April 2015

U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Costs and Efficiencies 5

APPENDIX D 
EIA - Technology Forecast Updates –

Residential and Commercial Building 

Technologies – Advanced Case

Presented to:

U.S. Energy Information Administration

Prepared by: 

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20036

And

SAIC

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102

December 19, 2012 Confidential and Proprietary, 

©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Do not distribute or copy
Advanced Case Final

DISCLAIMER

This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use 

would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, 

process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily 

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government 

or any agency, contractor or subcontractor thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed 

herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency 

thereof. 

December 2012

1
Advanced Case Final

2

Objective 3

Methodology 4

Definitions 5

Calculations 6

Market Transformation 7

Residential General Service Incandescent Lighting 8

Residential Reflector Lighting 11

Residential Compact Fluorescent Lighting 14

Residential Linear Fluorescent Lighting 16

Residential Torchieres 23

Residential Solid State Lighting 26

Commercial General Service Incandescent Lighting 29

Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lighting 31

Commercial Halogen Lighting – PAR 38 and Edison 33

Commercial Solid State Lighting 36

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – T8 and 

T12 (Less Than/Equal To Four Foot) 40

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – T5 44

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – T8 and 

T12 (Greater Than Four Foot) 47

Commercial High Intensity Discharge –

Low Bay Lighting 54

Page Page

Table of Contents

Commercial High Intensity Discharge –

High Bay Lighting 62

Commercial Supermarket Display Cases 73

Commercial Compressor Rack Systems 75

Commercial Condensers 77

Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators 79

Commercial Walk-In Freezers 82

Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators 85

Commercial Reach-In Freezers 87

Commercial Ice Machines 89

Commercial Beverage Merchandisers 92

Commercial Refrigerated Vending Machines 94

Commercial Constant Air Volume Ventilation 96

Commercial Variable Air Volume Ventilation 98

Commercial Fan Coil Units 100

Data Sources A-1

References B-1
Advanced Case Final

3

The objective of this study is to develop baseline and projected performance/cost 

characteristics for residential and commercial 

end-use equipment, assuming an accelerated adoption of technology.

• 2003/2007 (commercial) and 2005/2009 (residential) baselines, as well as today’s (2011)

— Review of literature, standards, installed base, contractor, and manufacturer information.

— Provide a relative comparison and characterization of the cost/efficiency of a generic product.

• Forecast of technology improvements that are projected to be available through 2040

— Review of trends in standards, product enhancements, and Research and Development (R&D).

— Projected impact of product improvements and enhancement to technology.

Objective

The performance/cost characterization of end-use equipment developed in this study 

will assist EIA in projecting national primary energy consumption.
Advanced Case Final

4

Input from industry, including government, R&D organizations, and manufacturers, 

was used to project product enhancements concerning equipment performance and cost 

attributes.

• Technology forecasting involves many uncertainties.

• Technology developments impact performance and cost forecasts.

• Varied sources ensure a balanced view of technology progress and the probable timing of 

commercial availability.

• All cost forecasts are shown in 2011 dollars.

Methodology
Advanced Case Final

5

The following tables represent the current and projected efficiencies for residential and 

commercial building equipment ranging from the installed base in 2003 and 2007 (for 

commercial products) and 2005 and 2009 (for residential) to the highest efficiency 

equipment that is expected to be commercially available by 2040, assuming advanced

adoption. Below are definitions for the terms used in characterizing the status of each 

technology.

• Advanced Adoption Case: the projected end-use characteristics if an outside force (i.e., fuel price 

increase, deregulation) or industry adoption of energy-efficient technology takes place.

• 2003/2007; 2005/2009 Installed Base: the installed and “in use” equipment for that year. Represents 

the installed stock of equipment, but does NOT represent sales.

• 2011 Current Standard: the minimum efficiency (or maximum energy use) required (allowed) by 

current DOE standards, when applicable.

• Typical: the average, or “typical,” product being sold in the particular timeframe.

• ENERGY STAR: the minimum efficiency required (or maximum energy use allowed) to meet the 

ENERGY STAR criteria, when applicable.

• Mid-Level: middle tier higher-efficiency product available in the particular timeframe.

• High: the product with the highest efficiency available in the particular timeframe.

• Lumens: All reported lumens are mean lumens, not initial lumens.

• CCT: The correlated color temperature (CCT) is a specification of the color appearance of the light 

emitted by a lamp.

Definitions
Advanced Case Final

6

The following metrics are commonly referred to throughout the tables to follow. Below 

are the calculations for each metric.

• System Wattage = (Lamp Wattage * Ballast Factor) / Ballast Efficiency

• System Lumens = Lamp Lumens * Ballast Factor

• Lamp Efficacy = Lamp Lumens / Lamp Wattage

• System Efficacy = System Lumens / System Wattage

• Lamp Cost ($/klm) = Lamp Cost / (Lamp Lumens / 1000)

• Total Equipment Cost = Lamp Cost + Fixture (including ballast) Cost

• System Cost ($/klm) = Total Equipment Cost / (System Lumens / 1000)

• Total Installed Cost = Total Equipment Cost + Labor Installation Cost

• BLE = A/(1+B*Avg Total Lamp Arc Power^(-C)) 

Calculations
Advanced Case Final

7

Market Transformation

The market for the reviewed products has changed since the analysis was performed in 

2008. These changes are noted and reflected in the efficiency and cost characteristics.

• EPACT 2005 established standards for certain types of self-contained Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment and batch Automatic Ice Makers which went into effect in 2010.

• EISA 2007 set several requirements for Walk-in Coolers and Freezers which went into effect in 2009.

• DOE issued Federal minimum efficiency standards that have or will soon go into effect for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps (July 2012 effective date), Incandescent Reflector Lamps (July 2012), 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts (2014), Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines (Aug. 2012), and certain 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Jan. 2012) not covered by the EPACT 2005 standards.
Advanced Case Final

8

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential General Service Incandescent Lamps (60 Watts)

DATA

2005 2009 2011 2014120202

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High Typical High

60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W

Lamp Wattage

60 60 60 60 60 43 43 N/A N/A

Lamp Lumens 

850 850 830 860 870 750 750 N/A N/A

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

14.2 14.2 13.8 14.3 14.5 17.4 17.4 N/A N/A

Lamp Price

$0.25 $0.25 $0.31 $0.34 $0.37 $4.57 $4.57 N/A N/A

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$0.29 $0.29 $0.37 $0.40 $0.43 $6.09 $6.09 N/A N/A

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

1 1 2 1 1 3 3 N/A N/A

CRI

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A N/A

1 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 prescribes standards for current 60 watt incandescent lamps as of January 1, 2014. 

Starting in 2014, we assume 60 watt incandescents will be replaced by halogen infrared incandescents. 

2

In 2020, EISA 2007 sets a minimum efficacy for general service lamps of 45 lm/W. These standards can not be met with existing

commercialized incandescent lamp technologies and current trends in industry lead us to believe they will not be met.
Advanced Case Final

9

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential General Service Incandescent Lamps (75 Watts)

1 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 prescribes standards for current 75 watt incandescent lamps as of January 1, 2013. 

Starting in 2014, we assume 75 watt incandescents will be replaced by halogen infrared incandescents. 

2

In 2020, EISA 2007 sets a minimum efficacy for general service lamps of 45 lm/W. These standards can not be met with existing

commercialized incandescent lamp technologies and current trends in industry lead us to believe they will not be met.

DATA

2005 2009 2011 2013120202

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High Typical High

75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W

Lamp Wattage

75 75 75 75 75 53 53 N/A N/A

Lamp Lumens 

1170 1170 1060 1170 1190 1050 1050 N/A N/A

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

15.6 15.6 14.1 15.6 15.9 19.8 19.8 N/A N/A

Lamp Price

$0.36 $0.37 $0.35 $0.40 $0.49 $4.69 $4.69 N/A N/A

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$0.32 $0.32 $0.33 $0.34 $0.41 $4.47 $4.47 N/A N/A

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

1 1 2 1 1 3 3 N/A N/A

CRI

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A N/A
Advanced Case Final

10

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential General Service Incandescent Lamps (60 and 75 Watts)

• The residential incandescent lighting characterized in this report is a 60 watt and a 75 watt medium 

screw based incandescent lamp.

• A standard 60 watt incandescent lamp produces approximately 860 lumens. A standard 75 watt 

incandescent lamp produces approximately 1170 lumens (GE, 2012; OSRAM, 2012; Philips, 2012; 

Sylvania, 2012). There is little variation in light output between products. Therefore, there is little 

variation in lamp efficacy.

• The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) established standards for 60W lamps 

effective in 2014 and 75W lamps effective in 2013. These standards can be achieved if incandescent 

bulbs use halogen infrared technologies. 

• EISA 2007 also established a requirement that DOE establish standards for general service lamps that 

are equal to or greater than 45 lm/W by 2020. These standards can not be achieved by any 

incandescent technology currently on the market and given current and projected trends in industry 

it is not likely they will be met. It is currently assumed that industry will increase their investment in 

LED technology at the expense of incandescent technology. 

• California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations include efficiency regulations for general service 

incandescent lamps with certain bases. California is currently undergoing a rulemaking to reduce 

indoor residential lighting by not less than 50% of 2007 levels over the next 10 years in accordance 

with Assembly Bill 1109. They are going to regulate general purpose lighting (incandescent lamps) 

and portable lighting fixtures. 

• Fixture prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs are not included for the residential sector.

Residential General Service Incandescent Lamps (60 and 75 Watts)
Advanced Case Final

11

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Reflector Lighting

DATA

2005 2009 2011

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical

Typical Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

65 65 50 16 65 50 15

Lamp Lumens 

620 620 660 750 630 630 720

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

9.5 9.5 13.2 46.9 9.7 12.6 48.0

Lamp Price

$1.36 $1.37 $4.19 $5.87 $3.38 $6.12 $6.36

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$2.20 $2.21 $6.35 $7.82 $5.36 $9.72 $8.83 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

2.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 1.8 3.0 8.0

CRI

100 100 100 82 100 100 82
Advanced Case Final

12

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Reflector Lighting

DATA

2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical 

Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

65 50 15 65 50 15 65 50 15

Lamp Lumens 

636 662 756 643 695 794 649 729 833

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

9.8 13.2 50.4 9.9 13.9 52.9 10.0 14.6 55.6

Lamp Price

$3.30 $5.97 $6.20 $3.21 $5.82 $6.05 $3.13 $5.67 $5.89

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$5.18 $9.02 $8.20 $5.00 $8.38 $7.62 $4.83 $7.78 $7.07 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

1.9 3.2 8.3 2.1 3.5 8.5 2.2 3.7 8.8

CRI

100 100 82 100 100 82 100 100 82
Advanced Case Final

13

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Reflector Lighting

• The residential reflector lamps characterized in this report is a 65W BR30 incandescent, a 50W PAR30 

halogen, and a 16W BR30 Reflector compact fluorescent.

• EPACT92 established minimum performance standards for some reflector lamps and provided 

exemptions for certain specialty applications (e.g., ER/BR, vibration service, more than 5% 

neodymium oxide, impact resistant, infrared heat, colored). EPACT92 effectively phased-out Rshaped tungsten filament incandescent reflector lamps at certain wattages and bulb diameters, 

replacing them with more efficient and cost effective tungsten-halogen parabolic aluminized 

reflector (PAR) lamps. EISA 2007 took away certain exemptions from EPACT 1992, requiring certain 

previously exempted lamps to meet EPACT92 minimum performance standards by January 1, 2008. 

The 65W BR30, a large majority of the incandescent reflector lamp market is still exempted.

• The following future improvements for the system were assumed to occur over a 30 year period: 

— Incandescents: Efficacy +3%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). 

— Halogen: Efficacy +15%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). 

— CFL: Efficacy +15%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). 

• These improvements can be made by improved filament design and placement, higher pressure 

capsules, or higher efficiency reflector coatings.

• Fixture prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs are not included for the residential sector.

Residential Reflector Lamps
Advanced Case Final

14

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Compact Fluorescent Lighting

DATA

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Energy 

Star Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W

Lamp Wattage

13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

Lamp Lumens 

825 825 715 825 875 900 919 945 965 992 1013 1042

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

63.5 63.5 55.0 63.5 67.2 69.2 70.7 72.7 74.2 76.3 77.9 80.1

Lamp Price

$3.14 $2.15 N/A $1.57 $2.38 $3.33 $2.32 $3.25 $2.26 $3.17 $2.21 $3.09

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$4.22 $2.61 N/A $1.90 $2.72 $3.70 $2.53 $3.44 $2.35 $3.19 $2.18 $2.96 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

10.0 10.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.3 10.7 10.7 11.0 11.0

CRI

82 82 80 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
Advanced Case Final

15

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Compact Fluorescent Lighting

• The residential compact fluorescent lamp characterized in this report is a 13 watt compact 

fluorescent lamp.

• Compact Fluorescents contain mercury and therefore require appropriate disposal. In addition, 

because the color rendering index of compact fluorescents is lower than that incandescent lamps (82 

compared to 100), the quality of the light of a compact fluorescent falls short of incandescent lamps.

• EPACT 2005 sets performance for medium based compact fluorescent lamps. It adopts Energy Star 

performance requirements (August 6, 2001 version) for efficacy, lumen maintenance, lamp life, rapid 

cycle stress test, CRI, etc. The standard is effective for lamps manufactured on or after January 1, 

2006. The Secretary may revise these requirements by rule or establish other requirements at a later 

date. [Note: EPACT 2005 standards do not apply to CFL lamps with screw bases other than medium (e.g., pin 

based)]

• Energy Star® and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) offer voluntary specifications for CFL 

lamps.

• The following future improvements were assumed to occur over a 30 year period: Efficacy +15%, Life 

+7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012).

— Improvements in efficacy can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors in compact 

fluorescent lamps. Lifetime improvements can be made by improving the electrodes. 

• Fixture prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs are not included for the residential sector.

Residential Compact Florescent Lamps
Advanced Case Final

16

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T12 and T8)

DATA

2005 2009 2011

Installed Base Current 

Standard 

Mid-Level 

T12 High T12 Baseline T8 

Mid-Level 

T8 High T8 

32WT8 40WT12 32WT8 40WT12 40WT12 34WT12 32WT8 32WT8 28WT8 

Lamp Wattage 64 80 64 80 80 68 64 64 56

Lamp Lumens 5040 5720 5040 5720 6500 5580 5040 5420 5120

System Wattage 65 70 65 70 70 60 65 65 57

System Lumens 4435 3890 4435 3890 4420 3794 4435 4770 4506

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 78.8 71.5 78.8 71.5 81.3 82.1 78.8 84.7 91.4

System Efficacy (lm/W) 68.7 55.6 68.7 55.6 63.1 63.8 68.7 73.8 79.7

Lamp Price ($) $3.35 $1.85 $1.71 $1.85 $5.91 $5.79 $1.71 $2.67 $2.88 

Ballast Price ($) $15.71 $11.22 $9.94 $11.22 $11.22 $11.22 $9.94 $9.94 $9.94 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $0.66 $0.32 $0.34 $0.32 $0.91 $1.04 $0.34 $0.49 $0.56 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 20 15 20 15 24 24 20 20 18

CRI 75 70 75 70 85 85 75 82 82

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 83.0% 77.7% 87.2% 77.7% 77.7% 77.7% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

17

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T12 and T8)

DATA

2020 2030 2040

Typical T8 High T8 Typical T8 High T8 Typical T8 High T8

32WT8 28WT8 32WT8 28WT8 32WT8 28WT8

Lamp Wattage 64 56 64 56 64 56

Lamp Lumens 5740 5274 5785 5444 5830 5615

System Wattage 65 57 65 57 65 57

System Lumens 5052 4641 5091 4791 5130 4941

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 89.7 94.2 90.4 97.2 91.1 100.3

System Efficacy (lm/W) 78.2 82.1 78.8 84.8 79.4 87.4

Lamp Price ($) $2.72 $2.79 $2.62 $2.70 $2.53 $2.60 

Ballast Price ($) $9.64 $9.64 $9.31 $9.31 $8.98 $8.98 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $0.47 $0.53 $0.45 $0.50 $0.43 $0.46 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 25 19 26 19 26 20

CRI 85 82 85 82 85 82

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2% 87.2%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

Residential Linear Fluorescent Lighting (T12/T8)

• This report assumes that T12 and T8 residential linear fluorescent lamps provide the same utility to 

consumers. Each characterized technology is a two-lamp, one-ballast system that emits 

approximately 4,500 system lumens.

• In a change from the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report characterizes a range of efficacies for T12 

and T8 lamps and does not use T5 lamps for direct comparison because T5 lamps are almost never 

used as residential replacement options.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Low efficiency and mid-range efficiency T12s: 2 F40T12 lamps with a residential low power 

factor electronic ballast (ballast factor =0.68, ballast luminous efficiency (BLE)= 77.7%)

— High efficiency T12: 2 F34T12 lamps with a residential low power factor electronic ballast 

(ballast factor =0.68, BLE =77.7%)

— Baseline and mid-range efficiency T8s: 2 F32T8 lamps with instant start electronic ballast 

(ballast factor=0.88, BLE=87.2%)

— High efficiency T8: 2 F28T8 lamps with instant start electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, 

BLE=87.2%)

• Since 1995, DOE standards have required that the lamps characterized by this report have a 

minimum efficacy of 75 lm/W and a minimum CRI of 69 for >35W lamps or 45 for <35W lamps.

• In 2005, DOE standards raised the minimum ballast efficacy factor (BEF) of the ballasts paired with 

the characterized lamps, effectively promoting the use of T8 lamp and ballast systems. Residential 

ballasts were originally exempted from regulation.

18

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T12 and T8)
Advanced Case Final

Residential Linear Fluorescent Lighting (T12/T8)

• Beginning July 14, 2012 (or July 14, 2014 for T8 700-series phosphor lamps), DOE fluorescent lamp 

standards will require a minimum efficacy of 89 lm/W. While the amended performance-based 

standards do not explicitly prohibit T12 lamps, no T12 lamps met the standard at the time of its 

announcement. Since then, however, T12 lamps meeting the standard have entered the market.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized residential ballasts 

have a minimum BLE = 0.993 / (1 + 0.41 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)). Residential ballasts 

also must have a minimum power factor of 0.5.

• California's Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005).

• ENERGY STAR residential fixtures require ≥ 65 lm/W per lamp-ballast platform before September 

1, 2013 and ≥ 70 lm/W per lamp-ballast platform thereafter.

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they 

are assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide 

technologies. While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional 

energy savings are most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy 

sensors.

• Fixture prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs are not included for the residential sector.

19

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T12 and T8) (cont.’d)
Advanced Case Final

20

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T5)

DATA

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

28WT5 28WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 

Lamp Wattage 56 56 56 52 56 52 56 52 56 52

Lamp Lumens 5320 5320 5320 5320 5468 5480 5632 5657 5796 5834

System Wattage 63 63 63 59 61 57 61 57 61 57

System Lumens 5320 5320 5320 5320 5468 5480 5632 5657 5796 5834

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 95.0 95.0 95.0 102.3 97.6 105.4 100.6 108.8 103.5 112.2

System Efficacy (lm/W) 84.3 84.3 84.3 90.7 89.8 96.9 92.5 100.1 95.2 103.2

Lamp Price ($) $3.56 $3.18 $3.18 $3.97 $3.08 $3.85 $2.98 $3.72 $2.87 $3.59 

Ballast Price ($) $20.94 $20.94 $20.94 $20.94 $26.31 $26.31 $25.41 $25.41 $24.50 $24.50 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $0.67 $0.60 $0.60 $0.75 $0.56 $0.70 $0.53 $0.66 $0.50 $0.62 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 20 20 20 25 21 26 21 27 22 27

CRI 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 88.7% 88.7% 88.7% 88.7% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

Residential Linear Fluorescent Lighting (T5)

• The residential T5 lamps characterized in this report are part of a two-lamp, one-ballast systems that 

emit approximately 5,300 system lumens. 

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report characterizes a range of efficacies within the 

T5 family and does not use T12 and T8 lamps for direct comparison because of a distinct utility for 

T5 lamps. Notably, T5 systems are very rarely used in the residential sector.

• T5 lamps are approximately 40% narrower than T8 lamps and almost 60% narrower than T12 lamps. 

This allows T5 lamps to be coated with higher quality, more efficient phosphor blends than larger 

diameter lamps, resulting in a more efficacious lamp. The compact size of T5 lamps also permits 

greater flexibility in lighting design and construction.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical: 2 F28T5 lamps with a programmed start electronic ballast (ballast factor =1, 

BLE=88.7%)

— Best available: 2 F26T5 lamps with a programmed start electronic ballast (ballast factor =1, 

BLE=88.7%)

21

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T5)
Advanced Case Final

Residential Linear Fluorescent Lighting (T5)

• Currently no federal standards exist for the T5 lamps or their corresponding ballasts.

• Beginning July 14, 2012, DOE fluorescent lamp standards will require a minimum efficacy of 86 

lm/W.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized ballasts have a 

minimum BLE = 0.993 / (1 + 0.51 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)).

• California's Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005).

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they 

are assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide 

technologies. While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional 

energy savings are most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy 

sensors.

• Fixture prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs are not included for the residential sector.

22

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T5) (Cont.’d)
Advanced Case Final

23

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Torchieres

DATA

2005 2009 2011

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical

Typical Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

253 150 154 37 150 150 40

Lamp Lumens 

4300 2670 2670 2670 2733 2650 2666

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

17.0 17.8 17.3 72.7 18.2 17.7 66.6

Lamp Price

$4.15 $2.27 $1.10 $12.71 $2.87 $3.88 $12.33

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$0.97 $0.85 $0.42 $4.76 $1.05 $1.46 $4.63 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

2.1 1.0 1.8 10.0 0.8 3.0 9.5

CRI 98 100 100 82 100 100 82
Advanced Case Final

24

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Torchieres

DATA

2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical 

Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage 150 150 40 150 150 40 150 150 40

Lamp Lumens 2760 2783 2799 2788 2922 2939 2816 3068 3086

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 18.4 18.6 70.0 18.6 19.5 73.5 18.8 20.5 77.1

Lamp Price $2.80 $3.78 $12.02 $2.73 $3.69 $11.72 $2.66 $3.60 $11.43

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $1.01 $1.36 $4.30 $0.98 $1.26 $3.99 $0.94 $1.17 $3.70 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

0.8 3.2 9.8 0.9 3.5 10.1 0.9 3.7 10.5

CRI 100 100 82 100 100 82 100 100 82
Advanced Case Final

25

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Torchieres

• The residential torchiere characterized in this report emits approximately 2,683 lumens. The typical 

characteristics are a weighted average of a halogen, incandescent, and CFL torchieres based. The 

2005 typical wattage is based on 2003 installed base data. The 2009 typical wattage is based on 

EPACT standards.

• Energy Star® and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) offer voluntary specifications for 

torchieres.

• The following future improvements for the system were assumed to occur over a 30 year period: 

— Incandescents: Efficacy +3%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). 

— Halogen: Efficacy +15%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). 

— CFL: Efficacy +15%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). 

• Fixture prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs are not included for the residential sector.

Residential Torchieres
Advanced Case Final

26

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Solid State Lighting (LED A19 Replacement)

DATA

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

LED A19 LED A19 LED A19 LED A19 LED A19 LED

Typical Wattage 36 18 13 3.8 3.6 3.5

Lumens 630 800 800 800 800 800

Efficacy (lm/W) 17.3 44.0 60.0 210.0 224.0 230.0

Lamp Price ($) $189.82 $68.00 $26.40 $2.16 $1.12 $0.80 

Cost ($/klm) $301.00 $85.00 $33.00 $2.70 $1.40 $1.40 

Average Life (1000 hrs) 50 20 25 90 100 100

CRI 92 80 90 92 92 92

CCT 2700 3000 2700 2700 2700 2700

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

27

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Solid State Lighting (LED PAR38 Replacement)

DATA

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

LED PAR38 LED PAR38 LED PAR38 LED PAR38 LED PAR38 LED

Typical Wattage 36 28 20 4.8 4.5 4.3

Lumens 630 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Efficacy (lm/W) 17.3 36.0 50.0 210.0 224.0 230.0

Lamp Price ($) $189.82 $164.00 $51.00 $2.70 $1.40 $1.00 

Cost ($/klm) $301.00 $164.00 $51.00 $2.70 $1.40 $1.00 

Average Life (1000 hrs) 50 20 25 90 100 100

CRI 92 80 90 92 92 92

CCT 2700 3000 2700 2700 2700 2700

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

28

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Residential Solid-State Lighting (LED A19 and PAR38 Replacements)

Residential Solid-State Lighting

• The residential solid-state lighting characterized in this report are replacements for a 60W A19 lamp 

and a 75W PAR38 lamp. These represent the most common uses of LED technology in the residential 

sector.

• This report characterizes two distinct applications for LEDs in the residential sector rather than one, 

as was done in the 2008 EIA Reference Case. Because of rapid LED technology development, the 

market is best characterized by the state of the technology at a given time rather than a range of 

performance at any one time. 

• Assumptions for 2011:

— 60W A19 equivalent: 13W LED emitting 800 lumens

— 75W PAR38 equivalent: 20W LED emitting 1000 lumens

• No federal standards exist for solid-state lighting.

• In the advanced case, projections are based on 2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model’s ‘high 

improvement’ case, a scenario analyzed in the “Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in 

General Illumination Applications” report, and assume LED technology advances faster than 

anticipated by the DOE SSL Multi-Year Program Plan.
Advanced Case Final

29

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial General Service Incandescent Lighting

1 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 prescribes standards for current 100 watt incandescent lamps as of January 1, 2012. Starting in 

2012, 100-watt incandescents will be replaced by halogen infrared incandescents. 

2

In 2020, EISA 2007 sets a minimum efficacy for general service lamps of 45 lm/W. These standards can not be met with existing commercialized 

incandescent lamp technologies and current trends in industry lead us to believe they will not be met.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2012120202

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical Typical 

Typical Typical Low Typical High 72W Inc 72W Inc

System Wattage 

100 100 100 100 100 72 N/A

System Lumens 

997 997 903 965 1003 879 N/A

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

16.9 16.9 15.3 16.2 17.0 20.7 N/A

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

10.0 10.0 9.0 9.6 10.0 12.2 N/A

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $0.23 $0.19 $0.40 $0.35 $0.39 $3.09 N/A

System Cost ($/klm) $17.07 $13.97 $20.46 $21.29 $22.59 $19.14 N/A

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

1 1 2 1 1 3 N/A

CRI

100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A

Total Installed Cost ($) $89.76 $73.45 $85.40 $85.35 $85.39 $71.00 N/A

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $3.58 $3.58 $3.58 $3.58 $3.58 $0.86 N/A
Advanced Case Final

30

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial General Service Incandescent Lighting

• The Commercial incandescent lighting characterized in this report is a 100 watt medium screw based 

incandescent lamp (NCI, 2002) in an open down light recessed can fixture (~$20) with a fixture 

efficiency of 59% (DOE, 2008).

• A The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) established standards for 100W 

lamps effective in 2012. These standards can be achieved if incandescent bulbs use halogen infrared 

technologies. 

• EISA 2007 also established a requirement that DOE establish standards for general service lamps that 

are equal to or greater than 45 lm/W by 2020. These standards can not be achieved by any 

incandescent technology currently on the market and given current and projected trends in industry 

it is not likely they will be met. It is currently assumed that industry will increase their investment in 

LED technology at the expense of incandescent technology. 

• California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations include efficiency regulations for general service 

incandescent lamps with certain bases. California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations include 

efficiency regulations for general service incandescent lamps with certain bases. California is 

currently undergoing a rulemaking to reduce commercial lighting by not less than 25% of 2007 levels 

over the next 10 years in accordance with Assembly Bill 1109. They are going to regulate general 

purpose lighting (incandescent lamps).

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the fluorescent and incandescent energy conservation standard advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking (lamps ANOPR). Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,376 

operating hours per year. (lamps ANOPR)

Commercial General Service Incandescent Lighting
Advanced Case Final

31

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lamps

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

26W 26W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W

System Wattage 

26 26 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

System Lumens 

1068 1068 976 976 1010 1025 1060 1076 1113 1130 1169

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

67.3 67.3 69.6 69.6 72.0 73.0 75.6 76.7 79.3 80.5 83.3

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

41.1 41.1 42.4 42.4 43.9 44.6 46.1 46.8 48.4 49.1 50.8

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$4.01 $3.28 $1.56 $1.56 $1.73 $1.52 $1.69 $1.49 $1.65 $1.45 $1.61 

System Cost ($/klm)

$22.14 $18.12 $23.05 $23.05 $22.65 $22.48 $22.09 $21.92 $21.54 $21.37 $21.00 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

10.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 12.4 12.4 12.8 12.8 13.2 13.2

CRI

82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82

Total Installed Cost ($)

$96.56 $79.02 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $78.00 $78.00 $76.05 $76.05 $74.15 $74.15 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 $0.39 
Advanced Case Final

32

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lamps

• The commercial compact fluorescent lamp characterized in this report is a 23 watt screw-base 

compact fluorescent lamp in an open down light recessed can fixture (~$20) with a fixture 

efficiency of 61%.

• EPACT 2005 sets performance for medium based compact fluorescent lamps. It adopts 

Energy Star performance requirements (August 6, 2001 version) for efficacy, lumen 

maintenance, lamp life, rapid cycle stress test, CRI, etc. The standard is effective for lamps 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2006. The Secretary may revise these requirements by 

rule or establish other requirements at a later date. [Note: EPACT 2005 standards do not apply to 

CFL lamps with screw bases other than medium (e.g., pin based)]

• Energy Star® and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) offer voluntary specifications 

for CFL lamps.

• California’s Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires 

(including fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005)

• The following future improvements were assumed to occur over a 30 year period: Efficacy 

+15%, Life +7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). Improvements in efficacy can be made by 

using more rare-earth phosphors in compact fluorescent lamps. Lifetime improvements can 

be made by improving the compact fluorescent lamp electrodes.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment 

from RS Means and the lamps ANOPR. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,650 

operating hours per year. 

Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lamps
Advanced Case Final

33

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Halogen Lighting (PAR 38)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical 

90W PAR 

38 70W HIR 90W PAR 38 70W HIR 90W PAR 38 70W HIR 90W PAR 38 70W HIR 90W PAR 38 70W HIR 90W PAR 38 70W HIR

System Wattage 

90 70 90 70 90 70 90 70 90 70 90 70

System Lumens 

1218 1172 1218 1172 1230 1306 1291 1372 1355 1441 1423 1513

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

14.6 18.0 14.6 18.0 14.7 20.1 15.4 21.1 16.2 22.1 17.0 23.2

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

13.5 16.7 13.5 16.7 13.7 18.7 14.3 19.6 15.1 20.6 15.8 21.6

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$4.98 $6.76 $4.07 $5.53 $2.87 $11.19 $2.80 $10.91 $2.73 $10.64 $2.66 $10.37 

System Cost ($/klm)

$19.01 $21.46 $15.56 $17.56 $19.35 $27.34 $18.87 $26.65 $18.39 $25.99 $17.93 $25.34 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.4 3.6 2.6 3.9 2.8 4.2 3.0 4.5

CRI

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total Installed Cost ($)

$96.56 $97.92 $79.02 $80.13 $81.00 $93.00 $80.19 $92.07 $79.39 $91.15 $78.59 $90.24 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$1.47 $1.22 $1.47 $1.22 $1.47 $1.22 $1.47 $1.22 $1.47 $1.22 $1.47 $1.22 

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

34

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Halogen Lighting (Edison)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

90W Edison 90W Edison 90W Edison 90W Edison 90W Edison 90W Edison

System Wattage 

90 90 72 72 72 72

System Lumens 

1218 1218 1395 1465 1538 1615

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

14.6 14.6 20.8 21.9 23.0 24.1

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

13.5 13.5 19.4 20.3 21.4 22.4

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

$4.98 $4.07 $1.33 $1.30 $1.26 $1.23 

System Cost ($/klm)

$19.01 $15.56 $15.76 $15.37 $14.99 $14.61 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

2.5 2.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2

CRI

100 100 100 100 100 100

Total Installed Cost ($)

$96.56 $79.02 $80.00 $78.00 $76.05 $74.15 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$1.92 $1.57 $1.41 $1.41 $1.41 $1.41 

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

35

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Halogen Lighting (Par 38 and Edison)

• The commercial halogen lighting characterized in this report is a lamp that emits approximately 1200-1400 lumens in 

an open down light recessed can fixture (~$20) with a fixture efficiency of 93% (DOE, 2008).

• Multiple types of halogen lamps were analyzed, including:

— Typical efficiency unit: 90W halogen PAR38 

— High efficiency unit: 70W halogen infrared reflector PAR38 

— Typical efficiency unit: 72 W halogen Edison A-line lamp

• Halogen infrared reflector (HIR) lamps contain a tungsten halogen capsule with a film coating on the inside of the 

capsule. The coating reflects infrared radiation back into the lamp filament, which forces the filament to burn at a 

higher temperature. This increases the efficacy of the lamp, without reducing operating life. 

• EPACT92 established minimum performance standards for some reflector lamps and provided exemptions for 

certain specialty applications (e.g., ER/BR, vibration service, more than 5% neodymium oxide, impact resistant, 

infrared heat, colored). EPACT92 effectively phased-out R-shaped tungsten filament incandescent reflector lamps at 

certain wattages and bulb diameters, replacing them with more efficient and cost effective tungsten-halogen parabolic 

aluminized reflector (PAR) lamps. EISA2007 took away certain exemptions from EPACT 1992, requiring certain 

previously exempted lamps to meet EPACT92 minimum performance standards by January 1, 2008.

• The following future improvements for the system were assumed to occur over a 30 year period: Efficacy +15%, Life 

+7.5%, and Price -7.5% (NCI, 2012). These improvements can be made by improved filament design and placement, 

higher pressure capsules, or higher efficiency reflector coatings.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and installation costs are 

calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS Means and the lamps ANOPR. 

Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,450 operating hours per year. (lamps ANOPR)

Commercial Halogen Lighting
Advanced Case Final

36

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (Edison Socket Substitute)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

LED BR30 LED BR30 LED BR30 LED BR30 LED BR30 LED

Wattage

36 13 11 3.1 2.9 2.8

Lumens 548 650 650 650 650 650

Efficacy (lm/W) 15.1 51.0 60.0 210.0 224.0 230.0

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $392.68 $205.00 $80.00 $10.00 $5.30 $3.60

Life (1000 hrs) 50 25 50 100 100 100

CRI

92 85 90 92 92 92

CCT

2700 3000 2700 2700 2700 2700

Total Installed Cost ($) $270.44 $186.77 $105.52 $60.02 $56.96 $55.86

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

37

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (Edison Socket Substitute)

Commercial Solid-State Lighting (Edison Socket Substitute)

• The commercial solid-state lighting characterized is a replacement for a 65W BR30 lamp. This 

represents the most common use of LED technology in Edison sockets in the commercial sector.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— 65W BR30 equivalent: 11W LED emitting 650 lumens in a downlight fixture

• No federal standards exist for solid-state lighting.

• In the advanced case, projections are based on 2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model’s ‘high 

improvement’ case, a scenario analyzed in the “Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in 

General Illumination Applications” report, and assume LED technology advances faster than 

anticipated by the DOE SSL Multi-Year Program Plan.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the 2009 lamps rulemaking. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,376 

operating hours per year. (DOE, 2009)
Advanced Case Final

38

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T8 Linear Fluorescent Lighting

DATA

2003 2007 2011

Installed Base Baseline High 

Efficiency 

HE w/ Occ. 

Sensor 

HE w/ Spec. 

Reflector 

HE w/ OS & 

Spec. Ref. 

32WT8 32WT8 32WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8

System Wattage 65 65 65 57 57 57 57

System Lumens 3282 3282 3282 3334 3334 3942 3942

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 78.8 78.8 78.8 91.4 91.4 91.4 91.4

System Efficacy (lm/W) 50.1 50.1 50.1 58.2 58.2 68.8 68.8

Cost ($/klm) $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.63 $0.63 $0.63 $0.63 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $13.81 $13.81 $13.81 $14.38 $15.29 $17.64 $18.40 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 20 20 20 18 9 18 9

CRI 75 75 75 82 82 82 82

Total Installed Cost ($) $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $76.63 $79.64 $98.20 $101.21 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $3.03 $3.03 $3.03 $3.16 $4.41 $3.16 $4.41 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 86.0% 86.0% 86.0% 86.0% 86.0% 86.0% 86.0%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

39

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T8 Linear Fluorescent Lighting (Cont.’d)

DATA

2020 2030 2040

Base HE HE w/ 

OS 

HE w/ 

SR HE Max Base HE HE w/ OS 

HE w/ 

SR 

HE 

Max Base HE HE w/ OS 

HE w/ 

SR 

HE 

Max 

32WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8 32WT8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8 F32T8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8

System Wattage 62 54 54 54 54 62 54 54 54 54 62 54 54 54 54

System Lumens 3738 3434 3434 4061 4061 3767 3545 3545 4192 4192 3796 3656 3656 4323 4323

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 89.7 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 90.4 97.2 97.2 97.2 97.2 91.1 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3

System Efficacy (lm/W) 60.5 63.5 63.5 75.1 75.1 60.9 65.5 65.5 77.5 77.5 61.4 67.6 67.6 79.9 79.9

Cost ($/klm) $0.53 $0.59 $0.59 $0.59 $0.59 $0.51 $0.56 $0.56 $0.56 $0.56 $0.49 $0.52 $0.52 $0.52 $0.52 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $12.40 $13.55 $14.40 $16.61 $17.33 $11.88 $12.67 $13.47 $15.53 $16.21 $11.37 $11.85 $12.59 $14.53 $15.16 

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs) 25 19 9 19 9 26 19 10 19 10 26 20 10 20 10

CRI 85 82 82 82 82 85 82 82 82 82 85 82 82 82 82

Total Installed Cost ($) $75.01 $75.19 $78.11 $96.11 $99.04 $73.42 $73.59 $76.42 $93.79 $96.62 $71.83 $71.99 $74.72 $91.47 $94.20 

Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($) $3.03 $3.16 $4.41 $3.16 $4.41 $3.03 $3.16 $4.41 $3.16 $4.41 $3.03 $3.16 $4.41 $3.16 $4.41 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1% 91.1%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – ≤ 4 ft. T8/T12

• The commercial linear fluorescent lighting (≤ 4 ft.) characterized in this report is a two-lamp system (one ballast and 

one fixture) that emits approximately 4,000 system lumens. 

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report excludes F34T12 lamps and F32T8 HE magnetic systems. T12 

lamps have largely disappeared from the market, and F32T8 HE magnetic systems are a niche product for sensitive 

applications that do not represent any significant portion of the market. This report also assumes that the high 

efficiency T8 lamp has a reduced wattage of 28W rather than 32W.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Baseline F32T8: 2 32W T8 lamps with instant start electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, BLE=86%), fixture 

efficiency = 74%

— F32T8 HE unit: 2 28W T8 lamps with instant start electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, BLE=86%), fixture 

efficiency = 74%

— F32T8 HE unit w/ occupancy sensor: 2 28W T8 lamps with a electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, BLE=86%) and 

occupancy sensor (designed for 1,000 sq. ft. or ~25 two lamp systems), fixture efficiency = 74%. Note that 

occupancy sensor is assumed to be associated with a 50% reduction in lamp lifetime.

— F32T8 HE unit w/ specular reflector: 2 28W T8 lamps with instant start electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, 

BLE=86%), fixture efficiency = 88%

— F32T8 HE unit w/ OS and SR: 2 28W T8 lamps with electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, BLE=86%) and 

occupancy sensor (designed for 1,000 sq. ft. or ~25 two lamp systems), fixture efficiency = 88%. Note that 

occupancy sensor is assumed to be associated with a 50% reduction in lamp lifetime.

• Since 1995, DOE standards have required that the lamps characterized by this report have a minimum efficacy of 75 

lm/W and a minimum CRI of 45 for <35W lamps.

• In 2005, DOE standards raised the minimum BEF of the ballasts paired with the characterized lamps, effectively 

promoting the use of T8 lamp and ballast systems.

40

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T8 Linear Fluorescent Lighting
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – ≤ 4 ft. T8/T12

• Beginning July 14, 2012 (or July 14, 2014 for T8 700-series phosphor lamps), DOE fluorescent lamp 

standards will require a minimum efficacy of 89 lm/W. While the amended performance-based 

standards do not explicitly prohibit T12 lamps, no T12 lamps met the standard at the time of its 

announcement. Since then, however, T12 lamps meeting the standard have entered the market.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized ballasts have a 

minimum BLE = 0.993 / (1 + 0.27 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)). 

• California's Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005).

• Though system watts for the F32T8 HE with the occupancy sensor are the same as the F32T8 HE, 

occupancy sensors can result in 17% to 60% energy savings due to reduced operating hours. (LRC) 

Savings potential is highly dependent on the time-delay programmed into the sensor, which ranges 

from 5-30 minutes and room type. Shorter time delays save more energy, but possibly at expense of 

lamp life. Occupancy sensors can reduce fluorescent lamp lifetime by as much as 50%. (Lutron) This 

decrease in lifetime results in higher overall maintenance costs. 

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they 

are assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide 

technologies. While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional 

energy savings are most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy 

sensors.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,435 operating hours per year. (DOE, 2009)

41

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T8 Linear Fluorescent Lighting (cont.’d)
Advanced Case Final

42

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T5 Linear Fluorescent Lighting

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

28WT5 28WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 

System Wattage 66 63 63 59 61 57 61 57 61 57

System Lumens 4698 4698 4698 4698 4783 4838 4973 4995 5118 5152

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 95.0 95.0 95.0 102.3 96.7 105.4 100.6 108.8 103.5 112.2

System Efficacy (lm/W) 71.2 74.4 74.4 80.1 78.6 85.6 81.7 88.4 84.1 91.1

Cost ($/klm) $1.53 $0.67 $0.67 $0.84 $0.64 $0.79 $0.59 $0.74 $0.56 $0.69 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $28.68 $28.46 $28.46 $28.84 $27.12 $27.16 $25.18 $25.41 $23.60 $23.76 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 20 20 20 25 21 26 21 27 22 27

CRI

85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

Total Installed Cost ($)

$164.95 $161.39 $161.39 $163.17 $157.38 $159.10 $152.92 $154.59 $148.46 $150.07 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$2.81 $2.93 $2.93 $2.71 $2.93 $2.71 $2.93 $2.71 $2.93 $2.71 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE)

88.7% 88.7% 88.7% 88.7% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

Commercial 4-ft T5 Linear Fluorescent Lighting

• The commercial T5 linear fluorescent lighting characterized in this report is a two-lamp system (one 

ballast and one 88.3% efficient fixture) that emits approximately 4,700 system lumens.

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report assumes that the high efficiency T5 lamp has 

a reduced wattage of 26 W rather than 28 W.

• T5 lamps are approximately 40% narrower than T8 lamps and almost 60% narrower than T12 lamps. 

This allows T5 lamps to be coated with higher quality, more efficient phosphor blends than larger 

diameter lamps, resulting in a more efficacious lamp. The compact size of T5 lamps also permits 

greater flexibility in lighting design and construction.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical: 2 F28T5 lamps with a programmed start electronic ballast (ballast factor =1, 

BLE=88.7%)

— Best available: 2 F26T5 lamps with a programmed start electronic ballast (ballast factor =1, 

BLE=88.7%)

• Currently no federal standards exist for the T5 lamps or corresponding ballasts characterized in this 

report.

43

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T5 Linear Fluorescent Lighting
Advanced Case Final

Commercial 4-ft T5 Linear Fluorescent Lighting

• Beginning July 14, 2012, DOE fluorescent lamp standards will require a minimum efficacy of 86 

lm/W for standard output T5 lamps.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized ballasts have a 

minimum BLE = 0.993 / (1 + 0.51 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)). 

• California's Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005).

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they 

are assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide 

technologies. While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional 

energy savings are most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy 

sensors.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and 2009 lamps rulemaking. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,435 operating 

hours per year. (DOE, 2009)

44

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 4-ft T5 Linear Fluorescent Lighting (Cont.’d)
Advanced Case Final

45

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (4-ft Linear Fluorescent 

Lighting Substitute)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base T8 T8 T8 T8

LED LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8

Typical Wattage 36.4 80.0 55.4 24.0 22.5 21.9

Lumens 548 5040 5040 5040 5040 5040

Efficacy (lm/W) 15.1 63.0 91.0 210.0 224.0 230.0

Cost ($/klm) $392.68 $301.00 $110.00 $10.00 $5.30 $3.60

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 50 25 50 100 100 100

CRI 92 70 80 85 85 85

CCT 2700 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500

Total Installed Cost ($) $270.44 $1,570.56 $607.92 $103.92 $80.23 $71.66

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

46

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (4-ft Linear Fluorescent 

Lighting Substitute)

Commercial Solid-State Lighting (4-ft Linear Fluorescent Substitute)

• The commercial solid-state lighting characterized is a replacement for 2 4-ft 32W T8 lamps in a 

troffer fixture. This represents the most common use of LED technology in the 4-ft linear fluorescent 

lighting market.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— 2 F32T8 lamps equivalent: 56W LED emitting 5040 lumens

• No federal standards exist for solid-state lighting.

• In the advanced case, projections are based on 2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model’s ‘high 

improvement’ case, a scenario analyzed in the “Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in 

General Illumination Applications” report, and assume LED technology advances faster than 

anticipated by the DOE SSL Multi-Year Program Plan.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the 2009 lamps rulemaking. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,376 

operating hours per year. (DOE, 2009)
Advanced Case Final

47

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting

DATA

2003 2007

Installed Base 

75WT12 60WT12 59WT8 59WT8 HE 75WT12 60WT12 59WT8 55WT8

System Wattage 158 126 113 100 148 119 113 106

System Lumens 10208 7546 8300 8311 9376 7404 8379 8844

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 78.7 77.7 86.9 98.2 78.7 77.7 86.9 98.5

System Efficacy (lm/W) 64.6 59.9 73.5 83.1 63.1 62.3 73.9 83.7

Cost ($/klm) $0.99 $0.73 $0.80 $1.23 $0.52 $0.38 $0.42 $0.51 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $5.31 $6.54 $6.36 $7.09 $4.41 $4.41 $6.35 $9.26 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 12 12 15 18 12 12 15 24

CRI 70 62 75 85 62 62 75 78

Total Installed Cost ($) $106.42 $102.16 $105.35 $111.74 $83.44 $83.44 $103.93 $162.76 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $4.64 $4.64 $4.39 $4.22 $4.66 $4.66 $4.40 $4.55 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 91.6% 91.7%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

48

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (Cont.’d)

DATA

2011 2020 2030 2040

Electronic 

HE Typical High Efficiency Typical HE Typical HE Typical HE 

60WT12 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8

System Wattage 119 113 106 112 104 112 104 112 104

System Lumens 7404 8379 8844 9051 9110 9258 9404 9465 9699

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 77.7 86.9 98.5 93.9 101.4 96.1 104.7 98.2 108.0

System Efficacy (lm/W) 62.3 73.9 83.7 81.0 87.4 82.8 90.3 84.7 93.1

Cost ($/klm) $0.38 $0.42 $0.59 $0.58 $0.55 $0.54 $0.52 $0.51 $0.48 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $4.41 $6.35 $6.48 $6.19 $6.10 $5.84 $5.71 $5.51 $5.34 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 12 15 18 15 19 16 19 16 20

CRI 62 75 82 82 82 82 82 82 82

Total Installed Cost ($) $83.44 $103.93 $108.05 $106.76 $106.33 $104.84 $104.42 $102.91 $102.51 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $4.66 $4.40 $4.23 $4.40 $4.23 $4.40 $4.23 $4.40 $4.23 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 88.9% 91.6% 91.6% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

49

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – 8 ft. T8/T12

• The commercial linear fluorescent lighting (> 4 ft.) characterized in this report is a two-lamp system 

(one ballast and one fixture) that emits approximately 8,000 system lumens.

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report:

— Assumes that the high efficiency 8 ft. T8 lamp has a reduced wattage of 55 W rather than 59 

W. 

— Continues to includes 75W T12 lamps only in the installed base

— Characterizes the 60W T12 lamps with an electronic ballast rather than a magnetic ballast 

because of the inability to meet current ballast standards with magnetic ballasts

• Assumptions for 2011:

— 2 F96T12 lamps (60W each) with electronic ballast (ballast factor =0.88, BLE=88.9%), fixture 

efficiency= 90.2%

— 2 F96T8 lamps (59W each) with electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88, BLE=91.6%), fixture 

efficiency= 92.8%

— 2 high efficiency F96T8 lamps (55W each) with electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.88,

BLE=91.6%), fixture efficiency= 92.8.%

• Since 1994, DOE standards have required that the lamps characterized by this report have a 

minimum efficacy of 80 lm/W and a minimum CRI of 69 for >35W lamps.

• In 2005, DOE standards raised the minimum BEF of the ballasts paired with the characterized 

lamps, effectively promoting the use of T8 lamp and ballast systems. 
Advanced Case Final

50

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (Cont.’d)

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – 8 ft. T8/T12

• Beginning July 14, 2012 (or July 14, 2014 for T8 700-series phosphor lamps), DOE fluorescent lamp 

standards will require a minimum efficacy of 97 lm/W. While the amended performance-based 

standards do not explicitly prohibit T12 lamps, no T12 lamps met the standard at the time of its 

announcement. Since then, however, T12 lamps meeting the standard have entered the market.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized ballasts have a 

minimum BLE = 0.993 / (1 + 0.27 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)).

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they 

are assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide 

technologies. While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional 

energy savings are most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy 

sensors.

• California’s Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005).

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the 2009 lamps rulemaking. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,435 

operating hours per year. (NCI, 2009)
Advanced Case Final

51

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (High Output)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO 86WT8HO

System Wattage 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 165

System Lumens 11488 11596 11596 12740 11951 13122 12345 13546 12740 13971

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 82.6 82.6 82.6 90.7 85.1 93.4 87.9 96.4 90.7 99.5

System Efficacy (lm/W) 69.6 70.3 70.3 77.2 72.4 79.5 74.8 82.1 77.2 84.6

Cost ($/klm) $0.99 $0.51 $0.51 $0.58 $0.45 $0.51 $0.45 $0.51 $0.42 $0.47 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $9.29 $9.26 $9.26 $8.69 $8.15 $7.66 $8.15 $7.66 $7.62 $7.16 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 24 24 24 18 26 19 26 19 26 20

CRI 78 78 78 86 78 86 78 86 78 86

Total Installed Cost ($) $163.88 $162.76 $162.76 $166.10 $155.96 $159.09 $155.96 $159.09 $152.38 $155.40 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $4.64 $4.55 $4.55 $4.83 $4.55 $4.83 $4.55 $4.83 $4.55 $4.83 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 88.9% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

52

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (High Output)

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – 8 ft. T8/T12 High Output

• The high output commercial linear fluorescent lighting (> 4 ft.) characterized in this report is a twolamp system (one ballast and one 92.8% efficient fixture) that emits approximately 10,000 system 

lumens.

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report characterizes a best available unit in addition 

to the typical unit.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical: 2 F96T8HO lamps (86W each) with electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.78, BLE=91.7%)

— Best available: 2 F96T8HO lamps (86W each) with electronic ballast (ballast factor=0.78, 

BLE=91.7%) and emitting additional lumens

• Since 1994, DOE standards have required that the lamps characterized by this report have a 

minimum efficacy of 80 lm/W and a minimum CRI of 69 for >35W lamps.

• In 2005, DOE standards raised the minimum BEF of the ballasts paired with the characterized lamps, 

effectively promoting the use of T8 lamp and ballast systems. 
Advanced Case Final

53

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (High Output) (Cont.’d)

Commercial Linear Fluorescent Lighting – 8 ft. T8/T12 High Output

• Beginning July 14, 2012 (or July 14, 2014 for T8 700-series phosphor lamps), DOE fluorescent lamp 

standards will require a minimum efficacy of 92 lm/W. While the amended performance-based 

standards do not explicitly prohibit T12 lamps, no T12 lamps met the standard at the time of its 

announcement. Since then, however, T12 lamps meeting the standard have entered the market.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized ballasts have a 

minimum BLE of 0.993 / (1 + 0.38 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)). 

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they 

are assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide 

technologies. While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional 

energy savings are most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy 

sensors.

• California’s Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high-efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher (CEC, 2005).

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the 2009 lamps rule. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,435 operating hours 

per year. (DOE, 2009)
Advanced Case Final

54

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Low Bay HID Lighting (Metal Halide)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

175W

MV

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

System Wattage 208 210 211 199 170 199 170 199 170 199 170

System Lumens 5176 6669 7171 10186 11409 10645 11922 11154 12493 11663 13063

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W) 39.0 50.3 50.3 71.4 93.3 74.6 97.5 78.2 102.2 81.8 106.9

System Efficacy 

(lm/W) 24.9 31.8 34.0 51.2 67.2 53.5 70.3 56.1 73.6 58.7 77.0

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $2.19 $2.75 $5.81 $5.67 $5.06 $5.26 $4.70 $4.85 $4.33 $4.47 $4.00 

System Cost ($/klm) $35.80 $26.17 $44.58 $39.92 $35.64 $37.06 $33.09 $34.15 $30.49 $31.49 $28.12 

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs) 24.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.7 15.7 16.4 16.4 17.2 17.2

CRI 15 65 67 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69

Total Installed Cost 

($) $328.83 $318.18 $771.67 $858.59 $858.59 $846.39 $846.39 $832.84 $832.84 $819.28 $819.28 

Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($) $3.93 $4.81 $4.83 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

55

Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (Metal Halide)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (Metal Halide)

• The commercial metal halide low bay lighting characterized in this report is a one-lamp and oneballast system in a low bay fixture with 81.5% efficiency that emits approximately 10,000 system 

lumens. 

• Low bay lighting is defined as “interior lighting where the roof trusses or ceiling height is less than 

25ft. above the floor.” (IESNA, 2000)

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report:

— Characterizes a best available unit in addition to the typical unit.

— Increases the ballast efficiency to increase system efficiency for the high efficiency unit rather than 

increase the lamp efficacy due to the existence of more data on ballast efficiency than lamp 

efficacy at this time. 

— Characterizes metal halide lamps separately from high pressure sodium lamps because of their 

separate utilities. Metal halide lamps provide an intense white light and are typically used in retail 

applications; high pressure sodium lamps provide a yellow light and are typically used in 

warehouses and distribution centers.

• A 175W mercury vapor lamp with a magnetic ballast is included in the 2003 reference case for 

comparison, but EPACT 2005 prohibited the manufacture and import of mercury vapor lamp ballasts 

after January 1, 2008, causing mercury vapor lamp sales to decline until ultimately disappearing after 

the failure of all existing mercury vapor lamp ballasts.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical efficiency unit: 175W metal halide lamp with pulse start magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=88%)

— High efficiency unit: 175W metal halide lamp with pulse start magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=88.4%)
Advanced Case Final

56

Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (Metal Halide)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (Metal Halide) (Cont.’d)

• In 2010, DOE published a determination that energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 

technologically feasible and economically justified. The rulemaking to establish standards for these 

lamps is ongoing and is expected to be completed by June 2014. No current standards exist for HID 

lamps.

• EISA 2007 established efficiency standards for probe start magnetic ballasts (94%) and pulse start 

magnetic or electronic ballasts (88%) for ballasts that operate metal halide lamps between 150 and 400 

watts, effective January 1, 2009. The 94% efficiency requirement effectively banned probe start 

magnetic ballasts.

• A DOE rulemaking is ongoing to establish new and amended energy conservation standards for metal 

halide lamp fixtures as directed by EISA 2007. This rulemaking is expected to be completed by June 

2014.

• In the advanced case, assumed improvements could be made using improved ceramic arc tubes and 

better electrodes (and double arc tubes for lifetime improvement).

• Utilities in MA, NY, OR, TX, VT, WA, WI, FL and CA offer non-regulatory incentive programs to 

promote energy efficient HID lighting. 

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs and is based on the ongoing DOE metal 

halide lamp fixtures rulemaking. Annual maintenance costs are calculated using labor rate and labor 

time to install/replace equipment from RS Means and the 2009 lamps rule. Maintenance costs include 

labor only based on 3,650 operating hours per year.
Advanced Case Final

57

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Low Bay HID Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

175W MV 70W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS

System Wattage 208 93 130 130 122 130 122 130 122 130 122

System Lumens 5176 4130 7213 7213 7213 7213 7213 7213 7213 7213 7213

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W) 39.0 77.9 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5

System Efficacy 

(lm/W) 24.9 44.4 55.5 55.5 59.1 55.5 59.1 55.5 59.1 55.5 59.1

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $2.19 $3.11 $5.37 $5.37 $5.37 $5.29 $5.29 $5.20 $5.20 $5.11 $5.11 

System Cost ($/klm) $35.80 $41.15 $43.68 $43.68 $45.58 $43.03 $44.89 $42.30 $44.13 $41.57 $43.37 

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

CRI 15 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Total Installed Cost 

($) $328.83 $312.86 $767.01 $767.01 $780.68 $762.29 $775.74 $757.04 $770.27 $751.78 $764.79 

Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($) $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $4.04 $3.93 $4.04 $3.93 $4.04 $3.93 $4.04 

No change from reference case.
Advanced Case Final

58

Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

• The commercial high pressure sodium low bay lighting characterized in this report is a one-lamp and 

one-ballast system in a low bay fixture with 76.3% efficiency that emits approximately 7,000 system 

lumens. 

• Low bay lighting is defined as “interior lighting where the roof trusses or ceiling height is less than 

25ft. above the floor.” (IESNA, 2000)

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report:

— Characterizes a best available unit in addition to the typical unit. 

— Increases the ballast efficiency to increase system efficiency rather than increase the lamp efficacy 

due to the existence of more data on ballast efficiency than lamp efficacy at this time. 

— Analyzes a 100W unit rather than a 70W unit as the typical low bay unit.

— Characterizes high pressure sodium lamps separately from metal halide lamps because of their 

separate utilities. Metal halide lamps provide an intense white light and are typically used in retail 

applications; high pressure sodium lamps provide a yellow light and are typically used in 

warehouses and distribution centers.

• A 175W mercury vapor lamp with a magnetic ballast is included in the 2003 reference case for 

comparison, but EPACT 2005 prohibited the manufacture and import of mercury vapor lamp ballasts 

after January 1, 2008, causing mercury vapor lamp sales to decline until ultimately disappearing after 

the failure of all existing mercury vapor lamp ballasts.
Advanced Case Final

59

Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID Low Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium) (Cont.’d)

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical efficiency unit: 100W high pressure sodium lamp with magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=76.9%)

— High efficiency unit: 100W high pressure sodium lamp with magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=82%)

• In 2010, DOE published a determination that energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 

technologically feasible and economically justified. The rulemaking to establish standards for these 

lamps is ongoing and is expected to be completed by June 2014. No current standards exist for HID 

lamps.

• The market is moving away from HPS technology with relatively little investment going into its 

development. Therefore, even in an advanced case, efficacy, price and lifetime are not expected to 

improve faster than the reference case. 

• Utilities in MA, NY, OR, TX, VT, WA, WI, FL and CA offer non-regulatory incentive programs to 

promote energy efficient HID lighting. Incentive programs favor efficient T5 high output lamps or T8 

lamps for low bay applications.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs and is based on the ongoing DOE metal 

halide lamp fixtures rulemaking. Annual maintenance costs are calculated using labor rate and labor 

time to install/replace equipment from RS Means and the 2009 lamps rule. Maintenance costs include 

labor only based on 3,650 operating hours per year.
Advanced Case Final

60

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (Low Bay Applications)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base HPS HPS HPS HPS

LED LED 100W HPS LED 100W HPS LED 100W HPS LED 100W HPS LED

Typical Wattage 36 11 100 34 32 31

Lumens 548 630 7200 7200 7200 7200

Efficacy (lm/W) 15.1 55.3 72.0 210.0 224.0 230.0

Cost ($/klm) $392.68 $160.00 $112.00 $10.00 $5.30 $3.60

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 50 50 50 100 100 100

CRI 92 92 80 80 80 80

CCT 2700 2700 5500 5500 5500 5500

Total Installed Cost ($) $270.44 $154.32 $859.92 $125.52 $91.68 $79.44

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

61

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (Low Bay Applications)

Commercial Solid-State Lighting (Low Bay Applications)

• The commercial solid-state lighting technology characterized in this report is a replacement for a 

100W high pressure sodium lamp. This represents the most common use of LED technology in the 

low bay market.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— 100W HPS lamp equivalent: 100W LED emitting 7,200 lumens

• No federal standards exist for solid-state lighting.

• In the advanced case, projections are based on 2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model’s ‘high 

improvement’ case, a scenario analyzed in the “Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in 

General Illumination Applications” report, and assume LED technology advances faster than 

anticipated by the DOE SSL Multi-Year Program Plan.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the 2009 Lamps Rule. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,376 operating 

hours per year. (DOE, 2009)
Advanced Case Final

62

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial High Bay HID Lighting (Metal Halide)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

400W MV 250W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH

System Wattage 453 293 465 480 423 455 423 455 423 455 423

System Lumens 13061 12245 20607 21261 23551 22218 24610 23281 25788 24344 26965

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 36.0 54.0 63.0 65.0 72.0 67.9 75.2 71.2 78.8 74.4 82.4

System Efficacy (lm/W) 28.8 41.8 44.3 44.3 55.6 48.9 58.1 51.2 60.9 53.6 63.7

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $1.16 $1.31 $2.38 $3.55 $3.21 $3.30 $2.98 $3.04 $2.74 $2.80 $2.53 

System Cost ($/klm) $11.06 $12.83 $21.54 $16.19 $22.14 $15.03 $20.55 $13.85 $18.94 $12.77 $17.47 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 24.0 10.0 20.0 18.4 18.4 19.2 19.2 20.1 20.1 21.0 21.0

CRI 50 65 68 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66

Total Installed Cost ($) $287.32 $300.09 $926.65 $827.03 $1,004.28 $816.71 $988.63 $805.24 $971.25 $793.76 $953.87 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $3.93 $4.81 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

63

Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (Metal Halide)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (Metal Halide)

• The commercial metal halide high bay lighting characterized in this report is a one-lamp and oneballast system in a high bay fixture with 81.8% efficiency that emits approximately 24,000 system 

lumens. 

• High bay lighting is defined as “interior lighting where the roof trusses or ceiling height is greater than 

25ft. above the floor.” (IESNA, 2000)

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report:

— Characterizes a best available unit in addition to the typical unit. 

— Increases the ballast efficiency to increase system efficiency rather than increase the lamp efficacy 

due to the existence of more data on ballast efficiency than lamp efficacy at this time. 

— Analyzes a 400W unit rather than a 250W unit as the typical high bay unit.

— Characterizes metal halide lamps separately from high pressure sodium lamps because of their 

separate utilities. Metal halide lamps provide an intense white light and are typically used in retail 

applications; high pressure sodium lamps provide a yellow light and are typically used in 

warehouses and distribution centers.

• A 400W mercury vapor lamp with a magnetic ballast is included in the 2003 reference case for 

comparison, but EPACT 2005 prohibited the manufacture and import of mercury vapor lamp ballasts 

after January 1, 2008, causing mercury vapor lamp sales to decline until ultimately disappearing after 

the failure of all existing mercury vapor lamp ballasts.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical efficiency unit: 400W metal halide lamp with pulse start magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=88%)

— High efficiency unit: 400W metal halide lamp with pulse start magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=94.5%)
Advanced Case Final

64

Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (Metal Halide)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (Metal Halide) (Cont.’d)

• In 2010, DOE published a determination that energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 

technologically feasible and economically justified. The rulemaking to establish standards for these 

lamps is ongoing and is expected to be completed by June 2014. No current standards exist for HID 

lamps.

• EISA 2007 established efficiency standards for probe start magnetic ballasts (94%) and pulse start 

magnetic or electronic ballasts (88%) for ballasts that operate metal halide lamps between 150 and 400 

watts, effective January 1, 2009. The 94% efficiency requirement effectively banned probe start 

magnetic ballasts.

• A DOE rulemaking is ongoing to establish new and amended energy conservation standards for metal 

halide lamp fixtures as directed by EISA 2007. This rulemaking is expected to be completed by June 

2014.

• In the advanced case , assumed improvements could be made using improved ceramic arc tubes and 

better electrodes (and double arc tubes for lifetime improvement).

• Utilities in MA, NY, OR, TX, VT, WA, WI, FL and CA offer non-regulatory incentive programs to 

promote energy efficient HID lighting. 

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs and is based on the ongoing DOE metal 

halide lamp fixtures rulemaking. Annual maintenance costs are calculated using labor rate and labor 

time to install/replace equipment from RS Means and the 2009 lamps rule. Maintenance costs include 

labor only based on 3,650 operating hours per year.
Advanced Case Final

65

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial High Bay HID Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

400W MV 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS

System Wattage 453 190 190 190 171 190 171 190 171 190 171

System Lumens 13061 10754 10754 10754 10754 10754 10754 10754 10754 10754 10754

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W) 36.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0

System Efficacy 

(lm/W) 28.8 56.6 56.6 56.6 62.9 56.6 62.9 56.6 62.9 56.6 62.9

Lamp Cost ($/klm) $1.16 $4.65 $4.65 $4.65 $4.65 $4.51 $4.51 $4.36 $4.36 $4.20 $4.20 

System Cost ($/klm) $11.06 $30.96 $30.96 $30.96 $31.79 $30.03 $30.83 $29.00 $29.77 $27.97 $28.72 

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

CRI 50 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Total Installed Cost 

($) $287.32 $815.84 $815.84 $815.84 $824.72 $805.85 $814.47 $794.75 $803.07 $783.65 $791.68 

Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($) $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 

No change from reference case.
Advanced Case Final

66

Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

• The commercial high pressure sodium high bay lighting characterized in this report is a one-lamp and 

one-ballast system in a fixture with 79.7% efficiency that emits approximately 11,000 system lumens. 

• High bay lighting is defined as “interior lighting where the roof trusses or ceiling height is greater than 

25ft. above the floor.” (IESNA, 2000)

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report:

— Characterizes a best available unit in addition to the typical unit. 

— Increases the ballast efficiency to increase system efficiency rather than increase the lamp efficacy 

due to the existence of more data on ballast efficiency than lamp efficacy at this time. 

— Characterizes high pressure sodium lamps separately from metal halide lamps because of their 

separate utilities. Metal halide lamps provide an intense white light and are typically used in retail 

applications; high pressure sodium lamps provide a yellow light and are typically used in 

warehouses and distribution centers.

• A 400W mercury vapor lamp with a magnetic ballast is included in the 2003 reference case for 

comparison, but EPACT 2005 prohibited the manufacture and import of mercury vapor lamp ballasts 

after January 1, 2008, causing mercury vapor lamp sales to decline until ultimately disappearing after 

the failure of all existing mercury vapor lamp ballasts.
Advanced Case Final

67

Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial HID High Bay Lighting (High Pressure Sodium) (Cont.’d)

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical efficiency unit: 150W high pressure sodium lamp with magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=78.9%)

— High efficiency unit: 150W high pressure sodium lamp with magnetic ballast (ballast 

efficiency=87.7%)

• In 2010, DOE published a determination that energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 

technologically feasible and economically justified. The rulemaking to establish standards for these 

lamps is ongoing and is expected to be completed by June 2014. No current standards exist for HID 

lamps.

• The market is moving away from HPS technology with relatively little investment going into its 

development. Therefore, even in an advanced case, efficacy, price and lifetime are not expected to 

improve faster than the reference case. 

• Utilities in MA, NY, OR, TX, VT, WA, WI, FL and CA offer non-regulatory incentive programs to 

promote energy efficient HID lighting. Incentive programs favor efficient T5 high output lamps or T8 

lamps for low bay applications.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs and is based on the ongoing DOE metal 

halide lamp fixtures rulemaking. Annual maintenance costs are calculated using labor rate and labor 

time to install/replace equipment from RS Means and the 2009 lamps rule. Maintenance costs include 

labor only based on 3,650 operating hours per year.
Advanced Case Final

68

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial T5 HO Lighting (High Bay Applications)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

54WT5HO 54WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO

System Wattage 240 234 234 221 231 218 231 218 231 218

System Lumens 18060 17646 17646 17646 18175 18175 18763 18763 19351 19351

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 88.0 85.2 85.2 90.2 87.7 92.9 90.6 95.9 93.4 98.9

System Efficacy (lm/W) 75.2 75.5 75.5 79.9 78.6 83.3 81.2 86.0 83.7 88.7

Cost ($/klm) $1.06 $0.26 $0.26 $0.38 $0.24 $0.36 $0.23 $0.34 $0.21 $0.32 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) $8.50 $8.30 $8.30 $8.82 $7.82 $8.30 $7.31 $7.77 $6.84 $7.26 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 22

CRI 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

Total Installed Cost ($) $184.10 $174.12 $174.12 $183.24 $169.72 $178.58 $164.84 $173.39 $159.96 $168.20 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $2.81 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 $2.93 

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) 92.4% 92.4% 92.4% 92.4% 93.5% 93.5% 93.5% 93.5% 93.5% 93.5%

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

Commercial T5 HO Linear Fluorescent Lighting (High Bay Applications)

• The commercial T5 HO linear fluorescent lighting characterized in this report is a four-lamp 

system (one ballast and one 95.9% efficient fixture) that emits approximately 17,000 system lumens.

• Compared to the 2008 EIA Reference Case, this report characterizes a best available unit in 

addition to the typical unit and assumes that the high efficiency T5 HO lamp has a reduced 

wattage of 51 W rather than 54 W.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— Typical: 4 54W T5 high output lamps with electronic ballast (ballast factor=1, BLE=92.4%)

— Best available: 4 51W T5 lamps with electronic ballast (ballast factor =1, BLE=92.4%)

• Currently no federal standards exist for the T5 lamps or corresponding ballasts characterized in 

this report.

69

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial T5 HO Lighting (High Bay Applications)
Advanced Case Final

Commercial T5 HO Linear Fluorescent Lighting (High Bay Applications)

• Beginning July 14, 2012, DOE fluorescent lamp standards will require a minimum efficacy of 76 lm/W.

• Beginning November 14, 2014, DOE standards will require that the characterized ballasts have a 

minimum BLE of 0.993 / (1 + 0.51 * Avg Total Lamp Arc power ^ (- 0.25)). 

• Many utilities offer rebates for T5 high output fixtures, generally to replace HID high bay fixtures. The 

programs include new construction incentives, customized programs, retrofit and upgrade incentives.

• California's Title 24 mandates the use of electronic ballasts with high efficacy luminaires (including 

fluorescent) of 13 W or higher. (CEC, 2005)

• Fluorescent technologies are approaching maximum technologically feasible levels. Therefore, they are 

assumed to be improving gradually compared to SSL lighting and ceramic metal halide technologies. 

While improvements can be made by using more rare-earth phosphors, additional energy savings are 

most likely to be captured through the use of dimming ballasts and occupancy sensors.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and 2009 lamps rulemaking. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,435 operating 

hours per year. (DOE, 2009)

70

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial T5 HO Lighting (High Bay Applications) (Cont.’d)
Advanced Case Final

71

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (High Bay Applications)

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base HPS HPS HPS HPS

LED LED 150W HPS LED 150W HPS LED 150W HPS LED 150W HPS LED

Typical Wattage 36 11 125 51 48 47

Lumens 548 630 10700 10700 10700 10700

Efficacy (lm/W) 15.1 55.3 85.4 210.0 224.0 230.0

Cost ($/klm) $392.68 $160.00 $63.00 $10.00 $5.30 $3.60

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 50 50 50 100 100 100

CRI 92 92 80 80 80 80

CCT 2700 2700 5500 5500 5500 5500

Total Installed Cost ($) $270.44 $154.32 $727.62 $160.52 $110.23 $92.04

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07

Assumes increased rate of technology advancement (higher efficacy, longer life, lower price).
Advanced Case Final

72

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Solid State Lighting (High Bay Applications)

Commercial Solid-State Lighting (High Bay Applications)

• The commercial solid-state lighting technology characterized is a replacement for a 150W high 

pressure sodium lamp. This represents the most common use of LED technology in the high bay 

market.

• Assumptions for 2011:

— 150W HPS lamp equivalent: 125W LED emitting 10,700 lumens

• No federal standards exist for solid-state lighting.

• In the advanced case, projections are based on 2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model’s ‘high 

improvement’ case, a scenario analyzed in the “Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in 

General Illumination Applications” report, and assume LED technology advances faster than 

anticipated by the DOE SSL Multi-Year Program Plan.

• Total installed cost includes equipment and installation costs. Annual maintenance costs and 

installation costs are calculated using labor rate and labor time to install/replace equipment from RS 

Means and the 2009 Lamps Rule. Maintenance costs include labor only based on 3,376 operating 

hours per year. (DOE, 2009)
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Supermarket Display Cases

73

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Supermarket Display Cases

1 DOE’s Federal energy standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (CRE) went into effect on January 1, 2012. The 2020 Typical values are 

based on this standard.

2 The annual energy use for the display case includes the energy from the supermarket compressors and condensers necessary to cool the display 

case. This energy is also partially calculated in the commercial compressor rack and condenser annual energy consumption values.

3 Maintenance cost includes preventative maintenance costs such as cleaning evaporator coils, drain pans, fans, and intake screens as well as lamp 

replacements and other lighting maintenance activities.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical1 High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 20,000 20,730 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Median Store Size (ft3) 44,000 47,500 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000

Energy Use (kWh/yr)221,000 23,117 21,134 18,440 17,002 16,566 15,333 15,694 14,526 14,823 13,719

Average Life (yrs) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Retail Equipment Cost $4,371 $10,094 $7,425 $7,600 $8,173 $8,763 $7,803 $8,763 $7,803 $8,763 $7,803 

Total Installed Cost $6,452 $12,176 $9,603 $9,777 $10,351 $10,937 $9,981 $10,937 $9,981 $10,937 $9,981 

Annual Maintenance Cost3$283 $337 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 $376 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Supermarket Display Cases

74

• DOE set Federal energy efficiency standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (CRE). These standards set 

maximum daily energy consumption levels, in kWh/day, for display cases manufactured and/or sold in the United 

States on or after January 1, 2012. The daily energy consumption is based on the total display area of the display case 

(TDA).

— Vertical, open, medium temperature, remote condensing display case (VOP.RC.M) ≤ 0.82*TDA + 4.07

• The Food Marketing Institute reported the median total supermarket size in 2003 was 44,000 sq. ft., in 2007 it was 

47,500 sq. ft., and in 2010, the last year that was reported by the study, it was 46,000 sq. ft. (FMI, 2012)

• The unit used to estimate energy use and installed cost is a vertical, open, medium temperature, remote condensing 

display case 12 ft. in length with a total display area of 53 sq. ft.

• Commercial central refrigeration systems consist of refrigerated display cases, condensing units, and centralized 

compressor racks.

• Approximately 20 percent of the total annual electricity consumption for a typical supermarket is directly attributable 

to display cases (this does not include the energy consumed by compressors and condensers necessary to cool the 

display cases). (NCI, 2009)

• As part of DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking, DOE estimates 177,000 display cases were shipped in 2005. Of those 

display cases 38,743 were vertical, open, medium temperature, remote condensing display cases (VOP.RC.M), which 

represented the most common type of remote condensing display case shipped in 2005.

• A typical commercial supermarket display case contains T8 electronic lighting, evaporators, evaporator fans, piping, 

insulation, valves, and controls.

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including improved 

evaporator coils, larger evaporators, higher efficiency evaporator fan blades, high efficiency doors, LED lighting, 

thicker insulation, and improved insulation.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 5% in 2020, 10% in 2030, and 15% in 

2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Supermarket Display Cases
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Compressor Rack Systems

75

1 The total capacity represents the capacity required for the entire refrigeration system of a typical supermarket. This usually includes two 

low temperature racks and two medium temperature racks. For 2007 and beyond a 1,077 MBtu/hr total cooling capacity is the sum of

769 MBtu/hr for the medium temperature racks and 308 MBtu/hr for the low temperature racks.

2 The total installed cost is based on the entire supermarket compressor rack system (two medium temperature racks and two low 

temperature racks). The equipment purchase price and the installation cost of a typical rack is approximately $208,130 and $20,813 per 

rack respectively. Therefore the total installed cost for a typical supermarket compressor rack system is approximately $913,691.

3 Maintenance cost includes oil changes, bearing lubrication, filter replacement, and system functionality checks.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Total Capacity (MBtu/hr)11,050 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,077

Power Input (kW) 180 184 162 146 159 143 156 140 152 137

Energy Use (MWh/yr) 1,000 1,023 900 810 882 794 864 778 846 761

Average Life (yrs) 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Total Installed Cost ($1000)2$630 $630 $630 $693 $630 $693 $630 $693 $630 $693 

Annual Maintenance Cost 

($1000)3 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use and power input)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Compressor Rack Systems
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Compressor Rack Systems

76

• Commercial compressor rack systems that serve commercial supermarket display cases and walk-ins consist of a 

number of parallel-connected compressors located in a separate machine room. By modulating compressor 

capacity, these integrated systems provide higher efficiency and mechanical longevity.

• Rack integrators generally supply a packaged compressor rack for which much of the necessary piping, 

insulation, components, and controls are pre-assembled. 

• A typical supermarket will have 10 to 20 compressors mounted in racks in the 3-hp to 15-hp size range. Usually 

there are 3 to 5 compressors per rack serving a series of loads with nearly identical evaporator temperature.

• The duty cycle for compressors is usually in the range 60% to 70%.

• The typical supermarket uses a reciprocating compressor system that has two medium temperature compressor 

racks with an overall capacity of 769 MBtu/hr and two low temperature compressor racks with an overall capacity 

of 308 MBtu/hr. (NCI, 2009)

• Approximately 34 percent of the total annual electricity consumption for a typical supermarket is attributable to 

compressors. (NCI, 2009)

• There are an estimated 140,000 compressor rack systems installed in supermarkets across the U.S. as of 2008. (NCI, 

2009)

• The energy use and power input decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies 

including higher efficiency compressors, improved compressor configurations, and improved controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use and power input will decrease by 2% in 2020, 4% 

in 2030, and 6% in 2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming 

constant market volumes.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Compressor Rack Systems
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Condensers

77

1 Total capacity is the total heat rejected (THR) of condensers comprised of two low temperature condensers (THRL = 240 MBtu/hr each, 

suction temperature = -25°F, condensing temperature 110 F) and two medium temperature (THRM = 520 MBtu/hr each, suction 

temperature = 15°F, condensing temperature = 115°F) condensers; ambient temperature = 95°F. (NCI, 2009)

2 Maintenance cost includes coil cleaning, leak checking, belt replacement as necessary, and system functionality checks.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Total Capacity (MBtu/hr)1

1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520

Power Input (kW) 25 25 22 20 21 19 20 18 19 17

Energy Use (MWh/yr) 138 138 120 108 114 103 108 97 102 92

Average Life (yrs) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Total Installed Cost ($1000) $47 $54 $54 $60 $54 $60 $54 $60 $54 $60 

Annual Maintenance Cost2 $817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use and power input)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Condensers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Condensers

78

• Condensers are designed with multiple methods of cooling: air-cooled, water-cooled, and evaporative. These units 

can be single-circuit or a multiple circuit.

• Commercial condensers are remotely located, typically installed on the roof of a supermarket. 

• For use with parallel compressors in supermarkets, air-cooled units are the most commonly used condensers. This 

analysis is based on multiple air-cooled condensers connected to a supermarket refrigeration system comprised of 

two low temperature condensers and two medium temperature condensers, using R-404A refrigerant. 

• Each compressor rack has a dedicated condenser or a separate circuit of a single common condenser. Condenser 

temperatures of multiple racks are often different. 

• The duty cycle for condensers is usually in the range 50 - 70%.

• Approximately 5 percent of the total annual electricity consumption for a typical supermarket is attributable to 

condensers. (NCI, 2009)

• There are an estimated 140,000 condensers installed in supermarkets across the U.S. as of 2008. (NCI, 2009)

• The energy use and power input decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient fan motors. 

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use and power input will decrease by 5% in 2020, 10% 

in 2030, and 15% in 2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming 

constant market volumes.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Condensers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators

79

1 EISA 2007 includes prescriptive standards for walk-in refrigerators that went into effect in 2009. All units for 2011 and beyond include these 

prescriptive standards.

2 The size for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which states the typical footprint of a walk-in refrigerator is 240 sq. ft. The 

size for 2011 and beyond is based on the NOPR analysis shipment data from DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking which states the typical 

footprint of a walk-in refrigerator is 96 sq. ft.

3

Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 are based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assume a cost of $4,163 and $4,891 respectively. Installation 

cost for 2011 and beyond is based on DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking which assumes installation cost scales based on the cooling capacity 

(which for a cooling capacity of 18,000 Btu/hr is $1,054).

4 Maintenance cost includes checking and maintaining refrigerant charge levels, checking settings, and cleaning heat exchanger coils.

DATA

2003 2007 201112020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 44,970 44,970 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000

Size (ft2)

2

240 240 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96

Energy Use (kWh/yr) 42,300 42,182 12,337 6,329 4,822 6,013 4,581 5,696 4,339 5,380 4,098

Insulated Box Average Life 

(yrs) 18 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Compressor Average Life 

(yrs) 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

Retail Equipment Cost $19,252 $33,821 $13,026 $15,087 $18,821 $15,087 $18,821 $15,087 $18,821 $15,087 $18,821 

Total Installed Cost3$23,415 $38,712 $14,080 $16,141 $19,875 $16,141 $19,875 $16,141 $19,875 $16,141 $19,875 

Annual Maintenance Cost4 $817 -

$1,090

$817 -

$1,090 $2,755 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators

80

• The commercial walk-in refrigerator characterized in this report from 2011 and beyond, which is the typical unit 

according to DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking, is a small non-display cooler with a footprint of 96 sq. ft. and 

includes a floor and a single door. The typical size of 240 sq. ft. was used for 2003 and 2007 because that was the 

typical size reported in the ADL, 1996 and NCI, 2009 reports respectively.

• A typical walk-in refrigerator includes: insulated floor and wall panels, merchandising doors, shelving, lighting (not 

included in cost estimate), semi-hermetic reciprocating compressor, refrigerant (R404A), condenser, and evaporator.

• The high efficiency unit is based on the energy savings potential and cost premiums of several advanced refrigeration 

technologies identified in the preliminary analysis of DOE’s ongoing Walk-In rulemaking. These include: 

- ECM (electronically commutated motor) evaporator and condenser fan motors

- floating heat pressure

- ambient sub-cooling

- evaporator fan shutdown

• The installation cost consists of freight and delivery costs in addition to on-site assembly.

• DOE is currently working on a Federal energy consumption standard for commercial walk-in refrigerators. The 

estimated effective date is 2016.

• As part of DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking, DOE estimates 85,333 walk-in coolers will be shipped in 2015. Of 

those walk-in coolers, 41,403 will be small non-display coolers, which represents the most common type of walk-in 

cooler estimated to ship in 2015.

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including higher 

efficiency fan motors, lighting, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, and controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 5% in 2020, 10% in 2030, and 15% in 

2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators

81

• The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 included prescriptive standards for walk-in refrigerators 

(coolers) that went into effect in 2009. These prescriptive standards, which are included in all units for 2011 and 

beyond, state that all walk-in refrigerators manufactured after January 1, 2009 must:

— have automatic door closers 

— have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other method of minimizing infiltration when doors are open

— contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R–25, except for glazed portions of doors and structural 

members

— use electronically commutated motors or 3-phase motors (for evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower and 

less than 460 volts)

— use electronically commutated motors, permanent split capacitor-type motors, or 3-phase motors (for condenser 

fan motors of under 1 horsepower)

— use light sources with an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including ballast losses (if any), except that 

light sources with an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or less, including ballast losses (if any), may be used in 

conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in refrigerator is 

not occupied by people.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Walk-In Freezers

82

1 EISA 2007 includes prescriptive standards for walk-in freezers that went into effect in 2009. All units for 2011 and beyond include these 

prescriptive standards.

2 The size for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which states the typical footprint of a walk-in freezer is 80 sq. ft. The size for 

2011 and beyond is based on the NOPR analysis shipment data from DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking which states the typical footprint of a 

walk-in freezer is 64 sq. ft.

3

Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 are based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assume a cost of $1,040. Installation cost for 2011 and 

beyond is based on DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking which assumes installation cost scales based on the cooling capacity (which for a cooling 

capacity of 9,000 Btu/hr is $852).

4 Maintenance cost includes checking and maintaining refrigerant charge levels, checking settings, and cleaning heat exchanger coils.

DATA

2003 2007 201112020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 4,929 4,929 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000

Size (ft2)

2

80 80 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Energy Use (kWh/yr) 15,600 15,524 28,455 13,844 12,319 13,637 12,134 13,429 11,949 13,152 11,703

Insulated Box Average Life 

(yrs) 18 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Compressor Average Life 

(yrs) 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

Retail Equipment Cost $7,597 $13,008 $12,068 $14,070 $20,637 $14,070 $20,637 $14,070 $20,637 $14,070 $20,637 

Total Installed Cost3$8,637 $14,049 $12,920 $14,921 $21,489 $14,921 $21,489 $14,921 $21,489 $14,921 $21,489 

Annual Maintenance Cost4$545 $545 $2,755 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 $2,970 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Walk-In Freezers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Walk-In Freezers

83

• The commercial walk-in freezer characterized in this report from 2011 and beyond, which is the typical unit 

according to DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking, is a small non-display freezer with a footprint of 64 sq. ft. and 

includes a floor and a single door. The typical size of 80 sq. ft. was used for 2003 and 2007 because that was the 

typical size reported in the ADL, 1996 and NCI, 2009 reports respectively.

• A typical walk-in freezer includes: insulated floor, door, and wall panels, semi-hermetic reciprocating compressor, 

refrigerant (R404A), condenser, and evaporator.

• The high efficiency unit is based on the energy savings potential and cost premiums of several advanced 

refrigeration technologies determined by the preliminary analysis from DOE’s ongoing Walk-In standard 

rulemaking. These include: 

- ECM (electronically commutated motor) evaporator and condenser fan motors

- external heat rejection

- hot gas defrost

- evaporator fan shutdown

• DOE is currently working on a Federal energy consumption standard for commercial walk-in freezers. The 

estimated effective date is 2016.

• As part of DOE’s on-going Walk-In rulemaking, DOE estimates 34,985 walk-in freezers will be shipped in 2015. Of 

those walk-in freezers, 17,291 will be small non-display freezers, which represents the most common type of walkin freezers estimated to ship in 2015.

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including higher 

efficiency fan motors, lighting, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, defrost, and controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 1.5% in 2020, 3% in 2030, and 5% 

in 2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Walk-In Freezers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Walk-In Freezers

84

• EISA 2007 included prescriptive standards for walk-in freezers that went into effect in 2009. These prescriptive 

standards, which are included in all units for 2011 and beyond, state that all walk-in freezers manufactured after 

January 1, 2009 must:

— have automatic door closers 

— have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other method of minimizing infiltration when doors are open

— contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R–32, except for glazed portions of doors and structural 

members

— contain floor insulation of at least R–28

— use electronically commutated motors or 3-phase motors (for evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower and 

less than 460 volts)

— use electronically commutated motors, permanent split capacitor-type motors, or 3-phase motors (for condenser 

fan motors of under 1 horsepower)

— use light sources with an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including ballast losses (if any), except that 

light sources with an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or less, including ballast losses (if any), may be used in 

conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in freezer is not 

occupied by people.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Walk-In Freezers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators

85

1 EPACT 2005 energy standards went into effect in 2010. The 2011 Low values are based on this standard.

2 ENERGY STAR® set energy consumption levels for solid door commercial refrigerators, including reach-in refrigerators, that went into effect in 

2010. The 2011 Typical values are based on this energy consumption level.

3 Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assumes a cost of $156. Installation cost for 2011 and beyond is 

based on DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking which assumes a cost of $817.

4 Maintenance is only performed if there is a problem with the equipment.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low1 Typical2 High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 3,000 2,700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Size (ft3) 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

Energy Use (kWh/yr) 3,800 2,477 2,533 1,598 993 1,439 894 1,359 844 1,279 794

Energy Use (kWh/yr/ft3) 79 52 52 33 20 29 18 28 17 26 16

Average Life (yrs) 8 9 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Retail Equipment Cost $2,810 $2,988 $3,131 $3,146 $3,191 $3,146 $3,191 $3,146 $3,191 $3,146 $3,191 

Total Installed Cost3$2,966 $3,144 $3,948 $3,963 $4,008 $3,963 $4,008 $3,963 $4,008 $3,963 $4,008

Annual Maintenance Cost4 Negligible Negligible $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators

86

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) set maximum daily energy consumption levels, in kWh/day, for 

commercial reach-in refrigerators that went into effect on January 1, 2010. The daily energy consumption is based 

on the volume of the unit (V).

— Refrigerators with solid doors ≤ 0.10*V + 2.04

— Refrigerators with transparent doors ≤ 0.12*V + 3.34

• Energy Star® also set maximum daily energy consumption levels, in KWh/day, for commercial reach-in 

refrigerators that went into effect on April 1, 2009 for glass and mixed door models and on January 1, 2010 for solid 

door models. These efficiency levels are also based on the volume of the unit (V).

• The commercial reach-in refrigerator characterized in this report from 2011 and beyond, which is the typical unit 

according to DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking, is a 49 cubic ft. solid two-door unit with a cooling capacity of 1,000 

Btu/hr. The typical size of 48 cubic ft. solid two-door unit with a cooling capacity of 3,000 Btu/hr and 2,700 Btu/hr 

was used for 2003 and 2007 because that was the typical size and capacity reported in the ADL, 1996 and NCI, 2009 

reports respectively.

• Annual shipments of reach-in refrigerators in the U.S. in 2008 are estimated to be 263,000 with an estimated 

installed base of 1,556,000. (NCI, 2009)

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including higher 

efficiency fan motors, lighting, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, and controls..

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 10% in 2020, 15% in 2030, and 20% 

in 2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Reach-In Refrigerator Size 0 < V < 15 15 ≤ V < 30 30 ≤ V < 50 50 ≤ V

Solid Door ≤ 0.089*V + 1.411 ≤ 0.037*V + 2.200 ≤ 0.056*V + 1.635 ≤ 0.060*V + 1.416

Glass Door ≤ 0.118*V + 1.382 ≤ 0.140*V + 1.050 ≤ 0.088*V + 2.625 ≤ 0.110*V + 1.500

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Reach-In Freezers

87

1 EPACT 2005 energy standards went into effect in 2010. The 2011 Low values are based on this standard.

2 ENERGY STAR® set energy consumption levels for solid door commercial freezers, including reach-in freezers, that went into effect in 2010. The 

2011 Typical values are based on this energy consumption level.

3 Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assumes a cost of $156. Installation cost for 2011 and beyond is 

based on DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking which assumes a cost of $816.

4 Maintenance is only performed if there is a problem with the equipment.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low1 Typical2 High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 2,200 2,200 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800

Size (ft3) 24 24 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

Energy Use (kWh/yr) 4,600 3,960 7,658 5,151 3,037 4,636 2,733 4,378 2,581 4,121 2,429

Energy Use (kWh/yr/ft3) 192 165 156 105 62 95 56 89 53 84 50

Average Life (yrs) 8 9 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Retail Equipment Cost $2,498 $2,905 $3,277 $3,290 $3,353 $3,290 $3,353 $3,290 $3,353 $3,290 $3,353 

Total Installed Cost3$2,654 $3,061 $4,093 $4,107 $4,170 $4,107 $4,170 $4,107 $4,170 $4,107 $4,170

Annual Maintenance Cost4 Negligible Negligible $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Reach-In Freezers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Reach-In Freezers

88

• EPACT 2005 set maximum daily energy consumption levels, in kWh/day, for commercial reach-in freezers that 

went into effect on January 1, 2010. The daily energy consumption is based on the volume of the unit (V). 

— Freezers with solid doors ≤ 0.40*V + 1.38

— Freezers with transparent doors ≤ 0.75*V + 4.10

• Energy Star® also set maximum daily energy consumption levels, in KWh/day, for commercial reach-in freezers 

that went into effect on April 1, 2009 for glass and mixed door models and on January 1, 2010 for solid door models. 

These efficiency levels are also based on the volume of the unit (V).

• The commercial reach-in freezer characterized in this report from 2011 and beyond, which is the typical unit 

according to DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking, is a 49 cubic ft. solid two-door unit with a cooling capacity of 1,800 

Btu/hr. The typical size of 24 cubit ft. solid one-door unit with a cooling capacity of 2,200 Btu/hr was used for 2003 

and 2007 because that was the typical size and capacity reported in the ADL, 1996 and NCI, 2009 reports 

respectively.

• Annual shipments of reach-in freezers in the U.S. in 2008 are estimated to be 52,000 with an estimated installed 

base of 1,156,000. (NCI, 2009)

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including higher 

efficiency fan motors, lighting, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, defrost, and controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 10% in 2020, 15% in 2030, and 20% 

in 2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Reach-In Freezer Size 0 < V < 15 15 ≤ V < 30 30 ≤ V < 50 50 ≤ V

Solid Door ≤ 0.250*V + 1.250 ≤ 0.400*V - 1.000 ≤ 0.163*V + 6.125 ≤ 0.158*V + 6.333

Glass Door ≤ 0.607*V + 0.893 ≤ 0.733*V – 1.000 ≤ 0.250*V + 13.500 ≤ 0.450*V + 3.500

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Reach-In Freezers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Ice Machines

89

1 EPACT 2005 energy standards went into effect in 2010. The 2011 Low values are based on this standard.

2 ENERGY STAR® set energy consumption levels for ice makers that went into effect in 2008. The 2011 Typical values are based on this energy 

consumption level.

3 The output for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which states the typical ice output is 500 lbs/day. The output for 2011 and 

beyond is based on the preliminary analysis shipment data from DOE’s on-going Automatic Ice Maker rulemaking which states the typical ice 

output is 300 lbs/day.

4 The annual energy use is based on assuming 4,380 hours per year of use, which is a utilization rate of 50%.

5

Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assumes a cost of $209 and $521 respectively. Installation cost 

for 2011 and beyond is based on DOE’s on-going Automatic Ice Maker rulemaking which assumes a cost of $372.

5 Maintenance cost includes cleaning and maintaining refrigerant levels, replacing filters, checking water distribution lines for leaks, cleaning, 

sanitizing, and descaling the bin and water system. Maintenance cost decreases as the size of the ice machine (i.e. output) decreases.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low1 Typical2 High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Output (lbs/day)3

500 500 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Water Use (gal/100 lbs) 24.0 27.5 22.0 19.8 17.6 19.6 17.4 19.4 17.3 19.2 17.2

Energy Use (kWh/100 lbs) 7.0 5.5 7.7 6.9 6.1 6.7 6.0 6.6 5.8 6.4 5.7

Energy Use (kWh/yr)4

6,388 5,019 4,249 3,833 3,408 3,719 3,307 3,643 3,239 3,529 3,139

Average Life (yrs) 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5

Retail Equipment Cost $2,289 $3,954 $4,059 $4,077 $4,152 $4,077 $4,152 $4,077 $4,152 $4,077 $4,152 

Total Installed Cost (with 

Bin)5 $2,498 $4,475 $4,431 $4,449 $4,524 $4,449 $4,524 $4,449 $4,524 $4,449 $4,524 

Annual Maintenance Cost6

$218 - $327 $218 - $327 $110 $110 $110 $110 $110 $110 $110 $110 $110 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use and water use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Ice Machines
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Ice Machines

90

• The commercial ice machine characterized in this report from 2011 and beyond is an air-cooled, ice maker head unit 

with an approximate output of 300 lbs/day. Commercial ice machines are typically integrated with an insulated ice 

storage bin or mounted on top of a separate storage bin. The retail equipment cost includes the ice making head and 

the integrated storage bin.

• Commercial ice machine condensers are either air-cooled or water-cooled. Approximately 90% of all units are the aircooled type.

• ENERGY STAR® set maximum energy consumption levels, in KWh/100 lbs ice, for air cooled ice machines that went 

into effect on January 1, 2008. These efficiency levels are based on the harvest rate, in lbs/24 hrs. (H).

• Commercial ice machine maintenance includes periodic cleaning (every 2 to 6 weeks) to remove lime and scale, and 

sanitizing to kill bacteria. Some ice machines are self-cleaning/sanitizing.

• As part of DOE’s on-going Automatic Ice Makers rulemaking, DOE estimates 263,552 ice machines will be shipped in 

2016. Of those ice-machines 71,357 will be air cooled, ice making head units with a harvest capacity rate between 50 

lbs/24 hr. and 450 lbs/24 hrs., which represents the most common type of ice maker estimated to ship in 2016.

• The energy use and water use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including 

higher efficiency fan motors, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, water circulation pumps, and 

controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 3% in 2020, 5% in 2030, and 8% in 

2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Equipment Type Harvest Rate Energy Use Potable Water Use Limit

Ice Maker Head

< 450 9.23 – 0.0077*H ≤ 25

≥ 450 6.20 – 0.0010*H ≤ 25

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Ice Machines
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Ice Machines: EPACT 2005

91

• EPACT 2005 issued standard levels for commercial ice machines with capacities between 50 and 2500 pounds per 

24-hour period that are manufactured and/or sold in the United States on or after January 1, 2010. The energy 

consumption is based on the harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours (H).

Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

Equipment Type

Type of

Cooling

Harvest Rate

(lbs ice/24 hrs)

Maximum Energy Use

(kWh/100 lbs ice)

Maximum Condenser Water

Use (gal/100 lbs ice)

Ice Making Head

Water

<500 7.80-0.0055 H 200-0.022 H

≥500 and <1436 5.58-0.0011 H 200-0.022 H

≥1436 4.0 200-0.022 H

Air

<450 10.26-0.0086 H Not Applicable

≥450 6.89-0.0011 H Not Applicable

Remote Condensing

(but not remote compressor)

Air

<1000 8.85-0.0038 H Not Applicable

≥1000 5.10 Not Applicable

Remote Condensing

and Remote Compressor

Air

<934 8.85-0.0038 H Not Applicable

≥934 5.3 Not Applicable

Self Contained

Water

<200 11.40-0.019 H 191-0.0315 H

≥200 7.60 191-0.0315 H

Air

<175 18.0-0.0469 H Not Applicable

≥175 9.80 Not Applicable

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Ice Machines
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Beverage Merchandisers

92

1 EPACT 2005 energy standards went into effect in 2010. The 2011 Low values are based on this standard.

2 ENERGY STAR® set energy consumption levels for glass door beverage merchandisers that went into effect in 2009. The 2011 Typical values are 

based on this energy consumption level.

3 Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assumes a cost of $156. Installation cost for 2011 and beyond is 

based on DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking which assumes a cost of $817.

4 Maintenance is only performed if there is a problem with the equipment.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low1 Typical2 High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 1,200 2,500 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100

Size (ft3) 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

Energy Use (kWh/yr) 3,900 2,527 2,523 1,763 996 1,587 897 1,499 847 1,410 797

Average Life (yrs) 8.0 8.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

Retail Equipment Cost $1,457 $2,706 $2,662 $2,810 $2,935 $2,810 $2,935 $2,810 $2,935 $2,810 $2,935 

Total Installed Cost3$1,613 $2,862 $3,479 $3,626 $3,752 $3,626 $3,752 $3,626 $3,752 $3,626 $3,752 

Annual Maintenance Cost4 Negligible Negligible $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Beverage Merchandisers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Beverage Merchandisers

93

• EPACT 2005 sets maximum daily energy consumption levels, in kWh/day, for commercial refrigerators with a selfcontained condensing unit designed for pull-down temperature applications and transparent doors (i.e., beverage 

merchandisers) that went into effect on January 1, 2010. The daily energy consumption is based on the volume of 

the unit (V).

— Beverage merchandisers with transparent doors ≤ 0.126*V + 3.51

• Energy Star® also set maximum daily energy consumption levels, in KWh/day, for beverage merchandisers that 

went into effect on April 1, 2009 for glass and mixed door models. These efficiency levels are also based on the 

volume of the unit (V).

• The beverage merchandiser characterized in this report from 2011 and beyond, which is the typical unit according 

to DOE’s on-going CRE rulemaking, is a 27 cubic foot cooler with a single hinged, transparent door, bright 

lighting, and shelving with a cooling capacity of 2,100 Btu/hr. A similar beverage merchandiser with a cooling 

capacity of 1,200 Btu/hr and 2,500 Btu/hr was used for 2003 and 2007 because that was the typical capacity 

reported in the ADL, 1996 and NCI, 2009 reports respectively.

• Beverage merchandisers have an estimated installed base of 920,000 units in 2008. Of those beverage 

merchandisers 460,000 are one-door units, which represents the most common type of beverage merchandiser.

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including higher 

efficiency fan motors, lighting, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, and controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 10% in 2020, 15% in 2030, and 

20% in 2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant 

market volumes.

Beverage Merchandiser Size 0 < V < 15 15 ≤ V < 30 30 ≤ V < 50 50 ≤ V

Glass Door ≤ 0.118*V + 1.382 ≤ 0.140*V + 1.050 ≤ 0.088*V + 2.625 ≤ 0.110*V + 1.500

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Beverage Merchandisers
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Refrigerated Vending Machines

94

1 DOE’s Federal energy standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines will go into effect on August 31, 2012. The 2020 Typical values are 

based on this standard.

2 Energy use is based on a zone-cooled machine tested in 75°F steady state ambient conditions.

3 Installation cost for 2003 and 2007 is based on ADL, 1996 & NCI, 2009 reports which assumes a cost of $75 and $104 respectively. Installation cost 

for 2011 and beyond is based on DOE’s Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machine rulemaking which assumes a cost of $84.

4 Maintenance cost includes preventative maintenance costs such as checking and maintaining refrigerant charge levels, cleaning heat exchanger 

coils and also includes an annualized cost for refurbishments/remanufacturing. 

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical1 High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity (Btu/hr) 700 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400

Can Capacity 500 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650

Energy Use (kWh/yr)2

3,000 2,913 2,383 2,029 1,821 1,653 1,487 1,566 1,409 1,479 1,331

Average Life (yrs) 14 14 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Retail Equipment Cost $1,769 $1,907 $1,742 $2,046 $2,096 $2,137 $2,632 $2,137 $2,632 $2,137 $2,632 

Total Installed Cost3

$1,844 $2,011 $1,826 $2,130 $2,180 $2,221 $2,716 $2,221 $2,716 $2,221 $2,716 

Annual Maintenance Cost4

$180 $177 $159 $159 $159 $159 $159 $159 $159 $159 $159 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Refrigerated Vending Machines
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Refrigerated Vending Machines

95

• DOE set Federal energy efficiency standards for refrigerated vending machines. These standards set maximum daily 

energy consumption levels, in kWh/day, for commercial refrigerated vending machines manufactured and/or sold in 

the United States on or after August 31, 2012. The daily energy consumption is based on the volume of the unit (V).

— Refrigerated Vending Machines that are fully-cooled (Type A) ≤ 0.055*V + 2.56

— Refrigerated Vending Machines that are zone-cooled (Type B) ≤ 0.073*V + 3.16

• Energy Star® also set maximum daily energy consumption efficiency levels, also in KWh/day, for refrigerated 

vending machines that went into effect on July 1, 2007. These efficiency levels are based on vendible capacity (C).

— Refrigerated Vending Machines ≤ 0.45*(8.66 + 0.009*C)

• The annual maintenance cost is consists of preventive maintenance including checking and maintaining refrigerant 

charge levels, cleaning heat exchanger coils, and replacement of lighting and the annualized value of a single 

refurbishment at approximately the mid-point of the machine’s useful life. The preventative annual maintenance cost 

is approximately $98 and the annualize value of a one-time refurbishment cost of $599 over the lifetime of the 

machine is $61. Therefore, the annual maintenance cost is $159 for refrigerated vending machines.

• As part of DOE’s Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machine rulemaking, DOE estimates 190,200 refrigerated vending 

machines will be shipped in 2012. Of those refrigerated vending machines 63,700 will be zone-cooled, medium size 

units, which represents the most common type of refrigerated vending machine estimated to ship in 2012.

• The energy use decreases in the advanced case due to the use of more efficient technologies including higher 

efficiency fan motors, lighting, evaporators, condensers, compressors, insulation, and controls.

• Assuming the use of more efficient technologies, the energy use will decrease by 5% in 2020, 10% in 2030, and 15% in 

2040 in the advanced case. Equipment costs will stay the same as the reference case assuming constant market 

volumes.

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Refrigerated Vending Machines
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Constant Air Volume Ventilation

96

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Constant Air Volume Ventilation

1 Based on 3800 effective full load hours per year (operating 3800 hours per year at constant load) (ADL, 1999).

2 Total installed cost of 15,000 CFM CAV AHU and hypothetical supply ductwork layout. 

3 Based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 fan power limit (Table 6.5.3.1.1A) with no pressure drop adjustment. Assumed 80% motor load and 91% motor efficiency.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Survey 

Base

Survey 

Base Minimum3 Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

System Airflow (CFM) 

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

System Fan Power (kW) 

11.75 11.55 10.82 10.28 9.20 9.74 8.66 9.20 8.12 8.66 7.57

Specific Fan Power (W/CFM) 

0.783 0.770 0.721 0.685 0.613 0.649 0.577 0.613 0.541 0.577 0.505 

Annual Fan Energy Use (kWh/yr)1 

44,631 43,890 41,120 39,064 34,952 37,008 32,896 34,952 30,840 32,896 28,784

Average Life (yrs) 

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Total Installed Cost ($)2 

$73,500 $73,500 $73,500 $73,500 $80,000 $73,500 $80,000 $73,500 $80,000 $73,500 $80,000

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Constant Air Volume Ventilation

97

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Constant Air Volume Ventilation

• Constant air volume (CAV) ventilation systems are common, inexpensive, and straightforward air-side HVAC 

systems. These systems provide a constant flow rate of air (typically a mix of recirculated and outside air) and adjust 

the supply temperature of that air in order to maintain space temperature setpoint. These systems are most 

applicable to single zone applications in order to ensure adequate temperature control. Many existing buildings 

utilize CAV systems that serve multiple zones where individual zone space temperatures are maintained by reheating 

air delivered to that zone after it is cooled by the central cooling coil; this is prohibited by most current energy codes. 

New building CAV systems are common for single zone applications. This analysis examines only the fan energy of 

the CAV system.

• The unit characterized in this report is a 15,000 CFM CAV system. The average commercial building is approximately 

15,000 square feet (CBECS 2003 and BED 2007). Assuming 1 CFM is needed per square foot of floor area results in a 

15,000 CFM air handling unit.

• A 15,000 CFM CAV packaged indoor air handling unit with cooling and heating coils can be installed for 

approximately $56,500 (RS Means 2012). Ductwork would cost approximately $17,000 additional ($73,500 total).

• ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which is used as a basis for most state energy codes, limits the fan power (brake HP or 

nameplate HP) for CAV systems. The 2007 version of Standard 90.1 was used to represent the 2011 minimum 

efficiency level (state energy codes typically refer to older versions of Standard 90.1 due to code revision cycles).

• Fan energy is affected by several factors, including: fan type (e.g., centrifugal, axial), fan blade shape (e.g., forwardcurved, backward-curved, backward-inclined, airfoil), drive type (belt or direct), configuration (plenum or housed 

centrifugal), system effects, duct design, filter and coil pressure drops, and motor efficiency.
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Variable Air Volume Ventilation

98

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Variable Air Volume Ventilation

1Based on 887 effective full load hours (power-based) per year (operating 3800 hours per year at variable load).

2Total installed cost of 15,000 CFM VAV AHU, VFD, (10) VAV boxes, and hypothetical supply ductwork layout. 

3Based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 fan power limit (Table 6.5.3.1.1A) with no pressure drop adjustment. Assumed 80% motor load and 91% motor efficiency.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Survey 

Base

Survey 

Base Minimum3 Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

System Airflow (CFM) 

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

System Fan Power (kW) 

16.35 15.00 14.76 14.03 12.55 13.29 11.81 12.55 11.07 11.81 10.33

Specific Fan Power (W/CFM) 

1.090 1.000 0.984 0.935 0.837 0.886 0.787 0.837 0.738 0.787 0.689 

Annual Fan Energy Use (kWh/yr)1 

14,502 13,305 13,096 12,441 11,131 11,786 10,477 11,131 9,822 10,477 9,167

Average Life (yrs) 

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Total Installed Cost ($)2 

$91,000 $91,000 $91,000 $91,000 $100,000 $91,000 $100,000 $91,000 $100,000 $91,000 $100,000

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Variable Air Volume Ventilation

99

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Variable Air Volume Ventilation

• Variable air volume (VAV) ventilation systems are the most common multi-zone system type specified today for 

conditioning commercial buildings. These systems provide conditioned air to multiple zone terminal units (VAV 

boxes) that use dampers to modulate the amount of cool air to each zone. An individual zone thermostat controls the 

VAV box damper to allow more or less cooling. If a zone requires heating then the VAV box provides the minimum 

flow rate and typically includes a reheat coil to meet space temperature setpoint. As VAV box dampers close in the 

system, a variable frequency drive reduces fan speed and flow continuously to meet current requirements.

• This analysis examines only the fan energy of the VAV system. VAV systems vary fan speeds between about 30-100% 

speed (and flow); most hours of operation being much lower than full speed. Since fan power varies with the cube of 

fan speed according to fan affinity laws, SAIC estimated the fan-power equivalent full load hours (EFLH) of 887 

hours given an annual runtime of 3800 hours and a typical VAV operating profile. The unit characterized in this 

report is a 15,000 CFM VAV system. 

• A 15,000 CFM VAV packaged indoor air handling unit with cooling and heating coils can be installed for 

approximately $59,000 (RS Means 2012). Ductwork, (10) VAV boxes with reheat, and a VFD would cost 

approximately $32,000 additional ($91,000 total).

• ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which is used as a basis for most state energy codes, limits the fan power for VAV systems 

(brake HP or nameplate HP). The 2007 version of Standard 90.1 was used to represent the 2011 minimum efficiency 

level (state energy codes typically refer to older versions of Standard 90.1 due to code revision cycles).

• Fan energy is affected by several factors, including: fan type (e.g., centrifugal, axial), fan blade shape (e.g., forwardcurved, backward-curved, backward-inclined, airfoil), drive type (belt or direct), configuration (plenum or housed 

centrifugal), system effects, duct design, filter and coil pressure drops, and motor VFD efficiency.
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Fan Coil Unit

100

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Fan Coil Unit

1 Based on 2250 effective full load hours per year (operating 2250 hours per year at constant load) (ADL, 1999).

2 Total installed cost of 2-ton horizontal 2-pipe fan coil unit, housing and controls. 

3 Based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 fan power limit (Table 6.5.3.1.1A) with no pressure drop adjustment. Assumed 80% motor load and 60% 

motor efficiency.

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Survey 

Base

Survey 

Base Minimum3 Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

System Airflow (CFM) 

800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800

System Fan Power (W) 

315 304 875 241 148 232 143 223 136 215 130

Specific Fan Power (W/CFM) 

0.394 0.380 1.094 0.302 0.185 0.290 0.178 0.279 0.171 0.268 0.163 

Annual Fan Energy Use (kWh/yr)1 

709 684 1,969 543 333 522 321 502 307 483 293

Average Life (yrs) 

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Total Installed Cost ($)2 

$2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,600 $2,400 $2,600 $2,400 $2,600 $2,400 $2,600

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

$50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 $50-100 

Assumes increased rate of technology 

advancement (lower energy use)
Advanced Case Final

Commercial Fan Coil Unit

101

Performance/Cost Characteristics » Commercial Fan Coil Unit

• Commercial fan coil units (FCUs) are self‐contained, mass‐produced assemblies that provide cooling, heating, or 

cooling and heating, but do not include the source of cooling or heating. The unit characterized in this report is a 

cooling only (2-pipe), horizontal unit with housing and controls. Fan coil units are typically installed in or adjacent to 

the space being served and have no (or very limited) ductwork.

• Four‐pipe units have separate circuits for heating and cooling. Two‐pipe units with electric heat are a low‐cost 

alternative to four‐pipe units but may use more energy.

• According to manufacturer literature, the cooling capacity for a nominal 800 CFM fan coil unit is about 2 tons.

• Fan coil unit fan motors can be shaded pole, a single phase AC motor with offset start winding and no capacitor; PSC, 

a single phase AC motor with offset start winding with capacitor; or ECM, an AC electronically commutated 

permanent magnet DC motor. PSC motors are currently the most common motor type in FCUs, but most 

manufacturers offer ECM as an option. This analysis examines only the fan energy of the CAV system.

• Fan coil units have higher maintenance costs than central air systems due to the distributed nature of the system. For 

each unit the filters must be changed and drain systems must be flushed periodically.

• ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which is used as a basis for most state energy codes, limits the fan power (brake HP or 

nameplate HP). The 2007 version of Standard 90.1 was used to represent the 2011 minimum efficiency level (state 

energy codes typically refer to older versions of Standard 90.1 due to code revision cycles).

• Fan energy is affected by several factors, including: fan type configuration, filter and coil pressure drops, and motor 

efficiency.
Advanced Case Final

102

Appendix A

Data Sources

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20036

And

SAIC

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102
Advanced Case Final

A-1

Data Sources » Residential General Service Incandescent Lamps (60 Watts)

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011 2014* 2020**

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High Typical High

60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W 60W

Lamp Wattage

2008 EIA Reference Case

Product Catalogs

EISA 2007;

NCI, 2012 EISA, 2007

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) Calculated

Lamp Price Distributor Websites

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Product Catalogs

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-2

Data Sources » Residential General Service Incandescent Lamps (75 Watts)

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011 2013* 2020**

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High Typical High

75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W 75W

Lamp Wattage

2008 EIA Reference Case

Product Catalogs

EISA 2007;

NCI, 2012 EISA, 2007

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) Calculated

Lamp Price Distributor Websites

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Product Catalogs

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-3

Data Sources » Residential Reflector Lamps

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical

Typical Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

2008 EIA Reference Case

Product Catalogs

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) Calculated

Lamp Price Distributor Websites

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Product Catalogs

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-4

Data Sources » Residential Reflector Lamps

DATA SOURCES

2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical 

Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

NCI, 2012

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Price

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-5

Data Sources » Residential Compact Fluorescent Lamps

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Energy Star Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W 13W

Lamp Wattage

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

Product 

Catalogs Product Catalogs

NCI, 2012

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) Calculated Calculated

Lamp Price Distributor Websites

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Product 

Catalogs Product Catalogs

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-6

Data Sources » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T12 and T8)

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011

Installed Base Current 

Standard 

Mid-Level 

T12 High T12 Baseline T8 Mid-Level T8 High T8 

32WT8 40WT12 32WT8 40WT12 40WT12 34WT12 32WT8 32WT8 28WT8 

Lamp Wattage 

2008 EIA 

Reference 

Case

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 2009

Lamp Lumens 

System Wattage 

Calculated

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Price ($) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 2009

Ballast Price ($) DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy Conservation Standard, 2011

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 2009

CRI

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy Conservation Standard, 2011
Advanced Case Final

A-7

Data Sources » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T12 and T8)

DATA SOURCES

2020 2030 2040

Typical T8 High T8 Typical T8 High T8 Typical T8 High T8 

32WT8 28WT8 32WT8 28WT8 32WT8 28WT8 

Lamp Wattage 

NCI, 2012

Lamp Lumens 

System Wattage 

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Price ($) 

Ballast Price ($) 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

CRI

Ballast Efficiency (BLE)
Advanced Case Final

A-8

Data Sources » Residential Linear Fluorescent Lamps (T5)

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

28WT5 28WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 

Lamp Wattage DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation 

Standard, 2009

NCI, 2012

Lamp Lumens 

System Wattage 

Calculated

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Price ($) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation 

Standard, 2009

Ballast Price ($) DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2011

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation 

Standard, 2009 CRI

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2011
Advanced Case Final

A-9

Data Sources » Residential Torchieres

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical

Typical Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

2008 EIA Reference Case

Product Catalogs

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) Calculated

Lamp Price Distributor Websites

Lamp Cost ($/klm) Calculated

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Product Catalogs

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-10

Data Sources » Residential Torchieres

DATA SOURCES

2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical 

Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL Inc. Hal. CFL

Lamp Wattage

NCI, 2012

Lamp Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Price

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

CRI
Advanced Case Final

A-11

Data Sources » Residential Solid State Lighting (LED A19 and PAR38 Replacements)

DATA SOURCES

2005 2009 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

LED LED LED LED LED LED

Typical Wattage

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

Calculated

Lumens Product Catalogs

Efficacy (lm/W) 2012 SSL MYPP

Lamp Price ($) Calculated

Cost ($/klm) 2012 SSL MYPP 2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model

Average Life (1000 hrs)

Product Catalogs

2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model

CRI

NCI, 2012

CCT
Advanced Case Final

A-12

Data Sources » Commercial General Service Incandescent Lighting

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High 

Typical Typical Low Typical High 72W Inc 72W Inc

System Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference Case

Distributor Websites; Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Distributor Websites; Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

System Cost ($/klm)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Distributor Websites

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

Distributor Websites; NCI 2012; RSMeans 

2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-13

Data Sources » Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lamps

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

26W 26W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W 23W

System Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

Distributor Websites; Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Distributor Websites; Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

System Cost ($/klm)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Distributor Websites

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

Distributor Websites; NCI 2012; 

RSMeans 2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-14

Data Sources » Commercial Halogen Lighting (PAR 38)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical 

90W 

Halogen 70W HIR 90W Halogen 70W HIR 90W Halogen 70W HIR 90W Halogen 70W HIR 90W Halogen 70W HIR 90W Halogen 70W HIR

System Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference Case

Distributor 

Websites; 

Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Distributor 

Websites; 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

System Cost ($/klm)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Distributor 

Websites

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($) NCI 2012; RSMeans 

2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-15

Data Sources » Commercial Halogen Lighting (Edison)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

90W Edison 90W Halogen 90W Halogen 90W Halogen 90W Halogen 90W Halogen

System Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference Case

Distributor 

Websites; 

Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Distributor 

Websites; 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Lamp Cost ($/klm) 

System Cost ($/klm)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

Distributor Websites

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($) NCI 2012; RSMeans 

2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-16

Data Sources » Commercial Solid State Lighting (Edison Socket Substitute)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

LED BR30 LED BR30 LED BR30 LED BR30 LED BR30 LED

Wattage

2008 EIA 

Reference Case

Calculated

Lumens Product Catalogs

Efficacy (lm/W)

Product Catalogs

2012 SSL MYPP

Cost ($/klm)

2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model

Life (1000 hrs)

CRI

NCI, 2012

CCT

Total Installed Cost ($)

RSMeans 2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-17

Data Sources » Commercial 4-ft T8 Linear Fluorescent Lighting

DATA

2003 2007 2011

Installed Base Baseline High 

Efficiency 

HE w/ Occ. 

Sensor 

HE w/ Spec. 

Reflector 

HE w/ OS & 

Spec. Ref. 

32WT8 32WT8 32WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8

System Wattage 

2008 EIA 

Reference 

Case

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 2009; DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast 

Energy Conservation Standard, 2011; Product Catalogs; Calculated System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Cost ($/klm) 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 2009

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 2009; Distributor Websites; RSMeans

2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy Conservation Standard, 2011
Advanced Case Final

A-18

Data Sources » Commercial 4-ft T8 Linear Fluorescent Lighting (Cont.’d)

DATA

2020 2030 2040

Base HE HE w/ 

OS 

HE w/ 

SR 

HE 

Max Base HE HE w/ OS 

HE w/ 

SR 

HE 

Max Base HE HE w/ OS 

HE w/ 

SR 

HE 

Max 

32WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8 28WT8 32WT8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8 F32T8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8 F28T8

System Wattage 

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Cost ($/klm) 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life (1000 

hrs) 

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($)

Ballast Efficiency (BLE)
Advanced Case Final

A-19

Data Sources » Commercial 4-ft T5 Linear Fluorescent Lighting

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

28WT5 28WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 28WT5 26WT5 

System Wattage 

2008 EIA 

Reference 

Case

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009; DOE 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2011; 

Product Catalogs; Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Cost ($/klm) 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009; 

Distributor Websites; RSMeans 

2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

Ballast Efficiency (BLE)

DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast 

Energy Conservation Standard, 

2011
Advanced Case Final

A-20

Data Sources » Commercial Solid State Lighting (4-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting Substitute)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical Typical Typical Typical 

LED LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8 LED 32W T8

Wattage

2008 EIA 

Reference Case

Calculated

Lumens Product Catalogs

Efficacy (lm/W)

Product Catalogs

2012 SSL MYPP

Cost ($/klm)

2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model

Life (1000 hrs)

CRI

NCI, 2012

CCT

Total Installed Cost ($)

RSMeans 2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-21

Data Sources » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting

DATA SOURCES 

2003 2007

Installed Base 

75WT12 60WT12 59WT8 59WT8 HE 75WT12 60WT12 59WT8 55WT8

System Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference Case

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 

2009; DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2011; Product Catalogs; 

Calculated

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Cost ($/klm) 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 

2009

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standard, 

2009; Distributor Websites; RSMeans 2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

Ballast Efficiency (BLE)

DOE Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy Conservation 

Standard, 2011
Advanced Case Final

A-22

Data Sources » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (Cont.’d)

DATA SOURCES

2011 2020 2030 2040

Magnetic

HE Typical High Efficiency Typical HE Typical HE Typical HE

60WT12 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8

System Wattage DOE Energy Conservation Standards, 

2009 and 2011; Product Catalogs; 

Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W)

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W)

Cost ($/klm)

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life (1000 

hrs) DOE Energy Conservation Standards, 

2009

CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

DOE Energy Conservation Standards, 

2009; Distributor Websites; RSMeans 2007; 

Calculated Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-23

Data Sources » Commercial 8-ft Linear Fluorescent Lighting (High Output)

DATA SOURCES 

2011 2020 2030 2040

Magnetic 

HE Typical High Efficiency Typical HE Typical HE Typical HE 

60WT12 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8 59WT8 55WT8

System Wattage 

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009; DOE 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2011; Product 

Catalogs; Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Cost ($/klm) 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009 CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009; 

Distributor Websites; RSMeans 2007; 

Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) DOE Ballast Energy Conservation 

Standard, 2011
Advanced Case Final

A-24

Data Sources » Commercial Low Bay HID Lighting (Metal Halide)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

175W

MV

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

175W

MH

System Wattage

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010; Product Catalogs; 

Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Calculated

System Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Cost ($/klm)

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs)

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010

CRI Product Catalogs

Total Installed Cost 

($) DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010; Distributor 

Websites; RSMeans 2007; 

Calculated Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-25

Data Sources » Commercial Low Bay HID Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

175W MV 70W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS 100W HPS

System Wattage

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010; Product Catalogs; 

Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Calculated

System Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Cost ($/klm)

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs)

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010

CRI Product Catalogs

Total Installed Cost 

($) DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010; Distributor 

Websites; RSMeans 2007; 

Calculated Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-26

Data Sources » Commercial Solid State Lighting (Low Bay Applications)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base HPS HPS HPS HPS

LED LED 100W HPS LED 100W HPS LED 100W HPS LED 100W HPS LED

Typical Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference Case

Calculated

Lumens Product Catalogs

Efficacy (lm/W) 

Product Catalogs

2012 SSL MYPP

Cost ($/klm) 

2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

CRI

NCI, 2012

CCT

Total Installed Cost ($)

RSMeans 2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-27

Data Sources » Commercial High Bay HID Lighting (Metal Halide)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

400W MV 250W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH 400W MH

System Wattage

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010 and 2011; Product 

Catalogs; Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Calculated

System Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Cost ($/klm)

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs)

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010 and 2011

CRI Product Catalogs

Total Installed Cost 

($) DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010 and 2011; 

Distributor Websites; RSMeans 

2007; Calculated Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-28

Data Sources » Commercial High Bay HID Lighting (High Pressure Sodium)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

400W MV 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS 150W HPS

System Wattage

2008 EIA Reference 

Case

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010; Product Catalogs; 

Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens

Lamp Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Calculated

System Efficacy 

(lm/W)

Cost ($/klm)

Cost ($/klm l/b/f)

Average Lamp Life 

(1000 hrs)

DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010

CRI Product Catalogs

Total Installed Cost 

($) DOE Energy Conservation

Standards, 2010; Distributor 

Websites; RSMeans 2007; 

Calculated Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

A-29

Data Sources » Commercial T5 HO Lighting (High Bay Applications)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High 

54WT5HO 54WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO 54WT5HO 51WT5HO

System Wattage 

2008 EIA 

Reference 

Case

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009; DOE 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2011; 

Product Catalogs; Calculated

NCI, 2012

System Lumens 

Lamp Efficacy (lm/W) 

Calculated

System Efficacy (lm/W) 

Cost ($/klm) 

Cost ($/klm l/b/f) 

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009 CRI

Total Installed Cost ($)

DOE GSFL and IRL Energy 

Conservation Standard, 2009; 

Distributor Websites; RSMeans 

2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)

Ballast Efficiency (BLE) DOE Ballast Energy Conservation 

Standard, 2011
Advanced Case Final

A-30

Data Sources » Commercial Solid State Lighting (High Bay Applications)

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base HPS HPS HPS HPS

LED LED 150W HPS LED 150W HPS LED 150W HPS LED 150W HPS LED

Typical Wattage 

2008 EIA Reference Case

Calculated

Lumens Product Catalogs

Efficacy (lm/W) 

Product Catalogs

2012 SSL MYPP

Cost ($/klm) 

2012 Energy Savings Forecast Model

Average Lamp Life (1000 hrs) 

CRI

NCI, 2012

CCT

Total Installed Cost ($)

RSMeans 2007; Calculated

Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Supermarket Display Cases

A-31

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr)

DOE, 2007 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

NCI, 2009 NCI Analysis, 2012

DOE, 2009 / DOE, 2011 /

FMI, 2012 / NCI Analysis 2012

Median Store Size (ft3) Food Marketing Institute (FMI), 2012

Energy Use (kWh/yr)

DOE, 2007 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

NCI, 2009 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2012

DOE, 2011

Average Life (yrs)

NCI, 2009

Retail Equipment Cost

Total Installed Cost

Annual Maintenance 

Cost
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Compressor Rack Systems

A-32

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Total Capacity 

(MBtu/hr) ADL, 1996

NCI, 2009 /

NCI Analysis, 

2012 NCI, 2009 / NCI Analysis, 2012 / ADL, 1996

Power Input (kW) Copeland, 2008

Energy Use (MWh/yr) ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Average Life (yrs) Kysor-Warren, 2008

Total Installed Cost 

($1000)

NCI, 2009 /

NCI Analysis, 2012

Annual Maintenance 

Cost ($1000)

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Condensers

A-33

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Total Capacity 

(MBtu/hr)

NCI Analysis, 2008 / 

Heatcraft, 2008 / ADL, 

1996

NCI, 2009

NCI, 2009 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Power Input (kW)

NCI Analysis, 2008 / 

Heatcraft, 2008 / ADL, 

1996

Energy Use (MWh/yr) NCI Analysis, 2008 / 

ADL, 1996

Average Life (yrs) ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Total Installed Cost 

($1000)

NCI Analysis, 2008 / 

Heatcraft, 2008 / RS 

Means, 2007

Annual Maintenance 

Cost NCI Analysis, 2008 NCI Analysis, 

2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Walk-In Refrigerators

A-34

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr) ADL, 1996 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

NCI, 2009

DOE, 2011 DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Size (ft2) 

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)

ADL, 1996 / 

PG&E, 2004 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

Insulated Box 

Average Life (yrs) ADL, 1996 / 

PG&E, 2004

Compressor 

Average Life (yrs)

Retail Equipment 

Cost

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor 

Web Sites / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008 Total Installed Cost

Annual 

Maintenance Cost

ADL, 1996 / 

FMI, 2005 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

DOE, 2011 /

NCI Analysis, 

2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Walk-In Freezers

A-35

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr) ADL, 1996 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

NCI, 2009

DOE, 2011 DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Size (ft2) 

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)

ADL, 1996 / 

PG&E, 2004 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

Insulated Box 

Average Life (yrs) ADL, 1996 / 

PG&E, 2004

Compressor 

Average Life (yrs)

Retail Equipment 

Cost

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor 

Web Sites / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008 Total Installed Cost

Annual 

Maintenance Cost

ADL, 1996 / 

FMI, 2005 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2008

DOE, 2011 /

NCI Analysis, 

2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators

A-36

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr)

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

NCI, 2009 /

NCI Analysis, 

2012

NCI Analysis, 2012

DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Size (ft3) 

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor Web 

Sites

DOE, 2011

Energy Use (kWh/yr) ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

DOE, 2011 / ENERGY STAR, 

2012 / EPACT, 2005

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr/ft3)

NCI Analysis, 2012 NCI Analysis, 2012

Average Life (yrs) ACEEE, 2002

DOE, 2011

Retail Equipment Cost 

ADL, 1996/ 

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Total Installed Cost

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Annual Maintenance 

Cost NCI Analysis, 2008 NCI Analysis, 2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Reach-In Freezers

A-37

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr)

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

NCI, 2009 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2012

NCI Analysis, 2012

DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Size (ft3) 

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor Web 

Sites

DOE, 2011

Energy Use (kWh/yr) ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

DOE, 2011 / ENERGY STAR, 

2012 / EPACT, 2005

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr/ft3)

NCI Analysis, 2012 NCI Analysis, 2012

Average Life (yrs) ACEEE, 2002

DOE, 2011

Retail Equipment Cost 

ADL, 1996/ 

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Total Installed Cost

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Annual Maintenance 

Cost NCI Analysis, 2008 NCI Analysis, 2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Ice Machines

A-38

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Output (lbs/day) ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

NCI, 2009 /

NCI Analysis, 

2012

NCI Analysis, 2012

DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Water Use (gal/100 

lbs)

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor Web 

Sites

DOE, 2011

Energy Use 

(kWh/100 lbs)

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

DOE, 2011 / ENERGY 

STAR, 2012 / EPACT, 2005

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)

ACEEE, 2002 /

NCI Analysis, 

2012

DOE, 2011 /

NCI Analysis, 2012

Average Life (yrs)

ADL, 1996/ 

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Retail Equipment 

Cost 

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Total Installed Cost 

(with Bin)

NCI Analysis, 

2008

NCI Analysis, 

2012

Annual 

Maintenance Cost

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008 NCI, 2009 NCI Analysis, 2012 DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Beverage Merchandisers

A-39

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr)

ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

NCI, 2009

NCI Analysis, 2012

DOE, 2011 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Size (ft3) 

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor Web 

Sites

DOE, 2011

Energy Use (kWh/yr) ADL, 1996 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

DOE, 2011 / ENERGY 

STAR, 2012 / EPACT, 2005

Average Life (yrs) ACEEE, 2002

DOE, 2011

Retail Equipment Cost 

ADL, 1996 / 

Distributor Web 

Sites

Total Installed Cost

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

Annual Maintenance 

Cost

NCI Analysis, 

2008

NCI Analysis, 

2012
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Refrigerated Vending Machines

A-40

DATA SOURCES

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Typical Typical Low Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/hr) 

DOE, 2008 / NCI 

Analysis, 2008

NCI, 2009 / 

NCI Analysis, 

2012

DOE, 2009

DOE, 2009 / NCI Analysis, 2012

Can Capacity

CEC, 2005 / 

NREL, 2003 / 

FEMP, 2004

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)

ADL, 1996 / CEC, 

2008 / NREL, 

2003

DOE, 2009 / ENERGY 

STAR, 2012

Average Life (yrs) DOE, 2008

DOE, 2009

Retail Equipment 

Cost 

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008 / 

DOE, 2008

Total Installed Cost

Distributor Web 

Sites / NCI 

Analysis, 2008 / 

DOE, 2008

Annual 

Maintenance Cost DOE, 2008
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Constant Air Volume Ventilation

A-41

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Minimum3 Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

System Airflow (CFM) Assumed based on average 15,000 square foot commercial building (CBECS 2003 and BED 2007)

System Fan Power (kW)

eQUEST/DOE-2

ASHRA

E 90.1-

2007

SAIC & Mfrs

Specific Fan Power (W/CFM)

Annual Fan Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)1 Calculated – see note 1

Average Life (yrs) 2011 ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications

Total Installed Cost ($)2 RS Means 2012

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) Jones Lang LaSalle

1 Based on 3800 effective full load hours per year (operating 3800 hours per year at constant load) (ADL, 1999).

2 Total installed cost of 15,000 CFM CAV AHU and hypothetical supply ductwork layout. 

3 Based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 fan power limit (Table 6.5.3.1.1A) with no pressure drop adjustment. Assumed 80% motor load and 91% 

motor efficiency.
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Variable Air Volume Ventilation

A-42

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Minimum3 Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

System Airflow (CFM) Assumed based on average 15,000 square foot commercial building (CBECS 2003 and BED 2007)

System Fan Power (kW)

eQUEST/DOE-2

ASHRA

E 90.1-

2007

SAIC & Mfrs

Specific Fan Power (W/CFM)

Annual Fan Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)1 Calculated – see note 1

Average Life (yrs) 2011 ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications

Total Installed Cost ($)2 RS Means 2012

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) Jones Lang LaSalle

1 Based on 887 effective full load hours (power-based) per year (operating 3800 hours per year at variable load).

2 Total installed cost of 15,000 CFM VAV AHU, VFD, (10) VAV boxes, and hypothetical supply ductwork layout. 

3 Based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 fan power limit (Table 6.5.3.1.1A) with no pressure drop adjustment. Assumed 80% motor load and 91% 

motor efficiency.
Advanced Case Final

Data Sources » Commercial Fan Coil Unit

A-43

DATA

2003 2007 2011 2020 2030 2040

Installed Base Minimum3 Typical High Typical High Typical High Typical High

System Airflow (CFM) 800 CFM is typical for a 2-ton fan coil unit

System Fan Power (kW)

ADL 1999, NCI 2008

ASHRA

E 90.1-

2007

SAIC & Mfrs

Specific Fan Power (W/CFM)

Annual Fan Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)1 Calculated – see note 1

Average Life (yrs) 2011 ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications

Total Installed Cost ($)2 RS Means 2012

Annual Maintenance Cost ($) ASHRAE 2000, NCI 2008

1 Based on 2250 effective full load hours per year (operating 2250 hours per year at constant load) (ADL, 1999).

2 Total installed cost of 2-ton horizontal 2-pipe fan coil unit, housing and controls. 

3 Based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 fan power limit (Table 6.5.3.1.1A) with no pressure drop adjustment. Assumed 80% motor load and 60% 

motor efficiency.
Advanced Case Final

146

Appendix B

References

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20036

And

SAIC

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102
Advanced Case Final

• ACEEE. (2007). Top Rated Energy-Efficient Appliances. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy.

• AHAM - ACEEE. (2010). Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart 

Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances.

• AHAM. (n.d.). AHAM Directory of Certified Products. Retrieved September 2010, from 

http://www.ahamdir.com/dirsvc/aham.nsf/fraRAC?OpenFrameset&pgm=Room%20Air

%20Conditioners

• AHRI. (n.d.). Certification Directory. Retrieved September 2010, from Directory of 

Certified Product Performance: 

http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx

• Appliance Magazine. (2010). Appliance Market Research Report - U.S. Appliance Industry: 

Market Share, Life Expectancy & Replacement Market, and Saturation Levels. Appliance 

Magazine.

• Appliance Magazine. (2005). Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry. Appliance Magazine.

• Arthur D. Little. (1996). Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment.

• Arthur D. Little. (1997). Massachusetts Market Transformation Scoping Study; Final Report.

Massachusetts Gas DSM / Market Transformation Collaborative.

147

References

B-1
Advanced Case Final

• ASHRAE. (2003). 2003 ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications. ASHRAE, Inc.

• ASHRAE. (2007). ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. ASHRAE, Inc.

• ASHRAE. (1999). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999. ASHRAE, Inc.

• ASHRAE. (2004). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. ASHRAE, Inc.

• Building Services Research and Information Association & Ducker Research Company. 

(1997, 1998). U.S. Market for Central Plant Air Conditioning; Market for Ducted Warm Air 

Central Heating; U.S. Market for Hydronic Heating and Burners; U.S. Water Heating Market; 

U.S. Unitary and Close Control Air Conditioning.

• California Energy Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2010, from Appliance 

Efficiency Database: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/AdvancedSearch.aspx

• DEER. (2008, June). Database for Energy Efficiency Resources. Retrieved September 2010, 

from California Energy Commission: www.energy.ca.gov/deer

• Distributors. (n.d.). NCI discussions with distributors and online research (i.e. Grainger, 

Home Depot, Lowes, Sears, and others).

148

References

B-2
Advanced Case Final

• EERE. Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer 

Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers.

• EERE. (2000). Clothes Washers Technical Support Document, Final Rule Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Clothes Washers.

• EERE. (2001). Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Central Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule.

• EERE. (2004). Joint Stakeholders Comments on Standards for Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps.

• EERE. (2005). Draft Technical Analysis for Refrigerators, Analysis of Amended Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerators-Freezers.

• EERE. (2005). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.

• EERE. (2006). Technical Analysis for Residential Furnaces and Boilers, Energy Conservation 

Program for Residential Furnaces and Boilers; Proposed Rule.

• EERE. (2006). Technical Analysis for Rulemaking Framework for 

Dishwashers/Cooktops/Ovens, Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products.

149

References

B-3
Advanced Case Final

• EERE. (2006). Buildings Energy Data Book.

• EERE. (2006). DOE Appliance Standards Framework, Rulemaking Framework for Residential 

Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters.

• EERE. (2009). Commercial Heating, Air Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment (i.e. 

ASHRAE Equipment).

• EERE. (2007). Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers; Final Rule.

• EERE. (2009). Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain 

Consumer Products and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Final Rule.

• EERE. (2009). Final Rule Technical Support Document: Residential Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, Cooking Products, and Commercial Clothes Washers.

• EERE. (2009). Commercial Refrigeration Equipment; Final Rule.

• EERE. (2009). Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines; Final Rule Technical Support 

Document.

150

References

B-4
Advanced Case Final

• EERE. (2010). Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Residential Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps.

• EERE. (2010). Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters; Final Rule.

• EERE. (2010). Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners Preliminary Technical 

Support Document.

• EERE. (2010). Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers; Preliminary Analysis Technical Support 

Document.

• EERE. (2011). Commercial Refrigeration Equipment; Preliminary Analysis Technical Support 

Document.

• EERE. (2012). Automatic Commercial Ice Makers; Preliminary Analysis Technical Support 

Document.

151

References

B-5
Advanced Case Final

• ENERGY STAR. (n.d.). Retrieved May 2012, from ENERGY STAR Products: 

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_find_es_products

• Federal Standard. (1975). National energy conservation standards authorized under the 

Energy and Policy Conservation Act of 2007 (EPCA 1975).

• Federal Standard. (2005). National energy conservation standards authorized under the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005).

• Federal Standard. (2007). National energy conservation standards authorized under the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007).

• Food Marketing Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved May 2012, from FMI Supermarket Facts: 

http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts/median-total-store-sizesquare-feet

• GeoExchange. GeoExchange Heating and Cooling Systems: Fascinating Facts.

152

References

B-6
Advanced Case Final

• GHPC. (n.d.). Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium. Retrieved 2007, from 

www.geoexchange.org

• IGSPHA. (n.d.). International Ground Source Heat Pump Association. Retrieved 2007, from 

www.igshpa.okstate.edu

• LBNL. (2003). Commercial Unitary Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps - Life Cycle Cost 

Analysis: Inputs and Results. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

• Max Neubauer, A. d. (2009). Ka-BOOM! The Power of Appliance Standards. ACEEE, ASAP.

• Navigant Consulting, Inc. (n.d.). In House Expertise.

• Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2009). Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for 

Commercial Refrigeration.

• Navien America Inc. (n.d.). Navien Condensing 98%. Retrieved September 2010, from 

http://www.navienamerica.com/PDS/ftp/NavienCondensingTankless/DownLoad_Broc

hure_Manual/NavienCodensing98_Brochure.pdf

• Product Literature. (n.d.). Literature from manufacturers and experts on specific products.

153

References

B-7
Advanced Case Final

• RS Means Mechanical Cost Data. (2007). Means Construction Information Network.

• RS Means Mechanical Cost Data. (2010). Means Construction Information Network.

• SAIC. (n.d.). In House Expertise.

• Technology Cost and Performance File for Commercial Model for AEO2010. (2009). (E. 

Boedecker, Compiler)

154

References

B-8