor Wage ($/h) 24 24 24

Supervisor Span (workers/supervisor) 25 25 25

Supervisor Wage Premium (over 

fabrication and assembly wage)

30% 30% 30%

*Includes non-weatherized mobile home furnaces.
5-23

5.7 MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE

The output of the cost model is the MPC, which includes all direct costs including 

production-related labor, materials, depreciation, and overhead costs (as defined in section 5.6). 

To obtain the MSP, DOE multiplies the MPC by the manufacturer markup and adds the cost of 

shipping. The MSP includes all production and non-production costs as well as profit. The 

manufacturer markup is a multiplier that scales MPC to the MSP and covers non-production cost 

elements, including sales, general and administrative, research and development, other corporate 

expenses, and profit. The components of MSP are shown in Figure 5.7.1. The MPCs are obtained 

as an output of the cost model, and the manufacturer markup and shipping costs were derived as 

described in sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 below. 

Manufacturer 

Selling Price

Full Cost of 

Product

Manufacturer 

Production Cost

Direct 

Labor

Direct 

Material Overhead

Indirect Labor

Indirect Material

Maintenance

Depreciation

Taxes

Insurance related 

to assets

Non-Production 

Cost

Selling

Market 

Research

Advertising

POS Promotion

Salesperson 

Comp & Travel

Logistics 

(Warehousing, 

Delivery, RecordKeeping, Order 

Processing)

General & 

Admin.

Costs of 

Service & 

Staff Units

General 

Corporate 

Costs 

(Comp, etc)

R & D

Costs associated 

with finding new 

and improved 

products or 

processes

Code 

Compliance

Modernization

Interest

Cost of 

borrowing 

funds

Profit

Figure 5.7.1 Components of Manufacturer Selling Price

5.7.1 Manufacturer Markup

In the final rule analysis, DOE used U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-

K reports from publicly owned residential cooling and heating product companies to estimate 

manufacturer markups. The law requires publicly owned companies to disclose financial 

information on a regular basis by filing forms with the SEC. The SEC form 10-K, filed by 
5-24

companies annually, provides a comprehensive overview of the company’s business and 

financial conditions. The 10-K report includes the company’s revenues and direct and indirect 

costs. The income statement section of the 10-K often lists the figures necessary for calculating 

the manufacturer markup—the net sales, costs of sales, and gross profit. DOE first calculated a 

five year average markup for each company. After calculating the markup for each manufacturer 

with 10-K data, DOE then calculated a single market-share weighted manufacturer markup to 

represent the industry. DOE applied this manufacturer markup to the MPC to arrive at a final 

manufacturer selling price. This industry wide markup was further calibrated based on feedback 

received during manufacturer interviews. For the final rule analysis, the manufacturer markup 

varied by product class and was 1.30 for split system air conditioners and heat pumps, 1.28 for 

packaged units, 1.32 for SDHV systems, 1.35 for non-weatherized gas and oil-fired furnaces, and 

1.30 for mobile home gas furnaces.

5.7.2 Shipping Costs

Manufacturers of HVAC products typically pay for freight to the first step in the 

distribution chain. Freight is not a manufacturing cost, but because it is a substantial cost 

incurred by the manufacturer, DOE is accounting for shipping costs separately from the nonproduction costs that comprise the manufacturer markup. To calculate MSP, DOE multiplied the 

MPC determined from the cost model by the manufacturer markup and added shipping costs.

DOE calculated shipping costs based on a typical 53-foot straight frame trailer with a storage 

volume of 4,240 cubic feet. 

For the final rule, DOE revised its methodology to develop shipping costs from the 

preliminary analysis for central air conditioners and heat pumps and determined a product’s 

shipping cost as a function of its volume for all analyzed product classes (including furnaces). 

DOE first calculated the cost per cubic foot of space on a trailer based on a cost of $2,500 per 

shipping load and the standard dimensions of a 53-foot trailer. This cost was determined based 

on a combination of full truck load (FTL) freight quotations and manufacturer feedback. Then, 

DOE examined the average sizes of products in each product class at each efficiency and 

capacity combination analyzed. DOE estimated the shipping costs by multiplying the product 

volume by the cost per cubic foot of space on the trailer. Because product size greatly depends 

on efficiency for central air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE calculated a separate volumetric 

cost for each efficiency level. For furnaces, however, product dimensions typically do not change 

as a result of increases in efficiency, and DOE’s shipping costs show no change across efficiency 

levels, except for mobile home furnaces. For those products, DOE found that at a legacy design 

that is shipped with an evaporator coil cabinet on top of the unit is the most common design at 

the baseline, while at the condensing efficiency levels the size and design of the units were more 

in line with non-weatherized gas furnaces at the condensing level. As a result of the increased 

size of the baseline unit (to include the coil cabinet), the shipping cost at the baseline is higher 

for mobile home furnaces. In determining volumetric shipping costs, DOE also used 

manufacturer feedback regarding product mix on each trailer, packing efficiency, and methods 

and equipment used to load the trailers to revise the shipping costs. Table 5.7.1 through Table 
5-25

5.7.18 show the shipping costs and shipping dimensions for the products analyzed in this 

rulemaking.

Table 5.7.1 Shipping Costs for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces

Shipping Cost ($)

AFUE 60 kBtu/h 80 kBtu/h 100 kBtu/h 120 kBtu/h

80 10.06 10.06 11.86 13.67

90 10.06 10.06 11.86 13.67

92 10.06 10.06 11.86 13.67

95 10.06 10.06 11.86 13.67

98 10.06 10.06 11.86 13.67

Table 5.7.2 Shipping Costs for Mobile Home Gas Furnaces

AFUE Shipping Cost 

($)

80 18.68

90 10.06

92 10.06

96 10.06

Table 5.7.3Shipping Costs for Oil-Fired Furnaces

AFUE Shipping Cost

($)

82 19.69

83 19.69

84 19.69

85 19.69

97 19.69

Table 5.7.4 Shipping Dimensions for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces (60 kBtu/h and 80 

kBtu/h Input Capacity)

Shipping Dimensions

AFUE 60 kBtu/h 80 kBtu/h

Height

(in.)

Width

(in.)

Length

(in.)

Height

(in.)

Width

(in.)

Length

(in.)

80 42.0 19.5 30.5 42.0 19.5 30.5

90 42.0 19.5 30.5 42.0 19.5 30.5

92 42.0 19.5 30.5 42.0 19.5 30.5

95 42.0 19.5 30.5 42.0 19.5 30.5

98 42.0 19.5 30.5 42.0 19.5 30.5
5-26

Table 5.7.5 Shipping Dimensions for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces (100 kBtu/h and 120 

kBtu/h)

Shipping Dimensions

AFUE 100 kBtu/h 120 kBtu/h

Height

(in.)

Width

(in.)

Length

(in.)

Height

(in.)

Width

(in.)

Length

(in.)

80 42.0 23.0 30.5 42.0 26.5 30.5

90 42.0 23.0 30.5 42.0 26.5 30.5

92 42.0 23.0 30.5 42.0 26.5 30.5

95 42.0 23.0 30.5 42.0 26.5 30.5

98 42.0 23.0 30.5 42.0 26.5 30.5

Table 5.7.6 Shipping Dimensions for Mobile Home Furnaces (80 kBtu/h Input Capacity)

AFUE Height

(in.)

Width

(in.)

Depth

(in.)

80 78.0 19.5 30.5

90 42.0 19.5 30.5

92 42.0 19.5 30.5

96 42.0 19.5 30.5

Table 5.7.7 Shipping Dimensions for Oil-Fired Furnaces (105 kBtu/h Input Capacity)

AFUE Height

(in.)

Width

(in.)

Depth

(in.)

82 56.3 25.1 34.6

83 56.3 25.1 34.6

84 56.3 25.1 34.6

85 56.3 25.1 34.6

97 56.3 25.1 34.6

Table 5.7.8 Shipping Costs for Split System Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

SEER

Split System AC CoilOnly ($)Split System AC BlowerCoil ($)Split System HP 

($)

2 Ton 3 

Ton 5 Ton 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

13 16.02 20.51 28.42 19.79 24.89 35.60 25.74 28.64 36.80

13.5 18.07 22.62 28.97 21.64 26.95 35.89 25.60 29.58 37.60

14 20.30 24.83 29.50 23.66 29.11 36.16 25.45 30.54 38.42

14.5 20.04 24.16 30.06 23.97 29.55 37.93 28.60 33.50 39.74

15 23.30 25.40 33.08 23.50 28.81 38.20 31.12 35.40 39.58

15.5 23.91 26.73 33.38 25.19 29.76 39.44 32.09 34.70 40.14

16 24.52 28.10 33.65 27.00 30.75 40.69 33.07 34.09 40.71
5-27

16.5 26.59 28.90 27.38 32.02 40.69 33.97 35.40 41.44

17 28.67 30.74 27.74 33.35 40.69 34.86 36.72 42.17

18 31.41 33.48 35.23 41.82 36.48 39.52 42.90

19 35.70 37.03 40.27 41.64

20 38.51 38.91 41.15 42.18

21 42.09 42.26 41.59 42.90

22 45.01 44.71 41.82

23 46.36

24.5 46.75

Table 5.7.9 Shipping Costs for Single Package Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

and SDHV Systems

SEER

Single 

Package 

HP ($)

Single 

Package AC 

($)

SDHV 

($)

13 31.88 30.43 29.79

13.5 33.38 32.13 32.76

14 34.91 33.89 34.93

14.3 35.85 34.97 36.81

14.5 36.48 35.69

15 38.08 37.55

15.5 39.72 39.47

16 41.39 41.44

16.4 42.75 43.06

16.6 43.88

Table 5.7.10 2 Ton Split System Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions

SEER

Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit

Box Estimates w/pallet Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth Height Width Depth

13.0 27 37 30 49 19 21

13.5 28 40 31 49 19 21

14.0 29 42 32 49 19 21

14.5 29 41 32 49 21 21

15.0 29 40 32 49 21 21

15.5 30 43 32 49 21 21

16.0 31 45 33 49 21 21

16.5 31 44 33 49 21 21

17.0 32 44 34 49 21 21
5-28

18.0 34 46 36 49 26 21

19.0 36 47 37 49 26 21

20.0 37 49 38 49 26 21

21.0 39 50 39 49 26 21

22.0 40 53 40 49 26 21

23.0 41 53 41 49 26 21

24.0 41 52 41 49 26 21

24.5 42 52 42 49 26 21

Table 5.7.11 2 Ton Split System Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions

SEER

Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit

Box Estimates w/pallet Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth Height Width Depth

13.0 32 43 33 49 19 21

13.5 32 43 33 49 19 21

14.0 32 43 32 49 19 21

14.5 33 44 35 49 21 21

15.0 33 45 37 49 21 21

15.5 34 45 38 49 21 21

16.0 35 46 38 49 21 21

17.0 35 47 40 49 21 21

18.0 36 49 40 49 21 21

19.0 36 50 41 49 26 21

20.0 36 51 41 49 26 21

21.0 36 51 41 49 26 21

22.0 36 52 41 49 26 21

Table 5.7.12 3 Ton Split System Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions

SEER

Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit

Box Estimates w/pallet Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth Height Width Depth

13.0 29 41 32 54 21 22

13.5 31 40 34 54 21 22

14.0 34 40 36 54 21 22

14.5 33 41 34 54 23 22

15.0 32 42 33 54 23 22

15.5 33 42 34 54 23 22

16.0 34 42 34 54 23 22
5-29

16.5 34 44 35 54 23 22

17.0 34 45 36 54 23 22

18.0 34 46 36 54 26 22

19.0 35 47 37 54 26 22

20.0 36 48 38 54 26 22

21.0 37 49 39 54 26 22

22.0 38 50 40 54 26 22

Table 5.7.13 3 Ton Split System Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions

SEER

Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit

Box Estimates w/pallet Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth Height Width Depth

13.0 32 42 35 54 21 22

13.5 33 42 35 54 21 22

14.0 33 43 36 54 21 22

14.5 34 44 37 54 23 22

15.0 35 45 38 54 23 22

15.5 35 44 37 54 23 22

16.0 35 44 37 54 23 22

17.0 36 47 38 54 23 22

18.0 37 49 39 54 23 22

19.0 38 50 39 54 26 22

20.0 38 50 39 54 26 22

21.0 38 50 40 54 26 22

Table 5.7.14 5 Ton Split System Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions

SEER

Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit

Box Estimates w/pallet Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth Height Width Depth

13.0 35 44 37 58 23 24

13.5 36 44 36 58 23 24

14.0 36 45 36 58 23 24

14.5 36 45 37 58 26 24

15.0 35 45 38 58 26 24

15.5 35 47 38 58 26 24

16.0 36 48 38 58 26 24

17.0 35 46 40 58 26 24
5-30

18.0 36 47 41 58 26 24

Table 5.7.15 5 Ton Split Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions

SEER

Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit

Box Estimates w/pallet Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth Height Width Depth

13.0 35 45 38 58 23 24

13.5 35 47 38 58 23 24

14.0 35 48 38 58 23 24

14.5 35 48 38 58 26 24

15.0 35 48 37 58 26 24

15.5 35 48 37 58 26 24

16.0 36 49 38 58 26 24

17.0 36 50 38 58 26 24

18.0 37 52 39 58 26 24

Table 5.7.16 Single Package Air Conditioner Shipping Dimensions

SEER Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth

13.0 50 40 39

13.5 50 40 40

14.0 50 41 41

14.5 51 42 42

15.0 51 42 43

15.5 51 43 45

16.0 52 44 46

16.6 52 44 47

Table 5.7.17 Single Package Heat Pump Shipping Dimensions

SEER Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth

13.0 51 39 40

13.5 51 40 41

14.0 51 41 42

14.5 51 41 43

15.0 51 42 44

15.5 51 42 45

16.0 51 43 47

16.4 51 43 47
5-31

Table 5.7.18 SDHV Shipping Dimensions*

SEER Box Estimates w/pallet

Height Width Depth

ALL 36 33 19

*These dimensions are only for the SDHV portion of the system and do not include the 

condensing unit. 

5.7.3 MSP in the Downstream Analyses

The MSPs derived in the engineering analysis are important inputs to the life-cycle cost 

analysis (LCC) and the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). In the LCC, the MSPs are 

necessary to calculate the total installed cost of each unit. In the MIA, DOE constructs a number 

of scenarios that analyze how different pricing schemes impact manufacturers financially. In the 

MIA, both MSP and the direct production cost components of MSP are important drivers of 

results. DOE discusses how the engineering analysis is used in the other analyses in chapters 8 

and 12 of the TSD. 

5.8 CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER AND HEAT PUMP NICHE PRODUCTS

For the final rule analysis, DOE conducted a review of the information available 

regarding products in the niche (small-duct, high-velocity and space-constrained) product 

classes. This consisted of gathering and analyzing publicly available documentation and product 

specification sheets, as well as interviewing some manufacturers directly. For the final rule 

analysis, DOE performed a full engineering analysis in including teardowns and cost modeling 

of units throughout the available efficiency levels, as well as modeling of system designs to 

develop curves depicting theoretical incremental costs of efficiency increases. 

5.8.1 Small Duct High Velocity

Small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) systems are intended for applications that require 

special design constraints, primarily retrofit applications in older homes and residential buildings 

where the original construction limits the use of conventional ductwork. In these situations, 

SDHV units often serve as the preferred alternative to operating multiple window units or 

installing obtrusive conventional ducting systems. SDHV systems are designed with the intent of 

allowing for simple installation and preserving the appearances of the existing buildings. These 

systems are also utilized in new construction applications in building designs that would not be 

possible if traditional ductwork, and the required space associated with it, were used. 10 CFR 

430.2 defines “small-duct high-velocity system” as: 

“...a heating and cooling product that contains a blower and indoor coil 

combination that (1) Is designed for, and produces, at least 1.2 inches of external 

static pressure when operated at the certified air volume rate of 220-350 CFM per 
5-32

rated ton of cooling; and (2) When applied in the field, uses high velocity room 

outlets generally greater than 1000 FPM which have less than 6.0 square inches of 

free area.” 

5.8.1.1 Identification of the Baseline

Currently, the 13 SEER efficiency level mandated by the 2004 technical amendment (69 

FR 50997) to the 2002 final rule applies to all SDHV products. However, all three major 

domestic manufacturers of SDHV units have been granted exceptions to this standard by the 

Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), allowing these units to instead adhere to an 11 SEER 

efficiency level. The decisions applying to these manufacturers went into effect on January 23, 

2006, and remain in effect until DOE establishes an independent standard for SDHV systems.

However, EISA 2007 contained an “anti-backsliding” clause which prevents DOE from setting a 

standard lower than the current standard; therefore, 13 SEER was selected as the baseline. (US 

6925(o)(1)) Due to the ducting constraints mandated by the system size requirements, elevation 

of system performance to high levels is difficult in practice, and manufacturers have stated that 

they believe the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level to be just over 14 SEER. 

This is in agreement with the distribution of efficiency levels of products in the AHRI Certified 

Directoryc

5.8.1.2 Product Description

, as roughly 81 percent of the units listed have rated efficiencies between 11 and 12 

SEER, while slightly less than 5 percent of units are rated at 13 SEER or above. The highest 

listed efficiency of a matched unit in the AHRI Directory is 14.3 SEER. 

SDHV air conditioners and heat pumps currently sold in the U.S. are similar to traditional 

split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, incorporating an outdoor unit with an indoor 

blower-coil unit. What differentiates SDHV systems from conventional split systems is the use 

of compact ductwork and specialized diffusers designed to accommodate high air velocities, 

combined with a specially designed indoor unit. Since these space constraints only affect the 

indoor portion of the system, the outdoor portion of an SDHV system is a conventional splitsystem model, selected from a manufacturer based on the desired performance specifications of 

the system. The inherent system design constraints prevent SDHV systems from achieving the 

same efficiencies as conventional split-system air conditioners and heat pumps without placing a 

disproportionate burden on consumers and manufacturers. 

Three domestic manufacturers of SDHV systems, SpacePak, Unico, and Energy Saving 

Products, Ltd. (trade name: Hi-Velocity), certify their systems in the AHRI Certified Directory. 

As of June 8, 2010, the AHRI Certified Directory listed 732 actively produced mix-match system 

combinations with rated SEER values ranging from 11 SEER to 14.3 SEER. As previously 

mentioned, the majority of these units are rated between 11 and 12 SEER. The number of distinct 

c This refers to the AHRI Certified Directory information as of June 8, 2010, for SDHV air conditioning and heat 

pump units of all residential capacities.
5-33

SDHV indoor units produced by the three manufacturers is quite small compared to the number 

of choices available for the condensing unit, as any conventional condensing unit can be 

connected to an SDHV indoor unit. Additionally, system performance will be constrained by 

either the condensing unit or the blower-coil unit, since the two components are not matched by 

the manufacturer. Based on an examination of the AHRI Certified Directory, for any given 

SDHV indoor unit, variation of the condensing unit can change the system SEER value by up to 

3.3 points.

SDHV indoor units, along with the return air ducts and supply plenums, are designed to 

fit into confined spaces (e.g., attics, closets, and crawl spaces), within structures that were often 

not originally built with provisions for central air conditioning systems. The design of the SHDV 

unit varies by manufacturer. Spacepak produces packaged blower-coil combination units, while 

Energy Saving Products offers the fan mounted in a housing unit with a space to accommodate 

the evaporator coil, with the coil selectable by the user or installer based on the application. 

Unico produces a modular system, where the blower, evaporator coil, and optional heating coil 

are sold separately and are bolted together by the installer in the desired position, allowing for 

multiple configurations to fit different installation arrangements. 

SDHV ducts possess very small cross-sectional profiles, not more than a few inches in 

diameter. This allows them to be installed in spaces that could not accommodate larger 

conventional ductwork. In other cases, the ductwork is concealed in baseboards or molding, or is 

simply installed visibly along the edge of a wall when no space for concealment exists. In the 

case of new construction, SDHV ducts are often routed between studs in walls and through 

ceilings without requiring the large clearances necessitated by conventional ductwork. These 

systems produce air velocities on the order of four to five times those of conventional systems, 

and as a result, blower motors must be capable of producing high static pressures. However, 

constraints on the maximum velocity of the air through the ductwork and vents exist, imposed by 

the onset of undesirable effects at very high air velocities including noise and drafts within 

rooms. As a result, the maximum volume of air that can be moved per unit time is constrained as 

well. To partially compensate for this limited flow volume, SDHV systems generally operate 

with higher temperature differentials across the evaporator coil in order to achieve the desired 

cooling capacities while moving less air than a conventional split-system air handler. This 

requires that SHDV units utilize evaporator coils with very high efficiencies; however, this 

efficiency gain resulting from the more effective coil is more than offset by the increased power 

consumption of the indoor blower. 

5.8.1.3 Design Options

Based on interviews with SDHV system manufacturers, evaluation of previous analyses, 

and an assessment of SDHV systems currently available, DOE developed a list of design options 

that should be considered in its analysis. This list includes technologies considered to be 

technologically feasible and will serve to establish the maximum technologically feasible (maxtech) design. Due to the aforementioned technological similarities that inherently exist between 
5-34

the SDHV and conventional split-system product classes, DOE is currently considering the 

options previously listed for application in split-system air conditioners and heat pumps as 

potential methods for increasing SDHV product efficiency.

DOE has concluded that the ability of manufacturers to implement these design options 

may be limited by the restrictions imposed upon the systems by the higher static pressure and 

reduced airflow requirements. The reduced airflow causes the air flowing to the conditioned 

space to have a lower temperature than that of a conventional system. This in turn results in the 

refrigerant leaving the evaporator with a lower pressure, which forces the compressor to work 

harder, thereby decreasing the systems overall efficiency. The higher static pressure within the 

SDHV ducts increases the work that must be performed by the blower. Because the blower is 

working harder, it consumes more power, which also reduces the system’s efficiency. Another 

possibility is to improve the evaporator coil with either improved materials and fin designs or the 

addition of coil rows to increase effective surface area while maintaining the necessary profile. 

However, increases in coil depth also result in a higher pressure drop across the coil, requiring 

more fan energy to move the air. Manufacturers have claimed that additional increases in the size 

of evaporator coils will not prove to be cost effective. Additionally, the overall rating of an 

SDHV unit is largely dependent upon the condensing unit to which the system is matched. 

Certain technologies (e.g., high-efficiency fan motors and compressors) are required in the 

condensing unit in order for the whole system to achieve the higher efficiency levels. 

Manufacturers have claimed that a 12 SEER system rating generally requires a two-speed 

compressor on the condensing unit, while a 13 SEER system rating can only be attained through 

the use of a variable-speed compressor. Since the design of these condensing units is beyond the 

control of the SDHV system manufacturer, mandating efficiency levels which would require 

consumers to purchase more costly products from other manufacturers could lead to negative 

consequences for the industry.

5.8.1.4 Cost of Efficiency Improvements

Due to constraints on the implementation of the design options available to manufacturers, 

increases in system efficiency would come at a high cost, and improvements would meet with 

diminishing returns beyond a certain point. Increases in coil size would likely incur 

corresponding increases in coil cost, as material costs are the biggest contributor to the pricing of 

coils. Additionally, improved fin designs or other design features would come at a high cost as 

well. Moreover, since overall system performance is highly dependent upon the efficiency of the 

outdoor unit, which is produced by a different manufacturer altogether, costs passed on to the 

consumer in upgrading to a higher-efficiency system would be greater than those encountered by 

the SDHV system manufacturers. 

5.8.2 Space-Constrained Products

Certain types of central air conditioners and heat pumps are manufactured for 

applications with space constraints and, therefore, have features that distinguish them 

from the majority of products available. Sometimes these products are not able to meet 
5-35

standards designed for conventional split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, or are 

able to, but, in doing so, place a disproportionate burden on manufacturers and 

consumers. This product class covers the products that DOE has determined to fit the 

definition of space constrained. 10 CFR 430.2 defines “space-constrained product” as:

“...a central air conditioner or heat pump: 

(1) That has rated cooling capacities no greater than 30,000 BTU/h; 

(2) That has an outdoor or indoor unit having at least two overall exterior 

dimensions or an overall displacement that: 

(i) Is substantially smaller than those of other units that are: 

(A) Currently usually installed in site-built single family homes; 

and 

(B) Of a similar cooling, and, if a heat pump, heating capacity; and 

(ii) If increased, would certainly result in a considerable increase in the 

usual cost of installation or would certainly result in a significant loss in the utility 

of the product to the consumer; and 

(3) Of a product type that was available for purchase in the United States as of 

December 1, 2000.” 

5.8.2.1 Identification of the Baseline

In the 1999 SANOPR, DOE first suggested separate product classes as a way to set 

standards for these niche products. 64 FR at 66310. Originally, these products were believed to 

include through-the-wall (TTW) split systems, single-package vertical units (SPVU), ductless 

split systems, and SDHV systems. As of the 2000 NOPR, TTW single-package and nonweatherized single-package systems were also added to this product class. In the 2004 Technical 

Amendment, DOE established a separate product class for space-constrained systems, requiring 

them to meet a 12 SEER standard. TTW systems were made their own product class and were 

required to meet a 10.9 SEER standard; however, this expired on January 23, 2010. Within the 

scope of this rulemaking, SDHV units have been granted consideration as a separate product 

class, and also ductless split systems are being considered as part of the conventional splitsystem air conditioner and heat pump product classes. SPVU’s are considered to be commercial 

equipment, and thus do not fall under the scope of this rulemaking. Additionally, there currently 

appears to be no major manufacturer of domestically-sold single-package non-weatherized units. 

As a result of these changes since the last rulemaking, DOE is currently unaware of any products 

which would fall within the classification of space-constrained products aside from TTW units. 

For this reason, DOE considered TTW products as the basis for its study of this product class. 

5.8.2.2 Product Description
5-36

There are two main types of TTW products: (1) TTW split systems and (2) TTW singlepackage systems. TTW products were popular in new multi-story residential construction in the 

1960s and 1970s. Major OEMs have since abandoned the replacement market, providing an 

opportunity for lower-volume manufacturers, such as First Company, National Comfort 

Products, and EnviroMaster International .The replacement market is now dominated by these 

lower-volume manufacturers. Most TTW products are in the 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 ton (18,000 Btu/h to 

30,000 Btu/h) capacity range. Residents and building owners are particularly sensitive to any 

increase in price, especially the cost of enlarging the wall opening to accommodate a larger 

product. As a result, new TTW products for retrofit applications must fit within the same wall 

opening as the original units. Since repair is the only other cost-effective alternative to 

replacement, a new standard that increases cabinet size or results in a significant price increase 

could be counter-productive, preventing the turnover of old, inefficient products and instead 

encouraging users to repair those existing units. 

TTW equipment also is used in new construction where the same physical constraints do 

not apply because there is no pre-existing hole in the wall that the unit must fit into. 

Consequently, the significant cost to enlarge the wall opening to accommodate a larger unit does 

not apply. DOE believes that TTW products sold into new construction markets are not-space 

constrained and therefore are not included in the class. 

5.8.2.3 Design Options

DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs 

as input in identifying technologies manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed energy 

conservation standards. In consultation with interested parties, DOE developed a list of 

technologies that should be considered in the analysis. This list consists of all those technologies 

considered to be technologically feasible and will serve to establish the max-tech design. Due to 

the technological similarities that inherently exist between the space-constrained and 

conventional split-system product classes, DOE is currently considering the options previously 

listed for application in split-system air conditioners and heat pumps as potential methods for 

increasing space-constrained product efficiency. 

DOE conducted MIA interviews and various engineering evaluations to investigate the 

technology options available to space-constrained product manufacturers to increase the energy 

efficiency of their units. Based on this investigation, DOE has concluded that unique factors may 

prevent TTW products from realizing the full potential of many energy saving design options. 

Typically, increased condenser coil surface area is the most cost-effective energy saving 

measure. However, manufacturers of these products are limited in their ability to implement this 

option by the apparent constraints upon coil size inherently present in this product class, and 

some manufacturers have expressed concern that the available condenser coil surface area may 

have already been maximized in order to reach the 10.9 SEER standard. Similarly, DOE 

believes that the number of coil rows has also been maximized to the point at which the addition 

of further rows would provide insignificant returns. Other coil improvements, such as micro-
5-37

channel tubing, have not yet proven effective during research and development testing. 

Specifically, manufacturers have been unable to solve defrosting issues for heat pumps, calling 

into question the technological feasibility of this design option. If coil improvements are 

insufficient to increase product efficiency, TTW manufacturers must explore more costly design 

options, such as high-efficiency compressors and fan motors and controls. According to certain 

manufacturers, higher-efficiency compressors are already in products on the market, having been

implemented to meet the 10.9 SEER standard; and higher efficiency fan motors and advanced

controls were implemented to meet the 12 SEER standard. The implementation of this 

technology to meet 12 SEER suggests that manufacturers have few, if any, technology options to 

improve efficiency level beyond 12 SEER. 

DOE conducted teardowns and further market research to confirm this information and 

found the space-constrained max-tech efficiency level to be 12 SEER for both the spaceconstrained air conditioner and heat pump product classes. This level matches the baseline;

therefore, DOE would be unable to raise the energy conservation standards. For this reason, 

DOE is not conducting further analysis on the space-constrained product classes for active mode, 

and the standard will remain unchanged at 12 SEER. However, as a part of this rulemaking, 

DOE is adopting off mode standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. During its 

investigation of the space constrained product classes, DOE found that these products have the 

potential for off mode energy savings and included them in the off mode analysis, which is 

discussed in section 5.11. 

5.9 INDUSTRY COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIPS

5.9.1 Furnaces

For residential furnaces, DOE used the cost model to estimate the MPC of various 

products across the full range of efficiencies and for each manufacturer with significant market 

share. DOE used these results as the basis for its cost-efficiency relationship for all furnace 

product classes.

DOE first developed an industry cost-efficiency relationship for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces. These products are the highest-selling of all furnace product classes. For nonweatherized gas furnaces, DOE began its construction of the cost efficiency relationship at the 

baseline efficiency level. To create an industry average cost at the baseline efficiency, DOE 

calculated a market share-weighted average of the cost modeling results for each product that 

was torn down at the baseline efficiency level. Above the baseline DOE examined the cost 

differential to reach the next highest efficiency level examined for each manufacturer. For each 

individual manufacturer, DOE calculated the incremental cost of achieving the next higher 

efficiency level (i.e., the estimated cost to go from 80 percent AFUE to 90 percent AFUE, then 

from 90 percent AFUE to 92 percent AFUE, and so on). For each efficiency level above the 

baseline, DOE then calculated the market-share weighted incremental increase in cost to achieve 

that efficiency level for each level analyzed up to max-tech.
5-38

Because mobile home furnace designs are typically similar to non-weatherized gas 

furnace designs, the cost-efficiency relationship for mobile home furnaces was developed based 

on six mobile home gas furnace teardowns in conjunction with the cost-efficiency relationship 

that was developed for non-weatherized gas furnaces. DOE performed teardowns of mobile 

home furnaces from major mobile home furnace manufacturers at each efficiency level. DOE 

used those teardowns to examine the differences between mobile home gas furnaces and nonweatherized gas furnaces made by each manufacturer of mobile home furnaces. DOE calculated 

the cost differential between each manufacturer’s non-weatherized gas furnace and mobile home 

gas furnace at each efficiency level analyzed. DOE used these cost differentials on a market 

share-weighted basis to determine the industry average differential cost of mobile home furnaces 

versus non-weatherized gas furnaces. The manufacturer production costs developed using this 

method were validated based on the results of DOE’s cost modeling for each individual mobile 

home furnace torn down and verified by manufacturer feedback during manufacturer interviews.

For oil-fired furnaces, DOE performed eight teardowns to develop the industry costefficiency relationship. DOE performed teardowns of units from several different manufacturers

across the full range of efficiencies. For each manufacturer, DOE developed an incremental cost 

efficiency relationship based on the teardowns performed for that manufacturer. DOE then 

developed a weighted-average of the incremental increase in manufacturing cost at each 

efficiency level above the baseline to determine the industry average cost efficiency relationship 

for oil-fired furnaces.

5.9.1.1 Furnaces with ECM Blower Motors

DOE’s analysis focused on furnace products utilizing a standard PSC blower motor in the 

furnace fan because switching to an ECM motor does not impact AFUE. However, DOE 

believes that a significant segment of consumers choose to buy a product with an ECM blower 

motor because of benefits to comfort and reduced electrical consumption. Therefore, DOE also 

determined the additional cost of changing from a PSC to an ECM motor in the engineering 

analysis. DOE estimated the cost differential of the ECM motor and its additional wiring and 

controls based on observations during teardowns and discussions with manufacturers. Because 

DOE assumed that the blower motor is a purchased part, the difference in price for that 

component is based largely on DOE’s component estimates which were adjusted based on 

manufacturer feedback regarding DOE’s estimates for purchased parts. DOE estimated the cost 

of switching from a PSC motor to an ECM motor separately for gas and oil-fired furnaces 

because oil-fired furnace manufacturers typically produce a lower volume of products and would 

not have as much bulk purchasing power. Further, DOE estimated the cost of switching to an 

ECM motor separately for each input capacity analyzed based on the most common blower 

motor characteristics observed at each input capacity. Table 5.9.1 shows DOE’s estimates of the 

cost to change from a PSC to an ECM blower motor.
5-39

Table 5.9.1 Additional Cost to Switch from PSC to ECM Blower Motor for Furnaces

Product Class Input Capacity

(kBtu/h)

Additional MPC (includes 

motor, controls, and wiring)

($)

Non-weatherized Gas

60 66.43

80 67.46

100 83.05

120 83.05

Mobile Home Gas 80 67.46

Non-weatherized Oil-Fired 105 89.49

5.9.1.2 Two-Stage Furnaces

The market for non-weatherized gas furnaces also contains a significant number of twostage products rated at the same efficiency as single-stage products. DOE believes consumers 

choose to purchase these products for the additional comfort of two stage operation. During the 

teardowns, DOE examined two-stage furnace designs to analyze the production cost differential 

for manufacturers to switch from single-stage to two-stage (with no impact on the rated AFUE). 

DOE determined a market share weighted-average cost of $31.69 to change from a single stage 

to a two stage design. The additional cost to change to a two-stage furnace includes the added 

cost of a two-stage gas valve, two-speed inducer assembly, upgraded pressure switch, and 

additional controls and wiring.

5.9.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

5.9.2.1 Split-System Air Conditioners: Blower-Coil

In new construction applications, a complete central air conditioner or heat pump system 

is always installed. In replacement applications for split-system air conditioners, consumers are 

presented with two options: (1) replace a portion of their system, or (2) replace the entire system. 

For the first option, if a consumer has a furnace installed and a portion of the air conditioning 

system (i.e., condensing unit or evaporator coil) fails, the consumer may choose to only replace 

the air conditioning portion of the system. This scenario involves the replacement of a 

condensing unit and an evaporator coil used with the existing fan blower in the furnace. In these 

applications, manufacturers are constrained by the fan blower in the installed furnace; they only 

have the ability to modify the condensing unit or evaporator coil to achieve the desired 

efficiency. These systems are referred to as coil-only systems, and are tested and rated using the 

combination of a specific condensing unit and evaporator coil with default fan specifications 

identified in the test procedure. 

For the second option, if the entire system is replaced, the consumer has the ability to 

select a combination of indoor and outdoor units that can achieve any efficiency within the 

commercially available range of efficiencies for split-system air conditioners. Since the systems 

are sold as specific combinations of indoor and outdoor units, manufacturers have the ability to 
5-40

modify all portions of the system (i.e., condensing unit, evaporator coil, and evaporator fan 

blower) to achieve the desired efficiency. These systems are referred to as blower-coil systems 

and are tested and rated using the combination of a specific condensing unit, evaporator coil, and 

evaporator fan blower. Since manufacturers have more options to improve the efficiency of a 

blower-coil system, the cost-efficiency relationship is inherently different than for coil-only 

systems. Both types of systems are prevalent in the marketplace, and DOE characterized splitsystem air conditioners with a separate cost-efficiency curve for blower-coil and coil-only 

systems.

DOE first developed an industry cost-efficiency curve for blower-coil, split-system air 

conditioners using the process listed below. These products span the largest efficiency range and 

are the highest-selling product class of all central air conditioners and heat pumps. Creating the 

industry cost-efficiency curve for split-system air conditioners was a four-step process that

consisted of: (1) plotting the raw data points as absolute system cost versus efficiency, (2) 

translating the absolute system costs by manufacturer to common normalized system costs, (3) 

trending system and subsystem costs, and (4) aggregating the cost data to develop a costefficiency curve representative of the industry. The details of these steps are described in this 

section. 

Plotting Absolute System Cost Versus Efficiency. The cost model analysis developed 

cost estimates for each of the teardowns, as detailed in section 5.6. The output from the model 

includes all manufacturing costs, which includes corporate overhead expenses. DOE developed 

system costs for blower-coil, split-system air conditioners by summing the costs of specific 

matched pairs of condensing units and air handlers. DOE selected matched pairs from 

manufacturer specification sheets and the AHRI database to span the entire efficiency range for 

split-system products. The combined cost, called “absolute system cost” for purposes of this 

analysis, is the cost to manufacture each system—it is not the final cost to the end-user, because 

it does not include the manufacturing and distribution channel markups.

The absolute system cost from the model is plotted as a function of each product’s 

efficiency—given as SEER. Manufacturers publish SEER values for each of their products, 

according to AHRI specifications. DOE does not present any absolute costs for individual 

manufacturers in this document, because doing so could expose sensitive financial information 

about individual manufacturers’ products. Figure 5.9.1 illustrates how DOE plotted absolute 

system cost versus efficiency
5-41

Figure 5.9.1 Illustration of Four Manufacturers’ Absolute Cost versus SEER Relationship

Translating Absolute System Cost to Normalized System Cost. For the next step in the 

process of creating the industry cost-efficiency curves, DOE normalized the absolute system 

costs from each manufacturer. DOE shifted system costs for products made by the same 

manufacturer equally, but shifted system costs for products made by different manufacturers 

independently.

As illustrated in Figure 5.9.2, the cost translation process shifted the absolute system 

costs of each manufacturer’s products so that the cost of the baseline system (i.e., 13 SEER) is 

consistent across all manufacturers. By ensuring that all manufacturers shared a common 

baseline system cost, DOE was able to compare manufacturers’ data points directly while 

maintaining each manufacturer’s incremental costs as efficiency increases, allowing for a direct 

analysis of the cost of efficiency improvements regardless of baseline costs. To do this, DOE 

first identified the average 13 SEER system cost for each manufacturer and then calculated an 

industry average 13 SEER system cost based on each manufacturer’s market share. DOE then 

shifted manufacturers’ absolute system cost data points up or down until each manufacturer’s 

lowest-cost 13 SEER system matched the overall market share weighted average 13 SEER 

system. DOE realizes that other methods of normalizing the data are available, such as shifting 

the cost values to center the curves at the lowest cost rather than at a market-weighted average, 

but believes that a market-weight average gives a better representation of the industry average. 
5-42

 Figure 5.9.2 Illustration of System Cost Translation Process

In analyses downstream of the engineering analysis, DOE accounted for the fact that in 

replacement applications, some consumers will not replace their entire air conditioning system. 

For this scenario, DOE assumed that the consumer will only replace the condensing unit and the 

evaporator coil. For more detail on these replacement scenarios, see chapter 8 of the final rule 

TSD. In order to model these scenarios, DOE estimated costs for different portions of the central 

air conditioning system. Therefore, DOE simplified the output from the cost model into five 

subsystems for each split-system air conditioner analyzed. The five subsystems were: (1) 

condensing unit, (2) indoor unit casing (sheet metal and insulation), (3) evaporator coil, (4) 

evaporator fan blower, and (5) balance of indoor unit.

In addition to normalizing system costs, DOE also normalized the subsystem costs that 

were estimated from cost model data. This step was necessary in order to ensure that the sum of 

the subsystem costs equated to the normalized overall system costs developed previously. To do 

this, for each absolute system cost, DOE calculated the percentage that each absolute subsystem 

cost accounted for in the total. DOE then applied these same percentages, specific to each system 

cost, to the normalized system cost to estimate the normalized subsystem costs. As a result, the 

normalized subsystem costs were scaled proportionally to the normalized system costs. 

Trending System and Subsystem Costs. It is rare that a single manufacturer produces a 

system at every efficiency level throughout the entire operating efficiency range of central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. In addition, some manufacturers produce multiple systems in 

different product lines that achieve the same rated efficiency. These variations in product 

offerings across different manufacturers introduce complications to the analysis which must be 

addressed through trending of the data. Trending by manufacturer ensures that there is data at 

every efficiency level for each manufacturer studied, allowing for aggregation across all 

manufacturers at every data point. If the data were not trended, certain efficiency levels would 

contain more models from some manufacturers than others, or perhaps no models at all from 

some manufacturers. This would introduce an undesired weighting effect into the data once the 

aggregated curves were developed, with some manufacturers’ products at certain efficiency 

levels essentially being represented more than others. Therefore, DOE developed trends to 

estimate each manufacturer’s production costs at all efficiency levels. Figure 5.9.3 illustrates the 
5-43

type of trends that DOE developed, first showing trend lines produced from normalized data for 

each manufacturer, then showing an overall trend line created using aggregated normalized data. 

 Figure 5.9.3 Illustration of Cost Trends

After interviewing manufacturers, examining manufacturer specification sheets, and 

conducting physical teardowns, DOE found that system costs generally increase linearly with 

respect to efficiency from 13-14 SEER. At these lower efficiencies, the most cost-effective 

method for manufacturers to achieve efficiency gains is to increase the surface area of the heat 

exchangers. Without strict constraints on the size of the heat exchangers, the efficiency gains 

resulting from their increased size are relatively proportional to the additional material, and thus 

cost. As air conditioners become more efficient, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to 

increase efficiency to the next higher level. This is partly because traditional lower-cost design 

changes, such as increasing heat exchanger surface area, may not suffice. This relationship 

becomes increasingly evident at efficiencies greater than 14 SEER. Therefore, DOE derived the 

system cost-efficiency curve for each manufacturer using a linear line-fit from 13-14 SEER, and 

an exponential curve-fit for efficiencies greater than 14 SEER.

DOE also developed trends for the five subsystems described above. When examining 

the normalized subsystem costs, DOE found that each manufacturer used different methods to 

increase system efficiency. While each manufacturer’s system costs exhibited a similar trend as 

efficiency increased, the differences in the subsystem trends between different manufacturers 

were masked since all of the subsystem costs summed to the system cost. Therefore, DOE 

analyzed every subsystem from each manufacturer on an individual basis when developing 

trends to estimate subsystem costs for the operating efficiency range of split-system air 

conditioners.

Aggregating System and Subsystem Costs. To develop the industry cost-efficiency curve 

for split-system air conditioners, DOE aggregated the manufacturer cost-efficiency curves at 

both the system and subsystem level. Because DOE only developed curves for four 

manufacturers, it adjusted market shares of those four manufacturers to represent the entire 
5-44

industry. DOE then used those adjusted market shares to weight each manufacturer’s costefficiency data. The result was a cost-efficiency curve that represented the MPC at each 

efficiency level for the industry, as well as five subsystem cost-efficiency curves.

Because DOE evaluated the subsystems individually for each manufacturer, there were 

small discrepancies between the sum of the aggregated subsystem cost-efficiency curves and the 

aggregated system cost-efficiency curve. Therefore, DOE calibrated the subsystem costs such 

that their sum at each efficiency level was consistent with the system cost at each level.

5.9.2.2 Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only

Because coil-only, split-system air conditioners rely on a default evaporator fan power to 

achieve their SEER rating, DOE’s cost-efficiency curve consisted of only two subsystems, a 

condensing unit and an evaporator coil. Because a coil-only system is constrained by the default 

evaporator fan power in the test procedure, the system faces additional limitations in the 

maximum achievable (i.e., max-tech) SEER level compared to blower-coil systems. Referring to 

the AHRI Certified Directory, DOE determined that the max-tech for a 3 ton coil-only system

was roughly 17 SEER. Upon review of these systems, DOE found that this max-tech level was 

achieved using a condensing unit similar to a condensing unit used in a 20-21 SEER blower-coil 

system. DOE also found that at lower efficiencies (i.e., 13-14 SEER), the condensing units and 

evaporator coils were very similar to blower-coil systems of the same SEER level. Due to the 

parallels between coil-only and blower-coil systems, DOE used its estimated blower-coil costefficiency curve as the basis for the coil-only cost-efficiency curve.

As a starting point for the coil-only cost-efficiency curve, DOE eliminated the indoor unit 

casing, evaporator fan blower, and balance of indoor unit subsystems from the blower-coil costefficiency curve. Using manufacturer specification sheets and the AHRI Certified Directory, 

DOE then compared the SEER ratings of the same condensing unit when rated as a blower-coil 

and a coil-only system. DOE found that through 14 SEER, the condensing units were generally 

consistent between blower-coil and coil-only systems. Above 14 SEER, higher-efficiency 

condensing units were typically required in coil-only systems to achieve the same SEER levels 

as blower-coil systems. 

When assessing the differences between the evaporator coils in coil-only and blower-coil 

systems, DOE found that above the baseline, higher-efficiency evaporator coils were typically 

required for coil-only systems to achieve the same SEER levels as blower-coil systems. As the 

system efficiencies increase, the disparity between the complexity and cost of evaporator coils 

used in blower-coil and coil-only systems also increases.

5.9.2.3 Split-System Heat Pumps

To develop a split-system heat pump cost-efficiency curve, DOE used manufacturer 

specification sheets and limited heat pump teardowns to modify the blower-coil, split-system air 

conditioner cost-efficiency curve. DOE maintained the breakdown of system costs into the five 
5-45

subsystems used for blower-coil, split-system air conditioners. DOE first examined manufacturer 

specification sheets to identify any differences in the indoor units used in air conditioners and 

heat pumps. DOE found that the indoor units used in 13 SEER split-system heat pumps are 

generally the same indoor units that are used in 13.5 SEER split-system air conditioners. This 0.5 

SEER offset between the indoor units used with heat pumps and air conditioners existed 

throughout the entire efficiency range. Therefore, DOE shifted all split-system air conditioner 

subsystem costs relating to the indoor unit (i.e., indoor unit casing, evaporator coil, evaporator 

fan blower, and balance of indoor unit)d

Next, DOE compared the condensing units (i.e., outdoor units) used in split-system air 

conditioners and heat pumps. To do this, DOE compared the estimated system cost (based on 

teardowns) of a 13 SEER heat pump with a 13 SEER air conditioner from the same 

manufacturer. DOE calculated the percentage increase in cost of the system for that 

manufacturer. DOE then applied this percentage increase to the estimated industry cost of a 13 

SEER split-system air conditioner to estimate the industry cost of a 13 SEER split-system heat 

pump. From this, DOE used the estimated industry cost of the indoor unit of a 13 SEER heat 

pump to back out the industry cost of an outdoor unit for a 13 SEER heat pump. DOE then 

calculated the percentage increase in the industry cost of an outdoor unit for a 13 SEER heat 

pump compared to a 13 SEER air conditioner. DOE applied this percentage increase to the 

industry costs of outdoor units for split-system air conditioners to estimate the costs of outdoor 

units for split-system heat pumps throughout the entire efficiency range.

down by 0.5 SEER to modify the cost-efficiency curve 

to be applicable to split-system heat pumps.

DOE determined that the max-tech level for 3-ton split-system heat pumps was 21 SEER 

using the AHRI Certified Directory. DOE then examined manufacturer specification sheets for 

high-efficiency systems to validate the costs estimated using the blower-coil, split-system air 

conditioner cost-efficiency curve. DOE did not develop a separate coil-only cost-efficiency curve 

for split-system heat pumps as it did for air conditioners. DOE believes that the majority of splitsystem heat pumps are sold as a matched set of indoor and outdoor units for both the new 

construction and replacement markets. However, DOE recognized during the preliminary 

analysis that in some instances heat pumps are used in conjunction with gas- or oil-fired furnaces 

today providing a “dual-fuel” heating capability. DOE sought input on the characterization of the 

heat pump replacement market and whether installations of matched sets of indoor and outdoor 

products should be the basis for DOE’s analysis for all heat pumps. After reviewing feedback on 

this issue, DOE decided that installation of matched sets should be the basis for analysis and 

applied this assumption to the final rule analyses. 

5.9.2.4 Single-Package Air Conditioners

d For heat pump products (split-system and single-package), DOE refers to the heat exchangers and associated 

system components with respect to their functionality while the system is in cooling mode. For example, in a splitsystem heat pump, the outdoor heat exchanger is referred to as the condenser coil and the indoor heat exchanger is 

referred to as the evaporator coil.
5-46

The basic system components of a single-package air conditioner are very similar to a 

split-system air conditioner. However, the system configurations differ enough that incremental 

costs cannot be estimated based simply on the incremental costs of a split-system air conditioner, 

as was done for split-system heat pumps. Rather, DOE used manufacturer specification sheets 

and information from manufacturer interviews to determine the sizes and complexity of 

components in the baseline system. DOE relied on the cost estimates from split-system air 

conditioners to estimate the costs for various single-package air conditioner components for the 

baseline system. To estimate component costs for single-package air conditioners, DOE 

separated the condensing unit costs for split-system air conditioners into individual component 

costs (i.e., unit casing, condensing coil, condensing fan, compressor, sealed system components, 

and a balance of the condensing unit). DOE then considered the costs of individual components 

at each efficiency level when developing cost estimates for a baseline single-package air 

conditioner.

To estimate the cost of the baseline casing, DOE used the sum of the indoor unit and 

outdoor unit casings for a 13 SEER split-system air conditioner. DOE found that the baseline 

condensing coils in single-package air conditioners are typically about 10-percent larger than 

those used in 13 SEER split-system air conditioners. Therefore, DOE estimated the baseline cost 

for the condensing coil as 1.1 times the cost of a 13 SEER split-system air conditioner 

condensing coil. DOE also found that variable-speed evaporator fan blowers are typically 

implemented in single-package air conditioners at 13.5 SEER, compared to 14.5 SEER in splitsystem air conditioners. So, DOE estimated that the baseline cost of the evaporator fan blower 

was approximately the same as a 14 SEER split-system air conditioner evaporator fan blower. 

DOE assumed that the baseline costs of the remaining system components were identical to those 

estimated for a 13 SEER blower-coil, split-system air conditioner.

Once DOE established the component costs for a baseline single-package air conditioner, 

DOE examined the AHRI Certified Database to determine that the max-tech level was 16.6 

SEER. Using information from discussions with manufacturers and product specification sheets, 

DOE estimated the incremental costs of each component from 13-16 SEER in 0.5 SEER 

increments, except for the 0.1 increment from 16.5 to the max-tech level at 16.6 SEER. For 

simplicity, DOE then grouped the component costs into two subsystems: (1) evaporating, and (2) 

condensing. The evaporating subsystem consisted of the evaporator coil and the evaporator fan 

blower. The condensing subsystem consisted of all the remaining components in the system. The 

sum of these two subsystems at each efficiency level provides the system MPC for that level.

5.9.2.5 Single-Package Heat Pumps

DOE derived the single-package heat pump cost-efficiency curve using a similar 

methodology as was used to develop the split-system heat pump cost-efficiency curve. However, 

DOE used the single-package air conditioner cost-efficiency curve as the basis rather than the 

split-system air conditioner cost-efficiency curve. DOE retained the two subsystems used for 

single-package air conditioners. To develop the cost-efficiency curve for single-package heat 

pumps, DOE first examined manufacturer specification sheets to identify any differences in the 
5-47

evaporator coils and evaporator fan blowers used in air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE found 

that the baseline packaged heat pumps typically used a variable-speed evaporator fan blower. 

DOE also found that the evaporator coils used in 13 SEER heat pumps were about the same size 

as those used 13.5 SEER air conditioners. This 0.5 SEER offset between the indoor units used 

with heat pumps and air conditioners existed throughout the entire efficiency range. Therefore, 

DOE shifted the evaporating subsystem costs for the single package air conditioners down by 0.5 

SEER to modify the cost-efficiency curve to be applicable to single-package heat pumps. Next, 

DOE increased the condensing subsystem cost for single-package air conditioners by the same 

percentage used to estimate the cost of the outdoor unit for split-system heat pumps. This was 

done for all efficiencies.

DOE determined that the max-tech level for split-system heat pumps was 16.4 SEER 

using the AHRI Certified Directory. For the condensing subsystem, this max-tech level fell 

between two single-package air conditioner SEER levels that were used to estimate its cost. So, 

DOE interpolated between the two SEER levels to estimate a corresponding cost for 16.4 SEER. 

For the evaporating subsystem, the air conditioner costs were shifted down by 0.5 SEER, but the 

max-tech level for heat pumps was only 0.2 SEER less than air conditioners. Therefore, DOE 

trended the evaporating subsystem costs using a line of best fit to estimate the subsystem cost at 

16.4 SEER. The sum of these two subsystems at each efficiency level provides the system MPC 

for that level.

5.9.2.6 Small Duct High Velocity Systems

As discussed in section 5.8.1.2, an SDHV system consists of the indoor unit produced by 

the SDHV manufacturer and a matched condensing unit. DOE derived the SDHV cost-efficiency 

curve using a similar methodology as was used to develop the split-system air conditioner costefficiency curve. Manufacturer feedback indicated that the overall system SEER rating is 

improved by matching with a more efficient condensing unit. To determine the overall system 

cost, DOE first determined a typical condensing unit SEER rating for each SDHV system SEER 

level in the AHRI Certified Directory. Based on findings in the Directory and manufacturer 

specification sheets, DOE found that a 13 SEER condensing unit was generally matched with an 

indoor SDHV unit to produce an 11 SEER system. Therefore, a 15 SEER condensing unit was 

matched with an indoor SDHV unit to produce a baseline 13 SEER unit. To arrive at a total 

system cost, DOE added the cost of this condensing unit from the split-system curve to the cost 

of an indoor SDHV unit, which was based on teardowns. 

DOE determined that the max-tech level for SDHV units was 14.3 SEER using the AHRI 

Certified Directory. For the condensing subsystem, this max-tech level fell between two SDHV

SEER levels that were used to estimate its cost. So, DOE interpolated between the two SEER 

levels to estimate a corresponding cost for 14.3 SEER.
5-48

5.10 EXPANSION OF ANALYSES TO ADDITIONAL CAPACITIES

5.10.1 Furnaces

To develop the MPCs for the analysis of capacities other than the representative input 

capacity (i.e., at 60 kBtu/h, 100 kBtu/h, and 120 kBtu/h), DOE performed one teardown of a 

furnace below the representative capacity and one teardown of a furnace above the representative 

capacity, in addition to performing multiple virtual teardowns. DOE used the physical teardowns 

to estimate the changes in material and labor costs that occur at capacities higher and lower than 

the representative capacities based on observations made during teardowns and professional 

experience. Performing physical teardowns of models outside of the representative capacities 

allowed DOE to accurately model certain characteristics that are not identifiable in manufacturer 

literature. DOE modified the cost model for the representative capacity (i.e.,80 kBtu/h) to 

account for changes in the size of furnace components that would scale with input capacity (e.g.,

heat exchanger size). DOE accurately modeled certain other characteristics (e.g., gas valves) 

using information contained in manufacturer literature. Whenever possible, DOE maintained the 

same product line that was used for the teardown at the representative products to allow for a 

direct comparison between representative products and the products at the additional input 

capacities that were analyzed. To avoid the publication of sensitive material, DOE aggregated 

and normalized the costs for the additional input capacities in the same manner as was done for 

the representative input capacity.

5.10.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

To develop the MPCs for the analysis of two ton and five ton cooling capacities for 

residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE conducted one teardown of a two ton 

condensing unit and one teardown of a five ton condensing unit. DOE modified the cost model 

for the representative capacity (i.e., three-tons) to account for changes in the size of central air 

conditioner and heat pump components that would scale with cooling capacity (e.g., evaporator 

and condenser coils, outer cabinet, packaging). DOE accurately modeled certain other 

characteristics (e.g., compressor, fan motor, fan blades) using information contained in 

manufacturer literature. Whenever possible, DOE maintained the same product line that was 

used for the teardown at the representative products to allow for a direct comparison between 

three tons models and two and five ton models. To avoid the publication of sensitive material, 

DOE aggregated and normalized the costs for two and five ton models in the same manner as 

was done for the three tons models. For the analysis, units with a nominal cooling capacity of 

between 18,000 Btu/h and 30,000 Btu/h were considered two ton units and five ton units were 

considered to have a cooling capacity greater than 54,000 Btu/h.

5.11 STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE

For the standby mode and off mode analyses, DOE adopted a design-option approach, 

which allowed for the calculation of incremental costs through the addition specific design 
5-49

options to a baseline model. DOE decided on this approach because it did not have sufficient 

data to execute an efficiency-level analysis, as no manufacturers currently rate or publish data on 

the standby mode and/or off mode energy consumption of their products. Because standby mode 

and off mode electricity consumption is not currently regulated, DOE believes manufacturers 

generally do not invest in reducing the off mode electrical energy consumption of their products

because the production cost cannot be passed onto the consumer because consumers currently do 

not value this feature highly enough to pay extra for it. Therefore, DOE determined that there is 

no basis for comparison of efficiency levels between products. The design-option approach, by 

contrast, allowed DOE to examine potential designs for improving the off mode energy 

consumption.

5.11.1 Electric Furnaces

DOE analyzed the expected standby mode and off mode power consumption of an electric 

furnace by comparing it to the standby mode and off mode power consumption of a nonweatherized gas furnaces. In an electric furnace, DOE found that for the same components 

primarily contribute to standby mode and off mode power consumption in the baseline design 

(i.e., the control transformer, an ECM fan motor (which was assumed present for the baseline 

standby and off mode design), and the control board power supply). 

To estimate the standby mode and off mode power consumption of electric furnaces, DOE 

compared wiring diagrams, control schematics, and images of control boards of gas and electric 

furnaces. DOE found that electric furnaces commonly use a 40VA transformer that is very 

similar to those found in non-weatherized gas furnaces. For the final rule analysis of standby 

mode and off mode for electric furnaces, DOE assumed that the power consumption associated 

with these transformers would be the same. Further, a DOE review of electric furnaces found 

that other components are also the same as or very similar to those used in non-weatherized gas 

furnaces (such as ECM blower motors). Therefore, DOE also assumed the standby consumption 

for these components would be the same in electric furnaces as in non-weatherized gas furnaces. 

Finally, DOE examined the control boards, their power supplies, and the electrical systems of 

both electric and gas furnaces to examine potential differences in standby mode and off mode 

power consumption in the rest of the electrical system. The control boards for both electric and 

non-weatherized gas furnaces typically share many common features, such as linear and/or 

zener-style power supplies, relays, and microchip controllers. Additionally both furnace types 

need a wiring harness and sensors for safety and control. A key difference between electric 

furnace and gas furnace control systems is that electric furnace control boards tend to be less 

complex because they do not require functions such as flame ignition and supervision or other 

combustion safety controls. However, electric furnace control boards must use relays and/or 

sequencers that have higher capacity ratings than the relays typically found in gas furnaces to 

turn the electric furnace heating elements on incrementally. The elements must be activated 

individually to limit inrush currents and prevent trips of circuit breakers. DOE estimates that the 

additional standby mode and off mode power consumption associated with the use of larger 
5-50

relays and/or sequencers in electric furnaces is offset by need for combustion controls in gas 

furnaces. 

As a result, DOE assumed that an electric furnace has a standby mode and off mode 

electrical consumption that is similar that of non-weatherized gas furnaces in similar models. 

DOE also believes that the design options that were identified for reducing the standby mode and 

off mode power consumption of gas furnaces (i.e., a switching mode power supply and a toroidal 

transformer) will have the same impact on the standby mode and off mode power consumption 

of electric furnaces. Therefore, DOE analyzed standby mode and off mode standards that were 

identical to those analyzed for non-weatherized gas furnaces.

5.11.2 Identification and Characterization of Standby Mode and Off Mode Components

Using the design-option approach, DOE identified components that contribute to off mode 

energy consumption in the teardown-generated BOMs used for the SEER standards and the 

components that contribute to the standby mode and off mode energy consumption in the BOMs 

of the furnaces that were analyzed. DOE performed measurements of standby mode off mode

electrical energy consumption on each of these components in accordance with the test 

procedures specified in DOE central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure NOPR.

DOE aggregated these measurements, in conjunction with nominal power ratings and feedback 

from manufacturer regarding individual component’s power draw, to characterize the electrical 

energy use of each component operating in standby mode or off mode for furnaces and in off 

mode for central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE also estimated the costs of individual 

components based on volume-variable price quotations and detailed discussions with 

manufacturers and component suppliers. 

5.11.3 Baseline Model

The design-option approach calculates the incremental costs for products with standby or 

off mode energy consumption levels above a baseline model in each off mode product class 

covered in this rulemaking. In most rulemakings, the baseline is determined by the current 

Federal minimum energy conservation standard. However, because this is the first rulemaking to 

regulate the off mode electrical energy consumption of residential furnaces and central air 

conditioners and heat pumps, DOE instead established the baseline model for the standby mode 

and off mode analysis as the most energy-consumptive product from the representative teardown 

selection. DOE defined and identified baseline components as those that consumed the most 

electricity during standby mode and off mode operation. The most consumptive baseline 

components were then “assembled” to model the electrical system of a furnace or central air 

conditioner or heat pump with the maximum system off mode electrical energy consumption 

from DOE’s representative test data. For central air conditioners and heat pumps the baseline 

model contains the following components: 40W crankcase heater, 40VA control transformer. 
5-51

Additionally, in the baseline model, the crankcase heater comes on whenever the compressor 

shuts off. 

For furnaces, DOE’s testing of over 40 models of residential furnaces showed standby 

mode power consumption from 4 to 10 watts. However, because this represented only a fraction 

of the residential furnace market, DOE took a conservative approach and summed the most 

energy consumptive components in each individual furnace tested to create the baseline model. 

The baseline furnace model contains a 40VA control transformer, ECM blower motor (and 

associated controls), and linear power supply. For oil-fired furnaces only, the baseline model also 

included an oil-fired burner that contains an additional transformer that consumes additional

standby power. For furnaces, DOE examined and tested the standby power consumption of a 

variety of products, including those with “premium” features that are related to consumer utility, 

but unrelated to product efficiency. In order to prevent a reduction in consumer utility, DOE did 

not consider any design options that would reduce the feature set of these units. The results of the 

testing for individual components are shown in Table 5.11.1 below.

Table 5.11.1 Baseline Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Consumption by Component for 

Furnaces

Component Non-weatherized Gas, 

Mobile Home Gas, and 

Electric Furnace Baseline 

Power Consumption

(W)

Oil-Fired Furnace 

Baseline Power 

Consumption 

(W)

Transformer 4 4

ECM Blower Motor (includes 

controls)

3 3

Controls/Other 4 2

Oil Burner N/A 3

Total 11 12

5.11.4 Cost-Power Consumption Results

The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-power consumption data in the 

form of power (in watts) versus MPC (in dollars). For each design option that passed the 

screening analysis (chapter 4 of this TSD), DOE estimated the power consumption reduction of 

the design option based on the applicable DOE test procedure. For furnaces, DOE used the test 

procedures promulgated in the October 2010 test procedure. For central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, the power consumption of each system design was calculated based on the off mode test 

procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps that was proposed in the test procedure 

SNOPR, and is also contained in the direct final rule. 76 FR 18105. For residential furnaces, 

DOE developed two sets of standby and off mode data – one for non-weatherized gas furnaces 

and mobile home furnaces, and one for oil-fired furnaces. DOE assumed that furnaces do not 
5-52

have a seasonal off switch and, therefore, assumed that standby mode and off mode power 

consumption are equal. For furnaces, the efficiency levels listed are based on units with ECM 

motors because ECM motors use a higher amount of off mode power, specifically 3 watts more 

than units with PSC motors (including additional controls). For central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, DOE developed six off mode data sets, four for air conditioners and two for heat pumps. 

As with furnaces, the efficiency levels listed are based on units with ECM motors because ECM 

motors use a higher amount of off mode power, specifically 3 watts more than units with PSC 

motors. For both furnaces and central air conditioners and heat pumps, the costs for each design 

option are the same regardless of motor type, and therefore the results are given only for units 

with ECM motors. Coil-only air conditioners have a separate data set because there is no indoor 

fan nor is there a transformer because this component is assumed to be included in the existing 

furnace that the coil-only unit is installed with. The inclusion of this off mode power 

consumption from the transformer for coil only units would lead to double counting of the 

energy consumption because the furnace has a separate off mode metric.

The methodology for developing the curves started with determining the energy use of

baseline products. Above the baseline, DOE implemented design options, which were discussed 

in Chapter 3, based on cost-effectiveness until all available technologies were employed (i.e., at a 

max-tech level). The design options considered are not all mutually exclusive; therefore, systems 

could incorporate multiple design options simultaneously, which allowed for three different 

system designs, in addition to the baseline for air conditioners, and two different system designs 

in addition to the baseline for furnaces. For central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

thermostatically controlling the crankcase heater based on compressor shell temperature is the 

first design improvement, followed by the addition of a compressor cover. Lastly, the 40VA 

control transformer is replaced with a more efficient toroidal transformer. For furnaces, changing 

from a linear power supply to a switching mode power supply is the first design option, and 

adding a toroidal transformer in addition to the switching mode power supply is the second 

design option. Table 5.11.2 and Table 5.11.3 list the standby and off mode power consumption 

and associated MPC increase for residential furnaces. Table 5.11.4 and Table 5.11.5 list the MPC 

and off mode power consumption for air conditioners: 

Table 5.11.2 Non-weatherized Gas, Mobile Home Gas, and Electric Furnace Standby Mode 

and Off Mode Power Consumption and Cost

Description Standby Mode and 

Off Mode Power 

Consumption (W)

MPC 

($)

Baseline 11 0

Efficiency Level 1 Switching Mode 

Power Supply

10 7.25

Efficiency Level 2 Switching Mode 

Power Supply and 

Toroidal Transformer

9 18.20
5-53

Table 5.11.3 Oil-fired Furnace Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Consumption and Cost

Description Standby Mode and 

Off Mode Power 

Consumption (W)

MPC 

($)

Baseline 12

Efficiency Level 1 Switching Mode 

Power Supply

11 7.25

Efficiency Level 2 Switching Mode 

Power Supply and 

Toroidal Transformer

10 18.20

Table 5.11.4 Split System Blower Coil, Packaged, and Space Constrained Air Conditioner 

Off Mode Power Consumption and Cost

MPC with an 

ECM Motor 

and Crankcase 

Heater

($)

Power Consumption 

with an ECM Motor 

and Crankcase 

Heater

(W)

MPC with an

ECM Motor and

No Crankcase 

Heater

($)

Power 

Consumption with 

an ECM Motor and 

No Crankcase 

Heater

(W)

Baseline 8.06 48.0 6.56 11.0

Efficiency

Level 1

11.82 35.5 17.58 10.2

Efficiency 

Level 2

46.20 30.3

Efficiency 

Level 3

57.22 29.5

Table 5.11.5 Coil Only Split System Air Conditioner Off Mode Power Consumption and 

Cost

MPC with a 

Crankcase

Heater

($)

Power 

Consumption with 

a Crankcase 

Heater

(W)

MPC with No 

Crankcase 

Heater

($)

Power 

Consumption with 

No Crankcase 

Heater

(W)

Baseline 3.64 37.0 0 0

Efficiency 

Level 1

7.40 24.5

Efficiency 

Level 2

24.24 19.3

For heat pumps, there were only two design options, thermostatically controlled 

crankcase heater and toroidal transformer, in addition to the baseline. During testing of different 

crankcase heater control strategies, DOE found that heat pumps had a lower power draw 
5-54

according to the test June 2010 central air conditioner test procedure NOPR (75 FR 21224) when 

the crankcase heater was thermostatically controlled based on outdoor ambient than when it was 

controlled based on compressor shell temperature. Therefore, the addition of a compressor cover 

will not provide any benefit with this control strategy because the crankcase heater on time is 

unaffected; therefore, it was not included as a design option. The other off mode heat pump 

design option was replacing the 40VA control transformer with a toroidal transformer. 

Table 5.11.6 Split System, Packaged and Space Constrained Heat Pump Off Mode Power 

Consumption and Cost

MPC with an 

ECM Motor 

and Crankcase 

Heater

($)

Power 

Consumption 

with an ECM

Motor and 

Crankcase 

Heater

(W)

MPC with an 

ECM Motor and 

No Crankcase 

Heater

($)

Power Consumption 

with an ECM Motor 

and No Crankcase 

Heater

(W)

Baseline 8.06 51.0 6.56 14.0

Efficiency 

Level 1

11.82 32.5 17.58 13.2

Efficiency 

Level 2

22.84 31.7

5.12 MISCELLANEOUS CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER AND HEAT PUMP 

SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

5.12.1 Investigation of the Relationship Between SEER and HSPF

Energy efficiency standards for heat pumps must establish minimum values for HSPF as 

well as SEER. However, this analysis thus far has only been performed in terms of rated SEER 

values, with no trending or aggregation of data with regard to HSPF. As part of this analysis, 

DOE investigated whether the relationship between HSPF and SEER is substantial enough to 

allow a SEER standard to serve as a basis for an HSPF standard as well.

5.12.1.1 Split-System Heat Pumps

To set energy efficiency standards for heat pumps, DOE must determine both an HSPF 

level and a SEER level. This complicates the analysis since each SEER level corresponds to a 

range of varied HSPF ratings. To provide a rationale for selecting SEER-HSPF pairs, DOE 

examined plots based on Table 5.11.2 that showed the number of models possessing each HSPF 

at each SEER level. A minimum HSPF requirement was determined based on the distribution of 

the products currently available throughout the range of efficiency levels. Median (50th

percentile) HSPFs are generally well above the minimum HSPF level . This is due to the 
5-55

perceived ability of high-SEER products to attain higher HSPF values as well, and follows 

relationships used in past CAC rulemakings.

After examining the distribution data, DOE plotted the relationship between HSPF and 

SEER for all three-ton split-system heat pumps currently listed as active in the AHRI Certified 

Directory. At the baseline efficiency of 13 SEER, the difference between the minimum HSPF 

(6.7) and the median (8.0) is 1.3 HSPF. However, the existing standard is 7.7 HSPF, and for this 

reason, DOE chose not to include any units below this level in its analysis. DOE realizes that a 

number of different methodologies could be utilized in setting the relationship between SEER 

and the required corresponding HSPF. However, DOE believes that a line fitted to the median 

HSPF values is the most accurate representation of the market because a mean value could be 

skewed based on a small number of outliers, which would have a disproportionate effect. Using 

the median ensures that each model is accounted for equally. From this trending based on median 

HSPF values, DOE produced the following relation for the analyses:

HSPF = 0.223 × SEER + 4.998 Equation 5.12.1

The minimum HSPF requirements are derived by inserting the minimum SEER 

requirements into the formula. Even though DOE does not have information on the distribution 

of heat pump sales by HSPF at each SEER level, it is apparent that the market currently favors 

products that exceed the minimum allowable HSPF level. This is due both to the correlation 

between HSPF and SEER and the preference in the market for higher HSPF heat pumps in cooler 

climates. However, DOE believes that establishing an HSPF standard well above the current 

median at a given SEER level would impose an undue design constraint on manufacturers, 

adding to the cost and burden of designing, producing, testing, and qualifying the product 

without resulting in a significant increase in the average HSPF of products sold. Table 5.12.1

summarizes the selection of HSPF standard levels for three ton units: 

Table 5.12.1 Comparison of Three Ton HSPF Standard Levels with Available Products

Efficiency/Standard 

Level (SEER) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Recommended 

Minimum (HSPF) 8 8.3 8.5 8.7 9 9.2 9.4 9.7 9.9

Median HSPF in 

Available Products 8 8.2 8.5 9 9.25 9.25 9.5 N/A 9.5
5-56

Offset from Median 

(HSPF) 0 0.1 0 -0.3 -0.2 0.05 -0.1 N/A 0.4

Source: 2010 AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance

Table 5.12.2 provides a more detailed breakdown of the models available at each 

efficiency level as well as the total number of models at each efficiency level. 

Table 5.12.2 Prevalence of HSPF Ratings by SEER Level for Three Ton Split System Heat 

Pumps with Impacts of Suggested HSPF Standards

Decile

Efficiency Level (SEER)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Selected HSPF

8.0 8.3 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.7 9.9

0% 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.1 7.4 9 N/A 9.6

10% 7.7 7.8 8 8.5 8.7 8.9 9 N/A 9.6

20% 7.8 8 8.2 8.7 9 9 9.2 N/A 9.6

30% 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.9 9.1 9.2 9.5 N/A 9.6

40% 8 8.2 8.5 9 9.2 9.2 9.5 N/A 9.6

50% 8 8.2 8.5 9 9.25 9.25 9.5 N/A 9.6

60% 8 8.2 8.6 9 9.3 9.25 9.6 N/A 9.6

70% 8.1 8.4 8.7 9.1 9.6 9.5 9.6 N/A 9.6

80% 8.2 8.5 9 9.3 9.7 9.5 9.6 N/A 9.6

90% 8.4 8.5 9 9.5 9.9 9.95 9.6 N/A 9.6

100% 9.3 10 10 10.4 10.7 10.6 10.05 N/A 9.6

No. Listings 14547 22976 11860 3858 3011 1025 143 0 8

Source: 2010 AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance

Because DOE conducted separate analyses for two and five ton heat pumps, SEER/HSPF 

relationships were needed for these capacities as well. Initially, DOE considered applying the 

three ton SEER/HSPF relationship to the other capacities. However, after conducting further 

research and receiving feedback during manufacturer interviews, DOE determined that the 

differences between the capacities were enough to justify separate curves. DOE produced the 

following relationships for the two and five ton products by utilizing the same approach used for 

the 3 ton products: 

Table 5.12.3 SEER/HSPF Relationship for Two and Five Ton Split Heat Pumps

SEER 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
5-57

2 Ton HSPF 8.0 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.1 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.1

5 Ton HSPF 7.9 8.1 8.4 8.7 8.9 9.0

5.12.1.2 Single-Package Heat Pumps

The study of the relation between HSPF and SEER for single-package heat pumps, 

performed as part of the final rule analysis, is based off of the fit of an equation directly to the 

AHRI Certified Directory data for this product class. DOE also investigated the applicability of 

the results obtained for split-system heat pumps to the single-package heat pump product class. 

The single-package heat pump product class contained a much lower number of product models 

(2354) than the split-system heat pump product class, constituting only 0.9 percent of the total 

heat pump listings in the AHRI Certified Directory. When the products were categorized by 

SEER rating, it became evident that the variation present within the HSPF values at each SEER 

level was much smaller than was the case with split-system heat pumps. Whereas the HSPF 

values for a given SEER could vary by as much as 3.25 HSPF within the split-system products, 

the largest variation observed for the single-package products at a specific SEER was 1 HSPF. 

This suggests that there is a stronger correlation for these products between SEER and HSPF, 

and that an HSPF standard would likely have a similar effect on all manufacturers. 

Following the preliminary analysis, DOE proposed using the split system SEER/HSPF 

relationship for single package systems as well because the general, median trend in the 

SEER/HSPF relationship exhibited for split-system products is also followed by single-package 

products. However, further analysis for the final rule based on 2010 databases submitted by 

AHRI instead of the 2008 databases, which were used for the preliminary analysis and 

manufacturer feedback on the accuracy of this approach, led DOE to believe that the differences 

between split-system and single package heat pumps are enough to justify a separate 

SEER/HSPF relationship for single package heat pumps: 

Table 5.12.4 HSPF Standard Levels for Single Package Heat Pumps

SEER 13 14 15 16 16.4

Standard (HSPF) 7.7 8.1 8.4 8.8 9

5.12.1.3 Small Duct High Velocity Heat Pumps

Manufacturers indicated that the physical differences and different operating 

characteristics of SDHV unit as compared to conventional systems justified an independent 

analysis of the SEER/HSPF relationship for SDHV heat pumps. After investigating this 

assertion, DOE believes that the differences between SDHV and the other product classes were 

enough to warrant a separate relationship as well. DOE initially considered basing the 

SEER/HSPF relationship for the SDHV product class based on the median based approach using 

ratings in the AHRI Directory as of June 8, 2010. Using the median based approach produces the 

results displayed below in Table 5.12.5. However, as part of this investigation DOE found that 
5-58

only 28 of the 235 product listings exceeded the current standard of 7.7 HSPF and that there 

were only 3 products listed with a SEER rating greater than 13.5. DOE is concerned about basing 

standards and analysis on such limited data and instead has decided to use the current standard 

level of 7.7 HSPF at 13 SEER as opposed to the median value of 8.1 HSPF. 

Table 5.12.5 Median HSPF Levels for SDHV Heat Pumps

SEER 13 14 14.3

Median HSPF 8.1 8.5 8.6

5.12.2 Calculation of System Weights

Representative system weights for units at all SEER levels were required as an input to 

downstream analyses, including the life-cycle cost calculations. The basis for this calculation of 

typical system weight was operating weight information obtained from manufacturer 

specification sheets. For each of the four conventional product classes (split-system air 

conditioners, split-system heat pumps, single-package air conditioners, single-package heat 

pumps) and the SDHV product class, data were collected across a number of manufacturers and 

across the entirety of the range of applicable rated SEER levels. Separate calculations were 

performed for the indoor units and outdoor units for the split-system product classes and the 

single-package product class. SDHV system weights were determined based on an indoor SDHV 

unit weight and the split system condensing unit from conventional manufacturers. For all of 

these units, the data across the various manufacturers were consistent enough to allow for direct 

trending of unit weight. Therefore, system weights as listed by the manufacturers were plotted 

against rated SEER for all manufacturers and SEER levels, and a best fit curve was fit to the 

data. From this curve fit, typical unit weights were estimated for each applicable SEER level. 

This trending and calculation allowed for a single typical unit weight corresponding to a given 

SEER value to be used for the systems in each product class. Table 5.12.6 through 5.11.10 give 

the calculated typical weights by SEER level for each product class examined. 

Table 5.12.6 Calculated Typical Split-System Air Conditioner Unit Weights

Split AC (lbs)

SEER Outdoor Unit Weight Indoor Unit Weight

2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

13 157 188 262 115 135 180

13.5 164 196 278 117 139 184

14 172 204 293 119 142 187

14.5 180 211 307 120 145 190

15 188 218 321 122 149 194

15.5 195 225 334 124 152 197

16 203 232 347 125 155 200

16.5 211 238 360 127 158 203

17 218 244 372 128 161 205
5-59

18 234 256 396 131 166 211

19 249 268 134 171

20 265 279 136 176

21 280 289 139 181

22 296 299 142 186

23 311 144

24.5 334 148

Table 5.12.7 Calculated Typical Split-System Heat Pump Unit Weights

Split HP (lbs)

SEER Outdoor Unit Weight Indoor Unit Weight

2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton 2 Ton 3 Ton 5 Ton

13 165 223 293 115 135 180

13.5 183 237 306 117 139 184

14 201 251 318 119 142 187

14.5 218 264 330 120 145 190

15 235 277 342 122 149 194

15.5 251 289 354 124 152 197

16 266 301 365 125 155 200

16.5 281 313 375 127 158 203

17 296 324 386 128 161 205

18 324 346 405 131 166 212

19 350 366 134 171

20 375 388 136 179

21 399 415 139 185

22 422 142

Table 5.12.8 Calculated Typical Packaged Air Conditioner Unit Weights

SEER Packaged AC (lbs)

13 341

13.5 351

14 361

14.5 371

15 382

15.5 392

16 402

16.6 414
5-60

Table 5.12.9 Calculated Typical Packaged Heat Pump Unit Weights

SEER Packaged HP (lbs)

13 379

13.5 395

14 411

14.5 427

15 443

15.5 460

16 476

16.4 489

Table 5.12.10 Calculated Typical SDHV Unit Weights*

SEER

SDHV 

(lbs)

13 394

13.5 412

14 430

14.3 441

* These weights are for the combined weight of the SDHV unit and the outdoor unit. 

5.13 RESULTS

The final result of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency relationships. DOE 

developed relationships for the four conventional product classes of central air conditioners and 

heat pumps, the SDHV product class, and the three furnace product classes using the reverseengineering and cost modeling methodology described above. The cost-efficiency results are 

shown in tabular form in Table 5.13.1 through Table 5.13.15 in the form of efficiency versus 

MPC. 

As stated above, DOE used the cost-efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an 

input to the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis to determine the price of central air conditioning and 

heat pump units to the customer (see chapter 8 of the TSD).

5.13.1 Furnaces

Table 5.13.1 Cost-Efficiency Data for Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces with a PSC Blower 

Motor

AFUE MPC

[$]

60 kBtu/h 80 kBtu/h 100 kBtu/h 120 kBtu/h
5-61

80 259 266 282 305

90 367 379 403 435

92 397 412 441 473

95 453 482 528 568

98 582 595 630 686

Table 5.13.2 Cost-Efficiency Data for Mobile Home Gas Furnaces (80 kBtu/h Input 

Capacity) with a PSC Blower Motor

AFUE MPC

[$]

80 297

90 414

92 448

96 520

Table 5.13.3 Cost-Efficiency Data for Oil-Fired Furnaces (105 kBtu/h Input Capacity) with 

a PSC Blower Motor

AFUE MPC

[$]

82 809

83 817

84 826

85 835

97 1,089

5.13.2 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Table 5.13.4 Cost-Efficiency Data for Two Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Blower-Coil

Efficiency 

Level

Outdoor 

Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER

Condensing 

Unit

[$]

Indoor 

Unit 

Casing

[$]

Evaporator 

Coil

[$]

Evaporator 

Fan Blower

[$]

Balance 

of Indoor 

Unit

[$]

MPC

[$]
5-62

13 455.42 50.11 120.51 93.10 18.51 737.66

13.5 470.60 51.70 126.23 98.52 19.48 766.53

14 486.01 53.29 131.90 104.03 20.45 795.67

14.5 501.65 54.87 137.53 109.64 21.42 825.11

15 517.54 56.44 143.12 115.36 22.40 854.86

15.5 533.69 58.01 148.67 121.19 23.38 884.94

16 550.12 59.58 154.19 127.13 24.36 915.38

16.5 566.82 61.15 159.67 133.19 25.35 946.19

17 583.83 62.71 165.13 139.37 26.34 977.38

18 618.79 65.82 175.95 152.11 28.33 1,041.00

19 655.11 68.91 186.67 165.37 30.34 1,106.39

20 692.89 72.00 197.29 179.17 32.36 1,173.71

21 732.27 75.07 207.83 193.54 34.39 1,243.10

22 773.36 78.14 218.29 208.49 36.45 1,314.72

23 816.32 81.19 228.67 224.05 38.52 1,388.75

24.5 884.56 85.76 244.14 248.55 41.66 1,504.66
5-63

Table 5.13.5 Cost-Efficiency Data for Three Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: BlowerCoil

Efficiency 

Level

Outdoor 

Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER

Condensing 

Unit

[$]

Indoor 

Unit 

Casing

[$]

Evaporator 

Coil

[$]

Evaporator 

Fan Blower

[$]

Balance 

of Indoor 

Unit

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 521.83 50.92 123.73 108.10 19.44 824.03

13.5 539.01 52.81 130.34 115.21 20.55 857.91

14 556.47 54.65 137.15 122.62 21.64 892.52

14.5 574.23 56.44 144.16 130.34 22.72 927.89

15 592.31 58.19 151.38 138.39 23.79 964.05

15.5 610.72 59.90 158.81 146.77 24.85 1,001.05

16 629.48 61.58 166.45 155.51 25.90 1,038.93

16.5 648.62 63.22 174.31 164.62 26.95 1,077.71

17 668.14 64.83 182.39 174.10 27.99 1,117.45

18 708.42 67.95 199.23 194.25 30.08 1,199.93

19 750.47 70.97 217.00 216.10 32.18 1,286.71

20 794.47 73.88 235.72 239.78 34.29 1,378.14

21 840.59 76.71 255.41 265.43 36.45 1,474.59

22 889.00 79.45 276.12 293.23 38.65 1,576.45

Table 5.13.6 Cost-Efficiency Data for Five Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Blower-Coil

Efficiency 

Level

Outdoor 

Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER

Condensing 

Unit

[$]

Indoor 

Unit 

Casing

[$]

Evaporator 

Coil

[$]

Evaporator 

Fan Blower

[$]

Balance 

of Indoor 

Unit

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 724.24 61.70 172.82 116.94 24.04 1,099.74

13.5 748.01 63.28 179.89 127.30 25.31 1,143.79

14 772.69 64.96 187.43 138.13 26.62 1,189.83

14.5 798.30 66.74 195.47 149.46 27.97 1,237.94

15 824.90 68.62 204.01 161.32 29.34 1,288.19

15.5 852.51 70.60 213.09 173.73 30.76 1,340.68

16 881.18 72.68 222.70 186.71 32.21 1,395.48

16.5 910.95 74.87 232.88 200.30 33.70 1,452.69

17 941.87 77.16 243.63 214.52 35.22 1,512.40

18 1,007.37 82.04 266.95 244.93 38.38 1,639.68
5-64

Table 5.13.7 Cost-Efficiency Data for Two Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only

Efficiency 

Level Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER Condensing 

Unit [$]

Evaporator 

Coil [$]

MPC

[$]

13 451.51 122.36 573.87

13.5 472.78 129.63 602.41

14 496.63 137.33 633.96

14.5 523.08 145.49 668.56

15 552.10 154.13 706.23

15.5 583.71 163.28 747.00

16 617.91 172.98 790.89

16.5 654.69 183.25 837.94

17 694.05 194.14 888.19

18 780.54 217.89 998.42

Table 5.13.8 Cost-Efficiency Data for Three Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only

Efficiency 

Level Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER Condensing 

Unit [$]

Evaporator 

Coil [$]

MPC

[$]

13 522.62 119.50 642.12

13.5 539.69 130.46 670.15

14 563.33 142.43 705.76

14.5 593.53 155.49 749.02

15 630.30 169.75 800.05

15.5 673.63 185.32 858.95

16 723.52 202.32 925.84

16.5 779.98 220.87 1,000.85

17 843.00 241.13 1,084.13
5-65

Table 5.13.9 Cost-Efficiency Data for Five Ton Split-System Air Conditioners: Coil-Only

Efficiency Level Outdoor Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER Condensing Unit 

[$]

Evaporator Coil 

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 719.78 174.84 894.62

13.5 750.80 184.43 935.23

14 788.63 196.22 984.85

14.5 833.28 210.20 1,043.48

15 884.75 226.37 1,111.12

15.5 943.04 244.73 1,187.77

16 1,008.15 265.28 1,273.42

Table 5.13.10 Cost-Efficiency Data for Two Ton Split-System Heat Pumps

Efficiency 

Level

Outdoor 

Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER HSPF

Condensing 

Unit

[$]

Indoor 

Unit 

Casing

[$]

Evaporator 

Coil

[$]

Evaporator 

Fan Blower

[$]

Balance 

of Indoor 

Unit

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 8.0 540.69 51.70 126.23 98.52 19.48 836.62

13.5 8.1 558.72 53.29 131.90 104.03 20.45 868.38

14 8.2 577.01 54.87 137.53 109.64 21.42 900.47

14.5 8.3 595.58 56.44 143.12 115.36 22.40 932.90

15 8.5 614.44 58.01 148.67 121.19 23.38 965.70

15.5 8.6 633.62 59.58 154.19 127.13 24.36 998.89

16 8.7 653.12 62.71 165.13 139.37 26.34 1,046.67

16.5 8.8 673.14 64.26 170.54 145.74 27.34 1,081.01

17 8.9 693.15 65.82 175.95 152.11 28.33 1,115.36

18 9.1 734.66 68.91 186.67 165.37 30.34 1,185.94

19 9.4 777.77 72.00 197.29 179.17 32.36 1,258.59

20 9.6 822.63 75.07 207.83 193.54 34.39 1,333.46

21 9.8 869.38 78.14 218.29 208.49 36.45 1,410.74

22 10.1 918.17 81.19 228.67 224.05 38.52 1,490.60
5-66

Table 5.13.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for Three Ton Split-System Heat Pumps

Efficiency 

Level

Outdoor 

Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER HSPF

Condensing 

Unit

[$]

Indoor 

Unit 

Casing

[$]

Evaporator 

Coil

[$]

Evaporator 

Fan Blower

[$]

Balance 

of Indoor 

Unit

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 8.0 664.76 53.60 130.26 114.80 20.86 984.28

13.5 8.1 692.99 55.47 137.50 122.17 21.97 1,030.09

14 8.3 720.52 57.29 144.84 129.84 23.06 1,075.56

14.5 8.4 747.42 59.07 152.29 137.84 24.15 1,120.77

15 8.5 773.72 60.81 159.86 146.17 25.22 1,165.78

15.5 8.6 799.47 62.51 167.56 154.84 26.29 1,210.67

16 8.7 824.69 65.80 183.38 173.26 28.41 1,275.56

16.5 8.8 849.19 67.39 191.60 183.24 29.47 1,320.90

17 9.0 873.69 68.98 199.82 193.22 30.53 1,366.24

18 9.2 920.95 72.04 216.92 214.82 32.66 1,457.39

19 9.4 966.66 74.99 234.73 238.19 34.81 1,549.39

20 9.7 1023.88 76.71 255.41 265.43 36.45 1,657.88

21 9.9 1074.36 81.90 276.96 291.46 39.39 1764.08

Table 5.13.12 Cost-Efficiency Data for Five Ton Split-System Heat Pumps

Efficiency 

Level

Outdoor 

Unit Indoor Unit System

SEER HSPF

Condensing 

Unit

[$]

Indoor 

Unit 

Casing

[$]

Evaporator 

Coil

[$]

Evaporator 

Fan Blower

[$]

Balance 

of Indoor 

Unit

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 7.9 855.81 63.28 179.89 127.30 25.31 1,251.59

13.5 8.0 883.90 64.96 187.43 138.13 26.62 1,301.05

14 8.1 913.06 66.74 195.47 149.46 27.97 1,352.70

14.5 8.3 943.33 68.62 204.01 161.32 29.34 1,406.62

15 8.4 974.75 70.60 213.09 173.73 30.76 1,462.92

15.5 8.5 1,007.38 72.68 222.70 186.71 32.21 1,521.69

16 8.7 1,041.26 77.16 243.63 214.52 35.22 1,611.79

17 8.9 1,077.12 79.60 255.29 229.72 36.80 1,678.54

18 9.0 1,112.98 82.04 266.95 244.93 38.38 1,745.29
5-67

Table 5.13.13 Cost-Efficiency Data for Single-Package Air Conditioners

Efficiency 

Level Subsystems System

SEER Condensing

[$]

Evaporating

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 712.12 249.31 961.44

13.5 745.62 277.41 1,023.03

14 793.30 276.97 1,070.27

14.5 857.63 293.11 1,150.74

15 921.26 309.68 1,230.94

15.5 994.99 326.69 1,321.68

16 1,070.44 344.15 1,414.59

16.6 1,177.24 397.99 1,575.22

Table 5.13.14 Cost-Efficiency Data for Single-Package Heat Pumps

Efficiency 

Level Subsystems System

SEER HSPF Condensing

[$]

Evaporating

[$]

MPC

[$]

13 7.7 907.30 277.41 1,184.71

13.5 7.9 949.97 276.97 1,226.94

14 8.1 1,010.73 293.11 1,303.84

14.5 8.3 1,092.68 309.68 1,402.36

15 8.4 1,173.75 326.69 1,500.44

15.5 8.6 1,267.69 344.15 1,611.84

16 8.8 1,363.82 397.99 1,761.80

16.4 9.0 1,454.53 460.25 1,914.77

Table 5.13.15 Cost Efficiency Data for SDHV Systems

SEER

SDHV 

[$]

13 1,325.48

13.5 1,395.25

14 1,468.70

14.3 1,546.01
5-68

REFERENCES

1 AHRI. Directory of Certified Product Performance, Performance Data Updated June 7, 2010. Last 

accessed June 7, 2010. <http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx>

2 American Metals Market, (Last accessed December 8, 2010.) <http://www.amm.com/.>

3 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Indices. (Last accessed December 

8, 2010.) <http://www.bls.gov/ppi/>

4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price 

Deflator. (Last accessed December 8, 2010.) 

<http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=13&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008

&LastYear=2010>