1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

# CUAC/CWAF ASRAC Working Group

Third Meeting

May 20 & 21, 2015 Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program2 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up3 

# Topics to Cover in Meetings

• CUAC

– Engineering Revisions

– Energy Use Revisions

– Shipments Revisions

– Present new analytical results (LCC, NIA, MIA)

–  Vote on standard levels



# • CWAF

– Status Report

– Analytical Issues to Discuss

–  Vote on standard levels



# • Topics not part of working group scope

– Test procedures

– Certification and compliance4 

# Schedule

Date Type Presentation/Discussion Topics

4/28 Tuesday In Person • Process, ground rules

• Work plan for engineering and energy use

5/7 Thursday N/A • Updated shipments data provided to

analytical team

5/11 Monday

5/12 Tuesday ( AHRI) In Person • Present revised engineering/energy use/LCC

• Stakeholder discussion

5/20 Wednesday

5/21 Thursday (L’Enfant) In Person • Present preliminary shipments/NIA/MIA

revisions

6/1 Monday

6/2 Tuesday In Person • Discussion of revised shipments/NIA/MIA

• Initial negotiations of standard levels

6/9 Tuesday

6/10 Wednesday In Person • Finalize standard levels

6/15 Monday N/A • Term sheet due: Recommended standard

levels for all CUAC and CWAF equipment

classes5 

# Open Items

Draft definition for “Dual Duct Unit”6 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up7 

# CWAF Engineering Analysis Updates

• Heat Exchanger Surface Area

– For gas

- fired, NOPR analysis assumed that tube length would increase.

– Updated to assume surface area would be increased through additional

tube row(s).



# • Heat Exchanger Materials

– For gas

- fired, NOPR analysis assumed aluminized steel at all non

condensing efficiency levels (i.e., 80%, 81%, and 82% thermal effy ).

– Updated to model costs of various materials at non

- condensing levels

– aluminized steel, type 409 stainless steel, and type 316 stainless steel.

– Assumed that most 80% and 81% models would be constructed from

aluminized steel and that 82% models would be constructed from

stainless steel. (Implemented in LCC.)



# • Updated raw material prices and purchase parts to reflect most

recent data.8 

# CWAF Engineering Analysis Revised Results

TE (%) MPC (2014$)

Aluminized Steel HX SS409 HX SS316 HX

80 $ 337 $447 $599

81 $ 350 $469 $635

82 N/A $486 $664

92 $ 1,074* 

## Gas

- fired CWAF

Oil

- fired CWAF

TE (%) MPC (2014$)

81 $ 1,613

82 $ 1,638

92 $ 2,304

* At 92% the heat exchanger is assumed to have a primary/secondary arrangement. The primary heat exchanger is made
from aluminized steel and the secondary heat exchanger is constructed from AL 29

- 4C stainless steel.9 

# Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

LCC and PBP Analysis Results

Gas

- fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace

EL TE Life

- Cycle Cost ( 2014$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median

Payback

Period

(years) Average

Installed Cost Average

Lifetime

Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average

Savings
(2013$) % Buildings with

Net Cost No

Impact Net

Benefit

0 80% $2,087 $35,231 $37,318 N/A 0% 100% 0% N/A

1 81% $2,115 $34,852 $36,967 $97 2.1% 72.4% 25.5% 1.9

2 82% $2,548 $34,486 $37,034 $30 62.6% 1.4% 36.0% 25.4

3 92% $3,855 $31,512 $35,367 $1,672 48.1% 1.1% 50.8% 14.2

EL TE Life

- Cycle Cost ( 2014$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median

Payback

Period

(years) Average

Installed Cost Average

Lifetime

Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average

Savings
(2013$) % Buildings with

Net Cost No

Impact Net

Benefit

0 81% $6,353 $66,612 $72,965 N/A 0% 100% 0% N/A

1 82% $6,406 $66,019 $72,425 $211 10.4% 60.2% 29.4% 2.8

2 92% $7,868 $61,298 $69,166 $3,470 45.6% 0.0% 54.4% 7.7 Oil

- fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace10 

## – NOPR analysis assumed aluminized steel at all non

- condensing efficiency

levels (i.e., 80%, 81%, and 82% TE).

– For this update DOE assumed that for

• 80% TE and 81% TE models: 85% would be constructed from aluminized steel

and 15% would be constructed with stainless steel (75% of type 409 and 25 %

of type 316 stainless steel );

• 82 % TE models: 100% would be constructed from stainless steel (25% of type

409 and 75% of type 316 stainless steel).

* All indoor installations at 80% TE, 81% TE, and 82% TE are assumed to have aluminized steel 

# Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Heat Exchanger Cost Assumptions for Gas

- fired CWAF

Efficiency Level Fraction of Outdoor Installations* by Heat Exchanger Type

Aluminized Steel

(CRS

- Al) Low Grade

Stainless Steel

(SS409) High Grade

Stainless Steel

(SS316)

80% TE 85% 11% 4%

81% TE 85% 11% 4%

82% TE 0% 25% 75%11 

### Installation Fractions and Average Costs for Condensate Removal 

# Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Condensing CWAF: Condensate Removal

Installation

Cost Description Criteria Frequency

of

applying

criteria Average

Cost

CGWAF (2014$) Weighted

Cost

CGWAF (2014$)

Condensate

Pipe Drain excess condensate All installations 100% $173 $173

Condensate

Pump* Pump condensate to a

remote drain 25% of Replacement

Indoor installations 1% $266 $3

Freeze

Protection * Protect condensate from

freezing temperatures 100% of Outdoor

installations 95% $52 $49

Electrical

Outlet

( additional) Some installations requiring

pump or freeze protection

need additional outlet 50% of Installations

requiring a pump or heat tape 48% $257 $124

Condensate

Neutralizer Neutralizes acidic

condensate before draining 12.5% of all

installations 12.5% $76 $10

Total Average Installation Cost for Condensate Removal $359

* Accounted for additional energy use12 

## Base

- Case Efficiency Distribution

Purpose: R eflects the projected market share of equipment at different efficiency levels in

the base case (in the absence of standards).

• Not all commercial consumers purchase equipment at current minimum standard.

• Commercial consumers already purchasing equipment at efficiencies greater than or equal to a

prospective standard level are not impacted by the standard.



### Method : Projected CWAF efficiency market share in 2019 for each equipment class based on

the share of models in each product class from the latest AHRI certification directory. 

# Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

EL Design Option Base Case Market

Share in 2019 (%)

Gas

- fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace Outdoor Indoor

0 80% TE

– Baseline 29 3.5

1 81% TE

– Increased HX Area 70 93

2 82% TE

– Increased HX Area 0 3.5

3 92% TE

– Condensing (Max Tech) 1 0

Oil

- fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace

0 81% TE

– Baseline 40

1 82% TE

– Increased HX Area 60

2 92% TE

– Condensing (Max Tech) 0

Note: Components may not sum to 100% due to rounding.13 

### • Equipment below standard will “roll

- up” to comply with standards. Equipment at or

above the standard will not be affected. 

# Base Case Efficiencies 

# National Impact Analysis

Projection of Base

- Case Efficiency Distribution of

New Units for G as

- fired CWAF

Efficiency Level Market Share (percent)

Base

Case Efficiency Level (EL)

1 2 3

CGWAF

0 80% Baseline 27.5

1 81% 70.9 98.4

2 82% 0.2 0.2 98.6

3 91% 1.4 1.4 1.4 100

COWAF

0 81% Baseline 39.7

1 82% 60.3 100

2 92% 0 0 100

Note: Components may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Base Case Efficiency Distribution

EL 3

EL 2

EL 1

EL 014 

# Shipments Analysis

Historical and Projected Base Case Shipments for CWAF

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35Shipments (million) Oil-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace

Gas-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnace 

### Historical Projected15 Equipment Class Trial Standard Levels

1 2 3 4 5

Thermal Efficiency (TE)

Gas

- Fired Commercial

Warm Air Furnace 81% 81% 82% 82% 92%

Oil

- Fired Commercial

Warm Air Furnace 81% 82% 81% 82% 92% 

# National Impact Analysis

TSL Selection Criteria for each product class:

• TSL 5 : Max

- tech efficiency levels

• TSL 2

- 4 : Combinations of intermediary efficiency levels

• TSL 1 : Most common efficiency level above the baseline for gas

- fired CWAF and at the baseline

for oil

- fired CWAF. 

# Trial Standard Levels (TSLs)

TSL4 is Proposed TSL16 Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Primary Energy

Savings Gas

- fired CWAF 0.104 0.104 0.589 0.589 3.959

Oil

- fired CWAF 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.033

Total 0.104 0.106 0.589 0.591 3.992

Full

- Fuel

- Cycle

Energy Savings Gas

- fired CWAF 0.116 0.116 0.654 0.654 4.402

Oil

- fired CWAF 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.039

Total 0.116 0.117 0.654 0.656 4.440 

# National Impact Analysis

National Energy Savings ( quads) TSL4 is Proposed TSL

Product Class Discount Rate TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Gas

- fired CWAF

3% 0.507 0.507 1.559 1.559 13.400

Oil

- fired CWAF 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.026 0.558

Total 0.507 0.533 1.559 1.586 13.958

Gas

- fired CWAF

7% 0.164 0.164 0.274 0.274 3.358

Oil

- fired CWAF 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.183

Total 0.164 0.173 0.274 0.283 3.541 

# Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit (billion 2014$)17 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up18 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule19 

# Engineering Analysis Status Overview

• No changes to the 7.5

- ton and 15

- ton results.

• Developed energy use results for 30 ton models.

• Identified to specific manufacturers which of their 7.5

- ton and

30

- ton models are used in the analysis

.

• Discussed curb adapter issues with curb adapter vendors.

• Additional review of unit size trends and development of

approach for progression of curb adapter use for increasing

candidate efficiency levels.

• Developed cost curve for 30 ton models.20 

# Description of Units

— 30

- ton [details in separate handouts]

Unit Rating Compressor Refrigerant

Circuits EL Target

IEER IEER/EER Net Capacity
(IDCFM/ODCFM) # Model

Baseline 10.6 10.6 /10.0 386,000(10,500/***) 2 ( 2Stage) ZP182 2

EL1 CAV 11.6 11.5/10.8 354,000 (9,600/21,500 ) 4 ( 2 Stage ) *** 4

EL1 VAV 11.6 11.5/10.3 334,000 (9,000/***) 2 (***) ZP154 and *** 2

EL2 CAV 12.5 12.5/10.6 336,000 (9,000/25,800 ) 3 (5 Stage ) ZP72*2+ZP120 1

EL2 VAV 12.5 12.4/10.1 308,000 (8,250/19,500) 4 (4 Stage ) ZP72 2

EL2.5 CAV 13.2 13.2/11 360,000(8,700/***) 2 (2Stage ) *** 1

EL2.5 VAV 13.2 13.2/10.1 368,000(8,750/19,500 ) 4 (4 Stage) 2 ZP67 and 2 ZP103 2

EL3 13.5 13.5/10.8 354,000 (9,600/21,500 ) 4 (4 Stage ) *** 4

EL4 14.9 14.9/11.0 360,000 (8,700/***) 2 ( 2 Stage ) *** 1

EL5

Maxtech 15.6 15.6 /10.7 435,000(12,000/***) VS+2Fixed

Speed *** 2



## • Baseline IEER raised to 10.6 for 30

- ton units because 10.1

- IEER units are not

major

- manufacturer units, and little information is available for them.

• The OD and ID heat exchanger designs of both EL1 and the EL2 VAV units

adjusted using CoilDesigner / VapCyc to match the IEER targets.

• *** Not disclosed.21 

# 30

- ton Units: Outdoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

OD HX OD Fan

EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Row *# Speed+Type #*hp Stages

Baseline 10.6 33.3(20)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 2*1 1

EL1 CAV 11.6 68.3(23)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- PSC 6*0.33 1

EL1 VAV 11.6 33.3 (***) 1*1 MCHX, adjusted to

33.4 (24) 1*1 MCHX ** Fixed

- 3Phase 2*1 2

EL2 CAV 12.5 49.9(20)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 3*1.1 2

EL2 VAV 12.5 32.9(NA)1*1 MCHX, adjusted to

33.2 (24)1*1 MCHX ** Fixed

- 3Phase 2*1 2

EL2.5 CAV 13.2 58.0(21)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 3*1 2

EL2.5 VAV 13.2 32.9(NA)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 2*1 2

EL3 13.5 68.3(23)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- PSC 6*0.33 2

EL4 14.9 58.0(21)1*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 3*1 2

EL5

Maxtech 15.6 58.0(21)2*1 MCHX Fixed

- 3Phase 4*1 2



### **Adjusted using CoilDesigner / VapCyc to match the IEER targets

. *** Not disclosed.22 

# 30

- ton Units : Indoor Heat Exchangers and Fans

ID HX ID Fan

EL IEER Face Area (FPI) Rows Speed+Type hp

Baseline 10.6 32.1(15)4 FixedSpeed+Belt 7.5

EL1 CAV 11.6 31.4(14)4 FixedSpeed+Belt 5

EL1 VAV 11.6 32.1(15)3, adjusted to

32.4 (16) 3 ** VS+Belt 7.5

EL2 CAV 12.5 31.7(15)4 FixedSpeed+Belt 7.5

EL2 VAV 12.5 31.7(15)4, adjusted to 32

(16)4 ** VS+Belt 10

EL2.5 CAV 13.2 25.5(14)5 FixedSpeed+Belt 5

EL2.5 VAV 13.2 31.3(16)6 VS+Belt 15

EL3 13.5 31.4(14)4 VS+Belt 5

EL4 14.9 25.5(14)5 VS+Belt 5

EL5 Maxtech 15.6 32.5(14)5 VS+Belt 7.5



### **Adjusted using CoilDesigner / VapCyc to match the IEER targets.
ID fan staging: Baseline is CAV; EL3, EL4, EL5 are VAV; other ELs as

indicated.23 

# Curb Adapter Discussion

DOE collected information from major conversion curb

vendors.

• Discussions with MicroMetl and Thybar

• Obtained information regarding pressure drop, costs,

magnitude of existing market.

• Different information regarding pressure drop.

– Vendor A: 0.05 in wc (small) to 0.2 in wc (large)

– Vendor B: 0.26 in wc average for examples of adapter curbs for commercial

equipment up to 30 tons for same

- manufacturer replacements.



# • Cost information was comparable.

• Other vendors: Connfab (CT, UT), FastCurbs (OK), KCC International (KY,

UT), Cambridgeport (MA), CDI (SC, MN, WA), Ruskin Rooftop Systems (TX),

Curbco (TX), AES Industries (AL).24 

# Review of size trends led to development of a distribution of ELs

at which conversion curbs are required.

• Size trend review for key capacities of the equipment classes.

– Small: 6, 7.5, 8.5, 10

– Large: 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20



## • Determine size

- growth EL for each capacity for four major manufacturers

with products spanning the efficiency range.

• Develop conversion curb distribution based on equal manufacturer market

share and simple assumption for shipment distribution by capacity

— inputs

can be adjusted based on any new available information.

• Similar approach planned for very large class. 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs25 

# Selected ELs for standard

- forced size increase for
manufacturer/capacity combinations.

• Consider size increase at EL2 or higher.

• When existing models show size increase when increasing one

EL, select size increase to occur at the higher of these ELs.

• When existing models show size increase when increasing two

or three ELs with no models at the intermediate ELs, size

increase occurs at the lower intermediate EL.

• For size increase of four ELs with no intermediate

- EL models,

size increase at the median intermediate EL.

• At maximum EL for a manufacture/capacity combination,

assume size increase for the next EL.

• Consideration of the sizes of other manufacturers’ models if

there is no clear indication of appropriate EL for size increase.

• Rounding up no more than 0.1 IEER point. 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs26 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Small, 6

- ton

Baseline 11.4

EL1 12.9

EL2 14.0

EL2.5 14.5

EL3 14.8

EL3.5 15.8

EL4 19.9

EL5

Maxtech 21.5 EL for Curb

Adapters

EL5

EL2

EL2

EL327 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Small, 7.5

- ton

Baseline 11.4

EL1 12.9

EL2 14.0

EL2.5 14.5

EL3 14.8

EL3.5 15.8

EL4 19.9

EL5

Maxtech 21.5 EL for Curb

Adapters

EL3

>Max

EL4

EL3.528 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Small, 8.5

- ton

Baseline 11.4

EL1 12.9

EL2 14.0

EL2.5 14.5

EL3 14.8

EL3.5 15.8

EL4 19.9

EL5

Maxtech 21.5 EL for Curb

Adapters

EL3

EL2.5

No Data

EL3.529 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Small, 10

- ton

Baseline 11.4

EL1 12.9

EL2 14.0

EL2.5 14.5

EL3 14.8

EL3.5 15.8

EL4 19.9

EL5

Maxtech 21.5 EL for Curb

Adapters

EL3

EL2.5

EL3.5

EL230 

# Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Small Equipment. Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs31 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Large, 12.5

- ton

EL for Curb

Adapters

EL2

EL3

EL2

EL2.5 Baseline 11.2

EL1 12.4

EL2 13.2

EL2.5 13.7

EL3 14.2

EL3.5 15.0

EL4 18.5

EL5

Maxtech 20.132 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Large, 15

- ton

EL for Curb

Adapters

EL2

EL3

EL3.5

>Max Baseline 11.2

EL1 12.4

EL2 13.2

EL2.5 13.7

EL3 14.2

EL3.5 15.0

EL4 18.5

EL5

Maxtech 20.133 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Large, 17.5

- ton

EL for Curb

Adapters

EL2

EL3

EL3.5

EL5 Baseline 11.2

EL1 12.4

EL2 13.2

EL2.5 13.7

EL3 14.2

EL3.5 15.0

EL4 18.5

EL5

Maxtech 20.134 

# Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs

Equipment Size: Large, 20

- ton

EL for Curb

Adapters

EL3

EL3.5

EL4

EL3 Baseline 11.2

EL1 12.4

EL2 13.2

EL2.5 13.7

EL3 14.2

EL3.5 15.0

EL4 18.5

EL5

Maxtech 20.135 

# Conversion Curbs by Candidate EL for Large Equipment. Equipment Size Trends

— Conversion Curbs36 

# Modeling of VAV (30 ton analysis)

Summary of final approach:

• VS compressors: IEER based on close match of load levels (25%,

50%, 75%) with the same discharge temperature as for 100%

load.

• Staged compressors: Part

- load IEER calculations based on same

discharge temperature as for 100% load.

• However, part

- load air flow no less than 25%.

• Performance correlations for VS compressors based on

extending the 4

- load

- level approach to a fuller range of ambient

temperatures.

• Performance correlations for staged compressors based on the

stages.37 

# Cost Results

• For 7.5T and 15T, estimated incremental manufacturing

production costs (MPCs) for each manufacturer individually,

then averaged the results

.

– No updates to 7.5T.

– Updated MPC for 15T max

- tech efficiency level.



# • For 30T, because of the limited number of models, DOE

considered incremental MPCs across all manufacturers using

the large cabinet platform.

– For the small cabinet platform IEER levels with enough models to

consider, the incremental costs were similar.38 

# 7.5

- ton Units: Incremental Costs

EL IEER Total MPC Incremental MPC

(Single Compressor

Baseline) Incremental MPC

(Dual Compressor

Baseline) Shipping

Cost Shipping

Weight ( lbs )

Baseline Single

Compressor 11.4 $1,947.33

- - $278.57 749.4

Baseline Dual

Compressor 11.4 $2,110.04

- - $278.57 832.5

EL1 CAV 12.9 $2,394.77 $447.44 $284.74 $278.57 907.3

EL1 SAV 12.9 $2,365.85 $418.52 $255.82 $278.57 880.3

EL2 CAV 14 $2,672.21 $724.88 $562.18 $278.57 990.1

EL2 SAV 14 $2,737.46 $790.13 $627.43 $278.57 963.7

EL2.5 14.5 $2,836.11 $888.78 $726.07 $278.57 987.6

EL3 14.8 $2,924.49 $977.16 $814.46 $278.57 996.3

EL3.5 15.8 $3,072.46 $1,125.13 $962.42 $278.57 1043.7

EL4 19.9 $3,452.52 $1,505.19 $1,342.49 $360.00 1213.0

EL5 Maxtech 21.5 $4,105.51 $2,158.18 $1,995.48 $360.00 1320.039 

# 15

- ton Units: Incremental Costs

EL IEER Total MPC Incremental

MPC Total

Shipping

Cost Incremental

Shipping Cost Shipping

Weight ( lbs )

Baseline 11.2 $4,115.95

- $360.00

- 1702.8

EL1 CAV 12.4 $4,412.72 $296.77 $360.00 $0.00 1836.0

EL1 SAV 12.4 $4,462.10 $346.15 $360.00 $0.00 1754.8

EL2 CAV 13.2 $4,610.56 $494.61 $405.00 $45.00 1924.8

EL2 SAV 13.2 $4,797.55 $681.60 $360.00 $0.00 1865.9

EL2.5 13.7 $4,974.17 $858.22 $405.00 $45.00 1947.5

EL3 14.2 $5,169.16 $1,053.21 $405.00 $45.00 1995.7

EL3.5 15 $5,289.84 $1,173.89 $405.00 $45.00 2033.1

EL4 18.5 $5,545.71 $1,429.76 $450.00 $90.00 2228.9

EL5 Maxtech (VAV) 20.1 $7,700.47 $3,584.52 $450.00 $90.00 2264.340 

# 30

- ton Units: Cost

- Efficiency Curve

• Path

- 1 baseline through EL2.5 is CAV, EL3 through max tech is VAV.

• Path

- 2 is VAV at all ELs above baseline

.41 

# 30

- ton Units: Incremental Costs

EL IEER Total MPC Incremental

MPC Total

Shipping

Cost Incremental

Shipping Cost Shipping

Weight ( lbs )

Baseline 10.6 $7,535.78 $900.00 4630.4

EL1 CAV 11.6 $8,766.75 $1,230.97 $900.00 $0.00 5010.7

EL1 VAV 11.6 $9,878.35 $2,342.56 $900.00 $0.00 4781.6

EL2 CAV 12.5 $10,250.48 $2,714.69 $900.00 $0.00 5527.3

EL2 VAV 12.5 $10,756.20 $3,220.42 $900.00 $0.00 5021.9

EL2.5 CAV 13.2 $10,403.62 $2,867.84 $900.00 $0.00 5532.0

EL2.5 VAV 13.2 $11,533.72 $3,997.93 $900.00 $0.00 5422.9

EL3 13.5 $11,866.94 $4,331.15 $900.00 $0.00 5594.8

EL4 14.9 $11,922.94 $4,387.16 $900.00 $0.00 5597.9

EL5 Maxtech 15.6 $12,743.07 $5,207.29 $900.00 $0.00 5983.042 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up43 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule44 

# Energy Use Update : May 20/21 2015

• Building loads (↓)

• Eliminate small/negative loads

• Change mode from cool/heat to heat/fan or cool/fan to fan only



## • Incorporate degradation coefficient for the condensor fan in stage 1 only, i.e.
for cycling between on and off (↑)

• Allow fractional number of units, equivalent to system size increments of 2.5

tons (↓)

• Completed 30 ton analysis

• Sensitivity for buildings with economizers: zero out the cooling energy use

(compressor + condensor ) when the ambient temperature is < 60 deg F

• Sensitivity for the load factor:

• Currently in the LCC all N units are loaded equally

• Modification: for the upper stage only, full load M on units and part load on 1

unit45 

# 7.5

- ton Annual Energy Use Results: NOPR vs Rev (5/20)

EL IEER NOPR Revised May 20 2015

Cooling Fan Total Cooling Fan Total

kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit

Base 11.4 7,764 5,318 13,082 10,360 7,763 18,123

1

- CAV 12.9 6,647 4,796 11,443 9,161 8,594 17,755

1

- VAV 12.9

- - - 9,608 6,459 16,067

2

- CAV 14.0 6,401 4,235 10,636 7,405 8,180 15,584

2

- VAV 14.0

- - - 8,756 6,192 14,949

2.5 14.5

- - - 8,122 5,017 13,139

3 14.8 4,899 1,833 6,732 7,844 5,302 13,146

3.5 15.8

- - - 6,770 6,958 13,727

4 19.9 2,481 1,029 3,511 5,869 6,966 12,836

5 21.5 4,897 4,779 9,67746 

# 1 5

- ton Annual Energy Use Results: NOPR vs Rev (5/20)

EL IEER NOPR Revised (May 20 2015)

Cooling Fan Total Cooling Fan Total

kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit

Base 11.2 15,005 7,845 22,850 18,413 13,821 32,235

1

- CAV 12.2/12.4 13,785 7,151 20,936 18,618 10,778 29,397

1

- VAV 12.2/12.4

- - - 17,489 15,111 32,600

2

- CAV 13.2 11,955 6,645 18,600 17,315 9,987 27,302

2

- VAV 13.2

- - - 16,883 10,950 27,833

2.5 14.5

- - - 15,950 11,302 27,251

3 14.2 13,212 3,324 16,536 14,919 10,510 25,429

3.5 15.0

- - - 11,924 9,501 21,425

4 18.4/18.5 8,916 3,463 12,379 10,260 10,960 21,220

5 20.1

- - - 18,413 13,821 32,23547 

# 30

- ton Annual Energy Use Results: NOPR vs Rev (5/20)

EL IEER NOPR Revised (May 20 2015)

Cooling Fan Total Cooling Fan Total

kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit kWh/unit

Base 10.1/ 10.6 26,067 27,404 53,471 40,661 21,735 62,396

1

- CAV 11.6 22,030 25,259 47,290 34,838 25,494 60,332

1

- VAV 11.6

- - - 39,534 14,366 53,900

2

- CAV 12.5 19,881 25,117 44,997 36,382 19,169 55,551

2

- VAV 12.5

- - - 34,382 17,666 52,048

2.5

- CAV 13.2

- - - 32,034 20,637 52,671

2.5

- VAV 13.2

- - - 32,189 17,372 49,561

3 13.5 18,610 13,281 31,892 31,932 19,370 51,302

4 15.5 17,264 9,110 26,373 TBD TBD TBD

5 TBD

- - - TBD TBD TBD48 

# Economizers and low outdoor

- temperature cooling

• Already eliminated low

- temp loads associated with the fan

• Last meeting agreed to look at the distribution of cooling loads

as a function of outdoor temperature

• Create a set of temperature bins

• In each hour assign the heat load Q, energy etc. to a bin

• Calculate totals by bin for each building

• Multiply by the building weight for CB95

• Sum over regions



# • There is some heat load, particularly in cooler climates, in the

lower temperature bins for both econ and no

- econ buildings

• Is the economizer working?

• Sensitivity: for those buildings with economizers, ZERO the

cooling load when the outdoor temp < 60

• Recalculate the total building load49 

# 7.5 Ton EL0

- CAV CBECS 95 weighted Q

- total by T

- bin50 

# 7.5 Ton EL0

- CAV CBECS 95 weighted Q

- total % by T

- bin51 

# Annual MWh “hot” hours vs. all hours, econ buildings, 7.5T, all ELs52 

# Reduction in annual energy use due to exclusion of cool hours

EL 7.5 Ton 15 Ton 30 Ton

0_cav 5.8% 6.8% 8.1%

0a_cav 7.4%

1_cav 5.0% 6.3% 6.9%

1_vav 5.2% 6.8% 9.4%

2_cav 4.3% 6.5% 7.3%

2_vav 5.1% 6.4% 7.0%

2.5_cav 7.1%

2.5_vav 4.7% 5.4% 7.2%

3_vav 4.5% 5.1% 6.8%

3.5_vav 4.0% 5.1%

4_vav 3.4% 4.7%

5_vav 4.2% 1.9% 

# T hese estimates

are based on

CBECS 1995

weightings53 

# Load Factor

• Suppose we have 2 15

- ton units

• In a given hour, suppose the heat load is “20 tons”

• Current approach assigns each unit 10 tons of heat removal

• Load factor of 2/3

• Degradation factor of 1.043 (1.13

– 0.13*LF)



## • One alternative (not necessarily more realistic)

• One unit could be fully loaded, load factor 1, degradation factor 1

• One unit removes 5 tons, load factor 1/3, degradation factor 1.087

• Energy

- weighted average degradation factor is 1.029



## • Sensitivity analysis can determine the impact on energy use

• Apply only to upper stage

• Apply only if >=2 units in a building

• Turns out to be very small54 

# Reduction in annual energy use due to “efficient loading”

region name 7.5 T 15 T 30 T

1 NE 2.2% 1.4% 1.1%

2 Mid

- At 1.6% 1.2% 1.6%

3 ENC 1.5% 0.6% 1.1%

4 WNC 1.5% 1.8% 1.9%

5 South At 1.5% 0.9% 0.6%

6 ESC 1.7% 1.2% 0.1%

7 WSC 1.1% 0.9% 0.3%

8 Mountai

n 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%

9.1 Pac

- N 0.8% 1.6% 1.8%

9.2 Pac

- S 0.8% 1.1% 1.2%

US 1.3% 0.9% 0.8% 

# T hese estimates

are based on

CBECS 1995

weightings55 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up56 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule57 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revision

-- LCC and PBP Analysis

Issue Approach Additional Input

Requested

Design Paths Multiple design paths addressed based on system type in

building, i.e., Constant Air Volume (CAV) buildings

assigned CAV equipment designs and Variable Air Volume

(VAV) buildings assigned SAV/VAV designs through EL2

. Fraction of CAV and VAV buildings currently based solely

on CBECS. After EL2 for 7.5

- ton and 15

- ton equipment, all

buildings get SAV/VAV designs. After EL2.5 for 30

- ton
equipment, all buildings get VAV designs. Manufacturer info

on CAV/VAV

shipments to

complement

CBECS data.

SAV and VAV

Costs Additional installed costs for adding controls (e.g.,

thermostats) in CAV buildings to accommodate Staged Air

Volume (SAV) and VAV equipment designs. Diffuser

replacement for CAV buildings to accommodate SAV and

VAV equipment designs now not included. Input on c ost of

diffusers and

thermostats.

Conversion

Curb Costs Additional installed costs starting at EL3 for conversion

curbs to accommodate equipment designs with large

footprints. Costs are now a function of capacity. Input on

conversion curb

cost.58 

# Summary of Analysis Approach Revision

-- LCC and PBP Analysis

Issue Approach Additional Input

Requested

Repair Costs Include compressor repair costs. NOPR included

compressor repair costs only in the shipments analysis

as a driver for repair vs. replacement decision. Because

compressor repairs occur in base case (i.e., without new

standards), compressor repair costs should be included.

Compressor and non

- compressor repair costs increase

as a function of efficiency. Costs based on RS Means

. Non

- compressor repairs conducted in 7 th 

### year; compressor repairs conducted in 13 th 

### year. Input on cost of

compressor and

non

- compressor
repairs.

Equipment

Lifetime Equipment lifetime e xtended due to inclusion of

compressor repairs in base case. Equipment lifetime

determined from shipments model based on historical

shipments. No change. Input on equipment

lifetime values.

Base Case

Efficiency

Distribution Separate efficiency distributions for CAV and VAV

buildings. For example, CAV equipment designs are not

applied to VAV buildings. No change. Manufacturer info

on CAV/VAV

shipments and

shipments by

efficiency level.59 

# Mapping Equipment Design to CAV and VAV buildings

Efficiency

Level Equipment

Design Equipment Choice Conversion Curb Diffuser

Replacement Thermostat

CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg

0 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1

- or 2

- stg n/a

1 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

SAV (2 IAF ) n/a SAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

2 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

SAV (2 IAF ) n/a SAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

2.5 SAV (2 IAF ) SAV SAV n/a n/a n/a n/a 3

- stg Var

3 SAV (2 IAF ) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 3

- stg Var

3.5 SAV (2 IAF ) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 2

- stg Var

4 SAV (2 IAF) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 3

- stg Var

5 SAV (2 IAF) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 2

- stg Var 

### • 7.5

- ton CUAC: Accounting for Conversion Curb and Diffuser/Thermostat replacement

.60 

# Mapping Equipment Design to CAV and VAV buildings

Efficiency

Level Equipment

Design Equipment Choice Conversion Curb Diffuser

Replacement Thermostat

CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg

0 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

1 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

SAV (2 IAF ) n/a SAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

2 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

SAV (2 IAF ) n/a SAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

2.5 SAV (2 IAF ) SAV SAV n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg Var

3 SAV (2 IAF ) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 3

- stg Var

3.5 SAV (2 IAF ) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 3

- stg Var

4 SAV (3 IAF) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a 3

- stg Var

5 VAV (2 IAF) SAV SAV Yes Yes n/a n/a Var Var 

### • 15

- ton CUAC: Accounting for Conversion Curb and Diffuser/Thermostat replacement

.61 

# Mapping Equipment Design to CAV and VAV buildings

Efficiency

Level Equipment

Design Equipment Choice Conversion Curb Diffuser

Replacement Thermostat

CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg

0 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

1 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

VAV n/a VAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

2 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5

- stg n/a

VAV n/a VAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

2.5 CAV CAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2

- stg n/a

VAV n/a VAV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Var

3 VAV VAV VAV n/a n/a n/a n/a Var Var 

### • 30

- ton CUAC: Accounting for Conversion Curb and Diffuser/Thermostat replacement

.62 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Equipment Price

• Equipment price provided by Markups A nalysis

.

• Constant real prices used to project CUAC and CUHP equipment

prices.

- Producer Price Index (PPI) series for “unitary air

- conditioners, except heat

pumps” spanning 1978 to 2013 was analyzed to forecast future equipment

prices; no discernable long

- term declining trend.

Cap. Design

Path Efficiency Levels

0

– Single 0

–
Dual 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

7.5 ton SAV $6,798 $7,463 $7,640 $7,793 $8,063 $8,857 $10,027

CAV $5,970 $6,419 $6,850 $7,346

15 ton SAV $13,104 $13,722 $14,110 $14,491 $14,713 $15,227 $19,897

CAV $12,466 $13,013 $13,440

30 ton VAV $28,956 $30,654 $32,158 $32,803 $32,911 $34,498

CAV $24,424 $26,805 $29,676 $29,97263 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Installation Cost

• Installation costs represent the labor and materials necessary to install the

equipment

• Costs based on RS Means

.

• Installation costs are still assumed to increase proportionally with equipment

weight, which increases with efficiency level.

• According to RS Means, crane cost does not vary for equipment weighing up to

6000 lbs. As a result, crane costs are not reflected in costs below.

Cap. Design

Path Efficiency Levels

0

– Single 0

–
Dual 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

7.5 ton SAV $2,951 $3,230 $3,310 $3,340 $3,498 $4,066 $4,425

CAV $2,512 $2,791 $3,041 $3,319

15 ton SAV $3,498 $3,720 $3,882 $3,978 $4,053 $4,443 $4,514

CAV $3,395 $3,660 $3,837

30 ton VAV $5,818 $6,110 $6,598 $6,807 $

- $6,811 $7,279

CAV $5,634 $6,096 $6,725 $6,73164 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Conversion Curb and T’stat Costs

• Conversion Curb installation cost represents the labor and materials

necessary to accommodate a unit with a footprint larger than the unit

it is replacing

• New input indicates costs are a function of capacity.

- 7.5

- tons = $1000; 15

- tons = $1750; 30

- tons = $4000



## • Applied to efficiency levels 3, 3.5, 4 and 5.



## • Thermostat cost represents the price to the customer of a new

thermostat

• Costs based on prices from alpine.com and vary as a function of

equipment staging

- 1

- stage compressor and 1

- stage fan: $180

- 2

- stages at compressor or fan or both: $221

- 3

- stages at compressor of fan or both: $290

- 4

- stages/variable

- speed at compressor or fan or both: $ 310



## • Labor to install is estimated to remain constant regardless of t’stat type65 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Diffuser Replacement Costs

• Diffuser Replacement Cost represents labor and materials necessary to replace

diffusers suitable for CAV systems with those that are suitable for VAV systems.

• Further input from Taylor Engineering demonstrated that single

- zone VAV units

are suitable with CAV diffusers.

• Source: Arens et al. Thermal and air quality acceptability in buildings that reduce

energy by reducing minimum airflow from overhead diffusers . ASHRAE RP

- 1515: Final

Report, Center for the Built Environment

– UC Berkeley. 2012

• Testing

- The Air Diffusion Performance Index (ADPI) values for 4 different ceiling mounted diffusers

.

- Load capacities of 80%, 30%, and 13% were tested

- Analyzed 5 airflows at 2 different temperatures (55 ̊ F and 65 ̊ F)

- Measurements taken at 4in, 24in, 42in, and 66in

- Temperature and velocity readings were averaged over 3 minutes

- Smoke testing was used to confirm the air pattern from the diffuser



### • Results

- The ADPI and air speeds of ceiling mounted diffusers “have excellent air distribution

performance down to 10% flow fraction” with ADPI between 98% and 100% for the four

diffusers.

- Air Change Effectiveness results also showed that ceiling mounted diffusers maintained

consistent ventilation performance down to 10% flow.66 

## • Repair costs associated with repairing or replacing components that have

failed.

• Non

- compressor repair costs are based on RS Means and are assumed to

scale with equipment price.

– Now applied to all consumers in year 7 of the lifetime of the equipment. 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Non

- Compressor Repair Costs

Cap. Design

Path Efficiency Levels

0

– Single 0

–
Dual 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

7.5 ton SAV $1,829 $2,008 $2,056 $2,098 $2,169 $2,383 $2,698

CAV $1,606 $1,727 $1,843 $1,977

15 ton SAV $2,057 $2,154 $2,215 $2,272 $2,306 $2,390 $3,014

CAV $1,957 $2,043 $2,110

30 ton VAV $3,275 $3,467 $3,637 $3,710 $3,723 $3,902

CAV $2,763 $3,032 $3,357 $3,39067 

## • Repair costs associated with repairing or replacing compressors that have

failed.

• Compressor repair costs are based on material costs from Grainger and labor

costs from RS Means, and are assumed to scale with equipment price.

– Applied to 20% of consumers, representing the portion of the population that

chooses to repair rather than replace in the no

- standards case.

– Now applied to all consumers in year 13 of the lifetime of the equipment. 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Compressor Repair Costs

Cap. Design

Path Efficiency Levels

0

– Single 0

–
Dual 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5

7.5 ton SAV $4,038 $4,433 $4,538 $4,632 $4,789 $5,261 $5,955

CAV $3,546 $3,812 $4,068 $4,363

15 ton SAV $11,290 $11,823 $12,157 $12,467 $12,659 $13,119 $16,541

CAV $10,741 $11,212 $11,580

30 ton VAV $23,469 $24,846 $26,065 $26,587 $26,675 $27,961

CAV $19,796 $21,726 $24,053 $24,29368 

## • ASHRAE database served as source of information for CUAC equipment

lifetime.

– Included 215 packaged rooftop units listed as in service, with a median

age of 16 years.

– Five units that had been replaced had a median age of 22 years.

– Data suggest that median lifetime is longer than 15 years.



## • Shipments Model calibration yielded equipment lifetimes based on a

Weibull probability distribution.

– ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h: Mean = 21.1 years; Median = 21.0 years.



## – ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h: Mean = 22.6 years; Median = 23.0 years.



## – ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h: Mean = 33.7 years; Median = 34.0 years.



## • NOPR analysis for all CUAC: Mean = 18.4 years; Median = 18.7 years.

– Did not account for compressor repairs in the base case.

– For ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, effectively assumed 30+ year

lifetime as all units were repaired after first failure. 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: CUAC Equipment Lifetime69 

## • Used to convert streams of annual operating expenses to the year of

purchase (i.e., 2019).

• Estimated as the weighted average cost of capital using capital asset

pricing model (CAPM).

• Damodaran Online is a source of information about company debt and

equity financing.

• Discount rates were estimated for the types of firms on whose premise a

CUAC or CUHP is located.

– Weighted

- average real discount rate = 4.66%

– Weighted

- average real discount rates vary from 3.6% (GSFL) to just over 6.0%

(PTACs) for other commercial products including: CWAFs, GSFLs, PTACs,

Pumps, and Clothes Washers 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Discount Rates70 • LCC and PBP analysis typically analyzes standard levels relative to a baseline efficiency level.

– Not all consumers purchase products at baseline levels.

• Base case efficiency distributions define the percentage of products purchased at various efficiency

levels.

– Consumers already purchasing products at efficiencies greater than or equal to a prospective standard level

are not impacted by the standard.

– Allows more accurate estimation of consumer impacts.

• Separate efficiency distributions for CAV and VAV buildings.

• No new data to inform how distributions should change from NOPR. 

# LCC and PBP Analysis: Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

Small CUAC :

≥ 65,000 Btu/h and < 135,000 Btu/h Large CUAC:

≥ 135,000 Btu/h and < 240,000 Btu/h Very Large CUAC:

≥ 240,000 Btu/h and < 760,000 Btu/h

EL IEER Market Share

IEER Market Share

IEER Market Share

NOPR CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg NOPR CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg NOPR CAV

Bldg VAV

Bldg

0 11.4 61% 61% n/a 11.2 78% 78% n/a 10.1/ 10.6 63% 63% n/a

1 12.9 39% 39% 61% 12.2/ 12.4 20% 20% 78% 11.6 24% 24% 63%

2 14.0 0% 0% 39% 13.2 2% 2% 20% 12.5 7% 7% 24%

2.5 14.5 n/a 0% 0% 13.7 n/a 0% 2% 13.2 n/a 0% 7%

3 14.8 1% 1% 0% 14.2 0% 0% 0% 13.5 4% 4% 0%

3.5 15.8 n/a 0% 1% 15.0 n/a 0% 0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

4 19.9 0% 0% 0% 18.4/ 18.5 0% 0% 0% 15.5 1% 2% 4%

5 21.5 n/a 0% 0% 20.1 n/a 0% 0%

- n/a 0% 2%71 

# 7.5

- ton LCC and PBP Results: NOPR vs Revised

EL IEER NOPR Revised

Total

Installed

Cost First Year

Operating

Cost Lifetime

Operating

Cost Life

- Cycle

Cost Simple

Payback

Period

years Total

Installed

Cost First Year

Operating

Cost Lifetime

Operating

Cost Life

- Cycle

Cost Simple

Payback

Period

years

Base 11.4 $7,689 $1,675 $20,356 $28,045

- $8,770 $2,145 $31,181 $39,951

-

1 12.9 $8,024 $1,506 $18,289 $26,312 2.0 $9,745 $2,046 $29,969 $39,714 9.9

2 14.0 $9,359 $1,412 $17,120 $26,479 6.4 $10,542 $1,863 $27,494 $38,036 6.3

2.5 14.5

- - - - - $10,859 $1,694 $25,191 $36,050 4.6

3 14.8 $9,689 $1,079 $13,051 $22,740 3.4 $11,792 $1,694 $25,235 $37,027 6.7

3.5 15.8

- - - - - $12,161 $1,714 $25,584 $37,744 7.9

4 19.9 $11,348 $785 $9,448 $20,796 4.1 $13,500 $1,631 $24,644 $38,144 9.2

5 21.5

- - - - - $14,947 $1,356 $21,004 $35,951 7.8

EL IEER NOPR Revised

Average LCC

Savings Percent of

Consumers

with Net Cost Average LCC

Savings Percent of

Consumers

with Net Cost

1 12.9 $1,059 0% $276 4%

2 14.0 $894 28% $1,397 6%

2.5 14.5

- - $3,365 3%

3 14.8 $4,616 0% $2,397 16%

3.5 15.8

- - $1,686 28%

4 19.9 $6,561 0% $1,285 40%

5 21.5

- - $3,478 23%72 

# 1 5

- ton LCC and PBP Results: NOPR vs Revised

EL IEER NOPR Revised

Total

Installed

Cost First Year

Operating

Cost Lifetime

Operating

Cost Life

- Cycle

Cost Simple

Payback

Period

years Total

Installed

Cost First Year

Operating

Cost Lifetime

Operating

Cost Life

- Cycle

Cost Simple

Payback

Period

years

Base 11.2 $13,212 $2,703 $33,014 $46,226

- $15,778 $4,418 $67,648 $83,427

1 12.2/12.4 $14,078 $2,508 $30,622 $44,700 4.4 $16,525 $3,792 $58,434 $74,959 1.2

2 13.2 $15,695 $2,266 $27,641 $43,336 5.7 $17,184 $3,698 $57,168 $74,352 2.0

2.5 13.7

- - - - - $17,861 $3,457 $53,646 $71,507 2.2

3 14.2 $16,548 $2,101 $25,597 $42,145 5.5 $19,693 $3,412 $53,051 $72,745 3.9

3.5 15.0

- - - - - $19,983 $3,238 $50,492 $70,475 3.6

4 18.4/18.5 $17,748 $1,690 $20,563 $38,311 4.5 $20,851 $2,856 $44,931 $65,782 3.2

5 20.1

- - - - - $24,850 $2,799 $44,969 $69,819 5.6

EL IEER NOPR Revised

Average LCC

Savings Percent of

Consumers

with Net Cost Average LCC

Savings Percent of

Consumers

with Net Cost

1 12.2/12.4 $1,189 1% $2,721 0%

2 13.2 $2,528 4% $3,355 29%

2.5 13.7

- - $6,127 4%

3 14.2 $3,713 4% $4,888 20%

3.5 15.0

- - $7,159 9%

4 18.4/18.5 $7,541 2% $11,851 4%

5 20.1

- - $7,814 20%73 

# 30

- ton LCC and PBP Results: NOPR vs Revised

EL IEER NOPR Revised

Total

Installed

Cost First Year

Operating

Cost Lifetime

Operating

Cost Life

- Cycle

Cost Simple

Payback

Period

years Total

Installed

Cost First Year

Operating

Cost Lifetime

Operating

Cost Life

- Cycle

Cost Simple

Payback

Period

years

Base 10.1/ 10.6 $23,740 $6,042 $73,931 $97,671

- $29,935 $7,155 $139,034 $168,970

1 11.6 $25,094 $5,418 $66,260 $91,353 2.2 $33,352 $6,641 $129,658 $163,010 6.6

2 12.5 $26,638 $5,173 $63,250 $89,888 3.3 $36,391 $6,336 $124,309 $160,700 7.9

2.5 13.2

- - - - - $37,169 $6,085 $119,512 $156,681 6.8

3 13.5 $27,584 $4,124 $50,381 $77,965 2.0 $42,266 $6,035 $119,209 $161,475 11.0

4 15.5 $29,156 $3,597 $43,894 $73,050 2.2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

5 TBD

- - - - - TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

EL IEER NOPR Revised

Average LCC

Savings Percent of

Consumers

with Net Cost Average LCC

Savings Percent of

Consumers

with Net Cost

1 11.6 $4,032 2% $2,382 1%

2 12.5 $5,316 6% $3,999 18%

2.5 13.2

- - $7,526 12%

3 13.5 $16,571 2% $2,983 44%

4 15.5 $21,416 3% TBD TBD

5 TBD

- - TBD TBD74 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up75 

# Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process

NOPR RFI Final

Rule76 

# Purpose

• To estimate CUAC and CUHP shipments over the 30

- year analysis period

(2019

- 2048 ).

• Shipments are inputs to National Impact Analysis and Manufacturer

Impact Analysis.



# Method

• Develop an equipment stock accounting model which tracks shipments

for replacements, new construction, and existing buildings that do not

already use the equipment.

• Change from NOPR: use price elasticity to estimate shipments drop

under a price increase.

• Units that are not replaced are repaired. 

# Shipments Analysis77 

# Shipments Analysis: Modeling Approach (1)

• Total equipment stock = saturation * floor space

• Equipment stock U is the number of units of each equip class

– U( y,a ) = number of units of age a in year y (vintage = y

- a)

– In year y, shipments are the “age=0” equipment

U(y, a=0) = S(y )



# • Total Shipments in each year, S = S N 

# + S E 

# + S R



## – S N 

## = new installations in new buildings

– S E 

## = new installations in existing buildings (that did not previously use

the equipment)

– S R 

## = replacement installations in existing buildings



# • Use a Weibull distribution of equipment lifetimes to

estimate the probability of failure p(a)78 

# Shipments Analysis: Modeling Approach (2)

• S N 

# : new installations in new buildings

– market saturation parameter * new construction floor space



# • S E 

# : new installations in existing buildings

– y

- o

- y change in market saturation parameter * existing floor space



# • S R 

# : replacement installations in existing buildings

– In each year, the number of broken units



# U B 

# = ∑

a 

# p(a) * U( y,a )

– How many of these get repaired

– NOPR analysis attempted to estimate this based on an ecnometric

model incorporating repair vs. replacement costs

– This analysis reverts to a simpler approach based on price elasticity e



## • ∆S/S = e * ∆P/P (consistent with a logit purchase decision model)79 

# Shipments Model: Calibration

• Model is calibrated to historical shipments

– Data submitted by ARI (1980

- 2001) for the 2005 rule; includes efficiency

information for 1999

- 2001 only

– Economic census for 1969

- 1979 and 2002

- 2010 (no efficiency information)



# • In general shipments are proportional to 1/(lifetime) and to

the saturation

• Market saturations estimates are based on CBECS 1992, 1995

and 1999 and not known with precision

• Both the saturation and lifetime distribution parameters are

jointly estimated to produce a model that matches historic

cumulative shipments

• Even if the estimated parameters are not correct, the fit to

the data ensures relative stability in the projected shipments80 

# Shipments Model Output 7.5 Ton Base Case

Calibration

parameters

Max Life = 40

Shape = 2.0

Scale = 25.5

Estimates

Mean Life = 21.05

Median = 21.081 

# Shipments Model Output 15 ton Base Case

Calibration

parameters

Max Life = 40

Shape = 2.0

Scale = 30

Estimates

Mean Lifet = 22.6

Median = 23.082 

# Shipments Model Output 30 ton Base Case

Calibration

parameters

Max Life = 60

Shape = 2.0

Scale = 45.3

Estimates

Mean Life = 33.7

Median = 3483 

# NOPR Cumulative shipments by EL CUAC84 

# Current Analysis Cumulative Shipments by EL CUAC85 

# NOPR Cumulative shipments by EL CUHP86 

# Current Analysis Cumulative Shipments by EL CUHP87 

# Current Analysis: CUAC 7.5 Ton88 

# Current Analysis: CUAC 15 Ton89 

# Current Analysis: CUAC 30 Ton90 

# Current Analysis: percent drop by EL

CUAC 7.5 Ton 15 Ton 30 Ton

EL1 3.4% 0.8% 3.2%

EL2 5.9% 2.0% 6.2%

EL2.5 6.7% 3.0% 6.7%

EL3 10.0% 6.9% 11.8%

EL3.5 11.0% 7.3% N/A

EL4 15.3% 8.6% TBD

EL5 19.4% 16.3% TBD

CUHP 7.5 Ton 15 Ton 30 Ton

EL1 3.1% 0.6% 2.9%

EL2 5.5% 1.7% 5.7%

EL2.5 6.2% 2.7% 6.1%

EL3 9.3% 6.3% 10.8%

EL3.5 10.2% 6.7% N/A

EL4 14.2% 7.8% TBD

EL5 18.2% 14.9% TBD91 

# Agenda

1. Introduction and Background

2. CWAF Analysis Updates

3. CUAC Engineering Analysis Updates

4. CUAC Energy Use Analysis Updates

5. CUAC LCC/PBP Analysis Updates

6. CUAC Shipments Analysis Methodology

7. Wrap

- Up92 

# Next Steps

• Revisions to proposed schedule based on today’s progress?

• Other issues to consider during the next Working Group meeting?