## APPENDIX E. DETAILED LIFE­CYCLE COST OUTPUT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

E.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................E­1

E.2 LCC RESULTS ..................................................................................................................E­1

E.2.1 Standard Size PTAC with Cooling Capacity of 9000 Btu/h (PTAC 9000)............E­1

E.2.2 Standard Size PTACs with Cooling Capacity of 12,000 Btu/h (PTAC

12000) .....................................................................................................................E­6

E.2.3 Standard Size PTHP with Cooling Capacity of 9000 Btu/h (PTHP 9000)...........E­11

E.2.4 Standard Size PTHP with Cooling Capacity of 12,000 Btu/h (PTHP 12000)......E­16

E.2.5 Non­Standard Size PTAC with Cooling Capacity of 11,000 Btu/h (PTAC

11000) ...................................................................................................................E­21

E.2.6 Non­Standard Size PTHP with Cooling Capacity of 11,000 Btu/h (PTHP

11000) ...................................................................................................................E­26

E.3 SENSITIVITY OF LCC RESULTS TO ELECTRICITY PRICE FORECAST..............E­31

E.4 SENSITIVITY OF LCC and PBP RESULTS TO REFRIGERANT USED....................E­40

E.5 SENSITIVITY OF LCC and PBP RESULTS TO MaTERIALS PrICES........................E­45

LIST OF TABLES

Table E.2.1 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0)

by Efficiency Level for PTAC 9000.................................................................E­2

Table E.2.2 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 9000 ...................E­4

Table E.2.3 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0)

by Efficiency Level for PTAC 12000...............................................................E­7

Table E.2.4 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 12000 .................E­9

Table E.2.5 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0)

by Efficiency Level for PTHP 9000 ...............................................................E­12

Table E.2.6 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 9000..................E­14

Table E.2.7 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0)

by Efficiency Level for PTHP 12000 .............................................................E­17

Table E.2.8 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 12000................E­19

Table E.2.9 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0)

by Efficiency Level for PTAC 11000.............................................................E­22

Table E.2.10 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 11000 ...............E­24

Table E.2.11 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0)

by Efficiency Level for PTHP 11000 .............................................................E­27

Table E.2.12 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 11000................E­29

Table E.3.1 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000.......E­31

Table E.3.2 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000.....E­31

Table E.3.3 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000 .......E­32

Table E.3.4 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000 .....E­32

Table E.3.5 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000.....E­32

E­i

## Table E.3.6 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 11000 .....E­33

Table E.3.7 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000 ......E­33

Table E.3.8 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000 ....E­33

Table E.3.9 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000.......E­34

Table E.3.10 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000.....E­34

Table E.3.11 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000 ....E­34

Table E.3.12 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 11000.....E­35

Table E.3.13 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000........E­35

Table E.3.14 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000......E­35

Table E.3.15 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000 ........E­36

Table E.3.16 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000 ......E­36

Table E.3.17 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000......E­36

Table E.3.18 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 11000 ......E­37

Table E.3.19 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000.......E­37

Table E.3.20 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000.....E­37

Table E.3.21 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000 .......E­38

Table E.3.22 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000 .....E­38

Table E.3.23 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000.....E­38

Table E.3.24 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000.....E­39

Table E.4.1 Summary of LCC and PBP Results: R­22 Refrigerant...................................E­40

Table E.5.1 Summary of LCC and PBP Results: 2006 Prices ...........................................E­45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure E.2.1 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTAC 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level) .....................................................E­2

Figure E.2.2 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC

9000...................................................................................................................E­3

Figure E.2.3 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTAC 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level). ....................................................E­4

Figure E.2.4 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 9000 ..................E­5

Figure E.2.5 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTAC 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level). ..................................................E­7

Figure E.2.6 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC

12000.................................................................................................................E­8

Figure E.2.7 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTAC 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level). ..................................................E­9

Figure E.2.8 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 12000 ..............E­10

Figure E.2.9 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTHP 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)....................................................E­12

Figure E.2.10 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP

9000.................................................................................................................E­13

Figure E.2.11 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTHP 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)....................................................E­14

Figure E.2.12 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 9000.................E­15

E­ii

## Figure E.2.13 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTHP 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)..................................................E­17

Figure E.2.14 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP

12000...............................................................................................................E­18

Figure E.2.15 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTHP 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)..................................................E­19

Figure E.2.16 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 12000...............E­20

Figure E.2.17 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTAC 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level). ................................................E­22

Figure E.2.18 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC

11000...............................................................................................................E­23

Figure E.2.19 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTAC 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level). ................................................E­24

Figure E.2.20 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 11000 ..............E­25

Figure E.2.21 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTHP 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)..................................................E­27

Figure E.2.22 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP

11000...............................................................................................................E­28

Figure E.2.23 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTHP 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)..................................................E­29

Figure E.2.24 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 11000...............E­30

E­iii

## APPENDIX E. DETAILED LIFE­CYCLE COST OUTPUT

E.1 INTRODUCTION

Appendix E contains detailed output from the Life­Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis for

packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packed terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) as

developed using the LCC spreadsheet. LCC and payback periods are presented in terms of

national average LCC, national average LCC savings from the baseline efficiency level (Level 0,

corresponding to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1­1999) and national average payback period

results for each of the six equipment classes analyzed at each efficiency level. See Chapter 8 of

the TSD for an explanation of the tables and figures in this appendix.

E.2 LCC RESULTS

E.2.1 Standard Size PTAC with Cooling Capacity of 9000 Btu/h (PTAC 9000)

Figure E.2.1 shows the variation of the life­cycle cost with the efficiency levels for each

of the standard levels considered for the analysis. The installed cost is the sum of the equipment

price and the installation cost of the equipment and the former is the largest contributor to the

increasing total installed cost as the efficiency level rises from Level 0 to Level 5 (with reduced

energy consumption). The LCC results show that at the efficiency levels (Level 1 ­ Level 5), the

lifetime operating cost has less of an impact on the LCC than the total installed cost. In other

words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs (due to reduced electricity costs) is more than

offset the increase in total installed cost. As a result, the LCC at (nearly) all efficiency levels is

higher than that for the baseline efficiency level (Level 0) for this equipment class. Table E.2.1

shows the national distribution of LCC savings above the baseline (Level 0) calculated for this

equipment for the higher efficiency levels [1­5]. Figure E.2.2 show this distribution of LCC

savings graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

Figure E.2.3 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from

Level 0 (baseline) to Level 5, on a national averaged basis weighted over all building types,

energy prices, sales taxes and installation costs. Table E.2.2 shows the national distribution of

payback periods calculated for all efficiency levels as well as the average payback and the

percent of units with a payback of less than 3 years. Figure E.2.4 show this distribution of

payback results graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

E­1

### Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff

Equipment= PTAC Standard Size ­ 9,000 Btu/h R­410A, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012LifeCycleCost $2,342

$2,341 $2,340

$2,338

$2,336

$2,334

$2,332

$2,330 $2,330

$2,328



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level $ 2

, 3 3 0 $ 2

, 3 3 3

$ 2

, 3 3 1

$ 2

, 3 3 0 Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff



## Figure E.2.1 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTAC 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level)

Table E.2.1 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0) by

Efficiency Level for PTAC 9000.

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$12 ­$8 ­$6 ­$5 ­$3 ­$2 $0 $2 $5 $10 $57 $0 39%

Level 2 ­$21 ­$13 ­$11 ­$9 ­$6 ­$4 ­$1 $3 $7 $15 $93 $0 37%

Level 3 ­$30 ­$20 ­$16 ­$13 ­$10 ­$6 ­$2 $3 $8 $20 $127 ­$2 35%

Level 4 ­$40 ­$27 ­$23 ­$18 ­$14 ­$10 ­$5 $2 $9 $23 $158 ­$4 33%

Level 5 ­$68 ­$47 ­$40 ­$34 ­$28 ­$22 ­$14 ­$5 $6 $27 $229 ­$13 25%



### E­2PTAC 9000 Level 1 PTAC 9000 Level 2

PTAC 9000 Level 3 PTAC 9000 Level 4

PTAC 9000 Level 5



## Figure E.2.2 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 9000

E­3

### Efficiency Level­Payback Tradeoff

Equipment= PTAC Standard Size ­ 9,000 Btu/h R­410A, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012Payback Period (Years) 10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 7.2 7.6 8.0 9.1

6.9 Efficiency Level­Payback Period Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.3 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTAC 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.2 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 9000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 3.5 5.4 6.3 6.8 7.3 8.5 11.2 13.8 19.8 100.0 11.6 5%

Level 2 1.0 3.6 5.7 6.7 7.2 7.7 9.0 11.8 14.7 21.2 100.0 12.5 5%

Level 3 1.1 3.8 6.0 7.1 7.6 8.1 9.5 12.6 15.7 22.7 100.0 13.2 3%

Level 4 1.1 4.0 6.3 7.5 8.0 8.6 10.0 13.3 16.7 24.2 100.0 14.0 1%

Level 5 1.3 4.5 7.2 8.5 9.1 9.8 11.5 15.3 19.5 29.0 100.0 16.0 1%



### E­4PTAC 9000, Level 1 PTAC 9000, Level 2

PTAC 9000, Level 3 PTAC 9000, Level 4

PTAC 9000, Level 5



## Figure E.2.4 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 9000

E­5

## E.2.2 Standard Size PTACs with Cooling Capacity of 12,000 Btu/h (PTAC 12000)

Figure E.2.5 shows the variation of the life­cycle cost with the installed cost for each of

the efficiency levels considered for the analysis. The installed cost is the sum of the equipment

price and the installation cost of the equipment and the former is the largest contributor to the

increasing total installed cost as the efficiency level rises from Level 0 to Level 5 (with reduced

energy consumption). The LCC results show that at the higher efficiency levels (Level 1

­

Level 5), the lifetime operating cost has less of an impact on the LCC than the total installed

cost. In other words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs (due to reduced electricity costs) is

more than offset by the increase in total installed cost. As a result, the LCC at all efficiency

levels is higher than that for the baseline efficiency level (Level 0) for this equipment. Table

E.2.3 shows the national distribution of LCC savings above the baseline (Level 0) calculated for

this equipment class for the higher efficiency levels [1­5]. Figure E.2.6 show this distribution of

LCC savings graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

Figure E.2.7 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from

Level 0 (baseline) to Level 5, on a national averaged basis weighted over all building types,

energy prices, sales taxes and installation costs. Table E.2.4 shows the national distribution of

payback periods calculated for all efficiency levels as well as the average payback and the

percent of units with a payback of less than 3 years. Figure E.2.8 show this distribution of

payback results graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

E­6

### Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff

Equipment= PTAC Standard Size ­ 12,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012Life Cycle Cost $2,765

$2,760

$2,760

$2,755

$2,750

$2,745

$2,740

$2,735

$2,730

$2,728 $2,725



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level $ 2

, 7 2 8 $ 2

, 7 3 7

$ 2

, 7 3 2

$ 2

, 7 2 9 Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff



## Figure E.2.5 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTAC 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.3 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0) by

Efficiency Level for PTAC 12000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$16 ­$11 ­$9 ­$7 ­$5 ­$3 ­$2 $1 $4 $10 $68 ­$1 35%

Level 2 ­$28 ­$19 ­$16 ­$13 ­$10 ­$7 ­$4 $1 $6 $16 $110 ­$3 33%

Level 3 ­$41 ­$28 ­$24 ­$20 ­$16 ­$12 ­$8 ­$1 $6 $19 $149 ­$7 27%

Level 4 ­$55 ­$38 ­$33 ­$28 ­$24 ­$18 ­$13 ­$5 $4 $21 $185 ­$11 25%

Level 5 ­$112 ­$82 ­$73 ­$65 ­$57 ­$48 ­$39 ­$26 ­$12 $17 $291 ­$36 15%



### E­7PTAC 12000 Level 1 PTAC 12000 Level 2

PTAC 12000 Level 3 PTAC 12000 Level 4

PTAC 12000 Level 5



## Figure E.2.6 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 12000

E­8

### Efficiency Level­Payback Tradeoff

Equipment= PTAC Standard Size ­ 12,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012Payback Period (Years) 12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 8.1 8.6 9.2 11.4

7.6 Efficiency Level­Payback Period Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.7 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTAC 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.4 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 12000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.1 3.8 6.0 7.2 7.7 8.2 9.5 12.4 15.5 22.1 100.0 13.0 3%

Level 2 1.2 4.0 6.4 7.6 8.1 8.8 10.1 13.2 16.7 23.7 100.0 13.9 1%

Level 3 1.2 4.3 6.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 10.8 14.2 18.0 25.7 100.0 14.8 1%

Level 4 1.3 4.5 7.2 8.7 9.3 10.0 11.5 15.2 19.3 28.2 100.0 15.9 1%

Level 5 1.6 5.5 8.9 10.7 11.5 12.4 14.4 19.3 24.8 37.9 100.0 19.8 1%



### E­9PTAC 12000, Level 1 PTAC 12000, Level 2

PTAC 12000, Level 3 PTAC 12000, Level 4

PTAC 12000, Level 5



## Figure E.2.8 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 12000

E­10

## E.2.3 Standard Size PTHP with Cooling Capacity of 9000 Btu/h (PTHP 9000)

Figure E.2.9 shows the variation of the life­cycle cost with the installed cost for each of

the efficiency levels considered for the analysis. The installed cost is the sum of the equipment

price and the installation cost of the equipment and the former is the largest contributor to the

increasing total installed cost as the efficiency level rises from Level 0 to Level 5 (with reduced

energy consumption). The LCC results show that at the higher efficiency levels (Level 1

­

Level 5), the lifetime operating cost eventually has more of an impact on the LCC than the total

installed cost. In other words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs (due to reduced electricity

costs) offsets the increase in total installed cost. As a result, the LCC at the highest efficiency

levels is lower than that for the baseline efficiency level (Level 0) for this equipment class.

Table E.2.5 shows the national distribution of LCC savings above the baseline (Level 0)

calculated for this equipment class for the higher efficiency levels [1­5]. Figure E.2.10 show this

distribution of LCC savings graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

Figure E.2.11 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from

Level 0 (baseline) to Level 5, on a national averaged basis weighted over all building types,

energy prices, sales taxes and installation costs. Table E.2.6 shows the national distribution of

payback periods calculated for all efficiency levels as well as the average payback and the

percent of units with a payback of less than 3 years. Figure E.2.12 show this distribution of

payback results graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

E­11LifeCycleCost $3,160

$3,154 $3,150

$3,140

$3,130

$3,120

$3,110

$3,100



### 0



## Figure E.2.9

Table E.2.5 Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff

Equipment= PTHP Standard Size ­ 9,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012

$ 3

, 1 0 8 $ 3

, 1 3 9

$ 3

, 1 2 0

$ 3

, 1 1 8 $ 3

, 1 2 8

Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff



### 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTHP 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0) by

Efficiency Level for PTHP 9000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$14 ­$4 $0 $4 $7 $10 $15 $19 $24 $35 $99 $13 79%

Level 2 ­$19 ­$3 $3 $9 $14 $20 $26 $32 $41 $56 $135 $23 83%

Level 3 ­$26 ­$4 $4 $13 $20 $27 $35 $45 $56 $77 $169 $32 85%

Level 4 ­$34 ­$10 ­$1 $8 $15 $25 $34 $43 $56 $79 $200 $30 79%

Level 5 ­$54 ­$18 ­$5 $9 $19 $32 $45 $59 $77 $112 $272 $40 77%



### E­12PTHP 9000 Level 1 PTHP 9000 Level 2

PTHP 9000 Level 3 PTHP 9000 Level 4

PTHP 9000 Level 5



## Figure E.2.10 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 9000

E­13

### Efficiency Level­Payback Tradeoff

Equipment= PTHP Standard Size ­ 9,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012PaybackPeriod(Years) 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 3.6 3.6 4.1 4.4

4.0 Efficiency Level­Payback Period Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.11 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTHP 9000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.6 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 9000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.9 2.7 3.0 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.6 11.4 4.5 21%

Level 2 1.0 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.9 5.8 9.1 4.0 29%

Level 3 1.0 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.6 8.5 3.9 29%

Level 4 1.1 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.6 6.5 10.5 4.5 17%

Level 5 1.2 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.9 6.9 10.8 4.8 9%



### E­14PTHP 9000, Level 1 PTHP 9000, Level 2

PTHP 9000, Level 3 PTHP 9000, Level 4

PTHP 9000, Level 5



## Figure E.2.12 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 9000

E­15

## E.2.4 Standard Size PTHP with Cooling Capacity of 12,000 Btu/h (PTHP 12000)

Figure E.2.13 shows the variation of the life­cycle cost for each of the efficiency levels

considered for the analysis. The installed cost is the sum of the equipment price and the

installation cost of the equipment and the former is the largest contributor to the increasing total

installed cost as the efficiency level rises from Level 0 to Level 5 (with reduced energy

consumption). The LCC results show that at the higher efficiency levels (Level 1 ­ Level 5), the

lifetime operating cost has more of an impact on the LCC than the total installed cost. In other

words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs (due to reduced electricity costs) more than

offsets the increase in total installed cost. As a result, the LCC at all efficiency levels is lower

than that for the baseline efficiency level (Level 0) for this equipment class. Table E.2.7 shows

the national distribution of LCC savings above the baseline (Level 0) calculated for this

equipment for the higher efficiency levels [2­5]. Figure E.2.14 show this distribution of LCC

savings graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

Figure E.2.15 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from

Level 0 (baseline) to Level 5, on a national averaged basis weighted over all building types,

energy prices, sales taxes and installation costs. Table E.2.8 shows the national distribution of

payback periods calculated for all efficiency levels as well as the average payback and the

percent of units with a payback of less than 3 years. Figure E.2.16 show this distribution of

payback results graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

E­16

### Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff

Equipment= PTHP Standard Size ­ 12,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012LifeCycleCost $3,645

$3,640

$3,640

$3,635

$3,630

$3,625

$3,624

$3,620

$3,615

$3,610

$3,605



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level $ 3

, 6 2 3

$ 3

, 6 1 7

$ 3

, 6 1 3

$ 3

, 6 1 0 Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff



## Figure E.2.13 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTHP 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.7 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0) by

Efficiency Level for PTHP 12000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$19 ­$7 ­$2 $3 $7 $11 $17 $22 $28 $40 $118 $14 75%

Level 2 ­$27 ­$7 $0 $8 $14 $21 $29 $37 $47 $67 $160 $26 81%

Level 3 ­$38 ­$15 ­$7 $2 $9 $17 $26 $36 $46 $70 $199 $22 73%

Level 4 ­$51 ­$25 ­$16 ­$6 $2 $11 $21 $32 $45 $69 $235 $18 63%

Level 5 ­$111 ­$65 ­$50 ­$33 ­$19 ­$3 $14 $33 $55 $99 $368 $8 49%



### E­17PTHP 12000 Level 1 PTHP 12000 Level 2

PTHP 12000 Level 3 PTHP 12000 Level 4

PTHP 12000 Level 5



## Figure E.2.14 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 12000

E­18

### Efficiency Level­Payback Tradeoff

Equipment= PTHP Standard Size ­ 12,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012PaybackPeriod(Years) 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.6

4.3 Efficiency Level­Payback Period Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.15 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTHP 12000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.8 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 12000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 2.9 3.2 3.7 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.4 6.0 7.1 12.4 4.9 13%

Level 2 1.1 2.8 3.0 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.3 9.9 4.4 19%

Level 3 1.2 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.8 6.5 7.6 13.0 5.3 7%

Level 4 1.2 3.6 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.6 9.1 16.3 6.1 1%

Level 5 1.5 4.4 4.8 5.5 6.8 7.2 7.7 8.3 9.3 11.1 20.1 7.5 1%



### E­19PTHP 12000, Level 1 PTHP 12000, Level 2

PTHP 12000, Level 3 PTHP 12000, Level 4

PTHP 12000, Level 5



## Figure E.2.16 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 12000

E­20

## E.2.5 Non­Standard Size PTAC with Cooling Capacity of 11,000 Btu/h (PTAC 11000)

Figure E.2.17 shows the variation of the life­cycle cost with the installed cost for each of

the efficiency levels considered for the analysis. The installed cost is the sum of the equipment

price and the installation cost of the equipment and the former is the largest contributor to the

increasing total installed cost as the efficiency level rises from Level 0 to Level 5 (with reduced

energy consumption). The LCC results show that at the higher efficiency levels (Level 1

­

Level 5), the lifetime operating cost has more of an impact on the LCC than the total installed

cost. In other words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs (due to reduced electricity costs)

offsets the increase in total installed cost. As a result, the LCC at all efficiency levels is lower

than that for the baseline efficiency level (Level 0) for this equipment class. Table E.2.9 shows

the national distribution of LCC savings above the baseline (Level 0) calculated for this

equipment for the higher efficiency levels [1­5]. Figure E.2.18 show this distribution of LCC

savings graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

Figure E.2.19 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from

Level 0 (baseline) to Level 5, on a national averaged basis weighted over all building types,

energy prices, sales taxes and installation costs. Table E.2.10 shows the national distribution of

payback periods calculated for all efficiency levels as well as the average payback and the

percent of units with a payback of less than 3 years. Figure E.2.20 show this distribution of

payback results graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

E­21

### Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff

Equipment= PTAC Non­Standard Size ­ 11,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012Life Cycle Cost $3,085

$3,080

$3,079

$3,075

$3,070

$3,065

$3,060 $3,061

$3,055

$3,050

$3,045

$3,040 $ 3

, 0 5 0

$ 3

, 0 4 8

$ 3

, 0 4 3 $ 3

, 0 4 5 Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.17 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTAC 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.9 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0) by

Efficiency Level for PTAC 11000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$17 ­$6 $2 $7 $13 $19 $26 $35 $45 $63 $236 $27 83%

Level 2 ­$27 ­$11 ­$2 $5 $13 $21 $31 $43 $56 $79 $311 $31 77%

Level 3 ­$40 ­$19 ­$8 $1 $11 $20 $32 $47 $64 $92 $378 $33 71%

Level 4 ­$77 ­$46 ­$31 ­$19 ­$5 $9 $25 $46 $68 $109 $510 $26 55%

Level 5 ­$112 ­$72 ­$56 ­$40 ­$25 ­$8 $10 $35 $62 $110 $584 $12 45%



### E­22PTAC 11000 Level 1 PTAC 11000 Level 2

PTAC 11000 Level 3 PTAC 11000 Level 4

PTAC 11000 Level 5



## Figure E.2.18 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 11000

E­23

### Efficiency Level­Payback Tradeoff

Equipment= PTAC Non­Standard Size ­ 11,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012PaybackPeriod(Years) 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 3.5 4.0 5.3 6.4

3.0 Efficiency Level­Payback Period Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.19 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTAC 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.10 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 11000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.6 2.4 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.7 4.6 5.6 7.3 42.2 4.2 41%

Level 2 0.6 1.9 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.2 5.4 6.5 8.5 53.9 4.9 25%

Level 3 0.6 2.1 3.2 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.9 6.2 7.5 9.8 72.9 5.7 19%

Level 4 0.8 2.8 4.2 4.9 5.2 5.6 6.5 8.3 10.1 13.5 100.0 7.8 13%

Level 5 1.0 3.3 5.1 5.8 6.3 6.7 7.9 10.0 12.4 16.7 100.0 9.6 5%



### E­24PTAC 11000, Level 1 PTAC 11000, Level 2

PTAC 11000, Level 3 PTAC 11000, Level 4

PTAC 11000, Level 5



## Figure E.2.20 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTAC 11000

E­25

## E.2.6 Non­Standard Size PTHP with Cooling Capacity of 11,000 Btu/h (PTHP 11000)

Figure E.2.21 shows the variation of the life­cycle cost for each of the efficiency levels

considered for the analysis. The installed cost is the sum of the equipment price and the

installation cost of the equipment and the former is the largest contributor to the increasing total

installed cost as the efficiency level rises from Level 0 to Level 5 (with reduced energy

consumption). The LCC results show that at the higher efficiency levels (Level 1 ­ Level 5), the

lifetime operating cost has more of an impact on the LCC than the total installed cost. In other

words, the decrease in lifetime operating costs (due to reduced electricity costs) offsets the

increase in total installed cost. As a result, the LCC at all efficiency levels is lower than that for

the baseline efficiency level (Level 0) for this equipment class. Table E.2.11 shows the national

distribution of LCC savings above the baseline (Level 0) calculated for this equipment for the

higher efficiency levels [1­5]. Figure E.2.22 show this distribution of LCC savings graphically

for each efficiency level analyzed.

Figure E.2.23 shows the effect on payback period as the efficiency level changes from

Level 0 (baseline) to Level 5, on a national averaged basis weighted over all building types,

energy prices, sales taxes and installation costs. Table E.2.12 shows the national distribution of

payback periods calculated for all efficiency levels as well as the average payback and the

percent of units with a payback of less than 3 years. Figure E.2.24 show this distribution of

payback results graphically for each efficiency level analyzed.

E­26

### Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff

Equipment= PTHP Non­Standard Size ­ 11,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012

$ 3

, 8 3 6 $ 3

, 8 9 8

$ 3

, 8 3 3

$ 3

, 8 1 7

$ 3

, 8 1 1 $ 3

, 8 2 8

$3,800 $3,810 $3,820 $3,830 $3,840 $3,850 $3,860 $3,870 $3,880 $3,890 $3,900 $3,910LifeCycleCost

Efficiency Level­LCC Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.21 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Life­Cycle Cost for

PTHP 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.11 Distribution of Life­Cycle Cost Savings from a Baseline Level (Level 0) by

Efficiency Level for PTHP 11000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$10 $15 $25 $36 $45 $54 $65 $77 $90 $115 $270 $61 99%

Level 2 ­$20 $9 $21 $35 $46 $57 $70 $86 $101 $131 $345 $66 95%

Level 3 ­$28 $10 $25 $42 $55 $71 $87 $106 $125 $164 $412 $80 95%

Level 4 ­$63 ­$17 $4 $24 $42 $59 $80 $104 $130 $173 $544 $74 81%

Level 5 ­$109 ­$53 ­$30 ­$8 $13 $35 $61 $88 $118 $173 $646 $53 67%



### E­27PTHP 11000 Level 1 PTHP 11000 Level 2

PTHP 11000 Level 3 PTHP 11000 Level 4

PTHP 11000 Level 5



## Figure E.2.22 Cumulative Chart of LCC Savings for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 11000

E­28

### Efficiency Level­Payback Tradeoff

Equipment= PTHP Non­Standard Size ­ 11,000 Btu/h, Fuel Price=AEO 2007 ­ Reference Case, Start Year= 2012PaybackPeriod(Years) 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 2.3 2.5 3.7 5.0

1.8 Efficiency Level­Payback Period Tradeoff



### 0 1 2 3 4 5



### Efficiency Level



## Figure E.2.23 Effect of the Change in Efficiency Level on Average Payback Period for

PTHP 11000 (Level 0 is the Baseline Level).

Table E.2.12 Summary of PBP Results for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 11000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.9 4.7 2.0 91%

Level 2 0.5 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.8 6.4 2.6 73%

Level 3 0.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.0 6.6 2.8 65%

Level 4 0.8 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.7 5.3 6.3 11.1 4.2 25%

Level 5 1.0 3.1 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.6 7.5 9.0 16.9 5.8 7%



### E­29PTHP 11000, Level 1 PTHP 11000, Level 2

PTHP 11000, Level 3 PTHP 11000, Level 4

PTHP 11000, Level 5



## Figure E.2.24 Cumulative Chart of PBP for All Efficiency Levels: PTHP 11000

E­30

## E.3 SENSITIVITY OF LCC RESULTS TO ELECTRICITY PRICE FORECAST

This section contains detailed output from the Life­Cycle Cost (LCC) sensitivity analysis

to the electricity price escalation rates reported in chapter 8. These analyses were carried out

using the LCC spreadsheet with the aggregated results reported in terms of national average LCC

savings for each of the equipment classes at each efficiency level. See Chapter 8 for a further

explanation of the sensitivity analysis and results.

Table E.3.1 through Table E.3.6 show the sensitivity of LCC Savings assumed baseline

efficiency level, for a baseline at Level 0 and standard Levels 1 through Level 5 for the low

electricity rates contained in AEO 2007

. Table E.3.7 through Table E.3.12 show the

corresponding detailed impact for high electricity price forecast in AEO 2007. The level

providing maximum LCC savings is unaffected by selection of electricity price escalation rate

level, but the magnitude of LCC savings is reduced for lower prices and increased for higher

ones. Payback period is calculated based on first year energy savings and thus is insensitive to

fuel escalation rate scenarios after the first year. However, the payback period is lengthened

about a year to two years by the low electricity price forecast for 2012 and shortened about six

months to a year by the high price forecast, as shown in Table E.3.13 through Table E.3.24.

Table E.3.1 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$12 ­$8 ­$7 ­$5 ­$4 ­$2 ­$1 $2 $4 $8 $53 $0 37%

Level 2 ­$21 ­$14 ­$12 ­$9 ­$7 ­$5 ­$2 $2 $5 $13 $86 ­$2 35%

Level 3 ­$31 ­$21 ­$17 ­$14 ­$11 ­$8 ­$4 $1 $6 $16 $117 ­$4 31%

Level 4 ­$41 ­$28 ­$24 ­$20 ­$16 ­$12 ­$7 ­$1 $6 $19 $146 ­$6 27%

Level 5 ­$68 ­$48 ­$42 ­$36 ­$31 ­$24 ­$18 ­$9 $1 $21 $212 ­$16 21%



## Table E.3.2 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$16 ­$11 ­$9 ­$8 ­$6 ­$4 ­$2 $0 $3 $9 $63 ­$2 31%

Level 2 ­$28 ­$19 ­$17 ­$14 ­$11 ­$8 ­$5 ­$1 $4 $13 $102 ­$5 27%

Level 3 ­$42 ­$29 ­$25 ­$21 ­$18 ­$13 ­$10 ­$4 $3 $15 $138 ­$9 23%

Level 4 ­$56 ­$39 ­$35 ­$30 ­$25 ­$20 ­$15 ­$8 $0 $16 $170 ­$14 21%

Level 5 ­$112 ­$83 ­$75 ­$67 ­$60 ­$51 ­$43 ­$30 ­$18 $10 $268 ­$41 13%



### E­31

## Table E.3.3 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$15 ­$5 ­$2 $2 $5 $9 $13 $17 $22 $31 $92 $11 77%

Level 2 ­$20 ­$5 $1 $7 $11 $17 $23 $29 $37 $51 $125 $20 81%

Level 3 ­$26 ­$6 $2 $10 $16 $23 $31 $39 $50 $70 $156 $28 83%

Level 4 ­$34 ­$12 ­$4 $5 $11 $20 $29 $37 $49 $71 $185 $25 75%

Level 5 ­$55 ­$22 ­$9 $4 $14 $26 $38 $51 $68 $101 $251 $33 73%



## Table E.3.4 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$20 ­$8 ­$4 $1 $5 $9 $14 $19 $25 $36 $109 $12 73%

Level 2 ­$28 ­$9 ­$2 $6 $11 $18 $25 $32 $42 $60 $148 $22 77%

Level 3 ­$39 ­$17 ­$10 ­$1 $5 $13 $22 $30 $41 $63 $184 $18 69%

Level 4 ­$52 ­$27 ­$19 ­$9 ­$2 $6 $16 $27 $39 $61 $217 $13 57%

Level 5 ­$112 ­$69 ­$55 ­$39 ­$25 ­$11 $5 $23 $44 $85 $338 $0 43%



## Table E.3.5 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$18 ­$6 $0 $5 $11 $17 $23 $32 $41 $58 $221 $24 81%

Level 2 ­$28 ­$13 ­$4 $3 $10 $18 $27 $38 $51 $73 $290 $27 75%

Level 3 ­$40 ­$21 ­$11 ­$2 $7 $16 $27 $42 $57 $84 $352 $28 67%

Level 4 ­$79 ­$48 ­$34 ­$22 ­$10 $3 $18 $38 $59 $97 $474 $19 53%

Level 5 ­$113 ­$75 ­$60 ­$45 ­$31 ­$15 $2 $26 $51 $96 $542 $4 41%



### E­32

## Table E.3.6 Summary of LCC Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 11000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$11 $13 $22 $33 $41 $50 $60 $71 $83 $107 $253 $56 97%

Level 2 ­$21 $7 $18 $31 $41 $52 $64 $79 $93 $121 $322 $60 95%

Level 3 ­$29 $7 $21 $37 $49 $63 $79 $97 $114 $151 $384 $73 93%

Level 4 ­$65 ­$20 ­$1 $18 $34 $50 $70 $92 $117 $158 $506 $64 79%

Level 5 ­$110 ­$57 ­$36 ­$15 $5 $25 $49 $74 $102 $154 $599 $42 61%



## Table E.3.7 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$12 ­$7 ­$6 ­$4 ­$3 ­$1 $1 $3 $6 $11 $61 $1 43%

Level 2 ­$21 ­$13 ­$10 ­$8 ­$6 ­$3 $0 $4 $9 $17 $99 $1 41%

Level 3 ­$30 ­$19 ­$16 ­$12 ­$9 ­$5 ­$1 $4 $10 $22 $135 ­$1 37%

Level 4 ­$40 ­$26 ­$22 ­$17 ­$13 ­$8 ­$3 $4 $11 $26 $168 ­$2 35%

Level 5 ­$67 ­$46 ­$39 ­$33 ­$26 ­$19 ­$12 ­$2 $9 $31 $244 ­$11 29%



## Table E.3.8 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$16 ­$10 ­$9 ­$7 ­$5 ­$3 ­$1 $2 $6 $12 $72 $0 37%

Level 2 ­$28 ­$19 ­$15 ­$12 ­$9 ­$6 ­$3 $2 $7 $18 $117 ­$2 35%

Level 3 ­$41 ­$28 ­$23 ­$19 ­$15 ­$10 ­$6 $1 $8 $22 $159 ­$5 31%

Level 4 ­$55 ­$38 ­$32 ­$27 ­$22 ­$16 ­$11 ­$2 $7 $25 $197 ­$9 27%

Level 5 ­$111 ­$80 ­$71 ­$63 ­$54 ­$44 ­$35 ­$22 ­$7 $23 $312 ­$33 17%



### E­33

## Table E.3.9 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$14 ­$3 $0 $5 $8 $12 $17 $21 $26 $37 $105 $15 81%

Level 2 ­$19 ­$2 $4 $11 $16 $22 $29 $35 $44 $60 $143 $26 87%

Level 3 ­$25 ­$2 $6 $15 $23 $30 $39 $49 $60 $83 $179 $35 87%

Level 4 ­$33 ­$8 $1 $11 $19 $28 $38 $47 $61 $85 $213 $34 81%

Level 5 ­$53 ­$16 ­$1 $13 $24 $37 $51 $66 $84 $121 $289 $45 79%



## Table E.3.10 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$19 ­$6 ­$1 $4 $8 $13 $19 $24 $31 $44 $125 $16 77%

Level 2 ­$26 ­$6 $2 $10 $17 $24 $32 $40 $51 $72 $170 $29 83%

Level 3 ­$38 ­$14 ­$5 $4 $11 $20 $30 $40 $51 $76 $212 $26 75%

Level 4 ­$50 ­$23 ­$14 ­$3 $6 $14 $25 $37 $51 $75 $250 $22 67%

Level 5 ­$110 ­$61 ­$46 ­$28 ­$13 $3 $22 $42 $64 $110 $393 $15 51%



## Table E.3.11 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$17 ­$5 $3 $9 $15 $21 $29 $38 $49 $67 $250 $29 83%

Level 2 ­$27 ­$10 $0 $7 $16 $24 $34 $47 $61 $85 $328 $34 79%

Level 3 ­$39 ­$18 ­$6 $3 $14 $24 $36 $52 $69 $99 $400 $37 73%

Level 4 ­$77 ­$44 ­$29 ­$15 ­$2 $14 $30 $52 $76 $118 $540 $31 59%

Level 5 ­$111 ­$69 ­$52 ­$36 ­$20 ­$3 $17 $43 $71 $121 $620 $18 49%



### E­34

## Table E.3.12 Summary of LCC Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 11000

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of

Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$9 $17 $28 $39 $48 $58 $70 $82 $95 $122 $285 $65 99%

Level 2 ­$19 $12 $24 $38 $50 $62 $75 $92 $107 $139 $364 $70 95%

Level 3 ­$27 $13 $29 $47 $60 $76 $94 $114 $134 $174 $436 $87 95%

Level 4 ­$62 ­$13 $8 $30 $49 $67 $88 $113 $141 $186 $576 $82 85%

Level 5 ­$108 ­$49 ­$25 ­$1 $21 $44 $71 $99 $131 $188 $685 $62 69%



## Table E.3.13 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.1 3.7 5.8 6.7 7.2 7.8 9.1 12.0 14.9 21.4 100.0 12.6 5%

Level 2 1.1 3.8 6.1 7.1 7.6 8.2 9.6 12.6 15.8 23.0 100.0 13.3 3%

Level 3 1.2 4.0 6.4 7.5 8.1 8.7 10.1 13.5 16.9 24.7 100.0 14.1 1%

Level 4 1.2 4.2 6.7 7.9 8.5 9.1 10.7 14.3 18.0 26.4 100.0 14.9 1%

Level 5 1.3 4.8 7.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 12.3 16.5 21.1 31.8 100.0 17.2 1%



## Table E.3.14 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.2 4.0 6.4 7.6 8.1 8.8 10.1 13.2 16.6 23.8 100.0 13.8 1%

Level 2 1.2 4.3 6.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 10.7 14.1 17.9 25.6 100.0 14.8 1%

Level 3 1.3 4.5 7.2 8.6 9.2 9.9 11.5 15.2 19.3 27.9 100.0 15.8 1%

Level 4 1.4 4.8 7.7 9.2 9.9 10.6 12.3 16.3 20.8 30.7 100.0 17.0 1%

Level 5 1.6 5.8 9.5 11.4 12.3 13.2 15.4 20.9 26.9 41.8 100.0 21.1 1%



### E­35

## Table E.3.15 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.3 5.9 7.0 12.2 4.8 15%

Level 2 1.0 2.6 2.9 3.3 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.2 6.1 9.6 4.3 25%

Level 3 1.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 5.1 5.9 9.0 4.2 25%

Level 4 1.1 3.0 3.2 3.7 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.9 6.9 11.2 4.8 11%

Level 5 1.3 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.6 6.2 7.3 11.6 5.1 5%



## Table E.3.16 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.1 3.1 3.4 3.9 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.8 6.4 7.6 13.2 5.2 7%

Level 2 1.2 2.9 3.2 3.6 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.1 5.7 6.7 10.6 4.7 13%

Level 3 1.2 3.4 3.7 4.2 5.1 5.5 5.8 6.2 6.9 8.1 13.9 5.6 3%

Level 4 1.3 3.8 4.2 4.8 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.2 8.1 9.7 17.5 6.5 1%

Level 5 1.6 4.7 5.1 5.8 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.8 9.9 11.8 21.6 8.0 1%



## Table E.3.17 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.7 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.9 5.9 7.7 46.4 4.5 33%

Level 2 0.6 2.0 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.5 5.7 6.9 9.0 59.9 5.2 21%

Level 3 0.7 2.2 3.4 3.9 4.2 4.5 5.2 6.5 8.0 10.5 82.5 6.1 17%

Level 4 0.9 2.9 4.5 5.1 5.5 6.0 6.9 8.8 10.8 14.4 100.0 8.3 11%

Level 5 1.0 3.5 5.4 6.2 6.7 7.2 8.3 10.7 13.2 17.9 100.0 10.3 5%



### E­36

## Table E.3.18 Summary of PBP Results: Low Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 11000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.1 4.9 2.2 89%

Level 2 0.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.0 6.8 2.8 67%

Level 3 0.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.2 7.0 2.9 59%

Level 4 0.9 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.8 4.1 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.6 11.8 4.4 21%

Level 5 1.1 3.3 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.9 9.5 18.2 6.1 5%



## Table E.3.19 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 9000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.9 3.3 5.1 6.0 6.4 6.9 8.0 10.5 12.9 18.3 100.0 10.7 7%

Level 2 1.0 3.4 5.4 6.3 6.8 7.3 8.4 11.1 13.8 19.7 100.0 11.5 5%

Level 3 1.0 3.6 5.7 6.7 7.1 7.7 8.9 11.8 14.7 21.0 100.0 12.4 5%

Level 4 1.1 3.8 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.1 9.4 12.4 15.5 22.4 100.0 13.1 3%

Level 5 1.2 4.3 6.8 8.0 8.5 9.2 10.8 14.3 18.1 26.7 100.0 15.0 1%



## Table E.3.20 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 12000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 3.6 5.7 6.8 7.2 7.8 8.9 11.6 14.5 20.5 100.0 12.0 5%

Level 2 1.1 3.8 6.0 7.2 7.7 8.3 9.5 12.4 15.6 22.0 100.0 13.0 3%

Level 3 1.2 4.0 6.4 7.7 8.2 8.8 10.1 13.3 16.8 23.9 100.0 13.9 1%

Level 4 1.2 4.3 6.8 8.2 8.7 9.4 10.8 14.2 18.0 26.0 100.0 14.9 1%

Level 5 1.5 5.2 8.4 10.1 10.8 11.6 13.5 18.0 23.0 34.5 100.0 18.6 1%



### E­37

## Table E.3.21 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 9000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.9 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.3 6.3 10.7 4.3 25%

Level 2 0.9 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.6 5.4 8.5 3.8 31%

Level 3 1.0 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.5 5.3 8.0 3.7 31%

Level 4 1.0 2.7 2.9 3.3 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.3 6.2 9.9 4.3 23%

Level 5 1.2 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.6 6.5 10.2 4.6 15%



## Table E.3.22 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTHP 12000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.7 6.8 11.6 4.6 19%

Level 2 1.0 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.6 5.1 5.9 9.3 4.2 27%

Level 3 1.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.5 6.1 7.2 12.2 5.0 9%

Level 4 1.2 3.4 3.8 4.3 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.4 7.2 8.6 15.2 5.8 3%

Level 5 1.5 4.2 4.6 5.2 6.4 6.8 7.3 7.8 8.8 10.4 18.7 7.1 1%



## Table E.3.23 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.5 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.5 4.4 5.3 6.9 38.7 4.0 49%

Level 2 0.5 1.8 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 5.1 6.1 8.0 49.0 4.6 29%

Level 3 0.6 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.6 5.8 7.1 9.3 65.2 5.4 19%

Level 4 0.8 2.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 5.3 6.2 7.8 9.6 12.7 100.0 7.4 15%

Level 5 0.9 3.1 4.8 5.5 5.9 6.4 7.4 9.5 11.6 15.6 100.0 9.0 7%



### E­38

## Table E.3.24 Summary of PBP Results: High Electricity Price Forecast, PTAC 11000

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.8 4.4 1.9 91%

Level 2 0.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.6 6.1 2.5 77%

Level 3 0.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.8 6.3 2.6 73%

Level 4 0.8 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.4 5.0 5.9 10.4 4.0 31%

Level 5 1.0 2.9 3.6 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.4 6.2 7.1 8.5 15.9 5.5 11%



### E­39

## E.4 SENSITIVITY OF LCC AND PBP RESULTS TO REFRIGERANT USED

This section contains detailed output from the Life­Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback

Period (PBP) sensitivity analysis to the refrigerant assumption reported in chapter 8. In

discussions with industry experts it appeared that nearly all PTAC and PTHP equipment

operating in 2012 will comply with the directive to phase out the current R­22 refrigerant in

favor of R­410A, which will add to the costs of equipment and reduce the expected life cycle

cost savings. Analyses of the difference in costs were carried out using the LCC spreadsheet

with the aggregated results reported in terms of national average LCC savings and PBP for each

of the equipment classes at each efficiency level. See chapter 8 for a further explanation of the

sensitivity analysis and results. Table E.4.1, which is a multipart table, shows the sensitivity of

LCC and PBP to the use of R­22 as the refrigerant.

Table E.4.1 Summary of LCC and PBP Results: R­22 Refrigerant

PTAC

9000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$10 ­$6 ­$4 ­$3 ­$1 $0 $2 $5 $7 $12 $59 $2 53%

Level 2 ­$17 ­$10 ­$8 ­$5 ­$3 $0 $3 $7 $11 $19 $96 $3 49%

Level 3 ­$25 ­$15 ­$12 ­$9 ­$5 ­$2 $2 $8 $13 $24 $131 $3 47%

Level 4 ­$34 ­$21 ­$16 ­$12 ­$8 ­$4 $1 $8 $15 $29 $164 $2 41%

Level 5 ­$57 ­$37 ­$31 ­$25 ­$19 ­$12 ­$5 $5 $15 $36 $239 ­$4 35%

PTAC

9000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.8 2.8 4.4 5.2 5.5 6.0 6.9 9.0 11.1 15.6 100.0 9.1 13%

Level 2 0.9 3.0 4.7 5.4 5.9 6.3 7.3 9.6 11.9 16.9 100.0 9.8 11%

Level 3 0.9 3.2 5.0 5.8 6.2 6.7 7.8 10.2 12.7 18.2 100.0 10.7 7%

Level 4 1.0 3.3 5.3 6.2 6.6 7.1 8.3 10.9 13.6 19.5 100.0 11.6 5%

Level 5 1.1 3.8 6.0 7.1 7.6 8.2 9.6 12.7 16.1 23.6 100.0 13.6 3%



### E­40

## Table E.4.1 (contd)

PTAC

12000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$12 ­$7 ­$5 ­$3 ­$1 $1 $3 $6 $9 $14 $72 $3 53%

Level 2 ­$21 ­$12 ­$9 ­$6 ­$4 $0 $3 $8 $13 $22 $117 $4 49%

Level 3 ­$31 ­$19 ­$15 ­$11 ­$7 ­$2 $2 $9 $16 $29 $158 $3 45%

Level 4 ­$42 ­$26 ­$21 ­$16 ­$11 ­$6 $0 $8 $17 $33 $197 $1 39%

Level 5 ­$88 ­$60 ­$52 ­$43 ­$35 ­$26 ­$17 ­$4 $11 $39 $313 ­$15 25%

PTAC

12000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.8 2.8 4.3 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.8 8.7 10.9 15.1 100.0 8.8 13%

Level 2 0.9 3.0 4.7 5.5 5.9 6.4 7.3 9.5 11.9 16.4 100.0 9.7 11%

Level 3 0.9 3.2 5.0 6.0 6.4 6.9 7.9 10.3 13.0 18.1 100.0 10.7 7%

Level 4 1.0 3.4 5.4 6.5 6.9 7.4 8.5 11.2 14.1 20.0 100.0 11.9 5%

Level 5 1.2 4.3 6.9 8.3 8.8 9.5 11.0 14.6 18.6 27.5 100.0 15.5 1%

PTHP

9000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$11 ­$1 $3 $7 $10 $14 $18 $23 $28 $38 $102 $17 87%

Level 2 ­$14 $1 $7 $13 $19 $25 $31 $37 $46 $61 $139 $28 91%

Level 3 ­$19 $2 $10 $19 $26 $33 $41 $51 $62 $83 $175 $38 91%

Level 4 ­$26 ­$3 $6 $16 $23 $32 $41 $50 $63 $87 $208 $37 87%

Level 5 ­$43 ­$8 $6 $19 $30 $43 $56 $71 $88 $122 $282 $50 83%



### E­41

## Table E.4.1 (contd)

PTHP

9000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.8 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.5 5.3 9.1 3.7 33%

Level 2 0.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.7 7.3 3.3 37%

Level 3 0.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.6 6.9 3.2 39%

Level 4 0.9 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.6 5.4 8.6 3.8 31%

Level 5 1.0 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.9 5.8 9.0 4.0 29%

PTHP

12000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$12 $0 $4 $9 $13 $18 $23 $29 $35 $47 $125 $21 89%

Level 2 ­$17 $2 $10 $17 $24 $31 $39 $46 $57 $76 $170 $35 93%

Level 3 ­$26 ­$4 $5 $14 $21 $29 $39 $48 $59 $82 $211 $35 87%

Level 4 ­$35 ­$11 ­$1 $9 $17 $26 $37 $48 $60 $86 $250 $33 79%

Level 5 ­$83 ­$39 ­$23 ­$6 $8 $23 $42 $61 $82 $126 $394 $35 67%

PTHP

12000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.7 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.3 5.1 8.6 3.5 35%

Level 2 0.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.9 4.5 7.1 3.2 39%

Level 3 0.9 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.6 9.3 3.9 31%

Level 4 0.9 2.7 3.0 3.4 4.1 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.7 11.7 4.5 21%

Level 5 1.2 3.5 3.8 4.3 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 7.2 8.5 15.1 5.8 3%



### E­42

## Table E.4.1 (contd)

PTAC

11000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$8 $4 $11 $17 $23 $29 $36 $45 $56 $73 $246 $37 95%

Level 2 ­$14 $1 $11 $19 $27 $34 $44 $57 $70 $93 $324 $45 93%

Level 3 ­$22 ­$3 $9 $18 $28 $37 $49 $65 $81 $110 $395 $50 87%

Level 4 ­$49 ­$22 ­$5 $7 $21 $34 $51 $72 $95 $135 $536 $52 75%

Level 5 ­$77 ­$41 ­$23 ­$8 $7 $24 $43 $68 $95 $143 $616 $44 65%

PTAC

11000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.3 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.8 17.8 2.2 81%

Level 2 0.3 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.8 23.9 2.8 69%

Level 3 0.4 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.8 4.5 5.9 32.6 3.4 61%

Level 4 0.6 1.9 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.4 5.6 6.7 8.8 63.1 5.1 21%

Level 5 0.7 2.4 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.6 7.0 8.6 11.4 100.0 6.6 17%

PTHP

11000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 $1 $25 $36 $47 $56 $66 $77 $89 $102 $126 $281 $72 100%

Level 2 ­$6 $23 $36 $49 $60 $72 $85 $101 $116 $146 $360 $80 99%

Level 3 ­$10 $28 $44 $60 $73 $89 $106 $124 $144 $183 $431 $99 99%

Level 4 ­$36 $10 $30 $51 $70 $86 $108 $131 $158 $202 $571 $101 93%

Level 5 ­$73 ­$18 $6 $28 $50 $71 $97 $124 $155 $209 $681 $89 81%



### E­43

## Table E.4.1 (contd)

PTHP

11000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.4 1.1 100%

Level 2 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 3.6 1.5 99%

Level 3 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 3.9 1.7 95%

Level 4 0.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.2 7.2 2.8 65%

Level 5 0.7 2.2 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.7 5.3 6.4 11.7 4.2 25%



### E­44

## E.5 SENSITIVITY OF LCC AND PBP RESULTS TO MATERIALS PRICES

As described in chapter 8, in discussions with industry experts it appeared that some of

the uncertainty concerning costs of new PTAC and PTHP units is a result of the rising costs of

components due to escalation of industrial materials, especially copper. The main analysis

assumes average prices for materials prevailing during the last five years. This section provides

additional detail summarizing the sensitivity of LCC and PBP if 2006 materials prices prevailed.

The base case used in this analysis was the R­22 case shown in detail in the previous

section. It shows that the life cycle cost savings would be higher, and payback periods longer

than if five­year average prices prevailed.

The sensitivity analysis is summarized in Table E.5.1, which is a multipart table.

Table E.5.1 Summary of LCC and PBP Results: 2006 Prices

PTAC

9000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$12 ­$8 ­$6 ­$5 ­$3 ­$1 $0 $3 $5 $10 $57 $0 41%

Level 2 ­$21 ­$13 ­$11 ­$8 ­$6 ­$4 ­$1 $3 $7 $15 $93 $0 37%

Level 3 ­$31 ­$20 ­$17 ­$13 ­$10 ­$6 ­$3 $3 $8 $19 $126 ­$2 35%

Level 4 ­$41 ­$27 ­$23 ­$19 ­$15 ­$10 ­$6 $1 $8 $22 $158 ­$5 31%

Level 5 ­$70 ­$49 ­$43 ­$36 ­$31 ­$24 ­$17 ­$7 $3 $24 $227 ­$15 23%

PTAC

9000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 3.4 5.3 6.2 6.7 7.2 8.4 11.1 13.7 19.7 100.0 11.7 5%

Level 2 1.0 3.6 5.7 6.6 7.1 7.7 9.0 11.8 14.8 21.5 100.0 12.6 5%

Level 3 1.1 3.8 6.1 7.1 7.6 8.2 9.6 12.8 16.0 23.4 100.0 13.5 3%

Level 4 1.2 4.0 6.4 7.6 8.1 8.7 10.3 13.7 17.3 25.4 100.0 14.5 1%

Level 5 1.3 4.7 7.5 8.8 9.5 10.2 12.1 16.3 20.9 31.8 100.0 17.1 1%



### E­45

## Table E.5.1 (contd)

PTAC

12000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$14 ­$9 ­$7 ­$5 ­$4 ­$2 $0 $3 $6 $12 $70 $1 41%

Level 2 ­$25 ­$16 ­$13 ­$10 ­$8 ­$4 ­$1 $4 $9 $18 $113 ­$1 37%

Level 3 ­$37 ­$25 ­$21 ­$17 ­$13 ­$8 ­$4 $2 $9 $23 $152 ­$3 35%

Level 4 ­$51 ­$34 ­$29 ­$24 ­$19 ­$14 ­$9 $0 $8 $25 $189 ­$7 29%

Level 5 ­$106 ­$76 ­$68 ­$59 ­$51 ­$42 ­$33 ­$21 ­$6 $23 $297 ­$31 17%

PTAC

12000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 1.0 3.4 5.3 6.3 6.7 7.3 8.3 10.8 13.6 19.1 100.0 11.3 5%

Level 2 1.0 3.6 5.7 6.8 7.3 7.8 9.0 11.7 14.8 20.9 100.0 12.4 5%

Level 3 1.1 3.9 6.1 7.3 7.8 8.4 9.7 12.8 16.2 23.0 100.0 13.5 1%

Level 4 1.2 4.2 6.6 7.9 8.5 9.1 10.5 13.9 17.6 25.5 100.0 14.6 1%

Level 5 1.5 5.2 8.4 10.1 10.8 11.7 13.6 18.3 23.5 36.0 100.0 18.9 1%

PTHP

9000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$14 ­$4 $0 $4 $7 $11 $15 $20 $25 $35 $99 $14 81%

Level 2 ­$19 ­$3 $3 $9 $14 $20 $27 $33 $41 $57 $135 $24 85%

Level 3 ­$25 ­$3 $4 $13 $20 $27 $36 $45 $56 $78 $169 $32 87%

Level 4 ­$34 ­$10 ­$1 $8 $15 $24 $34 $43 $55 $78 $200 $30 79%

Level 5 ­$55 ­$20 ­$6 $7 $18 $30 $43 $57 $75 $110 $270 $38 75%



### E­46

## Table E.5.1 (contd)

PTHP

9000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.9 2.6 2.9 3.3 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.4 6.4 11.1 4.4 23%

Level 2 1.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.7 8.9 3.9 29%

Level 3 1.0 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.5 8.4 3.9 29%

Level 4 1.1 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.6 6.5 10.6 4.6 17%

Level 5 1.2 3.1 3.4 3.8 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.5 6.0 7.1 11.2 4.9 7%

PTHP

12000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$16 ­$4 $1 $6 $9 $14 $20 $25 $31 $43 $121 $17 81%

Level 2 ­$23 ­$3 $4 $12 $18 $25 $33 $40 $51 $70 $164 $30 85%

Level 3 ­$33 ­$11 ­$2 $6 $13 $22 $31 $40 $51 $74 $204 $27 77%

Level 4 ­$45 ­$20 ­$11 ­$1 $8 $16 $27 $38 $51 $75 $240 $23 69%

Level 5 ­$103 ­$58 ­$43 ­$26 ­$12 $3 $21 $40 $62 $106 $375 $15 51%

PTHP

12000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.9 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.3 6.2 10.7 4.3 25%

Level 2 1.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.5 8.7 3.9 31%

Level 3 1.0 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.8 6.8 11.5 4.7 17%

Level 4 1.1 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.9 5.3 5.6 6.1 6.9 8.2 14.6 5.5 5%

Level 5 1.5 4.2 4.6 5.2 6.4 6.8 7.3 7.8 8.8 10.4 18.9 7.1 1%



### E­47

## Table E.5.1 (contd)

PTAC

11000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$19 ­$7 $1 $6 $12 $18 $25 $34 $44 $61 $235 $25 81%

Level 2 ­$29 ­$13 ­$3 $4 $12 $19 $29 $41 $54 $78 $309 $29 75%

Level 3 ­$42 ­$21 ­$10 ­$1 $9 $19 $30 $45 $61 $90 $376 $31 69%

Level 4 ­$80 ­$47 ­$33 ­$21 ­$8 $7 $23 $43 $66 $106 $508 $24 53%

Level 5 ­$114 ­$74 ­$58 ­$42 ­$27 ­$10 $8 $33 $60 $108 $582 $10 45%

PTAC

11000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.7 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.9 5.9 7.7 48.0 4.5 33%

Level 2 0.6 1.9 2.9 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.5 5.6 6.8 8.9 61.4 5.2 21%

Level 3 0.7 2.2 3.3 3.8 4.1 4.4 5.1 6.4 7.8 10.3 84.0 6.0 17%

Level 4 0.9 2.8 4.3 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.7 8.5 10.5 14.0 100.0 8.1 13%

Level 5 1.0 3.4 5.2 5.9 6.4 6.9 8.0 10.3 12.7 17.2 100.0 9.9 5%

PTHP

11000 

### LCC Savings

Efficiency Decrease in LCC from Baseline Efficiency (Level 0) Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results

(2006$) Mean

Savings Percent

of Units

with

LCC

Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 ­$11 $14 $24 $35 $43 $53 $64 $76 $88 $114 $269 $59 97%

Level 2 ­$22 $8 $20 $33 $44 $55 $68 $84 $99 $129 $343 $64 95%

Level 3 ­$30 $8 $23 $40 $53 $69 $85 $104 $123 $162 $410 $78 93%

Level 4 ­$65 ­$19 $2 $22 $40 $57 $78 $101 $128 $171 $542 $72 81%

Level 5 ­$110 ­$54 ­$32 ­$10 $11 $33 $59 $86 $116 $171 $644 $51 67%



### E­48

## Table E.5.1 (contd)

PTHP

11000 

### Payback Period

Efficiency Payback Period in Years Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Mean Percent

Less

than 3

Years

Payback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Level 1 0.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.1 5.0 2.2 89%

Level 2 0.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.0 6.8 2.7 69%

Level 3 0.6 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.6 4.2 6.9 2.9 61%

Level 4 0.8 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.8 5.5 6.4 11.5 4.3 23%

Level 5 1.0 3.1 3.9 4.3 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.7 7.6 9.1 17.4 5.9 7%



### E­49