BUILDING TECHNOLOGIE

June 13, 2014

ASRAC Pumps Working Group

Results Summary
2

Commercial and Industrial Pumps Background

• The working group voted to define a ‘pump’ as “a device that moves liquids (which may inclu

free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare p

included by the manufacturer, the mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.”

– This rulemaking only includes clean water pumps 1‐200 HP limited to certain design parameters

• Equipment classes within the scope of this rulemaking include (1) end suction close coupled (

ESCC 3600, (3) end suction frame mounted (ESFM) 1800, (4) ESFM 3600, (5) In‐line (IL) 1800, 

radial split vertical (RS‐V) 1800, (8) RS‐V 3600, (9) vertical turbine submersible (VT‐S) 1800, an

– Analysis was not performed for RS‐V 1800, RS‐V 3600, or VT‐S 1800 due to limited opportunity for energy savings.

• Approximately 420,000 commercial and industrial pumps within the scope of this rulemaking 

2012. A baseline ESCC 1800 with a shaft HP of 8.0 HP consumes approximately 17,156 kWh/y

ESCC 3600 with a shaft HP of 13.8 HP consumes approximately 27,096 kWh/year. A baseline E

shaft HP of 60.6 HP consumes approximately 112,570 kWh/year. A baseline ESFM 3600 with a 

HP consumes approximately 93,063 kWh/year. A baseline IL 1800 with a shaft HP of 3.9 HP co

approximately 8,110 kWh/year. A baseline IL 3600 with a shaft HP of 5.7 HP consumes approxkWh/year. A baseline VT‐S 3600 with a shaft HP of14.5 HP consumes approximately 30,262 kW

• The total installed base of commercial and industrial pumps within the scope of this rulemaki

quads/year in source energy, which is approximately 2 percent of total annual commercial an

use.
3

• Trial Standard Levels (TSLs) are combinations of efficie• For this analysis, we assumed that each TSL consists o

identical efficiency level for each equipment class

• The working group may wish to select different comb

efficiency levels to examine together

Trial Standard Levels (TSLs)

TSL

Equipment Class

ESCC 

1800

ESCC 

3600

ESFM 

1800

ESFM 

3600

IL 

1800

IL 

3600

V3

1 PER 10 PER 10 PER 10 PER 10 PER 10 PER 10 PE2 PER 25 PER 25 PER 25 PER 25 PER 25 PER 25 PE3 PER 40 PER 40 PER 40 PER 40 PER 40 PER 40 PE4 PER 55 PER 55 PER 55 PER 55 PER 55 PER 55 PE5 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70 PE
4

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

National Full‐Fuel Cycle Energy Savings (quads, 30 years of shipments)

0.09 0.35 0.64 1.02 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2013$ billion, 30 years of shipments)

3% discount rate 0.4 1.4 2.6 3.9 

7% discount rate 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.4 

Manufacturer Impacts

Industry NPV (2013$ million) (Base case = 117.6) 103.6 to 130.9 70.4 to 148.8 6.5 to 133.5  ‐103.8 to 126

% Change in Industry NPV ‐11.9% to 11.3% ‐40.1% to 26.5% ‐94.5% to 13.5% ‐188.2% to 7.7

NIA and MIA Results

• Main updates from previous numbers:

– Changed to merged DOE/HI database with new C‐values

– Revised NIA inputs to properly reflect the deltas between the base case and standards case

– Manufacturer markups in MIA updated to reflect shipment‐weighting of models
5

• Potential INPV impacts of standardsMIA Results
6

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 T

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$)

ESCC 1800 (11% of total shipments) $65.47 $207.86 $348.50 $5

ESCC 3600 (35% of total shipments) $18.59 $87.98 $144.48 $2

ESFM 1800 (10% of total shipments) $7.03 $197.25 $431.28 $8

ESFM 3600 (1% of total shipments) $66.46 $517.66 $901.37 $1,

IL 1800 (11% of total shipments) $45.61 $156.96 $299.29 $4

IL 3600 (3% of total shipments) $379.53 $527.25 $681.88 $7

VT‐S 3600 (28% of total shipments) $2.26 $17.00 $121.61 $2

All Equipment Classes (Shipments‐Weighted Average)* $31.50 $118.43 $233.06 $3

Consumer Median PBP (years)

ESCC 1800 (11% of total shipments) 2.8 2.8 0.6 

ESCC 3600 (35% of total shipments) 1.5 1.1 0 

ESFM 1800 (10% of total shipments) 1.8 1.8 0.6 

ESFM 3600 (1% of total shipments) 0.7 0.9 0.3 

IL 1800 (11% of total shipments) 3.7 3.4 1.5 

IL 3600 (3% of total shipments) 1 1.4 0.8 

VT‐S 3600 (28% of total shipments) 5.4 4.6 0.6 

All Equipment Classes (Shipments‐Weighted Average)* 3.0 2.6 0.5 * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2019.

LCC & PBP Results: No Cost Recovery
7

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 T

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$)

ESCC 1800 (11% of total shipments) $44.06 $184.24 $261.87 $3

ESCC 3600 (35% of total shipments) $15.49 $81.14 $107.30 $1

ESFM 1800 (10% of total shipments) $4.07 $159.17 $338.03 $6

ESFM 3600 (1% of total shipments) $61.81 $499.40 $846.39 $1,

IL 1800 (11% of total shipments) $47.88 $142.97 $195.72 $2

IL 3600 (3% of total shipments) $388.82 $521.63 $620.51 $6

VT‐S 3600 (28% of total shipments) ($2.39) $8.45 $91.21 $1

All Equipment Classes (Shipments‐Weighted Average)* $26.86 $105.08 $178.32 $2

Consumer Median PBP (years)

ESCC 1800 (11% of total shipments) 15.9 5.3 7.5 

ESCC 3600 (35% of total shipments) 3.8 1.8 11.2 

ESFM 1800 (10% of total shipments) 11.3 7.1 9 ESFM 3600 (1% of total shipments) 2.2 1.6 2.1 

IL 1800 (11% of total shipments) 2.9 4.5 6.7 1

IL 3600 (3% of total shipments) 0.6 1.8 2.5 

VT‐S 3600 (28% of total shipments) 37.7 8.8 3 

All Equipment Classes (Shipments‐Weighted Average)* 15.2 5.0 7.4 * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2019.

LCC & PBP Results: Full Cost Recovery
8

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

ESCC 1800*

Net Cost (%) 1311

No Impact (%) 82 69 51 42 

Net Benefit (%) 16 29 47 57 

ESCC 3600*

Net Cost (%) 0000

No Impact (%) 96 88 74 72 

Net Benefit (%) 3 11 26 28 

ESFM 1800*

Net Cost (%) 0100

No Impact (%) 99 78 62 38 

Net Benefit (%) 1 21 38 62 

ESFM 3600*

Net Cost (%) 0000

No Impact (%) 96 76 62 49 

Net Benefit (%) 4 24 38 51 

IL 1800*Net Cost (%) 2422

No Impact (%) 85 69 59 47 

Net Benefit (%) 13 27 39 51 

IL 3600*Net Cost (%) 1210

No Impact (%) 74 57 49 45 

Net Benefit (%) 25 42 51 54 

VT‐S 3600*

Net Cost (%) 1 11 0 0 

No Impact (%) 98 61 52 47 

Net Benefit (%) 1 28 48 53 

All Equipment Classes (Shipments Weighted Average)*Net Cost (%) 1400

No Impact (%) 94 74 62 54 

Net Benefit (%) 5 22 38 45 

Consumer Impacts: No Cost Recovery

* May not add to 100% due to rounding.
9

Consumer Impacts: Full Cost Recovery

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

ESCC 1800*

Net Cost (%) 12 9 21 26 

No Impact (%) 82 69 51 42 

Net Benefit (%) 6 22 28 32 

ESCC 3600*

Net Cost (%) 1 2 14 14 

No Impact (%) 96 88 74 72 

Net Benefit (%) 3 10 12 14 

ESFM 1800*

Net Cost (%) 1 7 17 27 

No Impact (%) 99 78 62 38 

Net Benefit (%) 1 15 21 36 

ESFM 3600*

Net Cost (%) 0358

No Impact (%) 96 76 62 49 

Net Benefit (%) 4 22 33 44 

IL 1800*

Net Cost (%) 2 7 15 26 

No Impact (%) 85 69 59 47 

Net Benefit (%) 13 24 26 27 

IL 3600*Net Cost (%) 0 11 10 14 

No Impact (%) 74 57 49 45 

Net Benefit (%) 26 33 41 41 

VT‐S 3600*

Net Cost (%) 2 22 7 11 

No Impact (%) 98 61 52 47 

Net Benefit (%) 0 17 41 43 

All Equipment Classes (Shipments Weighted Average)*Net Cost (%) 3 10 13 17 

No Impact (%) 94 74 62 54 

Net Benefit (%) 4 16 25 29 

* May not add to 100% due to rounding.
10

Updated PER C‐Values from Merged DOE/HI D

DOE/HI MERGED Database PER C‐Values

Equipment Class

EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 E

PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 PE

ESCC 1800 131.65 128.23 126.49 125.00 12ESCC 3600 134.58 130.35 128.78 127.28 12

ESFM 1800 132.84 128.76 126.95 125.06 12ESFM 3600 134.91 130.86 129.18 127.73 12

IL 1800 133.91 129.31 127.25 125.84 12IL 3600 138.85 133.72 130.90 129.30 12

RSV 1800 133.70 131.94 129.63 127.88 12RSV 3600 137.44 134.40 133.20 131.90 12

VTS 1800 135.78 133.90 130.80 128.67 12VTS 3600 135.78 133.90 130.80 128.67 12
11

Actual Percentage of Merged Database Models Failing 

Efficiency Level

Actual % of Models Failing at Each EL

Equipment Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 E

PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 PE

ESCC 1800 10.4% 27.4% 43.0% 59.0% 72ESCC 3600 10.4% 27.3% 43.0% 58.6% 73

ESFM 1800 10.8% 25.9% 41.6% 57.8% 72ESFM 3600 10.1% 26.7% 40.1% 58.5% 71

IL 1800 11.2% 25.1% 44.2% 57.2% 71IL 3600 10.4% 26.4% 40.6% 56.6% 71

RSV 1800 Set to harmonize with EU Lot 11 MEI 40 RSV 3600

VTS 1800 No data available

VTS 3600 10.3% 25.9% 43.1% 56.9% 70

Total Industry 10.6% 26.5% 42.2% 58.1% 72

• In order to determine C‐values that cut off a certain percentage of pumps, we had to det

which each pump would fail. We did this by ignoring motor losses for three reasons:

– This is a time‐consuming mathematical problem to solve if including motor losses

– The motor losses to be used in the TP have not yet been finalized

– Our data likely do not exactly represent the population; therefore the error from ignoring motor losses is likely to be 

• As a result, the efficiency levels each would cut off slightly more pumps than was the des
12

US to EU Crosswalk

EL 1 EL 2 EL3 EL 4 

Equipment Class PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 

ESCC 1800 11% 35% 51% 69% ESCC 3600 14% 39% 53% 67% 

ESFM 1800 10% 28% 44% 62% ESFM 3600 11% 31% 44% 57% 

IL 1800 21% 64% >70% >70% IL 3600 11% 34% 56% >70% 

RSV 1800 10% 25% 40% 55% RSV 3600 10% 25% 40% 55% 

VTS 1800VTS 3600 10% 12% 49% 65% 

The C‐Values that cause ~10%

of US models to fail

Causes ~14% of the ESC

pumps in the EU to fail