U-i 

### APPENDIX U. ALTERNATIVE “MAX TECH” SCENARIO AND ITS IMPACT ON NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE TABLE OF CONTENTS
U.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-1 U.2 STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-1 U.3 NES AND NPV RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-4 LIST OF TABLES Table U.2.1 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h: Forecasted Shipment-Weighted Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-2 Table U.2.2 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h: Forecasted Shipment-Weighted Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-3 Table U.3.1 Comparison of Cumulative National Energy Savings between Max Tech Cases for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-4 Table U.3.2 Comparison of Cumulative NPV result between Max Tech Cases for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners based on a 7 percent Discount Rate (billion 2001$) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure U.3.1 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative National Energy Savings between Max Tech Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-5 Figure U.3.2 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative National Energy Savings between Max Tech Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-5 Figure U.3.3 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative NPV between Max Tech Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-7 Figure U.3.4 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative NPV between Max Tech Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U-7U-1 

### APPENDIX U. ALTERNATIVE “MAX TECH” SCENARIO AND ITS IMPACT ON NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE

U.1 INTRODUCTION The maximum technologically feasible design (i.e., “max tech”) as established by the engineering analysis (Chapter 5) is 12.0 EER. The national energy savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) for various candidate standard levels as presented in Chapter 10 were based on a “max tech” energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 12.0. This appendix explores how sensitive the NES and NPV are to an alternative “max tech” scenario. The alternative “max tech” scenario allows the “max tech” design to be 2 EER rating points higher than the prospective standard level and is referred to as the “2+ EER” scenario.

U.2 STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY TRENDS The 2+ EER “max tech” scenario impacts the forecasted standards case efficiency trends. This in turn impacts the determination of the key inputs to the NES and NPV calculation (i.e., annual energy consumption per unit, total annual installed cost, and total annual operating cost savings). Under the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and 10.0 EER candidate standard levels, the forecasted efficiency trend remains unchanged under the 2+ EER case as the “max tech” design remains at 12.0 EER. But under all other candidate standard levels, the forecasted efficiency trends are impacted as the “max tech” design is greater than 12.0 EER (i.e., 12.5 EER for the 10.5 EER candidate standard level, 13.0 EER for the 11.0 EER candidate standard level, 13.5 EER for the 11.5 EER candidate standard level, and 14.0 EER for the 12.0 EER candidate standard level). Tables U.2.1 and U.2.2 show the shipment-weighted efficiencies for the standards case efficiency trends under the 2+ EER “max tech” scenario for the 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h and 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h equipment class es, respectively. The efficiency trends under the 12 EER “max tech” case, which are presented in Chapter 10, Section 10.2.2.1 and Appendix S, are also presented here to show how the 2+ EER trends compare. Note that the assumed effective date of new standards is 2008 for all standards cases with the exception of the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 standards case where the effective date is 2004. As shown in Tables U.2.1 and U.2.2, only the shipment-weighted efficiencies under the 11.5 EER and 12.0 EER standards cases are significantly impacted by the change in the “max tech” scenario, with the 12.0 EER standards case having the most dramatic change. Even in the 12 EER standards cases, the shipment-weighted efficiencies never exceed 13 EER because few shipments are actually projected to occur beyond 13 EER.U-2 

### Table U.2.1 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h: Forecasted Shipment-Weighted Efficiencies 12 EER Max Tech 2+ EER Max Tech Year ASHRAE 10.5 EER 11.0 EER 11.5 EER 12.0 EER ASHRAE 10.5 EER 11.0 EER 11.5 EER 12.0 EER 2004 10.43 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.43 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 2005 10.46 10.14 10.14 10.14 10.14 10.46 10.14 10.14 10.14 10.14 2006 10.49 10.17 10.17 10.17 10.17 10.49 10.17 10.17 10.17 10.17 2007 10.52 10.21 10.21 10.21 10.21 10.52 10.21 10.21 10.21 10.21 2008 10.55 10.70 11.10 11.54 12.00 10.55 10.70 11.10 11.54 12.03 2009 10.59 10.73 11.13 11.57 12.00 10.59 10.73 11.13 11.58 12.06 2010 10.62 10.76 11.16 11.61 12.00 10.62 10.77 11.16 11.61 12.09 2011 10.65 10.80 11.19 11.64 12.00 10.65 10.80 11.20 11.64 12.13 2012 10.68 10.83 11.23 11.67 12.00 10.68 10.83 11.23 11.67 12.16 2013 10.71 10.86 11.26 11.70 12.00 10.71 10.86 11.26 11.70 12.19 2014 10.75 10.89 11.29 11.73 12.00 10.75 10.90 11.29 11.74 12.22 2015 10.78 10.92 11.32 11.77 12.00 10.78 10.93 11.33 11.77 12.26 2016 10.81 10.96 11.35 11.80 12.00 10.81 10.96 11.36 11.80 12.29 2017 10.84 10.99 11.38 11.83 12.00 10.84 10.99 11.39 11.83 12.32 2018 10.87 11.02 11.42 11.86 12.00 10.87 11.03 11.42 11.87 12.35 2019 10.90 11.05 11.45 11.89 12.00 10.90 11.06 11.46 11.90 12.39 2020 10.93 11.08 11.48 11.92 12.00 10.93 11.09 11.49 11.93 12.42 2021 10.96 11.11 11.51 11.95 12.00 10.96 11.12 11.52 11.96 12.45 2022 11.00 11.14 11.54 11.98 12.00 11.00 11.15 11.55 12.00 12.48 2023 11.03 11.17 11.57 12.00 12.00 11.03 11.19 11.59 12.03 12.52 2024 11.06 11.20 11.60 12.00 12.00 11.06 11.22 11.62 12.06 12.55 2025 11.09 11.23 11.63 12.00 12.00 11.09 11.25 11.65 12.09 12.58 2026 11.11 11.26 11.66 12.00 12.00 11.11 11.28 11.68 12.13 12.61 2027 11.14 11.29 11.69 12.00 12.00 11.14 11.32 11.72 12.16 12.64 2028 11.17 11.32 11.72 12.00 12.00 11.17 11.35 11.75 12.19 12.68 2029 11.20 11.35 11.75 12.00 12.00 11.20 11.38 11.78 12.22 12.71 2030 11.23 11.38 11.78 12.00 12.00 11.23 11.41 11.81 12.26 12.74 2031 11.26 11.41 11.80 12.00 12.00 11.26 11.44 11.84 12.29 12.77 2032 11.29 11.44 11.83 12.00 12.00 11.29 11.48 11.88 12.32 12.81 2033 11.32 11.46 11.86 12.00 12.00 11.32 11.51 11.91 12.35 12.84 2034 11.35 11.49 11.89 12.00 12.00 11.35 11.54 11.94 12.39 12.87 2035 11.37 11.52 11.92 12.00 12.00 11.37 11.57 11.97 12.42 12.90U-3 

### Table U.2.2 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h: Forecasted Shipment-Weighted Efficiencies 12 EER Max Tech 2+ EER Max Tech

Year ASHRAE 10.0 EER 10.5 EER 11.0 EER 11.5 EER 12.0 EER ASHRAE 10.0 EER 10.5 EER 11.0 EER 11.5 EER 12.0 EER 2004 10.02 9.77 9.77 9.77 9.77 9.77 10.02 9.77 9.77 9.77 9.77 9.77 2005 10.05 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 10.05 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 2006 10.08 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 10.08 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 2007 10.12 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 10.11 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 2008 10.15 10.34 10.67 11.08 11.53 12.00 10.15 10.34 10.67 11.08 11.53 12.03 2009 10.18 10.37 10.70 11.11 11.57 12.00 10.18 10.37 10.70 11.11 11.57 12.06 2010 10.21 10.40 10.73 11.15 11.60 12.00 10.21 10.40 10.73 11.15 11.60 12.09 2011 10.25 10.44 10.76 11.18 11.63 12.00 10.24 10.44 10.76 11.18 11.63 12.12 2012 10.28 10.47 10.80 11.21 11.66 12.00 10.28 10.47 10.80 11.21 11.66 12.16 2013 10.31 10.50 10.83 11.24 11.70 12.00 10.31 10.50 10.83 11.24 11.70 12.19 2014 10.34 10.53 10.86 11.28 11.73 12.00 10.34 10.53 10.86 11.28 11.73 12.22 2015 10.38 10.57 10.89 11.31 11.76 12.00 10.37 10.57 10.89 11.31 11.76 12.25 2016 10.41 10.60 10.93 11.34 11.79 12.00 10.41 10.60 10.93 11.34 11.79 12.29 2017 10.44 10.63 10.96 11.37 11.83 12.00 10.44 10.63 10.96 11.37 11.83 12.32 2018 10.47 10.66 10.99 11.40 11.86 12.00 10.47 10.66 10.99 11.41 11.86 12.35 2019 10.50 10.69 11.02 11.43 11.89 12.00 10.50 10.69 11.02 11.44 11.89 12.38 2020 10.53 10.72 11.05 11.47 11.92 12.00 10.53 10.72 11.06 11.47 11.92 12.42 2021 10.56 10.76 11.08 11.50 11.95 12.00 10.56 10.76 11.09 11.50 11.96 12.45 2022 10.60 10.79 11.11 11.53 11.98 12.00 10.59 10.79 11.12 11.54 11.99 12.48 2023 10.63 10.82 11.15 11.56 12.00 12.00 10.63 10.82 11.15 11.57 12.02 12.51 2024 10.66 10.85 11.18 11.59 12.00 12.00 10.66 10.85 11.19 11.60 12.05 12.55 2025 10.69 10.88 11.21 11.62 12.00 12.00 10.69 10.88 11.22 11.63 12.09 12.58 2026 10.72 10.91 11.24 11.65 12.00 12.00 10.72 10.91 11.25 11.66 12.12 12.61 2027 10.75 10.94 11.27 11.68 12.00 12.00 10.75 10.94 11.28 11.70 12.15 12.64 2028 10.78 10.97 11.30 11.71 12.00 12.00 10.78 10.97 11.32 11.73 12.18 12.68 2029 10.81 11.00 11.33 11.74 12.00 12.00 10.81 11.00 11.35 11.76 12.22 12.71 2030 10.84 11.03 11.36 11.77 12.00 12.00 10.84 11.03 11.38 11.79 12.25 12.74 2031 10.87 11.06 11.39 11.80 12.00 12.00 10.87 11.06 11.41 11.83 12.28 12.77 2032 10.90 11.09 11.42 11.83 12.00 12.00 10.90 11.09 11.45 11.86 12.31 12.81 2033 10.93 11.12 11.44 11.86 12.00 12.00 10.92 11.12 11.48 11.89 12.35 12.84 2034 10.95 11.15 11.47 11.89 12.00 12.00 10.95 11.15 11.51 11.92 12.38 12.87 2035 10.98 11.17 11.50 11.92 12.00 12.00 10.98 11.17 11.54 11.96 12.41 12.90U-4 

### U.3 NES AND NPV RESULTS Table U.3.1 shows the impact of the 2+ EER “max tech” scenario on the NES of the 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h and 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes. As noted in the discussion of the efficiency trends, although the 2+ EER “max tech” design allows for efficiencies of greater than 12.0 EER to occur, shipments of equipment greater than 12.0 EER are gradually phased so that the trends are not dramatically different than those developed with a 12 EER “max tech” scenario. As a result, only the NES results for the 12.0 EER candidate standard levels are significantly different from those results based on the 12 EER “max tech” scenario. In Table U.3.1, both the 12 EER and 2+ EER “max tech” scenarios are presented to show the difference in the NES results based on the differing set of “max tech” assumptions. Figures U.3.1 and U.3.2 graphically compare the NES results from the 12 EER and 2+ EER “max tech” scenarios for the 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h and 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes, respectively.
Table U.3.1 Comparison of Cumulative National Energy Savings between Max Tech Cases for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners
$ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,00 Btu/h $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000Btu/h

Candidate Standard Level Effective Date 12 EER Max Tech 2+ EER Max Tech 12 EER Max Tech 2+ EER Max Tech NES (Quads) NES (Quads) NES(Quads) NES(Quads) ASHRAE 90.1-1999 2004 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.23 10.0 EER 2008 - - 0.31 0.31 10.5 EER 2008 0.39 0.40 0.53 0.54 11.0 EER 2008 0.70 0.71 0.79 0.79 11.5 EER 2008 0.98 1.03 1.02 1.05 12.0 EER 2008 1.08 1.33 1.09 1.30U-5 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

ASHRAE 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 Standards CaseCumuative National Energy Savings (Quads) Max Tech = 12 EER Max Tech = 2+ EER



### Figure U.3.1 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative National Energy Savings between Max Tech Cases

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

ASHRAE 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 Standards CaseCumuative National Energy Savings (Quads) Max Tech = 12 EER Max Tech = 2+ EER



### Figure U.3.2 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative National Energy Savings between Max Tech CasesU-6 

### Table U.3.2 shows the impact of the 2+ EER “max tech” scenario on the NPV of the 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h and 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes. As with the NES results, only the NPV results for the 12.0 EER candidate standard levels are significantly different from those results based on the 12 EER “max tech” scenario. But as opposed to the NES results where the 2+ EER “max tech” scenario yields greater energy savings for the 12.0 EER standards case, the 2+ EER “max tech” scenario yields a lower NPV than the 12 EER “max tech” scenario. Although the 2+ EER “max tech” scenario for the 12.0 EER standards case yields greater bill savings to the Nation, it is offset by the much higher equipment costs that are incurred. Figures U.3.1 and U.3.2 graphically compare the NPV results from the 12 EER and 2+ EER “max tech” scenarios for the 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h and 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes, respectively.
Table U.3.2 Comparison of Cumulative NPV result between Max Tech Cases for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners based on a 7 percent Discount Rate (billion 2001$)

Candidate Standard Level $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,00 Btu/h $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000Btu/h
Effective

Date 12 EER Max Tech 2+ EER Max Tech 12 EER Max Tech 2+ EER Max Tech NPV(billion ‘01$) NPV(billion ‘01$) NPV(billion ‘01$) NPV(billion ‘01$) ASHRAE 90.1-1999 2004 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 10.0 EER 2008 - - 0.51 0.51 10.5 EER 2008 0.57 0.58 0.83 0.84 11.0 EER 2008 0.93 0.93 1.12 1.13 11.5 EER 2008 1.08 1.09 1.24 1.25 12.0 EER 2008 1.02 0.91 1.20 1.12U-7 $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20

ASHRAE 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 Standards CaseCumuative NPv (billion 2001$) Max Tech = 12 EER Max Tech = 2+ EER



### Figure U.3.3 

### $ 65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative NPV between Max Tech Cases

$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40

ASHRAE 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 Standards CaseCumuative NPV (billion 2001$) Max Tech = 12 EER Max Tech = 2+ EER



### Figure U.3.4 

### $ 135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h: Comparison of Cumulative NPV between Max Tech Cases