### E-R.l,/S T 

### -f 8-4yo 

### 1.0 Summary of Efficiency Advocates' Alternative Scenarios The efficiency advocates' alternative scenarios consist ofrevisions to several ofthe inputs to the LCC and NES/NPV analyses. There are two scenarios which the efficiency advocates proposed with each scenario consisting ofthe 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% peryear to account for the decline in the real cost ofair 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 ofthe inputs on the LCC results. Scenario "A " 

### Tables 1and 2 and Figures 1through 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 ofthe four primary product classes (split system air conditioners, split systern heat pumps, single package air conditioners, single package heat pumps).
1 , I

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

## ~~~~~f$fl9>~~~~O 

# it"

# 73 

# H 

# H EE-RM/STf)

### -~k -lI'I0 

### 1.0 Summary ofEfficiency Advocates' Alternative Scenarios The efficiency advocates' alternative scenarios consist ofrevisions to several ofthe inputs to the Lee and NESINPV analyses. There are two scenarios which the efficiency advocates proposed with each scenario consisting ofthe following revisions: Scenario "A" 1. Manufacturer costs developed with Reverse Engineering manufacturer cost multipliers. 

### 2. Marginal electricity prices increasedby 1.86 ¢/kWh. 3. Emerging technology manufacturer cost reductions applied to efficiency levels 13 through 15 SEER. 4. Manufacturer costs reduced by 0.84% peryear to account for the decline in the real cost ofair 

### 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ^ $-1 , ---- s .. . 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.

. . .l. 

### i_ _ _C
_ _ 

### [,".

. r_________ <

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

Sriit

## 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 ,".-,

.dTable 2 I.'CC Resilts for Split and Package P11 undler Scenario "A" Split IIP' Package IIP Noniiial 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$8,900 .-- - . .- ,....------- _... VI S_^9,000
- -_u-___._.._._;_$,

__ - 4~ $9,o ....... $000,,o

< $8,000 ._____ $8,900__ $8,700.- $,8,800 10 II I 1 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 Nonira L SFFR Nonimal SEER ' Figure 3 Split 111: Average LCC Results, Scenario "A" Figulre 4 Package lHP: Average LCC Results, Scenario "B" 3 $",5()()**-------~-** -----**~** $'),.100 00 e $'l,J()(}


# - '" <:> U $9,200 

### ., u $9,100 ;.., U I**~** $9,000 ;::j 

### ., t.ll $8,900 os
... 

### ., ;.. $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 SpitlIP Pacl<ageliP 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" Figure4 Paclmge liP: Average 

### Lee Uesults, Scenario "B" 

### 3

### *;

.. **-,,.,-;:> .^~ EEE-RM/STD-9 8

### -4 4

### 0- 7 

### 3. S ; Scenario "B" Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 5through 8show 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 ofthe four primary product classes. Two sets ofresults are presented for each product class: one set which is described as "Field Degradation perNeal" 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 dataprovided 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 ofunits identified in the Reverse Engineering sample that contain fixed orifices (please refer to Appendix B ofthe TSD). The effective SEER and HSPF values are provided in Tables 3 and 4. Thus, rather than basing the energy savings andresulting 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 ifTXVs 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 forthe mix offixed 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 areproperly 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 inBuildings. 1998. Asilomar, CA: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 1: p. 1.197-1.209. 4 

### EE-RM/STD-98-440-tj::

# 73-lf/r

. I



### Scenario 

### "B" Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 5 through 8 showthe 

## Lee results based ontherevisions outlined in scenario "B". Theresults showthe average 

## Lee values for the baseline level (10 SEER) and five efficiency levels (11 through 15 SEER) for each ofthe four primaryproduct classes. Two sets ofresults arepresented for eachproduct class: one set which is described as "Field DegradationperNeal" and another set which is described as 

### "w/o FieldDegradation". The "FieldDegradationperNeal" results are based on adjustments to the nominal SEERand 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 ondataprovidedin a research paperwritten 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. Basedonthis efficiency loss, a newweighted-average effective efficiency for each standard level is calculated based onthe fraction ofunits identified in the Reverse Engineering sample that containfixed orifices (please refer to Appendix B ofthe TSD). The effective SEER and HSPF values are provided inTables 3 and 4. Thus, ratherthan basing the energy savings and resulting operating cost savings onthe nominal SEER and HSPF values as was done under Scenario "A", the effective SEERand HSPF values are used. Since in most cases the relative efficiency increase betweenthe 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 andthe 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 ifTX.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 offixed orifice- and 

### TXV-based systems thaL currently exist at 10 SEERin order thatthe 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".

aC. L.Neal,FieldAdjustedSEER [SEERFA)

- Residential Buildings:Technologies,Design,AndPerfonnance Analysis. In ACEEE 1998 SummerStudy 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 ( ' Package 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 (1I $-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 \r m -CI SS,300 _. _Fi \e N __ada

_ / ' ":""t $I K"'I ', l I I) \i\

. $5,'100 .-. \.~ ._ ....... ... _ow/o Fici tcrulaion w/ \ 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 T:lhlc 3 

## Lee Hcsllits 

### Split and Package Ale 

### nnder Scenario 

## "n"

NOlllinal

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



### ... $4,60() CD 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()(iI $·I,7(Q 12 00 H')!)f) 12 (>:J $,1,S/)2

1.5 $·1,')<)1

10 II 12 I.('C S:I\ings

- I)', I \1») (1;11)1) li:\IJ()j i'J.1; ;) ('f; ',Oil



## I • I "

13**NOlliJ~11** SFER \\to HeldDegrad: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,ageAle FieldDegradation per Neal ,,10 FieldDcgrad: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' e lc4 LC:C Results for Split and Package liP Iluner Scenario "B"

_ -- ---- --- - S irii IlI Packlage II1I RIlilI'i grA.limi ix'r Neal 'io Hllcl Dlgraili;n ! teldDegrabhion perNeal WoFieldDegrabhtion Nominal Noninal Aeragge I .C Aerage ICC Aerage ICC Aerage ICC S1FRI IAl'F S IISI' I' 1 Sanings S1111 II1I'F ICC Sanings S TR IEPF ICC Sakings S1FR ISPF ICC Saings 1W 68 836 56(

-- ).381

- T36 5.68 $9,381 846 5.75 $9,281 8.46 5.75 $9,281 in (T SCT 7S ' ,3 : 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 (S1.312) 13 77 1049 621 $1 I'Itl 1 mi 13 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 8.2 5 2 $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| _*_ -. 1i- Pn 'IVLI Dp- t;lain perNeal $920__ 0icil Dralalnil perNcal c,> $9,2()0 t , l \~ , I ii l/)c"l'';lil l\;y%

i lPd(kii (A Wo MM S0._raD lion m 0 $8,200 \
.. $,00

..... \ \ $8,000 Y0
>, $9X '8,200 ___..- ------. -- --- 820\E------------------- = 6 $8,800 . -. .- 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 

## ].]-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' 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**~** 

# - '" $9,000 Q 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,'ilH1IrrNt'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 (1,11 1 11 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**perNeall ' --.........---., tl
. win I'dl**r~!')adali()'11** 

## ,--**~**

## ....**.~.**

10 II 12 J3 14 15 16 NOllilllll SEER Figure7 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 NehlOegratbhonperNeal 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 NeilllJegratbtion 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**=-~..::-** FieklrkgnltllilnnperNeall --0- w/oFieU Dcgrada.vn**~-------.------ ~---.--.-----** 

13 14 15 16 Nonin:d SEF.R PaclmgeIII): Average LCC Results, Scenario "D" ( .. r <'**~** .



## '.

### EE-RM/STD-98-440-- / 3 /-/ 3.0 NES/NPV Results Summary Consistent with howthe NES/NPV results were generated forthe proposed rule, the revised NES/NPV results presented here are also based on the use ofweighted-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 1through 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 ofthe 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 1through 4 as well as the "14 SEER" and "15 SEER" standard levels. Both the NES andNPV results are presented in the same format as used inpresenting the results for scenario "A". As with the LCC results, two sets ofNES 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/STO-98-440-jf

# 7 3

-

# If 

# /I 3.0 NES/NPV Results Summary 

### Consistent with howthe NES!NPV results were generated for the proposedrule, the revised NES!NPV results presented here are also based on the use ofweighted-average input values rather than probability distributions. Scenario**'~"** 

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

### for TSLs 1through 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 ofthe 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 howNPVresults 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 showthe NES!NPV results based on the revisions outlined in scenario "B" for TSLs 1through 4 as well as the "14 SEER" and "15 SEER" standard levels. Boththe 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 DegradationperNeal" and another set which is described as "w/o 

### Field Degradation".

77 .___ _______ 6.7 6 5.7

· .. 4
. 5-....-..___________
. C'i 0 '2= · 1.7
. _.

s0 $4 1o $1H81 $1ll1 $1,1 $|()l $1(-- D I

____ ___ _ _ 1 1

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

_ _ __.6 00$000 $.03 $03 $04 m unde S4 0A $250 -- $

$3 5 $50 $0

0 

### ~~ 

## $5$5. ·

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

B

aseCase XSL I TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 I4'SEF.R 15SER T SLI ysn2 TSL3 TL 4SE SSE

_ -L 2 $2sn 4 14sE R 15SER

__ Figure 10 Total National Equipment and Operating Costs Figure 11 National NPVs nnderScenario "A" l under Scenario "A" 8 fA $450 00 $.1111 $-I()I, CJ\ $.11**~**1 $.IIH**~** $400 

# i $350 Q**~** $300 

### .: 

## E $250 

# .. Q,

### ~ $200 c III 

# .. $150 c 

# .. e Q, 

## 'g. $\00 til -; $50 c .!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 !lase C.<Ise TSL I TSL2 TSL 3 TSL4 14 SEER 15 SEER Q

_TSLI

..... TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 14 SEER ISSEER

-------------- -_._- ----------- Figure 10 Total National Equipment and Operating Costs underScena.-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 ll per. -e. 0.li.5.0 4 -I : 3 O

E ; IXI I 7 '1
. . 3 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"

cf ,- ;4;

.. „ ) I NLI |S 1W I8I j )IIal ll il ai r Ncal

Figi (l 162 I I.4t1 I4 E 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

Base Case 1I'. T I SL 2 TSI. 3 'FI.4 14 SEER 15 SEIR 0 Figure 16 Total National Equipment a-ll( Operaling Costs S,4 uinder Scenario "II" Figure 17 National NPVs under Scenario "B" 9 <=> 

### '" <=> 

# r. ..:, <=> <=> r. '" Ct q

c: 7 ;. '" Vl (, 

### to**~ ~** **~** I) c: :::**~** e'.1 

### '" c: o 

### '"

---. ... ;. 

### :. ::: E () ::: U 111 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**~** oIIIldll).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.-- ,----------------i O w/o**(idl'~gJa''"tkXJ ~** **~** - - _ •._ _".
___._ _ __.**~_** ..• V) $1(, $14 VI 00 c:r- $12. I: C := := $10 

## e ;;..

### ~ $8. -; I: $6 c ',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:**~**