Energy Conservation Standards

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding E

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures fo

Equipment

February 6, 2015

ComHeatingACWHEquipment2014ST
2

Welcome• Introductions (around the room)

• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules

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

meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air‐time’.

– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar conversa

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; ‘raise your hand’ to be 

speak.

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks
3

Listening Via the Webcast• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live ove

Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stakeh

who are unable to attend the public meeting in perso

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in an

slides, as well as participate after ‘raising hand’.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written co

after the public meeting.
4

Purpose of the Public Meeting• Present the procedural and analytical approaches to 

potential energy conservation standards for the AmeSociety of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air‐conditionin

(ASHRAE) equipment.

• Invite comment on the energy conservation standard

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and technical support d(TSD), including DOE’s proposed standard levels and test procedure updates.

• Invite participants to provide summary comments or 

and raise additional issues for discussion.
5

Issue “Boxes” for Discussion• Issue “boxes” correspond to the list of issues on which th

Department seeks comments.

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information

concerning the standards it is considering for ASHRAEequipment. Issues that correspond to those raised in DOE’s

published material will be presented. Whether invited by an

issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE

analysis.

• The deadline for submitting comments is March 24, 2015
6

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening re

or statements at this time.
7

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
8

Statutory Authority: ASHRAE Trigger• The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DO

consider amending the existing Federal energy conservat

for each type of equipment listed at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(

time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to s

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)‐(B))

• For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE 

90.1 is amended, DOE must review and adopt amended s

the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless 

convincing evidence supports a determination that adopt

more stringent efficiency level would:

– Produce significant additional energy savings;

– Be technologically feasible; and

– Be economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))

• On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE released Standard 90.1‐201

DOE’s statutory obligation.
9

Determination of Scope• DOE compared the current Federal energy conservat

standards to the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standarto identify any increases in stringency, thereby triggeaction.

Equipment Type DOE’s ProposeOil‐fired Storage Water Heaters Adopting ASHR

Small Three‐Phase Air‐Cooled Air Conditioners (Single‐Package

only) and Heat Pumps (Single‐Package and Split‐System)

<65,000 Btu/h

Adopting ASHR

Water‐source Heat Pumps Adopting ASHRPackage Terminal Air Conditioners Further analysi

rulemaking

Single‐Package Vertical Air Conditioners (SPVACs) and Single‐

Package Vertical Heat Pumps (SPVHPs)

Further analysi

rulemaking

Note: ASHRAE 90.1‐2013 did not change any of the design requirements for the com

water‐heating equipment covered by EPCA..
10

Rationale for Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1‐2013 L• For oil‐fired storage water heaters, energy savings estima

April 11, 2014 notice of data availability (NODA) (79 FR 20de minimus (0.001‐0.002 quads).

• For three‐phase air‐cooled air conditioners and heat pum

65,000 Btu/h, there was a lack of clear and convincing ev

justifying higher standards due to:

– Negative consumer LCC savings at all levels

– Negative national NPV at all levels

• For water‐source heat pumps, there was a lack of clear an

convincing evidence justifying higher standards due prim

– Positive national NPV only at EL1, which offers very little energ

– Uncertainty in cooling and heating energy use estimates due t

and lack of reliable information about applications

– Uncertainty in magnitude of shipments estimates
11

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
12

Test Procedures: ASHRAE 90.1 Updates• EPCA requires DOE to amend any test procedure for ASH

to the latest version generally accepted by the industry, a

in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determclear and convincing evidence exists that the latest versio

industry test procedure does not meet the requirements 

procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)‐(3). (42 U.S.C. 631

(B))

• DOE is proposing to update its commercial warm‐air furn

procedure to reference the following updated industry st

– ANSI Z21.47‐2012, Standard for Gas‐Fired Central Furnaces– ASHRAE 103‐2007, Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilizati

Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers

• DOE reviewed the updated versions and found that the m

not differ from those in the current Federal test method. 

does not believe the updates also would not alter measu

use.
13

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
14

ASHRAE Rulemaking Process

NODA NOPR Final Rule Compliance Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy UseAnalysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

MarkupsAnalysis

Life‐Cycle Cost andPaybackPeriod Analysis

EmMoUtiAn

MarketAssessment
15

Equipment Covered

• The following sections include analyses for tw

of equipment:

3‐Phase air‐cooled commercial packa

air‐conditioning and heating equipme

(CAC/HP) (<65,000 Btu/h cooling capa

Water‐source heat pumps
16

Equipment Classes for 3‐Phase CAC/HP

Equipment Category Cooling Capacity 

3‐Phase

CAC/HP

Small Commercial Packaged Air‐

Conditioning and Heating Equipment

(Air‐Cooled, 3‐Phase, Split‐System)

<65,000 Btu/h

Small Commercial Packaged Air‐

Conditioning and Heating Equipment

(Air‐Cooled, 3‐Phase, Single‐Package)

<65,000 Btu/h

• Current Federal standards do not differentiate split‐system and 

package equipment for 3‐phase CAC/HP.

• ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2013 divides small (<65,000 Btu/h cool

capacity), three‐phase commercial heating and cooling equipm

four categories, based on:

– Functionality (air conditioner and heat pump)

– Configuration (split‐system and single‐package)

• In this rulemaking, DOE proposes to amend its equipment clas

equipment to separate split‐system and single‐package equipm
17

Generate cost‐efficiency curves, which account fo

manufacturer production costs (MPCs).

Conduct physical and catalog teardown and cost m

analysis for units at the efficiency levels identified

Develop efficiency levels (ELs) that span the range 

from baseline to max‐tech level.

Engineering Analysis: Methodology

Develop Baseline

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Calculate Costs

Generate Cost‐

Efficiency Curves



Establish baseline efficiency levels for each equip



• In the Engineering Analysis, DOE characterizes the re

between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency.
18

Baseline and Max‐Tech Efficiency Levels – 3‐Phase • DOE used the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 minimum energy e

requirements to characterize the baseline efficiency level for e

equipment class of three‐phase commercial air conditioners an

pumps.

• DOE established incremental efficiency levels (ELs) based on a 

AHRI Database, manufacturer catalogs, and other publicly‐avai

literature.

• Max‐tech levels were derived from the market maximum levels 

Database, as of November 2013.

Split‐System

AC

Single‐

Package AC

Split‐System

HP

Singl

Packag

SEER 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.HSPF ‐ ‐ 8.2 8.0

Baseline – ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2013
19

Incremental Efficiency Levels – 3‐Phase CAC/H

Split‐System

AC

Single‐Package

AC

Split‐System

HP

S

SEER SEER SEER HSPF* S

ASHRAE Baseline 13 14 14 8.2 Efficiency Level 0** 14 ‐ ‐‐

Efficiency Level 1 15 15 15 8.5 

Efficiency Level 2 16 16 16 8.7 

Efficiency Level 3 17 17 17 9.0 

Efficiency Level 4 18 18 18 9.2 

Efficiency Level 5 19 19 ‐‐

* HSPF was developed from the SEER-HSPF correlation from the 2011 Direct Final Rule for central air conditioners and heat pum

(June 27, 2011).** Split-system AC only.
20

Manufacturing Cost Model – 3‐Phase CAC/HP• Manufacturing cost models were developed by DOE as part of 

engineering approach.

Raw

Materials

Finished

Materials

Phy

Teard

Select

Un

Fabrication

Processes

Bill of M

Asse

Proc

Manufa

Co

• The cost model generated

manufacturing, material, labor, and

overhead costs.

• Physical teardown analysis was

conducted with representative

equipment.

• Catalog teardown analysis used

modified cost models from previously

disassembled equipment.

• 3‐ton units were analyzed as the

representative capacity.
21

Equipment Covered

3‐Phase air‐cooled commercial package

air‐conditioning and heating equipmen

(CAC/HP) (<65,000 Btu/h cooling capac

Water‐source heat pumps
22

Water‐Source Heat Pump Definition and Nome• In Standard 90.1‐2013, ASHRAE changed the name of the equip

from ‘water‐source’ to ‘water‐to‐air, water‐loop’ and changed t

mode efficiency metric from COP to COPH.

– DOE is proposing to change its equipment class names to “water‐sou

water‐loop) heat pumps.”

– DOE has tentatively decided not to adopt the editorial change in the 

ASHRAE to clarify the difference between COP for refrigeration and C

pumps).

• Because there is currently no definition for water‐source heat p

U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations (other than an exclus

ground‐water‐source units), DOE is proposing the following def

this equipment type:

– Water‐source heat pump means a single‐phase or three‐phase revers

pump of all capacities (up to 760,000 Btu/h) that uses a circulating wa

heat source for heating and as the heat sink for cooling. The main co

compressor, refrigerant‐to‐water heat exchanger, refrigerant‐to‐air he

refrigerant expansion devices, refrigerant reversing valve, and indoor 

equipment includes, but is not limited to, water‐to‐air water‐loop hea

Issue Box: DOE seeks comment on the

proposed definition of “water‐source heat

pump.”
23

Market Assessment: Water‐Source Heat Pump• ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2013 divides water‐source heat pumps 

categories, based on cooling capacity:

• DOE obtained equipment and market data for water‐source he

from the AHRI Certified Product Database.

Equipment Category Cooling Cap

Water‐SourceHeat Pumps

Small Commercial Packaged Air‐

Conditioning and Heating Equipment

(Water‐Source: Water‐to‐Air, Water‐

Loop)

<17,000 Bt

≥17,000 Btu/

<65,000 Bt

≥65,000 Btu/

<135,000 B
24

Incremental Efficiency Levels – Water‐Source Heat 

WSHP <17,000

Btu/h

WSHP ≥17,000 Btu/h

and <65,000 Btu/h

WSH

and 

EER

Current Federal Standard 11.2 12.0 

ASHRAE Baseline 12.2 13.0 

Efficiency Level 1 13.0 14.6 

Efficiency Level 2 14.0 16.6 Efficiency Level 3 15.7 18.0 Efficiency Level 4 16.5 19.2 Efficiency Level 5 18.1 21.6 

• DOE selected efficiency levels based on the range of efficiencie

by equipment in the AHRI database.

– DOE used ASHRAE levels as the baseline for analysis.
25

Manufacturing Cost Model – Water‐Source Heat P• DOE used a catalog data cost analysis approach for w

source heat pumps.

• A cost model based upon previously disassembled co

heating and cooling equipment with similar compon

adapted for water‐source heat pumps.

– Published WSHP manufacturer catalog data, including dime

component details, were used to develop the cost models.

• DOE conducted catalog teardowns of over 60 units s

equipment classes and efficiency levels.
26

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
27

Markups Analysis

Purpose

• Determine customer prices based on manufacturer’s produ

(MPC) for baseline and higher‐efficiency equipment.

• Characterize 3‐Phase CAC/CHP and WSHP distribution chan

Method

• Analyze company direct costs, expenses, and profits

– Manufacturers: 2006‐2011 SEC 10‐K Reports

– Wholesalers: HARDI 2012 Profit Report

– Mechanical Contractors: ACCA 1995 Financial Analysis for the HVACR C

and U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Plumbing, Heating, and Air‐Conditioning 

– General Contractors: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Commercial and Institu

Construction

– Sales Taxes: The Sales Tax Clearinghouse

Wholesaler

Small

Mechanical

Contractor

General

Contractor

Consumer

Manufacturer

Large

Mechanical

Contractor

General

Contractor

Consumer

Wholesaler

Small

Mechanical

Contractor

Manufacturer

Large

Mechanical

Contractor

New Construction Replacemen

12%

8%
28

• Baseline Markups

– Relate the MPC of baseline equipment to the customer purchase 

• Incremental Markups

– Relate the increase in MPC of more‐efficient equipment to the inc

customer purchase price.

Markups Analysis: Overall Markups

Distribution Channel Replacement New Constru

Baseline Incremental Baseline Inc

Manufacturer 1.30 1.30 1.30 

Wholesaler 1.36 1.10 1.36 Mechanical Contractor (large /

small) 1.38 / 1.58 1.10 / 1.26 1.30 / 1.50 1.

General Contractor ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.31 Sales tax 1.07 1.07 ‐‐ Overall Markup (large / small

contractor) 2.60 / 2.99 1.70 / 1.94 3.00 / 3.47 1.
29

Energy Use AnalysisPurpose

• Determine unit energy consumption (UEC) of 3‐phase CAC, 3

and WSHP at the considered efficiency levels to find annual e

and savings.

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

Analysis.

Method

• Obtained national average UEC data from previous DOE repo

the 2011 DFR for residential CAC and the 2000 Screening Ana

EPACT‐Covered Equipment.

• Adjusted UEC to account for changes in building stock over ti

• Incorporated variability using estimates of full‐load equivalen

hours (FLEOH) by building type and Census Division.
30

Energy Use Analysis: Base UECs and Adjustme

• 3‐Phase CAC and CHP

– Cooling: UECs by efficiency level for single‐phase equipment in

commercial buildings, as presented in NIA for 2011 DFR for res

and CHP. (EERE‐2011‐BT‐STD‐011‐011)

– Heating: Determined from 2011 analysis that heating UEC did n

proportionally with HSPF and that increasing HSPF would not li

significant energy savings.

• WSHP

– Cooling: UECs by efficiency level scaled from values provided in 

Screening Analysis. (EERE‐2006‐STD‐0098‐0015)

– Heating: UECs estimated using Commercial Building Energy Co

Survey (CBECS) data for air source heat pumps (energy consum

square foot, scaled in direct proportion to COP).

– To account for improvements in building shell characteristics, D

the UECs based on data from the National Energy Modeling Sys

• To incorporate variability, DOE developed distributions of 

by building type and Census Division, and for each combin

scaled the national UEC by the FLEOH estimate from the 2

Screening Analysis.
31

Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP) Purpose

• Provide an economic evaluation from the consume

perspective.

• Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total consumer cost ove

the equipment.

• Payback Period (PBP) is the time required to recove

increased purchase price of more energy‐efficient 

through reduced operating costs.

Method

• Utilize a Monte Carlo simulation, consisting of 10,0

iterations that select from inputs characterized by distributions (i.e., building type, Census Division, lif
32

LCC and PBP Analysis: Total Installed Cost• Total Installed Cost is the sum of equipment price and installat

• Equipment price provided by Markups Analysis.

– Constant real prices used to project future equipment prices.

• Relevant producer price index (PPI) series had no clear trends in rece

• Installation costs represent the labor and materials necessary 

equipment.

– Costs based on RS Means for appropriate equipment.

– Installation costs are assumed to increase proportionally with equ

which increases with efficiency level. Therefore, installation costs 

to vary by efficiency level.
33

LCC and PBP Analysis: Annual Operating Costs

• Annual Energy Costs are calculated by multiplying annual energy use by 

price.

– Electricity prices by Census Division are taken from tariff data that have bee

commercial building marginal and average prices.

– DOE used the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 to project future energy p

Census Division.

• Maintenance costs represent the labor and materials necessary to main

equipment. Costs are based on RS Means and do not increase with the 

equipment.

• Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components tha

Costs are based on RS Means, and the materials portion scales with MP

– DOE annualized the present value of the repair cost, assumed to take place 

the lifetime of the equipment.

• For both maintenance and repair costs, data were not available specific 

DOE used data for air‐to‐air heat pumps, which it believes is also repres

WSHP.
34

LCC and PBP Analysis: Lifetime & Discount Rat• Lifetime is defined as the age when equipment is retired from 

– DOE used a survival function in the form of a Weibull distribution 

product lifetime (based on 2011 DFR for residential CAC; EERE‐20

0012)

– Median values from the Weibull distributions:

– 3‐phase CAC and WSHP: 17.7 years

– 3‐phase CHP: 14.6 years

• Discount Rates are used to convert streams of annual operatin

the year of purchase (i.e., 2020).

– Estimated as the weighted average cost of capital for types of firm

premise the equipment is located.

– 3‐phase CAC and CHP: Small Office and Small Retail

– WSHP: Office, Public, Lodging, Property Owners, and Medical Service

– Used Damodaran Online for information about company debt and 

financing.
35

LCC and PBP Analysis: Base Case Efficiency• Base‐case efficiency distributions define the percentage of pro

purchased at various efficiency levels.

• DOE created base‐case efficiency distributions based on mode

the AHRI certified directory.

• DOE has estimated a base‐case efficiency trend of 1 SEER every 

applied this trend to estimate the base‐case efficiency distribut

compliance year.
36

Request for Comment

Issue Box: DOE requests comments, information, and data o

the equipment lifetimes developed for 3‐phase CAC and CHP

and WSHP equipment. Specifically, any information that wou

indicate whether the retirement functions yielding median

lifetimes of 17.7 years for 3‐phase CAC and WSHP and 14.63

years for 3‐phase CHP are reasonable.

Issue Box: DOE requests comments on the use of RS Means 

data to develop maintenance, repair, and installation costs f

phase air‐cooled air‐conditioning and heating equipment an

water‐source heat pumps. If not appropriate, DOE requests

information and data that can be used to estimate these cos
37

LCC and PBP Analysis: 3‐phase CAC Single Pack

Efficiency

Level SEER

Average Costs

2013$

Average

Savings

Per

cus

wit

Installed Cost

First

Year’s

Operating

Cost

Lifetime

Operating

Cost

LCC

ASHRAE

Baseline 14.0 $4,731 $761 $7,408 $12,139 N/A 

EL 1 15.0 $5,036 $747 $7,275 $12,311 ($89) EL 2 16.0 $5,343 $742 $7,224 $12,567 ($297) EL 3 17.0 $5,642 $746 $7,262 $12,904 ($596) EL 4 18.0 $5,944 $750 $7,300 $13,244 ($913) EL 5 19.0 $6,308 $755 $7,350 $13,659 ($1,326) 
38

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
39

Shipments AnalysisPurpose

• To estimate shipments over the 30‐year analysis period.

• Shipments are inputs to National Impact Analysis.

Method

• Use available sources of initial shipments estimates for each 

class.

• Project shipments using U.S. Census data and other indicator 

such as AEO floor space forecasts.
40

Shipments Inputs and Methodology: 3‐Phase C• DOE started with 1999

shipments estimates for

three‐phase CAC from the

2000 Screening Analysis.

• DOE used Census data from

1999 to 2010 (a combination

of single‐phase and three‐

phase shipments) as a trend

from which to extrapolate

1999 3‐phase shipments

through 2010.

• After 2010, DOE relied on AHRI shipments data and AEO 2014

projections of commercial floor space to project future shipme

– This results in an annual growth rate of 1%.
41

Shipments Inputs and Methodology: WSHP• U.S. Census data: 1980, 1983‐1994, 1997‐2006, 2008‐201

– DOE utilized the trend from 1999‐2010 to project shipment

• DOE allocated total WSHP shipments between equipmen

using data provided by AHRI in 1999 and published in the 

Screening Analysis. (EERE‐2006‐STD‐0098‐0015)

Equipment Class 1999 Shipments Percent<17,000 Btu/h 41,000 31%≥17,000 ‐ <65,000 Btu/h 86,000 65%≥65,000 ‐135,000 Btu/h 5,000 4%

y = 4135.8x ‐ 8E+06

R2 = 0.5483

0

50000

100000150000200000250000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
42

Projected Shipments

3-phase CAC and CHP WSHP

Issue Box: Would shipments of small air‐

cooled three‐phase air conditioners and heat

pump equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h or

water‐source heat pump equipment change at

more‐stringent standard levels?
43

National Impact AnalysisPurpose

– Determine the projected national energy savings and custom

net present value associated with potential amended energy 

standards.

Method

– Develop annual series of national energy and economic impa

– Use the shipments model to estimate the total stock of equip

service each year.

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

– Report estimates for economic impact as change in consume

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

– Account for the time‐value of money through defined discou
44

Shipments Model

National Energy Savings

NationalEconomicImpacts

LCC Analysis Results and Other Inputs

Na

Energ

(Q

Na

Net Pre

(

(2013 U

National Impact Analysis: Process

• National energy savings calculated for 30 years of equipment s

the period:

– 2017 – 2046* for 3‐Phase CAC except split‐system AC,

– 2019 – 2048 for split‐system AC, and– 2016 – 2045* for WSHP.

*For efficiency levels higher than ASHRAE, energy savings do not begin accru

• NPV calculated for equipment shipped over the period:

– 2020 – 2046* for 3‐Phase CAC except split‐system AC,

– 2019 – 2048 for split‐system AC, and– 2020 – 2045* for WSHP.

*Economics not calculated for the ASHRAE level.
45

National Impact Analysis: Inputs

Input DescriptionTotal Installed Cost Weighted‐average per‐unit values as a function of efficiency level ta

analysis.

Repair and

Maintenance Costs

Maintenance costs taken from the LCC analysis; do not vary as a fun

level.Repair costs taken from the LCC analysis; estimated to vary with effi

Annual Energy Use Annual weighted‐average per‐unit values as a function of efficiency 

analysis.

Base‐Case Efficiencies Shipments‐weighted efficiencies determined for the compliance yea

case efficiency distribution from LCC analysis. Estimated growth rate 

years.

Standards‐CaseProjected Efficiencies

Roll‐up scenario for the compliance year, followed by same rate of g

as used in the base case.

Energy Prices Projected energy prices from EIA AEO 2014 forecasts (to 2040) and e

2098.

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

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guidel

Present Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2014.
46

Request for Comment

Issue Box: Is there a rebound effect in small air‐cooled thre

phase air conditioner and heat pump equipment less than

65,000 Btu/h or water‐source heat pump energy use as a res

of improvements in the efficiency of such units?

Issue Box: The use of the projected base‐case efficiency tre

of an increase of 1 SEER or EER every 35 years for small air‐

cooled three‐phase air conditioner and heat pump equipme

less than 65,000 Btu/h and water‐source heat pump equipm
47

National Impact Analysis: Results

Equipment Class

ASHRAE/

EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 E

3‐Phase CAC and CHP

National Energy Savings – FFC

(Quads) 0.08 0.16 0.30 0.38 0National NPV at 3% real discount

rate (Billion $2013) (0.07)* (0.58) (1.64) (3.11) (4

National NPV at 7% real discount

rate (Billion $2013) (0.04)* (0.36) (0.94) (1.69) (2

WSHP

National Energy Savings – FFC

(Quads)

‐** 0.03 0.30 0.56 0

National NPV at 3% real discount

rate (Billion $2013) N/A 0.03 0.19 (0.04) (0

National NPV at 7% real discount

rate (Billion $2013) N/A 0.01 (0.04) (0.27) (0

Note: Results for all levels above ASHRAE are compared to the ASHRAE Baseline.

*Economic analysis at ASHRAE/EL0 was only conducted for split–system AC.**There are no savings for this level because there is no market share projected below this level in the base cas
48

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
49

Emissions Impact AnalysisPurpose

• To estimate the emissions reductions resulting from amende

conservation standards.

– Carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX

(N2O), methane (CH4), mercury (Hg).

– Includes estimating full‐fuel‐cycle emissions; both power plant 

“upstream” emissions; Includes fugitive methane emissions.

Method

• National Impact Analysis provides an annual time‐series of e

over the analysis period.

• DOE used output from AEO 2014 to derive emissions factors 

typical commercial cooling power load.
50

• DOE used the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values 

an interagency process.

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

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including, but not limited to, agriculturaloss, human health effects, property damage from rising sea levels, and ch

ecosystem.

• The most recent (2013) U.S. government interagency estimate

for emissions in 2015, per metric ton avoided (in 2013$):

– $12.0 (average value from distribution with a 5% discount rate)

– $40.5 (average value from distribution with a 3% discount rate)

– $62.4 (average value from distribution with a 2.5% discount rate)

– $119 (95th‐percentile value from distribution with a 3% discount rate)

• The SCC in constant dollars increases over time.

• DOE also monetizes the NOx emissions reductions resulting fr

standards.

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

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

Emissions Monetization
51

Utility Impact AnalysisPurpose

• To estimate the changes in electric installed capacity and gen

result from amended energy conservation standards (as com

base case).

Method

• DOE uses cases published from the National Energy Modelin

(NEMS) that incorporate efficiency‐related policies to estima

marginal impacts of reduced energy demand on the utility se

• The output of this analysis is a set of time‐dependent coeffic

capture the change in electricity generation and installed cap

type due to a unit reduction in demand for the specific end u
52

Public Meeting Topics

1 Introduction and Overview; Determination of Scope2 Test Procedures3 Market Assessment; Engineering4 Markups; Energy Use; Life‐Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analysis5 Shipments; National Impact Analysis6 Emissions and Utility Impact Analyses

7 Closing Remarks
53

Closing Remarks
54

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the ASHRAE rulemaking 

– NOPR on Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedure

Standard 90.1 Equipment,

– Docket Number EERE‐2014‐BT‐STD‐0015, and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AD23.

• Email: ComHeatingACWHEquip2014STD0015@ee.doe.gov

• Comment period closes: March 24, 2015, 11:59 PM EST

Postal: Courier:

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE‐5B

1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585‐0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energ

Building Technologies Off

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: (202) 586‐2945