E-R.l,/S T -f 8 -4yo

1.0 Summary of Efficiency Advocates' Alternative Scenarios

The efficiency advocates' alternative scenarios consist of revisions to several of the inputs to the

LCC and NES/NPV analyses. There are two scenarios which the efficiency advocates proposed

with each scenario consisting of the following revisions:

Scenario "A"

1. Manufacturer costs developed with Reverse Engineering manufacturer cost

multipliers.

2. Marginal electricity prices increased by 1.86 d/kWh.

3. Emerging technology manufacturer cost reductions applied to efficiency levels 13

through 15 SEER.

4. Manufacturer costs reduced by 0.84% per year to account for the decline in the

real cost of air conditioners.

Scenario "B"

5. Apply all revisions as outlined in Scenario "A".

6. Adjust nominal efficiency values to account for the increased energy savings due

to thermostatic expansion valves (TXV).

7. Combo 1: TSL 2 (12 SEER standard) effective January 1, 2005 followed by a 14

SEER standard effective January 1, 2010.

8. Combo 2: TSL 1 (11 SEER standard) effective January 1, 2004 followed by TSL

4 (13 SEER standard) effective January 1, 2007.

9. Combo 3: TSL 2 (12 SEER standard) effective January 1, 2004 followed by TSL

4 (13 SEER standard) effective January 1, 2007.

2.0 LCC Results Summary

Unlike the LCC results presented ir the proposed rule. the revised LCC results presented here are

based on the use of input values rather than probability distributions. Thus,

the LCC results presented here are values. Monte Carlo simulations using Microsoft

Excel spreadsheets combined with Crn'stal Ball were not performed and, as a result, no attempt

was made to capture the variabilitn and uncertainny of the inputs on the LCC results.

Scenario "A "

Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 through 4 show the LCC results based on the revisions outlined in

scenario ".". The results show the average LCC values for the baseline level (10 SEER) and

five efficiency levels (11 through 15 SEER) for each of the four primary product classes (split

system air conditioners, split systern heat pumps, single package air conditioners, single package

heat pumps).

1

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

, I 

I - ~.;' .}. '.... - ~. '~,. , ... ". 

~~~~~f$fl9>~~~~O it" 73 H H 

EE-RM/STf) -~k -lI'I 0 

1.0 Summary of Efficiency Advocates' Alternative Scenarios 

The efficiency advocates' alternative scenarios consist of revisions to several of the inputs to the 

Lee and NESINPV analyses. There are two scenarios which the efficiency advocates proposed 

with each scenario consisting of the following revisions: 

Scenario "A" 

1. Manufacturer costs developed with Reverse Engineering manufacturer cost 

multipliers. 

2. Marginal electricity prices increased by 1.86 ¢/kWh. 

3. Emerging technology manufacturer cost reductions applied to efficiency levels 13 

through 15 SEER. 

4. Manufacturer costs reduced by 0.84% per year to account for the decline in the 

real cost of air conditioners. 

Scenario "B" 

5. Apply all revisions as outlined in Scenario "A". 

6. Adjust nominal efficiency values to account for the increased energy savings due 

to thermostatic expansion valves (TXV). 

7. Combo 1: TSL 2 (12 SEER standard) effective January 1,2005 followed by a 14 

SEER standard effective January 1,2010. 

8. Combo 2: TSL 1 (11 SEER standard) effective January 1, 2004 followed by TSL 

4 (13 SEER standard) effective January 1,2007. 

9. Combo 3: TSL 2 (12 SEER standard) effective January 1,2004 followed by TSL 

4 (13 SEER standard) effective January 1,2007. 

2.0 LeC Results Summary 

Cnlike the LCe results presented in the proposed rule, the revised Lee results presented here are 

b;}sed on the use of input values mther than probability distributions. Thus, 

the Lee results presented here are values. Monte Carlo simulations using Microsoft 

Excel spreadsheets combined \vith Cryst;}l Ball were not performed and, as a result, no attempt 

\\;}s made to capture the \'ariability and uncertainty of the inputs on the Lee results, 

Scenario "A " 

T;}oles I and:2 and Figures I through 4 show the Lee results based on the revisions outlined in 

scenario . ' . .;." , The results show the average Lee values for the baseline level (10 SEER) and 

fi\'e efficiency levels (11 through 15 SEER) for e::tch of the four primary product classes (split 

system air conditioners, split system heat pumps, single package air conditioners, single package 

he~lt pumps), 
Table 1 ILCC Results for Split and Package A/C

under Scenario "A"

Spit A/C Package A/C

Noninal Aw-\ ge ITjC Aerage I-1C

Sl'IR ICC Samings LCC Saings

10 $5,016 - $5,450 -

11 $4,903 ($113) $5,335 ($115)

12 $4,833 ($183) $5,217 ($233)

13 $1,7')2 ($22'1X ) $5,312 ($138)

1I $1,741 ($275) $5,306 (I$-11)

15 $1,772 ($214) $5,336 ($1 I1)

$5(.r~~~~~~~~~~~~~,0o ~$5,500

$)O() $ -',545 . 5,4..

0 ^ _ _ _ , .. ----. s _ $-1 _ _ _ .__ _ _ . __. _ _ U _ S5_. $5,400 $4,900 ....

L $ 4 , 8 5 0

) \ .- - -S $ 5, 3 5 0

S$5,300 __ __ ___ 1 $4,800 . . \ /,.

$4,750 . $5,250____

$4,700 $ 5,200

10 11 12 13 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 4

Nonial SFEER Noninal SEER

Figu r. i_ . [,". . .l. _ _C _ _ . r_________ 

< __

Figure 1 Split A/C: Average LCC Results, Scciario "A"Figiure 2 Package A/C: Average LCC Results, Scenario "A"

2

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

Vi' $\()()O 

00 

or-

-;; $·I.')'iO 

Q 

U 

~ $4,<)()() u 

;>, 

U '* $4,850 

;:l 

~D $4,800 C!I 

... 

.. 

~ $4,750 

$4,700 

Figlll"C 1 

10 11 

Tahle 1 Lee Results for Split and Package Ale 

under Scenario" A" 

Sri it Ale 

Noninal Awnlge ILl": 

SEER Lee Smings 

10 $5,016 -

11 $4,903 ('j;1 U) 

12 $4,833 (i;IK~) 

1.1 ~1,7()2 ($2~·1) 

14 $·1,741 ($17~) 

15 ~1,772 ($.'1·1:1) 

Paclmge Ale 

Awrage 

LCe 

$5,450 

$5,335 

$5,217 

$5,312 

$5,3fXi 

$5,336 

S5,5()() 

Vi' $5,450 00 

~ 

~ $5,400 U 

.. 

u G $5,350 

'* ::s $5,300 .. 

CD 

~ ;> $5,250 

< 

LCC 

Smings 

-

($115) 

($233) 

($I\~) 

($1-1,1) 

($lld) 

$5,200 ·I------,------,----..-------,r-------/ 

12 13 14 15 10 II 12 13 14 15 

Nonin:t1 SEER Nonin:ll SEER 

Split Ale: Avcnlge Lee ncslllts, Scenario "A" Figure 2 ')acltage Ale: Average Lee Results, Scenario "A" 

2 

,".-, 

.d 
Table 2 I.'CC Resilts for Split and Package P11 undler

Scenario "A"

Split IIP' Package IIP

Noni iial Noninal Aeragge ITC Aerage !TC

Sl11F ILSPF I.CC Samings LCC Saxings

10 6.8 $9,431 $9,382 -

11 7.1 $9,135 ($2%() $9,120 ($262)

12 7.4 $8,897 ($534) $8,853 (¶529)

13 7.7 $8,805 ($626) $8,853 ($52')

1-1 8.0) 8,979 ( h12) $8,898 (c-1)

15 8.2 $8,)82 ( -140) $8,866 ($516)

S,500 . . $9,500 -

,oo \ ,,, $9,400 ... . ......... __.... ........... .. ......... . _ _ m . & $9,300 . . \ $9,300 ---- _-._

U $9,200 ... . . _ _ U

.s9,, 0 $..000 .. .... . _ $9,200 ---- ----- $' \ _9,100_ _ __ _ u$8,900 4~ .-- . .- _... - VI ,....------- S_^9,000 - -_u-___._.._._;_$, - __ $9,o ....... $000,,o

< $8,000 ._____ $8,900__

$8,700.- $,8,800

10 II I 1 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 15

NoniraL SFFR Nonimal SEER '

Figure 3 Split 111: Average LCC Results, Scenario "A" Figulre 4 Package lHP: Average LCC Results, Scenario "B"

3

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

$",5()() -------~- -----

~ 

$'),.100 

00 

e $'l,J()(} 

-'" <:> 

U $9,200 ., 

u $9,100 ;.., 

U I 

~ $9,000 ;::j 

., 

t.ll 

os $8,900 ... ., 

;.. 

~ $8,800 

$8,700 

10 II 12 

Tahle 2 Lee nestllts for Split and P~lck~lge liP tinder 

Scenario "A" 

Noninal 

SliFJ~ 

10 

II 

12 

I~ 

1·1 

15 

Spit lIP Pacl<ag e liP 

Noninal A,crage 

IISPF Lee 

h.8 $9,431 

7.1 $9,135 

7.4 $8,897 

7.7 $8,80) 

8.0 $8,()7<) 

8.2 $8,982 

14 15 

LCC A,crage TrC 

Smings Lee Smings 

- $9,382 -

($2%) $9,120 ($2(12) 

('lS~4) $8,853 ($52<)) 

('f1l2() ) $8,853 ($'ll(») 

('1;.1')2) $8,808 ($"I~I) 

('t4"1l)) $8,866 ($51()) 

$1),500 .~-----_------------...__, 

Vl $1),400 00 

~ $9,300 <:> 

u 

~ $9,200 u 

C d. $9,100 

= ...:l 

t $9,000 01 

... 

... 

~ $8,900 ----------------. -.. -~.-.- _ .. _-- - ... _-- ----.----------~- -----~-

$8,800 I--------,c-------r-----.-----r-----l 

10 II 12 13 14 15 

Nonin.11 SEER Nonill.11 SEER 

- - .. _---_.- ---_._._--------, 

Figure 3 Split liP: Average Lee nesults, Scenario "A" Figure 4 Paclmge liP: Average Lee Uesults, Scenario "B" 

3 
*; .. **-,,.,-;:> .^~ EEE-RM /STD-98-4 40- ; 7 3. S 

Scenario "B"

Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 5 through 8 show the LCC results based on the revisions outlined in

scenario "B". The results show the average LCC values for the baseline level (10 SEER) and

five efficiency levels (11 through 15 SEER) for each of the four primary product classes. Two

sets of results are presented for each product class: one set which is described as "Field

Degradation per Neal" and another set which is described as "w/o Field Degradation".

The "Field Degradation per Neal" results are based on adjustments to the nominal SEER and

HSPF values to account for the degradation in system efficiency due to fixed orifice flow control

devices. The relative degradation due to fixed orifice devices are based on data provided in a

research paper written by C. L. Neal.a Based on Neal's data, a fixed orifice-based system suffers

a loss in efficiency of 19.3% compared to a TXV-based.system. Based on this efficiency loss, a

new weighted-average effective efficiency for each standard level is calculated based on the

fraction of units identified in the Reverse Engineering sample that contain fixed orifices (please

refer to Appendix B of the TSD). The effective SEER and HSPF values are provided in Tables 3

and 4. Thus, rather than basing the energy savings and resulting operating cost savings on the

nominal SEER and HSPF values as was done under Scenario "A", the effective SEER and HSPF

values are used. Since in most cases the relative efficiency increase between the effective

baseline efficiency (i.e., nominal 10 SEER) and the effective standard level efficiency is greater

than the relative efficiency increase based on nominal efficiencies, the energy savings and the

resulting LCC savings are greater than those under Scenario "A".

The "w/o Field Degradation" analysis attempts to estimate the additional energy savings that

would result if TXVs were required at each standard level. Under this scenario, the nominal

efficiencies at each standard level ARE NOT adjusted downward as TXV-based systems are

assumed to retain their nominal efficiency. Although the standard level nominal efficiencies are

not adjusted, the nominal baseline efficiency (i.e.. 10 SEER) is. This is done to account for the

mix of fixed orifice- and TXV-based svstems that currently exist at 10 SEER in order that the

additional energy savings due to TX'Vs at each standard level are properly calculated. Without

this downward adjustment at 10 SEER. the LCC results would be identical to those under

Scenario "A".

' C. L. Neal. Field Adjusted SEER [SEERFA] - Residential Buildings: Technologies, Design, And Performance

Analysis. In ACEEE 1998 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 1998. Asilomar, CA: American Council

for an Energy Efficient Economy. 1: p. 1.197-1.209.

4

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

EE-RM/STD-98-440-tj:: 73-lf/r . I 

Scenario "B" 

Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 5 through 8 show the Lee results based on the revisions outlined in 

scenario "B". The results show the average Lee values for the baseline level (10 SEER) and 

five efficiency levels (11 through 15 SEER) for each of the four primary product classes. Two 

sets of results are presented for each product class: one set which is described as "Field 

Degradation per Neal" and another set which is described as "w/o Field Degradation". 

The "Field Degradation per Neal" results are based on adjustments to the nominal SEER and 

HSPF values to account for the defITadation in svstem efficiencv due to fixed orifice flow control - . "' 

devices. The relative degradation due to fixed orifice devices are based on data provided in a 

research paper written by C. L. Neal. a Based on Neal's data, a fixed orifice-based system suffers 

a loss in efficiency of 19.3 % compared to a TXV -based. system. Based on this efficiency loss, a 

new weighted-average effective efficiency for each standard level is calculated based on the 

fraction of units identified in the Reverse Engineering sample that contain fixed orifices (please 

refer to Appendix B of the TSD). The effective SEER and HSPF values are provided in Tables 3 

and 4. Thus, rather than basing the energy savings and resulting operating cost savings on the 

nominal SEER and HSPF values as was done under Scenario "A", the effective SEER and HSPF 

values are used. Since in most cases the relative efficiency increase between the effective 

baseline efficiency (i.e., nominal 10 SEER) and the effective standard level efficiency is greater 

than the relative. efficiency increase based on nominal efficiencies, the energy savings and the 

resulting Lee savings are greater than those under Scenario "A". 

The "w/o Field Degradation" analysis anempts to estimate the additional energy savings that 

would result if TX.vs were required at each standard level. Under this scenario, the nominal 

efficiencies at each standard level ARE -:\OT adjusted dO\\TIward as TXV-based systems are 

assumed to retain their nominal efficiency. Although the standard level nominal efficiencies are 

not adjusted, the nominal baseline efficiency (i.e .. 10 SEER) is. This is done to account for the 

mix of fixed orifice- and TXV -based systems thaL currently exist at 10 SEER in order that the 

additional energy savings due to T'(V s at e.1ch st.:tndard level are properly calculated. Without 

this downward adjustment at 10 SEER. the LCC results would be identical to those under 

Scenario "A". 

a C. L. Neal, Field Adjusted SEER [SEERFA) - Residential Buildings: Technologies, Design, And Perfonnance 

Analysis. In ACEEE 1998 Summer Study on Energy Effic:enc:, in Buildings. 1998. Asilomar, CA: American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy. 1: p. 1.197-1.209. 

4 

• 

! , 
Tablelc 3 ICC Resllts Split and Package A/C under Scenario "B"

Sllil V ( ' Pack age A/C

l'icld 1k)cgra:ll;ioln pr Neal o Ilcl 1)cgradalioin Field Degra( laioln xper Neal w/o Field Degra(dation Nonill:ll AWc.,ge I.CC( Aerage L.CC Awerage I[CC Aw^rage LCC

S1lqR SIF! I.C SaNings SHZ IXlCC SaLings S I[n CC Saxings S li LCC Saxings 10 8.36 $-1,)

05 - 8. 6 ,995 8- .3G $5,430- 8.36 $5,430-

11 9.30 $1,859) 1,) 11 $4,518 ('>177) 8.88 $5,398 ($32) 11 $4,952 ($4178) 12 1061 $1,7(4 ( ;?1

)l ) 12 $4,480 (515) 9.68 $5,274 ($15t,) 12 $4,865 ($5) 13 12() $-1,599 tl 13 .41,467 (5;') 10.49 $5,365 ($6.) 13 $4,988 ($142) 1-1 12. 1 (1 I $-1,139 (1;"s) 14 $5,006 (;.121) 14 $5,(00 ($;-21) 15 15 $4, 1

'1 (- ('1] 15 ,1')1" '.1 15 $5,056 ($371) 15 $5,056 ($37-1)

$s'l" 1

"n - ____^;.t.._-....._..-.....,._. 5,50.s0.-55 _______ m - $-1,'.i7: I, I:i1 m -CI \r SS,300 _. _Fi \e N __ada _

/ ' ', " $I :""t K"'I I) \i\ l I . $5,'100 ._ .-. ....... \.~ ... _ow/o w/ Fici tcrulaion 00 \ . \ _.____ _____ _

u \ \\

$4,400 $4,800

$4, . ..$. ._.__... ... .. .._.............. .$_4,_ , ,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 0 1 12 13 14 15 16

"Nontml SEER Nonfl SEER

Figurc 5 Splli A/C: Averlge LCC lesulls, Scenario "" ... igure 6 Package A/C: Average LCC Results, Scenario "B"

5

0' 0

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

T:lhlc 3 Lee Hcsllits Split and Package Ale nnder Scenario "n" 

NOllli nal 

SHH 

10 

II 

12 

n 

1·1 

15 

~\I(1I1 

Vl $ 5,1)(111 

00 

~ $·1,'100 

'" 0 

u 

'" H80f) U 

... 

U S4,7()() I 

.! 

:.:l 

... 

CD $4,60() 01 

... 

... 

.. $4,500 < 

$4,400 

<) 

Sl~it :V(, 

Ficlllllcgr:llialioll pcr Ncal 

A\cr:lge 

snn Irc 

RJ(i $·1,1)()5 

I)JO $·I,XSI) 

J()(i I $·I,7(Q 

12 00 H')!)f) 

12 (>:J $,1,S/)2 

1.5 $·1,')<)1 

10 II 12 

I.('C 

S :I\i ngs 

-

I )', I \1») 

(1;11)1) 

li:\IJ()j 

i'J.1; ;) 

('f; ',Oil 

I • 

I " 

13 

NOlliJ~11 SFER 

\\to Held Degrad:ljjoll 

A\cragc 

snn IJ'C 

RJ(i $4,1)1)5 

II $-1,518 

12 $4,480 

n $4,467 

1,1 $,I,'I'l() 

I') $.1,-1'11 

1'..111 \:!7"d"(""I'CI tk'''\ "'Il 1'..111 '-'!') ,,,1.,(.11, 

14 15 

Lee 

S:l\ings 

-

(\177) 

('l;~ I~) 

( i;~2S) 

I i;~ ~(») 

I 'S~·III) 

16 

Figure 5 Split Ale: A "eragc Lee Hcsulls, Sccna.-io "8" 

5 

Pacl, age Ale 

Field Degradation per Neal ,,10 Field Dcgrad:lIion 

A\crage Lee Awragc Lee 

SEl.:n Lee Sa\ings SEER Lee Sa\ings 

8.36 $5,430 - 8.36 $5,430 -

8,88 $5,398 ('j;12) II $4,952 ('j;l7X) 

9,68 $5,274 ($ 151») 12 $4,865 ($~()~) 

10.49 $5,365 ('>6~) 13 $4,988 ($'1·12) 

14 $5,()()(i (i:12·1) 14 $S,()()() ($·12<1 ) 

IS $5,056 ($~7·1) 15 $5,056 (,'kl7:1) 

$5.'iO() 

Vl $S,4()O 

00 \ 

~F£(i'r'\:g;:a;iai~;)pcrNeall 

., -0- w/o rdl Dcgr;ulalkln ~.~-.------------ -~---'--~---'-

~ $5,300 -'" 0 

u 

~ $S,200 

... 

U 

~ $5,100 

:l 

~ $S,OOO 

~ .. < $4,900 

$4,800 

9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 

Noninal SEER 

Figure 6 I)aclmge Ale: Average Lee Hesults, Scenario "B" 

16 

m 

m 

• ::u 

s: 

-

en 

-f 

o 

• CO 

en 

J:,. 

~ 

o 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 
Ta' lc4 e LC:C Results for Split and Package liP Iluner Scenario "B"

_ --- -- ---- irii - S I lI Packlage II1I

RIlil I'i grA.limi ix' r Neal 'io Hllcl Dlgraili;n ! teld Degrabhion per Neal Wo FieldDegrabhtion

Nominal Noninal Aeragge I .C Aerage ICC Aerage ICC Aerage ICC

S1FRI IAl'F S I ISI' I' 1 Sanings S1111 II1I'F ICC Sanings S TR IEPF ICC Sakings S1FR ISPF ICC Saings

1W in68 (T836 SCT 56(7S --' ).381 ,3 - T36 5.68 $9,381 846 5.75 $9,281 8.46 5.75 $9,281 : 383ft 5Sr S ,315

11 7.1 888 5.73 $9,287 (I) I11 7.1 $8,180 (51,201 8.88 5.73 $9289 $8 11 7.1 $8,180 ($1,101)

12 7.4 9.)8 5.7 $'),(H1I :,11i 12 74 $7,998 tS1,3.3) 9.68 5.97 $9,013 (S2(s) 12 7.4 $7,969 (S 1.312)

13 77 1049 621 $1 1 I'Itl mi13 7.7 $7,955 1Sl I,2 1049 621 $9,0(5 $27,l) 13 7.7 $8,018 1)L.261)

14 80 1265 7.23 $8,5')1 ( , ) 14 80 $8,173 ($1.,'(i) 14 80 $8,106 ($1.1751 14 80 $8,106 ($1,175)

15 1 8.252 $8,209 ') 15 82 $8,209 ($1,172) 15 8.2 $8,107 ($1,17-1 15 8.2 $8,107 ($1,174)

r

.S9,41)00| -. _*_ Pn 1 ' i- IVLI Dp- t;lain per Neal $92 0__ 0icil Dralalnil per Ncal

c,> $9,2()0 t , l 0 $8,200 \~ \ , I ii l/)c "l'';lil l\;y% i lPd(kii .. (A $,00 ..... \ \ Wo MM S0._raD lion m

$8,000 Y0

>, $9X $8,800 ___..- -- --- = '8,200 6 ------. 820\E------------------- . -. .-

a $8,000 _ __ --- s/-------------- $8,600 .___ __ ___ ___--._- _

"$8,200 _ g

< $8,00. $8,000

$7,800 $7,800

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Nonninl SER Nonilil SEER o

Figure 7 Split IHP: Average LCC Resulls, Scenario "B" Figure 8 Package IHP: Average LCC Results, Scenario "B"

6

].]-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

Tahle" Lee lteslIlts for Split and Package liP under Scenario "8" 

Nnninal Nllflinal 

SFl'n 1t';I'F 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

$<),600 

$9,·100 

0;;;-

QO $9,200 ~ 

-'" Q $9,000 

U 

~ $8,800 ~, 

U d. $8,600 ... 

~ $8,400 41 

OIl 

f $8,200 41 

~ 

..( $8,000 

$7,800 

hR 

7.1 

7.4 

7.7 

80 

8.2 

9 

-----S[iillti' 

I-lrlillll'g,·atk,'ilH1Irr Nt'al \V'II Ndtllx-grattl'HII1 

Awragc ICC Awrage 

SFFH Ifil'F ICC Sa\ings SHU Ifit'F ICC 

X :Ii, 5 (,~ $'URI -S3(\ 5(.8 $9,381 

888 5.71 $'),2R7 1','1I! II 7.1 $8,100 

'J(.R 5 '77 $'),nll I~, ( It I! 12 74 $7,lJ.>8 

104') 621 $H,') II (1,11111 13 7.7 $7,955 

1265 7.?J $8,5'1l I~"\I\ 14 80 $8,173 

15 82 " $,Ii,2m (,,1.\ (') 15 82 $8,200 

\ 

-.- ridll~!,."lal.~n per Neall 

' --.........---., 

,--

tl . win I'dl r~!')adali()'11 

~ .... 

.~. 

10 II 12 J3 14 15 16 

NOllilllll SEER 

Figure 7 Split HI': Average LCC Uesulls, Scenario "B" 

ICC 

Sa\ings SEER 

... 846 

(';1 ,~\\I) 888 

t~I}~J) 9.68 

C:;I,'['('! 1049 

($1,:'(1») 14 

1$1,172) 15 

6 

$9,400 

$9,200 

Vi' 

QO 

~ $1),000 .... 

'" 8 $8,800 41 

'U tJ $8,600 

.1!. 

~ $8,400 

41 , OIl t $8,200 

~' 

..( $8,000 

$7,800 

Figure 8 

Nehl Oegratbhon per Neal 

Awrage 

ISI'V ICC 

5.75 $9,281 

5.73 $9,289 

5fJ7 $9,013 

6.21 $9,005 

8.0 $8,Ia) 

8.2 $8,lfJ7 

9 10 II 

Pac\lage IB' 

I.l.l.: 

Salings san ... 8.46 

$8 II 

1,);2(,,» 12 

,':;27t" \3 

('S1.I75) 14 

('(;1,17·1\ 15 

12 

\VO Neill lJegratbtion 

Alerage U ... l..: 

IEFF lIT Sallngs 

5.75 $9,281 ... 

7.1 $8,180 ($1,101) 

7.4 $7,9(1) tSUI2, 

7.7 $8,018 t'b\.2(,3, 

80 $8,Ia) ($1,175) 

82 $8,107 ($1,174) 

I =-~..::- Fieklrkgnltllilnn per Neall 

--0- w/o FieU Dcgrada.vn ~-------.------ ~---.--.-----

13 14 15 16 

Nonin:d SEF.R 

Paclmge III): Average LCC Results, Scenario "D" 

( .. 

r 

<' 

~ . 

'. 
EE-RM/STD-98-440-- 3 / /-/

3.0 NES/NPV Results Summary

Consistent with how the NES/NPV results were generated for the proposed rule, the revised

NES/NPV results presented here are also based on the use of weighted-average input values

rather than probability distributions.

Scenario "A"

Figures 9 through 11 show the NES/NPV results based on the revisions outlined in scenario "A"

for TSLs 1 through 4 as well as the "14 SEER" and "15 SEER" standard levels. The NES results

shown in Figure 9 are presented as cumulative savings from the assumed effective date of the

standard (2006) through 2030. The NPV results shown in Figures 10 and 11 are also presented

as cumulative benefits for the same time period. Consistent with how NPV results have been

presented in the proposed rule's TSD, Figure 10 shows the total national equipment and

operating costs under the base case and the six standards cases while Figure 11 shows the NPVs.

Scenario "B"

Figures 15 through 17 show the NES/NPV results based on the revisions outlined in scenario "B"

for TSLs 1 through 4 as well as the "14 SEER" and "15 SEER" standard levels. Both the NES

and NPV results are presented in the same format as used in presenting the results for scenario

"A". As with the LCC results, two sets of NES and NPV results are provided under scenario

"B": one set which is described as "-Field Degradation per Neal" and another set which is

described as "w/o Field Degradation".

7

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

• • EE-RM/STO-98-440-jf 73 -If /I 

3.0 NES/NPV Results Summary 

Consistent with how the NES!NPV results were generated for the proposed rule, the revised 

NES!NPV results presented here are also based on the use of weighted-average input values 

rather than probability distributions. 

Scenario '~" 

Figures 9 through 11 show the NES!NPV results based on the revisions outlined in scenario "A" ~ ~ 

for TSLs 1 through 4 as well as the "14 SEER" and "15 SEER" standard levels. The NES results 

shown in Figure 9 are presented as cumulative savings from the assumed effective date of the 

standard (2006) through 2030. The NPV results shovm in Figures 10 and 11 are also presented 

as cumulative benefits for the same time period. Consistent \vith how NPV results have been 

presented in the proposed rule's TSD, Figure 10 shows the total national equipment and 

operating costs under the base case and the six standards cases while Figure 11 shows the NPV s. 

Scenario "B" 

Figures 15 through 17 show the NES!NPV results based on the revisions outlined in scenario "B" 

for TSLs 1 through 4 as well as the "14 SEER" and "15 SEER" standard levels. Both the NES 

and NPV results are presented in the same format as used in presenting the results for scenario 

"A". As with the LCC results, two sets ofNES and NPV results are provided under scenario 

"E": one set which is described as "Field Degradation per Neal" and another set which is 

described as "w/o Field Degradation". 

7 
7 .___ _______ 6.7

6 5.7

· .. 4 . 5-....-..___________ . C'i

0

'2= · 1.7 . _.

s0 $

4

1

o $1H81 $|()l $1ll1 $1,1 $1(--

D I ____ ___ _ _ 1 1

(1 Isa TSIM 10 'I I 'ISI.2 TSI3 TSL4 14SEER 15 SSR

_ _ __.6

00$000 $04 $.03 $03 

unde S4 0A m $250 -- $

$3

5 $50 $0

0 ~~ · $5$5. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

B aseCase XSL I TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 I4'SEF.R 15SER T SLI ysn _ 2 2 -L TSL3 $2sn __ TL 4 14sE 4SE R 15SER SSE

Figure 10 Total National Equipment and Operating Costs Figure 11 National NPVs nnder Scenario "A" l

under Scenario "A"

8

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

fA $450 00 

CJ\ $.1111 $-I()I, $.11 ~ 1 $.IIH 

~ $400 

i $350 

Q 

~ $300 

.: 

E $250 .. 

Q, 

~ $200 c 

III 

.. $150 c 

.. 

e 

Q, 'g. $\00 

til 

-; 

c $50 

.!2 

.. 

z $0 

o 

.... 

o 

.. , 

"" o 

o 

.. , 

7 

() 

.,~1. 1 

------ - '--------._----------------"--"---

______________ 6.7 

TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 14 SEER 15 SEER 

- ... - -------------------

Figlll'c 9 NES ilcsults under Scenario "A" 

$.101 $.10) $.I(~I 

._--------------------- $8.-____________________________________ -. 

$7 . ________ . ___________ _ 

(;i' $6 -1----- DO 

Q\ 

~ $5_1 ____ _ 

~ :> $4-

~ 

"; $3 

~ ~ 

~ $2 

$1 

$0 '3 

Q !lase C.<Ise TSL I TSL2 TSL 3 TSL4 14 SEER 15 SEER _ TSLI ..... TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 14 SEER ISSEER ---------------_._- -----------

Figure 10 Total National Equipment and Operating Costs 

under Scena.-io "A" 

-------- ------~ 

Figure 11 National NPVs under Scenario "A" 

8 

"'""'l 

" ..•. 
9- -.4 .

o 1 ___ _7 _- - I --- - -- -

5,9

°§ l-^,'i [*kl |I gnel~l;llil \ per. ll -e. 0.li.5.0

4 -I : 3

O

E ; IX I '1 I 3 . 7 .

h " i '1 5 1 ISI 2 'IS1.3 1S1.4 14 SIlER 15 S1;I.R

Fiil.rc 15 NES Resilils under Scen:lrio "B"

c f ;4; ,- .. „ ) I NLI |S 1W I8I j )IIal il ai ll r Ncal

Figi (l 162 I I.4t 1 E I4 15 SEE '1'_ 3

:;j'. Li '" jj ~ I I O w;' o FcI elp da kv

I-~,,,..

Scenaio "1" 17 Na.on N.Vs ,cr *Sceniio "3 "

-h~ ~ i.

$50 4

0 Base Case 1I'. I T SL 2 TSI. 3 'FI. 4 14 SEER 15 SEIR

Figure 16 Total National Equipment a-ll( Operaling Costs S,4

uinder Scenario "II" Figure 17 National NPVs under Scenario "B"

9

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73HH

<=> 

'" <=> r. 

..:, 

<=> 

<=> 

r. 

'" Ct 

q 

c: 7 ;. 

Vl '" (, 

to ~ 

~ ~ I) c: ::: 

~ e'.1 

'" c: 

o 

'" 

---... . 

;. 

:. 

::: 

E () ::: 

U 

1

11 1',,'>11 \~gJ~Hbl\lI1 pcr'Ne~;\1 

o \l'i" I·idlllt'gr.ldaltlll 

5.5 

lSI I lSI 2 

5.9 

-----------9.4 

(,(, 

TSL4 14 SEER IS SFFR 

Figllre 15 NES l{eslIlls IIIlIlc,' Scenario "B" 

~ $.\';() "" ~ 

" 

~ $·100 

e 

a $J50 C; 

u 

~. $30() 

~ 

:; $250 Q, 

o 

] $200 .. 

~ $150 

E 

Q, 'g. $100 

~ 

~ $50 

.~ 

Z $0 

~ o 

IIIldll).cg';Hb.li'''-'''' Neall 

,----------------------10 \\,/,,1:..111 )q',~"LJI"1J 

(' "1 ~t 0, 

VI V, ", 

l,. 

l1ase Case lSI. \ 

",. , v, , 

'-, 

~ 

TSL2 

'" ", u. 

,-

,-, v, ~ 

, .' !", 

TSLJ TSL-l 14SEER 15SEER 

----------- ---. __ ._-------

Fig\lre 16 Total National Equipment and Operating Costs 

\Il11ler Scenario "B" 

- . __ .----._-- _ ... ------------------ -- -- _ .. _-----._- --_. --.< -

$IR fill i:~~1 i'iet;;;L;IH.; ,:';;Ne;'f.--

,----------------iO w/o (idl'~gJa''"tkXJ ~ 

~ - - _ •. _ _". ___ ._ _ __. ~_ ..• V) 

$1(, 

$14 

VI 

00 

c:r- $12. I: 

C 

:= 

:= $10 e 

;;.. 

~ $8. 

-; 

I: 

c $6 

',c 

01 

Z $4 

$2 

$0 

TSLI TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 14 SEER 15 SEER 

Figure 17 National NPVs \Il1der Scenario "B" 

9 

m 

m 

• :n 

s: 

-

en 

-f 

o 

• to 

0') 

• 

~ 

.t. 

o 

* c; 

:t: 

~