### TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR

COMMERCIAL HEATING, AIR­CONDITIONING, AND WATER­HEATING

EQUIPMENT

Including Water­cooled and Evaporatively­cooled Air Conditioners, Water­source

Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems, Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners, and Single

Package Vertical Heat Pumps, and Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving

Computer Rooms

May 2, 2011

U

. S

. D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y

O f f i c e o f E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y a n d R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y

B u i l d i n g T e c h n o l o g i e s P r o g r a m

A p p l i a n c e s a n d C o m m e r c i a l E q u i p m e n t S t a n d a r d s

W a s h i n g t o n

, D C 2 0 5 8 5

### This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by the staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc.,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

And

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

### CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

................................................................................. 1­1

1.2 PROCESS FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

ASHRAE EQUIPMENT

................................................................................................. 1­1

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

.......................................................................... 1­2

1­i

### 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

This technical support document (TSD) is a stand­alone report that provides the technical

analysis and results supporting the information presented in the Notice of Data Availability

(NODA) for ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 equipment.

1.2 PROCESS FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

ASHRAE EQUIPMENT

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94­163, as

amended, sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part C 1 

### of Title III

created the energy conservation program for “Certain Industrial Equipment.” (42 U.S.C. 6311­

6317) Of particular relevance for this rulemaking is 42 U.S.C 6313(a)(6) which directs DOE, in

the event that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended for certain types of commercial and industrial

equipment, to adopt that efficiency level unless clear and convincing evidence supports a

determination that adopting a more stringent level would produce significant additional energy

savings and is technologically feasible and economically justified.

On October 29, 2010, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air­Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) officially released the American National Standards Institute

(ANSI)/ASHRAE/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1­

2010 (hereinafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010), which addressed efficiency

levels for certain categories of commercial heating, ventilating and air­conditioning (HVAC) and

water heating equipment covered by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The new

Standard 90.1 revised the efficiency levels of the existing ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2007 for

certain equipment, such as water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioning and heating

equipment and water­source variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems with a cooling capacity less

than 17,000 Btu/h. The standard also created new energy efficiency levels for water­source VRF

systems with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and for air conditioners

and condensing units serving computer rooms, which were previously uncovered by DOE’s

energy conservation standards..

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) further amended EPCA

by setting definitions and minimum energy conservation standards for single package vertical air

conditioners (SPVACs) and single package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs). EISA 2007 also

amended EPCA to include a provision specifically for these equipment classes (and no others),

which required DOE to review the most recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 in

1 This Part was subsequently redesignated as Part A­1 for editorial reasons after Part C of Title III of EPCA was

repealed by Pub. L. 109­58.



### 1­1

### accordance with the procedures established for ASHRAE products under paragraph 42 U.S.C.

63131(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B))

The NODA that this TSD accompanies is the first step in fulfilling DOE’s obligations as

set forth by the language in EPCA and its amendments. The NODA identifies the equipment for

which the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amended its efficiency levels and presents the

analysis of the potential energy savings at those levels as well as more stringent levels. In

addition, the NODA presents the analysis of the potential energy savings from adopting more

stringent energy conservation standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs as required by 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(10)(B). This TSD provides a detailed description of the analyses performed in support of

the NODA.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This NODA TSD outlines the analytical approaches used in this rulemaking. The TSD

consists of 4 chapters:

Chapter 1 Introduction: Provides an overview of process to amend energy

conservation standards for ASHRAE equipment and outlines the structure

of the document.

Chapter 2 Market Assessment: Characterizes the market for water­cooled and

evaporatively­cooled air conditioners, water­source variable refrigerant

flow systems, single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, and

air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms.

Chapter 3 Energy Use Characterization: Discusses the process used for generating

energy use estimates for water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air

conditioners, single package vertical air conditioners, and single package

vertical heat pumps at the current standard levels and at potential amended

standard levels.

Chapter 4 National Energy Savings Analysis: Discusses the methodology and inputs

for estimating the potential energy savings of various potential amended

standard levels.

1­2

### CHAPTER 2.MARKET ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 2­1

2.1.1 Water­cooled and Evaporatively­cooled Air Conditioners.................................. 2­1

2.1.2 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps................................ 2­2

2.1.3 Variable Refrigerant Flow Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating

Equipment............................................................................................................ 2­3

2.1.4 Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms ................... 2­4

2.1.5 Federal Energy Conservation Standards.............................................................. 2­5

2.1.6 ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 Efficiency Levels................................................ 2­8

2.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 2­11

2.2.1 Trade Associations............................................................................................. 2­11

2.2.2 Manufacturers .................................................................................................... 2­12

2.2.3 Market Performance Data.................................................................................. 2­13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.1 Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air

Conditioning and Heating Equipment Classes with Increased Standard Levels in

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010............................................................................. 2­7

Table 2.1.2 Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners

.............................................................................................................................. 2­7

Table 2.1.3 Equipment Classes With Updated Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1­

2010...................................................................................................................... 2­8

Table 2.2.1 Manufacturers of the Commercial Equipment Included in this Rulemaking ......... 2­12

Table 2.2.2 CEC Computer Room Air Conditioners Minimum Efficiency Levels................... 2­20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2.1 EER Histogram of Small Water­cooled Air Conditioners .................................... 2­15

Figure 2.2.2 EER Histogram of Large Water­cooled Air Conditioners .................................... 2­15

Figure 2.2.3 EER Histogram of Very Large Water­cooled Air Conditioners ........................... 2­16

Figure 2.2.4 EER Histogram of SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h.......................................................... 2­18

Figure 2.2.5 EER Histogram of SPVHPs .................................................................................. 2­18

Figure 2.2.6 COP Histogram of SPVHPs .................................................................................. 2­19

2­i

### 2.1 BACKGROUND

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air­Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE) released an updated version of the American National Standards Institute

(ANSI)/ASHRAE/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1

(hereinafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010) on October 29, 2010. ASHRAE

Standard 90.1­2010 included increased efficiency levels for water­cooled and evaporativelycooled commercial package air conditioners (triggering DOE review of the minimum standards

for these equipment classes), and created a new set of equipment classes for variable refrigerant

flow (VRF) products and for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 also updated the standards for certain classes of water­source

VRF commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment in comparison to the existing

Federal standards that would apply, thereby triggering DOE review of the standards for those

equipment classes.

In addition, DOE is required by EPCA to review the most recently published ASHRAE

Standard 90.1 with respect to single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical

heat pumps in accordance with the procedures for ASHRAE equipment established under

paragraph 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B)) Therefore, although ASHRAE

Standard 90.1­2010 did not increase the efficiency levels for single package vertical air

conditioners and heat pumps, DOE is reviewing the minimum standards for these equipment

classes under the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B).

2.1.1 Water­cooled and Evaporatively­cooled Air Conditioners

Water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners are part of a subset of

commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA defines a “commercial

package air conditioning and heating equipment” as an “air­cooled, water­cooled, evaporativelycooled, or water­source (not including ground water­source) electrically operated, unitary central

air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps for commercial application.” (42 U.S.C.

6311(8)(A))

Air conditioners use a refrigeration cycle to cool an indoor space by moving heat from

the cold location to a hotter location by means of evaporating and condensing a fluid, typically a

refrigerant. An air conditioner typically has four major components: a compressor, condensing

coil, expansion valve, and an evaporator coil. The compressor turns the refrigerant from a low

pressure gas into a high pressure gas, which raises the temperature of the gas. At the next step,

the condensing coil convects the heat from the hot refrigerant, which condenses into a liquid, still

at a high temperature and high pressure. This liquid refrigerant then goes through an expansion

valve that lowers its pressure and temperature before entering the evaporator coil. The evaporator

2­1�

### coil cools the indoor air by transferring heat from the indoor air to the low temperature

refrigerant.

Commercial­size water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners cool

commercial facilities and utilize water instead of ambient air (as is used in air­cooled equipment)

to cool the condensing coil. In the case of a water­cooled air conditioner, the condensing coil is

submerged in circulating water; whereas in the case of evaporatively­cooled air conditioner, the

condensing coil is sprayed with water that evaporates as air passes over the coil. Both systems

utilize the high heat capacity of water to optimize the heat transfer from the refrigerant in the

condensing coil. Water­cooled air conditioners can be used effectively in any type of

environment, while evaporatively­cooled air conditioners are most effective in hot­dry climate

regions (i.e., the southwestern United States).

Although EPCA initially set the same standard levels for water­cooled and evaporativelycooled air conditioners, ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 specifies different standard levels for

each. EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 both further divide this equipment into four categories

based on cooling capacity ranges: <65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, ≥135,000 and

<240,000 Btu/h, and ≥240,000 and < 760,000 Btu/h. a 

### EPCA identifies equipment with cooling

capacities of <135,000 Btu/h, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h as

“small,” “large,” and “very large,” respectively. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)­(D)) EPCA and

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 also divide these products further based on whether they have electric

resistance or no heating or any other kind of heating.

2.1.2 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps are also a subset of commercial

package air conditioning and heating equipment as defined by EPCA. EPCA further defines

single package vertical air conditioners as “air­cooled commercial package air conditioning and

heating equipment that­­­

(1) Is factory­assembled as a single package that—

(i) Has major components that are arranged vertically;

(ii) Is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating components; and

(iii) Is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an

outside wall;

(2) Is powered by a single­or 3­phase current;

(3) May contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation

options, indoor free air discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and

a ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does not specify an upper limit on the cooling capacity for the largest capacity equipment

class (i.e., ≥240,000 Btu/h). However, EPCA limits the size of very large commercial package air conditioning and

heating equipment to cooling capacities below 760,000 Btu/h.



### 2­2

### (4) Has heating components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or

gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating means.” (42 U.S.C.

6311(23))

EPCA also defines single package vertical heat pump as “a single package vertical air

conditioner that (1) uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may

include secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or

gas.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(24)) ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 also defines both of these terms in the

same way.

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners (SPVACs) and Single Package Vertical Heat

Pumps (SPVHPs) are mainly used for cooling and heating classrooms, modular buildings,

telecommunication shelters, and portable buildings. Although this equipment is typically sized in

cooling capacities similar to products used in residential applications, they are subject to

different operational cycles and operating hours than are typically encountered in residential

applications. The types of buildings in which SPVACs and SPVHPs are installed all have high

internal loads stemming from a high number of occupants and heat sources when the building is

in use. Also, since these buildings are usually high density buildings, floor space is at a premium;

thus, having the components for these units arranged in a vertical fashion allows them to be

placed in closets or mounted through the wall in order to minimize the amount of floor space

occupied by the equipment.

EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 both divide SPVACs and SPVHPs into 3 size

categories based on cooling capacity: <65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 Btu/h and < 135,000 Btu/h, and

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

2.1.3 Variable Refrigerant Flow Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating

Equipment

Variable refrigerant flow systems are a subset of commercial package air conditioning

and heating equipment that is newly defined in ASHRAE 90.1­2010. Neither EPCA nor DOE’s

regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations define variable refrigerant flow systems.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 defines a variable refrigerant flow system as “an engineered direct

expansion (DX) multi­split system incorporating at least one variable capacity compressor

distributing refrigerant through a piping network to multiple indoor fan coil units each capable of

individual zone temperature control, through integral zone temperature control devices and

common communications network. Variable refrigerant flow utilizes three or more steps of

control, on common, interconnecting piping.”

2­3�

### VRF systems are most commonly used in hotels, schools, and office buildings where

different zones have different heating and cooling load requirements depending on occupancy

and time of day. VRF systems have one outdoor condensing unit that is connected to multiple

indoor evaporator coils, as opposed to the single evaporator coil typically found in conventional

air conditioners and heat pumps. Each evaporator coil in a VRF system can be individually

controlled, and VRF systems are capable of monitoring and adjusting the refrigerant flow to each

evaporator to meet the requirements of heating and cooling loads in specific zones. Some VRF

heat pumps have a heat recovery option, which allows the system to move heat within a building

via a third refrigerant line that connects indoor evaporator coils. The heat recovery feature allows

a zone requiring heat to be warmed using the heat extracted from a zone requiring cooling, and

vice versa. However, if all zones need to be heated at the same time, then the heat would need to

be provided by other means.

Water­source VRF systems utilize a condensing unit that transfers heat to or from

circulating water depending on whether the system is in cooling or heating mode. These systems

allow the condensing unit of the system to be placed indoors, such as in a mechanical closet or a

basement. Having the condensing unit indoors decreases the amount of refrigerant piping to the

individual evaporator coils, which is especially useful for equipment installed in high rise office

buildings.

ASHRAE 90.1­2010 divides air­cooled VRF systems into 4 size categories: <65,000

Btu/h, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, and ≥240,000 and < 760,000

Btu/h. b 

### ASHRAE 90.1­2010 also divides water­source VRF systems into 3 size categories,

<65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, and ≥135,000. For both air­cooled and watersource VRF systems, ASHRAE also further divides the equipment classes with a cooling

capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h based on whether or not a heat recovery system is present.

2.1.4 Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

“Air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms” is a new equipment

class established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010. ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 specifies the

efficiency metric for this equipment class as sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) as

measured by ASHRAE 127­2007, Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing

Room Unitary Air Conditioners . ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 does not contain a definition for

“air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms,” but does define a “computer

room” as “a room whose primary function is to house equipment for the processing and storage

b ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does not specify an upper limit on the cooling capacity for the largest capacity equipment

class (i.e., ≥240,000 Btu/h). However, EPCA limits the size of very large commercial package air conditioning and

heating equipment to cooling capacities below 760,000 Btu/h.



### 2­4

### of electronic data and that had a design electronic data equipment power density exceeding 20

watts/ft 2 

### of conditioned floor area.”

Cooling computer rooms, server rooms, and data centers presents unique challenges

because these areas contain valuable equipment that are sensitive to small changes in

temperature and humidity. Too much humidity can lead to water condensing on electronic

equipment, and too little humidity may cause static discharges. Computer equipment are also

constantly producing dynamic, high density heating loads, which means that the air conditioning

also would need to be running constantly and needs to be able to cool any “hot spots.” Server

rooms and data centers are typically located in the center of buildings away from windows and

often have limited floor space, which limits the size and positioning of the air conditioner and

causes issues related to removing the heat from the computer room.

Because of these challenges air conditioners serving computer rooms have different

design requirements than standard air conditioners, even though they use the same process and

components as conventional air conditioners (i.e., a refrigeration cycle with a compressor,

condensing coil, expansion valve, and evaporator coil). Air conditioners serving computer rooms

have to maintain a precise temperature, usually 72 °F or 75 °F, and maintain a specific relative

humidity (usually between 40 and 55 percent) so in addition to cooling, these equipment have to

be capable of both humidifying and dehumidifying the air. These air conditioners are often called

“precision air conditioners” because of this control requirement. These units can be installed in

various configurations, including floor mounted, ceiling mounted, or portable units for moving

around the room. The condensing units can be cooled by air, water, or a glycol­water mixture.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 first divides air conditioners and condensing units serving

computer rooms into 5 classes depending on cooling mechanism: air­cooled, water­cooled,

water­cooled with a fluid economizer, glycol­cooled (rated at 40% propylene glycol), and glycolcooled with a fluid economizer. ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 further divides these classes into

3 size categories (<65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, and ≥240,000 Btu/h) and

orientation (upflow and downflow) to make up a total of 30 unique efficiency levels for this

equipment class.

2.1.5 Federal Energy Conservation Standards

On January 12, 2001, DOE published in the Federal Register a final rule promulgating

the current standards for 5 equipment classes of small (i.e., cooling capacity <135,000 Btu/h) and

large (i.e., cooling capacity ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h) water­cooled and

evaporatively­cooled air conditioners. 66 FR 3336. This final rule adopted the energy

conservation standards set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1­1999. On July 22, 2009, DOE published

in the Federal Register a final rule setting the standards for very large water­cooled and

2­5�

### evaporatively­cooled equipment with a cooling capacity ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h. 74 FR

36312. In the July final rule, DOE adopted the standard levels for those products specified by

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2007.

The existing energy conservation standards for all classes of SPVACs and SPVHPs were

established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amendments to

EPCA. These standards were codified by DOE in a Technical Amendment published in the

Federal Register on March 23, 2009. 74 FR 12058. ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 specifies

efficiency levels for SPVACs and SPVHPs that are the same as the energy conservation

standards promulgated by EISA 2007.

As noted previously, variable refrigerant flow systems are new classes of equipment in

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010. However, these equipment classes are currently covered under

the more broad federal equipment classes of commercial package air conditioning and heating

equipment. ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 set its efficiency levels for all classes of VRF systems

equal to the federal energy conservation standards for commercial package air conditioning and

heating equipment, except for the equipment class of water­source VRF heat pumps with a

cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/h. Therefore, with the exception of water­source VRF heat pumps

with a cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/h, DOE was not required to perform an analysis of those

equipment classes. In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 includes efficiency levels for

water­source VRF heat pumps with cooling capacity ≥135,000 Btu/h, which are not currently

regulated by federal energy conservation standards. The current federal energy conservation

standard for water­source heat pumps was set by the January 2001 final rule, which adopted the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­1999 levels. 66 FR 3336. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT

2005) set the current federal standard for the other classes of commercial package air

conditioners and heating equipment with the exception of air­cooled heat pumps with a cooling

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, which were included in EISA 2007.

Table 2.1.1 shows the current federal energy conservation levels for equipment classes

where ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 increased the standard levels in comparison to the federal

levels. Table 2.1.2 shows the current federal energy conservation levels for single package

vertical air conditioners, which DOE is required to review according to EPCA, as amended by

EISA 2007.

2­6�

### Table 2.1.1 Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air

Conditioning and Heating Equipment Classes with Increased Standard Levels in ASHRAE

Standard 90.1­2010

Equipment Type Cooling Capacity Subcategory Federal Standard

Small Commercial

Package Air Conditioning ≥65,000 Btu/h and

<135,000 Btu/h Electric Resistance or no

heating 11.5 EER

Equipment, Water­cooled

and Evaporatively­cooled All other 11.3 EER

Large Commercial

Package Air Conditioning ≥135,000 Btu/h and

<240,000 Btu/h Electric Resistance or no

heating 11.0 EER

and Heating Equipment,

Water­cooled and

Evaporatively­cooled All other 11.0 EER

Very Large Commercial

Package Air Conditioning ≥240,000 Btu/h and

<760,000 Btu/h Electric Resistance or no

heating 11.0 EER

and Heating Equipment,

Water­cooled and

Evaporatively­cooled All other 10.8 EER

Small Commercial

Package Air Conditioning

and Heating Equipment,

Water­source* <17,000 Btu/h HP 11.2 EER

4.2 COP

Large Commercial

Package Air Conditioning

and Heating Equipment,

Water­source* >135,000 Btu/h HP None

* This product class includes VRF systems, for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 updated its standard levels.



### Table 2.1.2 Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Single Package Vertical Air

Conditioners

Equipment Type Cooling Capacity Subcategories Federal Minimum Energy

Conservation Standards

Single Package Vertical Air Single Phase

9.0 EER Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h

Three­Phase

Single Package Vertical Air

Conditioners ≥65,000 and

<135,000Btu/h ­ 8.9 EER

Single Package Vertical Air

Conditioners ≥135,000 and

<240,000Btu/h ­ 8.6 EER

Single Package Vertical Heat Single Phase

9.0 EER

3.0 COP Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Three­Phase

Single Package Vertical Heat

Pumps ≥65,000 and

<135,000Btu/h ­ 8.9 EER

3.0 COP

Single Package Vertical Heat

Pumps ≥135,000 and

<240,000Btu/h ­ 8.6 EER

2.9 COP



### 2­7�

### 2.1.6 ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 Efficiency Levels

The previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2007)

specified the efficiency levels for water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners as part

of a single equipment class including both types of equipment. In ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010,

ASHRAE specified different efficiency levels for water­cooled air conditioners and

evaporatively­cooled air conditioners, while retaining the same cooling capacity divisions

separating the equipment classes. For the water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled equipment class

with a cooling capacity between 65,000 Btu/h and 135,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE divides the class

into two more classes based on whether the system has no heating or electric resistance heating

or any other type of heating, similar to the other size categories. ASHRAE also created new

equipment classes for variable refrigerant flow systems and raised the efficiency level above the

federal standard for those with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h and with a cooling

capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h (for which no federal standard exists). ASHRAE

also created new equipment classes for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer

rooms. Table 2.1.3 below shows the ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 efficiency level for the

updated equipment classes along with the currently applicable Federal minimum efficiency

standards for comparison.

Table 2.1.3 Equipment Classes With Updated Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard

90.1­2010

ASHRAE Equipment

Type Cooling

Capacity Subcategories ASHRAE

Standard

90.1­2010 Federal Minimum

Energy

Conservation

Standards

≥65,000 and Electric

Resistance or

No Heating Split System

and Single

Package 12.1 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 11.5 EER

<135,000Btu/h

All Others Split System

and Single

Package 11.9 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 11.3 EER

Water­cooled Air ≥135,000 and Electric

Resistance or

No Heating Split System

and Single

Package 12.5 EER

(as of

6/1/11)

11.0 EER Conditioner <240,000Btu/h

All Others Split System

and Single

Package 12.3 EER

(as of

6/1/11)

≥240,000 and

<760,000Btu/h Electric

Resistance or

No Heating Split System

and Single

Package 12.4 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 11.0 EER

All Others Split System

and Single

Package 12.2 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 10.8 EER



### 2­8�ASHRAE Equipment

Type Cooling

Capacity Subcategories ASHRAE

Standard

90.1­2010 Federal Minimum

Energy

Conservation

Standards

Evaporatively­cooled

Air Conditioner ≥65,000 and

<135,000Btu/h Electric

Resistance or

No Heating Split System

and Single

Package 12.1 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 11.5 EER

All Others Split System

and Single

Package 11.9 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 11.3 EER

≥135,000 and

<240,000Btu/h Electric

Resistance or

No Heating Split System

and Single

Package 12.0 EER

(as of

6/1/11)

11.0 EER

All Others Split System

and Single

Package 11.8 EER

(as of

6/1/11)

≥240,000 and

<760,000Btu/h Electric

Resistance or

No Heating Split System

and Single

Package 11.9 EER

(as of

6/1/11) 11.0 EER

All Others Split System

and Single

Package 12.2 EER *

(as of

6/1/11) 10.8 EER

Variable Refrigerant

Flow, Water­source <17,000 Btu/h All heating

types Multi­split

system 12.0 EER

4.2 COP 11.2 EER

4.2 COP

Multi­split

system with

Heat

Recovery 11.8 EER

4.2 COP 11.2 EER

4.2 COP

≥135,000 Btu/h All heating

types Multi­split

system 10.0 EER

3.9 COP

None Multi­split

system with

Heat

Recovery 9.8 EER

3.9 COP

Air Conditioners

Serving Computer

Rooms, Air­Cooled <65,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.20 SCOP

None Upflow 2.09 SCOP

≥65,000 Btu/h

and <240,000

Btu/h ­ Downflow 2.10 SCOP

Upflow 1.99 SCOP

≥240,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 1.90 SCOP

Upflow 1.79 SCOP

Air Conditioners

Serving Computer

Rooms, Water Cooled <65,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.60 SCOP

None

Upflow 2.49 SCOP



### 2­9�ASHRAE Equipment

Type Cooling

Capacity Subcategories ASHRAE

Standard

90.1­2010 Federal Minimum

Energy

Conservation

Standards

≥65,000 Btu/h

and <240,000

Btu/h ­ Downflow 2.50 SCOP

Upflow 2.39 SCOP

≥240,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.40 SCOP

Upflow 2.29 SCOP

Air Conditioners

Serving Computer

Rooms, Water Cooled

with fluid economizer <65,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.55 SCOP

None Upflow 2.44 SCOP

≥65,000 Btu/h

and <240,000

Btu/h ­ Downflow 2.45 SCOP

Upflow 2.34 SCOP

≥240,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.35 SCOP

Upflow 2.24 SCOP

Air Conditioners

Serving Computer

Rooms, glycol­cooled <65,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.50 SCOP

None Upflow 2.39 SCOP

≥65,000 Btu/h

and <240,000

Btu/h ­ Downflow 2.15 SCOP

Upflow 2.04 SCOP

≥240,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.10 SCOP

Upflow 1.99 SCOP

Air Conditioners

Serving Computer

Rooms, glycol­cooled

with fluid economizer <65,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.45 SCOP

None Upflow 2.34 SCOP

≥65,000 Btu/h

and <240,000

Btu/h ­ Downflow 2.10 SCOP

Upflow 1.99 SCOP

≥240,000 Btu/h

­ Downflow 2.05 SCOP

Upflow 1.94 SCOP

*Given the historical approach of the ASHRAE committee to setting efficiency levels with for commercial air

conditioning and heating equipment, this efficiency level appears to be a mistake in ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010.

DOE believes the intended level is 11.7 EER, and an addendum to lower the value to 11.7 EER is currently being

considered by ASHRAE. Accordingly, DOE considered the value 11.7 EER as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010

efficiency level in its potential energy savings analysis.



### 2­10

### ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 raised the efficiency level in comparison to the current

Federal minimum energy conservation standards for 6 water­cooled air conditioner equipment

classes, 6 evaporatively­cooled air conditioner equipment classes, and 1 water­source VRF

commercial air conditioner and heat pump equipment classes. In addition, ASHRAE Standard

90.1­2010 included efficiency levels for one water­source VRF commercial air conditioner and

heat pump equipment class and for 15 classes of air conditioners serving computer rooms that

were not previously covered by DOE’s regulations. ASHRAE did not raise the efficiency level

for any equipment classes of SPVACs and SPVHPs; however, DOE is required by EPCA (as

amended by EISA 2007) to assess the potential for energy savings from more stringent energy

conservation standards for these equipment classes. DOE assessed the current market and

performed a potential energy savings analysis for each equipment class. The market assessment

is described in the sections immediately below; while the energy use characterization and

assessment of the potential energy savings are described in detail in chapters 3 and 4 of this TSD,

respectively.

2.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT

The following market assessment identifies the manufacturer trade associations and

domestic and international manufacturers of commercial water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled

air conditioners, single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, variable refrigerant

flow systems, and air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms. The market

assessment also summarizes the relevant market performance data for each equipment class

where such data was available.

2.2.1 Trade Associations

DOE researched various trade groups who represent manufacturers, distributors, and

installers of the various types of equipment being analyzed this rulemaking. The AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) is one of the largest trade associations

for manufacturers of space heating and cooling equipment, representing over 90% of the

residential and commercial air­conditioning, space­heating, water­heating, and commercial

refrigeration equipment manufactured in the US. 1 

### AHRI also develops and publishes test

procedures standards for residential and commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC) equipment and coordinates with the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) to help harmonize the US standards with international standards, if feasible. AHRI also

maintains the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance that lists all the products and

equipment that have been certified by AHRI. AHRI keeps a separate directory for single package

vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. Water­cooled air conditioners

can be found in the commercial unitary large equipment directory. There are no evaporativelycooled air conditioners listed in the AHRI directory.

2­11

### Heating, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) is a trade

association that represents over 450 wholesale heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and

refrigeration (HVACR) companies plus over 300 manufacturing associates and nearly 140

manufacturing representatives. HARDI estimates that 80% of the revenue of HVACR systems

goes through its members. 2



### Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) is another trade association whose

members include over 4,000 contractors and 60,000 professionals. ACCA provides contractors

technical, legal, and market resources, helping to promote good practices and to keep buildings

safe, clean, and affordable. 3



### 2.2.2 Manufacturers

DOE reviewed the efficiency data for water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air

conditioners currently on the market by examining the AHRI Directory of Certified Product

Performance 4 

### and the California Energy Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency Database. 5 

### To

supplement the data in the AHRI and CEC databases, DOE gathered additional information from

the websites of individual manufacturers of that equipment. For single package vertical air

conditioners and heat pumps, DOE gathered market data from the AHRI directory as well as

additional information from manufacturer’s websites. Because the AHRI directory does not

break out VRF systems separately in its database, DOE gathered data from manufacturers’

websites for that equipment. DOE gathered data on air conditioners and condensing units serving

computer rooms from the CEC website and from manufacturer’s websites.

DOE identified eight manufacturers of water­cooled air conditioners, five manufacturers

of evaporatively­cooled air conditioners, eight manufacturers of single package vertical air

conditioners and heat pumps, and two manufactures of water­source variable refrigerant flow

systems, and 7 manufacturers of air conditioners and condenser serving computer rooms. The

manufacturers for each equipment class are listed in Table 2.2.1.

Table 2.2.1 Manufacturers of the Commercial Equipment Included in this Rulemaking

Water­Cooled Air

Conditioner

Manufacturers Evaporativelycooled Air

Conditioner

Manufacturers Single Package

Vertical Air

Conditioner and

Heat Pump

Manufacturers Water­source

Variable

Refrigerant Flow

System

Manufacturers Air Conditioners

and Condensers

Serving Computer

Room

Manufacturers

Aaon, Inc. Aaon, Inc. Allied Air

Enterprises Daikin Industries,

Ltd. Airedale (Modine)

Allied Thermal

Systems Beutler Corp. Bard Manufacturing

Company Mitsubishi Electric American Power

Conversion

Carrier Corp. EP Investments, Inc. Enviromaster

International CES Group, Inc

(Nordyne)

Lennox International Trane Inc. Friedrich Air Emerson Network



### 2­12�Conditioning Co. Power

RSI Co. York International

Corp. GE Appliances &

Lighting CompuAire

Thermoplus Air, Inc. Marvair, division of

Airxcel, Inc. Data Aire, Inc.

Trane Inc. National Coil

Company Stulz Air

Technology Systems

York International

Corp. National Comfort

Products



### 2.2.3 Market Performance Data

For each equipment class analyzed, DOE began by gathering market data to characterize

the efficiency and performance of models currently on the market. As noted earlier, DOE

gathered information from the AHRI directory of certified product performance, as well as the

CEC appliance database. DOE also examined individual manufacturer websites and literature to

compile a complete database of models for each equipment class.

For the analysis, DOE only examined the water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air

conditioner equipment classes with cooling capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h because

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 did not change the efficiency levels for the commercial equipment

classes with a cooling capacity under 65,000 Btu/h.

Using the AHRI and CEC directories as a starting point and augmenting the data with

information from manufacturer websites, DOE compiled a database of water­cooled air

conditioner models with efficiency data available and separated them into the appropriate

equipment classes based on cooling capacity: small (i.e., <135,000 Btu/h), large (i.e., ≥135,000

Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h), and very large (i.e., ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h).

DOE found no evaporatively­cooled air conditioners in the AHRI Directory of Certified

Product Performance and found few evaporatively­cooled air conditioners from manufacturers’

websites. DOE compiled a database of evaporatively­cooled air conditioner models with

efficiency data available, and found no models that would fall into the small and large equipment

classes. Accordingly, all evaporatively­cooled models identified were in the very large

equipment class.

DOE compiled a database of SPVACs and SPVHPs from the AHRI directory and

separated them into three equipment classes based on cooling capacity (<65,000 Btu/h; ≥65,000

Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h; and ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h). DOE did not identify any

SPVAC models that would fall into the largest cooling capacity (i.e., ≥135,000 Btu/h and

<240,000 Btu/h) and did not find any SPVHP models that would fall into either of the two

largest cooling capacity equipment classes (i.e., ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h; and

2­13�

### ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h). The majority of SPVAC and SPVHP models fell in the

smallest cooling capacity equipment classes (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h).

DOE also compiled a database from manufacturers’ websites of water­source VRF heat

pumps with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h. However, DOE found no

water­source VRF heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h on the market.

Lastly, for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms, DOE compiled

a database of available models using information from the CEC directory and from

manufacturers’ websites. DOE then divided the computer room air conditioner models into 15

equipment classes, by net sensible cooling capacity (<65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000

Btu/h, and ≥240,000 Btu/h) and by cooling type (air­cooled, water­cooled, water­cooled with a

fluid economizer, glycol­cooled, and glycol­cooled with a fluid economizer). DOE further

divided each equipment class by orientation (i.e., whether it is upflow or downflow).

2.2.3.1 Water­Cooled Air Conditioners

Small water­cooled Air Conditioners. Small water­cooled air conditioners have a

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h and have their

condensing coil completely submerged in water. Small water­cooled air conditioners are part of

the water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners equipment class, whose Federal

energy conservation standard is 11.5 EER for systems with electric resistance or no heating and

11.3 EER for systems that use any other type of heating (66 FR 3336; 10 CFR 431.97).

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 changes the efficiency rating to 12.1 for systems with electric

resistance or no heating and 11.9 for systems that use any other type of heating. DOE analyzed

the distribution of energy efficiency ratios (EERs) for these products as well as the minimum,

maximum, and average cooling input capacities and EER values. The average EER value for this

equipment class is 13.9. Of the models identified by DOE, two (13 percent of the total models)

have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 levels.

2­14�Frequency 4

3

2

1

0

EER



### Figure 2.2.1 EER Histogram of Small Water­cooled Air Conditioners

Large water­cooled air conditioners. Large water­cooled air conditioners have a

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h and have

their condensing coil completely submerged in water. Large water­cooled air conditioners are

part of the water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners equipment class, whose

Federal energy conservation standard is 11.0 EER regardless of what kind of heating is used (66

FR 3336; 10 CFR 431.97). ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 changes the efficiency rating to 12.5

for systems with electric resistance or no heating and 12.3 for systems that use any other type of

heating. DOE analyzed the distribution of efficiencies for these products. The average EER for

these units was 13.1. DOE identified 6 models (43 percent of the total models in this equipment

class) that would fall below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 levels for this equipment class.

0 1 2 3 4Frequency

EER



### Figure 2.2.2 EER Histogram of Large Water­cooled Air Conditioners

Very large water­cooled air conditioners. Very large water­cooled air conditioners

have a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, and

have their condensing coil completely submerged in water. Very large water­cooled air

conditioners are part of the water­cooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners equipment

2­15

### class, whose Federal energy conservation standard is 11.0 EER for units with electric resistance

or no heating and 10.8 for units with all other kinds of heating (74 FR 36312; 10 CFR 431.97).

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 changes the efficiency rating to 12.5 for systems with electric

resistance or no heating and 12.3 for systems that use any other type of heating. DOE analyzed

the distribution of efficiencies for these products. The average EER rating for these units is 13.0.

DOE identified 12 models (34 percent of the total models identified) that would fall below the

ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 efficiency level for this equipment class.

5Frequency

0 1 2 3 4

EER



### Figure 2.2.3 EER Histogram of Very Large Water­cooled Air Conditioners

2.2.3.2 Evaporatively­Cooled Air Conditioners

Small evaporatively­cooled air conditioners. Small evaporatively­cooled air

conditioners have a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000

Btu/h. Small evaporatively­cooled air conditioners are covered as part of the water­cooled and

evaporatively­cooled air conditioners equipment class, whose Federal energy conservation

standard is 11.5 EER for systems with electric resistance or no heating and 11.3 EER for systems

that use any other type of heating (66 FR 3336; 10 CFR 431.97). ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010

changes the efficiency rating to 12.1 EER for systems with electric resistance or no heating and

11.9 EER for systems that use any other type of heating. DOE did not find any models on the

market that would be classified as small evaporatively­cooled air conditioners.

Large evaporatively­cooled air conditioners. Large evaporatively­cooled air

conditioners have a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than

240,000 Btu/h. Large evaporatively­cooled air conditioners are covered as part of the watercooled and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners equipment class, whose Federal energy

conservation standard is 11.0 EER regardless of what type of heating is used (66 FR 3336; 10

CFR 431.97). ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010 changes the efficiency rating to 12.0 EER for

systems with electric resistance or no heating and 11.8 EER for systems that use any other type

2­16�

### of heating. DOE also did not find any models on the market that would be classified as large

evaporatively­cooled air conditioners.

Very large evaporatively­cooled air conditioners. Very large evaporatively­cooled air

conditioners have an input capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000

Btu/h. Very large evaporatively­cooled air conditioners are covered as part of the water­cooled

and evaporatively­cooled air conditioners equipment class, whose Federal energy conservation

standard is 11.0 EER for systems with electric resistance or no heating and 10.8 EER for systems

that use any other type of heating (74 FR 36312; 10 CFR 431.97). ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010

changes the efficiency rating to 12.0 EER for systems with electric resistance or no heating and

11.8 EER for systems that use any other type of heating. During the market research, DOE

identified several models from manufacturers that would be classified as very large

evaporatively­cooled air conditioners. However, the efficiency rating for these models was not

readily available, and DOE was unable to obtain it. Although DOE could not obtain efficiency

information from manufacturer literature, DOE did develop an estimate of the potential energy

savings for very large evaporatively­cooled air conditioners. See chapter 4 of this TSD for details

on DOE’s potential energy savings analysis.

2.2.3.3 Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Single package vertical air conditioners. EISA 2007 divided single package vertical air

conditioners into three equipment classes and set the efficiency level for each class. SPVACs

with a cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h have a federal conservation standard of 9.0 EER.

SPVACs with a cooling capacity ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h have a federal conservation

standard of 8.9 EER. SPVACs with a cooling capacity ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h have

a federal conservation standard of 8.6 EER (10 CFR 431.97). DOE found 364 SPVACs listed in

the AHRI database. Of the models listed, 359 have an input capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h and

only 5 have a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. DOE did not find any large

SPVACs (with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000

Btu/h). There were 108 models (30 percent of the total models) with a cooling capacity less than

65,000 Btu/h that are minimally compliant with the current federal energy conservation

standards. The 5 models with a input capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h had an average EER

value of 9.7 with a minimum EER of 9.5 and a maximum EER of 10.0. All of these models are

compliant with the federal standard of 8.9 for this equipment class.

2­17�Frequency 120

100

80

60

40

20

0

EER



### Figure 2.2.4 EER Histogram of SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h

Single package vertical heat pumps. EISA 2007 divided single package vertical heat

pumps into three equipment classes and set the efficiency level for each class. SPVHPs with a

cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h have federal conservation standard of 9.0 EER and 3.0

coefficient of performance (COP). SPVHPs with a cooling capacity ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000

Btu/h have a federal conservation standard of 8.9 EER and 3.0 COP. SPVHPs with a cooling

capacity ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h have a federal conservation standard of 8.6 EER

and 2.9 COP (10 CFR 431.97). DOE found 245 SPVHP models listed in the AHRI directory. All

of them have a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. Of the models identified, 64 (26 percent

of the total) are minimally compliant with the current federal EER standard and 135 (55 percent

of the total) are minimally compliant with the federal COP standard.

70

60Frequency 50

40

30

20

10

0

Bin



### Figure 2.2.5 EER Histogram of SPVHPs

2­18�Frequency 150

100

50

0

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

COP



### Figure 2.2.6 COP Histogram of SPVHPs

2.2.3.4 Variable Refrigerant Flow Water­source Heat Pumps

Water­source VRF heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h have a

federal energy conservation standard of 11.2 EER and 4.2 COP. ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010

changes the efficiency rating for water cooled VRF systems with a cooling capacity less than

17,000 Btu/h to 12.0 EER and 4.2 COP for those systems with no heat recovery technology and

to 11.8 EER and 4.2 COP for those systems with heat recovery technology. DOE surveyed the

market to find VRF water­source heat pumps with cooling capacities below 17,000 Btu/h, and

did not find any on the market.

Water­source VRF heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000

Btu/h currently do not have a federal energy conservation standard. ASHRAE is also adding new

efficiency standards for those systems with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000

Btu/h to 10.0 EER and 3.9 COP for systems without heat recovery devices and 9.8 EER and 3.9

COP for systems with heat recovery devices. From two manufacturers’ websites, DOE found 19

models with no heat recovery option and 9 models with a heat recovery add­on for a total of 28

unique units. Manufacturers only reported EER and COP information for 8 of these units. For

the remaining of the units, DOE contacted the relevant manufacturer but could not obtain EER or

COP ratings.

2.2.3.5 Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

Prior to ASHRAE Standard 90.1­2010, air conditioners and condensing units serving

computer rooms were not considered covered equipment under EPCA, so there are currently no

federal energy conservation standards for these equipment. As a result, several manufacturers do

not report efficiency information. However, the CEC regulates the minimum efficiency of

2­19�

### computer room air conditioners, requiring units installed in the state of California to meet a

minimum EER rating as listed in Table 2.2.2.

Table 2.2.2 CEC Computer Room Air Conditioners Minimum Efficiency Levels

CEC Equipment Type Cooling Capacity (Btu/h) Minimum Efficiency Level

Air­cooled computer room air < 65,000 11.0 EER

conditioners ≥ 65,000 and < 135,000 10.4 EER

≥ 135,000 and < 240,000 10.2 EER

Water­cooled, Glycol­cooled, < 65,000 11.1 EER

and Evaporatively­cooled ≥ 65,000 and < 135,000 10.5 EER

Computer Air Conditioners ≥ 135,000 and < 240,000 10.0 EER



### As noted previously, the CEC also maintains a directory of “computer room air

conditioners” in its appliance efficiency database. DOE searched the CEC database for air

conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms and supplemented that data with

information from literature found on manufacturer websites. In total, DOE found over 1500

models of air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms, many of which were

derivatives of the same basic unit. For example, a basic unit could have the option of an upflow

or downflow configuration and the option of adding a fluid economizer; thus from this basic unit,

4 different models are possible.

The CEC database includes the rated EER of each model listed. Although this

information provides a measure of equipment efficiency, DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard

90.1­2010 adopts an updated version of ASHRAE Standard 127 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 127­

2007), which changes the efficiency metric from EER to SCOP. CEC requires manufacturers to

use the 2001 version of ASHRAE 127, which tests for the EER and not SCOP. In addition, the

standard rating conditions were changed between the 2001 and 2007 editions of the ASHRAE

127 test procedure, which adds to the difficulty of obtaining information about product efficiency

as rated using the new SCOP rating metric. A footnote to Table D1 in Appendix D of ASHRAE

Standard 127­2007 contains a “rule­of­thumb” formula that approximates the SCOP value using

the old EER rating. Using this simple rule of thumb gives a rough approximation of SCOP and a

basic idea of how SCOP values compare to EER, but is not a substitute for efficiency data

obtained from direct application of the test method. As a result, DOE was unable to acquire

reliable SCOP data for computer rooms and air conditioners serving computer rooms.

2­20�

### REFERENCES

1� Air­Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Website. About Us. 2011. (Last

accessed April 28, 2011.) < www.ahrinet.org/about+us.aspx >

2� Heating, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International Website. About

HARDI . 2011. (Last accessed April 28, 2011.)

< www.hardinet.org/aws/HARDI/pt/sp/about >

3� Air Conditioning Contractors of America Website. About ACCA. 2011. (Last accessed

April 28,2011.) < www.acca.org/acca >

4� AHRI Directory. Directory of Certified Product Performance . 2011. (Last accessed

April 28, 2011.) < www.ahridirectory.org >

5� California Energy Commission Website. Appliance Efficiency Database . 2011. (Last

accessed April 28, 2011.) < www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/QuickSearch.aspx >

2­21�

### CHAPTER 3 ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE

..................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Water -Cooled Air Conditioners

.............................................................................. 3-1

3.2.1.1 Water -Cooled Condenser Performance

...................................................... 3-2

3.2.1.2 Supply Water Temperature

......................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1.3 Supply Fan Power

....................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.1.4 Water -Cooled Condenser-Only Cooling Coefficient of Performance vs.

Energy Efficiency Ratio Relationship

.................................................................... 3-6

3.2.1.5 Baseline Annual Energy Use/Ton for Climates— Water -Cooled

............... 3-7

3.2.1.6 Energy Use Estimates for Baseline and Higher

- Efficiency Water -Cooled Air

Conditioner Equipment by Equipment Class

.......................................................... 3-8

3.2.2 Evaporatively Cooled Air Conditioners

................................................................ 3-10

3.2.2.1 Baseline Annual Energy Use/Ton for Climates—Evaporatively Cooled. 3-11

3.2.2.2 Energy Use Estimates for Baseline and Higher Efficiency Evaporatively

Cooled Air Conditioners by Equipment Class

...................................................... 3-12

3.2.3 Single

- Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

................................. 3-12

3.2.3.1 Fan and Condenser Power Assumptions: Single- Package Vertical Air

Conditioners

.......................................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.3.2 Single

- Package Vertical Heat Pump Analysis

.......................................... 3-16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.2.1 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, 11.0

EER

...................................................................................................................... 3-8

Table 3.2.2 Water-Cooled Air Conditioner Representative Capacities by Product Class

........... 3-9

Table 3.2.3 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners,

11.0 EER

............................................................................................................ 3-11

Table 3.2.4 Evaporatively Cooled Air Conditioner Representative Capacities by Product Class..

Table 3.2.7 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for SPVHP, Baseline (9.0 EER/3.0 COP).. ............................................................................................................................ 3-12

Table 3.2.5 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for SPVAC, Baseline (9.0 EER)

........... 3-14

Table 3.2.6 Blower Power Adjustments for ECM Motor

.......................................................... 3-15

............................................................................................................................ 3-17

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.2.1 Comparison of Floor-Space Weighting Factors by Region. Small and Medium

Office Buildings versus All Buildings

. ................................................................ 3-7

3-i

### CHAPTER 3. ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The n ational e nergy savings a nalysis described in chapter 4 of the technical support

document ( TSD ) requires d etermin ation of the energy savings consumers would realize from the

establishment of s tandards at the levels set forth in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE ) Standard 90.1- 2010 for specific classes of

equipment analyzed as well as for more energy efficient standards.

This chapter describes the energy use analysis for both water

- cooled and evaporatively

cooled commercial packaged air conditioners as well as single package vertical air conditioners

and heat pumps. These equipment types are described in separate subsections of this chapter that

detail the analysis and the determin ation of baseline annual per unit energy consumption (UEC)

estimates for specific product classes within each of the three product types examined

. Th is

chapter also describes the development of UEC estimates for more efficient equipment, up to the

max

- tech levels defined in chapter 4 of this TSD

.

For each of these equipment types, the Federal standard is expressed in terms of an

efficiency metric or metrics : e nergy e fficiency r atio ( EER ) for cooling efficie ncy, coeff icient of

p erformance (COP) for heating efficiency. For each equipment class, this chapter describes how

an estimate of the UEC is developed corresponding to different rated efficiencies

.

3.2 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE

3.2.1 Water- Cooled Air Co nditioners

The analysis to assess the per unit energy savings of water -cooled air conditioners began

with a review of the existing market as well as the review of historical shipments data provided

by the Air -Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ( AHRI ) and discussed in chapter 4

of the TSD . The review of the market suggested that most water -cooled air conditioner units on

the market are designed for installation inside of commercial buildings (as opposed to on

building rooftops), and the shipments data suggested that in recent years shipments were

dominated by larger equipment ( greater than 240,000 British thermal units per hour ( Btu/h )

capacity), with a trend toward relatively few shipments of smaller capacity units. Because of

this, the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) analysis of energy savings focused on typical

applications for equipment in the 240,000 Btu/h or greater class. Review of manufacturer’s

literature suggested that a common application is floor

- by -floor cooling in a multi- story

building. 1



### To estimate the energy use of water -cooled air conditioners in this application, DOE used

annual hourly simulation data developed from computer simulations of a prototypical

commercial office building . The prototype building model was a 3

- story, 53,600 ft 2 

### commercial

3-1

### office building developed as part of DOE’s commercial reference building models. a 

### This

building model , referred to as a “ medium office, ” has each floor served by a separate packaged

air conditioning unit. The hourly data u sed for this analysis was previously developed from

simulations using this model and the DOE EnergyPlus building simulation software , and

reflected building simulations in 15 climate locations in the United States

. b 

### E ach climate

location used is representative of climate in 1 of 15 climate regions that have been developed in

DOE’s Building Energy Codes Program and subsequently used in the development of the

commercial reference building models

. Characteristics of the DOE reference medium office

building model used in this analysis are provided in appendix 7A.

The medium office r eference building model u sed packaged variable air volume (VAV)

rooftop cooling units, one unit serving each floor of the building, and the hourly thermal load and

supply fan air volume data used for this analysis reflects this. DOE determined that the hourly

cooling thermal loads from modeling of this type of equipment would be representative of hourly

loads for systems served by larger water -cooled equipment also provid ing floor

- by

- floor cooling

and serving multiple building thermal zones with a VAV air distribution network. Thus, these

loads would be accurate for the analysis of water -cooled air conditioners in this application.

EnergyPlus does not have an equipment component model developed around a water- cooled air

conditioner used in this application . EnergyPlus does have equipment models of water-source

heat pumps, but these equipment models do not appear to provide for variable volume air flow.

For this reason, DOE used the previously developed hourly cooling thermal load, hourly air

flow, and hourly air temperature data for the air -cooled packaged rooftop equipment used in the

medium office reference building model as a starting point for its analysis.

To process the hourly data into annual equipment energy consumption for water-cooled

air conditioners for baseline level equipment , DOE developed a spreadsheet model of the

equipment performance of a water -cooled air conditioner using actual manufacturer’s

performa nce data for a n existing 25- ton water -cooled air conditioner. 2 

### Cooling capacity and

condenser power consumption curve fits to this data were developed using polynomial

relationships and the independent variables recommended for modeling of cooling efficiency for

water

- source heat pumps in EnergyPlus with minor variations. Discussion of the modeling of

the water -cooled condenser and supply fan power follows.

3.2.1.1 Water- Cooled Condenser Performance

EnergyPlus provides two methods of modeling equipment per formance of water

- source

heat pumps. The method used for this work is referred to as the “ eq uation- fit model. ” The

equation-fit model uses non-dimensional equations developed from curve- fits to manufacturer’s

a The commercial reference building models are available on DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy website as Energy Plus input files at:

< http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/new_const ruction.html >. Documentation of the

model development is provided in Deru, M., et al ..U.S. Department of Energy Commercial Reference Building

Models of the National Building Stock. ( NREL/TP

- 5500

- 46861 ) (2011)

.

b Hourly simulations results for medium offic e reference building model were developed at Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory and provided for support of the ASHRAE 90.1 Mechanical Subcommittee in April 2009.

Simulation results used reflect code requirements for buildings designed to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1

- 2004.

3-2

### performance data to predict the condenser per formance in cooling (and heating mode). L east

square s regression is used to generate a set of performance coefficients from catalog

performance data at various conditions for the particular equipment modeled. Then the

respective coefficients from the lea st squares regressions are used in the model to simulate the

heat pump performance in the EnergyPlus software. The variables EnergyPlus uses to describe

the water

- cooled condenser performance are the entering air wet bulb and dry bulb temperature,

the con denser water inlet temperature, the entering air volumetric flow rate, and the condenser

water flow rate. Each of these variables is made non -dimensional by first dividing by

corresponding values for each variable at a defined reference condition. Two minor variations

from the implementation in EnergyPlus included the use of i nch -pound (IP) units in developing

the DOE performance curves and the selection of reference temperature conditions that

correspond precisely to the DOE rating conditions. The governing equations for the cooling

performance are as follows:

̇ ̇ Q total T wb T w

, in V air V w = A 1 + A 2 × ൬ ൰

+ A 3 × ൬ ൰

+ A

4 × ൬

̇ ൰

+ A 5 × ൬

̇ ൰ 

### Eq. 3.2.1

Q total

_ ref T wb

_ ref T w

, in

_ ref V air

_ ref V w

_ ref

V ̇ V ̇ Q sen T db T wb T w

, in air w = B 1 + + B 2 × ൬ ൰

+ B 3 × ൬ ൰

+ B 4 × ൬ ൰

+ B 5 × ൬

̇ ൰

+ B 6 × ൬

̇ ൰ 

### Eq. 3.2.2

Q sens

_ ref T db

_ ref T wb

_ ref T w

, in

_ ref V air

_ ref V w

_ ref

Power V ̇ V ̇ T wb T w air w = C 1 + C 2 × ൬ ൰

+ C 3 × ൬ ൰

+ C

4 × ൬ ൰

+ C 5 × ൬ ൰ 

### Eq. 3.2.3

Power ref T wb

_ ref T w− ref V ̇ air

_ ref V ̇

w

_ ref



### Where :

A 1 

### – C 5 

### = equation fit coefficients for the cooling mode,

Q total 

### = cooling capacity (Btu/h),

Q total_ref 

### = cooling capacity at r eference c ondition (Btu/h),

Q

sens 

### = sensible cooling capacity (Btu/h),

Q

sens_ref 

### = s ensible cooling capacity at reference condition (Btu/h)

, Power = condenser power (W),

Power ref 

### = condenser power at reference condition (W),

T

wb 

### = e ntering air wet bulb t emperature ( Rankine (° R) ),

T

wb

- ref 

### = e ntering air wet bulb temperature at reference temperature ( ° R)

, T

db 

### = e ntering air dry bulb temperature (° R)

, T

db- ref 

### = e ntering air dry bulb temperature at reference temperature ( ° R)

, T

w 

### = e ntering water temperature ( ° R)

, T

w- ref 

### = e ntering water temperature at reference temperature ( ° R)

, V

air 

### = v olumetric air flow rate ( cubic feet per minute (cfm )),

V

air

- ref 

### = v olumetric air flow rate at reference ( gallons per minute ( gpm )),

V

w 

### = volumet ric water flow rate (cfm) , and

V

w- ref 

### = v olumetric water flow rate at reference (gpm)

.

The equations above are based on steady state full

- load operation at the rating (reference)

conditions and off-rating conditions. To account for operation at part

- load and non- steady

- state

operation, part

- load performance modifier curves for air

- source air conditioners— and that were

used in the EnergyPlus medium office reference building model —were also used for this

3-3

### analysis

. Because these part -load modifier curves reflect the effects of compressor cycling at

part

- load for air

- cooled systems

, it was determined that the y should be representative of the

compressor cycling impacts for water -cooled air conditioners as well.

The part -load modifier curves are of the following equation form:

CoolPLFFPLR = C 1 

### + C 2 

### × PLR Eq. 3.2.4

Where:

CoolPLFFPLR = cooling power part-load factor modifier,

PLR = ratio of cooling load to cooling capacity under the conditions of interest , and

C 1 

### and C 2 

### = equation fit coefficients for the part

- load performance curves

.

C 1 

### and C 2 

### values of 0.771 and 0.229, respectively

, were used based on the part -load

modifier curves in the reference building simulations and for this analysis.

The steady state power input is then adjusted according to the following equation:

PLR 

### Power Hourly 

### = Power × Eq. 3.2.5

CoolPLFFPLR



### Where :

Power Hourly 

### = hourly average power in response to hourly cooling load,

Power = s teady s tate power at conditions as defined in equation 3.2.3,

PLR = p art -load ratio as defined in equation 3.2.4, and

CoolPLFFPLR = p art -load modifier as defined in equation 3.2.4.

F or each climate zone, the original system air volumes were sized based on design day

runs and the maximum hourly supply air for each system was used as the basis for the system air

volumes and reference volumetric flow rate . The peak cooling loads were adjusted f or rated

conditions and used to determine the equipment nominal capacity for each system. This is also

the cooling capacity at reference condition. No hourly condenser- water flow rates were

available , and for the modeling purpose the condenser water flow rate at all hours was assumed

to be at the reference (rated ) condition. Thus, the condenser water flow rate did not affect the

performance curves in the analysis

.

3.2.1.2 Supply Water Temperature

The performance equations developed in this spreadsheet model separately account for

the water -cooled gross cooling capacity and power consumption as a function of entering air

conditions and supply water temperature and flow rate. To function, the spreadsheet model

requires an hourly entering water temperature and entering water flow rate. For this analysis

, a

simple cooling tower supply water temperature model was developed based on a defined control

profile with minimum 70 °F return water temperature and using a 7 °F approach temperature.

Thus, the return water temperature from the cooling tower is calculated as

3-4

### T

w 

### = min ൣT

wb

, o 

### + 7 , 70 ൧ + 459

. 67 Eq. 3.2.6

Where :

T

w 

### = Building supply w ater t emperature from cooling t ower (°R ), and

T

wb,o 

### = Outdoor air wet bulb temperature (°F ).

The supply water temperature from the cooling tower is thus estimated at 7 °F above the

current wet bulb temperature during most cooling hours . Condenser water flow rates were

assumed to be equivalent to the nominal rating condition water flow rates for all cooling hours.

Using these inputs and performance curves , it was possible to calculate the hourly

condenser energy consumption of each of the three water-cooled air cond itioner units for this

building model.

3.2.1.3 Supp ly Fan Power

In addition, DOE’s spreadsheet model calculated the fan energy consumption for the

equipment. Fan energy for each system at design conditions (peak fan capacity) was estimated

using the following assumptions.

∆P × Q 

### Power fan

, max 

### = Eq. 3.2.7

6350 × n f × n m × 0

. 746



### Where :

Power fan,max 

### = d esign f an p ower (kW)

, Δ

P = t otal f an s tatic pressure (in. H 2 

### 0),

Q = d esign supply a ir f low r ate (cfm ),

n

f 

### = f an e fficiency

, and

n m 

### = motor and d rive e fficiency

.

A design total fan static pressure of 4.35 in. H 2 

### O, fan efficiency of 0.65, and motor

efficiency of 0.9 were used, providing for a design fan system power of 0.87 W/cfm at design

conditions. The total fan static pressure was judged likely to be less than that used in the

reference building design (4.35 in. H 2 

### O versus 5.35 in. H 2 

### O) based on the determination that the

total supply and return path pressure drop would be less with water cooled units installed inside

the building as compared to packa ged units installed on rooftops due to the length of the duct

runs.

Because this was a VAV system with varying hourly air flow rate, the fan power was

adjusted hourly using a fan power part-load curve used for the DOE reference building VAV

system. The fa n power curve provides the relationship between fan system power and system air

flow rate, which varied hourly for the VAV system. The fan power versus flow rate relationship

is of the form used in EnergyPlus:

PLF fan 

### = C 1 

### + C 2 

### × FF + C 3 

### × FF 2 

### + C 4 

### × FF 3 

### + C 5 

### × FF 3 

### Eq. 3.2.8

3-5

### Where :

PLF fan 

### = a part

- load factor multiplier equal to the ratio of system fan power to design fan

power,

FF = fraction of system de sign air flow rate , and

C 1 – C 5 = equation coefficients for the VAV fan power curve

.

The coefficients C 1 

### through C 5 

### used for this curve are those from the reference building

model and are shown below.

C 1 

### = 0.040759894

C

2 

### = 0.08804497

C

3 

### = -0.07292612

C

4 

### =0.943739823

C

5 

### = 0

3.2.1.4 Water- Cooled Condenser

- Only Cooling Coefficient of Performance vs.

Energy Efficiency Ratio R elationship

For analysis of energy use at the base efficiency (EER) level, DOE developed estimates

for the condenser -only efficiency (c ondenser-only cooling COP ) for the water

- cooled air

conditioner based on the nom inal rating conditions for an 11 EER unit. Condenser- only cooling

COP at rating conditions is an input to the EnergyPlus simulation model. This parameter can be

calculated by backing out the estimated fan power at nominal rat ing conditions from the rated

energy consumption while accounting for the effect of fan heat. This is do ne by calculating the

condenser-only cooling COP according the equation below:

EER

3

. 413 +R 

### COP CU

_ Cool 

### =

1− R 

### Eq. 3.2.9

Where:

EER = EER rating of the equipment being modeled,

R = ratio of supply fan power to total equipment power at the AHRI rating

condition, and

COP CU

_ Cool 

### = condensing-only cooling COP at rated conditions.

The parameter R can be estimated from available manufacturer fan power data at the

external static rating condition and a known air flow rate. Generally

, however

, the air flow rate

at rating is not provided in the manufacturer’s literature. DOE used an R of 0.164 based on

review of available data for a large evaporatively cooled air conditioner and assuming a supply

air flow rate of 350 cfm/ton. 2 

### For an 11.0 EER unit that DOE modeled directly, the calculated

condenser-only COP corresponding to an 11.0 EE R unit was 4.052.

3-6

### 3.2.1.5 Baseline Annual Energy Use/Ton for Climates —Water-Cooled

For each of the 15 climates, DOE used the spreadsheet model to calculate the hourly

condenser energy use and supply fan energy use for each of the three water

- cooled air

conditioner units in the reference medium office building model and summed the results to

provide annual energy use estimates for condenser and for supply fan separately . DOE also

calculated the cooling capacity for each unit and summed these for the whole building. Dividing

the energy use figures for both condenser and supply fan by the rated cooling capacity provides a

normalized energy -use- per -ton figure for each end use at the baseline efficiency level. These

climate

- specific results, along with the climate weighting factors used are shown in Table 3.2.1.

The climate weighting factors are developed from construction statistics for commercial office

floor space for small and for medium sized office buildings (likely to use commercial packaged

air conditioning equipment regardless of system size) for the period from 2003 to 2007. 3 

### For

each building type weights were first calculated for the building class and then averaged. Figure

3.2.1 shows the floor space weighting factors for this analysis compared with that of all 16 DOE

reference buildings types with construction floor space tallied in the study.

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1A 2B 2A 3B 3C 3ARelative Fraction of Construction by Climate Region

4B 4C 4A

DOE Climate Region All Buildings

Office Buildings

5B 5A 6B 6A 7 8



### Figure 3.2.1 Comparison of Floor-Space Weighting Factors by Region. Small and Medium

Office Buildings v ersus All Buildings.

In addition, Table 3.2.1 shows a parameter called the “f ull load equivalent o perating

hours” (FLEOH), which is calculated as the annual cooling load served divided by the system

cooling capacity. In this case the FLEOH shown is the result from weighting of the FLEOH

calculated for each individual air conditioning unit by the relative capacity of that equipment to

the total capacity of all equipment serving the reference building model. While not used in

DOE’s energy calculation, FLEOH values provide a useful reference point to compare with other

energy calculations methods.

3-7

### Table 3.2.1 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for Water-Cooled Air Conditioners,

11.0 EER

Climate

Zone Representative

Climate Location Construction

Wt. Annual

Condenser

Energy

kWh/ton Annual Fan

Energy

kWh/ton Annual

System

Energy

kWh/Ton FLEOH

1A Miami, Fl 1.82% 1999 257 2256 2718

2A Houston, TX 16.20% 1440 215 1654 1966

2B Phoenix, AZ 4.99% 1446 354 1800 2052

3A Memphis, TN 14.91% 1051 204 1255 1440

3B El Paso, TX 10.15% 973 284 1258 1413

3C San Francisco, CA 1.82% 497 273 770 736

4A Baltimore, MD 18.18% 824 216 1040 1135

4B Albuquerque , NM 0.72% 776 357 1133 1154

4C Salem, OR 2.71% 517 247 764 736

5A Chicago, IL 16.96% 674 215 889 926

5B Boise, ID 5.70% 542 283 825 807

6A Burlington, VT 0.56% 545 230 775 759

6B Helena, MT 4.62% 446 360 807 682

7 Duluth, MN 0.56% 352 249 600 496

8 Fairbanks, AK 0.10% 259 436 696 398

Nat ional 100.00% 947 242 1189 1319

kWh = kilowatt

- hours



### 3.2.1.6 Energy Use Estimates for Baseline and Higher

- Efficiency Water -Cooled

Air Conditioner E quipment by Equipment C lass.

National average estimates of the energy use for efficiencies other than th ose directly

modeled in the spreadsheet tool were developed based by first scaling the national average

condenser energy use per ton from the spreadsheet simulation of 11.0 EER equipment shown in

Table 3.2.1 by the condenser-only cooling COP corresponding to the higher EER equipment.

The condenser-only cooling COP is developed based on equation 3.2.9 for higher EER values.

To that result is add ed the baseline fan energy consumption /ton values, and the sum is then

multiplied by the selected representative tonnage for each equipment class ; or in equation form,

UEC EER 

### = CAP × [ CondUEC

n 

### × COP CU

_ Cool

_ Modeled 

### + FanUEC

n 

### ] Eq. 3.2.10

COP CU

_ C ool

_ EER



### Where :

CAP = n ominal equipment capacity in cooling tons,

UEC EER 

### = unit energy c onsumption at the specific EER level being evaluated

, CondUEC

n 

### = n ormalized condenser energy consumption from the modeling, kWh/ton –

n ational basis

, COP CU_Cool_M odeled 

### = the c ooling condenser -only COP used in the spreadsheet equipment

model,

3-8

### COP CU_Cooled E ER 

### = the cooling condenser-only COP corresponding to the specific EER level

being evaluated , and

FanUEC

n 

### = n ormalized c ondenser energy consumption from the modeling, kWh/ton –

n ational

.

Thus, for example, to estimate the annual energy consumption of a 35 ton water-cooled

air conditioner at an EER of 12.4, the initial step is to calculate a condenser -only COP EER 

### using

equation 3.2.9. For an EER of 12.4, the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 level for this product class, this

corresponds to a COP of 4.543. UEC is then calculated as

UEC 12

. 4 EER 

### = 35 tons × [ 947 kW h / ton × 4

. 052 

### + 242 kW h / ton ] Eq. 3.2.11

4

. 543



### A representative capacity for each product class was selected as shown in Table 3.2.2

based on the approximate average capacity of the units available in the market as identified in

DOE’s market analysis

.

Table 3.2.2 Water-Cool ed Air Conditioner Representative Capacities by Product Class

Product Class Representative C ooling C apacity

Water

- C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, Electric

Resistance Heating or No Heating 8 t ons

Water

- C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, All Other

Heating 8 t ons

Water

- C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Electric

Resistance Heating or No Heating 15 t ons

Water

- C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, All Other

Heating 15 t ons

Water

- C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance

Heating or No Heating 35 t ons

Water

- C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating 35 t ons



### For this analysis, the annual supply fan power was not adjusted for different efficiency

levels. A more detailed analysis of the engineering of higher efficiency water

- cooled air

conditioners might show that some improvement can come from the reduction of supply fan

power. One path to reducing fan power in rooftop equipment is believed to have been through

larger case designs and consequently lower internal fan pressure drop. However, based on the

assumption that these units are typically installed in mechanical rooms as opposed to rooftops,

increased size may come at the expense of installation cost and available (rentable) floor space

. It

is noted that for a given EER level, assuming that improvements to the fan efficiency are used to

reach that level, there would be less improvement to the condenser p erformance and less energy

savings from the condens er portion of the packaged air conditioning system.

The resulting UEC values for each class of water -cooled air conditioner are provided in

c hapter 4 of the TSD based on selected efficiency levels anal yzed for the n ational e nergy s avings

a nalysis

.

3-9

### 3.2.2 Evaporatively Cooled Air Conditioners

The analysis to assess the per unit energy use of evaporatively cooled air conditioners

began with review of the existing market (see c hapter 2 of the TSD). DOE did not identify any

current models of evaporatively cooled air conditioners less than 240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity.

The review of the market suggested that the evaporatively -cooled equipment models currently

available appear to be de signed as packaged rooftop cooling units. B ased on the available

models identified

, DOE estimated that the average capacity was 40 tons. Because of this, DOE’s

analysis of energy savings focused on typical applications for this very large equipment class.

Because of the large size, DOE believes that a common application would also be packaged

VAV system serving a building. To assess energy use for evaporatively cooled equipment, DOE

modified the 3- story o ffice reference building model used for the water-cooled equipment

discussed previously to serve as the simulation model for the very large evaporatively cooled air

conditioner equipment class.

The EnergyPlus simulation tool can model evaporatively cooled unitary air conditioners

directly, with only minor modifications from the air -cooled unitary air conditioner equ ipment

models that were used in the original DOE medium office reference building model. EnergyPlus

offers two alternatives for modeling evaporatively cooled air conditioners. One is to use

performance curves that characterize the steady state efficiency as a function of ambient wet bulb

temperature and coil entering air dry bulb temperature (in contrast to the performance curves for

air

- cooled equipment, which use ambient dry bulb temperature and coil entering air dry bulb

temperature)

. DOE was not able to derive separate performance curves for evaporatively cooled

equipment as neither compressor nor overall condenser power data at different operating

conditions was available in the manufacturer literature reviewed

. Therefore, DOE utilized the

second approach provided for in EnergyPlus, which is to use performance curves for air

- cooled

equipment that are a function of condenser entering air dry bulb conditions, but provide for a

evaporative condenser using a evaporative condenser effectiveness parameter that reduces the

condenser coil entering air conditions to below the ambient air tem perature according to the

equation below:

T

C

, i 

### = ( T wb

, o 

### + (1

− Eff ) × ( T db

, o 

### − T wb

, o 

### ) Eq. 3.2.12

Where :

T

c,i 

### = temperature of the air entering the condenser coil (°F ),

T

wb,o 

### = wet -bulb te mperature of the outdoor air ( °F ),

T

db,o 

### = dry-bulb temperature of the outdoor air ( °F ), and

E

ff = evaporative condenser effectiveness

.

DOE modified the medium office reference building model to use this latter modeling

approach and defined an evaporatively cooled condenser for each of the three packaged VAV

systems in the model . An evaporative condenser with an effectiveness of 0.9, equivalent to the

default value in EnergyPlus , was used

.

3- 10

### DOE developed estimates for the condenser -only cooling COP based on the nominal

rating conditions . This was done by backing out the estimated fan power at nominal rating

conditions and separately accounting for the impact of fan heat using equation 3.2.9 as discussed

for water -cooled equipment. The fan power ratio parameter R was estimated from review of

available manufacturer fan power data for an evaporatively

- cooled rooftop air conditioner

. DOE

estimated an R of 0.137 based on review of available data for a large evaporatively cooled air

conditioner and assuming a supply air flow rate of 350 cfm/ton of net cooling capacity. 4 

### For an

11.0 EER unit that DOE modeled directly, the calculated condenser

- only COP was then

estimated at 3.893. DOE used the fan power performance curves and peak fan power

assumptions from the or iginal reference medium office building model.

3.2.2.1 Baseline Annual Energy Use/Ton for Climates —Evaporatively Cooled

DOE performed simulations in the 15 climates identified previously using the 11.0 EER

evaporatively cooled air conditioners. Equipment was sized using design day sizing. DOE

extracted the cooling capacity, annual equipment condenser energy consumption, and blower

energy consumption for each evaporatively cooled air conditioner equipment simulated. The

annual energy consumption values were then normalized by dividing by the equipment capacity

in cooling tons. The sum of the resulting condenser energy per cooling ton and blower energy

per cooling ton represents the annual energy consumption per cooling ton for equipment at that

11 EER efficiency level. These climate

- specific results, along with the climate weights are

shown in Table 3.2.3.

Table 3.2.3 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for Evaporatively- Cooled Air

Conditioners, 11.0 EER

Climate

Zone Representative Climate

Loca tion Construction

Wt. Annual

Condenser

Energy

kWh/ton Annual

Fan

Energy

kWh/ton Annual System

Energy kWh/Ton

1A Miami, Fl 1.82% 1683 380 2068

2A Houston, TX 16.20% 1293 329 1626

2B Phoenix, AZ 4.99% 1117 431 1551

3A Memphis, TN 14.91% 979 305 1287

3B El Paso, TX 10.15% 873 420 1295

3C San Francisco, CA 1.82% 420 343 764

4A Baltimore, MD 18.18% 782 318 1101

4B Albuquerque, NM 0.72% 620 405 1027

4C Salem, OR 2.71% 426 332 759

5A Chicago, IL 16.96% 569 313 883

5B Boise, ID 5.70% 448 374 823

6A Burlington, VT 0.56% 473 340 814

6B Helena, MT 4.62% 335 356 692

7 Duluth, MN 0.56% 318 374 693

8 Fairbanks, AK 0.10% 186 383 569

Nat 100.00% 8 38 341 1189

3- 11

### 3.2.2.2 Energy Use Estimates for Baseline and Higher Efficiency Evaporatively

Cooled Air Conditioners by Equipment Class.

Energy use energy consumptions for representative evaporatively cooled equipment sizes

corresponding to each product class were developed as was done for water- cooled air

conditioners. A representative capacity for each product class was selected , as shown in Table

3.2.4, based on the approximate average capacity of the units available in the market as identified

in DOE’s market ana lysis.

Table 3.2.4 Evaporatively Cooled Air Conditioner Representative Capacities by Product

Class

Product Class Representative C ooling C apacity

Evaporatively C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric

Resistance Heating or No Heating 40 t ons

Evaporatively C ooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, All Other

Heating 40 t ons



### The national average energy consumption per ton figures from Table 3.2.3 were then

multiplied by the selected equipment capacities for the evaporatively cooled equipment class

analyzed to establish the UEC values for the evaporatively cooled equipment classes at a n 11

EER level.

To assess the annual energy consumption at the other efficiency levels analyzed, DOE

developed estimates of the condenser-only cooling COP for each other efficiency level using

equation 3.2.9. To establish annual energy consumption metrics for the higher efficiency levels,

DOE used equation 3.2.10, adjusting the baseline annual condenser energy consumption for each

climate by the ratio of the baseline condenser -only cooling COP at 11 EER to the condenser-only

cooling COP at the efficiency levels analyzed . The annual fan energy consumption estimates

were held constant at the baseline level for all higher standards

. The UEC for each efficiency

level analyzed is the sum of the annual condenser energy consumption and the annual fan energy

consumption.

The resulting UEC values for each class of water

- cooled air c onditioner are provided in

c hapter 4 of the TSD based on selected efficiency levels analyzed for the national energy savings

analysi s.

3.2.3 Single

- Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Based on previous discussions with industry, it is estimate d th at approximately 60

percent of the SPVU market goes to educational facilities, the majority of which is for space

conditioning of modular classroom buildings. Another approximately 20 percent of the market

may go to providing cooling for telecommunication s and electronic enclosures

. The remainder is

used in a wide variety of commercial buildings including office and lodging, and is expected to

serve more niche applications, such as modular offices buildings , within those market segments

.

For its initial e stimate of energy savings for single

- package vertical air conditioners

( SPVAC s) and single

- package vertical heat pumps ( SPVHP s) , DOE focused its analysis on the

education market and in particular modular classrooms. To estimate the energy use of SPVACs

3- 12

### an d SPVHPs in educational facilities, DOE developed a modular classroom building model for

use with the EnergyPlus software. Characteristics of the modular classroom building model used

in this analysis are provided in appendix 7A.

The modular classroom wa s based on a double-wide modular building design with 1,568

ft 2 

### of floor area (56 by 28 ft). Wood-frame construction, consistent with known modular

classroom design , was used. Envelope performance characteristics were established using the

requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 -2004 to approximate a mix of existing stock and

new construction. 5 

### Schedules and load profiles were taken from classroom space building zones

in the DOE p rimary school reference b uilding models

. c 

### Internal loads were ba sed on di rect

equipment power (w atts per square foot) and occupancy figures for the DOE p rimary school

reference building model. Lighting power requirements were based on ASHRAE 90.1-2004,

wh ich was selected to be representative of a mix of existing classroom lighting power in the

building stock and in recent construction. Because of the small size of the SPVAC equipment,

an economizer was not assumed in the model, consistent with current and historical requirements

found in ASHRAE 90.1. DOE notes that local jurisdictions may have building codes for

education buildings that differ from ASHRAE 90.1 in this respect, but it has not examined this at

the state or local code level for this analysis.

DOE simulated this building in each of the 15 climates discussed fo r water

- cooled air

conditioners and evaporatively cooled air conditioners. Simulations were done for the buildings

with SPVAC equipment an d electric resistance heating, and then separately for the same

buildings with SPVHP equipment. DOE used the current Federal s tandard efficiencies of 9.0

EER for SPVAC equipment and 9.0 EER and 3.0 COP for SPVHP equipment in the less than

65,000 Btu/h size range.

3.2.3.1 Fan and Condenser Power A ssumption s : Single

- Package Vertical Air

Conditioners

Fan power at the baseline efficiency level s was based on manufacturer’ s reported fan

power consumption data for a 3.5 ton SPVAC

. 6 

### From the manufacturer’s literature , at 208/230

Volts, the reported motor current draw was 3.3 amps. From this, DOE estimated the fan power

to be 686 watts or 0.49 watts/cfm at the manufacturer’s defined external static pressure of 0.3 in.

H 2 

### O. Based on DOE’s market analysis, all SPVAC and SPVHP equipment at the baseline

efficiency levels used p ermanent s plit c apacitor ( PSC ) blower motors. From the da ta reviewed

, DOE established the baseline fan power ratio ( R ), as used in equation 3.2.9, was 0.15 for this

equipment. Using e quation 3.2.9 to develop the condenser-only cooling COP from this value of

R for a baseline 9.0 COP unit yields a condenser-only cooling COP of 3.279.

For modeling the supply fan energy consumption, DOE used a combined fan and fan

motor efficiency of 0.313, corresponding to a fan motor efficiency of 0.54 and a fan efficiency of

0.58

. Rearranging the variables in equation 3.2.7 for fan power, DOE estimated that the total fan

static pressure corresponding to the 0.49 watts /cfm identified from the product literature would

be 1.3 inches. DOE used these supply fan and fan motor effici encies and total static pressure

c The commercial reference building models are available on DOE’s website as EnergyPlus input files at:

< http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/new_construction.html >.

3- 13

### estimate as inputs to the EnergyPlus modeling of the baseline unit. For modeling of baseline

equipment fan power, these values provide for the estimate of total supply fan power for units

installed in the field

.

DOE firs t performed simulations for SPVAC equipment at a baseline 9.0 EER . From the

annual simulation results for SPVAC equipment, DOE extracted the condenser energy use for

cooling, the blower energy use, and equipment capacity. From these, DOE developed the annual

cooling energy per ton and annual blower energy per ton for the baseline efficiency simulated.

These per -ton values were then added together and then multiplied by the average cooling

capacity estimate d for SPVU in the less than 65,000 Btu/h capacity range to arrive at the baseline

UEC for SPVAC. This average unit capacity was estimated at 3 tons. Table 3.2.5 shows the

annual energy u se per ton data for the baseline SPVAC equipment by climate region and at a

national levels based on construction wts. Weighting factors for each climate are based o n

average of overall weighting factors for primary and for secondary school buildings by climate

zone based on square feet of construction of these building types from 2003–2007. 3



### Table 3.2.5 Normalized Energ y Use Ton by Climate for SPVAC, Baseline (9.0 EER )

Zone Construction

Wt. Annual

Condenser

Cooling

Energy

kWh/t on Annual

Fan

Energy

kWh/ t on Annual System Energy

kWh/t on

1A 1.46% 2868 761 3630

2A 15.99% 2088 729 2817

2B 2.56% 2351 893 3244

3A 18.48% 1557 740 2297

3B 8.24% 2000 1074 3074

3C 1.02% 986 878 1865

4A 18.94% 1085 757 1842

4B 0.61% 1597 1102 2699

4C 2.19% 967 849 1817

5A 20.85% 802 788 1590

5B 4.31% 1166 1135 2301

6A 0.80% 740 781 1521

6B 3.80% 940 1153 2094

7 0.64% 301 849 1151

8 0.10% 372 1241 1613

Nat 100. 0 0% 1397 823 2220



### To estimate the UEC for higher efficiency SPVAC levels, DOE recognized that the

available market data indicated that higher EER equipment were much more likely to use

electronically commutated motor ( ECM ) blower motors and have resulting lower blower motor

power. DOE analyzed available products on the market and classified them into units with PSC

and units with ECM motors. Based on examination of SPVAC and SPVHP models less than

65,000 Btu/h , DOE develop ed estimates of the likelihood of a n SPVAC or SPVHP unit having

an ECM motor at each efficiency level

. Based on the data available, DOE estimated the fraction

of units with ECM motor at selected efficiency levels as shown in Table 3.2.6 based on review of

manufacturer’s literature for equipment at various efficiency levels

.

3- 14

### DOE estimated the blower motor power for units using ECM motors at 0.37 W /cfm

based on a 71 pe rcent efficiency ECM blower motor, or 75.8 percent of the fan power estimated

for the baseline unit with a PSC blower motor. Using the estimated fraction of units at each

efficiency levels with ECM and PSC motors, DOE developed an adjustment factor for th e fan

energy/ton ( k fan 

### ) which it applied to the fan energy/ton figures from the baseline simulations. In

this estimate of national energy savings potential, DOE did not analyze the potential for fan

energy savings from variable speed operation with ECM blower motors.

For the analysis of UEC at higher efficiency levels, DOE scaled the baseline condenser

cooling energy/ton by the condenser- only cooling COP calculated for higher efficiency levels

using equation 3.2.9. DOE scaled the fan energy/ton by the k fan 

### factors for SPVAC as shown in

Table 3.2.6.

Table 3.2.6 Blower Power Adjustments for ECM Motor

EER Estimated Fraction

of SPVAC Market

with ECM Blower Estimated Fraction

of SPVHP Market

with ECM Blower Relative Blower

Power Compared

to Modeled 9.0

EER U nit

SPVAC ( k fan ) Relative Blower

Power Compared

to Modeled 9.0

EER U nit

SPVAC ( k fan )

9.0 (Baseline) * 0 0 1.000 1.000

9.5 0.25 0.25 0.939 0.939

10 0.5 0.5 0.879 0.879

11 0.66 1 0.840 0.758

12 1 1 0.758 0.758

*PSC motor assumed in baseline simulation

.



### The condenser energy per ton and blower energy per ton at each efficiency level analyzed

were then added together and the result multiplied by the 3

- ton average capacity to develop

SPVAC UEC for each higher efficiency level analyzed , or in equation form,

UEC EER 

### = CAP × [ CondUEC

n 

### × COP CU

_ Cool

_ Modeled 

### + k fan

_ EER 

### × FanUEC

n 

### ] Eq. 3.2.13

COP CU

_ Cool

_ EER



### Where :

CAP = nominal equipment capacity in cooling tons,

UEC EER 

### = u nit e nergy c onsumption at the specific EER level being evaluated

, CondUEC

n 

### = n ormalized condenser energy consumption from the modeling, kWh/ton –

national basis

, COP CU_Cool_M odeled 

### = the cooling condenser-only COP used in the simulation model,

COP CU_Cool_E ER 

### = the cooling condenser-only COP corresponding to the specific EER level

being evaluated

, k fan_eer 

### = fan p ower multiplier ( k fan 

### ) for each efficiency level for SPVAC , and

FanUEC

n 

### = normalized condenser energy consumption from the modeling, kWh/ton –

n ational basis

.

3- 15

### 3.2.3.2 Single

- Package Vertical Heat Pump Analysis

The analysis method for SPVHP was carried out in a similar fashion as was done for

SPVAC ; however, the analysis for SPVHP also includ ed the heating energy from the simulation

results

. As with most heat pumps, SPVHP equipment uses electric resistance backup heat to

supplement the compressor heating capability as needed. For SPVHP analysis, DOE modified

the modular classroom building model to use a heat pump with electric resistance backup

heating. In addition to the annual condenser energy for cooling and fan energy that were

extracted from the simulation results for SPVAC, DOE extracted the condenser heating energy

and the backup electric resistance heating energy. Each of these energy consumption values was

normalized on a per-cooling ton basis as was done for SPVAC analysis.

For each SPVHP heating efficiency analyzed, the condenser heating energy use per ton

was adjusted using an estimate of the heating -only condenser COP at the rating condition for that

efficiency level. The calculation of the heating -only condenser COP is based on the fan power

ratio parameter ( R ) and the rated high temperature heating COP at 47 °F. The equation relating

these parameters is

C OP Heat −R 

### COP CUHeat 

### =

1−R 

### Eq. 3.2.14

Where:

COP Heat 

### = Heating COP rating of the equipment being modeled,

R = ratio of supply fan power to total equipment power at the AHRI rating

condition, and

COP CU

_ Heat 

### = condensing-only heating COP at rated conditions.

From the SPVHP simulation results at the b as eline 9.0 EER and 3.0 COP levels, DOE

extracted the compressor cooling energy, blower energy, compressor heating energy, backup

electric resistance heating energy , and the cooling capacity and from these developed per ton

energy consumption figures for each of these four electric loads. The results by climate and for

the nation are shown in Table 3.2.7

. These per -ton energy figures summed and multiplied by the

nominal capacity provide the UEC for SPVHP at the modeled EER and COP assuming the fan

power levels modeled for baseline equipment.

3- 16

### Table 3.2.7 Normalized Energy Use Ton by Climate for SPVHP, Baseline (9.0 EER /3.0

COP)

Zone Construction

Wt. Annual

Condenser

Cooling

Energy

kWh/t on Annual

Condenser

Heat in g

Energy

kWh/t on Annual

Supplemental

Heat i ng

Energy

kWh/t on Annual

Fan

Energy

kWh/t on Annual System Energy

kWh/t on

1A 1.46% 2871 16 3 761 3650

2A 15.99% 2090 306 100 727 3222

2B 2.56% 2352 90 11 889 3342

3A 18.48% 1557 672 385 737 3350

3B 8.24% 2002 410 118 1070 3600

3C 1.02% 989 663 196 869 2717

4A 18.94% 1084 1275 1223 752 4334

4B 0.61% 1597 1007 709 1095 4409

4C 2.19% 969 1101 319 840 3229

5A 20.85% 802 1664 2509 783 5757

5B 4.31% 1166 1574 1826 1129 5695

6A 0.80% 738 1502 5179 775 8193

6B 3.80% 941 1469 4773 1147 8329

7 0.64% 303 1450 5769 845 8367

8 0.10% 372 857 13595 1238 16062

Nat. 100.00% 1397 981 1218 819 4414



### To estimate the annual energy consumption for SPVHP at higher efficiency levels and

different combinations of EER and COP, DOE modified the approach used for SPVAC to

incorporate changes in the annual condenser heating energy for higher COP equipment. In

addition to the adjustments for cooling and fan energy discussed for SPVAC, DOE scaled the

annual condenser heating energy by the condenser- only heating COP calculated for each higher

efficiency level in accordance with equation 3.2.14. DOE did not adjust the supplement al

heating energy as it would not be affected by changes in heating COP rating. The equation for

calculating annual energy consumption at efficiency levels other than those modeled is shown

below.

UEC EER

, COP 

### = CAP × [ CondUEC cool

, n 

### × COP CU

_ Cool

_ Modeled 

### + CondUEC h eat

, n 

### ×

COP CU

_ Cool

_ EER

COP CU

_ Heat

_ Modeled 

### + UEC Heat

_ Supp

, n 

### + k fan

_ EER 

### × FanUEC

n 

### ] Eq. 3.2.15

COP CU

_ Heat

_ COP



### Where :

CAP = nominal equipment capacity in cooling tons,

UEC EER,COP 

### = u nit e nergy consumption at the specific EER and COP level being

evaluated

, CondUEC Cool,n 

### = normalized condenser cooling energy consumption from the modeling,

kWh/ton – national basis,

CondUEC Heat,n 

### = n ormalized condenser heating energy consumption from the modeling,

kWh/ton – national basis,

3- 17

### COP C U_Cool



### _

Modeled 

### = the cooling condenser-only COP used in the spreadsheet equipment

model,

COP C U_C ool, EER 

### = the cooling condens er -only COP corresponding to the specific EER level

being evaluated

, COP CU_H eat

_ Modeled 

### = the heating condenser -only COP used in the spreadsheet equipment model,

COP CU_H eat

_ COP 

### = t he heating condenser -only COP corresponding to the specific COP level

being evaluated

, UEC Heat_Supp ,n 

### = normalized condenser energy consumption from the modeling, kWh/ton –

national,

k fan_eer 

### = f an p ower multiplier ( k fan 

### ) for each higher EER level from Table 3.2.6 for

SPVHP , and

Fan UEC

n 

### = n ormalized condenser energy cons umption from the modeling, kWh/ton –

n ational

.

The resulting UEC values for each class of SPVHP are provided in chapter 4 of the TSD

based on selected EER and COP efficiency levels analyzed for the national energy savings

analysis.

3- 18

### REFERENCES

1. Carrier Corporation. OMNIZONETM Indoor Self-Contained Systems . Farmington, CT.

(Last accessed April 2011.)

< http://xpedio.carrier.com/idc/groups/public/documents/marketing/04 -850275-25.pdf >

2. Carrier Corporation. Carrier Product Data Remote Air-Cooled and Water-Cooled Indoor

Self - contained Systems and Water Source Heat Pumps . 50BV- 4PD.pdf. (Last accessed

March 2011.)

< http://www.commercial.carrier.co m/commercial/hvac/carrier/0,3068,CLI1_DIV12_ETI12

690_MID4412,00.html >

3. Jarnagin RE, and GK Bandyopadhyay . 2010. Weighting Factors for the Commercial

Building Prototypes Used in the Development of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1

-

2010

. Pacific Northw est National Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL -19116.

< http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL -19116.pdf >

4. Trane. Packaged Intelli PakTM Rooftop Systems 20 to 130 tons . Product catalog for

Packaged Rooftop Air Conditioners IntellipakTM – S*HL,S*HK. (Last accessed April

2011.) < http://www.trane.com/COMMERCIAL/DNA/View.aspx?i=1102 >

5. ASHRAE . 2004. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Energy Standard for

Buildings Except Low- Rise Residential Buildings . American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia.

6. Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc. Bard Product Specifications . BARD WA

- Series

Product Data. S3208.pdf (Last accessed January 2011.)

< http://www.bardhvac.com/tech_cntr_specs.shtml >

3- 19

### CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION

....................................................... 4-2

4.3 INPUTS TO THE NES CALCULATION

......................................................................... 4-5

4.3.1 Shipments

................................................................................................................ 4-5

4.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption

............................................................................... 4-12

4.3.3 Product Lifetime

................................................................................................... 4-22

4.3.4 Si te

- to -Source Energy Conversion Factors

........................................................... 4-22

4.3.5 Effective Dates and Analysis Period

..................................................................... 4-24

4.4 NES RESULTS

................................................................................................................. 4-25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.3.1 Historical Water-Cooled Commercial Air Conditioner Shipments

......................... 4-6

Table 4.3.6 UECs: Small Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat (8 ton

Table 4.3.7 UECs: Small Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (8 ton representative

Table 4.3.8 UECs: Large Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat (15 ton

Table 4.3.9 UECs: Large Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (15 ton representative

Table 4.3.10 UECs: Very Large Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

Table 4.3.11 UECs: Very Large Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (35 ton

Table 4.3.12 UECs: Very Large Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or

Table 4.3.13 UECs: Very Large Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (40 ton

Table 4.3.18 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Small Water

Table 4.3.19 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Small Water Table 4.3.2 Historical Water-Cooled Commercial Air Conditioner Shipments

......................... 4-7

Table 4.3.3 Projected Commercial Water -Cooled Air Conditioner Shipments

.......................... 4-8

Table 4.3.4 Projected SPVU Shipments

..................................................................................... 4-9

Table 4.3.5 Shipments Used in the Analysis: Historical Trend Scenario

................................. 4-11

representative capacity)

..................................................................................................... 4-12

capacity)

............................................................................................................................. 4-12

representative capacity)

..................................................................................................... 4-13

capacity)

............................................................................................................................. 4-13

(35 ton representative capacity)

......................................................................................... 4-13

representative capacity)

..................................................................................................... 4-13

No Heat (40 ton representative capacity)

........................................................................... 4-14

representative capacity)

..................................................................................................... 4-14

Table 4.3.14 UECs: SPVAC 1-Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

............ 4-15

Table 4.3.15 UECs: SPVAC 3-Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

............ 4-15

Table 4.3. 16 UECs: SPVHP 1 -Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

.............. 4-15

Table 4.3.17 UECs: SPVHP 3-Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

............. 4-15

Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

................................................... 4-18

Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

................................................................................... 4-18

4-i

### Table 4.3.20 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Large Water

Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

................................................... 4-18

Table 4.3.21 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Large Water

Table 4.3.22 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Very Large Water

Table 4.3.23 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Very Large Water

Table 4.3.24 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Very Large

Table 4.3.25 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Very Large

Table 4.3.26 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Small Single

- Phase

Table 4.3.27 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Small Three

- Phase

Table 4.3.28 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Small Single

- Phase

Table 4.3.29 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted- Average UECs: Small Three

- Phase

Table 4.4.1 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products (Quads,

Table 4.4.2 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products (Quads, Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

................................................................................... 4-19

Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

................................................... 4-19

Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

................................................................................... 4-19

Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Electric R esistance or No Heat

............................ 4-20

Evaporatively Cooled E quipment with Other Heat

........................................................... 4-20

SPVAC

................................................................................................ ............................... 4-21

SPVAC

................................................................................................ ............................... 4-21

SPVHP

................................................................................................ ............................... 4-21

SPVHP

................................................................................................ ............................... 4-22

Table 4.3.30 Site- to -Source Conversion Factors

...................................................................... 4-23

2013–2042 or 2014-2043): Based on Historical Trends

.................................................... 4-25

2013–2042 or 2014-2043): Shipments Fixed to 2009

....................................................... 4-25

Table 4.4.3 National Energy Savings for SPVUs (Quads, 2017-2046)

.................................... 4-27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.2.1 Flow Diagram of National Energy Savings Calculation

........................................ 4-3

Figure 4.4.1 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products by Product

Figure 4.4.2 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products by Product Figure 4.3.1 Projection of Commercial Water-Cooled AC Shipments

...................................... 4-7

Figure 4.3.2 Relationship between EER and COP for 1- Phase SPVHPs

................................. 4-16

Figure 4.3.3 Relationship between EER and COP for 3- Phase SPVHPs

................................. 4-16

Class: Historical Trends

..................................................................................................... 4-26

Class: Shipments Fixed to 2009

......................................................................................... 4-26

Figure 4.4.3 National Energy Savings for SPVUs by Product Class

....................................... 4-27

4- ii

### 4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the national energy savings (NES) analysis for water - and

evaporatively -cooled products as well as SPVUs. Each subsection of this chapter discusses each

of these product categories in separate sections.

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

The NES for water

- and evaporatively -cooled products considers the ASHRAE standard

level as well as several higher efficiency standard levels

. The effective date of a standard

depends upon the standard selected and the product class. For purposes of this analysis, the

Department assumed the effective date of such a standard would be 2013 (for small products

under the ASHRAE standard), 2014 (for large and very large products under the ASHRAE

standard ), or 2017 (for all products under standards higher than ASHRAE ).

The Department analyzed the N ational Energy Savings (N ES ) of amended energy

conservation standards for the following eight product classes of commercial water and

evaporatively cooled air conditioning equipment : (1) small water

- cooled with electric resistance

or no heating (65-135 kBtu/h) , (2) small water -cooled with other heating (65-135 kBtu/h), (3)

large water -cooled with electric resistance or no heating (135-240 kBtu/h), (4) large watercooled with other heating (135-240 kBtu/h), (5) very large water- cooled with electric resistance

or no heating (240-760 kBtu/h), (6) very large water-cooled with other heating (240-760 kBtu/h),

(7) very large evaporatively cooled with electric resistance or no heating (240-760 kBtu/h), and

(8) very large evaporatively cooled with other heating (240-760 kBtu/h).

The Department examined various standard levels for each class of equipment, including

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2010 efficiency level, the maxte ch level (the highest efficiency level

of equipment currently on the market), and several levels between. The baseline for each level is

the current federal energy conservation standard.

SPVUs

The NES for SPVUs considers several levels of efficiency standa rds higher than the

existing federal conservation standard, and up to the maxtech level. For the purposes of this

analysis, the Department assumed the effective date of such a standard would be 2017 (all

efficiency levels ar e higher than ASHRAE standards).

The Department analyzed the NES of amended energy conservation standards for the

following four classes of commercial SPVUs: (1) single phase SPVACs under 65,000 Btu/h, (2)

three phase SPVACs under 65,000 Btu/h, (3) single phase SPVHPs under 65,000 Btu/h, and (4)

three phase SPVHPs under 65,000 Btu/h.

4-1

### 4.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

Figure 4.2.1 illustrates the inputs, int ermediate values, and outputs of the NES

calculation. The NES is the difference between the national energy consumption in the base case

(i.e., the case without amended energy conservation standards) and the standards case (i.e., the

case with amended ene rgy conservation standards). The Department developed a spreadsheet

model to calculate the NES from air conditioning equipment standards for eight product classes

of interest to this analysis.

4-2NES Inputs

Calculated Values

NES Output Historical

Shipments

Product Class

Market Shares

Product Lifetime

Baseline Unit

Electricity

Consumption

Unit Electricity

Consumption (at

each EER under

consideration)

Site-to-Source

Energy

Conversion

Analysis Period Base Case UEC

Market Shares

Standards Case

UEC Market

Shares Projected

Shipments

Projected

Shipments

by Product

Class

Base Case

Unit

Electricity

Consumption

Standards

Case Unit

Electricity

Consumption

Annual

Electricity

Savings

National

Energy

Savings



### Figure 4.2.1 Flow Diagram of National Energy Savings Calculation

For each product class and standards case, DOE calculated the total energy savings using

a stock accounting method. Using historical shipments provided by AHRI, DOE forec asted

shipments into the future using two scenarios: (1) based on historical trend, and (2) fixed to 2009

levels. The number of new shipments in any given year is assumed to remain in the commercial

building stock for a total of 15 years (the assumed lifet ime of the product), at which point that

entire year’s shipments disappears from existing stock. In this way, the total stock, or number of

surviving units, in any given year is the sum of that year’s shipments plus the shipments from the

previous 14 years.

4-3

### The annual base total energy use in any given year is the sum product of the shipments

for that year and the previous 14 years and the market weighted average base UEC a 

### in each

relevant year (multiplied by a site to source conversion factor).

n

Annual Base Total Energy Use

year =n = ෍ Sh ipments

year × Base UEC

year

year =n− 14



### As currently modeled, the base UEC remains constant throughout time. As a result, in the

calculation above, Base UEC

year 

### could be moved outside the summation terms as Base UEC

.

The annual standards case total energy use in any given year is the sum product of the

shipments for that year and the previous 14 years and the market weighted average standards

case UEC b 

### in each relevant year (multiplied by a site to source conversion factor).

Annual Standards Case Total Energy Use

year =n

n

= ෍ Sh ipments

year × Standards UEC

year

year =n− 14



### Prior to the analysis period, the standards case UEC is equal to the Base UEC, as

standards have not yet become effective. Therefore, in the earlier part of the analysis period,

energy savings accrue from only the newer units in the building stock. Later in the analysis

period, all units in the building stock will have the lower standards UEC (as they were all

shipped within the analysis period) and will be providing energy savings.

The annual energy savings is the difference between the base case total energy use and

the standards case total energy use.

Annual Energy Savings

year =n

= Annual Base Total Energy Use

year =n

− Annual Standards Case Total Energy Use

year =n



### DOE calculated the cumulative energy savings over the analysis period by summing the

annual energy savings for each year in the analysis period. The analysis period differs by

product, as discussed in the next section.

a As will be discussed later, the market weighted average base UEC is based on the distribution of efficiencies under

the current federal standards (base case). It includes products both meeting and exceeding the current federal

minimum efficiency. It is no t the UEC for a product at a specified EER.

b The market weighted average standards UEC is based on the distribution of efficiencies under a given amended

federal standards scenario. It may include products both meeting and exceeding the given amended fede ral standards

level (with the exception of the Max Tech scenario, in which it is assumed that no product exceeds the amended

federal standards level). It is not the UEC for a product at a specified EER.



### 4-4x+ 29

Cumulative E nergy Savings = ෍ Annual Energy Savings

year

year =x



### For the ASHRAE standard, the cumulative energy savings are presented as above. For

higher efficiency levels, the Department calculates cumulative energy savings as net of

ASHRAE standard energy savings, as that is the presumed default.

Net Cumulative Energy Savings h ig h er efficiency standard



### = Cumulative Energy Savings h ig h er efficiency standard



### − Cumulative Energy Savings ASHRAE standard



### SPVUs

The NES calculation for the four classes of SPVUs of interest to this rulemaking follows

the same method described above for water

- and evaporatively-cooled equipment, with two

exceptions. The first is that because this analysis is not based on the ASHRAE standard, the

cumulative energy savings for all efficiency levels are presented as gross energy savings (not net

of any s tandard such as ASHRAE). The second is that for SPVHPs, energy saving for heating

based on COP are taken into account:

Annual Base Total Energy Use

year =n

n

= ෍ Sh ipments

year × ( Base UEC

year + Base UEC

_ h eat year )

year =n− 14

Annual Standards Case Total Energy Use

year =n

n

= ෍ Sh ipments

year × ( Standards UEC

year + Standards UEC

_ h eat year )

year =n− 14



### 4.3 INPUTS TO THE NES CALCULATION

The following sections discuss and document the inputs to the calculation of the NES.

4.3.1 Shipments

4.3.1.1 Historical Shipments

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

The Department obtained historical water

- cooled commercial air conditioner sh ipment

data from AHRI . While AHRI provided shipments in the categories small, large, and very large,

it is important to note that AHRI tracks large up to 249 k B tu/h, while the federal standards limit

4-5

### the large category to 240 kBtu/h. Throughout this analy sis, DOE used AHRI data to represent the

large category. Table 4.3.1 shows historical shipments from 1989 through 2009.

Table 4.3.1 Historical Water- Cooled Commercial Air Conditioner Shipments

Year Small AC

(65

- 134.9 kBtu/h) Large AC

(135

- 249 kBtu/h) Very Large AC

( 2 50 & Over kBtu/h)

1989 1

, 437 793 1

, 622

1990 1

, 503 779 1

, 211

1991 1

, 107 621 908

1992 1

, 068 537 720

1993 985 520 668

1994 922 504 815

1995 1

, 121 493 805

1996 1

, 217 652 1

, 020

1997 989 522 1

, 216

1998 795 623 1

, 886

1999 874 477 898

2000 1

, 478 1

, 621 1

, 170

2001 606 409 762

2002 502 355 1

, 227

2003 390 287 740

2004 447 291 711

2005 177 188 861

2006 316 278 1

, 231

2007 359 317 1

, 231

2008 282 311 1

, 390

2009 152 182 585

Source: AHRI.



### SPVUs

The Department relied upon SPVU shipment data from the Energy Efficiency Standards for

Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating,

Air Conditioning, and Water Heating Equipment Technical Support Document, Including:

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial

Packaged Boilers, Three -Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, SinglePackage Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps<65,000 Btu/h,

March 2, 2006. In this document, the Department provided 2005 shipments based on ARI

estimates, as shown in Table 4.3.2.

4-6

### Table 4.3.2 Historical Water- Cooled Commercial Air Conditioner Shipments

Year SPVAC <

65,000 Btu/h,

single

- phase SPVHP <

65,000 Btu/h,

single

- phase SPVAC <

65,000 Btu/h,

three

- phase SPVHP <

65,000 Btu/h,

three

- phase

2005 31

, 976 13

, 125 14

, 301 6

, 129

Source: ARI Estimate.



### 4.3.1.2 Projected Shipments

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

The Department estimated future shipments using the historical data provided by AHRI.

The small and large AC categories show an exponential trend, yielding very few shipments in the

future. (Note that the data points for year 2000 were removed as outliers to facilitate identifying

historical trend s.) The very large AC shipments show no trend, although a linear fit shows a

slowly decreasing forecast. Figure 4.3.1 shows the extrapolation s, and Table 4.3.3 shows

projected shipments for 2010 through 2043.

Ship = 6.42E+89e

- 1.00E

- 01 * Year

R2 = 8.60E

- 01

Ship = 2.16E+55e

- 6.07E

- 02 * Year

R2 = 8.08E

- 01 Ship =

- 4.19 * Year + 9,399.48

R2 = 0.01

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040Shipments

Year Small AC (65

- 134.9)

Large AC (135

- 249)

Very Large AC (250 & Over)

Expon. (Small AC (65

- 134.9))

Expon. (Large AC (135

- 249))

Linear (Very Large AC (250 & Over))



### Figure 4.3.1 Projection of Commercial Water

- Cooled AC Shipments

4-7

### Table 4.3.3 Projected Commercial Water- Cooled Air Conditioner Shipments

Year Small AC

(65

- 134.9 kBtu/h) Large AC

(135

- 249 kBtu/h) Very Large AC

(350 & Over kBtu/h)

2010 208 215 986

2011 189 203 982

2012 171 191 978

2013 154 179 974

2014 140 169 970

2015 126 159 965

2016 114 150 961

2017 103 141 957

2018 93 132 953

2019 85 125 949

2020 76 117 944

2021 69 110 940

2022 63 104 936

2023 57 98 932

2024 51 92 928

2025 46 87 923

2026 42 81 919

2027 38 77 915

2028 34 72 911

2029 31 68 907

2030 28 64 903

2031 25 60 898

2032 23 57 894

2033 21 53 890

2034 19 50 886

2035 17 47 882

2036 15 44 877

2037 14 42 873

2038 13 39 869

2039 11 37 865

2040 10 35 861

2041 9 33 856

2042 8 31 852

2043 8 29 848



### SPVUs

The Department projected shipments of SPVUs according to the average growth rate of

2.18 percent noted in the 2006 TSD. This was based on analysis of ARI data for commercial

unitary AC products 65,000 Btu/h to 240,000 Btu/h for DOE’s commercial unitary AC and HP

rulemaking. Table 4.3.4 shows the projected SPVU shipments.

4-8

### Table 4.3.4 Projected SPVU Shipments

Year SPVAC <

65,000 Btu/h,

single

- phase SPVHP <

65,000 Btu/h,

single

- phase SPVAC <

65,000 Btu/h,

three

- phase SPVHP <

65,000 Btu/h,

three

- phase

2006 32,673 13,411 14,613 6,263

2007 33,385 13,703 14,931 6,399

2008 34,113 14,002 15,257 6,539

2009 34,857 14,307 15,589 6,681

2010 35,617 14,619 15,929 6,827

2011 36,393 14,938 16,277 6,976

2012 37,187 15,264 16,631 7,128

2013 37,997 15,596 16,994 7,283

2014 38,826 15,936 17,364 7,442

2015 39,672 16,284 17,743 7,604

2016 40,537 16,639 18,130 7,770

2017 41,420 17,002 18,525 7,939

2018 42,323 17,372 18,929 8,112

2019 43,246 17,751 19,341 8,289

2020 44,189 18,138 19,763 8,470

2021 45,152 18,533 20,194 8,655

2022 46,136 18,937 20,634 8,843

2023 47,142 19,350 21,084 9,036

2024 48,170 19,772 21,544 9,233

2025 49,220 20,203 22,013 9,434

2026 50,293 20,643 22,493 9,640

2027 51,389 21,094 22,984 9,850

2028 52,510 21,553 23,485 10,065

2029 53,654 22,023 23,997 10,284

2030 54,824 22,503 24,520 10,508

2031 56,019 22,994 25,054 10,737

2032 57,240 23,495 25,600 10,972

2033 58,488 24,007 26,158 11,211

2034 59,763 24,531 26,729 11,455

2035 61,066 25,065 27,311 11,705

2036 62,397 25,612 27,907 11,960

2037 63,758 26,170 28,515 12,221

2038 65,148 26,741 29,137 12,487

2039 66,568 27,324 29,772 12,759

2040 68,019 27,919 30,421 13,038

2041 69,502 28,528 31,084 13,322

2042 71,017 29,150 31,762 13,612

2043 72,565 29,785 32,454 13,909

2044 74,147 30,435 33,162 14,212

2045 75,764 31,098 33,885 14,522

2046 77,415 31,776 34,623 14,839



### 4-9

### The Department also used the 2.18 percent growth rate to project backwards from 2005

to estimate shipments that would still be in the product stock during the NES analysis period.

4.3.1.3 Product Class Market Shares and Projected Shipments by Product Class

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

The Department could not identify data that would allow the shipments provided by

AHRI to be separate d into products with electrical resistance or no heating, and those with other

types of heating. However, the Department believes that most small and large water -cooled

equipment do not provide heating, and as a result assigned 90% of shipments in those ca tegories

to the no-heating class, and 10% to the other heating class. For very large equipment, the

Department believes that most equipment are roof -top units that are combined with gas furnaces,

and as a result assigned 10% of very large shipments to the no-heating class and 10% to the other

heating class.

The Department identified nine models of very large evaporatively- cooled equipment,

but no shipment data were available. For this product class, the Department used the ratio of very

large evaporative t o water cooled models on the market (9:35) and applied this to the water

cooled shipments to estimate evaporatively cooled shipments. The same fraction as for very large

water cooled equipment was used to separate units into the heating categories.

DOE use d two shipment scenarios in the analysis : one using the trends identified from

historical data, and another with future shipments fixed to the 2009 value. Table 4.3.5 shows the

shipments used for all the product classes in this analysis using the historical shipment scenario.

This is based on the AHRI historical data, the forecasted shipments, and the attribution of the

shipments to the specific product classes. No table is provided for the shipment scenario in which

future shipments are fixed to the 2009 level.

4-10

### Table 4.3.5 Shipments Used in the Analysis : Historical Trend Scenario

Year Small

Water

E/N

65

- 135 Small

Water

O

65

- 135 Large

Water

E/N

135

- 240 Large

Water

O

135

- 240 VL

Water

E/N

240

- 760 VL Water

O

240

- 760 VL Evap

E/N

240

- 760 VL Evap

O

240

- 760

1999 787 87 429 48 90 808 23 208

2000 1,330 148 1,459 162 117 1,053 30 271

2001 545 61 368 41 76 686 20 176

2002 452 50 320 35 123 1,104 32 284

2003 351 39 258 29 74 666 19 171

2004 402 45 262 29 71 640 18 165

2005 159 18 169 19 86 775 22 199

2006 284 32 250 28 123 1,108 32 285

2007 323 36 285 32 123 1,108 32 285

2008 254 28 280 31 139 1,251 36 322

2009 137 15 164 18 59 526 15 135

2010 187 21 194 21 99 887 25 228

2011 170 19 183 20 98 884 25 227

2012 154 17 172 19 98 880 25 226

2013 139 15 161 18 97 877 25 226

2014 126 14 152 17 97 873 25 224

2015 113 13 143 16 97 868 25 223

2016 103 11 135 15 96 865 25 222

2017 93 10 127 14 96 861 25 221

2018 84 9 119 13 95 858 24 221

2019 77 8 113 12 95 854 24 220

2020 68 8 105 12 94 850 24 219

2021 62 7 99 11 94 846 24 218

2022 57 6 94 10 94 842 24 217

2023 51 6 88 10 93 839 24 216

2024 46 5 83 9 93 835 24 215

2025 41 5 78 9 92 831 24 214

2026 38 4 73 8 92 827 24 213

2027 34 4 69 8 92 823 24 212

2028 31 3 65 7 91 820 23 211

2029 28 3 61 7 91 816 23 210

2030 25 3 58 6 90 813 23 209

2031 23 2 54 6 90 808 23 208

2032 21 2 51 6 89 805 23 207

2033 19 2 48 5 89 801 23 206

2034 17 2 45 5 89 797 23 205

2035 15 2 42 5 88 794 23 204

2036 14 1 40 4 88 789 23 203

2037 13 1 38 4 87 786 22 202

2038 12 1 35 4 87 782 22 201

2039 10 1 33 4 87 778 22 200

2040 9 1 32 3 86 775 22 199

2041 8 1 30 3 86 770 22 198

2042 7 1 28 3 85 767 22 197

2043 7 1 26 3 85 763 22 196



### 4-11

### SPVUs

For SPVUs, the projected shipments shown in the previous section represent the extent of

disaggregation necessary for the product classes of interest to this rulemaking.

4.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption

4.3.2.1 Unit Electricity Consumption per EER

Water and Evaporati vely Cooled Products

For each of the eight product classes, the Department identified a single representative

capacity based on the approximate average capacity of models identified in the AHRI directory

and through reviews of manufacturer websites. The UEC data are s hown in Table 4.3.6 through

Table 4.3.13

. The UECs are from the energy use analysis (Chapter 3) and represent the energy

use of a product at a specified EER.

Table 4.3.6 UECs : Small Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat (8

ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 11.5 9,199

ASHRAE Standard 12.1 8,855

13 EER 13.0 8,396

14 EER 14.0 7,953

15 EER 15.0 7,566

Max Tech 16.4 7,101



### Table 4.3.7 UECs: Small Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (8 ton representative

capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 11.3 9,322

ASHRAE Standard 11.9 8,966

13 EER 13.0 8,396

14 EER 14.0 7,953

15 EER 15.0 7,566

Max Tech 16.4 7,101



### 4-12

### Table 4.3.8 UECs : Large Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

(15 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 11.0 17,838

ASHRAE Standard 12.5 16,206

13 EER 13.0 15,743

14 EER 14.0 14,911

15 EER 15.0 14,186

Max Tech 16.1 13,490



### Table 4.3.9 UECs: Large Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (15 ton

representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 11.0 17,838

ASHRAE Standard 12.3 16,402

13 EER 13.0 15,743

14 EER 14.0 14,911

15 EER 15.0 14,186

Max Tech 16.1 13,490



### Table 4.3.10 UECs: Very Large Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No

Heat (35 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 11.0 41,621

ASHRAE Standard 12.4 38,041

13 EER 13.0 36,733

14 EER 14.0 34,793

Max Tech 14.8 33,422



### Table 4.3.11 UECs: Very Large Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (35 ton

representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 10.8 42,205

ASHRAE Standard 12.2 38,504

13 EER 13.0 36,733

14 EER 14.0 34,793

Max Tech 14.8 33,422



### 4-13

### Table 4.3.12 UECs: Very Large Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance

or No Heat (40 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 11.0 47,171

ASHRAE Standard 11.9 44,732

12.5 EER 12.5 43,294

Max Tech 13.1 41,983



### Table 4.3.13 UECs: Very Large Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Other Heat (40 ton

representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 10.8 47,766

ASHRAE Standard 11.7 45,243

1 2.5 EER 12.5 43,294

Max Tech 13.1 41,983



### SPVUs

For each of the four SPVU product classes, the Department identified a single

representative capacity (3 ton) based on the approximate average capacity of models identified in

the AHRI directory. The UEC data are shown in Table 4.3.14 through Table 4.3.17

. The UECs

are from the energy use analysis and represent the energy use of a product at a specified EER.

For SPVHPs, the Department determined heating UECs for the heating COPs that

correspond to the EER of each efficiency level examined. Heating COPs in the AHRI directory

range from 3.0 to 3.5. However, the relationship between EER and COP is not exceptionally

clear . Using the linear relationships shown in Figure 4.3.2 and Figure 4.3.3 , the heating COPs

used in this analysis range from 3.00 to 3.36.

4-14

### Table 4.3.14 UECs: SPVAC 1 -Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 9.0 6,660

9.5 EER 9.5 6,301

10 EER 10.0 5,962

11 EER 11.0 5,537

12 EER 12.0 5,057

Max Tech 12.6 4,911

Table 4.3.15 UECs: SPVAC 3 -Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC

Baseline 9.0 6,660

9.5 EER 9.5 6,301

10 EER 10.0 5,962

11 EER 11.0 5,537

12 EER 12.0 5,057

Max Tech 12.6 4,911



### Table 4.3.16 UECs : SPVHP 1 -Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC Heating

COP Heating

UEC

Baseline

9.5 EER

10 EER

11 EER

12 EER

Max Tech 9.0

9.5

10.0

11.0

12.0

12.5 6,648

6,290

5,952

5,325

5,048

4,925 3.01

3.06

3.11

3.21

3.31

3.36 6,280

6,234

6,189

6,105

6,026

5,988



### Table 4.3.17 UECs: SPVHP 3 -Phase <65,000 Btu/h (3 ton representative capacity)

Efficiency Level EER UEC Heating

COP Heating

UEC

Baseline

9.5 EER

10 EER

11 EER

12 EER

Max Tech 9.0

9.5

10.0

11.0

12.0

12.5 6,648

6,290

5,952

5,325

5,048

4,925 3.00

3.05

3.09

3.18

3.27

3.32 6,281

6,240

6,201

6,126

6,055

6,021



### 4-15COPCOP 3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3

2.9 y = 0.1018x + 2.0895

R2 = 0.4561

9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5

EER



### Figure 4.3.2 Relationship between EER and COP for 1

- Phase SPVHPs

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3

2.9 y = 0.0896x + 2.1978

R2 = 0.3534

9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5

EER



### Figure 4.3.3 Relationship between EER and COP for 3

- Phase SPVHPs

4-16 13

13

### 4.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares and Market Weighted

Average UEC

The UECs associated with the base case and standards case scenarios

– or market

weighted average UECs

– are dependent on the market shares of products at each efficiency

level and the UECs for products at each efficiency level (shown in the previous section). In the

NES, the market shares are based on model distributions as a proxy for shipment distributions.

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

The Department did not have available data on shipments by efficiency level, so it relied

on the AHRI certified products directory as well as reviews of manufacturer websites to identify

models of water -cooled commercial AC products . The Department then created base case

efficiency distributions based on these models . The AHRI certified directory does not list

evaporatively -cooled equipment, and the models found on manufacturer websit es had limited

efficiency information

. As a result, the Department created base case efficiency distributions

based on very large air -cooled equipment in the AHRI directory. These distributions were

bumped up 1.0 EER based on the approximate difference bet ween the federal standards for these

equipment categories.

When creating base case efficiency distributions for both water and evaporatively cooled

products, the Department binned models into efficiency levels in a manner that created a market

weighted

- average EER approximately equal to the full distribution EER. The Department

assumed that this base case market share remained the same throughout the analysis period.

For each of the efficiency levels or standards cases analyzed within a given equipment

cla ss, the Department used a “rollup” scenario to establish the market shares by efficiency level

for the year that standards become effective (as well as subsequent years). Information available

to DOE suggests that the efficiencies of equipment in the base case that did not meet the standard

level under consideration would roll up to meet the standard level. In addition, available

information suggests that all equipment efficiencies in the base case that were above the standard

level under consideration would not be affected.

DOE calculated the market

- weighted average UEC values for each standards scenario

using the distribution of efficiencies as well as the capacity

- weighted average UECs for each

EER being analyzed. The market

- weighted average UEC value represents the average energy use

of the total units shipped under a specified amended standard level. DOE used the market

weighted average UEC values to calculate the annual energy use of the equipment class at a

given amended standard level

. For each standards case scenario:

Max Tec h



### Mkt Wtd Avg UEC = ෍ Market Sh are Level 

### × Capacity Wtd Avg UEC Level

Level = Baseline



### Table 4.3.18 through Table 4.3.25 shows the distribution of efficiencies within the base

case and the rollup scenar ios to establish the distribution of efficiencies in the standards cases for

each equipment class. In addition, the market weighted average UEC (based on the rollup

4-17

### distribution) is shown for each standard case under consideration. Efficiency distributions do not

change over time except from base case to standards case on the relevant effective date.

Table 4.3.18 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Small Water

Cooled Equipment with Elect ric Resistance or No Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 11.5

(11.5

- 11.8) 12.1

(11.9

- 12.5) 13

(12.6

- 13.4) 14

(13.5

- 14.4) 15

(14.5

- 15.6) 16.4

(15.7

- 16.4)

Base Case 7% 27% 13% 13% 20% 20% 8,088

ASHRAE

Standard 34% 13% 13% 20% 20% 8,065

13 EER 47% 13% 20% 20% 7,912

14 EER 60% 20% 20% 7,705

15 EER 80% 20% 7,473

Max Tech 100% 7,101



### Table 4.3.19 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Small Water

Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 11.3

(11. 3

- 11.7 ) 11.9

(11.8

- 12.5 ) 13

( 12.6

- 13.4 ) 14

( 13.5

- 14.4 ) 15

( 14.5

- 15.6 ) 16.4

( 15.7

- 16.4 )

Base Case 7% 27% 13% 13% 20% 20% 8,126

ASHRAE

Standard 34% 13% 13% 20% 20% 8,102

13 EER 47% 13% 20% 20% 7,912

14 EER 60% 20% 20% 7,705

15 EER 80% 20% 7,473

Max Tech 100% 7,101



### Table 4.3.20 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Large Water

Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 11.0

( 11.0

- 11.5 ) 12.5

( 11.6

- 12.7 ) 13

( 12.8

- 13.4 ) 14

( 13.5

- 14.4 ) 15

( 14.5

- 15.5 ) 16.1

( 15.6

- 16.1 )

Base Case 29% 21% 7% 7% 29% 7% 15,776

ASHRAE

Standard 50% 7% 7% 29% 7% 15,309

13 EER 57% 7% 29% 7% 15,078

14 EER 64% 29% 7% 14,602

15 EER 93% 7% 14,137

Max Tech 100% 13,490



### 4-18

### Table 4.3.21 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Large Water

Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 11.0

( 11.0

- 11.4 ) 12.3

(11.5

- 12.6 ) 13

( 12.7

- 13.4 ) 14

( 13.5

- 14.4 ) 15

( 14.5

- 15.5 ) 16.1

( 15.6

- 16.1 )

Base Case 29% 21% 7% 7% 29% 7% 15,818

ASHRAE

Standard 50% 7% 7% 29% 7% 15,407

13 EER 57% 7% 29% 7% 15,078

14 EER 64% 29% 7% 14,602

15 EER 93% 7% 14,137

Max Tech 100% 13,490



### Table 4.3.22 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Very Large

Water Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 11.0

( 11

- 11.69 ) 12.4

(11. 7

-

12.69 ) 13

( 12.7

-

13.49 ) 14

( 13.5

-

14.39 ) 14.8

( 14.4

- 14.89 )

Base Case 17% 20% 29% 14% 20% 36,893

ASHRAE

Standard 37% 29% 14% 20% 36,279

13 EER 66% 14% 20% 35,794

14 EER 80% 20% 34,518

Max Tech 100% 33,422



### Table 4.3.23 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Very Large

Water Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 10.8

(10.8

- 11.59) 12.2

(11.6

- 12.69) 13

(12.7

- 13.49) 14

(13.5

- 14.39) 14.8

(14.4

- 14.89)

Base Case 14% 23% 29% 14% 20% 36,980

ASHRAE

Standard 37% 29% 14% 20% 36,452

13 EER 66% 14% 20% 35,794

14 EER 80% 20% 34,518

Max Tech 100% 33,422



### 4-19

### Table 4.3.24 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Very Large

Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Electric Resistance or No Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 11.0

( 11.0

- 11.3 ) 11.9

( 11.4

- 12.1 ) 12.5

( 12.2

- 12.7 ) 13.1

( 12.8

- 13.1 )

Base Case 65% 27% 6% 2% 46,166

ASHRAE

Standard 92% 6% 2% 44,584

12.5 EER 98% 2% 43,265

Max Tech 100% 41,983



### Table 4.3.25 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Very Large

Evaporatively Cooled Equipment with Other Heat

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 10.8

( 10.8

- 11.2 ) 11.7

( 11.3

- 12.0 ) 12.5

( 12.1

- 12.7 ) 13.1

( 12.8

- 13.1 )

Base Case 56% 35% 7% 2% 46,436

ASHRAE

Standard 91% 7% 2% 45,033

12.5 EER 98% 2% 43,265

Max Tech 100% 41,983



### SPVUs

The Department did not have data on shipments of SPVUs by efficiency level, so it relied

on the AHRI certified products directory to identify models of SPVUs and develop efficiency

distributions for the base case based on these models. The Department assumed that this base

case market share remained the same thro ughout the analysis period.

For each of the efficiency levels or standards cases analyzed, the Department used a

“rollup” scenario as described for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Equipment. The Department

also calculated the market weighted -average UEC in the same way as shown above.

Table 4.3.26 through Table 4.3.29 shows the distr ibution of efficiencies within the base

case and the rollup scenarios to establish the distribution of efficiencies in the standards cases for

each equipment class. In addition, the market weighted average UEC (based on the rollup

distribution) is shown fo r each standard case under consideration. Efficiency distributions do not

change over time except from base case to standards case on the relevant effective date.

4-20

### Table 4.3.26 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Small Single

Phase SPVAC

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 9.0

( 9.0

- 9.29 ) 9.5

( 9.3

- 9.79 ) 10

( 9.8

- 10.49 ) 11

( 10.5

-

11.49 ) 12

(11.5

-

12.29 ) 12.6

( 12.3

- 12.6 )

Base Case 52% 11% 15% 17% 4% 1% 6,239

9.5 EER 63% 15% 17% 4% 1% 6,054

10 EER 78% 17% 4% 1% 5,842

11 EER 95% 4% 1% 5,511

12 EER 99% 1% 5,055

Max Tech 100% 4,911



### Table 4.3.27 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Small Three

Phase SPVAC

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

UEC 9.0

(9.0- 9.29) 9.5

(9.3- 9.79) 10

(9.8- 10.49) 11

(10.5

- 11.49) 12

(11.5

- 12.29) 12.6

(12.3

- 12.6)

Base Case 34% 10% 21% 24% 9% 2% 6,023

9.5 EER 44% 21% 24% 9% 2% 5,901

10 EER 65% 24% 9% 2% 5,753

11 EER 89% 9% 2% 5,479

12 EER 98% 2% 5,053

Max Tech 100% 4,911



### Table 4.3.28 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Small Single

Phase SPVHP

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

Cooling

UEC Market

Weighted

Average

Heating

UEC 9.0

(9.0

- 9.29) 9.5

(9.3

- 9.79) 10

(9.8

- 10.49) 11

(10.5

- 11.49) 12

(11.5

- 12.29) 12.5

(12.3

- 12.5)

Base Case 37% 10% 21% 21% 9% 1% 6,017 6,192

9.5 EER 47% 21% 21% 9% 1% 5,885 6,175

10 EER 69% 21% 9% 1% 5,725 6,154

11 EER 90% 9% 1% 5,295 6,096

12 EER 99% 1% 5,047 6,025

Max Tech 100% 4,925 5,988



### 4-21

### Table 4.3.29 Efficiency Distributions and Market Weighted

- Average UECs: Small Three

Phase SPVHP

Standard

Scenario EER Market

Weighted

Average

Cooling

UEC Market

Weighted

Average

Heating

UEC 9.0

(9.0- 9.29) 9.5

(9.3- 9.79) 10

(9.8- 10.49) 11

(10.5

- 11.49) 12

(11.5

- 12.29) 12.5

(12.3

- 12.5)

Base Case 26% 10% 28% 28% 7% 1% 5,909 6,191

9.5 EER 36% 28% 28% 7% 1% 5,818 6,181

10 EER 64% 28% 7% 1% 5,697 6,167

11 EER 92% 7% 1% 5,299 6,119

12 EER 99% 1% 5,046 6,054

Max Tech 100% 4,925 6,021



### 4.3.3 Product Lifetime

For both water- cooled and evaporatively -cooled products and SPVUs, DOE estimated the

product lifetime from the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on Energy Conservation

Standards for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps published in the Federal

Register on July 29, 2004. 69 FR 45460. The product lifetime from the prior TSD was

estimated to b e a mean of 15.4 years. More recent sources confirm this estimate including the

2008 California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (15 years). For this preliminary

analysis, DOE used a single

- value lifetime of 15 years.

4.3.4 Site

- to

- Source Energy Convers ion Factors

For both water and evaporatively cooled products and SPVUs, t he Department calculated

energy savings as site energy, which it then converted to source energy

— the energy that electric

power plants consume. As shown in T able 4.3. 30 , the Department used site- to -source energy

conversion factors from the AEO 20 10 . The Department extrapolated the values in later years

(after 20 3 5) from their relative sources because the AEO does not forecast beyond 2035. To

arrive at values for these later years, the Department used the forecast’s trend from 20 25 to 2035

to establish conversion factors in the years 2036 to 2045.

4-22

### Table 4.3.30 Site

- to -Source Conversion Factors

Site

- to

- Source Conversion Factor

Year (Btu/kWh)

2008 10

, 805

2009 10,876

2010 10,918

2011 10,877

2012 10,818

2013 10

, 812

2014 10,786

2015 10,727

2016 10,715

2017 10,694

2018 10

, 683

2019 10,666

2020 10,650

2021 10,643

2022 10,619

2023 10

, 599

2024 10,556

2025 10,543

2026 10,499

2027 10,475

2028 10

, 446

2029 10,422

2030 10,409

2031 10,390

2032 10,374

2033 10

, 354

2034 10,338

2035 10,318

2036 10,296

2037 10,274

2038 10

, 251

2039 10,229

2040 10,207

2041 10,185

2042 10,163

2043 10,141

2044 10,119

2045 10,098

2046 10,076

Source: EIA, AEO 20 10

.



### 4-23

### 4.3.5 Effective Dates and Analysis Period

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

For purposes of calculating the NES, the Department used an analysis period of 2013 (the

assumed effective date of ASHRAE level standards for small products ) or 2014 (the assumed

effective date of ASHRAE level standards for large and very large products) through 20 42 and

2043, respectively. This is the standard analysis period of 30 years. While the analysis period

remains the same for standards higher than ASHRAE, energy savings do not begin accumulating

until 2017 (the assumed effective date of higher than ASHRAE standards).

Generally, covered equipment to which a new or amended energy conservation standard

applies must comply with the standard if such equipment is manufactured or imported on or after

a specified date.

If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards at the efficiency

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2010, EPCA states that any such standards shall

become effective on or after a date which is two or three years (depending on equipment size)

after the effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended

ASHRAE standard (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2010). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For all water

and evaporatively cooled equipment in this rulemaking, the effective date in ASHRAE Standard

90.1 2010 is June 1, 2011. Thus, if DOE decides to adopt the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

2010, the rule would apply to small equipment (two product classes) manufactured on or after

June 1, 2013, which is two years from the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

2010, and to large and very large equipment (six product clas s es) manufactured on or after June

1, 2014, which is three years from the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2010.

If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards higher than the

efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2010, EPCA states that any such

standards “shall become effective for products manufactured on or after a date which is four

years after the date su ch rule is published in the Federal Register.” (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D))

Thus, for products which DOE might adopt a level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency

levels, the rule would apply to products manufactured on or after April 29, 2017, which is four

years from the date of publication of the final rule that DOE must meet for higher than ASHRAE

efficiency levels (30 months after publication of ASHRAE, which was October 29, 2010).

SPVUs

For purposes of calculating the NES for SPVUs, DOE used a 30- yea r analysis period of

2017-2046. As all efficiency levels being considered for SPVUs are higher than the ASHRAE

efficiency levels, any rule adopted would apply to products manufactured on or after a date

which is four years from the date of publication of the final rule adopting standards higher than

the ASHRAE efficiency levels (30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard

90.1, which was October 29, 2010). Under this timeline, compliance with such more- stringent

standards would be required no later than April 29, 2017.

4-24

### 4.4 NES RESULTS

Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

Table 4.4.1, Table 4.4.2, Figure 4.4.1 , and Figure 4.4.2 summarize the NES due to new

energy conservation standards for the eight product classes examined . Results of the national

energy savings analysis are provided for the two shipment case scenarios , Historical Trends and

Fixed to 2009. Recall that all lev els higher than ASHRAE are shown as net of ASHRAE

savings.

Table 4.4.1 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

(Quads, 2013–2042 or 2014-2043) : Based on Historical Trends

Efficienc y

Level Small

Water

E/N

65

- 135 Small

Water

O

65

- 135 Large

Water

E/N

135

- 240 Large

Water

O

135

- 240 VL

Water

E/N

240

-

760 VL Water

O

240

- 760 VL Evap

E/N

240

- 760 VL Evap

O

240

- 760

ASHRAE

Standard 0.000005 0.0000005 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 0.001

13/12.5 EER 0.00002 0.000002 0.00002 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.00008 0.001

14 EER 0.00004 0.000005 0.00013 0.00002 0.0005 0.005

- -

15 EER 0.00007 0.000009 0.00024 0.00003

- - - -

Max Tech 0.00012 0.000014 0.00039 0.00005 0.0008 0.008 0.00017 0.002



### Table 4.4.2 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products

(Quads, 2013–2042 or 2014-2043): Shipments Fixed to 2009

Efficiency

Level Small

Water

E/N

65

- 135 Small

Water

O

65

- 135 Large

Water

E/N

135

- 240 Large

Water

O

135

- 240 VL

Water

E/N

240

-

760 VL Water

O

240

- 760 VL Evap

E/N

240

- 760 VL Evap

O

240

- 760

ASHRAE

Standard 0.000011 0.0000013 0.0003 0.00003 0.0001 0.001 0.0001 0.001

13/12.5 EER 0.00006 0.000008 0.00008 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.00005 0.001

14 EER 0.00014 0.000017 0.00032 0.00004 0.0003 0.003

- -

15 EER 0.00024 0.000028 0.00056 0.00007

- - - -

Max Tech 0.00039 0.000044 0.00089 0.00010 0.0005 0.00 5 0.00011 0.001



### 4-25NES (Quads) 0.014

0.012

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000

ASHRAE 13/12.5 14 EER 15 EER Max Tech VL Evap O 240

- 760

VL Evap E/N 240

- 760

VL Water O 240

- 760

VL Water E/N 240

- 760

Large Water O 135

- 240

Large Water E/N 135

- 240

Small Water O 65

- 135

Small Water E/N 65

- 135

Standard EER



### Figure 4.4.1 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products by

Product Class: Historical Trends

0.009

0.008

0.007

VL Evap O 240

- 760

0.006

ASHRAE

Standard 13/12.5 EER 14 EER 15 EER Max TechNES (Quads)

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0 VL Evap E/N 240

- 760

VL Water O 240

- 760

VL Water E/N 240

- 760

Large Water O 135

- 240

Large Water E/N 135

- 240

Small Water O 65

- 135

Small Water E/N 65

- 135



### Figure 4.4.2 National Energy Savings for Water and Evaporatively Cooled Products by

Product Class: Shipments Fixed to 2009

4-26

### SPVUs

Table 4.4.3 and Figure 4.4.3 summarize the NES due to new energy conservation

standards for the four product classes examined

.

Table 4.4.3 National Energy Savings for SPVUs (Quads, 2017-2046)

Efficiency

Level SPVAC

1- phase

< 65 SPVAC

3- phase

< 65 SPVHP

1- phase

< 65 SPVHP

3- phase

< 65

9.5 EER

10 EER

11 EER

12 EER

Max Tech 0. 03 1

0. 07 6

0. 13 9

0. 2 26

0. 2 53 0.010

0. 02 3

0. 04 6

0. 0 83

0. 09 5 0. 01 2

0. 02 6

0. 06 4

0. 08 9

0. 101 0.004

0. 00 9

0. 02 5

0. 03 7

0. 04 2NES (Quads) 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 SPVHP 3 Phase

SPVHP 1 Phase

SPVAC 3 Phase

SPVAC 1 phase

9.5 EER 10 EER 11 EER 12 EER Max Tech



### Figure 4.4.3 National Energy Savings for SPVUs by Product Class

4-27

### REFERENCES

1 Air -Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, Historical Shipment Data

Commercial Air Conditioners Water Cooled , 2011. Information provided by the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) to the U.S. Department of

Energy, March 4, 2011.

2 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program

for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial

Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water Heating Equipment Including Packaged Terminal

Air -Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial Packaged

Boiler, Three- Phase Air -Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and SinglePackage Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps < 65,000

Btu/h , March 2006. Washington, DC.

3 California Public Utility Commission 2008. Database for Energy Efficient Resources.

(Last a ccessed April 20, 2011.) < www.deeresources.com >

4-28

### APPENDIX 3A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MEDIUM OFFICE REFERENCE BUILDING

MODEL AND MODULAR CLASSROOM MODEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3A.1 Introduction

............................................................................................................................ 1

3A.2 Medium Office Reference Building Model Description

....................................................... 1

3A.3 Modular Classroom Building Model Description

.................................................................. 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3A.2.1. Description of DOE Reference Medium Office Building Model

............................. 2

Table 3A.2.2. Key Schedules for DOE Reference Medium Office Building Model

...................... 8

Table 3A.3.1. Description of Modular Classroom Building Model

................................................ 9

Table 3A.3.2. Key Schedules for Modular Classroom Building Model

........................................ 13

3A­i

### APPENDIX 3A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MEDIUM OFFICE REFERENCE BUILDING

MODEL AND MODULAR CLASSROOM MODEL

3A.1 INTRODUCTION

The analysis of baseline energy consumption for both water­cooled air conditioners and

evaporatively cooled air conditioners discussed in chapter 3 were based on simulation data for

DOE’s medium office reference building model. This appendix provides key characteristics of the

DOE medium office reference building model which formed the basis of this data. Further details

and background may be found in the documentation and through review of the input files available

at < http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/new_construction.html >.

In addition, this appendix provides key characteristics for the modular classroom model

used in the analysis of SPVAC and SPVHP energy usage.

3A.2 MEDIUM OFFICE REFERENCE BUILDING MODEL DESCRIPTION

Table 3A.2.2 provides a high level description of the DOE medium office reference

building model.

3A­1Table3A.2.1.DescriptionofDOEReferenceMediumOfficeBuildingModelItemDescription**Program Vintage** NEWCONSTRUCTION**Location (Representing** **8 Climate** **Zones) Zone** **1A: Miami** **(very hot,** **humid) Zone** **2A: Houston** **(hot, humid)** **Zone 2B:** **Phoenix (hot,** **dry) Zone** **3A: Memphis** **(warm, humid)** **Zone 3B:** **El Paso** **(warm, dry)** **Zone 3C:** **San Francisco** **(warm,marine) Zone** **4A: Baltimore** **(mild, humid)** **Zone 4B:** **Albuquerque (mild,** **dry) Zone** **4C: Salem** **(mild, marine)** **Zone 5A:** **Chicago (cold,** **humid) Zone** **5B: Boise** **(cold, dry)** **Zone 6A:** **Burlington (cold,** **humid) Zone** **6B: Helena** **(cold, dry)** **Zone 7:** **Duluth (very** **cold) Zone** **8: Fairbanks** **(subarctic) Available** **fuel types** **gas, electricity** **Building Type** **(Principal Building** **Function)**OFFICE**Building Prototype** MediumOffice**Form Total** **Floor Area** **(sq feet)** **53,600 (163.8** **ft x** **109.2 ft)** 3A­2ItemDescription**Building shape** **Aspect Ratio** **1.5 Number** **of Floors** **3 Window** **Fraction (Window­to­Wall** **Ratio) 33%** **Window Locations** **even distribution** **among all** **four sides** **Shading Geometry** **none Azimuth** **non­directional**3A­3**eter zone depth: 15 ft. has four perimeter zones and** **ore zone. Perimeter 40%, Core 60%** **Peri floor** **one area** **k Frame** **Nonresidential; Roofs, Insulation entirely above de**Item**Thermal Zoning** **Perim floor** **one c** **area: Floor** **to floor** **height (feet)** **Floor to** **ceiling height** **(feet) Architecture** Exteriorwalls**Construction U­factor** **(Btu /** **h*********ft 2** *******°F) and/or** **R­value (h** *******ft 2** *******°F /** **Btu)**Roof**Construction U­factor** **(Btu /** **h*********ft 2** *******°F) and/or** **R­value (h** *******ft 2** *******°F /** **Btu)**WindowDescription**meter zone** **depth: 15** **ft. Each** **has four** **perimeter zones** **and core** **zone. Percentages** **of floor** **: Perimeter** **40%, Core** **60% 13** **9 (4** **ft above­ceiling** **plenum) Steel­Frame** **Walls ASHRAE** **90.1­1997 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Walls,** **Above­Grade, Steel­** **Framed Built­up** **Roof: Roof** **membrane+Roof insulation+metal** **decking ASHRAE** **90.1 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Roofs,** **Insulation entirely** **above dec** **d ck** 3A­4ItemDescription**U­factor (Btu** **/ h** *******ft 2** *******°F) ASHRAE** **90.1 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Vertical** **Glazing, 31.1­40%,** **U_fixed SHGC** **(all) Operable** **area 0** Foundation**Foundation Type** **Slab­on­grade floors** **(unheated) Construction** **8" concrete** **slab poured** **directly on** **to the** **earth Thermal** **properties for** **ground level** **floor U­factor** **(Btu /** **h*********ft2*********°F) and/or** **R­value (h** *******ft2*********°F /** **Btu) ASHRAE** **90.1 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Slab­on­Grade** **Floors, unheated** Infiltration**Infiltration Peak:** **0.2016 cfm/sf** **of above** **grade exterior** **wall surface** **area (when** **fans turn** **off) Off** **Peak: 25%** **of peak** **infiltration rate** **(when fans** **turn on)** **HVAC**SystemType**Heating type** **Gas furnace** **inside the** **packaged air** **conditioning unit** **Cooling type** **Packaged air** **conditioning unit** **Distribution and** **terminal units** **VAV terminal** **box with** **damper and** **electric reheating** **coil Zone** **control type:** **minimum supply** **air at** **30% of** **the zone** **design peak** **supply air.** HVACSizing**Air Conditioning** **autosized to** **design day** **Heating autosized** **to design** **day**HVACControl**Thermostat Setpoint** **75°F Cooling/70°F** **Heating Thermostat** **Setback 80°F** **Cooling/60°F Heating** **Economizers Various** **by climate** **location and** **cooling capacity** **Control type:** **differential dry** **bulb**3A­5ItemDescription**Ventilation ASHRAE** **Ventilation Standard** **62.1­1999 0.10** **cfm/sf**.SupplyFan**Fan schedules** SeeunderHVACOperationSchedules,Below**Supply Fan** **Total Efficiency** **(%) 60%** **to 62%** **depending on** **the fan** **motor size** **Supply Fan** **Pressure Drop** **Varies depending** **on the** **Equipment Type** **Internal Loads** **& Schedules** Lighting**Average power** **density (W/ft** **2 )** **ASHRAE 90.1­2004** **Lighting Power** **Densities Using** **the Building** **Area Method** **Schedule See** **under**Schedules,Below**Daylighting Controls** **ASHRAE 90.1** **Requirements Occupancy** **Sensors ASHRAE** **90.1 Requirements** Plugload**Average power** **density (W/ft** **2 )** **0.75 Schedule** **See under** Schedules,BelowOccupancy**Average people** **268 Total** **(5 persons/1000** **sf) Schedule** **See under** Schedules,Below**Misc.**Elevator**Quantity 2** **Motor type** **hydraulic Peak** **Motor Power** **(W/elevator) 16,055** 3A­6ItemDescription**Heat Gain** **to Building** **Interior Peak** **Fan/lights Power** **(W/elevator) 161.9** ExteriorLighting**Peak Power** **(W) 2,740** **Schedule See** **under**Schedules,Below3A­7Table3A.2.2.KeySchedulesforDOEReferenceMediumOfficeBuildingModel**Schedule Type** **Through Day** **of Week** **1 am** **2 am** **3 am** **4 am** **5 am** **6 am** **7 am** **8 am** **9 am** **10 am** **11 am** **Noon Internal** **Loads Schedules** **WD, BLDG_LIGHT_SCH** **Fraction Through** **12/31 SummerDesign** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.1** **0.1 0.3** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **Sat, WinterDesign** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.1 0.1** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 WD,** **BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction** **Through 12/31** **SummerDesign 0.4** **0.4 0.4** **0.4 0.4** **0.4 0.4** **0.4 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 Sat,** **WinterDesign 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.4** **0.4 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 Sun,** **Hol, Other** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction** **Through 12/31** **WD 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0.1** **0.2 0.95** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 SummerDesign** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **Sat, WinterDesign** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0.1 0.1** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 HVAC** **Schedules WD,** **HVACOperationSchd on/off** **Through 12/31** **SummerDesign 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 (Fan** **Schedule) Sat,** **WinterDesign 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 Sun,** **Hol, Other** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** ScheduleTypeThroughDayofWeek1pm2pm3pm4pm5pm6pm7pm8pm9pm10pm11pm12pmInternalLoadsSchedules**WD, BLDG_LIGHT_SCH** **Fraction Through** **12/31 SummerDesign** **0.8 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.5** **0.3 0.3** **0.2 0.2** **0.1 0.05** **Sat, WinterDesign** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 WD,** **BLDG_EQUIP_SCH Fraction** **Through 12/31** **SummerDesign 0.8** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.5 0.4** **0.4 0.4** **0.4 0.4** **0.4 Sat,** **WinterDesign 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 Sun,** **Hol, Other** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **0.3 0.3** **BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction** **Through 12/31** **WD 0.5** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 0.95** **0.3 0.1** **0.1 0.1** **0.1 0.05** **0.05 SummerDesign** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **0.05 0.05** **Sat, WinterDesign** **0.1 0.1** **0.1 0.1** **0.1 0.05** **0.05 0** **0 0** **0 0** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0.05** **0.05 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0**HVACSchedules**WD, HVACOperationSchd** **on/off Through** **12/31 SummerDesign** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **0 0** **(Fan Schedule)** **Sat, WinterDesign** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0**3A­83A.3MODULARCLASSROOMBUILDINGMODELDESCRIPTIONTable3A.3.1.DescriptionofModularClassroomBuildingModelItemDescriptions**Program Vintage** RECENTCONSTRUCTION**Location (Representing** **8 Climate** **Zones) Zone** **1A: Miami** **(very hot,** **humid) Zone** **2A: Houston** **(hot, humid)** **Zone 2B:** **Phoenix (hot,** **dry) Zone** **3A: Memphis** **(warm, humid)** **Zone 3B:** **El Paso** **(warm, dry)** **Zone 3C:** **San Francisco** **(warm,marine) Zone** **4A: Baltimore** **(mild, humid)** **Zone 4B:** **Albuquerque (mild,** **dry) Zone** **4C: Salem** **(mild, marine)** **Zone 5A:** **Chicago (cold,** **humid) Zone** **5B: Boise** **(cold, dry)** **Zone 6A:** **Burlington (cold,** **humid) Zone** **6B: Helena** **(cold, dry)** **Zone 7:** **Duluth (very** **cold) Zone** **8: Fairbanks** **(subarctic) Available** **fuel types** **electricity Building** **Type (Principal** **Building Function)** Education**Building Prototype** ModularClassroom**Form Total** **Floor Area** **(sq feet)** **1568 (56** **ft x** **28 ft)** 3A­9ItemDescriptions**Building shape** **Aspect Ratio** **2 Number** **of Floors** **1 Window** **Fraction (Window­to­Wall** **Ratio) 9.4%** **Window Locations** **equal window** **area among** **all four** **sides Shading** **Geometry none** **Azimuth Long** **Axis E­W** **Thermal Zoning** **Single Zone** **Floor to** **ceiling height** **(feet) 7.5** **(Low Slope** **Attic) Architecture** Exteriorwalls**Construction Wood­Frame** **Walls U­factor** **(Btu /** **h*********ft 2** *******°F) and/or** **R­value (h** *******ft 2** *******°F /** **Btu) ASHRAE** **90.1­2004 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Walls,** **Above­Grade, Wood­Framed** Roof3A­10ItemDescriptions**Construction Low** **Attic: Insulation** **Layer on** **Ceiling, Attic** **Space, Wood** **Decking, Asphalt** **Shingles U­factor** **(Btu /** **h*********ft 2** *******°F) and/or** **R­value (h** *******ft 2** *******°F /** **Btu) ASHRAE** **90.1­1994 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Roofs,** **Attic**Window**U­factor (Btu** **/ h** *******ft 2** *******°F) ASHRAE** **90.1­1994 Requirements** **Nonresidential; Vertical** **Glazing, 0­10%,** **U_fixed w/Blinds** **SHGC (all)** **Operable area** **0**Foundation**Foundation Type** **Crawlspace**Infiltration**Infiltration Infiltration** **based on** **Airflow Net** **Model. 7** **ACH at** **50 PA** **. Adapted** **from Residential** **Manufactured Housing** **Model HVAC** SystemType**Heating type** **Forced Air** **Electric Resistance** **or Single** **Package Vertical** **Heat Pump** **Cooling type** **Single Package** **Vertical Air** **Conditioner or** **Heat Pump** **Unit Distribution** **and terminal** **units Single** **Zone**HVACSizing**Air Conditioning** **autosized to** **design day** **(0.4% Conditions)** **Heating autosized** **to design** **day (99.6%** **Conditions)**HVACControl**Thermostat Setpoint** **75°F Cooling/70°F** **Heating Thermostat** **Setback 80°F** **Cooling/60°F Heating** **Economizers None** 3A­11ItemDescriptions**Ventilation ASHRAE** **Ventilation Standard** **62.1 20** **CFM/Occupant**SupplyFan**Fan schedules** SeeunderHVACSchedules,Below**Supply Fan** **Total Efficiency** **(%) 31%** **for SPVU** **Baseline (9.0** **EER) Supply** **Fan Pressure** **Drop (in** **H 2** **0) 1.3** **Internal Loads** **& Schedules** Lighting**Average power** **density (W/ft** **2 )** **1.4 Based** **on DOE** **Primary School** **Reference Building** **Model and** **ASHRAE 90.1­** **Requirements Schedule** **See under** Schedules,Below**Daylighting Controls** **None Occupancy** **Sensors None** Plugload**Average power** **density (W/ft** **2 )** **1.4 Based** **on DOE** **Primary School** **Reference Building** **Model and** **ASHRAE 90.1­** **Requirements Schedule** **See under** Schedules,BelowOccupancy**Average people** **40 Total** **(25 persons/1000** **sf) Schedule** **See under** Schedules,Below3A­12Table3A.3.2.KeySchedulesforModularClassroomBuildingModelScheduleTypeThroughDayofWeek1am2am3am4am5am6am7am8am9am10am11amNoonInternalLoadsSchedules**1/1 ­ 6/30** **and 9/1­** **BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction** **12/31 WD,** **SummerDesign 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **WinterDesign, (Study** **Periods) Other** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction** **6/30 ­ 9/1** **WD, SummerDesign** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **Sat, Sun,** **Hol, WinterDesign,** **(Summer Holiday)** **Other 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 1/1** **­ 6/30 and** **9/1­ BLDG_EQUIP_SCH** **Fraction 12/31** **WD, SummerDesign** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 0.95** **Sat, Sun,** **Hol, WinterDesign,** **(Study Periods)** **Other 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 BLDG_EQUIP_SCH** **Fraction 6/30** **­ 9/1 WD,** **SummerDesign 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **WinterDesign, (Summer** **Holiday) Other** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **1/1 ­ 6/15** **and 9/15­** **BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction** **12/31 WD,** **SummerDesign 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0.95** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **WinterDesign, (Study** **Periods) Other** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **BLDG_OCC_SCH Fraction** **6/15 ­ 9/15** **WD, SummerDesign** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **Sat, Sun,** **Hol, WinterDesign,** **(Summer Holiday)** **Other 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0**HVACSchedules**WD, SummerDesign,** **HVACOperationSchd on/off** **Through 12/31** **WinterDesign 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **1 1** **1 1** **1 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0**ScheduleTypeThroughDayofWeek1pm2pm3pm4pm5pm6pm7pm8pm9pm10pm11pm12pmInternalLoadsSchedules**1/1 ­ 6/30** **and 9/1­** **BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction** **12/31 WD,** **SummerDesign 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.9 0.9** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **WinterDesign, (Study** **Periods) Other** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **BLDG_LIGHT_SCH Fraction** **6/30 ­ 9/1** **WD, SummerDesign** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **Sat, Sun,** **Hol, WinterDesign,** **(Summer Holiday)** **Other 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 0.18** **0.18 1/1** **­ 6/30 and** **9/1­ BLDG_EQUIP_SCH** **Fraction 12/31** **WD, SummerDesign** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **Sat, Sun,** **Hol, WinterDesign,** **(Study Periods)** **Other 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 0.35** **0.35 BLDG_EQUIP_SCH** **Fraction 6/30** **­ 9/1 WD,** **SummerDesign 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.5 0.5** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 (Summer** **Holiday) Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **WinterDesign, 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25 0.25** **0.25**3A­13ScheduleTypeThroughDayofWeek1pm2pm3pm4pm5pm6pm7pm8pm9pm10pm11pm12pm**Other 1/1** **­ 6/15 and** **9/15­ BLDG_OCC_SCH** **Fraction 12/31** **WD, SummerDesign** **0.95 0.95** **0.95 0.95** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0** **0 0** **Sat, Sun,** **Hol, WinterDesign,** **(Study Periods)** **Other 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 BLDG_OCC_SCH** **Fraction 6/15** **­ 9/15 WD,** **SummerDesign 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **0.15 0.15** **0 0** **0 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **WinterDesign, (Summer** **Holiday) Other** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** HVACSchedules**WD, SummerDesign,** **HVACOperationSchd on/off** **Through 12/31** **WinterDesign 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **1 1** **0 0** **0 Sat,** **Sun, Hol,** **Other 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0 0** **0**3A­14